HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 6.1 Dublin Senior Living Project (PLPA-2021-00042)STAFF REPORT
Planning Commission
Page 1 of 7
Agenda Item 6.1
DATE:May 10, 2022
TO:Planning Commission
SUBJECT:Dublin Senior Living Project (PLPA-2021-00042) Prepared by:Gaspare Annibale,Associate Planner
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:The Applicant, South Bay Partners,LLC., proposes to develop a community care facility located at 5751 Arnold Road. The proposed project consists of a two-story, 155,517-square-foot buildingwith 152 units, including 114 assisted living units,38 memory care units and a total of 174 beds.Common space amenity areas, and associated site, frontage and landscape improvements are also proposed. Requested approvals include a Planned Development Rezone with a related Stage 1 and Stage 2 Development Plan and a Site Development Review Permit.The Planning Commission will consider and make a recommendation to the City Council regarding the Dublin Senior Living project, including an Addendum to the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:Disclose ex-parte contacts, conduct the public hearing, deliberate and adopt the Resolutionrecommending that the City Council consider an Addendum to the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report,and approve a Planned Development Rezone with a related Stage 1 and Stage 2 Development Plan and Site Development Review Permit for the Dublin Senior Living project.
DESCRIPTION:South Bay Partners,LLC.is proposing a community care facility on a vacant 5.74-acre site located at 5751 Arnold Road within Hites Plaza. The project site is located in the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan (EDSP)area. Refer to Figure 1 for the project location. The property has a General Plan land use designation of Campus Office and is currently developed with a parking lot, landscaping and a graded pad for what was to be a future office building. The property is subject to Planned Development (PD)Zoning (Ordinance No. 30-98),which was approved as part of the Creekside Office Park Project in 1998.
12
Page 2 of 7
Figure 1. Project Location
Table 1: Surrounding Land UsesLocationZoning General Plan Land Use Current Use of the PropertyNorth PD (Planned Development)Campus Office Creekside Business ParkSouthPD (Planned Development)Campus Office Hites PlazaEast PD (Planned Development)Campus Office Ross Stores OfficesWest DCZD (Dublin Crossing Zoning District)Dublin Crossing Boulevard (Dublin Crossing)BackgroundOn January 7, 1994, the City Council adopted a General Plan Amendment and the EDSP, which provides a comprehensive land use program for the planning area of roughly 3,300 acres, along with goals and policies to guide future public and private actions relating to the area’s development.On March 17, 1998, the City Council adopted a PD Rezone (Ordinance No. 30-98) for the Creekside Office Park Project. The PD zoning district established general provisions, development regulations and design guidelines for a larger 31.2-acre area that includes Hites Plaza. The PDencourages a site layout and building design that creates the appearance of a singular workplace,
Project
Location
SOUTH
WEST EAST
NORTH
13
Page 3 of 7
rather than independent developments,to accommodate a mix of office, and research and development uses.Hites Plaza includes two development pads envisioned for buildings to accommodate a mix of office and research and development uses. One of those sites was constructed and fully occupied but the second site has remained undeveloped. Proposed ProjectThe Applicant proposes to construct an assisted living and memory care facility on the undeveloped site. The proposed use is defined by the Zoning Ordinance as a Community Care Facility,which is considered a commercial use type. The proposed project is a two-story, approximately 155,517-square-foot community care facility. A total of 152 units are proposed, including 114 assisted living units,38 memory care units and a total of 174 beds.In addition to the assisted living and memory care units, the first and second floor of the facility would provide a range of amenities and support facilities for residents and staff. These amenities include two courtyards, one for assisted living residents and the other for memory care residents, a kitchen, lobby area, offices, medical facilities, living areas, theatre, activity areas and dining rooms. Associated site, frontage and landscape improvements are also proposed.Refer to Figure 2 for the proposed site plan. Requested approvals include a PD Rezone with a related Stage 1 and Stage 2 Development Plan and a Site Development Review (SDR)Permit. The Planning Commission is requested to review the proposed project and provide a recommendation to the City Council.Figure 2. Proposed Site Plan
AnalysisPlanned Development RezoneThe project site has existing PD Zoning (Ordinance No. 30-98),which allows business, administrative and professional office uses. To accommodate the proposed project, the application includes a PD Rezone with a related Stage 1 and Stage 2 Development Plan. The proposed PD
Arnold Road
14
Page 4 of 7
establishes a detailed Development Plan for the site, including permitted and conditionally permitted uses, the overall development density and intensity (e.g., floor area ratio, building heights, setbacks, etc.) and design guidelines. A “Community Care Facility, Large” as defined by the Dublin Zoning Ordinance, would be the only use allowed by the PD. Table 2 provides an overview of the proposed development standards for the proposed project. Table 2. Development Standards Maximum Beds 174Maximum Faculty and Staff 42 (on-site at one time)Floor Area Ratio 0.62Maximum Building Height:2 stories/28 feetMaximum lot coverage 32%Parking Spaces 1 per 3 employees on largest shift, plus 1 per 3 bedsParking Stall Dimensions Standards Per Chapter 8.76 Off-Street Parking and Loading Regulations of the Dublin Zoning OrdinanceMinimum Setbacks 20’ front (along Arnold Road)10’ side (along north and south property lines)10’ rear (along east property line)Signage Pursuant to Chapter 8.84 Sign Regulations of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance The draft Planning Commission Resolution recommending approval of the PD Rezone and draft Ordinance providing the details of the proposed zoning district are included as Attachments 1 and 2. Site Development Review PermitThe following is a summary of the key components of the project associated with the SDR Permit. Site Design and Access: The project site is accessed from a new single driveway off Arnold Road that leads directly to the building’s front entrance and parking area located to the north of the building. The site is also accessed from adjacent properties through joint access easements that provide access to Central Parkway and Hacienda Drive. Adjacent to the building’s front entry is a large, covered canopy, which allows for resident and guest pickup and drop-off. Further east is a loading and receiving area, trash enclosure, and generator enclosure. As part of the project, a new sidewalk will be installed along the project driveway from Arnold Road to the building entrance. In addition, new curb ramps will be installed at the intersection of Arnold Road and the new driveway. Refer to Attachment 4, Sheet A1.0 for the project site plan.Architecture: The project’s architectural style utilizes a contemporary design approach that is residential in nature and uses varying planes, materials, and colors to break up the mass. The two-story building is accented with changes in exterior cladding and colors, modern style windows
15
Page 5 of 7
that vary in size, awnings, and a multiple level flat roof. The main entry is highlighted through a large canopy providing cover for vehicle pickup and drop-off. The building is finished with a variety of materials including engineered wood-look panel veneer, smooth stucco and cultured stone veneer. The proposed paint colors are neutral in nature with white, grey and taupe colors used on the varying wall planes as well as the brown wood panels, and tan color used to accentuate the canopy and front entrance of the building. The color and materials are shown on Sheets A4.0–A4.4 in Attachment 4.Landscaping:The proposed project provides approximately 17,644 square feet of private open space, including 6,187 square feet for the memory care courtyard and 11,457 square feet for theassisted living courtyard. Landscaping would be provided within the memory care and assisted living courtyards, throughout the parking lot, and around the perimeter of the building, which would incorporate illuminated walkways, a seating area and activity space for residents. In addition, a landscape buffer provided along Arnold Road would help to soften the project frontage.Various evergreen and ornamental trees, shrubs, grasses, perennials, ground cover, and vines are also provided. There are approximately 125 existing trees on the project site, of which 82 trees are proposed to be removed within the existing parking lot and 43 trees would be preserved during construction and operation, including existing trees along Arnold Road. Two of the trees proposed for removal are dead and none are considered heritage trees. A total of approximately 107 trees would be planted as part of the proposed project. The proposed landscape plan is shown on Sheet L100 in Attachment 4. The Applicant intends to satisfy the requirements of the City’s Public Art Ordinance through the payment of in lieu fees. Condition of Approval No. 16 in the Resolution approving the SDR Permit captures this requirement (Attachment 3).The draft Resolution approving the SDR Permit is included as Attachment 3 with the project plans included as Attachment 4.
CONSISTENCY WITH THE GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING ORDINANCE:The proposed community care facility and its respective site improvements are consistent with the General Plan land use designation of Campus Office, which allows commercial service uses, such as the proposed facility. In addition, the proposed use will provide for an attractive, campus-like setting for a non-retail commercial use that will not generate nuisances related to emissions, noise, odors, or glare. The proposed floor area ratio of 0.62 is consistent with the floor area ratio of the Campus Office land use designation of 0.25 to 0.80. The proposed use and improvements are also consistent with the proposed Planned Development zoning district.
REVIEW BY APPLICABLE DEPARTMENT AND AGENCIES:The Building and Safety 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
16
Page 6 of 7
the attached Resolution pertaining to the Site Development Review Permit for the Project (Attachment 3).
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION:Development of the project site was previously addressed in the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report for which the City Council certified an Environmental Impact Report and an addendum on August 22, 1994 (1993 GPA/SP EIR). Pursuant to Resolution No. 53-93, the City Council adopted a Mitigation Measures and Monitoring Program, which continues to apply to development in Eastern Dublin. The City Council also adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations in connection with certification of the 1993 GPA/SP EIR.Consistent with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) includingSection 21166 and related CEQA Guidelines Sections 15162 and 15163, the City prepared an Initial Study to determine whether additional environmental review was required for the proposed Dublin Senior Living project. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15164, the City determined that no subsequent or supplemental EIR or Negative Declaration is required for the proposed project and an Addendum to the 1993 GPA/SP EIR is the appropriate CEQA review, as there were no new potentially significant impacts associated with the project. The City further determined that the 1993 GPA/SP EIR adequately addressed the potential environmental impacts of the Dublin Senior Living Project as there are no significant project changes, new information, or change in circumstances that result in a new or substantial increase in severity of a significant impact from those identified in the 1993 GPA/SP EIR. Therefore, no standards for requiring supplemental environmental review or documentation under CEQA are met and none are required for the project.
NOTICING REQUIREMENTS/PUBLIC OUTREACH:Two City-led Community Meetings were held on April 20 and 21, 2022, to provide Dublin residents with information about the proposed Dublin Senior Living project. Four community members attended the first meeting, with no community members attending the second meeting. At the first meeting a clarification question was asked about the type of residential care facility being proposed. 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 upcoming public hearing. A public notice also was published in the East Bay Times and posted at several locations throughout the City. A Planning Application sign was posted on the project site and the project was also included on the City’s development projects webpage. A copy of this Staff Report has been provided to the Applicant.
ATTACHMENTS:1) Planning Commission Resolution Recommending Approval of the Dublin Senior Living Project
17
Page 7 of 7
2) Exhibit A to Attachment 1 Draft Planned Development Ordinance for the Dublin Senior Living Project3) Exhibit B to Attachment 1 Resolution Approving a Site Development Review Permit for the Dublin Senior Living Project4) Exhibit A to Attachment 3 Dublin Senior Living Project Plans5) Preliminary Arborist Report6) CEQA Addendum 7) Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
18
Attachment 1
Page 1 of 3
RESOLUTION NO. 22-XX
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL CONSIDER AN ADDENDUM TO THE
EASTERN DUBLIN GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT AND SPECIFIC PLAN
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT AND APPROVE AN AMENDMENT TO THE
ZONING MAP, A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT ZONING DISTRICT WITH A RELATED
STAGE 1 AND STAGE 2 DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND A SITE DEVELOPMENT
REVIEW PERMIT FOR THE
DUBLIN SENIOR LIVING PROJECT
PLPA 2021-00042
(APN 986-0014-013-00)
WHEREAS, the Applicant, South Bay Partners, LLC., proposes to develop a
community care facility located at 5751 Arnold Road. The proposed project consists of a
two-story, 155,517-square-foot building with 152 units, including 114 assisted living units,
38 memory care units and a total of 174 beds. Common space amenity areas, and
associated site, frontage and landscape improvements are also proposed. Requested
approvals include a Planned Development Rezoning with a related Stage 1 and Stage 2
Development Plan and Site Development Review Permit. These planning and
implementing actions are collectively known as the “Dublin Senior Living Project” or the
“Project;” and
WHEREAS, the Project site is approximately 5.74 acres located on the east side
of Arnold Road, north of Central Parkway; and
WHEREAS,the project site has a General Plan land use designation of Campus
Office and is located in a Planned Development Zoning District (Ordinance No. 30-98);
and
WHEREAS,the proposed community care facility is consistent with the Campus
Office land use designation but requires amendments to the Planned Development
Zoning; and
WHEREAS,the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), together with the
CEQA Guidelines and City of Dublin CEQA Guidelines and Procedures require that
certain projects be reviewed for environmental impacts and that environmental
documents be prepared; and
WHEREAS, the Project site is located in the General Plan Eastern Extended
Planning Area and the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan area, for which the City Council
certified an Environmental Impact Report and an addendum on August 22, 1994 (1993
GPA/SP EIR), which identified impacts from development of the Eastern Dublin Specific
19
Attachment 1
Page 2 of 3
Plan. The City Council adopted mitigation measures, a mitigation monitoring program and
a Statement of Overriding Considerations (Resolution No. 53-93, incorporated herein by
reference); and
WHEREAS,the City prepared an Initial Study to determine whether supplemental
environmental review was required for the proposed Project under CEQA standards. The
Initial Study examined whether there were substantial changes to the proposed
development, substantial changes in circumstances, or new information, any of which
would result in new or more severe significant impacts than previously analyzed in the
1993 GPA/SP EIR, or whether any standards for supplemental environmental review
were met; and
WHEREAS,upon completion of the Initial Study, it was determined that there were
no new potentially significant impacts associated with the Project and, therefore, an
Addendum to the 1993 EIR was prepared; and
WHEREAS, a Staff Report, dated May 10, 2022, and incorporated herein by
reference, described and analyzed the Project, including the Planned Development
Rezone with related Stage 1 and Stage 2 Development Plan, Site Development Review
Permit, and Addendum to the 1993 GPA/SP EIR; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a properly noticed public hearing on
the Project, on May 10, 2022, at which time all interested parties had the opportunity to
be heard; and
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 adopt an Ordinance attached as Exhibit A considering the CEQA
Addendum and approving a Planned Development Zoning District with a related Stage 1
and Stage 2 Development Plan based on findings, as set forth in Exhibit A.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Planning Commission recommends that
the City Council approve the Resolution attached as Exhibit B approving the Site
Development Review Permit, based on the findings and conditions of approval, as set
forth in Exhibit B.
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 10th day of May 2022 by the
following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
20
Attachment 1
Page 3 of 3
ABSTAIN:
______________________________
Planning Commission Chair
ATTEST:
____________________________
Assistant Community Development Director
21
Attachment 2
Page 1 of 9
ORDINANCE NO. XX – 22
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
* * * * * * * * * * * * * *
CONSIDERING THE CEQA ADDENDUM, AMENDING THE ZONING MAP AND
APPROVING A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT ZONING DISTRICT WITH A RELATED
STAGE 1 AND STAGE 2 DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE DUBLIN SENIOR LIVING
PROJECT
PLPA 2021-00042
(APN 986-0014-013-00)
The Dublin City Council does ordain as follows:
SECTION 1. RECITALS
A. The Applicant, South Bay Partners, LLC., proposes to develop a community care
facility located at 5751 Arnold Road. The proposed project consists of a two-story,
155,517-square-foot building with 152 units, including 114 assisted living units, 38
memory care units and a total of 174 beds. Common space amenity areas, and
associated site, frontage and landscape improvements are also proposed. Requested
approvals include a Planned Development Rezoning with a related Stage 1 and Stage
2 Development Plan and Site Development Review Permit. These planning and
implementing actions are collectively known as the “Dublin Senior Living Project” or
the “Project”.
B. The Project site is approximately 5.74 acres located on the east side of Arnold Road,
north of Central Parkway (APN 986-0014-013-00).
C. The Project site has a General Plan land use designation of Campus Office and is
located in a Planned Development Zoning District (Ordinance No. 30-98).
D. The community care facility is consistent with the Campus Office land use designation
but requires amendments to the Planned Development Zoning District.
E. The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), together with the CEQA Guidelines
and City of Dublin CEQA Guidelines and Procedures require that certain projects be
reviewed for environmental impacts and that environmental documents be prepared.
F. The Project site is located in the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan area, for which the City
Council certified an Environmental Impact Report and an addendum on August 22,
1994 (1993 GPA/SP EIR), which identified impacts from development of the Eastern
Dublin Specific Plan area. The City Council adopted mitigation measures, a mitigation
monitoring program and a Statement of Overriding Considerations (Resolution No.
53-93, incorporated herein by reference).
22
Attachment 2
Page 2 of 9
G. The City prepared an Initial Study to determine whether supplemental environmental
review was required for the proposed Project under CEQA standards. The Initial Study
examined whether there were substantial changes to the proposed development,
substantial changes in circumstances, or new information, any of which would result
in new or more severe significant impacts than previously analyzed in the 1993
GPA/SP EIR, or whether any standards for supplemental environmental review were
met.
H. Upon completion of the Initial Study, it was determined that there were no new
potentially significant impacts associated with the Project and, therefore, an
Addendum to the 1993 GPA/SP EIR was prepared.
I. Following a properly noticed public hearing on May 10, 2022, the Planning
Commission adopted Resolution No. 22-xx recommending that the City Council
consider the CEQA Addendum, and approve of a Zoning Map Amendment, a Planned
Development Rezone with a related Stage 1 and 2 Development Plan and a Site
Development Review Permit for the Dublin Senior Living Project, which resolution is
incorporated herein by reference and available at City Hall during normal business
hours.
J. A Staff Report, dated ________and incorporated herein by reference, described and
analyzed the Project, including the CEQA Addendum, Zoning Map Amendment,
Planned Development Rezoning and Site Development Review Permit for the City
Council.
K. On ______, the City Council held a properly noticed public hearing on the Project,
including the Zoning Map Amendment, Planned Development Rezoning and Site
Development Review Permit at which time all interested parties had the opportunity
to be heard.
L. The City Council considered the Addendum to the 1993 GPA/SP EIR, as well as the
prior 1993 GPA/SP EIR and all above-referenced reports, recommendations, and
testimony before taking any action on the Project.
M. The City Council did hear and use independent judgment and considered all said
reports, recommendations, and testimony hereinabove set forth.
Section 2: Findings
A. Pursuant to Section 8.32.070 of the Dublin Municipal Code (DMC), the City Council
finds as follows.
1. The Dublin Senior Living Project (“the Project”) PD-Planned Development Zoning
meets the purpose and intent of DMC Chapter 8.32 in that it provides a
comprehensive development plan that creates a desirable use of land that is
sensitive to surrounding land uses by virtue of the layout and design of the site
23
Attachment 2
Page 3 of 9
plan. The Project is planned comprehensively and will follow development
standards tailored to the specific needs of the site. These standards will address
issues such as building setbacks, architecture, landscaping and grading. The
proposed facility will blend with the natural features unique to the site through the
use of design and planning. The Applicant proposes internal common space areas
and landscape amenity areas around the building, which are consistent with the
provisions and regulations for development set forth therein.
2. Development of the Project under the PD-Planned Development Zoning will be
harmonious and compatible with existing and future development in the
surrounding area in that the site will provide for a new community care facility,
which as a commercial service use type will be similar to other nearby uses, which
include a mix of commercial, office, residential (single-family and multifamily),
institutional, and civic uses.
B. Pursuant to DMC Sections 8.120.050 A and B, the City Council finds as follows.
1. The PD-Planned Development Zoning for the Project will be harmonious and
compatible with existing and potential development in the surrounding area in that
the proposed site plan has taken into account adjacent land uses and will provide
a wide range of amenities for residents of the facility. The Project will allow for
elderly residents of surrounding neighborhoods to continue to reside in Dublin and
will provide employment opportunities. The proposed site plan has considered a
land use type and density that is compatible with the adjacent area and densities.
2. The Project site is physically suitable for the type and intensity of the zoning district
being proposed in that the site is flat with access provided from Arnold Road and
is served by existing public utilities. The Project site conditions are documented in
the Addendum to the 1993 GPA/SP EIR and prior certified 1993 GPA/SP EIR, and
the Project will implement all adopted mitigation measures, as applicable. There
are no site conditions that have been identified that will present an impediment to
development of the site for the proposed community care facility.
3. The PD-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. In order to ensure adequate emergency vehicle access to all portions
of the site, access is provided to the site from Arnold Road.
4. The PD-Planned Development Zoning is consistent with and in conformance with
the Dublin General Plan and the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan, in that the proposed
use as a community care facility is consistent with the existing Campus Office land
use designation for the site, which allows commercial service uses. The Project
complies with this designation as it will provide for an attractive, campus-like
24
Attachment 2
Page 4 of 9
setting for a non-retail commercial use that will not generate nuisances related to
emissions, noise, odors, or glare.
Section 3: Zoning Map Amendment
Pursuant to Dublin Municipal Code Chapter 8.32,the City of Dublin Zoning Map is
amended to rezone the property described below to a Planned Development Zoning
District,and supersedes and replaces the previously adopted zoning (Resolution No. 30-
98):
5.74 acres located on the east side of Arnold Road, north of Central Parkway
(Assessor Parcel Number 986-0014-013-00)(“the Property”).
A map of the rezoning area is shown below:
Section 4. Approval of Stage 1 and Stage 2 Development Plan
The regulations for the use, development, improvement, and maintenance of the Property
are set forth in the following Stage 1 and Stage 2 Development Plan for the 5.74-acre
project area, which is hereby approved. Any amendments to the Stage 1 and Stage 2
Development Plan shall be in accordance with DMC Section 8.32.080 or its successors.
Stage 1 and Stage 2 Development Plan
This is a Stage 1 and Stage 2 Development Plan pursuant to DMC Chapter 8.32. This
Development Plan meets all the requirements for both a Stage 1 and Stage 2
Development Plan and is adopted as part of the PD-Planned Development Zoning for the
Dublin Senior Living Project (PLPA-2021-00042).
25
Attachment 2
Page 5 of 9
The Planned Development zoning district and this Stage 1 and Stage 2 Development
Plan provides flexibility to encourage innovative development while ensuring that the
goals, policies, and action programs of the General Plan and provisions of DMC Chapter
8.32 are satisfied.
1.Statement of Proposed Uses
Permitted Uses (as defined by the Zoning Ordinance):
Community Care Facility/Large
Similar and related uses as determined by the Director of Community Development
Conditional Uses:
None
Accessory Uses:
Uses which are necessarily and customarily associated with, and are appropriate,
incidental, and subordinate to the principal uses as determined by the Director of
Community Development
2.Stage 1 and Stage 2 Site Plan
The Stage 1 and Stage 2 Site Plan is shown below.
26
Attachment 2
Page 6 of 9
3. Site Area, Proposed Densities and Development Regulations
Maximum Beds 174
Maximum Faculty and
Staff
42 (on-site at one time)
Floor Area Ratio 0.62
Maximum Building
Height:
2 stories/28 feet
Maximum lot coverage 32%
Parking Spaces 1 per 3 employees on largest shift, plus 1 per 3
beds
Parking Stall Dimensions
Standards
Per Chapter 8.76 Off-Street Parking and Loading
Regulations of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance
Minimum Setbacks 20’ front (along Arnold Road)
10’ side (along north and south property lines)
10’ rear (along east property line)
Signage Pursuant to Chapter 8.84 Sign Regulations of the
Dublin Zoning Ordinance
4. Phasing Plan.
The Project is not subject to a phasing plan as it will be built in one phase, first
beginning with site preparation, and followed by grading, building construction,
paving and architectural coating.
5. General Plan and Specific Plan Consistency.
The Project is consistent with the General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan land
use designation of Campus Office, which allows commercial service uses, such as
community care facilities. in addition, the proposed use will provide for an attractive,
campus-like setting for a non-retail commercial use that will not generate nuisances
related to emissions, noise, odors, or glare and is consistent with the floor area ratio
of 0.25. to 0.80 allowed in the Campus Office land use designation.
6. Inclusionary Zoning Regulations.
The proposed project is a commercial use type and is not subject to the Inclusionary Zoning
Regulations (DMC Chapter 8.68) for the provision of affordable housing because the
regulations apply only to residential development projects of 20 units or more.
7. Architectural Standards.
The Project’s architectural style utilizes a contemporary design approach, which has
been designed to be complementary to the nearby residential development within the
Dublin Crossing Specific Plan.
The architectural design of the Project shall reflect the following standards:
27
Attachment 2
Page 7 of 9
Incorporate features such as different wall planes, heights, wall textures, low
slope/flat roof construction, light fixtures, and landscaping to enhance the
building detail at the pedestrian level.
Use high quality modern materials including engineered wood-look panel
veneer, smooth stucco finish, cultured stone veneer, and provide for stucco
clad framed elements to break down the building form into more human scale
volumes.
Colors shall be neutral in nature, while bright/harsh primary colors shall be
avoided.
Windows shall provide for a modern style and vary in size and configuration,
while being free of decorative mullions.
Where appropriate, given the orientation of the building to the sun, modern
metal canopies shall be provided above windows to employ shade to respective
units.
Provide functional outdoor spaces for residents, which allows for gathering and
socializing, with landscaping, outdoor seating, enhanced paving treatment, and
other features to provide an appropriate urban scale for the development.
8. Preliminary Landscaping Plan.
The conceptual landscape design of the Project shall reflect the following standards:
Create a park-like environment that is utilized by the residents.
Provide plentiful green space and natural habitat that utilizes a native and
climate-adaptive planting palette to Dublin, and is considered moderate or low
water use.
Provide a generous landscape buffer along Arnold Road that softens the main
street frontage.
Preserve existing trees where possible along the site perimeter to further
enhance the landscape buffer and better integrate the new development into
the surrounding community.
Utilize plants that provide a year-round vegetated landscape with seasonality,
color, and interest for an attractive visual environment.
28
Attachment 2
Page 8 of 9
9.Aerial Photo.
10.Applicable Requirements of Dublin Zoning Ordinance.
Except as specifically provided in this Stage 1 and Stage 2 Development Plan, the
use, development, improvement, and maintenance of the property shall be subject to
the regulations of the closest comparable zoning district as determined by the
Community Development Director and the Dublin Zoning Ordinance. No development
shall occur on this property until a Site Development Review Permit has been
approved.
Section 5. Effective Date.This Ordinance shall take effect and be enforced thirty (30)
days following its final adoption.
Section 6.Posting. 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.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED BY this _________ day of _____________
2022, by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
Project
Location
COMMERCIA
L
RESIDENTIAL
COMMERCIAL
COMMERCIAL
RESIDENTIAL29
Attachment 2
Page 9 of 9
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
_____________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
City Clerk
30
Attachment 3
Page 1 of 43
RESOLUTION NO. xx – 22
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
* * * * * * * * * * * * * *
APPROVING A SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PERMIT FOR
THE DUBLIN SENIOR LIVING PROJECT
PLPA 2021-00042
(APN 986-0014-013-00)
WHEREAS, the Applicant, South Bay Partners, LLC., proposes to develop a
community care facility located at 5751 Arnold Road. The proposed project consists of a
two-story, 155,829-square-foot facility with 152 units, including 114 assisted living units,
38 memory care units and a total of 174 beds. Common space amenity areas, and
associated site, frontage, and landscape improvements are also proposed. Requested
approvals include a Planned Development Rezone with a related Stage 1 and Stage 2
Development Plan and Site Development Review Permit. These planning and
implementing actions are collectively known as the “Dublin Senior Living Project” or the
“Project;” and
WHEREAS, the Project site is approximately 5.74 acres located on the east side
of Arnold Road, north of Central Parkway (APN 986-0014-013-00); and
WHEREAS,the existing General Plan land use designation for the project site is
Campus Office; and
WHEREAS,the Project site is located within Planned Development Ordinance No.
30-98; and
WHEREAS,the Project is a departure from the original intent and vision of the
previously adopted zoning (Resolution No. 30-98), and thus necessitates a Planned
Development Rezoning; and
WHEREAS,the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), together with the
CEQA Guidelines and City of Dublin CEQA Guidelines and Procedures require that
certain projects be reviewed for environmental impacts and that environmental
documents be prepared; and
WHEREAS, the Project site is located in the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan area, for
which the City Council certified an Environmental Impact Report and an addendum on
August 22, 1994 (1993 GPA/SP EIR), which identified impacts from development of the
Eastern Dublin Specific Plan area. Upon approval of the Eastern Dublin General Plan
Amendment and Specific Plan, the City Council adopted mitigation measures, a mitigation
monitoring program and a Statement of Overriding Considerations (Resolution No. 53-
93, incorporated herein by reference); and
31
Attachment 3
Page 2 of 43
WHEREAS,the City prepared an Initial Study to determine whether supplemental
environmental review was required for the proposed Project under CEQA standards. The
Initial Study examined whether there were substantial changes to the proposed
development, substantial changes in circumstances, or new information, any of which
would result in new or more severe significant impacts than analyzed in the prior 1993
GPA/SP EIR, or whether any standards for supplemental environmental review were met;
and
WHEREAS,upon completion of the Initial Study, it was determined that there were
no new potentially significant impacts associated with the Project and, therefore, an
Addendum to the 1993 GPA/SP EIR was prepared; and
WHEREAS,following a properly noticed public hearing on May 10, 2022, the
Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 22-xx recommending that the City Council
consider the CEQA Addendum, and approve a Zoning Map Amendment, a Planned
Development Rezoning with a related Stage 1 and Stage 2 Development Plan, and a Site
Development Review Permit for the Project; and
WHEREAS, a Staff Report, dated ________and incorporated herein by reference,
described and analyzed the Project, including the CEQA Addendum, Zoning Map
Amendment, Planned Development Rezone and Site Development Review Permit for the
City Council; and
WHEREAS, on ______, the City Council held a properly noticed public hearing on
the project and the Addendum to the 1993 GPA/SP EIR at which time all interested parties
had the opportunity to be heard; and
WHEREAS, the City Council held a properly noticed public hearing on the Project,
including the Zoning Map Amendment, Planned Development Rezoning and Site
Development Review Permit at which time all interested parties had an opportunity to be
heard; and
WHEREAS,the City Council did review and consider the Initial Study and CEQA
Addendum incorporated herein by reference; and
WHEREAS, the City Council did hear and use independent judgment and
considered all said reports, recommendations, and testimony hereinabove set forth.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Dublin
does hereby make the following findings and determinations regarding the Site
Development Review Permit for the Dublin Senior Living Project:
A.The proposal is consistent with the purposes of Chapter 8.104 (Site Development
Review) of the Zoning Ordinance, with the General Plan, and any applicable
Specific Plans and design guidelines because: 1) the proposed Project is
consistent with the General Plan land use designation of Campus Office as it will
32
Attachment 3
Page 3 of 43
provide for an attractive, campus-like setting for a non-retail commercial use that
will not generate nuisances related to emissions, noise, odors, or glare; 2) the
proposed Project gives thoughtful consideration to the adjacent residential
development through setbacks, height and a consistent architectural design; and
3) the proposed Project will conform to the allowable uses and development
standards as stated in the Stage 1 and Stage 2 Development Plan.
B.The proposal is consistent with the provisions of Title 8, Zoning Ordinance
because:1) the Planned Development Zoning provides a comprehensive
development plan that creates a desirable use of land that is sensitive to
surrounding land uses by virtue of the layout and design of the site plan; and 2)
development of the Project under the Planned Development Zoning will be
harmonious and compatible with existing and future development in the
surrounding area, in that the site will provide new care facility for senior residents.
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 project
site is adjacent to Medium-High Density Residential and Campus Office uses; 2)
the proposed development will consist of a community care facility for the senior
population and will serve the Dublin community and surrounding areas; and 3) the
design of the Project has taken into account sensitive adjacencies and will provide
a community care facility for senior residents.
D.The subject site is suitable for the type and intensity of the approved development
because:1) the Project site is relatively flat with improved public streets and
utilities; and 2) development intensity is similar to adjacent properties.
E.Impacts to existing slopes and topographic features are addressed because: 1)
the Project site is relatively flat; 2) the roadway and utility infrastructure to serve
the site already exist; and 3) future approval of grading and improvement plans will
enable the site to be modified to suit the Project, which will be developed for the
site in accordance with City policies and regulations.
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 building has
been designed to be consistent with the quality and standards of the adjacent
residential community (The Boulevard); 2) the site layout provides for a re-aligned
intersection at Arnold Road and Horizon Parkway that easily connects the Project
to the adjacent community, and the Project will concentrate activity internally to the
site with the front entrance adequately setback from the street and continued
access provided to adjacent properties; and 3) the proposed Project includes a
landscape buffer between the Project and Arnold Road that softens the main street
frontage.
33
Attachment 3
Page 4 of 43
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) the plant species will provide for plentiful green space
and natural habitat that utilizes a native and climate-adaptive planting palette to
Dublin, which is drought tolerant and compatible with the existing plant species in
the area; 2) the Project includes internal courtyard gathering spaces as well as
external walkways, seating area and activity space that surround the building,
thereby creating a park-like environment for residents; and 3) Project landscaping
conforms to the requirements of the City’s Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance.
H.The site has been adequately designed to ensure the proper circulation for
bicyclist, pedestrians, and automobiles because:1) access to the site is provided
from a singular driveway off Arnold Road; 2) all infrastructure including, pathways,
sidewalks, and lighting have been reviewed for conformance with City policies,
regulations, and best practices and have been designed with multi-modal travel in
mind; and 3) the Project has been reviewed by the Public Works Department and
Fire Department and adequate access and circulation has been provided on-site.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Dublin City Council does hereby approve
the Site Development Review Permit for the Dublin Senior Living Project subject to the
conditions included below, and other plans, and text relating to this Site Development
Review Permit.
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.
CONDITION TEXT RESPON
.
AGENCY
WHEN
REQUIRED
Prior to:
PLANNING –GENERAL
1.Approval. This approval is for the Dublin Senior
Living Project (PLPA-2021-00042). This approval
shall be as generally depicted and indicated on the
Project Plans prepared by Smithgroup, dated
March 25, 2022, attached as Exhibit A and other
PL On-going
34
Attachment 3
Page 5 of 43
plans, text, and diagrams relating to this project,
and as specified as the following Conditions of
Approval for this project.
2.Effective Date. This Site Development Review
Permit approval becomes effective once the
Planned Development Rezone has been approved
by City Council and is effective.
PL On-going
3.Permit Expiration. Construction or use shall
commence within one (1) year of Permit approval
or the Site Development Review Permit shall lapse
and become null and void. If there is a dispute as to
whether the Site Development Review 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 the
Site Development Review Permit expires, a new
application must be made and processed according
to the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance.
PL One Year
After
Effective
Date
4.Time Extension.The Director of Community
Development may, upon the Applicant’s written
request for an extension of approval prior to
expiration, and upon the determination that any
Conditions of Approval remain adequate to assure
that applicable findings of approval will continue to
be met, grant a time extension of approval for a
period not to exceed 12 months. The Director of
Community Development may grant a maximum of
two extensions of approval, and additional
extensions may be granted by the original decision
maker.
PL Prior to
Expiration
Date
5.Compliance. The Applicant/Property Owner shall
operate this use in compliance with the Conditions
of Approval of this Site Development Review
Permit, the approved plans and the regulations
established in the Zoning Ordinance. Any violation
of the terms or conditions specified may be subject
to enforcement action.
PL On-going
6.Modifications. Modifications or changes to this
Site Development Review Permit approval may be
considered by the Community Development
Director if the modifications or changes proposed
comply with Dublin Municipal Code (DMC) Section
8.104.100.
PL On-going
7.Revocation of Permit. The Site Development
Review Permit approval shall be revocable for
PL On-going
35
Attachment 3
Page 6 of 43
cause in accordance with DMC Section 8.96.020.I.
Any violation of the terms or conditions of this
permit shall be subject to citation.
8.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
9.Required Permits. The Applicant/Developer shall
obtain all permits required by other agencies
including, but not limited to 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 and provide copies of the permits
to the Public Works Department.
PW Building
Permit
Issuance
and Grading
Permit
Issuance
10.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.
Various Building
Permit
Issuance
11.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,
ADM On-going
36
Attachment 3
Page 7 of 43
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.
12.Clarification of Conditions.In the event that there
needs to be clarification to the Conditions of
Approval, the Director of Community Development
and the City Engineer have the authority to clarify
the intent of these Conditions of Approval to the
Applicant/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 to this project.
PL, PW On-going
13.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
14.Construction Trailer.The Applicant/Developer
shall obtain a Temporary Use Permit prior to the
establishment of any construction trailer, storage
shed, or container units on the Project site.
PL Establishme
nt of the
Temporary
Use
15.Equipment Screening. All electrical equipment,
fire risers, and/or mechanical equipment shall be
screened from public view by landscaping and/or
architectural features and that electrical
transformers are either underground or
architecturally screened.
Any roof-mounted equipment shall be completely
screened from adjacent street 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
PL Building
Permit
Issuance
37
Attachment 3
Page 8 of 43
and approval by the Community Development
Director.
PLANNING –PROJECT SPECIFIC CONDITIONS
16.Public Art. The project is required to comply with
DMC Sections 8.58.05A and 8.58.05D of Chapter
8.58 (Public Art Program). The project will make a
monetary contribution in-lieu of acquiring and
installing a public art project on the property, as
provided by the DMC Section 8.58.050D. The in-
lieu contribution shall be as provided in the DMC
Chapter 8.58.
PL Building
Permit
Issuance
17.Mitigation Monitoring Program.The
Applicant/Developer shall comply with the
applicable mitigation measures of the 1993 Eastern
Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan
Environmental Impact Report 1993 (1993 GPA/SP
EIR) certified by Resolution No. 51-93, including
any applicable action programs and
implementation measures contained in Resolution
No. 53-93.
PL Ongoing
18.Final Landscape and Irrigation Plan. Plans shall
comply with DMC Chapter 8.72 and be generally
consistent with the project plans attached to this
Resolution as Exhibit A Final Landscape and
Irrigation Plan prepared and stamped by a State
licensed landscape architect or registered engineer
shall be submitted for review and approval by the
Community Development Director.
PL Building
Permit
Issuance
19.Water Efficient Landscaping Regulations. The
Applicant/Developer shall meet all requirements of
the City of Dublin's Water-Efficient Landscaping
Regulations contained in DMC Chapter 8.88 and
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 Building
Permit
Issuance
20.Landscape Edges. Concrete curbs or bands shall
be used at the edges of all planters and paving
surfaces, unless otherwise defined differently. The
design width and depth of the concrete edge shall
be to the satisfaction of the Community
Development Director and City Engineer.
PL Building
Permit
Issuance
21.Backflow Prevention Devices. The Landscape
Plan shall show the location of all backflow
prevention devises. The location and screening of
PL Building
Permit
Issuance
38
Attachment 3
Page 9 of 43
the backflow prevention devices shall be reviewed
and approved by City staff.
22.Maintenance of Landscape. All landscape areas
on the site shall be enhanced and properly
maintained at all times. Any proposed or modified
landscaping to the site, including the removal or
replacement of trees, shall require prior review and
written approval from the Community Development
Director.
PL On-going
23.Arborist Report.Plans submitted for a building
permit shall include an updated arborist report and
site plan with matching tree numbers.
PL Building
Permit
Issuance
24.Distance Between Light Poles and Tree Trunks.
A minimum distance of 15 feet shall be provided
between light poles and tree trunks.
PL Building
Permit
Issuance
BUILDING AND SAFETY
25.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
26.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 Issuance of
Building
Permits
27.Building Permits. To apply for building permits,
Applicant/Developer shall submit electronic
drawings for plan check. An annotated copy of the
Conditions of Approval shall be included with the
submittal. The notations shall clearly indicate how
all Conditions of Approval will 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
participation non-City agencies prior to the
issuance of building permits.
B Issuance of
Building
Permits
28.As-Built Drawings.All revisions made to the
building plans during the project shall be
incorporated into an “As Built” electronic file and
submitted prior to the issuance of the final
occupancy.
B Occupancy
39
Attachment 3
Page 10 of 43
29.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.). The site plan
shall include a single large format page showing
the entire project and individual sheets for each
neighborhood. Application and required plans
shall be submitted electronically.
b.Address signage shall be provided as per the
Dublin Commercial Security Code.
c.Address will be required on all doors leading to
the exterior of the building. Addresses shall be
illuminated and be able to be seen from the
street, four inches in height minimum.
B Prior to
Release of
Addresses
Prior to
Permitting
Prior to
Occupancy
30.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 Prior to
Scheduling
the Final
Frame
Inspection
31.60-Foot No Build Covenant. Pursuant to DMC
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 Chief
Building Official.
B Prior to
Permitting
32.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 Prior to
Permit
Issuance
33.CASp Reports. The Applicant/Developer shall
obtain the services of a Certified Access Specialist
for the review of the construction drawings and
inspections for the building interior and site exterior.
A written report shall be submitted to the City prior
to approval of the permit application. Additionally,
B Prior to
Permitting
and
Occupancy
40
Attachment 3
Page 11 of 43
a written report shall be submitted to the City
Building Inspector prior to scheduling the final
inspection.
34.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.
B Occupancy
of Building
35.Plumbing Fixture Count. The plumbing fixture
count (e.g., water closets, lavatories, urinals,
drinking fountains) shall meet the minimum
requirements for the use as regulated by the CA
Plumbing Code.
B Prior to
Permitting
36.Solar Zone –CA Energy Code. Show the location
of the Solar Zone on the site plan. Detail the
orientation of the Solar Zone. This condition of
approval will be waived if the project meets the
exceptions provided in the CA Energy Code.
B Through
Completion
37.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, Chapter 11-B.
B Through
Completion
38.Green Parking. The design and number of clean
air/ EV ready stalls shall be as required by the CA
Green Building Standards Code.
B Through
Completion
39.Accessory Structures. Building permits are
required for all trash enclosures and associated
amenities / structures and are required to meet the
accessibility and building codes.
B Through
Completion
40.Temporary Fencing. Temporary construction
fencing shall be installed along perimeter of all work
under construction
B Through
Completion
41.Construction Trailer. Due to size and nature of
the development, the Applicant/Developer shall
provide a construction trailer with all hook ups for
use by City Inspection personnel during the time of
construction as determined necessary by the Chief
Building Official. In the event that the City has their
own construction trailer, the Applicant/Developer
shall provide a site with appropriate hook ups in
close proximity to the project site to accommodate
this trailer. The Applicant/Developer shall cause
the trailer to be moved from its current location at
the time necessary as determined by the Chief
B Prior to
Permit
Issuance
41
Attachment 3
Page 12 of 43
Building Official at the Applicant/Developer’s
expense.
42.Copies of Approved Plans. The
Applicant/Developer shall provide City with one
reduced (1/2 size) copy of the City of Dublin
stamped approved plan.
B 30 Days
After Permit
and Each
Revision
Issuance
43.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
44.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 Issuance of
Building
Permits
45.Building Permits. To apply for building permits,
Applicant/Developer shall submit electronic
drawings for plan check. An annotated copy of the
Conditions of Approval shall be included with the
submittal. The notations shall clearly indicate how
all Conditions of Approval will 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
participation non-City agencies prior to the
issuance of building permits.
B Issuance of
Building
Permits
FIRE PREVENTION
46.No fire service lines shall pass beneath buildings.F Approval of
Improvemen
t Plans
47.Final hydrant locations as required by CA Fire Code
to be determined in the final improvement plans.
F Approval of
Improvemen
t Plans
48.Sheet C9.0 shows the emergency vehicle access
(EVA) exiting through the adjacent parcel (Parcel
Map No. 8502). An emergency vehicle access
easement deed shall be filed and deeded to the
subject parcel.
F Approval of
Improvemen
t Plans
49.Fire apparatus access roadways must extend to
within 200 feet of the most remote first floor exterior
wall of any building.
F Occupancy
42
Attachment 3
Page 13 of 43
50.New Fire Sprinkler System and 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. This may be a deferred submittal.
a.Sprinkler Plans. (Deferred Submittal Item).
Submit detailed mechanical drawings of all
sprinkler modifications, including cut sheets,
listing sheets and calculations to the Fire
Department for approval and permit prior to
installation.
b.All sprinkler system components shall remain in
compliance with the applicable N.F.P.A. 13
Standard, the CA Fire Code and the CA Building
Code.
c.Underground Plans. (Deferred Submittal
Item). Submit detailed shop drawings for the fire
water supply system, including cut sheets, listing
sheets and calculations to the Fire Department
for approval and permit prior to installation. All
underground and fire water supply system
components shall be in compliance with the
applicable N.F.P.A. 13, 24, 20, 22 Standards,
the CA Fire Code and the CA Building Code.
The system shall be hydrostatically tested and
inspected prior to being covered. Prior to the
system being connected to any fire protection
system, a system flush shall be witnessed by the
Fire Department.
d.Central Station Monitoring. Automatic fire
extinguishing systems installed within buildings
shall have all control valves and flow devices
electrically supervised and maintained by an
approved central alarm station. Zoning and
annunciation of central station alarm signals
shall be submitted to the Fire Department for
approval.
e.Fire Protection Equipment shall be identified
with approved signs constructed of durable
materials, permanently installed and readily
visible.
F Building
Permit
Issuance
43
Attachment 3
Page 14 of 43
51.Fire Access During Construction.
a.Fire Access. Access roads, turnaround,
pullouts, and fire operation areas are fire lanes
and shall be maintained clear and free of
obstructions, including the parking of vehicles.
b.Entrances.Entrances to job sites shall not be
blocked, including after hours, other than by
approved gates/barriers that provide for
emergency access.
c.Site Utilities.Site utilities that would require the
access road to be dug up or made impassible
shall be installed prior to construction
commencing.
d.Entrance flare, angle of departure, width,
turning radii, grades, turnaround, vertical
clearances, road surface, bridges/crossings,
gates/key-switch, within a 150-foot distance to
Fire Lane shall be maintained.
e.Personnel Access. Route width, slope,
surface and obstructions must be considered
for the approved route to furthermost portion of
the exterior wall.
f.All-weather access. Fire access is required to
be all-weather access. Show on the plans the
location of the all-weather access and a
description of the construction. Access roads
must be designed to support the imposed loads
of fire apparatus.
F During
Construction
52.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.C.
a.Fire Alarm Plans. (Deferred Submittal Item).
Submit detailed drawings of the fire alarm
system, including floor plan showing all rooms,
F Occupancy
44
Attachment 3
Page 15 of 43
device locations, ceiling height and
construction, cut sheets, listing sheets and
battery and voltage drop calculations to the Fire
Department for review and permit prior to the
installation. Where employee work area’s have
audible alarm coverage, circuits shall be initially
designed with a minimum 20 percent spare
capacity for adding appliances to accommodate
hearing impaired employee’s.
b.Central Station Monitored Account.
Automatic fire alarm systems shall be
monitored by an approved central alarm station.
Zoning and annunciation of central station
alarm signals shall be approved by the Fire
Department.
c.Qualified Personnel.The system shall be
installed, inspected, tested, and maintained in
accordance with the provisions of NFPA 72.
Only qualified and experienced persons shall
perform this work. Examples of qualified
individuals are those who have been factory
trained and certified or are NICET Fire Alarm
Certified.
d.Inspection and Testing Documentation.
Performance testing of all initiating and
notification devices in the presence of the Fire
Inspector shall occur prior to final of the system.
Upon this inspection, proof that the specific
account is UL Certificated must be provided to
the Fire Inspector.
53.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. Additional fire extinguishers maybe required
by the fire inspector.
Fire extinguisher shall meet a minimum
classification of 2A 10BC. Extinguishers weighing
40 pounds or less shall be mounted no higher than
five feet above the floor measured to the top of the
extinguisher. Extinguishers shall be inspected
monthly and serviced by a licensed concern
annually.
F Occupancy
54.FD Building Key Box. A Fire Department key box
shall be installed at the main entrance to the
building. Note these locations on the plans. The key
F Occupancy
45
Attachment 3
Page 16 of 43
box should be installed approximately 5.5 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. Specialty keys,
such as the fire alarm control box key and elevator
control keys shall also be installed in the box.
The key box door and necessary keys are to be
provided to the Fire Inspector upon the final
inspection. The inspector will then lock the keys into
the box.
55.Means of Egress. Exit signs shall be visible and
illuminated with emergency lighting when building
is occupied.
F Occupancy
56.Main Entrance Hardware Exception. It is
recommended that all doors be provided with exit
hardware that allows exiting from the egress side
even when the door is in the locked condition.
However, an exception for A-3, B, F, M, S
occupancies and all churches does allow key-
locking hardware (no thumb-turns) on the main exit
when the main exit consists of a single door or pair
of doors. When unlocked the single door or both
leaves of a pair of doors must be free to swing
without operation of any latching device. A readily
visible, durable sign on or just above the door
stating “This door to remain unlocked whenever
the building is occupied” shall be provided. The
sign shall be in letters not less than one inch high
on a contrasting background. This use of this
exception may be revoked for cause.
F Occupancy
57.Maximum Occupant Load. Posting of room
capacity is required for any occupant load of 50 or
more persons. Submittal of a seating plan on 8.5-
inch by 11-inch paper is required prior to final
occupancy.
F Occupancy
58.Interior Finish. Wall and ceiling interior finish
material shall meet the requirements of Chapter 8
of the California Fire Code. Interior finishes will be
field verified upon final inspection. If the product is
not field marked and the marking visible for
inspection, maintain the products cut-sheets and
packaging that show proof of the products
flammability and flame-spread ratings. Decorative
materials shall be fire retardant.
F Occupancy
59.General Inspection. Upon inspection of the work
for which this submittal was provided, a general
F Occupancy
46
Attachment 3
Page 17 of 43
inspection of the business and site will be
conducted.
60.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.
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 five
inches in height by one-inch stroke. Larger sizes
may be necessary depending on the setbacks and
visibility.
F Occupancy
61.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 Ongoing
During
Construction
and
Demolition
PUBLIC WORKS –GENERAL CONDITIONS
62.Conditions of Approval. The
Applicant/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
63.Compliance. The Applicant/Developer shall
comply with the City of Dublin Zoning Ordinances,
City of Dublin Title 7 Public Works Ordinance,
which includes the Grading Ordinance, the City of
PW On-going
47
Attachment 3
Page 18 of 43
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.
64.Clarifications and Changes to the Conditions.
In the event that there needs to be clarification to
these Conditions of Approval, the City Engineer has
the authority to clarify the intent of these Conditions
of Approval to the Applicant/Developer without
going to a public hearing. The City Engineer also
has the authority to make minor modifications to
these conditions without going to a public hearing
in order for the Applicant/Developer to fulfill needed
improvements or mitigations resulting from impacts
of this project.
PW On-going
65.Hold Harmless/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 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/Developer’s duty to so defend, indemnify,
and hold harmless shall be submitted to the City’s
promptly notifying or proceeding and the City’s full
cooperation in the defense of such actions or
proceedings.
PW On-going
66.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. Approved Development
Agreement supersedes where applicable.
Various
Depts
Building
Permit
Issuance
48
Attachment 3
Page 19 of 43
67.Zone 7 Impervious Surface Fees. The
Applicant/Developer 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 Grading
Permit or
Building
Permit
Issuance
PUBLIC WORKS –AGREEMENTS
68.Stormwater Management Maintenance
Agreement. Property Owner shall enter into an
Agreement with the City of Dublin that guarantees
the property owner’s perpetual maintenance
obligation for all stormwater management
measures installed as part of the project, including
those on-site and within the public Rights of Way.
In addition to stormwater management measures,
drainage v-ditches, mitigation areas, and existing
wetlands shall be included for reference, as
applicable. Said Agreement is required pursuant to
Provision C.3 and C.10 of the Municipal Regional
Stormwater NPDES Permit, Order No. R2-2009-
0074. Said permit requires the City to provide
verification and assurance that all treatment
devices will be properly operated and maintained.
The Agreement shall be recorded against the
property and shall run with the land.
PW Grading/Site
work Permit
Issuance
PUBLIC WORKS –PERMITS AND BONDS
69.Encroachment Permit. The Applicant/Developer
shall obtain an Encroachment Permit from the
Public Works Department for all construction
activity within the public right-of-way.
PW Permit
Issuance
70.Grading/Sitework Permit. The
Applicant/Developer shall obtain a Grading or
Sitework Permit from the Public Works Department
for all grading and site improvements.
PW Permit
Issuance
71.Security.The Applicant/Developer shall provide
faithful performance security to guarantee the
improvements, as well as payment security, as
determined by the City Engineer. (Note: The
performance security shall remain in effect until one
year after final inspection).
PW Permit
Issuance
72.Permits from Other Agencies.The
Applicant/Developer shall obtain all permits and/or
approvals required by other agencies as may be
applicable, including, but not limited to:
Army Corps of Engineers
PW Permit
Issuance
49
Attachment 3
Page 20 of 43
US Fish and Wildlife
Regional Water Quality Control Board
Federal Emergency Management Agency
California Department of Fish and Wildlife
California Dept. of Transportation (Caltrans)
Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART)
Livermore-Amador Valley Transit Authority
(LAVTA)
Tri-Valley-San Joaquin Valley Regional Rail
Authority
Dublin San Ramon Services District (DSRSD)
Alameda County Flood Control and Water
Conservation District Zone 7 (Zone 7)
PUBLIC WORKS –SUBMITTALS
73.Improvement Plan Submittal Requirements.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.
Applicant/Developer shall not piecemeal the
submittal by submitting various components
separately.
PW Grading
/Sitework
Permit
Issuance
74.Improvement Plan Requirements from Other
Agencies. The Applicant/Developer will be
responsible for submittals and reviews to obtain the
approvals of all participating non-City agencies,
including but not limited to: the Alameda County
Fire Department and the Dublin San Ramon
Services District. These agencies shall approve
and sign the Improvement Plans.
PW Grading
/Sitework
Permit
Issuance
75.Composite Exhibit. Construction plan set shall
include a Composite Exhibit showing all site
improvements, utilities, landscaping improvements
and trees, etc. to be constructed to ensure that
there are no conflicts among the proposed and
existing improvements.
PW Grading
/Sitework
Permit
Issuance
76.Geotechnical Report. The Applicant/Developer
shall submit a Design Level Geotechnical Report,
which includes but are not limited to street
pavement sections, grading and additional
PW Grading
/Sitework
50
Attachment 3
Page 21 of 43
information and/or clarifications as determined by
the City Engineer.
Permit
Issuance
77.Building Pads, Slopes and Walls. The Applicant/
Developer shall provide the Public Works
Department with a letter from a registered civil
engineer or surveyor stating that the building pads
have been graded to within 0.1 feet of the grades
shown on the approved Grading Plans, and that the
top and toe of banks and retaining walls are at the
locations shown on the approved Grading Plans.
PW Certificate of
Occupancy
78.Hydrology and Hydraulic Calculations.
Hydrology and Hydraulic calculations for the entire
parcel including undeveloped areas shall be
submitted for approval to the City Engineer.
Alameda County published an updated version of
the Alameda County Hydrology & Hydraulics
Manual. The H&H Manual includes updates to
calculating runoff and should be used as the basis
for your hydrology and hydraulics design of flood
control facilities in Alameda County. The manual is
available for download at: acfloodcontrol.org/hh-
manual.
PW Grading/
Sitework
Permit
Issuance
79.Stormwater Management Plan. A final
Stormwater Management Plan shall be submitted
for review and approval by the City Engineer.
Approval is subject to the Applicant/Developer
providing the necessary plans, details, and
calculations that demonstrate the plan complies
with the standards issued by the San Francisco Bay
Regional Water Quality Control Board and Alameda
Countywide Clean Water Program. Landscape
Based Stormwater Management Measures shall be
irrigated and meet WELO requirements.
PW Grading/
Sitework
Permit
Issuance
80.Onsite and Offsite Signing and Striping Plan. A
Traffic Signing and Striping Plan showing all
proposed signing and striping within on-site parking
lots, drive aisles, along the public street, and the
nearest intersection shall be submitted for review
and approval by the City Engineer. Striping plans
shall distinguish between existing striping to be
removed and new striping to be installed. All
striping in the public street shall be thermoplastic.
PW Grading/
Sitework
Permit
Issuance
81.SB 1383 Compliance Reporting. To comply with
SB 1383, applicant shall provide to the Public
Works Department records indicating where SB
PW Certificate of
Occupancy
51
Attachment 3
Page 22 of 43
1383 compliant mulch or compost was applied in
the project, the source and type of product, quantity
of each product, and invoices demonstrating
procurement.
82.Photometric Plan. The Applicant/Developer shall
prepare a photometric plan for the site lighting to
demonstrate that the minimum 1.0 foot candle
lighting level is provided in accordance with the City
of Dublin’s requirements, or as otherwise approved
by the City Engineer. The photometric plan shall
show lighting levels which take into consideration
poles, low walls and other obstructions. Exterior
lighting shall be provided within the surface parking
lots and on buildings and shall be of a design and
placement so as not to cause glare onto adjoining
properties, businesses or to vehicular traffic.
Lighting used after daylight hours shall be adequate
to provide for security needs. The parking lot lights
shall be designed to eliminate any pockets of high
and low illuminated areas.
PW Grading/
Sitework
Permit
Issuance
83.Photometrics. The Applicant/Developer shall
provide a complete photometrics plan for both
onsite and frontage roadways. Include the
complete data on photometrics, including the High,
Average and Minimum values for illuminance and
uniformity ratio.
PW Grading/
Sitework
Permit
Issuance
84.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.
The plan shall also address site housekeeping best
management practices.
PW Grading/
Sitework
Permit
Issuance
85.Demolition Plan. The Applicant/Developer’s Civil
Engineer shall prepare a demolition plan for the project,
which shall be submitted concurrent with the improvement
plan package. The demolition plan shall address the
following:
Pavement demolition, including streetlights and
landscaped median islands.
Landscaping and irrigation
Fencing to be removed and fencing to remain
Any items to be saved in place and or protected,
such as trees, water meters, sewer cleanouts,
drainage inlets or backflow prevention devices.
PW Grading/
Sitework
Permit
Issuance
52
Attachment 3
Page 23 of 43
86.Approved Plan Files. The Applicant/Developer
shall provide the Public Works Department a PDF
format file of approved site plans, including grading,
improvement, landscaping and irrigation, joint
trench and lighting.
PW Grading/
Sitework
Permit
Issuance
87.Master Files. The Applicant/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 Certificate of
Occupancy
88.Environmental Services Files. The Applicant/
Developer shall provide to the Public Works
Department GIS shape files, provided in a format
acceptable to the City, all MRP Provision C.3
stormwater features, trash capture devices,
mitigation measures, wetlands, v-ditches and
public waste containers.
PW Certificate of
Occupancy
PUBLIC WORKS –PARCEL MAP, EASEMENTS AND ACCESS RIGHTS
89.Dedications. All rights-of-way and easement
dedications required by these conditions or
determined necessary by the City Engineer shall be
dedicated by separate instrument
PW Sitework
Permit or
Building
Permit
Issuance
90.Emergency Vehicle Access Easements. The
Applicant/Developer shall dedicate Emergency
Vehicle Access Easements (EVAE) over the clear
pavement width of all drive aisles as required by the
Alameda County Fire Department and City
Engineer.
PW Sitework
Permit or
Building
Permit
Issuance
91.Abandonment of Easements. The
Applicant/Developer shall obtain abandonment
from all applicable public agencies of existing
easements within the project site that will no longer
be used. Prior to completion of abandonment, the
improvement plans may be approved if the
Applicant/Developer can demonstrate to the
satisfaction of the City Engineer that the
abandonment process has been initiated.
PW Sitework
Permit or
Building
Permit
Issuance
92.Acquisition of Easements. The
Applicant/Developer shall be responsible for
PW Sitework
Permit or
53
Attachment 3
Page 24 of 43
obtaining all onsite and offsite easements, and/or
obtain rights-of-entry from the adjacent property
owners for any improvements not located on their
property. The Applicant/Developer shall prepare all
required documentation for dedication of all
easements on-site and off-site. The easements
and/or rights-of-entry shall be in writing and copies
furnished to the Public Works Department.
Building
Permit
Issuance
93.Approval by Others. The Applicant/Developer will
be responsible for submittals and reviews to obtain
the approvals of all applicable non-City agencies.
PW Sitework
Permit or
Building
Permit
Issuance
94.Encroachment of Structures within Proposed
and Existing Easements.Project entry monument
signs, lighting standards, walls, C.3 treatment
facilities, or any other encroachments within a
proposed or existing easement shall not be
permitted unless otherwise approved by the City
Engineer or easement holder. Any encroachment
allowed to be located in an easement is subject to
removal and replacement at the expense of the
property owner when the easement rights are
exercised by the easement holder.
PW Grading/Site
work Permit
Issuance
54
Attachment 3
Page 25 of 43
PUBLIC WORKS -GRADING
95.Grading Plan. The Grading Plan shall be in
conformance with the recommendation of the
Geotechnical Report, the approved Site
Development Review Permit, and the City design
standards and ordinances. In case of conflict
between the soil engineer’s recommendation and
the City ordinances, the City Engineer shall
determine which shall apply.
PW Grading/
Sitework
Permit
Issuance
96.Geotechnical Engineer Review and Approval.
The Project Geotechnical Engineer shall be
retained to review all final grading plans and
specifications. The Project Geotechnical Engineer
shall approve all grading plans prior to
City approval.
PW Grading/
Sitework
Permit
Issuance
97.Grading Off-Haul.The disposal site and haul truck
route for any off-haul dirt materials shall be subject
to the review and approval by the City Engineer
prior to the issuance of a Grading Permit. If the
Appplicant/Developer does not own the parcel on
which the proposed disposal site is located, the
Applicant/Developer shall provide the City with a
Letter of Consent signed by the current owner,
approving the placement of off-haul material on
their parcel. A Grading Plan may be required for
the placement of the off-haul material.
PW Grading/
Sitework
Permit
Issuance
PUBLIC WORKS –STORM DRAINAGE AND OTHER UTILITIES
98.On-site Storm Drain System. Storm drainage for
the 10-year storm event shall be collected on-site
and conveyed through storm drains to the public
storm drain system. Show the size and location of
existing and proposed storm drains and catch
basins on the site plan. Show the size and location
of public storm drain lines and the points of
connection for the on-site storm drain system.
PW Grading/
Sitework
Permit
Issuance
99.Overland Release. Grading and drainage shall be
designed so that surplus drainage (above and
beyond that of the 10-year storm event) not
collected in site catch basins, is directed overland
so as not to cause flooding of existing or proposed
buildings.
PW Grading/
Sitework
Permit
Issuance
100.Storm Drain Easements. Private storm drain
easements and maintenance roads shall be
provided for all private storm drains or ditches that
are located on private property. The
Applicant/Developer shall be responsible for the
PW Grading/
Sitework
Permit
Issuance
55
Attachment 3
Page 26 of 43
acquisition of all storm drain easements from offsite
property owners which are required for the
connection and maintenance of all offsite storm
drainage improvements.
101.Storm Drain Inlet Markers. All public and private
storm drain inlets must be marked with storm drain
markers that read: “No dumping, drains to creek,”
and a note shall be shown on the improvement
plans. The markers may be purchased from the
Public Work Department.
PW Grading/
Sitework
Permit
Issuance
102.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, and
shown on the signing and striping plan.
PW Certificate of
Occupancy
103.Dry Utilities. The Applicant/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 Grading/
Sitework
Permit
Issuance
104.Dry 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 Grading/
Sitework
Permit
Issuance
105.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. Landscape drawings
shall be submitted to the City showing the location
of all utility vaults, boxes, and structures and
adjacent landscape features and plantings. The
Joint Trench Plans shall be submitted along with
the grading and/or improvement plans.
PW Certificate of
Occupancy
PUBLIC WORKS –STREET IMPROVEMENTS
106.Public Improvements. The public improvements
shall be constructed generally as shown on the Site
Development Review Permit. However, the
approval of the Site Development Review is not an
approval of the specific design of the drainage,
traffic circulation, parking, stormwater treatment,
sidewalks and street improvements.
PW Grading/
Sitework
Permit
Issuance
56
Attachment 3
Page 27 of 43
107.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 Grading/
Sitework
Permit
Issuance
108.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 the
placement of traffic control devices, including
pavement markings. All turn lane stripes, stop bars
and crosswalks shall be delineated with concrete
bands or colored pavers to the satisfaction of the
City Engineer. Maintenance costs of the decorative
paving shall be the responsibility of the
Applicant/Developer or future property owner.
PW Grading/
Sitework
Permit
Issuance
109.Curb, Gutter and Sidewalk. The
Applicant/Developer shall remove and replace
damaged, hazardous, or nonstandard curb, gutter
and sidewalk along the project frontage. Contact
the Public Works Department to mark the existing
curb, gutter and sidewalk that will need to be
removed and replaced. Sidewalks shall be
minimum five-foot-wide, ADA-compliant, unless
existing is higher, otherwise maintain current
sidewalk width.
PW Grading/
Sitework
Permit
Issuance
Curb Ramps. City standard curb ramps are
required at all intersections. All curb ramps shall
include truncated domes, and meet the most
current City and ADA design standards. Show curb
ramp locations on the plans. Please note that all
curb returns on public streets shall have directional
or dual ADA ramps – one for each crosswalk and
oriented to align parallel with the crosswalk.
PW Grading/
Sitework
Permit
Issuance
110.Traffic Signing and Striping. The
Applicant/Developer shall install all traffic signage,
striping, and pavement markings as required by the
City Engineer. Signing plans shall show street
name and stop signs and any other regulatory
signage appropriate for the project. Striping plans
shall show stop bars, lane lines and channelization
as necessary. Striping plans shall distinguish
between existing striping to be removed and new
PW Grading/
Sitework
Permit
Issuance
57
Attachment 3
Page 28 of 43
striping to be installed. All striping shall be
thermoplastic.
111.Street Restoration. A pavement treatment, such
as slurry seal or grind and overlay, will be required
within the public streets fronting the site as
determined by the Public Works Department. The
type and limits of the pavement treatment shall be
determined by the City Engineer based upon the
number and proximity of trench cuts, extent of
frontage and median improvements, extent of
pavement striping and restriping, excessive wear
and tear/damage due to construction traffic, etc.
PW Grading/
Sitework
Permit or
Encroachment
Permit
Issuance
112.Street Lighting. Street light standards and
luminaries shall be designed and installed or
relocated as determined by the City Engineer.
PW Grading/
Sitework
Permit
Issuance
113.Public Improvements. The public improvements
shall be constructed generally as shown on the Site
Development Review. However, the approval of the
Site Development Review is not an approval of the
specific design of the drainage, traffic circulation,
parking, stormwater treatment, sidewalks and
street improvements.
PW Grading/
Sitework
Permit
Issuance
PUBLIC WORKS –CONSTRUCTION
114.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 Applicant/Developer will be responsible for
maintaining erosion and sediment control
measures for one year following the City’s
acceptance of the improvements.
PW Start of
Construction
and On-going
115.Archaeological Finds. If archaeological materials
are encountered during construction, construction
within 100 ft of these materials shall be halted until
a professional Archaeologist certified by the
Society of Calif. 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 Start of
Construction
and On-going
116.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
PW Start of
Construction
and On-going
58
Attachment 3
Page 29 of 43
Saturday work will be considered by the City
Engineer on a case-by-case basis. Note that the
construction hours of operation within the public
right-of-way are more restrictive.
117.Temporary Fencing. Temporary construction
fencing shall be installed along the construction
work perimeter to separate the construction area
from the public. All construction activities shall be
confined within the fenced area. Construction
materials and/or equipment shall not be
operated/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
118.Construction Noise Management Plan.The
Applicant/Developer shall prepare a construction
noise management plan that identifies measures 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
Implementatio
n, and On-
going
119.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
120.Construction Traffic Interface Plan. The
Applicant/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;
Implementatio
n, and On-
going
121.Pest Control. The Applicant/Developer shall be
responsible for controlling any rodent, mosquito, or
other pest problem due to construction activities.
PW On-going
122.Lighting Inspection. Prior to occupancy, the
Applicant/Developer shall request an inspection of
the lighting levels throughout the site to determine
if lighting is sufficient. If additional lights are
required to be installed to meet the 1.0 foot-candle
requirement, or for other safety or operational
reasons, the Applicant/Developer shall do so prior
to occupancy.
PW Certificate of
Occupancy
59
Attachment 3
Page 30 of 43
123.Construction Traffic and Parking. All
construction-related parking shall be off-street in an
area provided by the Applicant/Developer.
Construction traffic and parking shall be provided in
a manner approved by the City Engineer.
PW Start of
Construction
and On-going
124.Dust Control/Street Sweeping. The
Applicant/Developer shall provide adequate dust
control measures at all times during the grading and
hauling operations. All trucks hauling export and
import materials shall be provided with tarp cover at
all times. Spillage of haul materials and mud-
tracking on the haul routes shall be prevented at all
times. The Applicant/Developer shall be
responsible for sweeping of streets within,
surrounding and adjacent to the project if it is
determined that the tracking or accumulation of
material on the streets is due to its construction
activities.
PW Start of
Construction
and On-going
60
Attachment 3
Page 31 of 43
PUBLIC WORKS –EROSION CONTROL AND STORMWATER QUALITY
125.Stormwater Treatment. Consistent with Provision
C.3 of the Municipal Regional Stormwater NPDES
Permit (MRP) Order No. R2-2015-0049, the
Applicant/Developer shall submit documentation
including construction drawings demonstrating all
stormwater treatment measures and
hydromodification requirements as applicable are
met.
PW Grading/
Sitework
Permit
Issuance
126.Stormwater Requirements Checklist.The
Applicant/Developer shall submit a “Stormwater
Requirements Checklist for Development Projects
(Major Projects)” and accompanying required
documentation. The form can be downloaded from
the following webpage, under Stormwater Design
Submittal Forms; the applicable checklist should be
filled out according to the project scope:
http://dublin.ca.gov/1656/Development-Permits---
Stormwater-Require
PW Grading/
Sitework
Permit
Issuance
127.Stormwater Source Control.All applicable
structural and operational stormwater source
controls shall be implemented.
PW Grading/
Sitework
Permit
Issuance
128.Maintenance Access. The Applicant/Developer
shall design and construct maintenance access to
all stormwater management measures and
mitigation swales, as appropriate. Maintenance
access for equipment and personnel to overflow
risers, cleanouts and other structures is required.
The final number, location, width, and surfacing of
maintenance access points from public or private
streets is subject to the approval of the City
Engineer and GHAD Engineer, as applicable.
PW Grading/
Sitework
Permit
Issuance
129.Green Stormwater Infrastructure. The Applicant/
Developer shall incorporate Green Infrastructure
facilities within the public rights-of-way of newly
constructed or widened streets, subject to the
review of the Public Works Department. Green
Stormwater Infrastructure facilities include, but are
not limited to: infiltration basins, bioretention
facilities, pervious pavements, etc.
PW Grading/
Sitework
Permit or
Encroachment
Permit
Issuance
130.NOI and SWPPP. Prior to any clearing or grading,
Applicant/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. A copy of the
PW Start of Any
Construction
Activities
61
Attachment 3
Page 32 of 43
Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP)
shall be provided to the Public Works Department
and be kept at the construction site.
131.SWPPP. The Storm Water Pollution Prevention
Plan (SWPPP) shall identify the Best Management
Practices (BMPs) appropriate to the project
construction activities. The SWPPP shall include
the erosion and sediment control measures in
accordance with the regulations outlined in the
most current version of the Association of Bay Area
Governments (ABAG) Erosion and Sediment
Control Handbook or State Construction Best
Management Practices Handbook. The
Applicant/Developer is responsible for ensuring
that all contractors implement all storm water
pollution prevention measures in the SWPPP.
PW SWPPP to be
Prepared Prior
to Grading
Permit
Issuance;
Implementatio
n Prior to Start
of
Construction
and On-going
as needed
132.Stormwater Management Plan (SWMP). The
preliminary SWMP submitted for Site Development
Review has been reviewed in concept. A final
Stormwater Management Plan shall be submitted
for review and approval by the City Engineer.
Approval is subject to the Applicant/Developer
providing the necessary plans, details, and
calculations that demonstrate the plan complies
with the standards issued by the San Francisco Bay
Regional Water Quality Control Board and
Alameda Countywide Clean Water Program.
Landscape Based Stormwater Management
Measures shall be irrigated and meet WELO
requirements.
PW Grading/
Sitework
Permit
Issuance
133.Trash Capture. The project must include
appropriate full trash capture devices for both
private and public improvements. Specific details
on the trash capture devices selected are required
on the construction plan set demonstrating how
MRP Provision C.10 (trash capture) requirements
are met. A list of approved full trash capture
devices may be found at the City’s website at the
following link: insert here. Please note that lead
time for trash capture device delivery can be
substantial. The Applicant/Contractor shall plan
accordingly.
PW Grading/
Sitework
Permit
Issuance
134.Phased Construction and Stormwater
Management Measures. Required stormwater
treatment and trash capture devices shall be
installed concurrent with construction of the phased
PW Grading/
Sitework
Permit
Issuance
62
Attachment 3
Page 33 of 43
improvements. Temporary facilities are not
permitted.
135.Structures Located within Stormwater
Facilities. Structures such as light poles placed
inside bio-retention areas, shall have deepened
foundations. Note that the foundation located within
the bio-retention area will reduce the effective bio-
retention treatment area size.
PW Grading/
Sitework
Permit
Issuance
136.ReScape Rated Landscape Design. All publicly
owned landscape (e.g., parks, right of way, etc.)
shall be designed and rated to meet ReScape
Landscape standards. The Applicant/Developer is
encouraged to design all other landscape areas
according to Bay Friendly Landscape standards.
PW Grading/
Sitework
Permit
Issuance
137.Plants in Bio-retention Areas.Plants within bio-
retention areas shall be irrigated and selected from
the pre-approved plant list provided in the Alameda
County Clean Water Program C.3 Technical
Guidance.
PW Grading/
Sitework
Permit
Issuance
138.Clean Bay Blueprint.The Applicant/Developer
shall add the “Clean Bay Blueprint” to the building
plans which can be found on the City website at the
link below under Construction Stormwater Best
Management Practices (BMPs):
http://dublin.ca.gov/1656/Development-Permits---
Stormwater-Require
PW Grading/
Sitework
Permit
Issuance
139.Waste Enclosure. The waste enclosure shall meet
all of the requirements set forth within the DMC
Section 7.98, including but not limited to providing
sewer and water hook-ups as applicable. The
improvement plans and/or building permit plans
shall show additional information demonstrating
these requirements are met. A standard plan for the
waste enclosure can be downloaded at
https://dublin.ca.gov/341/Standard-Plans in the
“Stormwater Measures” section. A pedestrian
accessible path of travel shall be provided for
employees from the building to the waste enclosure
in conformance with current accessibility
requirements.
PW Grading/
Sitework
Permit
Issuance
140.Garbage Truck Access. The Applicant/Developer
shall provide plans and details on anticipated
garbage truck access and routes, in addition to
example set-out diagrams for waste carts/bins
placement on garbage day demonstrating
PW Grading/
Sitework
Permit
Issuance
63
Attachment 3
Page 34 of 43
adequate space available for carts/bins. Carts and
bins shall not block street or driveway access.
141.SB 1383 Compliance. To comply with SB 1383
procurement requirements, all mulch and compost
used in stormwater management measures and
general landscape areas shall meet SB 1383
procurement requirements. Specifically, compost
must be produced at a permitted composting
facility; digestate, biosolids, manure and mulch do
not qualify as compost. Eligible mulch must be
derived from organic materials and be produced at
a permitted transfer station, landfill, or composting
facility. Examples of allowed compost include arbor
mulch and composted mulch.
PW Grading/
Sitework
Permit
Issuance
64
Attachment 3
Page 35 of 43
PUBLIC WORKS –ONSITE IMPROVEMENTS
142.Surface Slopes. Pavement surface slopes in
parking lots and drive aisles shall be a minimum of
0.5 percent and a maximum of five percent (unless
otherwise required at parking spaces for the
disabled and at ramps at the parking structure and
loading dock). Exceptions may be considered by
the City Engineer to account for unusual design
conditions.
PW Grading/
Sitework
Permit
Issuance
143.Drive Aisle Width. The parking lot aisles shall be
a minimum of 24 feet wide to allow for adequate
onsite vehicle circulation for cars, trucks, and
emergency vehicles.
PW Grading/
Sitework
Permit
Issuance
144.Vehicle Parking. All on-site vehicle parking
spaces shall conform to the following:
a. All parking spaces shall be double striped using
four-inch white lines set two feet apart in
accordance with City Standards and DMC
8.76.070.A.17.
b. Standard Parking Stalls shall be nine feet by 20
feet. Compact stalls shall be eight feet be 17
feet and striped as “COMPACT” OR “C”. The
size of the stencil for the letter “C” or
“COMPACT” shall be eight-inch-tall and five-
inch-wide letters.
c. Twelve-inch-wide concrete step-out curbs shall
be constructed at each parking space where
one or both sides abut a landscaped area or
planter.
d. Where wheel stops are shown, individual six-
foot-long wheel stops shall be provided within
each parking space in accordance with City
Standards.
e. A minimum 20-foot radius shall be provided at
curb returns and curb intersections where
applicable.
f. Parking stalls next to walls, fences and
obstructions to vehicle door opening shall be an
additional four feet in width per DMC
8.76.070.A.16.
g. Landscaped strips adjacent to parking stalls
shall be unobstructed in order to allow for a
minimum two-foot vehicular overhang at front of
vehicles.
PW Grading/
Sitework
Permit
Issuance
145.Onsite Signing and Striping Plan. A Traffic
Signing and Striping Plan showing all proposed
PW Grading
Permit or
65
Attachment 3
Page 36 of 43
signing and striping within on-site parking lots and
drive aisles, shall be submitted for review and
approval by the City Engineer.
Encroachment
Permit
Issuance
146.Project Signs. All proposed project monument
signs shall be placed on private property. Signs
should be located outside of any easement areas
unless specifically approved by the City Engineer.
Any signage allowed to be located in an easement
is subject to removal and replacement at the
expense of the Developer/property owner if
required by the easement holder.
PW Grading/
Sitework
Permit
Issuance
147.Solid Waste Requirements.The project must
comply with all requirements in DMC Chapter 7.98,
including the following requirements:
Install trash, recycling and organics collection
containers in parks and community
congregation areas.
Install pet waste disposal stations within parks
and along pedestrian trails.
Construct solid waste enclosures at parks and
community congregation areas. A solid waste
enclosure checklist is required to accompany
the submission of enclosure drawings.
Install trash, recycling and organics collection
containers along public and private sidewalks.
PW
Grading/
Sitework
Permit
Issuance
148.Waste Enclosure. The waste enclosure shall meet
all of the requirements set forth within the DMC
Section 7.98, including but not limited to providing
sewer and water hook-ups as applicable. The
improvement plans and/or building permit plans
shall show additional information demonstrating
these requirements are met. A standard plan for the
waste enclosure can be downloaded at
https://dublin.ca.gov/341/Standard-Plans in the
“Stormwater Measures” section. A pedestrian
accessible path of travel shall be provided for
employees from the building to the waste enclosure
in conformance with current accessibility
requirements.
PW
Grading/
Sitework
Permit
Issuance
149.Garbage Truck Access. The Applicant/Developer
shall provide plans and details on anticipated
garbage truck access and routes, in addition to
example set-out diagrams for waste carts/bins
placement on garbage day demonstrating
adequate space available for carts/bins. Carts and
bins shall not block street or driveway access.
PW
Grading/
Sitework
Permit
Issuance
66
Attachment 3
Page 37 of 43
150.Public Litter Cans and Cigarette Butt
Receptacles. Public litter cans are required on site
to meet DMC 7.98.120. Cigarette butt receptacles
and appropriate signage are required to be placed
on-site for public and employee use.
PW Grading/
Sitework
Permit
Issuance
151.Visibility Triangle. All improvements within the
sight visibility triangle at all intersections, including
but not limited to walls and landscaping, shall be a
maximum height of 30 inches from the roadway
surface elevation at the nearest lane.
PW Grading/
Sitework
Permit
Issuance
152.Bicycle Parking. The Applicant/Developer shall
install long term (bike lockers) and short term (bike
racks) bicycle parking. Provide permanently
anchored bicycle racks within 200 feet of the
visitors’ entrance, readily visible to passers-by, for
five percent of new visitor motorized vehicle parking
spaces being added, with a minimum of one two-
bike capacity rack. Bicycle racks shall generate two
points of contact on the frame of the bicycle.
Provide secure long term bicycle parking for five
percent of the vehicular parking spaces with a
minimum of one bicycle parking facility. Locations
of the bicycle parking shall be subject to the review
and approval of the City Engineer.
PW Grading/
Sitework
Permit
Issuance
153.Circulation. Signage (e.g., Do Not Enter, No Left-
Turn, etc.) shall be provided near the drop-off island
indicating that the drop-off zone area is one-way
travel. These warning signs would be for vehicles
travelling south in the drive aisle.
PW Grading/
Sitework
Permit
Issuance
PUBLIC WORKS -SPECIAL CONDITIONS
154.Sidewalk Easement.A sidewalk easement shall
be dedicated to the City by separate instrument for
the proposed crosswalk created by the dual ramp
crossing the project’s main entrance.
Applicant/Developer, at their own expense, shall
provide the plat map and legal description of the
proposed easement for the City’s review and
approval.
PW Grading/
Sitework
Permit
Issuance
155.Traffic Signal Easement. A traffic signal easement
shall be dedicated to the City by separate
instrument for the installation of traffic loops and
traffic signal facilities. The Applicant/Developer, at
their own expense, shall provide the plat map and
legal description of the proposed easement for the
City’s review and approval.
PW Grading/
Sitework
Permit
Issuance
67
Attachment 3
Page 38 of 43
156.Curb Ramps.An ADA compliant dual curb ramp
shall be provided at the north leg of the Arnold Road
and Horizon Parkway intersection crossing the
property’s main entrance. Existing curb ramps shall
be removed and replaced to meet ADA standards
at the shared driveway to the south.
PW Grading/
Sitework
Permit
Issuance
157.Existing Driveway Approach.The Applicant/
Developer shall remove the existing driveway
approach north of Horizon Parkway and replaced
with the City Standard curb, gutter and sidewalk.
PW Grading/
Sitework
Permit
Issuance
158.Private Easements. The property owner shall be
required to abide by and dedicate easements within
the property that will facilitate reciprocal access of
adjacent parcels and other rights consistent with
the recorded Access Easement Agreement,
Reciprocal Agreements, Declaration of Covenants
and Grant of Easements for Hites Plaza and to
quitclaim easements that will be abandoned.
Recorded easements shall be amended and
restated to accommodate the changes that result
from this development.
PW Grading/
Sitework
Permit
Issuance
159.On-site Lighting Standards. Parking lot light
poles/foundation shall be placed in-line with the
parking stall stripe or 2’ clear from the face of a curb
to allow cars to overhang over the curb or install
wheel stops to prevent vehicles from hitting the light
poles. Be advised that installing wheel stops will
shorten the length of the parking stall and
consequently converting a standard stall to a
compact stall.
PW Grading/
Sitework
Permit
Issuance
160.Transportation Analysis. Comply with the
findings and recommendations of the traffic
operational analysis.
PW Grading/
Sitework
Permit
Issuance
161.Intersection Improvements. The
Applicant/Developer shall provide the following
intersection modifications at Arnold Rd/Horizon
Pkwy, including but not limited to:
a. Traffic signal modifications: relocation of signal
equipment at the northeast and southeast
corners, as well as new equipment for the
proposed driveway
b. Lane geometry, including lane widths, as
shown in the project plans dated January 2022
by Kier & Wright.
PW Grading/
Sitework
Permit
Issuance
68
Attachment 3
Page 39 of 43
c. Two new ADA compliant curb ramps for each of
the northeast and southeast corners.
162.Vehicle Turning Templates. The
Applicant/Developer shall design the intersection of
Arnold Road/Horizon Parkway to accommodate
simultaneous turns with an SU-40 vehicle and a
passenger vehicle on the eastbound and
westbound approaches.
PW Grading/
Sitework
Permit
Issuance
DUBLIN SAN RAMON SERVICES DISTRICT
163.The regulations that apply to development projects
are codified in the Dublin San Ramon Services
District (DSRSD) Code; the DSRSD “Standard
Procedures, Specifications and Drawings for
Design and Installation of Water and Wastewater
Facilities” as amended from time to time; all
applicable DSRSD Master Plans and all DSRSD
policies. Prior to issuance of any building permit,
complete improvement plans shall be submitted to
DSRSD that conform to the pertinent documents.
DSRSD Building
Permit
Issuance
164.Planning and review fees, inspection fees, and fees
associated with a wastewater discharge permit
shall be paid to DSRSD in accordance with the
rates and schedules and at time of payment as
established in the DSRSD Code. Planning and
review fees are due after the 1st submittal of plans.
Construction Permit and Inspection Fees are due
prior to the issuance of a Construction Permit.
Capacity Reserve Fees are due before the water
meter can be set or the connection to the sewer
system.
DSRSD Permit
Submittal and
Construction
Permit
Issuance
165.Prior to issuance of any building permit by the City;
or any Building Permit or Construction Permit by the
Dublin San Ramon Services District, all
improvement plans for DSRSD facilities shall be
signed by the District Engineer. Each drawing of
improvement plans for DSRSD facilities shall
contain a signature block for the District Engineer
indicating approval of the sanitary sewer and/or
water facilities shown. Prior to approval by the
District Engineer, the applicant shall pay all
required DSRSD fees, and provide an engineer’s
estimate of construction costs for the sewer and
water systems, a faithful performance 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
DSRSD Building
Permit
Issuance or
Construction
Permit
Issuance
69
Attachment 3
Page 40 of 43
working days for final improvement drawing review
by DSRSD before signature by the District
Engineer.
166.All easement dedications for DSRSD facilities shall
be by separate instrument irrevocably offered to
DSRSD or by offer of dedication on the Final Map.
Prior to approval by the City for Recordation, the
Final Map shall be submitted to and approved by
DSRSD for easement locations, widths, and
restrictions.
DSRSD Building
Permit
Issuance or
Construction
Permit
Issuance
167.The Applicant/Developer will be required to enter
into a Planning Services Agreement with DSRSD to
conduct a Water and Sewer Services Analysis to
adequately size the water and sewer facilities for
the project.
DSRSD Building
Permit
Issuance or
Construction
Permit
Issuance
168.Planned District major infrastructure is planned
through this project area to provide sufficient
service for this project. The location and size of
the District’s anticipated Major Infrastructure are
shown in the District’s Master Plans. To provide
timely service and minimize construction conflicts,
the Applicant/Developer shall enter into an Area
Wide Facility Agreement (AWFA) with the District
for the installation of the major infrastructure
through the project.
DSRSD Building
Permit
Issuance or
Construction
Permit
Issuance
169.Where the narrow width of a proposed alley or cul-
de-sac is so restrictive that the standard separation
requirements for water mains and sewer mains
cannot be maintained, the water and sewer mains
shall be installed within main thoroughfares,
outside of alleyways or cul-de-sacs. Water and
sewer mains may not be installed within courtyards.
Water meters shall be installed around the outer
perimeter of buildings. Installation of water lines
from the meter to each unit shall be documented
and submitted to the District.
DSRSD Building
Permit
Issuance or
Construction
Permit
Issuance
170.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 Approval of
Improvement
Plans
171.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
DSRSD Grading
Permit
Issuance
70
Attachment 3
Page 41 of 43
sewer lines shall be submitted to and approved by
DSRSD.
172.Water and sewer mains shall be located in public
streets rather than in off-street locations to the
fullest extent possible. If unavoidable, then sewer
or water easements must be established over the
alignment of each sewer or water main in an off-
street or private street location to provide access for
future maintenance and/or replacement.
DSRSD Approval of
Improvement
Plans
173.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 Approval of
Improvement
Plans
174.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 30 year operations and
maintenance costs as well as other conditions
within a separate agreement with the
Applicant/Developer for any project that requires a
pumping station.
DSRSD Approval of
Improvement
Plans
175.The District employs Advanced Metering
Infrastructure (AMI), a fixed water meter reading
system. The system uses radio communication
between the individual water meter boxes or vaults
and Tower Gateway Base Stations (TGBs) to
transmit data on water consumption and meter
readings. Due to the high density and tall profile of
the buildings in this project, the buildings
themselves may hinder effective communication
between the individual meter boxes and the TGBs.
Applicant shall fund an AMI Propagation Study
provided by the District to determine if
supplementary AMI communication equipment is
required. If findings show that additional
communication equipment is required, the
Applicant/Developer shall be responsible for
providing site and installation off supplementary
DSRSD Building
Permit
Issuance or
Construction
Permit
Issuance
71
Attachment 3
Page 42 of 43
- END –
equipment specific to the District’s AMI system, as
approved by both the City of Dublin and the District.
176.This project will be analyzed by DSRSD to
determine if it represents additional water and/or
sewer capacity demands on the District. The
Applicant/Developer will be required to pay all
incremental capacity reserve fees for water and
sewer services as required by the project demands.
All capacity reserve fees must be paid prior to
installation of a water meter for water. If a water
meter is not required, the capacity reserve fee shall
be paid prior to issuance of a building permit. The
District may not approve the building permit until
capacity reserve fees are paid.
DSRSD Building
Permit
Issuance or
Construction
Permit
Issuance
177.
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
Condition No. 165 have been satisfied.
DSRSD Building
Permit
Issuance or
Construction
Permit
Issuance
178.Above ground backflow prevention devices/double
detector check valves shall be installed on fire
protection systems connected to the DSRSD water
main. The Applicant/Developer shall collaborate
with the Fire Department and with DSRSD to size
and configure its fire system.
DSRSD Approval of
Improvement
Plans
179.Any proposed irrigation for this project shall be
designed for and connected to potable water.
Unless explicitly stated otherwise by DSRSD,
recycled water irrigation is unavailable for use for
this project per DERWA recycled water moratorium
Resolution No. 19-3 dated 3/24/2019.
DSRSD Approval of
Improvement
Plans
180.Development plans will not be approved until
landscape plans are submitted and approved.
DSRSD Approval of
Improvement
Plans
181.Improvement plans shall include recycled water
improvements as required by DSRSD. Services for
landscape irrigation shall connect to recycled water
mains. The Applicant/Developer must obtain a copy
of the DSRSD Recycled Water Use Guidelines and
conform to the requirements therein. Availability of
Recycled Water to be determined by District.
DSRSD Approval of
Improvement
Plans
72
Attachment 3
Page 43 of 43
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this day of , 2022 by the following
vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
______________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
______________________________
City Clerk
73
PROJECT
LOCATION
RESIDENTIAL
DEVELOPMENT
RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENTCOMMERCIAL
DEVELOPMENT
COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENTCOMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENTCOMMERCIAL
DEVELOPMENT
Plot Date:ISSUE DATE:
4514 COLE AVENUE
SUITE 1500
DALLAS, TX 75205
VOLUME I OF I
ISSUED FOR:
CITY OF DUBLIN, CA - PLANNING RESUBMITTAL
301 BATTERY STREET
7TH FLOOR
SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94111
415.227.0100
smithgroup.com
3/25/2022 4:24:23 PMDUBLIN SENIOR LIVING
South Bay Partners
Dublin Senior Living
03/25/2022
SOUTH BAY PARTNERS, LLC
13098
SCALE:NOT TO SCALE
VICINITY MAP
74
20959 SF
BUILDING III
27560 SF
BUILDING II
27785 SF
BUILDING I
R-2.1
R-2.1
2 HR FW
2 HR FW 2 HR FW
2 HR FW 2 HR FW2 HR FW2 HR FW2 HR FW
2 HR FW2 HR FWSTAIR
STAIR
STAIR
STAIR
30378 SF
BUILDING I
20835 SF
BUILDING III
27563 SF
BUILDING II
NONSEPERATED
A-3,R-2.1
2 HR FW
2 HR FW 2 HR FW
2 HR FW 2 HR FW2 HR FW2 HR FW2 HR FW
2 HR FW2 HR FWSTAIR
STAIR
STAIR
STAIR
ALLOWABLE AREA CALCULATIONS
[REFER TO AREA EQUATIONS ON THIS SHEET FOR EQUATIONS USED]
OCCUPANCY TYPE:
TABULAR ALLOWABLE AREA (At):
TABULAR ALLOWABLE AREA (NS):
AREA INCREASE FACTOR (If):
ALLOWABLE AREA PER STORY (Aa):
A-2/A-3
34,500 SF
11,500 SF
0.75
43,125 SF
R-2.1
31,500 SF
10,500 SF
0.75
39,375 SF
ALLOWABLE BUILDING HEIGHT:
ACTUAL BUILDING HEIGHT:
ALLOWABLE NUMBER OF STORIES:
ACTUAL NUMBER OF STORIES:
50 FEET
29.5 FEET
2
2
50 FEET
28 FEET
3*
2
*Nonambulatory persons shall be limited to the first 2 stories
BLDG I:
SEPERATED OCCUPANCY CALCULATION
LEVEL 1 LEVEL 2
17,684
43,125
[A-3]
+
12,850
39,375
=
AREA EQUATIONS
(EQUATION 5-3)
Aa = [At + (Ns * If)]
MIXED-OCCUPANCY MULTISTORY BUILDING
Aa =
At =
NS =
IF =
ALLOWABLE AREA (SQUARE FEET)
TABULAR ALLOWABLE AREA FACTOR (NS, S1, OR S13R
VALUE, AS APPLICABLE)
TABULAR ALLOWABLE AREA FACTOR FOR
NONSPRINKLERED BUILDING
AREA FACTOR INCREASE DUE TO FRONTAGE (PERCENT)
AS CALCULATED
(EQUATION 5-5)
If = [F / P -0.25] W / 30
If =
F =
P =
W =
AREA FACTOR INCREASE DUE TO FRONTAGE
BUILDING PERIMETER THAT FRONTS ON A PUBLIC WAY OR
OPEN SPACE HAVING MINIMUM DISTANCE OF 20 FEET
PERIMETER OF ENTIRE BUILDING (FEET)
WIDTH OF PUBLIC WAY OR OPEN SPACE (FEET)
AREA MODIFICATIONS:
[R-2.1]
0.74
BLDG II:
390
43,125
[A-3]
+
27,173
39,375
=
[R-2.1]
0.70
BLDG III:
1,038
43,125
[A-3]
+
19,797
39,375
=
[R-2.1]
0.52
2,227
43,125
[A-3]
+
23,536
39,375
=
[R-2.1]
0.65
27560
39,375
=
[R-2.1]
0.69
20,959
39,375
=
[R-2.1]
0.53
SEPERATED OCCUPANCY CALCULATION (PER STORY):
[PER CBC SECTION 508.4.2]
ACTUAL AREA
OF OCCUPANCY
ALLOWABLE AREA
OF OCCUPANCY
≤1
ACTUAL AREA
OF OCCUPANCY
ALLOWABLE AREA
OF OCCUPANCY
++......
0.75 = [1877.3' / 1877.3' -0.25] 30 / 30
SHEET NUMBER
PROJECT NUMBER
SHEET TITLE
SEALS AND SIGNATURES
ISSUED FOR REV DATE
301 BATTERY STREET
7TH FLOOR
SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94111
415.227.0100
smithgroup.com
KIER + WRIGHT
CIVIL ENGINEERING
2850 Collier Canyon Road
Livermore, California 94551
(925) 245-8788
N
OT FO
R
C
O
NSTRUCTIO
N
Plot Date:DUBLIN SENIOR LIVING
5751 Arnold Road
Dublin, California, 94568
3/25/2022 4:37:25 PMPROJECT INFORMATION
A0.0Author13098
NET FLOOR AREA
NAME AREA
AL
LEVEL 1
BOH 197 SF
CIRCULATION 10,689 SF
COMMON SPACE 13,626 SF
STAFF 1,330 SF
UNIT 23,885 SF
49,728 SF
LEVEL 2
BOH 273 SF
CIRCULATION 1,305 SF
COMMON SPACE 2,970 SF
UNIT 56,125 SF
60,672 SF
MEMORY CARE
LEVEL 1
CIRCULATION 2,854 SF
COMMON SPACE 4,805 SF
STAFF 989 SF
UNIT 13,642 SF
22,290 SF
TOTAL NFA 132,690 SF
GROSS BUILDING AREA
NAME AREA
LEVEL 1
AL
AL CIRC/UTILITY 10,534 SF
AL COMMON AREAS 17,041 SF
AL UNITS 25,609 SF
MC
MC CIRC/UTILITY 4,520 SF
MC COMMON AREAS 6,135 SF
MC UNITS 14,898 SF
78,737 SF
LEVEL 2
AL
AL CIRC/UTILITY 13,241 SF
AL COMMON AREAS 3,152 SF
AL UNITS 60,388 SF
76,780 SF
TOTAL GFA 155,517 SF
ENTITLEMENT SHEET INDEX
GENERAL
G0.0 PROJECT COVER SHEET
ARCHITECTURAL INFORMATION
A0.0 PROJECT INFORMATION
ARCHITECTURAL
A1.0 SITE PLAN
A1.1 PEDESTRIAN CIRCULATION PLAN
A1.2 ARCHITECTURAL AXON
A1.3 3D VIEW
A1.4 3D ENTRY VIEW
A2.1 LEVEL 1 PLAN
A2.2 LEVEL 2 PLAN
A2.3 ROOF PLAN
A4.0 EXTERIOR BUILDING ELEVATIONS
A4.1 AL COURTYARD ELEVATIONS
A4.2 MC COURTYARD ELEVATIONS
A4.3 ENLARGED ELEVATIONS
A4.4 ENLARGED ELEVATIONS
A7.1 ENLARGED PLANS
CIVIL
C1.0 CIVIL COVER SHEET
C2.0 TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY
C3.0 EXISTING EASEMENTS DIAGRAM
C4.0 SITE PLAN
C4.1 PROPOSED EASEMENTS DIAGRAM
C4.2 PRELIMINARY STRIPING PLAN
C5.0 PRELIMINARY GRADING AND DRAINAGE PLAN
C6.0 PRELIMINARY SECTIONS
C7.0 PRELIMINARY UTILITY PLAN
C8.0 PRELIMINARY STORM WATER QUALITY PLAN
C9.0 PRELIMINARY FIRE TRUCK ROUTING PLAN
C10.0 PRELIMINARY REFUSE TRUCK ROUTING PLAN
C11.0 CLEAN BAY BLUE PRINT
LANDSCAPE
L000 TREE REMOVAL AND PROTECTION PLAN
L100 ILLUSTRATIVE PLAN
L101 LANDSCAPE SITE PLAN
L200 SITE MATERIALS AND FURNISHINGS
L300 PLANTING PLAN
L400 PLANTING SCHEDULE
L401 PLANTING IMAGES
L402 PLANTING IMAGES
L403 PLANTING IMAGES
L500 SITE LIGHTING PLAN
L501 PHOTOMETRIC PLAN
SCALE:1" = 30'-0"
BUILDING DIVISION DIAGRAM - LEVEL 2
SCALE:1" = 30'-0"
BUILDING DIVSION DIAGRAM - LEVEL 1
75
503' - 10 5/8"539' - 7 1/8"65' - 0 1/8"474' - 7"AL COURTYARD: 13,086 SF
MC COURTYARD:
6,187 SF
20' - 2 1/4"SERVICE YARD CONCRETE PAD34' - 0"219' - 7 1/4"59' - 11 1/2"161' - 3 7/8"64' - 0"318' - 5"
(N) FH
NEW SITE ENTRY/EXIT TO ALIGN
WITH HORIZON PKWY
EXISTING SITE ENTRY TO BE
ABANDONED AND INFILLED WITH
NEW SIDEWALK AND LANDSCAPE
EXISTING SITE
ENTRY/EXIT
TO REMAINGENERATORTRASH
ENCLOSURE
63' - 0"147' - 8"148' - 7"315' - 1 1/4"
180' - 1 3/8"
MONUMENT SIGN
21' - 8" 8' - 0" 22' - 2 1/2" 24' - 9 1/4"PARKING2 ADA20' - 0"9' - 0"5' - 0"9' - 0"RECRECRECTRTRTRORGORGLANDS OF
TODA AMERICA, INC
PARCEL 1
PARCEL MAP 8520
(282 M 69-73)LANDS OF CREEKSIDE BUSINESS PARK OWNER LLC.LANDS OF
ROSS DRESS FOR LESS INC.
A1.0
2
TYP
COMPACT
(E) 13 PARKING
C C C C C C C C C C C C C
LITTER AND PET WASTE
RECEPTACLES, TYP
20' - 0"4 PARKING14' - 0"3 PARKINGTYP
18' - 0"
TYP
2' - 0"TYP9' - 0"3 PARKING5' - 0"3 PARKING4' - 0"EVA READY4 PARKING5' - 0"EVA READY3 PARKING5' - 0"EVA READY3 PARKING5' - 0"EVA READY4 PARKING5' - 0"EVA READY3 PARKING5' - 0"CLEAN AIR3 PARKING5' - 0"CLEAN AIR4 PARKING4' - 0"(VAN PARKING)2 ADA4' - 0"CLEAN AIR3 PARKING5' - 0"CLEAN AIR4 PARKING5' - 0"5 PARKING5' - 0"4 PARKING25' - 0"25' - 3 3/8"EVA READY2 PARKING4' - 0"EVA READY4 PARKING13' - 0"EVA READY3 PARKING12' - 9"55' - 0"12' - 3"C
SPACES TO BE STRIPED AND MARKED
"NO PARKING" TO ALLOW FOR CARS
TO TURN AROUND IN THIS DRIVE AISLE
C C C C C
(6 COMPACT)
10 PARKING
STANDARD
9' - 0" TYP.
COMPACT
8' - 0" TYP.STANDARD18' - 0" TYP.OVERHANG2' - 0"PEDESTRIAN PATH4' - 0" MIN2' - 8"
4" 2' - 0" 4"COMPACT15' - 0" TYP.OVERHANG2' - 0"STAMPED COLORED CONCRETE
(COLOR AND PATTERN TBD)
STANDARD PAVING
TRASH, RECYCLING, AND ORGANICS PUBLIC
LITTER CONTAINERS
PET WASTE PUBLIC LITTER CONTAINERSPW
0
SHEET NUMBER
PROJECT NUMBER
SHEET TITLE
SEALS AND SIGNATURES
ISSUED FOR REV DATE
301 BATTERY STREET
7TH FLOOR
SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94111
415.227.0100
smithgroup.com
KIER + WRIGHT
CIVIL ENGINEERING
2850 Collier Canyon Road
Livermore, California 94551
(925) 245-8788
N
OT FO
R
C
O
NSTRUCTIO
N
Plot Date:20'40'60'
GRAPHIC SCALE: 1" = 20' -0"
DUBLIN SENIOR LIVING
5751 Arnold Road
Dublin, California, 94568
4/6/2022 3:10:55 PMSITE PLAN
A1.0Author13098
TOTAL PARCEL AREA: 249,898 SF
BUILDING AREA:155,517 SF(FAR: 0.62)
COMMUNITY CARE FACILITY USE TYPE PARKING REQUIREMENT IS 1 PER 3 EMPLOYEES
ON LARGEST SHIFT, PLUS 1 PER 3 BEDS.
AT PEAK TIMES AND FULL OCCUPANCY, THERE WILL BE 42 STAFF ON SITE (14 REQUIRED
STALLS); THE PROPOSED FACILITY HAS 152 TOTAL UNITS INCLUDING 22 TWO-BEDROOM
UNITS FOR A TOTAL OF 174 POSSIBLE BEDS (58 REQUIRED STALLS)
MC COURTYARD: 6,187 SF
AL COURTYARD: 13,099 SF
OPEN SPACE AREA: 152,224 SF
TOTAL OPEN SPACE: 171,497 SF (69%)
EXISTING PARKING:13 (COMPACT)
NEW PARKING:72
NEW ADA PARKING: 4 (2 VAN ACCESSIBLE STALLS)
COMPACT PARKING:19 (13 EXISTING, 6 NEW, 21% OF TOTAL PARKING)
TOTAL PARKING:89 (72 REQUIRED STALLS)
CLEAN AIR PARKING:12 WILL BE PROVIDED
EV READY PARKING:24 WILL BE PROVIDED (27%)
EV CHARGER PARKING:3 WILL BE PROVIDED (3%)
SHORT TERM BIKE:5 RACKS TO BE LOCATED NEAR BUILDING ENTRANCES (5%)
LONG TERM BIKE:5 LOCKERS TO BE LOCATED NEAR BUILDING ENTRANCES (5%)
TRUE NORTH
SCALE:1/4" = 1'-0"2 TYPICAL PARKING STRIPING DETAIL
SCALE:1/8" = 1'-0"
SITE PLAN LEGEND
76
6' - 0"6' - 0"5' - 2 1/2"10' - 0"
8' - 3"
6' - 0"6' - 0"6' - 0"6' - 0"6' - 0"6' - 0"6' - 0"6' - 0"6'
-
0"7' - 6"6' - 0"8' - 0 3/4"9' - 2 1/4"
8' - 0"9' - 0"6' - 1 1/4"
8' - 1 3/4"
ACCESSIBLE PATH OF TRAVEL
4'-0" MIN0
SHEET NUMBER
PROJECT NUMBER
SHEET TITLE
SEALS AND SIGNATURES
ISSUED FOR REV DATE
301 BATTERY STREET
7TH FLOOR
SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94111
415.227.0100
smithgroup.com
KIER + WRIGHT
CIVIL ENGINEERING
2850 Collier Canyon Road
Livermore, California 94551
(925) 245-8788
N
OT FO
R
C
O
NSTRUCTIO
N
Plot Date:30'60'90'
GRAPHIC SCALE: 1" = 30' -0"
DUBLIN SENIOR LIVING
5751 Arnold Road
Dublin, California, 94568
3/25/2022 4:57:28 PMPEDESTRIAN
CIRCULATION PLAN
A1.1Author13098
TRUE NORTH
77
SHEET NUMBER
PROJECT NUMBER
SHEET TITLE
SEALS AND SIGNATURES
ISSUED FOR REV DATE
301 BATTERY STREET
7TH FLOOR
SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94111
415.227.0100
smithgroup.com
KIER + WRIGHT
CIVIL ENGINEERING
2850 Collier Canyon Road
Livermore, California 94551
(925) 245-8788
N
OT FO
R
C
O
NSTRUCTIO
N
Plot Date:DUBLIN SENIOR LIVING
5751 Arnold Road
Dublin, California, 94568
3/25/2022 4:22:30 PMARCHITECTURAL AXON
A1.2Author13098
SCALE:1 SOUTHWEST AXON 1
SCALE:2 NORTHWEST AXON 1
SCALE:3 SOUTHEAST AXON 1
78
SHEET NUMBER
PROJECT NUMBER
SHEET TITLE
SEALS AND SIGNATURES
ISSUED FOR REV DATE
301 BATTERY STREET
7TH FLOOR
SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94111
415.227.0100
smithgroup.com
KIER + WRIGHT
CIVIL ENGINEERING
2850 Collier Canyon Road
Livermore, California 94551
(925) 245-8788
N
OT FO
R
C
O
NSTRUCTIO
N
Plot Date:DUBLIN SENIOR LIVING
5751 Arnold Road
Dublin, California, 94568
3/25/2022 4:22:31 PM3D VIEW
A1.3Author13098
ENERGINEERED PANELS CULTURED STONE
MAIN SITE ENTRY AT ARNOLD ROAD AND HORIZON PARKWAY INTERSECTION
79
SHEET NUMBER
PROJECT NUMBER
SHEET TITLE
SEALS AND SIGNATURES
ISSUED FOR REV DATE
301 BATTERY STREET
7TH FLOOR
SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94111
415.227.0100
smithgroup.com
KIER + WRIGHT
CIVIL ENGINEERING
2850 Collier Canyon Road
Livermore, California 94551
(925) 245-8788
N
OT FO
R
C
O
NSTRUCTIO
N
Plot Date:DUBLIN SENIOR LIVING
5751 Arnold Road
Dublin, California, 94568
3/25/2022 4:22:32 PM3D ENTRY VIEW
A1.4Author13098
BUILDING ENTRY AND RESIDENT DROP-OFF AREA
80
AL - 1E
AL - SB
AL - 1E
AL - SB AL - 1EAL - 1E
ELEVATOR
AL - 1E
AL - 2E
GOLF SIM.
AL - 1E AL - 1CdAL - 2F
AL - 2Dd AL - 2D
LIVING
AL - 1E
AL - 1E
LOBBY
AL - SC
AL - 1Cd
AL - 1E
ACTIVITY
AL - 1E
AL - 1E
ADMIN
AL - 1D
STAIR
AL - 1D
AL - SBAL - SB AL - 1E
MAIL
RECEPTION
ELEVATORELEV. MECH
KITCHEN
59' - 11 1/2"85' - 3 1/8"33' - 9" 42' - 3 3/4"
GENERIC
ELEVATOR
STOR.
DISC. CTR.
TLT
PORTE COCHERE ABOVEASSISTED LIVING COURTYARD
MEMORY CARE GARDEN
LOADING AND
RECEIVING
STAFF
26' - 9"6' - 10"115' - 0"EMERGENCY VEHICLE ACCESS
318' - 5"
TLT
OFFICE
COPY
OFFICE
HR OFFICE ELEV. MECH
ACTIVITY
LIVINGLIVING
DININGDINING
OFFICE
STAIR
AL - 2D
LOBBY
STAIR
EMPLOYEE AL - 1D
MCMCMCMCMCMCMCMCMCMCMCMC
MC
MC
MC
MC
MC
MC MC
MC
MC
MC MC
MC
MC
MC MC
MC
MC
MC
MC
MC
MCMCMCMC
AL - 1D
AL - 1A
AL - 1E
MAINTENANCE
STAIR
ACTIVITY
AL - SA+
AL - 2D
ELEV. MECH
OFFICE
RECEIVING
NURSE
MEDSMEDS
NURSE
CORRIDOR
MC JAN.
AL - 1E
AL - 1E
TOILET
DINING POOL
FITNESS
SALON
TOILET
STOR.
MASSAGE
CORRIDOR
CORRIDOR
CAFE
MC-S MC-S
OFFICE TOILET
MAIL PACKAGES
CONV. STORE
SERVERY
SERVERY
46' - 1"30' - 0"44' - 6 1/2"9' - 6"26' - 9"31' - 4"26' - 3"7' - 6"111' - 0"33' - 9"183' - 10"26' - 3"7' - 6"113' - 11"8' - 10"62' - 1 3/4"57' - 6" 28' - 3" 6' - 6" 28' - 3"219' - 7 1/4"62' - 7"20' - 7 1/2"96' - 11"63' - 10"
68' - 6"
A7.1
1
16' - 3 1/4"
A7.1
6
0
SHEET NUMBER
PROJECT NUMBER
SHEET TITLE
SEALS AND SIGNATURES
ISSUED FOR REV DATE
301 BATTERY STREET
7TH FLOOR
SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94111
415.227.0100
smithgroup.com
KIER + WRIGHT
CIVIL ENGINEERING
2850 Collier Canyon Road
Livermore, California 94551
(925) 245-8788
N
OT FO
R
C
O
NSTRUCTIO
N
Plot Date:20'40'60'
GRAPHIC SCALE: 1" = 20' -0"
DUBLIN SENIOR LIVING
5751 Arnold Road
Dublin, California, 94568
3/25/2022 4:22:39 PMLEVEL 1 PLAN
A2.1Author13098
TRUE NORTH
81
AL - 1E
AL - 1D
MEP
MEP
AL - 2B
AL - 1AAL - 1A
AL - 2E
STORAGE
AL - SC
AL - 1E
AL - 2E AL - 1E
AL - SB+
AL - 1Cd
AL - SC
AL - 1E
AL - SC
AL - 1E
AL - 1Cd
AL - 1E
AL - 1A
AL - 1E
AL - 1E
ELEVATOR
ELEVATOR
AL - 1E
88' - 7"158' - 3 7/8"148' - 7"AL - SB+
GAME
ELEVATOR
AL - SB+AL - SB+AL - 1EAL - 1E
AL - 1E
AL - 2Dd AL - 2DAL - 1E AL - 1E
STAIRAL - SB+AL - SB+AL - 1E
AL - 1E AL - 1E
AL - 1CdAL - 2FAL - 1E
AL - 1Cd
26' - 6"PORTE COCHERECOURTYARD BELOW
COURTYARD BELOW
ROOF OVER POOL
AL - 1D
STAIR
AL - 1D
AL - 1E
AL - 2A
AL - 1C
AL - 1C
AL - SB
AL - 1C
AL - 1C AL - 1C
AL - 2B
AL - 2A
AL - 1A
AL - SA
AL - 1B
AL - 1B
AL - SB
STAIR
STAIR
AL - 1A
AL - 1AAL - 2A
AL - 1A
AL - 2A
AL - 2A
AL - SA
AL - 1B
AL - 1B
AL - 1A
AL - 2AAL - 2C
AL - 1A
LAUNDRY
IDF
STORAGEIDF
STORAGE
AL - SA+
AL - 2D
AL - 2D
STORAGE
AL - 1C
AL - 1C
AL - 1CAL - 1C
JANITOR
STORAGE
THEATER
AL - SB AL - SB
CORRIDOR
43' - 0 1/2"26' - 11 7/8"
29' - 5 1/8"26' - 5"SUNROOM
SUNROOM96' - 11"3' - 3" 57' - 4" 3' - 3"
184' - 11 1/2"26' - 3"7' - 6"123' - 2"59' - 0"8' - 10"62' - 1 3/4"63' - 0"219' - 7 1/4"26' - 8 1/2"6' - 6"28' - 3"318' - 5"28' - 3"6' - 10"115' - 0"44' - 2"31' - 11 7/8" 6' - 6" 7' - 0"27' - 9"7' - 6"138' - 11"0
SHEET NUMBER
PROJECT NUMBER
SHEET TITLE
SEALS AND SIGNATURES
ISSUED FOR REV DATE
301 BATTERY STREET
7TH FLOOR
SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94111
415.227.0100
smithgroup.com
KIER + WRIGHT
CIVIL ENGINEERING
2850 Collier Canyon Road
Livermore, California 94551
(925) 245-8788
N
OT FO
R
C
O
NSTRUCTIO
N
Plot Date:20'40'60'
GRAPHIC SCALE: 1" = 20' -0"
DUBLIN SENIOR LIVING
5751 Arnold Road
Dublin, California, 94568
3/25/2022 4:22:46 PMLEVEL 2 PLAN
A2.2Author13098
TRUE NORTH
82
POTENTIAL MECHANICAL UNITS
(NOT VISIBLE ABOVE PARAPET)
POTENTIAL MECHANICAL UNITS
(NOT VISIBLE ABOVE PARAPET)POTENTIAL MECHANICAL UNITS(NOT VISIBLE ABOVE PARAPET)POTENTIAL MECHANICAL UNITS(NOT VISIBLE ABOVE PARAPET)POTENTIAL MECHANICAL UNITS(NOT VISIBLE ABOVE PARAPET)POTENTIAL MECHANICAL UNITS(NOT VISIBLE ABOVE PARAPET)POTENTIAL MECHANICAL UNITS
(NOT VISIBLE ABOVE PARAPET)
0
SHEET NUMBER
PROJECT NUMBER
SHEET TITLE
SEALS AND SIGNATURES
ISSUED FOR REV DATE
301 BATTERY STREET
7TH FLOOR
SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94111
415.227.0100
smithgroup.com
KIER + WRIGHT
CIVIL ENGINEERING
2850 Collier Canyon Road
Livermore, California 94551
(925) 245-8788
N
OT FO
R
C
O
NSTRUCTIO
N
Plot Date:20'40'60'
GRAPHIC SCALE: 1" = 20' -0"
DUBLIN SENIOR LIVING
5751 Arnold Road
Dublin, California, 94568
3/25/2022 4:22:50 PMROOF PLAN
A2.3Author13098
TRUE NORTH
83
LEVEL 1
EL +0' -0"
LEVEL 2
EL +14' -0"
T.O. LOW PARAPET
EL +26' -0"
T.O. HIGH PARAPET
EL +28' -0"
ROOF
EL +25' -0"14' - 0"11' - 0"403403402405404402405404401412409412408
LEVEL 1
EL +0' -0"
LEVEL 2
EL +14' -0"
T.O. LOW PARAPET
EL +26' -0"
T.O. HIGH PARAPET
EL +28' -0"
ROOF
EL +25' -0"
403402403404402403402405 401401406401410409405412
LEVEL 1
EL +0' -0"
LEVEL 2
EL +14' -0"
T.O. LOW PARAPET
EL +26' -0"
T.O. HIGH PARAPET
EL +28' -0"
ROOF
EL +25' -0"
401401402402402402403404404405405404402406406 406403
A4.3
2
A4.3
1
409 412 407413 413
EMERGENCY
GENERATOR
LEVEL 1
EL +0' -0"
LEVEL 2
EL +14' -0"
T.O. LOW PARAPET
EL +26' -0"
T.O. HIGH PARAPET
EL +28' -0"
ROOF
EL +25' -0"
402 404 405 401 403 402 404 401402401406406
A4.4
1
A4.4
2
410 409 413413
EXTERIOR FINISH MATERIAL LEGEND
KEYNOTE NUMBER: 401
TYPE:CULTURED STONE VENEER
MANUFACTURER:
COLOR:
KEYNOTE NUMBER: 403
TYPE:INTEGRAL COLOR STUCCO
FINISH:FINE TEXTURE
MANUFACTURER:
COLOR:WHITE
KEYNOTE NUMBER: 402
TYPE:ENGINEERED WOOD-LOOK PANEL VENEER
MANUFACTURER:
COLOR:
KEYNOTE NUMBER: 404
TYPE:INTEGRAL COLOR STUCCO
FINISH:FINE TEXTURE
MANUFACTURER:
COLOR:GRAY
KEYNOTE NUMBER: 405
TYPE:INTEGRAL COLOR STUCCO
FINISH:FINE TEXTURE
MANUFACTURER:
COLOR:TAUPE
KEYNOTE NUMBER: 406
TYPE:PAINT
MANUFACTURER:
COLOR:TAN
SHEET NUMBER
PROJECT NUMBER
SHEET TITLE
SEALS AND SIGNATURES
ISSUED FOR REV DATE
301 BATTERY STREET
7TH FLOOR
SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94111
415.227.0100
smithgroup.com
KIER + WRIGHT
CIVIL ENGINEERING
2850 Collier Canyon Road
Livermore, California 94551
(925) 245-8788
N
OT FO
R
C
O
NSTRUCTIO
N
Plot Date:DUBLIN SENIOR LIVING
5751 Arnold Road
Dublin, California, 94568
3/25/2022 4:23:16 PMEXTERIOR BUILDING
ELEVATIONS
A4.0Author13098
SCALE:1/16" = 1'-0"1 EAST ELEVATION
SCALE:1/16" = 1'-0"2 SOUTH ELEVATION
SCALE:1/16" = 1'-0"4 NORTH ELEVATION
SCALE:1/16" = 1'-0"3 WEST ELEVATION
401 CULTURED STONE VENEER
402 ENGINEERED WOOD-LOOK PANEL VENEER
403 INTEGRAL COLOR STUCCO 1 - WHITE
404 INTEGRAL COLOR STUCCO 2 - GRAY
405 INTEGRAL COLOR STUCCO 3 - TAUPE
406 PAINTED METAL TRIM
407 PLANTED TRELLIS SCREEN WALL
408 ALUMINUM STOREFRONT
409 ALUMINUM WINDOWS
410 ALUMINUM AWNINGS
412 ALUMINUM REVEAL
413 METAL PANEL SIDING
84
LEVEL 1
EL +0' -0"
LEVEL 2
EL +14' -0"
T.O. LOW PARAPET
EL +26' -0"
ROOF
EL +25' -0"
401403402404 402 403406
401
409408 406
LEVEL 1
EL +0' -0"
LEVEL 2
EL +14' -0"
T.O. LOW PARAPET
EL +26' -0"
ROOF
EL +25' -0"
404 402
DINING AREA
406410409 412
LEVEL 1
EL +0' -0"
LEVEL 2
EL +14' -0"
T.O. LOW PARAPET
EL +26' -0"
ROOF
EL +25' -0"
404402
FITNESS
POOL AREA BEYOND
403 406401401 409412
LEVEL 1
EL +0' -0"
LEVEL 2
EL +14' -0"
T.O. LOW PARAPET
EL +26' -0"
ROOF
EL +25' -0"
403402404406
401
412
409
EXTERIOR FINISH MATERIAL LEGEND
KEYNOTE NUMBER: 401
TYPE:CULTURED STONE VENEER
MANUFACTURER:
COLOR:
KEYNOTE NUMBER: 403
TYPE:INTEGRAL COLOR STUCCO
FINISH:FINE TEXTURE
MANUFACTURER:
COLOR:WHITE
KEYNOTE NUMBER: 402
TYPE:ENGINEERED WOOD-LOOK PANEL VENEER
MANUFACTURER:
COLOR:
KEYNOTE NUMBER: 404
TYPE:INTEGRAL COLOR STUCCO
FINISH:FINE TEXTURE
MANUFACTURER:
COLOR:GRAY
KEYNOTE NUMBER: 405
TYPE:INTEGRAL COLOR STUCCO
FINISH:FINE TEXTURE
MANUFACTURER:
COLOR:TAUPE
KEYNOTE NUMBER: 406
TYPE:PAINT
MANUFACTURER:
COLOR:TAN
SHEET NUMBER
PROJECT NUMBER
SHEET TITLE
SEALS AND SIGNATURES
ISSUED FOR REV DATE
301 BATTERY STREET
7TH FLOOR
SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94111
415.227.0100
smithgroup.com
KIER + WRIGHT
CIVIL ENGINEERING
2850 Collier Canyon Road
Livermore, California 94551
(925) 245-8788
N
OT FO
R
C
O
NSTRUCTIO
N
Plot Date:DUBLIN SENIOR LIVING
5751 Arnold Road
Dublin, California, 94568
3/25/2022 4:23:28 PMAL COURTYARD
ELEVATIONS
A4.1Author13098
SCALE:3/16" = 1'-0"1 AL COURTYARD EAST
SCALE:3/16" = 1'-0"2 AL COURTYARD NORTH
SCALE:3/16" = 1'-0"3 AL COURTYARD SOUTH
SCALE:3/16" = 1'-0"4 AL COURTYARD WEST
401 CULTURED STONE VENEER
402 ENGINEERED WOOD-LOOK PANEL VENEER
403 INTEGRAL COLOR STUCCO 1 - WHITE
404 INTEGRAL COLOR STUCCO 2 - GRAY
406 PAINTED METAL TRIM
408 ALUMINUM STOREFRONT
409 ALUMINUM WINDOWS
410 ALUMINUM AWNINGS
412 ALUMINUM REVEAL
85
LEVEL 1
EL +0' -0"
LEVEL 2
EL +14' -0"
T.O. LOW PARAPET
EL +26' -0"
ROOF
EL +25' -0"
404403402406409412
LEVEL 1
EL +0' -0"
LEVEL 2
EL +14' -0"
T.O. LOW PARAPET
EL +26' -0"
ROOF
EL +25' -0"
404402 406 403409408412
LEVEL 1
EL +0' -0"
LEVEL 2
EL +14' -0"
T.O. LOW PARAPET
EL +26' -0"
ROOF
EL +25' -0"
402 403406 404 412 408409
LEVEL 1
EL +0' -0"
LEVEL 2
EL +14' -0"
T.O. LOW PARAPET
EL +26' -0"
ROOF
EL +25' -0"
404402406403 408408409412
EXTERIOR FINISH MATERIAL LEGEND
KEYNOTE NUMBER: 401
TYPE:CULTURED STONE VENEER
MANUFACTURER:
COLOR:
KEYNOTE NUMBER: 403
TYPE:INTEGRAL COLOR STUCCO
FINISH:FINE TEXTURE
MANUFACTURER:
COLOR:WHITE
KEYNOTE NUMBER: 402
TYPE:ENGINEERED WOOD-LOOK PANEL VENEER
MANUFACTURER:
COLOR:
KEYNOTE NUMBER: 404
TYPE:INTEGRAL COLOR STUCCO
FINISH:FINE TEXTURE
MANUFACTURER:
COLOR:GRAY
KEYNOTE NUMBER: 405
TYPE:INTEGRAL COLOR STUCCO
FINISH:FINE TEXTURE
MANUFACTURER:
COLOR:TAUPE
KEYNOTE NUMBER: 406
TYPE:PAINT
MANUFACTURER:
COLOR:TAN
SHEET NUMBER
PROJECT NUMBER
SHEET TITLE
SEALS AND SIGNATURES
ISSUED FOR REV DATE
301 BATTERY STREET
7TH FLOOR
SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94111
415.227.0100
smithgroup.com
KIER + WRIGHT
CIVIL ENGINEERING
2850 Collier Canyon Road
Livermore, California 94551
(925) 245-8788
N
OT FO
R
C
O
NSTRUCTIO
N
Plot Date:DUBLIN SENIOR LIVING
5751 Arnold Road
Dublin, California, 94568
3/25/2022 4:23:39 PMMC COURTYARD
ELEVATIONS
A4.2Author13098
SCALE:3/16" = 1'-0"1 MC COURTYARD EAST
SCALE:3/16" = 1'-0"2 MC COURTYARD NORTH
SCALE:3/16" = 1'-0"3 MC COURTYARD SOUTH
SCALE:3/16" = 1'-0"4 MC COURTYARD WEST
402 ENGINEERED WOOD-LOOK PANEL VENEER
403 INTEGRAL COLOR STUCCO 1 - WHITE
404 INTEGRAL COLOR STUCCO 2 - GRAY
406 PAINTED METAL TRIM
408 ALUMINUM STOREFRONT
409 ALUMINUM WINDOWS
412 ALUMINUM REVEAL
86
LEVEL 1
EL +0' -0"
LEVEL 2
EL +14' -0"
T.O. LOW PARAPET
EL +26' -0"
T.O. HIGH PARAPET
EL +28' -0"
ROOF
EL +25' -0"
405 406 406 403406 401402410402409408408
LEVEL 1
EL +0' -0"
LEVEL 2
EL +14' -0"
T.O. LOW PARAPET
EL +26' -0"
T.O. HIGH PARAPET
EL +28' -0"
ROOF
EL +25' -0"
406406 401402405 406 401413408409
EXTERIOR FINISH MATERIAL LEGEND
KEYNOTE NUMBER: 401
TYPE:CULTURED STONE VENEER
MANUFACTURER:
COLOR:
KEYNOTE NUMBER: 403
TYPE:INTEGRAL COLOR STUCCO
FINISH:FINE TEXTURE
MANUFACTURER:
COLOR:WHITE
KEYNOTE NUMBER: 402
TYPE:ENGINEERED WOOD-LOOK PANEL VENEER
MANUFACTURER:
COLOR:
KEYNOTE NUMBER: 404
TYPE:INTEGRAL COLOR STUCCO
FINISH:FINE TEXTURE
MANUFACTURER:
COLOR:GRAY
KEYNOTE NUMBER: 405
TYPE:INTEGRAL COLOR STUCCO
FINISH:FINE TEXTURE
MANUFACTURER:
COLOR:TAUPE
KEYNOTE NUMBER: 406
TYPE:PAINT
MANUFACTURER:
COLOR:TAN
SHEET NUMBER
PROJECT NUMBER
SHEET TITLE
SEALS AND SIGNATURES
ISSUED FOR REV DATE
301 BATTERY STREET
7TH FLOOR
SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94111
415.227.0100
smithgroup.com
KIER + WRIGHT
CIVIL ENGINEERING
2850 Collier Canyon Road
Livermore, California 94551
(925) 245-8788
N
OT FO
R
C
O
NSTRUCTIO
N
Plot Date:DUBLIN SENIOR LIVING
5751 Arnold Road
Dublin, California, 94568
3/25/2022 4:23:48 PMENLARGED ELEVATIONS
A4.3Author13098
SCALE:1/4" = 1'-0"2 NORTH ELEVATION - ENLARGED 2
SCALE:1/4" = 1'-0"1 NORTH ELEVATION - ENLARGED 1
401 CULTURED STONE VENEER
402 ENGINEERED WOOD-LOOK PANEL VENEER
403 INTEGRAL COLOR STUCCO 1 - WHITE
405 INTEGRAL COLOR STUCCO 3 - TAUPE
406 PAINTED METAL TRIM
408 ALUMINUM STOREFRONT
409 ALUMINUM WINDOWS
410 ALUMINUM AWNINGS
413 METAL PANEL SIDING
87
LEVEL 1
EL +0' -0"
LEVEL 2
EL +14' -0"
T.O. LOW PARAPET
EL +26' -0"
T.O. HIGH PARAPET
EL +28' -0"
ROOF
EL +25' -0"
403 404 410 406 402 401410413409
LEVEL 1
EL +0' -0"
LEVEL 2
EL +14' -0"
T.O. LOW PARAPET
EL +26' -0"
T.O. HIGH PARAPET
EL +28' -0"
ROOF
EL +25' -0"
402 404401406 401406405 403410409406413413
EXTERIOR FINISH MATERIAL LEGEND
KEYNOTE NUMBER: 401
TYPE:CULTURED STONE VENEER
MANUFACTURER:
COLOR:
KEYNOTE NUMBER: 403
TYPE:INTEGRAL COLOR STUCCO
FINISH:FINE TEXTURE
MANUFACTURER:
COLOR:WHITE
KEYNOTE NUMBER: 402
TYPE:ENGINEERED WOOD-LOOK PANEL VENEER
MANUFACTURER:
COLOR:
KEYNOTE NUMBER: 404
TYPE:INTEGRAL COLOR STUCCO
FINISH:FINE TEXTURE
MANUFACTURER:
COLOR:GRAY
KEYNOTE NUMBER: 405
TYPE:INTEGRAL COLOR STUCCO
FINISH:FINE TEXTURE
MANUFACTURER:
COLOR:TAUPE
KEYNOTE NUMBER: 406
TYPE:PAINT
MANUFACTURER:
COLOR:TAN
SHEET NUMBER
PROJECT NUMBER
SHEET TITLE
SEALS AND SIGNATURES
ISSUED FOR REV DATE
301 BATTERY STREET
7TH FLOOR
SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94111
415.227.0100
smithgroup.com
KIER + WRIGHT
CIVIL ENGINEERING
2850 Collier Canyon Road
Livermore, California 94551
(925) 245-8788
N
OT FO
R
C
O
NSTRUCTIO
N
Plot Date:DUBLIN SENIOR LIVING
5751 Arnold Road
Dublin, California, 94568
3/25/2022 4:24:09 PMENLARGED ELEVATIONS
A4.4Author13098
SCALE:1/4" = 1'-0"1 WEST ELEVATION - ENLARGED 1
SCALE:1/4" = 1'-0"2 WEST ELEVATION - ENLARGED 2
401 CULTURED STONE VENEER
402 ENGINEERED WOOD-LOOK PANEL VENEER
403 INTEGRAL COLOR STUCCO 1 - WHITE
404 INTEGRAL COLOR STUCCO 2 - GRAY
405 INTEGRAL COLOR STUCCO 3 - TAUPE
406 PAINTED METAL TRIM
409 ALUMINUM WINDOWS
410 ALUMINUM AWNINGS
413 METAL PANEL SIDING
88
1' - 6"6"6"
3' PEDESTRIAN WALKWAY
6" PROTECTIVE CURB
11 5/8"
SIDEWALK
FLUSH
CURB
DRIVEWAY
26' - 9"22' - 2 1/2"
6' - 6" 8' - 0" 2' - 0 1/4" 5' - 0"TRASH4 CU YDSTRASHTRASHRECYCLE4 CU YDSORGANICS3 CU YDSORGANICSTYP6' - 9"TYP
4' - 8"TYP6' - 9"TYP
4' - 0"RECYCLERECYCLETYP6' - 9"TYP
4' - 8"
A7.1
4
A7.15
A7.1 3
A7.1
2 11' - 4"11' - 4"SANITARY SEWER CONNECTION TO BE
PROVIDED, WILL BE COORDINATED WITH
PLUMBING AND CIVIL ENGINEER FOR
SPECIFIC LOCATION, SIZE AND
CONNECTION POINTS
SLOPE
SLOPE
SLOPE
TO DRAIN SLOPE TO DRAINSLOPE TO DRAINSLOPE TO
DRAIN
SLOPE
SLOPEHOT AND COLD
WATER HOSE BIB
MAINTENANCE
RECEPTACLE
WALL PACK LIGHT FIXTURES
LEVEL 1
EL +0' -0"11' - 4"404 406TRASH ENCLOSURE WALLS TO
BE CONCRETE MASONRY WITH
CEMENT PLASTER COATING, AND
COATED METAL COPING, TYP.
ROLL-UP OVERHEAD DOOR
LEVEL 1
EL +0' -0"
TRASH ENCLOSURE WALLS TO
BE CONCRETE MASONRY WITH
CEMENT PLASTER COATING, AND
COATED METAL COPING, TYP.
TRASH ENCLOSURE GATES
8' - 4"24' - 9 3/8"11' - 4"LEVEL 1
EL +0' -0"
404406TRASH ENCLOSURE WALLS TO
BE CONCRETE MASONRY WITH
CEMENT PLASTER COATING, AND
COATED METAL COPING, TYP.
PEDESTRIAN LIGHT POLE, SEE
SITE LIGHTING PLANS
LEVEL 1
EL +0' -0"
OPEN
TO
TRASH
ROOM11' - 4"8' - 0"9' - 0"404 406
TRASH ENCLOSURE WALLS TO
BE CONCRETE MASONRY WITH
CEMENT PLASTER COATING, AND
COATED METAL COPING, TYP.
ROLL-UP OVERHEAD DOOR
A7.1
7
12' - 1"1' - 1"LANDSCAPE AREA
2' - 0"13' - 0"
SIDEWALK
LANDSCAPE AREA
CONCRETE FOOTING
AND BASE
401416
2"2' - 10"2"12' - 0"6"
EXTERIOR FINISH MATERIAL LEGEND
KEYNOTE NUMBER: 401
TYPE:CULTURED STONE VENEER
MANUFACTURER:
COLOR:
KEYNOTE NUMBER: 403
TYPE:INTEGRAL COLOR STUCCO
FINISH:FINE TEXTURE
MANUFACTURER:
COLOR:WHITE
KEYNOTE NUMBER: 402
TYPE:ENGINEERED WOOD-LOOK PANEL VENEER
MANUFACTURER:
COLOR:
KEYNOTE NUMBER: 404
TYPE:INTEGRAL COLOR STUCCO
FINISH:FINE TEXTURE
MANUFACTURER:
COLOR:GRAY
KEYNOTE NUMBER: 405
TYPE:INTEGRAL COLOR STUCCO
FINISH:FINE TEXTURE
MANUFACTURER:
COLOR:TAUPE
KEYNOTE NUMBER: 406
TYPE:PAINT
MANUFACTURER:
COLOR:TAN
SHEET NUMBER
PROJECT NUMBER
SHEET TITLE
SEALS AND SIGNATURES
ISSUED FOR REV DATE
301 BATTERY STREET
7TH FLOOR
SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94111
415.227.0100
smithgroup.com
KIER + WRIGHT
CIVIL ENGINEERING
2850 Collier Canyon Road
Livermore, California 94551
(925) 245-8788
N
OT FO
R
C
O
NSTRUCTIO
N
Plot Date:DUBLIN SENIOR LIVING
5751 Arnold Road
Dublin, California, 94568
3/25/2022 4:24:18 PMENLARGED PLANS
A7.1Author13098
SCALE:1/4" = 1'-0"1 ENLARGED - TRASH ENCLOSURE
SCALE:1/4" = 1'-0"3 TRASH ENCLOSURE - NORTH
SCALE:1/4" = 1'-0"5 TRASH ENCLOSURE - SOUTH
SCALE:1/4" = 1'-0"4 TRASH ENCLOSURE EAST
SCALE:1/4" = 1'-0"2 TRASH ENCLOSURE WEST
SCALE:1/2" = 1'-0"6 MONUMENT SIGN ENLARGED PLAN
SCALE:1/2" = 1'-0"7 MONUMENT SIGN ELEVATION
401 CULTURED STONE VENEER
404 INTEGRAL COLOR STUCCO 2 - GRAY
406 PAINTED METAL TRIM
416 ALUMINUM CHANNEL LETTERS, BUILDING NAME TBD
89
CENTRAL PKWY
HORIZON PKWY
ARNOLD ROADCCCCCCCCCCCCCC2850 Collier Canyon RoadLivermore, CA 94551 Phone: (925) 245-8788www.kierwright.comDUBLIN,NO.REVISIONBYBYREVISIONNO.DUBLIN SENIOR LIVINGCALIFORNIAJAN, 2022OF _ SHEETSSHEETDATESCALEDESIGNERJOB NO.A20131-2AVDRAWN BYSTAFFAS SHOWNFORSOUTH BAY PARTNERSSOUTH BAY PARTNERSFORDUBLIN SENIOR LIVINGOFDUBLIN, CALIFORNIAVICINITY MAPVICINITY MAPSITE MAPNORTHRCallbefore you dig.below.Know what'sLEGENDBENCHMARK:BASIS OF BEARINGS:SHEET INDEXSHEETDESCRIPTIONCIVILC1.0COVER SHEETC2.0TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEYC3.0EXISTING EASMENTS DIAGRAMC4.0SITE PLANC4.1 PROPOSED EASEMENTS DIAGRAMC4.2PRELIMINARY STRIPING PLANC5.0PRELIMINARY GRADING & DRAINAGE PLANC6.0PRELIMINARY SECTIONSC7.0PRELIMINARY UTILITY PLANC8.0PRELIMINARY STORM WATER QUALITY CONTROL PLANC9.0PRELIMINARY FIRE TRUCK ROUTING PLANC10.0PRELIMINARY REFUSE TRUCK ROUTING PLANC11.0PRELIMINARY ARNOLD LEFT TURN PLANC12.0CLEAN BAY BLUE PRINTPRELIMINARY SITE IMPROVEMENT PLANSC1.0COVER SHEETNSITE
90
PARCEL 2PARCEL MAP 8502(282 M 69-73)ARNOLD ROADCENTRAL PARKWAYHORIZON PKWY2850 Collier Canyon RoadLivermore, CA 94551 Phone: (925) 245-8788www.kierwright.comDUBLIN,NO.REVISIONBYBYREVISIONNO.DUBLIN SENIOR LIVINGCALIFORNIAJAN, 2022OF _ SHEETSSHEETDATESCALEDESIGNERJOB NO.A20131-2AVDRAWN BYSTAFFAS SHOWNFORSOUTH BAY PARTNERSC2.0TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEYTOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY CERTIFICATIONNORTHNOTESLEGENDGLEASON DRIVE
ABBREVIATIONS91
PARCEL 2PARCEL MAP 8502(282 M 69-73)ARNOLD ROADHORIZON PKWY
CENTRAL PKWY2850 Collier Canyon RoadLivermore, CA 94551 Phone: (925) 245-8788www.kierwright.comDUBLIN,NO.REVISIONBYBYREVISIONNO.DUBLIN SENIOR LIVINGCALIFORNIAJAN, 2022OF _ SHEETSSHEETDATESCALEDESIGNERJOB NO.A20131-2AVDRAWN BYSTAFFAS SHOWNFORSOUTH BAY PARTNERSLEGENDC3.0EXISTING EASEMENTS DIAGRAMNORTH
92
PARCEL 2PARCEL MAP 8502(282 M 69-73)CCCCCCCCCCCCCC2850 Collier Canyon RoadLivermore, CA 94551 Phone: (925) 245-8788www.kierwright.comDUBLIN,NO.REVISIONBYBYREVISIONNO.DUBLIN SENIOR LIVINGCALIFORNIAJAN, 2022OF _ SHEETSSHEETDATESCALEDESIGNERJOB NO.A20131-2AVDRAWN BYSTAFFAS SHOWNFORSOUTH BAY PARTNERSC4.0SITE PLANNORTHTYPICAL PARKING STRIPING DETAIL1HORIZONPKWY
ARNOLD ROAD93
ARNOLD ROADHORIZON PKWY
CENTRAL PKWY CCCCCCCCCCCCCC2850 Collier Canyon RoadLivermore, CA 94551 Phone: (925) 245-8788www.kierwright.comDUBLIN,NO.REVISIONBYBYREVISIONNO.DUBLIN SENIOR LIVINGCALIFORNIAJAN, 2022OF _ SHEETSSHEETDATESCALEDESIGNERJOB NO.A20131-2AVDRAWN BYSTAFFAS SHOWNFORSOUTH BAY PARTNERSLEGENDC4.1PROPOSED EASEMENTS DIAGRAMNORTH
94
2850 Collier Canyon RoadLivermore, CA 94551 Phone: (925) 245-8788www.kierwright.comDUBLIN,NO.REVISIONBYBYREVISIONNO.DUBLIN SENIOR LIVINGCALIFORNIAJAN, 2022OF _ SHEETSSHEETDATESCALEDESIGNERJOB NO.A20131-2AVDRAWN BYSTAFFAS SHOWNFORSOUTH BAY PARTNERSC4.2PRELIMINARY STRIPING PLANNORTH
HORIZON PKWY
ARNOLD ROAD95
CCCCCCCCCCCCCCCENTRAL PKWY
HORIZON PKWY
ARNOLD ROADARNOLD ROADHORIZON PKWY2850 Collier Canyon RoadLivermore, CA 94551 Phone: (925) 245-8788www.kierwright.comDUBLIN,NO.REVISIONBYBYREVISIONNO.DUBLIN SENIOR LIVINGCALIFORNIAJAN, 2022OF _ SHEETSSHEETDATESCALEDESIGNERJOB NO.A20131-2AVDRAWN BYSTAFFAS SHOWNFORSOUTH BAY PARTNERSLEGENDARNOLD ROAD AND HORIZON PARKWAY INTERSECTIONNOTESEE INTERSECTIONBLOW-UP RIGHTNORTH
C5.0PRELIMINARY GRADING AND DRAINAGE PLAN96
2850 Collier Canyon RoadLivermore, CA 94551 Phone: (925) 245-8788www.kierwright.comDUBLIN,NO.REVISIONBYBYREVISIONNO.DUBLIN SENIOR LIVINGCALIFORNIAJAN, 2022OF _ SHEETSSHEETDATESCALEDESIGNERJOB NO.A20131-2AVDRAWN BYSTAFFAS SHOWNFORSOUTH BAY PARTNERSC6.0PRELIMINARY SECTIONSBSECTIONCSECTIONDSECTIONASECTION97
ARNOLD ROADHORIZON PKWY CCCCCCCCCCCCCCCENTRAL PKWY2850 Collier Canyon RoadLivermore, CA 94551 Phone: (925) 245-8788www.kierwright.comDUBLIN,NO.REVISIONBYBYREVISIONNO.DUBLIN SENIOR LIVINGCALIFORNIAJAN, 2022OF _ SHEETSSHEETDATESCALEDESIGNERJOB NO.A20131-2AVDRAWN BYSTAFFAS SHOWNFORSOUTH BAY PARTNERSLEGENDC7.0PRELIMINARY UTILITY PLANNOTENORTH
98
ARNOLD ROADHORIZON PKWY
CENTRAL PKWYDMA 1DMA 2DMA 3DMA 5DMA 4DMA 14DMA 13DMA 12DMA 10DMA 9DMA 8DMA 6DMA 7DMA 15 DMA 112850 Collier Canyon RoadLivermore, CA 94551 Phone: (925) 245-8788www.kierwright.comDUBLIN,NO.REVISIONBYBYREVISIONNO.DUBLIN SENIOR LIVINGCALIFORNIAJAN, 2022OF _ SHEETSSHEETDATESCALEDESIGNERJOB NO.A20131-2AVDRAWN BYSTAFFAS SHOWNFORSOUTH BAY PARTNERSPRELIMINARY STORM WATER QUALITY PLANLEGENDNOTE:BIO-RETENTION DETAILSNOTEC8.0DMANORTH
499
ARNOLD ROADHORIZON PKWY
CENTRAL PKWY CCCCCCCCCCCCCCEX. FHFDCFHFHFHFHEX. FHEX. FHEX. FHDDCV2850 Collier Canyon RoadLivermore, CA 94551 Phone: (925) 245-8788www.kierwright.comDUBLIN,NO.REVISIONBYBYREVISIONNO.DUBLIN SENIOR LIVINGCALIFORNIAJAN, 2022OF _ SHEETSSHEETDATESCALEDESIGNERJOB NO.A20131-2AVDRAWN BYSTAFFAS SHOWNFORSOUTH BAY PARTNERSLEGENDC9.0PRELIMINARY FIRE TRUCK ROUTING PLANNORTHNOTE
100
ARNOLD ROADHORIZON PKWY
CENTRAL PKWY CCCCCCCCCCCCCC2850 Collier Canyon RoadLivermore, CA 94551 Phone: (925) 245-8788www.kierwright.comDUBLIN,NO.REVISIONBYBYREVISIONNO.DUBLIN SENIOR LIVINGCALIFORNIAJAN, 2022OF _ SHEETSSHEETDATESCALEDESIGNERJOB NO.A20131-2AVDRAWN BYSTAFFAS SHOWNFORSOUTH BAY PARTNERSC10.0PRELIMINARY REFUSE TRUCK ROUTING PLANNORTH
101
HORIZON PKWY2850 Collier Canyon RoadLivermore, CA 94551 Phone: (925) 245-8788www.kierwright.comDUBLIN,NO.REVISIONBYBYREVISIONNO.DUBLIN SENIOR LIVINGCALIFORNIAJAN, 2022OF _ SHEETSSHEETDATESCALEDESIGNERJOB NO.A20131-2AVDRAWN BYSTAFFAS SHOWNFORSOUTH BAY PARTNERSC11.0PRELIMINARY ARNOLD LEFT TURN PLANNORTH
102
HORIZON PKWY2850 Collier Canyon RoadLivermore, CA 94551 Phone: (925) 245-8788www.kierwright.comDUBLIN,NO.REVISIONBYBYREVISIONNO.DUBLIN SENIOR LIVINGCALIFORNIAJAN, 2022OF _ SHEETSSHEETDATESCALEDESIGNERJOB NO.A20131-2AVDRAWN BYSTAFFAS SHOWNFORSOUTH BAY PARTNERSC12.0PRELIMINARY ARNOLD LEFT TRUCK TURN PLANNORTH
103
HORIZON PKWY2850 Collier Canyon RoadLivermore, CA 94551 Phone: (925) 245-8788www.kierwright.comDUBLIN,NO.REVISIONBYBYREVISIONNO.DUBLIN SENIOR LIVINGCALIFORNIAJAN, 2022OF _ SHEETSSHEETDATESCALEDESIGNERJOB NO.A20131-2AVDRAWN BYSTAFFAS SHOWNFORSOUTH BAY PARTNERSC13.0PRELIMINARY ARNOLD LEFT TRUCK TURN PLANNORTH
104
2850 Collier Canyon RoadLivermore, CA 94551 Phone: (925) 245-8788www.kierwright.comDUBLIN,NO.REVISIONBYBYREVISIONNO.DUBLIN SENIOR LIVINGCALIFORNIAJAN, 2022OF _ SHEETSSHEETDATESCALEDESIGNERJOB NO.A20131-2AVDRAWN BYSTAFFAS SHOWNFORSOUTH BAY PARTNERSC12.0CLEAN BAY BLUE PRINT105
ARNOLD DRIVE(WIDTH VARIES)ARNOLD DRIVE(WIDTH VARIES)ARNOLD ROAD(WIDTH VARIES)HORIZONPKWY
SHEET NUMBERPROJECT NUMBERSHEET TITLESEALS AND SIGNATURESISSUED FORREVDATE301 BATTERY STREET7TH FLOORSAN FRANCISCO, CA 94111415.227.0100smithgroup.comKIER + WRIGHTCIVIL ENGINEERING2850 Collier Canyon RoadLivermore, California 94551(925) 245-8788NOT FORCONSTRUCTIONPlot Date:DUBLIN SENIOR LIVING5751 Arnold RoadDublin, California, 9456813098TRUE NORTHPROJECT NORTHTREE REMOVAL ANDPROTECTION PLANL000SCALE: 1" = 30'0'60'30'15'LEGENDREMOVE TREEPROTECT TREENOTE: PROTECT ANY EXISTING TREES ADJACENT TOPROPERTY LINE THAT MAY BE IMPACTED BY CONSTRUCTION.106
MEMORY CARE COURTYARDASSISTED LIVING COURTYARDARNOLD ROADMAINENTRYSERVICEAREASHEET NUMBERPROJECT NUMBERSHEET TITLESEALS AND SIGNATURESISSUED FORREVDATE301 BATTERY STREET7TH FLOORSAN FRANCISCO, CA 94111415.227.0100smithgroup.comKIER + WRIGHTCIVIL ENGINEERING2850 Collier Canyon RoadLivermore, California 94551(925) 245-8788NOT FORCONSTRUCTIONPlot Date:DUBLIN SENIOR LIVING5751 Arnold RoadDublin, California, 9456813098TRUE NORTHPROJECT NORTHILLUSTRATIVE PLANL100SCALE: 1" = 30'0'60'30'15'LEGENDEXISTING TREENEW SHADE TREENEW FOCAL TREENEW ORNAMENTAL TREENEW SHRUB107
Conc. WalkRamp
RampR
a
m
p
Ramp
Ramp
Ramp
RampAD
ADEBSLBSLBEBGrassGrassGrassEVELEC PANELTBT-27026SLB6'-0"7'-6"8'-0"6'-0"6'-0"8'-0"6'-0"8'-0"10'-0"8'-0"
6'-0"7'-6"SHEET NUMBERPROJECT NUMBERSHEET TITLESEALS AND SIGNATURESISSUED FORREVDATE301 BATTERY STREET7TH FLOORSAN FRANCISCO, CA 94111415.227.0100smithgroup.comKIER + WRIGHTCIVIL ENGINEERING2850 Collier Canyon RoadLivermore, California 94551(925) 245-8788NOT FORCONSTRUCTIONPlot Date:DUBLIN SENIOR LIVING5751 Arnold RoadDublin, California, 9456813098TRUE NORTHPROJECT NORTHLANDSCAPE SITE PLANL101SCALE: 1" = 30'0'60'30'15'SHADE STRUCTUREWITH SEATING AREASOUTDOOR PROGRAM IN THISAREA TO POTENTIALLY INCLUDE:1. ENCLOSED DOG RUN2. SEATING AREASALL SIDEWALKS TO COMPLYWITH CITY STANDARDSDROP-OFF ISLAND WITH ENTRYSIGNAGEBENCH, TYP.MEMORY CARE COURTYARDASSISTED LIVING COURTYARDPATIO, TYP.POTENTIAL ARTPOTENTIAL ARTWALKING PATHWALKING PATHLANDSCAPE NOTES1.REFER TO CIVIL DRAWINGS FOR BIORETENTION AREAS.2.OVERALL PLAN WILL COMPLY WITH CALGREEN CODE REQUIREMENTS.TREES SHOWN ARE FOR ILLUSTRATIVE PURPOSES ONLY. SHADECALCULATIONS TO BE COMPLETED WITH FINAL ENTITLEMENTS SUBMITTAL.PUTTING GREENEXISTING HITESPLAZA SIGNLAWN ACTIVITY SPACEFENCE, TYP.SPECIAL PAVING AT DROP-OFFWITH FLUSH CURB, TRUNCATEDDOMES, AND LIT BOLLARDSVEHICULAR LIGHT POLE, TYP.SEE SITE LIGHTING PLANPEDESTRIAN LIGHT POLE,TYP. SEE SITE LIGHTING PLANLANDSCAPE LIGHT, TYP.SEE SITE LIGHTING PLAN.PATHWAY BOLLARD LIGHT,TYP. SEE SITE LIGHTING PLANLOW BOLLARD LIGHT,TYP. SEE SITELIGHTING PLANBIKE RACK, TYP.ARNOLD ROADBIKE STORAGELOCKER, TYP.STAMPED COLORED CONCRETEAT ENTRY DRIVE CROSSWALKSSITE VISIBILITYTRIANGLE, TYP.LEGENDEXISTING TREENEW SHADE TREENEW FOCAL TREENEW ORNAMENTAL TREE108
SHEET NUMBERPROJECT NUMBERSHEET TITLESEALS AND SIGNATURESISSUED FORREVDATE301 BATTERY STREET7TH FLOORSAN FRANCISCO, CA 94111415.227.0100smithgroup.comKIER + WRIGHTCIVIL ENGINEERING2850 Collier Canyon RoadLivermore, California 94551(925) 245-8788NOT FORCONSTRUCTIONPlot Date:DUBLIN SENIOR LIVING5751 Arnold RoadDublin, California, 9456813098SITE MATERIALS ANDFURNISHINGSL200BENCH - FIXED - 69 IN. LENGTH1BENCH - FIXED - 24 IN. LENGTH2LITTER AND RECYCLING RECEPTACLE3BIKE RACK4MANUFACTURER: LANDSCAPE FORMSPRODUCT NAME: NEOLIVIANO BENCH, BACKED, 69-IN. LENGTHMANUFACTURER: LANDSCAPE FORMSPRODUCT NAME: NEOLIVIANO BENCH, BACKED, 24-IN. LENGTHMANUFACTURER: LANDSCAPE FORMSPRODUCT NAME: LAKESIDE LITTERMANUFACTURER: LANDSCAPE FORMSPRODUCT NAME: RIDE BIKE RACKDINING TABLE5MANUFACTURER: JANUS ET CIEPRODUCT NAME: KOKO II JANUSWOOD DINING TABLEDINING CHAIR6MANUFACTURER: JANUS ET CIEPRODUCT NAME: KOKO II STACKABLE PADDED SLING ARM CHAIRSHADE STRUCTURE (BASIS OF DESIGN)7109
Conc. WalkRamp
RampR
a
m
p
Ramp
Ramp
Ramp
RampAD
ADEBSLBSLBEBGrassGrassGrassEVELEC PANELTBT-27026SLBSHEET NUMBERPROJECT NUMBERSHEET TITLESEALS AND SIGNATURESISSUED FORREVDATE301 BATTERY STREET7TH FLOORSAN FRANCISCO, CA 94111415.227.0100smithgroup.comKIER + WRIGHTCIVIL ENGINEERING2850 Collier Canyon RoadLivermore, California 94551(925) 245-8788NOT FORCONSTRUCTIONPlot Date:DUBLIN SENIOR LIVING5751 Arnold RoadDublin, California, 9456813098TRUE NORTHPROJECT NORTHPLANTING PLANL300SCALE: 1" = 30'0'60'30'15'DROP-OFF ISLAND WITH ENTRYSIGNAGE, FOCAL POINT TREE, ANDGROUNDCOVER WITH FLOWERSMEMORY CARE COURTYARDASSISTED LIVING COURTYARDPROPOSED SHADETREE, TYP.EXISTING TREE,TYP.PROPOSED FOCALTREE, TYP.PROPOSED ORNAMENTALTREE, TYP.SHRUB SCREENING ATBACKFLOW PREVENTERSLANDSCAPE NOTES1.REFER TO CIVIL DRAWINGS FOR BIORETENTION AREAS.2.OVERALL PLAN WILL COMPLY WITH CALGREEN CODE REQUIREMENTS.TREES SHOWN ARE FOR ILLUSTRATIVE PURPOSES ONLY. SHADECALCULATIONS TO BE COMPLETED WITH FINAL ENTITLEMENTS SUBMITTAL.3.ALL MULCH AND COMPOST USED ON SITE SHALL MEET SB 1383REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS OUTLINED IN SECTION 18993.1.LAWN ACTIVITY SPACE01PC02QA02QL01QL02PH02PH03PH04QA03LG02QL01PC01PC01QL03OE04PH08PH03CO03LG02LG01PC03AM03QA03QL03QA01PC03QA03LG01CO01CO01PC01OE01OE04PH04PH01TC01TC02AM01TC03TC03QA01TC04QA04TC03QA01TCBIORETENTIONAREA, TYP.ARNOLD ROADTREE PROTECTIONFENCE, TYP.02QASITE VISIBILITYTRIANGLESITE VISIBILITYTRIANGLE11RCLEGENDEXISTING TREENEW SHADE TREENEW FOCAL TREENEW ORNAMENTAL TREE110
SHEET NUMBERPROJECT NUMBERSHEET TITLESEALS AND SIGNATURESISSUED FORREVDATE301 BATTERY STREET7TH FLOORSAN FRANCISCO, CA 94111415.227.0100smithgroup.comKIER + WRIGHTCIVIL ENGINEERING2850 Collier Canyon RoadLivermore, California 94551(925) 245-8788NOT FORCONSTRUCTIONPlot Date:DUBLIN SENIOR LIVING5751 Arnold RoadDublin, California, 9456813098PLANTING SCHEDULEL400Qty.KeyBotanical NameCommon NameSizeSpacingHeightWidthWater UseCommentsSHADE TREESPCPistacia chinensis 'Keith Davey'Keith Davey Chinese Pistache60" Boxas shown30-40'25-30'Lwell-matchedPHPlatanus x hispanica 'Columbia'London Plane Tree36" Boxas shown60-80'50-60'Mwell-matchedQAQuercus agrifoliaCoast Live Oak36" Boxas shown40-60'40-50'VLQLQuercus lobataValley Oak36" Boxas shown40-70'50'-90'LTCTilia cordataLittle Leaf Linden36" Boxas shown50'30'Mwell-matchedORNAMENTAL TREESAMArbutus 'Marina'Marina Strawberry Tree36" Boxas shown20-30'20-30'Lsingle stemCOCercis occidentalisWestern Redbud36" Boxas shown5-15'5-10'VLmulti-stemLGLagerstroemiaCrape Myrtle36" Boxas shown15-20'10-15'Lsingle stemOEOlea europaea 'Swan Hill'Swan Hill Olive36" Boxas shown25-30'25-30'VLmulti-stemSHRUBSPBPerovskia 'Blue Spire'Blue Spire Russian Sage5 gal3-4'2-3'LPTPittosporum tenuifoliumKohuhu15 gal48" OC15-25'10-15'MPAPlumbago auriculataCape Plumbago15 gal6-8'8-12'LPMPodocarpus macrophyllusYew Plum Pine15 gal60" OC15-20'6-8'MRHRhamnus californicaCoffeeberry15 gal60" OC6-8'6-8'LRCRosa californicaWild California Rose5 gal3-6'3-6'LSLSalvia leucanthaMexican Bush Sage5 gal3-4'4-6'LFLOW-THROUGH PLANTER AND BIORETENTIONACMAchillea millefoliumCommon Yarrow1 gal18'' OC18"1'LCADCarex divulsaBerkeley Sedge1 gal24'' OC12-18"2'LCHTChondropetalum tectorumCape Rush5 gal36'' OC2-3'2-3'LIRDIris douglasianaDouglas Iris1 gal18'' OC18"2'LJUPJuncus patensCalifornia Gray Rush5 gal24' OC'1-2'1-2'LMURMuhlenbergia rigensDeer Grass5 gal48'' OC4-5'4-6'LPERENNIALS & GRASSESANBAnigozanthos 'Bush Dawn'Yellow Kangaroo Paw5 gal24'' OC2-6'1-2'LASTAsclepias tuberosaButterfly Weed1 gal18'' OC1-2'12-18"MCADCarex divulsaBerkeley Sedge1 gal24'' OC12-18"2'LCHLChondropetalum elephantinumLarge Cape Rush5 gal48'' OC3-5'4-6'LECPEchinacea purpureaPurple Coneflower1 gal12'' OC2-3'1-2'LESCEschscholzia californicaCalifornia Poppy1 gal18'' OC12-18"12-18"VLHESHelictotrichon sempervirensBlue Oat Grass1 gal24'' OC2-3'2-3'LHPPHeuchera x 'Plum Pudding'Plum Pudding Heuchera1 gal24'' OC1-3'1-2'MLAPLavandula x intermedia 'Provence'Provence French Lavender1 gal24" OC1-2'1-2'LLOMLomandra longifolia 'Breeze'Dwarf Mat Rush1 gal30" OC2-3'2-4'LLUALupinus albifronsSilver Bush Lupine5 gal36'' OC3-4'3-4'VLTCLTeucrium chamaedrys x lucidrysGermander1 gal24'' OC1-2'2-3'LTHMThymus spp.Thyme1 gal12'' OC6"-1'6"-1'LPLANTING SCHEDULE1111
SHADE TREESArbutus marinaMARINA STRAWBERRY TREECercis occidentalisWESTERN REDBUDPlantanus x hispanica 'Columbia'LONDON PLANE TREEQuercus agrifoliaCOAST LIVE OAKPistacia chinensis 'Keith Davey'KEITH DAVEY CHINESE PISTACHETilia cordataLITTLE LEAF LINDENQuercus lobataVALLEY OAKORNAMENTAL TREESOlea europaea 'Swan Hill'SWAN HILL OLIVESHEET NUMBERPROJECT NUMBERSHEET TITLESEALS AND SIGNATURESISSUED FORREVDATE301 BATTERY STREET7TH FLOORSAN FRANCISCO, CA 94111415.227.0100smithgroup.comKIER + WRIGHTCIVIL ENGINEERING2850 Collier Canyon RoadLivermore, California 94551(925) 245-8788NOT FORCONSTRUCTIONPlot Date:DUBLIN SENIOR LIVING5751 Arnold RoadDublin, California, 9456813098PLANTING IMAGESL401Lagerstroemia indicaCREPE MYRTLE112
FLOW-THROUGH PLANTER AND BIORETENTIONAchillea millefoliumCOMMON YARROWCarex divulsaBERKELEY SEDGEIris douglasianaDOUGLAS IRISMuhlenbergia rigensDEER GRASSJuncus patensCALIFORNIA GRAY RUSHChondropetalum tectorumCAPE RUSHSHRUBSRosa californicaWILD CALIFORNIA ROSESalvia leucanthaMEXICAN BUSH SAGEPittosporum tenuifoliumKOHUHUPodocarpus macrophyllusYEW PLUM PINERhamnus californicaCOFFEEBERRYPlumbago auriculataCAPE PLUMBAGOSHEET NUMBERPROJECT NUMBERSHEET TITLESEALS AND SIGNATURESISSUED FORREVDATE301 BATTERY STREET7TH FLOORSAN FRANCISCO, CA 94111415.227.0100smithgroup.comKIER + WRIGHTCIVIL ENGINEERING2850 Collier Canyon RoadLivermore, California 94551(925) 245-8788NOT FORCONSTRUCTIONPlot Date:DUBLIN SENIOR LIVING5751 Arnold RoadDublin, California, 9456813098PLANTING IMAGESL402Pervoskia 'Blue Spire'BLUE SPIRE RUSSIAN SAGE113
Asclepias tuberosaBUTTERFLY WEEDHeuchera x 'Plum Pudding'CORAL BELLSAnigozanthos 'Bush Dawn'KANGAROO PAWTeucrium chamaedrys x lucidrysGERMANDERLupinus albifronsSILVER BUSH LUPINELavandula x intermedia "Provence"LAVENDERPERENNIALS AND GRASSESEschscholzia californicaCALIFORNIA POPPYHelictotrichon sempervirensBLUE OAT GRASSCarex divulsaBERKELEY SEDGEChondropetalum elephantinumLARGE CAPE RUSHThymus spp.THYMEEchinacea purpureaPURPLE CONEFLOWERLomandra longifolia 'Breeze'DWARF MAT RUSHSHEET NUMBERPROJECT NUMBERSHEET TITLESEALS AND SIGNATURESISSUED FORREVDATE301 BATTERY STREET7TH FLOORSAN FRANCISCO, CA 94111415.227.0100smithgroup.comKIER + WRIGHTCIVIL ENGINEERING2850 Collier Canyon RoadLivermore, California 94551(925) 245-8788NOT FORCONSTRUCTIONPlot Date:DUBLIN SENIOR LIVING5751 Arnold RoadDublin, California, 9456813098PLANTING IMAGESL403114
Conc. WalkRamp
RampR
a
m
p
Ramp
Ramp
Ramp
RampAD
ADEBSLBSLBEBGrassGrassGrassEVELEC PANELTBT-27026SLBSHEET NUMBERPROJECT NUMBERSHEET TITLESEALS AND SIGNATURESISSUED FORREVDATE301 BATTERY STREET7TH FLOORSAN FRANCISCO, CA 94111415.227.0100smithgroup.comKIER + WRIGHTCIVIL ENGINEERING2850 Collier Canyon RoadLivermore, California 94551(925) 245-8788NOT FORCONSTRUCTIONPlot Date:DUBLIN SENIOR LIVING5751 Arnold RoadDublin, California, 9456813098TRUE NORTHPROJECT NORTHSITE LIGHTING PLANL500SCALE: 1" = 30'0'60'30'15'MEMORY CARE COURTYARDASSISTED LIVING COURTYARDARNOLD ROADXL9XL9XL9XL9XL9XL9XL9XL9XL6XL6XL10XL3XL3XL3XL3XL1XL3XL3XL5XL5XL5XL5XL5XL5XL1XL1XL4XL4XL4XL3Tag: XL1Manufacturer:SignifyProduct Name: PureForm LED SmallComfort P20 T4Mounting Height:18ftTag: XL2Manufacturer:SignifyProduct Name: PureForm LED SmallComfort P20 T4 CobraMounting Height:18ftTag: XL3Manufacturer:SeluxProduct Name: ELO ColumnMounting Height:12ftTag: XL4Manufacturer:SeluxProduct Name: ELO BollardMounting Height:4ftTag: XL5Manufacturer:USAIProduct Name: BeveLED 2.2 BasicMounting Height:17ftTag: XL6Manufacturer:Led LinearProduct Name: Venus TV IP67Mounting Height:N/ATag: XL7Manufacturer:BK LightingProduct Name: Delta StarMounting Height:GroundXL4XL4XL4XL4XL4XL4XL4XL4XL4XL4XL4XL4XL4XL4XL4XL4XL4XL4XL9XL9XL7(TYP.)XL9XL9XL9XL9XL9XL6XL6XL9XL9XL9XL9XL9XL7(TYP.)XL7(TYP)XL9XL9XL7(TYP)XL7(TYP.)XL7(TYP.)XL4XL4XL4XL4Tag: XL8Manufacturer:BEGAProduct Name: 33514Mounting Height:8FTTag: XL9Manufacturer:BEGAProduct Name: 77276Mounting Height:GroundXL8XL8XL8XL8XL8XL8XL8XL8XL8XL8XL8XL8XL8XL8XL8XL8XL8XL8Tag: XL10Manufacturer:TBDProduct Name: Integrated TrellisLightingMounting Height:CanopyXL1XL1XL1XL1XL1XL1XL1XL1XL1XL1XL1XL1XL1XL1XL1XL1XL1XL1XL1XL1XL1XL1XL1XL1XL8XL8XL8XL8XL4XL4XL4EXISTINGFIXTUREEXISTINGFIXTUREEXISTINGFIXTUREXL1XL1XL1XL1XL1XL1XL1XL1XL1XL1XL1XL1XL1XL11XL11Tag: EXISTING FIXTUREManufacturer:N/AProduct Name: IN/AMounting Height:N/ATag: XL11Manufacturer:GARDCOProduct Name: PUREFORM LEDWALL SCONCE PWSMounting Height:10FTEXISTINGFIXTUREXL9XL9XL9XL9XL9XL9XL9XL9XL6XL6XL6XL10XL3XL3XL3XL3XL1XL3XL3XL5XL5XL5XL5XL5XL5XL1XL1XL4XL4XL4XL3Tag: XL1Manufacturer:SignifyProduct Name: PureForm LED SmallComfort P20 T4Mounting Height:18ftTag: XL2Manufacturer:SignifyProduct Name: PureForm LED SmallComfort P20 T4 CobraMounting Height:18ftTag: XL3Manufacturer:SeluxProduct Name: ELO ColumnMounting Height:12ftTag: XL4Manufacturer:SeluxProduct Name: ELO BollardMounting Height:4ftTag: XL5Manufacturer:USAIProduct Name: BeveLED 2.2 BasicMounting Height:17ftTag: XL6Manufacturer:Led LinearProduct Name: Venus TV IP67Mounting Height:N/ATag: XL7Manufacturer:BK LightingProduct Name: Delta StarMounting Height:GroundXL4XL4XL4XL4XL4XL4XL4XL4XL4XL4XL4XL4XL4XL4XL4XL4XL4XL4XL9XL9XL7(TYP.)XL9XL9XL9XL9XL9XL6XL6XL9XL9XL9XL9XL9XL7(TYP.)XL7(TYP)XL9XL9XL7(TYP)XL7(TYP.)XL7(TYP.)XL4XL4XL4XL4Tag: XL8Manufacturer:BEGAProduct Name: 33514Mounting Height:8FTTag: XL9Manufacturer:BEGAProduct Name: 77276Mounting Height:GroundXL8XL8XL8XL8XL8XL8XL8XL8XL8XL8XL8XL8XL8XL8XL8XL8XL8Tag: XL10Manufacturer:TBDProduct Name: Integrated TrellisLightingMounting Height:CanopyXL1XL1XL1XL1XL1XL1XL1XL1XL1XL1XL1XL1XL1XL1XL1XL1XL1XL1XL1XL1XL1XL1XL1XL1XL8XL8XL8XL8XL4XL4XL4EXISTINGFIXTUREEXISTINGFIXTUREEXISTINGFIXTUREXL1XL1XL1XL1XL1XL1XL1XL1XL1XL1XL1XL1XL1XL11XL11Tag: EXISTING FIXTUREManufacturer:N/AProduct Name: IN/AMounting Height:N/ATag: XL11Manufacturer:GARDCOProduct Name: PUREFORM LEDWALL SCONCE PWSMounting Height:10FTEXISTINGFIXTURE115
SHEET NUMBERPROJECT NUMBERSHEET TITLESEALS AND SIGNATURESISSUED FORREVDATE301 BATTERY STREET7TH FLOORSAN FRANCISCO, CA 94111415.227.0100smithgroup.comKIER + WRIGHTCIVIL ENGINEERING2850 Collier Canyon RoadLivermore, California 94551(925) 245-8788NOT FORCONSTRUCTIONPlot Date:DUBLIN SENIOR LIVING5751 Arnold RoadDublin, California, 9456813098TRUE NORTHPROJECT NORTHPHOTOMETRIC PLANL501SCALE: 1" = 20'0'40'20'10'MEMORY CARE COURTYARDASSISTED LIVING COURTYARD116
Preliminary Arborist Report
Dublin Senior Living
Dublin, CA
Prepared for:
SmithGroup
301 Battery Street
San Francisco, CA 94111
Prepared by:
HortScience | Bartlett Consulting
325 Ray Street
Pleasanton, CA 94566
August 19, 2021
117
Preliminary Arborist Report
Dublin Senior Living
Dublin, CA
Table of Contents
Page
Introduction and Overview 1
Tree Assessment Methods 1
Description of Trees 2
Suitability for Preservation 4
Preliminary Evaluation of Impacts & Recommendation for Action 5
Preliminary Tree Preservation Guidelines 13
List of Tables
Table 1. Species present and tree condition. 2
Table 2. Suitability for preservation. 5
Table 3. Tree disposition. 7
Exhibits
Tree Assessment Form
Tree Assessment Plan
118
Preliminary Arborist Report
Dublin Senior Living
Dublin, CA
Introduction and Overview
SmithGroup is preparing plans to re-develop the subject property located at 5751 Arnold Road in
Dublin. HortScience | Bartlett Consulting, a Division of The F.A. Bartlett Tree Expert Company, was
asked to prepare an Arborist Report for this project for submittal to the City of Dublin. The property
consists of a vacant building pad surrounded by parking lots and landscaping, adjacent to other
developed commercial lots.
This report provides the following information:
1. An assessment of the health, structural condition, and suitability for preservation of the
trees located on and adjacent to the proposed project area based on a visual
inspection from the ground.
2. An assessment of the trees that would be preserved and removed based on
preliminary development plans.
3. Preliminary guidelines for tree preservation during the design, construction, and
maintenance phases of development.
Tree Assessment Methods
Trees were assessed on July 29, 2021. The assessment included all trees measuring 5 inches and
larger in diameter located within and adjacent to the project area. Tree tag numbers started at #350.
The assessment procedure was a visual assessment from the ground, consisting of the following
steps:
1. Identifying the tree species.
2. Attaching a numerically coded metal tag to the trunk of each tree.
3. Recording the tree’s location on a map.
4. Measuring the trunk diameter at a point 54-inches above grade.
5. Evaluating the health and structural condition using a scale of 0 – 5:
5 - A healthy, vigorous tree, reasonably free of signs and symptoms of disease, with good
structure and form typical of the species.
4 - Tree with slight decline in vigor, small amount of twig dieback, or minor structural
defects that could be corrected.
3 - Tree with moderate vigor, moderate twig and small branch dieback, thinning of crown,
poor leaf color, moderate structural defects that might be mitigated with regular care.
2 - Tree in decline, epicormic growth, extensive dieback of medium to large branches,
significant structural defects that cannot be abated.
1 - Tree in severe decline, dieback of scaffold branches and/or trunk; most of foliage from
epicormic shoots (secondary shoots that arise along the trunk and branches);
extensive structural defects that cannot be abated.
6. Commenting on the presence of defects in structure, insects or diseases and other
aspects of development.
7. Evaluating suitability for preservation as low, moderate and high.
119
Prelim. Arborist Report – Dublin Senior Living. Dublin, CA HortScience | Bartlett Consulting
August 19, 2021 Page 2
Description of Trees
One hundred thirty-seven (137) trees representing ten (10) species were evaluated (Table 1). The
east side of the property was not consistently indicated by fences or other boundary markers. In these
locations, trees may or may not be on the subject property. Overall, about three-quarters of the
population (104 trees) were in fair condition and 25 trees (18%) were in poor condition; six redwoods
were in good condition. Trees #352 and #365 were dead. Four species only had one tree present.
Descriptions of each tree are found in the Tree Assessment, and approximate locations are plotted
on the Tree Assessment Plan (see Exhibits).
Table 1. Species present and tree condition. Dublin Senior Living. Dublin, CA.
Common Name Scientific Name Condition Total
Dead
(0)
Poor
(1-2)
Fair
(3)
Good
(4-5)
River birch Betula nigra - 1 - - 1
Chinese hackberry Celtis sinensis - 4 45 - 49
Raywood ash Fraxinus angustifolia 'Raywood' - 14 34 - 48
Thornless honey locust Gleditsia triacanthos f. inermis - 1 - - 1
Chinese pistache Pistacia chinensis - 1 - - 1
Purpleleaf plum Prunus cerasifera 2 - - - 2
Callery pear Pyrus calleryana - 2 2 - 4
Valley oak Quercus lobata - 1 - - 1
Coast redwood Sequoia sempervirens - 1 19 6 26
Sawleaf zelkova Zelkova serrata - - 4 - 4
Total 2 25 104 6 137
Chinese hackberry and Raywood ash were the most frequently occurring species, each with about
35% of the population. Forty-nine (49) Chinese hackberries were planted throughout the parking lot in
beds of various sizes (Photo 1). Almost all were in fair condition (45 trees): four trees were poor.
None of the hackberries was in good condition. Diameters ranged from 6 to 16 inches. Most trees
had multiple attachments and a history of limb removal.
Forty-eight (48) Raywood ashes were present, growing along the edges of the parking lot or in larger
planting islands (Photo 2). Condition was predominantly fair (34 trees), with 14 trees in poor condition.
None of the ashes were in good condition. Trees were mostly mature, with an average diameter of 17
inches. Raywood ashes #358 and 399 were the largest of the species at 23 inches. Several very
young ashes with stems ranging from 2 to 6 inches had been recently planted among shrubs at the
north end of the lot.
Twenty-six (26) coast redwoods were assessed, several growing just off-site. Most (19 trees) were in
fair condition (Photo 3). Trees #463 – 467 and off-site tree #480 were in good condition with upright
form typical of the species and good vigor. Redwood #362 was in poor condition with very sparse
crown, crowded among shrubs. Age was semi-mature, with diameters ranging from 13 to 22 inches.
120
Prelim. Arborist Report – Dublin Senior Living. Dublin, CA HortScience | Bartlett Consulting
August 19, 2021 Page 3
Four Callery pears were present, young to
semi-mature in development with diameters
ranging from 6 to 11 inches. Two were in fair
condition and two were in poor. All had multiple
branch attachments that were narrow and
crowded.
Four sawleaf zelkovas were assessed at the
northeast corner of the property. All were
possibly off-site. The zelkovas had wide, low
crowns and rounded form. Zelkova #461 was in
shrub form. Stem diameters ranged from 9 to
11 inches, and all were in fair condition.
Purpleleaf plums #352 and 365 were leaning and dead, located in a wide planting area among other
trees along Arnold Road. They were small trees of 6 and 8 inches, respectively.
The remaining four species were represented by a single tree:
• River birch #364 was a young 9-inch diameter tree growing near the southwest corner of
the parking lot. It had a strong lean northeast and was in poor condition.
• Thornless honey locust #439 was growing in a lawn area near a sidewalk and had a
correcting lean east. It also had a diameter of 9 inches and was in poor condition with
branch dieback.
Photo 1. Several of the Chinese hackberries
were growing in small square planters in the
parking lot.
Photo 2. Raywood ashes #433 and 434 were
growing in a larger end planter in the parking lot.
More hackberries are visible in background on
right.
Photo 3. Most of the redwoods were growing
off-site on a property to the north.
121
Prelim. Arborist Report – Dublin Senior Living. Dublin, CA HortScience | Bartlett Consulting
August 19, 2021 Page 4
• Off-site Chinese pistache #481 was growing on
the property to the north along Arnold Road. It
had a wide, thin crown and was in poor
condition, suppressed by adjacent trees. The
pistache was a young tree with a diameter of 6
inches.
• Valley oak #440 was the largest tree assessed,
with a diameter of 24 inches (Photo 4). It was
the only Heritage tree on the property, growing
near a sidewalk and fire hydrant at the
southern edge of the site. It was leaning to the
southwest and had multiple attachments at
about 10 feet. It was in poor condition due to
the lean and some branch dieback.
The City of Dublin Heritage Tree Ordinance No. 29-99 defines a Heritage tree as any species native to
the Dublin area (oak, bay, cypress, maple, redwood, buckeye or sycamore), which has a trunk
diameter of 24" or more at 4.5'. Based on this definition, valley oak #440 qualified as Heritage.
Heritage designations are provided in the Tree Assessment Form (see attachments).
Suitability for Preservation
Trees that are preserved on sites where development or other improvements are planned, must be
carefully selected to make sure that they may survive construction impacts, adapt to a new
environment and perform well in the landscape. Our goal is to identify trees that have the potential for
long-term health, structural stability and longevity. Evaluation of suitability for preservation considers
several factors:
Tree health
Healthy, vigorous trees are better able to tolerate impacts such as root injury, demolition of
existing structures, changes in soil grade and moisture, and soil compaction than are non-
vigorous trees. Trees in good condition are in better health than those in poor condition.
Structural integrity
Trees with significant amounts of wood decay and other structural defects that cannot be
corrected are likely to fail. Such trees should not be preserved in areas where damage to
people or property is likely. Defects such as codominant or multiple stems, lean and other
deviations from the vertical, heavy branches and decay are problematic and may increase the
potential for a tree to fail. For example, although there were no signs of obvious decay in
Heritage valley oak #440, it had a strong lean which would preclude any recommendation for
preservation.
Species response
There is a wide variation in the response of individual species to construction impacts and
changes in the environment. For instance, coast redwood and callery pear are tolerant of
construction impacts, while Chinese hackberry are moderately tolerant. Raywood ash are
intolerant of root severance.
Tree age and longevity
Old trees, while having significant emotional and aesthetic appeal, have limited physiological
capacity to adjust to an altered environment. Young trees are better able to generate new
tissue and respond to change.
Photo 4. Valley oak #440 was
growing near utilities at the
south edge of the site.
122
Prelim. Arborist Report – Dublin Senior Living. Dublin, CA HortScience | Bartlett Consulting
August 19, 2021 Page 5
Species invasiveness
Species which spread across a site and displace desired vegetation are not always
appropriate for retention. This is particularly true when indigenous species are displaced. The
California Invasive Plant Inventory Database (www.cal-ipc.org) lists species identified as being
invasive. Bay Point is part of the Central West Floristic Province. Purpleleaf plum has limited
invasive potential, and Callery pear is on the watch list.
Each tree was rated for suitability for preservation based upon its age, health, structural condition and
ability to safely coexist within a development environment (Table 2).
Table 2. Tree suitability for preservation. Dublin Senior Living. Dublin, CA.
High Trees with good health and structural stability that have the potential for longevity
at the site. Six trees were rated as having high suitability for preservation: coast
redwoods #463 – 467 and #480.
Moderate Trees in fair health and/or possessing structural defects that may be abated with
treatment. Trees in this category require more intense management and
monitoring, and may have shorter life-spans than those in the “high” category.
One hundred and four (104) trees were rated as having moderate suitability for
preservation.
Low Trees in poor health or possessing significant defects in structure that cannot be
abated with treatment. These trees can be expected to decline regardless of
management. The species or individual tree may possess either characteristics
that are undesirable in landscape settings or be unsuited for use areas. Twenty-
five (25) trees were rated as having low suitability for preservation.
Note: Table does not include purpleleaf plums #352 and 365. These trees were dead.
We consider trees with high suitability for preservation to be the best candidates for preservation
during development. We do not generally recommend retention of trees with low suitability for
preservation in areas where people or property will be present. Retention of trees with moderate
suitability for preservation depends upon the intensity of proposed site changes.
Preliminary Evaluation of Impacts and Recommendations for Action
Appropriate tree retention develops a practical match between the location and intensity of
construction activities and the quality and health of trees. The tree assessment was the reference
point for tree condition and quality. Impacts from the proposed project were assessed using the Dublin
Senior Living Planning Pre-Application drawing set (SmithGroup, 7/16/2021). Only preliminary site,
grading, utility and landscape plans were reviewed.
The plans propose construction of a senior community care facility with surface parking and
landscaped areas. The existing vehicular entrance to the north will be shifted south, retaining the
shared southern entrance. An emergency vehicle access (EVA) lane will be constructed along the
east side to connect with through the commercial parcel to the south. The existing parking bay at the
far north side of the lot will be retained.
123
Prelim. Arborist Report – Dublin Senior Living. Dublin, CA HortScience | Bartlett Consulting
August 19, 2021 Page 6
The interior area of the site will be demolished and redeveloped, with selected trees to remain along
all sides of the project, concentrated at the north and west sides of the property. Potential impacts to
trees will be moderate to severe. Eighty-two (82) trees are proposed to be removed for construction,
two of which are dead and none of them Heritage (Table 3).
Trees #354 – 365 along Arnold Road can be preserved as a group. Edge trees #350 – 351, 366 –
367, 369 – 370, 388, 408, 425, 440, 441 and 456 may experience serious impacts to their canopies
and root zones. Protective fencing will need to be installed around each of these trees.
Based on my assessment of the proposed plan and evaluation of the trees, I recommend preservation
of fifty-five (55) trees. Twenty (20) off-site trees, while slightly overhanging the site, are at some
distance from construction. Thirty-five (35) trees are near the edges of construction and noted as
“Potentially Preserve.” Five of these trees are located off-site, or possibly off-site, at the northeast
edge of the property. Disposition and Protected status of individual trees are included in Table 3 (next
page).
Successful retention of the trees to be preserved will require adherence to the Tree Preservation
Guidelines (see page 13).
124
Prelim. Arborist Report – Dublin Senior Living. Dublin, CA HortScience | Bartlett Consulting
August 19, 2021 Page 7
Table 3. Tree disposition. Dublin Senior Living - Dublin, CA.
Tree
No.
Species Trunk
Diameter
(in.)
Heritage
Tree?
Condition
0=dead
5=excellent
Proposed
Action
Notes
350 Raywood ash 22 No 3 Potentially
preserve
Will need protection
351 Raywood ash 14 No 2 Potentially
preserve
Will need protection
352 Purpleleaf plum 6 - 0 Remove Within grading, dead
353 Raywood ash 21 No 3 Remove Within grading
354 Raywood ash 14 No 3 Potentially
preserve
Will need protection
355 Coast redwood 18 No 3 Potentially
preserve
Will need protection
356 Coast redwood 15 No 3 Potentially
preserve
Will need protection
357 Coast redwood 17 No 3 Potentially
preserve
Will need protection
358 Raywood ash 23 No 3 Potentially
preserve
Will need protection
359 Raywood ash 18 No 2 Potentially
preserve
Will need protection
360 Raywood ash 17 No 3 Potentially
preserve
Will need protection
361 Raywood ash 18 No 3 Potentially
preserve
Will need protection
362 Coast redwood 15 No 2 Potentially
preserve
Will need protection
363 Coast redwood 18 No 3 Potentially
preserve
Will need protection
364 River birch 9 No 2 Potentially
preserve
Will need protection
365 Purpleleaf plum 8 - 0 Remove Dead
366 Callery pear 13 No 3 Potentially
preserve
Will need protection
367 Callery pear 6 No 2 Potentially
preserve
Will need protection
368 Raywood ash 12 No 3 Remove Within grading
369 Callery pear 12 No 2 Potentially
preserve
Will need protection
370 Callery pear 13 No 3 Potentially
preserve
Will need protection
371 Raywood ash 17 No 2 Remove Within grading
372 Raywood ash 14 No 3 Remove Within grading
373 Chinese
hackberry
10 No 3 Remove Within grading
125
Prelim. Arborist Report – Dublin Senior Living. Dublin, CA HortScience | Bartlett Consulting
August 19, 2021 Page 8
Table 3. Tree disposition and proposed action, cont’d. Dublin Senior Living - Dublin, CA.
Tree
No.
Species Trunk
Diameter
(in.)
Heritage
Tree?
Condition
0=dead
5=excellent
Proposed
Action
Notes
374 Chinese
hackberry
12 No 3 Remove Within grading
375 Chinese
hackberry
16 No 3 Remove Within grading
376 Raywood ash 19 No 2 Remove Within grading
377 Chinese
hackberry
14 No 3 Remove Within grading
378 Chinese
hackberry
14 No 3 Remove Within grading
379 Chinese
hackberry
14 No 3 Remove Within grading
380 Chinese
hackberry
14 No 3 Remove Within grading
381 Chinese
hackberry
13 No 3 Remove Within grading
382 Chinese
hackberry
10 No 3 Remove Within grading
383 Chinese
hackberry
11 No 3 Remove Within grading
384 Chinese
hackberry
8 No 3 Remove Within grading
385 Chinese
hackberry
7 No 2 Remove Within grading
386 Raywood ash 15 No 3 Remove Within grading
387 Raywood ash 11 No 2 Remove Within grading
388 Raywood ash 13 No 3 Potentially
preserve
Will need protection
389 Raywood ash 12 No 3 Remove Within grading
390 Raywood ash 10 No 3 Remove Within grading
391 Chinese
hackberry
9 No 3 Remove Within grading
392 Chinese
hackberry
8 No 3 Remove Within grading
393 Chinese
hackberry
9 No 3 Remove Within grading
394 Chinese
hackberry
10 No 3 Remove Within grading
395 Chinese
hackberry
8 No 3 Remove Within grading
396 Chinese
hackberry
12 No 2 Remove Within grading
397 Chinese
hackberry
13 No 3 Remove Within grading
398 Chinese
hackberry
13 No 3 Remove Within grading
126
Prelim. Arborist Report – Dublin Senior Living. Dublin, CA HortScience | Bartlett Consulting
August 19, 2021 Page 9
Table 3. Tree disposition and proposed action, cont’d. Dublin Senior Living - Dublin, CA.
Tree
No.
Species Trunk
Diameter
(in.)
Heritage
Tree?
Condition
0=dead
5=excellent
Proposed
Action
Notes
399 Raywood ash 23 No 3 Remove Within grading
400 Raywood ash 18 No 2 Remove Within grading
401 Raywood ash 16 No 3 Remove Within grading
402 Chinese
hackberry
12 No 3 Remove Within grading
403 Chinese
hackberry
11 No 3 Remove Within grading
404 Chinese
hackberry
11 No 3 Remove Within grading
405 Chinese
hackberry
9 No 3 Remove Within grading
406 Raywood ash 12 No 2 Remove Within grading
407 Raywood ash 14 No 3 Remove Within grading
408 Raywood ash 10 No 2 Potentially
preserve
Will need protection
409 Raywood ash 12 No 3 Remove Within grading
410 Raywood ash 12 No 3 Remove Within grading
411 Chinese
hackberry
8 No 3 Remove Within grading
412 Chinese
hackberry
7 No 3 Remove Within grading
413 Chinese
hackberry
11 No 3 Remove Within grading
414 Chinese
hackberry
10 No 3 Remove Within grading
415 Raywood ash 14 No 3 Remove Within grading
416 Raywood ash 17 No 3 Remove Within grading
417 Raywood ash 14 No 2 Remove Within grading
418 Raywood ash 17 No 3 Remove Within grading
419 Chinese
hackberry
12 No 3 Remove Within grading
420 Chinese
hackberry
12 No 3 Remove Within grading
421 Chinese
hackberry
13 No 3 Remove Within grading
422 Chinese
hackberry
6 No 3 Remove Within grading
423 Raywood ash 9 No 3 Remove Within grading
424 Raywood ash 15 No 3 Remove Within grading
127
Prelim. Arborist Report – Dublin Senior Living. Dublin, CA HortScience | Bartlett Consulting
August 19, 2021 Page 10
Table 3. Tree disposition and proposed action, cont’d. Dublin Senior Living - Dublin, CA.
Tree
No.
Species Trunk
Diameter
(in.)
Heritage
Tree?
Condition
0=dead
5=excellent
Proposed
Action
Notes
425 Raywood ash 13 No 3 Potentially
preserve
Will need protection
426 Raywood ash 11 No 3 Remove Within grading
427 Raywood ash 11 No 3 Remove Within grading
428 Chinese
hackberry
9 No 2 Remove Within grading
429 Chinese
hackberry
9 No 2 Remove Within grading
430 Chinese
hackberry
10 No 3 Remove Within grading
431 Chinese
hackberry
13 No 3 Remove Within grading
432 Chinese
hackberry
13 No 3 Remove Within grading
433 Raywood ash 13 No 2 Remove Within grading
434 Raywood ash 18 No 3 Remove Within grading
435 Raywood ash 19 No 2 Remove Within grading
436 Raywood ash 19 No 3 Remove Within grading
437 Coast redwood 13 No 3 Remove Within grading
438 Coast redwood 13 No 3 Remove Within grading
439 Thornless
honey locust
9 No 2 Remove Within grading
440 Valley oak 24 Yes 2 Potentially
preserve
Will need protection
441 Raywood ash 14 No 2 Potentially
preserve
Will need protection
442 Raywood ash 13 No 3 Potentially
preserve
Will need protection
443 Chinese
hackberry
11 No 3 Remove Within grading
444 Chinese
hackberry
9 No 3 Remove Within grading
445 Chinese
hackberry
14 No 3 Remove Within grading
446 Chinese
hackberry
10 No 3 Remove Within grading
447 Chinese
hackberry
10 No 3 Remove Within grading
448 Chinese
hackberry
8 No 3 Remove Within grading
449 Chinese
hackberry
11 No 3 Remove Within grading
128
Prelim. Arborist Report – Dublin Senior Living. Dublin, CA HortScience | Bartlett Consulting
August 19, 2021 Page 11
Table 3. Tree disposition and proposed action, cont’d. Dublin Senior Living - Dublin, CA.
Tree
No.
Species Trunk
Diameter
(in.)
Heritage
Tree?
Condition
0=dead
5=excellent
Proposed
Action
Notes
450 Chinese
hackberry
11 No 3 Remove Within grading
451 Chinese
hackberry
8 No 3 Remove Within grading
452 Chinese
hackberry
9 No 3 Remove Within grading
453 Chinese
hackberry
10 No 3 Remove Within grading
454 Raywood ash 11 No 2 Remove Within grading
455 Raywood ash 11 No 3 Potentially
preserve
Will need protection
456 Raywood ash 11 No 3 Potentially
preserve
Will need protection
457 Sawleaf
zelkova
11 No 3 Potentially
preserve
Off-site; will need
protection
458 Sawleaf
zelkova
11 No 3 Potentially
preserve
Off-site; will need
protection
459 Sawleaf
zelkova
10 No 3 Potentially
preserve
Possibly off-site; will
need protection
460 Chinese
hackberry
9 No 3 Potentially
preserve
Off-site; will need
protection
461 Sawleaf
zelkova
9 No 3 Potentially
preserve
Off-site; will need
protection
462 Coast redwood 19 No 3 Preserve Off-site
463 Coast redwood 19 No 4 Preserve Off-site
464 Coast redwood 19 No 4 Preserve Off-site
465 Coast redwood 22 No 4 Preserve Off-site
466 Coast redwood 22 No 4 Preserve Off-site
467 Coast redwood 21 No 4 Preserve Off-site
468 Coast redwood 18 No 3 Preserve Off-site
469 Coast redwood 18 No 3 Preserve Off-site
470 Coast redwood 18 No 3 Preserve Off-site
471 Coast redwood 18 No 3 Preserve Off-site
472 Coast redwood 17 No 3 Preserve Off-site
473 Coast redwood 20 No 3 Preserve Off-site
474 Coast redwood 21 No 3 Preserve Off-site
475 Coast redwood 17 No 3 Preserve Off-site
476 Coast redwood 14 No 3 Preserve Off-site
129
Prelim. Arborist Report – Dublin Senior Living. Dublin, CA HortScience | Bartlett Consulting
August 19, 2021 Page 12
Table 3. Tree disposition and proposed action, cont’d. Dublin Senior Living - Dublin, CA.
Tree
No.
Species Trunk
Diameter
(in.)
Heritage
Tree?
Condition
0=dead
5=excellent
Proposed
Action
Notes
477 Coast redwood 13 No 3 Preserve Off-site
478 Coast redwood 15 No 3 Preserve Off-site
479 Coast redwood 17 No 3 Preserve Off-site
480 Coast redwood 22 No 4 Preserve Off-site
481 Chinese
pistache
6 No 2 Preserve Off-site
482 Raywood ash 6 No 3 Potentially
preserve
Will need protection
483 Raywood ash 5,4 No 3 Potentially
preserve
Will need protection
484 Raywood ash 5,4 No 3 Potentially
preserve
Will need protection
485 Raywood ash 5,4,3 No 2 Potentially
preserve
Will need protection
486 Raywood ash 5,4,2 No 3 Potentially
preserve
Will need protection
130
Prelim. Arborist Report – Dublin Senior Living. Dublin, CA HortScience | Bartlett Consulting
August 19, 2021 Page 13
Preliminary Tree Preservation Guidelines
The goal of tree preservation is not merely tree survival during development but maintenance of tree
health and beauty for many years. Trees retained on sites that are either subject to extensive injury
during construction or are inadequately maintained become a liability rather than an asset. The
response of individual trees will depend on the amount of excavation and grading, the care with which
demolition is undertaken, and the construction methods. Coordinating any construction activity inside
the TREE PROTECTION ZONE can minimize these impacts.
The following recommendations will help reduce impacts to trees from development and maintain and
improve their health and vitality through the clearing, grading and construction phases. Specific
recommendations for tree protection will be prepared when project plans are available.
Tree Protection Zone
1. A TREE PROTECTION ZONE shall be identified for each tree to be preserved on the Tree Protection
Plan prepared by the project arborist. The TREE PROTECTION ZONE shall be the dripline of each
tree. Trees #354 – 356 may be fenced collectively.
a. Tree protection fences shall be installed to encompass the TREE PROTECTION ZONE.
b. Fence all trees to be retained to completely enclose the TREE PROTECTION ZONE prior to
demolition, grubbing or grading. Fences shall be 6 ft. chain link with posts sunk into the
ground or equivalent as approved by the City. Posts may be installed into concrete blocks on
pavement where no soil is available.
c. Fences must be installed prior to beginning demolition and must remain until construction is
complete.
d. No grading, excavation, construction or storage or dumping of materials shall occur within the
TREE PROTECTION ZONE.
e. No underground services including utilities, sub-drains, water or sewer shall be placed in the
TREE PROTECTION ZONE.
f. Fences shall posted with signs stating, “TREE PROTECTION FENCE – DO NOT MOVE OR
REMOVE WITHOUT APPROVAL FROM CITY ARBORIST”.
Design recommendations
1. Plan for tree preservation by designing adequate space around trees to be preserved. This is
the TREE PROTECTION ZONE. No grading, excavation, construction or storage of materials
should occur within that zone. Route underground services including utilities, sub-drains,
water or sewer around the TREE PROTECTION ZONE. For design purposes, the TREE
PROTECTION ZONE is the site’s security fence at the property line.
2. Consider the vertical clearance requirements near trees during design. Avoid designs that
would require pruning more than 20% of a tree’s canopy.
3. Irrigation systems must be designed so that no trenching severs roots larger than 2” in
diameter within the TREE PROTECTION ZONE.
4. Tree Preservation Guidelines prepared by the Consulting Arborist, which include
specifications for tree protection during demolition and construction, should be included on all
plans.
5. Any herbicides placed under paving materials must be safe for use around trees and labeled
for that use.
131
Prelim. Arborist Report – Dublin Senior Living. Dublin, CA HortScience | Bartlett Consulting
August 19, 2021 Page 14
6. As trees withdraw water from the soil, expansive soils may shrink within the root area.
Therefore, foundations, footings and pavements on expansive soils near trees should be
designed to withstand differential displacement.
7. Ensure adequate but not excessive water is supplied to trees; in most cases occasional
irrigation will be required. Avoid directing runoff toward trees.
8. Make all efforts to ensure that roots no larger than 2” in diameter are not severed.
Pre-demolition and pre-construction treatments and recommendations
1. The demolition and construction superintendents shall meet with the Consulting Arborist
before beginning work to review all work procedures, access routes, storage areas, and tree
protection measures.
2. Prune trees to be preserved to clean the crown of dead branches 1” and larger in diameter,
raise canopies as needed for construction activities.
a. All pruning shall be done by a State of California Licensed Tree Contractor (C61/D49). All
pruning shall be done by Certified Arborist or Certified Tree Worker in accordance with
the Best Management Practices for Pruning (International Society of Arboriculture, 2002)
and adhere to the most recent editions of the American National Standard for Tree Care
Operations (Z133.1) and Pruning (A300).
b. The Consulting Arborist will provide pruning specifications prior to site demolition.
c. Branches extending into the work area that can remain following demolition shall be tied
back and protected from damage.
3. All tree work shall comply with the Migratory Bird Treaty Act as well as California Fish and
Wildlife code 3503-3513 to not disturb nesting birds. To the extent feasible tree pruning and
removal should be scheduled outside of the breeding season. Breeding bird surveys should
be conducted prior to tree work. Qualified biologists should be involved in establishing work
buffers for active nests.
Recommendations for tree protection during construction
1. Any approved grading, construction, demolition or other work within the TREE PROTECTION
ZONE should be monitored by the Consulting Arborist.
2. All contractors shall conduct operations in a manner that will prevent damage to trees to be
preserved.
3. Tree protection devices are to remain until all site work has been completed within the work
area. Fences or other protection devices may not be relocated or removed without permission
of the Consulting Arborist.
4. Construction trailers, traffic and storage areas must remain outside TREE PROTECTION ZONE at
all times.
5. Any root pruning required for construction purposes shall receive the prior approval of and be
supervised by the Consulting Arborist. Roots should be cut with a saw to provide a flat and
smooth cut. Removal of roots larger than 2” in diameter should be avoided.
6. If roots 2” and greater in diameter are encountered during site work and must be cut to
complete the construction, the Consulting Arborist must be consulted to evaluate effects on
the health and stability of the tree and recommend treatment.
7. Trees to be removed shall be felled so as to fall away from TREE PROTECTION ZONE and avoid
pulling and breaking of roots of trees to remain. If roots are entwined, the Consulting Arborist
132
Prelim. Arborist Report – Dublin Senior Living. Dublin, CA HortScience | Bartlett Consulting
August 19, 2021 Page 15
may require first severing the major woody root mass before extracting the trees, or grinding
the stump below ground.
8. Prior to grading or trenching, trees may require root pruning outside the TREE PROTECTION
ZONE. Any root pruning required for construction purposes shall receive the prior approval of,
and be supervised by, the Consulting Arborist.
9. Spoil from trench, footing, utility or other excavation shall not be placed within the TREE
PROTECTION ZONE, neither temporarily nor permanently.
10. All grading within the dripline of trees shall be done using the smallest equipment possible.
The equipment shall operate perpendicular to the tree and operate from outside the TREE
PROTECTION ZONE. Any modifications must be approved and monitored by the Consulting
Arborist.
11. All trees shall be irrigated on a schedule to be determined by the Consulting Arborist (every 3
to 6 weeks is typical). Each irrigation shall wet the soil within the TREE PROTECTION ZONE to a
depth of 30”.
12. If injury should occur to any tree during construction, it should be evaluated as soon as
possible by the Consulting Arborist so that appropriate treatments can be applied.
13. No excess soil, chemicals, debris, equipment or other materials shall be dumped or stored
within the TREE PROTECTION ZONE.
14. Any additional tree pruning needed for clearance during construction must be performed by a
Certified Arborist and not by construction personnel.
15. Trees that accumulate a sufficient quantity of dust on their leaves, limbs and trunk as judged
by the Consulting Arborist shall be spray-washed at the direction of the Project Arborist.
133
Prelim. Arborist Report – Dublin Senior Living. Dublin, CA HortScience | Bartlett Consulting
August 19, 2021 Page 16
Maintenance of impacted trees
Preserved trees will experience a physical environment different from that pre-development. As a
result, tree health and structural stability should be monitored. Occasional pruning, fertilization, mulch,
pest management, replanting and irrigation may be required. In addition, provisions for monitoring both
tree health and structural stability following construction must be made a priority.
Our inspections represent the condition of the tree at the time of inspection. As trees age, the
likelihood of failure of branches or entire trees increases. Annual tree inspections are recommended to
identify changes to tree health and structure. In addition, trees should be inspected after storms of
unusual severity to evaluate damage and structural changes. Initiating these inspections is the
responsibility of the client and/or tree owner.
If you have any questions about my observations or recommendations, please contact me.
HortScience | Bartlett Consulting
Pam Nagle
Consulting Arborist and Urban Forester
Certified Arborist #WE-9617A
ISA Tree Risk Assessment Qualified
134
Exhibits
Tree Assessment Form
Tree Assessment Plan
135
Tree No. Species Trunk Diameter (in.)Heritage Tree?Condition 0=dead 5=excellentSuitability for PreservationComments350 Raywood ash 22 No 3 Moderate 2' from curb; multiple attachments at 8'; upright vase form; some branch dieback.351 Raywood ash 14 No 2 Low In 5' planting bed; displacing curb; codominant stems at 6,7'; history of limb removals; vase form; branch dieback.352 Purpleleaf plum 6 - 0 - Dead; leans E. over parking lot.353 Raywood ash 21 No 3 Moderate In ivy planting bed; 2' from curb; correcting lean E.; multiple attachments at 8'; large crown; branch dieback.354 Raywood ash 14 No 3 Moderate In ivy planting bed; multiple attachments at 8'; slight lean E.355 Coast redwood 18 No 3 Moderate In ivy planting bed with hedge; drought stressed; slightly sparse.356 Coast redwood 15 No 3 Moderate In ivy planting bed with hedge; raised base; trunk has correcting bow N.; raised crown; drought stressed.357 Coast redwood 17 No 3 Moderate In ivy planting bed with hedge; raised base; crowded by #358.358 Raywood ash 23 No 3 Moderate In 5' planting bed w/ shrubs; correcting lean E.; multiple attachments at 9'; vase form; branch dieback.359 Raywood ash 18 No 2 Low In 5' ivy planting bed; multiple attachments at 8'; narrow attachments; history of limb removals; sparse.360 Raywood ash 17 No 3 Moderate In lawn w/ surface roots; 3' from water meters; multiple attachments at 8'; vase form; branch dieback.361 Raywood ash 18 No 3 Moderate In 5' planting bed w/ shrubs; slight lean S.E.; multiple attachments at 6'; crowded by #360.362 Coast redwood 15 No 2 Low In 5' planting bed w/ shrubs; raised crown; very sparse; drought stressed.363 Coast redwood 18 No 3 Moderate In 5' planting bed w/ shrubs; slight correcting lean N.; raised crown; drought stressed.364 River birch 9 No 2 Low In lawn area; leans N.E.; codominant stems at 7'.365 Purpleleaf plum 8 - 0 - In lawn area; leans S.W.; dead.366 Callery pear 13 No 3 Moderate In 3' ivy/shrub planting bed; multiple attachments at 6'; narrow attachments.Tree AssessmentDublin Senior LivingDublin, CAJuly 2021
136
Tree No. Species Trunk Diameter (in.)Heritage Tree?Condition 0=dead 5=excellentSuitability for PreservationCommentsTree AssessmentDublin Senior LivingDublin, CAJuly 2021 367 Callery pear 6 No 2 Low In 3' ivy/shrub planting bed; crowded by #366; trunk wound at lost stem N.W. side; multiple attachments area 7'; slight lean E.368 Raywood ash 12 No 3 Moderate In lawn end planter; multiple attachments at 8'; vigorous tree.369 Callery pear 12 No 2 Low In lawn 3' from curb; multiple attachments at 6' w/ narrow attachments; sparse crown; crowded.370 Callery pear 13 No 3 Moderate In lawn 3' from curb; slight lean E; multiple attachments at 6'; narrow attachments; crowded.371 Raywood ash 17 No 2 Low In parking lot end planting bed; multiple attachments at 8'; narrow upright form; history of limb removals; sparse; crowded.372 Raywood ash 14 No 3 Moderate In parking lot end planting bed; multiple attachments at 8'; history of limb removals; branch dieback; crowded.373 Chinese hackberry 10 No 3 Moderate In 5x5' planter in lot w/ ivy; multiple attachments at 6'; vigorous.374 Chinese hackberry 12 No 3 Moderate In 5x5' planter in lot w/ ivy; multiple attachments at 7'; drought stressed; wilting foliage.375 Chinese hackberry 16 No 3 Moderate In 5x5' planter in lot w/ ivy; multiple attachments at 7'; largest of the 3 hackberries; some drought stress.376 Raywood ash 19 No 2 Low In lawn end planting bed 6' from fire hydrant; multiple attachments at 8'; narrow upright crown; sparse; branch dieback; No Dumping sign attached to trunk.377 Chinese hackberry 14 No 3 Moderate In widened 8' ivy planting bed; multiple attachments at 7'; vigorous.378 Chinese hackberry 14 No 3 Moderate In 7' ivy planting bed; multiple attachments at 7'; vigorous.379 Chinese hackberry 14 No 3 Moderate In 7' ivy planting bed; multiple attachments at 7'; vigorous.380 Chinese hackberry 14 No 3 Moderate In 7' ivy planting bed; multiple attachments at 7'; vigorous; recycled water irrigation boxes E. side.381 Chinese hackberry 13 No 3 Moderate In 7' ivy planting bed; multiple attachments at 7'; vigorous.382 Chinese hackberry 10 No 3 Moderate In 7' ivy planting bed; multiple attachments at 8'; vigorous.
137
Tree No. Species Trunk Diameter (in.)Heritage Tree?Condition 0=dead 5=excellentSuitability for PreservationCommentsTree AssessmentDublin Senior LivingDublin, CAJuly 2021 383 Chinese hackberry 11 No 3 Moderate In 7' ivy planting bed; large surface roots; multiple attachments at 6'.384 Chinese hackberry 8 No 3 Moderate In 7' ivy planting bed; large surface roots; multiple attachments at 6'.385 Chinese hackberry 7 No 2 Low In 7' ivy planting bed; large surface roots; multiple attachments at 6'; wilting foliage; drought stressed.386 Raywood ash 15 No 3 Moderate In 5' ivy end planting bed; multiple attachments at 8'; large crown; No Dumping sign attached to trunk.387 Raywood ash 11 No 2 Low In 5' ivy end planting bed; multiple attachments at 8'; branch dieback; sparse.388 Raywood ash 13 No 3 Moderate In 4' planting bed; enlarged surface roots; large spreading crown; some branch dieback.389 Raywood ash 12 No 3 Moderate In 4' planting bed; multiple attachments at 8,9'; narrow upright crown; history of limb removals.390 Raywood ash 10 No 3 Moderate In 4' planting bed; multiple attachments at 9'; narrow upright crown; history of limb removals.391 Chinese hackberry 9 No 3 Moderate In 7' planting bed w/ dying ivy; multiple attachments at 8'; oval crown.392 Chinese hackberry 8 No 3 Moderate In 7' planting bed w/ dying ivy; multiple attachments at 8'; history of limb removals.393 Chinese hackberry 9 No 3 Moderate In 7' planting bed; multiple attachments at 7'; history of limb removals; ivy on trunk base.394 Chinese hackberry 10 No 3 Moderate In 7' planting bed; multiple attachments at 7'; history of limb removals; ivy on trunk base.395 Chinese hackberry 8 No 3 Moderate In 7' planting bed; multiple attachments at 7'; history of limb removals; ivy on trunk base.396 Chinese hackberry 12 No 2 Low In 7' planting bed; multiple attachments at 7'; sparse crown w/ branch dieback.397 Chinese hackberry 13 No 3 Moderate In 7' planting bed; multiple attachments at 6'; sparse crown; history of limb removals.138
Tree No. Species Trunk Diameter (in.)Heritage Tree?Condition 0=dead 5=excellentSuitability for PreservationCommentsTree AssessmentDublin Senior LivingDublin, CAJuly 2021 398 Chinese hackberry 13 No 3 Moderate In 7' planting bed; multiple attachments at 6'; slight lean E.; history of limb removals.399 Raywood ash 23 No 3 Moderate In end planting bed; extensive surface roots, some circling; multiple attachments at 8'; slight lean E.; history of limb removals; branch dieback.400 Raywood ash 18 No 2 Low In end planting bed; extensive surface roots; multiple attachments at 9'; narrow sparse crown w/ branch dieback; history of limb removals.401 Raywood ash 16 No 3 Moderate In end planting bed; extensive surface roots; multiple attachments at 9'; narrow sparse crow; history of limb removals; slightly better canopy.402 Chinese hackberry 12 No 3 Moderate In 7' planting bed w/ ivy; multiple attachments at 6.5'.403 Chinese hackberry 11 No 3 Moderate In 7' planting bed w/ ivy; multiple attachments at 6.5'; history of limb removals.404 Chinese hackberry 11 No 3 Moderate In 7' planting bed w/ ivy; multiple attachments at 7,9'; history of limb removals; slightly sparse.405 Chinese hackberry 9 No 3 Moderate In 7' planting bed w/ ivy; multiple attachments at 8'; history of limb removals; ivy up base.406 Raywood ash 12 No 2 Low In ivy end planting bed; multiple attachments at 7,8'; history of limb removals; sparse.407 Raywood ash 14 No 3 Moderate In ivy end planting bed; multiple attachments at 7,9'; wide crown; history of limb removals.408 Raywood ash 10 No 2 Low In 4' planting bed; multiple attachments at 7' w/ narrow attachments and reaction growth; upright form; branch dieback.409 Raywood ash 12 No 3 Moderate In ivy end planting bed; codominant stems at 8' w/ removed stem; upright vase form; history of limb removals.410 Raywood ash 12 No 3 Moderate In ivy end planting bed; multiple attachments at 8'; upright vase form; history of limb removals.139
Tree No. Species Trunk Diameter (in.)Heritage Tree?Condition 0=dead 5=excellentSuitability for PreservationCommentsTree AssessmentDublin Senior LivingDublin, CAJuly 2021 411 Chinese hackberry 8 No 3 Moderate In 7' planting bed; multiple attachments at 6'; history of limb removals; slightly sparse.412 Chinese hackberry 7 No 3 Moderate In 7' planting bed; extensive surface roots; multiple attachments at 7'; history of limb removals; sparse.413 Chinese hackberry 11 No 3 Moderate In 7' planting bed; multiple attachments at 6,7'; history of limb removals.414 Chinese hackberry 10 No 3 Moderate In 7' planting bed; multiple attachments at 6'; history of limb removals; some drought stress in top crown.415 Raywood ash 14 No 3 Moderate In narrow end lawn planting bed (5'); surface roots; displacing curb; codominant stems at 9'; history of limb removals; branch dieback; crowded by #416.416 Raywood ash 17 No 3 Moderate In narrow end lawn planting bed (5'); multiple attachments at 7' w/ narrow attachments; branch dieback.417 Raywood ash 14 No 2 Low In larger lawn end bed (~9'); multiple attachments at 8'; girdling root E. side; multiple attachments at 8'; upright narrow form; branch dieback.418 Raywood ash 17 No 3 Moderate In larger lawn end bed (~9'); surface rooting; multiple attachments at 8' w/ seams; narrow upright form.419 Chinese hackberry 12 No 3 Moderate In 7' planting bed; multiple attachments at 8' w/ history of limb removals; slight lean N.W.; base engulfed in ivy; history of limb removals.420 Chinese hackberry 12 No 3 Moderate In 7' planting bed; multiple attachments at 7'; base engulfed in ivy.421 Chinese hackberry 13 No 3 Moderate In 7' planting bed; multiple attachments at 8'; base engulfed in ivy.422 Chinese hackberry 6 No 3 Moderate In 7' planting bed; less ivy; codominant stems at7' w/ removed stem; thin crown.423 Raywood ash 9 No 3 Moderate In ivy end bed; multiple attachments at 8'; history of limb removals with reaction growth; small young tree.140
Tree No. Species Trunk Diameter (in.)Heritage Tree?Condition 0=dead 5=excellentSuitability for PreservationCommentsTree AssessmentDublin Senior LivingDublin, CAJuly 2021 424 Raywood ash 15 No 3 Moderate In ivy end bed; codominant stems at 9' w/ history of limb removals; some branch dieback; large crown.425 Raywood ash 13 No 3 Moderate In narrow 4' planting bed; multiple attachments at 8'; history of limb removals; oval crown.426 Raywood ash 11 No 3 Moderate In 5' ivy end bed; trunk wound S. side; multiple attachments at 7' w/ narrow attachments; history of limb removals; crowded by #427.427 Raywood ash 11 No 3 Moderate In 5' ivy end bed; slight lean E.; large surface roots; girdling root S. side; multiple attachments at 8'; vase form.428 Chinese hackberry 9 No 2 Low In 7' planting bed; surface roots; multiple attachments at 6.5' w/ decay; history of limb removals; drought-stressed.429 Chinese hackberry 9 No 2 Low In 7' planting bed; surface roots; multiple attachments at 7'; drought-stressed.430 Chinese hackberry 10 No 3 Moderate In 7' planting bed; multiple attachments at 6',8'; history of limb removals; some drought stress.431 Chinese hackberry 13 No 3 Moderate In 7' planting bed w/ ivy; multiple attachments at 7'; history of limb removals; slightly sparse.432 Chinese hackberry 13 No 3 Moderate In 7' planting bed w/ base engulfed in ivy; multiple attachments at 7'; crowded by #433 and 434.433 Raywood ash 13 No 2 Low In end lawn planting bed; slight lean E.; multiple attachments at 7'; history of limb removals; vase form; sparse.434 Raywood ash 18 No 3 Moderate In end lawn planting bed; extensive large surface roots; multiple attachments at 8'; history of limb removals; large crown; some branch dieback.435 Raywood ash 19 No 2 Low In large corner end planting bed/lawn; small girdling root W. side; multiple attachments at 8'; extensive branch dieback.436 Raywood ash 19 No 3 Moderate In large corner end planting bed/lawn; surface rooting; slight lean N.E.; multiple attachments at 8'; history of limb removals.141
Tree No. Species Trunk Diameter (in.)Heritage Tree?Condition 0=dead 5=excellentSuitability for PreservationCommentsTree AssessmentDublin Senior LivingDublin, CAJuly 2021 437 Coast redwood 13 No 3 Moderate In raised berm ivy planting bed; typical form and structure; drought stressed.438 Coast redwood 13 No 3 Moderate In raised berm ivy planting bed; typical form and structure; drought stressed.439 Thornless honey locust9 No 2 Low In lawn area; correcting lean E.; some branch dieback.440 Valley oak 24 Yes 2 Low At sidewalk near fire hydrant, likely growing on top of water line; strong lean S.W.; multiple attachments at 10'; some branch dieback.441 Raywood ash 14 No 2 LowOff-site; no tag. In 5' lawn planting bed; multiple attachments at 7'; history of limb removals; sparse w/ branch dieback.442 Raywood ash 13 No 3 ModerateOff-site; no tag. 1' from curb; multiple attachments at 6,7'; history of limb removals; better crown than #441.443 Chinese hackberry 11 No 3 Moderate In 5x5' bed at steel property line fence; multiple attachments at 7'; history of limb removals.444 Chinese hackberry 9 No 3 Moderate In 5x5' bed at steel property line fence; enlarged base; trunk divides at 6 and 8'; history of limb removals.445 Chinese hackberry 14 No 3 Moderate In 5x5' bed at steel property line fence; enlarged base; trunk divides at 6 and 8'; history of limb removals.446 Chinese hackberry 10 No 3 Moderate In 5x5' bed at steel property line fence; multiple attachments at 6'; history of limb removals.447 Chinese hackberry 10 No 3 Moderate In 5x5' bed at steel property line fence; codominant stems at 7' w/ seam and history of limb removals; multiple attachments above.448 Chinese hackberry 8 No 3 Moderate In 5x5' bed at steel property line fence; raised crown; history of limb removals.449 Chinese hackberry 11 No 3 Moderate In 5x5' bed at steel property line fence; codominant stems at 6' w/ multiple attachments above; history of limb removals.450 Chinese hackberry 11 No 3 Moderate In 5x5' bed; multiple attachments at 6,7'; thin crown.
142
Tree No. Species Trunk Diameter (in.)Heritage Tree?Condition 0=dead 5=excellentSuitability for PreservationCommentsTree AssessmentDublin Senior LivingDublin, CAJuly 2021 451 Chinese hackberry 8 No 3 Moderate In 5x5' bed; surface rooting w/ some ivy present; multiple attachments at 6'; history of limb removals.452 Chinese hackberry 9 No 3 Moderate In 5x5' bed; extensive surface roots; multiple attachments at 7'; history of limb removals.453 Chinese hackberry 10 No 3 Moderate In 5x5' bed; extensive surface roots; multiple attachments at 7'; history of limb removals.454 Raywood ash 11 No 2 Low In end 5' planting bed; multiple attachments at 8' w/ removed stems; sparse.455 Raywood ash 11 No 3 Moderate In end 5' planting bed; multiple attachments at 8' w/ removed stems; history of limb removals; vase form.456 Raywood ash 11 No 3 Moderate In narrow 4' planting bed; multiple attachments at 7'; branch dieback.457 Sawleaf zelkova 11 No 3 ModerateOff-site; no tag. Multiple attachments at 6' w/ embedded straps; buried root crown; surface roots; wide rounded canopy; drought-stressed.458 Sawleaf zelkova 11 No 3 ModerateOff-site; no tag. Buried root crown; multiple attachments at 7' w/ embedded straps and branching below the attachments; wide rounded canopy; drought stressed.459 Sawleaf zelkova 10 No 3 ModeratePossibly offsite, tagged. Buried root crown; surface roots; multiple attachments at 5'; wide rounded canopy; drought stressed.460 Chinese hackberry 9 No 3 ModerateOff-site; no tag. codominant stems at 6' w/ multiple attachments above; some branch dieback.461 Sawleaf zelkova 9 No 3 ModerateOff-site; no tag. Leans S.; multiple attachments at base and above; low, shrubby form; wide crown.462 Coast redwood 19 No 3 ModerateOff-site, no tag. Typical form and structure; slightly sparse and drought-stressed; extends 5-10' over site.463 Coast redwood 19 No 4 HighOff-site, no tag. Typical form and structure; slightly drought-stressed; extends 5-10' over site.143
Tree No. Species Trunk Diameter (in.)Heritage Tree?Condition 0=dead 5=excellentSuitability for PreservationCommentsTree AssessmentDublin Senior LivingDublin, CAJuly 2021 464 Coast redwood 19 No 4 HighOff-site, no tag. Typical form and structure; slightly drought-stressed; extends 5-10' over site.465 Coast redwood 22 No 4 HighOff-site, no tag. Typical form and structure; slightly drought-stressed; extends 5-10' over site.466 Coast redwood 22 No 4 HighOff-site, no tag. Typical form and structure; slightly drought-stressed; extends 5-10' over site.467 Coast redwood 21 No 4 HighOff-site, no tag. Typical form and structure; slightly drought-stressed; extends 5-10' over site.468 Coast redwood 18 No 3 ModerateOff-site, no tag. Typical form and structure; slightly sparse and drought-stressed; extends 5-10' over site.469 Coast redwood 18 No 3 ModerateOff-site, no tag. Typical form and structure; slightly sparse and drought-stressed; extends 5-10' over site.470 Coast redwood 18 No 3 ModerateOff-site, no tag. Typical form and structure; slightly sparse and drought-stressed; extends 5-10' over site.471 Coast redwood 18 No 3 ModerateOff-site, no tag. Typical form and structure; slightly sparse and drought-stressed; extends 5-10' over site.472 Coast redwood 17 No 3 ModerateOff-site, no tag. Typical form and structure; slightly sparse and drought-stressed; extends 5-10' over site.473 Coast redwood 20 No 3 ModerateOff-site, no tag. Typical form and structure; slightly sparse and drought-stressed; extends 5-10' over site.474 Coast redwood 21 No 3 ModerateOff-site, no tag. Typical form and structure; slightly sparse and drought-stressed; extends 5-10' over site.475 Coast redwood 17 No 3 ModerateOff-site, no tag. Typical form and structure; slightly sparse and drought-stressed; extends 5-10' over site.476 Coast redwood 14 No 3 ModerateOff-site, no tag. Typical form and structure; slightly sparse and drought-stressed; extends 5-10' over site.477 Coast redwood 13 No 3 ModerateOff-site, no tag. Typical form and structure; raised crown; slightly sparse and drought-stressed; extends 5-10' over site.478 Coast redwood 15 No 3 ModerateOff-site, no tag. Typical form and structure; slightly sparse and drought-stressed; extends 5-10' over site.144
Tree No. Species Trunk Diameter (in.)Heritage Tree?Condition 0=dead 5=excellentSuitability for PreservationCommentsTree AssessmentDublin Senior LivingDublin, CAJuly 2021 479 Coast redwood 17 No 3 ModerateOff-site, no tag. Typical form and structure; slightly sparse and drought-stressed; extends 5-10' over site.480 Coast redwood 22 No 4 HighOff-site, no tag. Typical form and structure; vigorous; extends 5-10' over site.481 Chinese pistache 6 No 2 LowOff-site; no tag. Suppressed by adjacent trees; wide thin crown.482 Raywood ash 6 No 3 Moderate 4' from curb; engulfed in oleander; crowded by off-site redwoods; vigorous young tree.483 Raywood ash 5,4 No 3 Moderate 3' from curb; crowded by oleander; codominant stems at 4' w/ removed stem; large surface root to S.W.; vigorous young tree.484 Raywood ash 5,4 No 3 Moderate 5' from curb; codominant stems at base; crowded by oleander; vigorous young tree.485 Raywood ash 5,4,3 No 2 Low 4' from curb; multiple attachments at base w/ embedded oleander stems; crowded by off-site redwoods and shrubs; slightly sparse.486 Raywood ash 5,4,2 No 3 Moderate 4' from curb; multiple attachments at base; crowded by off-site redwoods and shrubs; vigorous young tree.145
146
Dublin Senior Living Project
CEQA Addendum
April 28, 2022
Planning Application Number: PLPA-2021-00042
147
City of Dublin Dublin Senior Living Project
CEQA Addendum | Page 1
Dublin Senior Living Project
CEQA Addendum
April 28, 2022
Project Overview
The Dublin Senior Living Project (Project) site is located at 5751 Arnold Road (Assessor’s Parcel
Number [APN]: 986-14-13) and is an approximately 5.74-acre site in the City’s Eastern Dublin
Specific Plan (EDSP) area with commercial/office uses to the north, south and east, and
residential uses to the west.
The Project proposes the construction and operation of a two-story, 155,517-square-foot (sf)
licensed residential care facility for the elderly (RCFE) and would include the following
components:
One two-story structure, consisting of 155,517 sf
152 units consisting of 114 assisted living units and 38 memory care units, with a total of
up to 174 beds and 100,895 sf
Common areas for the use and enjoyment of Project residents, including a commercial
kitchen, dining areas, fitness room, golf simulator, pool, salon, spa, various activity
rooms, a café and small convenience store, theater and games room, and exterior
amenities, for a total of 26,328 sf of common space
Circulation and utility spaces account for the remaining 28,295 sf
Outdoor open spaces, courtyards, and walkways, with landscaping and lighting
89 surface parking spaces for residents, employees, and visitors
Prior CEQA Analysis
Prior California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) analysis includes the Eastern Dublin General
Plan Amendment and Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report (EIR) (1993) (1993 GPA/SP
EIR). This environmental review document is described below.
Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan EIR (1993)
The 1993 GPA/SP EIR and an addendum (1993) were certified by the City Council on August 22,
1994. This EIR analyzed General Plan Amendments affecting a 6,920-acre area and the adoption
of the EDSP, which encompassed a 3,328-acre area and provides a comprehensive planning
framework for future development in Eastern Dublin. The area considered in this EIR included
the Project site.
148
City of Dublin Dublin Senior Living Project
CEQA Addendum | Page 2
The 1993 GPA/SP EIR identified the following significant and unavoidable impacts: cumulative
loss of agriculture and open space land, cumulative traffic, extension of natural gas, electric,
and telephone service community facilities, consumption of non-renewable natural resources,
increases in energy uses through increased water treatment and disposal and through
operation of the water distribution system, inducement of substantial growth and
concentration of population, earthquake ground shaking, loss/degradation of botanically
sensitive habitat, regional air quality, noise, and aesthetics.
Pursuant to Resolution No. 53-93, the City Council adopted a Mitigation Measures and
Monitoring Program, which continues to apply to development in Eastern Dublin. The City
Council also adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations in connection with certification
of the 1993 GPA/SP EIR.
Proposed CEQA Analysis in this Document
The City prepared a CEQA analysis for the proposed Project using the City’s Initial Study
Checklist, dated April 28, 2022, incorporated herein by reference, to assess whether any further
environmental review is required. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15164, the City
determined that no subsequent or supplemental EIR or Negative Declaration is required for the
proposed Project and an Addendum to the 1993 GPA/SP EIR is the appropriate CEQA review per
the following:
No Subsequent Review is Required per CEQA Guidelines Section 15162
Public Resources Code Section 21166 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 identify the
conditions that trigger the requirement of subsequent environmental review and
documentation for a project. After a review of these conditions, the City determined that no
subsequent EIR or Negative 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 1993 GPA/SP
EIR due to new or substantially more severe significant impacts than previously identified?
There are no substantial changes to the Project as analyzed in the 1993 GPA/SP EIR. The
Project proposes to construct and operate a two-story RCFE in lieu of a planned office
building in an existing commercial/office park. As demonstrated in the Initial Study, the
Project does not constitute a substantial change to the 1993 GPA/SP EIR analysis, will not
result in additional significant impacts, and no additional or different mitigation measures
are required.
b) Are there substantial changes in the conditions which the project is undertaken requiring
major revisions to the 1993 GPA/SP EIR due to new or substantially more severe significant
impacts than previously identified?
149
City of Dublin Dublin Senior Living Project
CEQA Addendum | Page 3
There are no substantial changes in the conditions assumed in the 1993 GPA/SP EIR. The
Project proposes to construct and operate a two-story RCFE in lieu of a planned office
building in an existing commercial/office park. This is documented in the attached Initial
Study.
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 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 are now feasible but the applicant declined to
adopt them; or mitigation measures 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 Initial Study, there is no new information showing a new
or more severe significant effect beyond those identified in the 1993 GPA/SP EIR.
Similarly, the Initial Study documents that no new or different mitigation measures are
required for the Project. All previously adopted mitigations continue to apply to the
Project. The 1993 GPA/SP EIR adequately describes the impacts and mitigations
associated with the proposed development on portions of the EDSP area.
d) If no subsequent EIR-level review is required, should a subsequent negative declaration be
prepared?
No subsequent EIR or Negative Declaration is required because there are no significant
impacts of the Project beyond those identified in the 1993 GPA/SP EIR and no other
standards for supplemental review under CEQA are met, as documented in the attached
Initial Study.
Conclusion
This Addendum is prepared pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15164 based on the attached
Initial Study. Through the adoption of this Addendum and related Initial Study, the City
determines that the proposed Project does not require a subsequent or supplemental EIR or
Negative Declaration under CEQA Section 21166 or CEQA Guidelines Sections 15162 and 15163.
The City further determines that the 1993 GPA/SP EIR adequately addresses the potential
environmental impacts of the Dublin Senior Living Project.
As provided in Section 15164 of the CEQA Guidelines, this Addendum need not be circulated for
public review, but shall be considered with the prior environmental document before making a
decision on this Project.
The Initial Study and 1993 GPA/SP EIR are incorporated herein by reference and are available
for public review during normal business hours, Monday through Friday, from 8:00 a.m. to
12:00 p.m. and 1:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m., in the Community Development Department, Dublin City
Hall, 100 Civic Plaza, Dublin CA.
150
Dublin Senior Living Project
CEQA Initial Study
April 28, 2022
Planning Application Number: PLPA-2021-00042
151
City of Dublin Dublin Senior Living Project
CEQA Initial Study | Page i
Table of Contents
Project Overview 1
Prior CEQA Analysis 1
Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan EIR (1993) ...................................... 1
Proposed CEQA Analysis in this Document 2
No Subsequent Review is Required per CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 ................................... 2
Conclusion 3
Project Background 1
Project Title .................................................................................................................................. 1
Lead Agency ................................................................................................................................. 1
Contact ......................................................................................................................................... 1
Project Location & Setting ........................................................................................................... 1
Project Applicant .......................................................................................................................... 4
General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Designation ........................................................ 4
Zoning ........................................................................................................................................... 4
Project Background and Purpose 4
Project Description 4
Project Characteristics ................................................................................................................. 4
Operational Characteristics .......................................................................................................... 5
Open Space and Landscaping....................................................................................................... 5
Site Access and Internal Circulation ........................................................................................... 11
Utilities and Public Services ....................................................................................................... 11
Sustainability Features ............................................................................................................... 14
Demolition and Construction ..................................................................................................... 14
Project Approvals ....................................................................................................................... 15
Other Public Agencies Whose Approval Is Required ................................................................. 15
Applicable General Plan and EDSP Land Use Designations ....................................................... 16
152
City of Dublin Dublin Senior Living Project
CEQA Initial Study | Page ii
CEQA Analysis 17
Determination 18
Aesthetics ................................................................................................................................... 19
Agricultural and Forestry Resources .......................................................................................... 22
Air Quality .................................................................................................................................. 25
Biological Resources ................................................................................................................... 32
Cultural Resources ..................................................................................................................... 35
Energy ........................................................................................................................................ 37
Geology and Soils ....................................................................................................................... 43
Greenhouse Gas Emissions ........................................................................................................ 48
Hazards and Hazardous Materials ............................................................................................. 49
Hydrology and Water Quality .................................................................................................... 52
Land Use and Planning ............................................................................................................... 57
Mineral Resources ..................................................................................................................... 58
Noise .......................................................................................................................................... 59
Population and Housing ............................................................................................................. 64
Public Services ............................................................................................................................ 65
Recreation .................................................................................................................................. 69
Transportation ........................................................................................................................... 71
Tribal Cultural Resources ........................................................................................................... 74
Utilities and Service Systems ..................................................................................................... 76
Wildfires ..................................................................................................................................... 82
Mandatory Findings of Significance ........................................................................................... 83
References 85
List of Preparers 87
Appendices
A Air Quality and Energy
B Transportation Analysis
153
City of Dublin Dublin Senior Living Project
CEQA Initial Study | Page iii
List of Figures
Figure 1: Project Location ............................................................................................................... 2
Figure 2: Project Site ....................................................................................................................... 3
Figure 3: Project Site Plan ............................................................................................................... 6
Figure 4: Building Exterior and Primary Entry................................................................................. 7
Figure 5: Building Rendering and Dropoff ...................................................................................... 8
Figure 6: Building Elevations ........................................................................................................... 9
Figure 7: Landscaping and Outdoor Amenities ............................................................................. 10
Figure 8: Preliminary Utility Plan .................................................................................................. 12
Figure 9: Preliminary Stormwater Quality Plan ............................................................................ 13
List of Tables
Table 1: Project Construction Schedule ........................................................................................ 14
Table 2: Construction Annual and Daily Average Emissions (Unmitigated Average Daily Rate) . 28
Table 3: Operational Annual Emissions (Unmitigated) ................................................................. 29
Table 4: Operational Average Daily Emissions (Unmitigated) ...................................................... 30
Table 5: Construction Energy Demand ......................................................................................... 39
Table 6: Long-Term Operational Vehicle Fuel Consumption ........................................................ 40
Table 7: Long-Term Electricity Usage............................................................................................ 41
Table 8: Long-Term Natural Gas Usage ........................................................................................ 41
Table 9: Estimated Vibration Levels for Construction Equipment ............................................... 63
Table 10: Project Trip Generation Summary ................................................................................ 72
154
City of Dublin Dublin Senior Living Project
CEQA Initial Study | Page iv
Acronyms and Abbreviations
AB Assembly Bill
ADT average daily trips
AF acre-feet
AFY acre-feet per year
APN Assessor’s Parcel Number
AQP air quality plan
BAAQMD Bay Area Air Quality Management District
Basin Plan Water Quality Control Plan for the San Francisco Bay Basin
BMP Best Management Practice
CALGreen California Green Building Standards Code
Caltrans California Department of Transportation
CBC California Building Code
CO carbon monoxide
CNEL community noise equivalent level
dB decibels
DOC California Department of Conservation
DMC Dublin Municipal Code
DPM diesel particulate matter
DSRSD Dublin-San Ramon Services District
DWR Department of Water Resources
EDSP Eastern Dublin Specific Plan
EDSPA Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment
EIR Environmental Impact Report
FAR Floor Area Ratio
FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency
FIRM Flood Insurance Rate Map
FTA Federal Transit Administration
GHG greenhouse gas
GIS geographic information system
gpd gallons per day
gpm gallons per minutes
GSA Groundwater Sustainability Agency
GSP Groundwater Sustainability Plan
GWMP Groundwater Management Plan
KBTU kilo British thermal unit
KWhr kilowatt hour
ITE Institute of Transportation Engineers
I-580 Interstate 580
155
City of Dublin Dublin Senior Living Project
CEQA Initial Study | Page v
I-680 Interstate 680
LAVWMA Livermore-Amador Valley Water Management Agency
lbs pounds
Ldn day-night average sound level
LID Low Impact Development
mgd million gallons per day
MRP Municipal Regional Permit
MRZ Mineral Resource Zone
MTC/ABAG Metropolitan Transportation Commission/Association of Bay Area
Governments
NOx oxides of nitrogen
NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
PD Planned Development
PG&E Pacific Gas and Electric
PM2.5 particulate matter 2.5 microns in diameter
PM10 particulate matter 10 microns in diameter
POTW publicly owned treatment works
PPV peak particle velocity
Project Dublin Senior Living Project
RCFE residential care facility for the elderly
SDR Site Development Review
sf square-foot/square feet
SGMA Sustainable Groundwater Management Act
SWPPP Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan
RCFE residential care facility for the elderly
RFTA Parks Reserve Forces Training Area
ROG reactive organic gases
RWQCB Regional Water Quality Control Board
UWMP Urban Water Management Plan
VMT vehicle miles traveled
WWTP wastewater treatment plant
μg/m3 micrograms per cubic meter
156
City of Dublin Dublin Senior Living Project
CEQA Initial Study | Page 1
Dublin Senior Living Project
CEQA Initial Study
Project Background
Project Title
Dublin Senior Living
PLPA-2021-00042
Lead Agency
City of Dublin
Community Development Department
100 Civic Plaza
Dublin, CA 94568
Contact
Gaspare Annibale
Associate Planner
Phone: 925-833-6610
gaspare.annibale@dublin.ca.gov
Project Location & Setting
The Project site is located at 5751 Arnold Road (Assessor’s Parcel Number [APN]: 986-14-13.
See Figure 1: Project Location.
As shown in Figure 2: Project Site, the Project site is approximately 5.74 acres located on the
east side of Arnold Road in the City’s Eastern Dublin Specific Plan (EDSP) area with
commercial/office uses located to the north, south and east, and residential uses to the west.
The approximately 5.74-acre Project site is generally flat and is surrounded by existing
development. The Project site is bordered to the south by an existing office building and Central
Parkway. To the west is Arnold Road, with a residential neighborhood located farther to the
west across Arnold Road. The Project site is bounded on the east by corporate office buildings,
with Hacienda Drive bordering the commercial/office campus farther to the east. Other
commercial and office uses are located north of the Project site, and Gleason Drive is located
further to the north. The Project vicinity includes a mix of commercial, office, residential (single-
family and multifamily), and institutional (correctional) and civic uses, such as Alameda County
Superior Court, Emergency Services, Sheriff’s Department, Fire Station 17, and a California
Highway Patrol station.
157
V:\1857\Active\185705826\gis\mxd\fig_1_project_location.mxd Revised: 2022-03-18 By: KAEJOHNSON1
City of DublinDublin Senior Living Project
Dublin, California
Project Location
Disclaimer: This document has been prepared based on information provided by others as cited in the Notes section. Stantec has not verified the accuracy and/or completeness of this information and shall not be responsible for any errorsor omissions which may be incorporated herein as a result. Stantec assumes no responsibility for data supplied in electronic format, and the recipient accepts full responsibility for verifying the accuracy and completeness of the data.
Notes1.Coordinate System: NAD 1983 StatePlaneCalifornia III FIPS 0403 Feet2.Data Sources:3.Background: Sources: Esri, HERE, Garmin,Intermap, increment P Corp., GEBCO, USGS, FAO,NPS, NRCAN, GeoBase, IGN, Kadaster NL,Ordnance Survey, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China(Hong Kong), (c) OpenStreetMap contributors, and
Figure No.
Title
Project Location
Client/Project
Legend
Project Site
City of Dublin
(At original document size of 8.5x11)1:84,858 ($$¯0 0.5 1 Miles
Project Location
158
V:\1857\Active\185705826\gis\mxd\fig_2_project_site.mxd Revised: 2022-03-18 By: KAEJOHNSON2
City of DublinDublin Senior Living Project
Dublin, California
Project Site
Disclaimer: This document has been prepared based on information provided by others as cited in the Notes section. Stantec has not verified the accuracy and/or completeness of this information and shall not be responsible for any errorsor omissions which may be incorporated herein as a result. Stantec assumes no responsibility for data supplied in electronic format, and the recipient accepts full responsibility for verifying the accuracy and completeness of the data.
Notes1.Coordinate System: NAD 1983 StatePlaneCalifornia III FIPS 0403 Feet2.Data Sources:3.Background: Sources: Esri, HERE, Garmin,Intermap, increment P Corp., GEBCO, USGS, FAO,NPS, NRCAN, GeoBase, IGN, Kadaster NL,Ordnance Survey, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China(Hong Kong), (c) OpenStreetMap contributors, and
Figure No.
Title
Project Location
Client/Project
Legend
Project Site (At original document size of 8.5x11)1:8,000 ($$¯0 250 500Feet
159
City of Dublin Dublin Senior Living Project
CEQA Initial Study | Page 4
The majority of the Project site is paved and surrounded by existing surface parking areas.
Additionally, the site includes landscape areas consisting of ornamental and non-native trees,
shrubs, and bushes.
The General Plan and EDSP land use designation of the Project site is Campus/Office and the
zoning is Planned Development (PD) (Resolution No. 30-98). Local access to the Project site
would be via Arnold Road, Central Parkway, Hacienda Drive and Gleason Drive. Other major
roadways in the Project vicinity include Dougherty Road, approximately 0.9 mile to the west of
the Project site, Dublin Boulevard, approximately 0.3 mile to the south, and Tassajara Road,
approximately 1.1 miles to the east. Regional access is provided by Interstate 580 (I-580),
located approximately 0.6 mile to the south of the Project site and Interstate 680 (I-680),
located approximately two miles to the west.
Project Applicant
South Bay Partners, LLC
4514 Cole Avenue, Suite 1500
Dallas, TX 72025
General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Designation
Campus/Office
Zoning
Planned Development (Resolution No. 30-98)
Project Background and Purpose
The Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report
(EIR) (1993 GPA/SP EIR) and an addendum were certified by the City Council on August 22,
1994. This EIR analyzed General Plan Amendments affecting a 6,920-acre area and the adoption
of the EDSP, which encompassed a 3,328-acre area and provides a comprehensive planning
framework for future development in Eastern Dublin. The area considered in the 1993 GPA/SP
EIR included the Project site. The Project purpose is provided below.
Project Description
Project Characteristics
The Project proposes the construction and operation of a two-story, 155,517-square-foot (sf)
licensed residential care facility for the elderly (RCFE) and would include the following
components, as seen in Figure 3: Project Site Plan:
One two-story structure, consisting of 155,517 sf
152 units consisting of 114 assisted living units and 38 memory care units, with a total of
160
City of Dublin Dublin Senior Living Project
CEQA Initial Study | Page 5
up to 174 beds and 100,895 sf Common areas for the use and enjoyment of Project
residents, including a commercial kitchen, dining areas, fitness room, golf simulator,
pool, salon, spa, various activity rooms, a café and small convenience store, theater and
games room, and exterior amenities, for a total of 26,328 sf of common space.
Circulation and utility spaces account for the remaining 28,295 sf
Outdoor open spaces, courtyards, and walkways, with landscaping and lighting
89 surface parking spaces for residents, employees, and visitors
The Project would be designed in a contemporary style and would include cultured stone,
painted metal, and engineered wood-looking veneer cladding, as shown in Figure 4: Building
Exterior and Primary Entry, and the rendering provided in Figure 5: Building Rendering and
Dropoff. To the top of the parapet, the building would be approximately 28 feet in height, as
shown in Figure 6: Building Elevations.
Operational Characteristics
The Project would be operational 24 hours per day, seven days per week. It is estimated that
approximately 80 full time and 40 part time jobs would be generated by the Project. Due to the
nature of the full-time RCFE operation, employees would be required in various shifts, including
approximately 42 employees from 6:30 a.m. to 2:30 p.m., 27 employees from 2:30 p.m. to
10:30 p.m., and 10 employees from 10:30 p.m. to 6:30 a.m.
Open Space and Landscaping
The Project proposes to include new landscaping, gardens, outdoor furniture, walkways, and
other outdoor amenities, as shown in Figure 7: Landscaping and Outdoor Amenities. In
addition to common open space, private open space would be provided consisting of balconies
and patios. Exterior common space areas would include a memory care garden (6,187 sf),
assisted living garden (11,457 sf), and landscape amenity areas around the building (66,897 sf)
for a total of 84,541 sf of common open space. There would be a total of approximately 5,200 sf
of private open space, consisting of first floor patios (2,050 sf) and second floor balconies (3,150
sf). Some exterior amenities would be secured for resident’s safety. New lighting and signage
would be placed throughout the Project site and parking areas to provide security and needed
illumination for safety. Within the Project site, 82 trees are proposed to be removed, two of
which are dead and none of which are protected or heritage trees. The Project would preserve
43 trees during construction and operation, one of which is a heritage tree, and plant 107 new
trees.
161
Dublin, California
Project Location
Client/Project
Figure No.
Title
Source: SmithGroup January 2022
City of Dublin
Dublin Senior Living Project
Project Site Plan
3
503' - 10 5/8"539' - 7 1/8"65' - 0 1/8"474' - 7"AL COURTYARD: 13,086 SF
MC COURTYARD:
6,187 SF
4 PARKING14' - 1"5 PARKINGPARKING4 CLEAN AIRPARKING3 CLEAN AIR3 PARKING4 PARKING20' - 2 1/4"25' - 0"SERVICE YARD CONCRETE PAD32' - 2 1/2"219' - 7 1/4"59' - 11 1/2"161' - 3 7/8"62' - 6"318' - 5"
(N) FH
NEW SITE ENTRY/EXIT TO ALIGN WITH HORIZON PKWY EXISTING SITE ENTRY TO BE ABANDONED AND INFILLED WITH NEW SIDEWALK AND LANDSCAPE
EXISTING SITE ENTRY/EXIT TO REMAIN3 EVA PARKING(E) 13 PARKING
PARKING4 EVA READYPARKING2 EVA READY55' - 0"GENERATOR3 PARKINGPARKING4 CLEAN AIRPARKING3 CLEAN AIR3 PARKINGPARKING4 EVA READYPARKING3 EVA READYPARKING3 EVA READYPARKING4 EVA READYPARKING3 EVA READYTRASH ENCLOSURE
(2 VAN)2 ADATYP.9' - 0"TYP.18' - 0"
63' - 0"147' - 8"150' - 1"315' - 1 1/4"
180' - 1 3/8"
MONUMENT SIGN
36' - 0 1/4"
28' - 0 1/8"
19' - 0" 8' - 6"
27' - 10 3/4"
22' - 2 1/2" 24' - 9 1/4"PARKING2 ADA18' - 0"
18' - 0"9' - 0"5' - 0"9' - 0"9' - 0"8' - 0"9' - 0"104' - 3 3/4"RECRECRECTRTRTRORGORGLANDS OFTODA AMERICA, INCPARCEL 1PARCEL MAP 8520(282 M 69-73)LANDS OF CREEKSIDE BUSINESS PARK OWNER LLC.LANDS OF ROSS DRESS FOR LESS INC.
A1.02 TYP
(E) 14 COMPACT PARKING
C C C C C C C C C C C C C C
LITTER AND PET WASTE RECEPTACLES, TYP
STANDARD9' - 0" TYP.COMPACT8' - 0" TYP.STANDARD18' - 0" TYP.OVERHANG2' - 0"PEDESTRIAN PATH4' - 0" MIN2' - 8"
4" 2' - 0" 4"COMPACT15' - 0" TYP.OVERHANG2' - 0"STAMPED COLORED CONCRETE(COLOR AND PATTERN TBD)
STANDARD PAVING
TRASH, RECYCLING, AND ORGANICS PUBLIC LITTER CONTAINERS
PET WASTE PUBLIC LITTER CONTAINERSPW
0
SHEET NUMBER
PROJECT NUMBER
SHEET TITLE
SEALS AND SIGNATURES
ISSUED FOR REV DATE
301 BATTERY STREET7TH FLOORSAN FRANCISCO, CA 94111415.227.0100smithgroup.com
KIER + WRIGHTCIVIL ENGINEERING
2850 Collier Canyon Road Livermore, California 94551(925) 245-8788
NOT FOR
CONSTRUCTION
Plot Date:20'40'60'
GRAPHIC SCALE: 1" = 20' -0"
DUBLIN SENIOR LIVING
5751 Arnold RoadDublin, California, 94568
1/27/2022 7:38:14 PMSITE PLAN
A1.0Author13098TOTAL PARCEL AREA: 249,898 SFBUILDING AREA:155,829 SF(FAR: 0.62)COMMUNITY CARE FACILITY USE TYPE PARKING REQUIREMENT IS 1 PER 3 EMPLOYEES ON LARGEST SHIFT, PLUS 1 PER 3 BEDS.
AT PEAK TIMES AND FULL OCCUPANCY, THERE WILL BE 42 STAFF ON SITE (14 REQUIRED STALLS); THE PROPOSED FACILITY HAS 152 TOTAL UNITS INCLUDING 22 TWO-BEDROOM UNITS FOR A TOTAL OF 174 POSSIBLE BEDS (58 REQUIRED STALLS)
MC COURTYARD: 6,187 SFAL COURTYARD: 13,099 SFOPEN SPACE AREA: 152,224 SFTOTAL OPEN SPACE: 171,497 SF (69%)
EXISTING PARKING:27NEW PARKING:62NEW ADA PARKING: 4 (2 VAN ACCESSIBLE STALLS)
TOTAL PARKING:93 (72 REQUIRED STALLS)
CLEAN AIR PARKING:12 WILL BE PROVIDED EV READY PARKING:24 WILL BE PROVIDED (25%)EV CHARGER PARKING:3 WILL BE PROVIDED (3%)SHORT TERM BIKE:5 RACKS TO BE LOCATED NEAR BUILDING ENTRANCES (5%)LONG TERM BIKE:5 LOCKERS TO BE LOCATED NEAR BUILDING ENTRANCES (5%)
TRUE NORTH
SCALE:1/4" = 1'-0"2 TYPICAL PARKING STRIPING DETAIL
SCALE:1/8" = 1'-0"
SITE PLAN LEGEND
503' - 10 5/8"539' - 7 1/8"65' - 0 1/8"474' - 7"AL COURTYARD: 13,086 SF
MC COURTYARD:
6,187 SF
4 PARKING14' - 1"5 PARKINGPARKING4 CLEAN AIRPARKING3 CLEAN AIR3 PARKING4 PARKING20' - 2 1/4"25' - 0"SERVICE YARD CONCRETE PAD32' - 2 1/2"219' - 7 1/4"59' - 11 1/2"161' - 3 7/8"62' - 6"318' - 5"
(N) FH
NEW SITE ENTRY/EXIT TO ALIGN
WITH HORIZON PKWY
EXISTING SITE ENTRY TO BE
ABANDONED AND INFILLED WITH
NEW SIDEWALK AND LANDSCAPE
EXISTING SITE
ENTRY/EXIT
TO REMAIN3 EVA PARKING(E) 13 PARKING
PARKING4 EVA READYPARKING2 EVA READY55' - 0"GENERATOR3 PARKINGPARKING4 CLEAN AIRPARKING3 CLEAN AIR3 PARKINGPARKING4 EVA READYPARKING3 EVA READYPARKING3 EVA READYPARKING4 EVA READYPARKING3 EVA READYTRASH
ENCLOSURE
(2 VAN)2 ADATYP.9' - 0"TYP.18' - 0"
63' - 0"147' - 8"150' - 1"315' - 1 1/4"180' - 1 3/8"
MONUMENT SIGN
36' - 0 1/4"
28' - 0 1/8"
19' - 0" 8' - 6"
27' - 10 3/4"
22' - 2 1/2" 24' - 9 1/4"PARKING2 ADA18' - 0"
18' - 0"9' - 0"5' - 0"9' - 0"9' - 0"8' - 0"9' - 0"104' - 3 3/4"RECRECRECTRTRTRORGORGLANDS OFTODA AMERICA, INCPARCEL 1PARCEL MAP 8520(282 M 69-73)LANDS OF CREEKSIDE BUSINESS PARK OWNER LLC.LANDS OF ROSS DRESS FOR LESS INC.
A1.0
2TYP
(E) 14 COMPACT PARKINGCCCCCCCCCC C C C C
LITTER AND PET WASTE RECEPTACLES, TYP
STANDARD9' - 0" TYP.COMPACT8' - 0" TYP.STANDARD18' - 0" TYP.OVERHANG2' - 0"PEDESTRIAN PATH4' - 0" MIN2' - 8"4" 2' - 0" 4"COMPACT15' - 0" TYP.OVERHANG2' - 0"STAMPED COLORED CONCRETE
(COLOR AND PATTERN TBD)
STANDARD PAVING
TRASH, RECYCLING, AND ORGANICS PUBLIC
LITTER CONTAINERS
PET WASTE PUBLIC LITTER CONTAINERSPW
0
SHEET NUMBER
PROJECT NUMBER
SHEET TITLE
SEALS AND SIGNATURES
ISSUED FOR REV DATE
301 BATTERY STREET7TH FLOORSAN FRANCISCO, CA 94111415.227.0100smithgroup.com
KIER + WRIGHTCIVIL ENGINEERING
2850 Collier Canyon Road Livermore, California 94551(925) 245-8788
NOT FOR
CONSTRUCTION
Plot Date:20'40'60'
GRAPHIC SCALE: 1" = 20' -0"
DUBLIN SENIOR LIVING5751 Arnold RoadDublin, California, 94568
1/27/2022 7:38:14 PMSITE PLAN
A1.0Author13098TOTAL PARCEL AREA: 249,898 SFBUILDING AREA:155,829 SF(FAR: 0.62)COMMUNITY CARE FACILITY USE TYPE PARKING REQUIREMENT IS 1 PER 3 EMPLOYEES ON LARGEST SHIFT, PLUS 1 PER 3 BEDS.
AT PEAK TIMES AND FULL OCCUPANCY, THERE WILL BE 42 STAFF ON SITE (14 REQUIRED
STALLS); THE PROPOSED FACILITY HAS 152 TOTAL UNITS INCLUDING 22 TWO-BEDROOM UNITS FOR A TOTAL OF 174 POSSIBLE BEDS (58 REQUIRED STALLS)
MC COURTYARD: 6,187 SF
AL COURTYARD: 13,099 SF
OPEN SPACE AREA: 152,224 SFTOTAL OPEN SPACE: 171,497 SF (69%)
EXISTING PARKING:27
NEW PARKING:62
NEW ADA PARKING: 4 (2 VAN ACCESSIBLE STALLS)
TOTAL PARKING:93 (72 REQUIRED STALLS)
CLEAN AIR PARKING:12 WILL BE PROVIDED EV READY PARKING:24 WILL BE PROVIDED (25%)
EV CHARGER PARKING:3 WILL BE PROVIDED (3%)
SHORT TERM BIKE:5 RACKS TO BE LOCATED NEAR BUILDING ENTRANCES (5%)LONG TERM BIKE:5 LOCKERS TO BE LOCATED NEAR BUILDING ENTRANCES (5%)
TRUE NORTH
SCALE:1/4" = 1'-0"2 TYPICAL PARKING STRIPING DETAIL
SCALE:1/8" = 1'-0"
SITE PLAN LEGEND
162
Dublin, California
Project Location
Client/Project
Figure No.
Title
Source: SmithGroup January 2022
City of Dublin
Dublin Senior Living Project
4
SHEET NUMBER
PROJECT NUMBER
SHEET TITLE
SEALS AND SIGNATURES
ISSUED FOR REV DATE
301 BATTERY STREET7TH FLOORSAN FRANCISCO, CA 94111415.227.0100smithgroup.com
KIER + WRIGHTCIVIL ENGINEERING
2850 Collier Canyon Road Livermore, California 94551(925) 245-8788
NOT FOR
CONSTRUCTION
Plot Date:DUBLIN SENIOR LIVING
5751 Arnold RoadDublin, California, 94568
1/27/2022 7:38:50 PM3D VIEW
A1.3Author13098
ENERGINEERED PANELS CULTURED STONE
MAIN SITE ENTRY AT ARNOLD ROAD AND HORIZON PARKWAY INTERSECTION
Building Exterior and Primary
Entry
163
Dublin, California
Project Location
Client/Project
Figure No.
Title
Source: SmithGroup January 2022
City of Dublin
Dublin Senior Living Project
Building Rendering and Dropoff
5
SHEET NUMBER
PROJECT NUMBER
SHEET TITLE
SEALS AND SIGNATURES
ISSUED FOR REV DATE
301 BATTERY STREET7TH FLOORSAN FRANCISCO, CA 94111415.227.0100smithgroup.com
KIER + WRIGHTCIVIL ENGINEERING
2850 Collier Canyon Road Livermore, California 94551(925) 245-8788
NOT FOR
CONSTRUCTION
Plot Date:DUBLIN SENIOR LIVING
5751 Arnold RoadDublin, California, 94568
1/27/2022 7:38:51 PM3D ENTRY VIEW
A1.4Author13098
BUILDING ENTRY AND RESIDENT DROP-OFF AREA
164
Dublin, California
Project Location
Client/Project
Figure No.
Title
Source: SmithGroup January 2022
City of Dublin
Dublin Senior Living Project
Building Elevations
6
LEVEL 1EL +0' -0"
LEVEL 2EL +14' -0"
T.O. LOW PARAPETEL +26' -0"
T.O. HIGH PARAPETEL +28' -0"
ROOFEL +25' -0"14' - 0"11' - 0"403403402405404402405404401412409412408
LEVEL 1EL +0' -0"
LEVEL 2EL +14' -0"
T.O. LOW PARAPETEL +26' -0"
T.O. HIGH PARAPETEL +28' -0"
ROOFEL +25' -0"
403402403404402403402405 401401406401410409405412
LEVEL 1EL +0' -0"
LEVEL 2EL +14' -0"
T.O. LOW PARAPETEL +26' -0"
T.O. HIGH PARAPETEL +28' -0"
ROOFEL +25' -0"
401401402402402402403404404405405404402406406 406403
A4.32 A4.31
409 412 407413 413
EMERGENCY GENERATOR
LEVEL 1EL +0' -0"
LEVEL 2EL +14' -0"
T.O. LOW PARAPETEL +26' -0"
T.O. HIGH PARAPETEL +28' -0"
ROOFEL +25' -0"
402 404 405 401 403 402 404 401402401406406
A4.4
1
A4.42
410 409 413413
EXTERIOR FINISH MATERIAL LEGEND
KEYNOTE NUMBER: 401TYPE:CULTURED STONE VENEERMANUFACTURER:COLOR:
KEYNOTE NUMBER: 403TYPE:INTEGRAL COLOR STUCCOFINISH:FINE TEXTUREMANUFACTURER:COLOR:WHITE
KEYNOTE NUMBER: 402TYPE:ENGINEERED WOOD-LOOK PANEL VENEERMANUFACTURER:COLOR:
KEYNOTE NUMBER: 404TYPE:INTEGRAL COLOR STUCCOFINISH:FINE TEXTUREMANUFACTURER:COLOR:GRAY
KEYNOTE NUMBER: 405TYPE:INTEGRAL COLOR STUCCOFINISH:FINE TEXTUREMANUFACTURER:COLOR:TAUPE
KEYNOTE NUMBER: 406TYPE:PAINTMANUFACTURER:COLOR:TAN
SHEET NUMBER
PROJECT NUMBER
SHEET TITLE
SEALS AND SIGNATURES
ISSUED FOR REV DATE
301 BATTERY STREET7TH FLOORSAN FRANCISCO, CA 94111415.227.0100smithgroup.com
KIER + WRIGHTCIVIL ENGINEERING
2850 Collier Canyon Road Livermore, California 94551(925) 245-8788
NOT FOR
CONSTRUCTION
Plot Date:DUBLIN SENIOR LIVING
5751 Arnold RoadDublin, California, 94568
1/27/2022 7:39:32 PMEXTERIOR BUILDINGELEVATIONS
A4.0Author13098
SCALE:1/16" = 1'-0"1 EAST ELEVATION
SCALE:1/16" = 1'-0"2 SOUTH ELEVATION
SCALE:1/16" = 1'-0"4 NORTH ELEVATION
SCALE:1/16" = 1'-0"3 WEST ELEVATION
401 CULTURED STONE VENEER
402 ENGINEERED WOOD-LOOK PANEL VENEER
403 INTEGRAL COLOR STUCCO 1 - WHITE
404 INTEGRAL COLOR STUCCO 2 - GRAY
405 INTEGRAL COLOR STUCCO 3 - TAUPE
406 PAINTED METAL TRIM
407 PLANTED TRELLIS SCREEN WALL
408 ALUMINUM STOREFRONT
409 ALUMINUM WINDOWS
410 ALUMINUM AWNINGS
412 ALUMINUM REVEAL
413 METAL PANEL SIDING
165
Dublin, California
Project Location
Client/Project
Figure No.
Title
Source: SmithGroup January 2022
City of Dublin
Dublin Senior Living Project
Landscaping and Outdoor
Amenities
7
MEMORY CARE COURTYARD
ASSISTED LIVING COURTYARD
ARNOLD ROAD
MAINENTRY
SERVICE
AREA
SHEET NUMBER
PROJECT NUMBER
SHEET TITLE
SEALS AND SIGNATURES
ISSUED FOR REV DATE
301 BATTERY STREET7TH FLOORSAN FRANCISCO, CA 94111415.227.0100smithgroup.com
KIER + WRIGHTCIVIL ENGINEERING
2850 Collier Canyon RoadLivermore, California 94551(925) 245-8788
NOT
F
O
R
CO
N
S
T
R
U
C
T
I
O
N
Plot Date:DUBLIN SENIOR LIVING
5751 Arnold RoadDublin, California, 94568
13098
TRUE NORTH PROJECT NORTH
ILLUSTRATIVE PLAN
L100
SCALE: 1" = 30'
0'60'30'15'
MEMORY CARE COURTYARD
ASSISTED LIVING COURTYARD
ARNOLD ROAD
MAIN
ENTRY
SERVICEAREA
SHEET NUMBER
PROJECT NUMBER
SHEET TITLE
SEALS AND SIGNATURES
ISSUED FOR REV DATE
301 BATTERY STREET7TH FLOORSAN FRANCISCO, CA 94111415.227.0100smithgroup.com
KIER + WRIGHTCIVIL ENGINEERING
2850 Collier Canyon RoadLivermore, California 94551(925) 245-8788
NOT
F
O
R
CO
N
S
T
R
U
C
T
I
O
N
Plot Date:DUBLIN SENIOR LIVING5751 Arnold RoadDublin, California, 94568
13098
TRUE NORTH PROJECT NORTH
ILLUSTRATIVE PLAN
L100
SCALE: 1" = 30'
0'60'30'15'
MEMORY CARE COURTYARD
ASSISTED LIVING COURTYARD
ARNOLD ROAD
MAIN
ENTRY
SERVICE
AREA
SHEET NUMBER
PROJECT NUMBER
SHEET TITLE
SEALS AND SIGNATURES
ISSUED FOR REV DATE
301 BATTERY STREET7TH FLOORSAN FRANCISCO, CA 94111415.227.0100smithgroup.com
KIER + WRIGHTCIVIL ENGINEERING
2850 Collier Canyon RoadLivermore, California 94551(925) 245-8788
NOT
F
O
R
CO
N
S
T
R
U
C
T
I
O
N
Plot Date:DUBLIN SENIOR LIVING
5751 Arnold RoadDublin, California, 94568
13098
TRUE NORTH PROJECT NORTH
ILLUSTRATIVE PLAN
L100
SCALE: 1" = 30'
0'60'30'15'
166
City of Dublin Dublin Senior Living Project
CEQA Initial Study | Page 11
Site Access and Internal Circulation
As shown in Figure 3, primary site access would be from Arnold Road, which would include a
34-foot-wide main entry driveway leading to the building entrance. The interior drive aisle
would be 24 feet wide. There would be a round-about at the front entrance for ease of traffic
flow. An existing driveway providing access to the adjacent commercial/office park, located
further to the south along Arnold Road, would be maintained. A main driveway flows around
the Project site in an inverted “L” shape connecting the new site entrance to the existing
surface parking areas.
Utilities and Public Services
Some of the existing utility services onsite would be utilized for the Project while others would
be removed and replaced, as shown in Figure 8: Preliminary Utility Plan.
Water
The existing public water system would be improved. The Project would install a new 10-inch
fire service line throughout the site, which would connect to a new six-inch line to connect with
new fire hydrants. The new 10-inch fire service line would connect to an existing fire service
main onsite. The existing irrigation and domestic water meters would be removed, and the
Project would construct two-inch water meters onsite that would connect to the existing 16-
inch water main located along the Project frontage on Arnold Road.
Wastewater
The Project would utilize the existing sewer lines onsite and would connect to the existing
eight-inch sanitary sewer lateral onsite.
Stormwater
The existing storm drain system would be removed and replaced with a new drainage system,
as shown in Figure 9: Preliminary Stormwater Quality Plan. The new storm drain system would
include construction of storm drain lines onsite ranging from eight-inch to 18-inch and would
connect to existing storm drain laterals onsite. Additionally, the Project would construct 7,836
sf of bio-retention treatment areas onsite.
Electricity and Gas
The Project would connect to and utilize the existing electric and gas facilities located in the
vicinity of the Project site. Electricity and gas services in the City are provided by Pacific Gas and
Electric (PG&E).
167
Dublin, California
Project Location
Client/Project
Figure No.
Title
Source: SmithGroup January 2022
City of Dublin
Dublin Senior Living Project
Preliminary Utility Plan
8
DUBLIN,
NO.REVISION BY BYREVISIONNO.
DUBLIN SENIOR LIVING
CALIFORNIA
JAN, 2022
OF _ SHEETS
SHEET
DATE
SCALE
DESIGNER
JOB NO.A20131-2
AV
DRAWN BY STAFF
AS SHOWN
FORSOUTH BAY PARTNERS
LEGEND
C7.0
PRELIMINARY UTILITY PLAN
NOTE
168
Dublin, California
Project Location
Client/Project
Figure No.
Title
Source: SmithGroup January 2022
City of Dublin
Dublin Senior Living Project
Preliminary Stormwater Quality
Plan
9
DUBLIN,
NO.REVISION BY BYREVISIONNO.
DUBLIN SENIOR LIVING
CALIFORNIA
JAN, 2022
OF _ SHEETS
SHEET
DATE
SCALE
DESIGNER
JOB NO.A20131-2
AV
DRAWN BY STAFF
AS SHOWN
FORSOUTH BAY PARTNERS
PRELIMINARY STORM WATER QUALITY PLAN
LEGEND
NOTE:
BIO-RETENTION DETAILS
NOTE
C8.0
4
169
City of Dublin Dublin Senior Living Project
CEQA Initial Study | Page 14
Sustainability Features
As noted above, the Project would include 7,836 sf of bio-retention areas onsite to treat
stormwater runoff. In addition, the Project would include the use of electric vehicle charging
stations and would be designed to meet the requirements of the California Title 24 Energy Code
as well as California Green Building Standards Code (CalGreen) measures.
Demolition and Construction
Construction of the Project is estimated to begin in July 2023 and would conclude in September
2025, lasting for approximately 26 months. See Table 1 Project Construction Schedule, below.
Construction materials would be stored onsite and worker access to the site would be through
the existing site access drive entry at the northwest corner of Arnold Road near the future
intersection with Horizon Parkway. Construction workers would be instructed to park onsite
near the existing site access drive entry at the northwest corner of Arnold Road.
Table 1: Project Construction Schedule
Construction Task Start Date End Date Workdays
Site Preparation 07/10/2023 08/18/2023 30
Grading 08/21/2023 09/29/2023 30
Building Construction 10/02/2023 07/04/2025 460
Paving 07/07/2025 08/15/2025 30
Architectural Coating 08/18/2023 09/26/2025 30
Notes: Based on CalEEMod defaults for 5.74-acre Project site with 152 congregate care (assisted living) units, 89 parking spaces, other asphalt
surfaces (onsite access roads), and other non-asphalt surfaces (landscaping).
Assumes 5-day work week.
Construction of the Project would include the new senior living facility with related site
improvements including landscaping, grading, utility installation, and related offsite
improvements. The total area of disturbance would be 5.74 acres. As recommended in the soils
report prepared for the Project, construction would require approximately 24 inches of import
fill under the new building slab to create foundation support for the proposed structures. Depth
of excavation required for the pavement section varies depending on the use and would range
from 11 to 19 inches total depth. The storm drain system would require approximately eight
feet of excavation. Construction is estimated to require 1,500 cubic yards of soil export and the
Project would construct 162,345 sf of impervious surface and 83,387 sf of pervious surface
onsite.
Offsite improvements would include, but not be limited to, the relocation of signal poles, the
addition of dualized ramps, approximately 3,000 sf of driveway improvements, and 40 linear
feet of curb and gutter replacement. Some road closures and establishment of alternate traffic
and pedestrian routes may be required during construction activities.
170
City of Dublin Dublin Senior Living Project
CEQA Initial Study | Page 15
Project Approvals
As the CEQA Lead Agency for the proposed Project, the City will consider the environmental
impacts of the Project as part of the project approval process. The applicant has requested
approval of a Planned Development Rezoning with a related Stage 1 and Stage 2 Development
Plan and a Site Development Review (SDR) Permit. These requested approvals must be acted
upon by City Council at a public hearing following a recommendation made at a public hearing
by the Planning Commission.
Other Project-related approvals, agreements, permits and subsequent ministerial actions would
be required for Project implementation, which include, but may not be limited to, the
following:
Grading Permit
Encroachment Permit
Traffic Control Plan
Other Public Agencies Whose Approval Is Required
None.
171
City of Dublin Dublin Senior Living Project
CEQA Initial Study | Page 16
Applicable General Plan and EDSP Land Use Designations
For reference, the Dublin General Plan defines the relevant land use designations as follows:
Campus Office (FAR: .25 to .80; Employee Density: 260 square feet per employee)
This designation is intended to provide an attractive, campus-like setting for office and other
non-retail commercial uses that do not generate nuisances related to emissions, noise,
odors, or glare. Allowed uses include, but are not limited to, the following: professional and
administrative offices; administrative headquarters; research and development; business
and commercial services; and, limited light manufacturing, assembly and distribution
activities. Ancillary uses which provide services to businesses and employees in the Campus
Office area are permitted. These uses include restaurants, gas stations, convenience
shopping, copying services, branch banks, and other such services. Under special
circumstances (e.g., where a mixed-use development would decrease potential peak-hour
traffic generation, meet a specific housing need, encourage pedestrian access to
employment and shopping, or create an attractive, socially-interactive neighborhood
environment), residential uses may be permitted as part of a master planned mixed use
development. In such developments, the residential component would not be permitted to
occupy more than 50% of the developed area.
For reference, the EDSP defines the relevant land use designations as follows:
Campus Office (.25 to .80 Floor Area Ratio)
Provides an attractive, campus-like setting or office and other non-retail commercial uses
that do not generate nuisances related to emissions, noise, odors, or outdoor storage and
operations. Ancillary uses which provide support services to businesses and employees are
permitted. Under special circumstances (e.g., where a mixed-use development would
decrease potential traffic generation and/or contribute to greater social interaction and
more vital live/work environment), residential uses may be permitted as part of a master
planned mixed use development. In such developments, the residential component would
not be permitted to occupy more than 50% of the developed area. A floor area ratio of up to
1.2 may be granted at the discretion of the City Council for the 37-acre parcel adjacent to
the eastern Dublin BART station in the southwest quadrant of Hacienda Drive and Dublin
Boulevard. A 5-acre hotel site is anticipated within this 37-acre parcel. The precise location
of the hotel site will be established through the planned development application process.
Note: There are several areas indicated on the land use map that could develop as either
general commercial or campus office uses. This flexibility has been provided in these key
areas to respond to changing market conditions that may occur in the future. The shift from
campus office (the underlying land use designation) to general commercial would only be
permitted if the established traffic levels of service are not exceeded. Appropriate traffic
studies may need to be conducted in order for the City to make the proper determination
regarding traffic levels of service.
172
City of Dublin Dublin Senior Living Project
CEQA Initial Study | Page 17
CEQA 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 Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines as a framework.
Different from the standard CEQA checklist included in Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines are
the impact options included in this analysis.
Prior CEQA analysis includes the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan EIR.
This environmental review document is referred to as the “1993 GPA/SP EIR” or “previous
CEQA findings.”
The impact check-boxes indicate that the Project would not result in a new impact, a
substantial increase in the severity of an impact, or an equal to or less severe impact, than
those identified in previous CEQA findings.
As such, no new environmental review is required because none of the standards under Public
Resources Code Section 21166 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 are met which would trigger
the need for additional CEQA documentation. There are no significant Project changes, new
information, or change in circumstances that result in a new or substantial increase in severity
of a significant impact from those identified in the 1993 GPA/SP EIR. Therefore, no standards
for requiring supplemental environmental review or documentation under CEQA are met and
none are required for the Project.
173
City of Dublin Dublin Senior Living Project
CEQA Initial Study | Page 18
Determination
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
I find that the project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a
NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that although the project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will
not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or
agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that the project MAY have a significant effect on the environment and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
I find that the project MAY have a potentially significant or a potentially significant unless
mitigated impact on the environment, but at least one effect (1) has been adequately analyzed
in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and (2) has been addressed by
mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain
to be addressed.
I find that although the project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all
potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE
DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated
pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation
measures that are imposed upon the project, nothing further is required.
X
CITY OF DUBLIN
_____________________ _____________________________
Gaspare Annibale, Associate Planner Date
05/02/2022
174
City of Dublin Dublin Senior Living Project
CEQA Initial Study | Page 19
Aesthetics
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Issues
New
Significant
Impact
Substantial Increase
in the Severity of an
Impact Identified in
1993 GPA/SP EIR
Equal or Less
Severe Impact
than Identified in
1993 GPA/SP EIR
1. AESTHETICS. Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? X
b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including but not
limited to trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings
within a state scenic highway?
X
c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or
quality of the site and its surroundings? X
d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which
would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the
area?
X
Previous CEQA Document
The 1993 GPA/SP EIR identified the following impacts and mitigations for visual resources:
Impact 3.8/A: Standardized "Tract" Development within the project area which did not
respond to natural site conditions could cause a significant impact. Adherence to
Mitigation Measure 3.8/1.0, which requires consistency with EDSP Goal 6.3.4, reduces
this impact to an insignificant level.
Impact 3.8/B: Alteration of Rural/Open Space Visual Character was identified as a
significant and unavoidable impact even with adherence to Mitigation Measure 3.8/2.0,
which would implement the EDSP with retention of predominant natural features and
encourages a sense of place in Eastern Dublin.
Impact 3.8/C: Obscuring Distinctive Natural Features identifies the potential of EDSP
buildings and related improvements to obscure or alter existing features and reduce the
visual uniqueness of the Eastern Dublin area. Implementation of Mitigation Measure
3.8/3.0, which would implement EDSP Policy 6-28, reduces this impact to an
insignificant level.
Impact 3.8/D: Alteration of Visual Quality of Hillsides notes that grading and excavation
of building sites in hillside areas would compromise the visual quality of the EDSP area.
Mitigation Measures 3.8/4.0 through 3.8/4.5 are included in the 1993 GPA/SP EIR to
reduce Impact 3.8/D to an insignificant level. These mitigation measures require
implementation of EDSP Policies 6-32 through 6-38.
Impact 3.8/E: Alteration of Visual Quality of Ridges states that structures built in
175
City of Dublin Dublin Senior Living Project
CEQA Initial Study | Page 20
proximity to ridges may obscure or fragment the profile of visually sensitive ridgelines.
Implementation of Mitigation Measures 3.8/5.0 through 3.8/5.2 would reduce this
impact to a less-than-significant level. These measures require the implementation of
EDSP Policies 6-29 and 5-30 and General Plan Amendment Guiding Policy E.
Impact 3.8/F: Alteration of Visual Character of Flatlands is identified as a significant and
unavoidable impact. No mitigation measure has been identified which can either fully or
partially reduce this impact.
Impact 3.8/G: Alteration of the Visual Character of Watercourses which involves the
potential for elimination of the visibility and function of watercourses would be
mitigated to an insignificant level by adherence to Mitigation Measure 3.8/6.0, which
required future development to implement EDSP Policy 6-39.
Impact 3.8/H: Alteration of Dublin's Visual Identity as a Freestanding City is mitigated to
a level of insignificance by implementation of the EDSP land use plan (Mitigation
Measure 3.8/5.0).
Impact 3.8/I: Scenic Vistas includes the alteration of the character of existing scenic
vistas and important sightlines. With implementation of Mitigation Measures 3.8/7.0
and 3.8/7.1 this impact would be reduced to an insignificant level. Mitigation Measure
3.8/7.0 requires adherence to EDSP Policy 6-5 and Mitigation Measure 3.8/7.1 requires
the City to conduct a visual survey of the EDSP site and to identify and map viewsheds of
scenic vistas.
Impact 3.8/J: Scenic Routes identifies that the urban development of the EDSP will
significantly alter the visual experience of travelers on scenic routes in Eastern Dublin.
Implementation of Mitigation Measures 3.8/8.0 and 8.1 will reduce this impact to an
insignificant level. These two measures require implementation of EDSP Action
Programs 6Q and 6R.
The 1993 GPA/SP EIR found significant and unavoidable aesthetic impacts (Impact 3.8/B and
Impact 3.8/F) associated with the alteration of the visual character of rural/open space and
flatlands. The City adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations for these impacts, which
includes the Project.
The proposed Project would be required to adhere to applicable mitigation measures as set
forth in the 1993 GPA/SP EIR.
Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures
(a) Scenic vistas, views
The majority of the Project site is paved and surrounded by existing surface parking areas.
Additionally, the site includes landscape areas consisting of ornamental and non-native trees,
shrubs, and bushes. The Project site is classified by the 1993 GPA/SP EIR as “developed.” The
176
City of Dublin Dublin Senior Living Project
CEQA Initial Study | Page 21
EDSP does identify certain ridgelands and ridgelines as visually sensitive and the City pursuant
to Specific Plan Policy 6-5 and Action Program 6Q adopted the Eastern Dublin Scenic Corridor,
Policies and Standards as means to preserve scenic vistas.
Previous CEQA findings found potentially significant impacts to scenic vistas and views. The
impacts were addressed with implementation of Mitigation Measures 3.8/3.0, 3.8/4.0 through
4.5, 3.8/5.0 through 5.2, 3.8/6.0, 3.8/7.0 and 3.8/7.1.
Due to the developed nature of the Project site and surrounding areas, views of scenic
resources from the site are extremely limited and screened due to existing intervening
development in the area. The Project would construct a senior living facility at a Project site
that is surrounded by existing development. The proposed buildings would be two-stories tall
and would not have a height that exceeds the surrounding buildings. Since there are no scenic
vistas or views to preserve at the Project site, the 1993 GPA/SP EIR mitigation measures
identified to reduce potentially significant impacts to scenic vistas and views would not be
applicable to the Project. Therefore, the Project would not have a substantial effect on a scenic
vista and impacts would be less than significant. The Project would not result in new or
substantially more severe impacts than identified in the 1993 GPA/SP EIR and the criteria for
requiring further CEQA review are not met.
(b) Scenic resources
The 1993 GPA/SP EIR found potentially significant impacts to scenic resources within a scenic
route. The impacts were addressed with implementation of Mitigation Measures 3.8/8.0 and
3.8/8.1.
A section of I-680 located approximately two miles west of the Project site is a California
Department of Transportation (Caltrans) officially designated state scenic highway, and I-580,
located approximately 0.6 mile south of the Project site, is listed as eligible on the Caltrans
State Scenic Highway System Map but is not an officially designated state scenic highway
(Caltrans 2018). According to the City’s General Plan, I-680, I-580, Tassajara Road (located
approximately 1.1 mile east of the Project site), Dougherty Road (located approximately one
mile west of the Project site), and San Ramon Road (located approximately 2.5 miles west of
the Project site), are designated as scenic routes by Alameda County. There are no scenic
resources located within the Project site, and no state scenic highways run through or directly
adjacent to the Project site. Therefore, buildout of the Project would not substantially damage
scenic resources within a state scenic highway, and there would be no impact. The Project
would not result in new or substantially more severe impacts than identified in the 1993
GPA/SP EIR and the criteria for requiring further CEQA review are not met.
(c) Substantially degrade the visual character of the site or surrounding area
The 1993 GPA/SP EIR found that development within the EDSP area would alter the existing
visual character of rural/open space and flatlands. No mitigation measure could be identified to
reduce these impacts, fully or partially, to a less than significant level. The City adopted a
Statement of Overriding Consideration for these impacts; thus, no additional analysis was found
necessary.
177
City of Dublin Dublin Senior Living Project
CEQA Initial Study | Page 22
(d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare
The 1993 GPA/SP EIR did not analyze impacts of light and glare; however, these impacts are not
new information that was not known or could not have been known at the time the 1993
GPA/SP EIR was certified. The issue of potential impacts related to the effects of new sources of
lighting and glare was widely known prior to the certification of the 1993 GPA/SP EIR.
Therefore, the potential impacts related to light and glare were known at the time of the
certification of the 1993 GPA/SP EIR. Under CEQA standards, it is not new information that
requires analysis in a supplemental EIR or Negative Declaration. No supplemental
environmental analysis of the Project's impacts on this issue is required under CEQA.
Conclusion
The Project does not propose changes that were not previously analyzed in the 1993 GPA/SP
EIR that would require major changes to the EIR. Based on the information in 1993 GPA/SP EIR
and this environmental analysis, the Project would not substantially increase the severity of the
previously identified aesthetic/visual impacts, nor result in new significant impacts.
With adherence to applicable regulatory requirements and mitigation measures identified in
the 1993 GPA/SP EIR, there would not be any new or substantially more severe significant
impacts to aesthetic resources beyond what has been analyzed in the 1993 GPA/SP EIR, and no
other CEQA standards for supplemental review are met. Therefore, no further environmental
review is required.
Agricultural and Forestry Resources
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Issues
New
Significant
Impact
Substantial
Increase in
the Severity
of an Impact
Identified in
1993 GPA/SP
EIR
Equal or Less
Severe Impact
than Identified in
1993 GPA/SP EIR
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 Conservation as an optional
model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. Would the project:
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland
of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the
maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and
Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency,
to non-agricultural use?
X
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a
Williamson Act contract?
X
178
City of Dublin Dublin Senior Living Project
CEQA Initial Study | Page 23
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Issues
New
Significant
Impact
Substantial
Increase in
the Severity
of an Impact
Identified in
1993 GPA/SP
EIR
Equal or Less
Severe Impact
than Identified in
1993 GPA/SP EIR
c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of,
forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section
12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources
Code section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland
Production (as defined by Government Code section
51104(g))?
X
d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land
to non-forest use?
X
e) Involve other changes in the existing environment which,
due to their location or nature, could result in conversion
of Farmland, to non-agricultural use or conversion of
forest land to non-forest use?
X
Previous CEQA Document
The 1993 GPA/SP EIR identified the following impacts and mitigations for agricultural resources:
Impact 3.1/C Discontinuation of Agricultural Uses states that agricultural uses within the
area would be decreased as a result of the implementation of the EDSP. However, since
most landowners at the time the 1993 GPA/SP EIR was written had filed non-renewal
notices for their Williamson Act contracts it was assumed that agricultural uses would
decline independent of the implementation of the EDSP, so the impact was insignificant,
and no mitigation was required.
Impact 3.1/D Loss of Farmland of Local Importance states that agricultural lands of local
importance would be lost as a result of the EDSP. Since these agricultural lands of local
importance were not classified as prime farmland; however, the impact was
insignificant, and no mitigation was required.
The 1993 GPA/SP EIR evaluated if the soils were considered as “prime agricultural soils”
through the adopted criteria established by the Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg Local Government
Reorganization Act (Government Code Section 56064, referred to as Assembly Bill [AB] 2838). It
was determined that no additional prime or agricultural lands beyond those identified in 1993
GPA/SP EIR were found.
179
City of Dublin Dublin Senior Living Project
CEQA Initial Study | Page 24
Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures
(a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance
(farmland)
Previous CEQA findings found there were no significant impacts with respect to agricultural
resources. The Project site is located in a developed area and is not used for agricultural
production. The site is not designated as Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of
Statewide Important on the California Department of Conservation’s (DOC) California Important
Farmland Finder. The DOC designates the Project site and surrounding lands as Urban and Built-
Up Land (DOC 2016). Therefore, the Project would not convert Prime Farmland, Unique
Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance to non-agricultural uses and there would be no
impact. The Project would not result in new or substantially more severe impacts than
identified in the 1993 GPA/SP EIR and the criteria for requiring further CEQA review are not
met.
(b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use or a William Act contract
Previous CEQA findings found there were no significant impacts with respect to agricultural
resources. The Project site is zoned Planned Development and is not designated for agricultural
uses. As stated in the City’s General Plan, all properties within the Eastern Extended Planning
Area previously under Williamson Act contracts have expired (City of Dublin 2018). Therefore,
the Project would not conflict with existing zoning or a Williamson Act contract and there
would be no impact. The Project would not result in new or substantially more severe impacts
than identified in the 1993 GPA/SP EIR and the criteria for requiring further CEQA review are
not met.
(c) Conflict with zoning for forest land or timberland
The 1993 GPA/SP EIR did not analyze impacts to forestry resources. The Project site is not
currently developed and neither the Project site nor the surrounding area is zoned for forest
land, timberland, or timberland production. Therefore, the Project would not result in a conflict
with zoning for forest land or timberland and there would be no impact. The Project would not
result in new or substantially more severe impacts than identified in the 1993 GPA/SP EIR and
the criteria for requiring further CEQA review are not met.
(d) Result in loss of forest land or conversion of forest
The 1993 GPA/SP EIR did not analyze impacts to forestry resources. The Project site is located in
an urbanized area of the City, and no forest land exists on the Project site or surrounding areas.
Therefore, the Project would not result in the loss of forest land or the conversion of forest land
to non-forest uses and there would be no impact. The Project would not result in new or
substantially more severe impacts than identified in the 1993 GPA/SP EIR and the criteria for
requiring further CEQA review are not met.
180
City of Dublin Dublin Senior Living Project
CEQA Initial Study | Page 25
(e) Conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest
use
As stated previously, the Project site is located in an urbanized area and is developed with
graded surfaces that provide surface parking for the adjacent developments. The Project site
and surrounding areas is not used as Farmland or for forestry uses and is not zoned for those
uses. Therefore, the Project would not result in the conversion of Farmland to non-agricultural
uses or forest land to non-forest uses and there would be no impact. The Project would not
result in new or substantially more severe impacts than identified in the 1993 GPA/SP EIR and
the criteria for requiring further CEQA review are not met.
Conclusion
The Project does not propose changes that were not previously analyzed in the 1993 GPA/SP
EIR that would require major changes to the EIR. Based on the information in 1993 GPA/SP EIR
and this environmental analysis, the Project would not substantially increase the severity of the
previously identified agricultural impacts, nor result in new significant impacts.
With adherence to applicable regulatory requirements, there would not be any new or
substantially more severe significant impacts to agricultural resources beyond what has been
analyzed in the 1993 GPA/SP EIR, and no other CEQA standards for supplemental review are
met. Therefore, no further environmental review is required.
Air Quality
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Issues
New
Significant
Impact
Substantial Increase
in the Severity of an
Impact Identified in
1993 GPA/SP EIR
Equal or Less
Severe Impact
than Identified
in 1993 GPA/SP
EIR
3. AIR QUALITY. Would the project:
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the
applicable air quality plan? X
b) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any
criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-
attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient
air quality standard?
X
c) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant
concentrations?
X
d) Result in other emissions (such as those leading to
odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of
people?
X
Previous CEQA Document
The 1993 GPA/SP EIR identified the following impacts and mitigation measures for air quality:
181
City of Dublin Dublin Senior Living Project
CEQA Initial Study | Page 26
Impact 3.11/A: Dust Deposition from Construction Activity states that project
construction will generate respirable particulate matter that could potentially impact
nearby areas significantly. Mitigation Measure 3.11/1.0 mitigates this impact to an
insignificant level, but dust emissions remain a potentially significant cumulative impact.
Impact 3.11/B: Construction Equipment/Vehicle Emissions acknowledges that operating
construction equipment will generate exhaust pollutants. Since the build out of the
EDSP is long-term the impact of these emissions is potentially significant. Mitigation
Measures 3.11/2.0 through 3.11/4.0 do not sufficiently reduce the anticipated ozone
precursor emission to within Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD)
standards so air quality impacts remain potentially significant and contribute to a
potentially significant cumulative impact.
Impact 3.11/C: Mobile Source Emissions reactive organic gases (ROG) or oxides of
nitrogen (NOx) states that as a result of vehicle trips generated by the full build out of
the EDSP ROG and NOx emissions will exceed the BAAQMD threshold causing a
significant impact. Mitigation Measures 3.11/5.0 through 3.11/11.0 reduce this impact
but not sufficiently to reduce it to an insignificant level.
Impact 3.11/D: Mobile Source Emissions CO2 notes that the EDSP will not cause any new
CO2 emission standard violations and, therefore, has an insignificant impact.
Impact 3.11/E: Stationary Source Emissions notes that project related NOx emissions
from fuel consumption for energy demand exceeds BAAQMD’s significance threshold
causing a significant impact. Mitigation Measures 3.11/12.0 and 3.11/13.0 reduce this
impact but not sufficiently to reduce it an insignificant level. This impact also contributes
to a potentially significant cumulative impact for the area.
The 1993 GPA/SP EIR determined that future project development will have a potentially
significant cumulative impact on air quality as a result of dust deposition, construction
equipment emissions, mobile source emissions of ROG and NOx, and stationary source
emissions. While some measures have been adopted to partially mitigate these impacts, the
impacts remain potentially significant, particularly given the region's existing non-compliance
with air quality standards. The City adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations for these
four impacts, which includes the Project.
The proposed Project would be required to adhere to applicable mitigation measures as set
forth in the 1993 GPA/SP EIR.
Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures
(a) Consistent with air quality plans
BAAQMD’s 2017 Clean Air Plan is the regional air quality plan (AQP) for the Air Basin. It
identifies strategies to bring regional emissions into compliance with federal and State air
182
City of Dublin Dublin Senior Living Project
CEQA Initial Study | Page 27
quality standards. The 2017 Plan incorporates new data and projections and updates the 2010
Clean Air Plan control strategy.
The proposed Project would not conflict with the Clean Air Plan adopted by BAAQMD since the
Project site has been included in Dublin's planned growth as previously analyzed and is
consistent with the City’s General Plan, which is the basis of the Clean Air Plan. The proposed
Project would result in less than significant impacts, and therefore, the proposed Project would
not result in any new or more severe impacts compared to those identified in the 1993 GPA/SP
EIR.
(b) Violate air quality standards or cause cumulatively considerable air pollutants
In developing thresholds of significance for air pollutants, BAAQMD considered the emission
levels for which a project’s individual emissions would be cumulatively considerable. If a project
exceeds the identified significance thresholds, its emissions would be cumulatively
considerable, resulting in significant adverse air quality impacts to the region’s existing air
quality conditions. BAAQMD has continued to refine its thresholds of significance with the most
recent thresholds being updated in 2017. The updated thresholds of significance do not
constitute new information in light of CEQA Guidelines Section 15162(a)(3) because the
information used to develop the thresholds was known at the time of the 1993 GPA/SP EIR
certification.
The 1993 GPA/SP EIR found several air quality impacts related to construction exhaust and
fugitive dust emissions to be significant and unavoidable despite the implementation of
mitigation measures. The 1993 GPA SP EIR also found operational mobile source and stationary
source emissions to be significant and unavoidable because those emissions would exceed
BAAQMD thresholds of significance despite implementation of mitigation measures. The City
adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations that addressed the significant and
unavoidable air quality impacts.
Project construction and operational impacts are assessed separately below, in light of the
previous disclosure of significant air quality impacts from the 1993 GPA/SP EIR.
Construction Emissions
Construction activities associated with development of the proposed Project would include site
preparation, grading, building construction, paving and architectural coatings. Emissions from
construction-related activities are generally short-term in duration but may still cause adverse
air quality impacts. During construction, fugitive dust would be generated from earth-moving
activities. Exhaust emissions would also be generated from off-road construction equipment
and construction-related vehicle trips. Emissions associated with construction of the proposed
Project are discussed below.
183
City of Dublin Dublin Senior Living Project
CEQA Initial Study | Page 28
Construction Fugitive Dust (PM10 and PM2.5)
During construction (grading), fugitive dust (PM10) would be generated from site grading and
other earth-moving activities. Most of this fugitive dust will remain localized and will be
deposited near the Project site.
BAAQMD does not have a quantitative threshold for fugitive dust. BAAQMD’s CEQA Air Quality
Guidelines recommend that projects determine the significance for fugitive dust through
application of best management practices (BMPs). The 1993 GPA/SP EIR evaluated fugitive dust
impacts in Impact 3.11/A and concluded the dust deposition was a potentially significant
impact. Mitigation Measure 3.11/1.0 incorporates BAAQMD’s BMPs for fugitive dust and
reduced individual project-level impacts to a less than significant level, but cumulatively the
1993 GPA/SPE EIR found fugitive dust impacts to remain significant and unavoidable. The
proposed Project would implement Mitigation Measure 3.11/1.0 to reduce project-level
fugitive dust impacts to a less than significant level. The proposed Project does not include any
unique characteristics that would generate more fugitive dust than the 1993 GPA/SP EIR
considered and thus, with adherence to Mitigation Measure 3.11/1.0, the proposed Project
would not result in any new or more severe impacts compared to those identified in the 1993
GPA/SP EIR.
Construction Emissions: ROG, NOX, PM10 (exhaust), PM2.5 (exhaust)
The 1993 GPA/SP EIR found that construction emissions would be significant. Table 2 provides
the construction emissions estimate for the proposed Project. Please refer to Appendix A for
details regarding assumptions used to estimate construction emissions. The duration of
construction activity and associated equipment represent a reasonable approximation of the
expected construction fleet as required pursuant to the CEQA Guidelines. The construction
emissions in each year are well below the recommended thresholds of significance. The Project
would incorporate Mitigation Measures 3.11/1.0 to reduce fugitive dust impacts and Mitigation
Measures 3.11/2.0 through 3.11/4.0 to reduce ozone precursors from construction equipment
exhaust.
Table 2: Construction Annual and Daily Average Emissions (Unmitigated Average Daily
Rate)
Parameter
Air Pollutants
ROG NOX PM10 (Exhaust) PM2.5 (Exhaust)
2023 Construction Year (tons/year) 0.14 1.24 0.05 0.05
2024 Construction Year (tons/year) 0.26 2.06 0.08 0.08
2025 Construction Year (tons/year) 1.28 1.13 0.04 0.04
Total Emissions (tons/year) 1.67 4.43 0.18 0.17
Total Emissions (pounds/year) 3,342.40 8,863.80 368.80 338.20
Average Daily Emissions
(pounds/day)1 5.76 15.28 0.62 0.58
Significance Threshold
(pounds/day) 54 54 82 54
184
City of Dublin Dublin Senior Living Project
CEQA Initial Study | Page 29
Parameter
Air Pollutants
ROG NOX PM10 (Exhaust) PM2.5 (Exhaust)
Exceeds Significance Threshold? No No No No
Notes:
1 Calculated by dividing the total number of pounds by the total 580 working days of construction for the entire
construction period.
Calculations use unrounded numbers.
lbs = pounds; NOX = oxides of nitrogen; PM10 = particulate matter 10 microns in diameter; PM2.5 = particulate matter
2.5 microns in diameter; ROG = reactive organic gases
Source: Criteria Pollutants and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Estimation Summary (Appendix A)
As shown above, construction emissions would not exceed applicable BAAQMD thresholds for
construction and the impact is less than significant. On a cumulative basis, with adherence to
Mitigation Measures 3.11/1.0 through 3.11/4.0, the proposed Project would not result in any
new or more severe impacts compared to those identified in the 1993 GPA/SP EIR.
Operational Emissions
Operational pollutants of concern include ROG, NOX, PM10, and PM2.5. The buildout of the
Project is anticipated to occur in 2025, immediately following the completion of construction.
Emissions were assessed for full buildout operations in the 2026 operational year, the first full
year of operations as summarized in Table 3 and Table 4. BAAQMD Criteria Air Pollutant
Significance thresholds were used to determine impacts.
Table 3: Operational Annual Emissions (Unmitigated)
Emissions Source
Tons per Year
ROG NOX PM10 PM2.5
Area 0.77 0.01 0.01 0.01
Energy 0.01 0.07 0.01 0.01
Mobile (Motor Vehicles) 0.18 0.22 0.41 0.11
Stationary 0.08 0.37 0.01 0.01
Total Project Annual Emissions 1.04 0.67 0.43 0.14
Thresholds of Significance 10 10 15 10
Exceeds Significance Threshold? No No No No
Notes:
NOX = oxides of nitrogen; PM2.5 = particulate matter 2.5 microns or less in diameter; PM10 = particulate matter 10
microns or less in diameter; ROG = reactive organic gases
Source: Criteria Pollutants and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Estimation Summary (Appendix A)
185
City of Dublin Dublin Senior Living Project
CEQA Initial Study | Page 30
Table 4: Operational Average Daily Emissions (Unmitigated)
Emissions Source
Tons per Year
ROG NOX PM10 PM2.5
Total Project Annual Emissions1
(tons/year)
1.04 0.67 0.43 0.14
Total Project Annual Emissions2
(lbs/year) 2,080.12 1,345.80 863.20 270.40
Average Daily Emissions3 (lbs/day) 5.70 3.69 2.36 0.74
BAAQMD Average Daily Emission
Thresholds (lbs/day) 54 54 82 54
Exceeds Significance Threshold?
No No No No
Notes:
1 Tons per year are shown in Table 4.
2 Pounds per year were calculated using the unrounded annual Project operational emissions.
3 The average daily operational emissions were estimated based on the total annual emissions divided by 365 days. lbs = pounds; NOX = oxides of nitrogen; PM2.5 = particulate matter 2.5 microns or less in diameter;
PM10 = particulate matter 10 microns or less in diameter; ROG = reactive organic gases
Source: Criteria Pollutants and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Estimation Summary (Appendix A)
As shown above, the Project would not exceed applicable BAAQMD thresholds for operations
and the impact would be less than significant. On a cumulative basis, the Project would not
worsen previously disclosed operational air quality impacts. The primary source of emissions
during operations are mobile sources and as discussed in the 1993 GPA/SP EIR, mobile sources
were found to be a significant impact on a project-level and a cumulative-level. As discussed in
the Transportation section of this document, the Project would result in a lower trip generation
than the previously contemplated land use for the Project site. Stationary source emissions
were also determined by the 1993 GPA/SP EIR to be significant on a project-level and
cumulative-level. The regulatory environment has become increasingly stringent about
stationary source emissions, as such any future stationary sources would be subject to
enhanced emissions control, such that future stationary emissions within the EDSP would be
reduced compared to what was previously contemplated. Accordingly, the proposed Project
would not result in any new or more severe Project or cumulative impacts compared to those
identified in the 1993 GPA/SP EIR.
(c) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutant concentrations
This discussion addresses whether the proposed Project would expose sensitive receptors to
substantial pollutant concentrations. The 1993 GPA/SP EIR evaluated the potential to expose
offsite receptors to substantial fugitive dust concentrations. The 1993 GPA/SP EIR found that
the potential project-level impacts from fugitive dust could be reduced with implementation of
Mitigation Measure 3.11/1.0, but that on a cumulative level the impact would remain
186
City of Dublin Dublin Senior Living Project
CEQA Initial Study | Page 31
significant and unavoidable. A Statement of Overriding Considerations was adopted by the City
in recognition of this impact. As discussed above, the proposed Project would implement
Mitigation Measure 3.11/1.0 and reduce the project-level fugitive dust impact to a less than
significant level and would not worsen the cumulative impact from what was previously
evaluated and disclosed.
The 1993 GPA/SP EIR did not evaluate the potential of the EDSP to expose sensitive receptors
to toxic air pollutant concentrations. However, this impact is not new information of substantial
importance that was not known or could not have been known at the time the previous EIR was
certified as complete (Public Resources Code Section 21166 and the CEQA Guidelines Sections
15162 and 15163). Scientists started investigating the link between air pollution and health.
States began passing legislation to reduce air pollution. And in 1970, a milestone year, Congress
passed the Clean Air Act Amendments which led to the establishment of the nation's air quality
standards. Under CEQA standards, it is not new information that requires analysis in a
supplemental EIR or Negative Declaration. Therefore, no supplemental environmental analysis
of the Project’s impacts on this issue is required under CEQA.
(d) Create objectionable odors
Land uses that are typically identified as sources of objectionable odors include landfills,
transfer stations, sewage treatment plants, wastewater pump stations, composting facilities,
feed lots, coffee roasters, asphalt batch plants, and rendering plants. The proposed Project
would not engage in any of these activities. Therefore, the proposed Project would not be
considered a generator of objectionable odors during operations.
During construction, the various diesel-powered vehicles and equipment in use onsite would
create localized odors. These odors would be temporary and would not likely be noticeable for
extended periods of time beyond the Project’s site boundaries. The potential for diesel odor
impacts would, therefore, be less than significant.
Project as a Receptor – Operation
With the California Building Industry Association v. BAAQMD ruling, analysis of odor impacts on
receivers is not required for CEQA compliance. Therefore, the following analysis is provided for
information only.
As a RCFE, the proposed Project has the potential to place sensitive receptors near existing
odor sources. There are no major odor-generating sources (as listed in Table 3-3 in the
BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines) within screening distance of the site. Therefore, the uses in the
vicinity of the Project site would not result in substantial odor impacts to the proposed Project.
Impacts would be less than significant.
Conclusion
The Project does not propose substantial changes that were not previously analyzed in the
1993 GPA/SP EIR that would require major changes to the EIR. Based on the information in
1993 GPA/SP EIR and this environmental analysis, the Project would not substantially increase
187
City of Dublin Dublin Senior Living Project
CEQA Initial Study | Page 32
the severity of the previously identified air quality impacts, nor result in new significant
impacts.
There would not be any new or substantially more severe significant impacts to air quality
resources beyond what has been analyzed in the previous 1993 GPA/SP EIR, and no other CEQA
standards for supplemental review are met. Therefore, no further environmental review is
required.
Biological Resources
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Issues
New
Significant
Impact
Substantial Increase
in the Severity of an
Impact Identified in
1993 GPA/SP EIR
Equal or Less
Severe Impact
than Identified
in 1993 GPA/SP
EIR
4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or
through habitat modifications, on any species identified
as a candidate, sensitive, or special-status species in local
or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the
California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service?
X
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat
or other sensitive natural community identified in local
or regional plans, policies, regulations, or by the
California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service?
X
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected
wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water
Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool,
coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological
interruption, or other means?
X
d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native
resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with
established native resident or migratory wildlife
corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery
sites?
X
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting
biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or
ordinance?
X
f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat
Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation
Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat
conservation plan?
X
188
City of Dublin Dublin Senior Living Project
CEQA Initial Study | Page 33
Previous CEQA Document
The 1993 GPA/SP EIR identified the following impacts and mitigation measures for biological
resources:
Impact 3.7/A: Direct Habitat Loss found that the implementation of the EDSP would
result in substantial reduction of habitat and range, a potentially significant impact.
Mitigation Measures 3.7/1.0 through 3.7/4.0 reduce this impact to an insignificant level
though the project does still contribute to a potentially significant cumulative impact
and does result in a significant irreversible change.
Impact 3.7/B: Indirect Impacts of Vegetation Removal recognizes that dust generation
from construction, increased erosion, sedimentation, and potential for slope failure, and
alteration of drainage patterns could cause a potentially significant impact. Mitigation
Measures 3.7/5.0, 3.6/ 18.0, 3.6/22.0, 3.6/23.0, and 3.11/8 reduce this impact to an
insignificant level.
Impact 3.7/C: Loss or Degradation of Botanically Sensitive Habitat recognizes that
habitat could be lost directly or indirectly as a result of the implementation of the EDSP
resulting in potentially significant impacts. Mitigation Measures 3.7/6.0 through
3.7/17.0 reduce this impact to a level of insignificance.
Impacts 3.7/D and 3.7/E pertain to threatened and endangered species. Mitigation
Measures 3.7/18.0 and 3.7/19.0 reduce these impacts to an insignificant level.
Impacts 3.7/F through 3.7/I pertain to species who are federal candidates for listing as
endangered or threatened. Mitigation Measures 3.7/20.0 through 3.7/22.0 reduce these
impacts to an insignificant level.
Impacts 3.7/J through 3.7/R pertain to California species of special concern. Mitigation
Measures 3.7/23.0 through 3.7/28.0, 3.4/42.0, 3.7/6.0 through 3.7/17, and 3.7/21.0
reduce all impacts to less than significant.
The 1993 GPA/SP EIR found a significant and unavoidable cumulative impact (Impact 3.7/A)
associated with direct habitat loss. The City adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations
for this impact, which includes the Project.
The Project would be required to adhere to applicable mitigation measures as set forth in the
1993 GPA/SP EIR.
Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures
(a) Substantial adverse effect on candidate, sensitive, or special status species
The 1993 GPA/SP EIR included a comprehensive assessment of habitat and wildlife resources
(i.e., riparian habitat, natural community, and wetlands). Potential impacts related to the
general effect of development in Eastern Dublin, including direct habitat loss, indirect habitat
189
City of Dublin Dublin Senior Living Project
CEQA Initial Study | Page 34
loss due to vegetation removal for construction and development activities, and loss or
degradation of sensitive habitat were evaluated. Mitigation measures adopted upon approval
of the 1993 GPA/SP EIR continue to apply to the proposed Project. No changes have occurred
to the planned use of the Project site since certification of the 1993 GPA/SP EIR.
Even with mitigation, the City concluded that the cumulative loss or degradation of botanically
sensitive habitat was significant and unavoidable (Impact 3.7/A). The City adopted a Statement
of Overriding Considerations for this significant and unavoidable impact (Resolution No. 53-93).
The Project site is fully developed and surrounded by a developed commercial/office campus.
Due to the lack of suitable habitat, the presence of candidate, sensitive or special status species
are not anticipated. Therefore, mitigation measures identified in the 1993 GPA/SP EIR related
to candidate, sensitive or special status species would not be required for the proposed Project.
Ornamental trees and one heritage tree currently exist within the parking areas surrounding
the Project site, and 82 trees are proposed to be removed, two of which are dead and none of
which are protected or heritage trees. The Project would preserve 43 trees during construction
and operation and plant 107 new trees, thereby providing more roosting/nesting opportunities
in the future. Project activities would be undertaken in compliance will all regulatory
requirements and permits related to tree removal and replacement/replanting. Additionally,
the proposed Project would be required to implement Mitigation Measure 3.7/1.0 identified in
the 1993 GPA/SP EIR related to tree removal. Therefore, Project related impacts related to
candidate, sensitive or special status species would be equal or less severe than those
evaluated in the 1993 GPA/SP EIR.
(b, c) Substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat, natural community, or wetlands
As discussed above, the Project site is fully developed and does not contain any riparian habitat
areas, natural communities, or wetlands. Any potential impacts have already been mitigated. As
such, Project-related impacts would be equal or less severe than those identified in the 1993
GPA/SP EIR, and no further mitigation would be required to reduce potential impacts.
(d) Interfere or impede the movement of migratory fish or wildlife
The Project site is fully developed, with ornamental trees interspersed throughout the
surrounding paved surface parking lots and is not considered suitable habitat for migratory
species. While the removal of 82 ornamental trees may temporarily impede the movement of
migratory birds, 43 trees would be preserved and 107 new trees would be planted, thereby
affording more use opportunities in the future for migratory birds. There are no creeks or
streams on the Project site that would allow for migration of fish species. Any potential impacts
have already been mitigated. As such, Project-related impacts would be equal or less severe
than those identified in the 1993 GPA/SP EIR, and no further mitigation would be required to
reduce potential impacts.
190
City of Dublin Dublin Senior Living Project
CEQA Initial Study | Page 35
(e) Conflict with local policies or ordinance include tree preservation or any adopted habitat
conservation or natural community conservation plans.
The Preliminary Arborist Report prepared by HortScience/Bartlett Consulting, in August 2021,
identified that there is one tree existing onsite that would qualify as a heritage tree under the
City’s heritage Tree Ordinance. The heritage tree onsite is not planned for removal and would
remain onsite. All other trees on the Project site are ornamental and interspersed within a
paved parking lot. The proposed Project would be required to implement Mitigation Measure
3.7/1.0 identified in the 1993 GPA/SP EIR related to the protection of existing trees during site
preparation activities associated with construction of the Project. As the heritage tree
protected under local ordinance is not planned for removal and would remain, there would be
no Project-related impacts. Project implementation would be equal or less severe than those
identified in the 1993 GPA/SP EIR, and no further mitigation would be required to reduce
potential impacts.
Conclusion
The Project does not propose substantial changes that were not previously analyzed in the
1993 GPA/SP EIR that would require major changes to the EIR. Based on the information in
1993 GPA/SP EIR and this environmental analysis, the Project would not substantially increase
the severity of the previously identified biological resources impacts, nor result in new
significant impacts.
With adherence to applicable regulatory requirements and mitigation measures identified in
the 1993 GPA/SP EIR, there would not be any new or substantially more severe significant
impacts to biological resources beyond what has been analyzed in the previous 1993 GPA/SP
EIR, and no other CEQA standards for supplemental review are met. Therefore, no further
environmental review is required.
Cultural Resources
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Issues
New
Significant
Impact
Substantial
Increase in the
Severity of an
Impact Identified
in 1993 GPA/SP
EIR
Equal or Less
Severe Impact
than Identified
in 1993 GPA/SP
EIR
5. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a
historical resource as defined in CEQA Guidelines section
15064.5?
X
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an
archaeological resource pursuant to section 15064.5? X
c) Disturb any human remains, including those interred
outside of dedicated cemeteries? X
191
City of Dublin Dublin Senior Living Project
CEQA Initial Study | Page 36
Previous CEQA Document
The 1993 GPA/SP EIR identified the following impacts and mitigation measures for cultural
resources:
Impact 3.9/A: Disruption or Destruction of Identified Prehistoric Resources recognized
impacts associated with the disruption or destruction of identified prehistoric resources
which would be reduced to an insignificant level by adherence to Mitigation Measures
3.9/1.0 through 4.0, which require a program of mechanical or hand subsurface testing
for midden deposits, recordation of identified cultural resources on State of California
site survey forms, preparing a plan testing of each resource and, if required, having the
City retain the services of a qualified archeologist to develop a cultural resource
protection program.
Impact 3.9/B: Disruption or Destruction of Unidentified Pre-Historic Resources identified
an impact related to the disruption or destruction of unidentified pre-historic resources.
Mitigation Measures 3.9/5.0 and 6.0 would reduce this impact to an insignificant level
by requiring a halt to development activities that could impact unidentified cultural
resources and completion of follow-on site surveys within Eastern Dublin.
Impact 3.9/C: Disruption or Destruction of Identified Historic Resources would be
mitigated to an insignificant level by adherence to Mitigation Measures 3.9/7.0 through
3.9/12.0 that requires in-depth analysis of properties with cultural resources,
encouragement of adaptive reuse of historic structures to the extent feasible, review of
potential historic resources by an architectural historian and development of a
preservation program for historic sites and disruption or destruction of unidentified
historic resources.
Impact 3.9/D: Disruption or Destruction of Unidentified Historic Resources would be
reduced to an insignificant level by adherence to Mitigation Measures 3.9/5.0, 6.0, 7.0,
9.0, 10.0, and 12.0.
The Project would be required to adhere to applicable mitigation measures as set forth in the
1993 GPA/SP EIR.
Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures
(a) Historic resources
The Project site is a vacant lot situated in an existing commercial/office campus, and there are
no historic resources on or in the vicinity of the Project site that could be affected by Project
implementation. As such, there would be no impact.
(b) Archaeological resources
Project construction activities would include minimal ground-disturbing activities related to
trenching for utility connections. The 1993 GPA/SP EIR included Mitigation Measures 3.9/5.0
192
City of Dublin Dublin Senior Living Project
CEQA Initial Study | Page 37
and 6.0, which would identify protocols related to discovery of unknown historic or prehistoric
resources. Implementation of 1993 GPA/SP EIR mitigation measures would reduce potential
impacts to less than significant levels. As such, Project-related impacts would be equal or less
severe than those identified in the 1993 GPA/SP EIR, and no further mitigation would be
required to reduce potential impacts.
(c) Human remains
As stated above, Project construction would include minimal ground-disturbing activities
related to trenching for utility connections. In the unlikely event that previously unknown
human remains are discovered, 1993 GPA/SP EIR Mitigation Measures 3.9/5.0 and 6.0 would
reduce potential impacts to less than significant levels. Furthermore, adherence to local
regulations regarding the discovery of human remains would be adhered to. Implementation of
1993 GPA/SP EIR mitigation measures would reduce potential impacts to less than significant
levels. As such, Project-related impacts would be equal or less severe than those identified in
the 1993 GPA/SP EIR, and no further mitigation would be required to reduce potential impacts.
Conclusion
The Project does not propose substantial changes that were not previously analyzed in the
1993 GPA/SP EIR that would require major changes to the EIR. Based on the information in
1993 GPA/SP EIR and this environmental analysis, the Project would not substantially increase
the severity of the previously identified cultural resources impacts, nor result in new significant
impacts.
With adherence to applicable regulatory requirements and mitigation measures identified in
the 1993 GPA/SP EIR, there would not be any new or substantially more severe significant
impacts to cultural resources beyond what has been analyzed in the previous 1993 GPA/SP EIR,
and no other CEQA standards for supplemental review are met. Therefore, no further
environmental review is required.
Energy
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Issues
New
Significant
Impact
Substantial
Increase in the
Severity of an
Impact Identified
in 1993 GPA/SP
EIR
Equal or Less
Severe Impact
than Identified
in 1993 GPA/SP
EIR
6. Energy. Would the project:
a) Result in potentially significant environmental impact due
to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of
energy resources, during project construction or
operation??
X
b) Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for
renewable energy or energy efficiency? X
193
City of Dublin Dublin Senior Living Project
CEQA Initial Study | Page 38
Previous CEQA Document
The 1993 GPA/SP EIR did not specifically analyze impacts to energy as it was not a separate
topic for analysis when the EIR was completed. However, the 1993 GPA/SP EIR evaluated
energy use in Section 5.5 of the 1993 GPA/SP EIR under the section Significant Irreversible
Changes and under Section 3.4, Community Services and Facilities, and Section 3.11, Air
Quality, under Stationary Sources.
The 1993 GPA/SP EIR identified the following impacts and mitigation measures for energy use:
Impact 3.4/Q: Demand for Utilities Extensions notes that the build out of the GP/EDSP
will significantly increase demand for gas, electric and telephone services. To supply
adequate electrical service to the project, PG&E estimates that a new distribution
system will have to be constructed. Extension of utility lines are necessary if the
GP/EDSP is approved and built. There is no mitigation to this impact, and it remained a
significant and unavoidable impact.
Impact 3.4/S: Consumption of Non-Renewable Natural Resources noted that the
provision of adequate natural gas and electrical service will require the consumption of
non-renewable natural resources. This impact is considered significant and unavoidable.
Mitigation Measures 3.4/45.0 and 3.4/46.0 would reduce the impact to the extent
feasible.
The City adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations for the significant and unavoidable
impacts of the Eastern Dublin GPA/SP, which includes the Project.
The Project would be required to adhere to applicable mitigation measures as set forth in the
1993 GPA/SP EIR.
Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures
(a) Consumption of energy
The energy requirements for the proposed Project were determined using the construction and
operational estimates generated from the Air Quality Analysis (refer to Appendix A). The
calculation worksheets for diesel fuel consumption rates for off-road construction equipment
and on-road vehicles are provided in Appendix A. Short-term construction and long-term
operational energy consumption are discussed separately below.
Construction
As noted above, energy use was not specifically analyzed in the 1993 GPA/SP EIR, but
operational energy use was addressed in Section 5.5, Section 3.4, and Section 3.11;
construction energy was not addressed. However, construction energy impacts are not new
information of substantial importance that was not known and could not have been known at
the time the 1993 GPA/SP EIR was certified as complete (Public Resources Code Section 21166
194
City of Dublin Dublin Senior Living Project
CEQA Initial Study | Page 39
and the CEQA Guidelines Sections 15162 and 15163). Consideration of energy efficiency as we
know it began in the 1970s and 1980s and was called “conservation.” Under CEQA standards, it
is not new information that requires analysis in a supplemental EIR or Negative Declaration. As
such, the following information is presented for informational purposes only.
The proposed Project is anticipated to be constructed beginning in 2023 with completion
anticipated for 2025. Off-road equipment used during construction would require the use of
diesel fuel. On-road vehicles for construction workers, vendors, and haulers would require both
diesel and gasoline fuel for travel to and from the site during construction. Table 5 provides
estimates of the Project’s construction fuel consumption from off-road construction equipment
and on-road vehicles. Approximately 21,467 gallons of fuel would be required for off-road
equipment and 60,074 gallons would be required for on-road vehicles. There are no unusual
Project characteristics that would necessitate the use of construction equipment or vehicles
that would be less energy or fuel efficient than at comparable construction sites in other parts
of the state. Therefore, it is expected that construction fuel consumption associated with the
proposed Project would not be any more inefficient, wasteful, or unnecessary than at other
construction sites in the region.
Table 5: Construction Energy Demand
Phase Off-road Fuel
Consumption (gallons)
On-road Fuel Consumption
(gallons)
Total Fuel
Consumption
(gallons)
Site Preparation 703.78 219.46 923.24
Site Grading 3,880.36 784.62 4,664.98
Building Construction 15,923.33 58,411.49 74,334.82
Paving 843.63 195.07 1,038.70
Architectural Coating 116.02 463.30 579.32
Total 21,467.12 60,073.94 81,541.06
Source: Energy Consumption Summary (Appendix A)
Operations
Operational energy was discussed in the 1993 GPA/SP EIR, but the discussion was limited to
natural gas and electricity use associated with water distribution, wastewater treatment and
disposal, and building energy use.
Transportation Energy Demand
Energy use associated with mobile sources was not discussed in the 1993 GPA/SP EIR; however,
energy use from mobile sources does not represent new information as fuel conservation
through the Energy Policy and Conservation Act dates to 1975. Under CEQA standards, it is not
new information that requires analysis in a supplemental EIR or Negative Declaration. As such,
the following information is presented for informational purposes only.
195
City of Dublin Dublin Senior Living Project
CEQA Initial Study | Page 40
Table 6 provides an estimate of the daily and annual fuel consumed by vehicles traveling to and
from the proposed Project. These estimates were derived using the same assumptions used in
the operational air quality analysis for the proposed Project.
Table 6: Long-Term Operational Vehicle Fuel Consumption
Vehicle Type
Percent of
Vehicle
Trips1
Daily
Vehicle
Miles
Traveled
Annual
Vehicle Miles
Traveled
Average
Fuel
Economy
(miles/
gallon)2
Total Daily Fuel
Consumption
(gallons)
Total Annual Fuel
Consumption
(gallons)
Passenger Cars
(LDA) 57% 1,715 626,013 30 57 20,665
Light Trucks and
Medium Duty
Vehicles (LDT1,
LDT2, MDV)
35% 1,041 379,880 24 43 15,652
Light-Heavy to
Heavy-Heavy Diesel
Trucks (LHD1, LHD2,
MHDT, HHDT)
5% 160 58,309 10 17 6,090
Motorcycles (MCY) 2% 73 26,720 41 2 649
Other3 (OBUS,
UBUS, SBUS, MH) 0% 12 4,466 7 2 604
Total 100% 3,001 1,095,387 120 43,660
Notes:
1Percent of Vehicle Trips and VMT provided by California Emissions Estimator Model.
2Average fuel economy from EMFAC2021.
3“Other” definitions are OBUS = other buses except school buses and urban buses; UBUS = Urban transit buses;
SBUS = School bus; MH = Mobile Home
Source: Energy Consumption Summary (Appendix A)
As shown above, daily vehicular fuel consumption is estimated to be 120 gallons for both
gasoline and diesel fuel. Annual consumption is estimated at 43,660 gallons.
In terms of land use planning decisions, the proposed Project would constitute development
within an established community and would not be opening a new geographical area for
development such that it would draw mostly new trips or substantially lengthen existing trips.
The proposed Project would be well positioned to accommodate the existing population. For
these reasons, it would be expected that vehicular fuel consumption associated with the
proposed Project would not be any more inefficient, wasteful, or unnecessary than for any
other similar land use activities in the region.
Building Energy Demand
As shown in Table 7 and Table 8, the proposed Project is estimated to demand 685,779 KWhr
(kilowatt hour) of electricity and 1,458,41 kilo British thermal units (KBTU) of natural gas,
respectively on an annual basis. Based on Table 3.11-4 in the 1993 GPA/SP EIR and assuming
the floor area ration (FAR) 0.8 for the Project site, the estimated energy use of the site would
196
City of Dublin Dublin Senior Living Project
CEQA Initial Study | Page 41
have been 741,102 KWh of electricity and 4,379,547 KBTU of natural gas on annual basis. The
proposed Project would use less energy than previously contemplated.
Table 7: Long-Term Electricity Usage
Land
Use Size
Title 24
Electricity
Energy
Intensity
(KWhr/size/yea
r)
Nontitle 24
Electricity
Energy
Intensity
(KWhr/size/yea
r)
Lighting
Energy
Intensity
(KWhr/size/yea
r)
Total
Electricity
Energy
Demand
(KWhr/size/yea
r)
Total
Electricity
Demand
(KWhr/yea
r)
Congregate
Care 174 beds 70.89 3,054.10 741.44 3,866 672,759
Parking Lot 89
spaces 0 0 0.35 140 13,020
Total 685,779
Notes:
KWhr= kilowatt hour
Source: Energy Consumption Summary (Appendix A)
Table 8: Long-Term Natural Gas Usage
Land Use Size
Title 24 Natural
Gas Energy
Intensity
(KBTU/size/year)
Nontitle 24 Natural
Gas Energy
Intensity
(KBTU/size/year)
Total Natural Gas
Energy Demand
(KBTU/size/year)
Total Natural
Gas Demand
(KBTU/year)
Congregate Care 174 beds 5,226.68 3,155 8,382 1,458,410
Parking Lot 89 spaces 0 0 0 0
Total 1,458,410
Notes:
KBTU= kilo British thermal units
Source: Energy Consumption Summary (Appendix A)
It would be expected that building energy consumption associated with the proposed Project
would not be any more inefficient, wasteful, or unnecessary than for any other similar buildings
in the region. Current state regulatory requirements for new building construction contained in
the 2019 CALGreen and Title 24 standards would increase energy efficiency and reduce energy
demand in comparison to existing commercial structures and, therefore, would reduce actual
environmental effects associated with energy use from the proposed Project. Additionally, the
CALGreen and Title 24 standards have increased efficiency standards through each update.
Therefore, while the proposed Project would result in increased electricity and natural gas
demand, compared to the existing setting, the electricity and natural gas would be consumed
more efficiently and when compared with energy projections from the 1993 GPA/SP EIR.
Compliance with future building code standards would result in increased energy efficiency.
Energy Demand Associated with Water and Wastewater
The 1993 GPA/SP EIR did not specifically quantify electricity and natural gas usage associated
with water distribution and wastewater treatment and disposal but recognized that
197
City of Dublin Dublin Senior Living Project
CEQA Initial Study | Page 42
development of the EDSP area would result in the consumption of non-renewable natural
resources as water and wastewater lines were extended during construction and long-term
operational energy was expended to supply and treat water and wastewater. The proposed
Project would represent development consistent with the EDSP and would not be opening new
service areas that were not previously contemplated. As such, the energy demand associated
with provision of water and wastewater services to the Project site has already been fully
evaluated and disclosed in the 1993 GPA/SP EIR.
Based on the above information, the proposed Project would not result in the inefficient or
wasteful consumption of electricity or natural gas, and impacts would be less than significant.
The proposed Project would not result in any new or more severe impacts compared to those
previously identified in the 1993 GPA/SP EIR, and no new mitigation would be required.
(b) State or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency
The 1993 GPA/SP EIR did not include an evaluation of consistency with State or local plans for
renewable energy or energy efficiency. However, the issues of renewable energy or energy
efficiency are not new information of substantial importance that was not known and could not
have been known at the time the 1993 GPA/SP EIR was certified as complete (Public Resources
Code Section 21166 and the CEQA Guidelines Sections 15162 and 15163). Energy efficiency or
conservation were of particular importance dating back to the 1970s when initial conservation
regulations were adopted. Under CEQA standards, it is not new information that requires
analysis in a supplemental EIR or Negative Declaration. The following information is presented
for informational purposes only.
The City of Dublin’s General Plan includes energy goals and policies to reduce the reliance on
nonrenewable energy sources in existing and new private and public facilities through
implementation of energy resource policies to encourage energy conservation and the use of
renewable energy. The City’s Climate Action Plan also includes measures that encourage green
building, renewable energy, and sustainable mobility and land use.
The proposed Project would not conflict with the energy policies of the General Plan nor the
strategies in the Climate Action Plan. The proposed Project would constitute development
within an established community and would not be opening up a new geographical area for
development such that it would draw mostly new trips, or substantially lengthen existing trips.
The proposed Project would be well positioned to accommodate the existing population and
reduce vehicle miles traveled.
The proposed Project would comply with the current versions of CCR Titles 20 and 24, including
CALGreen, that are applicable at the time that building permits are issued and with all
applicable City measures.
For the above reasons, the proposed Project would not conflict with or obstruct a state or local
plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency. The impact is less than significant. The
proposed Project would not result in any new or more severe impacts compared to those
previously identified in the 1993 GPA/SP EIR, and no new mitigation would be required.
198
City of Dublin Dublin Senior Living Project
CEQA Initial Study | Page 43
Conclusion
The Project does not propose substantial changes that were not previously analyzed in the
1993 GPA/SP EIR that would require major changes to the EIR. Based on the information in
1993 GPA/SP EIR and this environmental analysis, the Project would not substantially increase
the severity of the previously identified energy impacts, nor result in new significant impacts.
With adherence to applicable regulatory requirements and mitigation measures identified in
the 1993 GPA/SP EIR, there would not be any new or substantially more severe significant
impacts to energy beyond what has been analyzed in the previous 1993 GPA/SP EIR, and no
other CEQA standards for supplemental review are met. Therefore, no further environmental
review is required.
Geology and Soils
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Issues
New
Significant
Impact
Substantial
Increase in the
Severity of an
Impact Identified
in 1993 GPA/SP EIR
Equal or Less
Severe Impact
than Identified
in 1993 GPA/SP
EIR
7. 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:
X
i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated
on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault
Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the
area or based on other substantial evidence of a
known fault?
X
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? X
iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including
liquefaction? X
iv) Landslides? X
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? X
c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or
that would become unstable as a result of the project,
and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral
spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?
X
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B
of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial
risks to life or property?
X
199
City of Dublin Dublin Senior Living Project
CEQA Initial Study | Page 44
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Issues
New
Significant
Impact
Substantial
Increase in the
Severity of an
Impact Identified
in 1993 GPA/SP EIR
Equal or Less
Severe Impact
than Identified
in 1993 GPA/SP
EIR
e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of
septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems
where sewers are not available for the disposal of
wastewater?
X
f) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological
resource or site or unique geologic feature? X
Previous CEQA Document
The 1993 GPA/SP EIR identified the following impacts and mitigation measures for geology and
soils:
Impact 3.6/A: Fault Ground Rupture was found to have insignificant impact since no
known active or potentially active faults traverse the EDSP area and Alquist-Priolo
Special Studies Zones are not located within the EDSP area.
Impact 3.6/B: Earthquake Ground Shaking: Primary Effects identified potentially
significant and unavoidable impacts from primary effects of seismic ground shaking that
were insufficiently mitigated by Mitigation Measure 3.6/1.0.
Impacts 3.6/C through 3.6/L were identified as potentially significant but mitigatable by
Mitigation Measures 3.6/2.0 through 3.6/28.0 to a level of insignificance.
Impact 3.9/A and 3.9/B were identified as potentially significant due to potential
disruption or destruction of identified and unidentified prehistoric resources. The
potentially significant impacts were able to be sufficiently mitigation by Mitigation
Measures 3.9/1.0 through 3.9/6.0.
The City adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations for the significant and unavoidable
impacts of the Eastern Dublin GPA/SP, which includes the Project site.
The Project would be required to adhere to applicable mitigation measures as set forth in the
1993 GPA/SP EIR.
Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures
(a) Seismic hazards
Fault Rupture
As described in the 1993 GPA/SP EIR, the Project site is not located within or adjacent to an
Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone and, therefore, there would be no impact related to fault
200
City of Dublin Dublin Senior Living Project
CEQA Initial Study | Page 45
rupture. The Project would not result in new or substantially more severe impacts than
identified in the 1993 GPA/SP EIR and the criteria for requiring further CEQA review are not
met.
Ground Shaking
The 1993 GPA/SP EIR analyzed and found potentially significant and unavoidable impacts
associated with primary effects of seismic ground shaking. The 1993 GPA/SP EIR identified
Mitigation Measure 3.6/1.0 to reduce potential primary effects of ground shaking to structures
and infrastructures. However, the 1993 GPA/SP EIR determined that implementation of
Mitigation Measure 3.6/1.0 would not completely eliminate the hazards associated with the
primary effects of earthquake ground shaking impacts and the impact remained potentially
significant.
The Project site and the San Francisco Bay Area is located in a seismically active region and,
therefore, the Project would be expected to experience ground shaking from earthquakes
within its lifetime. The risk of ground shaking impacts can be reduced through adherence to the
design and materials standards set forth in the building codes. The Project would be required to
be constructed in accordance with the most recent California Building Code (CBC)-adopted by
the City, which provides for construction requirements on projects in areas of high seismic risk.
The Project would be designed and constructed in accordance with earthquake resistant
construction related to seismic design. Additionally, the Project would implement Mitigation
Measures 3.6/1.0 and 3.6/7.0 identified in the 1993 GPA/SP EIR. Mitigation Measure 3.6/1.0
requires buildings to be designed and constructed in accordance with the Uniform Building
Code and applicable County and City code requirements adopted to reduce the potential for
structural failure. Mitigation Measure 3.6/7.0 requires the Project to conduct design-level
geotechnical investigations and implement the recommendations included in the geotechnical
report. A Geotechnical Investigation Report was prepared for the Project by Geocon
Consultants, in June 2021. The Project would be required to implement all recommendations
included in the geotechnical report related to site and building design, structural foundations,
and any other applicable recommendations. With conformance with City building standards
and implementation of mitigation measures identified in the 1993 GPA/SP EIR, the Project
would not result in new or substantially more severe impacts than identified in the 1993
GPA/SP EIR and the criteria for requiring further CEQA review are not met.
Ground Failure
The 1993 GPA/SP EIR identified potentially significant impacts resulting from secondary effects
of earthquake ground shaking including seismically induced landslides, compaction, and
settlement. These impacts were mitigated to a less than significant level with the
implementation of Mitigation Measures 3.6/2.0 through 8.0.
The Geotechnical Report prepared for the Project identified that the Project site is located in a
State of California Seismic Hazard Zone for liquefaction, and the Metropolitan Transportation
Commission/Association of Bay Area Governments (MTC/ABAG) indicates the site has a
moderate susceptibility to liquefaction. Additionally, Figure 8-1 in the City’s General Plan
201
City of Dublin Dublin Senior Living Project
CEQA Initial Study | Page 46
identifies liquefaction and landslide areas within the City limits. The Project site is located in the
liquefaction areas identified by the City (City of Dublin 2018). The Project would incorporate all
recommendations related to liquefaction and ground failure risks identified in the Geotechnical
Report, as required by Mitigation Measure 3.6/7.0 identified in the 1993 GPA/SP EIR.
Additionally, the Project would implement Mitigation Measure 3.6/2.0 and 3.6/4.0 through 6.0
to reduce potential impacts from ground failure. With the implementation of Mitigation
Measures 3.6/2.0 and 3.6/4.0 through 7.0 identified in the 1993 GPA/SP EIR, the Project would
not result in new or substantially more severe impacts than identified in the 1993 GPA/SP EIR
and the criteria for requiring further CEQA review are not met.
Landslide
The 1993 GPA/SP EIR identified potentially significant impacts resulting from secondary effects
of earthquake ground shaking including seismically induced landslides, compaction, and
settlement. These impacts were mitigated to a less than significant level with the
implementation of Mitigation Measures 3.6/2.0 through 3.6/8.0.
As identified in the Geotechnical Report, the Project site is relatively flat with surface elevations
of approximately 355 to 360 feet mean sea level (MSL). The site is not located in an area
identified by the City’s General Plan as being in a landslide hazard area (City of Dublin 2018).
The Project site and surrounding areas are not located along hillsides and are steeply sloped;
therefore, the likelihood of a landslide occurring at the site is limited. The Project would not
result in new or substantially more severe impacts than identified in the 1993 GPA/SP EIR and
the criteria for requiring further CEQA review are not met.
(b) Erosion/topsoil loss
The 1993 GPA/SP EIR identified potentially significant short-term and long-term erosion and
sedimentation impacts resulting from construction activities and operation of the Project.
These impacts were mitigated to a less than significant level with the implementation of
Mitigation Measures 3.6/27.0 through 28.0.
Construction activities associated with the Project would include ground disturbing activities,
which could expose unprotected soils to stormwater runoff, causing erosion and loss of topsoil.
As discussed under the Regulatory Settings of the Hydrology and Water Quality section,
projects that disturb one or more acres of soil during construction are required to comply with
the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permitting program and
implement a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) that identifies BMPs to control the
discharge of sediment and other pollutants during construction. The Project would be required
to comply with the NPDES permit and prepare an SWPPP to reduce impacts from erosion.
Additionally, the Project would implement Mitigation Measure 3.6/27.0 identified in the 1993
GPA/SP EIR, which requires implementation of control measures to reduce construction-related
erosion and sedimentation. The Project would also be required to implement Mitigation
Measure 3.6/28.0 identified in the 1993 GPA/SP EIR, which calls for the implementation of
appropriate design, construction, and maintenance measures to reduce potential impacts of
long-term erosion and sedimentation. The Project would construct bioretention areas as part of
202
City of Dublin Dublin Senior Living Project
CEQA Initial Study | Page 47
the Project’s storm drainage system, which would provide treatment to site runoff and reduce
potential polluted runoff such as erosion and sedimentation. Therefore, with the
implementation of Mitigation Measures 3.6/27.0 through 28.0 identified in the 1993 GPA/SP
EIR and compliance with regulatory requirements, the Project would not result in new or
substantially more severe impacts than identified in the 1993 GPA/SP EIR and the criteria for
requiring further CEQA review are not met.
(c, d) Soil stability
The 1993 GPA/SP EIR identified potentially significant impacts related to expansive soils and
natural and cut-and-fill slope stability, which were reduced to a less than significant level with
the implementation of Mitigation Measures 3.6/14.0 through 26.0.
The Project site is not in an area mapped as having a landslide risk; therefore, the Project would
have no impact from landslides and slope instability. The Geotechnical Report identified that
the site is underlain by Holocene-age alluvial deposits and soil borings conducted revealed
deposits were observed as stiff to hard clays with variable amounts of sand and medium dense
to very dense sands with variable amounts of clay and gravel. Laboratory tests conducted for
site soils indicated that predominant clayey soils are highly plastic with a high expansion
potential. The Project would be required to comply with Mitigation Measures 3.6/7.0 and
3.6/14.0, which calls for the formulation of appropriate design criteria and measures during the
geotechnical investigation. Since the geotechnical investigation has already been conducted for
the site, the Project would be required to implement all recommendations identified in the
Geotechnical Report to reduce potential impacts from unstable soils. Additionally, the Project
would implement Mitigation Measures 3.6/15.0 and 3.6/16.0 identified in the 1993 GPA/SP EIR,
which would reduce potential impacts associated with unstable soils. With the implementation
of Mitigation Measures 3.6/7.0 and 3.6/14.0 through 16.0 identified in the 1993 GPA/SP EIR
and incorporation of recommendations included in the Geotechnical Report, the Project would
not result in new or substantially more severe impacts than identified in the 1993 GPA/SP EIR
and the criteria for requiring further CEQA review are not met.
(e) Soil capability to support wastewater disposal, including septic
The 1993 GPA/SP EIR did not analyze impacts related to the use of alternative waste disposal
systems such as a septic tank. The Project would connect to the City’s sewer system and would
not require the use of alternative waste disposal systems. Therefore, there would be no impact.
(f) Unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature
The 1993 GPA/SP EIR identified potentially significant impacts related to potential disruption or
destruction of identified and unidentified pre-historic resources. Significant impacts to pre-
historic resources were able to be reduced to a less than significant level with the incorporation
of Mitigation Measures 3.9/1.0 through 6.0.
There are no identified paleontological or unique geologic resources located onsite. The
discovery of previously unidentified paleontological resources is unlikely due to the already
developed nature of the site. However, the Project would include ground disturbing activities,
203
City of Dublin Dublin Senior Living Project
CEQA Initial Study | Page 48
which could reveal undiscovered paleontological resources. The Project would be required to
implement Mitigation Measures 3.9/5.0 through 6.0, which outlines procedures for discovery of
resources during construction and requires site reconnaissance as part of the development
application process. The Project would be required to implement Mitigation Measures 3.9/5.0
through 6.0 identified in the 1993 GPA/SP EIR, which would not result in new or substantially
more severe impacts than identified in the 1993 GPA/SP EIR and the criteria for requiring
further CEQA review are not met.
Conclusion
The Project does not propose changes beyond what was previously analyzed in the 1993
GPA/SP EIR that would require major changes to the EIR. Based on the information in 1993
GPA/SP EIR and this environmental analysis, the Project would not substantially increase the
severity of the previously identified geology and soil impacts, nor result in new significant
impacts.
With adherence to applicable regulatory requirements and mitigation measures identified in
the 1993 GPA/SP EIR, there would not be any new or substantially more severe significant
impacts to geology and soil beyond what has been analyzed in the previous 1993 GPA/SP EIR,
and no other CEQA standards for supplemental review are met. Therefore, no further
environmental review is required.
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Issues
New
Significant
Impact
Substantial Increase
in the Severity of an
Impact Identified in
1993 GPA/SP EIR
Equal or Less
Severe Impact
than Identified
in 1993 GPA/SP
EIR
8. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS. Would the project:
a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or
indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the
environment?
X
b) Conflict with applicable plan, policy or regulation
adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of
greenhouse gases?
X
Previous CEQA Document
Since the 1993 GPA/SP EIR was certified before greenhouse gas (GHG) emission analysis
became a CEQA requirement in 2006. The determination of whether GHG emissions and
climate change need to be analyzed for the 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
204
City of Dublin Dublin Senior Living Project
CEQA Initial Study | Page 49
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)).
GHG emissions were not analyzed in the 1993 GPA/SP EIR. However, these impacts are not new
information of substantial importance that was not known and could not have been known at
the time the previous EIR was certified as complete (Public Resources Code Section 21166 and
the CEQA Guidelines Sections 15162 and 15163). The issue of climate change and GHG
emissions was widely known at the time of the certification of the 1993 GPA/SP EIR. 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. Under CEQA standards, it is not new information that
requires analysis in a supplemental EIR or Negative Declaration. Therefore, no supplemental
environmental analysis of the Project’s impacts on this issue is required under CEQA.
Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures
(a, b) Generate greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions or conflict with GHG plans or regulations
As discussed above, no additional environmental analysis is required under CEQA Section 21166
and CEQA Guidelines Section 15162.
Conclusion
The Project does not propose substantial changes that were not previously analyzed in the
1993 GPA/SP EIR that would require major changes to the EIR. The impact of GHG emissions on
climate change was known at the time of the certification of the 1993 GPA/SP EIR. Under CEQA
standards, it is not new information that requires analysis in a supplemental EIR or Negative
Declaration and no other CEQA standards for supplemental review are met. Therefore, no
further environmental review is required.
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Issues
New
Significant
Impact
Substantial
Increase in the
Severity of an
Impact Identified
in 1993 GPA/SP EIR
Equal or Less
Severe Impact
than Identified
in 1993 GPA/SP
EIR
9. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would the project:
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through the routine transport, use, or
disposal of hazardous materials?
X
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and
accident conditions involving the release of hazardous
materials into the environment?
X
205
City of Dublin Dublin Senior Living Project
CEQA Initial Study | Page 50
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Issues
New
Significant
Impact
Substantial
Increase in the
Severity of an
Impact Identified
in 1993 GPA/SP EIR
Equal or Less
Severe Impact
than Identified
in 1993 GPA/SP
EIR
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely
hazardous materials, substances, or waste within ¼ mile of
an existing or proposed school?
X
d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of
hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to
Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would
it create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment?
X
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or,
where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles
of a public airport or public use airport, would the project
result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in
the project area?
X
f) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an
adopted emergency response plan or emergency
evacuation plan?
X
g) Expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly,
to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving
wildland fires?
X
Previous CEQA Document
The 1993 GPA/SP EIR did not include an analysis of impacts to hazards and hazardous materials.
However, these impacts are not required to be analyzed unless they constitute new
information of substantial importance that was not known and could not have been known at
the time the previous EIR was certified as complete (Public Resources Code Section 21166 and
the CEQA Guidelines Sections 15162 and 15163). The potential impacts of hazards and
hazardous materials were known at the time of the certification of the 1993 GPA/SP EIR. Under
CEQA standards, it is not new information that requires analysis in a supplemental EIR or
negative declaration. Therefore, no supplemental environmental analysis of the Project’s
impacts on this issue is required under CEQA. Nevertheless, a brief evaluation of hazards is
provided below.
Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures
(a) Transport, use or disposal of hazardous materials
To the extent potentially hazardous materials could be used during Project construction or
operation, related impacts would be less than significant due to compliance with all applicable
regulatory requirements.
206
City of Dublin Dublin Senior Living Project
CEQA Initial Study | Page 51
(b) Potential release of hazardous materials into the environment
Implementation of the Project would not create a significant hazard to the pubic or
environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the
release of hazardous materials into the environment, as Project construction and operation
would not utilize hazardous materials beyond normal cleaners, detergents and maintenance
fluids. Such materials would be used in compliance with all applicable regulatory requirements.
Therefore, there would be no impact.
(c) Emit hazardous materials within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school
The Project would not emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous
materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school.
There is no school located within one-quarter mile of the Project site, and as such, there would
be no impact.
(d) Listed as a hazardous materials site
The Project site is vacant and has not been listed as a hazardous materials site in the 1993
GPA/SP EIR and, therefore, there would be no impact.
(e) Proximity to a public or private airport
The Project site is located approximately 3.6 miles from the Livermore Municipal Airport, a
general aviation airport. As such, the Project would not result in a safety hazard or excessive
noise for people working in the Project area, and there would be no impact.
(f) Impair implementation of an emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan
Project construction and operation would not result in the impairment of an emergency
response or emergency evacuation plan. Should any roadways be temporarily affected by
construction activities, these activities would be previously permitted and performed in
accordance with all applicable regulations and requirements in order to minimize or avoid any
potential impacts. Therefore, there would be no impact.
(g) Expose people or structures to wildland fires
As discussed in the Wildfire section below, the Project would not expose people or structures,
either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires,
as the Project site is not located within a very high fire hazard severity zone or a California
Department of Forestry and Fire Protection designated State Responsibility Area. Therefore,
there would be no impact.
Conclusion
The Project does not propose substantial changes that were not previously analyzed in the
1993 GPA/SP EIR that would require major changes to the EIR. Based on the information in this
environmental analysis, the Project would result in less than significant or no impacts relating
to hazards and hazardous materials. Furthermore, Project implementation would be required
to comply with applicable regulatory requirements. There would not be any new or
207
City of Dublin Dublin Senior Living Project
CEQA Initial Study | Page 52
substantially more severe significant impacts to hazards and hazardous materials beyond what
has been analyzed in the previous 1993 GPA/SP EIR, and no other CEQA standards for
supplemental review are met. Therefore, no further environmental review is required.
Hydrology and Water Quality
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Issues
New
Significant
Impact
Substantial
Increase in the
Severity of an
Impact Identified
in 1993 GPA/SP EIR
Equal or Less
Severe Impact
than Identified
in 1993 GPA/SP
EIR
10. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would the project:
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge
requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface
or ground water quality?
X
b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere
substantially with groundwater recharge such that the
project may impede sustainable groundwater
management of the basin??
X
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the
site or area, including through the alteration of the
course of a stream or river through the addition of
impervious surfaces, in a manner which would:
X
i) Result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-
site? X
ii) Substantially increase the rate or amount of surface
runoff in a manner which would result in flooding
on- or offsite?
X
iii) Create or contribute runoff water which would
exceed the capacity of existing or planned
stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial
additional sources of polluted runoff?
X
iv) Impede or redirect flood flows? X
d) In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of
pollutants due to project inundation? X
e) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water
quality control plan or sustainable groundwater
management plan?
X
208
City of Dublin Dublin Senior Living Project
CEQA Initial Study | Page 53
Previous CEQA Document
The 1993 GPA/SP EIR identified the following impacts and mitigation measures for hydrology
and water quality:
Impact 3.5/P identified significant impacts related to the supply of water to the Eastern
Dublin area. Mitigation Measures 3.5/24.0 through 3.5/40.0 were adopted to prevent
overdraft of ground water resources by requiring or encouraging annexation and
connection to Dublin-San Ramon Services District (DSRSD), minimize the effect of
additional demand for water by encouraging water recycling and conservation and by
encouraging the development of new facilities and supplies, and to ensure the
development of a water distribution system by generally preventing development until
such facilities are constructed by developers.
Impact 3.5/Q noted that the EDSP would increase demand to serve development at
build-out under the then-applicable General Plan and required an additional 25,000
acre-feet (AF) annually. Mitigation Measures 3.5/26.0 through 3.5/31.0 reduced the
impact to an insignificant level.
Impact 3.5/V identified an impact due to flooding as a result of water storage reservoir
failure but would be mitigated to an insignificant level by Mitigation Measure 3.5/41.0.
Impact 3.5/Y: Potential Flooding was found to be potentially significant but was reduced
to an insignificant level by Mitigation Measures 3.5/44.0 through 3.5/48.0.
Impact 3.5/Z: Reduced Groundwater Recharge was a potentially significant impact but
Mitigation Measures 3.5/49.0 and 3.5/50.0 reduced the impact to an insignificant level.
Impact 3.5/AA: Non-Point Sources of Pollution was found to be a potentially significant
impact but was reduced to an insignificant level by Mitigation Measures 3.5/51.0 and
3.5/52.0.
Impact 3.6/K through 3.6/L identified potentially significant impacts due to potential
construction-related and long-term erosion and sedimentation impacts. Mitigation
Measures 3.6-27.0 through 3.6/28.0 reduced the impacts to an insignificant level.
The Project would be required to adhere to applicable mitigation measures as set forth in the
1993 GPA/SP EIR.
Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures
(a) Violate water quality or waste discharge requirements
Construction activities for the Project would include those that have the potential to generate
stormwater runoff and to discharge pollutants, such as fuels, solvents, oil, paints, and trash into
the City’s storm drain system. The Project would be required to comply with the NPDES
Construction General Permit and would prepare and implement a SWPPP which would include
209
City of Dublin Dublin Senior Living Project
CEQA Initial Study | Page 54
BMPs to control sediment, erosion, and hazardous materials from being discharged from the
site. Furthermore, the Project would also implement Mitigation Measure 3.6/27.0, identified in
the 1993 GPA/SP EIR, which outlines short-term construction-related erosion and
sedimentation reduction measures, including implementation of interim control measures
designed to prevent concentration of runoff, control runoff velocity, and trap silt. Required
Project-specific measures would be determined by the City, prior to issuance of a grading
permit, which may include such measures as straw bale dikes, sediment traps, and/or silt
fences. Compliance with the NPDES permit and implementation of mitigation measures
identified in the 1993 GPA/SP EIR would reduce potential water quality impacts from
construction to a less than significant level.
Post-construction impacts from development could affect drainage patterns and increase the
overall amount of impervious surfaces at the site creating changes to stormwater flows and
water quality. The Project is subject to conditions of the Municipal Regional Permit (MRP).
Provision C.3 of the MRP requires all new development or redevelopment projects that create
or replace 10,000 sf of impervious surfaces to include post-construction stormwater control.
Provision C.3 requirements include implementation of site design measures, source control
measures, and stormwater treatment measures to reduce stormwater pollution post-
construction.
Development of the Project would result in 178,091 sf of impervious surfaces and 83,387 sf of
pervious surfaces at the site. The Project would replace the existing private storm drainage
system and construct a drainage system that works with the proposed development. The
Project would install a Low Impact Development (LID) storm drain system, which would include
new storm drain lines and 7,836 sf of bio-retention treatment areas onsite. LID systems refer to
systems and practices that use or mimic natural processes that result in filtration,
evapotranspiration, or use of stormwater in order to protect water quality and associated
aquatic habitat (EPA 2022). The drainage system improvements would be designed and
constructed in accordance with the City’s requirements and Provision C.3 requirements. In
addition, the Project would be required to prepare a Storm Drainage Master Plan as required by
Mitigation Measure 3.5/46.0 identified in the 1993 GPA/SP EIR. Additionally, the Project would
implement Mitigation Measures 3.5/44.0, 3.5/51.0, and 3.6/28.0 identified in the 1993 GPA/SP
EIR. With adherence to mitigation measures identified in the 1993 GPA/SP EIR and compliance
with City and Provision C.3 requirements for storm drain systems, the Project would not result
in new or substantially more severe impacts than identified in the 1993 GPA/SP EIR and the
criteria for requiring further CEQA review are not met.
(b) Substantially deplete or interfere with groundwater supplies
The 1993 GPA/SP EIR identified a potential significant impact related to overdraft of local
groundwater resources and reduced groundwater recharge due to an increase in impervious
surfaces, which were mitigated to an insignificant level with the implementation of Mitigation
Measures 3.5/24.0 through 3.5/25.0 and 3.5/49.0 through 3.5/50.0.
210
City of Dublin Dublin Senior Living Project
CEQA Initial Study | Page 55
The Project would result in an increase in impervious surface coverage at the site compared to
existing conditions; however, the Project would include the use of LID features that would
retain and treat stormwater onsite before discharging to the City’s stormwater system,
consistent with requirements of Provisions C.3. The Project would construct LID storm drain
systems and pervious areas would include bioretention areas and landscaped areas, which
would allow for infiltration of groundwater recharge.
The Project would connect to the City’s water system and would not require the construction of
new wells or the use of local groundwater resources. Due to the depth of groundwater and
shallow excavations required for Project construction, dewatering is not anticipated during
construction. Therefore, the Project would not substantially decrease groundwater supplies or
interfere with groundwater recharge and there would be no impact. The Project would not
result in new or substantially more severe impacts than identified in the 1993 GPA/SP EIR and
the criteria for requiring further CEQA review are not met.
(c) Substantially alter existing drainage patterns
The 1993 GPA/SP EIR identified potentially significant impacts resulting from development of
the Project as it would result in an increase in runoff increasing the potential for flooding and
increase in non-point sources of polluted runoff. Potential significant impacts were mitigated to
a level of insignificance with the implementation of Mitigation Measures 3.5/44.0 through
3.5/47.0 and 3.5/51.0 through 3.5/52.0.
The Project would create new landscaped areas and impermeable surfaces, which could alter
the existing drainage pattern of the site. As discussed above, the Project would be required to
comply with Provision C.3 requirements, standard City development requirements related to
stormwater, and Mitigation Measures 3.5/44.0, 3.5/46.0, 3.5/51.0, and 3.6/28.0 identified in
the 1993 GPA/SP EIR, which would reduce impacts from polluted runoff. Additionally, the
Project would be required comply with NPDES permit requirements and prepare and
implement a SWPPP.
The Project would be required to implement Mitigation Measure 3.5/47.0 identified in the 1993
GPA/SP EIR, which requires development in the Planning Area to provide facilities to alleviate
potential downstream flooding due to Project development. The Project would construct a LID
storm drain system, which would include landscaped areas and bioretention areas where
stormwater runoff would be directed before being discharged to the City’s system.
With the implementation of mitigation measures identified in the 1993 GPA/SP EIR and
construction of storm drainage systems according to City and Provision C.3 requirements, the
Project would not substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site in a manner that
would result in substantial increase in erosion and polluted runoff, substantial increase in the
rate or amount of runoff, exceed capacity of storm drain system, or impede or redirect flood
flows. The Project would not result in new or substantially more severe impacts than identified
in the 1993 GPA/SP EIR and the criteria for requiring further CEQA review are not met.
211
City of Dublin Dublin Senior Living Project
CEQA Initial Study | Page 56
(d) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow
The 1993 GPA/SP EIR did not analyze impacts resulting from being located in flood hazard,
seiche, or tsunami zone. According to the City’s General Plan, the Project site is not located in
an area identified as having a flood hazard and Federal Emergency Management Agency’s
(FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) identified the Project site as being within Zone X, an
area with minimal flood hazard (FEMA 2020). The City of Dublin is not located within an area
mapped as being in a tsunami hazard area (DOC 2022). According to the City’s General Plan EIR,
the City is too far inland to be subject to tsunami risks (City of Dublin 1984). A seiche is a long
wave set up on an enclosed body of water such as a lake or reservoir. According to the County
of Alameda’s General Plan Safety Element, the Bay Area has not been adversely affected by
seiches during its history within the seismically active region of California. The County General
Plan Safety Element identified that various lakes and reservoirs within the unincorporated areas
may be at risk of a seiche in the event of an earthquake (County of Alameda 2013). The City and
the Project site is not located within these unincorporated areas and, therefore, seiches do not
pose a significant risk. The Project site would not be located in a flood hazard, seiche, or
tsunami zone and would not risk the release of pollutants due to Project site inundation
resulting from flooding, seiches, or tsunamis. There would be no impacts. The Project would not
result in new or substantially more severe impacts than identified in the 1993 GPA/SP EIR and
the criteria for requiring further CEQA review are not met.
(e) Conflict with water quality control or groundwater management plan
The City is located within the Livermore Valley Groundwater Basin, which was identified by the
Department of Water Resources (DWR) as a medium priority basin. Under the Sustainable
Groundwater Management Act (SGMA), high- and medium-priority basins must establish
Groundwater Sustainability Plans (GSP) and must establish Groundwater Sustainability Agencies
(GSAs) that oversee the preparation and implementation of a local GSP. Zone 7 is the
designated GSA for the Livermore Valley Groundwater Basin. Zone 7 adopted a Groundwater
Management Plan (GWMP) in 2005, which documented ongoing policies and programs for
managing the groundwater basin. The GWMP was amended in 2015 with the adoption of the
Nutrient Management Plan. Zone 7 submitted the Alternative GSP for the Livermore Valley
Groundwater Basin in 2016 to DWR in compliance with SGMA and the GSP was approved in
2019 (Zone 7 2021). The Project would comply with the GWMP and GSP prepared by Zone 7 for
the Livermore Valley Groundwater Basin and would not conflict with or obstruct the
implementation of a sustainable groundwater management plan.
The San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) adopted a Water Quality
Control Plan for the San Francisco Bay Basin (Basin Plan) that designates beneficial uses,
establishes water quality objectives, and contains implementation programs and policies to
achieve those objectors for all waters addressed through the Bain Plan. The proposed Project
would be constructed and operated in accordance with the Basin Plan. The Project would be
constructed and operated in accordance with applicable water quality control plans and would
not conflict with or obstruct the implementation of any plans, therefore, there would be no
impact. The Project would not result in new or substantially more severe impacts than
212
City of Dublin Dublin Senior Living Project
CEQA Initial Study | Page 57
identified in the 1993 GPA/SP EIR and the criteria for requiring further CEQA review are not
met.
Conclusion
The Project does not propose substantial changes that were not previously analyzed in the
1993 GPA/SP EIR that would require major changes to the EIR. Based on the information in
1993 GPA/SP EIR and this environmental analysis, the Project would not substantially increase
the severity of the previously identified hydrology and water quality impacts, nor result in new
significant impacts.
With adherence to applicable regulatory requirements and mitigation measures identified in
the 1993 GPA/SP EIR., there would not be any new or substantially more severe significant
impacts to hydrology and water quality beyond what has been analyzed in the previous 1993
GPA/SP EIR, and no other CEQA standards for supplemental review are met. Therefore, no
further environmental review is required.
Land Use and Planning
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Issues
New
Significant
Impact
Substantial
Increase in the
Severity of an
Impact Identified
in 1993 GPA/SP
EIR
Equal or Less
Severe Impact
than Identified
in 1993 GPA/SP
EIR
11. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the project:
a) Physically divide an established community? X
b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or
regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project
(including, but not limited to the general plan, specific
plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted
for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an
environmental effect?
X
Previous CEQA Document
The 1993 GPA/SP EIR identified the following impact for land use and planning:
Impact 3.1/A found that there were significant and unavoidable impacts from the EDSP
as a result of the loss of agricultural and open space lands. No mitigation measures were
identified for those impacts.
The City adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations for this significant and unavoidable
impact, which includes the Project site.
213
City of Dublin Dublin Senior Living Project
CEQA Initial Study | Page 58
Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures
(a) Physically divide an established community
The Project site is a commercial/office campus and does not include any residences; therefore,
there is no established community that could be divided by Project implementation. As such,
there would be no impact.
(b) Conflict with general plan
The Project site is located in the EDSP project boundary and would be consistent with
environmental goals and policies contained in the City’s General Plan.
Conclusion
The Project does not propose substantial changes that were not previously analyzed in the
1993 GPA/SP EIR that would require major changes to the EIR. Based on the information in the
1993 GPA/SP EIR and this environmental analysis, the Project would not substantially increase
the severity of the previously identified land use and planning impacts, nor result in new
significant impacts.
There are not any new or substantially more severe significant impacts to land use and planning
beyond what has been analyzed in the previous 1993 GPA/SP EIR, and no other CEQA standards
for supplemental review are met. Therefore, no further environmental review is required.
Mineral Resources
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Issues
New
Significant
Impact
Substantial
Increase in the
Severity of an
Impact Identified
in 1993 GPA/SP EIR
Equal or Less
Severe Impact
than Identified
in 1993 GPA/SP
EIR
12. MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral
resource that would be of value to the region and the
residents of the state?
X
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally-important
mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local
general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan?
X
Previous CEQA Document
The 1993 GPA/SP EIR did not include an analysis of impacts to mineral resources.
214
City of Dublin Dublin Senior Living Project
CEQA Initial Study | Page 59
Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures
(a, b) Loss of known or identified mineral resource
The City’s General Plan states that there are no known mineral deposits in the City and the City
does not contain any mineral extraction areas (City of Dublin 2018). Additionally, according to
the Mineral Land Classification maps prepared by the California Department of Conservation
(DOC) Division of Mines and Geology, the Project site is located in a Mineral Resources Zone
(MRZ) -1 zone (DOC 1982). Areas classified as MRZ-1 are areas where adequate information
indicated that no significant mineral deposits are present, or where it is judged that little
likelihood exists of their presence. As the City does not have any mineral extraction areas, there
would be no impacts related to the loss of mineral resources or loss of a mineral resource
recovery site. The Project would not result in new or substantially more severe impacts to
mineral resources than identified in the 1993 GPA/SP EIR and the criteria for requiring further
CEQA review are not met.
Conclusion
Because the City does not have any mineral extraction areas, there would be no impact, and no
other CEQA standards for supplemental review are met. Therefore, no further environmental
review is required.
Noise
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Issues
New
Significant
Impact
Substantial
Increase in the
Severity of an
Impact Identified
in 1993 GPA/SP
EIR
Equal or Less
Severe Impact
than Identified
in 1993 GPA/SP
EIR
13. NOISE. Would the project result in:
a) Generation of a substantial temporary or permanent
increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project
in excess of standards established in the local general plan
or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other
agencies?
X
b) Generation of excessive groundborne vibration or
groundborne noise levels? X
c) 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?
X
Previous CEQA Document
The 1993 GPA/SP EIR identified the following impacts and mitigation measures for noise:
215
City of Dublin Dublin Senior Living Project
CEQA Initial Study | Page 60
Impact 3.10/A: Exposure of Proposed Housing to Future Roadway Noise identified
future vehicular traffic associated with development proposed in Eastern Dublin as
potentially significant to future residents. This impact would be mitigated to an
insignificant level through adherence to Mitigation Measure 3.10/1.0 that requires
acoustic studies for all future residential development in the Eastern Dublin area.
Impact 3.10/B: Exposure of Existing Residences to Future Roadway Noise would be a
potentially significant impact to existing residents in the Eastern Dublin area as
development occurs in accord with the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and
Specific Plan. This impact would be reduced through adherence to Mitigation Measure
3.10/2.0, which requires future development projects to provide noise protection to
existing residential uses in Eastern Dublin; however, noise impacts to existing residents
along Fallon Road would remain significant and unavoidable.
Impact 3.10/ C: Exposure of Existing and Proposed Development to Airport Noise was
considered an insignificant impact and no mitigation was required.
Impact 3.10/D: Exposure of Proposed Residential Development to Noise from Future
Military Training Activities at Parks Reserve Forces Training Area (RFTA) and the County
Jail identified potentially significant noise for future residents within 6,000 feet of Parks
RFTA. This impact would be reduced through adherence to Mitigation Measure 3.10/3.0
that requires acoustic studies for development near Parks RFTA and the County Jail;
however, reduction of noise from Parks RFTA may not be feasible, so this impact would
be significant and unavoidable.
Impact 3.10/E: Exposure of Existing and Proposed Residences to Construction Noise
would be a potentially significant impact related to noise associated with construction
of the EDSP, including but not limited to buildings, roads, and utilities. Adherence to
Mitigation Measures 3.10/4.0 and 3.10/5.0 would reduce construction noise impacts to
a level of insignificance through preparation and submittal of Construction Noise
Management Plans and compliance with local noise standards.
Impact 3.10/F: Noise Conflicts due to the Adjacency of Diverse Land Uses Permitted by
Plan Policies Supporting Mixed-Use Development would result from close proximity of
different land use types that may result in potentially significant impacts. Mitigation
Measure 3.10/6.0 requires the preparation of noise management plans for all mixed-use
developments within the Eastern Dublin area. This measure would reduce noise
generated by mixed-use development to a level of insignificance.
The City adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations for the significant and unavoidable
impacts described above, which includes the Project.
The Project would be required to adhere to applicable mitigation measures as set forth in the
1993 GPA/SP EIR.
216
City of Dublin Dublin Senior Living Project
CEQA Initial Study | Page 61
Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures
(a) Exposure to or generate noise exceeding standards
Exposure of Proposed Facility to Future Roadway Noise
Part 2, Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations California Noise Insulation Standards
establishes minimum noise insulation standards to protect persons within new hotels, motels,
dormitories, long-term care facilities, apartment houses, and dwellings other than single-family
residences. Under Section 1207.11 “Exterior Sound Transmission Control”, interior noise levels
attributable to exterior noise sources cannot exceed 45 decibels (dB)(A) day-night average
sound level (Ldn) in any habitable room. Where such buildings are in an environment where
exterior noise is 60 dB(A) Ldn or greater, an acoustical analysis is required to ensure interior
levels do not exceed the 45 dB(A) Ldn interior standard. If the interior allowable noise levels are
met by requiring that windows be kept closed, the design for the building must also specify a
ventilation or air conditioning system to provide a habitable interior environment.
Impact 3.10/A in the 1993 GPA/SP EIR states that noise generated from vehicular traffic on
roadways is potentially significant to future buildings containing sleeping units, such as senior
living facilities. Mitigation Measure 3.10/1.0 requires an acoustical study be submitted for
buildings with sleeping units located within the future community noise equivalent level (CNEL)
60 contour. The goal of the acoustical study is to show how the interior noise level will be
controlled to a CNEL/Ldn of 45 dB as required by California Building Code, Title 24, Part II.
Figure 9-2 “2035 Projected Noise Exposure Contours” in the City of Dublin General Plan shows
the west edge of the Project site is contained within the 60 dB CNEL contour (City of Dublin
2018). Therefore, an acoustical study would be required for the Project with submittal of the
building permit to ensure an interior noise level of 45 dB CNEL. Implementation of 1993 GPA/SP
EIR Mitigation Measure 3.10/1.0 will reduce the impact of exterior traffic noise on the Project
to less than significant levels. The Project would not result in new or substantially more severe
impacts than identified in the 1993 GPA/SP EIR.
Exposure of Existing Residences to Future Roadway Noise
Impact 3.10/B in the 1993 GPA/SP EIR states that future project development will have the
potential to impact existing residences due to increased noise on roadways. For example, it
takes 25 percent more traffic volume to produce an increase of only 1 dB(A) in the ambient
noise level. For roads already heavy with traffic volume, an increase in traffic numbers could
even reduce noise because the heavier volumes could slow down the average speed of the
vehicles. A doubling of traffic volume results in a 3 dB(A) increase in noise levels.
The Project site along Arnold Road is directly east of the Downing Boulevard multifamily
residential complex. According to Table 10 in the Transportation section below, the proposed
RCFE would generate 912 fewer daily trips, 159 fewer AM peak hour trips, and 140 fewer PM
peak hour trips, which is significantly lower than the previously approved office use. As a result,
the noise generated from traffic associated with the RCFE would also be lower than the
217
City of Dublin Dublin Senior Living Project
CEQA Initial Study | Page 62
previously approved office use. Therefore, the Project would not result in new or substantially
more severe impacts than identified in the 1993 GPA/SP EIR.
Exposure of Existing Residences to Noise from Activities at Camp Parks RFTA and the County Jail
Impact 3.10/D in the 1993 GPA/SP EIR states that development on the Project site within 6,000
feet of Camp Parks Reserve Forces Training Area could be exposed to noise impacts from
gunshots and helicopter overflights. The Project site is located approximately 1,970 feet from
the south edge of the County Jail. Mitigation Measure 3.10/3.0 requires an acoustical study to
determine if noise impacts from Camp Parks RFTA or the County Jail will be within acceptable
limits for the Project. Even with implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.10/3.0, impacts may
still be potentially significant since mitigation of Camp Parks and County Jail noise may not be
feasible at all locations. Nevertheless, the Project would not result in new or substantially more
severe impacts than identified in the 1993 GPA/SP EIR.
Exposure of Existing and Proposed Residences to Construction Noise
Impact 3.10/E states the noise associated with construction activity is generated from truck
traffic on local roads, heavy equipment used in grading and paving, and impact noises from
barriers used in framing of structures. Construction impacts will be most severe for the
proposed Project when it occurs near existing residential uses, such as the Downing community
at The Boulevard.
Construction noise is considered a potentially significant impact. Although noise levels from
construction could fall into the “Clearly Unacceptable” range as defined by Table 9.1, “Land Use
Compatibility for Community Noise Environments Community Noise Exposure” in the City of
Dublin General Plan, increases in noise levels from construction activities would be temporary
and construction activities would be limited to the requirements listed in 1993 GPA/SP EIR
Mitigation Measures 3.10/4.0 and 3.10/5.0. With the implementation of Mitigation Measures
3.10/4.0 and 3.10/5.0, the impact of construction noise on the community will be less than
significant. The Project would not result in new or substantially more severe impacts than
identified in the 1993 GPA/SP EIR.
(b) Exposure to ground borne vibration or ground borne noise
During construction of the proposed Project, equipment such as trucks, bulldozers, and rollers
may be used as close as 68 feet from the nearest building at 5601 Arnold Road. Table 7-4
“Vibration Source Levels for Construction Equipment” in the 2018 Federal Transit
Administration (FTA) Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual (FTA Report No.
0123 September 2018) lists vibration source levels for the construction equipment most likely
to generate high levels of ground vibration. The equipment listed in the FTA table includes
impact and sonic pile drivers, clam shovel drops, hydromills, vibratory rollers, hoe rams, large
and small bulldozers, caisson drilling, loaded trucks, and jackhammers.
Equipment used for the Dublin Senior Living Project will likely include bulldozers, loaded trucks,
and rollers. Equipment used during Project construction could generate vibration levels
between 0.0007 peak particle velocity (PPV) and 0.0468 PPV at 68 feet, as shown below in
218
City of Dublin Dublin Senior Living Project
CEQA Initial Study | Page 63
Table 9. All estimated vibration levels should be below the FTA vibration threshold at which
human annoyance could occur and below the threshold for potential building damage as
defined by the California Department of Transportation, Transportation and Construction
Vibration Guidance Manual, April 2020 (Caltrans 2020). Therefore, impacts from construction
vibration would be less than significant, and the Project would not result in new or substantially
more severe impacts than identified in the 1993 GPA/SP EIR.
Table 9: Estimated Vibration Levels for Construction Equipment
Type of Equipment Reference PPV at
25 Feet
Calculated PPV at
68 Feet
Threshold at
which Human
Annoyance Could
Occur
Potential for
Proposed Project
to Exceed
Threshold
Large Bulldozer 0.089 0.0198 0.10 No
Loaded Trucks 0.076 0.0169 0.10 No
Small Bulldozer 0.003 0.0007 0.10 No
Vibratory Roller 0.21 0.0468 0.10 No
Source: Federal Transit Administration Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual, September 2018
(c) Excessive noise level near a public or private airport
The Dublin Senior Living Project site is located approximately 3.6 miles northwest of the
Livermore Municipal Airport. According to the Airport Land Use Policy Plan for Alameda County,
the CNEL 60 contour for the airport would not extend into the Project area. Although the area
would be exposed to occasional single-event noise from aircraft flyovers, average noise levels
(CNEL) would not exceed Title 24 nor the City's standards. Consequently, aircraft noise would
be less than significant, and the Project would not result in new or substantially more severe
impacts than identified in the 1993 GPA/SP EIR.
Conclusion
The Project does not propose substantial changes to the land uses for the Project site than
were previously analyzed in the 1993 GPA/SP EIR that would require major changes to the EIRs.
Based on the information in the 1993 GPA/SP EIR and this environmental analysis, the Project
would not substantially increase the severity of the previously identified noise impacts, nor
result in new significant impacts.
With adherence to applicable regulatory requirements and mitigation measures identified in
the 1993 GPA/SP EIR, there would not be any new or substantially more severe significant
impacts to noise beyond what has been analyzed in the previous 1993 GPA/SP EIR, and no
other CEQA standards for supplemental review are met. Therefore, no further environmental
review is required.
219
City of Dublin Dublin Senior Living Project
CEQA Initial Study | Page 64
Population and Housing
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Issues
New
Significant
Impact
Substantial
Increase in the
Severity of an
Impact Identified
in 1993 GPA/SP EIR
Equal or Less
Severe Impact
than Identified
in 1993 GPA/SP
EIR
14. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the project:
a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either
directly (for example, by proposing new homes and
businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of
roads or other infrastructure)?
X
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing,
necessitating the construction of replacement housing
elsewhere?
X
Previous CEQA Document
The 1993 GPA/SP EIR did not identify any significant impacts or mitigation measures for
population and housing.
Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures
(a) Population growth
The EDSP projected a total of 12,496 housing units and approximately 10.8 million square feet
of new commercial space at buildout of the EDSP. Additionally, buildout of the EDSP projected
approximately 241 acres of parkland, 399 acres of open space, and 1.37 million square feet of
industrial park development. However, since 1993 when the EDSP was approved, subsequent
amendments have increased the total commercial square footage and open space acreage
projected at buildout.
The Project proposes to construct a commercial community care facility for seniors and is not a
residential development. The Project proposes to construct 152 units consisting of 114 assisted
living units and 38 memory care units, with a total of up to 174 beds. The Project would provide
residential care for approximately 174 elderly individuals, which would represent approximately
0.24 percent of the City’s 2020 population of 72,589. The estimated population served by the
Project would represent approximately 0.21 percent of the City’s projected 2040 population of
83,595, as identified in Plan Bay Area 2040. The population growth in the City anticipated
between 2020 and 2040 is expected to be 11,006 and the population associated with the
Project would represent approximately 1.6 percent of the anticipated growth. The Project is an
assisted living and memory care facility, which would be considered a quasi-public facility and is
not a residential development. The Project expects a majority of the residents to come from
within a five- to seven-mile radius of the Project location. Therefore, the Project would not
directly induce substantial unplanned population growth. The Project site is surrounded by
existing developments and the Project would be served by existing roads and infrastructures in
220
City of Dublin Dublin Senior Living Project
CEQA Initial Study | Page 65
the area. The Project does not include the extension of roads or infrastructure to an
undeveloped area and, therefore, would not indirectly induce substantial population growth in
the area. The Project’s impacts on population would be less than significant. The Project would
not result in new or substantially more severe impacts than identified in the 1993 GPA/SP EIR
and the criteria for requiring further CEQA review are not met.
(b) Housing and resident displacement
The majority of the Project site is developed with paved surfaces for parking and there are no
structures onsite that provide residential uses. Therefore, the Project would not displace
existing people or housing and there would be no impact. The Project would not result in new
or substantially more severe impacts than identified in the 1993 GPA/SP EIR and the criteria for
requiring further CEQA review are not met.
Conclusion
The Project does not propose substantial changes that were not previously analyzed in the
1993 GPA/SP EIR that would require major changes to the EIR. Based on the information in
1993 GPA/SP EIR and this environmental analysis, the Project would not substantially increase
the severity of the previously identified population and housing impacts, nor result in new
significant impacts.
There are not any new or substantially more severe significant impacts to population and
housing beyond what has been analyzed in the previous 1993 GPA/SP EIR, and no other CEQA
standards for supplemental review are met. Therefore, no further environmental review is
required.
Public Services
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Issues
New
Significant
Impact
Substantial
Increase in the
Severity of an
Impact Identified
in 1993 GPA/SP
EIR
Equal or Less
Severe Impact
than Identified
in 1993 GPA/SP
EIR
15. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the
provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities or need for new or physical altered
governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in
order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for any of
the public services:
a) Fire protection? X
b) Police protection? X
c) Schools? X
d) Parks? X
221
City of Dublin Dublin Senior Living Project
CEQA Initial Study | Page 66
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Issues
New
Significant
Impact
Substantial
Increase in the
Severity of an
Impact Identified
in 1993 GPA/SP
EIR
Equal or Less
Severe Impact
than Identified
in 1993 GPA/SP
EIR
e) Other public facilities? X
Previous CEQA Document
The 1993 GPA/SP EIR identified the following impacts and mitigation measures for public
services:
Impacts 3.4/A and 3.4/B are related to the provision of police services. One notes that
there would be a demand for increased police services with implementation of the EDSP
and the other identifies an impact related to the hilly topography of the Eastern Dublin
area that could present accessibility and crime-prevention issues. Adherence to
Mitigation Measures 3.4/1.0 through 3.4/ 5.0 would reduce impacts to the Dublin Police
Department to a less than significant level.
Impacts 3.4/C through 3.4/E are related to the provision of fire services. The build out of
the EDSP area would increase the demand for fire services and the outlying areas of the
EDSP were beyond the fire response area at the time resulting in extended fire response
times. The build out of the EDSP would also result in the settlement of population and
construction of new communities in proximity to high fire hazard open space areas. This
would pose an increasing wildfire hazard to people and property if open space areas are
not maintained for fire safety. Mitigation Measures 3.4/6.0 through 3.4/13.0 reduce
these impacts to a less than significant level.
Impacts 3.4/F through 3.4/J are related to schools. The buildout of the EDSP will
increase the demand for new classroom space and school facilities in proportion to the
number of residential units constructed, far exceeding the current available capacity of
either school district at the time. Overcrowding at existing schools could occur if
insufficient new classroom space is provided. Development of Eastern Dublin under
existing jurisdictional boundaries would result in the area being served by two different
school districts. The division of the EDSP area by two different school districts would
adversely affect financing of schools in Eastern Dublin and complicate provision of
education to planning area students. The cost of providing new school facilities
proposed in the EDSP area could adversely impact local school districts by creating an
unwieldy financial burden unless some form of financing is identified. Mitigation
Measures 3.4/13.0 through 3.4/19.0 reduce these impacts to a less than significant
level.
Impacts 3.4/K through 3.4/N are related to parks and public facilities. Without the
addition of new parks and facilities, the increased demand for new park and recreation
facilities resulting from buildout of the GP/EDSP would create potentially significant
222
City of Dublin Dublin Senior Living Project
CEQA Initial Study | Page 67
impacts. Acquisition and improvement of new park and recreation facilities may place a
financial strain on existing City revenue sources causing a potentially significant impact.
Development of residential and commercial areas in Eastern Dublin without adequate
provision of trail easements may thwart efforts to develop a regional trail system. Urban
development along project stream corridors and ridgelines would adversely impact
outdoor recreational opportunities for future Dublin residents and obstruct the
formation of an interconnected open space system. Mitigation Measures 3.4/20.0
through 3.4/36.0 would reduce this impact to a less than significant level.
The Project would be required to adhere to applicable mitigation measures as set forth in the
1993 GPA/SP EIR.
Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures
(a) Fire
Project implementation would increase the demand for fire and emergency services by
increasing the amount of daytime and nighttime population (i.e., employees and residents) on
the Project site that could require services. However, such uses and increases in population
were already considered and evaluated in the 1993 GPA/SP EIR, and mitigation measures were
implemented to reduce impacts to less than significant levels. The Project would be designed
and constructed in conformance with all applicable City ordinances and development
requirements, which would further reduce potential impacts. The Project would include all
required fire and life safety protection measures, such as fire sprinklers. Furthermore, there
would be 24-hour per day nursing care onsite, thereby potentially reducing the need for
emergency services. As part of the City’s Development Fee Program, the Project would 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, thereby
further mitigating potential impacts. In addition, application of 1993 GPA/SP EIR Mitigation
Measures 3.4/9.0 and 12.0 would further reduce potential Project-related impacts to fire
service, and the Project’s impacts on fire service would not result in new or substantially more
severe impacts than identified in the 1993 GPA/SP EIR, and the criteria for requiring further
CEQA review are not met.
(b) Police
Project implementation would increase the demand for police services by increasing the
amount of daytime and nighttime population (i.e., employees and residents) on the Project site
that could require services. However, such uses and increases in population were already
considered and evaluated in the 1993 GPA/SP EIR, and mitigation measures were implemented
to reduce impacts to less than significant levels. In addition, application of 1993 GPA/SP EIR
Mitigation Measures 3.4/1.0 through 5.0 would further reduce potential Project-related
impacts to police service, and the Project’s impacts on police service would not result in new or
223
City of Dublin Dublin Senior Living Project
CEQA Initial Study | Page 68
substantially more severe impacts than identified in the 1993 GPA/SP EIR, and the criteria for
requiring further CEQA review are not met.
(c) Schools
The Project is not anticipated to generate a student population, as the Project is an RCFE. In
addition, no new impacts to school facilities are anticipated since payment of mandated
statutory impact fees at the time of issuance of building permits would off-set any impacts of
the Project pursuant to State law. The Project’s impacts to schools would not result in new or
substantially more severe impacts than identified in the 1993 GPA/SP EIR, and the criteria for
requiring further CEQA review are not met.
(d, e) Parks and other public facilities
The Project is not anticipated to cause impacts to parks or other public facilities, beyond those
anticipated and evaluated in the 1993 GPA/SP EIR. The Project would be required to comply
with all prior mitigation measures and, if applicable, would pay the required Park Fee as part of
the Public Facility fees.
Construction associated with the Project would incrementally increase the long-term
maintenance demand for roads and other public facilities. However, such additional
maintenance demands would be off-set by additional City fees and property tax revenues
accruing to the City and, therefore, impacts would be less than significant.
Conclusion
The Project does not propose substantial changes to the Project site that were not previously
analyzed in the 1993 GPA/SP EIR that would require major changes to the EIR. Based on the
information in 1993 GPA/SP EIR and this environmental analysis, the Project would not
substantially increase the severity of the previously identified public services impacts, nor result
in new significant impacts.
With adherence to applicable regulatory requirements and mitigation measures identified in
the 1993 GPA/SP EIR, there would not be any new or substantially more severe significant
impacts to public services beyond what has been analyzed in the previous 1993 GPA/SP EIR,
and no other CEQA standards for supplemental review are met. Therefore, no further
environmental review is required.
224
City of Dublin Dublin Senior Living Project
CEQA Initial Study | Page 69
Recreation
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Issues
New
Significant
Impact
Substantial
Increase in the
Severity of an
Impact Identified
in 1993 GPA/SP
EIR
Equal or Less
Severe Impact
than Identified
in 1993 GPA/SP
EIR
16. RECREATION. Would the project:
a) Increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional
parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial
physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be
accelerated?
X
b) Include recreational facilities or require the construction
or expansion of recreational facilities which might have
an adverse physical effect on the environment?
X
Previous CEQA Document
The 1993 GPA/SP EIR identified the following impacts and mitigation measures for recreation:
Impact 3.4/K indicated that increased demand for parks as a result of buildout of the
GP/EDSP would represent a significant impact on the ability of the City to provide park
service for future residents. It would also be a potentially significant cumulative impact
for the community due to lack of sufficient city-wide park facilities that would not meet
a standard of five acres of parkland per 1,000 population. Mitigation Measures 3.4/20.0
through 28 would reduce this impact to an insignificant level.
Impact 3.4/L identified a park facility fiscal impact on the City of Dublin. The fiscal strain
of providing new park facilities would be a potentially significant impact. Mitigation
Measures 3.4/ 29.0 through 31.0 would require that each new development in Eastern
Dublin provide a fair share of parks and open space facilities. Development of a parks
implementation plan was also called for. Finally, adoption of a park in-lieu fee program
was required. These mitigation measures would reduce this impact to an insignificant
level.
Impacts 3.4/ M and N dealt with the regional trail system and open space connections.
Development of residential and commercial areas in Eastern Dublin was anticipated to
have a potentially significant impact to the construction of a regional trail system.
Adherence to Mitigation Measure 3.4/ 32.0 would require the establishment of a trail
system with connections to planned regional and sub-regional trails, which would
reduce this impact to an insignificant level.
Impact 3.4/N notes that urban development along stream corridors and ridgelines
would adversely impact outdoor recreational opportunities for future Dublin residents
and potentially obstruct the formation of an interconnected open space system.
225
City of Dublin Dublin Senior Living Project
CEQA Initial Study | Page 70
Mitigation Measures 3.4/33.0 through 36.0 would reduce this impact to an insignificant
level.
The Project would be required to adhere to applicable mitigation measures as set forth in 1993
GPA/SP EIR.
Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures
(a, b) Increase the use of existing recreation facilities causing deterioration or require new
recreation facilities
The City’s park and recreational facilities are composed of neighborhood facilities, community
facilities, community parks and community center. The EDSP identified a total of 17 parks on
219 acres, which is consistent with the City of Dublin 2015 Parks and Recreation Master Plan
ratio of 5.0 acres of parkland per 1,000 residents. Sufficient park land has been constructed and
is being planned, and future development associated with the proposed Project is limited to
development of the RCFE. The proposed Project would not increase the use of existing
neighborhood and/or regional parks such that a substantial physical deterioration of the facility
would occur or be accelerated; nor would it require the construction/expansion of a
recreational facility elsewhere which would have an adverse physical effect on the
environment.
Conclusion
The Project does not propose substantial changes to the Project site that were not previously
analyzed in the 1993 GPA/SP EIR that would require major changes to the EIR. Based on the
information in 1993 GPA/SP EIR and this environmental analysis, the Project would not
substantially increase the severity of the previously identified recreation impacts, nor result in
new significant impacts.
With adherence to applicable regulatory requirements and mitigation measures identified in
the 1993 GPA/SP EIR, there would not be any new or substantially more severe significant
impacts to recreation beyond what has been analyzed in the previous 1993 GPA/SP EIR, and no
other CEQA standards for supplemental review are met. Therefore, no further environmental
review is required.
226
City of Dublin Dublin Senior Living Project
CEQA Initial Study | Page 71
Transportation
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Issues
New
Significant
Impact
Substantial
Increase in the
Severity of an
Impact Identified
in 1993 GPA/SP
EIR
Equal or Less
Severe Impact
than Identified
in 1993 GPA/SP
EIR
17. TRANSPORTATION. Would the project:
a) Conflict with a program, plan, ordinance, or policy
addressing the circulation system, including transit,
roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities?
X
b) Conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines section
15064.3, subdivision (b)?? X
c) Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design
feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or
incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
X
d) Result in inadequate emergency access? X
Previous CEQA Document
The 1993 GPA/SP EIR identified the following impacts and mitigation measures for
transportation and traffic:
Impacts 3.3/A through 3.3/E identified significant, significant cumulative, and significant
and unavoidable adverse impacts related to daily traffic volumes on I-580 for Year 2010
with and without build-out of the GP/EDSP and under a Year 2010 cumulative build-out
scenario. Mitigation Measures 3.3/1.0 through 3.3/5.0 reduced these impacts but not
sufficiently to avoid significant cumulative impacts.
Impacts 3.3/F through 3.3/N identified impacts to levels of service and PM peak hour
traffic volumes at 18 intersections and at I-580 ramps. Mitigation Measures 3.3/6.0
through 3.3/8.0 and 3.3/10.0 through 3.3/14.0 were adopted to reduce these impacts.
Impacts 3.3/I, 3.3/M and 3.3/N were unable to be reduced to an insignificant level.
Impacts 3.3/O and 3.3/P identified significant impacts related to transit service
extensions and the provision of safe street crossings for pedestrians and bicycles.
Mitigation Measures 3.3/15.0 through 15.3 and 3.3/16.0 through 16.1 were adopted,
which reduced these impacts to a level of insignificance.
The City adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations for the remaining significant and
unavoidable cumulative impacts of Impacts 3.3/B, 3.3/E, 3.3/I, 3.3/M and 3.3/N, which apply to
the Project.
227
City of Dublin Dublin Senior Living Project
CEQA Initial Study | Page 72
The Project would be required to adhere to applicable mitigation measures as set forth in 1993
GPA/SP EIR.
Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures
(a) Conflict with applicable transportation circulations plans/standards
As described in Appendix B: Transportation Analysis of the Dublin Senior Living Project
(Stantec, March 18, 2022), a trip generation evaluation was prepared to determine if the
Project would potentially result in a transportation impact.
Trip Generation
Table 10 summarizes the anticipated trip generation of the proposed Project with a comparison
to the previously evaluated Campus Office use. For this analysis, the previously evaluated
Campus Office use is assumed to be of the same size as the existing office building just south of
the Project site. Trip generation rates for the proposed RCFE use, Assisted Living (254) and
previously evaluated Campus Office use, General Office Building (710) are standard Institute of
Transportation Engineers (ITE) 11th Edition trip generation rates for uses of these types.
Table 10: Project Trip Generation Summary
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Land Use Amount Unit In Out Total In Out Total ADT
Trip Rates
General Office Building (710) - TSF 1.34 0.18 1.52 0.24 1.20 1.44 10.84
Assisted Living (254) - Beds 0.11 0.07 0.18 0.09 0.15 0.24 2.60
Trip Generation
Existing (evaluated use)
Campus Office 125.847 TSF 168 23 191 31 150 181 1,364
Proposed
Assisted Living 174 Beds 19 13 32 16 25 41 452
Net New Trips -149 -10 -159 -15 -125 -140 -912
Note:
ADT - Average Daily Traffic
TSF - Thousand square feet
Trip Rate Source: Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE), 11th Edition, 2021, with ITE code in parentheses
228
City of Dublin Dublin Senior Living Project
CEQA Initial Study | Page 73
As shown in Table 10, the proposed Project is expected to generate approximately 452 average
daily trips, with 32 trips occurring during the AM peak hour and 41 trips occurring during the
PM peak hour. For comparison, the trip generation of the previously evaluated Campus Office
use is also shown in Table 10. As shown, the proposed RCFE would generate 912 fewer daily
trips, 159 fewer AM peak hour trips and 140 fewer PM peak hour trips, which is significantly
lower than the previously approved Campus Office use. Therefore, the proposed Project is
consistent with the previously evaluated Campus Office use, as it would not result in new or
substantially more severe impacts than identified in the 1993 GPA/SP EIR, and the criteria for
requiring further CEQA review are not met.
(b) Conflict with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3
Since certification of the 1993 GPA/SP EIR, the issue of vehicle miles traveled (VMT) has
become a more prominent issue of concern as evidenced by passage of Senate Bill 743 in 2013.
Previously, CEQA analysis was conducted using a level of service measurement that evaluated
traffic delay. As specified under Senate Bill 743 and implemented under Section 15064.3 of the
State CEQA Guidelines (effective December 28, 2018), VMT is the required metric to be used for
identifying CEQA impacts and mitigation. In December 2018, OPR published a Technical
Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts, including guidance for VMT analysis. The Office
of Administrative Law approved the updated CEQA Guidelines and lead agencies were given
until July 1, 2020, to implement the updated guidelines for VMT analysis.
Upon certification of the 1993 GPA/SP EIR, the determination of whether VMT needs to be
analyzed for this Project is governed by the law on supplemental or subsequent EIRs (Public
Resources Code section 21166 and CEQA Guidelines, Sections 15162 and 15163). VMT is not
required to be analyzed 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)).
VMT impacts were not analyzed in the 1993 GPA/SP EIR; 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 VMT as a metric for analyzing traffic was widely known prior to the
certification of the 1993 GPA/SP EIR.
Therefore, the impact of VMT was known at the time of the certification of the 1993 GPA/SP
EIR. Under CEQA standards, it is not new information that requires analysis in a supplemental
EIR or Negative Declaration. No supplemental environmental analysis of the Project's impacts
on this issue is required under CEQA.
(c) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature
The Project site would be designed in accordance with all current City engineering design
standards and other safety standards to avoid hazardous geometric design features and
incompatible uses. The proposed Project does not substantially increase hazards due to its
design or incompatible uses. Therefore, the proposed Project is consistent with the previously
229
City of Dublin Dublin Senior Living Project
CEQA Initial Study | Page 74
analyzed use, as it would not result in new or substantially more severe impacts than identified
in the 1993 GPA/SP EIR, and the criteria for requiring further CEQA review are not met.
(d) Result in inadequate emergency access
The proposed Project would be designed to provide adequate emergency vehicle access
throughout the Project site. The proposed driveway would be designed to meet emergency
vehicle access requirements. Project access and emergency plans would require review and
approval from the local fire department prior to Project approval in order to ensure that
adequate emergency access is provided. Therefore, the proposed Project would not result in
inadequate emergency access and would be consistent with the previously analyzed use, as it
would not result in new or substantially more severe impacts than identified in the 1993
GPA/SP EIR. The criteria for requiring further CEQA review are not met.
Conclusion
The trips generated by the proposed Project are substantially lower than the trips generated by
the anticipated land use for the Project site that was previously analyzed in the 1993 GPA/SP
EIR. Based on the information in 1993 GPA/SP EIR and this environmental analysis, the Project
would not substantially increase the severity of the previously identified transportation
impacts, nor result in new significant impacts.
There would not be any new or substantially more severe significant impacts to transportation
beyond what has been analyzed in the previous 1993 GPA/SP EIR, and no other CEQA standards
for supplemental review are met. No new mitigation measures would be required to reduce
Project-related impacts. Therefore, no further environmental review is required.
Tribal Cultural Resources
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Issues
New
Significant
Impact
Substantial
Increase in the
Severity of an
Impact Identified
in 1993 GPA/SP
EIR
Equal or Less
Severe Impact
than Identified
in 1993 GPA/SP
EIR
18. TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance
of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code section 21074 as either a site, feature,
place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape,
sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is:
a) Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of
Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical
resources as defined in Public Resources Code section
5020.1(k), or
X
b) A resource determined by the lead agency, in its
discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be
significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c)
of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1. In applying the
X
230
City of Dublin Dublin Senior Living Project
CEQA Initial Study | Page 75
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Issues
New
Significant
Impact
Substantial
Increase in the
Severity of an
Impact Identified
in 1993 GPA/SP
EIR
Equal or Less
Severe Impact
than Identified
in 1993 GPA/SP
EIR
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 Document
The 1993 GPA/SP EIR did not specifically analyze impacts to tribal cultural resources as it was
not a separate topic for analysis when the EIR was completed. Cultural resource impacts and
mitigation measures, some of which could pertain to tribal resources, have already been
satisfied, as discussed in the Cultural Resources section of this document.
Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures
(a, b) Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or
significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section
5024.1
AB 52 requires lead agencies to invite listed California Native America Tribes to consult with the
lead agency regarding projects which may impact a tribal cultural resource, as defined by Public
Resources Code Section 21074; however, preparation of an Addendum does not trigger the
requirements of AB 52, as potential impacts to tribal cultural resources would have already
been considered in the previous CEQA document. Potential impacts to cultural resources
related to the buildout of the EDSP area were already evaluated in the 1993 GPA/SP EIR and
were determined to be less than significant with mitigation incorporated.
Conclusion
As discussed above, no additional environmental analysis is required under CEQA Section 21166
and CEQA Guidelines Section 15162. Potential impacts to tribal cultural resources were known
at the time of the certification of the 1993 GPA/SP EIR. Under CEQA standards, it is not new
information that requires analysis in a supplemental EIR or Negative Declaration. No
supplemental environmental analysis of the Project's impacts on this issue is required under
CEQA.
Nevertheless, the Project does not propose substantial changes that were not previously
analyzed in the 1993 GPA/SP EIR that would require major changes to the EIR. Based on this
environmental analysis, the Project would not result in new significant impacts to tribal cultural
resources, and no new mitigation measures would be required. There would not be any new or
substantially more severe significant impacts to tribal cultural resources beyond what has been
analyzed in the 1993 GPA/SP EIR, and no other CEQA standards for supplemental review are
met. Therefore, no further environmental review is required.
231
City of Dublin Dublin Senior Living Project
CEQA Initial Study | Page 76
Utilities and Service Systems
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Issues
New
Significant
Impact
Substantial
Increase in the
Severity of an
Impact Identified
in 1993 GPA/SP
EIR
Equal or Less
Severe Impact
than Identified
in 1993 GPA/SP
EIR
19. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the project:
a) Require or result in the relocation or construction of new or
expanded water, wastewater treatment or storm water
drainage, electric power, natural gas, or
telecommunications facilities, the construction or
relocation of which could cause significant environmental
effects?
X
b) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project
and reasonably foreseeable future development during
normal, dry and multiple dry years?
X
c) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment
provider which serves or may serve the project that it has
adequate capacity to serve the project projected demand in
addition to the provider’s existing commitments?
X
d) Generate solid waste in excess of State or local standards,
or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or
otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction
goals?
X
e) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and
regulations related to solid waste? X
Previous CEQA Document
The 1993 GPA/SP EIR identified the following impacts and mitigation measures for utilities and
service systems:
Impact 3.4/O and 3.4/P identified potentially significant impacts resulting from
increased solid waste generation on solid waste disposal facilities. Mitigation Measures
3.4/37.0 through 3.4/40.0 were adopted to mitigate these impacts to an insignificant
level.
Impact 3.4/Q identified an unavoidable adverse impact from the demand of utility
extensions resulting in expansion of utilities onto undeveloped land. The 1993 GPA/SP
EIR identified extension of utility lines are necessary for the buildout of the project and
therefore, did not identify mitigation and the impact remain unavoidable adverse
impact.
232
City of Dublin Dublin Senior Living Project
CEQA Initial Study | Page 77
Impact 3.5/B identified the lack of a collection system as a significant impact. Mitigation
Measures 3.5/1.0 through 3.5/5.0, generally preventing development until such facilities
are constructed by developers, were adopted to mitigate this impact to an insignificant
level.
Impact 3.5/C noted potential growth-inducing impacts of pipeline construction. These
impacts were mitigated by Mitigation Measure 3.5/6.0, preventing the construction of
facilities greater than those required for the GPA/EDSP, to an insignificant level.
Impacts 3.5/D, 3.5/E and 3.5/G identified current and future inadequate treatment plant
capacity in DSRSD's treatment plan and inadequate disposal capacity as significant
impacts. All were mitigated to an insignificant level by Mitigation Measures 3.5/7.0
through 3.5/9.0 and 3.5/11.0 through 3.5/14.
Impacts 3.5/F and 3.5/H relate to the increased energy usage as a result of Impacts
3.5/D, E, and G. Both were mitigated by Mitigation Measures 3.5/10.0, 3.5/15.0 and
3.5/16.0 but remained significant and unavoidable impacts.
Impact 3.5/I noted that a failure of the export disposal system could have a potentially
significant impact, but Mitigation Measure 3.5/17.0 reduce this impact to an
insignificant level.
Impact 3.5/L noted that the proposed recycled water system must be constructed and
operated properly in order to prevent any potential contamination of or cross-
connection with potable water supply systems. Mitigation Measure 3.5/20.0 reduced
this impact to an insignificant level.
Impact 3.5/P identified significant impacts related to the supply of water to the Eastern
Dublin area. Mitigation Measures 3.5/24.0 through 3.5/40.0 were adopted to prevent
overdraft of ground water resources by requiring or encouraging annexation and
connection to DSRSD, minimize the effect of additional demand for water by
encouraging water recycling and conservation and by encouraging the development of
new facilities and supplies, and to ensure the development of a water distribution
system by generally preventing development until such facilities are constructed by
developers.
Impact 3.5/Q noted that buildout of the GP/EDSP will increase water demand.
Mitigation Measures 3.5/26.0 through 3.5/31.0 reduced this impact to an insignificant
level.
Impact 3.5/R noted that there would be a significant impact since the increase in water
demands through development of the GP/EDSP will require an expansion of existing
water treatment facilities in order to deliver safe and potable water. Mitigation
Measures 3.5/32.0 and 33.0 reduced this impact to an insignificant level.
Impact 3.5/S noted that at the time there was no water service in the area, with the
exception of a Zone 7 water supply connection to Alameda County for the old Santa Rita
233
City of Dublin Dublin Senior Living Project
CEQA Initial Study | Page 78
Jail. With development of the GP/EDSP, a water distribution system and storage system
would be required. If a water distribution system was not constructed, this would be a
significant impact. Mitigation Measures 3.5/34.0 through 3.5/38.0 reduced this impact
to an insignificant level.
Impact 3.5/U accounted for the increased energy requirement as a result of increased
water demands requiring a water distribution system. Mitigation Measure 3.5/40.0
mitigated this impact but was insufficient to reduce the impact to a less than significant
level.
Impact 3.5/Z: Reduced Groundwater Recharge was a potentially significant impact but
Mitigation Measures 3.5/49.0 and 3.5/50.0 reduced the impact to an insignificant level.
The City of Dublin adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations for Impacts 3.3/F and H,
which includes the Project.
The Project would be required to adhere to applicable mitigation measures as set forth in 1993
GPA/SP EIR.
Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures
(a) Require relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or
storm water drainage, electric power, natural gas or telecommunication facilities
The 1993 GPA/SP EIR identified potentially significant impacts to utility and service systems
resulting from the lack of a wastewater collection and water distribution system in the area.
These impacts were able to be mitigated to a less than significant level with the
implementation of mitigation measures. Since the impacts were analyzed in 1993 GPA/SP EIR,
the EDSP area has been significantly developed as part of the planned buildout of the EDSP
area, and the area is now served by existing utility infrastructure that has been constructed
since the preparation of the EIR.
Wastewater collection and treatment services for Dublin are provided by DSRSD, which owns
and operates a wastewater treatment plant (WWTP) in Pleasanton that has a capacity of 17
million gallons per day (mgd) (DSRSD 2021). The Project would construct sanitary sewer lines
and stubs that would connect to the existing eight-inch sanitary sewer lateral onsite. The
Project plans to reuse the existing private sewer manhole onsite. The Project would be required
to implement Mitigation Measure 3.5/4.0 identified in the 1993 GPA/SP EIR, which requires a
“will-serve” letter for wastewater treatment from DSRSD prior to permit approval for grading.
Additionally, the new sanitary sewer lines installed within the Project site would be constructed
in accordance with City and DSRSD standards as required by Mitigation Measure 3.5/5.0
identified in the 1993 GPA/SP EIR. With the implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.5/5.0,
impacts would be less than significant.
234
City of Dublin Dublin Senior Living Project
CEQA Initial Study | Page 79
Water service in the City is provided by DSRSD who also provides recycled water service for
irrigation and other non-potable uses. The existing public water system onsite would be
improved. The Project would install a new 10-inch fire service line throughout the site, which
would connect to a new six-inch line to connect with new fire hydrants. The new 10-inch fire
service line would connect to an existing fire service main onsite. The existing irrigation and
domestic water meters would be removed, and the Project would construct two-inch water
meters onsite that would connect to the existing 16-inch water main located along the Project
frontage on Arnold Road. The existing main has sufficient capacity to accommodate the Project.
The Project is estimated to have an overall demand of 320 gallons per minute (gpm) for
domestic water and 100 gpm for irrigation use. The Project would not substantially increase the
demand for water and would not exceed the capacity of the existing water systems and
facilities. The Project would be required to implement Mitigation Measures 3.5/37.0 and
3.5/38.0 identified in the 1993 GPA/SP EIR, which required waster system improvements be in
accordance with DSRSD standards and require a “will-serve” letter from DSRSD prior to grading
permit approval. Therefore, the Project would not require the construction or expansion of
existing water facilities.
The existing storm drain system would be removed and replaced with a new drainage system.
The new storm drain system would include construction of storm drain lines onsite ranging
from eight-inch to 18-inch and would connect to existing storm drain manholes and laterals
onsite. Additionally, the Project would construct 7,836 sf of bio-retention treatment areas
onsite. The drainage system onsite would be designed to be consistent with the NPDES
Provision C.3 requirements for LID. The Project’s onsite storm drain system would retain and
treat stormwater runoff from the site before being conveyed to the City’s system, which would
ensure that the City’s storm drain system does not become overwhelmed. Therefore, the
Project would not require the construction or expansion of existing storm drain facilities.
The Project would connect to and be served by existing electric power, natural gas, and
telecommunication facilities located within the vicinity of the Project site. The Project is not
expected to require any construction or expansion of existing electric power, natural gas, or
telecommunication facilities.
The Project would connect to and be served by existing utility infrastructure onsite or located
within the vicinity of the Project site. The Project is not expected to require or result in the
relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater, stormwater, electric power,
natural gas, or telecommunication facilities and impacts would be less than significant. The
Project would not result in new or substantially more severe impacts than identified in the 1993
GPA/SP EIR and the criteria for requiring further CEQA review are not met.
(b) Sufficient water supplies
The 1993 GPA/SP EIR identified potentially significant effects resulting from an increased
demand for water which were mitigated to a level of insignificance with the implementation of
mitigation measures. The Project site is located within the EDSP area, which is located within
DSRSD’s service area. Because the demands of buildout of the Specific Plan have been factored
235
City of Dublin Dublin Senior Living Project
CEQA Initial Study | Page 80
into the DSRSD’s 2020 Urban Water Management Plan’s (UWMP) demand analysis,
development of the Project would not result in increased shortages beyond those already
factored into DSRSD’s planning under current and future conditions.
DSRSD’s 2020 UWMP described the existing and planned sources of water available in the
service area through the year 2040. The UWMP determined that water supplies will be
adequate during normal year, single-dry year, and multiple-dry year scenarios through 2040
based on the development of the land uses within the DSRSD service area, which includes the
City of Dublin. The Project is anticipated to demand approximately 320 gpm of domestic water
and 100 gpm for irrigation use for a total of 420 gpm. Based on the estimated 420 gpm, the
Project would demand approximately 604,088 gallons per day (gpd) or 677 acre-feet per year
(AFY). The UWMP reported that DSRSD’s available water supplies in 2020 was 10,966 AF for
potable water and 2,888 AF for recycled water. The total gross water demand in 2020 as
reported by the UWMP was 10,330 AF for potable, raw, and other non-potable water and 3,044
AF for recycled water. The UWMP estimates that total projected water supplies and demand in
2040 would be 13,820 AF for potable, raw, and other non-potable water and 3,044 for recycled
water.
The Project’s anticipated demand of 677 AFY would represent approximately 4.9 percent of the
UWMP’s projected water demand and supply for the DSRSD service area in the year 2040. The
estimated water demand for the Project would be nominal compared to the projected supply
and, therefore, DSRSD would have enough water supply to serve the Project. To ensure the
Project does not have any significant impacts to water supply, the Project would be required to
implement Mitigation Measures 3.5/26.0 and 3.5/27.0, which require implementation of water
conservation and recycling measures. As required by Mitigation Measure 3.5/38.0, the Project
would be required to obtain a “will-serve” letter from DSRSD confirming its availability to serve
the new development. With the implementation of mitigation measures identified in the 1993
GPA/SP EIR, the Project would not result in new or substantially more severe impacts than
identified in the 1993 GPA/SP EIR and the criteria for requiring further CEQA review are not
met.
(c) Sufficient wastewater capacity
The 1993 GPA/SP EIR identified a potentially significant impact resulting from future lack of
wastewater treatment plant capacity. The impacts were mitigated to a level of insignificance
with implementation of mitigation measures. Since certification of the 1993 GPA/SP EIR,
improvements to the wastewater treatment plant have been completed to allow for more
capacity to treat wastewater. Wastewater collection and treatment services for Dublin are
provided by DSRSD, which owns and operates a WWTP in Pleasanton that has a capacity of 17
mgd (DSRSD 2021). Volume of wastewater collected from the UWMP service area in 2020 was
approximately 10,909 AF or approximately 9.7 mgd. Wastewater that is not recycled is
discharged into the San Francisco Bay through a pipeline owned by the Livermore-Amador
Valley Water Management Agency (LAVWMA), a joint powers agency created by DSRSD,
Livermore, and Pleasanton. The pipeline has a current design capacity of 41.2 mgd (DSRSD
2021).
236
City of Dublin Dublin Senior Living Project
CEQA Initial Study | Page 81
The Project is estimated to produce 16,200 gpd of wastewater, which would represent
approximately 0.1 percent of the WWTP’s 17 mgd capacity. In 2020, the volume of wastewater
collected and treated at the WWTP was approximately 10,909 AF or 9.7 mgd. With a capacity of
17 mgd, the WWTP has sufficient remaining capacity to serve new developments. Therefore,
the Project would not result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider that it
would not be able to serve the demand of the Project and impacts would be less than
significant. The Project would not result in new or substantially more severe impacts than
identified in the 1993 GPA/SP EIR and the criteria for requiring further CEQA review are not
met.
(d, e) Solid waste disposal and regulatory compliance
The 1993 GPA/SP EIR identified potentially significant impacts resulting from buildout of the
Specific Plan as it would increase solid waste production in the area and would result in impacts
on solid waste disposal facilities which incrementally accelerate the closing schedule for the
landfill. These impacts were mitigated to a level of insignificance with the implementation of
mitigation measures.
Solid waste generated within the City is deposited at the Altamont Landfill (City of Dublin 2018).
The Altamont Landfill has a maximum permitted throughput of 11,150 tons per day and a
maximum permit capacity of 124.4 million cubic yards. The Altamont Landfill is estimated to
have a remaining capacity of 65.4 million cubic yards and is expected to cease operation in the
year 2070 (CalRecycle 2022b). In the year 2020, the City had an estimated disposal amount of
30,221 tons and a disposal rate of 2.5 pounds per person per day for resident population and
6.4 pounds per person per day for employment-based waste (CalRecycle 2020). CalRecycle
identified that the waste generation rate for a nursing/retirement home is approximately five
pounds per person per day (CalRecycle 2022a). Therefore, at five pounds per person per day
with 174 beds, the Project is anticipated to generate approximately 870 pounds per day. Waste
generated by the Project would represent approximately 0.004 percent of the permitted
throughput per day at the landfill, which is a negligible amount. Due to the substantial amount
of available capacity remaining at the Altamont Landfill and negligible amount of waste
anticipated to be generated by the Project, sufficient capacity would be available to
accommodate the Project’s solid waste disposal needs. The Project would implement the City’s
goals, policies, and standards for reducing waste and would implement all applicable statues
and regulations related to solid waste. Therefore, the Project would not generate solid waste in
excess of state or local standards and would comply with federal, state, and local statutes and
regulations related to solid waste. Impacts would be less than significant. The Project would not
result in new or substantially more severe impacts than identified in the 1993 GPA/SP EIR and
the criteria for requiring further CEQA review are not met.
Conclusion
The Project does not propose substantial changes that were not previously analyzed in the
1993 GPA/SP EIR that would require major changes to the EIR. Based on the information in
1993 GPA/SP EIR and this environmental analysis, the Project would not substantially increase
237
City of Dublin Dublin Senior Living Project
CEQA Initial Study | Page 82
the severity of the previously identified utilities and service system impacts, nor result in new
significant impacts.
With adherence to applicable regulatory requirements and mitigation measures identified in
the 1993 GPA/SP EIR, there would not be any new or substantially more severe significant
impacts to utilities and service systems beyond what has been analyzed in the previous 1993
GPA/SP EIR, and no other CEQA standards for supplemental review are met. Therefore, no
further environmental review is required.
Wildfires
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Issues
New
Significant
Impact
Substantial
Increase in the
Severity of an
Impact Identified
in 1993 GPA/SP
EIR
Equal or Less
Severe Impact
than Identified
in 1993 GPA/SP
EIR
20. Wildfires. If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard
severity zones, would the project:
a) Substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan
or emergency evacuation plan?? X
b) Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors,
exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose project
occupants to, pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or
the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire?
X
c) Require the installation or maintenance of associated
infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water
sources, power lines or other utilities) that may exacerbate
fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts
to the environment
X
d) Expose people or structures to significant risks, including
downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a
result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage
changes?
X
Previous CEQA Document
The 1993 GPA/SP EIR did not specifically analyze impacts of wildfires as it was not a separate
topic for analysis when the EIR were completed. Public services impacts and mitigation
measures, some of which related to the provision of fire services pertain to wildfires, were
identified, and are discussed in the Public Services section. However, since the Project is not
located in or near a California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection designated State
Responsibility Area or within a very high fire hazard severity zone, no further analysis is
required.
238
City of Dublin Dublin Senior Living Project
CEQA Initial Study | Page 83
Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures
(a, b, c, d) Impair emergency response plan, pollutants or uncontrolled spread, infrastructure,
and slop instability resulting in post-fire slope instability
The Project is not located in or near a California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection
designated State Responsibility Area, nor is it located within a very high fire hazard severity
zone. Therefore, there would be no Project related impact to or from wildfire.
Conclusion
The Project does not propose changes that were not previously analyzed in the 1993 GPA/SP
EIR that would require major changes to the EIR. Based on the information in 1993 GPA/SP EIR
and this environmental analysis, the Project would not substantially increase the severity of the
previously identified wildfire impacts, nor result in new significant impacts. The Project would
be required to comply with applicable regulatory requirements related to fire protection. There
would not be any new or substantially more severe significant impacts from wildfires, and no
other CEQA standards for supplemental review are met. Therefore, no further environmental
review is required.
Mandatory Findings of Significance
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Issues
New
Significant
Impact
Substantial
Increase in the
Severity of an
Impact Identified
in 1993 GPA/SP
EIR
Equal or Less
Severe Impact
than Identified
in 1993 GPA/SP
EIR
21. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. Does the project:
a) Have the potential to degrade the quality of the
environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or
wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop
below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or
animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range
of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate
important examples of the major periods of California
history or prehistory?
X
b) Have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively
considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the
incremental effects of a project are considerable when
viewed in connection with the effects of the past projects,
the effects of other current projects, and the effects of
probable future projects.)
X
c) Have environmental effects which will cause substantial
adverse effects on human beings, either directly or
indirectly?
X
239
City of Dublin Dublin Senior Living Project
CEQA Initial Study | Page 84
(a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment,
substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population
to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community,
reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal, or eliminate
important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory?
As discussed, and analyzed in this document, the proposed Project would not degrade the
quality of the environment. Additionally, for the reasons discussed in the Biological Resources
section, the proposed Project, with mitigation, would not substantially reduce the habitat of a
fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels,
threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, or reduce the number or restrict the range
of a rare or endangered plant or animal. Further, for the reasons identified in the Cultural
Resources section, the Project site does not contain any significant cultural resources, and no
impacts to such resources would occur. Therefore, implementation of the proposed Project
would not result in any new impacts or increase the severity of a previously identified
significant impact as previously analyzed, and no other CEQA standards for supplemental
review are met. Therefore, no further environmental review is required for this impact area.
(b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively
considerable? (“Cumulatively considerable” means that the incremental effects of a project
are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of
other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)?
The proposed Project has the potential to result in incremental environmental impacts that are
part of a series of approvals that were anticipated under the 1993 GPA/SP EIR. The 1993
GPA/SP EIR considered the Project’s cumulatively considerable impacts where effects had the
potential to degrade the quality of the environment as a result of build-out of the EDSP.
Implementation of the proposed Project, with mitigation, would not result in any new
cumulative impacts or increase the severity of a previously identified significant cumulative
impact as previously analyzed, and no other CEQA standards for supplemental review are met.
Therefore, no further environmental review is required for this impact area.
(c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects
on human beings, either directly or indirectly?
The proposed Project would not create adverse environmental effects that would cause
substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly. The proposed Project
would construct an RCFE, which is not a use or activity that would result in any substantial
adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly, as discussed throughout this
document. Therefore, implementation of the proposed Project would not result in any new
impacts or increase the severity of a previously identified significant impact as previously
analyzed, and no other CEQA standards for supplemental review are met. Therefore, no further
environmental review is required for this impact area.
240
City of Dublin Dublin Senior Living Project
CEQA Initial Study | Page 85
References
Association of Bay Area Governments and Metropolitan Transportation Commission, 2018. Plan
Bay Area Projections 2040 – A Companion to Plan Bay Area 2040.
http://mtcmedia.s3.amazonaws.com/files/Projections_2040-ABAG-MTC-web.pdf.
Accessed April 2022.
Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD). 2016. Planning Healthy Places: A
Guidebook for Addressing Local Sources of Air Pollutants in Community Planning.
https://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/files/planning-and-research/planning-healthy-
places/php_may20_2016-pdf.pdf?la=en. Accessed February 17, 2022.
______. California Environmental Quality Act Air Quality Guidelines.
https://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/files/planning-and-
research/ceqa/ceqa_guidelines_may2017-pdf.pdf?la=en. Accessed February 17, 2022.
California Department of Conservation (DOC). 1982. Mineral Land Classification Map Dublin
Quadrangle Special Report 146 Plate 2.9.
https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/informationwarehouse/index.html?map=mlc.
Accessed March 2022.
_____. 2016. California Important Farmland Finder.
https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/dlrp/ciff/. Accessed February 2022.
_____. 2022. CGS Information Warehouse: Tsunami Hazard Area Map.
https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/informationwarehouse/ts_evacuation/?extent=-
13660824.1095%2C4512285.6761%2C-
13543416.8341%2C4564415.7294%2C102100&utm_source=cgs+active&utm_content=a
lameda. Accessed March 2022.
California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle). 2020. Disposal Rate
Calculator – Dublin 2020.
https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/LGCentral/AnnualReporting/DisposalRateCalculator.
Accessed March 2022.
_____. 2022a. Estimated Solid Waste Generation Rates.
https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/wastecharacterization/general/rates. Accessed March
2022.
_____. 2022b. SWIS Facility/Site Activity Detail. Altamont Landfill and Resource Recovery (01-
AA-0009). https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/SolidWaste/SiteActivity/Details/7?siteID=7.
Accessed March 2022.
California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). 2018. California State Scenic Highway
System Map.
241
City of Dublin Dublin Senior Living Project
CEQA Initial Study | Page 86
https://www.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=465dfd3d807c46cc8e8057
116f1aacaa. Accessed February 2022.
_____. 2020. Transportation and Construction Vibration Guidance Manual. https://dot.ca.gov/-
/media/dot-media/programs/environmental-analysis/documents/env/tcvgm-apr2020-
a11y.pdf. Accessed March 2022.
City of Dublin. 1984. City of Dublin General Plan Volume 2: Technical Supplement Draft
Environmental Impact Report.
https://www.dublin.ca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/5866/Dublin-General-Plan-EIR-Vol-
2-Tech-Supplement?bidId=. Accessed March 2022.
_____. 2018. City of Dublin General Plan.
https://www.dublin.ca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/17928/General-Plan-May-2020-
web-version?bidId=. Accessed February 2022.
_____. 2020. Eastern Dublin Specific Plan.
https://www.dublin.ca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/7776/EDSP-2020-Update-Full-
PDF?bidId=. Accessed February 2022.
County of Alameda. 2017. County of Alameda General Plan Safety Element.
https://www.acgov.org/cda/planning/generalplans/documents/SafetyElement.pdf.
Accessed March 2022.
Dublin San Ramon Services District (DSRSD). 2021. 2020 Urban Water Management Plan.
https://www.dsrsd.com/home/showpublisheddocument/7749/637607511715070000.
Accessed March 2022.
Federal Emergency Management Act (FEMA). 2020. Flood Insurance Rate Map 06001C0309G.
https://msc.fema.gov/arcgis/rest/directories/arcgisjobs/nfhl_print/mscprintb_gpserver/
jb7062ab157aa4350ba8dc396cae863ce/scratch/FIRMETTE_f3767277-be42-4cd0-9f9d-
f116aaae12cc.pdf. Accessed March 2022. \
United States Census Bureau (US Census). 2021. QuickFact Dublin city, California.
https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/dublincitycalifornia#qf-flag-X. Accessed March
2022.
United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2022. Polluted Runoff: Nonpoint Source
(NPS) Pollution - Urban Runoff: Low Impact Development.
https://www.epa.gov/nps/urban-runoff-low-impact-development. Accessed April 2022.
Zone 7 Water Agency. 2021. Annual Report for the Sustainable Groundwater Management
Program 2020 Water Year – Livermore Valley Groundwater Basin.
https://www.zone7water.com/sites/main/files/file-
attachments/gsp2020annrptfinal.pdf?1619988363. Accessed March 2022.
242
City of Dublin Dublin Senior Living Project
CEQA Initial Study | Page 87
List of Preparers
Principal in Charge Trevor Macenski
Project Manager Anna Radonich
Deputy Project Manager/QA/QC Christine Abraham
Environmental Planner Jennifer Webster
Principal Air Quality Scientist Elena Nuño
Air Quality Scientist Kaitlyn Heck
Senior Environmental Noise Analyst Tracie Ferguson
Principal Traffic Engineer Daryl Zerfass
Senior Transportation Planner Sandhya Perumalla
Graphics Kaela Johnson
243
Appendix A
Air Quality and Energy
CalEEMod Output Sheets
Energy Calculations
244
Dublin Senior Living Project
Alameda County, Annual
Project Characteristics -
Land Use - Project Description. Dwelling Units = # of beds
Construction Phase - Applicant provided schedule
Trips and VMT - even numbers
Grading -
Woodstoves - No fireplaces
Operational Off-Road Equipment -
Stationary Sources - Emergency Generators and Fire Pumps -
Construction Off-road Equipment Mitigation - Tier 4
1.1 Land Usage
Land Uses Size Metric Lot Acreage Floor Surface Area Population
Other Asphalt Surfaces 1.00 Acre 1.00 43,560.00 0
Other Non-Asphalt Surfaces 2.30 Acre 2.30 100,188.00 0
Parking Lot 93.00 Space 0.84 37,200.00 0
Congregate Care (Assisted Living)174.00 Dwelling Unit 1.60 155,829.00 498
1.2 Other Project Characteristics
Urbanization
Climate Zone
Urban
4
Wind Speed (m/s)Precipitation Freq (Days)2.2 63
1.3 User Entered Comments & Non-Default Data
1.0 Project Characteristics
Utility Company Pacific Gas and Electric Company
2026Operational Year
CO2 Intensity
(lb/MWhr)
203.98 0.033CH4 Intensity
(lb/MWhr)
0.004N2O Intensity
(lb/MWhr)
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 2/16/2022 5:03 PMPage 1 of 36
Dublin Senior Living Project - Alameda County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied
245
Table Name Column Name Default Value New Value
tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 1.00
tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 1.00
tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 1.00
tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 3.00
tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 1.00
tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 1.00
tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 2.00
tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 2.00
tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 2.00
tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 4.00
tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 10.00
tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 1.00
tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 4 Final
tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 4 Final
tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 4 Final
tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 4 Final
tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 4 Final
tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 4 Final
tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 4 Final
tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 4 Final
tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 4 Final
tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 4 Final
tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 4 Final
tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 4 Final
tblConstructionPhase NumDays 20.00 30.00
tblConstructionPhase NumDays 230.00 460.00
tblConstructionPhase NumDays 20.00 30.00
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 2/16/2022 5:03 PMPage 2 of 36
Dublin Senior Living Project - Alameda County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied
246
2.0 Emissions Summary
tblConstructionPhase NumDays 20.00 30.00
tblConstructionPhase NumDays 10.00 30.00
tblFireplaces NumberGas 26.10 0.00
tblFireplaces NumberNoFireplace 6.96 152.00
tblFireplaces NumberWood 29.58 0.00
tblGrading MaterialExported 0.00 1,500.00
tblLandUse LandUseSquareFeet 174,000.00 155,829.00
tblLandUse LotAcreage 10.88 1.60
tblSolidWaste SolidWasteGenerationRate 158.78 138.70
tblTripsAndVMT VendorTripNumber 48.00 46.00
tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripNumber 15.00 16.00
tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripNumber 201.00 186.00
tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripNumber 15.00 16.00
tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripNumber 40.00 38.00
tblWater IndoorWaterUseRate 11,336,800.46 9,903,411.89
tblWater OutdoorWaterUseRate 7,147,113.33 6,243,455.32
tblWoodstoves NumberCatalytic 3.48 0.00
tblWoodstoves NumberNoncatalytic 3.48 0.00
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 2/16/2022 5:03 PMPage 3 of 36
Dublin Senior Living Project - Alameda County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied
247
2.1 Overall Construction
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Year tons/yr MT/yr
2023 0.1355 1.2389 1.1912 2.6900e-
003
0.4644 0.0541 0.5186 0.2200 0.0503 0.2703 0.0000 239.3562 239.3562 0.0485 6.3300e-
003
242.4550
2024 0.2582 2.0647 2.7012 6.3000e-
003
0.2322 0.0829 0.3151 0.0627 0.0780 0.1407 0.0000 563.6483 563.6483 0.0775 0.0211 571.8804
2025 1.2775 1.1283 1.6105 3.6000e-
003
0.1243 0.0434 0.1677 0.0335 0.0408 0.0743 0.0000 321.1864 321.1864 0.0490 0.0106 325.5607
Maximum 1.2775 2.0647 2.7012 6.3000e-
003
0.4644 0.0829 0.5186 0.2200 0.0780 0.2703 0.0000 563.6483 563.6483 0.0775 0.0211 571.8804
Unmitigated Construction
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Year tons/yr MT/yr
2023 0.0419 0.2160 1.3151 2.6900e-
003
0.4644 3.7500e-
003
0.4682 0.2200 3.7100e-
003
0.2237 0.0000 239.3560 239.3560 0.0485 6.3300e-
003
242.4548
2024 0.1084 0.5963 2.8707 6.3000e-
003
0.2322 7.9000e-
003
0.2401 0.0627 7.7500e-
003
0.0705 0.0000 563.6480 563.6480 0.0775 0.0211 571.8800
2025 1.1967 0.3219 1.7431 3.6000e-
003
0.1243 4.6400e-
003
0.1289 0.0335 4.5600e-
003
0.0381 0.0000 321.1861 321.1861 0.0490 0.0106 325.5604
Maximum 1.1967 0.5963 2.8707 6.3000e-
003
0.4644 7.9000e-
003
0.4682 0.2200 7.7500e-
003
0.2237 0.0000 563.6480 563.6480 0.0775 0.0211 571.8800
Mitigated Construction
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 2/16/2022 5:03 PMPage 4 of 36
Dublin Senior Living Project - Alameda County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied
248
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e
Percent
Reduction
19.40 74.41 -7.74 0.00 0.00 90.97 16.39 0.00 90.52 31.53 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Quarter Start Date End Date Maximum Unmitigated ROG + NOX (tons/quarter)Maximum Mitigated ROG + NOX (tons/quarter)
1 7-10-2023 10-9-2023 0.7796 0.0926
2 10-10-2023 1-9-2024 0.6190 0.1823
3 1-10-2024 4-9-2024 0.5792 0.1777
4 4-10-2024 7-9-2024 0.5738 0.1723
5 7-10-2024 10-9-2024 0.5807 0.1748
6 10-10-2024 1-9-2025 0.5825 0.1801
7 1-10-2025 4-9-2025 0.5361 0.1737
8 4-10-2025 7-9-2025 0.5177 0.1628
9 7-10-2025 9-30-2025 1.2299 1.1076
Highest 1.2299 1.1076
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 2/16/2022 5:03 PMPage 5 of 36
Dublin Senior Living Project - Alameda County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied
249
2.2 Overall Operational
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Area 0.7726 0.0149 1.2916 7.0000e-
005
7.1700e-
003
7.1700e-
003
7.1700e-
003
7.1700e-
003
0.0000 2.1121 2.1121 2.0300e-
003
0.0000 2.1628
Energy 7.8600e-
003
0.0672 0.0286 4.3000e-
004
5.4300e-
003
5.4300e-
003
5.4300e-
003
5.4300e-
003
0.0000 141.2773 141.2773 0.0118 2.6700e-
003
142.3672
Mobile 0.1770 0.2217 1.6478 3.6200e-
003
0.4042 2.6900e-
003
0.4069 0.1080 2.5100e-
003
0.1105 0.0000 334.1577 334.1577 0.0209 0.0175 339.8865
Stationary 0.0826 0.3691 0.2105 4.0000e-
004
0.0121 0.0121 0.0121 0.0121 0.0000 38.3082 38.3082 5.3700e-
003
0.0000 38.4425
Waste 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 28.1549 0.0000 28.1549 1.6639 0.0000 69.7524
Water 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 3.1419 6.9799 10.1218 0.3238 7.7600e-
003
20.5291
Total 1.0400 0.6729 3.1785 4.5200e-
003
0.4042 0.0274 0.4317 0.1080 0.0273 0.1352 31.2968 522.8352 554.1320 2.0278 0.0279 613.1405
Unmitigated Operational
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 2/16/2022 5:03 PMPage 6 of 36
Dublin Senior Living Project - Alameda County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied
250
2.2 Overall Operational
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Area 0.7726 0.0149 1.2916 7.0000e-
005
7.1700e-
003
7.1700e-
003
7.1700e-
003
7.1700e-
003
0.0000 2.1121 2.1121 2.0300e-
003
0.0000 2.1628
Energy 7.8600e-
003
0.0672 0.0286 4.3000e-
004
5.4300e-
003
5.4300e-
003
5.4300e-
003
5.4300e-
003
0.0000 141.2773 141.2773 0.0118 2.6700e-
003
142.3672
Mobile 0.1770 0.2217 1.6478 3.6200e-
003
0.4042 2.6900e-
003
0.4069 0.1080 2.5100e-
003
0.1105 0.0000 334.1577 334.1577 0.0209 0.0175 339.8865
Stationary 0.0826 0.3691 0.2105 4.0000e-
004
0.0121 0.0121 0.0121 0.0121 0.0000 38.3082 38.3082 5.3700e-
003
0.0000 38.4425
Waste 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 28.1549 0.0000 28.1549 1.6639 0.0000 69.7524
Water 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 3.1419 6.9799 10.1218 0.3238 7.7600e-
003
20.5291
Total 1.0400 0.6729 3.1785 4.5200e-
003
0.4042 0.0274 0.4317 0.1080 0.0273 0.1352 31.2968 522.8352 554.1320 2.0278 0.0279 613.1405
Mitigated Operational
3.0 Construction Detail
Construction Phase
Phase
Number
Phase Name Phase Type Start Date End Date Num Days
Week
Num Days Phase Description
1 Site Preparation Site Preparation 7/10/2023 8/18/2023 5 30
2 Grading Grading 8/21/2023 9/29/2023 5 30
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e
Percent
Reduction
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 2/16/2022 5:03 PMPage 7 of 36
Dublin Senior Living Project - Alameda County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied
251
3 Building Construction Building Construction 10/2/2023 7/4/2025 5 460
4 Paving Paving 7/7/2025 8/15/2025 5 30
5 Architectural Coating Architectural Coating 8/18/2025 9/26/2025 5 30
OffRoad Equipment
Phase Name Offroad Equipment Type Amount Usage Hours Horse Power Load Factor
Site Preparation Rubber Tired Dozers 3 8.00 247 0.40
Site Preparation Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 4 8.00 97 0.37
Grading Excavators 1 8.00 158 0.38
Grading Graders 1 8.00 187 0.41
Grading Rubber Tired Dozers 1 8.00 247 0.40
Grading Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 3 8.00 97 0.37
Building Construction Cranes 1 7.00 231 0.29
Building Construction Forklifts 3 8.00 89 0.20
Building Construction Generator Sets 1 8.00 84 0.74
Building Construction Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 3 7.00 97 0.37
Building Construction Welders 1 8.00 46 0.45
Paving Pavers 2 8.00 130 0.42
Paving Paving Equipment 2 8.00 132 0.36
Paving Rollers 2 8.00 80 0.38
Architectural Coating Air Compressors 1 6.00 78 0.48
Trips and VMT
Residential Indoor: 315,554; Residential Outdoor: 105,185; Non-Residential Indoor: 0; Non-Residential Outdoor: 0; Striped Parking Area:
10,857 (Architectural Coating – sqft)
Acres of Grading (Site Preparation Phase): 45
Acres of Grading (Grading Phase): 30
Acres of Paving: 4.14
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 2/16/2022 5:03 PMPage 8 of 36
Dublin Senior Living Project - Alameda County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied
252
3.2 Site Preparation - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Fugitive Dust 0.2949 0.0000 0.2949 0.1515 0.0000 0.1515 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 0.0399 0.4129 0.2737 5.7000e-
004
0.0190 0.0190 0.0175 0.0175 0.0000 50.1760 50.1760 0.0162 0.0000 50.5817
Total 0.0399 0.4129 0.2737 5.7000e-
004
0.2949 0.0190 0.3139 0.1515 0.0175 0.1690 0.0000 50.1760 50.1760 0.0162 0.0000 50.5817
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
3.1 Mitigation Measures Construction
Use Cleaner Engines for Construction Equipment
Phase Name Offroad Equipment
Count
Worker Trip
Number
Vendor Trip
Number
Hauling Trip
Number
Worker Trip
Length
Vendor Trip
Length
Hauling Trip
Length
Worker Vehicle
Class
Vendor
Vehicle Class
Hauling
Vehicle Class
Site Preparation 7 18.00 0.00 0.00 10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT
Grading 6 16.00 0.00 188.00 10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT
Building Construction 9 186.00 46.00 0.00 10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT
Paving 6 16.00 0.00 0.00 10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT
Architectural Coating 1 38.00 0.00 0.00 10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 2/16/2022 5:03 PMPage 9 of 36
Dublin Senior Living Project - Alameda County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied
253
3.2 Site Preparation - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 7.1000e-
004
4.8000e-
004
6.0000e-
003
2.0000e-
005
2.1300e-
003
1.0000e-
005
2.1500e-
003
5.7000e-
004
1.0000e-
005
5.8000e-
004
0.0000 1.6623 1.6623 5.0000e-
005
5.0000e-
005
1.6774
Total 7.1000e-
004
4.8000e-
004
6.0000e-
003
2.0000e-
005
2.1300e-
003
1.0000e-
005
2.1500e-
003
5.7000e-
004
1.0000e-
005
5.8000e-
004
0.0000 1.6623 1.6623 5.0000e-
005
5.0000e-
005
1.6774
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Fugitive Dust 0.2949 0.0000 0.2949 0.1515 0.0000 0.1515 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 6.9800e-
003
0.0303 0.3130 5.7000e-
004
9.3000e-
004
9.3000e-
004
9.3000e-
004
9.3000e-
004
0.0000 50.1760 50.1760 0.0162 0.0000 50.5817
Total 6.9800e-
003
0.0303 0.3130 5.7000e-
004
0.2949 9.3000e-
004
0.2958 0.1515 9.3000e-
004
0.1525 0.0000 50.1760 50.1760 0.0162 0.0000 50.5817
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 2/16/2022 5:03 PMPage 10 of 36
Dublin Senior Living Project - Alameda County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied
254
3.2 Site Preparation - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 7.1000e-
004
4.8000e-
004
6.0000e-
003
2.0000e-
005
2.1300e-
003
1.0000e-
005
2.1500e-
003
5.7000e-
004
1.0000e-
005
5.8000e-
004
0.0000 1.6623 1.6623 5.0000e-
005
5.0000e-
005
1.6774
Total 7.1000e-
004
4.8000e-
004
6.0000e-
003
2.0000e-
005
2.1300e-
003
1.0000e-
005
2.1500e-
003
5.7000e-
004
1.0000e-
005
5.8000e-
004
0.0000 1.6623 1.6623 5.0000e-
005
5.0000e-
005
1.6774
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
3.3 Grading - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Fugitive Dust 0.1063 0.0000 0.1063 0.0514 0.0000 0.0514 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 0.0257 0.2690 0.2213 4.4000e-
004
0.0116 0.0116 0.0107 0.0107 0.0000 39.0909 39.0909 0.0126 0.0000 39.4070
Total 0.0257 0.2690 0.2213 4.4000e-
004
0.1063 0.0116 0.1179 0.0514 0.0107 0.0621 0.0000 39.0909 39.0909 0.0126 0.0000 39.4070
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 2/16/2022 5:03 PMPage 11 of 36
Dublin Senior Living Project - Alameda County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied
255
3.3 Grading - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 1.9000e-
004
0.0124 2.8000e-
003
6.0000e-
005
1.5900e-
003
1.1000e-
004
1.7000e-
003
4.4000e-
004
1.0000e-
004
5.4000e-
004
0.0000 5.4773 5.4773 1.2000e-
004
8.7000e-
004
5.7381
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 6.3000e-
004
4.3000e-
004
5.3400e-
003
2.0000e-
005
1.9000e-
003
1.0000e-
005
1.9100e-
003
5.0000e-
004
1.0000e-
005
5.1000e-
004
0.0000 1.4776 1.4776 4.0000e-
005
4.0000e-
005
1.4910
Total 8.2000e-
004
0.0128 8.1400e-
003
8.0000e-
005
3.4900e-
003
1.2000e-
004
3.6100e-
003
9.4000e-
004
1.1000e-
004
1.0500e-
003
0.0000 6.9549 6.9549 1.6000e-
004
9.1000e-
004
7.2292
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Fugitive Dust 0.1063 0.0000 0.1063 0.0514 0.0000 0.0514 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 5.4500e-
003
0.0236 0.2663 4.4000e-
004
7.3000e-
004
7.3000e-
004
7.3000e-
004
7.3000e-
004
0.0000 39.0909 39.0909 0.0126 0.0000 39.4069
Total 5.4500e-
003
0.0236 0.2663 4.4000e-
004
0.1063 7.3000e-
004
0.1071 0.0514 7.3000e-
004
0.0521 0.0000 39.0909 39.0909 0.0126 0.0000 39.4069
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 2/16/2022 5:03 PMPage 12 of 36
Dublin Senior Living Project - Alameda County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied
256
3.3 Grading - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 1.9000e-
004
0.0124 2.8000e-
003
6.0000e-
005
1.5900e-
003
1.1000e-
004
1.7000e-
003
4.4000e-
004
1.0000e-
004
5.4000e-
004
0.0000 5.4773 5.4773 1.2000e-
004
8.7000e-
004
5.7381
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 6.3000e-
004
4.3000e-
004
5.3400e-
003
2.0000e-
005
1.9000e-
003
1.0000e-
005
1.9100e-
003
5.0000e-
004
1.0000e-
005
5.1000e-
004
0.0000 1.4776 1.4776 4.0000e-
005
4.0000e-
005
1.4910
Total 8.2000e-
004
0.0128 8.1400e-
003
8.0000e-
005
3.4900e-
003
1.2000e-
004
3.6100e-
003
9.4000e-
004
1.1000e-
004
1.0500e-
003
0.0000 6.9549 6.9549 1.6000e-
004
9.1000e-
004
7.2292
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
3.4 Building Construction - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Off-Road 0.0511 0.4675 0.5279 8.8000e-
004
0.0227 0.0227 0.0214 0.0214 0.0000 75.3365 75.3365 0.0179 0.0000 75.7846
Total 0.0511 0.4675 0.5279 8.8000e-
004
0.0227 0.0227 0.0214 0.0214 0.0000 75.3365 75.3365 0.0179 0.0000 75.7846
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 2/16/2022 5:03 PMPage 13 of 36
Dublin Senior Living Project - Alameda County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied
257
3.4 Building Construction - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 1.5100e-
003
0.0654 0.0198 3.0000e-
004
9.8200e-
003
3.9000e-
004
0.0102 2.8400e-
003
3.8000e-
004
3.2200e-
003
0.0000 28.9197 28.9197 3.9000e-
004
4.3300e-
003
30.2200
Worker 0.0158 0.0108 0.1344 4.1000e-
004
0.0478 2.5000e-
004
0.0480 0.0127 2.3000e-
004
0.0129 0.0000 37.2159 37.2159 1.1100e-
003
1.0500e-
003
37.5552
Total 0.0173 0.0762 0.1542 7.1000e-
004
0.0576 6.4000e-
004
0.0583 0.0156 6.1000e-
004
0.0162 0.0000 66.1356 66.1356 1.5000e-
003
5.3800e-
003
67.7752
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Off-Road 0.0107 0.0726 0.5675 8.8000e-
004
1.3300e-
003
1.3300e-
003
1.3300e-
003
1.3300e-
003
0.0000 75.3365 75.3365 0.0179 0.0000 75.7845
Total 0.0107 0.0726 0.5675 8.8000e-
004
1.3300e-
003
1.3300e-
003
1.3300e-
003
1.3300e-
003
0.0000 75.3365 75.3365 0.0179 0.0000 75.7845
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 2/16/2022 5:03 PMPage 14 of 36
Dublin Senior Living Project - Alameda County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied
258
3.4 Building Construction - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 1.5100e-
003
0.0654 0.0198 3.0000e-
004
9.8200e-
003
3.9000e-
004
0.0102 2.8400e-
003
3.8000e-
004
3.2200e-
003
0.0000 28.9197 28.9197 3.9000e-
004
4.3300e-
003
30.2200
Worker 0.0158 0.0108 0.1344 4.1000e-
004
0.0478 2.5000e-
004
0.0480 0.0127 2.3000e-
004
0.0129 0.0000 37.2159 37.2159 1.1100e-
003
1.0500e-
003
37.5552
Total 0.0173 0.0762 0.1542 7.1000e-
004
0.0576 6.4000e-
004
0.0583 0.0156 6.1000e-
004
0.0162 0.0000 66.1356 66.1356 1.5000e-
003
5.3800e-
003
67.7752
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
3.4 Building Construction - 2024
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Off-Road 0.1928 1.7611 2.1179 3.5300e-
003
0.0803 0.0803 0.0756 0.0756 0.0000 303.7223 303.7223 0.0718 0.0000 305.5179
Total 0.1928 1.7611 2.1179 3.5300e-
003
0.0803 0.0803 0.0756 0.0756 0.0000 303.7223 303.7223 0.0718 0.0000 305.5179
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 2/16/2022 5:03 PMPage 15 of 36
Dublin Senior Living Project - Alameda County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied
259
3.4 Building Construction - 2024
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 5.9400e-
003
0.2645 0.0782 1.1900e-
003
0.0396 1.6100e-
003
0.0412 0.0115 1.5400e-
003
0.0130 0.0000 114.7702 114.7702 1.5900e-
003
0.0172 119.9342
Worker 0.0595 0.0390 0.5052 1.5800e-
003
0.1927 9.5000e-
004
0.1936 0.0513 8.8000e-
004
0.0521 0.0000 145.1558 145.1558 4.0600e-
003
3.9300e-
003
146.4283
Total 0.0655 0.3035 0.5834 2.7700e-
003
0.2322 2.5600e-
003
0.2348 0.0627 2.4200e-
003
0.0651 0.0000 259.9260 259.9260 5.6500e-
003
0.0211 266.3625
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Off-Road 0.0429 0.2928 2.2873 3.5300e-
003
5.3400e-
003
5.3400e-
003
5.3400e-
003
5.3400e-
003
0.0000 303.7220 303.7220 0.0718 0.0000 305.5175
Total 0.0429 0.2928 2.2873 3.5300e-
003
5.3400e-
003
5.3400e-
003
5.3400e-
003
5.3400e-
003
0.0000 303.7220 303.7220 0.0718 0.0000 305.5175
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 2/16/2022 5:03 PMPage 16 of 36
Dublin Senior Living Project - Alameda County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied
260
3.4 Building Construction - 2024
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 5.9400e-
003
0.2645 0.0782 1.1900e-
003
0.0396 1.6100e-
003
0.0412 0.0115 1.5400e-
003
0.0130 0.0000 114.7702 114.7702 1.5900e-
003
0.0172 119.9342
Worker 0.0595 0.0390 0.5052 1.5800e-
003
0.1927 9.5000e-
004
0.1936 0.0513 8.8000e-
004
0.0521 0.0000 145.1558 145.1558 4.0600e-
003
3.9300e-
003
146.4283
Total 0.0655 0.3035 0.5834 2.7700e-
003
0.2322 2.5600e-
003
0.2348 0.0627 2.4200e-
003
0.0651 0.0000 259.9260 259.9260 5.6500e-
003
0.0211 266.3625
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
3.4 Building Construction - 2025
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Off-Road 0.0909 0.8292 1.0696 1.7900e-
003
0.0351 0.0351 0.0330 0.0330 0.0000 154.2264 154.2264 0.0363 0.0000 155.1328
Total 0.0909 0.8292 1.0696 1.7900e-
003
0.0351 0.0351 0.0330 0.0330 0.0000 154.2264 154.2264 0.0363 0.0000 155.1328
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 2/16/2022 5:03 PMPage 17 of 36
Dublin Senior Living Project - Alameda County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied
261
3.4 Building Construction - 2025
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 2.9500e-
003
0.1342 0.0390 5.9000e-
004
0.0201 8.1000e-
004
0.0209 5.8100e-
003
7.8000e-
004
6.5900e-
003
0.0000 57.2232 57.2232 8.1000e-
004
8.5800e-
003
59.7992
Worker 0.0283 0.0178 0.2403 7.8000e-
004
0.0978 4.6000e-
004
0.0983 0.0260 4.2000e-
004
0.0264 0.0000 71.2144 71.2144 1.8700e-
003
1.8700e-
003
71.8187
Total 0.0313 0.1520 0.2793 1.3700e-
003
0.1179 1.2700e-
003
0.1192 0.0318 1.2000e-
003
0.0330 0.0000 128.4376 128.4376 2.6800e-
003
0.0105 131.6179
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Off-Road 0.0218 0.1486 1.1611 1.7900e-
003
2.7100e-
003
2.7100e-
003
2.7100e-
003
2.7100e-
003
0.0000 154.2263 154.2263 0.0363 0.0000 155.1326
Total 0.0218 0.1486 1.1611 1.7900e-
003
2.7100e-
003
2.7100e-
003
2.7100e-
003
2.7100e-
003
0.0000 154.2263 154.2263 0.0363 0.0000 155.1326
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 2/16/2022 5:03 PMPage 18 of 36
Dublin Senior Living Project - Alameda County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied
262
3.4 Building Construction - 2025
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 2.9500e-
003
0.1342 0.0390 5.9000e-
004
0.0201 8.1000e-
004
0.0209 5.8100e-
003
7.8000e-
004
6.5900e-
003
0.0000 57.2232 57.2232 8.1000e-
004
8.5800e-
003
59.7992
Worker 0.0283 0.0178 0.2403 7.8000e-
004
0.0978 4.6000e-
004
0.0983 0.0260 4.2000e-
004
0.0264 0.0000 71.2144 71.2144 1.8700e-
003
1.8700e-
003
71.8187
Total 0.0313 0.1520 0.2793 1.3700e-
003
0.1179 1.2700e-
003
0.1192 0.0318 1.2000e-
003
0.0330 0.0000 128.4376 128.4376 2.6800e-
003
0.0105 131.6179
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
3.5 Paving - 2025
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Off-Road 0.0137 0.1287 0.2187 3.4000e-
004
6.2800e-
003
6.2800e-
003
5.7800e-
003
5.7800e-
003
0.0000 30.0289 30.0289 9.7100e-
003
0.0000 30.2717
Paving 2.4100e-
003
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Total 0.0161 0.1287 0.2187 3.4000e-
004
6.2800e-
003
6.2800e-
003
5.7800e-
003
5.7800e-
003
0.0000 30.0289 30.0289 9.7100e-
003
0.0000 30.2717
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 2/16/2022 5:03 PMPage 19 of 36
Dublin Senior Living Project - Alameda County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied
263
3.5 Paving - 2025
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 5.5000e-
004
3.5000e-
004
4.6600e-
003
2.0000e-
005
1.9000e-
003
1.0000e-
005
1.9100e-
003
5.0000e-
004
1.0000e-
005
5.1000e-
004
0.0000 1.3818 1.3818 4.0000e-
005
4.0000e-
005
1.3935
Total 5.5000e-
004
3.5000e-
004
4.6600e-
003
2.0000e-
005
1.9000e-
003
1.0000e-
005
1.9100e-
003
5.0000e-
004
1.0000e-
005
5.1000e-
004
0.0000 1.3818 1.3818 4.0000e-
005
4.0000e-
005
1.3935
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Off-Road 4.2100e-
003
0.0182 0.2594 3.4000e-
004
5.6000e-
004
5.6000e-
004
5.6000e-
004
5.6000e-
004
0.0000 30.0289 30.0289 9.7100e-
003
0.0000 30.2717
Paving 2.4100e-
003
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Total 6.6200e-
003
0.0182 0.2594 3.4000e-
004
5.6000e-
004
5.6000e-
004
5.6000e-
004
5.6000e-
004
0.0000 30.0289 30.0289 9.7100e-
003
0.0000 30.2717
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 2/16/2022 5:03 PMPage 20 of 36
Dublin Senior Living Project - Alameda County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied
264
3.5 Paving - 2025
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 5.5000e-
004
3.5000e-
004
4.6600e-
003
2.0000e-
005
1.9000e-
003
1.0000e-
005
1.9100e-
003
5.0000e-
004
1.0000e-
005
5.1000e-
004
0.0000 1.3818 1.3818 4.0000e-
005
4.0000e-
005
1.3935
Total 5.5000e-
004
3.5000e-
004
4.6600e-
003
2.0000e-
005
1.9000e-
003
1.0000e-
005
1.9100e-
003
5.0000e-
004
1.0000e-
005
5.1000e-
004
0.0000 1.3818 1.3818 4.0000e-
005
4.0000e-
005
1.3935
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
3.6 Architectural Coating - 2025
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Archit. Coating 1.1347 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 2.5600e-
003
0.0172 0.0271 4.0000e-
005
7.7000e-
004
7.7000e-
004
7.7000e-
004
7.7000e-
004
0.0000 3.8299 3.8299 2.1000e-
004
0.0000 3.8351
Total 1.1373 0.0172 0.0271 4.0000e-
005
7.7000e-
004
7.7000e-
004
7.7000e-
004
7.7000e-
004
0.0000 3.8299 3.8299 2.1000e-
004
0.0000 3.8351
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 2/16/2022 5:03 PMPage 21 of 36
Dublin Senior Living Project - Alameda County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied
265
3.6 Architectural Coating - 2025
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 1.3100e-
003
8.2000e-
004
0.0111 4.0000e-
005
4.5100e-
003
2.0000e-
005
4.5300e-
003
1.2000e-
003
2.0000e-
005
1.2200e-
003
0.0000 3.2818 3.2818 9.0000e-
005
9.0000e-
005
3.3096
Total 1.3100e-
003
8.2000e-
004
0.0111 4.0000e-
005
4.5100e-
003
2.0000e-
005
4.5300e-
003
1.2000e-
003
2.0000e-
005
1.2200e-
003
0.0000 3.2818 3.2818 9.0000e-
005
9.0000e-
005
3.3096
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Archit. Coating 1.1347 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 4.5000e-
004
1.9300e-
003
0.0275 4.0000e-
005
6.0000e-
005
6.0000e-
005
6.0000e-
005
6.0000e-
005
0.0000 3.8299 3.8299 2.1000e-
004
0.0000 3.8351
Total 1.1351 1.9300e-
003
0.0275 4.0000e-
005
6.0000e-
005
6.0000e-
005
6.0000e-
005
6.0000e-
005
0.0000 3.8299 3.8299 2.1000e-
004
0.0000 3.8351
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 2/16/2022 5:03 PMPage 22 of 36
Dublin Senior Living Project - Alameda County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied
266
3.6 Architectural Coating - 2025
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 1.3100e-
003
8.2000e-
004
0.0111 4.0000e-
005
4.5100e-
003
2.0000e-
005
4.5300e-
003
1.2000e-
003
2.0000e-
005
1.2200e-
003
0.0000 3.2818 3.2818 9.0000e-
005
9.0000e-
005
3.3096
Total 1.3100e-
003
8.2000e-
004
0.0111 4.0000e-
005
4.5100e-
003
2.0000e-
005
4.5300e-
003
1.2000e-
003
2.0000e-
005
1.2200e-
003
0.0000 3.2818 3.2818 9.0000e-
005
9.0000e-
005
3.3096
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
4.0 Operational Detail - Mobile
4.1 Mitigation Measures Mobile
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 2/16/2022 5:03 PMPage 23 of 36
Dublin Senior Living Project - Alameda County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied
267
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Mitigated 0.1770 0.2217 1.6478 3.6200e-
003
0.4042 2.6900e-
003
0.4069 0.1080 2.5100e-
003
0.1105 0.0000 334.1577 334.1577 0.0209 0.0175 339.8865
Unmitigated 0.1770 0.2217 1.6478 3.6200e-
003
0.4042 2.6900e-
003
0.4069 0.1080 2.5100e-
003
0.1105 0.0000 334.1577 334.1577 0.0209 0.0175 339.8865
4.2 Trip Summary Information
4.3 Trip Type Information
Average Daily Trip Rate Unmitigated Mitigated
Land Use Weekday Saturday Sunday Annual VMT Annual VMT
Congregate Care (Assisted Living)452.40 509.82 548.10 1,095,387 1,095,387
Other Asphalt Surfaces 0.00 0.00 0.00
Other Non-Asphalt Surfaces 0.00 0.00 0.00
Parking Lot 0.00 0.00 0.00
Total 452.40 509.82 548.10 1,095,387 1,095,387
Miles Trip %Trip Purpose %
Land Use H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW Primary Diverted Pass-by
Congregate Care (Assisted
Living)
10.80 4.80 5.70 31.00 15.00 54.00 86 11 3
Other Asphalt Surfaces 9.50 7.30 7.30 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 0
Other Non-Asphalt Surfaces 9.50 7.30 7.30 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 0
Parking Lot 9.50 7.30 7.30 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 0
4.4 Fleet Mix
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 2/16/2022 5:03 PMPage 24 of 36
Dublin Senior Living Project - Alameda County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied
268
Land Use LDA LDT1 LDT2 MDV LHD1 LHD2 MHD HHD OBUS UBUS MCY SBUS MH
Congregate Care (Assisted
Living)
0.571499 0.056472 0.178543 0.111785 0.020654 0.005249 0.014294 0.013034 0.000787 0.000550 0.024393 0.000348 0.002396
Other Asphalt Surfaces 0.571499 0.056472 0.178543 0.111785 0.020654 0.005249 0.014294 0.013034 0.000787 0.000550 0.024393 0.000348 0.002396
Other Non-Asphalt Surfaces 0.571499 0.056472 0.178543 0.111785 0.020654 0.005249 0.014294 0.013034 0.000787 0.000550 0.024393 0.000348 0.002396
Parking Lot 0.571499 0.056472 0.178543 0.111785 0.020654 0.005249 0.014294 0.013034 0.000787 0.000550 0.024393 0.000348 0.002396
5.0 Energy Detail
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Electricity
Mitigated
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 63.4508 63.4508 0.0103 1.2400e-
003
64.0783
Electricity
Unmitigated
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 63.4508 63.4508 0.0103 1.2400e-
003
64.0783
NaturalGas
Mitigated
7.8600e-
003
0.0672 0.0286 4.3000e-
004
5.4300e-
003
5.4300e-
003
5.4300e-
003
5.4300e-
003
0.0000 77.8264 77.8264 1.4900e-
003
1.4300e-
003
78.2889
NaturalGas
Unmitigated
7.8600e-
003
0.0672 0.0286 4.3000e-
004
5.4300e-
003
5.4300e-
003
5.4300e-
003
5.4300e-
003
0.0000 77.8264 77.8264 1.4900e-
003
1.4300e-
003
78.2889
5.1 Mitigation Measures Energy
Historical Energy Use: N
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 2/16/2022 5:03 PMPage 25 of 36
Dublin Senior Living Project - Alameda County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied
269
5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas
NaturalGa
s Use
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use kBTU/yr tons/yr MT/yr
Congregate Care
(Assisted Living)
1.45841e
+006
7.8600e-
003
0.0672 0.0286 4.3000e-
004
5.4300e-
003
5.4300e-
003
5.4300e-
003
5.4300e-
003
0.0000 77.8264 77.8264 1.4900e-
003
1.4300e-
003
78.2889
Other Asphalt
Surfaces
0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Other Non-
Asphalt Surfaces
0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Parking Lot 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Total 7.8600e-
003
0.0672 0.0286 4.3000e-
004
5.4300e-
003
5.4300e-
003
5.4300e-
003
5.4300e-
003
0.0000 77.8264 77.8264 1.4900e-
003
1.4300e-
003
78.2889
Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 2/16/2022 5:03 PMPage 26 of 36
Dublin Senior Living Project - Alameda County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied
270
5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas
NaturalGa
s Use
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use kBTU/yr tons/yr MT/yr
Congregate Care
(Assisted Living)
1.45841e
+006
7.8600e-
003
0.0672 0.0286 4.3000e-
004
5.4300e-
003
5.4300e-
003
5.4300e-
003
5.4300e-
003
0.0000 77.8264 77.8264 1.4900e-
003
1.4300e-
003
78.2889
Other Asphalt
Surfaces
0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Other Non-
Asphalt Surfaces
0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Parking Lot 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Total 7.8600e-
003
0.0672 0.0286 4.3000e-
004
5.4300e-
003
5.4300e-
003
5.4300e-
003
5.4300e-
003
0.0000 77.8264 77.8264 1.4900e-
003
1.4300e-
003
78.2889
Mitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 2/16/2022 5:03 PMPage 27 of 36
Dublin Senior Living Project - Alameda County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied
271
5.3 Energy by Land Use - Electricity
Electricity
Use
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use kWh/yr MT/yr
Congregate Care
(Assisted Living)
672759 62.2462 0.0101 1.2200e-
003
62.8617
Other Asphalt
Surfaces
0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Other Non-
Asphalt Surfaces
0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Parking Lot 13020 1.2047 1.9000e-
004
2.0000e-
005
1.2166
Total 63.4508 0.0103 1.2400e-
003
64.0783
Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 2/16/2022 5:03 PMPage 28 of 36
Dublin Senior Living Project - Alameda County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied
272
6.1 Mitigation Measures Area
6.0 Area Detail
5.3 Energy by Land Use - Electricity
Electricity
Use
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use kWh/yr MT/yr
Congregate Care
(Assisted Living)
672759 62.2462 0.0101 1.2200e-
003
62.8617
Other Asphalt
Surfaces
0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Other Non-
Asphalt Surfaces
0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Parking Lot 13020 1.2047 1.9000e-
004
2.0000e-
005
1.2166
Total 63.4508 0.0103 1.2400e-
003
64.0783
Mitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 2/16/2022 5:03 PMPage 29 of 36
Dublin Senior Living Project - Alameda County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied
273
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Mitigated 0.7726 0.0149 1.2916 7.0000e-
005
7.1700e-
003
7.1700e-
003
7.1700e-
003
7.1700e-
003
0.0000 2.1121 2.1121 2.0300e-
003
0.0000 2.1628
Unmitigated 0.7726 0.0149 1.2916 7.0000e-
005
7.1700e-
003
7.1700e-
003
7.1700e-
003
7.1700e-
003
0.0000 2.1121 2.1121 2.0300e-
003
0.0000 2.1628
6.2 Area by SubCategory
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
SubCategory tons/yr MT/yr
Architectural
Coating
0.1135 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Consumer
Products
0.6203 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Hearth 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Landscaping 0.0388 0.0149 1.2916 7.0000e-
005
7.1700e-
003
7.1700e-
003
7.1700e-
003
7.1700e-
003
0.0000 2.1121 2.1121 2.0300e-
003
0.0000 2.1628
Total 0.7726 0.0149 1.2916 7.0000e-
005
7.1700e-
003
7.1700e-
003
7.1700e-
003
7.1700e-
003
0.0000 2.1121 2.1121 2.0300e-
003
0.0000 2.1628
Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 2/16/2022 5:03 PMPage 30 of 36
Dublin Senior Living Project - Alameda County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied
274
7.1 Mitigation Measures Water
7.0 Water Detail
6.2 Area by SubCategory
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
SubCategory tons/yr MT/yr
Architectural
Coating
0.1135 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Consumer
Products
0.6203 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Hearth 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Landscaping 0.0388 0.0149 1.2916 7.0000e-
005
7.1700e-
003
7.1700e-
003
7.1700e-
003
7.1700e-
003
0.0000 2.1121 2.1121 2.0300e-
003
0.0000 2.1628
Total 0.7726 0.0149 1.2916 7.0000e-
005
7.1700e-
003
7.1700e-
003
7.1700e-
003
7.1700e-
003
0.0000 2.1121 2.1121 2.0300e-
003
0.0000 2.1628
Mitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 2/16/2022 5:03 PMPage 31 of 36
Dublin Senior Living Project - Alameda County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied
275
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category MT/yr
Mitigated 10.1218 0.3238 7.7600e-
003
20.5291
Unmitigated 10.1218 0.3238 7.7600e-
003
20.5291
7.2 Water by Land Use
Indoor/Out
door Use
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use Mgal MT/yr
Congregate Care
(Assisted Living)
9.90341 /
6.24346
10.1218 0.3238 7.7600e-
003
20.5291
Other Asphalt
Surfaces
0 / 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Other Non-
Asphalt Surfaces
0 / 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Parking Lot 0 / 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Total 10.1218 0.3238 7.7600e-
003
20.5291
Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 2/16/2022 5:03 PMPage 32 of 36
Dublin Senior Living Project - Alameda County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied
276
7.2 Water by Land Use
Indoor/Out
door Use
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use Mgal MT/yr
Congregate Care
(Assisted Living)
9.90341 /
6.24346
10.1218 0.3238 7.7600e-
003
20.5291
Other Asphalt
Surfaces
0 / 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Other Non-
Asphalt Surfaces
0 / 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Parking Lot 0 / 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Total 10.1218 0.3238 7.7600e-
003
20.5291
Mitigated
8.1 Mitigation Measures Waste
8.0 Waste Detail
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 2/16/2022 5:03 PMPage 33 of 36
Dublin Senior Living Project - Alameda County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied
277
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
MT/yr
Mitigated 28.1549 1.6639 0.0000 69.7524
Unmitigated 28.1549 1.6639 0.0000 69.7524
Category/Year
8.2 Waste by Land Use
Waste
Disposed
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use tons MT/yr
Congregate Care
(Assisted Living)
138.7 28.1549 1.6639 0.0000 69.7524
Other Asphalt
Surfaces
0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Other Non-
Asphalt Surfaces
0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Parking Lot 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Total 28.1549 1.6639 0.0000 69.7524
Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 2/16/2022 5:03 PMPage 34 of 36
Dublin Senior Living Project - Alameda County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied
278
8.2 Waste by Land Use
Waste
Disposed
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use tons MT/yr
Congregate Care
(Assisted Living)
138.7 28.1549 1.6639 0.0000 69.7524
Other Asphalt
Surfaces
0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Other Non-
Asphalt Surfaces
0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Parking Lot 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Total 28.1549 1.6639 0.0000 69.7524
Mitigated
9.0 Operational Offroad
Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Days/Year Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type
10.0 Stationary Equipment
Fire Pumps and Emergency Generators
Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Hours/Year Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type
Emergency Generator 1 0 100 1006 0.73 Diesel
Boilers
Equipment Type Number Heat Input/Day Heat Input/Year Boiler Rating Fuel Type
User Defined Equipment
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 2/16/2022 5:03 PMPage 35 of 36
Dublin Senior Living Project - Alameda County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied
279
11.0 Vegetation
Equipment Type Number
10.1 Stationary Sources
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Equipment Type tons/yr MT/yr
Emergency
Generator -
Diesel (750 -
9999 HP)
0.0826 0.3691 0.2105 4.0000e-
004
0.0121 0.0121 0.0121 0.0121 0.0000 38.3082 38.3082 5.3700e-
003
0.0000 38.4425
Total 0.0826 0.3691 0.2105 4.0000e-
004
0.0121 0.0121 0.0121 0.0121 0.0000 38.3082 38.3082 5.3700e-
003
0.0000 38.4425
Unmitigated/Mitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 2/16/2022 5:03 PMPage 36 of 36
Dublin Senior Living Project - Alameda County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied
280
Phase Name Phase Type Phase Start Date Phase End Date Num Days/Week Total Work Days
Site Preparation Site Preparation 2023/07/10 2023/08/18 5 30
Grading Grading 2023/08/21 2023/09/29 5 30
Building
Construction
Building
Construction 2023/10/02 2025/07/04 5 460
Paving Paving 2025/07/07 2025/08/15 5 30
Architectural
Coating
Architectural
Coating 2025/08/18 2025/09/26 5 30
Total Trips
Worker Trip
Number
Vendor Trip
Number
Hauling Trip
Number
Worker Trip
Length
Vendor Trip
Length
Hauling Trip
Length Days per Phase Worker Trip
Number
Vendor Trip
Number
Hauling Trip
Number Worker Trips Vendor Trips Hauling Trips Worker Trips Vendor Trips Hauling Trips Total
Site Preparation 18 0 0 10.8 7.3 20 30 540 0 0 5,832.00 0.00 0.00 219.46 0.00 0.00 219.46
Grading 16 0 188 10.8 7.3 20 30 480 0 188 5,184.00 0.00 3,760.00 195.07 0.00 589.55 784.62
Building
Construction 186 46 0 10.8 7.3 20 460 85560 21160 0 924,048.00 154,468.00 0.00 34,771.57 23,639.92 0.00 58,411.49
Paving 16 0 0 10.8 7.3 20 30 480 0 0 5,184.00 0.00 0.00 195.07 0.00 0.00 195.07
Architectural
Coating 38 0 0 10.8 7.3 20 30 1140 0 0 12,312.00 0.00 0.00 463.30 0.00 0.00 463.30
60,073.94
Phase Name
Fuel Consumption
gallonsTrips per Day Construction Trip Length (Miles)Trips per Phase VMT per Phase
281
Construction
Project Component Phase
Offroad Fuel
Consumption
(gallons)
Onroad Fuel
Consumption
(gallons)
Total Fuel
Consumption
(gallons)
Site Preparation 703.78 219.46 923.24
Site Grading 3,880.36 784.62 4,664.98
Building
Construction 15,923.33 58,411.49 74,334.82
Paving 843.63 195.07 1,038.70
Architectural
Coating 116.02 463.30 579.32
Total 21,467.12 60,073.94 81,541.06
Dublin Senior Living Facility
282
Phase Name Phase Type Phase Start Date Phase End Date Num Days/Week Total Work Days
Site Preparation Site Preparation 2023/07/10 2023/08/18 5 30
Grading Grading 2023/08/21 2023/09/29 5 30
Building
Construction
Building
Construction 2023/10/02 2025/07/04 5 460
Paving Paving 2025/07/07 2025/08/15 5 30
Architectural
Coating
Architectural
Coating 2025/08/18 2025/09/26 5 30
Phase Name Equipment Type Amount Hours per day Horse Power (HP)Load Factor Number of Days HP Hours Fuel (gallons/HP-
hour)Diesel Fuel Usage Total
Rubber Tired
Dozers 3 8 247 0.4 30 71,136.00 0.02048249 1,457.04
Tractors/Loaders/
Backhoes 4 8 97 0.37 30 34,454.40 0.019127164 659.01 2,116.06
Excavators 1 8 158 0.38 30 14,409.60 0.019761453 284.75
Graders 1 8 187 0.41 30 18,400.80 0.021223655 390.53
Rubber Tired
Dozers 1 8 247 0.4 30 23,712.00 0.02048249 485.68
Tractors/Loaders/
Backhoes 3 8 97 0.37 30 25,840.80 0.019127164 494.26 1,655.23
Cranes 1 7 231 0.29 460 215,707.80 0.014920585 3,218.49
Forklifts 3 8 89 0.2 460 196,512.00 0.010380794 2,039.95
Generator Sets 1 8 84 0.74 460 228,748.80 0.017395293 3,979.15
Tractors/Loaders/
Backhoes 3 7 97 0.37 460 346,697.40 0.019127164 6,631.34
Welders 1 8 46 0.45 460 76,176.00 0.025825776 1,967.30 17,836.23
Pavers 2 8 130 0.42 30 26,208.00 0.021528159 564.21
Paving Equipment 2 8 132 0.36 30 22,809.60 0.018396208 419.61
Rollers 2 8 80 0.38 30 14,592.00 0.019411734 283.26 1,267.08
Architectural CoatinAir Compressors 1 6 78 0.48 30 6,739.20 0.027583337 185.89 185.89 185.89
Grand Total 23,060.48
Site Preparation
Grading
Building
Construction
Paving
2,116.06
1,655.23
17,836.23
1,267.08
283
Vehicle Type Fleet Mix
Percentage
Daily VMT
Traveled
Annual VMT
Traveled
Average Fuel
Economy
(miles/gallon)
Total Daily Fuel
Consumption
(gallons)
Total Annual Fuel
Consumption
(gallons)
Passegner Cars
(LDA)57%1,715 626,013 30 57 20,665
Light Trucks and
Medium Duty
Vehicles (LDT1,
LDT2, MDV)
35%1,041 379,880 24 43 15,652
Light-Heavy to
Heavy-Heavy
Diesel Trucks
(LHD1, LHD2,
MHDT, HHDT)
5%160 58,309 10 17 6,090
Motorcycle 2%73 26,720 41 2 649
Other (OBUS,
UBUS, SBUS, MH)0%12 4,466 7 2 604
Total 100%3,001 1,095,387 120 43,660
284
Electricity
Land Size
Title 24
Electricity
Energy
Intensity
(KWhr/
size/
Nontitle
24
Electricity
Energy
Intensity
(KWhr/
size/
Lighting
Energy
Intensity
(KWhr/
size/
Total
Electricity
Energy
Demand
(KWhr/ size/
Total
Electricity
Demand
Use (beds)year)year)year)year)(KWhr/
year)
Congregate Care (Assisted Living)174 70.89 3,054.10 741.44 3,866 672,759
Parking Lot 93 spaces 0 0 0.35 140 13,020
685,779
Natural Gas
Total
Natural
Gas
Energy
Demand
Total Natural
Gas Demand
(KBTU/siz
e/year)(KBTU/year)
Congregate Care (Assisted Living)174 5,226.68 3,155 8,382 1,458,410.00
Parking Lot 93 spaces 0 0 0 0
Land Use Size
(beds)
Title 24
Natural
Gas Energy
Intensity
(KBTU/size
/year)
Nontitle
24
Natural
Gas
Energy
Intensity
(KBTU/siz
e/year)
285
Model Output: OFFROAD2021 (v1.0.1) Emissions Inventory
Region Type: County
Region: Alameda
Calendar Year: 2023
Scenario: All Adopted Rules - Exhaust
Vehicle Classification: OFFROAD2021 Equipment Types
Units: tons/day for Emissions, gallons/year for Fuel, hours/year for Activity, Horsepower-hours/year for Horsepower-hours
Region Calendar YeVehicle Category Horsepowe Fuel Fuel Consu Total_Activ Total_PopuHorsepower_Hours_hhpy Gallons/HP-hr
Alameda 2023 Construction and Mining - Cranes 100 Diesel 7955.485 6084.555 13.55138 535714.6788 0.01485
Alameda 2023 Construction and Mining - Cranes 175 Diesel 24391.06 11188.64 24.2118 1634725.385 0.014921
Alameda 2023 Construction and Mining - Cranes 300 Diesel 41833.82 12762.96 26.77753 2809691.34 0.014889
Alameda 2023 Construction and Mining - Excavators 175 Diesel 125011.2 43320.39 72.40401 6326012.22 0.019761
Alameda 2023 Construction and Mining - Graders 175 Diesel 75981.31 24080.21 50.57283 3580029.486 0.021224
Alameda 2023 Construction and Mining - Graders 300 Diesel 157578.3 34655.89 45.21198 7447959.682 0.021157
Alameda 2023 Construction and Mining - Pavers 100 Diesel 10430.89 6021.143 15.08496 487420.3115 0.0214
Alameda 2023 Construction and Mining - Pavers 175 Diesel 16521.65 4861.306 12.45058 767443.9424 0.021528
Alameda 2023 Construction and Mining - Paving Equipment 100 Diesel 6484.522 3956.916 8.485344 352492.3057 0.018396
Alameda 2023 Construction and Mining - Paving Equipment 175 Diesel 6991.246 2622.278 5.636022 381527.4763 0.018324
Alameda 2023 Construction and Mining - Rollers 100 Diesel 39873.79 23538.66 70.13184 2054107.728 0.019412
Alameda 2023 Construction and Mining - Rubber Tired Dozers 100 Diesel 3563.827 2047.869 2.332572 173025.1124 0.020597
Alameda 2023 Construction and Mining - Rubber Tired Dozers 175 Diesel 4946.659 1708.017 2.148421 241810.4849 0.020457
Alameda 2023 Construction and Mining - Rubber Tired Dozers 300 Diesel 5570.461 1246.099 1.749429 271962.0908 0.020482
Alameda 2023 Construction and Mining - Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 100 Diesel 613242.4 385075.6 607.7834 32061335.46 0.019127
Alameda 2023 Industrial - Forklifts 100 Diesel 404016.2 472113.9 611.9807 38919590.88 0.010381
Alameda 2023 Portable Equipment - Rental Generator 50 Diesel 990.7755 1355.309 0.932487 56956.52564 0.017395
Alameda 2023 Light Commercial - Misc - Welders 50 Diesel 220952.8 185989.4 289.58 8555512.4 0.025826
Alameda 2023 Light Commercial - Misc - Air Compressors 50 Diesel 48139.85 47168.95 57.95 1745251.15 0.027583
286
Source: EMFAC2021 (v1.0.1) Emissions Inventory 1000
Region Type: County
Region: Alameda
Calendar Year: 2023
Season: Annual
Vehicle Classification: EMFAC202x Categories
Units: miles/year for CVMT and EVMT, trips/year for Trips, kWh/year for Energy Consumption, tons/year for Emissions, 1000 gallons/year for Fuel Consumption
Region Calendar YeVehicle Cat Model Year Speed Fuel Population Total VMT Fuel Consu
Total Fuel
Consumption
Fuel Efficiency
Miles/Gallon VMT*Fuel Efficiency
Alameda 2023 LDA Aggregate Aggregate Gasoline 554013.6559 6952763722 236841.5 236841462.7 29.36 2.04107E+11
Alameda 2023 LDA Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 2383.835981 23182397.92 548.2887 548288.6905 42.28 980183583.5
Alameda 2023 LDA Aggregate Aggregate Plug-in Hybrid 13516.12352 212056459.4 3552.318 3552317.924 59.70 12658760543
Alameda 2023 LDT1 Aggregate Aggregate Gasoline 53163.53646 616546408.5 24867.39 24867393.47 24.79 15286261277
Alameda 2023 LDT1 Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 32.09604679 136099.9655 5.650852 5650.851512 24.08 3277948.567
Alameda 2023 LDT1 Aggregate Aggregate Plug-in Hybrid 36.5913159 663720.1595 10.09441 10094.41008 65.75 43640435.34
Alameda 2023 LDT2 Aggregate Aggregate Gasoline 246364.5187 3292647588 138943.1 138943126.2 23.70 78028531771
Alameda 2023 LDT2 Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 848.1394293 11844235.72 374.6452 374645.1686 31.61 374450097.1
Alameda 2023 LDT2 Aggregate Aggregate Plug-in Hybrid 1432.968339 24937142.39 396.8967 396896.6777 62.83 1566808456
Alameda 2023 LHD1 Aggregate Aggregate Gasoline 18928.50477 232090482.3 24465.94 24465944.11 9.49 2201672322
Alameda 2023 LHD1 Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 8925.7439 115368157.4 7274.712 7274712.107 15.86 1829599790
Alameda 2023 LHD2 Aggregate Aggregate Gasoline 2690.871471 32083518.75 3803.457 3803457.415 8.44 270635914.5
Alameda 2023 LHD2 Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 3758.314721 49940164.61 3777.594 3777593.988 13.22 660213895.3
Alameda 2023 MCY Aggregate Aggregate Gasoline 26178.52112 52579446.09 1276.345 1276344.627 41.20 2166027961
Alameda 2023 MDV Aggregate Aggregate Gasoline 132134.9696 1683451490 86193.31 86193312.49 19.53 32879684473
Alameda 2023 MDV Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 1855.50252 25222998.73 1039.838 1039837.674 24.26 611825942.3
Alameda 2023 MDV Aggregate Aggregate Plug-in Hybrid 813.1677445 13486793.84 223.6708 223670.8378 60.30 813220042
Alameda 2023 MH Aggregate Aggregate Gasoline 1923.03689 5703713.265 1291.84 1291840.361 4.42 25182945.2
Alameda 2023 MH Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 683.9458547 2258090.722 240.5537 240553.7111 9.39 21196819.97
Alameda 2023 OBUS Aggregate Aggregate Gasoline 636.5060868 10615877 2227.55 2227549.502 4.77 50592296.3
Alameda 2023 SBUS Aggregate Aggregate Gasoline 79.55036005 1384198.617 137.8335 137833.5477 10.04 13900866.98
Alameda 2023 SBUS Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 400.8352809 3137341.357 387.8393 387839.3123 8.09 25378837.27
Alameda 2023 SBUS Aggregate Aggregate Natural Gas 24.87981978 207213.2782 37.7349 37734.90276 5.49 1137868.115
Alameda 2023 T6 CAIRP C Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 4.889398437 101216.5235 11.44484 11444.83628 8.84 895144.707
Alameda 2023 T6 CAIRP C Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 6.563839349 138864.0511 15.68035 15680.34751 8.86 1229770.238
Alameda 2023 T6 CAIRP C Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 20.66527462 362641.9437 40.38293 40382.92659 8.98 3256553.955
Alameda 2023 T6 CAIRP C Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 35.70751246 2275978.214 237.9441 237944.0565 9.57 21770145.93
Alameda 2023 T6 Instate D Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 1037.818153 11006699.17 1350.425 1350424.804 8.15 89710605.37
Alameda 2023 T6 Instate D Aggregate Aggregate Natural Gas 2.880470739 33669.38339 5.008046 5008.045501 6.72 226361.2377
Alameda 2023 T6 Instate D Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 759.4191167 8253377.046 1008.564 1008564.011 8.18 67539820.85
Alameda 2023 T6 Instate D Aggregate Aggregate Natural Gas 1.548828596 18184.64435 2.639428 2639.427827 6.89 125285.2178
Alameda 2023 T6 Instate D Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 2706.309591 29486843.62 3614.239 3614239.121 8.16 240569015.3
Alameda 2023 T6 Instate D Aggregate Aggregate Natural Gas 4.499153957 51842.05274 7.547649 7547.649283 6.87 356084.1702
Alameda 2023 T6 Instate D Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 604.6256233 10498446.58 1269.639 1269639.368 8.27 86809989.81
Alameda 2023 T6 Instate D Aggregate Aggregate Natural Gas 15.43568634 271482.9183 39.57289 39572.88861 6.86 1862461.334
Alameda 2023 T6 Instate O Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 1052.120582 13514069.64 1591.845 1591844.583 8.49 114728586.1
Alameda 2023 T6 Instate O Aggregate Aggregate Natural Gas 2.093063282 30285.14567 4.095876 4095.875735 7.39 223930.1452
Alameda 2023 T6 Instate O Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 2248.902588 31003796.11 3666.603 3666603.018 8.46 262159652.5
Alameda 2023 T6 Instate O Aggregate Aggregate Natural Gas 4.784465251 65793.32252 8.578319 8578.319031 7.67 504616.4957
Alameda 2023 T6 Instate O Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 2314.669396 31184646.65 3660.957 3660956.762 8.52 265636075.5
Alameda 2023 T6 Instate O Aggregate Aggregate Natural Gas 4.109362782 55658.84215 7.254839 7254.839193 7.67 427012.4571
Alameda 2023 T6 Instate O Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 1231.38533 19018782.27 2192.791 2192790.596 8.67 164956051.8
Alameda 2023 T6 Instate O Aggregate Aggregate Natural Gas 30.34923813 500091.3806 64.50665 64506.65268 7.75 3876985.994
Alameda 2023 T6 Instate T Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 9.917334462 155285.5714 17.90496 17904.96098 8.67 1346755.724
Alameda 2023 T6 Instate T Aggregate Aggregate Natural Gas 0.01827918 327.9723048 0.04351 43.51045032 7.54 2472.183853
Alameda 2023 T6 Instate T Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 528.7189266 10575082.62 1154.691 1154690.974 9.16 96850477.75
Alameda 2023 T6 Instate T Aggregate Aggregate Natural Gas 12.69169844 265137.8211 33.4367 33436.70018 7.93 2102422.302
Alameda 2023 T6 OOS Cla Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 2.643901143 54233.67778 6.128496 6128.495993 8.85 479936.9713
Alameda 2023 T6 OOS Cla Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 3.534106623 74398.85341 8.398724 8398.723749 8.86 659051.2504
Alameda 2023 T6 OOS Cla Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 11.16369083 194406.3325 21.62988 21629.88074 8.99 1747296.834
Alameda 2023 T6 OOS Cla Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 18.14601325 1413575.78 146.9895 146989.4721 9.62 13594146.96
Alameda 2023 T6 Public C Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 117.9446511 1206810.82 160.3947 160394.7088 7.52 9080052.375
Alameda 2023 T6 Public C Aggregate Aggregate Natural Gas 2.18082717 29363.18628 4.337148 4337.147773 6.77 198793.4822
Alameda 2023 T6 Public C Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 247.4262739 2874749.534 372.8538 372853.8378 7.71 22164677
Alameda 2023 T6 Public C Aggregate Aggregate Natural Gas 18.68176372 243843.4426 37.49106 37491.05564 6.50 1585968.266
Alameda 2023 T6 Public C Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 184.2901321 2039023.825 265.229 265229.0231 7.69 15675577.69
Alameda 2023 T6 Public C Aggregate Aggregate Natural Gas 14.82977502 194584.1539 30.2248 30224.80259 6.44 1252712.663
Alameda 2023 T6 Public C Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 430.4306417 6039357.048 777.7935 777793.5008 7.76 46893980.87
Alameda 2023 T6 Public C Aggregate Aggregate Natural Gas 20.64329042 351402.3334 52.18109 52181.0889 6.73 2366443.524
Alameda 2023 T6 Utility C Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 204.6294071 2600599.844 295.3229 295322.9152 8.81 22900761.17
Alameda 2023 T6 Utility C Aggregate Aggregate Natural Gas 2.871697697 35418.42137 4.863059 4863.059078 7.28 257957.9133
Alameda 2023 T6 Utility C Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 38.92168268 491127.2627 55.57534 55575.3369 8.84 4340162.41
Alameda 2023 T6 Utility C Aggregate Aggregate Natural Gas 0.56868693 7026.829464 0.958059 958.0589724 7.33 51537.88414
Alameda 2023 T6 Utility C Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 44.01771047 679537.7738 76.57954 76579.53978 8.87 6029960.318
Alameda 2023 T6 Utility C Aggregate Aggregate Natural Gas 0.944461711 12918.47643 1.755231 1755.231045 7.36 95079.8095
Alameda 2023 T6TS Aggregate Aggregate Gasoline 1683.243274 28331533.52 6087.749 6087748.685 4.65 131851006.6
Alameda 2023 T7 Single C Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 154.0948435 3393221.382 577.8155 577815.5141 5.87 19926691.25
Alameda 2023 T7 Single C Aggregate Aggregate Natural Gas 9.147650575 206700.7095 36.23284 36232.84475 5.70 1179183.793
Alameda 2023 T7 Single D Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 744.9051091 14391037.4 2472.154 2472153.607 5.82 83773903.42
Alameda 2023 T7 Single D Aggregate Aggregate Natural Gas 43.89060817 890193.0746 163.794 163793.9804 5.43 4838051.486
Alameda 2023 T7 Tractor Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 4236.091115 104683861.3 17232.3 17232303.66 6.07 635939978.8
Alameda 2023 T7 Tractor Aggregate Aggregate Natural Gas 562.6153484 14113245.5 2511.117 2511117.125 5.62 79320751.94
Alameda 2023 UBUS Aggregate Aggregate Gasoline 254.2405543 6798312.773 804.6188 804618.7519 8.45 57439696.06
Alameda 2023 UBUS Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 691.1833752 24855413.71 3148.185 3148185.128 7.90 196237376.6
Alameda 2023 UBUS Aggregate Aggregate Natural Gas 91.10189943 2635140.167 383.5 383499.9621 6.87 18106817.17
13750016501 593,660,070
287
WORKER
Total VMT*Fuel Economy
Total VMT
Weighted Average Fuel Economy
VENDOR
Total VMT*Fuel Economy
Total VMT
Weighted Average Fuel Economy
HAUL
Total VMT*Fuel Economy
Total VMT
Weighted Average Fuel Economy
LDT1 LHD1 LHD2
Total VMT*Fuel Economy 15333179661 34304730457 *Fuel Economy 4031272112 Total VMT*Fuel Economy 930849809.7
Total VMT 617346228.6 1722161282 Total VMT 347458640 Total VMT 82023683.37
Weighted Average Fuel Economy 24.83724521 19.91958059 e Fuel Economy 11.602164 Weighted Average Fuel Economy 11.34854924
HHD MCY SBUS
Total VMT*Fuel Economy 2533369942 271783889.8 *Fuel Economy 2166027961 Total VMT*Fuel Economy 40417572.36
Total VMT 353420374 34288866.65 Total VMT 52579446.1 Total VMT 4728753.253
Weighted Average Fuel Economy 7.168149116 7.926301344 e Fuel Economy 41.1953362 Weighted Average Fuel Economy 8.547194198
MH
Total VMT*Fuel Economy 21196819.97
Total VMT 2258090.722
Weighted Average Fuel Economy 9.38705419
LDA LDT1, LDT2, MDV LHD1, LHD2, MHDT, HHDT
Total VMT*Fuel Economy 2.17746E+11 Total VMT*Fuel Economy el Economy
Total VMT 7188002580 Total VMT Total VMT
Weighted Average Fuel Economy 30.29292441 Weighted Average Fuel Economy el Economy
Other
Total VMT*Fuel Economy 383990578.4
Total VMT 51891587.62
Weighted Average Fuel Economy 7.399861829
288
tblFleetMix
FleetMixLa LDA LDT1 LDT2 MDV LHD1 LHD2 MHD HHD OBUS UBUS MCY SBUS MH
Congregate 0.571499 0.056472 0.178543 0.111785 0.020654 0.005249 0.014294 0.013034 0.000787 0.00055 0.024393 0.000348 0.002396
Other Asph 0.571499 0.056472 0.178543 0.111785 0.020654 0.005249 0.014294 0.013034 0.000787 0.00055 0.024393 0.000348 0.002396
Other Non- 0.571499 0.056472 0.178543 0.111785 0.020654 0.005249 0.014294 0.013034 0.000787 0.00055 0.024393 0.000348 0.002396
Parking Lot 0.571499 0.056472 0.178543 0.111785 0.020654 0.005249 0.014294 0.013034 0.000787 0.00055 0.024393 0.000348 0.002396
Page 9
289
Appendix B
Transportation Analysis
290
Memo
\\us1304-f02\workgroup\1857\active\185705826\03_data\analytical\traffic\report\mem_dublin_asst_living_ta_20220413.docx
To: Gaspare Annibale From: Sandhya Perumalla, and
Daryl Zerfass PE, PTP
City of Dublin Stantec
File: 185705826 Date: April 13, 2022
Reference: Transportation Analysis of the Dublin Senior Living Project in the City of Dublin, California
This memo presents the findings of a transportation analysis conducted to determine the potential effects of the
proposed Dublin Senior Living development (Project) located at 5751 Arnold Road in the City of Dublin,
California. The proposed Project consists of construction of a two-story residential care facility for the elderly
(RCFE)—a licensed assisted living and a memory care facility of approximately 155,517 square feet with
approximately 174 beds/rooms. The site is located east of the existing T-intersection of Arnold Road and
Horizon Parkway. See Figure 1 for the Project location. Primary access to the project would be via two
driveways on Arnold Road, one existing and one new driveway proposed as the new fourth leg of the Arnold
Road/Horizon Parkway intersection. See Figure 2 for the Site Plan. The Project proposes to provide a total of
93 surface parking spaces.
Project Background
A traffic study for the Project area was previously approved by the City as part of the Environmental Impact
Report (EIR)1 prepared in December, 1992. The 5601 Arnold Road parcel, just south of the project site, was
developed with a four-story office building (approximately 126,000 square feet), whereas the 5751 Arnold Road
parcel remained undeveloped. The 5751 north parcel is now proposed to be developed to the Dublin Senior
Living Project instead of the previously approved office use (see previously referenced Figure 2 for the
proposed Site Plan). The purpose of this memo is to present the reassessment of the Project’s new land use
and access.
Trip Generation
Table 1 below summarizes the anticipated trip generation of the proposed Project with a comparison to the
previously approved use. For this analysis, the previously approved office use is assumed to be of the same
size as the existing office building just south of the Project site. Trip generation rate for the proposed use,
Assisted Living (254) and previously approved use, General Office Building (710) are standard Institute of
Transportation Engineers (ITE) 11th Edition trip generation rates for uses of these types.
As shown in Table 1, the proposed project is expected to generate approximately 452 average daily trips (ADT),
with 32 trips occurring during the AM peak hour and 41 trips occurring during the PM peak hour. For
comparison, the trip generation of the previously approved office use is also shown in the table. As shown, the
proposed Senior Living use would generate 912 fewer daily trips, 159 fewer AM peak hour trips and 140 fewer
PM peak hour trips, which is significantly lower than the previously approved office use.
The City’s guidelines require a traffic analysis to be completed for any proposed project that would generate
more than 50 peak hour trips. Since the proposed Project does not generate more than 50 peak hour trips, a
traffic analysis is not required. However, a site access analysis at the Arnold Road and Horizon Parkway
intersection is provided since the Project is proposing to alter the configuration of the intersection.
1Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan, EIR, December 1992.
291
April 13, 2022
Gaspare Annibale
Page 2 of 5
Reference: Transportation Analysis of the Dublin Senior Living Project in the City of Dublin, California
\\us1304-f02\workgroup\1857\active\185705826\03_data\analytical\traffic\report\mem_dublin_asst_living_ta_20220413.docx
Table 1 Project Trip Generation Summary
Land Use Amount Unit
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour ADT
In Out Total In Out Total
Trip Rates
General Office Building (710) - TSF 1.34 0.18 1.52 0.24 1.20 1.44 10.84
Assisted Living (254) - Beds 0.11 0.07 0.18 0.09 0.15 0.24 2.60
Trip Generation
Existing (approved use)
General Office 125.847 TSF 168 23 191 31 150 181 1,364
Proposed
Assisted Living 174 Beds 19 13 32 16 25 41 452
Net New Trips -149 -10 -159 -15 -125 -140 -912
Note:
ADT - Average Daily Traffic
TSF - Thousand square feet
Trip Rate Source: Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE), 11th Edition, 2021, with ITE code in parentheses
Site Access Analysis
The intersection of Arnold Road and Horizon Parkway is currently a three-legged signalized intersection with a
crosswalk on each of the three legs. See Figure 3 below for an aerial view of the existing intersection. Arnold
Road is an approximately one-mile-long collector road that runs in the north-south direction. It begins north of
Broder Boulevard at Alameda County Fire department and terminates at Altamirano Avenue, just north of I-580.
It is a two-lane roadway north of Dublin Boulevard and is primarily a four-lane divided roadway, south of Dublin
Boulevard. It has a Class 2 bike lane on both sides. On-street parking is not permitted. In the vicinity of the
Project site a sidewalk is present only on the east side of the street, and the speed limit is 40 mph.
Horizon Parkway is a collector roadway that runs in the east-west direction. It intersects with Arnold Road and is
the third leg of the T-intersection. It is approximately 0.8 miles in length and currently terminates just east of
Scarlett Drive, where it is ultimately planned to connect. It is a two-lane roadway and has a painted median and
left-turn pockets. Sidewalks are present on both sides and on-street parking is not allowed.
Access to the Project would be via two driveways on Arnold Road. The primary access would be via a new
driveway that would align with Horizon Parkway as the fourth leg of the signalized intersection. Secondary
access would be via an existing driveway approximately 320 feet south of the intersection, which would
continue to operate with restricted right-turn-in/right-turn-out access only. Pedestrians can access the Project
site via sidewalks on the east side of Arnold Street and on both sides of Horizon Parkway and crosswalks
across the north and south legs of the Arnold Street/Horizon Parkway intersection. As mentioned above, there’s
an existing Class II bicycle lane on both sides of Arnold Road for bicyclists to access the Project site. Livermore
Amador Valley Transit Authority (LAVTA) operates Tri-Valley Wheels bus service that provides fixed route bus
services in the Cities of Dublin, Pleasanton, Livermore, and unincorporated portions of Alameda County. The
nearest bus stop is within a quarter mile of the Project site on Gleason Drive, east of Arnold Road. The
Dublin/Pleasanton Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) station is the closest BART station in the Project vicinity.
Existing AM and PM Peak hour turning movement volumes at the Horizon Parkway and Arnold Road
intersection were collected in February 2022. The traffic counts were utilized to determine peak hour delay
values and level of service (LOS) for existing conditions using the HCM Sixth edition delay methodology for
292
April 13, 2022
Gaspare Annibale
Page 3 of 5
Reference: Transportation Analysis of the Dublin Senior Living Project in the City of Dublin, California
\\us1304-f02\workgroup\1857\active\185705826\03_data\analytical\traffic\report\mem_dublin_asst_living_ta_20220413.docx
signalized intersections, which is summarized in Table 2. The traffic count worksheets are provided in
Attachment A. See Figure 4 for the existing intersection lane geometry and the corresponding AM and PM peak
hour volumes for the intersection. As shown in Table 2, the intersection currently operates at an acceptable
LOS A during AM and PM peak hour conditions.
Table 2 Intersection LOS Summary - Existing Conditions
Int
# Intersection Name
Control
Type
Existing Existing plus Project
AM Peak
Hour
PM Peak
Hour
AM Peak
Hour
PM Peak
Hour Increase
Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS AM PM
1
Arnold Road &
Horizon Parkway Signal
6.4 A
5.6 A 7.4 A 7.7 A
1.0
2.1
Note:
Delay - Average vehicle delay (seconds)
LOS - Level of Service
The Project’s anticipated trip distribution percentages were derived based on the Project site’s location in
relation to the surrounding uses while taking into account the proposed driveway location, lane geometry,
existing traffic flow patterns, and engineering judgement. Approximately 80 percent of the Project trips are
expected to be oriented towards the south on Arnold Road, 10 percent of the Project trips are expected to be
oriented towards the north on Arnold Road and 10 percent of the project trips oriented towards west on Horizon
Parkway. See previously referenced Figure 4 for the Project trip distribution, AM and PM peak hour project trips.
The total volume of trips generated by the proposed Project are added to the existing AM and PM peak hour
traffic counts to obtain existing plus Project volumes. For the existing plus Project conditions analysis, a new
driveway that would align with Horizon Parkway as a fourth (east) leg is included as proposed by the Project,
which would include one lane into the project site and two-lanes—an exclusive left-turn lane and a shared
through/right-turn lane—exiting the project site. The intersection’s southbound approach is assumed to be
restriped to add a left-turn lane. See previously referenced Figure 4 for the new intersection lane geometry and
the corresponding AM and PM peak hour volumes under existing conditions without and with-Project.
Peak hour delay and LOS that correspond with the existing conditions without and with-Project traffic are
summarized in Table 2, above, which provides a comparison between the without-Project and the with-Project
conditions. As shown, the Project driveway is anticipated to operate at an acceptable LOS A during AM and PM
peak hour for conditions with the Project. The evaluation of the intersection is based on HCM Sixth edition
methodology using Synchro software. Queue analysis results of the existing plus Project conditions show that
the proposed westbound left-turn (WBL) lane has a queue length of 31 feet and 41 feet during AM and PM peak
hour, respectively. Detailed LOS and queue length calculation worksheets are provided in Attachments B and
C, respectively.
Peak hour turning movement volumes for Project buildout conditions for the Project driveway under the
cumulative conditions were derived and utilized to determine peak hour delay values and LOS for the new
project driveway at Horizon Parkway and Arnold Road intersection. Estimates of long-range buildout condition
traffic volumes were derived using traffic volume forecasts from the Dublin Crossing Specific Plan2 to establish
cumulative conditions without the Project. Based on the increase in traffic volumes on Arnold Road, the growth
rate during AM and PM peak hour is 33 percent and 40 percent, respectively. Similarly, based on the increase
2Dublin Crossing Specific Plan, Draft EIR, June 2013
293
April 13, 2022
Gaspare Annibale
Page 4 of 5
Reference: Transportation Analysis of the Dublin Senior Living Project in the City of Dublin, California
\\us1304-f02\workgroup\1857\active\185705826\03_data\analytical\traffic\report\mem_dublin_asst_living_ta_20220413.docx
in traffic volumes on Horizon Parkway, the growth rate during AM and PM peak hour is 479 percent and 869
percent, respectively.
The total volume of trips generated by the proposed Project are added to the cumulative conditions AM and PM
peak hour volumes to obtain cumulative with-Project volumes. For the cumulative with-Project conditions
analysis, as mentioned for existing plus project conditions, a new driveway that would align with Horizon
Parkway as a fourth (east) leg is included as proposed by the Project, which would include one lane into the
project site and two-lanes—an exclusive left-turn lane and a shared through and right-turn lane—exiting the
project site. The intersection’s southbound approach is assumed to be restriped to add a left-turn lane. See
previously referenced Figure 4 for the new intersection lane geometry and the corresponding AM and PM peak
hour volumes under cumulative conditions without and with-Project.
Peak hour delay and LOS that correspond with the cumulative conditions without and with-Project traffic
forecasts are summarized in Table 3, which provides a comparison between the without-Project and the with-
Project conditions. As shown, the Project driveway is anticipated to operate at an acceptable LOS B during AM
and PM peak hour for conditions with the Project. The evaluation of the intersection is based on HCM Sixth
edition methodology using Synchro software. Detailed LOS and queue length calculation worksheets are
provided in Attachments B and C, respectively.
Table 3 Intersection LOS Summary - Cumulative Conditions
Int
# Intersection Name
Control
Type
Cumulative without Project Cumulative with-Project
Increase
AM Peak
Hour
PM Peak
Hour
AM Peak
Hour
PM Peak
Hour
Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS AM PM
1 Arnold Road & Horizon Parkway Signal
10.8 B
11.7 B
11.8 B
13.5 B
1.0 1.8
Note:
Delay - Average vehicle delay (seconds)
LOS - Level of Service
As noted above, the Project proposes adding a fourth (east) leg to the existing Arnold Road/Horizon Parkway
intersection. The proposed site plan includes a driveway that is approximately 32 feet wide and, based on this
analysis, the proposed driveway is recommended to be configured with a single lane inbound and an exclusive
left-turn lane and a shared through/ right-turn lane outbound. Queue analysis results show that the WBL lane
has a queue length of 36 feet and 46 feet during AM and PM peak hour, respectively.
To accommodate southbound left-turns from Arnold Road to the Project site, the addition of a left-turn lane is
recommended. The north leg of the intersection is approximately 48 feet wide curb-to-curb and, as shown in
Figure 3, is currently configured with a northbound bike lane, a narrow-painted buffer between the bike lane and
the northbound through lane, a narrow-painted median, a southbound through lane and a southbound right-turn
lane. The existing right-turn and through lanes vary between 10 to 11 feet in width. Adding a southbound left-
turn lane would require elimination of the existing painted bike lane buffer and the painted median, resulting in
an approximately 10-foot wide left-turn lane and 10-foot wide northbound through lane. The new southbound
left-turn lane is recommended to be 75 feet in length, which is equivalent to the existing northbound left-turn
lane length. Queue analysis results show that the southbound left-turn lane has a queue length of 11 feet during
AM and PM peak hour, which is less than the recommended 75 feet. Preparation of a preliminary signing and
striping plan is recommended to confirm the lane widths and intersection geometry.
294
April 13, 2022
Gaspare Annibale
Page 5 of 5
Reference: Transportation Analysis of the Dublin Senior Living Project in the City of Dublin, California
\\us1304-f02\workgroup\1857\active\185705826\03_data\analytical\traffic\report\mem_dublin_asst_living_ta_20220413.docx
Conclusion
This traffic memo was prepared to evaluate the proposed Project’s effect on traffic conditions in accordance
with the City’s traffic analysis guidelines. As discussed above, the proposed Dublin Senior Living Project
generates fewer trips than the previously approved office use and would generate fewer than 50 peak hour
trips. Primary access to the project would be via two driveways on Arnold Road, one existing and one new
driveway proposed as the new fourth (east) leg of the Arnold Road/Horizon Parkway intersection. The Project
was evaluated under Existing conditions, long-range buildout cumulative conditions without the proposed
Project, and existing and cumulative conditions with the Project.
Based on this analysis, the new east leg of the Arnold Road/Horizon Parkway intersection is recommended to
consist of one inbound lane and an exclusive left-turn lane and a shared through/right-turn lane as an outbound
lane. A new southbound left-turn lane is also recommended on the north leg of the intersection to allow for left-
turns into the project site. The north leg of the intersection would need to be restriped to accommodate the new
left-turn lane. Preparation of a preliminary signing and striping plan is recommended to confirm the lane widths
and intersection geometry.
An LOS analysis that has been prepared based on the recommended configuration of the Arnold Road/Horizon
Parkway intersection indicates that the intersection would operate at an acceptable LOS B during AM and PM
peak hours.
Please feel free to contact Sandhya or Daryl if you have any questions or if you would like to discuss the above
material.
Sincerely,
Stantec Consulting Services Inc.
Daryl Zerfass PE, PTP Sandhya Perumalla ENV SP
Principal, Transportation Planning & Traffic Engineering Senior Transportation Planner
Phone: 949 923 6058 Phone: 949 923 6074
Daryl.Zerfass@stantec.com Sandhya.Perumalla@stantec.com
Attachment: Figure 1 - Project Site Location
Figure 2 -Project Site Plan
Figure 3 - Aerial View of Arnold Road and Horizon Parkway Intersection
Figure 4 - Existing and Cumulative Conditions Lane Configuration, Existing Counts, Project trips, and Existing and Cumulative with
Project Volumes
Attachment A- Traffic Count Worksheets
Attachment B - Synchro LOS Worksheets
Attachment C - Queue Worksheets
295
!!STERLINGHACIENDAARNOLDIRON HORSECENTRAL
HORIZON
DUBLIN
GLEASON
Figure 1C:\Users\emazzella\Documents\dublin senior living\proposed_study_ints3.mxd ´
DUBLIN ASSISTED LIVING
TRANSPORTATION ANALYSIS
Legend
Project site
!!Study intersection
Project Location Map
PROPOSED NEWDRIVEWAY
EXISTINGDRIVEWAY
296
DUBLIN SENIOR LIVINGTRANSPORTATION ANALYSISFigure 2Project Site Plan ´c:\users\emazzella\documents\dublin senior living\exhibits_v3.dwg
Source: SmithGroup297
DUBLIN SENIOR LIVINGTRANSPORTATION ANALYSISFigure 3Aerial View of Arnold Road and Horizon Parkway Intersection c:\users\emazzella\documents\dublin senior living\exhibits_v3.dwg HORIZON PKWYARNOLD RD´PROJECT SITESource: Google Earth298
´Existing Plus Project Peak Hour Volumes0200015
00
2 Project-Only Peak Hour VolumesCumulative with-Project Peak Hour Volumes AM Peak HourPM Peak HourARNOLDHORIZON
ARNOLDHORIZONARNOLDHORIZONARNOLDHORIZON DUBLIN SENIOR LIVINGTRANSPORTATION ANALYSISc:\users\emazzella\documents\dublin senior living\exhibits_v3.dwg
Figure 4Intersection Lane Configurations and Peak Hour Volumesx11110200012
00
2
2221151212710426515
442238
2
1111126227112641312
29097
2
2221 AM Peak HourPM Peak Hour AM Peak HourPM Peak HourExistingARNOLDHORIZON Intersection Lane ConfigurationsARNOLDHORIZON With-ProjectExisting Peak Hour Volumes262218200
33341 AM Peak HourPM Peak HourARNOLDHORIZON
ARNOLDHORIZON132813295
20710262221820015
33341
2
ARNOLDHORIZON
ARNOLDHORIZON1111132281329512
20710
2
2221299
Type of peak hour being reported: Intersection Peak Method for determining peak hour: Total Entering Volume
LOCATION: LOCATION: Arnold Rd -- Horizon Pkwy QC JOB #: QC JOB #: 15719501
CITY/STATE: CITY/STATE: Dublin, CA DATE: DATE: Thu, Feb 24 2022
374 0.64 226
41 333 0
59 26 0 0
0.6 0 0.780.78 0 0
48 22 0 0
18 200 0
0.72355 218
Peak-Hour: 7:45 AM -- 8:45 AMPeak-Hour: 7:45 AM -- 8:45 AM
Peak 15-Min: 8:00 AM -- 8:15 AMPeak 15-Min: 8:00 AM -- 8:15 AM
1.3 5.3
0 1.5 0
1.7 0 0 0
0 0
10.4 22.7 0 0
5.6 6 0
2.8 6
7
0 0
4
6 1 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0 0
N/A
N/A N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A N/A
N/A
15-Min Count15-Min CountPeriodPeriodBeginning AtBeginning At
Arnold RdArnold Rd
(Northbound)(Northbound)
Arnold RdArnold Rd
(Southbound)(Southbound)
Horizon PkwyHorizon Pkwy
(Eastbound)(Eastbound)
Horizon PkwyHorizon Pkwy
(Westbound)(Westbound)TotalTotal HourlyHourlyTotalsTotalsLeftLeftThruThruRightRightUULeftLeftThruThruRightRightUULeftLeftThruThruRightRightUULeftLeftThruThruRightRightUU
7:00 AM 6 17 0 0 0 59 5 0 1 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 91
7:15 AM 2 39 0 0 0 23 1 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 69
7:30 AM 0 19 0 0 0 61 4 0 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 87
7:45 AM 3 34 0 0 0 107 7 0 1 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 159 406
8:00 AM 2 37 0 0 0 124 22 0 17 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 205 520
8:15 AM 6 60 0 0 0 54 8 0 4 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 140 591
8:30 AM 7 69 0 0 0 48 4 0 4 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 136 640
8:45 AM 4 46 0 0 0 45 2 0 2 0 9 0 0 0 0 0 108 589
Peak 15-MinPeak 15-MinFlowratesFlowrates
NorthboundNorthbound SouthboundSouthbound EastboundEastbound WestboundWestbound TotalTotalLeftLeftThruThruRightRightUULeftLeftThruThruRightRightUULeftLeftThruThruRightRightUULeftLeftThruThruRightRightUU
All Vehicles 8 148 0 0 0 496 88 0 68 0 12 0 0 0 0 0 820
Heavy Trucks 0 8 0 0 4 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 16
Buses
Pedestrians 8 8 0 0 16
Bicycles 0 0 0 0 4 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 16
Scooters
Comments:
Report generated on 3/2/2022 4:47 PM SOURCE: Quality Counts, LLC (http://www.qualitycounts.net) 1-877-580-2212
Page 1 of 1
ATTACHMENT A
300
Type of peak hour being reported: Intersection Peak Method for determining peak hour: Total Entering Volume
LOCATION: LOCATION: Arnold Rd -- Horizon Pkwy QC JOB #: QC JOB #: 15719502
CITY/STATE: CITY/STATE: Dublin, CA DATE: DATE: Thu, Feb 24 2022
217 0.75 308
10 207 0
23 13 0 0
0.79 0 0.770.77 0 0
41 28 0 0
13 295 0
0.63235 308
Peak-Hour: 4:00 PM -- 5:00 PMPeak-Hour: 4:00 PM -- 5:00 PM
Peak 15-Min: 4:15 PM -- 4:30 PMPeak 15-Min: 4:15 PM -- 4:30 PM
0.9 0
0 1 0
0 0 0 0
0 0
2.4 3.6 0 0
0 0 0
1.3 0
0
1 7
3
2 0 0
9 0
0 0
0 0
0 0 0
N/A
N/A N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A N/A
N/A
15-Min Count15-Min CountPeriod Period Beginning AtBeginning At
Arnold RdArnold Rd
(Northbound)(Northbound)
Arnold RdArnold Rd
(Southbound)(Southbound)
Horizon PkwyHorizon Pkwy
(Eastbound)(Eastbound)
Horizon PkwyHorizon Pkwy
(Westbound)(Westbound)TotalTotal HourlyHourlyTotalsTotalsLeftLeftThruThruRightRightUULeftLeftThruThruRightRightUULeftLeftThruThruRightRightUULeftLeftThruThruRightRightUU
4:00 PM 2 66 0 0 0 57 2 0 5 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 139
4:15 PM 3 120 0 0 0 46 2 0 5 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 184
4:30 PM 3 74 0 0 0 35 3 0 1 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 124
4:45 PM 5 35 0 0 0 69 3 0 2 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 119 566
5:00 PM 5 61 0 0 0 62 2 0 2 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 135 562
5:15 PM 3 53 0 0 0 67 7 0 7 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 147 525
5:30 PM 6 65 0 0 0 51 2 0 3 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 133 534
5:45 PM 6 69 0 0 0 55 4 0 2 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 140 555
Peak 15-MinPeak 15-MinFlowratesFlowrates
NorthboundNorthbound SouthboundSouthbound EastboundEastbound WestboundWestbound TotalTotalLeftLeftThruThruRightRightUULeftLeftThruThruRightRightUULeftLeftThruThruRightRightUULeftLeftThruThruRightRightUU
All Vehicles 12 480 0 0 0 184 8 0 20 0 32 0 0 0 0 0 736
Heavy Trucks 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4
Buses
Pedestrians 0 0 0 0 0
Bicycles 0 0 0 0 0 0 20 0 0 0 0 0 20
Scooters
Comments:
Report generated on 3/2/2022 4:47 PM SOURCE: Quality Counts, LLC (http://www.qualitycounts.net) 1-877-580-2212
Page 1 of 1
ATTACHMENT A
301
1: Arnold Road & Horizon Parkway Existing AM Peak Hour
Dublin Senior Living Project Synchro 11 Report
Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 26 22 18 200 333 41
Future Volume (veh/h) 26 22 18 200 333 41
Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 28 24 20 217 362 45
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2
Cap, veh/h 109 97 46 1030 619 525
Arrive On Green 0.06 0.06 0.03 0.55 0.33 0.33
Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 1585 1781 1870 1870 1585
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 28 24 20 217 362 45
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 1585 1781 1870 1870 1585
Q Serve(g_s), s 0.3 0.3 0.3 1.4 3.7 0.5
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 0.3 0.3 0.3 1.4 3.7 0.5
Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 109 97 46 1030 619 525
V/C Ratio(X) 0.26 0.25 0.43 0.21 0.58 0.09
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 1688 1502 384 2337 1571 1332
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 10.4 10.4 11.1 2.6 6.4 5.3
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 1.2 1.3 6.2 0.1 0.9 0.1
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.8 0.1
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 11.6 11.7 17.3 2.7 7.3 5.4
LnGrp LOS B B B A A A
Approach Vol, veh/h 52 237 407
Approach Delay, s/veh 11.6 4.0 7.1
Approach LOS B A A
Timer - Assigned Phs 2 4 5 6
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 17.3 5.9 5.1 12.2
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 29.0 22.0 5.0 19.5
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 3.4 2.3 2.3 5.7
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 1.2 0.1 0.0 2.0
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 6.4
HCM 6th LOS A
302
1: Arnold Road & Horizon Parkway Existing PM Peak Hour
Dublin Senior Living Project Synchro 11 Report
Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 13 28 13 295 207 10
Future Volume (veh/h) 13 28 13 295 207 10
Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 14 30 14 321 225 11
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2
Cap, veh/h 97 86 33 932 478 405
Arrive On Green 0.05 0.05 0.02 0.50 0.26 0.26
Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 1585 1781 1870 1870 1585
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 14 30 14 321 225 11
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 1585 1781 1870 1870 1585
Q Serve(g_s), s 0.2 0.4 0.2 2.1 2.0 0.1
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 0.2 0.4 0.2 2.1 2.0 0.1
Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 97 86 33 932 478 405
V/C Ratio(X) 0.15 0.35 0.42 0.34 0.47 0.03
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 1949 1734 443 2698 1814 1537
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 9.1 9.2 9.8 3.1 6.3 5.6
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.7 2.4 8.2 0.2 0.7 0.0
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.4 0.0
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 9.7 11.6 18.0 3.3 7.1 5.6
LnGrp LOS A B B A A A
Approach Vol, veh/h 44 335 236
Approach Delay, s/veh 11.0 3.9 7.0
Approach LOS B A A
Timer - Assigned Phs 2 4 5 6
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 14.5 5.6 4.9 9.6
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 29.0 22.0 5.0 19.5
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 4.1 2.4 2.2 4.0
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 1.9 0.1 0.0 1.1
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 5.6
HCM 6th LOS A
303
1: Arnold Road & Horizon Parkway Existing plus Project AM Peak Hour
Dublin Senior Living Project Synchro 11 Report
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 26 2 22 11 1 1 18 200 15 2 333 41
Future Volume (veh/h) 26 2 22 11 1 1 18 200 15 2 333 41
Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 28 2 24 12 1 1 20 217 16 2 362 45
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Cap, veh/h 402 9 112 381 65 65 46 628 46 7 639 542
Arrive On Green 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.03 0.36 0.36 0.00 0.34 0.34
Sat Flow, veh/h 1415 123 1480 1385 858 858 1781 1721 127 1781 1870 1585
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 28 0 26 12 0 2 20 0 233 2 362 45
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1415 0 1604 1385 0 1716 1781 0 1848 1781 1870 1585
Q Serve(g_s), s 0.5 0.0 0.4 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.0 2.2 0.0 3.8 0.5
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 0.5 0.0 0.4 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.0 2.2 0.0 3.8 0.5
Prop In Lane 1.00 0.92 1.00 0.50 1.00 0.07 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 402 0 122 381 0 130 46 0 674 7 639 542
V/C Ratio(X) 0.07 0.00 0.21 0.03 0.00 0.02 0.43 0.00 0.35 0.27 0.57 0.08
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 1608 0 1488 1560 0 1592 404 0 1592 1329 2583 2189
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 10.6 0.0 10.5 10.8 0.0 10.4 11.6 0.0 5.6 12.1 6.5 5.4
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.1 0.0 0.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 6.2 0.0 0.3 18.8 0.8 0.1
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.8 0.1
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 10.7 0.0 11.4 10.8 0.0 10.4 17.9 0.0 5.9 30.8 7.3 5.5
LnGrp LOS B A B B A B B A A C A A
Approach Vol, veh/h 54 14 253 409
Approach Delay, s/veh 11.0 10.8 6.8 7.2
Approach LOS B B A A
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 4.6 13.4 6.3 5.1 12.8 6.3
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 18.1 20.9 22.5 5.5 33.5 22.5
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 2.0 4.2 2.5 2.3 5.8 2.6
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 1.2 0.1 0.0 2.5 0.0
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 7.4
HCM 6th LOS A
304
1: Arnold Road & Horizon Parkway Existing plus Project PM Peak Hour
Dublin Senior Living Project Synchro 11 Report
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 13 2 28 21 2 2 13 295 12 2 207 10
Future Volume (veh/h) 13 2 28 21 2 2 13 295 12 2 207 10
Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 14 2 30 23 2 2 14 321 13 2 225 11
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Cap, veh/h 431 8 122 406 70 70 33 566 23 8 563 477
Arrive On Green 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.02 0.32 0.32 0.00 0.30 0.30
Sat Flow, veh/h 1412 100 1500 1377 858 858 1781 1785 72 1781 1870 1585
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 14 0 32 23 0 4 14 0 334 2 225 11
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1412 0 1600 1377 0 1716 1781 0 1857 1781 1870 1585
Q Serve(g_s), s 0.2 0.0 0.4 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 3.4 0.0 2.2 0.1
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 0.3 0.0 0.4 0.8 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 3.4 0.0 2.2 0.1
Prop In Lane 1.00 0.94 1.00 0.50 1.00 0.04 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 431 0 130 406 0 140 33 0 589 8 563 477
V/C Ratio(X) 0.03 0.00 0.25 0.06 0.00 0.03 0.42 0.00 0.57 0.25 0.40 0.02
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 1695 0 1562 1638 0 1675 403 0 1771 1422 2854 2419
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 9.7 0.0 9.7 10.1 0.0 9.5 10.9 0.0 6.4 11.2 6.3 5.5
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.1 0.0 0.1 8.3 0.0 0.9 15.9 0.5 0.0
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.7 0.0 0.5 0.0
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 9.7 0.0 10.7 10.1 0.0 9.6 19.2 0.0 7.3 27.1 6.7 5.6
LnGrp LOS A A B B A A B A A C A A
Approach Vol, veh/h 46 27 348 238
Approach Delay, s/veh 10.4 10.1 7.8 6.8
Approach LOS B B A A
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 4.6 11.6 6.3 4.9 11.3 6.3
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 18.0 21.5 22.0 5.1 34.4 22.0
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 2.0 5.4 2.4 2.2 4.2 2.8
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 1.8 0.1 0.0 1.4 0.0
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 7.7
HCM 6th LOS A
305
1: Arnold Road & Horizon Parkway Cumulative No Project AM Peak Hour
Dublin Senior Living Project Synchro 11 Report
Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 151 127 104 265 442 238
Future Volume (veh/h) 151 127 104 265 442 238
Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 164 138 113 288 480 259
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2
Cap, veh/h 281 250 170 1092 671 569
Arrive On Green 0.16 0.16 0.10 0.58 0.36 0.36
Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 1585 1781 1870 1870 1585
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 164 138 113 288 480 259
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 1585 1781 1870 1870 1585
Q Serve(g_s), s 3.0 2.8 2.1 2.6 7.7 4.4
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 3.0 2.8 2.1 2.6 7.7 4.4
Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 281 250 170 1092 671 569
V/C Ratio(X) 0.58 0.55 0.66 0.26 0.72 0.46
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 1125 1001 281 1558 1021 865
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 13.6 13.5 15.2 3.6 9.6 8.6
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 1.9 1.9 4.4 0.1 1.4 0.6
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 1.1 0.1 0.9 0.4 2.4 1.1
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 15.5 15.4 19.6 3.7 11.1 9.1
LnGrp LOS B B B A B A
Approach Vol, veh/h 302 401 739
Approach Delay, s/veh 15.5 8.2 10.4
Approach LOS B A B
Timer - Assigned Phs 2 4 5 6
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 24.8 10.0 7.8 17.0
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 29.0 22.0 5.5 19.0
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 4.6 5.0 4.1 9.7
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 1.7 0.8 0.0 2.8
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 10.8
HCM 6th LOS B
306
1: Arnold Road & Horizon Parkway Cumulative No Project PM Peak Hour
Dublin Senior Living Project Synchro 11 Report
Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 126 271 126 413 290 97
Future Volume (veh/h) 126 271 126 413 290 97
Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 137 295 137 449 315 105
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2
Cap, veh/h 459 409 187 910 476 403
Arrive On Green 0.26 0.26 0.10 0.49 0.25 0.25
Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 1585 1781 1870 1870 1585
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 137 295 137 449 315 105
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 1585 1781 1870 1870 1585
Q Serve(g_s), s 2.2 6.0 2.6 5.7 5.3 1.9
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 2.2 6.0 2.6 5.7 5.3 1.9
Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 459 409 187 910 476 403
V/C Ratio(X) 0.30 0.72 0.73 0.49 0.66 0.26
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 1112 989 328 1539 955 809
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 10.5 11.9 15.3 6.1 11.8 10.5
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.4 2.4 5.5 0.4 1.6 0.3
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.7 5.3 1.2 1.4 1.9 0.5
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 10.9 14.3 20.8 6.5 13.4 10.8
LnGrp LOS B B C A B B
Approach Vol, veh/h 432 586 420
Approach Delay, s/veh 13.2 9.9 12.7
Approach LOS B A B
Timer - Assigned Phs 2 4 5 6
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 21.7 13.6 8.2 13.5
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 29.0 22.0 6.5 18.0
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 7.7 8.0 4.6 7.3
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 2.8 1.2 0.1 1.6
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 11.7
HCM 6th LOS B
307
1: Arnold Road & Horizon Parkway Cumulative with Project AM Peak Hour
Dublin Senior Living Project Synchro 11 Report
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 151 2 127 11 1 1 104 265 15 2 442 238
Future Volume (veh/h) 151 2 127 11 1 1 104 265 15 2 442 238
Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 164 2 138 12 1 1 113 288 16 2 480 259
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Cap, veh/h 447 4 288 319 158 158 163 808 45 5 696 590
Arrive On Green 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.09 0.46 0.46 0.00 0.37 0.37
Sat Flow, veh/h 1415 23 1566 1249 858 858 1781 1755 98 1781 1870 1585
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 164 0 140 12 0 2 113 0 304 2 480 259
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1415 0 1589 1249 0 1716 1781 0 1853 1781 1870 1585
Q Serve(g_s), s 4.1 0.0 3.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 2.4 0.0 4.1 0.0 8.3 4.7
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 4.1 0.0 3.0 3.4 0.0 0.0 2.4 0.0 4.1 0.0 8.3 4.7
Prop In Lane 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.50 1.00 0.05 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 447 0 292 319 0 315 163 0 853 5 696 590
V/C Ratio(X) 0.37 0.00 0.48 0.04 0.00 0.01 0.69 0.00 0.36 0.41 0.69 0.44
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 1000 0 913 808 0 987 442 0 1041 838 1466 1243
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 14.4 0.0 14.0 15.5 0.0 12.8 16.9 0.0 6.7 19.0 10.2 9.0
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.5 0.0 1.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.2 0.0 0.3 46.7 1.2 0.5
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 1.1 0.0 1.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 1.1 0.0 1.1 0.1 2.7 1.3
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 15.0 0.0 15.2 15.5 0.0 12.8 22.1 0.0 6.9 65.7 11.4 9.5
LnGrp LOS B A B B A B C A A E B A
Approach Vol, veh/h 304 14 417 741
Approach Delay, s/veh 15.1 15.1 11.0 10.9
Approach LOS B B B B
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 4.6 22.1 11.5 8.0 18.7 11.5
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 18.0 21.5 22.0 9.5 30.0 22.0
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 2.0 6.1 6.1 4.4 10.3 5.4
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 1.5 1.1 0.1 3.9 0.0
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 11.8
HCM 6th LOS B
308
1: Arnold Road & Horizon Parkway Cumulative with Project PM Peak Hour
Dublin Senior Living Project Synchro 11 Report
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 126 2 271 21 2 2 126 413 12 2 290 97
Future Volume (veh/h) 126 2 271 21 2 2 126 413 12 2 290 97
Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 137 2 295 23 2 2 137 449 13 2 315 105
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Cap, veh/h 577 3 430 308 234 234 182 652 19 5 488 414
Arrive On Green 0.27 0.27 0.27 0.27 0.27 0.27 0.10 0.36 0.36 0.00 0.26 0.26
Sat Flow, veh/h 1412 11 1576 1082 858 858 1781 1809 52 1781 1870 1585
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 137 0 297 23 0 4 137 0 462 2 315 105
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1412 0 1587 1082 0 1716 1781 0 1861 1781 1870 1585
Q Serve(g_s), s 2.9 0.0 6.2 0.7 0.0 0.1 2.8 0.0 7.8 0.0 5.5 1.9
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 3.0 0.0 6.2 6.9 0.0 0.1 2.8 0.0 7.8 0.0 5.5 1.9
Prop In Lane 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.50 1.00 0.03 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 577 0 433 308 0 468 182 0 670 5 488 414
V/C Ratio(X) 0.24 0.00 0.69 0.07 0.00 0.01 0.75 0.00 0.69 0.41 0.65 0.25
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 1034 0 946 659 0 1023 601 0 1075 865 1358 1151
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 10.9 0.0 12.1 15.2 0.0 9.8 16.2 0.0 10.1 18.4 12.2 10.8
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.2 0.0 1.9 0.1 0.0 0.0 6.2 0.0 1.3 46.6 1.4 0.3
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.7 0.0 1.9 0.2 0.0 0.0 1.3 0.0 2.5 0.1 2.0 0.6
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 11.1 0.0 14.0 15.3 0.0 9.8 22.4 0.0 11.4 65.1 13.6 11.2
LnGrp LOS B A B B A A C A B E B B
Approach Vol, veh/h 434 27 599 422
Approach Delay, s/veh 13.1 14.5 13.9 13.2
Approach LOS B B B B
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 4.6 17.8 14.6 8.3 14.2 14.6
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 18.0 21.4 22.1 12.5 26.9 22.1
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 2.0 9.8 8.2 4.8 7.5 8.9
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 2.3 2.0 0.2 2.1 0.0
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 13.5
HCM 6th LOS B
309
Queuing and Blocking Report AM Peak Hour
Existing plus Project SimTraffic Report
Page 1
Intersection: 1: Arnold Road & Horizon Parkway
Movement EB EB WB NB NB SB SB
Directions Served L TR L L TR T R
Maximum Queue (ft) 36 21 25 30 45 94 12
Average Queue (ft) 19 12 9 16 24 57 5
95th Queue (ft) 43 28 31 41 70 107 22
Link Distance (ft) 338 334 311
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 100 60 75 75
Storage Blk Time (%)0 2
Queuing Penalty (veh)0 1
Network Summary
Network wide Queuing Penalty: 1
310
Queuing and Blocking Report PM Peak Hour
Existing plus Project SimTraffic Report
Intersection: 1: Arnold Road & Horizon Parkway
Movement EB EB WB WB NB NB SB SB SB
Directions Served L TR L TR L TR L T R
Maximum Queue (ft) 20 24 34 17 18 83 6 58 6
Average Queue (ft) 9 12 14 3 4 33 1 26 1
95th Queue (ft) 29 30 41 19 20 87 10 66 10
Link Distance (ft) 338 134 334 311
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 100 60 75 75 75
Storage Blk Time (%) 0 1 0
Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 0 0
Network Summary
Network wide Queuing Penalty: 0
311
Queuing and Blocking Report AM Peak Hour
Cumulative with Project SimTraffic Report
Intersection: 1: Arnold Road & Horizon Parkway
Movement EB EB WB WB NB NB SB SB SB
Directions Served L TR L TR L TR L T R
Maximum Queue (ft) 81 66 33 6 83 107 6 234 99
Average Queue (ft) 56 32 10 2 57 71 1 141 67
95th Queue (ft) 100 70 36 15 91 125 11 274 113
Link Distance (ft) 338 132 334 312
Upstream Blk Time (%)1
Queuing Penalty (veh)0
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 100 60 75 75 75
Storage Blk Time (%) 1 0 0 6 4 17 0
Queuing Penalty (veh) 1 0 0 17 4 41 2
Network Summary
Network wide Queuing Penalty: 65
312
Queuing and Blocking Report PM Peak Hour
Cumulative with Project SimTraffic Report
Intersection: 1: Arnold Road & Horizon Parkway
Movement EB EB WB WB NB NB SB SB SB
Directions Served L TR L TR L TR L T R
Maximum Queue (ft) 78 86 38 12 85 156 6 147 62
Average Queue (ft) 44 55 17 2 64 96 1 98 34
95th Queue (ft) 85 99 46 16 96 166 11 165 80
Link Distance (ft) 338 127 334 311
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 100 60 75 75 75
Storage Blk Time (%) 0 0 0 9 7 11 0
Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 1 0 38 9 11 0
Network Summary
Network wide Queuing Penalty: 59
313
Dublin Senior Living MMRP 04252022.docx (4/28/2022)
Dublin Senior Living Project
Mitigation Monitoring or Reporting Program
Date April 28, 2022
Project Name Dublin Senior Living Project (PLPA-2021-00042)
Project Location The project site is located at 5751 and 5601 Arnold Road (APN# 986-14-13) in
the City of Dublin, CA.
Project Applicant South Bay Partners, LLC
State Clearinghouse
Number
n/a
Contact Gaspare Annibale
Associate Planner
City of Dublin
Community Development Department
100 Civic Plaza
Dublin, CA 94568
Phone: 925/833-6610
gaspare.annibale@dublin.ca.gov
314
City of Dublin
Dublin Senior Living Project: Mitigation Monitoring or Reporting Program
Page 2
Dublin Senior Living MMRP 04252022.docx (4/28/2022)
Mitigation Monitoring or Reporting Program
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires that all public agencies establish monitoring and/or reporting procedures
for mitigation measures (MMs) adopted as part of the project approval in order to mitigate or avoid significant project impacts.
The MMRP identifies the following for each MM:
Timing. In each case, a timeframe for performance of the mitigation measure, or review of evidence that mitigation has taken
place, is provided. The measures are designed to ensure that impact-related components of Project implementation do not
proceed without establishing that the mitigation is implemented or assured. All activities are subject to the approval of all
required permits from local, State, and federal agencies with permitting authority over the specific activity.
Responsible Party or Designated Representative. In each case, unless otherwise indicated, the applicant is the Responsible Party
for implementing the mitigation. The City or a Designated Representative will also monitor the performance and implementation
of the mitigation measures. To guarantee that the mitigation measure will not be inadvertently overlooked, a supervising public
official acting as the Designated Representative is the official who grants the permit or authorization called for in the performance.
Where more than one official is identified, permits or authorization from all officials shall be required.
The numbering system corresponds with the numbering system used in the 1993 Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and
Specific Plan Final EIR (1993 GPA/SP EIR). The last column of the MMRP table will be used by the parties responsible for
documenting when implementation of the MM has been completed. The ongoing documentation and monitoring of mitigation
compliance will be completed by the City of Dublin. The completed MMRP will be kept on file at the City of Dublin Community
Development Department.
315
City of Dublin
Dublin Senior Living Project: Mitigation Monitoring or Reporting Program
Page 3
Dublin Senior Living MMRP 04252022.docx (4/28/2022)
Timing
Project Design Feature / Condition of Approval /
Mitigation Measure
Responsible for Approval
/ Monitoring /
Implementation
Completion
Date Initials
Air Quality
During project
construction
Mitigation Measure 3.11/1.0 (fugitive dust): The City of
Dublin shall:
▪ Require watering in late morning and at the end
of the day; the frequency of watering should
increase if wind speeds exceed 15 mph. Watering
should include all excavated and graded areas
and material to be transported off-site. Use
recycled or other non-potable water resources
where feasible.
▪ Require daily cleanup of mud and dust carried
onto street surfaces by construction vehicles.
▪ Require excavation haul trucks to use tarpaulins
or other effective covers.
▪ Require that, upon completion of construction,
measures shall be taken to reduce wind erosion.
Replanting and repaving should be completed as
soon as possible.
▪ Require that unnecessary idling of construction
equipment is avoided.
▪ Require that, after grading is completed, fugitive
dust on exposed soil surfaces shall be controlled
using the following methods:
▪ Dublin Planning
Division
▪ Dublin Public Works
Department
▪ Project
Applicant/Project
Contractor
316
City of Dublin
Dublin Senior Living Project: Mitigation Monitoring or Reporting Program
Page 4
Dublin Senior Living MMRP 04252022.docx (4/28/2022)
Timing
Project Design Feature / Condition of Approval /
Mitigation Measure
Responsible for Approval
/ Monitoring /
Implementation
Completion
Date Initials
• All inactive portions of the construction
site should be seeded and watered until
grass growth is evident.
• Require that all portions of the site shall
be sufficiently watered to prevent
excessive amounts of dust.
• Require that, at all times, the following
procedures should be followed:
▪ On-site vehicle speed shall be
limited to 15 mph.
▪ Use of petroleum-based palliative
shall meet the road oil
requirements of the Air Quality
District. Non-petroleum-based
tackifiers may be required by the
Public Works Director.
▪ The Public Works Department will
handle all dust complaints. The
Public Works Director may require
the services of an air quality
consultant to advise the City on
the severity of the dust problem
and additional ways to mitigate
impacts on residents, including
temporarily halting project
construction. Dust concerns in
adjoining communities as well as
317
City of Dublin
Dublin Senior Living Project: Mitigation Monitoring or Reporting Program
Page 5
Dublin Senior Living MMRP 04252022.docx (4/28/2022)
Timing
Project Design Feature / Condition of Approval /
Mitigation Measure
Responsible for Approval
/ Monitoring /
Implementation
Completion
Date Initials
the City of Dublin shall be
controlled. Control measures shall
be related to wind conditions. Air
quality monitoring of PM levels
shall be provided as directed by
the Public Works Director in
Dublin.
During project
construction
Mitigation Measure 3.11/2.0 (construction traffic):
Minimize construction interference with regional non-
project traffic movement by:
▪ Scheduling receipt of construction materials to
non-peak travel periods.
▪ Routing construction traffic through areas of
least impact sensitivity.
▪ Limiting lane closures and detours to off-peak
travel periods.
▪ Providing ride-share incentives for contractor and
subcontractor personnel.
▪ Dublin Planning
Division
▪ Project
Applicant/Project
Contractor
During project
construction
Mitigation Measure 3.11/3.0 (construction equipment):
Require emissions control from on-site equipment
through a routine mandatory program of low-emissions
tune-ups.
▪ Dublin Planning
Division
▪ Project
Applicant/Project
Contractor
318
City of Dublin
Dublin Senior Living Project: Mitigation Monitoring or Reporting Program
Page 6
Dublin Senior Living MMRP 04252022.docx (4/28/2022)
Timing
Project Design Feature / Condition of Approval /
Mitigation Measure
Responsible for Approval
/ Monitoring /
Implementation
Completion
Date Initials
Prior to and
during project
construction
Mitigation Measure 3.11/4.0 (impact reduction plan):
Require preparation of a construction impact reduction
plan that incorporates all proposed air quality mitigation
strategies which clearly defined responsibilities for plan
implementation and supervision.
▪ Dublin Planning
Division
▪ Project
Applicant/Project
Contractor
Biological Resources
During project
construction
Mitigation Measure 3.7/1.0 (tree removal):
Direct disturbance or removal of trees or native
vegetation cover should be minimized and be restricted
to those areas actually designated for the construction
of improvements.
▪ Dublin Planning
Division
▪ Qualified
Biologist/Project
Applicant/Project
Contractor
Cultural Resources
During project
construction
Mitigation Measure 3.9/5.0 (archaeological resources):
The discovery of historic or prehistoric remains during
grading and construction will result in the cessation of
such activities until the significance and extent of those
remains can be ascertained by a certified archaeologist.
▪ Dublin Planning
Division
▪ Qualified
Archaeologist/ Project
Applicant/Project
Contractor
Prior to project
construction
Mitigation Measure 3.9/6.0 (archaeological resources):
The City of Dublin will require the following series of
actions as part of the application process for
development in eastern Dublin: Site sensitivity
▪ Dublin Planning
Division
319
City of Dublin
Dublin Senior Living Project: Mitigation Monitoring or Reporting Program
Page 7
Dublin Senior Living MMRP 04252022.docx (4/28/2022)
Timing
Project Design Feature / Condition of Approval /
Mitigation Measure
Responsible for Approval
/ Monitoring /
Implementation
Completion
Date Initials
determination; detailed research and field
reconnaissance by a certified archaeologist;
development of a mitigation plan pursuant to the
policies of the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan and current
CEQA guidelines.
▪ Qualified
Archaeologist/ Project
Applicant/Project
Contractor
Geology and Soils
Prior to and
during project
construction
Mitigation Measure 3.6/1.0 (ground shaking): The
primary effects of ground shaking to structures and
infrastructures can be reduced to a generally acceptable
level below failure/loss-of-life by using modern seismic
design for resistance to lateral forces in construction.
Building in accordance with Uniform Building Code and
applicable County and City code requirements should
reduce the potential for structural failure, major
structural damage, and loss-of-life. However, some
structural damage may occur, and it is possible that
some residences/structure and infrastructures will not
be safe for occupation/use after a large earthquake.
▪ Dublin Planning
Division
▪ Project
Applicant/Project
Contractor
Prior to and
during project
construction
Mitigation Measure 3.6/2.0 (unstable soils): In relatively
flat areas which can be developed with minimal grading
(the southern portion of the Project site and along
Tassajara and Cottonwood Creeks):
▪ locate improvements off (setback from) unstable
and potentially unstable landforms such as
▪ Dublin Planning
Division
▪ Project
Applicant/Project
Contractor
320
City of Dublin
Dublin Senior Living Project: Mitigation Monitoring or Reporting Program
Page 8
Dublin Senior Living MMRP 04252022.docx (4/28/2022)
Timing
Project Design Feature / Condition of Approval /
Mitigation Measure
Responsible for Approval
/ Monitoring /
Implementation
Completion
Date Initials
landslides, colluvium-filled swales, creek banks,
and steep hill slopes.
▪ remove, stabilize, or reconstruct potentially
unstable landforms, or
▪ employ modern design, including appropriate
foundation design, and applicable codes and
policies, in the construction of improvements
that must be located on potentially unstable
landforms or in areas underlain by alluvium with
shallow groundwater levels which could be
locally susceptible to liquefaction.
Prior to and
during project
construction
Mitigation Measure 3.6/4.0 (soil stability): Engineered
retention structures and surface and subsurface
drainage improvements should be used as appropriate
to improve the stability of sidehill fills and potentially
unstable materials, particularly colluvium, not entirely
removed by grading.
▪ Dublin Planning
Division
▪ Project
Applicant/Project
Contractor
Prior to and
during project
construction
Mitigation Measure 3.6/5.0 (seismic settlement):
Seismically-induced fill settlement can be substantially
reduced if fills are properly designed with keyways and
subsurface drainage, and are adequately compacted (i.e.
minimum 90% relative compaction as defined by the
American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) test
method Dl557 ).
▪ Dublin Planning
Division
▪ Project
Applicant/Project
Contractor
321
City of Dublin
Dublin Senior Living Project: Mitigation Monitoring or Reporting Program
Page 9
Dublin Senior Living MMRP 04252022.docx (4/28/2022)
Timing
Project Design Feature / Condition of Approval /
Mitigation Measure
Responsible for Approval
/ Monitoring /
Implementation
Completion
Date Initials
Prior to and
during project
construction
Mitigation Measure 3.6/6.0 (unstable soils): Design
roads, structural foundations, and underground utilities
to accommodate estimated settlement without failure,
especially across transitions between fills and cuts.
Potentially unstable stock pond embankments should be
removed in development areas, unless they are
reconstructed to current earthquake design standards.
▪ Dublin Planning
Division
▪ Project
Applicant/Project
Contractor
Prior to project
construction
Mitigation Measure 3.6/7.0 (geotechnical
investigations): Final design of improvements in the
Project site should be made in conjunction with a design-
level geotechnical investigations and the reports should
be submitted to the City for review prior to issuing any
permits. These investigations should incorporate stability
analysis of both natural slopes that could impact planned
improvements, and planned engineered (cut and fill)
slopes, assuming saturated conditions and earthquake
shaking. Significant slopes should achieve a minimum
factor of safety against failure of 1.5 for static conditions
(where 1.0 is failure) and 1.2 under design pseudo-static
earthquake loading. A displacement analysis should be
performed for critical slopes to confirm the effectiveness
of mitigation measures.
▪ Dublin Planning
Division
▪ Project
Applicant/Project
Contractor
Prior to and
during project
construction
Mitigation Measure 3.6/14.0 (expansive soils): The
potential impact of expansive soils and rock with respect
to Project improvements can be significantly reduced, or
▪ Dublin Planning
Division
322
City of Dublin
Dublin Senior Living Project: Mitigation Monitoring or Reporting Program
Page 10
Dublin Senior Living MMRP 04252022.docx (4/28/2022)
Timing
Project Design Feature / Condition of Approval /
Mitigation Measure
Responsible for Approval
/ Monitoring /
Implementation
Completion
Date Initials
in many cases prevented by the recognition and
characterization of site-specific conditions, and the
formulation of appropriate design criteria and mitigation
measures during detailed design-level geotechnical
investigation, conducted for each specific proposed
project.
▪ Project
Applicant/Project
Contractor
Prior to and
during project
construction
Mitigation Measure 3.6/15.0 (expansive soils): The
potential for shrink and swell of expansive soils and rock
can be reduced by controlling moisture and by
treatment through measures listed below. Subsurface
drainage alone is not generally effective against the
effects of regional wet/drought cycles. Required
measures for a specific project should be based on the
recommendation of the project geotechnical consultant
and approved by the City and include:
▪ Moisture conditioning prior to construction;
▪ Construction of surface and subsurface drainage
to control infiltration after construction;
▪ Lime treatment, which can be used to produce
non-expansive fill.
▪ Dublin Planning
Division
▪ Project
Applicant/Project
Contractor
Prior to and
during project
construction
Mitigation Measure 3.6/16.0 (expansive soil): The
potential effects of expansive soil and rock can be
reduced by appropriate foundation and pavement
design, including those design elements listed below.
Adjustable foundation systems are not generally
effective against the effects of regional wet/drought
▪ Dublin Planning
Division
▪ Project
Applicant/Project
Contractor
323
City of Dublin
Dublin Senior Living Project: Mitigation Monitoring or Reporting Program
Page 11
Dublin Senior Living MMRP 04252022.docx (4/28/2022)
Timing
Project Design Feature / Condition of Approval /
Mitigation Measure
Responsible for Approval
/ Monitoring /
Implementation
Completion
Date Initials
cycles and are considered undesirable because the
systems require periodic maintenance, and their use
should be discouraged.
Appropriate design criteria should be developed by the
project geotechnical consultant and approved by the
City.
▪ Founding structural foundations below the zone
of seasonal moisture change;
▪ Use of structurally supported floors; and
▪ Removal and replacement with non-expansive fill
beneath structure slabs and asphaltic concrete.
Prior to and
during project
construction
Mitigation Measure 3.6/27.0 (erosion): The potential
impacts of short-term construction-related erosion and
sedimentation can be reduced by timing grading
activities to avoid the rainy season as much as possible,
and by implementing one or more of the following
interim control measures, which are designed to prevent
concentration of runoff, control runoff velocity, and trap
silt. Required measures for a specific project will be
determined by the City and be a requirement of the
grading permit.
▪ Water bars;
▪ Mulch-and-net blankets on exposed slopes;
▪ Straw bale dikes;
▪ Dublin Planning
Division
▪ Project
Applicant/Project
Contractor
324
City of Dublin
Dublin Senior Living Project: Mitigation Monitoring or Reporting Program
Page 12
Dublin Senior Living MMRP 04252022.docx (4/28/2022)
Timing
Project Design Feature / Condition of Approval /
Mitigation Measure
Responsible for Approval
/ Monitoring /
Implementation
Completion
Date Initials
▪ Temporary culverts and swales;
▪ Sediment traps; and/or
▪ Silt fences.
Prior to and
during project
construction
Mitigation Measure 3.6/28.0 (erosion): The potential
impacts of long-term erosion and sedimentation can be
reduced by the appropriate design, construction, and
continued maintenance of surface and subsurface
drainage of one or more of the following long-term
control measures. Required measures for a specific
project should be based on the recommendations of the
project geotechnical consultants, and approved by the
City.
▪ Construction of sediment catch basins at
strategic locations to prevent of/site
sedimentation from existing and/or potential
onsite sources;
▪ Design and construction of storm sewer systems
that incorporate the cumulative effects of project
buildout;
▪ Creek bank stabilization and repair of existing
gullies;
▪ Revegetation and continued maintenance of
graded slopes;
▪ Construction of drainage ditches or cut and fill
slopes and/or natural slopes above developed
areas;
▪ Dublin Planning
Division
▪ Project
Applicant/Project
Contractor
325
City of Dublin
Dublin Senior Living Project: Mitigation Monitoring or Reporting Program
Page 13
Dublin Senior Living MMRP 04252022.docx (4/28/2022)
Timing
Project Design Feature / Condition of Approval /
Mitigation Measure
Responsible for Approval
/ Monitoring /
Implementation
Completion
Date Initials
▪ Closed downspout collection systems for
individual structures;
▪ Design of cut and fill slopes to minimize, as much
as possible, natural low velocity sheet flow
runoff; and
▪ Periodic homeowner/landowner maintenance
(see MM 3.6/ 18)
Prior to and
during project
construction
Mitigation Measure 3.9/5.0 and 3.9/6.0
(paleontological resources): Mitigation measures
3.9/5.0 and 3.9/6.0 described above would be required.
▪ Dublin Planning
Division
▪ Qualified
Paleontologist/Project
Applicant/Project
Contractor
Hydrology and Water Quality
Prior to and
during project
construction
Mitigation Measures 3.6/27.0 and 3.6/28.0 (erosion):
Mitigation measures 3.6/27.0 and 3.6/28.0 described
above would be required.
▪ Dublin Planning
Division
▪ Project
Applicant/Project
Contractor
Prior to and
during project
construction
Mitigation Measure 3.5/44.0 (drainage facilities):
Require drainage facilities that will minimize any
increased potential for erosion or flooding.
▪ Dublin Planning
Division
▪ Project
Applicant/Project
Contractor
326
City of Dublin
Dublin Senior Living Project: Mitigation Monitoring or Reporting Program
Page 14
Dublin Senior Living MMRP 04252022.docx (4/28/2022)
Timing
Project Design Feature / Condition of Approval /
Mitigation Measure
Responsible for Approval
/ Monitoring /
Implementation
Completion
Date Initials
Prior to project
construction
Mitigation Measure 3.5/46.0 (storm drainage master
plan): Require a Master Drainage Plan be prepared for
each development application prior to development
approval. The plan shall include:
▪ Hydrologic studies of entire related upstream
watersheds.
▪ Phase approaches and system modeling.
▪ Documentation of existing conditions.
▪ Design-level analysis of the impacts of proposed
development on the existing creek channels and
watershed areas.
▪ Detailed analysis of effects of development on
water quality of surface runoff.
▪ Detailed drainage design plans for each phase of
the proposed project.
▪ Design features to minimize runoff flows within
existing creeks/ channels in order to alleviate
potential erosion impacts and maintain riparian
vegetation.
▪ Dublin Planning
Division
▪ Project
Applicant/Project
Contractor
Prior to and
during project
construction
Mitigation Measure 3.5/47.0 (flood control): Require
development in the Planning Area to provide facilities to
alleviate potential downstream flooding due to project
development. These facilities shall include:
▪ Retention/ detention facilities as appropriate to
control peak runoff discharge rates.
▪ Dublin Planning
Division
▪ Project
Applicant/Project
Contractor
327
City of Dublin
Dublin Senior Living Project: Mitigation Monitoring or Reporting Program
Page 15
Dublin Senior Living MMRP 04252022.docx (4/28/2022)
Timing
Project Design Feature / Condition of Approval /
Mitigation Measure
Responsible for Approval
/ Monitoring /
Implementation
Completion
Date Initials
▪ Energy dissipators at discharge locations to
prevent channel erosion, as per Zone 7
guidelines. Energy dissipators should be designed
to minimize adverse effects on biological
resources and the visual environment; in
particular, widespread use of rip-rap should be
avoided.
Prior to project
construction
Mitigation Measure 3.5/51.0 (water quality
investigation): Require a specific water quality
investigation be submitted with each development
application to demonstrate existing water quality and
impacts that urban runoff would have. The water quality
investigation should address the quantity of runoff and
the effects from discharged pollutants from surface
runoff into creeks and detention facilities.
▪ Dublin Planning
Division
▪ Project
Applicant/Project
Contractor
Noise and Vibration
Prior to project
construction
Mitigation Measure 3.10/1.0 (noise study): Require that
an acoustical study be submitted with all residential
development projects located within the future
community noise equivalent level (CNEL) 60 contour. The
goal of the acoustical study is to show how the interior
noise level will be controlled to a CNEL of 45 dB as
required by Title 24, Part II. The Title 24 goal of CNEL 45
should be applied to single- family housing.
▪ Dublin Planning
Division
▪ Project
Applicant/Project
Contractor
328
City of Dublin
Dublin Senior Living Project: Mitigation Monitoring or Reporting Program
Page 16
Dublin Senior Living MMRP 04252022.docx (4/28/2022)
Timing
Project Design Feature / Condition of Approval /
Mitigation Measure
Responsible for Approval
/ Monitoring /
Implementation
Completion
Date Initials
Prior to project
construction
Mitigation Measure 3.10/3.0 (noise study): Require an
acoustical study prior to future development in the
Tassajara Foothill Residential, Tassajara Village Center,
County Center and Hacienda Gateway sub-area to
determine if future noise impact from Parks Reserve
Forces Training Area (RFTA) or the County Jail will be
within acceptable limits. The goal of the study will be to
identify all potential noise-generating operations and
determine if future noise levels will exceed the
acceptable levels as defined by the City and Army.
▪ Dublin Planning
Division
▪ Project
Applicant/Project
Contractor
Prior to project
construction
Mitigation Measure 3.10/4.0 (construction noise
management plan): Developers shall submit to the City a
Construction Noise Management Program that identifies
measures to be taken to minimize impacts on existing
planning area residents. The program will include a
schedule for grading and other major noise-generating
activities that· will limit these activities to the shortest
possible number of days. Hours of construction activities
shall be limited in keeping with Dublin ordinances. The
Program for construction vehicle access to the site shall
minimize construction truck traffic through residential
areas. If construction traffic must travel through
residential areas, then a mitigation plan should be
developed. The Program may include barriers, berms or
restrictions on hours.
▪ Dublin Planning
Division
▪ Project
Applicant/Project
Contractor
329
City of Dublin
Dublin Senior Living Project: Mitigation Monitoring or Reporting Program
Page 17
Dublin Senior Living MMRP 04252022.docx (4/28/2022)
Timing
Project Design Feature / Condition of Approval /
Mitigation Measure
Responsible for Approval
/ Monitoring /
Implementation
Completion
Date Initials
During project
construction
Mitigation Measure 3.10/5.0 (noise minimization): In
order to minimize the impact of construction noise, all
operations should comply with local noise standards
relating to construction activities. When construction
occurs near residential areas, then it should be limited to
normal daytime hours to minimize the impact.
Stationary equipment should be adequately muffled and
located as far away from sensitive receptors as possible.
▪ Dublin Planning
Division
▪ Project
Applicant/Project
Contractor
Public Services
During project
operation
Mitigation Measure 3.4/1.0 (police protection): Provide
additional personnel and facilities and revise "beats" as
needed in order to establish and maintain City standards
for police protection service in Eastern Dublin.
▪ Dublin Planning
Division/Dublin Police
Department
▪ Project
Applicant/Project
Contractor
Prior to project
construction
Mitigation Measure 3.4/2.0. (police service planning):
Coordinate with the City Police Department regarding
the timing of annexation and proposed development, so
that the Department can adequately plan for the
necessary expansion of services to the area.
▪ Dublin Planning
Division/Dublin Police
Department
▪ Project
Applicant/Project
Contractor
330
City of Dublin
Dublin Senior Living Project: Mitigation Monitoring or Reporting Program
Page 18
Dublin Senior Living MMRP 04252022.docx (4/28/2022)
Timing
Project Design Feature / Condition of Approval /
Mitigation Measure
Responsible for Approval
/ Monitoring /
Implementation
Completion
Date Initials
Prior to project
construction
Mitigation Measure 3.4/3.0 (project design approval):
Incorporate into the requirements of project approval
Police Department recommendations on project design
that affect traffic safety and crime prevention.
▪ Dublin Planning
Division/Dublin Police
Department
▪ Project
Applicant/Project
Contractor
Prior to project
construction
Mitigation Measure 3.4/4.0 (budgeting for police
services): Upon annexation of the Eastern Dublin Specific
Plan and General Plan Amendment areas, police services
would become the responsibility of the City of Dublin's
Police Department. This will necessitate the City
preparing a budget strategy to hire the required
additional personnel and implement a "beat" system.
▪ Dublin Planning
Division/Dublin Police
Department
▪ Project
Applicant/Project
Contractor
Prior to project
construction
Mitigation Measure 3.4/5.0. (police review of proposed
projects) As a part of the development approval process
in Eastern Dublin, the City shall require the Police
Department to review and respond to the planned
development with respect to:
▪ Project design layout relating to visibility, security
and safety.
▪ Project circulation system and access issues.
▪ Project implications for emergency response
times.
▪ Dublin Planning
Division/Dublin Police
Department
▪ Project
Applicant/Project
Contractor
331
City of Dublin
Dublin Senior Living Project: Mitigation Monitoring or Reporting Program
Page 19
Dublin Senior Living MMRP 04252022.docx (4/28/2022)
Timing
Project Design Feature / Condition of Approval /
Mitigation Measure
Responsible for Approval
/ Monitoring /
Implementation
Completion
Date Initials
Prior to final approval of non-residential development
and improvement plans, the City Police Department shall
review the proposed use, layout, design, and other
project features for police surveillance/ access, security
devices, such as alarms and lighting, visibility, and any
other police issues or concerns.
Prior to and
during project
construction
Mitigation Measure 3.4/9.0 (design review for fire
safety): Incorporate Dougherty Regional Fire Authority
(DRFA) recommendations on project design relating to
access, water pressure, fire safety and prevention into
the requirements for development approval. Require
that the following DRFA design standards are
incorporated where appropriate:
▪ Use of non-combustible roof materials in all new
construction.
▪ Available capacity of 1,000 gallons per minute
(GPM) at 20 PSI fire flow from project fire
hydrants on public water mains. For groupings of
one-family and small two-family dwellings not
exceeding two stories in height, the fire flow
requirements are a minimum of 1,000 GPM. Fire
flow requirements for all other buildings will be
calculated based on building size, type of
construction, and location.
▪ Dublin Planning
Division/Dublin Fire
Prevention Bureau
▪ Project
Applicant/Project
Contractor
332
City of Dublin
Dublin Senior Living Project: Mitigation Monitoring or Reporting Program
Page 20
Dublin Senior Living MMRP 04252022.docx (4/28/2022)
Timing
Project Design Feature / Condition of Approval /
Mitigation Measure
Responsible for Approval
/ Monitoring /
Implementation
Completion
Date Initials
▪ A buffer zone along the backs of homes which are
contiguous with the wildland area. This buffer
zone is to be landscaped with irrigated (wet
banding) or equivalent fire-resistive vegetation.
▪ Automatic fire alarm systems and sprinklers in all
nonresidential structures for human use.
▪ Compliance with DRFA minimum road widths,
maximum street slopes, parking
recommendations, and secondary access road
requirements.
▪ Require residential structures outside the DRFA's
established response time and zone to include
fire alarm systems and sprinklers.
Prior to and
during project
construction
Mitigation Measure 3.4/12.0 (wildfire management
plan): The City, in consultation with DFRA and a qualified
wildlife biologist, shall prepare a wildfire management
plan for the project area.
▪ The plan objective should be to reduce the risk of
open land wildfire to the lowest practical level
consistent with reasonable protection of wildlife
habitat and other open space values.
▪ The plan should define how the open lands of the
project will be owned, used and maintained
(consistent with the open space management
plan), what wildfire hazard mitigation measures
will be implemented, and how vegetation and
▪ Dublin Planning
Division/Dublin Fire
Prevention Bureau
▪ Project
Applicant/Project
Contractor
333
City of Dublin
Dublin Senior Living Project: Mitigation Monitoring or Reporting Program
Page 21
Dublin Senior Living MMRP 04252022.docx (4/28/2022)
Timing
Project Design Feature / Condition of Approval /
Mitigation Measure
Responsible for Approval
/ Monitoring /
Implementation
Completion
Date Initials
wildlife habitat are likely to change over time as a
result.
▪ The selection or formation of an entity
responsible for maintenance of the open lands
should be subject to the Fire Chief's approval,
and any financial obligations of property owners
to the maintenance entity should be disclosed to
potential purchasers.
▪ Where open lands are to be removed from
grazing use, one or a combination of brush
control measures, such as mowing, discing,
herbicide application or the removal of
combustible materials, should be selected to
achieve the objectives of the plan.
▪ Where new landscape planting is proposed, fire-
resistant qualities should be a major
consideration. New planting near structures
should be irrigated. As a basic rule, a minimum of
thirty feet shall be provided between new or
existing homes and non-irrigated grassland.
▪ The plan should specify who will be responsible
for its implementation, and how its
implementation will be paid for.
Since the scientific basis for wildland management is still
inexact, it is also important that the plan provide for
periodic monitoring of vegetation growth, wildlife
habitat and fire risk, and for the adoption of
334
City of Dublin
Dublin Senior Living Project: Mitigation Monitoring or Reporting Program
Page 22
Dublin Senior Living MMRP 04252022.docx (4/28/2022)
Timing
Project Design Feature / Condition of Approval /
Mitigation Measure
Responsible for Approval
/ Monitoring /
Implementation
Completion
Date Initials
amendments if necessary to achieve the objectives of
the plan on an ongoing basis.
Utilities and Service Systems
Prior to project
construction
Mitigation Measure 3.5/4.0 (water service): Require a
"will-serve" letter from Dublin-San Ramon Services
District (DSRSD) prior to permit approval for grading.
▪ Dublin Planning
Division/Dublin San
Ramon Services
District
▪ Project
Applicant/Project
Contractor
Prior to project
construction
Mitigation Measure 3.5/5.0. (wastewater system
design standards): Require that design and construction
of all wastewater systems be in accordance with DSRSD
standards.
▪ Dublin Planning
Division/Dublin San
Ramon Services
District
▪ Project
Applicant/Project
Contractor
Prior to and
during project
construction
Mitigation Measure 3.5/26.0 (water conservation):
Require the following as conditions of project approval in
eastern Dublin:
▪ Use of water-conserving devices such as low-flow
shower heads, faucets, and toilets.
▪ Dublin Planning
Division Dublin
Planning
Division/Dublin San
Ramon Services
District
335
City of Dublin
Dublin Senior Living Project: Mitigation Monitoring or Reporting Program
Page 23
Dublin Senior Living MMRP 04252022.docx (4/28/2022)
Timing
Project Design Feature / Condition of Approval /
Mitigation Measure
Responsible for Approval
/ Monitoring /
Implementation
Completion
Date Initials
▪ Support implementation of the DSRSD Water Use
Reduction Plan where appropriate.
▪ Water efficient irrigation systems within public
rights-of-way, median islands, public parks,
recreation areas and golf course areas (see
Program 9B on Water Recycling).
▪ Drought resistant plant palettes within public
rights-of-way, median islands, public parks,
recreation areas and golf course areas.
▪ Project
Applicant/Project
Contractor
Prior to and
during project
construction
Mitigation Measure 3.5/27.0 (recycled water): Require
the following as conditions of project approval in eastern
Dublin:
▪ Implementation of DSRSD and Zone 7 findings
and recommendations on uses of recycled water
to augment existing water supplies.
▪ Work with DSRSD to explore use of recycled
water in eastern Dublin through potential
construction of a recycled water distribution
system. Construction of such a recycled water
system will require approval of the use of
recycled water for landscape irrigation by DSRSD,
Zone 7 and the San Francisco Bay Regional Water
Quality Control Board.
▪ Dublin Planning
Division Dublin
Planning
Division/Dublin San
Ramon Services
District
▪ Project
Applicant/Project
Contractor
336
City of Dublin
Dublin Senior Living Project: Mitigation Monitoring or Reporting Program
Page 24
Dublin Senior Living MMRP 04252022.docx (4/28/2022)
Timing
Project Design Feature / Condition of Approval /
Mitigation Measure
Responsible for Approval
/ Monitoring /
Implementation
Completion
Date Initials
Prior to and
during project
construction
Mitigation Measure 3.5/37.0 (water infrastructure
design standards): Require that design and construction
of all water system facility improvements be in
accordance with DSRSD standards.
▪ Dublin Planning
Division Dublin
Planning
Division/Dublin San
Ramon Services
District
▪ Project
Applicant/Project
Contractor
Prior to project
construction
Mitigation Measure 3.5/38.0 (water distribution):
Require a "will-serve" letter from DSRSD prior to grading
permit approval.
▪ Dublin Planning
Division Dublin
Planning
Division/Dublin San
Ramon Services
District
▪ Project
Applicant/Project
Contractor
337