HomeMy WebLinkAbout6.2 - 3248 Cambria Hotel Appeal
Page 1 of 15
STAFF REPORT
CITY COUNCIL
DATE: June 2, 2020
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers
FROM:
Linda Smith, City Manager
SUBJECT:
Cambria Hotel Project Appeals and Community Benefit Agreement (PLPA-
2019-00020 & PLPA-2019-00044)
Prepared by: Amy Million, Principal Planner and Hazel L. Wetherford,
Economic Development Director
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
The Applicant, Jerry Hunt of VP-RPG Dublin, LLC, is proposing to construct a 138-room
hotel on an existing parking lot located south of the existing Corrie Center office building
at 7950 Dublin Boulevard within the Downtown Dublin Specific Plan (DDSP) Transit-
Oriented District. The new six-story hotel will consist of four stories of guest rooms and
amenities over two stories of podium parking, and related landscaping and site
improvements. Requested approvals include a Site Development Review Permit and
Minor Use Permit for shared parking between the proposed hotel and existing office
building. The Planning Commission considered the proposed project on April 28, 2020,
and unanimously approved the applications. During the statutory appeal period, the City
received two appeals, one from the Laborers International Union of North American No.
304 (LIUNA) and the other from the West Dublin Alliance. The City Council will hold a
public hearing to consider the appeals. Staff recommends that the City Council provide
a maximum of 10 minutes to each appellant and the applicant to make presentations to
the City Council. The City Council will also consider a proposed Community Benefit
Agreement. A Community Benefit Agreement is required in order to allocate non-
residential square footage from the Downtown Dublin Specific Plan’s Development
Pool.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Disclose ex parte contacts, receive Staff presentation, open the public hearing, take
testimony from the Appellant, Applicant and the public, close the public hearing and
deliberate, and take the following action: a) Adopt the Resolution Denying the Appeals
and Affirming the Planning Commission’s Approval of a Site Development Review
Permit for the Construction of a 138-room Hotel and Minor Use Permit to Allow a
Parking Reduction for Shared Parking at 7950 Dublin Boulevard; and b) Adopt the
Resolution Approving a Community Benefit Agreement Between the City of Dublin and
VP-RPG Dublin, LLC.
OR
Page 2 of 15
c) Direct the City Attorney to prepare a Resolution Granting the Appeals and Denying
the Site Development Review Permit and Minor Use Permit, including findings of fact,
for City Council consideration no later than July 21, 2020, and take no action on the
Community Benefit Agreement.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
All costs associated with processing this application are borne by the applicant.
DESCRIPTION:
Background
The 4.5-acre project site is located at 7950 Dublin Boulevard at the intersection of
Dublin Boulevard and San Ramon Road within the Downtown Dublin Specific Plan
(DDSP) Transit-Oriented District as shown in Figure 1 below. The project site, which
includes the Corrie Center office building and the former Hooter’s restaurant (closed
February 2020), shares street access with Earl Anthony’s Dublin Bowl, a two-story
office building on Regional Street, and a single-story multi-tenant retail building on
Dublin Boulevard. Access to the site is provided from both Dublin Boulevard and
Regional Street through the parking field.
Page 3 of 15
The proposed Cambria hotel is one piece of the larger development plan the Applicant
has undertaken on the subject property.
In December 2019, the Community Development Director approved the Lot Line
Adjustment to relocate the existing property line between the existing office building and
the former Hooter’s restaurant to the south side of the office building. The Lot Line
Adjustment places the proposed hotel on a 1.75-acre parcel and the office building and
restaurant on the remaining parcel. The total number of parcels has not changed.
On April 14, 2020, the Community Development Director approved a Site Development
Review Permit to remodel the exterior of the Corrie Center office building, modify the
landscaping, and upgrade the parking area to meet current accessibility requirements. A
Heritage Tree Removal Permit was also approved to allow nine redwood trees to be
removed throughout the subject property. (The latter was subsequently abandoned by
the Applicant and incorporated into the Planning Commission’s actions to remove two,
instead of nine, trees.)
Currently, the Applicant, Jerry Hunt of VP-RPG Dublin, LLC, is proposing to construct a
138-room hotel and associated site improvements on the newly created 1.75-acre
parcel at 7950 Dublin Boulevard. The six-story building is designed with four floors of
hotel over two stories of structured parking. The entitlements for the project that were
presented to the Planning Commission on April 28, 2020, for consideration, and
subsequently approved, are a Site Development Review Permit, Minor Use Permit and
Heritage Tree Removal Permit for the removal of two Heritage Trees. As described
below, this Heritage Tree Removal Permit was also later withdrawn by the Applicant
prior to the filing of the appeals. The approval by the Planning Commission of these
permits has been appealed to the City Council.
The applicant is required to utilize non-residential square footage from the DDSP
development pool because the proposed project exceeds the base floor area ratio
(FAR) as further discussed below. The Applicant must enter into a Community Benefit
Agreement in order to utilize square footage from the development pool. The decision to
enter into a Community Benefit Agreement is considered separately from the appeal of
the Planning Commission actions. The City Council is the decision-making body for
Community Benefit Agreements.
The appeal of the Planning Commission decision to approve the Site Development
Review Permit and Minor Use Permit, and the request for a Community Benefit
Agreement are the subject of this Staff Report. Both appellants and the applicant have
expressed a desire to make a presentation to the City Council during the Public
Hearing. Therefore, Staff recommends that the City Council grant both appellants and
the applicant a maximum of 10 minutes each to make presentations during the public
hearing.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
On April 28, 2020, the Planning Commission held a public hearing to consider the
proposed project. After reviewing the Staff Report, receiving presentations from Staff
and the Applicant, and receiving comments from eight members of the public who
spoke in opposition to the project with comments primarily focusing on the removal of
Page 4 of 15
the two heritage trees, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 20-06
approving the Site Development Review Permit, Minor Use Permit and Heritage Tree
Removal Permit. The Planning Commission Staff Report and the draft minutes are
included as Attachments 1 and 2, respectively. The Planning Commission resolution of
approval (Resolution 20-06) is included as Attachment 3.
The Planning Commission approval included a condition that required the Applicant to
work with Staff to find possible solutions that would protect the two heritage redwood
trees provided that no changes to the hotel footprint would be required. After completing
its review, the Applicant presented a solution that does not require removing the trees
and withdrew the Heritage Tree Removal Permit application. The solution would shift
the bio-retention area and parking spaces and result in two to three fewer parking
spaces. Therefore, the Applicant is no longer authorized to remove the two heritage
redwood trees. Furthermore, the subject appeals only concern the Site Development
Review Permit and Minor Use Permit approved by the Planning Commission, and do
not appeal the Planning Commission’s decision on the now-withdrawn Heritage Tree
Permit.
APPEAL PROCESS:
Dublin Municipal Code (DMC) Chapter 8.136 (Appeals) contains the regulations and
procedures that must be followed if an action of the Planning Commission is appealed
to the City Council. The appeal must be scheduled for a Public Hearing within 45 days
of the filing of the appeal. The City Council may defer decision on the appeal at the
Public Hearing but must take action within 75 days of the filing of the appeal.
On May 7, 2020, and May 8, 2020, LIUNA and the West Dublin Alliance, respectively,
appealed the approval of the Site Development Review Permit and Minor Use Permit by
the Planning Commission. The appeals are included as Attachments 4 and 5,
respectively. In accordance with Chapter 8.136, the City Council must hold a Public
Hearing no later than June 21, 2020, and must take action no later than July 21, 2020,
or the decision of the Planning Commission is deemed affirmed. The City Council may
consider only those issues involving the matters that are the specific subjects of the
appeal.
DMC Chapter 8.136 states that the City Council may, by majority vote, affirm, affirm in
part, or reverse the Planning Commission’s decision to approve the project. If the City
Council decides to affirm the Planning Commission’s decision to approve the project,
the City Council may adopt additional conditions of approval that address the specific
subject of the appeal.
The City Council’s action must be supported by findings of fact based on information
before the Council when it hears and considers the appeal. Staff recommends that the
City Council adopt a resolution denying the appeals and affirming the Planning
Commission’s decision, with the resolution included as Attachment 6 and the Project
Plans (Exhibit A) and Parking Study (Exhibit B) included as Attachments 7 and 8,
respectively.
Page 5 of 15
ANALYSIS:
Appeal of the Site Development Review Permit and Minor Use Permit
Pursuant to the Downtown Dublin Specific Plan and DMC Chapter 8.104, a Site
Development Review (SDR) Permit is required prior to the construction of the proposed
project. Approval of an SDR Permit requires findings enumerated in DMC Section
8.104.090 (Required Findings). In addition, the proposed project includes a request for
approval of a Minor Use Permit for shared parking, which requires additional findings for
approval as included in DMC Section 8.102.060 (Required Findings). The required
findings are included in the Resolution denying the appeals and affirming the Planning
Commission’s decision (Attachment 6).
Issues Raised in Appeals
The primary issues raised in both appeals are based on a comment letter submitted by
LIUNA on April 24, 2020, regarding the Cambria Hotel Project in preparation of the April
28, 2020 Planning Commission meeting. LIUNA’s May 7, 2020 appeal incorporates their
April 24, 2020 comment letter. West Dublin Alliance’s appeal refers to the reports
attached to LIUNA’s April 24, 2020 comment letter. The appeals both focus on the City’s
finding that the DDSP Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and its Addendums studied
and addressed the project’s environmental impacts, and that no further environmental
review is required for this project pursuant to California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA) Guidelines Section 15182. This finding is explained in further detail below in the
Environmental Review section of this report.
The summary of issues in the appeals and responded to in detail below are:
1. DDSP EIR and Project-Level Impacts:
a. Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) Thresholds
b. Greenhouse Gas Emissions
2. Substantial New Evidence Related to the Following Environmental Impacts:
a. Indoor Air Quality
b. Biological Resources
c. Air Quality (Construction Emissions)
d. Health Risk
e. Greenhouse Gas Emissions
f. Transportation and Circulation
3. Mitigation Measures
1a. DDSP EIR and Project-Level Impacts – BAAQMD Thresholds
Appellants’ Issues Raised
The appeals assert that the project is inconsistent with the DDSP because the DDSP
EIR states that individual projects in the DDSP would be subject to project-level
BAAQMD emissions thresholds.
Staff’s Response
Project-level review is not required for this project under the DDSP EIR and CEQA
Guidelines Section 15182. The applications under consideration are a Site
Page 6 of 15
Development Review Permit and Minor Use Permit to construct a hotel, which is an
allowed use in the Transit-Oriented District of the DDSP. The proposed project does not
create a new use, but instead proposes a use that is permitted under the DDSP and
that was evaluated and analyzed in the DDSP EIR. The DDSP EIR requires the project
to comply with applicable BAAQMD Control Measures, adherence to which would result
in a less than significant impact. This project is within the scope of the DDSP EIR and,
therefore, additional environmental review is not required.
Project-level review is not required; however, to further explain and demonstrate for
clarity purposes, that even if a project-level review was undertaken, this project meets
the BAAQMD screening criteria developed for determining that the project would not
generate criteria air pollutants and/or precursors exceeding BAAQMD’s thresholds of
significance.
1b. DDSP EIR and Project-Level Impacts – Greenhouse Gas
Appellants’ Issues Raised
The appeals assert that the project is inconsistent with the DDSP because the DDSP
EIR states that individual projects in the DDSP would be subject to project-by-project
analysis of greenhouse gas emissions.
Staff’s Response
The DDSP EIR identified Impact 3.2-6 that states the “DDSP would generate
greenhouse gas emissions but would not conflict with or obstruct the implementation of
greenhouse gas reduction measures under AB 32. This is considered a less than
significant impact…Future projects within the City, including within the project area,
would be reviewed on a project-by-project basis to ensure their compliance with the
City’s policies and to determine if any impacts would occur beyond those already
identified in this EIR”.
The DDSP EIR and subsequent Addendums analyzed the construction of approximately
2.2 million square feet of non-residential development and 2,500 residential dwelling
units. The proposed hotel is 78,000 square feet and 145,000 square feet with the
podium parking, which is less than seven percent of the total amount of non-residential
development allowed in the DDSP and analyzed in the DDSP EIR. The proposed
project is an allowed use in the Transit-Oriented District of the DDSP, meets the
development standards established in the DDSP and is within the scope of the DDSP
EIR. The proposed project complies with the City’s applicable policies, does not result in
any impacts beyond those already identified in the EIR and, thus, additional
environmental review is not required.
2a. Substantial New Evidence Related to Indoor Air Quality
Appellants’ Issues Raised
The appeal asserts that there is substantial evidence of new information of substantial
importance, which was not known and could not have been known at the time of the
DDSP EIR certification, showing that the project will expose future hotel employees to
significant impacts related to indoor air quality, and in particular, emissions of
formaldehyde.
Page 7 of 15
Staff’s Response
The appellants have not presented substantial evidence of a significant environmental
impact from the presence of formaldehyde in composite wood products used for this
specific project. In addition, formaldehyde is subject to extensive regulations to address
environmental and human health impacts. The project is subject to these regulations.
These regulations would ensure that impacts from the presence of formaldehyde in any
wood product used for the project would be less than significant. The use of
formaldehyde in composite wood products is regulated by the United States
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and other agencies through various laws and
regulations, including but not limited to, the Toxic Substances Controls Act.
The amount of formaldehyde released from building materials is reduced exponentially
over time. The appellant not only assumes that all of the formaldehyde in indoor air of a
California home is from the building material, but also assumes that the same
concentration of formaldehyde will be present year after year over a 45-year period. In
fact, indoor air concentrations of formaldehyde are likely due to various sources, and
the formaldehyde that originates from the building materials will decrease with time. The
information presented in the appellants’ appeals do not amount to new information of
substantial importance that was either unknown, or could not have been known, at the
time of the DDSP EIR certification and, thus, additional environmental review is not
required.
2b. Substantial New Evidence Related to Biological Resources
Appellants’ Issues Raised
The appeals assert that there is substantial evidence of new information of substantial
importance, which was not known and could not have been known at the time of the
DDSP EIR certification, showing that the project may have significant impacts related to
biological resources, and in particular, a significant impact on birds colliding within the
project’s clear glass windows.
Staff’s Response
Any potential impact due to bird collisions with the proposed hotel building are not
required to be analyzed under CEQA standards for supplemental environmental review.
Impacts on birds due to collisions with clear glass windows is not new information that
could not have been known at the time the DDSP EIR was certified in 2011. Even
though analysis of the impact is not required under CEQA, there is no substantial
evidence that the project will result in a significant impact. The exterior façade of the
proposed project incorporates aluminum panels with low‐reflectivity glass. Bird strikes
on buildings most commonly occur when the building’s glass is highly reflective,
resulting in a mirror‐like effect where birds perceive a continuation of the sky. The
proposed use of transparent, low-reflectivity glass would reduce the occurrence of bird
strikes. The information presented in the appellants’ appeals do not amount to new
information of substantial importance that was either unknown, or could not have been
known, at the time of the DDSP EIR certification and, thus, additional environmental
review is not required.
Page 8 of 15
2c. Substantial New Evidence Related to Air Quality (Construction Emissions)
Appellants’ Issues Raised
The appeals assert that there is substantial evidence of new information of substantial
importance, which was not known and could not have been known at the time of the
DDSP EIR certification, showing that the project is subject to new project-level emission
thresholds in the BAAQMD Draft CEQA Air Quality Guidelines. The appellants’ report
estimated air pollutant emissions resultant of the proposed project and provided these
projections in comparison to BAAQMD significance thresholds for air pollutants. The
report provided air pollutant projections are shown to surpass BAAQMD significance
thresholds, prompting the appellants to conclude that the proposed project would result
in a significant air quality-related impact and, therefore, additional mitigation measures
must be identified and incorporated into an updated EIR.
Staff’s Response
The City is not required to conduct a new quantified assessment of anticipated air
pollutant emissions associated with the proposed project under the CEQA standards for
supplemental environmental review. The urban development of the site was evaluated
under the DDSP EIR. The proposed land use and development of the property is
consistent with DDSP and, therefore, there is no substantial change from the DDSP EIR
analysis, no additional significant impacts, and no additional or different mitigation
measures are required.
Emissions from construction equipment are regulated by both the U.S. EPA and the
California Air Resources Board (CARB). The emission standards for new engines vary
according to the rated horsepower of the engine and model year of the equipment, and
are set forth in a series of tiers (1‐4), with each tier becoming progressively cleaner for
either nitrogen oxides (NOX) and/or particulate matter (PM) emissions. In addition,
CARB’s In‐Use Off‐Road Diesel Vehicle Regulation (Off‐Road rule) generally applies to
all self‐propelled off‐road diesel vehicles over 25 horsepower used in California. The
Off‐Road rule requires off‐road fleet owners subject to the rule to meet fleet wide
emission limits based on the size of their fleet and to reduce their emissions by retiring,
replacing, or repowering older engines or installing Verified Diesel Emission Control
Strategy, or VDECS. The overall purpose of the Off‐Road rule is to encourage turnover
of older, higher‐emitting equipment to cleaner, lower‐emitting equipment in construction
fleets. This turnover will help to further reduce emissions of NOX and fine PM within
California communities.
The appellants suggest additional mitigation measures pertaining to diesel control and
construction equipment. Health risk from diesel particulate matter is not new information
that could not have been known at the time that the DDSP EIR was certified in 2011.
Therefore, analysis of this impact is not required under CEQA supplemental review
standards. The health risk of vehicle diesel exhaust was known in 2011. The 1999
BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines (1999 Guidelines) identified diesel engine particulate
matter as a toxic air contaminant (TAC) based on CARB findings. The 1999 Guidelines
encourage lead agencies to address impacts to sensitive receptors due to exposure of
high levels of diesel exhaust from sources such as a high‐volume freeway (1999
BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines, p. 47). Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines in effect in
2011 also listed exposure of sensitive receptors to substantial levels of TACs as a
Page 9 of 15
potentially significant impact. This significance threshold was included and analyzed in
the DDSP EIR. Since potential health impacts due to exposure to diesel exhaust were
known or could have been known in 2011, this is not new information that requires
supplemental environmental review.
Furthermore, due to increasingly restrictive emissions controls, technological
improvements, and fleet turnover, emissions associated with construction and
operations of a project in today’s time frame would be lower than what was analyzed 10
years ago.
2d. Substantial New Evidence Related to Health Risk
Appellants’ Issues Raised
The appeals assert that there is substantial evidence of new information of substantial
importance, which was not known and could not have been known at the time of the
DDSP EIR certification, showing the project will have significant health risk impacts
related to hazards and hazardous materials.
Staff’s Response
Planning Commission Resolution No. 20-06 identified all applicable mitigation measures
from the DDSP EIR, including Mitigation Measure (MM) 3.4-2 requiring a Phase 1
Environmental Site Assessment. Condition of Approval No. 26 requires the document
be prepared and submitted prior to issuance of a building permit.
Health risk impacts related to toxic air contaminants (TACs) and diesel particulate
matter are addressed in the Staff’s Response to 2c. above. In addition, the DDSP
identified Impact 3.2-3 which states the “DDSP would result in the development of
mixed-use and commercial uses at the project site, which may generate sources of
TACs from stationary sources. The proposed project would not result in increased
exposure of sensitive land uses in excess of applicable standards. This is considered a
less than significant impact...In addition, all projects must implement any applicable air
toxics control measures (ATCM). For example, projects that have the potential to disturb
asbestos (from soil or building material) must comply with all the requirements of
CARB’s ATCM for Construction, Grading, Quarrying, and Surface Mining Operations.
Compliance with applicable regulatory standards is required as part of the permitting
process for development and operation of future development within the DDSP, and
would ensure a less than significant impact.”
This project is within the scope of, and subject to, the DDSP EIR and, therefore,
additional environmental review is not required.
2e. Substantial New Evidence Related to Greenhouse Gas
Appellants’ Issues Raised
The appeals assert that there is substantial evidence of new information of substantial
importance, which was not known and could not have been known at the time of the
DDSP EIR certification, showing that the project would have significant impacts related
to greenhouse gas impacts.
Page 10 of 15
Staff’s Response
See response to 1b. Furthermore, the information presented in the appeals does not
amount to new information of substantial importance that was either unknown, or could
not have been known, at the time of the DDSP EIR certification and, thus, additional
environmental review is not required.
2f. Substantial New Evidence Related to Transportation and Circulation
Appellants’ Issues Raised
The appeals assert that there are substantially changed circumstances requiring major
revisions to the DDSP EIR due to a substantial increase in the severity of impacts
related to transportation and circulation.
Staff’s Response
The DDSP EIR included a transportation impact analysis that evaluated transportation
impacts associated with implementation of land uses identified in the DDSP, identified
short-term and long-term roadway and circulation needs, determined potential mitigation
measures, and identified any critical transportation issues that should be addressed in
the on-going planning process. Mitigation measures were identified in the DDSP EIR,
which included supporting Alameda County’s projects and programs that reduce traffic
congestion, encourage voluntary Transportation Demand Management Programs,
implement the City’s multi-modal plans and policies, collect development fees, and work
with the Livermore Amador Valley Transit Authority (LAVTA) as the DDSP area
develops.
In 2014, under the first DDSP Amendment to allow development of a total of 2,500
residential units and 2.2 million square feet of non-residential development, the City
completed a supplementary traffic analysis to analyze how traffic impacts associated
with the 2014 DDSP Amendment (with the additional residential units but a lesser
amount of non-residential square footage) compared to the development potential of the
original DDSP. In assessing whether the 2014 DDSP Amendment created new
significant impacts that were not present or that were substantially more severe than the
original DDSP, the traffic analysis examined three main measurements:
1. Overall trip generation rates of the 2014 DDSP Amendment;
2. Revised trip assignments to the roadway network; and
3. A traffic queuing analysis for critical movements at the intersections of Amador
Plaza Road / Dublin Boulevard and Village Parkway / Dublin Boulevard, both of
which were operating at Level of Service E.
The traffic analysis concluded that no new or substantially more severe significant
impacts would result from the 2014 DDSP Amendment, and no additional mitigation
measures were required.
Since the adoption of the DDSP in 2011, approximately 49,000 square feet of non-
residential development and 748 residential units have been developed with an
additional 534 residential units either approved or under construction. The proposed
project is within the scope of the development that was analyzed in the DDSP EIR.
Page 11 of 15
The appeal also challenges the DDSP EIR traffic analysis given that additional major
projects, including some that required General Plan Amendments, have been approved
subsequent to approval of the DDSP and certification of the DDSP EIR. Pursuant to the
requirements of CEQA, each of those projects underwent its own environmental review
and traffic impact analysis. Cumulative traffic impacts associated with projects approved
since the DDSP was approved would have taken into account the overall development
envisioned in the DDSP, including projects such as the proposed hotel, which would be
well within the allowed square footage of commercial development analyzed under the
DDSP EIR.
There are no substantial changes in circumstances requiring major revisions to the
DDSP EIR and, thus, additional environmental review is not required.
3. Mitigation Measures
Appellants’ Issues Raised
The appeals assert that the project would result in impacts requiring additional
mitigation measures that are different from those analyzed in the DDSP EIR and,
therefore, additional mitigation measures are required.
Staff’s Response
The DDSP EIR was prepared as a Program EIR under CEQA Guidelines Section 15168
to be used as the CEQA review for future implementing projects. Section 15168(a)
defines a “program EIR” as one prepared on a series of actions that can be
characterized as one large project and are related geographically and by other shared
characteristics. Section 15168(c) states that subsequent activities in the Program EIR
must be examined in the light of the Program EIR to determine whether an additional
environmental document must be prepared. If the agency finds that pursuant to CEQA
Guidelines Section 15162(c)(2), no new effects could occur or no new mitigation
measures would be required, the agency can approve the activity as being within the
scope of the project covered by the Program EIR and no new environmental document
would be required.
The transportation analysis in the DDSP EIR included an analysis of both the Base FAR
and Maximum FAR. As stated in the previous responses to issues raised by the
appellants, the proposed project is within the scope of the DDSP EIR. No new
substantial information has been identified that was not known or could not have been
known when the DDSP EIR was certified and, therefore, additional mitigation measures
have not been identified and are not required.
Staff recommends that the City Council adopt a resolution denying the appeals and
affirming the Planning Commission’s decision, with the resolution included as
Attachment 6 and the Project Plans (Exhibit A) and Parking Study (Exhibit B) included
as Attachments 7 and 8, respectively.
Community Benefit Agreement
This project is within the Transit-Oriented District of the DDSP. The DDSP establishes a
base FAR of 0.50 for non-residential projects within the Transit-Oriented District. The
base FAR can be increased to 2.5 if the project proponent enters into a Community
Page 12 of 15
Benefit Program Agreement and provides a community benefit. (§3.5, pp. 47-48; § 6.4,
p. 120-122.)
The focus of the Community Benefit Program Agreement is on the benefit to the DDSP
area in exchange for the use of density provided. (§ 6.4, p. 121.) The DDSP lists a
number of potential benefits and indicates that the City Council can approve other
benefits and the community benefit requirement shall, [s]o far as possible, be uniformly
applied proportionate to the density obtained, while acknowledging that some benefits
may be particularly valuable to the City. (§ 6.4, p. 122.)
The DDSP identified a combined pool of 2,187,540 square feet of commercial
development (plus a 150-room hotel) that may be constructed in the DDSP area. Since
establishment of the pool, 10,329 square feet of commercial development have been
reserved and/or constructed. There are 2,177,211 square feet remaining in this pool.
The City Council held an initial study session on July 16, 2019, to review the project and
provide feedback on the proposal, including the community benefits for the project.
For the proposed project, the Applicant is seeking 52,573 square feet of commercial
square footage from the DDSP Pool for the hotel development. In exchange for this
allocation of development capacity, the Applicant will contribute community benefits in
the form of employment, Transient Occupancy Taxes (TOT), streetscape
improvements, and a new Downtown monument sign.
As it relates to employment and TOT, the Hotel will supply approximately 50 new full-
time jobs to the community and generate new TOT revenue to the City. The hotel
development could yield an estimated annual TOT of $450,000 or $2.5 million over five
years. This estimate is based on an average occupancy rate of 75 percent and an
average daily rate of $158 per hotel room.
In terms of improvements, the Applicant is proposing enhanced streetscape for the drive
aisle (in between the former Hooter’s building and the Video Only building) into the
property from Dublin Boulevard, creating a more welcoming and inviting corridor into the
property. The enhancements would include a new uniform landscape plan, slurry, and
striping. Additionally, the Applicant is working in good faith with the three property
owners to improve the easements in hopes of adopting a streetscape improvement plan
for the drive aisle from Regional Street.
Lastly, the Applicant has agreed to the design, construction and installation of a new
Downtown Dublin monument sign to be located on the corner of San Ramon Road and
Dublin Boulevard. This monument sign would add an entryway sign identifying the
Downtown from the west side of the City. The estimated cost for the design,
construction and installation of the sign is $200,000.
The City Council Resolution approving the Community Benefit Agreement is included as
Attachment 9 with the Community Benefit Program Agreement included as Attachment
10.
Page 13 of 15
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:
On February 1, 2011, the City Council approved the DDSP to guide development within
the 284-acre Downtown Dublin area and create a vibrant and dynamic mixed-use center
(Resolution No. 09-11). Pursuant to the requirements of CEQA, a Final EIR (State
Clearinghouse No. 2010022005) was prepared for the DDSP and certified by the City
Council on February 1, 2011 (Resolution No. 08-11).
On May 6, 2014, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 49-14 adopting an Addendum
to the DDSP EIR for changes to the DDSP. The changes included increasing the
number of residential units permitted in the DDSP area by 1,200 units and decreasing
the amount of commercial square footage permitted by 773,000 square feet, creating
minimum density thresholds for the Transit-Oriented and Retails Districts, and restricting
residential development on the west side of San Ramon Road in the Retail District.
On December 3, 2019, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 126-19 adopting an
Addendum to the DDSP EIR for changes to the DDSP. The changes included an
amendment to the General Plan and DDSP to allow an increase in the allowable
commercial FAR in the Transit-Oriented and Retail Districts to 2.5 and 2.0 respectively,
combining the new residential dwelling unit allocation into one pool for all three districts,
and amending the parking standards in the Village Parkway and Transit-Oriented
Districts.
The DDSP EIR and subsequent Addendums analyzed the construction of approximately
2.2 million square feet of non-residential development and 2,500 residential dwelling
units included within the DDSP. This is the first project to utilize a portion of the 1.6
million square feet of non-residential development that was allocated to the Transit-
Oriented District. Therefore, the proposed project’s 90,700 square feet is within the
already contemplated non-residential development activity in the Transit-Oriented
District.
As provided in Government Code Section 21166 and Section 15162 of the CEQA
Guidelines, when an EIR has been prepared for a project (DDSP EIR), no new
environmental document shall be prepared for the proposed project, unless the
Planning Commission makes one of the following determinations under Section
15162(a):
1. Substantial changes are proposed in the project which will require major
revisions of the previous EIR due to the involvement of new significant
environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously
identified significant effects;
2. Substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which the
project is undertaken which will require major revisions of the EIR due to the
involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in
the severity of previously identified significant effects; or
3. New information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not
have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the EIR
was adopted, shows any of the following:
Page 14 of 15
a. The project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the
previous EIR;
b. Mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would
in fact be feasible, and would substantially reduce one or more significant
effects of the project, but the project proponents decline to adopt the
mitigation measures or alternative; or
c. Mitigation measures which are considerably different from those analyzed in
the previous EIR would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on
the environment, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation
measure.
The City conducted a review to determine if the proposed project met any of the
standards requiring the preparation of supplemental environmental review under CEQA.
The City concluded that the project is within the scope of development analyzed by the
DDSP EIR and subsequent Addendums, and that there is no substantial evidence in the
record that any of the conditions triggering supplemental environmental review exist.
The circumstances under which the project is to be undertaken have not substantially
changed since the DDSP EIR and subsequent Addendums were prepared and will not
substantially change with approval of the project. The DDSP EIR adequately described
the impacts of the project for the purposes of CEQA, and no mitigation measures or
new alternatives are required other than those previously disclosed and analyzed in the
DDSP EIR and subsequent Addendums. Approval of the project will not create any
site‐specific operations giving rise to environmental effects different from those
examined by the DDSP EIR or requiring supplemental environmental review. The
proposed project is subject to the DDSP Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program.
Consequently, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15182, the project impacts were
studied and addressed by the DDSP EIR and its Addendums and no further
environmental review is required for this project.
STRATEGIC PLAN INITIATIVE:
None.
NOTICING REQUIREMENTS:
In accordance with State law, a Public Hearing Notice was mailed to all property owners
and occupants within 300 feet of the proposed project. The Public Hearing Notice was
also published in the East Bay Times and posted at several locations throughout the
City. To date, the City has received no objections from surrounding property owners
regarding the project. A copy of this Staff Report was provided to the Applicant and
posted to the City’s website.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Planning Commission Staff Report dated April 28, 2020 (without Attachments)
2. Planning Commission Draft Minutes dated April 28, 2020
3. Planning Commission Resolution No. 20-06
Page 15 of 15
4. Appeal Letter LIUNA
5. Appeal Letter West Dublin Alliance
6. Resolution Denying the Appeals and Affirming Planning Commission's Approval of
Site Development Review and Minor Use Permit
7. Exhibit A to the Resolution - Project Plans
8. Exhibit B to the Resolution - Shared Parking Study
9. Resolution Approving a Community Benefit Agreement
10. Exhibit A to the Resolution Approving the Community Benefit Program Agreement
Page 1 of 11
STAFF REPORT
PLANNING COMMISSION
DATE: April 28, 2020
TO: Planning Commission
SUBJECT:
Cambria Hotel (PLPA-2019-00020, PLPA-2019-00044 and PLOC-2020-
00053)
Prepared by:Amy Million, Principal Planner
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
The Applicant, Jerry Hunt of VP-RPG Dublin, LLC., is proposing to construct a 138-
room hotel on an existing parking lot located south of the existing Corrie Center office
building at 7950 Dublin Boulevard within the Downtown Dublin Specific Plan (DDSP)
Transit-Oriented District. The new six-story hotel will consist of four stories of guest
rooms and amenities over two stories of podium parking, and related landscaping and
site improvements. Requested approvals include a Site Development Review Permit, a
Minor Use Permit for shared parking between the proposed hotel and existing office
building and a Heritage Tree Removal Permit for the removal of two Coast redwood
trees.
RECOMMENDATION:
Disclose ex-parte contacts, conduct the public hearing, deliberate and adopt a
Resolution approving a Site Development Review Permit for the construction of a 138-
room hotel, a Minor Use Permit to allow a parking reduction for shared parking and a
Heritage Tree Removal Permit at 7950 Dublin Boulevard.
DESCRIPTION:
Background
The 4.5-acre project site is located at 7950 Dublin Boulevard at the intersection of
Dublin Boulevard and San Ramon Road within the DDSP Transit-Oriented District as
shown in Figure 1 below. The project site, which includes the Corrie Center office
building and the former Hooter’s restaurant (closed February 2020), shares street
access with Earl Anthony’s Dublin Bowl, a two-story office building on Regional Street
and a single-story multi-tenant retail building on Dublin Boulevard. Access to the site is
provided from both Dublin Boulevard and Regional Street through the parking field.
5.1
Packet Pg. 9
Page 2 of 11
The proposed project is one piece of the larger development plan the Applicant has
undertaken on the subject property. On April 14, 2020, the Community Development
Director approved a Site Development Review Permit to remodel the exterior of the
Corrie Center office building, modify the landscaping, and upgrade the parking area to
meet current accessibility requirements. In conjunction with the Site Development
Review Permit, a Heritage Tree Removal Permit was also considered and approved to
allow nine redwood trees to be removed throughout the subject property.
In December 2019, the Community Development Director approved the Lot Line
Adjustment to relocate the existing property line between the existing office building and
the former Hooter’s restaurant to the south side of the office building. The Lot Line
Adjustment places the proposed hotel on one parcel and the office building and
restaurant on another. The total number of parcels has not change.
Proposed Project
The Applicant, Jerry Hunt of VP-RPG Dublin, LLC., is proposing to construct a 138-
room hotel and associated site improvements on the newly created 1.75-acre parcel at
7950 Dublin Boulevard. The six-story building is designed with four floors of hotel over
two stories of podium parking. The proposed project includes the following entitlements
for consideration by the Planning Commission:
x Site Development Review Permit – Site Development Review Permit to allow
construction of a 138-room hotel and associated site improvements.
x Minor Use Permit – A Minor Use Permit to allow a parking reduction for shared
parking between the proposed hotel and existing office building.
x Heritage Tree Removal Permit – A Heritage Tree Removal Permit to remove
two Coast redwood trees.
5.1
Packet Pg. 10
Page 3 of 11
The draft resolution approving the Site Development Review Permit, Minor Use Permit
and Heritage Tree Removal Permit is included in the staff report as Attachment 1. In
addition, the project requires City Council approval of a Community Benefit Agreement
(CBA) for the allocation of non-residential square footage from the Downtown Dublin
Development Pool. The City Council meeting for consideration of the CBA has not yet
been scheduled.
ANALYSIS:
Site Development Review Permit
Site Layout
The project site is located on the southern end of the parcel between the existing office
building and I-580 offramp/Holiday Inn hotel and does not have direct access to a public
street. As a result, access to the project site from Dublin Boulevard and Regional Street
is provided via several easements through the existing parking field. As shown in Figure
2, the proposed project would replace the existing parking area on the south side of the
office building with the hotel and podium parking structure. Access to the hotel would be
via existing drive aisles from Dublin Boulevard or through the parking field from
Regional Street. The primary entrance to the hotel would orient to the east along the
access drive aisle with secondary access from the west. A new pedestrian path along
the drive aisle, which is part of the Site Development Review Permit for the office
building remodel, would be extended to the front entrance of the hotel.
As stated, the proposed hotel would include a two-story parking structure with four
floors of hotel above. Four points of vehicular access would be provided to the parking
structure; two on the west side and two on the east side. Additional ground-level parking
would be provided on the south and west sides of the building. The parking structure is
designed to accommodate the parking demand for both the hotel and the adjacent office
building. Refer to the Minor Use Permit – Parking Reduction for Shared Parking section
below for additional information on the total parking requirements for the project.
5.1
Packet Pg. 11
Page 4 of 11
Architecture
The architectural vision for the Transit-Oriented District as outlined in the DDSP is that
new buildings “will complement the existing uses with designs that are compatible with
adjacent structures and the district as a whole.” In addition, buildings shall use high -
quality materials while utilizing creative and unique designs. The project’s architectural
design and material palette is consistent with this vision.
The hotel’s architecture has a contemporary aesthetic with angular lines and includes
complementary high-quality exterior materials and colors. Façade treatments include
concrete, composite panels and aluminum windows.
The overall form of the six-story building is L-shaped with a two-story circular form
located within the inside corner. The circular form functions as the parking structure with
amenity space on the roof. The contemporary building form is highlighted with the upper
portions of the hotel cantilevering over the ground-floor parking areas.
Figure 3. Southwest Elevation Facing I-580
A color and material palette has been provided that illustrates the variety of colors and
textures for the buildings on Sheet DR-3.3 of the Project Plans (Attachment 2). A color
and material board will be presented at the Planning Commission meeting for review
and consideration. The hotel’s architecture is designed to complement proposed
modifications to the adjacent office building shown below in Figure 4 for reference.
5.1
Packet Pg. 12
Page 5 of 11
Figure 4. Rendering of Remodeled Office Building West Elevation Facing San
Ramon Road
Landscaping
The landscape palette and layout have been designed to be consistent with the DDSP
by utilizing enhanced hardscape and a variety of plant materials. The overall landscape
concept is on Sheet L1 of the Project Plans (Attachment 2).
The preliminary landscape plan shows the removal of all existing on-site landscaping in
the project area and installation of landscaping in the new parking areas and around the
building. The preliminary landscape plan includes a conceptual plant pallet with
Chinese pistache and maple trees along the property line. Several storm water
treatment planters would be located within the parking area and around the building.
New landscape areas are proposed with a variety of drought tolerant plants suitable for
low maintenance and water conserving efforts.
Public Art Compliance
The Applicant intends to satisfy the requirements of the City’s Public Art Ordinance on -
site. In acknowledgement that the subject building has limited street frontage, the
Applicant would work with Parks and Community Services, Heritage and Cultural Arts
Commission and City Council to find a suitable location that is visible to the public to
meet the intent of the City’s Ordinance. Condition of Approval No. 20 of Attachment 1
reflects this intent.
Minor Use Permit – Parking Reduction for Shared Parking
The proposed hotel would remove the existing parking lot on the south side of the
Corrie Center office building which serves the office use. The proposed parking
structure for the hotel is designed to accommodate both the hotel and the office
building. In order to allow the proposed hotel with less than the required number of
parking spaces on-site, the Applicant is requesting a parking reduction. Dublin Municipal
Code (DMC) Section 8.76.050 (Parking Reductions for Shared Parking) states that
5.1
Packet Pg. 13
Page 6 of 11
when shared off-street parking is proposed between two or more adjacent use types, a
reduction in off-street parking requirements (from the sum of the parking required by
each use type) may be granted with a Minor Use Permit if each of the following
standards are met:
1. The Minor Use Permit findings can be made;
2. A sufficient number of spaces are provided to meet the greatest parking
demands of the participating use types and to ensure that there will not be a
parking deficiency;
3. Satisfactory evidence is provided that the use types, by their natures and
operating times, will not conflict with each other;
4. Overflow parking will not adversely affect any adjacent use;
5. Additional documents, covenants, deed restrictions, or other agreements as may
be deemed necessary by the Community Development Director are executed to
assure that the requirement parking spaces provided are maintained and that
uses with similar hours and parking requirements as those uses sharing the
parking facilities remain for the life of the documents, covenants, deed
restrictions, or other agreements.
The Applicant’s consultant (Advanced Mobility Group) co nducted a Parking Study for
Mixed-Use Development dated September 30, 2019, that the City’s Transportation and
Operations Manager reviewed (Attachment 3).
The parking study included three different land use options. The purpose of the different
options was to not only address the shared parking between the office and the hotel, but
to also evaluate different development options that could be used later without the need
for additional study. The Applicant requested this in order to take advantage of the data
and analysis that was necessary for the parking study and utilize that data to create
certainty in different development options. The parking study evaluated the following
options:
¾ Option 1 – Shared parking between the office building and the hotel and also
including the former Hooter’s restaurant, thus, utilizing all available parking
across the two parcels.
¾ Option 2 – Shared parking between the office building and the hotel only and
NOT including the former Hooter's restaurant and associated parking field. The
purpose was to confirm if the office building and the hotel provide enough parking
to satisfy those two uses without including the former Hooter’s restaurant and
associated parking field.
¾ Option 3 – Shared parking between the office building and the hotel and also
including a new 8,000-square-foot multi-tenant pad building to replace the former
Hooter’s restaurant.
Included in all three options were additional commercial uses contemplated to be in the
ground floor of the office building. Those uses were 5,000 square feet of retail, 4,000
square feet of restaurant and 5,000 square feet of fitness.
5.1
Packet Pg. 14
Page 7 of 11
The parking study utilized the Institute of Transportation Engineer’s (ITE) parking
demand rates. The results of that analysis are provided in Table 1 below.
Table 1: Parking Analysis
No. of Parking
Spaces Required
(ITE Parking
Demand)
No. of Parking
Spaces Required
(Zoning
Ordinance)
Shared
Parking
Peak
Demand
No. of
Parking
Spaces
Provided
Shared Parking
Peak Demand
(Up to 15%
Reduction)
Option 1 431 442 334 351 284
Option 2 376 417 291 280 247
Option 3 441 460 340 360 289
As shown in Table 1, the proposed uses and parking spaces provided would meet the
parking need for Option 1 and Option 3; but would be short in Option 2 by 11 spaces
(when using the ITE rate, 4% short) or 29 spaces (when using the City rate, 10% short)
during the peak parking demand for those uses. Given the proximity to transit (Wheels,
BART, etc.), the City’s Transportation and Operations Manager has recommended
providing an overall parking reduction of up to 15% of shared peak parking demand
using the ITE procedures as shown in the parking study. With the 15% reduction, all
three land use Options would meet the peak demand. Since the project is taking
advantage of the shared parking based on specific uses, if the use change in the future,
a new shared parking analysis should be conducted while taking into account the
overall reduced parking rate of up to 15% from the shared parking peak demand.
Heritage Tree Removal Permit
DMC Chapter 5.60 states that any redwood tree having a truck or main stem of 24
inches or more in diameter measured at four feet six inches above grade requires a
Heritage Tree Removal Permit (PLOC-2019-00192). In October 2019, the Applicant
submitted a Heritage Tree Removal Permit to remove nine Coast redwood trees, which
included seven trees along San Ramon Road and two located in the southeast corner of
the property. In April 2020, the Community Development Director approved the permit.
After consideration and hearing the concerns of the community, the Applicant rescinded
the approved Heritage Tree Removal Permit.
As part of the proposed hotel, the removal of two Coast redwood heritage trees is
necessary to accommodate a future bioretention treatment area required for the
development of the project. The two trees, shown as #51 and #52 on the site plan
(Attachment 4) measure 29 inches and 38 inches respectively. A Heritage Tree
Removal Permit is required to remove these two Coast redwood trees and is, therefore,
being considered concurrently with the proposed project. The remaining seven heritage
trees along San Ramon Road will remain. The type of planting to be installed in the
bioretention areas is show on Sheet L-3 and L-4 of the project plans (Attachment 2).
Community Benefit Agreement (Downtown Dublin Development Pool)
The DDSP identifies a base and a maximum building density in the form of a floor area
ratio (FAR). The base FAR is what is allowed outright and a maximum FAR is what can
5.1
Packet Pg. 15
Page 8 of 11
be constructed based on the use and district. For the Transit-Oriented District the base
FAR is .50 and the maximum FAR is 2.5. If a property owner would like to develop a
project beyond the base FAR, they may obtain additional square footage up to the
maximum FAR by drawing on the Development Pool and in exchange entering into a
Community Benefit Agreement (CBA). The DDSP identified a pool of 1,145,050 square
feet of non-residential development that may be constructed in the Transit-Oriented
District. In the Transit-Oriented District, the developer must provide a benefit to the
community for use of the additional square footage. No square footage has been drawn
from the pool in the Transit-Oriented District since establishment of the pool.
The project is requesting an FAR of 1.12 which necessitates an allocation of up to
51,528 square feet from the Development Pool.
On July 16, 2019, City Council held a study session and provided input on the proposed
project design and the negotiated deal points of the proposed CBA, which included the
following:
x Hotel will supply approximately 50 new full-time jobs to the community and
generate an estimated annual Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT) of $450,000 or
$2.5 million over five years.
x Enhanced streetscape/drive aisle improvements between the former Hooter’s
restaurant and the Video Only building) into the property off Dublin Boulevard.
x The design, construction and installation of a new Downtown Dublin monument
sign located on the corner of Dublin Boulevard/San Ramon Road.
City Council directed Staff to proceed with processing the project entitlements for
consideration by the Planning Commission and prepare a Community Benefit
Agreement for the City Council to consider.
The Planning Commission will review and render a decision on the Site Development
Review Permit, Minor Use Permit and Heritage Tree Removal Permit applications, and
the associated CBA will be reviewed and considered by the City Council at later date.
Any Site Development Review and Minor Use Permit approved by the Planning
Commission will not be effective until a CBA for the project has been approved by the
City Council.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:
On February 1, 2011, the City Council approved the DDSP to guide development within
the 284-acre Downtown Dublin area and create a vibrant and dynamic mixed-use center
(Resolution No. 09-11). Pursuant to the requirements of the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA), a Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) (State Clearinghouse
No. 2010022005) was prepared for the DDSP and certified by the City Council on
February 1, 2011 (Resolution No. 08-11).
On May 6, 2014, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 49-14 adopting an Addendum
to the DDSP Environmental Impact Report (DDSP EIR) for changes to the DDSP. The
changes included increasing the number of residential units permitted in the DDSP area
5.1
Packet Pg. 16
Page 9 of 11
by 1,200 units and decreasing the amount of commercial square footage permitted by
773,000 square feet, creating minimum density thresholds for the Transit-Oriented and
Retails Districts, and restricting residential development on the west side of San Ramon
Road in the Retail District.
On December 3, 2019, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 126-19 adopting an
Addendum to the DDSP EIR for changes to the DDSP. The changes included an
amendment to the General Plan and DDSP to allow an increase in the allowable
commercial floor area ratio in the Transit-Oriented and Retail Districts to 2.5 and 2.0
respectively, combining the new residential dwelling unit allocation into one pool for all
three districts, and amending the parking standards in the Village Parkway and Transit-
Oriented Districts.
The DDSP EIR and subsequent Addendums analyzed the construction of approximately
2.2 million square feet of non-residential development and 2,500 residential dwelling
units, included within the DDSP. This is the first project to utilize a portion of the 1.6
million square feet of non-residential development that was allocated to the Transit-
Oriented District. Therefore, the proposed project’s 51,528 square feet is within the
already contemplated non-residential development activity in the Transit-Oriented
District.
As provided in Government Code Section 21166 and Section 15162 of the CEQA
Guidelines, when an EIR has been prepared for a project (DDSP EIR), no new
environmental document shall be prepared for the proposed project, unless the
Planning Commission makes one of the following determinations under Section
15162(a):
1. Substantial changes are proposed in the project which will require major
revisions of the previous EIR due to the involvement of new significant
environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously
identified significant effects;
2. Substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which the
project is undertaken which will require major revisions of the EIR due to the
involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in
the severity of previously identified significant effects; or
3. New information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not
have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the EIR
was adopted, shows any of the following:
a. The project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the
previous EIR;
b. Mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would
in fact be feasible, and would substantially reduce one or more significant
effects of the project, but the project proponents decline to adopt the
mitigation measures or alternative; or
5.1
Packet Pg. 17
Page 10 of 11
c. Mitigation measures which are considerably different from those analyzed in
the previous EIR would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on
the environment, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation
measure.
The City conducted a review to determine if the proposed project met any of the
standards requiring the preparation of supplemental environmental review under CEQA
and concluded that the project is within the scope of development analyzed by the
DDSP EIR and subsequent Addendums. The circumstances under which the project is
to be undertaken have not substantially changed since the DDSP EIR and subsequent
Addendums were prepared and will not substantially change with approval of the
project. The DDSP EIR adequately described the impacts of the project for the
purposes of CEQA, and no mitigation measures or new alternatives are required other
than those previously disclosed and analyzed in the DDSP EIR and subsequent
Addendums. Approval of the project will not create any siteǦspecific operations giving
rise to environmental effects different from those examined by the DDSP EIR or
requiring the preparation of an Initial Study. The proposed project is subject to the
DDSP Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. Consequently, pursuant to CEQA
Guidelines Section 15182, the project impacts are covered by the DDSP EIR and its
Addendums and no further environmental review is required for this project.
CONSISTENCY WITH THE GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING ORDINANCE:
The General Plan designation is Downtown Dublin-Transit-Oriented District. The
proposed uses are permitted within the DDSP Transit-Oriented District. The proposed
project would meet the development standards established in the DDSP as shown in
Table 2 below.
Table 2: Overview of DDSP Development Regulations
Development
Regulation
Standard Proposed
Floor Area Ratio 2.5 1.12
Building Height 8 floors / 90 feet 6 floors / 69 feet
Setbacks:
San Ramon Road
Interior
10 feet minimum
5 feet minimum
Varies. 72 feet minimum
Varies. 10 feet minimum
Required Frontage
Buildout
n/a n/a
Parking 165 spaces Based on Minor Use Permit for
Shared Parking. See PLPA-2019-
00044
Building Entrance 1 entrance per building
facing the street
Parcel is landlocked requiring
entrance/lobby to front along main
driveway
5.1
Packet Pg. 18
Page 11 of 11
Approval of the proposed project would be within the development threshold of the 1.6
million square feet of non-residential development allocated for the Transit-Oriented
District. In addition, the proposed building size and configuration would not exceed the
allowable building area or create adverse conditions on-site or for surrounding
properties but would enhance the existing commercial area consistent with the DDSP.
REVIEW BY APPLICABLE DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES:
The Building Division, Fire Prevention Bureau, Public Works Department, and Dublin
San Ramon Services District have reviewed the project and provided Conditions of
Approval (Attachment 1) where appropriate to ensure that the project is established in
compliance with all local ordinances and regulations.
NOTICING REQUIREMENTS/PUBLIC OUTREACH:
In accordance with State law, a Public Notice was mailed to all property owners and
occupants within 300 feet of the proposed project. The Public Notice was also published
in the East Bay Times and posted at several locations throughout the City. To date, the
City has received no objections from surrounding property owners regarding the project.
A copy of this Staff Report was provided to the Applicant and posted to the City’s
website.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Planning Commission Resolution
2. Exhibit A to Attachment 1 Project Plans
3. Exhibit B to Attachment 1 Shared Parking Study
4. HeritageTree Removal Map
5. 2020.04.24 Cambria Hotel - LIUNA Comment Letter
5.1
Packet Pg. 19
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
Tuesday, April 28, 2020
Planning Commission April 28, 2020
Regular Meeting Page | 1
A Regular Meeting of the Dublin Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, April 28,
2020. In keeping with the guidelines provided by the State of California and Alameda
County in response to the Cornavirus (COVID-19) Outbreak, the meeting was held as an
online virtual meeting hosted by Zoom Video Communications. The meeting was called
to order at 7:00 PM by Commission Chairperson Thalblum.
1. Call to Order and Pledge of Allegiance
Attendee Name Title Status
Janine Thalblum Planning Commission Chair Present
Dawn Benson Planning Commission Vice Chair Present
Amit Kothari Planning Commissioner Present
Scott Mittan Planning Commissioner Absent
Stephen Wright Planning Commissioner Present
Catheryn Grier Alternate Planning Commissioner Present
Dawn Plants Alternate Planning Commissioner Absent
Commissioner Mittan presence announced at 7:54 PM.
2. Oral Communications
2.1. Public Comment
No public comment provided.
3. Consent Calendar
3.1. Approve the Minutes of the February 25, 2020 Planning Commission
Meeting
RESULT: ADOPTED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVED BY: Stephen Wright
SECOND: Dawn Benson
AYES: Janine Thalblum, Amit Kothari, Catheryn Grier
4. Written Communication - None.
5. Public Hearing
5.1 Cambria Hotel (PLPA-2019-00020, PLPA-2019-00044 and PLOC-2020-00053)
Planning Commission April 28, 2020
Regular Meeting Page | 2
Amy Million, Principal Planner, made a presentation and responded to questions posed
by the Commission.
Obaid Khan, Transportation and Operations Manager, responded to questions posed by
the Commission.
Commission Chairperson Thalblum announced Commissioner Mittan is present and will
be allowed to vote.
Commission Chairperson Thalblum opened the public hearing.
Jerry Hunt, representing Rubicon Property Group, made a presentation and responded
to questions posed by the Commission.
Ron Davidson, representing designcell Architecture, responded to questions posed by
the Commission.
Tom Evans, Dublin Resident, provided public comment.
Shirley Lewandowski, Dublin Resident, provided public comment.
Paige Fennie, representing the Laborer’s International Union of North America Local
Union 304, provided public comment.
Michael Urueta, Dublin Resident, provided public comment.
Linda Knapp, Dublin Resident, provided public comment.
Jeanine Gillengerten, Dublin Resident, provided public comment.
Commission Chairperson Thalblum closed the public hearing.
Kristie Wheeler, Assistant Community Development Director, informed Commissioners
that the City Attorney has identified a code section that requires the Heritage Tree
Removal Permit to be acted upon along with the other requested entitlements.
Kristie Wheeler, Assistant Community Development Director, offered a condition of
approval regarding the preservation of two heritage redwood trees.
Amy Million, Principal Planner, read a condition of approval regarding protection of
nesting birds that was inadvertently omitted from the draft Resolution.
Commission Chairperson Thalblum re-opened the public hearing.
Marlene Massetti, Dublin Resident, provided public comment.
Planning Commission April 28, 2020
Regular Meeting Page | 3
Commission Chairperson Thalblum closed the public hearing.
On a motion by Commissioner Thalblum, seconded by Commissioner Mittan, the
Planning Commission took the following action, including the two additional conditions of
approval provided by Staff:
RESOLUTION NO. 20-06
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
APPROVING A SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PERMIT FOR THE CONSTRUCTION
OF A 138-ROOM HOTEL, A MINOR USE PERMIT TO ALLOW A PARKING
REDUCTION FOR SHARED PARKING AND A HERITAGE TREE REMOVAL PERMIT
AT 7950 DUBLIN BOULEVARD
APN: 941-1500-037-00
PLPA-2019-00020, PLPA-2019-00044 & PLOC-2020-00053
RESULT: ADOPTED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVED BY: Janine Thalblum
SECOND: Scott Mittan
AYES: Stephen Wright, Dawn Benson, Amit Kothari,
NOES:
5.2 Dublin Municipal Code Amendments (PLPA-2020-00005)
Amy Million, Principal Planner, made a presentation and responded to questions posed
by the Commission.
Commission Chairperson Thalblum opened and closed the public hearing.
On a motion by Commissioner Wright, seconded by Commissioner Kothari, the Planning
Commission took the following action:
RESOLUTION NO. 20-07
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF AMENDMENTS TO THE DUBLIN
MUNICIPAL CODE REPEALING CHAPTER 8.66 AND AMENDING CHAPTERS 5.60,
8.08, 8.12, 8.16, 8.20, 8.40, 8.64, 8.76, 8.102, 8.104, 8.116, AND 8.124 EFFECTIVE
CITY-WIDE
PLPA-2020-00005
Planning Commission April 28, 2020
Regular Meeting Page | 4
RESULT: ADOPTED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVED BY: Stephen Wright
SECOND: Amit Kothari
AYES: Janine Thalblum, Dawn Benson, Scott Mittan
NOES:
5.3 Zoning Ordinance Amendments to Chapter 8.58 (Public Art Program)
Shaun Chilkotowsky, Heritage and Cultural Arts Manager, made a presentation and
responded to questions posed by the Commission.
Commission Chairperson Thalblum opened and closed the public hearing.
On a motion by Commissioner Benson, seconded by Commissioner Wright, the Planning
Commission took the following action:
RESOLUTION NO. 20-08
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
RECOMMENDING CITY COUCIL APPROVAL OF AMENDMENTS TO THE ZONING
ORDINANCE CHAPTER 8.58 (PUBLIC ART PROGRAM)
RESULT: ADOPTED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVED BY: Dawn Benson
SECOND: Stephen Wright
AYES: Janine Thalblum, Scott Mittan, Amit Kothari,
NOES:
6. Unfinished Business - None.
7. New Business
7.1 Five-Year Capital Improvement Program 2020-2025, Finding of General Plan
Conformance for Proposed Fiscal Year 2020-21 and Fiscal Year 2021-22
Laurie Sucgang, Assistant Public Works Director/City Engineer, made a presentation and
responded to questions posed by the Commission.
On a motion by Commissioner Benson, seconded by Commissioner Mittan, the Planning
Commission took the following action:
RESOLUTION NO. 20-09
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
Planning Commission April 28, 2020
Regular Meeting Page | 5
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
FINDING CONFORMITY WITH THE ADOPTED GENERAL PLAN FOR THE FISCAL
YEAR 2020-21 AND FISCAL YEAR 2021-22 PROJECTS IN THE CITY OF DUBLIN
FIVE-YEAR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM 2020-2025
RESULT: ADOPTED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVED BY: Dawn Benson
SECOND: Scott Mittan
AYES: Janine Thalblum, Amit Kothari, Stephen Wright
NOES:
8. Other Business
Kristie Wheeler, Assistant Community Development Director, informed the Commission
that the next Planning Commission meeting is scheduled for Tuesday, May 12, 2020, but
there are no scheduled agenda items.
Kristie Wheeler, Assistant Community Development Director, informed the Commission
that there is an agenda item scheduled for the Tuesday, May 26, 2020, Planning
Commission meeting. That meeting will likely also be a virtual meeting.
Commissioner Wright requested public comments submitted after agenda publishing be
sent out earlier than Tuesday afternoon.
9. Adjournment
The meeting was adjourned by Commission Chairperson Thalblum at 9:50 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Planning Commission Chairperson
ATTEST:
Kristie Wheeler
Assistant Community Development Director
RESOLUTION NO. 20-06
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
APPROVING A SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PERMIT FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A
138-ROOM HOTEL, A MINOR USE PERMIT TO ALLOW A PARKING REDUCTION FOR
SHARED PARKING AND A HERITAGE TREE REMOVAL PERMIT AT 7950 DUBLIN
BOULEVARD
APN: 941-1500-037-00
PLPA-2019-00020, PLPA-2019-00044 & PLOC-2020-00053
WHEREAS, the Applicant, Jerry Hunt, Rubicon Property Group, is proposing to
construct a 138-room hotel on an existing parking lot located south of the existing Corrie
Center office building at 7950 Dublin Boulevard within the Downtown Dublin Specific Pl an
Transit-Oriented District. The new six-story hotel will consist of four stories over two stories of
podium parking, and related landscape and site improvements (the “project”). The proposal
includes a Site Development Review Permit to allow construction of the hotel, a Minor Use
Permit to allow a parking reduction for shared parking between the proposed hotel and an
existing office building, and a Heritage Tree Removal Permit to remove two Coast redwood
trees; and
WHEREAS, the project site is located in Downtown Dublin, within the Transit-Oriented
District of the Downtown Dublin Specific Plan; and
WHEREAS, a hotel is a permitted use in the Transit-Oriented District of the Downtown
Dublin Specific Plan; and
WHEREAS, the project site is currently occupied by a surface parking lot serving the
existing Corrie Center office building; and
WHEREAS, a Heritage Tree Removal Permit is required to remove two Coast redwood
trees located in a future bioretention treatment area necessary for the development of the
project; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the requirements of the Californ ia Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA), a Final Environmental Impact Report (State Clearinghouse No. 2010022005) was
prepared for the Downtown Dublin Specific Plan and certified by the City Council on February
1, 2011 (Resolution No. 08-11); and
WHEREAS, Downtown Dublin Environmental Impact Report (DDSP EIR) and
subsequent Addendums analyzed development of approximately 2.2 million square feet of
non-residential development and 2,500 residential dwelling units . The project is the first to
utilize a portion of the 1.6 million square feet of non-residential development that was
allocated to the Transit-Oriented District. Therefore, the project’s 51,528 square feet is within
the already contemplated non -residential development activity in the Transit-Oriented District;
and
WHEREAS, the project was examined to determine if any of the standards contained
in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162(a) requiring preparation of supplemental environmental
review would be met. The analysis concluded that the project is within the scope of
development analyzed by the DDSP EIR and subsequent Addendums; the circumstances
under which the project is to be undertaken have not substantially changed since the DDSP
EIR and subsequent Addendums were prepared and will not substantially change with the
approval of the project; and no new mitigation measures would be required; and
WHEREAS, a Staff Report, dated April 28, 2020, and incorporated herein by reference,
described and analyzed the proposed project; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a properly noticed pub lic hearing on the
project on April 28, 2020, at which time all interested parties had the opportunity to be heard;
and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission 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 of Dublin Planning Commission
does hereby make the following findings and determinations regarding the Site Development
Review Permit:
A. The proposal is consistent with the purposes of Chapter 8.104 of the Zoning
Ordinance, with the General Plan and the Downtown Dublin Specific Plan and
design guidelines because: 1) the project is compatible with the architectural
character and scale of development in the immediate area in which the proposed
project is to be located; 2) the project is utilizing traditional building forms with
contemporary, high-quality materials and finishes in compliance with the design
guidelines of the Downtown Dublin Specific Plan; 3) the proposed project supports
the more specific vision for the Transit-Oriented District to encourage the
development of the area with land uses that support and complement transit uses,
particularly the West Dublin BART Station; 4) the project will help to provide
additional lodging opportunities to Downtown Dublin; and 5) the project is consistent
with the General Plan land use designation of Downtown Dublin Specific Plan –
Transit-Oriented District.
B. The proposal is consistent with the provisions of Title 8, Zoning Ordinance because:
1) the project contributes to the orderly, attractive, and harmonious site and
architectural development that is compatible with the architectural style, intensity of
development – either in place or permitted in the future, and context of surrounding
and adjacent properties; and 2) the project complies with the development
standards of the Downtown Dublin Zoning District, as outlined in the Downtown
Dublin Specific Plan.
C. The design of the project is appropriate to the City, the vicinity, surrounding
properties, and the lot in which the project is proposed because: 1) the project is
consistent with the Downtown Dublin Specific Plan in that it provides additional
lodging opportunities in close proximity to offices, retail and the West
Dublin/Pleasanton BART station; 2) the size and mass of the proposed building is
consistent with other commercial development in the immediate vicinity and in
compliance with the minimum and maximum development density/intensity
permitted; and 3) the redevelopment of the subject property is an important
incremental change to advance the vision of the Downtown Dublin Specific Plan to
make Downtown Dublin a vibrant and dynamic mixed-use center.
D. The subject site is suitable for the type and intensity of the approved development
because: 1) the project proposes a hotel, which is an allowed use in the Transit-
Oriented District; 2) the project is consistent with the Downtown Dublin Zoning
District in which it is located; 3) the project site will be fully served by a network of
existing and planned infrastructure of public roadways, access easements,
services, and facilities; and 4) the proposed project meets all of the development
standards established to regulate development in the Downtown Dublin Specific
Plan Transit-Oriented District and are consistent and compatible with other
commercial development projects in the immediate vicinity.
E. Impacts to existing slopes and topographic features are addressed because the
project site is generally flat and the development of the parcel will replace an
existing parking field which will not impact any slopes or other topographic features.
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 project provides a high degree of
design and landscaping to provide a unique, urban, contemporary-themed lodging
opportunity in the Downtown Dublin Specific Plan; 2) the structures reflect the
architectural styles and development standards for othe r higher-density projects
within the Downtown Dublin Specific Plan; 3) the architectural style, colors and
materials will be consistent and compatible with the contemporary architectural
style, colors, and materials being utilized on other projects in the immediate vicinity
and more specifically the adjacent Corrie Center office building; 4) the project is
utilizing traditional building forms with contemporary, high-quality materials and
finishes in compliance with the design guidelines of the Downtown Dublin Specific
Plan; and 5) the size and scale of the development will be similar to others buildings
in the immediate project vicinity.
G. Landscape considerations, including the location, type, size, color, texture and
coverage of plant materials, and similar elements have been incorporated into the
project to ensure visual relief, adequate screening and an attractive environment for
the public because: 1) all perimeter landscaping and hardscape are proposed for
construction in accordance with the Downtown Dublin Specific Plan; 2) the project
perimeter and interior landscaping is consistent with other developments in the
vicinity and 3) the project will conform 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) all infrastructure including streets,
sidewalks, and street lighting are proposed for construction in accordance with the
project plans and have been reviewed for safety and adequate circulation; and 2)
development of this project will include enhancement to the existing driveway from
Dublin Boulevard so that all modes of transportation are supported and ensuring
the safe use of these facilities.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the that the Planning Commission of the City of
Dublin hereby makes the following findings and determinations regarding the Minor Use
Permit to allow a parking reduction for shared parking related to a proposed hotel and existing
office building, located at 7950 Dublin Boulevard:
A. The proposed use and related structures are compatible with other land uses,
transportation and service facilities in the vicinity in that: 1) the project is located in
the Downtown Dublin Zoning District, which allows for a variety of uses including
hotels, offices, restaurants, and retail; 2) the project is a hotel development located
within a developed parcel that includes an office building, parking lot and adjacent
commercial uses; and 3) the project is accessible from existing driveways on Dublin
Boulevard and Regional Street.
B. The proposed use meets the parking requirement for the use type in accordance
with the requirements of Chapter 8.76 (Off-Street Parking and Loading Regulations),
which could include a parking reduction for shared par king in that: 1) a parking study
was prepared by Advanced Mobility Group, which shows that there is sufficient
parking available during the peak demand for both the office and hotel uses with up
to a 15% transit reduction; 2) adequate signage will be placed within the project site
to delineate the location of available parking spaces; 3) the project’s proposed use
types and transit oriented location indicate the proposed on-site parking supply
would adequately serve the expected parking demand; and 4) the Parking Reduction
for Shared Parking will facilitate the establishment of a hotel which will provide a
service to the community.
C. The proposed use, as conditioned, 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: 1) a parking study was prepared by Advanced Mobility
Group which shows that there is sufficient parking available to meet the greatest
parking demands of all tenants within the pro ject; and 2) due to sufficient on-site
parking it is not anticipated that there will be any overflow parking that would
adversely affect an adjacent use.
D. The proposed use, as conditioned, will not be injurious to property or improvements
in the neighborhood in that: 1) proposed hotel will include a parking structure that, in
conjunction with the ground-level parking, will be adequate parking to meet the
greatest parking demands of all tenants within the project; and 2) the establishment
of the commercial uses will be done in accordance with all applicable Building and
Fire Codes and local ordinances.
E. There are adequate provisions for public access, water sanitation, and public utilities
and services to ensure that the proposed use and related struc tures would not be
detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare in that: 1) the proposed building
is located in a developed commercial area of Downtown Dublin; 2) the project will
be served by existing public roadways including Dublin Boulevard an d Regional
Street; and 3) the project will be served by existing public utilities and services
including water and sanitation.
F. The subject site is physically suitable for the type, density and intensity of the use and
related structures being proposed in that: 1) the project is located in the Downtown
Dublin Zoning District, which allows for a variety of uses including hotels, offices,
restaurants, and retail; 2) adequate signage will be placed within the project site to
delineate the location of shared parking spaces; and 3) the project’s proposed use
types and transit oriented location indicate the proposed on-site parking supply
would adequately serve the expected parking demand.
G. The proposed use will not be contrary to the specific intent claus es, development
regulations, or performance standards established for the zoning district in which it is
located in that: 1) the proposed hotel will contribute to the vibrate commercial area of
Downtown Dublin and provide a service to the residents of the City and its visitors;
and 2) as conditioned, the proposed will comply with the development standards and
performance standards established for the Downtown Dublin Zoning District.
H. The proposed use is consistent with the Dublin General Plan and with any applicable
Specific Plans in that: 1) the General Plan and Specific Plan Land Use designation is
Downtown Dublin – Transit-Oriented District which includes, but is not limited to,
hotels, offices, retail, restaurants, multi-family residential, and the proposed use will
not be contrary to these standards.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Planning Commission of the City of Dublin
hereby approves the Site Development Review Permit, Minor Use Permit, and Heritage Tree
Removal Permit for the proposed project, subject to the conditions:
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 REQ’D
Prior to:
1. Approval – Site Development Review Permit. This Site
Development Review Permit approval is for the Cambria
Hotel (PLPA-2019-00020). This approval shall be as
generally depicted and indicated on the project plans
prepared by DesignCell dated November 22, 2019,
attached as Exhibit A, and other plans, text, and diagrams
relating to this Site Development Review Permit, unless
modified by the Conditions of Approval contained herein.
PL On-going
2. Approval – Minor Use Permit. This Minor Use Permit
("MUP" or "Permit") approval to allow a parking reduction
for shared parking (PLPA-2019-00044), located at 7950
Dublin Boulevard (APN 941-1500-037-00). The approval
shall be as provided in the Technical Memorandum
(“Parking Study”) prepared by Advanced Mobility Group
dated September 30, 2019, attached as Exhibit B, and as
specified by the following Conditions of Approval for this
project.
PL On-going
3. Permit Expiration. Construction or use shall commence
within one (1) year of the effective date of this Permit or the
Site Development Review/MUP shall lapse and become
null and void. If there is a dispute as to whether the Permit
has expired, the City may hold a noticed public hearing to
determine the matter. Such a determination may be
PL One Year After
Effective Date
CONDITION TEXT RESPON.
AGENCY
WHEN REQ’D
Prior to:
processed concurrently with revocation proceedings in
appropriate circumstances. If a Permit expires, a ne w
application must be made and processed according to the
requirements of the Zoning Ordinance.
4. Time Extension. The Community Development Director
may grant an extension of the approval for a period not to
exceed twelve (12) months, upon the Applicant’s written
request prior to expiration, and the determination that all
Conditions of Approval remain adequate and all app licable
findings of approval will continue to be met. 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 permit
expiration
5. Compliance. Developer shall comply with the Subdivision
Map Act, the City of Dublin Subdivision and Zoning
Ordinances, City of Dublin Title 7 Public Works Ordinance,
which includes the Grading Ordinance, the City of Dublin
Public Works Standards and Policies, the most current
requirements of the State Code Title 24 and the Americans
with Disabilities Act with reg ard to accessibility, and all
building and fire codes and ordinances in effect at the time
of building permit issuance. All public improvements
constructed by Developer and to be dedicated to the City
are hereby identified as “public works” under Labor Code
section 1771. Accordingly, Developer, in constructing such
improvements, shall comply with the Prevailing Wage L aw
(Labor Code. Sects. 1720 and following).
PL, PW On-going
6. Effective Date. This Site Development Review Permit
approval becomes effective only after the Community
Benefit Agreement associated with the project is app roved
by the City Council.
PL On-going
7. Revocation of Permit. The Site Development Review
Permit/MUP approval shall be revocable for cause in
accordance with Section 8.96.020.I of the Dublin Zoning
Ordinance. Any violation of the terms or conditions of this
permit shall be subject to citation.
PL On-going
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 suppl y
written statements from each such agency or department,
where applicable, 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 which may include,
but are not limited to Alameda County Environmental
PW Building Permit
Issuance
CONDITION TEXT RESPON.
AGENCY
WHEN REQ’D
Prior to:
Health, Alameda County Flood Control and Water
Conservation District (Zone 7), California Department of
Fish and Wildlife, Army Corps of Engineers, Regional Water
Quality Control Board, Caltrans, or other regional/state
agencies as required by law, as applicable. Copies of the
permits shall be provided to the Public Works Department.
10. Fees. The Applicant/Developer shall pay all applicable fees
in effect at the time of building permit issuance, includ ing,
but not limited to: Planning fees; Building fees; Dublin San
Ramon Services District fees; Public Facilities fees; City of
Dublin Fire fees; Noise Mitigation fees; Inclusionary House
In-Lieu fees; Alameda County Flood and Water
Conservation fees.
Various Grading
Permit, and
Building Permit
Issuance
11. Zone 7 Impervious Surface Fees. The
Applicant/Developer shall complete a “Zone 7 Impervious
Surface Fee Application” and subm it an accompanying
exhibit for review by the Public Works Department. Fees
generated by this application will be due at issuance of
building permit.
ADM Building Permit
Issuance
12. Indemnification. The Applicant/Developer shall defend,
indemnify, and hold harmless the City of Dublin and its
agents, officers, and employees from any claim, action, or
proceeding against the City of Dublin or its agents, officers,
or employees to attack, set aside, void, or annul an
approval of the City of Dublin or its advisory agency, appeal
board, Planning Commission, City Council, Community
Development Director, Zoning Administrator, or any other
department, committee, or agency of the City to the extent
such actions are brought within the time period required by
Government Code Section 65009 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 proceedin gs.
ADM On-going
13. Clarification of Conditions. In the event that the parties
agree that there needs to be clarification to the Conditions
of Approval, the Director of Community Development and
the City Engineer have the authority to clarify the intent of
these Conditions of Approval to the Developer without
going to a public hearing. The Dire ctor of Community
Development and the City Engineer also have the authority
to make minor modifications to these conditions without
going to a public hearing in order for the
Applicant/Developer to fulfill needed improvements or
mitigations resulting from impacts of this project.
PL/PW On-going
14. 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
15. Modifications. Modifications or changes to this Site
Development Review Permit approval may be considered
by the Community Development Director in compliance with
Chapter 8.104 of the Zoning Ordinance.
PL On-going
16. Controlling Activities. The Applicant/Developer shall PL On-going
CONDITION TEXT RESPON.
AGENCY
WHEN REQ’D
Prior to:
control all activities on the project site so as not to create a
nuisance to the existing or surrounding businesses and
residences.
17. Accessory Structures/Construction. The use of any
accessory structures, such as storage sheds or
trailer/container units used for storage or for any other
purpose during construction, shall not be allowed on the
site at any time unless a Temporary Use Permit is applied
for and approved.
PL Establishment of
the Temporary
Use
18. Property Maintenance. The Applicant/Developer and
property owner shall be responsible for maintaining the site
in a clean and litter free condition during construction and
through completion. Per the City of Dublin Non-Residential
Property Maintenance Ordinance, DMC Section 5.64.050,
the Applicant/ Property Owner shall maintain the building,
site and all signage in good condition and shall keep the
site clear of trash, debris and graffiti vandalism on a regular
and continuous basis.
PL On-going
PLANNING DIVISION - PROJECT SPECIFIC – SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW
19. Equipment Screening. All electrical, fire risers and/or
mechanical equipment shall be screened from public view.
Any roof-mounted equipment shall be completely screened
from view by materials architecturally compatible with the
building and to the satisfaction of the Commun ity
Development Director. The building permit plans shall show
the location of all equipment and screening for review and
approval by the Director of Comm unity Development.
PL Building Permit
Issuance
and
On-going
20. Public Art. The Applicant/Developer intends to acquire
and install public art on the project site in accordance w ith
Chapter 8.58 of the Dublin Municipal Code. The value of
the public art project is required to equal or exceed 0.5
percent of the building valuation (exclu sive of land) for the
entire hotel project. The Building Official will determine the
building valuation at the time of Plan Check submittal for
the first building permit on -site. An agreement that sets
forth the ownership, maintenance responsibilities, and
insurance coverage for all public art on -site shall be
executed prior to occupancy. All public art installations are
subject to approval of the City Council upon
recommendation by the Heritage and Cultural Arts
Commission.
PL Building Permit
Issuance
and
Occupancy
21. Bike Racks. The bike racks shall have two points of
connection as required by th e Bicycle and Pedestrian
Master Plan.
PL, PW Landscape Plan
Approval
22. Parking. Parking shall be provided as stated in the
approved Minor Use Permit for shared parking (PLPA-
2019-00044)
PL Building Permit
Issuance and
On-going
23. Master Sign Program. A Master Sign Program shall be
reviewed and approved for all project-related signage
including, but not limited to, wall signs, monument signs,
community identification signage, address signage,
directional signage, parking signage, speed limit signage,
retail tenant signage, and other signage deemed necessary
by the City. All signs shown in the Project Plans are for
PL Installation of
any project-
related signage
CONDITION TEXT RESPON.
AGENCY
WHEN REQ’D
Prior to:
illustrative purposes only and the full details of the sign
sizes, materials, and construction shall be shown in the
separate sign package.
PLANNING DIVISION - PROJECT SPECIFIC – MINOR USE PERMIT
24. Options 1 and 3 as provided in the Parking Study utilize the
parking field adjacent to Dublin Boulevard (associated with
the former Hooter’s building). At such time that a Site
Development Review Permit is approved for development
on this portion of the site that modifies the former Hooter's
building configuration and/or use, Options 1 and 3 that
utilize this parking field shall be reevaluated .
PL Ongoing
PLANNING DIVISION - PROJECT SPECIFIC – HERITAGE TREE REMOVAL PERMIT
25. Tree removal authorized under this Heritage Tree Removal
Permit shall not occur during the bird breeding season of
February 1 to August 15. If tree removal must occur during
the bird breeding season, the on-site heritage trees shall be
surveyed by a qualified biologist to verify the presence or
absence of nesting raptors or other birds. Pre -construction
surveys shall be conducted within 15 days prior to the start
of work and shall be submitted to the City for review and
approval. If the surveys show the absence of nesting
raptors or other birds, tree removal may proceed. If the
survey indicates the potential presence of nesting raptors or
other nesting birds, the trees shall not be removed until the
young have successfully fledged, such that n esting birds
are not present.
PL Tree Removal
26. The applicant shall work with staff to find possible solutions
that would protect the two heritage redwood trees provided,
however, that no changes to the hotel footprint would be
required.
PL Building Permit
or Grading
Permit Issuance
DOWNTOWN DUBLIN SPECIFIC PLAN MITIGATION MEASURES
27. MM 3.3-1: Project applicants shall consult with a registered
geotechnical engineer to prepare a design level
geotechnical report that addresses the affects [sic] of
seismic ground shaking and includes a quantitative
evaluation of liquefaction and liquefaction-induced lateral
spreading for future development in the DDSP project area.
The design level geotechnical report shall specify
foundations and structural elements that are designed to
resist forces and potential ground settlement for liquefaction
and lateral spreading. This report shall be submitted in
conjunction with a Building Permit application.
PL Building Permit
Issuance
28. MM 3.4-2: Future development or substantial
redevelopment within the proje ct area shall prepare a
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment to determine
whether or not a particular development site contains any
hazardous materials as a result of historic contamination
within the project area subject to review and approval by
the City of Dublin. In the event that the Phase I
recommends subsequent testing, the pote ntial health risks
shall be evaluated and a work plan prepared to remediate
the soil and/or groundwater in accordance with all
applicable federal, state, and local regulation s. This
assessment shall be submitted to the City in conjunction
PL Building Permit
Issuance
CONDITION TEXT RESPON.
AGENCY
WHEN REQ’D
Prior to:
with the Building and Grading/Site work permit and shall be
found acceptable by the City prior to ground disturbance.
29. MM 3.5-1a: Prior to issuance of grading permit, the project
proponent shall file a Notice of Intent as required by
Regional Water Quality Control Board regarding storm
water discharges associated with construction activities.
Upon completion of construction activities, a Notice of
Termination shall be filed.
MM 3.5-1b: Prior to issuance of any building or grading
permits, a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP)
shall be prepared by the project contractors and submitted
to the Regional Water Quality Control Board for review and
comment and to the City of Dublin in conjunction with the
Building/Grading/Site work permit and shall be found to be
acceptable by the City prior to ground disturbance. The
SWPPP shall be prepared to Regional Water Quality
Control Board standards and Alameda Countywide Clean
Water Program requirements, and shall identify erosion
minimization and control provisions, pollution detection
provisions, and pollution elimination/ minimization
provisions appropriate to the development project and its
site for construction and po st-construction activities. The
SWPPP shall include best available technology,
engineering, and design solutions such as the use of silt
screens, hay bales, modern trash screens, energy
dissipaters, and/or absorbent devices. Stormwater runoff
water quality monitoring procedures shall be clearly detailed
in the SWPPP.
PL/PW Site Work
(Grading) Permit
30. MM 3.7-1a: Project applicants within the project area shall
prepare a construction noise management plan that
identifies measures to be taken to minimize cons truction
noise on surrounding sensitive receptors (e.g. residential
uses and schools) and includes specific noise management
measures to be included into project plans and
specifications subject to review and approval by the City.
These measures shall I include, but not be limited to the
following:
• Construction activities, including the maintenance
and warming of equipment, shall be limited to
Monday through Friday, and non-City holidays,
between the hours of 7:30 AM and 5:30 PM except
as otherwise approved by the City Engineer.
• All construction equipment shall be equipped with
mufflers and sound control devices (e.g., intake
silencers and noise shrouds) no less effective than
those provided on the original equipment and no
equipment shall have an un -muffled exhaust.
• The City shall require that the contractor maintain
and tune-up all construction equipment to minimize
noise emissions.
• Stationary equipment shall be placed so as to
maintain the greatest possible distance to the
sensitive receptors.
PL/PW Building Permit
Issuance
CONDITION TEXT RESPON.
AGENCY
WHEN REQ’D
Prior to:
• All equipment servicing shall be performed so as to
main tain the greatest possible distance to the
sensitive receptors.
• The construction contractor shall provide an on-site
name and telephone number of a contact person. In
the event that construction noise is intrusiv e to an
educational process, the constructio n liaison will
revise the construction schedule to preserve the
learning environment.
• Select demolition methods to minimize vibration,
where possible (e.g., sawing masonry into sections
rather than demolishing it by pavement breakers).
MM 3.7-1b: Should the proposed project require off-site
import/export of fill material during construction, trucks shall
utilize a route that is least disruptive to sensitive receptors,
preferably major roadways (Interstate 580, In terstate 680,
San Ramon Road, Dublin Boulevard, and Amador Valley
Boulevard). Construction trucks should, to the extent
practical, avoid the weekday and Saturday a.m. and p.m.
peak hours (7:00 a.m. to 9:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. to 6:00
p.m.).
31. MM 3.7-3: Future development within the DDSP project
area that is located adjacent to Highway 580; Amador Plaza
(between Dublin Boulevard and Saint Patrick Way); and
Dublin Boulevard (between Amador Plaza Road and Village
Parkway; between Regional Street and Golden Gate Drive
and between San Ramon Road and Regional Stre et) shall
prepare a site-specific acoustical analysis subject to review
and approval by the City of Dublin. The acoustical analysis
prepared for future development shall eval uate resultant
noise impacts in comparison to the City’s noise criteria for
Land Use Compatibility for Community Noise
Environments. Feasible project specific mitigation
measures shall be required as part of the project design to
reduce noise impacts at future noise sensitive land uses,
including but not limited to the following: 1) site design; 2)
operational restrictions; 3) barriers; 4) setbacks; and 5)
insulation. No development permits or approval of land use
applications shall be issued until the acou stical analysis is
received and approved by City staff and any project design
features are incorporated into the future development
project.
PL Building Permits
Issuance
LANDSCAPING
32. Final Landscape and Irrigation Plans. Final landscape
plans, irrigation system plans, tree preservation techniques,
and guarantees, shall be reviewed an d approved by the
Dublin Planning Division prior to the issuance of the
building permit. All such submittals shall be reviewed and
approved by the City Engineer and the Community
Development Director. The Final Landscape Plans shall
ensure:
a. That plant material is utilized which will be capable of
healthy growth within the given range of soil and
PL Landscape Plan
Approval and
Installation
CONDITION TEXT RESPON.
AGENCY
WHEN REQ’D
Prior to:
climate.
b. That proposed landscape screening is of a height and
density so that it provides a positive visual impact
within three years from the time of planting.
c. That unless unusual circumstances prevail, all trees on
the site shall be a minimum of 15 gallons in size. All
trees that are on the exterior building perimeter shall be
24-inch box minimum, with at least 30 percent at 36-
inch box or greater. All shrubs shall be five gallon
minimum.
d. That a plan for an automatic irrigation system be
provided which assures that all plants get adequate
water. In unusual circumstances, and if approved by
staff, a manual or quick coupler system may be used.
e. That concrete curbing is to be used at the edges of all
planters and paving surfaces where applicable.
f. That all cut and fill slopes conform to the conditions
detailed in the Site Development Review Permit
packet.
g. That a guarantee from the owners or contra ctors shall
be required guaranteeing all shrubs and ground cover,
all trees, and the irrigation system for one year.
h. That a perm anent maintenance agreement on all
landscaping will be required from the owner insuring
regular irrigation, fertilization and weed abatement, if
applicable.
33. Landscaping at Street/Drive Aisle Intersections.
Landscaping shall not obstruct the sight dist ance of
motorists, pedestrians or bicyclists. Except for trees,
landscaping (and/or landscape structures such as walls) at
drive aisle intersections shall not be taller than 30 inches
above the curb. Landscaping shall be kept at a minimum
height and fullness giving patrol officers and the general
public surveillance capabilities of the area.
PL On-going
34. Plant Clearances. All trees planted shall meet the
following clearances:
a. Six feet from the face of building walls or roof eaves.
b. Seven feet from fire hydrants, storm drains, sanitary
sewers and/or gas lines.
c. Five feet from top of wing of driveways, mailboxes,
water, telephone and/or electrical mains
d. Fifteen feet from stop signs, street or curb sign returns.
e. Fifteen feet from either side of street lights.
PL Landscape Plan
Approval and
Installation
35. Landscaping. Applicant/Developer shall construct all
landscaping within the site and along the project frontage
within the site.
PL, PW Landscape Plan
Approval and
Installation
36. Backflow Prevention Devices. The Landscape Plans shall
show the location of all backflow prevention devises. The
location and screening of the backflow prevention devices
shall be reviewed and approved by City staff .
PL, PW, F Landscape Plan
Approval and
Installation
37. Root Barriers and Tree Staking. The Landscape Plans PL, PW Landscape Plan
CONDITION TEXT RESPON.
AGENCY
WHEN REQ’D
Prior to:
shall provide details showing root barriers and tree staking
will be installed which meet current City specifications.
Approval and
Installation
38. Water Efficient Landscaping Ordinance. The
Applicant/Developer shall submit written documentation to
the Public Works Department (in the form of a Landscape
Documentation Package and other required documents)
that the development conforms to the City’s Water Efficient
Landscaping Ordinance.
PL Landscape Plan
Approval and
Installation
39. Landscaping at Trash Enclosure. Landscaping shall
provide adequate screening of the trash enclosure through
the use of shrubs, vines, etc.
PL Landscape Plan
Approval and
Installation
40. The trees within the Project site along San Ramon Road
and I-580 off ramp shall be Chinese pistache.
PL Landscape Plan
Approval and
Installation
41. Trees with the Parking Area. The proposed London plane
trees shall be replaced with evergreen trees with less root
damage potential in narrow parking lot planters.
PL Landscape Plan
Approval and
Installation
BUILDING AND SAFETY DIVISION
42. 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
43. Construction Drawings. Construction plans shall be fully
dimensioned (including building e levations) accurately
drawn (depicting all existing and proposed conditions on
site), and prepared and signed by a California licensed
Architect or Engineer. All structural calculations shall be
prepared and signed by a California licensed Architect or
Engineer. The site plan, landscape plan and details shall
be consistent with each other.
B Building Permit
Issuance
44. Building Permits. To apply for building permits,
Applicant/Developer shall submit electro nic drawings and
specifications, and the number of hard copies - as
determined by the Chief Building Official - for plan check.
Each set of plans shall have attached an anno tated copy of
these Conditions of Approval. 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 Building Permit
Issuance
45. 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
46. Addressing.
1. A site plan shall be provided with the City of Dublin’s
address grid overlaid on the plans (1 to 30 scale). All
exterior door openings shall be highlighted on plans
(front, rear, etc.). Three copies on full size sheets and
five copies reduced sheets.
2. Address signage shall be provided as per the Dublin
B 1. Release of
Addresses
2. Permitting
CONDITION TEXT RESPON.
AGENCY
WHEN REQ’D
Prior to:
Commercial Security Code.
3. Address shall 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.
4. The architectural plans shall include a proposed
room / suite number plan.
3. Occupancy
47. Engineer Observation. The Engineer of Record shall be
retained to provide observation services for all components
of the lateral and vertical design of the building, including
nailing, hold-downs, straps, shear, roof diaphragm and
structural frame of building. A written report shall be
submitted to the City Inspector prior to scheduling the final
frame inspection.
B Scheduling Final
Frame
Inspection
48. 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 Permit Issuance
49. CASp Reports. Applicant 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, a written
report shall be submitted to the City Building Inspector prior
to scheduling the final inspection.
B Permitting and
Occupancy
50. Air Conditioning Units. Air conditioning units and
ventilation ducts shall be screened from public view with
materials compatible to the main building and shall not be
roof mounted. 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
51. 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, Tables A and 422.1.
B Permitting
52. Cool Roofs – CA Energy Code. Flat roof areas shall have
their roofing material coated with light colored grave l or
painted with light colored or reflective material designed for
cool roofs.
B Through
Completion
53. Solar Zone – CA Energy Code. The location and
orientation of the Solar Zone shall be shown on the site
plan. This condition of approval will be waived if the project
meets the exceptions provided in the CA Energy Code.
B Through
Completion
54. Accessible Parking. The design, location and number of
required accessible parking stalls shall be as required by
the CA Building Code.
B Through
Completion
55. 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
56. FEMA – Floodplain. The project is currently shown to be
in a floodplain. The applicant shall submit eithe r a letter of
map amendment, letter of map change or letter of map
revision prior to permitting. If the site has not been
B Prior to
Permitting
CONDITION TEXT RESPON.
AGENCY
WHEN REQ’D
Prior to:
removed from the floodplain by a letter, then elevation
certificates will be required at the correct stages.
57. Temporary Fencing. Temporary construction fencing shall
be installed along perimeter of all work under construction
B Through
Completion
58. Copies of Approved Plans. Applicant shall provide the
City with one reduced (1/2 size) copy of the City of Dublin
stamped approved plans.
B 30 Days After
Permit and Each
Revision
Issuance
FIRE DEPARTMENT
59. No fire service lines shall pass beneath buildings. F Approval of
Improvement
Plans
60. 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.
1. 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.
2. Sprinkler System Components. 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.
3. 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.
4. 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.
5. Fire Protection Equipment. Fire protection
equipment shall be identified with approved signs
constructed of durable materials, permanently installed
F Building Permit
Issuance
CONDITION TEXT RESPON.
AGENCY
WHEN REQ’D
Prior to:
and readily visible.
61. b Fire Access During Construction.
1. 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.
2. Entrances. Entrances to job sites shall not be blocked,
including after hours, other tha n by approved
gates/barriers that provide for emergency access.
3. Site Utilities. Site utilities that would require th e
access road to be dug up or made impassible shall be
installed prior to construction commencing.
4. Fire Lane. Entrance flare, angle of dep arture, 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.
5. Personnel Access. Route width, slope, surface and
obstructions must be considered for the approved route
to furthermost portion of the exterior wall.
6. 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
62. Fire Alarm Detection System. 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 eva cuation 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.
1. Fire Alarm Plans. (Deferred Submittal Item).
Submit detailed drawings of the fire alarm system,
including floor plan showing all rooms, 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 areas 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.
2. Central Station Monitored Account. Automatic fire
alarm systems shall be monitored by an approved
central alarm station. Zoning and annunciation of
F Occupancy
CONDITION TEXT RESPON.
AGENCY
WHEN REQ’D
Prior to:
central station alarm signals shall be approved by the
Fire Department.
3. 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.
4. 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 accou nt is UL certified must be
provided to the Fire Inspector.
63. 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
64. 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 box should be installed
approximately 5 1/2 feet above grade. The box shall be
sized to hold the master key to the facility as well as keys
for rooms not accessible by the master key. 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 shall be provided to
the Fire Inspector upon the final inspection. The inspector
will then lock the keys into the box.
F Occupancy
65. Means of Egress. Exit signs shall be visible and
illuminated with emergency lighting when building is
occupied.
F Occupancy
66. 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 fo r 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
F Occupancy
CONDITION TEXT RESPON.
AGENCY
WHEN REQ’D
Prior to:
letters not less than one-inch high on a contrasting
background. The use of this exception may be revoked for
cause.
67. 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” x 11” paper is required
prior to final occupancy.
F Occupancy
68. Interior Finish. Wall and ceiling interior finish material shall
meet the requirements of Chapter 8 of the California Fi re
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
69. General Inspection. Upon inspection of the work for which
this submittal was provided, a general inspection of the
business and site will be conducted.
F Occupancy
70. Addressing. Addressing shall be illuminated or in an
illuminated area. The address characters s hall 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 n umbers.
Building Address. The building shall be provided with all
addresses or the assigned address range so as to be
clearly visible from either direction of travel on the street the
address references. The address characters shall not be
less than 5 inches in height by 1-inch stroke. Larger sizes
may be necessary depending on the setbacks and visibility.
Multi-Tenants. Where a building has multiple tenants,
address shall also be provided near the main entrance door
of each tenant space. The address shall be high enough on
the building to be clearly visible from the driveway, street or
parking area it faces even when vehicles are parked in front
of the tenant space. The address shall not be less than 5 -
inches in height with a ½-inch stroke.
F Occupancy
71. Fire Safety During Construction and Demolition.
1. Clearance to combustibles from tem porary 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.
2. 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.
3. Combustible debris, rubbish and waste material shall
be removed from buildings at the end of each shift of
work.
4. Flammable and combustible liquid sto rage areas shall
be maintained clear of combustible vegetation and
waste materials.
F On-going
DUBLIN SAN RAMON SERVICES DISTRICT
72. d Complete improvement plans shall be submitted to DSRSD DSRSD Issuance of
CONDITION TEXT RESPON.
AGENCY
WHEN REQ’D
Prior to:
that conform to the requirements of the Dublin San Ramon
Services District Code, the DSRSD “Standard Procedures,
Specifications and Drawings for Design and Installation of
Water and Wastewater Facilities,” all applicable DSRSD
Master Plans and all DSRSD policies.
Building Permits
73. 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 estab lished 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 Issuance of
Building Permit
or Improvement
Plans
74. 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/o r
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 amoun ts and
forms that are acceptable to DSRSD. The applicant
shall allow at least 15 working days for final
improvement drawing review by DSRSD before
signature by the District Engineer.
DSRSD Building Permit
Issuance by
City; or Building
Permit or
Construction
Permit Issuance
by DSRSD
75. All easement dedications for DSRSD facilities shall be by
separate instrument irrevocably offe red to DSRSD.
DSRSD Formal
Acceptance
76. All mains shall be sized to provide sufficient capacity to
accommodate future flow demands in addition to each
development project’s demand. Layout and sizing of mains
shall be in conformance with DSRSD utility master
planning.
DSRSD Issuance of
Improvement
Plans
77. The locations and widths of all proposed easement
dedications for water and sewer lines shall be submitted to
and approved by DSRSD.
DSRSD Issuance of
Improvement
Plans
78. 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 Issuance of
Improvement
Plans
79. Domestic and fire protection waterline systems for
commercial developments shall be designed to be looped
or interconnected to avoid dead end sections in accordance
with requirements of the DSRSD Standard Specifications
and sound engineering practice.
DSRSD Issuance of
Improvement
Plans
80. 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 revie w
DSRSD Issuance of
Improvement
Plans
CONDITION TEXT RESPON.
AGENCY
WHEN REQ’D
Prior to:
with DSRSD staff. Any pumping station will require specific
review and approval by DSRSD of preliminary design
reports, design criteria, and final plans and specifications .
The DSRSD reserves the right to require payment of
present worth 20 year mainte nance costs as well as other
conditions within a separate agreement with the applicant
for any project that requires a pumping station.
81. This project will be analyzed by DSRSD to determine if it
represents additional wa ter and/or sewer capacity demands
on the District. Applicant will be required to pay all
incremental capacity reserve fees for water and sewer
services as required by the pro ject demands. All capacity
reserve fees must be paid prior to installation of a wa ter
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 buildin g
permit until capacity reserve fees are paid.
DSRSD Issuance of
Building Permit
82. No sewer line or waterline construction shall be permitted
unless the proper utility construction permit has been
issued by DSRSD. A construction permit will only be
issued after all of the items in the condition immediately
above have been satisfied.
DSRSD Issuance of any
Construction
Permit
83. Above ground backflow prevention devices/double detector
check valves shall be installed on fire protection systems
connected to the DSRSD water main. The Applicant shall
collaborate with the Fire Department and with DSRSD to
size and configure its fire system.
DSRSD Issuance of
Improvement
Plans
84. If trash enclosures are required to drain to the sanitary
sewer system, grease intercep tors shall be installed within
the trash enclosure area. The trash enclosure shall be
roofed and graded to minimize rain water or stormwater
from entering the trash enclosure.
DSRSD Issuance of
Improvement
Plans
85. District Code requires each parcel to have its own
independent service for both water and wastewater.
Independent connections to water and wastewater mains
are required for each parcel. Laterals shall not cross into
adjacent parcels.
DSRSD Issuance of
Improvement
Plans
86. Sewer capacity allocation for parcels shall be determined
per comments on the Lot Line Adjustment related to this
project area. Please refer to those comments.
DSRSD Issuance of
Improvement
Plans
PUBLIC WORKS GENERAL CONDITIONS
87. Conditions of Approval. 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
PUBLIC WORKS – AGREEMENTS
88. Storm Water Treatment Measures Maintenance
Agreement. Applicant/Developer shall enter into an
Agreement with the City of Dublin that guarantees the
property owner’s perpetual maintenance obligation for all
stormwater treatment measures installed as part of the
project, including those on-site and within the public Rights
PW Acceptance of
Improvements
CONDITION TEXT RESPON.
AGENCY
WHEN REQ’D
Prior to:
of Way. Said Agreement is required p ursuant to Provision
C.3 of the Municipal Regiona l 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.
PUBLIC WORKS – PERMITS AND BONDS
89. Encroachment Permit. Applicant/Developer shall obtain
an Encroachment Permit from the Public Works Department
for all construction activity within the public right-of-way. At
the discretion of the City Engineer an encroachment permit
for work specifically included in an Improvement Agreement
may not be required.
PW Permit Issuance
90. Grading/Sitework Permit. Applicant/Developer shall
obtain a grading permit from the Public Works Department
for all grading. Applicant/Developer shall obtain a sitework
permit from the Public Works Department for all sitework. A
separate grading permit is not necessary if grading will be
included in the sitework permit submittal.
PW Permit Issuance
91. Security. Applicant/Developer shall provide faithful
performance security to guarantee the grading
improvements, as determined by the City Engineer (Note:
The performance security shall remain in effect until one
year after final inspection).
PW Permit Issuance
92. Permits from Other Agencies. Applicant/Developer shall
obtain all permits and/or approvals required by other
agencies including, but not limited to:
• Army Co rps of Engineers
• 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)
PW Permit Issuance
PUBLIC WORKS – SUBMITTALS
93. 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 or
Sitework Permit
Issuance
CONDITION TEXT RESPON.
AGENCY
WHEN REQ’D
Prior to:
94. Improvement Plan Requirements from Other Agencies.
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.
PW
Grading or
Sitework Permit
Issuance
95. 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 or
Sitework Permit
Issuance
96. Geotechnical Report. Applicant/Developer shall submit a
Design Level Geotechnical Report for the property owned
by Applicant/Developer, grading and additional information
and/or clarifications as determined by the City Engineer.
PW
Grading or
Sitework Permit
Issuance
97. Ownership and Maintenance of Improvements.
Applicant/Developer shall submit an Ownership and
Maintenance Exhibit for review and approval by Planning
Division and Public Works Department. Terms of
maintenance are subject to review and approval by the City
Engineer.
PL, PW
Grading or
Sitework Permit
Issuance
98. Building Pads, Slopes and Walls. Applicant/Developer
shall provide the Public Works Department with a letter from
a registered civil engineer or surveyo r 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 & toe of banks and retaining walls are at the locations
shown on the approved Grading Plans.
PW Acceptance of
Improvements
99. Approved Plan Files. Applicant/Developer shall provide
the Public Works Department a PDF format file of approved
site plans, including grading, improvement, landscaping &
irrigation, joint trench and lighting.
PW Acceptance of
Improvements
100. Master Files. 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 sha ll be
colored by layer and named in English. All submitted
drawings shall use the Global Coordinate System of USA,
California, NAD 83 California State Plane, Zone III, and U.S.
foot.
PW Acceptance of
Improvements
PUBLIC WORKS - PARCEL MAP, EASEMENTS AND ACCESS RIGHTS
101. Dedications and Easements. All rights-of-way and
easement dedications required by these conditions or
determined necessary by the City Engineer shall be done
by a separate instrument.
PW Acceptance of
Improvements
102. 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 Acceptance of
Improvements
103. Granting of Easements. Applicant/Developer shall be PW Acceptance of
CONDITION TEXT RESPON.
AGENCY
WHEN REQ’D
Prior to:
responsible for granting all on-site utility easements
between parcels owned by Applicant/Developer. The
Applicant/Developer shall prepare all required
documentation for the granting of all easements on-site.
The easements and/or rights-of-entry shall be in writing and
copies furnished to the Public Works Department.
Improvements
104. Approval by Others. The Applicant/Developer will be
responsible for submittals and reviews to obtain the
approvals of all applicable non-City agencies.
PW
Grading or
Sitework Permit
Issuance
PUBLIC WORKS - GRADING
105. Grading Plan. The Grading Plan shall be in conformance
with the recommendation of the Geotechnical Report for the
property owned by Applicant/Developer, 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 ordinance s, the
City Engineer shall determine which shall apply.
PW
Grading or
Sitework Permit
Issuance
106. 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 or
Sitework Permit
Issuance
107. 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 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 or
Sitework Permit
Issuance
108. Erosion Control Plan. A detailed Erosion and Sediment
Control Plan shall be included with the Grading Plan
submittal. The plan shall include detailed design, lo cation,
and maintenance criteria of all erosion and sedimentation
control measures.
PW
Grading or
Sitework Permit
Issuance
109. 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 or
Sitework Permit
Issuance
PUBLIC WORKS - STORM DRAINAGE AND OTHER UTILITIES
110. 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
PW
Grading or
Sitework Permit
Issuance
CONDITION TEXT RESPON.
AGENCY
WHEN REQ’D
Prior to:
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.
111. Hydrology and Hydraulics. Developer shall submit
hydrology and hydraulic calculations for review and
approval. Construction plan set shall show grate, invert and
hydraulic grade line information at all storm drain structures,
slope and design flow at all storm drain pipes.
PW
Grading or
Sitework Permit
Issuance
112. Drainage. Runoff from roofs, including the trash enclosure,
shall be collected by roof drains and drain to stormwater
treatment areas.
PW
Grading or
Sitework Permit
Issuance
113. 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
acquisition of all storm drain easements from offsite
property owners which are req uired for the connection and
maintenance of all offsite storm drainage improvements.
PW
Grading or
Sitework Permit
Issuance
114. 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 Acceptance of
Improvements
115. 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 & striping plan.
PW Acceptance of
Improvements
116. 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
Certificate of
Occupancy or
Acceptance of
Improvements
117. 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 vi ew.
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 or
Acceptance of
Improvements
PUBLIC WORKS - CONSTRUCTION
118. 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
119. Archaeological Finds. If archaeological materials are
encountered during construction, construction within 100
feet of these materials shall be halted until a professional
Archaeologist certified by the Society of California
PW
Start of
Construction
and On-going
CONDITION TEXT RESPON.
AGENCY
WHEN REQ’D
Prior to:
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.
120. Construction Activities. Construction activities, including
the idling, maintenance, and warming up of equipment, shall
be limited to Monday through Friday, and non-City holidays,
between the hours of 7:30 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. except as
otherwise approved by the City Engineer. Extended hours
or Saturday work will be considered by the City Engine er on
a case-by-case basis. Note that the construction hours of
operation within the public right-of-way are more restrictive.
PW
Start of
Construction
and On-going
121. 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 sha ll 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
122. Construction Noise Management Plan.
Applicant/Developer shall prepare a constru ction 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 sh all be provided
prior to project construction.
PW
Start of
Construction
and On-going as
needed
123. Traffic Control Plan. Closing of any existing public right of
way 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
124. Construction Traffic Interface Plan. 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;
Implementation,
and On-going as
needed
125. Pest Control. Applicant/Developer shall be responsible for
controlling any rodent, mosquito, or other pest problem due
to construction activities.
PW On-going
PUBLIC WORKS - EROSION CONTROL AND STORMWATER QUALITY
126. 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 or
Sitework Permit
Issuance
127. 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 re quirements of the
NPDES. A copy of the Storm Water Pollution Prevention
PW
Start of Any
Construction
Activities
CONDITION TEXT RESPON.
AGENCY
WHEN REQ’D
Prior to:
Plan (SWPPP) shall be provided to the Public Works
Department and be kept at the construction site.
128. 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;
Implementation
Prior to Start of
Construction
and On-going as
needed
129. Stormwater Management Plan. A final Stormwater
Management Plan shall be submitted for revie w 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.
PW
Grading,
Sitework, or
Building Permit
Issuance
PUBLIC WORKS – ON-SITE IMPROVEMENTS
130. Drive Aisle Width. The parking lot aisles shall be a
minimum of 24 feet wide to allow for adequate on-site
vehicle circulation for cars, trucks, and emergency vehicles.
PW
Grading or
Sitework Permit
Issuance
131. Curb Ramps and Pedestrian Walkways. All curb ramps
shall include truncated domes and meet the most current
City and ADA design standards applicable to the Project
site. All curb ramp locations shall be clearly shown on site
plans and shall be subject to the Traffic Engineer's
approval. Said work shall not be required on real property
owned by the State of California.
PW
Grading or
Sitework Permit
Issuance
132. Vehicle Parking. All on-site vehicle parking spaces shall
conform to the following:
1. 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.
2. 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.
3. Where wheel stops are shown, individual six-foot long
wheel stops shall be provided within each parking
space in accordance with City Standards.
4. A minimum two-foot radius shall be provided at curb
returns and curb intersections where applicable.
5. 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.
6. Landscaped strips adjacent to parking stalls shall be
unobstructed in order to allow for a minimum two-foot
vehicular overhang at front of vehicles.
7. Any reduction of standard parking spaces to compact
PW
Grading or
Sitework Permit
Issuance
CONDITION TEXT RESPON.
AGENCY
WHEN REQ’D
Prior to:
spaces shall be in accordance with City Standards and
DMC 8.76.050 and as approved by Traffic Engineer.
Number of on-site parking spaces shall be in accordance
with shared parking provisions of the shared parking
analysis report prepared by AMG Consultants, dated
September 30, 2019, under the Minor Use Permit (MUP
2019-00044).
133. On-site Signing and Striping Plan. A Traffic Signing and
Striping Plan showing all proposed signing and striping
within on-site parking lots and drive aisles, shall be
submitted for review and approval by the City Engineer.
PW
Grading or
Sitework Permit
Issuance
134. Photometrics. The Applicant/Developer shall provide a
complete photometrics plan for both on-site and frontage
roadways. Include the complete data on photometrics,
including the High, Average and Minimum values for
illuminance and uniformity ratio.
PW
Grading or
Sitework Permit
Issuance
135. 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 or
Sitework Permit
Issuance
PUBLIC WORKS – SPECIAL CONDITIONS – SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW
136. Trash Enclosure. The trash enclosure shall meet all of the
requirements set forth within the Dublin Municipal Code
Section 7.98, including but not limited to providing sewer
and water hook-ups. The improvement plans and/or
building permit plans shall show additio nal information
demonstrating these requirements are met. A pedestrian
accessible path of travel shall be provided for employees
from the building to the trash enclosure in conformance with
current accessibility requirements.
PW
Grading,
Sitework, or
Building Permit
Issuance
137. Drive Aisle Condition. Applicant/Developer shall evaluate
the existing condition of the drive aisle and remove/replace
damaged and hazardous pavement within the Project site
and access easements. The final pavement condition shall
be subject to the City Engineer approval.
PW
Grading,
Sitework, or
Building Permit
Issuance
138. Pedestrian Walkway. Applicant/Developer shall provide a
concrete walkway that connects to the adjacent office
building walkway that meets the most current City and ADA
design standards and shall be in conformance with the
project plans prepared by DesignCell dated November 22,
2019, attached as Exhibit A. This concrete walkway shall
directly connect to the public sidewalk on Dublin Boulevard
at the project entry driveway.
PW
Grading,
Sitework, or
Building Permit
Issuance
139. Bicycle Parking. Applicant/Developer shall install all bike
lockers and bike racks in accordance with California Green
Building Standards Code requirements. Both short-term
and long-term needs shall be provided, and locations of the
bicycle parking shall be subject to the review and approval
of the City Engineer.
PW
Grading,
Sitework, or
Building Permit
Issuance
PUBLIC WORKS – SPECIAL CONDITIONS – MINOR USE PERMIT
140. Access and Circulation. Applicant/Developer shall PW Grading Permit,
CONDITION TEXT RESPON.
AGENCY
WHEN REQ’D
Prior to:
provide access and circulation improvements including but
not limited to driveway design, parking layout, pedestrian
and bicycle circulation, drive aisle and removal/replacement
or grinding of damaged and hazardous pavement.
Sitework Permit,
or Building
Permit Issuance
141. Shared Parking Study. Applicant/Developer shall adhere
to the recommendations and analysis proposed in the
Technical Memorandum: Parking Study for Mixed-Used
Development in Dublin dated September 30, 20 19 by
Advanced Mobility Group as it pertains to the Office Building
and Hotel Development. Any subsequent reports or studies
shall be subject to review and approval of the C ity Traffic
Engineer.
PW Ongoing
142. Bicycle Parking. Applicant/Developer shall install the bike
lockers and bike racks in accordance with California Green
Building Standards Code requirements. Both short term
and long-term needs shall be provided, and locations of the
bicycle parking shall be subject to the review and approval
of the City Engineer.
PW Grading Permit,
Sitework Permit,
or Building
Permit Issuance
143. Signing and Striping Plan. Applicant/Developer shall
provide a separate signing and stripin g plan on property
owned by Applicant/Developer showing the sign locations
for the shared parking between the hotel and the office
building. Signs shall include guiding users to garage access
from both the hotel and office building sites.
PW Grading Permit,
Sitework Permit,
or Building
Permit Issuance
PASSED AND ADOPTED BY the Planning Commission of the City of Dublin, on this
28th day of April 2020 by the following votes:
AYES: Mittan, Benson, Thalblum, Kothari, Wright
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
Planning Commission Chair
ATTEST:
Assistant Community Development Director
June 2, 2020 - Agenda Item No. 6.2
Due to the size of this attachment, please use link below to view in
full
Attachment 4 – Appeal Letter LIUNA
May 7, 2020
City Clerk
City of Dublin
100 Civic Plaza
Dublin, CA 94568
VA
MAY � 20Z0
Subject: oiect Site Development Review, Planning
Applications #PLPA-2019-00020 and Minor Use Permit #PLPA-2019-00044.
This letter is submitted on behalf of West Dublin Alliance as a formal filing of an appeal to the
City Planning Commission's approval of the Cambria Hotel Site Development Review Planning
Application #PLPA-2019-00020 and Minor Use Permit #PLPA-2019-00044.
The basis of the appeal is the failure by the Dublin City Planning Department to provide
adequate evidence, analysis and/or mitigation measures to address the substantial evidence in
the reports submitted as Exhibits A, B, C and D to the City Planning Department. These reports
were included in the staff report documents for this project. These reports argue and provide
substantial evidence showing that the project could have significant project -specific impacts
that were not and could not have been addressed in the EIR for the Downtown Specific Plan.
The reports therefore rebut the claim by City Planning that this project qualified for approval
without further environmental review per CEQA Guidelines Section 15182. Therefore further
environmental review addressing the potentially significant project -specific impacts is required.
Exhibit A: Report by Indoor Environmental Engineering dated 3/19/20—Indoor Air Quality
Exhibit B: Report by Shawn Smallwood, PhD dated 3/24/20- Biological Impact Assessment
Exhibit C: Report by SWAPE dated 3/25/20- Hazards, hazardous materials, air quality,
health risk and greenhouse gas emissions.
Exhibit D: Report by Smith Engineering & Management dated 3/24/20— Traffic and
Circulation
A check in the amount of $208.00 is attached to cover the City's required appeal fee.
Member of West Dublin Alliance
(925) 895-5580
Exhibit A
5.1.e
Z E INDOOR ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING
1448 Pine Street, Suite 103 San Francisco, California 94109
Telephone: (415) 567-7700
E-mail: offen-nann@IEE-SF.com
htip://www.iec-sfcom
Date: March 19, 2020
To: Paige Fennie
Lozeau I Drury LLP
1939 Harrison Street, Suite 150
Oakland, California 94612
From: Francis J. Offermann PE CIH
Subject: Indoor Air Quality: \Cambria Hotel —Dublin, CA
(IEE File Reference: P-4344)
Pages: 15
Indoor Air Quality Impacts
Indoor air quality (IAQ) directly impacts the comfort and health of building occupants,
and the achievement of acceptable IAQ in newly constructed and renovated buildings is a
well -recognized design objective. For example, IAQ is addressed by major high-
performance building rating systems and building codes (California Building Standards
Commission, 2014; USGBC, 2014). Indoor air quality in homes is particularly important
because occupants, on average, spend approximately ninety percent of their time indoors
with the majority of this time spent at home (EPA, 2011). Some segments of the
population that are most susceptible to the effects of poor IAQ, such as the very young
and the elderly, occupy their homes almost continuously. Additionally, an increasing
number of adults are working from home at least some of the time during the workweek.
Indoor air quality also is a serious concern for workers in hotels, offices and other
business establishments.
The concentrations of many air pollutants often are elevated in homes and other buildings
relative to outdoor air because many of the materials and products used indoors contain
and release a variety of pollutants to air (Hodgson et at., 2002, Offermann and Hodgson,
2011). With respect to indoor air contaminants for which inhalation is the primary route
of exposure, the critical design and construction parameters are the provision of adequate
ventilation and the reduction of indoor sources of the contaminants.
Indoor Formaldehyde Concentrations Impact. In the California New Home Study (CNHS)
of 108 new homes in California (Offermann, 2009), 25 air contaminants were measured,
and formaldehyde was identified as the indoor air contaminant with the highest cancer risk
as determined by the California Proposition 65 Safe Harbor Levels (OEHHA, 2017a), No
Significant Risk Levels (NSRL) for carcinogens. The NSRL is the daily intake level
calculated to result in one excess case of cancer in an exposed population of 100,000 (i.e.,
ten in one million cancer risk) and for formaldehyde is 40 µg/day. The NSRL
concentration of formaldehyde that represents a daily dose of 40 µg is 2 µg/m3, assuming
a continuous 24-hour exposure, a total daily inhaled air volume of 20 m3, and 100%
absorption by the respiratory system. All of the CNHS homes exceeded this NSRL
concentration of 2 µg/m3. The median indoor formaldehyde concentration was 36 µg/m3,
and ranged from 4.8 to 136 jig /m3, which corresponds to a median exceedance of the 2
µg/m3 NSRL concentration of 18 and a range of 2.3 to 68.
Therefore, the cancer risk of a resident living in a California home with the median indoor
formaldehyde concentration of 36 µg/m3, is 180 per million as a result of formaldehyde
alone. The CEQA significance threshold for airborne cancer risk is 10 per million, as
established by the Bay Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD, 2017).
Besides being a human carcinogen, formaldehyde is also a potent eye and respiratory
irritant. In the CNHS, many homes exceeded the non -cancer reference exposure levels
(RELs) prescribed by California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment
(OEHHA, 2017b). The percentage of homes exceeding the RELs ranged from 98% for the
Chronic REL of 9 µg/m3 to 28% for the Acute REL of 55 µg/m3.
The primary source of formaldehyde indoors is composite wood products manufactured
with urea -formaldehyde resins, such as plywood, medium density fiberboard, and
2
particleboard. These materials are commonly used in building construction for flooring,
cabinetry, baseboards, window shades, interior doors, and window and door trims.
In January 2009, the California Air Resources Board (GARB) adopted an airborne toxics
control measure (ATOM) to reduce formaldehyde emissions from composite wood
products, including hardwood plywood, particleboard, medium density fiberboard, and
also furniture and other finished products made with these wood products (California Air
Resources Board 2009). While this formaldehyde ATCM has resulted in reduced
0
emissions from composite wood products sold in California, they do not preclude that
homes built with composite wood products meeting the CARB ATCM will have indoor E
formaldehyde concentrations that are below cancer and non -cancer exposure guidelines. v
A follow up study to the California New Home Study (CNHS) was conducted in 2016-
2018 (Chan et. al., 2019), and found that the median indoor formaldehyde in new homes
built after 2009 with CARB Phase 2 Formaldehyde ATCM materials had lower indoor
formaldehyde concentrations, with a median indoor concentrations of 22.4 µg/m3 (18.2
)pb) as compared to a median of 36 µg/m3 found in the 2007 CNHS.
Thus, while new homes built after the 2009 CARB formaldehyde ATCM have a 38%
lower median indoor formaldehyde concentration and cancer risk, the median lifetime
cancer risk is still 112 per million for homes built with CARB compliant composite wood
products, which is more than 11 times the OEHHA 10 in a million cancer risk threshold
(OEHHA, 2017a).
With respect to this project, the buildings in the Cambria Hotel Project in Dublin, CA
consist of a hotel.
The employees of the hotel are expected to experience significant indoor exposures (e.g.,
40 hours per week, 50 weeks per year). These exposures for employees are anticipated to
result in significant cancer risks resulting from exposures to formaldehyde released by the
building materials and furnishing commonly found in offices, warehouses, residences and
hotels.
3
Packet Pg.121
5.1.e
Because the hotel will be constructed with CARB Phase 2 Formaldehyde ATOM
materials, and be ventilated with the minimum code required amount of outdoor air, the
indoor formaldehyde concentrations are likely similar to those concentrations observed in
residences built with CARB Phase 2 Formaldehyde ATCM materials, which is a median
of 22.4 µg/m3 (Chan et. al., 2019)
Assuming that the hotel employees work 8 hours per day and inhale 20 m3 of an per day, c
the formaldehyde dose per work -day at the offices is 149 µg/day.
E
Assuming that these employees work 5 days per week and 50 weeks per year for 45 years
(start at age 20 and retire at age 65) the average 70-year lifetime formaldehyde daily dose
J
is 65.8 µg/day. c
This is 1.64 times the NSRL (OEHHA, 2017a) of 40 µg/day and represents a cancer risk
of 16.4 per million, which exceeds the CEQA cancer risk of 10 per million. This impact
should be analyzed in an environmental impact report ("BIR"), and the agency should
impose all feasible mitigation measures to reduce this impact. Several feasible mitigation
measures are discussed below and these and other measures should be analyzed in an
EIR.
While measurements of the indoor concentrations of formaldehyde in residences built
with CARB Phase 2 Formaldehyde ATCM materials (Chan et. al., 2018), indicate that
indoor formaldehyde concentrations in buildings built with similar materials (e.g. hotels,
residences, offices, warehouses, schools) will pose cancer risks in excess of the CEQA
cancer risk of 10 per million, a determination of the cancer risk that is specific to this
project and the materials used to construct these buildings can and should be conducted
prior to completion of the environmental review.
The following describes a method that should be used prior to construction in the
environmental review under CEQA, for determining whether the indoor concentrations
resulting from the formaldehyde emissions of the specific building materials/furnishings
selected for the building exceed cancer and non -cancer guidelines. Such a design
analyses can be used to identify those materials/furnishings prior to the completion of the
City's CEQA review and project approval, that have formaldehyde emission rates that
contribute to indoor concentrations that exceed cancer and non -cancer guidelines, so that
alternative lower emitting materials/furnishings may be selected and/or higher minimum
outdoor air ventilation rates can be increased to achieve acceptable indoor concentrations
and incorporated as mitigation measures for this project.
Pre -Construction Building Material/Furnishing Formaldehyde Emissions Assessment.
This formaldehyde emissions assessment should be used in the environmental review
under CEQA to assess the indoor formaldehyde concentrations from the proposed
loading of building materials/furnishings, the area -specific formaldehyde emission rate
data for building materials/furnishings, and the design minimum outdoor air ventilation
rates. This assessment allows the applicant (and the City) to determine before the
conclusion of the environmental review process and the building materials/furnishings
are specified, purchased, and installed if the total chemical emissions will exceed cancer
and non -cancer guidelines, and if so, allow for changes in the selection of specific
material/furuishings and/or the design minimum outdoor air ventilations rates such that
cancer and non -cancer guidelines are not exceeded.
1.) Define Indoor Air Quality Zones. Divide the building into separate indoor air quality
zones, (IAQ Zones). IAQ Zones are defined as areas of well -mixed air. Thus, each
ventilation system with recirculating air is considered a single zone, and each room or
group of rooms where air is not recirculated (e.g. 100% outdoor air) is considered a
separate zone. For IAQ Zones with the same construction material/furnishings and design
minimum outdoor air ventilation rates. (e.g. hotel rooms, apartments, condominiums,
etc.) the formaldehyde emission rates need only be assessed for a single IAQ Zone of that
type.
2.) Calculate MateriaUFurnishing Loading. For each IAQ Zone, determine the building
material and furnishing loadings (e.g., m2 of materiaUm2 floor area, units of
furnishingsW floor area) from an inventory of all potential indoor formaldehyde
5
5.1,e
sources, including flooring, ceiling tiles, furnishings, finishes, insulation, sealants,
adhesives, and any products constructed with composite wood products containing urea -
formaldehyde resins (e.g., plywood, medium density fiberboard, particleboard).
3.) Calculate the FormaldehUuv Emission Rate. For each building material, calculate the
formaldehyde emission rate (µg/h) from the product of the area -specific formaldehyde
emission rate (µg/m2-h) and the area (m2) of material in the IAQ Zone, and from each
furnishing (e.g. chairs, desks, etc.) from the unit -specific formaldehyde emission rate o
(µg/unit-h) and the number of units in the IAQ Zone. M
Los
.0
E
M
NOTE: As a result of the high-performance building rating systems and building codes olftwoo
v
Los
(California Building Standards Commission, 2014; USGBC, 2014), most manufacturers
J
of building materials furnishings sold in the United States conduct chemical emission rate c
as
tests using the California Department of Health "Standard Method for the Testing and E
E
0
Evaluation of Volatile Organic Chemical Emissions for Indoor Sources Using v
a
Environmental Chambers", (CDPH, 2017), or other equivalent chemical emission rate
testing methods. Most manufacturers of building furnishings sold in the United States
conduct chemical emission rate tests using ANSI/BIFMA M7.1 Standard Test Method for
Determining VOC Emissions (BIFMA, 2018), or other equivalent chemical emission rate
testing methods.
CDPH, BIFMA, and other chemical emission rate testing programs, typically certify that
a material or furnishing does not create indoor chemical concentrations in excess of the
maximum concentrations permitted by their certification. For instance, the CDPH
emission rate testing requires that the measured emission rates when input into an office,
school, or residential model do not exceed one-half of the OEHHA Chronic Exposure
Guidelines (OEHHA, 2017b) for the 35 specific VOCs, including formaldehyde, listed in
Table 4-1 of the CDPH test method (CDPH, 2017). These certifications themselves do
not provide the actual area -specific formaldehyde emission rate (i.e., µg/m2-h) of the
product, but rather provide data that the formaldehyde emission rates do not exceed the
maximum rate allowed for the certification. Thus for example, the data for a certification
of a specific type of flooring may be used to calculate that the area -specific emission rate
of formaldehyde is less than 31 µg/m2-h, but not the actual measured specific emission
G
5.1.e
rate, which may be 3, 18, or 30 µg/m2-h. These area -specific emission rates determined
from the product certifications of CDPH, BIFA, and other certification programs can be
used as an initial estimate of the formaldehyde emission rate.
If the actual area -specific emission rates of a bung material or furnishing is needed
(i.e. the initial emission rates estimates from the product certifications are higher than
desired), then that data can be acquired by requesting from the manufacturer the complete
chemical emission rate test report. For instance if the complete CDPH emission test
report is requested for a CDHP certified product, that report will provide the actual area -
specific emission rates for not only the 35 specific VOCs, including formaldehyde, listed
in Table 44 of the CDPH test method (CDPH, 2017), but also all of the cancer and
reproductive/developmental chemicals listed in the California Proposition 65 Safe Harbor
Levels (OEHHA, 2017a), all of the toxic air contaminants (TACs) in the California Air
Resources Board Toxic Air Contamination List (CARB, 2011), and the 10 chemicals
with the greatest emission rates.
Alternatively, a sample of the building material or furnishing can be submitted to a
chemical emission rate testing laboratory, such as Berkeley Analytical Laboratory
(https://berkeleyanalytical.com), to measure the formaldehyde emission rate.
4.) Calculate the Total Formaldehyde Emission Rate. For each IAQ Zone, calculate the
total formaldehyde emission rate (i.e. µg/h) from the individual formaldehyde emission
rates from each of the building material/furnishings as determined in Step 3.
5.) Calculate the Indoor Formaldehyde Concentration. For each IAQ Zone, calculate the
indoor formaldehyde concentration (µg/m3) from Equation 1 by dividing the total
formaldehyde emission rates (i.e. µg/h) as determined in Step 4, by the design minimum
outdoor air ventilation rate (m3/h) for the IAQ Zone.
Etotal
Ctn Qoa
(Equation 1)
where:
C;n =indoor formaldehyde concentration (µg/m3)
7
Packet Pg.125
5.1.e
total = total formaldehyde emission rate (µg/h) into the IAQ Zone.
Qoa = design minimum outdoor air ventilation rate to the IAQ Zone (m3/h)
The above Equation 1 is based upon mass balance theory, and is referenced in Section
3.10.2 "Calculation of Estimated Building Concentrations" of the California Department
of Health "Standard Method for the Testing and Evaluation of Volatile Organic Chemical
Emissions for Indoor Sources Using Environmental Chambers", (CDPH, 2017).
6.) Calculate the Indoor Exposure Cancer and Non -Cancer Health Risks. For each IAQ
Zone, calculate the cancer and non -cancer health risks from the indoor formaldehyde
concentrations determined in Step 5 and as described in the OEHHA Air Toxics Hot Spots
Program Risk Assessment Guidelines; Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk
Assessments (OEHHA, 2015).
7.) Mitigate Indoor Formaldeh dy e Exposures of exceeding the CEOA Cancer and/or
Non -Cancer Health Risks. In each IAQ Zone, provide mitigation for any formaldehyde
exposure risk as determined in Step 6, that exceeds the CEQA cancer risk of 10 per
million or the CEQA non -cancer Hazard Quotient of 1.0.
Provide the source and/or ventilation mitigation required in all IAQ Zones to reduce the
health risks of the chemical exposures below the CEQA cancer and non -cancer health
risks.
Source mitigation for formaldehyde may include:
1.) reducing the amount materials and/or furnishings that emit formaldehyde
2.) substituting a different material with a lower area -specific emission rate of
formaldehyde
Ventilation mitigation for formaldehyde emitted from building materials and/or
furnishings may include:
1.) increasing the design minimum outdoor air ventilation rate to the IAQ Zone.
NOTE: Mitigating the formaldehyde emissions through use of less material/furnishings,
5.1.e
or use of lower emitting materials/furnishings, is the preferred mitigation option, as
mitigation with increased outdoor air ventilation increases initial and operating costs
associated with the heating/cooling systems.
Further, we are not asking that the builder to "speculate" on what and how much composite
materials be used, but rather at the design stage to select composite wood materials based on
the formaldehyde emission rates that manufacturers routinely conduct using the California
Department of Health "Standard Method for the Testing and Evaluation of Volatile;
0
Organic Chemical Emissions for Indoor Sources Using Environmental Chambers",
Lo
(CDPH, 2017), and use the procedure described earlier (i.e. Pre -Construction Building E
M
Material/Furnishing Formaldehyde Emissions Assessment) to insure that the materials v
selected achieve acceptable cancer risks from material off gassing of formaldehyde.
J
w
Outdoor Air Ventilation Impact. Another important finding of the CNHS, was that the E
E
outdoor air ventilation rates in the homes were very low. Outdoor air ventilation is a very v
Q
important factor influencing the indoor concentrations of air contaminants, as it is the
J
primary removal mechanism of all indoor air generated air contaminants. Lower outdoor
air exchange rates cause indoor generated air contaminants to accumulate to higher indoor x°
air concentrations. Many homeowners rarely open their windows or doors for ventilation
no
as a result of their concerns for security/safety, noise, dust, and odor concerns (Price, v
2007). In the CNHS field study, 32% of the homes did not use their windows during the ry
�r
0
24-hour Test Day, and 15% of the homes did not use their windows during the entire N
preceding week. Most of the homes with no window usage were homes in the winter field N
session. Thus, a substantial percentage of homeowners never open their windows,
especially in the winter season. The median 24-hour measurement was 0.26 ach, with a
co
range of 0.09 ach to 5.3 ach. A total of 67% of the homes had outdoor air exchange rates B
below the minimum California Building Code (2001) requirement of 0.35 ach. Thus, the
relatively tight envelope construction, combined with the fact that many people never
open their windows for ventilation, results in homes with low outdoor air exchange rates
and higher indoor air contaminant concentrations.
0
The Cambria Hotel Project — Dublin, CA is close to roads with moderate to high traffic
(e.g. I-580, Dublin Boulevard, and San Ramon Boulevard, etc.). As a result of the outdoor
vehicle traffic noise, the Project site is likely to be a sound impacted site. The noise
analyses provided in the Draft Environmental Impact Report (RBF Consultants, 2010),
reports in Table 3.7-5, noise levels exceeding 65 dBA CNEL at many locations and
ranging to a maximum of 70.1 dBA CNEL
As a result of the high outdoor noise levels, the current project will require the need for c
mechanical supply of outdoor air ventilation air to allow for a habitable interior
L
environment with closed windows and doors. Such a ventilation system would allow E
M
windows and doors to be kept closed at the occupant's discretion to control exterior noise v
within building interiors.
PMz s Outdoor Concentrations Impact. An additional impact of the nearby motor vehicle
traffic associated with this project, are the outdoor concentrations of PM2.5. According to
the Draft Environmental Impact Report (RBF Consultants, 2010), this Project is located in
the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin, which is a State and Federal non -attainment area
for PM2.s.
An air quality analyses should to be conducted to determine the concentrations of PMz,s in
the outdoor and indoor air that people inhale each day. This air quality analyses needs to
consider the cumulative impacts of the project related emissions, existing and projected
future emissions from local PM2.5 sources (e.g. stationary sources, motor vehicles, and
airport traffic) upon the outdoor air concentrations at the project site. If the outdoor
concentrations are determined to exceed the California and National annual average PM2.5
exceedence concentration of 12 µg/m3, or the National 24-hour average exceedence
concentration of 35 µg/m3, then the buildings need to have a mechanical supply of outdoor
air that has air filtration with sufficient PM2.5 removal efficiency, such that the indoor
concentrations of outdoor PMz.s particles is less than the California and National PM2.5
annual and 24-hour standards.
10
5.1.e
It is my experience that based on the projected high traffic noise levels, the annual average
concentration of PM2.5 will exceed the California and National PM2.5 annual and 24-hour
standards and warrant installation of high efficiency air filters (i.e. MERV 13 or higher) in
all mechanically supplied outdoor air ventilation systems.
Indoor Air Quality Impact gation Measures
The following are recommended mitigation measures to minimize the impacts upon o
indoor quality: IT
.a
E
M
U
MIN indoor formaldehyde concentrations
L
WIN
d
outdoor air ventilation
- PM2,5 outdoor air concentrations
Indoor Formaldehyde Concentrations Miti ag t,_ ion. Use only composite wood materials (e.g.
hardwood plywood, medium density fiberboard, particleboard) for all interior finish
systems that are made with CARB approved no -added formaldehyde (NAF) resins or
ultra -low emitting formaldehyde (ULEF) resins (CARB, 2009). Other projects such as the
AC by Marriott Hotel — West San Jose Project (Asset Gas SC Inc.) and 2525 North Main
Street, Santa Ana (AC 2525 Main LLC, 2019) have entered into settlement agreements
stipulating the use of composite wood materials only containing NAF or ULEF resins.
Alternatively, conduct the previously described Pre -Construction Building
Material/Fumishing Chemical Emissions Assessment, to determine that the combination
of formaldehyde emissions from building materials and furnishings do not create indoor
formaldehyde concentrations that exceed the CEQA cancer and non -cancer health risks.
It is important to note that we are not asking that the builder to "speculate" on what and how
much composite materials be used, but rather at the design stage to select composite wood
materials based on the formaldehyde emission rates that manufacturers routinely conduct
using the California Department of Health "Standard Method for the Testing and
Evaluation of Volatile Organic Chemical Emissions for Indoor Sources Using
11
Packet Pg.12
5.1.e
Environmental Chambers (CDPH, 2017), and use the procedure described earlier (i.e.
Pre -Construction Building Material/Furnishing Formaldehyde Emissions Assessment) to
insure that the materials selected achieve acceptable cancer risks from material off
gassing of formaldehyde.
Outdoor Air Ventilation Miti ag tion. Provide each habitable room with a continuous
mechanical supply of outdoor air that meets or exceeds the California 2016 Building
Energy Efficiency Standards (California Energy Commission, 2015) requirements of the
greater of 15 cfin/occupant or 0.15 cfin/ft2 of floor area. Following installation of the
system conduct testing and balancing to insure that required amount of outdoor air is
entering each habitable room and provide a written report documenting the outdoor
airflow rates. Do not use exhaust only mechanical outdoor air systems, use only balanced
outdoor air supply and exhaust systems or outdoor air supply only systems. Provide a
manual for the occupants or maintenance personnel, that describes the purpose of the
mechanical outdoor air system and the operation and maintenance requirements of the
system.
PM2s Outdoor Air Concentration Miti ag tion. Install air filtration with sufficient PM2.5
removal efficiency (e.g. MERV 13 or higher) to filter the outdoor air entering the
mechanical outdoor air supply systems, such that the indoor concentrations of outdoor
PM2.5 particles are less than the California and National PM2.5 annual and 24-hour
standards. Install the air filters in the system such that they are accessible for replacement
by the occupants or maintenance personnel. Include in the mechanical outdoor air
ventilation system manual instructions on how to replace the air filters and the estimated
frequency of replacement.
References
AC 2525 Main LLC. 2019. Environmental Settlement Agreement with Laborers'
International Union of North America Local 652.
12
5.1.e
Asset Gas SC. Inc. 2019. Settlement Agreement and Release with Jose Mexican,
Alejandro Martinez, and Laborers' International Union of North America Local 652.
Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD)4 2017. California Environmental
Quality Act Air Quality Guidelines. Bay Area Air Quality Management District, San
Francisco, CA. htW://www.baagmd.gov/~/media/files/planning_ and-
research/ceda/ceda guidelines may2017-pdf.pdf?la=en
m
0
BIFA. 2018. BIFMA Product Safety and Performance Standards and Guidelines. L
www.bifina.org/page/standardsoverview M
tU
California Air Resources Board. 2009. Airborne Toxic Control Measure to Reduce
Formaldehyde Emissions from Composite Wood Products. California Environmental
Protection Agency, Sacramento, CA.
https://www.arb.ca. og v/regact/2007/compwoodO7/fro-final.pdf
California Air Resources Board. 2011. Toxic Air Contaminant Identification List.
California Environmental Protection Agency, Sacramento, CA.
htlps://www.arb.ca.gov/toxics/id/taclist.htm
California Building Code. 2001. California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 2 Volume c
1, Appendix Chapter 12, Interior Environment, Division 1, Ventilation, Section 1207: o
N
2001 California Building Code, California Building Standards Commission. Sacramento, Ln
w
CA. a
E
M
California Building Standards Commission (2014). 2013 California Green Building a
Standards Code. California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 11. California Building
Standards Commission, Sacramento, CA http://www.bsaca.gov/Home/CALGreen.aspx.
California Energy Commission, PIER Program. CEC-500-2007-033. Final Report, ARB
Contract 03-326. Available at: www.arb.ca.gov/research/apr/past/03-326.pdf.
13
Packet Pg.131
5.1.e
California Energy Commission, 2015, 2016 Building Energy Efficiency Standards for
Residential and Nonresidential Buildings, California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 6.
http://www.energy.ca. gov/2015publications/CEC-400-2015-037/CEC-400-2015-037-
CMF.pdf
CDPH.2017.5tandardMethodfortheTesti166andEvaluationof Volatile0r6anicChemicalEmissions
forindoor Sources Using Environmental Chambers, Version 1.1. California Department of Public
Health, Richmond, CA. https://www.cdph.ca.gov/Programs/CCDPHP/
DEODC/EHLB/IAQ/Pages/VOC. aspx.
Chan, W., Kim, Y., Singer, B., and Walker I. 2019. Ventilation and Indoor Air Quality in
New California Homes with Gas Appliances and Mechanical Ventilation. Lawrence
Berkeley National Laboratory, Energy Technologies Area, LBNL-2001200, DOI:
10.20357B7QC7X.
EPA. 2011. Exposure Factors Handbook: 2011 Edition, Chapter 16 —Activity Factors.
Report EPA/600/R-09/05217, September 2011. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Washington, D.C.
Hodgson, A. T., D. Beal, J.E.R. McIlvaine. 2002. Sources of formaldehyde, other
aldehydes and terpenes in a new manufactured house. Indoor Air 12: 235-242.
OEHHA (Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment). 2015. Air Toxics Hot
Spots Program Risk Assessment Guidelines, Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health
Risk Assessments.
OEHHA (Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment). 2017a. Proposition 65
Safe Harbor Levels. No Significant Risk Levels for Carcinogens and Maximum Allowable
Dose Levels for Chemicals Causing Reproductive Toxicity.
http://www. oehha.ca. 5ov/pro1465/pdf/safeharbor081513.9df
14
Available at:
Packet Pg.132
5.1.e
OEHHA -Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment, 2017b. All OEHHA
Acute, 8-hour and Chronic Reference Exposure Levels. Available at.
ittp:Hoehha.ca.gov/air/allrels.html
Offermann, F. J. 2009. Ventilation and Indoor Air Quality in New Homes. California Air
Resources Board and California Energy Commission, PIER Energy -Related
Environmental Research Program. Collaborative Report. CEG500-2009-085.
ittr)s://www.arb.ca.izov/research/aDr/-Dast/04-310.Ddf
Offermann, F. J. and A. T. Hodgson. 2011. Emission Rates of Volatile Organic
Compounds in New Homes. Proceedings Indoor Air 2011 (121h International Conference
on Indoor Air Quality and Climate 2011), June 540, 2011, Austin, TX USA,
Price, Phillip P., Max Sherman, Robert H. Lee, and Thomas Piazza. 2007. Study of
Ventilation Practices and Household Characteristics in New California Homes.
RBF Consultants. 2010. Downtown Dublin Specific Plan, Draft Environmental Impact
Report,
USGBC. 2014. LEED BD+C Homes v4. U.S. Green Building Council, Washington, D.C.
http://www.us bg c.org/credits/homes/v4
15
Francis (Bud) J. Offermann III m. CIH
Indoor Environmental Engineering
1448 Pine Street, Suite 103, San Francisco, CA 94109
Phone: 415-567-7700
Email: Offermann@iee-s£com
http://www.iee-s£com
Education
M.S. Mechanical Engineering (1985)
Stanford University, Stanford, CA. a;
0
Graduate Studies in Air Pollution Monitoring and Control (1980) 0
L
University of California, Berkeley, CA. -0
E
0
U
B.S. in Mechanical Engineering (1976)
Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy, N.Y.
J
Professional Experience
E
President: Indoor Environmental Engineering, San Francisco, CA. December, 1981 - 0
present, a
z
D
Direct team of environmental scientists, chemists, and mechanical engineers in
conducting State and Federal research regarding indoor air quality instrumentation
development, building air quality field studies, ventilation and air cleaning performance 0
x
measurements, and chemical emission rate testing.
L
Provide design side input to architects regarding selection of building materials and v
ventilation system components to ensure a high quality indoor environment. N
Direct Indoor Air Quality Consulting Team for the winning design proposal for the new INState of Washington Ecology Department building. N
�i
Develop a full-scale ventilation test facility for measuring the performance of air
diffusers; ASHRAE 129, Air Change Effectiveness, and ASHRAE 113, Air Diffusion E
Performance Index.
�a
Develop a chemical emission rate testing laboratory for measuring the chemical d
emissions from building materials, furnishings, and equipment.
Principle Investigator of the California New Homes Study (2005-2007). Measured
ventilation and indoor air quality in 108 new single family detached homes in northern
and southern California.
Develop and teach IAQ professional development workshops to building owners,
managers, hygienists, and engineers.
5.1.e
Air Pollution En ig'neen Earth Metrics Inc., Burlingame, CA, October, I WO to March,
1987.
Responsible for development of an air pollution laboratory including installation a forced
choice olfactometer, tracer gas electron capture chromatograph, and associated
calibration facilities. Field team leader for studies of fugitive odor emissions from sewage
treatment plants, entrainment of fume hood exhausts into computer chip fabrication
rooms, and indoor air quality investigations.
Staff Scientist: Building Ventilation and Indoor Air Quality Program, Energy and
Environment Division, Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory, Berkeley, CA. January, 1980 to
August, 1984.
Deputy project leader for the Control Techniques group; responsible for laboratory and
field studies aimed at evaluating the performance of indoor air pollutant control strategies
(i.e. ventilation, filtration, precipitation, absorption, adsorption, and source control).
Coordinated field and laboratory studies of air-to-air heat exchangers including
evaluation of thermal performance, ventilation efficiency, cross -stream contaminant
transfer, and the effects of freezing/defrosting,
Developed an in situ test protocol for evaluating the performance of air cleaning systems
and introduced the concept of effective cleaning rate (ECR) also known as the Clean Air
Delivery Rate (CADR).
Coordinated laboratory studies of portable and ducted air cleaning systems and their
effect on indoor concentrations of respirable particles and radon progeny.
Co -designed an automated instrument system for measuring residential ventilation rates
and radon concentrations.
Designed hardware and software for amulti-channel automated data acquisition system
used to evaluate the performance of air-to-air heat transfer equipment.
Assistant Chief Engineer: Alta Bates Hospital, Berkeley, CA, October, 1979 to January,
1980.
Responsible for energy management projects involving installation of power factor
correction capacitors on large inductive electrical devices and installation of steam meters
on physical plant steam lines. Member of Local 39, International Union of Operating
Engineers.
Manufacturing Engineer: American Precision Industries, Buffalo, NY, October, 1977 to
October, 1979.
2
Responsible for reorganizing the manufacturing procedures regarding production of shell
and tube heat exchangers. Designed customized automatic assembly, welding, and testing
equipment. Designed a large paint spray booth. Prepared economic studies justifying new
equipment purchases. Safety Director.
Project Engineer: Arcata Graphics, Buffalo, N.Y. June, 1976 to October, 1977.
Responsible for the design and installation of a bulk ink storage and distribution system
and high speed automatic counting and marking equipment. Also coordinated material
handling studies which led to the purchase and installation of new equipment.
PROFESSIONAL ORGANIZATION MEMBERSHIP
American Society of Heating, Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE)
• Chairman of SPC-145P, Standards Project Committee -Test Method for Assessing
the Performance of Gas Phase Air Cleaning Equipment (1991-1992)
• Member SPC429P, Standards Project Committee - Test Method for Ventilation
Effectiveness (1986-97)
- Member of Drafting Committee
• Member Environmental Health Committee (19924994, 1997-2001, 2007-2010)
- Chairman of EhC Research Subcommittee
- Member of Man Made Mineral Fiber Position Paper Subcommittee
- Member of the IAQ Position Paper Committee
- Member of the Legionella Position Paper Committee
- Member of the Limiting Indoor Mold and Dampness in Buildings Position Paper
Committee
• Member SSPC-62, Standing Standards Project Committee - Ventilation for
Acceptable Indoor Air Quality (1992 to 2000)
- Chairman of Source Control and Air Cleaning Subcommittee
• Chairman of TC4.10, Indoor Environmental Modeling (1988-92)
- Member of Research Subcommittee
• Chairman of TC-2.3, Gaseous Air Contaminants and Control Equipment (1989-92)
- Member of Research Subcommittee
American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM)
• D-22 Sampling and Analysis of Atmospheres
- Member of Indoor Air Quality Subcommittee
• E-06 Performance of Building Constructions
American Board of Industrial Hygiene (ABIH)
American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists (ACGIH)
• Bioaerosols Committee (2007-2013)
3
American Industrial Hygiene Association (AIHA)
Cal -OSHA Indoor Air Quality Advisory Committee
International Society of Indoor Air Quality and Climate (ISIAQ)
• Co -Chairman of Task Force on HVAC Hygiene
U. S. Green Building Council (USGBC)
- Member of the IEQ Technical Advisory Group (2007-2009)
- Member of the IAQ Performance Testing Work Group (2010-2012)
d
0
Western Construction Consultants (WESTCON) _
0
.0
E
M
PROFESSIONAL CREDENTIALS v
Licensed Professional Engineer -Mechanical Engineering
Certified Industrial Hygienist -American Board of Industrial Hygienists
SCIENTIFIC MEETINGS AND SYMPOSIA
Biological Contamination, Diagnosis, and Mitigation, Indoor Air'90, Toronto, Canada,
August, 1990.
Models for Predicting Air Quality, Indoor Air'90, Toronto, Canada, August, 1990.
Microbes in Building Materials and Systems, Indoor Air '93, Helsinki, Finland, July,
1993.
Microorganisms in Indoor Air Assessment and Evaluation of Health Effects and Probable
Causes, Walnut Creek, CA, February 27, 1997.
Controlling Microbial Moisture Problems in Buildings, Walnut Creek, CA, February 27,
1997.
Scientific- Advisory Committee, Roomvent 98, 6th International Conference on Air
Distribution in Rooms, KTH, Stockholm, Sweden, June 14-17, 1998.
Moisture and Mould, Indoor Air '99, Edinburgh, Scotland, August, 1999.
Ventilation Modeling and Simulation, Indoor Air '99, Edinburgh, Scotland, August,
1999.
Microbial Growth in Materials, Healthy Buildings 2000, Espoo, Finland, August, 2000.
C�
Packet Pg.137
5.1.e
Co -Chair, Bioaerosols X- Exposures in Residences, Indoor Air 2002, Monterey, CA, July
2002.
Healthy Indoor Environments, Anaheim, CA, April 2003.
Chair, Environmental Tobacco Smoke in Multi -Family Homes, Indoor Air 2008,
Copenhagen, Denmark, July 2008.
Co -Chair, ISIAQ Task Force Workshop; HVAC Hygiene, Indoor Air 2002, Monterey,
CA, July 2002.
Chair, ETS in Multi -Family Housing: Exposures, Controls, and Legalities Forum,
Healthy Buildings 2009, Syracuse, CA, September 14, 2009.
Chair, Energy Conservation and IAQ in Residences Workshop, Indoor Air 2011, Austin,
TX, June 6, 2011.
Chair, Electronic Cigarettes: Chemical Emissions and Exposures Colloquium, Indoor Air
2016, Ghent, Belgium, July 4, 2016.
SPECIAL CONSULTATION
Provide consultation to the American Home Appliance Manufacturers on the
development of a standard for testing portable air cleaners, ARAM Standard AC-1.
Served as an expert witness and special consultant for the U.S. Federal Trade
Commission regarding the performance claims found in advertisements of portable air
cleaners and residential furnace filters.
Conducted a forensic investigation for a San Mateo, CA pro se defendant, regarding an
alleged homicide where the victim was kidnapped in a steamer trunk. Determined the air
exchange rate in the steamer trunk and how long the person could survive.
Conducted in situ measurement of human exposure to toluene fumes released during
nailpolish application for a plaintiffs attorney pursuing a California Proposition 65
product labeling case. June, 1993.
Conducted a forensic in situ investigation for the Butte County, CA Sheriff's Department
of the emissions of a portable heater used in the bedroom of two twin one year old girls
who suffered simultaneous crib death.
Consult with OSHA on the 1995 proposed new regulation regarding indoor air quality
and environmental tobacco smoke.
S
Packet Pg. 738
Consult with EPA on the proposed Building Alliance program and with OSHA on the
proposed new OSHA IAQ regulation.
Johnson Controls Audit/Certification Expert Review; Milwaukee, WI. May 28-29, 1997.
Winner of the nationally published 1999 Request for Proposals by the State of
Washington to conduct a comprehensive indoor air quality investigation of the
Washington State Department of Ecology building in Lacey, WA.
Selected by the State of California Attorney General's Office in August, 2000 to conduct
a comprehensive indoor air quality investigation of the Tulare County Court House.
Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory IAQ Experts Workshop: "Cause and Prevention of Sick
Building Problems in Offices: The Experience of Indoor Environmental Quality
Investigators", Berkeley, California, May 26-27, 2004.
Provide consultation and chemical emission rate testing to the State of California
Attorney General's Office in 2013-2015 regarding the chemical emissions from e-
cigarettes.
PEER -REVIEWED PUBLICATIONS
F.J.Offermann, C.D.Hollowell, and G.D.Roseme, "Low -Infiltration Housing in
Rochester, New York: A Study of Air Exchange Rates and Indoor Air Quality,"
Environment International 8, pp. 435445, 1982.
W.W.Nazaroff, F.J.Offermann, and A.W.Robb, "Automated System for Measuring Air
Exchange Rate and Radon Concentration in Houses," Health Physics, 45, pp. 525-537,
1983.
F.J.Offermann, W.J.Fisk, D.T.Grimsrud, B.Pedersen, and K.L.Revzan, "Ventilation
Efficiencies of Wall- or Window -Mounted Residential Air -to -Air Heat Exchangers,"
ASHRAEAnnual Transactions, 89-2B, pp 507-527, 1983.
W.J.Fisk, K.M.Archer, REChant D. Hekmat, F.J.Offermann, and B.Pedersen, "Onset of
Freezing in Residential Air -to -Air Heat Exchangers," ASHRAE Annual Transactions, 91-
1B, 1984.
W.J.Fisk, K.M.Archer, R.E Chant, D. Hekmat, F.J.Offermann, and B.Pedersen,
"Performance of Residential Air -to -Air Heat Exchangers During Operation with Freezing
and Periodic Defrosts," ASHRAE Annual Transactions, 914B, 1984.
F.J.Offermann, R.G.Sextro, W.J.Fisk, D.T.Grimsrud, W.W.Nazaroff, A.V.Nero, and
K.L.Revzan, "Control of Respirable Particles with Portable Air Cleaners," Atmospheric
Environment, Vol. 19, pp.17614771, 1985.
R.G.Sextro, F.J.Offermann, W.W.Nazaroff, A.V.Nero, K.L.Revzan, and J.Yater,
"Evaluation of Indoor Control Devices and Their Effects on Radon Progeny
Concentrations," Atmospheric Environment, 12, pp. 429438, 1986.
W.J. Fisk, R.K.Spencer, F.J.Offermann, R.K.Spencer, B.Pedersen, R.Sextro, "Indoor Air
Quality Control Techniques," Noyes Data Corporation, Park Ridge, New Jersey, (1987).
F.J.Offermann, "Ventilation Effectiveness and ADPI Measurements of a Forced Air
Heating System," ASHRAE Transactions , Volume 94, Part 1, pp 694404, 1988.
F.J.Offermann and D. Int-Rout "Ventilation Effectiveness Measurements of Three
Supply/Return Air Configurations," Environment International, Volume 15, pp 585-592 0
1989. _
F.J. Offermann, S.A. Loiselle, M.C. Quinlan, and M.S. Rogers, "A Study of Diesel Fume P
Entrainment in an Office Building," IAQ '89, The Human Equation: Health and v
Comfort, pp 179-183, ASHRAE, Atlanta, GA, 1989.
R.G.Sextro and F.J.Offermann, "Reduction of Residential Indoor Particle and Radon
Progeny Concentrations with Ducted Air Cleaning Systems," submitted to Indoor Air,
1990.
S.A.Loiselle, A.T.Hodgson, and F.J.Offermann, "Development of An Indoor Air Sampler
for Polycyclic Aromatic Compounds", Indoor Air , Vol 2, pp 191-210, 1991.
F.J.Offermann, S.A.Loiselle, A.T.Hodgson, L.A. Gundel, and J.M. Daisey, "A Pilot
Study to Measure Indoor Concentrations and Emission Rates of Polycyclic Aromatic
Compounds", Indoor Air , Vo14, pp 497-512, 1991.
F.J. Offermann, S. A. Loiselle, R.G. Sextro, "Performance Comparisons of Six Different
Air Cleaners Installed in a Residential Forced Air Ventilation System," IAQ'915 Healthy
Buildings, pp 342-350, ASHRAE, Atlanta, GA (1991).
F.J. Offermann, J. Daisey, A. Hodgson, L. Gundell, and S. Loiselle, "Indoor
Concentrations and Emission Rates of Polycyclic Aromatic Compounds", Indoor Air,
Vol 4, pp 497-512 (1992).
F.J. Offermann, S. A. Loiselle, R.G. Sextro, "Performance of Air Cleaners Installed in a
Residential Forced Air System," ASHRAE Journal, pp 51-57, July, 1992.
F.J. Offermann and S. A. Loiselle, "Performance of an Air -Cleaning System in an
Archival Book Storage Facility," IAQ,92, ASHRAE, Atlanta, GA, 1992.
S.B. Hayward, K.S. Liu, L.E. Alevantis, K. Shah, S. Loiselle, F.J. Offermann, Y.L.
Chang, L. Webber, "Effectiveness of Ventilation and Other Controls in Reducing
Exposure to ETS in Office Buildings," Indoor Air '93, Helsinki, Finland, July 4-8, 1993.
0
Packet Pg_ 140
5.1.e
F.J. Offermann, S. A. Loiselle, G. Ander, H. Lau, "Indoor Contaminant Emission Rates
Before and After a Building Bake -out," IA '93, Operating and Maintaining Buildings for
Health, Comfort, and Productivity, pp 157463, ASHRAE, Atlanta, GA, 1993.
L.E. Alevantis, Hayward, S.B., Shah, S.B., Loiselle, S., and Offermann, F.J. "Tracer Gas
Techniques for Determination of the Effectiveness of Pollutant Removal From Local
Sources," IAQ '93, Operating and Maintaining Buildings for Health, Comfort, and
Productivity, pp 119429, ASHRAE, Atlanta, GA, 1993.
L.E. Alevantis, Liu, L.E., Hayward, S.B., Offermann, F.J., Shah, S.B., Leiserson, K.
Tsao, E., and Huang, Y., "Effectiveness of Ventilation in 23 Designated Smoking Areas
in California Buildings," IAQ '94, Engineering Indoor Environments, pp 167481,
ASHRAE, Atlanta, GA, 1994.
L.E. Alevantis, Offermann, F.J., Loiselle, S., and Macher, J.M., "Pressure and Ventilation
Requirements of Hospital Isolation Rooms for Tuberculosis (TB) Patients: Existing
Guidelines in the United States and a Method for Measuring Room Leakage", Ventilation
and Indoor air quality in Hospitals, M. Maroni, editor, Kluwer Academic publishers,
Netherlands, 1996,
F.J. Offermann, M. A. Waz, A.T. Hodgson, and H.M. Ammann, "Chemical Emissions
from a Hospital Operating Room Air Filter," IAQ'96, Paths to Better Building
Environments, pp 95-99, ASHRAE, Atlanta, GA, 1996.
F.J. Offermann, "Professional Malpractice and the Sick Building Investigator," IAQ'96,
Paths to Better Building Environments, pp 132-136, ASHRAE, Atlanta, GA, 1996.
F.J. Offermann, "Standard Method of Measuring Air Change Effectiveness," Indoor Air,
Vol 1, pp.206-211, 1999.
F. J. Offermann, A. T. Hodgson, and J. P. Robertson, "Contaminant Emission Rates from
PVC Backed Carpet Tiles on Damp Concrete", Healthy Buildings 2000, Espoo, Finland,
August 2000.
K.S. Liu, L.E. Alevantis, and F.J. Offermann, "A Survey of Environmental Tobacco
Smoke Controls in California Office Buildings", Indoor Air, Vol 11, pp. 26-34, 2001.
F.J. Offermann, R. Colfer, P. Radzinski, and J. Robertson, "Exposure to Environmental
Tobacco Smoke in an Automobile", Indoor Air 2002, Monterey, California, July 2002.
F. J. Offermann, J.P. Robertson, and T. Webster, "The Impact of Tracer Gas Mixing on
Airflow Rate Measurements in Large Commercial Fan Systems", Indoor Air 2002,
Monterey, California, July 2002.
M. J. Mendell, T. Brennan, L. Hathon, J.D. Odom, F.J.Offermann, B.H. Turk, K.M.
Wallingford, R.C. Diamond, W.J. Fisk, "Causes and prevention of Symptom Complaints
5.1.e
in Office Buildings: Distilling the Experience of Indoor Environmental Investigators
submitted to Indoor Air 2005, Beijing, China, September 4-9, 2005.
F.J. Offermann, "Ventilation and IAQ in New Homes With and Without Mechanical
Outdoor Air Systems", Healthy Buildings 2009, Syracuse, CA, September 14, 2009.
F.J. Offermann, "ASHRAE 62.2 Intermittent Residential Ventilation: What's It Good
For, Intermittently Poor IAQ", IAQVEC 2010, Syracuse, CA, April 21, 2010.
F.J. Offermann and A.T. Hodgson, "Emission Rates of Volatile Organic Compounds in
New Homes", Indoor Air 2011, Austin, TX, June, 2011.
P. Jenkins, R. Johnson, T. Phillips, and F. Offermann, Chemical Concentrations in New
California Homes and Garages", Indoor Air 2011, Austin, TX, June, 2011.
W. J. Mills, B. J. Grigg, F. J. Offermann, B. E. Gustin, and N. E. Spingarm, "Toluene and
Methyl Ethyl Ketone Exposure from a Commercially Available Contact Adhesive",
Journal of Occupational and Environmental Hygiene, 9:1)95-1)102 May, 2012.
F. J. Offermann, R. Maddalena, J. C. Offermann, B. C. Singer, and H, Wilhelm, "The
Impact of Ventilation on the Emission Rates of Volatile Organic Compounds in
Residences", HB 2012, Brisbane, AU, July, 2012.
F. J. Offermann, A. T. Hodgson, P. L. Jenkins, R. D. Johnson, and T. J. Phillips,
"Attached Garages as a Source of Volatile Organic Compounds in New Homes", HB
2012, Brisbane, CA, July, 2012.
R. Maddalena, N. Li, F. Offermann, and B. Singer, "Maximizing Information from
Residential Measurements of Volatile Organic Compounds", HB 2012, Brisbane, AU,
July, 2012.
Persily, A. Hodgson, F. Offermann, D. Poppendieck, and K. Kumagai,
"Area -Specific Airflow Rates for Evaluating the Impacts of VOC emissions in U.S.
Single -Family Homes", Building and Environment, Vol. 71, 204-211, February, 2014.
F. J. Offermann, A. Eagan A. C. Offermann, and L. J. Radonovich, "Infectious Disease
Aerosol Exposures With and Without Surge Control Ventilation System Modifications",
Indoor Air 2014, Hong Kong, July, 2014.
F. J. Offermann, "Chemical Emissions from E-Cigarettes: Direct and Indirect Passive
Exposures", Building and Environment, Vol. 93, Part 1, 101-105, November, 2015.
F. J. Offermann, "Formaldehyde Emission Rates From Lumber Liquidators Laminate
Flooring Manufactured in China", Indoor Air 2016, Belgium, Ghent, July, 2016.
F. J. Offermann, "Formaldehyde and Acetaldehyde Emission Rates for E-Cigarettes",
Indoor Air 2016, Belgium, Ghent, July, 2016.
E
Packet Pg.142 ``
5.1.e
OTHER REPORTS:
W.J.Fisk, P.G.Cleary, and F.J.Offermann, "Energy Saving Ventilation with Residential
Heat Exchangers," a Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory brochure distributed by the
Bonneville Power Administration, 1981.
F.J.Offermann, J.R.Girman, and C.D.Hollowell, "Midway House Tightening Project: A
Study of Indoor Air Quality," Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory, Berkeley, CA, Report
L131,42777, 1981.
F.J.Offermann, J.B.Dickinson, W.J.Fisk, D.T.Grimsrud, C.D.Hollowell, D.L.Krinkle, and
G.D.Roseme, "Residential Air -Leakage and Indoor Air Quality in Rochester, New York,"
Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory, Berkeley, CA, Report LBL-13100, 1982.
F.J.Offermann, W.J.Fisk, B.Pedersen, and K.L.Revzan, Residential Air -to -Air Heat
Exchangers: A Study of the Ventilation Efficiencies of Wall- or Window- Mounted
Units," Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory, Berkeley, CA, Report 1,131,44358, 1982.
F.J.Offermann, W.J.Fisk, W.W.Nazaroff, and R.G.Sextro, "A Review of Portable Air
Cleaners for Controlling Indoor Concentrations of Particulates and Radon Progeny," An
interim report for the Bonneville Power Administration, 1983,
W.J.Fisk, K.M.Archer, R.E.Chant, D.Hekmat, F.J.Offermann, and B.S. Pedersen,
"Freezing in Residential Air -to -Air Heat Exchangers: An Experimental Study," Lawrence
Berkeley Laboratory, Berkeley, CA, Report L131,46783, 1983.
R.G.Sextro, W.W.Nazaroff, F.J.Offermann, and K.L.Revzan, "Measurements of Indoor
Aerosol Properties and Their Effect on Radon Progeny," Proceedings of the American
Association of Aerosol Research Annual Meeting, April, 1983.
F.J.Offermann, R.G.Sextro, W.J.Fisk, W.W. Nazaroff, A.V.Nero, K.L.Revzan, and
J.Yater, "Control of Respirable Particles and Radon Progeny with Portable Air Cleaners,"
Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory, Berkeley, CA, Report LBL-16659, 1984.
W.J.Fisk, R.K.Spencer, D.T.Grimsrud, F.J.Offeimann; B.Pedersen, and R.G.Sextro,
"Indoor Air Quality Control Techniques: A Critical Review," Lawrence Berkeley
Laboratory, Berkeley, CA, Report LBL-16493, 1984.
F.J.Offermann, J.R.Girman, and R.G.Sextro, "Controlling Indoor Air Pollution from
Tobacco Smoke: Models and Measurements,", Indoor Air, Proceedings of the 3rd
International Conference on Indoor Air Quality and Climate, Vol 1, pp 257-264, Swedish
Council for Building Research, Stockholm (1984), Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory,
Berkeley, CA, Report LBL-17603, 1984.
10
5.1.e
R.Otto, J.Girman, F.Offermann, and R.Sextro,"A New Method for the Collection and
Comparison of Respirable Particles in the Indoor Environment," Lawrence Berkeley
Laboratory, Berkeley, CA, Special Director Fund's Study, 1984.
A.T.Hodgson and F.J.Offermann, "Examination of a Sick Office Building," Lawrence
Berkeley Laboratory, Berkeley, CA, an informal field study, 1984.
R.G.Sextro, F.J.Offermann, W.W.Nazaroff, and A.V.Nero, "Effects of Aerosol
Concentrations on Radon Progeny," Aerosols, Science, & Technology, and Industrial
Applications of Airborne Particles, editors B.Y.H.Liu, D.Y.H.Pui, and H.J.Fissan, p525,
Elsevier, 1984. .,
d
0
K.Sexton, S.Hayward, F.Offermann, R.Sextro, and L.Weber, "Characterization of =
Particulate and Organic Emissions from Major Indoor Sources, Proceedings of the Third
International Conference on Indoor Air Quality and Climate, Stockholm, Sweden, August
20-249 1984. �?
F.J.Offermann, "Tracer Gas Measurements of Laboratory Fume Entrainment at a Semi-
conductor Manufacturing Plant," an Indoor Environmental Engineering R&D Report,
1986.
F.J.Offermann, "Tracer Gas Measurements of Ventilation Rates in a Large Office
Building," an Indoor Environmental Engineering R&D Report, 1986.
F.J.Offermann, "Measurements of Volatile Organic Compounds in a New Large Office
Building with Adhesive Fastened Carpeting," an Indoor Environmental Engineering
R&D Report, 1986.
F.J.Offermann, "Designing and Operating Healthy Buildings", an Indoor Environmental
Engineering R&D Report, 1986.
F.J.Offermann, "Measurements and Mitigation of Indoor Spray-Applicated Pesticides",
an Indoor Environmental Engineering R&D Report, 1988.
F.J.Offermann and S. Loiselle, "Measurements and Mitigation of Indoor Mold
Contamination in a Residence", an Indoor Environmental Engineering R&D Report,
1989.
F.J.Offermann and S. Loiselle, "Performance Measurements of an Air Cleaning System
in a Large Archival Library Storage Facility", an Indoor Environmental Engineering
R&D Report, 1989.
F.J. Offermann, J.M. Daisey, L.A. Gundel, and A.T. Hodgson, S. A. Loiselle, "Sampling,
Analysis, and Data Validation of Indoor Concentrations of Polycyclic Aromatic
Hydrocarbons", Final Report, Contract No. A732406, California Air Resources Board,
March, 1990.
11
Packet Pg_1
5.1.e
L.A. Gundel, J.M. Daisey, and F.J. Offermann, "A Sampling and Analytical Method for
Gas Phase Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons", Proceedings of the 5th International
Conference on Indoor Air Quality and Climate, Indoor Air'90, July 29-August 1990,
A.T. Hodgson, J.M. "aisey, and F.J. Offermann "Development of an Indoor Sampling
and Analytical Method for Particulate Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons", Proceedings
of the 5th International Conference on Indoor Air Quality and Climate, Indoor Air '90,
July 29-August, 1990.
F.J. Offermann, J.O. Sateri, "Tracer Gas Measurements in Large Multi -Room Buildings",
Indoor Air '93, Helsinki, Finland, July 4-8, 1993. .^
d
0
F.J.Offermann, M. T. O'Flaherty, and M. A. Waz "Validation of ASHRAE 129 - _
Standard Method of Measuring Air Change Effectiveness", Final Report of ASHRAE LM
Research Project 891, December 8, 1997. E
v
S.E. Guffey, F.J. Offermann et. al., "Proceedings of the Workshop on Ventilation
Engineering Controls for Environmental Tobacco smoke in the Hospitality Industry",
U.S. Department of Labor Occupational Safety and Health Administration and ACGIH, w
1998.
F.J. Offermann, R.J. Fiskum, D. Kosar, and D. Mudaari, "A Practical Guide to
Ventilation Practices & Systems for Existing Buildings", Heatin /Piing/Air
Conditioning Engineering supplement to April/May 1999 issue.
F.J. Offermann, P. Pasanen, "Workshop 18: Criteria for Cleaning of Air Handling
Systems", Healthy Buildings 2000, Espoo, Finland, August 2000.
F.J. Offermann, Session Summaries: Building Investigations, and Design &
Construction, Healthy Buildings 2000, Espoo, Finland, August 2000.
F.J. Offermann, "The IAQ Top 10", Engineered Systems, November, 2008.
L. Kincaid and F.J. Offermann, "Unintended Consequences: Formaldehyde Exposures in
Green Homes, AIHA Synergist, February, 2010.
F.J. Offermann, " IAQ in Air Tight Homes", ASHRAE Journal, November, 2010.
F.J. Offermann, "The Hazards of E-Cigarettes", ASHRAE Journal, June, 2014.
PRESENTATIONS
"Low -Infiltration Housing in Rochester, New York: A Study of Air Exchange Rates and
Indoor Air Quality," Presented at the International Symposium on Indoor Air Pollution,
Health and Energy Conservation, Amherst, MA, October 13-16,19810
12
"Ventilation Efficiencies of Wall- or . Window -Mounted Residential Air4o-Air Heat
Exchangers," Presented at the American Society of Heating, Refrigeration, and Air
Conditioning Engineers Summer Meeting, Washington, DC, June, 1983.
"Controlling Indoor Air Pollution from Tobacco Smoke: Models and Measurements,"
Presented at the Third International Conference on Indoor Air Quality and Climate,
Stockholm, Sweden, August 20m24, 1984.
"Indoor Air Pollution: An Emerging Environmental Problem", Presented to the
Association of Environmental Professionals, Bar Area/Coastal Region 1, Berkeley, CA,
May 29, 1986.
"Ventilation Measurement Techniques," Presented at the Workshop on Sampling and
Analytical Techniques, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, Georgia, September 26,
1986 and September 25, 1987.
"Buildings That Make You Sick: Indoor Air Pollution", Presented to the Sacramento
Association of Professional Energy Managers, Sacramento, CA, November 18, 1986.
"Ventilation Effectiveness and Indoor Air Quality", Presented to the American Society of
Heating, Refrigeration, and Air Conditi Honing Engineers Northern Nevada Chapter, Reno,
NV, February 18, 1987, Golden Gate Chapter, San Francisco, CA, October 1, 1987, and
the San Jose Chapter, San Jose, CA, June 9, 1987.
"Tracer Gas Techniques for Studying Ventilation," Presented at the Indoor Air Quality
Symposium, Georgia Tech Research Institute, Atlanta, GA, September 22-24, 1987.
"Indoor Air Quality Control: What Works, What Doesn't," Presented to the Sacramento
Association of Professional Energy Managers, Sacramento, CA, November 17, 1987.
"Ventilation Effectiveness and ADPI Measurements of a Forced Air Heating System,"
Presented at the American Society of Heating, Refrigeration, and Air Conditioning
Engineers Winter Meeting, Dallas, Texas, January 31, 1988.
"Indoor Air Quality, Ventilation, and Energy in Commercial Buildings", Presented at the
Building Owners &Managers Association of Sacramento, Sacramento, CA, July 21,
1988.
"Controlling Indoor Air Quality: The New ASHRAE Ventilation Standards and How to
Evaluate Indoor Air Quality", Presented at a conference "Improving Energy Efficiency
and Indoor Air Quality in Commercial Buildings," National Energy Management
Institute, Reno, Nevada, November 4, 1988.
"A Study of Diesel Fume Entrainment Into an Office Building," Presented at Indoor Air
'89: The Human Equation: Health and Comfort, American Society of Heating,
Refrigeration, and Air Conditioning Engineers, San Diego, CA, April 17-20, 1989.
13
Packet Pg. 146
5.1.e
"Indoor Air Quality in Commercial Office Buildings," Presented at the Renewable
Energy Technologies Symposium and International Exposition, Santa Clara, CA June 20,
1989.
"Building Ventilation and Indoor Air Quality", Presented to the all Joaquin Chapter of
the American Society of Heating, Refrigeration, and Air Conditioning Engineers,
September 7, 1989.
"How to Meet New Ventilation Standards: Indoor Air Quality and Energy Efficiency," a
workshop presented by the Association of Energy Engineers; Chicago, IL, March 20-21,
1989; Atlanta, GA, May 25-26, 1989; San Francisco, CA, October 19-20, 1989; Orlando,
FL, December 1142, 1989; Houston, TX, January 29-30, 1990; Washington D.C.,
February 26-27, 1990; Anchorage, Alaska, March 23, 19909 Las Vegas, NV, April 23-24,
1990; Atlantic City, NJ, September 27-28, 1991; Anaheim, CA, November 19-20, 1991;
Orlando, FL, February 28 - March 1, 1991; Washington, DC, March 20-21, 1991;
Chicago, IL, May 16-17, 1991; Lake Tahoe, NV, August 15-16, 1991; Atlantic City, NJ,
November 1&19, 1991; San Jose, CA, March 23-24, 1992.
"Indoor Air Quality," a seminar presented by the Anchorage, Alaska Chapter of the
American Society of Heating, Refrigeration, and Air Conditioning Engineers, March 23,
1990.
"Ventilation and Indoor Air Quality", Presented at the 1990 HVAC &Building Systems
Congress, Santa, Clara, CA, March 29, 1990.
"Ventilation Standards for Office Buildings", Presented to the South Bay Property
Managers Association, Santa Clara, May 9, 1990.
"Indoor Air Quality", Presented at the Responsive Energy Technologies Symposium &
International Exposition (RETSIEh Santa Clara, CA, June 20, 1990.
"Indoor Air Quality -Management and Control Strategies", Presented at the Association
of Energy Engineers, San Francisco Bay Area Chapter Meeting, Berkeley, CA,
September 25, 1990.
"Diagnosing Indoor Air Contaminant and Odor Problems", Presented at the ASHRAE
Annual Meeting, New York City, NY, January 23, 1991.
"Diagnosing and Treating the Sick Building Syndrome", Presented at the Energy 2001,
Oklahoma, OK, March 19, 1991.
"Diagnosing and Mitigating Indoor Air Quality Problems" a workshop presented by the
Association of Energy Engineers, Chicago, IL, October 29-30, 1990; New York, NY,
January 24-25, 1991; Anaheim, April 25-26, 1991; Boston, MA, June 10-11, 1991;
Atlanta, GA, October 24-25, 1991; Chicago, IL, October 34, 19919, Las Vegas, NV,
December 1647, 1991, Anaheim, CA, January 30-31, 1992; Atlanta, GA, March 5-6,
1992; Washington, DC, May 7-8, 1992; Chicago, IL, August 19-20, 1992; Las Vegas,
14
NV, October 1-2, 1992, New York City, NY, October 26-21, 1992, Las Vegas, NV,
March 1849, 1993; Lake Tahoe, CA, July 1415, 1994, Las Vegas, NV, April 34, 1995;
Lake Tahoe, CA, July 11-12, 1996; Miami, Fl, December 9-10, 1996.
"Sick Building Syndrome and the Ventilation Engineer Presented to the San Jose
Engineers Club, May, 21, 1991.
"Duct Cleaning: Who Needs It ?How Is It Done ?What Are The Costs ?" What Are the
Risks ?, Moderator of Forum at the ASHRAE Annual Meeting, Indianapolis ID, June 23,
1991.
"Operating Healthy Buildings", Association of Plant Engineers, Oakland, CA, November o
14, 1991. _
"Duct Cleaning Perspectives", Moderator of Seminar at the ASHRAE Semi -Annual E
Meeting, Indianapolis, IN, June 24, 1991. v
a�
"Duct Cleaning: The Role of the Environmental Hygienist," ASHRAE Annual Meeting,
Anaheim, CA, January 29, 1992.
c
a�
"Emerging IAQ Issues", Fifth National Conference on Indoor Air Pollution, University of E
Tulsa, Tulsa, OK, April 13-14, 1992. v
a
"International Symposium on Room Air Convection and Ventilation Effectiveness", _z
Member of Scientific Advisory Board, University of Tokyo, July 22-24, 1992. J
"Guidelines for Contaminant Control During Construction and Renovation Projects in ° x
Office Buildings," Seminar paper at the ASHRAE Annual Meeting, Chicago, IL, January
26, 1993. E
v
"Outside Air Economizers: IAQ Friend or Foe", Moderator of Forum at the ASHRAE N
Annual Meeting, Chicago, IL, January 26, 1993. c
0
N
"Orientation to Indoor Air Quality," an EPA two and one half day comprehensive indoor N
air quality introductory workshop for public officials and building property managers;
Sacramento, September 28-30, 1992; San Francisco, February 23-24, 1993; Los Angeles,
March 16-181 1993; Burbank, June 23, 1993; Hawaii, August 24-25, 1993; Las Vegas,
August 30, 1993; San Diego, September 1344, 1993% Phoenix, October 1849, 1993;
Reno, November 1416, 1995; Fullerton, December 34, 1996; Fresno, May 1344, 1997. Q
"Building Air Quality: A Guide for Building Owners and Facility Managers," an EPA
one half day indoor air quality introductory workshop for building owners and facility
managers. Presented throughout Region IX 1993-1995.
"Techniques for Airborne Disease Control", EPRI Healthcare Initiative Symposium; San
Francisco, CA; June 7, 1994.
15
5.1.e
"Diagnosing and Mitigating Indoor Air Quality Problems CIHC Conference; San
Francisco, September 29, 1994.
"Indoor An Quality: Tools for Schools," an EPA one day air quality management
workshop for school officials, teachers, and maintenance personnel; San Francisco,
October 18-20, 19949 Cerritos, December 5, 1996; Fresno, February 26, 1997; San Jose,
March 27, 19970 Riverside, March 5, 1997; San Diego, March 6, 1997; Fullerton,
November 13, 1997; Santa Rosa, February 1998, Cerritos, February 26, 1998; Santa
Rosa, March 2, 1998.
ASHRAE 62 Standard "Ventilation for Acceptable IAQ", ASCR Convention; San
Francisco, CA, March 16, 1995.
"New Developments in Indoor Air Quality: Protocol for Diagnosing IAQ Problems",
UHA-NC; March 25, 1995.
"Experimental Validation of ASHRAE SPC 129, Standard Method of Measuring Air
Change Effectiveness", 16th AIVC Conference, Palm Springs, USA, September 19-22,
1995.
"Diagnostic Protocols for Building IAQ Assessment", American Society of Safety
Engineers Seminar: `Indoor Air Quality — The Next Door'; San Jose Chapter, September
27, 1995; Oakland Chapter, 9, 1997.
"Diagnostic Protocols for Building IAQ Assessment", Local 39; Oakland, CA, October 3,
1995.
"Diagnostic Protocols for Solving IAQ Problems", CSU-PPD Conference; October 24,
1995.
"Demonstrating Compliance with ASHRAE 62-1989 Ventilation Requirements", AIHA;
October 25, 1995.
"IAQ Diagnostics: Hands on Assessment of Building Ventilation and Pollutant
Transport", EPA Region IX; Phoenix, AZ, March 12, 1996; San Francisco, CA, Apri19,
1996; Burbank, CA, April 12, 1996.
"Experimental Validation of ASHRAE 129P: Standard Method of Measuring Air Change
Effectiveness", Room Vent `96 /International Symposium on Room Air Convection and
Ventilation Effectiveness"; Yokohama, Japan, July 1649, 1996.
"IAQ Diagnostic Methodologies and RFP Development", CCEHSA 1996 Annual
Conference, Humboldt State University, Arcata, CA, August 2, 1996.
"The Practical Side of Indoor Air Quality Assessments", California Industrial Hygiene
Conference `96, San Diego, CA, September 2, 1996.
Packet Pg.14
5.1.e
"ASHRAE Standard Us Improving Indoor Environments Pacific as and Electric
Energy Center, San Francisco, CA, October 29, 1996.
"Operating and Maintaining Healthy Buildings April 345 1996, San Jose, CA; July 30,
1997, Monterey, CA.
"IAQ Primer", Local 39, April 16, 1997; Amdahl Corporation, June 9, 1997; State
Compensation Insurance Fund's Safety & Health Services Department, November 21,
1996.
"Tracer Gas Techniques for Measuring Building Air Flow Rates", ASHRAE,
Philadelphia, PA, January 26, 1997.
"How to Diagnose and Mitigate Indoor Air Quality Problems"; Women in Waste; March
1% 1997.
"Environmental Engineer: What Is It?", Monte Vista High School Career Day; April 10,
1997.
"Indoor Environment Controls: What's Hot and What's Not", Shaklee Corporation; San
Francisco, CA, July 15, 1997.
"Measurement of Ventilation System Performance Parameters in the US EPA BASE
Study", Healthy Buildings/IAQ'97, Washington, DC, September 29, 1997.
"Operations and Maintenance for Healthy and Comfortable Indoor Environments",
PASMA; October 7, 1997.
"Designing for Healthy and Comfortable Indoor Environments", Construction
Specification Institute, Santa Rosa, CA, November 6, 1997.
"Ventilation System Design for Good IAQ", University of Tulsa 10`h Annual Conference,
all Francisco, CA, February 25, 1998.
"The Building Shell", Tools For Building Green Conference and Trade Show, Alameda
County Waste Management Authority and Recycling Board, Oakland, CA, February 28,
1998.
"Identifying Fungal Contamination Problems In Buildings", The City of Oakland
Municipal Employees, Oakland, CA, March 26, 1998.
"Managing Indoor Air Quality in Schools:
Sacramento, CA, Apri120, 1998.
Staying Out of Trouble", CASBO,
"Indoor Air Quality", CSOOC Spring Conference, Visalia, CA, Apri130, 1998.
"Particulate and Gas Phase Air Filtration", ACGIH/OSHA, Ft. Mitchell, KY, June 1998.
17
5.1.e
"Building Air Quality Facts and Myths The City of Oakland / Alameda County Safety
Seminar, Oakland, CA, June 12, 1998.
"Building Engineering and Moisture Building Contamination Workshop, University of
California Berkeley, Continuing Education in Engineering and Environmental
Management, San Francisco, CA, October 21-22, 1999.
"Identifying and Mitigating Mold Contamination in Buildings", Western Construction
Consultants Association, Oakland, CA, March 15, 2000; AIG Construction Defect
Seminar, Walnut Creek, CA, May 2, 2001; City of Oakland Public Works Agency,
Oakland, CA, July 24, 2001; Executive Council of Homeowners, Alamo, CA, August 3,
2001.
"Using the EPA BASE Study for IAQ Investigation / Communication", Joint
Professional Symposium 2000, American Industrial Hygiene Association, Orange County
& Southern California Sections, Long Beach, October 19, 2000.
"Ventilation," Indoor Air Quality: Risk Reduction in the 215t Century Symposium,
sponsored by the California Environmental Protection Agency/Air Resources Board,
Sacramento, CA, May 34, 2000.
"Workshop 18: Criteria for Cleaning of Air Handling Systems", Healthy Buildings 2000,
Espoo, Finland, August 2000.
"Closing Session Summary: `Building Investigations' and `Building Design &
ConstructionHealthy Buildings 2000, Espoo, Finland, August 2000.
"Managing Building Air Quality and Energy Efficiency, Meeting the Standard of Care",
BOMA, MidAtlantic Environmental Hygiene Resource Center, Seattle, ay 23ra,
2000; San Antonio, TX, September 26-27, 2000.
"Diagnostics &Mitigation in Sick Buildings: When Good Buildings Go Bad," University
of California Berkeley, September 18, 2001.
"Mold Contamination: Recognition and What To Do and Not Do", Redwood Empire
Remodelers Association; Santa Rosa, CA, April 16, 2002.
"Investigative Tools of the IAQ Trade", Healthy Indoor Environments 2002; Austin, TX;
Apri122, 2002.
"Finding Hidden Mold: Case Studies in IAQ Investigations", AIHA Northern California
Professionals Symposium; Oakland, CA, May 8, 2002.
"Assessing and Mitigating Fungal Contamination in Buildings", Cal/OSHA Training;
Oakland, CA, February 14, 2003 and West Covina, CA, February 20-21, 2003.
Packet Pg. 151
5.1.e
use of External Containments During Fungal Mitigation", Invited Speaker, ACGIH
Mold Remediation Symposium, Orlando, FL, November 3-5, 2003.
Building Operator Certification (BOC), 1064AQ Training Workshops, Northwest Energy
Efficiency Council; Stockton, CA, December 3, 20039 San Francisco, CA, December 9,
2003; Irvine, CA, January 13, 2004; San Diego, January 14, 2004; Irwindale, CA,
January 27, 2004; Downey, CA, January 28, 2004, Santa Monica, CA, March 16, 2004;
Ontario, CA, March 17, 2004; Ontario, CA, November 9, 2004, San Diego, CA,
November 10, 20040 San Francisco, CA, November 17, 2004; San Jose, CA, November
185 2004; Sacramento, CA, March 15, 2005.
"Mold Remediation: The National QUEST for Uniformity Symposium", Invited
Speaker, Orlando, Florida, November 3-5, 2003.
"Mold and Moisture Control", Indoor Air Quality workshop for The Collaborative for
High Performance Schools (CHPS), San Francisco, December 11, 2003.
"Advanced Perspectives In Mold Prevention &Control Symposium", Invited Speaker,
Las Vegas, Nevada, November 7-9, 2004.
"Building Sciences: Understanding and Controlling Moisture in Buildings", American
Industrial Hygiene Association, San Francisco, CA, February 14-16, 2005.
"Indoor Air Quality Diagnostics and Healthy Building Design", University of California
Berkeley, Berkeley, CA, March 2, 2005.
"Improving IAQ = Reduced Tenant Complaints", Northern California Facilities
Exposition, Santa Clara, CA, September 27, 2007.
"Defining Safe Building Air", Criteria for Safe Air and Water in Buildings, ASHRAE
Winter Meeting, Chicago, IL, January 27, 2008.
"Update on USGBC LEED and Air Filtration", Invited Speaker, NAFA 2008
Convention, San Francisco, CA, September 19, 2008.
"Ventilation and Indoor air Quality in New California Homes", National Center of
Healthy Housing, October 20, 2008.
"Indoor Air Quality in New Homes", California Energy and Air Quality Conference,
October 29, 2008.
"Mechanical Outdoor air Ventilation Systems and IAQ in New Homes", ACI Home
Performance Conference, Kansas City, MO, April 29, 2009.
"Ventilation and IAQ in New Homes with and without Mechanical Outdoor Air
Systems", Healthy Buildings 2009, Syracuse, CA, September 14, 2009.
19
racket Pg152 "'
5.1.e
"Ten Ways to Improve Your Air Quality", Northern California Facilities Exposition,
Santa Clara, CA, September 30, 2009.
"New Developments in Ventilation and Indoor Air Quality in Residential Buildings
Westcon meeting, Alameda, CA, March 17, 2010.
"Intermittent Residential Mechanical Outdoor Air Ventilation Systems and IAQ
ASHRAE SSPC 62.2 Meeting, Austin, TX, April 19, 2010.
"Measured IAQ in Homes", ACI Home Performance Conference, Austin, TX, Apri121,
2010.
"Respiration: IEQ and Ventilation", AIHce 2010, How IH Can LEED in Green buildings,
Denver, CO, May 23, 2010.
"IAQ Considerations for Net Zero Energy Buildings (NZEB)", Northern California
Facilities Exposition, Santa Clara, CA, September 22, 2010.
"Energy Conservation and Health in Buildings", Berkeley High SchoolGreen Career
Week, Berkeley, CA, April 12, 2011.
"What Pollutants are Really There ?", ACI Home Performance Conference, San
Francisco, CA, March 30, 2011.
"Energy Conservation and Health in Residences Workshop", Indoor Air 2011, Austin,
TX, June 6, 2011.
"Assessing IAQ and Improving Health in Residences", US EPA Weatherization Plus
Health, September 7, 2011.
"Ventilation: What a Long Strange Trip It's Been", Westcon, May 21, 2014.
"Chemical Emissions from E-Cigarettes: Direct and Indirect Passive Exposures", Indoor
Air 2014, Hong Kong, July, 2014.
"Infectious Disease Aerosol Exposures With and Without Surge Control Ventilation
System Modifications", Indoor Air 2014, Hong Kong, July, 2014.
"Chemical Emissions from E-Cigarettes", IMF Health and Welfare Fair, Washington,
DC, February 18, 2015.
"Chemical Emissions and Health Hazards Associated with E-Cigarettes", Roswell Park
Cancer Institute, Buffalo, NY, August 15, 2014.
"Formaldehyde Indoor Concentrations, Material Emission Rates, and the CARB ATCM",
Harris Martin's Lumber Liquidators Flooring Litigation Conference, WQ Minneapolis
Hotel, May 27, 2015.
20
PacketPg_153
"Chemical Emissions from E-Cigarettes: Direct and Indirect Passive Exposure", FDA
Public Workshop: Electronic Cigarettes and the Public Health, Hyattsville, MD June 2,
2015.
"Creating Healthy Homes, Schools, and Workplaces", Chautauqua Institution,
Athenaeum Hotel, August 24, 2015.
"Diagnosing IAQ Problems and Designing Healthy Buildings", University of California
Berkeley, Berkeley, CA, October 6, 2015.
"Diagnosing Ventilation and IAQ Problems in Commercial Buildings", BEST Center
Annual Institute, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, January 6, 2016.
"A Review of Studies of Ventilation and Indoor Air Quality in New Homes and Impacts
of Environmental Factors on Formaldehyde Emission Rates From Composite Wood
Products", AIHce2016, May, 21-26, 2016.
"Admissibility of Scientific Testimony", Science in the Court, Proposition 65
Clearinghouse Annual Conference, Oakland, CA, September 15, 2016.
"Indoor Air Quality and Ventilation", ASHRAE Redwood Empire, Napa, CA, December
1, 2016.
21
Packet Pg.154
5.1.e
*All toilm ib]
Packet Pg.155
Shawn Smallwood, PhD
g1o8 Finch Street
Davis, CA 95616
Amy Million -Principal Planner
City of Dublin
Community Development Department
100 Civic Plaza
Dublin, CA 94568 24 March 2020
RE: Cambria Hotel Project
0
Dear Ms. Million,LM
.0
E
I write to comment on the proposed Cambria Hotel Project, which I understand would M
add a 68400t tall, 6-story hotel (89,700 ft2) on o.91 acres of land. I write to comment LM
on bird -window collisions that would result from this project, as well as traffic impacts V
on wildlife. Neither of these impacts were addressed in the Downtown Dublin Specific
Plan EIR (City of Dublin 2010), and scientific understanding of both has increased in
recent years. E
E
0
My qualifications for preparing expert comments are the following. I hold a Ph.D. Q
degree in Ecology from University of California at Davis, where I subsequently worked D
for four years as a post -graduate researcher in the Department of Agronomy and Range
Sciences. My research has been on animal density and distribution, habitat selection, Y
habitat restoration, interactions between wildlife and human infrastructure and =
activities, conservation of rare and endangered species, and on the ecology of invading
species. I perform research on wildlife mortality caused by wind turbines, electric E
distribution lines, agricultural practices, and road traffic. I authored numerous papers
on special -status species issues, including "Using the best scientific data for endangered
species conservation" (Smallwood et al.1999), and "Suggested standards for science
applied to conservation issues" (Smallwood et al. 2001). I served as Chair of the o
Conservation Affairs Committee for The Wildlife Society —Western Section. I am a N
member of The Wildlife Society and the Raptor Research Foundation, and I've been a ;
part-time lecturer at California State University, Sacramento. I was Associate Editor of
wildlife biology's premier scientific journal, The Journal of Wildlife Management, as E
well as of Biological Conservation, and I was on the Editorial Board of Environmental
Management. I have performed wildlife surveys in California for thirty-three years,
including at many proposed project sites. My CV is attached. a
BIOLOGICAL IMPACTS ASSESSMENT
According to the City of Dublin's public hearing announcement regarding the proposed
Cambria Hotel Project, no further environmental review is required for the Project
beyond that already performed in the Downtown Dublin Specific Plan EIR (City of
Dublin 2010). However, circumstances related to biological resources have changed in
the decade since the City certified its EIR. These changed circumstances are all the
more pertinent to potential impacts of the proposed project because the Downtown
Dublin Specific Plan EIR did not analyze potential impacts on biological resources.
The Downtown Dublin Specific Plan EIR omitted any analysis of potential impacts on
biological resources because City of Dublin (2010:4-7) concluded that biological
resources do not exist within the City. Evidence collected since 2010 demonstrates
otherwise — that special -status species of wildlife often occur within the City of Dublin.
For example, eBird (https://eBird.org) records reveal hundreds of eyewitness
observations of birds in and around Downtown Dublin, including members of special -
status species (Table 1). Many birds live and breed in Downtown Dublin, but many
thousands also pass through Dublin annually on migration along valley corridors which
also accommodate Highways 58o and 680. The evidence is overwhelming that the
premise of City of Dublin's conclusion of no impacts to wildlife was a false premise. Be
that as it may, circumstances have changed since 2010, and these changed
circumstances bring a fair argument that a project -specific EIR should be prepared for
the Cambria Hotel Project.
Just in the last year, the scientific community confirmed that human actions are
cumulatively contributing to the rapid decline of birds across North America. Using
data from radar installations and Breeding Sird Survey transects across North America,
Rosenberg et al. (2019) quantified a 29% decline of overall bird abundance across North
America over the last 48 years. The likely ecological and economic costs of losing nearly
a third of our birds has yet to be estimated, but these costs are likely substantial. The
current trend cannot continue without suffering extinctions of multiple species, reduced
biological diversity and a diminished quality of life for Americans. One of the leading
causes of bird mortality contributing to this decline has been collisions with windows
(see below).
Recent advances in structural glass engineering have contributed to a proliferation of
glass windows on building facades. This proliferation is readily observable in newer
buildings and in recent project planning documents, and it is represented by a
worldwide 20% increase in glass manufacturing for building construction since 2016.
Increasing window -to -wall ratios and glass facades have become popular for multiple
reasons, including a growing demand for `daylighting.' A high window4o-wall ratio is
also a major feature of the Cambria Hotel Project, as depicted on City of Dublin's web
site introducing the Project. This proposed project would potentially introduce an
ecological trap to birds flying across the junction of east -west and north -south migration
routes along the valley structures in which Downtown Dublin is situated.
Table 1. S ecial-status
species reported on eBird (Lits: eBird.or or the ro'ect area.
Species
Scientific name
Status"
eBird
posts
Window
impacts
Long -billed curlew
Numenius americanus
TWL, BCC
Nearby
Caspian tern
H dro ro ne caspia
BCC
Nearby
California gull
Larus calf ornicus
TWL
Nearby
Osprey
Pandion haliaetus
TWL, FGC 503.5
Nearby
Bald eagle
Haliaeetus leucoce halus
BGEPA, BCC, CE, CFP
Nearby
Golden eagle
A uila chrysaetos
BGEPA, BCC, CFP
Nearby
Ferruginous hawk
Buteo re alis
TWL, FGC 3503.5
Nearby
Red-tailed hawk
Buteo 'amaicensis
FGC 3503.5
Nearby,
Yes
3
0
.o
a�
x
E
E
0
z
J
c
d
v
a
J
0
E
d
x
E
v
N
0
0
N
0
w
c
a�
Q
5.1.e
I Listed as BCC = U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Bird Species of Conservation Concern, CE = California
endangered, CT = California threatened, CFP = California Fully Protected (Fish and Game Code 3511),
FGC 3503.5 = California Department of Fish and Wildlife Code 3503.5 (Birds of prey), and SSC1, SSC4
and SSC3 = California Bird Species of Special Concern priorities 1, 2 and 3, respectively, and TWL =
Taxa to Watch List (Shuford and Gardali 2008).
5.1.e
Not only would this ecological trap be inserted into the airspace of migrating birds, but
it would be inserted after just learning of humanity's cumulative effects on North
American birds and just after new laws were passed to do something about these effects.
Governor Gavin Newsom signed AB 454 into law on 27 September 2019, adding
protection to several hundred bird species. This new law amended California Fish and
Game Code section 3513 to protect birds that had been protected by the federal
Migratory Bird Treaty Act. This new law carries particular significance for bird -window
collisions that the proposed project would cause, because hundreds of these newly
protected species have been recorded in and around Downton Dublin in recent years
(see eBird: https: I JeBird. org), 38 of which are special -status species in addition to the =
new law, and 12 of which are known to be susceptible to window collisions (Table 1). o
Another recent change to legal protections of birds was the recent listing of tricolored x
blackbird as Threatened under the California Endangered Species Act. Tricolored
blackbirds have been recorded west and east of Dublin, so likely fly across Dublin during E
dispersal and migration. Glass windows inserted into their airspace could kill some of v
them. Glass windows inserted into the aerosphere would annually kill birds of manyLM
other species protected by California's new version of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act.
Just as the scientific community recently quantified the effects of humanity's cumulative
effects on North American birds, reports of scientific investigations published since
2010 have also informed the scientific community of the magnitude of impacts, of the
factors contributing tobird-window collisions, and how to mitigate collision risk. And
just as the use of structural glass proliferated over the last several years, most of the
studies contributing to our new understanding were reported in the scientific literature
since 2010. Also, the most comprehensive and informed guidelines on building design
and landscaping to minimize impacts were produced after 2010 (San Francisco
Planning Department 2011, Sheppard and Phillips 2015). Therefore, the Downtown
Dublin Specific Plan EIR could not have anticipated the proliferation of structural glass
in new developments, nor could it have anticipated the documented 29% decline of
North America's birds or the added legal protections afforded to birds in response to
this decline. A fair argument can be made for the need to prepare a project -specific EIR
for the Cambria Hotel Project, which proposes to impose large glass windows on birds
attempting to pass through Dublin.
Below I review the bird -window collision issue, hypothesized causal factors and
recommended mitigation solutions. I also predict bird -window collision rates based on
studies performed across the USA at structures ranging widely in height, window to wall
ratio, types of glass, orientation, and structural context. My aim is to make a robust
prediction from this range of study conditions, and to present the associated large
confidence interval that I believe is appropriate in the face of uncertainty over how
many birds fly through the project area and what proportion of the birds are more
susceptible that others to window collision.
Glass -facades of buildings intercept and kill many birds, but these facades are
differentially hazardous to birds based on spatial extent, contiguity, orientation, and
other factors. At Washington State University, Johnson and Hudson (1976) found 266
5
Packet Pg.160
bird fatalities of 41 species within 73 months of monitoring of a three-story glass
walkway (no fatality adjustments attempted). Prior to marking the windows to warn
birds of the collision hazard, the collision rate was 84.7 per year. At that rate, and not
attempting to adjust the fatality estimate for the proportion of fatalities not found, 4,235
A were likely killed over the 50 years since the start of their study, and that's at a
relatively small building facade (Figure 2). Accounting for the proportion of fatalities
not found, the number of birds killed by this walkway over the last 50 years would have
been about 12,705. And this is just for one 3-story, glass -sided walkway between two
college campus buildings.
Figure 2. A walkway connecting two buildings at
Washington State University where one of the
earliest studies of bird collision mortality found 85
bird fatalities per year prior to marking windows
(254 annual deaths adjusted for the proportion not
found). Given that the window markers have long
since disappeared, this walkway has likely killed at
least 12,7o5 birds since 1968, and continues to kill
birds. Notice that the transparent glass on both
sides of the walkway gives the impression of
unimpeded airspace that can be navigated safely by
birds familiar with flying between tree branches.
Also note the reflected images of trees, which can
mislead birds into seeing safe perch sites. Further
note the distances of ornamental trees, which allow
birds taking off from those trees to reach full speed
upon arrival at the windows.
Window collisions are often characterized as either the second or third largest source or
human -caused bird mortality. The numbers behind these characterizations are often
attributed to Mem's (199o) and Dunn's (1993) estimates of about too million to i billion
bird fatalities in the USA, or more recently Loss et al.'s (2014) estimate of 365-988
million bird fatalities in the USA or Calvert et al.'s (2013) and Machtans et al.'s (2013)
estimates of 22.4 million and 25 million bird fatalities in Canada, respectively.
However, these estimates and their interpretation warrant examination because they
were based on opportunistic sampling, volunteer study participation, and fatality
monitoring by more inexperienced than experienced searchers.
Klein's
(1990) estimate was based on speculation that 1 to to birds are killed per
building per year, and this speculated range was extended to the number of buildings
estimated by the US Census Bureau in 1986. Klem's speculation was supported by
Fatality monitoring at only two houses, one in Illinois and the other in New York. Also,
the basis of his fatality rate extension has changed greatly since 1986. Whereas his
estimate served the need to alert the public of the possible magnitude of the bird-
Packet Pg.161
window collision issue, it was highly uncertain at the time and undoubtedly outdated
more than three decades hence. Indeed, by 2010 Klem (2010) characterized the upper
end of his estimated range -1 billion bird fatalities — as conservative. Furthermore, the
estimate lumped species together as if all birds are the same and the loss of all birds to
windows has the same level of impact.
Homes AL are associated with higher rates of window collisions than are
homes without birdfeeders (Kummer and Bayne 2015, Kummer et al. 2016a), so the
developed area might pose even greater hazard to birds if it includes numerous
birdfeeders. Another factor potentially biasing national or North American estimates
low was revealed by Bracey et al.'s (2o16) finding that trained fatality searchers found
2.6 x the number of fatalities found by homeowners on the days when both trained =
searchers and homeowners searched around homes. The difference in carcass detection
was 30.446ld when involving carcasses volitionally placed by Bracey et al. (2o16) in E
blind detection trials. This much larger difference in trial carcass detection rates likely
resulted because their placements did not include the sounds that typically alert LM
homeowners to actual window collisions, but this explanation also raises the question of V
how often homeowner participants with such studies miss detecting window -caused
fatalities because they did not hear the collisions.
E
By the time Loss et al. (2014) performed their effort to estimate annual USA bird- v
window fatalities, many more fatality monitoring studies had been reported or were a
underway. Loss et al. (2014) were able to incorporate many more fatality rates based on M
scientific monitoring, and they were more careful about which fatality rates to include.
However, they included estimates based on fatality monitoring by homeowners, which
in one study were found to detect only 38% of the available window fatalities (Bracey et =
al. 2016). Loss et al. (2014) excluded all fatality records lacking a dead bird in hand,
such as injured birds or feather or blood spots on windows. Loss et al.'s (2014) fatality E
metric was the number of fatalities per building (where in this context a building can
include a house, low-rise, or high-rise structure), but they assumed that this metric was N
based on window collisions. Because most of the bird -window collision studies were Me
limited to migration seasons, Loss et al. (2014) developed an admittedly assumption -
laden correction factor for making annual estimates. Also, only 2 of the studies included N
adjustments for carcass persistence and searcher detection error, and it was unclear how LO
and to what degree fatality rates were adjusted for these factors. Although Loss et al.
(2014) attempted to account for some biases as well as for large sources of uncertainty
mostly resulting from an opportunistic rather than systematic sampling data source, v
their estimated annual fatality rate across the USA was highly uncertain and vulnerable w
to multiple biases, most of which would have resulted in fatality estimates biased low. a
In my review ofbird-window collision monitoring, I found that the search radius
around homes and buildings was very narrow, usually 2 meters. Based on my
experience with bird collisions in other contexts, I would expect that a large portion of
bird -window collision victims would end up farther than 2 in from the windows,
especially when the windows are higher up on tall buildings. In my experience, searcher
detection rates tend to be low for small birds deposited on ground with vegetation cover
or woodchips or other types of organic matter. Also, vertebrate scavengers entrain on
mthropogenic sources of mortality and quickly remove many of the carcasses, thereby
preventing the fatality searcher from detecting these fatalities. Adjusting fatality rates
for these factors — search radius bias, searcher detection error, and carcass persistence
rates — would greatly increase nationwide estimates of bird -window collision fatalities.
Buildings can intercept many nocturnal migrants as well as birds flying in daylight. As
mentioned above, Johnson and Hudson (1976) found 266 bird fatalities of 41 species
within 73 months of monitoring of a four-story glass walkway at Washington State
University (no adjustments attempted). Somerlot (2003) found 21 bird fatalities among
13 buildings on a university campus within only 61 days. Monitoring twice per week,
Hager at al. (2008) found 215 bird fatalities of 48 species, or 55 birds/building/year,
and at another site they found 142 bird fatalities of 37 species for 24
birds/building/year. Gelb and Delacretaz (2009) recorded 5,40o bird fatalities under
buildings in New York City, based on a decade of monitoring only during migration
periods, and some of the high-rises were associated with hundreds of fatalities each.
Klem et al. (2009) monitored 73 building fagades in New York City during 114 days of
two migratory periods, tallying 549 collision victims, nearly 5 birds per day. Borden et
al. (2010) surveyed a 1.8 km route 3 times per week during 12-month period and found
271 bird fatalities of 50 species. Parkins et al. (2015) found 35 bird fatalities of 16
species within only 45 days of monitoring under 4 building fagades. From 24 days of
survey over a 48-day span, Porter and Huang (2015) found 47 fatalities under 8
buildings on a university campus. Sabo et al. (2016) found 27 bird fatalities over 61 days
A searches under 31 windows. In San Francisco, Kahle et al. (2016) found 355 collision
victims within 1,762 days under a 5-story building. Ocampo-Peiiuela et al. (2016)
searched the perimeters of 6 buildings on a university campus, finding 86 fatalities after
63 days of surveys. One of these buildings produced 61 of the 86 fatalities, and another
building with collision -deterrent glass caused only 2 of the fatalities, thereby indicating
a wide range in impacts likely influenced by various factors. There is ample evidence
available to support my prediction that the proposed project would result in many
collision fatalities of birds.
Project Impact Prediction
Predicting the number of bird collisions at a new project is challenging because the
study of window collisions remains in its early stages. Researchers have yet to agree on
a collision rate metric. Some have reported findings as collisions per building per year
and some as collisions per building per day. Some have reported findings as collisions
per m2 of window. The problem with the temporal factor in the collision rate metrics
has been monitoring time spans varying from a few days to 10 years, and even in the
case of the 10-year span, monitoring was largely restricted to spring and fall migration
seasons. Short-term monitoring during one or two seasons of the year cannot represent
I `year,' but monitoring has rarely spanned a full year. Using `buildings' in the metric
treats buildings as all the same size, when we know they are not. Using square meters of
glass in the metric treats glass as the only barrier upon which birds collide against a
building's facade, when we know it is not. It also treats all glass as equal, even though
pc
5.1.e
we know that collision risk varies by type of glass as well as multiple factors related to
contextual settings.
Without the benefit of more advanced understanding of window collision factors, my
prediction of project impacts will be uncertain. Klem's (199o) often -cited national
estimate of avian collision rate relied on an assumed average collision rate of 1 to 10
birds per building per year, but studies since then have all reported higher rates of
collisions 12 to 352 birds per building per year. Because the more recent studies were
likely performed at buildings known or suspected to cause many collisions, collision
rates from them could be biased high. By the time of these comments I had reviewed
and processed results of bird collision monitoring at 181 buildings and facsades for which
bird collisions per m2 of glass per year could be calculated and averaged (Johnson and
Hudson 1976, O'Connell 2001, Somerlot 2003, Hager et al. 20o8, Borden et al. 2010,
Hager et al. 2013, Porter and Huang 2015, Parkins et al. 2015, Kahle et al. 2016,
Ocampo-Penuela et al. 2o16, Sabo et al. 2o16, Barton et al. 2017, Schneider et al. 2o18).
These study results averaged 0.077 bird deaths per m2 of glass per year (95% CI: 0.04-
0.11). Looking over the proposed commercial floor space, including the hotel and club
retail, I estimated the project would include 892 m2 of glass windows. Applied to the
mean fatality rate, this area of glass would predict 69 bird deaths per year (95% CI:
36=98). The 50-year toll from this average annual fatality rate would be 3,434 bird
deaths (95% CI: 1,784-4,906), which would continue until the buildings of the project
are either renovated to reduce bird collisions or they come down.
As mentioned earlier, the accuracy of this prediction depends on factors known or
hypothesized to affect window collision rates. However, I used all the variation in
collision rates that was available and which resulted from a wide range in building
height, type of glass, indoor and outdoor landscaping, interior light management,
window to wall ratio, and structural context of the fagade. This variation contributed to
a robust bird -window collision rate represented by a wide 95% confidence interval.
According to the confidence interval, which again was based on the wide range of
conditions in the underlying data, the proposed project built as designed at too
locations would be predicted to kill between 36 and 98 birds per year at 95 of those too
locations, leaving the other 5 to kill birds at rates either lower or higher than this range.
Even at the low end of the interval, the death toll would be excessive, amounting to 1784
bird deaths over 50 years. This impact would be significant, especially considering that
the predicted fatality rate can be prevented by implementing appropriate mitigation
measures. Below I will discuss hypothesized bird -window collision factors, and I will
recommend mitigation measures.
Bird -Window Collision Factors
Below is a list of collision factors I found in the scientific literature. Following this list
are specific notes and findings taken from the literature and my own experience.
(1) Inherent hazard of a structure in the airspace used for nocturnal migration or other
flights
Wo
5.1.e
(2) Window transparency, falsely revealing passage through structure or to indoor
plants
(3) Window reflectance, falsely depicting vegetation, competitors, or open airspace
(4) Black hole or passage effect
(5) Window or facade extent, or proportion of facade consisting of window or other
reflective surface
(6) Size of window
(7) Type of glass
(8) Lighting, which is correlated with window extent and building operations
(9) Height of structure (collision mechanisms shift with height above ground)
(1o) Orientation of fagade with respect to winds and solar exposure
(ii) Structural layout causing confusion and entrapment
(12) Context in terms of urban -rural gradient, or surrounding extent of impervious
surface vs vegetation
(13) Height, structure, and extent of vegetation grown near home or building
(14) Presence of birdfeeders or other attractants
(15) Relative abundance
(16) Season of the year
(17) Ecology, demography and behavior
(18) Predatory attacks or cues provoking fear of attack
(19) Aggressive social interactions
(1) Inherent hazard of structure in airspace. —Not all of a structure's collision risk can be
attributed to windows. Overing (1938) reported 576 birds collided with the Washington
Monument in 90 minutes on one night, 12 September 1937. The average annual fatality
count had been 328 birds from 1932 through 1936. Gelb and Delacretaz (2009) and
Klem et al. (2oo9) also reported finding collision victims at buildings lacking windows,
although many fewer than they found at buildings fitted with widows. The takeaway is
that any building going up at the project site would likely kill birds, although the
impacts of a glass -sided building would likely be much greater.
(2) Window transparency. —Widely believed as one of the two principal factors
contributing to avian collisions with buildings is the transparency of glass used in
windows on the buildings (Klem 1989). Gelb and Delacretaz (2oo9) felt that many of
the collisions they detected occurred where transparent windows revealed interior
vegetation.
(3) Window reflectance. —Widely believed as one of the two principal factors
contributing to avian collisions with buildings is the reflectance of glass used in windows
on the buildings (Klein 1989). Reflectance can deceptively depict open airspace,
vegetation as habitat destination, or competitive rivals as self-images (Klem 1989). Gelb
and Delacretaz (2009) felt that many of the collisions they detected occurred toward the
lower parts of buildings where large glass exteriors reflected outdoor vegetation. Klein
et al. (2oo9) and Borden et al. (201o) also found that reflected outdoor vegetation
associated positively with collisions.
�i7
5.1.e
(4) Black hole or passage effect. —Although this factor was not often mentioned in the
bird -window collision literature, it was suggested in Sheppard and Phillips (2015). The
black hole or passage effect is the deceptive appearance of a cavity or darkened ledge
that certain species of bird typically approach with speed when seeking roosting sites.
The deception is achieved when shadows from awnings or the interior light conditions
give the appearance of cavities or protected ledges. This factor appears potentially to be
nuanced variations on transparency or reflectance or possibly an interaction effect of
both of these factors.
(5) Window or facade extent.—Klem et al. (2009), Borden et al. (2010), Hager et al.
(2013), and Ocampo-Penuela et al. (2016) reported increased collision fatalities at
buildings with larger reflective fagades or higher proportions of fagades composed of
windows. However, Porter and Huang (2015) found a negative relationship between
fatalities found and proportion of fagade that was glazed.
(6) Size of window. —According to Kahle et al. (2016), collision rates were higher on
large -pane windows compared to small -pane windows.
(�) Type of glass.—Klem et al. (2009) found that collision fatalities associated with the
type of glass used on buildings. Otherwise, little attention has been directed towards the
types of glass in buildings.
(8) Lighting. —Parkins et al. (2015) found that light emission from buildings correlated
positively with percent glass on the facade, suggesting that lighting is linked to the
extent of windows. Zink and Eckles (2010) reported fatality reductions, including an
80% reduction at a Chicago high-rise, upon the initiation of the Lights -out Program.
However, Zink and Eckles (2010) provided no information on their search effort, such
as the number of searches or search interval or search area around each building.
(9) Height of structure. —I found little if any hypothesis -testing related to building
height, including whether another suite of factors might relate to collision victims of
high-rises. Are migrants more commonly the victims of high-rises or of smaller
buildings?
(lo) Orientation of facade. —Some studies tested facade orientation, but not
convincingly. Confounding factors such as the extent and types of windows would
require large sample sizes of collision victims to parse out the variation so that some
portion of it could be attributed to orientation of fagade. Whether certain orientations
cause disproportionately stronger or more realistic -appearing reflections ought to be
testable through measurement, but counting dead birds under facades of different
orientations would help.
(11) Structural layout. —Bird -safe building guidelines have illustrated examples of
structural layouts associated with high rates ofbird-window collisions, but little
attention has been directed towards hazardous structural layouts in the scientific
literature. An exception was Johnson and Hudson (1976), who found high collision
11
Packet Pg.166 ''
5.1.e
rates at 3 stories of glassed -in walkways atop an open breezeway, located on a break in
slope with trees on one side of the structure and open sky on the other, Washington
State University.
(12) Context in urban -rural gradient. —Numbers of fatalities found in monitoring have
associated negatively with increasing developed area surrounding the building (Hager et
al. 2013), and positively with more rural settings (Kummer et al. 2o16a).
(13) Height, structure and extent of vegetation near building. —Correlations have
sometimes been found between collision rates and the presence or extent of vegetation
near windows (Hager et al. 2oo8, Borden et al. 2010, Kummer et al. 2o16a, Ocampo- o
Penuela et al. 2016). However, Porter and Huang (2015) found a negative relationship x
between fatalities found and vegetation cover near the building. In my experience, whatLM
probably matters most is the distance from the building that vegetation occurs. If the E
vegetation that is used by birds is very close to a glass facade, then birds coming from U
that glass will be less likely to attain sufficient speed upon arrival at the facade to result
in a fatal injury. Too far away and there is probably no relationship. But 30 to 50 m
away, birds alighting from vegetation can attain lethal speeds by the time they arrive at J
the windows.
(14) Presence of birdfeeders.—Dunn (1993) reported a weak correlation (r = 0.13, P <
0.001) between number of birds killed by home windows and the number of birds
counted at feeders. However, Kummer and Bayne (2015) found that experimental
installment of birdfeeders at homes increased bird collisions with windows 1.84461d.
(15) Relative abundance. —Collision rates have often been assumed to increase with local
density or relative abundance (Klem 1989), and positive correlations have been
measured (Dunn 1993, Hager et al. 20o8). However, Hager and Craig (2014) found a
negative correlation between fatality rates and relative abundance near buildings.
(16) Season of the year. —Borden et al. (2010) found 900/. of collision fatalities during
spring and fall migration periods. The significance %J this finding is magnified by -day
carcass persistence rates of 0.45 and 0.35 in spring and fall, rates which were
considerably lower than during winter and summer (Hager et al. 2012). In other words,
the concentration of fatalities during migration seasons would increase after applying
seasonally -explicit adjustments for carcass persistence. Fatalities caused by collisions
into the glass facades of the project's building would likely be concentrated in fall and
spring migration periods.
(17) Ecology, demography and behavior.—Klem (1989) noted that certain types of birds
were not found as common window -caused fatalities, including soaring hawks and
waterbirds. Cusa et al. (2015) found that species colliding with buildings surrounded by
higher levels of urban greenery were foliage gleaners, and species colliding with
buildings surrounded by higher levels of urbanization were ground foragers. Sabo et al.
(2016) found no difference in age class, but did find that migrants are more susceptible
to collision than resident birds.
12
(18) Predatory attacks. —Panic flights caused by raptors were mentioned in 1676 of
window strike reports in Dunn's (1993) study. I have witnessed Cooper's hawks chasing
birds into windows, including house finches next door to my home and a northern
mocking bird chased directly into my office window. Predatory birds likely to collide
with the project's windows would include Peregrine falcon, red -shouldered hawk,
Cooper's hawk, and sharp -shinned hawk.
(19) Aggressive social interactions. —I found no hypothesis -testing of the roles of
aggressive social interactions in the literature other than the occasional anecdotal
account of birds attacking their self-images reflected from windows. However, I have c
witnessed birds chasing each other and sometimes these chases resulting in one of the =
birds hitting a window.LM
E
Window Collision Solutions
LM
Given the magnitude of bird -window collision impacts, there are obviously great
opportunities for reducing and minimizing these impacts going forward. Existing
structures can be modified or retrofitted to reduce impacts, and proposed new
structures can be more carefully sited, designed, and managed to minimize impacts. E
However, the costs of some of these measures can be high and can vary greatly, but most v
importantly the efficacies of many of these measures remain uncertain. Both the costs a
and effectiveness of all of these measures can be better understood through
experimentation and careful scientific investigation. Post -construction fatality
monitoring should be an essential feature of any new building project.
Below is a listing of mitigation options, along with some notes and findings from the
x
literature.
Any new project should be informed by preconstruction surveys of daytime and
nocturnal flight activity. Such surveys can reveal the one or more fagades facing the M
prevailing approach direction of birds, and these revelations can help prioritize where N
certain types of mitigation can be targeted. It is critical to formulate effective measures
prior to construction, because post -construction options will be limited, likely more O
expensive, and probably less effective. N
(1) Retrofitting to reduce impacts
(1A) Marking windows
(1B) Managing outdoor landscape vegetation
v
(1C) Managing indoor landscape vegetation
(1D) Managing nocturnal lighting a
(1A) Marking windows. —Whereas Klem (1990) found no deterrent effect from decals on
windows, Johnson and Hudson (1976) reported a fatality reduction of about 69% after
placing decals on windows. In an experiment of opportunity, Ocampo-Pefiuela et al.
(2o16) found only 2 of 86 fatalities at one of 6 buildings — the only building with
windows treated with a bird deterrent film. At the building with fritted glass, bird
collisions were 82% lower than at other buildings with untreated windows. Kahle et al.
13
(2016) added external window shades to some windowed fagades to reduce fatalities
82% and 95%. Many external and internal glass markers have been tested
experimentally, some showing no effect and some showing strong deterrent effects
(Klem 1989,1990, 2009, 2011, Klem and Saenger 2013; R6ssler et al. 2015).
Following up on the results of Johnson and Hudson (1976), I decided to mark windows
A my home, where I have documented 5 bird collision fatalities between the time I
moved in and 6 years later. I marked my windows with decals delivered to me via US
Postal Service from a commercial vendor. I have documented no fatalities at my
windows during the 8 years hence. On 8 December 2018, I photographed a ruby -
crowned kinglet pulling up short of my window (Figure 3), right at one of my installed
markers. In my assessment, markers can be effective in some situations.
Figure 3. Ruby -crowned kinglet puts on the
brakes in front of a decal I applied to mark
windows of my home, 8 December 2o18. This
window killed birds prior to marking, but I
have found no window collision victims since
marking the windows. Windows with
attractive built-in marking are commercially
available.
(2) Siting and Designing to minimize impacts
(2A) Deciding on location of structure
(2B) Deciding on facade and orientation
(2C) Selecting type and sizes of windows
(2D) Designing to minimize transparency through two parallel fagades
(2E) Designing to minimize views of interior plants
(2F) Landscaping to increase distances between windows and trees and shrubs
(3) Monitoring for adaptive management to reduce impacts
(3A) Systematic monitoring for fatalities to identify seasonal and spatial patterns
(3B) Adjust light management, window marking and other measures as needed.
Guidelines on Building Design
If the project goes forward, it should at a minimum adhere to available guidelines on
building design intended to minimize collision hazards to birds. The American Bird
Conservancy (ABC) produced an excellent set of guidelines recommending actions to:
(1) Minimize use of glass; (2) Placing glass behind some type of screening (grilles,
shutters, exterior shades); (3) Using glass with inherent properties to reduce collisions,
such as patterns, window films, decals or tape; and (4) Turning off lights during
migration seasons (Sheppard and Phillips 2015). The City of San Francisco (San
14
Packet Pg.169
Francisco Planning Department 2oli) also has a set of building design guidelines, based
on the excellent guidelines produced by the New York City Audubon Society (Orff et al.
ioo7). The ABC document and both the New York and San Francisco documents
provide excellent alerting of potential bird -collision hazards as well as many visual
examples. The San Francisco Planning Department's (2oi1) building design guidelines
are more comprehensive than those of New York City, but they could have gone further.
For example, the San Francisco guidelines probably should have also covered scientific
monitoring of impacts as well as compensatory mitigation for impacts that could not be
avoided, minimized or reduced. Monitoring and the use of compensatory mitigation
should be incorporated at any new building project because the measures recommended
in the available guidelines remain of uncertain effectiveness, and even if these measures
are effective, they will not reduce collision fatalities to zero. The only way to assess
effectiveness and to quantify post -construction fatalities is to monitor the project for
fatalities.
CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
An EIR is needed to identity past, ongoing and anticipated future projects that
contribute cumulatively to bird -window collision fatalities in Dublin. An estimate is
needed of the cumulative extent of glass windows and curtain walls. This estimate is
needed because it can be used to estimate or predict the number of annual deaths of
birds colliding with windows in Dublin. The cumulative impact needs to be understood
so that appropriate mitigation can be formulated to minimize, reduce, rectify and offset
the impact. A project -specific EIR needs to be prepared to provide such an analysis.
MITIGATION
Based on City of Dublin (2010) and the environmental documentaiton thus far
presented in support of the Cambria Hotel Project, the public and City of Dublin's
decision -makers remain uninformed about avian use of the project site and about the
potential effects of bird -window collisions that would be caused by the project. City of
Dublin inadequately informs the public about how avian use of the site can potentially
transform avian susceptibility to window collisions into avian vulnerability in the face of
the structures built as part of the project. Surveys are needed to learn how many of each
bird species fly through the area, and at what times of day (and night), and at what
heights above ground and under what circumstances. Biologists familiar with bird flight
behaviors need to survey for birds on the project site. Nocturnal surveys can be
performed using a thermaHmaging camera, although many of the birds would not be
identifiable to species during nocturnal surveys. Such surveys would inform of collision
risk, and could inform mitigation strategies involving interior light management and
design modifications to facades facing the prevailing approach directions of migrating
birds.
Transparency and reflectance increase collision risk, but there are materials available to
minimize the effects of transparency and reflectance, including the glass itself.
Landscaping around buildings can also affect collision risk, but risks can be minimized
15
Packet Pg.170
by carefully planning the landscaping. Interior lighting also increases risk to nocturnal
migrants, but the effects of interior lighting is readily mitigated by minimizing use of
lights as well as the lighting of any interior landscaping. I recommend consulting
available guidelines on minimizing impacts to wildlife caused by windows. For example,
the American Bird Conservancy produced an excellent set of guidelines recommending:
(1) Minimize use of glass; (2) Placing glass behind some type of screening (grilles,
shutters, exterior shades); (3) Using glass with inherent properties to reduce collisions,
such as patterns, window films, decals or tape; and (4) Turning off lights during
migration seasons (Sheppard and Phillips 2015). The City of San Francisco (San
Francisco Planning Department 2011) also has a set of building design guidelines, based
on the excellent guidelines produced by the New York City Audubon Society (Orff et al.
2007).
In addition to measures for minimizing wind collision impacts, I recommend fatality
monitoring around the building's perimeter. Such monitoring should be scientific,
adhering to standards developed for fatality monitoring in other window collision
studies and along electrical circuits and at wind projects.
Fund Wildlife Rehabilitation Facilities
Compensatory mitigation ought also to include funding contributions to wildlife
rehabilitation facilities to cover the costs of injured animals that will be delivered to
these facilities for care. Most of the wildlife injuries will likely be caused by window
collisions. But the project's impacts can also be offset by funding the treatment of
injuries to animals caused by other buildings, electric lines, cars, and cats.
Thank you for your attention,
Shawn Smallwood, Ph.D.
REFERENCES CITED
Barton, C. M., C. S. Riding, and S. R. Loss. 2017. Magnitude and correlates of bird
collisions at glass bus shelters in an urban landscape. Plos One 12. (6): eo178667.
https://doi.org/lo.1371/journal.pone, 0178667
Borden, W. Co) O. M. Lockhart, A. W. Jones, and M. S. Lyons. 2010. Seasonal,
taxonomic, and local habitat components ofbird-window collisions on an urban
university campus in Cleveland, OH. Ohio Journal of Science 110(3)044-52•
Bracey, A. M., M. A. Etterson, G. J. Niemi, and R. F. Green. 2016. Variation in bird -
window collision mortality and scavenging rates within an urban landscape. The
Wilson Journal of Ornithology 128:355-367•
16
5.1.e
Calvert, A. M., C. A. Bishop, R. D. Elliot, E. A. Krebs, T. M. Kydd, C. S. Maclitans, and G.
J. Robertson. 2013. A synthesis of human -related avian mortality in Canada. Avian
Conservation and Ecology 8(2): 11. httpa//dx.doi.org/10.5751/ACE-00581-080211
City of Dublin. 2010. Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact
Report, SCH # 20100022005, Dublin, California.
Cusa M, Jackson DA, Mesure M. 2015. Window collisions by migratory bird species:
urban geographical patterns and habitat associations. Urban Ecosystems 18(4):1-20.
DOI 10.1o07/s11252-015-0459-30
Dunn, E. H. 1993• Bird mortality from striking residential windows in winter. Journal x°
of Field Ornithology 64:302-309. M
LM
E
Gelb, Y. and N. Delacretaz. 2009. Windows and vegetation: Primary factors in v
Manhattan bird collisions. Northeastern Naturalist 16:455-470• L
a�
Hager, S. B, and M. E. Craig, 2014. Bird -window collisions in the summer breeding J
season. PeerJ 2:e46o DOI 10.7717/peeri.46o.
E
Hager, S. B., H. Trudell, K. J. McKay, S. M. Crandall, and L. Mayer. 2008. Bird density v
and mortality at windows. Wilson Journal of Ornithology 120:550-564• a
z
Hager, S. B., B. J. Cosentino, and K. J. McKay. 2012. Scavenging effects persistence of J
avian carcasses resulting from window collisions in an urban landscape. Journal of
Field Ornithology 83:203-211.
Hager S. B., B. J. Cosentino, K J. McKay, C. Monson, W. Zuurdeeg, and B. Blevins,
2013. Window area and development drive spatial variation in bird -window v
collisions in an urban landscape. PLoS ONE 8(1): e53371•
04
doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0053371
0
0
Johnson, R. E., and G. E. Hudson, 1976. Bird mortality at a glassed -in walkway in N
Washington State. Western Birds 7:99-107.
Kahle, L. Q., M. E. Flannery, and J. P. Dumbacher. 2016. Bird -window collisions at a
west -coast urban park museum: analyses of bird biology and window attributes -;
from Golden Gate Park, San Francisco. PLoS ONE 11(1):e144600 DOI
10.1371/journal.pone.0144600. a
Gem,
D., Jr. 1989. Bird-wi
Gem,ndow collisions. Wilson Bulletin 101:606-620.
Gem,
D., Jr. 1990. Collisions between birds and wi
Gem,ndows: mortality and prevention.
Journal of Field Ornithology 61:120-128.
17
Packet Pg.172
Klem, D., Jr. 2009. Preventing bird -window collisions. The Wilson Journal of
Ornithology 121:314-321.
Klem, D., Jr. 2010. Avian mortality at windows: the second largest human source of
bird mortality on earth. Pages 244-251 in Proc. Fourth Int. Partners in Flight
Conference: Tundra to Tropics.
Klem, D., Jr. 2011. Evaluating the effectiveness of Acopian Birdsavers to deter or
prevent bird -glass collisions. Unpublished report.
Klem, D., Jr. and P. G. Saenger. 2013. Evaluating the effectiveness of select visual
signals to prevent bird -window collisions. The Wilson Journal of Ornithology
125:406-411.
Klem, D. Jr., C. J. Farmer, N. Delacretaz, Y. Gelb and P. G. Saenger. 2009.
Architectural and landscape risk factors associated with bird -glass collisions in an
urban environment. Wilson Journal of Ornithology 121:126-134•
Kummer J. A., and E. M. Bayne. 2015. Bird feeders and their effects onbird-window
collisions at residential houses. Avian Conservation and Ecology 10(2):6 DOI
10.5751/ACE-00787-100206.
Kummer, J. A., E. M. Bayne, and C. S. Machtans. 2016. Use of citizen science to
identify factors affecting bird -window collision risk at houses. The Condor:
Ornithological Applications 118:624-639. DOI* io.165o/CONDOR-16-26.1
Loss, S. R., T. Will, S. S. Loss, and P. P. Marra. 2014. Bird —building collisions in the
United States: Estimates of annual mortality and species vulnerability. The Condor:
Ornithological Applications 116:8-23, DOI: 10.165o/CONDOR-13-090.1
Machtans, C.Wedeles, and E. M. Bayne. 2013. A first estimate for Canada
of the number of birds killed by colliding with building windows. Avian Conservation
and Ecology 8(2):6. http://dx.doi.org/10.5751/ACE-oo568-0802o6
Ocampo-Peiiuela, N., R. S. Winton, C. J. Wu, E. Zambello, T. W. Wittig and N. L. Cagle .
2016. Patterns of bird -window collisions inform mitigation on a university campus.
PeerJ4: e1652; DOI1o.7717/peerj .1652
O'Connell, T. J. 2001. Avian window strike mortality at a suburban office park. The
Raven 72:141-149•
Orff, K., H. Brown, S. Caputo, E. J. McAdams, M. Fowle, G. Phillips, C. DeWitt, and Y.
Gelb. 2007. Bird -safe buildings guidelines. New York City Audubon, New York.
Overing, R. 1938. High mortality at the Washington Monument. The Auk 55:679•
m
Parkins, K. L., S. B. Elbin, and E. Barnes. 2015. Light, glass, and bird —building
collisions in an urban park. Northeastern Naturalist 22:84-94•
Porter, A., and A. Huang. 2015. Bird collisions with glass: UBC pilot project to assess
bird collision rates in Western North America. UBC Social Ecological Economic
Development Studies (SEEDS) Student Report. Report to Environment Canada,
UBC SEEDS and UBC BRITE.
Rossler, M., E. Nemeth, and A. Bruckner. 2015. Glass pane markings to prevent window collisions: collisions: less can be more. Biologia 70& 535-541. DOI* 10.1515/biolog-
Boom
2015-0057 2
0
x
Sabo, A. M., N. D. G. Hagemeyer, A. S. Lahey, and E. L. Walters. 2o16. Local avian •i
density influences risk of mortality from window strikes. PeerJ 4:e2170; DOI
10.7717/peerj.2170Low
v
San Francisco Planning Department, 2011. Standards for bird -safe buildings. San
Francisco Planning Department, City and County of San Francisco, California. J
w
c
a�
Schneider, R. M., Co M. Barton, K. W. Zirkle, C. F. Greene, and K. B. Newman, 2018. E
Year-round monitoring reveals prevalence of fatal bird -window collisions at the 0
Virginia Tech Corporate Research Center. PeerJ6*e4562https:lldoi.org/10-7717/ a
peerJ.4562 z
D
noon
Sheppard, C., and G. Phillips. 2015. Bird -friendly building design, end Ed., American d
400
Bird Conservancy, The Plains, Virginia.
Shuford, W. D., and T. Gardali, [eds.]. 2oo8. California bird species of special concern: a
ranked assessment of species, subspecies; and distinct populations of birds of
immediate conservation concern in California. Studies of Western Birds 1. Western
Field Ornithologists, Camarillo, California.
0
Smallwood, K.S., J. Beyea and M. Morrison.1999. Using the best scientific data for N
endangered species conservation. Environmental Management 24:421-435• Ln
w
Smallwood, K.S., A. Gonzales, T. Smith, E. West, C. Hawkins, E. Stitt, C. Keckler, C.
Bailey, and K. Brown, 2001. Suggested standards for science applied to
conservation issues. Transactions of the Western Section of the Wildlife Society
36:40-49. a
Somerlot, K. E. 2003. Survey of songbird mortality due to window collisions on the
Murray State University campus. Journal of Service Learning in Conservation
Biology 1:1-19.
Zink, R. M., and J. Eckles. 2010. Twin cities bird -building collisions: a status update
on "Project Birdsafe." The Loon 82:34-37•
19
Packet Pg..174
Kenneth Shawn Smallwood
Curriculum Vitae
3108 Finch Street Born May 3, 1963 in
Davis, CA 95616 Sacramento, California.
Phone (530) 7564598 Married, father of two.
Cell (530) 601-6857
puma@dcn.org
Ecologist
Expertise
• Finding solutions to controversial problems related to wildlife interactions with human c
industry, infrastructure, and activities; _
'L
• Using systems analysis and experimental design principles to identify meaningful E
ecological patterns that can inform management decisions.LM
v
aD
Education J
Ph.D. Ecology, University of California, Davis. September 1990. E
M.S. Ecology, University of California, Davis. June 1987. c
B.S. Anthropology, University of California, Davis. June 1985. v
Corcoran High School, Corcoran, California. June 1981. z
D
J
Experience '
• 443 professional publications, including: o
• 80 peer reviewed publications
• 24 in non -reviewed proceedings
• 337 reports, declarations, posters and book reviews v
• 8 in mass media outlets N
• 84 public presentations of research results at meetings o
• Reviewed many professional papers and reports
• Testified in 4 court cases. N
to
Editing for scientific journals: Guest Editor, Wildlife Society Bulletin, 2012-2013, of invited papers d
representing international views on the impacts of wind energy on wildlife and how to mitigate
the impacts. Associate Editor, Journal of Wildlife Management, March 2004 to 30 June 2007.
Editorial Board Member, Environmental Management, 10/1999 to 8/2004. Associate Editor, Q
Biological Conservation, 9/1994 to 9/1995.
Member, Alameda County Scientific Review Committee (SRC), August 2006 to April 2011. The
five -member committee investigated the causes of bird and bat collisions in the Altamont Pass
Wind Resource Area, and recommended mitigation and monitoring measures. The SRC
1
Packet Pg.175
5.1.e
Exhibit C
G
Technical Consultation, Data Analysis and
Litigation Support for the Environment
2656 29`h Street, Suite 201
Santa Monica, CA 90405
Matt Hagemann, P.G, C.Hg.
(949) 887-9013
mhasemann@swape.com
Paul E. Rosenfeld, PhD
(310)795-2335
prosenfeld @swape.com
March 25, 2020
Paige Fennie
Lozeau I Drury LLP
1939 Harrison Street, Suite 150
Oakland, CA 94612
Subject: Comments on the Cambria Hotel Project (PLPA-2019-00020, -44)
Dear Ms. Fennie,
We have reviewed the March 2020 Hearing Notice for the Cambria Hotel Project ("Project") located in
the City of Dublin ("City"). The Project proposes to construct a 138-room hotel, totaling 89,700-SF, and
two stories of podium parking, totaling 277 spaces, on the 0.91-acre site.
Our review concludes that the Hearing Notice fails to adequately evaluate the Project's hazards and
hazardous materials, air quality, health risk, and greenhouse gas impacts. As a result, emissions and
health risk impacts associated with construction and operation of the proposed Project are
underestimated and inadequately addressed. An updated CEQA analysis should be prepared to
adequately assess and mitigate the potential hazards and hazardous materials, air quality, health risk,
and greenhouse gas impacts that the project may have on the surrounding environment.
As a result of our findings, the proposed Project does not qualify for an exemption under the California
Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") and 14 Cal. Code of Reps. 1500 et seq. ("CEQA Guidelines") per §
15182 and, therefore, a full CEQA analysis must be prepared to adequately assess and mitigate the
potential air quality, health risk, and greenhouse pas impacts that the Proiect may have on the
surrounding environment. We recommend that the City prepare an Initial Study with a health risk
assessment ("HRA") as required under the Commerce Municipal Code ("CMC" or "Code").
hazards and Hazardous Materials
Inadequate Analysis of Impacts
No Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) was prepared for the Project site. The preparation of a
Phase I ESA is a common practice in CEQA proceedings. Phase I ESAs are routinely included in CEQA
documentation to identify hazardous waste issues that ic
may pose a risk to the publ, workers, or the
environment, and which may require further investigation, including environmental sampling and
cleanup.
The lack of a Phase I ESA for the Project is inconsistent with mitigation included in the 2010 Downtown
Dublin Specific Plan which states: c
z
MM 3.4-2: Future development or substantial redevelopment within the project area shall QW�
M
prepare a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment to determine whether or not a particular EE
development site contains any hazardous materials as a result of historic contamination within v
the project area subject to review and approval by the City of Dublin.
a)
Standards for performing a Phase I ESA have been established by the US EPA and the American Society
c
for Testing and Materials Standards (ASTM).1 Phase I ESAs are conducted to identify conditions
indicative of releases of hazardous substances and include: E
• a review of all known sites in the vicinity of the subject property that are on regulatory agency v
Q
databases undergoing assessment or cleanup activities; Z
D
• an inspection; -�
• interviews with people knowledgeable about the property; and
• recommendations for further actions to address potential hazards. _
.e
Phase I ESAs conclude with the identification of any "recognized environmental conditions" (RECs) and E
recommendations to address such conditions. A REC is the presence or likely presence of any hazardous v
tr
substances or petroleum products on a property under conditions that indicate an existing release, a
past release, or a material threat of a release of any hazardous substances or petroleum products into
N
structures on the property or into the ground, groundwater, or surface water of the property. If RECs N
are identified, then a Phase II ESA generally follows, which includes the collection of soil, soil vapor and �+
groundwater samples, as necessary, to identify the extent of contamination and the need for cleanup to =
m
reduce exposure potential to the public. _
M
Consistent with professional due diligence procedures commonly used in CEQA matters, a Phase I ESA, Q
completed by a licensed environmental professional is necessary for inclusion in an EIR to identify
recognized environmental conditions, if any, at the proposed Project site. A Phase II ESA should be
conducted if the Phase I indicates a recognized environmental condition. Any contamination that is
identified above regulatory screening levels, including California Office of Environmental Health Hazard
Assessment's Soil Screening Numbers', should be further evaluated and cleaned up, if necessary, in
1 http:Hwww,astm.ors/Standards/E1527.htm
' http://oehha.ca.gov/risk/chhsltable.html
coordination with the Alameda County Department of Environmental Health and the San Francisco may
Regional Water Quality Control Board.
fir AILY
Incorrect Reliance on Exemption per CEQA Guidelines § 15182
The Hearing Notice claims that the Project is exempt pursuant to CEQA Guidelines § 15182 as a result of
consistency with the Downtown Dublin Specific Plan ("DDSP"). However, this is incorrect for several
reasons.
First, according to CEQA Guidelines § 15182(a),
0
x
"Certain residential, commercial and mixed -use projects that are consistent with a specific plan
adopted pursuant to Title 7, Division 1, Chapter 3, Article 8 of the Government Code are exempt -0
E
from CEQA"
However, review of the Hearing Notice and DDSP reveals that the Project is not exempt pursuant to
CEQA Guidelines § 15182, as it fails to comply with the DDSP, as demonstrated below.
Incorrect Reliance on the Downtown Dublin specific Plan
Review of the April 2010 Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report ("DDSP
DEIR") reveals that the proposed Project is not consistent. Specifically, according to the DDSP DEIR,
"Criteria for Determining Significance In accordance with CEQA, State CEQA Guidelines, and agency
and professional standards, a project impact would be considered significant if the project would:
• Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan. For purposes of
this EIR and based on the BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines, the proposed project must satisfy the
following standards to be consistent with the BAAQMD's 2005 Ozone Strategy and thus
result in a less than significant impact: 1) Consistency with the population and vehicle miles
traveled assumptions in the Clean Air Plan; and 2) Consistency With Clean Air Plan
Transportation Control Measures;
• Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air
quality violation;
• Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the
project region is in non -attainment under an applicable Federal or State ambient air quality
standard (including releasing emissions that exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone
precursors)" (DDSP, p. 3-30).
Furthermore, according to the DDSP DEIR,
"[F]uture individual projects under the DDSP would be subject to new project -level emission
thresholds in the BAAQMD Draft CEQA Guidelines, if adopted. Through the environmental
review process for individual projects, additional mitigation may also be required to further
reduce emissions and potential impacts on a project -by -project basis. In addition, future
5.1.e
development within the project area would be required to comply with BAAQMD Regulation 8,
Rule 3 (Architectural Coatings)" (DDSP, pp. 68).
Thus, the proposed Project is not consistent with the DDSP for several reasons. As a result, the Project
does not qualify for an exemption pursuant to CEQA Guidelines § 15182.
First, the Hearing Notice fails to compare the proposed Project's projected emissions with the
BAAQMD's project -level emissions threshold, as is required by the DDSP DEIR. As adopted in 2010 and
since updated in 2017, the BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines, as well as the DDSP DEIR, require proposed
Projects to compare their expected emissions to the relevant thresholds of significance.' Thus, the
d
Hearing Notice fails to compare project -level air quality emissions to the BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines, as
adopted. This is incorrect and as a result, the proposed Project is not consistent with the DDSP. By failingLM
ca
to compare the Project's estimated emissions to the relevant BAAQMD thresholds, the Hearing Notice -_
E
fails to demonstrate consistency with the DDSP DEIR and does not qualify for an exemption pursuant to v
CEQA Guidelines § 15182.
d
Second, the Hearing Notice fails to compare project -level air quality emissions to the BAAQMD 2005
w
Ozone Strategy.4 This is incorrect and as a result, the proposed Project is not consistent with the DDSP. d
Without an evaluation of the Project's compliance with the 2005 Ozone Strategy, the Hearing Notice E
E
fails to demonstrate compliance with the DDSP DEIR and does not qualify for an exemption pursuant to v
CEQA Guidelines § 15182. Q
z
M
Third, the Hearing Notice fails to compare project -level air quality emissions to the Clean Air Plan
Transportation Control Measures.5 This is incorrect and as a result, the proposed Project is not
0
consistent with the DDSP. Without an evaluation of the Project's compliance with the Clean Air Plan, the =
�a
Hearing Notice fails to demonstrate compliance with the DDSP DEIR and does not qualify for an
exemption pursuant to CEQA Guidelines § 15182. E
v
Fourth, the Hearing Notice fails to address Project -specific mitigation or BAAQMD Regulation 8, Rule 3 er
N
et
(Architectural Coatings), as required by the DDSP DEIR. As a result, the proposed Project is inconsistent
0
with the DDSP and does not qualify for an exemption pursuant to CEQA Guidelines § 15182. N
Finally, the proposed Project may be inconsistent with the Downtown Core Specific Plan ("DCSP"),the
West Dublin BART Specific Plan ("WDBSP"),and the Village Parkway Specific Plan ("VPSP"), as these 0
E
plans only allow for the additional development of 150 hotel rooms, as indicated by the DDSP DEIR (p. 3- v
100). Review of the City of Dublin Development Projects website demonstrates that the City proposes to Q
' "California Environmental Quality Act Air Quality Guidelines." BAAQMD, adopted 2010, updated May 2017,
available at: https://www.baaamd.eov/"/media/files/alanning-and-research/ceaa/ceaa guidelines mav2017-
�df.pdf?la=en, P. 2-2, Table 24.
a "Bay Area 2005 Ozone Strategy." BAAQMD, Volume 1, January 2006, available at:
https://www.baagmd.gov/^ /media/files/planning-and-research/plans/LOUD-ozone-
strategy/adoptedfinal voll.pdf.
5 "Final Clean Air Plan." BAAQMD, April 2017, available at: https://www.baagmd.gov/�/media/files/planning-and-
research/plans/2017-clean-air-plan/attachment-a -proposed-final-cap-vol-l-pdf.pdf?la=en, p. 5/11, Table 5-2.
construct a 120-room hotel, the Tru Hotel, a 129-room hotel, the Element Hotel, and a 198-room hotel,
the Westin Hotel.' Thus, when considered in conjunction with these other projects, the proposed
Project is inconsistent with the additional 150-room hotel development limit indicated by the DDSP
DEIR. As a result, the proposed Project is inconsistent with the DDSP DEIR and does not qualify for an
exemption pursuant to CEQA Guidelines § 15182.
SVii�4PE Analysis Indicates Significant Air Pollutant Emissions
In an effort to accurately determine the proposed Project's construction and operational emissions, we
prepared a SWAPE CaIEEMod model for the Project, using the Project -specific information provided by
the Hearing Notice. We included the land use types and sizes as indicated and left all other values as
defauIts.
Our updated analysis demonstrates that the Projects construction -related VOC emissions exceed the 54
pounds per day (Ibs/day) threshold set by the BAAQMD (see table below).'
Maximum Daily Construction Emissions (Ibs/day)
SWAPE
BAAQMD Regional Threshold (Ibs/day)
Threshold Exceeded?
54.8
When modeled, the Project's construction -related VOC emissions exceed the BAAQMD threshold of 54
Ibs/day. Our model demonstrates that the Project would result in a potentially significant air quality
impact that was not previously identified or addressed in the Hearing Notice. As a result, an EIR should
be prepared to include an updated air pollution model and analysis to adequately estimate the Project's
construction and operational emissions and incorporate mitigation to reduce these emissions to a less
than significant level.
Diesel Partic��late Matter Health Risk Emissions Inadequately Evaluated
Review of the Hearing Notice demonstrates that the proposed Project failed to evaluate or mention the
potential health risk impacts associated with Project activities. Without a quantified health risk
assessment ("HRA"), we cannot verify that Project -related impacts are less than significant. This is
incorrect for several reasons.
First, by failing to conduct an HRA for residential sensitive receptors located nearby the Project site, the
Project is not consistent with the DDSP DEIR. Specifically, according to the DDSP DEIR,
"Criteria for Determining Significance In accordance with CEQA, State CEQA Guidelines, and agency
and professional standards, a project impact would be considered significant if the project would:...
' Found at; https://dublin-development.icitywork.com/
"`California Environmental Quality Act Air Quality Guidelines." BAAQMD, adopted 2010, updated May 2017 ,
available at: https://www.baagmd.gov/�/media/files/planning-and-research/cega/cega guidelines mav2017-
pdf.pdf?la=en, P. 2-2, Table 24.
5
• Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations" (DDSP, P. 3-30).
As the Project documents fail to mention or evaluate the excess health risk impacts on nearby
residential sensitive receptors to the Project site, the Project is not consistent with the DDSP. Thus, the
Project does not qualify for an exemption pursuant to CEQA Guidelines § 15182.
Second, by failing to prepare a construction or operational HRA for existing sensitive receptors, the
Project is inconsistent with recommendations set forth by the Office of Environmental Health Hazard
Assessment ("OEHHA"), the organization responsible for providing recommendations for health risk
assessments in California. In February of 2015, OEHHA released its most recent Risk Assessment c
a�
Guidelines: Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments, which was formally adopted in
March of 2015.1 This guidance document describes the types of projects that warrant the preparation of
an HRA. Construction of the Project will produce emissions of diesel particulate matter ("DPM"), a E
human carcinogen, through the exhaust stacks of construction equipment. The OEHHA document U
recommends that all short-term projects lasting at least two months be evaluated for cancer risks to
nearby sensitive receptors.' Although the Project documents fail to disclose the anticipated duration of
WJ
construction, we can reasonably assume that it will last over two months, given the Project will require
site preparation, grading, building construction and architectural coating for the new buildings, and
E
paving throughout the site. Furthermore, once construction of the Project is complete, the Project will E
0
operate for a long period of time. During operation, the Project will generate vehicle and truck trips, v
Q
which will produce additional exhaust emissions, thus continuing to expose nearby sensitive receptors z
D
to emissions. The OEHHA document recommends that exposure from projects lasting more than six -J
months should be evaluated for the duration of the project, and recommends that an exposure duration a
of 30 years be used to estimate individual cancer risk for the maximally exposed individual resident =
("MEIR").10 Even though the Project documents fail to provide the expected lifetime of the Project, we
can reasonably assume that the Project will operate for at least 30 years, if not more. Therefore, we E
recommend that health risk impacts from Project operation also be evaluated, as a 30-year exposure v
�r
duration exceeds the 2-month and &month requirements set forth by OEHHA. Therefore, per OEHHA
guidelines, we recommend that health risk impacts from Project construction and operation be c
evaluated in a CEQA analysis. N
Sri
Finally, by claiming a less than significant impact without conducting a quantified HRA for nearby,
existing sensitive receptors as a result of Project construction and operation, the Project fails to
E
compare the excess health risk to the BAAQMD's specific numeric threshold of 10 in one million." Thus,
the Project cannot conclude a less than significant health risk impact resulting from Project construction d
and operation without quantifying the Project's excess cancer risk to compare to the proper threshold,
as recommended by the lead agency for the Project.
$ OEHHA (February 2015) Risk Assessment Guidelines Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk
Assessments, http://bit.ly/2sAKySW.
' Ibid, p. 8-18.
to Ibid., p. 8-6, 845
11 CITATION
Packet Pg. 22
screening -Level Analysis Demonstrates Significant Impacts
In an effort to demonstrate the potential risk posed by the Project to nearby sensitive receptors, we
prepared a simple screening -level HRA. The results of our assessment, as described below, demonstrate
that construction and operational DPM emissions may result in a potentially significant health risk
impact that was not previously identified or evaluated by the Hearing Notice.
In order to conduct our screening level risk assessment, we relied upon AERSCREEN, which is a
screening -level air quality dispersion model.12The model replaced SCREEN3, which is included in
OEHHAi3 and California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA)' guidance as the
appropriate air dispersion model for Level 2 health risk screening assessments ("HRSAs"). A Level 2
0
HRSA utilizes a limited amount of site -specific information to generate maximum reasonable downwind =
concentrations of air contaminants to which nearby sensitive receptors may be exposed. If an
unacceptable air quality hazard is determined to be possible using AERSCREEN, a more refined modeling E
approach is required prior to approval of the Project. v
We prepared a SWAPE CaIEEMod model for the Project, using the Project -specific information provided
by the Hearing Notice. We included the land use types and sizes as indicated and left all other values as
defaults. Utilizing this model, we prepared a preliminary health risk screening assessment of the
Project's construction and operational impacts to sensitive receptors using the annual emissions
estimates from SWAPE's air model. Review of Google Earth demonstrates that the nearest sensitive
receptor is located less than 50 meters west of the Project site. Consistent with recommendations set
forth by OEHHA, we used a residential exposure duration of 30 years, starting from the third trimester of
pregnancy. We also assumed that construction and operation of the Project would occur sequentially,
with no gaps between each Project phase. Our calculated annual emissions indicate that construction
activities will generate approximately 249 pounds of DPM over a 416-day default construction period.
The AERSCREEN model relies on a continuous average emissions rate to simulate maximum downwind
concentrations from point, area, and volume emissions sources. To account for the variability in
construction equipment usage over the many phases of Project construction, we calculated an average
DPM emission rate for construction by the following equation.
gramsl _ 249.21bs 453.E grams lday
Emission Rate second/ 416 days x lb x 24 hours x
1 hour
3,600 seconds
0.00315 'g�s
Using this equation, we estimated a construction emission rate of 0.00315 grams per second
Subtracting the 416-day construction duration from the total residential exposure duration of 30 years,
we assumed that after Project construction, the MEIR would be exposed to the Project's operational
DPM emissions for an additional 28.86 years approximately. The operational CaIEEMod model's annual
iz "AERSCREEN Released as the EPA Recommended Screening Model," USEPA, April 11, 2011, available at:
htta://www.epa.aov/ttn/scram/euidance/clarification/20110411 AERSCREEN Release Memo.pdf
13 "Risk Assessment Guidelines Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments." OEHHA, February
2015, available at: http://oehha.ca.gov/air/hot spots/2015/2015GuidanceManual.pdf.
'a "Health Risk Assessments for Proposed Land Use Projects;' CAPCOA, July 2009, available at:
http://www.capcoa.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/CAPCOA HRA LU Guidelines &&09.pdf
emissions indicate that operational activities will generate approximately 44 pounds of DPM per year.
Applying the same equation used to estimate the construction DPM emission rate, we estimated the
following emission rate for Project operation.
grams 43.8 Ibs 453.6 grams 1 day 1 hour /
Emission Rate ( )= x x x N 0.00063 9 s
second 365 days lb 24 hours 3,600 seconds
Using this equation, we estimated an operational emission rate of 0.00063 g/s. Construction and
operational activity was simulated as a 0.91-acre rectangular area source in AERSCREEN, with
dimensions of 102 meters by 36 meters. A release height of three meters was selected to represent the
height of exhaust stacks on construction equipment and other heavy-duty vehicles, and an initial vertical
0
dimension of one and a half meters was used to simulate instantaneous plume dispersion upon release. _
ca
An urban meteorological setting was selected with model -default inputs for wind speed and direction M
distribution. M
v Ak
LM
The AERSCREEN model generates maximum reasonable estimates of single -hour DPM concentrations
from the Project site. EPA guidance suggests that in screening procedures, the annualized average
low
concentration of an air pollutant be estimated by multiplying the single -hour concentration by 10%." As
previously stated, there are residential receptors located approximately 50 meters from the Project E
boundary. The single -hour concentration estimated by AERSCREEN for Project construction is 0
approximately 18.74 µg/m3 DPM at approximately 50 meters downwind. Multiplying this single -hour z
concentration by 10%, we get an annualized average concentration of 1.874 µg/m3 for Project D
construction at the nearest residential sensitive receptor. For Project operation, the single -hour J
concentration estimated by AERSCREEN is 3.75 µg/m3 DPM at approximately 50 meters downwind. c
Multiplying this single -hour concentration by 10%, we get an annualized average concentration of 0.375 X
µg/m3 for Project operation at the nearest residential sensitive receptor. M
E
0
We calculated the excess cancer risk to the residential receptors located closest to the Project site using v
applicable HRA methodologies prescribed by OEHHA and the BAAQMD. Consistent with the CalEEMod
default construction schedule for the Project, the annualized average concentration for construction N
was used for the entire third trimester of pregnancy (0.25 years) and the first 0.89 years of the infantile N
stage of life (0 — 2 years). The annualized average concentration for operation was used for the v;
remainder of the 30-year exposure period, which makes up the remainder of the infantile stage of life (2
d
—16 years), child stage of life (2 —16 years) and adult stage of life (16 — 30 years). Consistent with E
OEHHA and BAAQMD guidance, we used Age Sensitivity Factors ("ASFs") to account for the heightened
Q
is "Screening Procedures for Estimating the Air Quality Impact of Stationary Sources Revised:' EPA, 1992, available
at: http://www.epa.sov/ttn/scram/euidance/suide/EPA-454R-92-019 OCR.pdf: see also "Risk Assessment
Guidelines Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments." OEHHA, February 2015, available at.
https://oehha.ca.gov/media/downloads/crnr/2015suidancemanual.pdf p. 4-36.
susceptibility of young children to the carcinogenic toxicity of air pollution. 16,1' According to the most
updated guidance, quantified cancer risk should be multiplied by a factor of ten during the third
trimester of pregnancy and during the first two years of life (infant) and should be multiplied by a factor
of three during the to stage of life (2 to 16 years). Furthermore, in accordance with guidance set forth
by OEHHA, we used the 95th percentile breathing rates for infants.18 Finally, according to BAAQMD
guidance, we used a Fraction of Time At Home ("FAH") value of 0.85 for the 3rd trimester and infant
receptors, 0.72 for child receptors, and 0.73 for the adult receptors.19 We used a cancer potency factor
of 1.1 (mg/kg-day)-1 and an averaging time of 25,550 days. Consistent with OEHHA guidance, exposure
to the sensitive receptor was assumed to begin in the third trimester to provide the most conservative
estimate of air quality hazards. The results of our calculations are shown below.
The Closest Exposed Individual at an Existing Residential Receptor
Construction 0.25 1.874 361 2.2E-06 10 2.2E-05
3rd
3rd Trimester
0.25 2.2E-06 Trimester 2.2E-05
Duration
Exposure
Construction 0.89 1.874 1090 2.3E-05 10 2.3E-04
Operation 1.11 0.375 1090 5.8E-06 10 5.8E-05
Infant Exposure Infant 2.00 2.9E-05 2.9E-04
Duration Exposure
Operation 14.00 0.375 572 3.3E-05 3 9.8E-05
Child Exposure Child
14.00 3.3E-O5 9.8E-05
Duration Exposure
Operation 14.00 0.375 261 1.5E-05 1 1.5E-05
Adult Exposure 14.00 1.5E-05 Adult 1.5E-05
Duration Exposure
ry
is "Risk Assessment Guidelines Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments." OEHHA, Februa
2015, available at: https://oehha.ca.gov/media/downloads/crnr/2015guidancemanual.pdf.
17 "California Environmental Quality Act Air Quality Guidelines." BAAQMD, May 2017, available at:
http://www.baagmd,gov/^'/media/files/planning-and-research/cega/cega guidelines may2017-pdf.pdf?la=en, P.
545.
11 "Supplemental Guidelines for Preparing Risk Assessments for the Air Toxics'Hot Spots' Information and
Assessment Act," June S. 2015, available at: http://www.agmd.gov/dots/default-source/planning/risk-
assessment/ab2588-risk-assessment-guidelines.pdf?sfvrsn=6, p. 19.
"Risk Assessment Guidelines Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments." OEHHA, February
2015, available at: https:Hoehha.ca.gov/media/downloads/crnr/2015guidancemanual.pdf
19 "Air Toxics NSR Program Health Risk Assessment (HRA) Guidelines." BAAQMD, January 2016, available at:
httr)://www.baaamd,aov/�/media/files/planning-and-research/rules-and-regs/workshops/2016/reg-2-5/hrarel
-
uidelines clean ian 2016-pdf.pdf?la=en
Packet_Pg.230
5.1.e
Lifetime Exposure Lifetime
MOO 7.9E-05 4.3E-04
Duration Exposure
* We, along with CARB and BAAQMD, recommend using the more updated and health protective 2015 OEHHA guidance, which includes ASFs.
As demonstrated in the table above, the excess cancer risk to adults, children, infants, and during the 3rd
trimester of pregnancy at the closest residential receptor located approximately 50 meters away, over
the course of Project construction and operation, utilizing age sensitivity factors, are approximately 15,
98, 290, and 22 in one million, respectively. The excess cancer risk over the course of a residential
lifetime (30 years), utilizing age sensitivity factors, is approximately 430 in one million. The infant, child,
and lifetime cancer risks all exceed the BAAQMD threshold of 10 in one million, thus resulting in a
potentially significant impact not previously addressed or identified. Utilizing age sensitivity factors is
the most conservative, health -protective analysis according to the most recent guidance by OEHHA and
recommendations from the air district. Results without age sensitivity factors are presented in the table
above, although we do not recommend utilizing these values for health risk analysis. Regardless, the
excess cancer risk posed to adults, children, infants, and during the third trimester of pregnancy at the
maximally exposed residential receptor, located approximately 50 meters away, over the course of
Project construction and operation, without age sensitivity factors, are approximately 15, 33, 29, and 2.2
in one million, respectively. The excess cancer risk over the course of a residential lifetime (30 years) at
the maximally exposed residential receptor, without age sensitivity factors, is approximately 79 in one
million. The child and lifetime cancer risks, without age sensitivity factors, exceed the BAAQMD
threshold of 10 in one million, thus resulting in a potentially significant impact not previously addressed
or identified. While we recommend the use of age sensitivity factors, health risk impacts exceed the
BAAQMD threshold regardless.
An agency must include an analysis of health risks that connects the Project's air emissions with the
health risk posed by those emissions. Our analysis represents a screening -level HRA, which is known to
be conservative and tends to err on the side of health protection. 20 The purpose of the screening -level
construction HRA shown above is to demonstrate the link between the proposed Project's emissions
and the potential health risk. Our screening -level HRA demonstrates that construction of the Project
could result in a potentially significant health risk impact, when correct exposure assumptions and up-
to-date, applicable guidance are used. Therefore, since our screening -level construction HRA indicates a
potentially significant impact, the City should prepare a CEQA analysis with a revised HRA which makes a
reasonable effort to connect the Project's air quality emissions and the potential health risks posed to
nearby receptors. Thus, the City should prepare an updated, quantified air pollution model as well as an
updated, quantified refined health risk assessment which adequately and accurately evaluates health
risk impacts associated with both Project construction and operation.
20 "Risk Assessment Guidelines Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments." OEHHA, February
2015, available at: https;//oehha.ca.aov/media/downloads/crnr/2015guidancemanual.pdf, p. 1-5
ce
Failure to Consider Impacts from Nearby Projects
Furthermore, the Hearing Notice fails to evaluate the cumulative health risk posed to nearby sensitive
receptors. Additionally, the DDSP DEIR failed to evaluate the health risk posed to nearby sensitive
receptors as a result of construction and operation of the entire Specific Plan area. As a result, the
cumulative risk posed to the nearest sensitive receptor to the proposed Project in conjunction with the
surrounding existing and foreseeable sources of toxic air contaminants ("TACs") is unknown. Therefore,
the proposed Project may result in a significant health risk impact that has not been evaluated by the
Hearing Notice or the DDSP DEIR.
According to CECW Guidelines § 15355, "`Cumulative impacts"' refers to two or more individual effects
which, when considered together, are considerable or which compound or increase other
environmental impacts".21 CEQA Guidelines § 15064(h)(1) goes onto say,
"The cumulative impact from several projects is the change in the environment which results
from the incremental impact of the project when added to other closely related past, present,
and reasonably foreseeable probable future projects. Cumulative impacts can result from
individually minor but collectively significant projects taking place over a period of time".22
Thus, in addition to the Project's individual health risk impact significance, the proposed Project may
also result in a cumulatively considerable impact when considered in conjunction with the construction
and operation of nearby proposed projects. For example, the City of Dublin proposes to construct
several other projects near the site, including: the proposed Corrie Center SDR (Office Building), the
proposed Saint Patrick Way SDR, the proposed Fountainhead Montessori, the proposed building at 7505
Dublin Boulevard SDR, as well as the proposed Randeri 7400 Amador Valley Boulevard SDR. In addition,
the Project site is located in close proximity to several existing projects, including: the Holiday Inn Hotel,
a Shell gas station, a Chevron gas station, Xpress Dry Cleaners, O'Reilly Auto Parts, Dublin Collision
Repair auto body shop, Kelly -Moore Paints, as well as several schools and residential apartment and
condo buildings.
Therefore, construction and operation of the Cambria Hotel Project will occur in conjunction with the
construction and operation of these other proposed and existing projects. Per CEQA Guidance, the
cancer risk associated with these existing sources should be quantified and assessed with the lifetime
cancer risk of the Project. Failure to quantify the cumulative risk leads to an underestimation of the
actual risk posed to the nearby sensitive receptors. Prior to Project Approval, the cumulative health risk
should be evaluated and compared to BAAQMD thresholds in aproject-specific EIR.
zi"CECW Guidelines for Cumulative and Indirect Impacts." California Department of Transportation, March, 2016,
available at: http://www.dot.ca.gov/ser/cumulative guidance/cega guidelines.htm
zz "ac A Guidelines for Cumulative and Indirect Impacts. " California Department of Transportation, March, 2014,
available at: http://www.dot.ca.gov/ser/cumulative guidance/cega guidelines.htm
Packet Pg. 232
ree ho se has
failure to Adequately Evaluate the Project's Greenhouse Gas Impacts
As previously discussed, the proposed Project incorrectly claims exemption pursuant to CEClA Guidelines
§ 15182. However, the Project fails to demonstrate compliance with the DDSP, as stated in the Hearing
Notice. Specifically, according to the DDSP DEIR,
"Criteria for Determining Significance In accordance with CEClA, State CEQA Guidelines, and agency
and professional standards, a project impact would be considered significant if the project would:...
• Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant a
impact on the environment. For the purposes of this EIR, a significant impact will result if a =
Specific Plan conflicts with or obstructs the implementation of greenhouse gas reduction
measures under AB 32; and/or conflicts with an applicable plan, policy or regulation E
adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases" (DDSP, p. 3-30)s v
LW
a�
The DDSP DEIR goes on to state, �
d
J
"Future projects within the City, including within the project area, would be reviewed on a
project -by -project basis to ensure their compliance with the City's policies and to determine if E
E
any impacts would occur beyond those already identified in this EIR" (DDSP, pp. 78). �°
Q
Thus, the Project fails to demonstrate compliance with the DDSP for several reasons. a
J
First, the Project documents fail to demonstrate that the Project will not have a significant impact on the d
environment. Without an evaluation of the proposed Project's greenhouse gas impacts we are unable to =
verify that the proposed Project will not result in a significant impact. Rather, our analysis, detailed L
below, indicates that the proposed Project may result in a significant GHG impact not previously E
M
identified or addressed in the Hearing Notice or DDSP. v
M*
N
Second, AB 32 is outdated and no longer applies to the Project. As AB 32 only contained reduction goals o
through 2020, it does not apply to the proposed Project, that is not expected to begin construction until o
at least mid-2020,23 Without any further reduction goals beyond 2020, this does not apply to the Na
v
proposed Project.
a�
Third, the Project fails to conduct a project -specific GHG analysis evaluating applicable plans, policies,
v
and regulations adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gasses. As a result, we
cannot verify that the Project has less than significant GHG impacts. Thus, we recommend that the a
Project not be approved until further analysis and potential mitigation measures are evaluated and
disclosed for the Project.
zs "Assembly Bill No. 32." availpble at: http://www.lesinfo.ca.�ov/pub/05-06/bill/asm/ab 0001-
0050/ab 32 bill 20060927 chaptered.pdf, p. 89.
12
5.1.e
Screening Level Analysis indicates a Potentially Significant GHG IufiiPact
Applicable thresholds and modeling demonstrate that the proposed Project may result in a potentially
significant GHG impact not previously identified or addressed by the Hearing Notice. The CalEEMod
output files, modeled by SWAPE utilizing Project -specific information as disclosed in the Hearing Notice,
quantify the Project's emissions, which include approximately 380 MT CO2e/year of total construction
emissions (sum of emissions from 2020 and 2021) and approximately 1,570 MT CO2e/year of annual
operational emissions (sum of area, energy, mobile, waste, and water -related emissions). When we
compare the Project's GHG emissions, including construction emissions amortized over 30 years and
operational emissions, to the BAAQMD bright -line threshold of 1,100 MT CO2e/year'24 we find that the
Project's GHG emissions exceed the threshold (see table below).
Annual Greenhouse Gas'. Emissions
Proposed
Project Phase Project (MT
CO2e/year)
Construction (amortized over 30 years)
12.65
Area
0.0079
Energy
579.46
Mobile
941.52
Waste
37.99
Water
10.7
Total
10582933
Threshold
11100
Exceed?
Yes
As demonstrated in the table below, the proposed Project would generate approximately 1,582 MT
CO2e/year, which exceeds the BAAQMD's 1,100 MT CO2e/year threshold. Hence, a service population
analysis is warranted. According to CAPCOA's CEQA & Climate Change report, service population is
defined as "the sum of the number of residents and the number of jobs supported by the project."25
Review of the DDSP EIR demonstratres that Retail/Office land uses, including "[s]hopping centers,
stores, restaurants, business and professional offices, motels, service stations, and auto part sales," are
expected to have an employee density of 200 to 450-SF per employee. Thus, conservatively assuming
450-SF per employee, the Project would result in approximately 199 new jobs. As the Project does not
propose any residential land uses, we assumed that the Project will not result in any new residents.
Thus, the Project is estimated to have a service population of 199.26 When dividing the Project's GHG
emissions by a service population value of 199 people, we find that the Project would emit
z4 "California Environmental Quality Act Air Quality Guidelines." BAAQMD, May 2017, available at:
http://www.baagmd.eov/^'/media/files/planning-and-research/cega/cega euidelines mav2017-pdf.pdf?la=en, p.
2-4.
25 CAPCOA (Jan. 2008) CEQA & Climate Change, p. 71-72, http://www.capcoa.ors/wp-
content/u ploads/2012/03/CAPCOA-White-Paper. pdf.
z6 Calculated: (199 employees) + (0 residents) = (199 service population).
13
5.1.e
approximately 8 MT COze/SP/year. 27 The BAAQMD regularly utilizes a substantial progress population
efficiency target goal of 2.6 MT CO2e/SP/year for target year 2030.28 Using this threshold, we find that
the Project would result in a potentially significant GHG impact (see table below).
SWAPE Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Project Phase Proposed Project
(MT CO2e/year)
Annual Emissions
1,582.33
Service Population
199
Service Population Efficiency
7.95
Threshold
Exceed?
2.6
Yes
As the table above demonstrates, when correct input parameters are used to model Project emissions,
the Project's total GHG emissions exceed the "Substantial Progress" efficiency threshold for 2030 of 2.6
AT COze/SP/year, thus resulting in a significant impact not previously assessed or identified in the
Hearing Notice. As a result, an updated GHG analysis should be prepared in a Project -specific EIR and
additional mitigation should be incorporated into the Project.
Feasible IVliti�atiorl Measures Available to Reduce Constructio�z Ett�issions
Our analysis demonstrates that, when Project activities are modeled, construction emissions would
result in potentially significant impacts. Therefore, additional mitigation measures must be identified
and incorporated in an updated EIR to reduce these emissions to a less than significant level.
Additional mitigation measures can be found in CAPCOA's Quantifying Greenhouse Gas Mitigation
Measures, which attempt to reduce GHG levels, as well as reduce criteria air pollutants such as
particulate matter and NOx.29 DPM and NO,, are a byproduct of diesel fuel combustion and are emitted
by on -road vehicles and by off -road construction equipment. Mitigation for criteria pollutant emissions
should include consideration of the following measures in an effort to reduce construction emissions.so
27 Calculated: (1,582.33 MT COze/year) / (199 service population) _ (7.95 MT COze/SP/year).
28 "Final White Paper Beyond 2020 and Newhall." Association of Environmental Professionals (AEP), October 2016,
available at: https://califaep.ore/docs/AEP-2016 Final White Paper.pdf, p. 40; see also Santa Clara University
Housing Air Quality & Greenhouse Gas Assessment, October 2019, available at:
https://www.sanioseca.gov/Home/ShowDocument?id=45718, see also Facebook Campus Expansion Project Draft
Environmental Impact Report, City of Menlo Park, May 2016, available at:
https://www.menlor)ark.org/DocumentCenter/View/10286/ChO3-05 GHG Draft-EIR?bidld=
zshttp://www.capcoa.orE/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/CAPCOA-Quantification-Report-9-14-Final pdf
so For measures to reduce operational DPM emissions, see section titled "Additional Feasible Mitigation Measures
Available to Reduce Operational Emissions" on p. 25 of this letter. These measures would effectively reduce
operational VOC and NOx emissions, DPM emissions, as well as GHG emissions.
NMI
Require Implementation of Diesel Control Measures
The Northeast Diesel Collaborative (NEDC) is a regionally coordinated initiative to reduce diesel
emissions, improve public health, and promote clean diesel technology. The NEDC recommends that
contracts for all construction projects require the following diesel control measures: 31
• All diesel generators on site for more than 10 total days must be equipped with emission control
technology verified by EPA or CARB to reduce PM emissions by a minimum of 85 percent.
• All diesel vehicles, construction equipment, and generators on site shall be fueled with ultra -low
sulfur diesel fuel (ULSD) or a biodiesel blend32 approved by the original engine manufacturer
with sulfur content of 15 parts per million (ppm) or less.
Repower or Replace Older Construction Equipment Engines
The NEDC recognizes that availability of equipment that meets the EPA's newer standards is limited."
Due to this limitation, the NEDC proposes actions that can be taken to reduce emissions from existing
equipment in the Best Practices for Clean Diesel Construction report.34 These actions include but are not
limited to:
• Repowering equipment (i.e. replacing older engines with newer, cleaner engines and leaving the
body of the equipment intact).
Engine repower may be acost-effective emissions reduction strategy when a vehicle or machine has a
long useful life and the cost of the engine does not approach the cost of the entire vehicle or machine.
Examples of good potential replacement candidates include marine vessels, locomotives, and large
construction machines.35 Older diesel vehicles or machines can be repowered with newer diesel engines
or in some cases with engines that operate on alternative fuels. The original engine is taken out of
service and a new engine with reduced emission characteristics is installed. Significant emission
reductions can be achieved, depending on the newer engine and the vehicle or machine's ability to
accept a more modern engine and emission control system. It should be noted, however, that newer
engines or higher tier engines are not necessarily cleaner engines, so it is important that the Project
Applicant check the actual emission standard level of the current (existing) and new engines to ensure
the repower product is reducing emissions for DPM.36
• Replacement of older equipment with equipment meeting the latest emission standards.
31 Diesel Emission Controls in Construction Projects, available
at: http://www2.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-09/documents/nedc-model-contract-sepcification.pdf
32 Biodiesel lends are only to be used in conjunction with the technologies which have been verified for use with
biodiesel blends and are subject to the following requirements:
http://www.arb.ca.gov/diesel/verdey/reg/biod ieselcompliance.pdf
33http://northeastd iesel.org/pdf/BestPractices4CIeanDieselConstructionAug2012.pdf
3lhttp://northeastdiesel.org/pdf/BestPractices4CIeanDieselConstructionAug2012.pdf
3s Repair, Rebuild, and Repower, EPA, available at:https://www.epa.goy/verified-diesel-tech/learn-about-verified-
technologies-clean-diesel#repair
36 Diesel Emissions Reduction Program (DERA): Technologies, Fleets and Projects Information, available
at. http:Hwww2.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-09/documents/420p11001.pdf
15
Packet Pg. 236
Engine replacement can include substituting a cleaner highway engine for a nonroad engine. Diesel
equipment may also be replaced with other technologies or fuels. Examples include hybrid switcher
locomotives, electric cranes, LNG, CNG, LPG or propane yard tractors, forklifts or loaders.
Replacements using natural gas may require changes to fueling infrastructure.37 Replacements often
require some re -engineering work due to differences in size and configuration. Typically, there are
benefits in fuel efficiency, reliability, warranty, and maintenance costs.38
Install Retrofit Devices on Existing Construction Eglti,pment
PM emissions from alternatively -fueled construction equipment can be further reduced by installing
retrofit devices on existing and/or new equipment. The most common retrofit technologies are retrofit
devices for engine exhaust after -treatment. These devices are installed in the exhaust system to reduce
emissions and should not impact engine or vehicle operation. 39 It should be noted that actual emissions
reductions and costs will depend on specific manufacturers, technologies and applications.
Use Electric ar�d Hybrid Construction Eguipn�ent
CAPCOA's Quantifying Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Measures40 report also proposes the use of electric
and/or hybrid construction equipment to mitigate DPM emissions. When construction equipment is
powered by grid electricity rather than fossil fuel, direct emissions from fuel combustion are replaced
with indirect emissions associated with the electricity used to power the equipment. Furthermore, when
construction equipment is powered by hybrid -electric drives, emissions from fuel combustion are also
greatly reduced. Electric construction equipment is available commercially from companies such as
Peterson Pacific Corporation,41 which specialize in the mechanical processing equipment like grinders
and shredders. Construction equipment powered by hybrid -electric drives is also commercially available
from companies such as Caterpillar.42 For example, Caterpillar reports that during an &hour shift, its
D7E hybrid dozer burns 19.5 percent fewer gallons of fuel than a conventional dozer while achieving a
10.3 percent increase in productivity. The WE model burns 6.2 gallons per hour compared to a
conventional dozer which burns 7.7 gallons per hour.43 Fuel usage and savings are dependent on the
make and model of the construction equipment used. The Project Applicant should calculate project -
specific savings and provide manufacturer specifications indicating fuel burned per hour.
37 Alternative Fuel Conversion, EPA, available at:
https://www3.epa.goy/otag/consumer/fuels/altfuels/altfuels.htm#fact
38 Cleaner Fuels, EPA, available at:https://www.epa.gov/verified-diesel-tech/learn-about-verified-technologies-
clean-diesel#cleaner
s9 Retrofit Technologies, EPA, available at:https://www.epa.gov/verified-diesel-tech/learn-about-verified-
technologies-clean-diesel#retrofit
aOhttp://www.capcoa.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/CAPCOA-Quantification-Report-9-14-Final.pdf
ai Peterson Electric Grinders Brochure, available at.shtto://www.petersoncorp.com/wp-
content/uploads/peterson electricgrindersl.pdf
a2 Electric Power Products, available atohttp://www.cat.com/en US/products/new/power-systems/electric-power-
generation.html
a'http://www.capcoa.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/CAPCOA-Qua ntification-Report-9-14-Final.pdf
Packet Pg. 237
5.1.e
Implement a Construction Vehicle Inventory Tracking System
CAPCOA's Quantifying Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Measures" report recommends that the Project
Applicant provide a detailed plan that discusses a construction vehicle inventory tracking system to
ensure compliances with construction mitigation measures. The system should include strategies such
as requiring engine run time meters on equipment, documenting the serial number, horsepower,
manufacture age, fuel, etc. of all onsite equipment and daily logging of the operating hours of the
equipment. Specifically, for each on -road construction vehicle, nonroad construction equipment, or
generator, the contractor should submit to the developer's representative a report prior to bringing said
equipment on site that includes:as
• Equipment type, equipment manufacturer, equipment serial number, engine manufacturer,
0
engine model year, engine certification (Tier rating), horsepower, and engine serial number. _
• The type of emission control technology installed, serial number, make, model, manufacturer,
and EPA/CARE verification number/level. M
• The Certification Statement46 signed and printed on the contractor's letterhead.
Furthermore, the contractor should submit to the developer's representative a monthly report that, for
each on -road construction vehicle, nonroad construction equipment, or generator onsite, includes: 47
• Hour -meter readings on arrival on -site, the first and last day of every month, and on off -site
date.
• Any problems with the equipment or emission controls.
• Certified copies of fuel deliveries for the time period that identify:
o Source of supply
o Quantity of fuel
o Quality of fuel, including sulfur content (percent by weight)
In addition to these measures, we also recommend that the Project implement the following mitigation
measures, called "Enhanced Exhaust Control Practices,"48 that are recommended by the Sacramento
Metropolitan Air Quality Management District (SMAQMD):
1. The project representative shall submit to the lead agency a comprehensive inventory of all off -
road construction equipment, equal to or greater than 50 horsepower, that will be used an
aggregate of 40 or more hours during any portion of the construction project.
• The inventory shall include the horsepower rating, engine model year, and projected
hours of use for each piece of equipment.
44http://www.capcoa.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/CAPCOA-Quantification-Report-9-14-Final.pdf
ns Diesel Emission Controls in Construction Projects, available
at: http://www2.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-09/documents/nedc-model-contract-sepcification.pdf
ae Diesel Emission Controls in Construction Projects, available
at:http://www2.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-09/documents/nedc-model-contract-sepcification.pdf The
NEDC Model Certification Statement can be found in Appendix A.
a7 Diesel Emission Controls in Construction Projects, available
at: http://www2.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-09/documents/nedc-model-contract-sepcification.pdf
4lhttp://www.airguality.org/cega/Ch3 Enhanced ExhaustControl 10-2013.pdf
17
Packet Pg. 238
• The project representative shall provide the anticipated construction timeline including
start date, and name and phone number of the project manager and on -site foreman.
• This information shall be submitted at least 4 business days prior to the use of subject
heavy-duty off -road equipment.
• The inventory shall be updated and submitted monthly throughout the duration of the
project, except that an inventory shall not be required for any 30-day period in which no
construction activity occurs.
2. The project representative shall provide a plan for approval by the lead agency demonstrating
that the heavy-duty off -road vehicles (50 horsepower or more) to be used in the construction
project, including owned, leased, and subcontractor vehicles, will achieve a project wide fleet -
average 20% NOX reduction and 45% particulate reduction compared to the most recent
California Air Resources Board (ARB) fleet average.
• This plan shall be submitted in conjunction with the equipment inventory.
• Acceptable options for reducing emissions may include use of late model engines, low -
emission diesel products, alternative fuels, engine retrofit technology, after -treatment
products, and/or other options as they become available.
• The District's Construction Mitigation Calculator can be used to identify an equipment
fleet that achieves this reduction.
3. The project representative shall ensure that emissions from all off -road diesel -powered
equipment used on the project site do not exceed 40% opacity for more than three minutes in
any one hour.
• .Any equipment found to exceed 40 percent opacity (or Ringelmann 2.0) shall be
repaired immediately. Non -compliant equipment will be documented and a summary
provided to the lead agency monthly.
• A visual survey of all in -operation equipment shall be made at least weekly.
• A monthly summary of the visual survey results shall be submitted throughout the
duration of the project, except that the monthly summary shall not be required for any
30-day period in which no construction activity occurs. The monthly summary shall
include the quantity and type of vehicles surveyed as well as the dates of each survey.
4. The District and/or other officials may conduct periodic site inspections to determine
compliance. Nothing in this mitigation shall supersede other District, state or federal rules or
regulations.
Use of Spray Equipment with Greater Transfer Efficiencies
Various coatings and adhesives are required to be applied by specified methods such as electrostatic
spray, high -volume, low-pressure (HVLP) spray, roll coater, flow coater, dip coater, etc, in order to
maximize the transfer efficiency. Transfer efficiency is typically defined as the ratio of the weight of
coating solids adhering to an object to the total weight of coating solids used in the application process,
expressed as a percentage. When it comes to spray applications, the rules typically require the use of
Packet Pg_239 i'
5.1.e
either electrostatic spray equipment or HVLP spray equipment. The SCAQMD is now able to certify HVLP
spray applicators and other application technologies at efficiency rates of 65 percent or greater.49
These measures offer acost-effective, feasible way to incorporate lower -emitting equipment into the
Project's construction fleet, which subsequently reduces construction emissions. A revised EIR should be
prepared to include additional mitigation measures, as well as include an updated air quality assessment
to ensure that the necessary mitigation measures are implemented to reduce construction emissions.
Furthermore, the updated EIR should demonstrate commitment to the implementation of these
measures prior to Project approval to ensure that the Project's construction -related emissions are
reduced to the maximum extent possible. c
Feasible Mitigation Measures Available to Reduce Operational Emissions
Our analysis demonstrates that the Project's air quality and GHG emissions may result in potentially E
significant impacts. In an effort to reduce the Project's operational emissions, we identified several v
LM
mitigation measures that are applicable to the Project. Feasible mitigation measures can be found in
CAPCOA's Quantifying Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Measures, which attempt to reduce GHG levels, as
well as criteria air pollutants, such as particulate matter emissions.50 Therefore, to reduce the Project's d
operational emissions, consideration of the following measures should be made: E
E
0
• Integrate affordable and below market rate housing v
Q
z
• Energy -related mitigation: a
o Install programmable thermostat timers
o Establish onsite renewable energy systems, including solar power and wind power 4)
0
o Limit outdoor lighting requirements =
0
o Reduce unnecessary outdoor lighting by utilizing design features such as limiting the s
hours of operation of outdoor lighting. E
�a
o Provide education on energy efficiency to residents, customers, and/or tenants. Provide v
information on energy management services for large energy users.
o Meet "reach" goals for building energy efficiency and renewable energy use. N
o Limit the use of outdoor lighting to only that needed for safety and security purposes. N
o Require use of electric or alternatively fueled sweepers with HEPA filters. 'n
w
o Include energy storage where appropriate to optimize renewable energy generation =
aD
systems and avoid peak energy use. E
o Prohibit gas powered landscape equipment and implement electric yard equipment
.a
compatibility Q
• Transportation -related mitigation:
o Provide EV parking
o Require residential area parking permits
o Implement ride -sharing, vanpool, shuttle, bike -sharing programs
49
so
http://www.agmd.�ov/home/permits/spray-eauipment-transfer-efficiency
http://www.capcoa.ors/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/CAPCOA-Quantification-Report-9-14-Final.pdf
19
5.1.e
o Provide bike parking near transit
o Provide local shuttles
o Implement area or cordon pricing
o Install a park -and -ride lot
• Water -related mitigation:
o Install an infiltration basin to provide an opportunity for 100% of the storm water to
infiltrate on -site.
o Install a system to reutilize gray water
o Use locally -sourced water supply
o Plant native and drought -resistant trees and vegetation
• Develop and follow a "green streets guide" that requires:
o Use of minimal amounts of concrete and asphalt;
o Use of groundcovers rather than pavement to reduce heat reflection.51
• Implement Project design features such as:
o Shade HVAC equipment from direct sunlight;
o Install high4bedo white thermoplastic polyolefin roof membrane;
o Install formaldehyde -free insulation; and
o Use recycled -content gypsum board.
o Require all buildings to become "LEED" and "WELL" certified.
• Plant lowNOC emitting shade trees, e.g., in parking lots to reduce evaporative emissions from
parked vehicles.
Finally, the Kimball Business Park Project Final Environmental Impact Report includes various feasible
mitigation measures that would reduce on -site area emissions that are applicable to the proposed
Project's retail land use, and include, but are not limited to;51
• Increase in insulation such that heat transfer and thermal bridging is minimized.
• Limit air leakage through the structure and/or within the heating and cooling distribution
system.
• Installation of dual -paned or other energy efficient windows.
• Installation of automatic devices to turn off lights where they are not needed.
These measures offer acost-effective, feasible way to incorporate lower -emitting design features into
the proposed Project, which subsequently, reduces emissions released during Project operation. An
updated EIR should be prepared to include additional mitigation measures, as well as include an
updated air quality analysis to ensure that the necessary mitigation measures are implemented to
reduce emissions to below thresholds. The EIR also should demonstrate commitment to the
s1 Cool Houston Plan;
http://www.harcresearch.ors/sites/default/files/documents/projects/CoolHoustonPlan 0 pdf
sz Mitigation Monitoring Plan for the Kimball Business Park Project Final Environmental Impact Report, July 2016.
20
5.1.e
implementation of these measures prior to Project approval, to ensure that the Project's significant
emissions are reduced to the maximum extent possible.
SWAPE has received limited discovery regarding this project. Additional information may become
available in the future; thus, we retain the right to revise or amend this report when additional
information becomes available. Our professional services have been performed using that degree of
care and skill ordinarily exercised, under similar circumstances, by reputable environmental consultants
practicing in this or similar localities at the time of service. No other warranty, expressed or implied, is
made as to the scope of work, work methodologies and protocols, site conditions, analytical testing
results, and findings presented. This report reflects efforts which were limited to information that was
reasonably accessible at the time of the work, and may contain informational gaps, inconsistencies, or
otherwise be incomplete due to the unavailability or uncertainty of information obtained or provided by
third parties.
Sincerely,
Matt Hagemann, P.G., C.Hg.
Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D.
21
Exhibit D
SMITH LNGINEERING Ce MANAGF:MLN`I"
March 24, 2020
Mr. Richard Drury
�ozeau Drury
1939 Harrison Street, Suite 150
Oakland, CA 94612
Subject: Cambria Hotel Project, Dublin
Dear Mr. Drury:
P20004
At your request, I have reviewed the proposal to approve the 138 room hotel and
2 levels of parking to be shared with an adjacent existing office building (the
"Project") under exemption under California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
Guidelines § 15182 and the presumption that impacts of the proposed Project
were disclosed and mitigated in the Downtown Dublin Specific Plan
Environmental Impact Report (the "DDSP DEIR"). My review is specific to the
Traffic and Circulation.
My qualifications to perform this review include registration as a Civil and Traffic
Engineer in California and over 50 years professional consulting engineering
practice in the traffic and transportation industry. I have both prepared and
performed adequacy reviews of numerous transportation and circulation sections
of environmental impact reports prepared under the California Environmental
Quality Act. My professional resume is attached. Findings of my review are
summarized below.
The Conditions for Approving the Project Without CEQA Review Are Not
Met
The Project, at least arguably, meets the conditions for eligibility for CEQA
exemption under Guidelines §15182 with one exception. Guidelines § 15182
provide that to qualify for said exemption, none of the conditions defined in
I•R;\FFlCI TRANSPORTATION MANAGEMENT
5311 Lo\vr\• Road. Union Cih•, Cri 9458i trl: jl0.�S99�1i lax: j1U.-�1�) �)-478
5.1.e
Mr. Richard Drury
March 24, 2020
Page 2
Guidelines § 15162 can prevail. However, there is substantial evidence that the
conditions of "changed circumstances" as defined in Guidelines § 15162 exist with
regard to traffic and circulation
The Notice of Preparation ("NOP") for the DDSP DEIR was circulated in February,
2010. The DEIR for the DDSP was circulated in September, 2010, The DDSP FEIR
was certified and the DDSP was incorporated into the Dublin General Plan by
update on July 22, 2011. The DDSP Traffic and Circulation analysis relies on an
existing traffic data base going back to 2008 and its impact and mitigation findings
are based on forecasts of Near Term traffic to 2015 and Cumulative traffic to year
2036. The 2015 analysis is based on existing traffic counts, estimated traffic from a
limited set of entitled projects, 6 within the Project area itself, 4 elsewhere in Dublin
and 3 others in nearby areas of Pleasanton and San Ramon, the Project itself, and
an estimate of regional traffic growth through the Project study area to 2015. The
2035 analysis is estimated from Project generated traffic and general plan based
modeled traffic estimates for the area.
The problem with the DEIR analyses is that many additional major projects have
been approved in Dublin alone since 2010, many of them not on the entitled projects
list in the DEIR and many of them requiring General Plan Amendments, so not
reflected in either the 2015 or 2035 analyses. In fact, there have been a total of 12
development projects requiring General Plan Amendments approved in Dublin
between 2010 and 2018; the statistics for 2019 and beyond have not yet been
posted on the City web site. This is to say nothing of major nearby project approvals
in adjacent cities such as the Costco project on Johnson Drive in Pleasanton or
pipeline projects in the planning process within Dublin.
For example, The Boulevard, a project in Dublin formerly known as Dublin
Crossings, involves development of up to 1995 residential dwelling units and
supporting facilities on a portion of the former Camp Parks military reservation
that was approved under a 6-2-15 General Plan Amendment after a planning
process of several years. It appears that no traffic from this significant project, that
according to its own EIR would generate 22047 net daily and 2393 net PM peak
hour trips', was considered in the DDSP EIR, since development of the Camp Parks
property was not reflected in the General Plan or specific area plans previously.
The Boulevard (Dublin Crossing). The City may argue that The Boulevard (Dublin
Crossings) project was not a certainty when the NOP for the DDSP EIR was issued,
and therefore did not need to be considered in the DDSP EIR. But that is exactly the
point. The Boulevard and other projects like it that were insufficiently certain or
unknown at the time the DDSP EIR was prepared but that are now approved and in
some cases are under construction or partially completed and occupied constitute
changed circumstances that would likely increase traffic impacts or their severity
over the disclosures in the DDSP EIR.
i See Dublin Crossings Specific Plan Draft EIR, Table 3.12-7.
5311 Lowry Road. Union Citi•. CA 94587 tcl: it0.=1S9.9�i7 iaa: i10.-Fi;�).9-F7S
Mr. Richard Drury
March 24, 2020
Page 3
The Dublin Kaiser Permanente Medical Complex, which was approved in 2016 by
General Plan Amendment, is another significant example of a significant
development in Dublin that was not considered in the DDSP EIR. The Kaiser project
includes development of 470,000 square feet of medical office and commercial floor
area that is currently in operation in 2020 and expansion to a medical complex of
1.150,000 square feet floor area by 2035. The Kaiser EIR projects that the 2020
phase of the project would generate 16.570 new daily and 1560 new PM peak hour
trips while the 2035 stage of development would generate a total of 41,140 net new
daily and 3,998 net new PM peak hour trips.
The Dublin IKEA project constitutes a mixed situation. The project, 410,000 square
feet of commercial that includes a 317,000 square foot IKEA store would, according
to its EIR, generate 9,630 net new trips daily and 1,018 net new PM peak hour trips.
The project was approved in November, 2018 but a General Plan Amendment
envisioning an IKEA store on the site was approved considerably earlier, in 2005.
What this means is that the IKEA project was not explicitly considered in the DDSP
EIR near term (2015) analysis, to the extent that the General Plan Amendment was
representative of the actual IKEA project approved, it would have been reflected in
the DDSP EIR 2035 analysis.
The recently approved Costco project on Johnson Drive off Stoneridge Drive in
Pleasanton includes an ultimate buildout of 246,440 square feet of general retail,
148,000 square feet of club retail with fueling (Costco), 27,550 square feet of general
light industrial and a 150 room hotel. The project is estimated to generate 15,740
net new weekday trips and 743 weekday trips in the PM peak hour.
The Zeiss Innovation project in Dublin, involving 433,090 square feet of purported
Research and Development Buildings to support a work force of 1500 persons
and parking totaling 1396 spaces, was approved based on a 2003 General Plan
Amendment intended to permit a large Cisco Systems research and
development project campus that never was built. Neither Zeiss nor the Cisco
project was specifically considered in the DDSP EIR near term traffic analysis.
Although the 2035 DDSP EIR traffic analysis may have reflected the 2003 Dublin
General Plan Amendment involved, there is a subtlety to the Zeiss project that
was probably not reflected. This is the fact that the employee density of the
Zeiss project, 288.7 square feet of gross floor area per employee or 3.46
employees per thousand square feet of gross floor area is far more characteristic
of "office" use than "research and development" which generally involves very
large floor areas per employee. The key consideration is that, according to ITE
Trip Generation, 10th Edition, research and development use generates only .42
trips per thousand square feet of floor area in the AM peak hour of street traffic
and .49 trips in the PM peak hour whereas office use generates 1.16 trips per
thousand square feet of floor area in the AM peak hour of street traffic and 1.15
trips in the PM peak hour. In other words, what is being built at Zeiss is office
and it generates 2.76 times more AM peak traffic and 2.35 times more PM peak
I'It,\PI�IC '1'It:\Ntil'UNT:\'1'll)\ !`1.ANAG1:!�ILN I'
�31I Lowt•�• Road, Union Cit\•, CA 9-}58i tcl: SI0.�89 �)�477 lax: >IU.-LS9 �)�+78
.�
0
L
.Q
E
�o
v
N
d'
0
0
N
O
N
td°)
s
u
,�;;�_..
Packet Pg. 398
5.1.e
Mr. Richard Drury
March 24, 2020
Page 4
traffic than the R&D land use category under which it was approved and would
have been considered in the DDSP EIR 2035 cumulative analysis.
Other very large projects that have very large potential traffic consequences for
Dublin and the Tri-Valley area but which are still in the planning/environmental
review/approvals stage are the Grand View and At Dublin projects. The Grand View
project is a 122 acre development that would construct up to approximately
2,392,000 square feet of retail/commercial/office use and 338 residential dwelling
units on a site east of Fallon Road in Dublin. This project is still in the early
planning stage but is clearly not reflected in either stage of traffic analysis in the
DDSP EIR. The current At Dublin project has been scaled back to 566
residential units and 240,000 square feet of commercial. Environmental review
has been completed and the project awaits Dublin City Council action on
approvals.
These major projects together with numerous nameless smaller projects not
individually mentioned herein but which can be reviewed on the City web site at
Dublin-development.icitywork.com, were clearly not considered or not fully
considered in the DDSP EIR traffic analysis. Hence, there are changed
conditions that preclude reliance on the DDSP EIR and exemption from further
CEQA review under Guidelines § 15182 and § 15162.
Conclusion
Given these considerations, it is inappropriate for the Project to be approved
under an exemption from CEQA review. A full EIR should be prepared.
Sincerely,
Smith Engineering &Management
A California Corporation
,,,<v :,_�
: 5 : 0 No. 0938 rn
CC
LQ;o•�'�
Daniel T. Smith Jr., P.E.
President
Attachment 1
Resume of Daniel T. Smith Jr., P.E.
l'Id:\PF(t: 'I'K:\NSP�IRT:\'1'It.)N t`1.ANAGIiA1L-N'I'
5311 Lotvre Road, Union C:itt•, CA 945Si tcl:.>.>"10.}S99�i7 iax; ilU.-}h9 �)-F7ti
Packet Pg. 399
5.1,e
Mr. Richard Drury
March 24, 2020
Page 5
�:1: � 1� �:Nto�h_:�_Itl;�ti� e_•h�1Nle:rEiv1:I-.1tiT
DAs'.rIIEL T. SI4IITH, Jr.
Fresident
EDUCATION
Bach of Stiecce, Engin�ieg and Applied Science, Yale UFsitersiiy,1967
Affas?er off Sci�ce, Tiann�pottaiaam P1a�rmg, �rcr.sieF of Ca?ifmnia, Beekele}',19d8
PROFESSIONAL REGISTRATION
C Mmiallo. 21913 (001) Namda No. 7969 (CM) Waslrinema No. 29337 (Civa)
Californallo. 938 (Traffic) Arimm No. 22131(CM)
PROFESSIONAL ENPERIE.NCE
t
Inr 11 1.. •'_ a
_ I
W�
• 9 m mil ,�1'
al .
I
.r
Min
r :.I. '
,St lY11 1vih ., e•. '.
1.
- .0 �
MIMIC air r9m •, - 1�.F m v U•
,.I: lh'i,r. i' h•, (.6,b%1.=}67 k.::1C1{).: 1*47 I.., j'il LIt' a '; t
I'ItAPPIt: '1'k:1NtiIlURT:1l'll?\ t\t.ANAGI��IL'N I"
5311 Lowry R<rui, Union City', C;�� 94587 tcl: >10.�59 �)�77 iitx: jIO.-ISa) �)-17ti
Mr. Richard Drury
March 24, 2020
Page 6
Transportation Centers. Project manager for Daly City Imermodal Study which developed a $7 million surface
bus terminal, traffic access, parking and pedestrian circulation improvements at the Daly City BART station plus
development of functional plans for a new BART station at Colma. Project manager for design of multi -modal
terminal (commuter rail, light rail, bus) at Mission Bay, San Francisco. In Santa Clarita Long Range Transit
Development Program, responsible for plan to relocate system's existing timed -transfer hub and development of
three satellite transfer hubs. Performed airport ground transportation system evaluations for San Francisco
International, Oakland International, Sea-Tac International, Oakland International, Los Angeles International, and
San Diego Lindberg.
Campus Transportation. Campus transportation planning assignments for UC Davis, UC Berkeley, UC Santa
Cruz and UC San Francisco Medical Center campuses; San Francisco State University; University of San Francisco;
and the University of Alaska and others. Also developed master plans for institutional campuses including medical
centers, headquarters complexes and research & development facilities.
Special Event Facilities. Evaluations and design studies for football/baseball stadiums, indoor sports arenas, horse
and motor racing facilities, theme parks, fairgrounds and convention centers, ski complexes and destination resorts
throughout western United States,
Parldng. Parking programs and facilities for large area plans and individual sites including downtowns, special
event facilities, university and institutional campuses and other large site developments; numerous parking
feasibility and operations studies for parking structures and surface facilities; also, resident preferential parking .
Transportation System Management & Traffic Restraint. Project manager on FHWA program to develop
techniques and guidelines for neighborhood street traffic limitation. Project manager for Berkeley, (Calif.),
Neighborhood Traffic Study, pioneered application of traffic restraint techniques in the U.S. Developed residential
traffic plans for Menlo Park, Santa Monica, Santa Cruz, Mill Valley, Oakland, Palo Alto, Piedmont, San Mateo
County, Pasadena, Santa Ana and others. Participated in development of photo/radar speed enforcement device and
experimented with speed humps. Co-author of Institute of Transportation Engineers reference publication on
neighborhood traffic control.
Bicycle Facilities. Project manager to develop an FHWA manual for bicycle facility design and planning, on
bikeway plans for Del Mar, (Calif.), the UC Davis and the City of Davis. Consultant to bikeway plans for Eugene,
Oregon, Washington, D.C., Buffalo, New York, and Skokie, Illinois. Consultant to U.S. Bureau of Reclamation for
development of hydraulically efficient, bicycle safe drainage inlets. Consultant on FHWA research on effective
retrofits of undercrossing and overcrossing structures for bicyclists, pedestrians, and handicapped.
Institute of Transportation Engineers Transportation Research Board
PUBLICATIONS AND AWARDS
Residential Street Design and Traffic Control, with W. Hornburger et al. Prentice Hall, 1989.
Co -recipient, Progressive Architecture Citation, Mission Bay Master Plan, with I.M. Pei WRT Associated, 1984.
Residential Traffic Management, State of the Art Report, U.S. Department of Transportation, 1979.
Improving The Residential Street Environment, with Donald Appleyard et al., U.S. Department of Transportation,
1979.
Strategic Concepts in Residential Neighborhood Traffic Control, International Symposium on Traffic Control
Systems, Berkeley, California, 1979.
Planning and Design of Bicycle Facilities: Pitfalls and New Directions, Transportation Research Board, Research
Record 570, 1976.
Co -recipient, Progressive Architecture Award, Livable Urban Streets, San Francisco Bay Area and London, with
Donald Appleyard, 1979.
1'It;\PI�IC 'I'K:\NtiI'IIRT:\l'IC?\ <,tAN.4GI:�IC-N f
5311 Lowr\• Ro;ni. Union C:it\•, CA 9-1587 tcl: S10.1S991i7 tax: j10.-Fti�).�)-17ti
RESOLUTION NO. XX-20
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
* * * * * * * * * * *
DENYING THE APPEALS AND AFFIRM THE PLANNING COMMISSION’S APPROVAL OF
A SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PERMIT FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A 138-ROOM
HOTEL AND A MINOR USE PERMIT TO ALLOW A PARKING REDUCTION FOR SHARED
PARKING AT 7950 DUBLIN BOULEVARD
APN: 941-1500-037-00
PLPA-2019-00020 & PLPA-2019-00044
WHEREAS, the Applicant, Jerry Hunt of VP-RPG Dublin, LLC, is proposing to
construct a 138-room hotel on an existing parking lot located south of the existing Corrie
Center office building at 7950 Dublin Boulevard within the Downtown Dublin Specific Plan
Transit-Oriented District. The new six-story hotel will consist of four stories over two stories of
podium parking, and related landscape and site improvements (the “project”). The proposal
includes a Site Development Review Permit to allow construction of the hotel and a Minor Use
Permit to allow a parking reduction for shared parking between the proposed hotel and an
existing office building; and
WHEREAS, the project site is located in Downtown Dublin, within the Transit-Oriented
District of the Downtown Dublin Specific Plan; and
WHEREAS, a hotel is a permitted use in the Transit-Oriented District of the Downtown
Dublin Specific Plan; and
WHEREAS, the project site is currently occupied by a surface parking lot serving the
existing Corrie Center office building; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA), a Final Environmental Impact Report (State Clearinghouse No. 2010022005) was
prepared for the Downtown Dublin Specific Plan and certified by the City Council on February
1, 2011 (Resolution No. 08-11); and
WHEREAS, Downtown Dublin Environmental Impact Report (DDSP EIR) and
subsequent Addendums analyzed development of approximately 2.2 million square feet of
non-residential development and 2,500 residential dwelling units. The project is the first to
utilize a portion of the 1.6 million square feet of non-residential development that was
allocated to the Transit-Oriented District. Therefore, the project’s 90,700 square feet is within
the already contemplated non-residential development activity in the Transit-Oriented District;
and
WHEREAS, the project was examined to determine if any of the standards contained
in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162(a) requiring preparation of supplemental environmental
review would be met. The analysis concluded that none of the standards requiring
supplemental environmental review are met an d thus no additional environmental review is
required; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a properly noticed public hearing on the
project on April 28, 2020, at which time all interested parties had the opportunity to be heard;
and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 20-06 approving the
Site Development Review Permit, Minor Use Permit and Heritage Tree Permit; and
WHEREAS, the Heritage Tree Permit was subsequently withdrawn by the Applicant;
and
WHEREAS, Laborers International Union of North America Local Union No. 304
(“LIUNA”), and West Dublin Alliance, appealed the actions of the Planning Commission on the
Site Development Review Permit and Minor Use Permit, in accordance with Dublin Municipal
Code Chapter 8.136; and
WHEREAS, the City Council is hearing body for the appeal of a decision by the
Planning Commission; and
WHEREAS, proper notice of said hearing was given in all respects as required by law;
and
WHEREAS, a Staff Report, dated June 2, 2020, and incorporated herein by reference,
described and analyzed the proposed Cambria Hotel Project, including the Site Development
Review Permit and Minor Use Permit.
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 City of Dublin City Council does hereby make
the following findings and determinations regarding the Site Development Review Permit:
A. The proposal is consistent with the purposes of Chapter 8.104 of the Zoning
Ordinance, with the General Plan and the Downtown Dublin Specific Plan and
design guidelines because: 1) the project is compatible with the architectural
character and scale of development in the immediate area in which the proposed
project is to be located; 2) the project is utilizing traditional building forms with
contemporary, high-quality materials and finishes in compliance with the design
guidelines of the Downtown Dublin Specific Plan; 3) the proposed project supports
the more specific vision for the Transit-Oriented District to encourage the
development of the area with land uses that support and complement transit uses,
particularly the West Dublin BART Station; 4) the project will help to provide
additional lodging opportunities to Downtown Dublin; and 5) the project is consistent
with the General Plan land use designation of Downtown Dublin Specific Plan –
Transit-Oriented District.
B. The proposal is consistent with the provisions of Title 8, Zoning Ordinance because:
1) the project contributes to the orderly, attractive, and harmonious site and
architectural development that is compatible with the architectural style, intensity of
development – either in place or permitted in the future, and context of surrounding
and adjacent properties; and 2) the project complies with the development
standards of the Downtown Dublin Zoning District, as outlined in the Downtown
Dublin Specific Plan.
C. The design of the project is appropriate to the City, the vicinity, surrounding
properties, and the lot in which the project is proposed because: 1) the project is
consistent with the Downtown Dublin Specific Plan in that it provides additional
lodging opportunities in close proximity to offices, retail and the West
Dublin/Pleasanton BART station; 2) the size and mass of the proposed building is
consistent with other commercial development in the immediate vicinity and in
compliance with the minimum and maximum development density/intensity
permitted; and 3) the redevelopment of the subject property is an important
incremental change to advance the vision of the Downtown Dublin Specific Plan to
make Downtown Dublin a vibrant and dynamic mixed-use center.
D. The subject site is suitable for the type and intensity of the approved development
because: 1) the project proposes a hotel, which is an allowed use in the Transit-
Oriented District; 2) the project is consistent with the Downtown Dublin Zoning
District in which it is located; 3) the project site will be fully served by a network of
existing and planned infrastructure of public roadways, access easements,
services, and facilities; and 4) the proposed project meets all of the development
standards established to regulate development in the Downtown Dublin Specific
Plan Transit-Oriented District and are consistent and compatible with other
commercial development projects in the immediate vicinity.
E. Impacts to existing slopes and topographic features are addressed because the
project site is generally flat and the development of the parcel will replace an
existing parking field which will not impact any slopes or other topographic features.
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 project provides a high degree of
design and landscaping to provide a unique, urban, contemporary-themed lodging
opportunity in the Downtown Dublin Specific Plan; 2) the structures reflect the
architectural styles and development standards for other higher-density projects
within the Downtown Dublin Specific Plan; 3) the architectural style, colors and
materials will be consistent and compatible with the contemporary architectural
style, colors, and materials being utilized on other projects in the immediate vicinity
and more specifically the adjacent Corrie Center office building; 4) the project is
utilizing traditional building forms with contemporary, high -quality materials and
finishes in compliance with the design guidelines of the Downtown Dublin Specific
Plan; and 5) the size and scale of the development will be similar to others buildings
in the immediate project vicinity.
G. Landscape considerations, including the location, type, size, color, texture and
coverage of plant materials, and similar elements have been incorporated into the
project to ensure visual relief, adequate screening and an attractive environment for
the public because: 1) all perimeter landscaping and hardscape are proposed for
construction in accordance with the Downtown Dublin Specific Plan; 2) the project
perimeter and interior landscaping is consistent with other developments in the
vicinity and 3) the project will conform 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) all infrastructure including streets,
sidewalks, and street lighting are proposed for construction in accordance with the
project plans and have been reviewed for safety and adequate circulation; and 2)
development of this project will include enhancement to the existing driveway from
Dublin Boulevard so that all modes of transportation are supported and ensuring
the safe use of these facilities.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City of Dublin City Council hereby makes the
following findings and determinations regarding the Minor Use Permit to allow a parking
reduction for shared parking related to a proposed hotel and existing office building, located at
7950 Dublin Boulevard:
A. The proposed use and related structures are compatible with other land uses,
transportation and service facilities in the vicinity in that: 1) the project is located in
the Downtown Dublin Zoning District, which allows for a variety of uses including
hotels, offices, restaurants, and retail; 2) the project is a hotel development located
within a developed parcel that includes an office building, parking lot and adjacent
commercial uses; and 3) the project is accessible from existing driveway s on Dublin
Boulevard and Regional Street.
B. The proposed use meets the parking requirement for the use type in accordance
with the requirements of Chapter 8.76 (Off-Street Parking and Loading Regulations),
which could include a parking reduction for shared parking in that: 1) a parking study
was prepared by Advanced Mobility Group, which shows that there is sufficient
parking available during the peak demand for both the office and hotel uses with up
to a 15% transit reduction; 2) adequate signage will be placed within the project site
to delineate the location of available parking spaces; 3) the project’s proposed use
types and transit oriented location indicate the proposed on -site parking supply
would adequately serve the expected parking demand; and 4) the Parking Reduction
for Shared Parking will facilitate the establishment of a hotel which will provide a
service to the community.
C. The proposed use, as conditioned, will not adversely affect the health or safety of
persons residing or working in the vicinity, or be detrimental to the public hea lth,
safety and welfare in that: 1) a parking study was prepared by Advanced Mobility
Group which shows that there is sufficient parking available to meet the greatest
parking demands of all tenants within the project; and 2) due to sufficient on -site
parking it is not anticipated that there will be any overflow parking that would
adversely affect an adjacent use.
D. The proposed use, as conditioned, will not be injurious to property or improvements
in the neighborhood in that: 1) proposed hotel will include a parking structure that, in
conjunction with the ground-level parking, will be adequate parking to meet the
greatest parking demands of all tenants within the project; and 2) the establishment
of the commercial uses will be done in accordance with all applicable Building and
Fire Codes and local ordinances.
E. There are adequate provisions for public access, water sanitation, and public utilities
and services to ensure that the proposed use and related structures would not be
detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare in that: 1) the proposed building
is located in a developed commercial area of Downtown Dublin; 2) the project will
be served by existing public roadways including Dublin Boulevard and Regional
Street; and 3) the project will be served by existing public utilities and services
including water and sanitation.
F. The subject site is physically suitable for the type, density and intensity of the use and
related structures being proposed in that: 1) the project is located in the Downtown
Dublin Zoning District, which allows for a variety of uses including hotels, offices,
restaurants, and retail; 2) adequate signage will be placed within the project site to
delineate the location of shared parking spaces; and 3) the project’s prop osed use
types and transit oriented location indicate the proposed on-site parking supply
would adequately serve the expected parking demand.
G. The proposed use will not be contrary to the specific intent clauses, development
regulations, or performance standards established for the zoning district in which it is
located in that: 1) the proposed hotel will contribute to the vibrate commercial area of
Downtown Dublin and provide a service to the residents of the City and its visitors;
and 2) as conditioned, the proposed will comply with the development standards and
performance standards established for the Downtown Dublin Zoning District.
H. The proposed use is consistent with the Dublin General Plan and with any applicable
Specific Plans in that: 1) the General Plan and Specific Plan Land Use designation is
Downtown Dublin – Transit-Oriented District which includes, but is not limited to,
hotels, offices, retail, restaurants, multi-family residential, and the proposed use will
not be contrary to these standards.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City of Dublin City Council hereby denies the
Appeals of the Planning Commission’s adoption of Resolution No. 20-06, and approves the
Site Development Review Permit and Minor Use Permit for the proposed project, subject to
the conditions:
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 REQ’D
Prior to:
1. Approval – Site Development Review Permit. This Site
Development Review Permit approval is for the Cambria
Hotel (PLPA-2019-00020). This approval shall be as
generally depicted and indicated on the project plans
prepared by DesignCell dated November 22, 2019,
attached as Exhibit A, and other plans, text, and diagrams
relating to this Site Development Review Permit, unless
modified by the Conditions of Approval contained herein.
PL On-going
2. Approval – Minor Use Permit. This Minor Use Permit
("MUP" or "Permit") approval to allow a parking reduction
for shared parking (PLPA-2019-00044), located at 7950
Dublin Boulevard (APN 941-1500-037-00). The approval
shall be as provided in the Technical Memorandum
(“Parking Study”) prepared by Advanced Mobility Group
PL On-going
CONDITION TEXT RESPON.
AGENCY
WHEN REQ’D
Prior to:
dated September 30, 2019, attached as Exhibit B, and as
specified by the following Conditions of Approval for this
project.
3. Permit Expiration. Construction or use shall commence
within one (1) year of the effective date of this Permit or the
Site Development Review/MUP shall lapse and become
null and void. If there is a dispute as to whether the Permit
has expired, the City may hold a noticed public hearing to
determine the matter. Such a determination may be
processed concurrently with revocation proceedings in
appropriate circumstances. If a Permit expires, a new
application must be made and processed according to the
requirements of the Zoning Ordinance.
PL One Year After
Effective Date
4. Time Extension. The Community Development Director
may grant an extension of the approval for a period not to
exceed twelve (12) months, upon the Applicant’s written
request prior to expiration, and the determination that all
Conditions of Approval remain adequate and all applicable
findings of approval will continue to be met. 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 permit
expiration
5. Compliance. Developer shall comply with the Subdivision
Map Act, the City of Dublin Subdivision and Zoning
Ordinances, City of Dublin Title 7 Public Works Ordinance,
which includes the Grading Ordinance, the City of Dublin
Public Works Standards and Policies, the most current
requirements of the State Code Title 24 and the Americans
with Disabilities Act with regard to accessibility, and all
building and fire codes and ordinances in effect at the time
of building permit issuance. All public improvements
constructed by Developer and to be dedicated to the City
are hereby identified as “public works” under Labor Code
section 1771. Accordingly, Developer, in constructing such
improvements, shall comply with the Prevailing Wage Law
(Labor Code. Sects. 1720 and following).
PL, PW On-going
6. Effective Date. This Site Development Review Permit
approval becomes effective only after the Community
Benefit Agreement associated with the project is approved
by the City Council.
PL On-going
7. Revocation of Permit. The Site Development Review
Permit/MUP approval shall be revocable for cause in
accordance with Section 8.96.020.I of the Dublin Zoning
Ordinance. Any violation of the terms or conditions of this
permit shall be subject to citation.
PL On-going
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
Various Building Permit
Issuance
CONDITION TEXT RESPON.
AGENCY
WHEN REQ’D
Prior to:
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,
where applicable, to the Planning Department, indicating
that all applicable conditions required have been or will be
met.
9. Required Permits. The Applicant/Developer shall obtain
all permits required by other agencies which may include,
but are not limited to Alameda County Environmental
Health, Alameda County Flood Control and Water
Conservation District (Zone 7), California Department of
Fish and Wildlife, Army Corps of Engineers, Regional Water
Quality Control Board, Caltrans, or other regional/state
agencies as required by law, as applicable. Copies of the
permits shall be provided to the Public Works Department.
PW Building Permit
Issuance
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; Dublin San
Ramon Services District fees; Public Facilities fees; City of
Dublin Fire fees; Noise Mitigation fees; Inclusionary House
In-Lieu fees; Alameda County Flood and Water
Conservation fees.
Various Grading
Permit, and
Building Permit
Issuance
11. 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.
ADM Building Permit
Issuance
12. Indemnification. The Applicant/Developer shall defend,
indemnify, and hold harmless the City of Dublin and its
agents, officers, and employees from any claim, action, or
proceeding against the City of Dublin or its agents, officers,
or employees to attack, set aside, void, or annul an
approval of the City of Dublin or its advisory agency, appeal
board, Planning Commission, City Council, Community
Development Director, Zoning Administrator, or any other
department, committee, or agency of the City to the extent
such actions are brought within the time period required by
Government Code Section 65009 or other applicable law;
provided, however, that the Applicant’s/Developer's duty to
so defend, indemnify, and hold harmless shall be subject to
the City's promptly notifying the Applicant/Developer of any
said claim, action, or proceeding and the City's full
cooperation in the defense of such actions or proceedings.
ADM On-going
13. Clarification of Conditions. In the event that the parties
agree that there needs to be clarification to the Conditions
of Approval, the Director of Community Development and
the City Engineer have the authority to clarify the intent of
these Conditions of Approval to the Developer without
going to a public hearing. The Director of Community
Development and the City Engineer also have the authority
to make minor modifications to these conditions without
going to a public hearing in order for the
Applicant/Developer to fulfill needed improvements or
PL/PW On-going
CONDITION TEXT RESPON.
AGENCY
WHEN REQ’D
Prior to:
mitigations resulting from impacts of this project.
14. 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
15. Modifications. Modifications or changes to this Site
Development Review Permit approval may be considered
by the Community Development Director in compliance with
Chapter 8.104 of the Zoning Ordinance.
PL On-going
16. Controlling Activities. The Applicant/Developer shall
control all activities on the project site so as not to create a
nuisance to the existing or surrounding businesses and
residences.
PL On-going
17. Accessory Structures/Construction. The use of any
accessory structures, such as storage sheds or
trailer/container units used for storage or for any other
purpose during construction, shall not be allowed on the
site at any time unless a Temporary Use Permit is applied
for and approved.
PL Establishment of
the Temporary
Use
18. Property Maintenance. The Applicant/Developer and
property owner shall be responsible for maintaining the site
in a clean and litter free condition during construction and
through completion. Per the City of Dublin Non-Residential
Property Maintenance Ordinance, DMC Section 5.64.050,
the Applicant/ Property Owner shall maintain the building,
site and all signage in good condition and shall keep the
site clear of trash, debris and graffiti vandalism on a regular
and continuous basis.
PL On-going
PLANNING DIVISION - PROJECT SPECIFIC – SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW
19. Equipment Screening. All electrical, fire risers and/or
mechanical equipment shall be screened from public view.
Any roof-mounted equipment shall be completely screened
from view by materials architecturally compatible with the
building and to the satisfaction of the Community
Development Director. The building permit plans shall show
the location of all equipment and screening for review and
approval by the Director of Community Development.
PL Building Permit
Issuance
and
On-going
20. Public Art. The Applicant/Developer intends to acquire
and install public art on the project site in accordance with
Chapter 8.58 of the Dublin Municipal Code. The value of
the public art project is required to equal or exceed 0.5
percent of the building valuation (exclusive of land) for the
entire hotel project. The Building Official will determine the
building valuation at the time of Plan Check submittal for
the first building permit on-site. An agreement that sets
forth the ownership, maintenance responsibilities, and
insurance coverage for all public art on-site shall be
executed prior to occupancy. All public art installations are
subject to approval of the City Council upon
recommendation by the Heritage and Cultural Arts
Commission.
PL Building Permit
Issuance
and
Occupancy
21. Bike Racks. The bike racks shall have two points of
connection as required by the Bicycle and Pedestrian
Master Plan.
PL, PW Landscape Plan
Approval
22. Parking. Parking shall be provided as stated in the PL Building Permit
CONDITION TEXT RESPON.
AGENCY
WHEN REQ’D
Prior to:
approved Minor Use Permit for shared parking (PLPA-
2019-00044)
Issuance and
On-going
23. Master Sign Program. A Master Sign Program shall be
reviewed and approved for all project-related signage
including, but not limited to, wall signs, monument signs,
community identification signage, address signage,
directional signage, parking signage, speed limit signage,
retail tenant signage, and other signage deemed necessary
by the City. All signs shown in the Project Plans are for
illustrative purposes only and the full details of the sign
sizes, materials, and construction shall be shown in the
separate sign package.
PL Installation of
any project-
related signage
PLANNING DIVISION - PROJECT SPECIFIC – MINOR USE PERMIT
24. Options 1 and 3 as provided in the Parking Study utilize the
parking field adjacent to Dublin Boulevard (associated with
the former Hooter’s building). At such time that a Site
Development Review Permit is approved for development
on this portion of the site that modifies the former Hooter's
building configuration and/or use, Options 1 and 3 that
utilize this parking field shall be reevaluated.
PL Ongoing
DOWNTOWN DUBLIN SPECIFIC PLAN MITIGATION MEASURES
25. MM 3.3-1: Project applicants shall consult with a registered
geotechnical engineer to prepare a design level
geotechnical report that addresses the affects [sic] of
seismic ground shaking and includes a quantitative
evaluation of liquefaction and liquefaction-induced lateral
spreading for future development in the DDSP project area.
The design level geotechnical report shall specify
foundations and structural elements that are designed to
resist forces and potential ground settlement for liquefaction
and lateral spreading. This report shall be submitted in
conjunction with a Building Permit application.
PL Building Permit
Issuance
26. MM 3.4-2: Future development or substantial
redevelopment within the project area shall prepare a
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment to determine
whether or not a particular development site contains any
hazardous materials as a result of historic contamination
within the project area subject to review and approval by
the City of Dublin. In the event that the Phase I
recommends subsequent testing, the potential health risks
shall be evaluated and a work plan prepared to remediate
the soil and/or groundwater in accordance with all
applicable federal, state, and local regulations. This
assessment shall be submitted to the City in conjunction
with the Building and Grading/Site work permit and shall be
found acceptable by the City prior to ground disturbance.
PL Building Permit
Issuance
27. MM 3.5-1a: Prior to issuance of grading permit, the project
proponent shall file a Notice of Intent as required by
Regional Water Quality Control Board regarding storm
water discharges associated with construction activities.
Upon completion of construction activities, a Notice of
Termination shall be filed.
MM 3.5-1b: Prior to issuance of any building or grading
permits, a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP)
PL/PW Site Work
(Grading) Permit
CONDITION TEXT RESPON.
AGENCY
WHEN REQ’D
Prior to:
shall be prepared by the project contractors and submitted
to the Regional Water Quality Control Board for review and
comment and to the City of Dublin in conjunction with the
Building/Grading/Site work permit and shall be found to be
acceptable by the City prior to ground disturbance. The
SWPPP shall be prepared to Regional Water Quality
Control Board standards and Alameda Countywide Clean
Water Program requirements, and shall identify erosion
minimization and control provisions, pollution detection
provisions, and pollution elimination/ minimization
provisions appropriate to the development project and its
site for construction and post-construction activities. The
SWPPP shall include best available technology,
engineering, and design solutions such as the use of silt
screens, hay bales, modern trash screens, energy
dissipaters, and/or absorbent devices. Stormwater runoff
water quality monitoring procedures shall be clearly detailed
in the SWPPP.
28. MM 3.7-1a: Project applicants within the project area shall
prepare a construction noise management plan that
identifies measures to be taken to minimize construction
noise on surrounding sensitive receptors (e.g. residential
uses and schools) and includes specific noise management
measures to be included into project plans and
specifications subject to review and approval by the City.
These measures shall I include, but not be limited to the
following:
• Construction activities, including the maintenance
and warming of equipment, shall be limited to
Monday through Friday, and non-City holidays,
between the hours of 7:30 AM and 5:30 PM except
as otherwise approved by the City Engineer.
• All construction equipment shall be equipped with
mufflers and sound control devices (e.g., intake
silencers and noise shrouds) no less effective than
those provided on the original equipment and no
equipment shall have an un-muffled exhaust.
• The City shall require that the contractor maintain
and tune-up all construction equipment to minimize
noise emissions.
• Stationary equipment shall be placed so as to
maintain the greatest possible distance to the
sensitive receptors.
• All equipment servicing shall be performed so as to
maintain the greatest possible distance to the
sensitive receptors.
• The construction contractor shall provide an on-site
name and telephone number of a contact person. In
the event that construction noise is intrusive to an
educational process, the construction liaison will
revise the construction schedule to preserve the
learning environment.
• Select demolition methods to minimize vibration,
where possible (e.g., sawing masonry into sections
PL/PW Building Permit
Issuance
CONDITION TEXT RESPON.
AGENCY
WHEN REQ’D
Prior to:
rather than demolishing it by pavement breakers).
MM 3.7-1b: Should the proposed project require off-site
import/export of fill material during construction, trucks shall
utilize a route that is least disruptive to sensitive receptors,
preferably major roadways (Interstate 580, Interstate 680,
San Ramon Road, Dublin Boulevard, and Amador Valley
Boulevard). Construction trucks should, to the extent
practical, avoid the weekday and Saturday a.m. and p.m.
peak hours (7:00 a.m. to 9:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. to 6:00
p.m.).
29. MM 3.7-3: Future development within the DDSP project
area that is located adjacent to Highway 580; Amador Plaza
(between Dublin Boulevard and Saint Patrick Way); and
Dublin Boulevard (between Amador Plaza Road and Village
Parkway; between Regional Street and Golden Gate Drive
and between San Ramon Road and Regional Street) shall
prepare a site-specific acoustical analysis subject to review
and approval by the City of Dublin. The acoustical analysis
prepared for future development shall evaluate resultant
noise impacts in comparison to the City’s noise criteria for
Land Use Compatibility for Community Noise
Environments. Feasible project specific mitigation
measures shall be required as part of the project design to
reduce noise impacts at future noise sensitive land uses,
including but not limited to the following: 1) site design; 2)
operational restrictions; 3) barriers; 4) setbacks; and 5)
insulation. No development permits or approval of land use
applications shall be issued until the acoustical analysis is
received and approved by City staff and any project design
features are incorporated into the future development
project.
PL Building Permits
Issuance
LANDSCAPING
30. Final Landscape and Irrigation Plans. Final landscape
plans, irrigation system plans, tree preservation techniques,
and guarantees, shall be reviewed and approved by the
Dublin Planning Division prior to the issuance of the
building permit. All such submittals shall be reviewed and
approved by the City Engineer and the Community
Development Director. The Final Landscape Plans shall
ensure:
a. That plant material is utilized which will be capable of
healthy growth within the given range of soil and
climate.
b. That proposed landscape screening is of a height and
density so that it provides a positive visual impact
within three years from the time of planting.
c. That unless unusual circumstances prevail, all trees on
the site shall be a minimum of 15 gallons in size. All
trees that are on the exterior building perimeter shall be
24-inch box minimum, with at least 30 percent at 36-
inch box or greater. All shrubs shall be five gallon
minimum.
PL Landscape Plan
Approval and
Installation
CONDITION TEXT RESPON.
AGENCY
WHEN REQ’D
Prior to:
d. That a plan for an automatic irrigation system be
provided which assures that all plants get adequate
water. In unusual circumstances, and if approved by
staff, a manual or quick coupler system may be used.
e. That concrete curbing is to be used at the edges of all
planters and paving surfaces where applicable.
f. That all cut and fill slopes conform to the conditions
detailed in the Site Development Review Permit
packet.
g. That a guarantee from the owners or contractors shall
be required guaranteeing all shrubs and ground cover,
all trees, and the irrigation system for one year.
h. That a permanent maintenance agreement on all
landscaping will be required from the owner insuring
regular irrigation, fertilization and weed abatement, if
applicable.
31. Landscaping at Street/Drive Aisle Intersections.
Landscaping shall not obstruct the sight distance of
motorists, pedestrians or bicyclists. Except for trees,
landscaping (and/or landscape structures such as walls) at
drive aisle intersections shall not be taller than 30 inches
above the curb. Landscaping shall be kept at a minimum
height and fullness giving patrol officers and the general
public surveillance capabilities of the area.
PL On-going
32. Plant Clearances. All trees planted shall meet the
following clearances:
a. Six feet from the face of building walls or roof eaves.
b. Seven feet from fire hydrants, storm drains, sanitary
sewers and/or gas lines.
c. Five feet from top of wing of driveways, mailboxes,
water, telephone and/or electrical mains
d. Fifteen feet from stop signs, street or curb sign returns.
e. Fifteen feet from either side of street lights.
PL Landscape Plan
Approval and
Installation
33. Landscaping. Applicant/Developer shall construct all
landscaping within the site and along the project frontage
within the site.
PL, PW Landscape Plan
Approval and
Installation
34. Backflow Prevention Devices. The Landscape Plans shall
show the location of all backflow prevention devises. The
location and screening of the backflow prevention devices
shall be reviewed and approved by City staff.
PL, PW, F Landscape Plan
Approval and
Installation
35. Root Barriers and Tree Staking. The Landscape Plans
shall provide details showing root barriers and tree staking
will be installed which meet current City specifications.
PL, PW Landscape Plan
Approval and
Installation
36. Water Efficient Landscaping Ordinance. The
Applicant/Developer shall submit written documentation to
the Public Works Department (in the form of a Landscape
Documentation Package and other required documents)
that the development conforms to the City’s Water Efficient
Landscaping Ordinance.
PL Landscape Plan
Approval and
Installation
37. Landscaping at Trash Enclosure. Landscaping shall
provide adequate screening of the trash enclosure through
the use of shrubs, vines, etc.
PL Landscape Plan
Approval and
Installation
CONDITION TEXT RESPON.
AGENCY
WHEN REQ’D
Prior to:
38. The trees within the Project site along San Ramon Road
and I-580 off ramp shall be Chinese pistache.
PL Landscape Plan
Approval and
Installation
39. Trees with the Parking Area. The proposed London plane
trees shall be replaced with evergreen trees with less root
damage potential in narrow parking lot planters.
PL Landscape Plan
Approval and
Installation
BUILDING AND SAFETY DIVISION
40. 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
41. Construction Drawings. Construction plans shall be fully
dimensioned (including building elevations) accurately
drawn (depicting all existing and proposed conditions on
site), and prepared and signed by a California licensed
Architect or Engineer. All structural calculations shall be
prepared and signed by a California licensed Architect or
Engineer. The site plan, landscape plan and details shall
be consistent with each other.
B Building Permit
Issuance
42. Building Permits. To apply for building permits,
Applicant/Developer shall submit electronic drawings and
specifications, and the number of hard copies - as
determined by the Chief Building Official - for plan check.
Each set of plans shall have attached an annotated copy of
these Conditions of Approval. The notations shall clearly
indicate how all Conditions of Approval will 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 Building Permit
Issuance
43. 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
44. Addressing.
1. A site plan shall be provided with the City of Dublin’s
address grid overlaid on the plans (1 to 30 scale). All
exterior door openings shall be highlighted on plans
(front, rear, etc.). Three copies on full size sheets and
five copies reduced sheets.
2. Address signage shall be provided as per the Dublin
Commercial Security Code.
3. Address shall 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.
4. The architectural plans shall include a proposed
room / suite number plan.
B 1. Release of
Addresses
2. Permitting
3. Occupancy
CONDITION TEXT RESPON.
AGENCY
WHEN REQ’D
Prior to:
45. Engineer Observation. The Engineer of Record shall be
retained to provide observation services for all components
of the lateral and vertical design of the building, including
nailing, hold-downs, straps, shear, roof diaphragm and
structural frame of building. A written report shall be
submitted to the City Inspector prior to scheduling the final
frame inspection.
B Scheduling Final
Frame
Inspection
46. 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 Permit Issuance
47. CASp Reports. Applicant 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, a written
report shall be submitted to the City Building Inspector prior
to scheduling the final inspection.
B Permitting and
Occupancy
48. Air Conditioning Units. Air conditioning units and
ventilation ducts shall be screened from public view with
materials compatible to the main building and shall not be
roof mounted. 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
49. 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, Tables A and 422.1.
B Permitting
50. Cool Roofs – CA Energy Code. Flat roof areas shall have
their roofing material coated with light colored gravel or
painted with light colored or reflective material designed for
cool roofs.
B Through
Completion
51. Solar Zone – CA Energy Code. The location and
orientation of the Solar Zone shall be shown on the site
plan. This condition of approval will be waived if the project
meets the exceptions provided in the CA Energy Code.
B Through
Completion
52. Accessible Parking. The design, location and number of
required accessible parking stalls shall be as required by
the CA Building Code.
B Through
Completion
53. 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
54. FEMA – Floodplain. The project is currently shown to be
in a floodplain. The applicant shall submit either a letter of
map amendment, letter of map change or letter of map
revision prior to permitting. If the site has not been
removed from the floodplain by a letter, then elevation
certificates will be required at the correct stages.
B Prior to
Permitting
55. Temporary Fencing. Temporary construction fencing shall
be installed along perimeter of all work under construction
B Through
Completion
CONDITION TEXT RESPON.
AGENCY
WHEN REQ’D
Prior to:
56. Copies of Approved Plans. Applicant shall provide the
City with one reduced (1/2 size) copy of the City of Dublin
stamped approved plans.
B 30 Days After
Permit and Each
Revision
Issuance
FIRE DEPARTMENT
57. No fire service lines shall pass beneath buildings. F Approval of
Improvement
Plans
58. 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.
1. 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.
2. Sprinkler System Components. 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.
3. 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.
4. 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.
5. Fire Protection Equipment. Fire protection
equipment shall be identified with approved signs
constructed of durable materials, permanently installed
and readily visible.
F Building Permit
Issuance
59. b Fire Access During Construction.
1. 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.
F During
Construction
CONDITION TEXT RESPON.
AGENCY
WHEN REQ’D
Prior to:
2. Entrances. Entrances to job sites shall not be blocked,
including after hours, other than by approved
gates/barriers that provide for emergency access.
3. Site Utilities. Site utilities that would require the
access road to be dug up or made impassible shall be
installed prior to construction commencing.
4. Fire Lane. 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.
5. Personnel Access. Route width, slope, surface and
obstructions must be considered for the approved route
to furthermost portion of the exterior wall.
6. 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.
60. Fire Alarm Detection System. 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.
1. Fire Alarm Plans. (Deferred Submittal Item).
Submit detailed drawings of the fire alarm system,
including floor plan showing all rooms, 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 areas 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.
2. 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.
3. 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.
F Occupancy
CONDITION TEXT RESPON.
AGENCY
WHEN REQ’D
Prior to:
Examples of qualified individuals are those who have
been factory trained and certified or are NICET Fire
Alarm Certified.
4. 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 certified must be
provided to the Fire Inspector.
61. 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
62. 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 box should be installed
approximately 5 1/2 feet above grade. The box shall be
sized to hold the master key to the facility as well as keys
for rooms not accessible by the master key. 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 shall be provided to
the Fire Inspector upon the final inspection. The inspector
will then lock the keys into the box.
F Occupancy
63. Means of Egress. Exit signs shall be visible and
illuminated with emergency lighting when building is
occupied.
F Occupancy
64. 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. The use of this exception may be revoked for
cause.
F Occupancy
65. 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” x 11” paper is required
F Occupancy
CONDITION TEXT RESPON.
AGENCY
WHEN REQ’D
Prior to:
prior to final occupancy.
66. 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
67. General Inspection. Upon inspection of the work for which
this submittal was provided, a general inspection of the
business and site will be conducted.
F Occupancy
68. 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 5 inches in height by 1-inch stroke. Larger sizes
may be necessary depending on the setbacks and visibility.
Multi-Tenants. Where a building has multiple tenants,
address shall also be provided near the main entrance door
of each tenant space. The address shall be high enough on
the building to be clearly visible from the driveway, street or
parking area it faces even when vehicles are parked in front
of the tenant space. The address shall not be less than 5-
inches in height with a ½-inch stroke.
F Occupancy
69. Fire Safety During Construction and Demolition.
1. 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.
2. 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.
3. Combustible debris, rubbish and waste material shall
be removed from buildings at the end of each shift of
work.
4. Flammable and combustible liquid storage areas shall
be maintained clear of combustible vegetation and
waste materials.
F On-going
DUBLIN SAN RAMON SERVICES DISTRICT
70. d Complete improvement plans shall be submitted to DSRSD
that conform to the requirements of the Dublin San Ramon
Services District Code, the DSRSD “Standard Procedures,
Specifications and Drawings for Design and Installation of
Water and Wastewater Facilities,” all applicable DSRSD
Master Plans and all DSRSD policies.
DSRSD Issuance of
Building Permits
71. Planning and review fees, inspection fees, and fees DSRSD Issuance of
CONDITION TEXT RESPON.
AGENCY
WHEN REQ’D
Prior to:
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.
Building Permit
or Improvement
Plans
72. 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 working days for final
improvement drawing review by DSRSD before
signature by the District Engineer.
DSRSD Building Permit
Issuance by
City; or Building
Permit or
Construction
Permit Issuance
by DSRSD
73. All easement dedications for DSRSD facilities shall be by
separate instrument irrevocably offered to DSRSD.
DSRSD Formal
Acceptance
74. All mains shall be sized to provide sufficient capacity to
accommodate future flow demands in addition to each
development project’s demand. Layout and sizing of mains
shall be in conformance with DSRSD utility master
planning.
DSRSD Issuance of
Improvement
Plans
75. The locations and widths of all proposed easement
dedications for water and sewer lines shall be submitted to
and approved by DSRSD.
DSRSD Issuance of
Improvement
Plans
76. 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 Issuance of
Improvement
Plans
77. Domestic and fire protection waterline systems for
commercial developments shall be designed to be looped
or interconnected to avoid dead end sections in accordance
with requirements of the DSRSD Standard Specifications
and sound engineering practice.
DSRSD Issuance of
Improvement
Plans
78. Sewers shall be designed to operate by gravity flow to
DSRSD’s existing sanitary sewer system. Pumping of
sewage is discouraged and may only be allowed under
extreme circumstances following a case by case review
with DSRSD staff. Any pumping station will require specific
review and approval by DSRSD of preliminary design
reports, design criteria, and final plans and specifications.
The DSRSD reserves the right to require payment of
present worth 20 year maintenance costs as well as other
conditions within a separate agreement with the applicant
DSRSD Issuance of
Improvement
Plans
CONDITION TEXT RESPON.
AGENCY
WHEN REQ’D
Prior to:
for any project that requires a pumping station.
79. This project will be analyzed by DSRSD to determine if it
represents additional water and/or sewer capacity demands
on the District. Applicant 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 Issuance of
Building Permit
80. No sewer line or waterline construction shall be permitted
unless the proper utility construction permit has been
issued by DSRSD. A construction permit will only be
issued after all of the items in the condition immediately
above have been satisfied.
DSRSD Issuance of any
Construction
Permit
81. Above ground backflow prevention devices/double detector
check valves shall be installed on fire protection systems
connected to the DSRSD water main. The Applicant shall
collaborate with the Fire Department and with DSRSD to
size and configure its fire system.
DSRSD Issuance of
Improvement
Plans
82. If trash enclosures are required to drain to the sanitary
sewer system, grease interceptors shall be installed within
the trash enclosure area. The trash enclosure shall be
roofed and graded to minimize rain water or stormwater
from entering the trash enclosure.
DSRSD Issuance of
Improvement
Plans
83. District Code requires each parcel to have its own
independent service for both water and wastewater.
Independent connections to water and wastewater mains
are required for each parcel. Laterals shall not cross into
adjacent parcels.
DSRSD Issuance of
Improvement
Plans
84. Sewer capacity allocation for parcels shall be determined
per comments on the Lot Line Adjustment related to this
project area. Please refer to those comments.
DSRSD Issuance of
Improvement
Plans
PUBLIC WORKS GENERAL CONDITIONS
85. Conditions of Approval. 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
PUBLIC WORKS – AGREEMENTS
86. Storm Water Treatment Measures Maintenance
Agreement. Applicant/Developer shall enter into an
Agreement with the City of Dublin that guarantees the
property owner’s perpetual maintenance obligation for all
stormwater treatment measures installed as part of the
project, including those on-site and within the public Rights
of Way. Said Agreement is required pursuant to Provision
C.3 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
PW Acceptance of
Improvements
CONDITION TEXT RESPON.
AGENCY
WHEN REQ’D
Prior to:
land.
PUBLIC WORKS – PERMITS AND BONDS
87. Encroachment Permit. Applicant/Developer shall obtain
an Encroachment Permit from the Public Works Department
for all construction activity within the public right-of-way. At
the discretion of the City Engineer an encroachment permit
for work specifically included in an Improvement Agreement
may not be required.
PW Permit Issuance
88. Grading/Sitework Permit. Applicant/Developer shall
obtain a grading permit from the Public Works Department
for all grading. Applicant/Developer shall obtain a sitework
permit from the Public Works Department for all sitework. A
separate grading permit is not necessary if grading will be
included in the sitework permit submittal.
PW Permit Issuance
89. Security. Applicant/Developer shall provide faithful
performance security to guarantee the grading
improvements, as determined by the City Engineer (Note:
The performance security shall remain in effect until one
year after final inspection).
PW Permit Issuance
90. Permits from Other Agencies. Applicant/Developer shall
obtain all permits and/or approvals required by other
agencies including, but not limited to:
• Army Corps of Engineers
• 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)
PW Permit Issuance
PUBLIC WORKS – SUBMITTALS
91. 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 or
Sitework Permit
Issuance
92. Improvement Plan Requirements from Other Agencies.
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
PW
Grading or
Sitework Permit
Issuance
CONDITION TEXT RESPON.
AGENCY
WHEN REQ’D
Prior to:
District.
93. 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 or
Sitework Permit
Issuance
94. Geotechnical Report. Applicant/Developer shall submit a
Design Level Geotechnical Report for the property owned
by Applicant/Developer, grading and additional information
and/or clarifications as determined by the City Engineer.
PW
Grading or
Sitework Permit
Issuance
95. Ownership and Maintenance of Improvements.
Applicant/Developer shall submit an Ownership and
Maintenance Exhibit for review and approval by Planning
Division and Public Works Department. Terms of
maintenance are subject to review and approval by the City
Engineer.
PL, PW
Grading or
Sitework Permit
Issuance
96. Building Pads, Slopes and Walls. Applicant/Developer
shall provide the Public Works Department with a letter f rom
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 & toe of banks and retaining walls are at the locations
shown on the approved Grading Plans.
PW Acceptance of
Improvements
97. Approved Plan Files. Applicant/Developer shall provide
the Public Works Department a PDF format file of approved
site plans, including grading, improvement, landscaping &
irrigation, joint trench and lighting.
PW Acceptance of
Improvements
98. Master Files. 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 Acceptance of
Improvements
PUBLIC WORKS - PARCEL MAP, EASEMENTS AND ACCESS RIGHTS
99. Dedications and Easements. All rights-of-way and
easement dedications required by these conditions or
determined necessary by the City Engineer shall be done
by a separate instrument.
PW Acceptance of
Improvements
100. 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 Acceptance of
Improvements
101. Granting of Easements. Applicant/Developer shall be
responsible for granting all on-site utility easements
between parcels owned by Applicant/Developer. The
Applicant/Developer shall prepare all required
documentation for the granting of all easements on-site.
The easements and/or rights-of-entry shall be in writing and
PW Acceptance of
Improvements
CONDITION TEXT RESPON.
AGENCY
WHEN REQ’D
Prior to:
copies furnished to the Public Works Department.
102. Approval by Others. The Applicant/Developer will be
responsible for submittals and reviews to obtain the
approvals of all applicable non-City agencies.
PW
Grading or
Sitework Permit
Issuance
PUBLIC WORKS - GRADING
103. Grading Plan. The Grading Plan shall be in conformance
with the recommendation of the Geotechnical Report for the
property owned by Applicant/Developer, 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 or
Sitework Permit
Issuance
104. 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 or
Sitework Permit
Issuance
105. 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 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 or
Sitework Permit
Issuance
106. Erosion Control Plan. A detailed Erosion and Sediment
Control Plan shall be included with the Grading Plan
submittal. The plan shall include detailed design, location,
and maintenance criteria of all erosion and sedimentation
control measures.
PW
Grading or
Sitework Permit
Issuance
107. 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 or
Sitework Permit
Issuance
PUBLIC WORKS - STORM DRAINAGE AND OTHER UTILITIES
108. 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 or
Sitework Permit
Issuance
109. Hydrology and Hydraulics. Developer shall submit
hydrology and hydraulic calculations for review and PW Grading or
Sitework Permit
CONDITION TEXT RESPON.
AGENCY
WHEN REQ’D
Prior to:
approval. Construction plan set shall show grate, invert and
hydraulic grade line information at all storm drain structures,
slope and design flow at all storm drain pipes.
Issuance
110. Drainage. Runoff from roofs, including the trash enclosure,
shall be collected by roof drains and drain to stormwater
treatment areas.
PW
Grading or
Sitework Permit
Issuance
111. 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
acquisition of all storm drain easements from offsite
property owners which are required for the connection and
maintenance of all offsite storm drainage improvements.
PW
Grading or
Sitework Permit
Issuance
112. 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 Acceptance of
Improvements
113. 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 & striping plan.
PW Acceptance of
Improvements
114. 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
Certificate of
Occupancy or
Acceptance of
Improvements
115. 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 or
Acceptance of
Improvements
PUBLIC WORKS - CONSTRUCTION
116. 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
117. Archaeological Finds. If archaeological materials are
encountered during construction, construction within 100
feet of these materials shall be halted until a professional
Archaeologist certified by the Society of California
Archaeology (SCA) or the Society of Professional
Archaeology (SOPA) has had an opportunity to evaluate the
significance of the find and suggest appropriate mitigation
measures.
PW
Start of
Construction
and On-going
118. Construction Activities. Construction activities, including PW Start of
CONDITION TEXT RESPON.
AGENCY
WHEN REQ’D
Prior to:
the idling, maintenance, and warming up of equipment, shall
be limited to Monday through Friday, and non-City holidays,
between the hours of 7:30 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. except as
otherwise approved by the City Engineer. Extended hours
or Saturday work will be considered by the City Engineer on
a case-by-case basis. Note that the construction hours of
operation within the public right-of-way are more restrictive.
Construction
and On-going
119. 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
120. Construction Noise Management Plan.
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
and On-going as
needed
121. Traffic Control Plan. Closing of any existing public right of
way 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
122. Construction Traffic Interface Plan. 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;
Implementation,
and On-going as
needed
123. Pest Control. Applicant/Developer shall be responsible for
controlling any rodent, mosquito, or other pest problem due
to construction activities.
PW On-going
PUBLIC WORKS - EROSION CONTROL AND STORMWATER QUALITY
124. 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 or
Sitework Permit
Issuance
125. 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 Storm Water Pollution Prevention
Plan (SWPPP) shall be provided to the Public Works
Department and be kept at the construction site.
PW
Start of Any
Construction
Activities
126. SWPPP. The Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan
(SWPPP) shall identify the Best Management Practices
(BMPs) appropriate to the project construction activities.
PW
SWPPP to be
Prepared Prior
to Grading
CONDITION TEXT RESPON.
AGENCY
WHEN REQ’D
Prior to:
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.
Permit Issuance;
Implementation
Prior to Start of
Construction
and On-going as
needed
127. 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.
PW
Grading,
Sitework, or
Building Permit
Issuance
PUBLIC WORKS – ON-SITE IMPROVEMENTS
128. Drive Aisle Width. The parking lot aisles shall be a
minimum of 24 feet wide to allow for adequate on-site
vehicle circulation for cars, trucks, and emergency vehicles.
PW
Grading or
Sitework Permit
Issuance
129. Curb Ramps and Pedestrian Walkways. All curb ramps
shall include truncated domes and meet the most current
City and ADA design standards applicable to the Project
site. All curb ramp locations shall be clearly shown on site
plans and shall be subject to the Traffic Engineer's
approval. Said work shall not be required on real property
owned by the State of California.
PW
Grading or
Sitework Permit
Issuance
130. Vehicle Parking. All on-site vehicle parking spaces shall
conform to the following:
1. 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.
2. 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.
3. Where wheel stops are shown, individual six-foot long
wheel stops shall be provided within each parking
space in accordance with City Standards.
4. A minimum two-foot radius shall be provided at curb
returns and curb intersections where applicable.
5. 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.
6. Landscaped strips adjacent to parking stalls shall be
unobstructed in order to allow for a minimum two-foot
vehicular overhang at front of vehicles.
7. Any reduction of standard parking spaces to compact
spaces shall be in accordance with City Standards and
DMC 8.76.050 and as approved by Traffic Engineer.
Number of on-site parking spaces shall be in accordance
with shared parking provisions of the shared parking
analysis report prepared by AMG Consultants, dated
September 30, 2019, under the Minor Use Permit (MUP
2019-00044).
PW
Grading or
Sitework Permit
Issuance
CONDITION TEXT RESPON.
AGENCY
WHEN REQ’D
Prior to:
131. On-site Signing and Striping Plan. A Traffic Signing and
Striping Plan showing all proposed signing and striping
within on-site parking lots and drive aisles, shall be
submitted for review and approval by the City Engineer.
PW
Grading or
Sitework Permit
Issuance
132. Photometrics. The Applicant/Developer shall provide a
complete photometrics plan for both on-site and frontage
roadways. Include the complete data on photometrics,
including the High, Average and Minimum values for
illuminance and uniformity ratio.
PW
Grading or
Sitework Permit
Issuance
133. 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 or
Sitework Permit
Issuance
PUBLIC WORKS – SPECIAL CONDITIONS – SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW
134. Trash Enclosure. The trash enclosure shall meet all of the
requirements set forth within the Dublin Municipal Code
Section 7.98, including but not limited to providing sewer
and water hook-ups. The improvement plans and/or
building permit plans shall show additional information
demonstrating these requirements are met. A pedestrian
accessible path of travel shall be provided for employees
from the building to the trash enclosure in conformance with
current accessibility requirements.
PW
Grading,
Sitework, or
Building Permit
Issuance
135. Drive Aisle Condition. Applicant/Developer shall evaluate
the existing condition of the drive aisle and remove/replace
damaged and hazardous pavement within the Project site
and access easements. The final pavement condition shall
be subject to the City Engineer approval.
PW
Grading,
Sitework, or
Building Permit
Issuance
136. Pedestrian Walkway. Applicant/Developer shall provide a
concrete walkway that connects to the adjacent office
building walkway that meets the most current City and ADA
design standards and shall be in conformance with the
project plans prepared by DesignCell dated November 22,
2019, attached as Exhibit A. This concrete walkway shall
directly connect to the public sidewalk on Dublin Boulevard
at the project entry driveway.
PW
Grading,
Sitework, or
Building Permit
Issuance
137. Bicycle Parking. Applicant/Developer shall install all bike
lockers and bike racks in accordance with California Green
Building Standards Code requirements. Both short-term
and long-term needs shall be provided, and locations of the
bicycle parking shall be subject to the review and approval
of the City Engineer.
PW
Grading,
Sitework, or
Building Permit
Issuance
PUBLIC WORKS – SPECIAL CONDITIONS – MINOR USE PERMIT
138. Access and Circulation. Applicant/Developer shall
provide access and circulation improvements including but
not limited to driveway design, parking layout, pedestrian
and bicycle circulation, drive aisle and removal/replacement
or grinding of damaged and hazardous pavement.
PW Grading Permit,
Sitework Permit,
or Building
Permit Issuance
139. Shared Parking Study. Applicant/Developer shall adhere
to the recommendations and analysis proposed in the
Technical Memorandum: Parking Study for Mixed-Used
PW Ongoing
CONDITION TEXT RESPON.
AGENCY
WHEN REQ’D
Prior to:
Development in Dublin dated September 30, 2019 by
Advanced Mobility Group as it pertains to the Office Building
and Hotel Development. Any subsequent reports or studies
shall be subject to review and approval of the City Traffic
Engineer.
140. Bicycle Parking. Applicant/Developer shall install the bike
lockers and bike racks in accordance with California Green
Building Standards Code requirements. Both short term
and long-term needs shall be provided, and locations of the
bicycle parking shall be subject to the review and approval
of the City Engineer.
PW Grading Permit,
Sitework Permit,
or Building
Permit Issuance
141. Signing and Striping Plan. Applicant/Developer shall
provide a separate signing and striping plan on property
owned by Applicant/Developer showing the sign locations
for the shared parking between the hotel and the office
building. Signs shall include guiding users to garage access
from both the hotel and office building sites.
PW Grading Permit,
Sitework Permit,
or Building
Permit Issuance
PASSED AND ADOPTED BY this 2nd day of June 2020 by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
'()(55('68%0,77$/6),5('(3$570(17'()(55('68%0,66,216 ),5(635,1./(5$33529$/6$5(127,1&/8'('81'(57+,63(50,7%()25(&200(1&,1*$1<:25.217+(635,1./(56<67(03/$160867%(68%0,77('$1'$33529('%<7+(%8,/',1*6$)7(<',9,6,217+(6<67(00867%(,163(&7('$1'$33529('%<%8,/',1*6$)(7<,163(&7,2135,2572$&(57,),&$7(2)2&&83$1&< &$5%210212;,'($/$506 635,1./(56<67(0 6,*1$*(3$&.$*( $1&+257,('2:16<67(07+(³'()(55(',7(066+$//%(68%0,77('727+('(6,*1352)(66,21$/,15(63216,%/(&+$5*(:+26+$//5(9,(:7+(0$1')25:$5'7+(0727+(%8,/',1*2)),&,$/:,7+$127$7,21,1',&$7,1*7+$77+('()(55('68%0,77$/'2&80(176+$9(%((15(9,(:(' )281'72%(,1*(1(5$/&21)250$1&(727+('(6,*12)7+( %8,/',1*:,7+287$1<&255(&7,216´7+('()(55('68%0,77$/,7(066+$//127%(,167$//('817,/7+(%8,/',1*2)),&,$/+$6$33259('7+(,5'(6,*1$1'68%0,77$/'2&80(1767+((1*,1((5 6 5(63216,%/()257+('(6,*12)7+('()(55('68%0,77$/,7(066+$//67$03$1'6,*17+26('5$:,1*6$1'&$/&8/$7,216)25:+,&++(6+(,65(63216,%/( )8//<$8720$7,&),5(635,1./(56<67(0'(6,*1('$1',167$//(',1$&&25'$1&(:,7+&)&6(&7,21 $1'1)3$(',7,21 &/$6667$1'3,3(6<67(0'(6,*1(' ,167$//(',1$&&25'$1&(:,7+&%&6(&7,216 7+528*+ 1)3$(',7,21 &203/(7(),5($/$50$1''(7(&7,216<67(0'(6,*1('$1',167$//(',1$&&25'$1&(:,7+&%&6(&7,216 7+528*+ :+,&+,1&/8'(6$//27+(586(6$1'2&&83$1&<*52836$662&,$7(':,7+7+,6352-(&7 1)3$(',7,2163(&,)<7<3(2)6<67(0 0$18$/25$8720$7,&&20%,1$7,21$8720$7,&0$18$/$/$50 '(7(&7,216<67(0$1'63(&,)<635,1./(5021,725,1*5(48,5(0(176,1$&&25'$1&(:,7+&%& 7+528*+ &21&5(7(0,;'(6,*16 (;7(5,25&/$'',1*$1'9(1((5 0$6215<*5287$1'0257$50,;'(6,*16 35()$%5,&$7(':22'75866(66:,00,1*322/3(50,768%0,77$/ 322/':*6,1&/8',1*$//'(7$,/6$&&(66,%/(&+$,5/,)7322/(48,30(17322/&+(0,&$/6322/6,*1$*( 67$,56+$1'5$,/6*8$5'5$,/6$1'7+(,5&20321(176 6833257$1&+25$*(2)0(&+(/(&7$1'3/80%,1*(48,30(17$1'&20321(176 (/(9$7256$5&+,7(&785(9,//$*(&(17(5&,5&/(68,7(/$69(*$619 7:::'(6,*1&(//&20+27(/'8%/,1%/9''8%/,1&$(17,7/(0(173$&.$*(129(0%(5 6+((7,1'(;&29(56+((7'56,7(3/$16,7('$7$'56,7(6(&7,21'5)/2253/$1 /(9(/'5)/2253/$1 /(9(/'5)/2253/$1 /(9(/'5)/2253/$1 /(9(/'5)/2253/$1 /(9(/'5)/2253/$1 /(9(/'5%8,/',1*(/(9$7,216'5%8,/',1*(/(9$7,216'50$7(5,$/%2$5''5 522)3/$1'5+27(/'9,(:6'5+27(/'9,(:6'5&2'($1$/<6,6'5(*5(663/$1 /(9(/'5(*5(663/$1 /(9(/'5(*5(663/$1 /(9(/'5(*5(663/$1 /(9(/& &29(56+((7& (;,67,1*&21',7,216& 6(&7,216& +25,=217$/&21752/3/$1& 35(/,0,1$5<87,/,7<3/$1& (526,21&21752/3/$1& 67250:$7(548$/,7<&21752/3/$1& $8727851$1$/<6,6/35(/,0,1$5</$1'6&$3(3/$1//$1'6&$3(,0$*(63/$17/(*(1'$1'3/$17,0$*(6/3/$17,0$*(6 681/3/$17,0$*(6 6+$'(
:&$9&$9&$9&$9&$9&$9&$9&$9&$9&$9&$9&$9&$9&$9&$9&$9&$9&$9&$9123$5.,1*123$5.,1*&$9&$9123$5.,1*&$9'5/2$',1*
3523(57</,1(6725<3$5.,1*6758&785($1'6725<+27(/217233$5.,1*/,*+7,1*7<375$6+(1&/2685(6$15$0215''12)),&(%8,/',1*'8%/,1%/9'
),5(758&.5$',86+27(/(175$1&(/2%%<3257(&2&+(5(/,1(2)%8,/',1*29(5+$1*$%29($&&(66,%/(3$7+(;,67,1*%8,/',1*(/(&75,&$/0(&+$1,&$/352326('75$16)250(5352326('*$60(7(5)73$5.,1*29(5+$1*(;,67,1*$&&(6672$'-$&(173523(57<*(1(5$725$&&(66,%/(3$7+
),5($&&(6652$' $33529('$//:($7+(5$&&(66 (;,67,1*75$6+(1&/2685(63$&(6
63$&(6
63$&(6
0$;
'18383
63$&(6
63$&(6
&21&5(7($3521
),5(758&.5$',86758&.',5(&7$&&(66
6+2577(50%,&<&/(3$5.,1*'1'1
'1'1'1=(52&85%'15$036/23(12767(33(57+$1 7<3('*(2)%8,/',1*$&&(66,%/(3$7+'1
3$5&(/$3$5&(/%(;,67,1*/27/,1(2)),&($&&(6667$,5672*$5$*(2)),&($&&(6667$,5672*$5$*(1(:/27/,1( 63$&(6
9,&,1,7<0$3352326('6,7(352-(&76800$5<7+,6352-(&7&216,6762)6,7('(9(/230(17)25 6725<3$5.,1*6758&785($1'6725<.(<6+27(/$%29(,73$5.,1*&$/&8/$7,216+27(/5(48,5('3$5.,1* 67$//663$&(3(5*8(6752203/863(564)72)2)),&(3(564)72)($7,1*$1''5,1.,1*)$&,/,7<$1'3(5(03/2<((217+(/$5*(676+,)7 3(5'8%/,10,1,&,3$/&2'( +27(/ 67$//62)),&(6) 67$//6($7,1* 6) 67$//6(032<((6 67$//6$&&(66,%/(67$//6727$/+27(/3$5.,1*3529,'(' 67$//63$5.,1**$5$*( 67$//6216,7(3$5.,1* 67$//6 +27(/ &203$&7 67$//6$&&(66,%/( 67$//69$1$&&(66,%/( (9&+$5*,1* $&&(66,%/($1'9$1$&&(66,%/(,1&/8'(' &/($1$,59(+,&/( &$9 %,&<&/(3$5.,1*6+2577(50 /21*7(50%,&<&/(63$&(63529,'('(;,67,1*3$5.,1*%()25(,03529(0(17 67$//6',))(5(1&(%(7:((1(;,67,1*$1'352326('67$//6727$/3$5.,1*%27+3$5&(/6 67$//6$&&(66,%/(3$5.,1*&$/&8/$7,21216,7(3$5.,1* 63$&(6 $&&(66,%/(67$//3529,'(' 9$1$&&(66,%/(,1&/8'(' 3$5.,1**$5$*( 63$&(6$&&(66,%/(3$5.,1*63$&(63529,'(' 9$1$&&(66,%/(,1&/8'(' 3$5&(/$ (;,67,1*2)),&(%8,/',1* 727$/3$5.,1*3$5&(/$ 67$//6(;,67,1*67$1'$5' 67$//6(;,67,1*$&&(66,%/( 67$//6&203$&7 67$/63$5&(/%727$/3$5.,1*3$5&(/% 67$//6 6+$5('3$5.,1*$*5((0(17 2)),&(5(48,5('3$5.,1* 67$//6$&&(66,%/(3$5.,1* 67$//6727$/2)),&(3$5.,1*3529,'(' 67$//667$1'$5' 67$//6&203$&7 67$//602725&<&/( 67$//6$&&(66,%/( 67$//69$1$&&(66,%/( 67$//6&/($1$,59(+,&/( &$9 67$//6%,&<&/(/2&.(5 6+2577(50%,.(5$&. $5&+,7(&785(9,//$*(&(17(5&,5&/(/$69(*$619 7:::'(6,*1&(//&2035(/,0,1$5<'(6,*19'5&$0%5,$%<&+2,&(+27(/6'8%/,1%/9''8%/,1&$6725<3$5.,1**$5$*( 6725<+27(/*8(67522066,7(3/$16,7('$7$352-(&7180%(5 1
6,7(3/$16,7(6800$5<'(6&5,37,21 ,1)250$7,215(48,5(0(17 &203/,$1&($31 $''5(66 '8%/,1%/9'-85,6',&7,21 &,7<2)'8%/,1&$=21,1*&/$66,),&$7,21 ''=''2:172:1'8%/,1=21,1*',675,&73/$11('/$1'86( &5(7$,/&200(5&,$/+27(/86($//2:(' <(6 <2)3$5.,1*67$//65(48,5('5()(572&2'()25'(7$,/ <6,=(2)3$5.,1*67$//65(48,5('
[
<0$;%8,/',1*+(,*+7
<),5($&&(665(48,5('
'5,9(:$< <675((76(7%$&.)520'8%/,1%28/(9$5'$1'6$15$02152$'
<675((76(7%$&.)52027+(5675((76
<,17(51$/6(7%$&.
<127( $&78$/%8,/',1*$5($ *5266 +27(/ 3$5.,1**$5$*(%8,/',1* /(9(/ $5($/(9(/ 6)/(9(/ 6)/(9(/ 6)/(9(/ 6)/(9(/ 6)/(9(/ 6)6)$5($&$/&8/$7,2161$0( $5($ 3(5&(17$*(+$5'6&$3( 6) /$1'6&$3( 6) 3$5.,1* 6) 6)
$5&+,7(&785(9,//$*(&(17(5&,5&/(/$69(*$619 7:::'(6,*1&(//&2035(/,0,1$5<'(6,*19'5+27(/'8%/,1%/9''8%/,1&$6725<3$5.,1**$5$*( 6725<+27(/*8(67522066,7(6(&7,21352-(&7180%(5
6,7(6(&7,21
3257( &2&+(5((/(93523(57</,1( 6)0(&+$1,&$/6)(/(&75,&$/ 6)9(67,%8/(6)0(&+$1,&$/6)%,&<&/(672
7<3
7<3
6)*(1(5$7256)3$5.,1**$5$*(
0$;0$;
7<3
9$1$&&(66,%/($&&(66,%/(75$16)250(53$'
7<3
7<3
63$&(6
63$&(6
63$&(6
63$&(6
63$&(6
63$&(6
63$&(6
63$&(6
63$&(6
63$&(6
63$&(6
63$&(6
63$&(6
6)67$,566)75$6+&+87(7<3
6)67$,566)67$,56$5&+,7(&785(9,//$*(&(17(5&,5&/(/$69(*$619 7:::'(6,*1&(//&2035(/,0,1$5<'(6,*1 9'5&$0%5,$%<&+2,&(+27(/6'8%/,1%/9''8%/,1&$6725<3$5.,1**$5$*( 6725<+27(/*8(6752206)/2253/$1/(9(/352-(&7180%(5 1
/(9(/)/2253/$13$5.,1*6&+('8/(/(9(/7<3( &2817
;
&203$&7
;
$&&(66,%/(
;
$&&(66,%/((9&+$5*,1*
;
$&&(66,%/((9&+$5*,1*9$1
;
$&&(66,%/(9$1
;
&/($1$,59$1322/(9
;
(9&+$5*,1*
;
67$1'$5' *5$1'727$/
'123(172%(/2:6)6725$*(6)6725$*( 6)75$6+&+87( 6)322/(48,3
7<3
7<3
63$&(6
63$&(6
63$&(6
63$&(6
63$&(6
63$&(6
63$&(6
63$&(6
63$&(6
63$&(6
63$&(6
63$&(6
63$&(6
63$&(6
63$&(6
63$&(6
7<3
7<3
6)3$.,1**$5$*(
6)67$,566)67$,56$5&+,7(&785(9,//$*(&(17(5&,5&/(/$69(*$619 7:::'(6,*1&(//&2035(/,0,1$5<'(6,*1 9'5&$0%5,$%<&+2,&(+27(/6'8%/,1%/9''8%/,1&$6725<3$5.,1**$5$*( 6725<+27(/*8(6752206)/2253/$1/(9(/352-(&7180%(5 1
3$5.,1**$5$*( /(9(/3$5.,1*6&+('8/(/(9(/7<3( &2817
;
&203$&7
;
$&&(66,%/(
;
&/($1$,59$1322/(9
;
(9&+$5*,1*
;
67$1'$5' *5$1'727$/
':5() 6)),71(66&(17(5 6)*02)),&(6),75220 6)'262)),&(6):25.$5($6)2)),&(6)&+87($&&(66 6)*8(67/$81'5< 6)322/5(6752206)%5($.52206)/$81'5< 6)0((7,1*52206)/,1(167256)&21)(5(1&(52206))81&7,216725$*(6).,7&+(16)75$6+&+87(6):(/&20(/2%%< 6)(/(9/2%%< 6)/281*(5(67$85$176)7(55$&(/281*(6)/2&.(566)(0372,/(76)6725$*( 6)6725$*(6)%(967256)5(6752206)35()81&7,216)/8**$*(6)%$5
6)67$,566)+$1*2876):(/&20('(6.6)0$5.(76)%'50%.$&& 78% 6)678',2.6)678',246)678',246)678',2.6)678',2.6)678',246)678',246)678',2. 6)%'50%.6)678',2.6)678',2.6)678',2.6)678',24$&& 78% 6)%'50%.6)67$,56 6)322/'(&.6)322/6)&,5&8/$7,21$5($6)6725$*(:20(1
65(6752200(1
65(6752206)6726)35()81&7,21$5&+,7(&785(9,//$*(&(17(5&,5&/(/$69(*$619 7:::'(6,*1&(//&2035(/,0,1$5<'(6,*1 9'5&$0%5,$%<&+2,&(+27(/6'8%/,1%/9''8%/,1&$6725<3$5.,1**$5$*( 6725<+27(/*8(6752206)/2253/$1/(9(/352-(&7180%(5
/(9(/)/2253/$11%8,/',1*$5($ *5266 /(9(/ $5($+27(//(9(/ 6)/(9(/ 6)/(9(/ 6)/(9(/ 6)/(9(/ 6) 6)3$5.,1**$5$*(/(9(/ 6)/(9(/ 6)6)727$/$5($ 6)$&(66,%/(81,765220 *8(67522081,77<3( 127(6/(9(/ 678',24$&& 78% 78% %'50%.$&& 78% 78%/(9(/ 678',2.$&& 78% 78%/(9(/ 678',24$&& 78% 78% 678',2.$&& 78% 78%/(9(/ 678',24$&& 52//,16+2:(5 52//,16+2:(5 678',2.$&& 52//,16+2:(5 52//,16+2:(5727$/$&&(66,%/(*8(6752206 81,76:,7+&200)($785(65220 *8(67522081,77<3(/(9(/ %'50%. 678',2. 678',24/(9(/ 678',24 %'50%. 678',2./(9(/ 678',24 %'50%. 678',2./(9(/ 678',24 %'50%. 678',2.727$/*8(6752206:,7+&200)($785(6 29(5$//',675,%87,21*8(67522081,77<3( %('7<3( &2817/(9(/%'50%. .,1*68,7( %'50%. .,1*68,7( %'50%.$&& 78% .,1*68,7( 678',2. .,1* 678',24 48((148((1 678',24$&& 78% 48((148((1 /(9(/ /(9(/%'50%. .,1*68,7( %'50%. .,1*68,7( %'50%. .,1*68,7( %'50%. .,1*68,7( 678',2. .,1* 678',2.$&& 78% .,1* 678',24 48((148((1 678',24 48((148((1 /(9(/ /(9(/%'50%. .,1*68,7( %'50%. .,1*68,7( %'50%. .,1*68,7( %'50%. .,1*68,7( 678',2. .,1* 678',2.$&& 78% .,1* 678',24 48((148((1 678',24$&& 78% 48((148((1 /(9(/ /(9(/%'50%. .,1*68,7( %'50%. .,1*68,7( %'50%. .,1*68,7( %'50%. .,1*68,7( 678',2. .,1* 678',2.$&& 52//,16+2:(5 .,1* 678',24 48((148((1 678',24 48((148((1 678',24$&& 52//,16+2:(5 48((148((1 /(9(/ 727$/*8(6752206 %('7<3(6800$5<*8(675220%('7<3( &2817 3(5&.,1* .,1*68,7( 48((148((1 727$/*8(6752206
6)%'50%.6)678',2.6)678',246)678',246)678',2.6)678',2.6)678',246)678',246)678',2.6)678',2.6)678',2. 6)%'50%.6)678',2.6)678',246)678',246)678',2.$&& 78% 6)678',2.6)678',246)678',246)678',2.6)678',2.6)678',2. 6)%'50%.6)678',2.6)678',246)678',246)678',2.6)678',2.6)678',246)678',246)678',2.6)%'50%.6)678',2.6)678',246)678',246)678',246)678',2.6)678',2.6)678',24 6)/,1(16)6725$*(6)(/(&75,&$/6)7(/'$7$ 6)(/(9/2%%<6)756+6)678',246)%'50%.6)67$,566)67$,56$5&+,7(&785(9,//$*(&(17(5&,5&/(/$69(*$619 7:::'(6,*1&(//&2035(/,0,1$5<'(6,*1 9'5&$0%5,$%<&+2,&(+27(/6'8%/,1%/9''8%/,1&$6725<3$5.,1**$5$*( 6725<+27(/*8(6752206)/2253/$1/(9(/352-(&7180%(5
/(9(/)/2253/$11
6)%'50%.6)678',2.6)678',246)678',246)678',2.6)678',2.6)678',246)678',246)678',2.6)678',2.6)678',2. 6)%'50%.6)678',2.6)678',246)678',246)678',2.$&& 78% 6)678',2.6)678',246)678',246)678',2.6)678',2.6)678',2. 6)%'50%.6)678',2.6)678',246)678',246)678',2.6)678',2.6)678',246)678',246)678',2. 6)%'50%.6)678',2.6)678',246)678',246)678',246)678',2.6)678',2.6)678',246)/,1(16)6725$*(6)(/(&75,&$/6)7(/'$7$ 6)(/(9/2%%<6)756+6)678',24$&& 78% 6)%'50%.6)67$,566)67$,56$5&+,7(&785(9,//$*(&(17(5&,5&/(/$69(*$619 7:::'(6,*1&(//&2035(/,0,1$5<'(6,*1 9'5&$0%5,$%<&+2,&(+27(/6'8%/,1%/9''8%/,1&$6725<3$5.,1**$5$*( 6725<+27(/*8(6752206)/2253/$1/(9(/352-(&7180%(5 1
/(9(/)/2253/$1
6)%'50%.6)678',2.6)678',246)678',246)678',2.6)678',2.6)678',246)678',246)678',2.6)678',2.6)678',2. 6)%'50%.6)678',2.6)678',246)678',246)678',2.$&& 52//,16+2:(5 6)678',2.6)678',246)678',246)678',2.6)678',2.6)678',2. 6)%'50%.6)678',2.6)678',246)678',246)678',2.6)678',2.6)678',246)678',246)678',2. 6)%'50%.6)678',2.6)678',246)678',246)678',246)678',2.6)678',2.6)678',24$&& 52//,16+2:(5 6)/,1(16)6725$*(6)(/(&75,&$/6)7(/'$7$ 6)(/(9/2%%<6)756+6)678',246)%'50%.6)67$,566)67$,56$5&+,7(&785(9,//$*(&(17(5&,5&/(/$69(*$619 7:::'(6,*1&(//&2035(/,0,1$5<'(6,*1 9'5&$0%5,$%<&+2,&(+27(/6'8%/,1%/9''8%/,1&$6725<3$5.,1**$5$*( 6725<+27(/*8(6752206)/2253/$1/(9(/352-(&7180%(5 1
/(9(/)/2253/$1
/(9(/
/(9(/
/(9(/
/(9(/
72522)6+7*
/(9(/
/(9(/
0$;723$5$3(7
723$5$3(7
)&37:337)&)&:3)&)&&21352326('*$60(7(572522)6758&785(
/(9(/
/(9(/
/(9(/
/(9(/
72522)6+7*
/(9(/
/(9(/
723$5$3(7
723$5$3(7
0$;37:3:3)&)&3772522)6758&785(
352326('75$16)250(5723523(57</,1(
)52023(1,1*6(;7(5,25),1,6+/(*(1'3$,17('&21&5(7(60227+'(6,*16+(5:,1:,//,$06 *$817/(7*5$<6: &21(;7(5,256,',1*3$1(/6<67(06$*,3(5 6$*,:$//&+$11(/('5() .1277<0$3/(256,0,/$5:3'(6&5,37,21,'6<0%2/(,)6,17(*5$/&2/253$,17('0(7$/6+(5:,1:,//,$06 7248(:+,7(6:375(9($/3$1(/6<67(0-$0(6+$5',( 3$,17('*$817/(7*5$<6: )&5(9($/3$1(/6<67(0-$0(6+$5',( 3$,17('0,1')8/*5$<6:)&3$,17('$/80,1806725()5217)5$0(6'2256'$5.%521=(07/3$,17('&21&5(7( &089(57,&$/'(6,*16+(5:,1:,//,$06 *$817/(7*5$<6: &21$5&+,7(&785(9,//$*(&(17(5&,5&/(/$69(*$619 7:::'(6,*1&(//&2035(/,0,1$5<'(6,*1 9'5&$0%5,$%<&+2,&(+27(/6'8%/,1%/9''8%/,1&$6725<3$5.,1**$5$*( 6725<+27(/*8(6752206%8,/',1*(/(9$7,216352-(&7180%(5
6287+(/(9$7,21
($67(/(9$7,213527(&7,9(23(1,1*6&$/&8/$7,21),5(6(3(5$7,21',67$1&(
72/(667+$1
0$;,080$//2:$%/($5($2)(;7(5,25:$//23(1,1*6&$/&8/$7('23(1,1*6$5($ 23(1,1*6 6)(;7(5,25:$//6)
/(9(/
/(9(/
/(9(/
/(9(/
72522)6+7*
/(9(/
/(9(/
723$5$3(7
723$5$3(7
7232)522)
0$;37:3)&)&37)&)&)&&21&21:3)&72522)6758&785(
/(9(/
/(9(/
/(9(/
/(9(/
72522)6+7*
/(9(/
/(9(/
723$5$3(7
723$5$3(7
0$;37:3)&&21&21:3)&)&72522)6758&785(
(;7(5,25),1,6+/(*(1'3$,17('&21&5(7(60227+'(6,*16+(5:,1:,//,$06 *$817/(7*5$<6: &21(;7(5,256,',1*3$1(/6<67(06$*,3(5 6$*,:$//&+$11(/('5() .1277<0$3/(256,0,/$5:3'(6&5,37,21,'6<0%2/(,)6,17(*5$/&2/253$,17('0(7$/6+(5:,1:,//,$06 7248(:+,7(6:375(9($/3$1(/6<67(0-$0(6+$5',( 3$,17('*$817/(7*5$<6: )&5(9($/3$1(/6<67(0-$0(6+$5',( 3$,17('0,1')8/*5$<6:)&3$,17('$/80,1806725()5217)5$0(6'2256'$5.%521=(07/3$,17('&21&5(7( &089(57,&$/'(6,*16+(5:,1:,//,$06 *$817/(7*5$<6: &21&07/&08 0(7$/3$,17('720$7&++27(/%8,/',1*127( '(7$,/('(1&/2685(:,//%(3529,'(')253(50,7'5$:,1*6&07/
$5&+,7(&785(9,//$*(&(17(5&,5&/(/$69(*$619 7:::'(6,*1&(//&2035(/,0,1$5<'(6,*1 9'5&$0%5,$%<&+2,&(+27(/6'8%/,1%/9''8%/,1&$6725<3$5.,1**$5$*( 6725<+27(/*8(6752206%8,/',1*(/(9$7,216352-(&7180%(5
:(67(/(9$7,21
1257+(/(9$7,21
1257+75$6+(1&/2685((/(9$7,21
75$6+(1&/2685((/(9$7,21
(,)66+(5:,1:,//,$067248(:+,7(6:37-$0(6+$5',(:$//6,',1*5(9($/3$1(/0,1')8/*5$<6:)&6$*,3(56$*,:$//6,',1*3$1(/&+$11(/352),/(256,0,/$572%25$/6,',1*.1277<0$3/(&2/25:3-$0(6+$5',(:$//6,',1*5(9($/3$1(/6: *$817/(7*5$<)&3$,17('&21&5(7(9(57,&$/'(6,*16: *$817/(7*5$<&$/80,1806725()5217:,1'2:)5$0(6 '$5.%521=(3$,17(''225607/07//(*(1'3$,17('&21&5(7(9(57,&$/'(6,*16: 3$,17('&21&5(7(60227+'(6,*16: )& )&-$0(6+$5',(:$//6,',1*5($9($/3$1(/)& )&)&)&37(,)66+(5:,1:,//,$067248(:+,7(6::36$*,3(56$*,:$//6,',1*3$1(/&+$11(/352),/( 3$1(/$762)),7256,0,/$572%25$/6,'(3$1(/.1277<0$3/(&2/25:3$/80,1806725()5217:,1'2:)5$0(6 '$5.%521=(3$,17(''225607/07/6: &21&213$,17('&21&5(7(60227+'(6,*16: *$817/(7*5$<&&21 &216:6: 6:)&37:3)&)&:3)&)&&21&63$5&+,7(&785(9,//$*(&(17(5&,5&/(/$69(*$619 7:::'(6,*1&(//&2035(/,0,1$5<'(6,*1 9'5&$0%5,$%<&+2,&(+27(/6'8%/,1%/9''8%/,1&$6725<3$5.,1**$5$*( 6725<+27(/*8(67522060$7(5,$/%2$5'352-(&7180%(5
6287+(/(9$7,21
62/$5=21( 2)522)$5($ 62/$5=21( 2)522)$5($ 75(//,63(5'())(5('68%0,77$/$5&+,7(&785(9,//$*(&(17(5&,5&/(/$69(*$619 7:::'(6,*1&(//&2035(/,0,1$5<'(6,*1 9'5&$0%5,$%<&+2,&(+27(/6'8%/,1%/9''8%/,1&$6725<3$5.,1**$5$*( 6725<+27(/*8(6752206522)3/$1352-(&7180%(5
522)3/$1
$5&+,7(&785(9,//$*(&(17(5&,5&/(/$69(*$619 7:::'(6,*1&(//&2035(/,0,1$5<'(6,*1 9'5&$0%5,$%<&+2,&(+27(/6'8%/,1%/9''8%/,1&$6725<3$5.,1**$5$*( 6725<+27(/*8(6752206+27(/'9,(:6352-(&7180%(5 '6287+:(679,(:'($679,(:
$5&+,7(&785(9,//$*(&(17(5&,5&/(/$69(*$619 7:::'(6,*1&(//&2035(/,0,1$5<'(6,*1 9'5&$0%5,$%<&+2,&(+27(/6'8%/,1%/9''8%/,1&$6725<3$5.,1**$5$*( 6725<+27(/*8(6752206+27(/'9,(:6352-(&7180%(5 ':(679,(:'1257+9,(:
7+,6352-(&7,6$6725<3$5.,1**$5$*($1'6725<+27(/217235220+27(/:,7+6,7(,03529(0(176,1&/8',1*75$6+(1&/2685($1'/$1'6&$3,1*352-(&7'(6&5,37,21352-(&7'$7$&%&$//2:$%/(%8,/',1*+(,*+77<3(,$81/,0,7('7<3(,,,$:,7+$1$8720$7,&635,1./(56<67(0 $$%56
3(5&%&7$%/(
3(5'2:172:1'8%/,163(&,),&3/$1 75$16,725,(17('',675,&7 $&78$/
522)685)$&( &%&&+$37(56 $ $66(0%/<$ $66(0%/<%%86,1(665 +27(/ 75$16,(17 6 6725$*(66725$*( 3$5.,1**$5$*( /(9(/0,;('2&&83$1&< &%& $ 6$5(6(3$5$7('2&&83$1&,(6 &%& $1',66(3$5$7('%<$:$//$66(0%/<&203/<,1*:,7+&%&7$%/($1'&%&/(9(/ 66,1*/(2&&83$1&< &%& /(9(/0,;('2&&83$1&< &%& $$% 6$5(1216(3$5$7('2&&83$1&,(6 &%& 5,6$6(3$5$7('2&&83$1&< &%& $1',66(3$5$7('%<$:$//$66(0%/<&203/<,1*:,7+&%&7$%/($1'&%&/(9(/6 56,1*/(2&&83$1&< &%& /(9(/ ,66(3$5$7(')520833(5/(9(/6%<$+25,=217$/$66(0%/<&203/<,1*:,7+&%&3(5&%&6(&7,21%8,/',1*66(3$5$7('%<+25,=217$/6(3$5$7,212)+$5(&216,'(5('6(3$5$7()257+(385326('(7(0,1,1*180%(52)6725,(6&%&$//2:$%/(180%(52)6725,(6 7<3(,,,$:,7+$1$8720$7,&635,1./(56<67(0 7<3(,,,$ $$ 6725,(67<3(,,,$ % 6725,(67<3(,,,$ 56725,(67<3(,$ 681/,0,7('$&78$/ 7<3(,$ 62&&83$1&< 6725,(67<3(,,,$ $2&&83$1&< 6725<7<3(,,,$ 52&&83$1&< 6725,(6&%&$//2:$%/($5($'(7(50,1$7,21 7<3(,,,$:,7+$1$8720$7,&635,1./(56<67(0 $$ 6)/(9(/% 6)/(9(/5 6)/(9(/6 6)/(9(/&%&0,;('2&&83$1&<08/7,6725<%8,/',1* 727$/%8,/',1*$5($6+$//%(68&+7+$77+($**5(*$7(6802)7+(5$7,262)7+($&78$/$5($2)($&+6725<',9,'('%<7+($//2:$%/($5($2)68&+6725,(66+$//127(;&(('/(9(/ 6)6) 02675(675,&7,9( /(9(/ 6)6) /(9(/ 6)6) /(9(/ 6)6) 680 &%&$//2:$%/(%8,/',1*$5($2)6(3$5$7('2&&83$1&,(6 ,1($&+6725<7+(%8,/',1*$5($6+$//%(68&+7+$77+(6802)7+(5$7,262)7+($&78$/%8,/',1*$5($2)($&+6(3$5$7('2&&83$1&<',9,'('%<7+($//2:$%/(%8,/',1*$5($2)($&+6(3$5$7('2&&83$1&<6+$//127(;&(('&%& 1)3$&%& 1)3$&%& 1)3$2&&83$1&<&/$66,),&$7,21%8,/',1*+(,*+7$//2:$%/(%8,/',1*$5($%8,/',1*6725,(6/(9(/6 $$5(6(3$5$7('2&&83$1&,(6%<$),5(3$57,7,21 &%& /(9(/66,1*/(2&&83$1&<%8,/',1*$/(9(/$$% 5$5(0,;('2&&83$1&,(6$$%$5(1216(3(5$7('2&&83$1&,(65,66(3$5$7(')52027+(52&&83$1&,(6%<$),5(3$57,7,21 &%& /(9(/&216,6762)56,1*/(2&&83$1&<3(5&%& %8,/',1*%3(5&%&6(&7,21%8,/',1*66(3$5$7('%<+25,=217$/6(3$5$7,212)+$5(&216,'(5('6(3$5$7()257+(385326('(7(0,1,1*$5($/,0,7$7,21663$&(65(48,5,1*),5(5(6,67$1&(5$7('6(3$5$7,21 $5($6(3$5$7,21 +5 ),5(:$//3(5&%&6+$)7(1&/2685(6 +5 ),5(%$55,(53(5&%&(/(9$7256+$)7&216758&7,21 +5 ),5(%$55,(53(5&%&67$,5(1&/2685(&216758&7,21 +5 ),5(%$55,(53(5&%&/$81'5<&+87(6+$)7(1&/2685( +5 ),5(%$55,(53(5&%&/$81'5<&+87($&&(665220 +5 ),5(%$55,(53(5&%&/$81'5<&+87(',6&+$5*(5220 +5 ),5(%$55,(53(5&%&2&&83$1&<6(3$5$7,21 5$$6 % +5 ),5(%$55,(53(5&%& 7$%/(':(//,1*256/((3,1*81,76(3$5$7,21 +5 ),5(3$57,7,213(5&%&&255,'256 +5 ),5(3$57,7,213(5&%&+25,=217$/$66(0%/,(6 +5 3(5&%&(/(9$7250$&+,1(5220 +5 3(5&%&(;&(37,21&%&0$;,080$5($2)(;7(5,25:$//23(1,1*6'8(72/2&$7,21213523(57< )772/(667+$1)7 813527(&7('635,1./(5(' )772/(667+$1)7 813527(&7('635,1./(5(' )772/(667+$1)7 813527(&7('635,1./(5(' (;,7',6&+$5*((;,766+$//',6&+$5*(',5(&7/<727+((;7(5,252)7+(%8,/',1*7+((;,7',6&+$5*(6+$//%($7*5$'(256+$//3529,'($',5(&73$7+2)(*5(6675$9(/72*5$'(7+((;,7',6&+$5*(6+$//1275((17(5$%8,/',1*(;&(37,216 127025(7+$13(5&(172)7+(180%(5$1'0,1,080:,'7+255(48,5('&$3$&,7<2),17(5,25(;,767$,5:$<6$1'5$036,63(50,77('72(*5(667+528*+$5($6217+(/(9(/2)',6&+$5*(3529,'('$//2)7+()2//2:,1*&21',7,216$5(0(7 ',6&+$5*(2),17(5,25(;,767$,5:$<6$1'5$0366+$//%(3529,'(':,7+$)5(($1'812%6758&7('3$7+2)75$9(/72$1(;7(5,25(;,7'225$1'68&+(;,7,65($',/<9,6,%/($1','(17,),$%/()5207+(32,172)7(50,1$7,212)7+((1&/2685(7+((17,5($5($2)7+(/(9(/2)(;,7',6&+$5*(,66(3$5$7(')520$5($6%(/2:%<&216758&7,21&21)250,1*727+(),5(5(6,67$1&(5$7,1*)257+((1&/2685(7+((*5(663$7+)5207+(,17(5,25(;,767$,5:$<$1'5$03217+(/(9(/2)(;,7',6&+$5*(,63527(&7('7+528*+287%<$1$33529('$8720$7,&635,1./(56<67(03257,2162)7+(/(9(/2)(;,7',6&+$5*(:,7+$&&(66727+((*5(663$7+6+$//%((,7+(5(48,33('7+528*+287:,7+$1$8720$7,&635,1./(56<67(0,167$//(',1$&&25'$1&(:,7+6(&7,21 25 256(3$5$7(')5207+((*5(663$7+,1$&&25'$1&(:,7+7+(5(48,5(0(176)257+((1&/2685(2),17(5,25(;,767$,5:$<6255$036&%&&+$37(5),5(3527(&7,21)($785(67<3(2)&216758&7,21 +27(/ ,,,$3$5.,1**$5$*( ,$&%&7$%/(6 ),5(5(6,67$1&(5$7,1*5(48,5(')25%8,/',1*(/(0(176 +27(/ ,,,$ 3$5.,1**$5$*( ,$ 35,0$5<6758&785$/)5$0( +5+5%($5,1*:$//6 (;7(5,25 +5+5%($5,1*:$//6 ,17(5,25 +5+5121%($5,1*(;7(5,25:$//6 ; +5+5121%($5,1*(;7(5,25:$//6 ; +5+5121%($5,1*(;7(5,25:$//6 ; +5+5121%($5,1*,17(5,25:$//6 +5+5)/225&216758&7,21 +5+5522)&216758&7,21 +5 +5&%&&+$37(57<3(2)&216758&7,21$5&+,7(&785(9,//$*(&(17(5&,5&/(/$69(*$619 7:::'(6,*1&(//&2035(/,0,1$5<'(6,*1 9'5&$0%5,$%<&+2,&(+27(/6'8%/,1%/9''8%/,1&$6725<3$5.,1**$5$*( 6725<+27(/*8(6752206&2'($1$/<6,6352-(&7180%(5 %8,/',1*$5($ *5266 /(9(/ $5($+27(//(9(/ 6)/(9(/ 6)/(9(/ 6)/(9(/ 6)/(9(/ 6) 6)3$5.,1**$5$*(/(9(/ 6)/(9(/ 6)6)727$/$5($ 6)3/80%,1*),;785(6&$/&8/$7,21&3&7$%/(180%(5 1$0(2&&83$17/2$':$7(5&/26(7685,1$/6 0$/( /$9$725,(6'5,1.,1*)2817$,160$/( )(0$/( 0$/( )(0$/(&3&$$VVHPEO\ UHVWDXUDQWVSXEVORXQJHVQLJKWFOXEVDQGEDQTXHWKDOOV /281*(5(67$85$17 %$5 +$1*287 &3&$$VVHPEO\ W\SLFDOZLWKRXWIL[HGRUSHUPDQHWVHDWLQJ LQGRRUSRROV 322/ &3&$$VVHPEO\ FRQIHUHQFHURRPVGLQLQJURRPVJ\PQDVLXPVORXQJHVUHVWDXUDQWV ),71(66&(17(5 &21)(5(1&(5220 0((7,1*5220 7(55$&(/281*( 322/'(&. &3&%%XVLQHVV .,7&+(1 *02)),&( 2)),&( '262)),&( :25.$5($ *8(67/$81'5< %5($.5220 /$81'5< :(/&20(/2%%< 0$5.(7 :(/&20('(6. &3&666WRUDJH ,75220 /,1(1 6725$*( (/(&75,&$/ 7(/'$7$ /,1(16725 )81&7,216725$*( 6725$*( 6725$*( (/(&75,&$/ 6725$*( 756+ /8**$*( 6725$*( %(96725 0(&+$1,&$/ %,&<&/(672 *(1(5$725 /,1(1 6725$*( (/(&75,&$/ 7(/'$7$ 756+ /,1(1 6725$*( (/(&75,&$/ 7(/'$7$ 756+ 6725$*( 672 727$/ )5$&7,21 727$/3529,'(' 727$/5(48,5(' 3529,'(' 81,7 81,7 81,7 5(48,5(' 81,7 81,7 81,7 :$7(5&/26(76 78%256+2:(5 /$9$725,(6'5,1.,1*)2817$,163/80%,1*),;785(6 *8(6752206 &3&7$%/(
838383833257( &2&+(5((/(9 6)0(&+$1,&$/6)(/(&75,&$/ 6)9(67,%8/(6)0(&+$1,&$/6)%,&<&/(6726)3$5.,1**$5$*(6)75$6+&+87(
0$;,08075$9(/',67$1&(72(;,7
5(4'
$&78$/5(4'$&78$/(;,7'225
5(4'
$&78$/5(4'$&78$/(;,767$,56
5(4'
$&78$/5(4'$&78$/(;,7'2256
5(4'
$&78$/5(4'$&78$/(;,7'2256
5(4'
$&78$/5(4'$&78$/(;,767$,56
5(4'
$&78$/5(4'$&78$/(;,7'225
5(4'
$&78$/5(4'$&78$/(;,7'225
5(4'
$&78$/5(4'$&78$/(;,767$,566)*(1(5$725$&&(66,%/(5287(6(('5)25&217,18$7,21$&&(66,%/(0($12)(*5(667238%/,&:$<$&&(66,%/(0($12)(*5(667238%/,&:$<(*5(663/$1/(*(1'52201$0(
5(4'
$&78$/5(4'$&78$/(;,7'2256) 52201$0(5220180%(52&&83$17/2$' 0$;180%(52)2&&83$176 648$5()227$*(2)52202&&83$17/2$')$&725 &%&7$%/( (;,7180%(5(*5(66&$3$&,7<)$&7253(52&&83$17 )2567$,5:$<6 &%&(;&(3 )2527+(56 &%&(;&(3 0,15(48,5('(*5(66:,'7+ &$/&8/$7(' $&78$/3529,'('(*5(66:,'7+$&78$/2&&83$17/2$'$&78$/3529,'('2&&83$17/2$'),5((;7,1*8,6+(5&$%,1(7)(&',5(&7,212)(;,775$9(/3$7+2)(;,775$9(/180%(52)2&&83$176(;,7,1*727$/180%(52)2&&83$176(;,7,1*7+528*+7+((;,75287()25$&&(66,%/(3$7+2)75$9(/)5207+(%8,/',1*7238%/,&5,*+72):$<(*5(66$1$/<6,6 &%& 0$;,080',67$1&(2)75$9(/72(;7,1*8,6+(5
&%&'($'(1'&255,'256,1*5283$6+$//127(;&((')((7&%&(;&(37,21'($'(1'&255,'256,1*52836%566+$//127(;&((')((7&%&%$//38%/,&(175$1&(6$1'(;7(5,25*5281')/225(;,766+$//%($&&(66,%/('(6&5,37,213529,'('5(48,5('
0$; $5 62&& &%&(;,7$&&(6675$9(/',67$1&(
$7/(9(/
$77<3/(9(/60,1&%&&255,'25:,'7+ 7<30,1&%&67$,5:$<:,'7+ 7<30,1&%&'225:,'7+ 6(((*5(663/$16
0$; $ 52&& &%&7$%/(&200213$7+2)(*5(6675$9(/',67$1&(
$7/(9(/ %('5220.% &%&180%(52)(;,76$7/(9(/)520+27(/$7/(9(/)5203$5.,1**$5$*($7/(9(/$7/(9(/$77<3/(9(/6
0$; 62&&
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
/(9(/)/2253/$11
'1'18383'183'123(172%(/2:6)6725$*( 6)6725$*( 6)75$6+&+87( 6)322/(48,36)3$.,1**$5$*(
5(4'
$&78$/5(4'$&78$/(;,7'225
5(4'
$&78$/5(4'$&78$/(;,767$,56
5(4'
$&78$/5(4'$&78$/(;,7'225
5(4'
$&78$/5(4'$&78$/(;,767$,5667$,56(*5(663/$1/(*(1'52201$0(
5(4'
$&78$/5(4'$&78$/(;,7'2256) 52201$0(5220180%(52&&83$17/2$' 0$;180%(52)2&&83$176 648$5()227$*(2)52202&&83$17/2$')$&725 &%&7$%/( (;,7180%(5(*5(66&$3$&,7<)$&7253(52&&83$17 )2567$,5:$<6 &%&(;&(3 )2527+(56 &%&(;&(3 0,15(48,5('(*5(66:,'7+ &$/&8/$7(' $&78$/3529,'('(*5(66:,'7+$&78$/2&&83$17/2$'$&78$/3529,'('2&&83$17/2$'),5((;7,1*8,6+(5&$%,1(7)(&',5(&7,212)(;,775$9(/3$7+2)(;,775$9(/180%(52)2&&83$176(;,7,1*727$/180%(52)2&&83$176(;,7,1*7+528*+7+((;,75287()25$&&(66,%/(3$7+2)75$9(/)5207+(%8,/',1*7238%/,&5,*+72):$<(*5(66$1$/<6,6 &%& 0$;,080',67$1&(2)75$9(/72(;7,1*8,6+(5
&%&'($'(1'&255,'256,1*5283$6+$//127(;&((')((7&%&(;&(37,21'($'(1'&255,'256,1*52836%566+$//127(;&((')((7&%&%$//38%/,&(175$1&(6$1'(;7(5,25*5281')/225(;,766+$//%($&&(66,%/('(6&5,37,213529,'('5(48,5('
0$; $5 62&& &%&(;,7$&&(6675$9(/',67$1&(
$7/(9(/
$77<3/(9(/60,1&%&&255,'25:,'7+ 7<30,1&%&67$,5:$<:,'7+ 7<30,1&%&'225:,'7+ 6(((*5(663/$16
0$; $ 52&& &%&7$%/(&200213$7+2)(*5(6675$9(/',67$1&(
$7/(9(/ %('5220.% &%&180%(52)(;,76$7/(9(/)520+27(/$7/(9(/)5203$5.,1**$5$*($7/(9(/$7/(9(/$77<3/(9(/6
0$; 62&&
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
3$5.,1**$5$*( /(9(/1
':5()'183'1 83'1'1'1 6)),71(66&(17(5 6)*02)),&(6),75220 6)'262)),&(6) :25.$5($6)2)),&(6)&+87($&&(66 6)*8(67/$81'5<322/5(6752206)%5($.52206)/$81'5< 6)0((7,1*52206)/,1(167256) &21)(5(1&(52206))81&7,216725$*(6).,7&+(16)678',2.6)678',246)678',246)678',2.6)678',2.6)678',246)678',246)678',2.6)%'50%.6)678',24$&& 78% 6)678',2.6)678',2.6)678',2. 6)%'50%.6)75$6+&+87(6):(/&20(/2%%<(/(9/2%%< 6) /281*(5(67$85$1735()81&7,216) 7(55$&(/281*(6)322//2&.(56(0372,/(76)6725$*( 6)6725$*(6)%(967256)%'50%.$&& 78% 5(67522035()81&7,216)/8**$*(6)%$56)0$5.(76):(/&20('(6.6) +$1*287 6)322/'(&.
',$*21$/',67$1&(
0,16(3$5$7,21',67$1&(
5(4'
$&78$/5(4'$&78$/(;,7'225
5(4'
$&78$/5(4'$&78$/(;,767$,56
5(4'
$&78$/5(4'$&78$/(;,7'225
5(4'
$&78$/5(4'$&78$/(;,767$,56
',$*21$/',67$1&(
0,16(3$5$7,21',67$1&(
5(4'
$&78$/5(4'$&78$/(;,767$,56(;,7$&&(66)520+27(/)5207(55$&( )520322/&,5&8/$7,21$5($6) 6725$*(6)672(*5(66$1$/<6,6 &%& 0$;,080',67$1&(2)75$9(/72(;7,1*8,6+(5
&%&'($'(1'&255,'256,1*5283$6+$//127(;&((')((7&%&(;&(37,21'($'(1'&255,'256,1*52836%566+$//127(;&((')((7&%&%$//38%/,&(175$1&(6$1'(;7(5,25*5281')/225(;,766+$//%($&&(66,%/('(6&5,37,21 3529,'('5(48,5('
0$; $5 62&& &%&(;,7$&&(6675$9(/',67$1&(
$7/(9(/
$77<3/(9(/60,1&%&&255,'25:,'7+7<30,1&%&67$,5:$<:,'7+7<30,1&%&'225:,'7+6(((*5(663/$16
0$; $ 52&& &%&7$%/(&200213$7+2)(*5(6675$9(/',67$1&(
$7/(9(/ %('5220.% &%&180%(52)(;,76 $7/(9(/)520+27(/$7/(9(/)5203$5.,1**$5$*($7/(9(/$7/(9(/$77<3/(9(/6
0$; 62&&
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
5(4'
$&78$/5(4'$&78$/(;,7'2256) 52201$0(5220180%(52&&83$17/2$' 0$;180%(52)2&&83$176 648$5()227$*(2)52202&&83$17/2$')$&725 &%&7$%/( (;,7180%(5(*5(66&$3$&,7<)$&7253(52&&83$17 )2567$,5:$<6 &%&(;&(3 )2527+(56 &%&(;&(3 0,15(48,5('(*5(66:,'7+ &$/&8/$7(' $&78$/3529,'('(*5(66:,'7+$&78$/2&&83$17/2$'$&78$/3529,'('2&&83$17/2$'),5((;7,1*8,6+(5&$%,1(7)(&',5(&7,212)(;,775$9(/3$7+2)(;,775$9(/180%(52)2&&83$176(;,7,1*727$/180%(52)2&&83$176(;,7,1*7+528*+7+((;,75287()25$&&(66,%/(3$7+2)75$9(/)5207+(%8,/',1*7238%/,&5,*+72):$<2&&83$1&</(*(1'6<0%2/$ $66(0%/<'(6&5,37,21$ $66(0%/<$ $66(0%/<% %86,1(665 5(6,'(17,$/6 6725$*(6 6725$*(6<0%2/ '(6&5,37,21$&&(6625<$5&+,7(&785(9,//$*(&(17(5&,5&/(/$69(*$619 7:::'(6,*1&(//&2035(/,0,1$5<'(6,*1 9'5&$0%5,$%<&+2,&(+27(/6'8%/,1%/9''8%/,1&$6725<3$5.,1**$5$*( 6725<+27(/*8(6752206(*5(663/$1/(9(/352-(&7180%(5
/(9(/)/2253/$11
83'183'1 6)%'50%.6)678',2.6)678',246)678',246)678',2.6)678',2.6)678',246)678',246)678',2.6)678',2.6)678',2. 6)%'50%.6)678',2.6)678',246)678',24 6)678',2.$&& 78% 6)678',2.6)678',246)678',24 6)678',2.6)678',2.6)678',2. 6)%'50%.6)678',2.6)678',246)678',246)678',2.6)678',2.6)678',246)678',246)678',2.6)%'50%.6)678',2.6)678',246)678',246)678',246)678',2.6)678',2.6)678',24 6)/,1(16)6725$*(6)(/(&75,&$/6)7(/'$7$(/(9/2%%<6)756+6)678',24 6)%'50%.
0$;,08075$9(/',67$1&(72(;,7
5(4'
$&78$/5(4'$&78$/(;,7'225
5(4'
$&78$/5(4'$&78$/(;,767$,56
5(4'
$&78$/ 5(4'$&78$/(;,7'225
5(4'
$&78$/ 5(4'$&78$/(;,767$,56(*5(663/$1/(*(1'52201$0(
5(4'
$&78$/5(4'$&78$/(;,7'2256) 52201$0(5220180%(52&&83$17/2$' 0$;180%(52)2&&83$176 648$5()227$*(2)52202&&83$17/2$')$&725 &%&7$%/( (;,7180%(5(*5(66&$3$&,7<)$&7253(52&&83$17 )2567$,5:$<6 &%&(;&(3 )2527+(56 &%&(;&(3 0,15(48,5('(*5(66:,'7+ &$/&8/$7(' $&78$/3529,'('(*5(66:,'7+$&78$/2&&83$17/2$'$&78$/3529,'('2&&83$17/2$'),5((;7,1*8,6+(5&$%,1(7)(&',5(&7,212)(;,775$9(/3$7+2)(;,775$9(/180%(52)2&&83$176(;,7,1*727$/180%(52)2&&83$176(;,7,1*7+528*+7+((;,75287()25$&&(66,%/(3$7+2)75$9(/)5207+(%8,/',1*7238%/,&5,*+72):$<(*5(66$1$/<6,6 &%& 0$;,080',67$1&(2)75$9(/72(;7,1*8,6+(5
&%&'($'(1'&255,'256,1*5283$6+$//127(;&((')((7&%&(;&(37,21'($'(1'&255,'256,1*52836%566+$//127(;&((')((7&%&%$//38%/,&(175$1&(6$1'(;7(5,25*5281')/225(;,766+$//%($&&(66,%/('(6&5,37,21 3529,'('5(48,5('
0$; $5 62&& &%&(;,7$&&(6675$9(/',67$1&(
$7/(9(/
$77<3/(9(/60,1&%&&255,'25:,'7+7<30,1&%&67$,5:$<:,'7+7<30,1&%&'225:,'7+6(((*5(663/$16
0$; $ 52&& &%&7$%/(&200213$7+2)(*5(6675$9(/',67$1&(
$7/(9(/ %('5220.% &%&180%(52)(;,76 $7/(9(/)520+27(/$7/(9(/)5203$5.,1**$5$*($7/(9(/$7/(9(/$77<3/(9(/6
0$; 62&&
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
(*5(663/$1 /(9(/61
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
129(0%(5 2)6+((766+((7'$7(6&$/('(6,*1(5-2%12 $125(9,6,21 12%<5(9,6,21 %<58%,&$13523(57<*5283//& '8%/,1%/9'=6'8%/,1&$/,)251,$)252)'5$)7(5 67$))$66+2:1$6(&7,21&7<3,&$/6(&7,216%6(&7,21&6(&7,21'6(&7,21
129(0%(5 2)6+((766+((7'$7(6&$/('(6,*1(5-2%12 $125(9,6,21 12%<5(9,6,21 %<58%,&$13523(57<*5283//& '8%/,1%/9'=6'8%/,1&$/,)251,$)252)'5$)7(5 67$))$66+2:1/(*(1'127(6&7232*5$3+,&6859(<127( 7+,66,7(+$6),%(5237,&/,1(6/2&$7('2125$'-$&(1772,7&$/75$165,*+72):$<&$/75$165,*+72):$<
&+25,=217$/&21752/3/$1129(0%(5 2)6+((766+((7'$7(6&$/('(6,*1(5-2%12 $125(9,6,21 12%<5(9,6,21 %<58%,&$13523(57<*5283//& '8%/,1%/9'=6'8%/,1&$/,)251,$)252)'5$)7(5 67$))$66+2:1
129(0%(5 2)6+((766+((7'$7(6&$/('(6,*1(5-2%12 $125(9,6,21 12%<5(9,6,21 %<58%,&$13523(57<*5283//& '8%/,1%/9'=6'8%/,1&$/,)251,$)252)'5$)7(5 67$))$66+2:1/(*(1'&35(/,0,1$5<*5$',1*$1''5$,1$*(3/$1
129(0%(5 2)6+((766+((7'$7(6&$/('(6,*1(5-2%12 $125(9,6,21 12%<5(9,6,21 %<58%,&$13523(57<*5283//& '8%/,1%/9'=6'8%/,1&$/,)251,$)252)'5$)7(5 67$))$66+2:1$'(7$,/&35(/,0,1$5<87,/,7<3/$1/(*(1'
129(0%(5 2)6+((766+((7'$7(6&$/('(6,*1(5-2%12 $125(9,6,21 12%<5(9,6,21 %<58%,&$13523(57<*5283//& '8%/,1%/9'=6'8%/,1&$/,)251,$)252)'5$)7(5 67$))$66+2:1&/(*(1'67$%,/,=('&216758&7,21(175$1&(675$::$77/(6(',0(1775$3),/7(5'523,1/(76(',0(17),/7(587,/,=,1*52&.%$55,(5%$*6(;,67,1*&85%,1/(7),/7(5'(7$,/&21752/0($685(6(526,21 6(',0(17(526,21&21752/3/$1
129(0%(5 2)6+((766+((7'$7(6&$/('(6,*1(5-2%12 $125(9,6,21 12%<5(9,6,21 %<58%,&$13523(57<*5283//& '8%/,1%/9'=6'8%/,1&$/,)251,$)252)'5$)7(5 67$))$66+2:1&&/($1%$<%/8(35,17
129(0%(5 2)6+((766+((7'$7(6&$/('(6,*1(5-2%12 $125(9,6,21 12%<5(9,6,21 %<58%,&$13523(57<*5283//& '8%/,1%/9'=6'8%/,1&$/,)251,$)252)'5$)7(5 67$))$66+2:1& 67250:$7(548$/,7<&21752/3/$17<3,&$/75($70(173/$17(56(&7,21/(*(1''0$67250:$7(5&21752/127(66285&(&21752/ 6,7('(6,*10($685(67&0Refer to Sheet C5 for limit of work for thehotel
129(0%(5 2)6+((766+((7'$7(6&$/('(6,*1(5-2%12 $125(9,6,21 12%<5(9,6,21 %<58%,&$13523(57<*5283//& '8%/,1%/9'=6'8%/,1&$/,)251,$)252)'5$)7(5 67$))$66+2:1&+27(/$8727851$1$/<6,6
Technical Memorandum
Advanced Mobility Group | 3003 Oak Road, Suite 100, Walnut Creek, Ca. 94596
www.amobility.com
To:
Kameron Klotz
Director of Investments & Acquisitions
Rubicon Property Group
From:
Christopher Thnay, PE, AICP &
Shruti Shrivastava
Address: 1840 San Miguel Drive, Suite 206
Walnut Creek, CA 94596
Email: kameron@rubiconpg.com Date: September 30, 2019
Subject: Parking Study for Mixed-Used Development in Dublin
Introduction
The purpose of the study is to conduct a parking demand estimate for the proposed mixed-use
project being developed at the southeast quadrant of the intersection of San Ramon Road and
Dublin Boulevard as shown in Figure 1. The proposed project with three land use options includes
a hotel, office, retail and restaurant.
Schematic of the project site in aerial
view is shown Figure 2.
Project Area
The project site is located at the southeast
quadrant of the intersection of Dublin
Boulevard and San Ramon Road. This site
is approximately 0.5 miles (10-12-minute
walk) from West Dublin BART Station.
Transit Services
Route 30R transit service stop provided
by the Livermore Amador Valley Transit Authority (LAVTA) is located near the intersection of
Dublin Boulevard/Golden Gate
Drive as shown in Figure 3 which
is approximately 0.4 miles (8-
minute walk) from the project
site.
The 30R (Rapid) provides service
every 15-minutes all day on
weekdays to the following
locations: East and West Dublin
BART, Dublin Boulevard, Las
Positas College, Portola Avenue,
on Railroad Avenue adjacent to the Livermore Transit Center/ACE, and East Avenue. Additionally,
Route 503 transit stops are present at the intersection of Dublin Boulevard/Donlon Way,
Figure 1: Project Vicinity
Figure 2: Project Site
September 30, 2019
Kameron Klotz
Page 2 of 11
approximately 0.1 miles (3-minute walk) from the project site. There are several commercial and
retail land uses within the vicinity of the project.
San Ramon Road connects to Interstate I-580 south of Dublin Boulevard and the project area.
Project Options
Three land use options or phasing are proposed for
the project and are summarized below and shown in
Table 1.
The purpose of the land use options are as follows:
Option 1 is the proposed project as submitted in
the two SDRs.
Option 2 removes the Hooter's building and
associated parking field. The idea here is that if
the office building and the hotel provide enough
parking to satisfy those two uses, then the
development of the Hooter’s portion would not be
required to consider shared parking.
Option 3 is the pre-application project with the demolition of Hooter’s and addition of pads
totaling 8,000 square feet building on the site.
Table 1: Proposed Land Use Options
Land Use Quantity (sf) ITE
1 Retail 5,000 ITE 850
2 Restaurant 4,000 ITE 932
3 Fitness 5,000 ITE 492
4 Restaurant 5,065 ITE 932
5 Hotel-Business 138 (rm) ITE 312
6 Office 63,562 ITE 701
Total Parking Provided 351
Land Use Quantity (sf) ITE
1 Retail 5,000 ITE 850
2 Restaurant 4,000 ITE 932
3 Fitness 5,000 ITE 492
4 Hotel-Business 138 (rm) ITE 312
5 Office 63,562 ITE 701
Total Parking Provided 280
Land Use Quantity (sf) ITE
1 Retail 5,000 ITE 850
2 Restaurant 4,000 ITE 932
3 Fitness 5,000 ITE 492
4 Retail-pad 3,000 ITE 850
5 Restaurant-pad 2,500 ITE 932
6 Restaurant - pad BOH 2,500 ITE 932
7 Hotel-Business 138 (rm) ITE 312
8 Office 63,562 ITE 701
Total Parking Provided 360
Option 1
Option 2
Option 3
Figure 3: Bus Route 30R Stop Locations
September 30, 2019
Kameron Klotz
Page 3 of 11
Parking Spaces Required Per City of Dublin Municipal Code
AMG estimated the number of parking spaces required for the proposed project per the City of
Dublin’s Municipal Code, Chapter 8.76 Off-Street Parking and Loading Regulations, Section
8.76.080 Parking Requirements by Use Type. Tables 2, 3 and 4 summarize the estimated
parking spaces required under Options 1,2 and 3 of the proposed projects.
Table 2: Parking Spaces Required per City Standards for Option 1
Table 3: Parking Spaces Required per City Standards for Option 2
Land Use Quantity Unit
1 Retail 5,000 sf GFA 17
2 Restaurant 4,000 sf GFA 20
3 Fitness 5,000 sf GFA 33
4 Restaurant 5,065 sf GFA 25
5 Hotel-Business 138 rooms 165
6 Office 63,562 sf GFA 182
442Total
Project Data Estimated
Parking
Land Use Quantity Unit
1 Retail 5,000 sf GFA 17
2Restaurant 4,000 sf GFA 20
3 Fitness 5,000 sf GFA 33
4 Hotel-Business 138 rooms 165
5 Office 63,562 sf GFA 182
417Total
Project Data Estimated
Parking
September 30, 2019
Kameron Klotz
Page 4 of 11
Table 4: Parking Spaces Required per City Standards for Option 3
Based on the results of the analysis, the number of parking spaces to be provided by the
proposed mixed-use project does not meet the City requirements by 91 spaces under Option 1,
137 under Option 2, and 88 spaces under Option 3.
ITE Parking Trip Generation Analysis and Methodology
As a comparison, AMG utilized Institute of Transportation Engineer’s (ITE) Parking Generation
Manual, 5th Edition to evaluate if the parking demand created by the proposed hotel, office,
retail and restaurant land uses would be met for the three land use options and parking-spaces
provided by the options. The parking demand analysis evaluates the three land use options as
shown in Table 1.
ITE Average Parking Demand Rates
The ITE Parking Generation Manual provides several statistical information including average,
33rd percentile, 85h percentile and standard deviation. Additional information provided include
time of day peaking and place – urban vs. suburban. Many agencies use average parking
demand rate as the likely peak parking demand for a land use. However, in some situations such
as a large shopping center with large seasonal demand fluctuations (e.g. holiday season) use of
average might not be appropriate. As recommended by the City,1 AMG used 115% of ITE
average rate – with additional 15 % being a safety factor against unexpected parking surges.
1 July 16, 2019 comment by Amy Million on AMG July 1 Draft Report
Land Use Quantity Unit
1 Retail 5,000 sf GFA 17
2 Restaurant 4,000 sf GFA 20
3 Fitness 5,000 sf GFA 33
4 Retail-pad 3,000 sf GFA 10
5 Restaurant-pad 2,500 sf GFA 13
6 Restaurant - pad BOH 2,500 sf GFA 8
7 Hotel-Business 138 rooms 165
8 Office 63,562 sf GFA 182
448Total
Project Data Estimated
Parking
September 30, 2019
Kameron Klotz
Page 5 of 11
The parking rates and time of day (TOD) information for four land use categories from ITE
Parking (5th Edition) for the proposed mixed-use project were approved by staff2 before we
proceed with this analysis.
Tables 5, 6 and 7 summarize the average peak period parking demand generated under
Options 1,2 and 3 scenarios for the proposed project.
Table 5: ITE Parking Demand Summary for Option 1 (115% Average Peak Period Parking Demand)
Table 6: ITE Parking Demand Summary for Option 2 (Average Peak Period Parking Demand)
2 August 8, 2019 email from Obaid Khan, City of Dublin
Land Use Quantity Unit
1 Retail
(ITE Land Use 850)5000 sf GFA 3.37 17
2 Restaurant
(ITE Land Use 932)4,000 sf GFA 10.86 43
3 Fitness
(ITE Land Use 492)5,000 sf GFA 5.44 27
4 Restaurant
(ITE Land Use 932)5,065 sf GFA 10.86 55
5 Hotel-Business
(ITE Land Use 312)138 rooms 0.83 114
6 Office (ITE 710) 63,562 sf GFA 2.75 175
431
Project Data Weekday ITE Parking
Rate (X1.15%)
Weekday Estimated
Parking Demand
Note:
Hotel-Business (ITE Land Use 312) - occupied room rate used which
is more conservative, 5th Edition
Land Use Quantity Unit
1 Retail
(ITE Land Use 850)5000 sf GFA 3.37 17
2 Restaurant
(ITE Land Use 932)4,000 sf GFA 10.86 43
3 Fitness
(ITE Land Use 492)5,000 sf GFA 5.44 27
4 Hotel-Business
(ITE Land Use 312)138 rooms 0.83 114
5 Office (ITE 710) 63,562 sf GFA 2.75 175
376
Project Data Weekday ITE Parking
Rate (X1.15%)
Weekday Estimated
Parking Demand
Note:
ITE, 5th Edition
September 30, 2019
Kameron Klotz
Page 6 of 11
Table 7: ITE Parking Demand Summary for Option 3 (Average Peak Period Parking Demand)
Based on the results of the 115% factored ITE average peak period parking demand generation
analysis, the parking spaces provided by the proposed project for the three land use options
would be short respectively by 80 spaces, 96 spaces and 81 spaces.
Potential Factors in Reduction of Parking Demand
Note that these parking demand rates were based on ITE standalone site estimates without taking
into considerations internal trips due to mixed-use or shared parking. For example, hotel patrons
and office employees could walk to the restaurants or retail stores without having to drive and
park.
In addition, major changes in car rental of hotel guests have also been noted by the hotel
industry. It has been shown that ride-hailing companies, like Uber and Lyft, are changing
transportation habits and having a measurable impact on parking demand for many land uses.
Specifically, it has been shown the largest impacts of ride-hailing to parking are occurring at
hotels, restaurants, events centers, and airports where demand for ride-hailing is greatest.
Particularly, studies have shown that hotel parking demand seems to have decreased in many
places due to ride-hailing; travelers are choosing to use ride-hailing, instead of rental cars, to get
to and from the hotel.
Based on the survey conducted for TNC usage for various land-uses as summarized in the “Ride-
Hailing Impacts on Parking” – An overview created by Walker Consultants, approximately 40%
of the visitors to Hotel land use utilized a car rental while the remaining used taxi’s and ride
sharing services (60% not driving).
Land Use Quantity Unit
1 Retail
(ITE Land Use 850)5000 sf GFA 3.37 17
2 Restaurant
(ITE Land Use 932)4,000 sf GFA 10.86 43
3 Fitness
(ITE Land Use 492)5,000 sf GFA 5.44 27
4 Retail - pad
(ITE Land Use 850)3000 sf GFA 3.37 10
5 Restaurant - pad
(ITE Land Use 932)2,500 sf GFA 10.86 27
6 Restaurant - pad BOH
(ITE Land Use 932)2,500 sf GFA 10.86 27
7 Hotel-Business
(ITE Land Use 312)138 rooms 0.83 114
8 Office (ITE 710) 63,562 sf GFA 2.75 175
441
Project Data Weekday ITE Parking
Rate (X1.15%)
Weekday Estimated
Parking Demand
Note:
ITE, 5th Edition
September 30, 2019
Kameron Klotz
Page 7 of 11
Since the site is approximately 0.5 miles (10-12-minute walk) from West Dublin BART Station, it is
anticipated that some of the hotel workers of office employees might be able to use transit
instead of driving to work.
Note that the ITE Parking Generation Manual states that the most accurate way to estimate
parking demand is by conducting parking studies at a similar use in the vicinity of proposed
project. In the absence of such data use of ITE parking generation tables could be used by
applying local knowledge and judgment on parking supply and demand.
Other Mixed-Use Development Parking Factors to Consider
Very often in the recent past, many agencies or municipalities would enforce parking rate
regulations for developers to provide a predetermined amount of parking space for each type
of land use. This could result in an overabundance of parking, as far more spaces are created
than needed at any given moment. The excess and availability of free parking spaces
(unknowingly) induces more driving while also typically leaving many spaces underused. With
prevailing awareness on creating sustainable developments, many agencies are discontinuing such
parking policies since it inhibits the possibility to design more compact developments and
neighborhoods with active uses.
Since the proposed project is a mixed-use development consisting of hotel, office building, retail
building, fitness and restaurant, it is anticipated that there would be some internal trips within
mixed-use developments as well as variations in peak parking demand by time of day by
several land uses that are not captured by ITE parking rates that were derived based on
standalone land uses.
Various studies have shown that conventional use of ITE has overlooked the full potential for
internalizing trips through interaction among on-site activities. The ITE trip-generation data and
analysis methods apply primarily to single-use and freestanding sites, which limits their
applicability to compact, mixed-use development. In 2011, two major studies introduced
methodologies for predicting traffic generation from mixed use development:
1. National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) Report 684, “Enhancing
Internal Trip Capture Estimation for Mixed- Use Developments,” analyzed internal-capture
relationships of mixed-use sites and examined the travel interactions among six individual
types of land uses: office, retail, restaurant, residential, cinema, and hotel, and
2. The U.S. EPA–sponsored 2011 report, “Traffic Generated by Mixed-Use Developments —
A Six-Region Study Using Consistent Built Environmental Measures,” investigated trip
generation, mode choice, and trip length for trips produced and attracted by mixed use
developments. Researchers selected six regions — Atlanta, Boston, Houston, Portland,
Sacramento, and Seattle — to represent a wide range of urban scale, form, and climatic
condition. It was concluded that the ITE Trip Generation Manual and Handbook
overestimate peak traffic generation for mixed-use development by an average of 35
percent3.
3 NCHRP Report 684, “Enhancing Internal Trip Capture Estimation for Mixed- Use Developments,”2011, page 26
September 30, 2019
Kameron Klotz
Page 8 of 11
It could be expected that the proposed mixed-use development would experience a fair number
of internal trips. In essence, there is a captive-market when patrons who are already parked in
the area can take advantage of other nearby services. For example, office employees, hotel
patrons and employees could walk across to the restaurant without having to drive and park.
Thus, they are not a source of additional parking demand to use the restaurant. In addition, since
the proposed development is a business hotel, it could be expected that some of the hotel patrons
could be working out of the office building. Both users could also be patrons at the proposed
health club.
Based on the expected internal trips and the aforementioned studies, the estimated ITE average
parking demands generated by the proposed project for the three options are within 25 percent
or less of the parking supply provided for each scenario. This would be considerably less than
the 35 percent potential overestimation of parking demand as documented in the NCHRP
mentioned previously.
However, the ITE Parking Generation Manual states that the most accurate way to estimate
parking demand is by conducting parking studies at a similar use in the nearby area. In the
absence of such data use of ITE parking generation tables could be used by applying local
knowledge and judgment on parking supply and demand.
Shared Parking Concept and Analysis
Background
Typically, shared parking is possible for project sites that serve two or more land uses without conflict or
encroachment. Parking spaces can be shared if there are variations in the accumulation of vehicles by hour,
day or season at the individual land uses and if the parking demand of land uses results in same auto-
trips. Like other urban travel characteristics, parking demands fluctuates during peak and off-peak
schedules depending on types of land use and the project area. It has been shown conclusively that distinct
but complementary patterns, such as “office parking” that is generally empty in the evenings and on
weekends and “hotel parking” that is generally fuller in the evenings, offer an opportunity for cities to
better satisfy residents and commuters without increasing supply. Shared parking is a land
use/development strategy that optimizes parking capacity by allowing complementary land uses to share
spaces, rather than constructing separate parking spaces for separate uses.
Shared parking works especially well with mixed use development. Many cities that embraced sustainable
developments have shown that shared parking unlocks the potential for higher development densities
around transit hubs, and acts as a control mechanism against urban sprawl. By allowing and encouraging
adjacent property owners to share parking spaces, cities can accommodate essential parking demands
like disabled parking, emergency vehicles and freight delivery while promoting travel by more sustainable
modes with better land use integration.
This study uses shared parking potential due to inherent land use characteristics of hotel, office, retail
and restaurant which has peak parking demand that fluctuates and varies at various times of
day.
Time of Day information are based on data contained in the ITE 5th Edition report and obviously
could vary based on the location. Based on our experience, the time of day parking demand
shown for office and hotel could be considered consistent. Details of ITE 5th Edition Time of Day
Parking information for some of the land uses are contained in Appendix A.
September 30, 2019
Kameron Klotz
Page 9 of 11
Using the Time of Day Parking demand information, AMG estimated an expected parking
demand for the proposed mixed-used development. The estimated parking demand due to time
of day shared parking for Option 1,2 and 3 are shown in Table 8, 9 and 10. The result seems to
indicate that the proposed parking spaces provided by the development would be adequate.
Detailed hourly calculations for Time of Day Parking for each of the three Options based on ITE
5th Edition information are contained in Appendix B.
Table 8: Estimated Parking due to Fluctuations in Time of Day Parking Demand (Option 1)
Table 9: Estimated Parking due to Fluctuations in Time of Day Parking Demand (Option 2)
Cumulative Time of Day Total Parking Demand Estimates
Cumulative Spaces 124 149 224 288 333 334 325 309 288 278 275 258 222 195 143 130 122
Time 6:00 AM 7:00 AM 8:00 AM 9:00 AM 10:00 AM 11:00 AM 12:00 PM 1:00 PM 2:00 PM 3:00 PM 4:00 PM 5:00 PM 6:00 PM 7:00 PM 8:00 PM 9:00 PM 10:00 PM
Parking Spaces Provided: 351
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
6:00 AM 7:00 AM 8:00 AM 9:00 AM 10:00 AM 11:00 AM 12:00 PM 1:00 PM 2:00 PM 3:00 PM 4:00 PM 5:00 PM 6:00 PM 7:00 PM 8:00 PM 9:00 PM 10:00 PMParking DemandTime of Day
ITE Parking Demand Cumulative Estimates for Option 1
Based on Time of Day Demand (Suburban)
ITE Rates
City Rates
Cumulative Time of Day Total Parking Demand Estimates
Cumulative Spaces 118 135 186 249 291 288 270 259 257 255 252 223 174 152 108 107 110
Time 6:00 AM 7:00 AM 8:00 AM 9:00 AM 10:00 AM 11:00 AM 12:00 PM 1:00 PM 2:00 PM 3:00 PM 4:00 PM 5:00 PM 6:00 PM 7:00 PM 8:00 PM 9:00 PM 10:00 PM
Parking Spaces Provided: 280
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
6:00 AM 7:00 AM 8:00 AM 9:00 AM 10:00 AM 11:00 AM 12:00 PM 1:00 PM 2:00 PM 3:00 PM 4:00 PM 5:00 PM 6:00 PM 7:00 PM 8:00 PM 9:00 PM 10:00 PMParking DemandTime of Day
ITE Parking Demand Cumulative Estimates for Option 2
Based on Time of Day Demand (Suburban)
ITE Rates
City Rates
September 30, 2019
Kameron Klotz
Page 10 of 11
Table 10: Estimated Parking due to Fluctuations in Time of Day Parking Demand (Option 3)
Conclusion
Based on results of our parking analysis, the following are several conclusions:
Proposed mixed-used development (consisting of a hotel, office, restaurant and retail) showed
three options being proposed for the project and summarized here:
Option 1 consists of a 5,000 s.f. retail, 4,000 s.f. restaurant, 5,000 s.f. fitness club, 5,065 s.f.
restaurant, 138 room hotel and 63,562 s.f. office with 351 parking spaces.
Option 2 consists of a 5,000 s.f. retail, 4,000 s.f. restaurant, 5,000 s.f. fitness club, 138 room
hotel and 63,562 s.f. office with 280 parking spaces.
Option 3 consists of a 5,000 s.f. retail, 4,000 s.f. restaurant, 5,000 s.f. fitness club, 3,000 s.f.
retail store, a 5,000 s.f. restaurant, 138 room hotel and 63,562 s.f. office with 360 parking
spaces.
City Parking Demand Rates - results of the parking demand analysis based on city parking rates
estimated that 442, 417 and 460 spaces would be required respectively for Option 1, Option 2
and Option 3. Therefore, based on the City parking rates, the proposed parking supply is short
by 91 spaces under Option 1, 137 under Option 2, and 100 spaces under Option 3.
ITE Parking Generation
ITE provided several parking demand rates and statistical factors including average and 85th
percentile parking demand.
Average Parking Demand - Many agencies use average parking demand rate as the
likely peak parking demand for a land use. As recommended by the City, AMG used
115% of ITE average rate – with additional 15 % being a safety factor against
unexpected parking surges. Results of the parking demand analysis based on 115% ITE
Cumulative Time of Day Total Parking Demand Estimates
Cumulative Spaces 124 148 223 288 338 340 332 317 296 287 284 268 231 203 148 133 124
Time 6:00 AM 7:00 AM 8:00 AM 9:00 AM 10:00 AM 11:00 AM 12:00 PM 1:00 PM 2:00 PM 3:00 PM 4:00 PM 5:00 PM 6:00 PM 7:00 PM 8:00 PM 9:00 PM 10:00 PM
Parking Spaces Provided: 360
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
6:00 AM 7:00 AM 8:00 AM 9:00 AM 10:00 AM 11:00 AM 12:00 PM 1:00 PM 2:00 PM 3:00 PM 4:00 PM 5:00 PM 6:00 PM 7:00 PM 8:00 PM 9:00 PM 10:00 PMParking DemandTime of Day
ITE Parking Demand Cumulative Estimates for Option 3
Based on Time of Day Demand (Suburban)
ITE Rates
City Rates
September 30, 2019
Kameron Klotz
Page 11 of 11
average parking rates estimated that 431, 376 and 441 spaces would be required
respectively for Option 1, option 2 and Option 3. Therefore, the parking spaces
provided by the proposed project does not meet the parking demand generated by the
proposed land uses.
It is noted that based on the expected internal trips and key studies conducted by NCHRP
and U.S. EPA concluded that ITE parking rates could overestimate peak traffic generation
for mixed-use development by an average of 35 percent parking demands.
Rate used did not account for hotel travelers who are choosing to use ride-hailing, instead
of rental cars, to get to and from the hotel.
It is anticipated that some of the hotel workers of office employees might be able to use
transit instead of driving to work.
ITE Parking Generation Manual states that the most accurate way to estimate parking
demand is by conducting parking studies at a similar use in the nearby area. In the
absence of such data use of ITE parking generation tables could be used by applying
local knowledge and judgment on parking supply and demand.
Time of Day Parking Fluctuations Factors
The ITE report provided an estimate of time of day peak parking information for hotel, office,
retail and restaurant. AMG has generated expected parking demand for the proposed mixed-
used development under both ITE and City rates (as shown in Table 8, 9 and 10). The results
indicated that proposed parking spaces provided by the development for a combination of land
options would be adequate for Options 1 and 3. Based on time of day peak for Option 2,
parking demand estimate would be short by 11 (four percent) and 29 (10 percent) respectively
for ITE and City parking rates.
z:\p1812165 - dublin parking (rubicon)\report\tm 093019 dublin mixed-use parking study.docx
Advanced Mobility Group | 3003 Oak Road, Suite 100, Walnut Creek, Ca. 94596
www.amobility.com
Appendix A – ITE 5th Edition Time of Day Parking information
Advanced Mobility Group | 3003 Oak Road, Suite 100, Walnut Creek, Ca. 94596
www.amobility.com
Appendix B – ITE 5th Edition Time of Day Parking Calculations for three Land Use Options
ITE (5th Ed) Suburban Parking Demand Summary for Option 1 (x1.15% Average)
Cumulative Time of Day Total Parking Demand Estimates
Cumulative Spaces 124 149 224 288 333 334 325 309 288 278 275 258 222 195 143 130 122
Time 6:00 AM 7:00 AM 8:00 AM 9:00 AM 10:00 AM 11:00 AM 12:00 PM 1:00 PM 2:00 PM 3:00 PM 4:00 PM 5:00 PM 6:00 PM 7:00 PM 8:00 PM 9:00 PM 10:00 PM
Parking Spaces Provided: 351
Time of Day Parking Estimates for Land Uses (ITE Parking 5th Edition)
1. ITE 850 Supermarket Time of Day Parking Estimates
Spaces 00001011151516161617 17 14 9 6 3
Time 6:00 AM 7:00 AM 8:00 AM 9:00 AM 10:00 AM 11:00 AM 12:00 PM 1:00 PM 2:00 PM 3:00 PM 4:00 PM 5:00 PM 6:00 PM 7:00 PM 8:00 PM 9:00 PM 10:00 PM
Percent Peak ----596786879397971009983533820
Max Parking 17 Spaces
2. ITE 932 High-Turnover (Sit-Down) Restaurant Time of Day Parking Estimates
Spaces 4 112931333643 39 24 18 18 28 37 34 28 18 9
Time 6:00 AM 7:00 AM 8:00 AM 9:00 AM 10:00 AM 11:00 AM 12:00 PM 1:00 PM 2:00 PM 3:00 PM 4:00 PM 5:00 PM 6:00 PM 7:00 PM 8:00 PM 9:00 PM 10:00 PM
Percent Peak 10 25 68 72 77 83 100 91 56 42 42 64 87 79 65 42 21
Max Parking 43 Spaces
3. ITE 492 Fitness - Office Time of Day Parking Estimates
Spaces 0000171512111011192627 23 0 0 0
Time 6:00 AM 7:00 AM 8:00 AM 9:00 AM 10:00 AM 11:00 AM 12:00 PM 1:00 PM 2:00 PM 3:00 PM 4:00 PM 5:00 PM 6:00 PM 7:00 PM 8:00 PM 9:00 PM 10:00 PM
Percent Peak ----625544413641699610085---
Max Parking 27 Spaces
4. ITE 932 High-Turnover (Sit-Down) Restaurant Time of Day Parking Estimates
Spaces 6 143740424655 50 31 23 23 35 48 43 36 23 12
Time 6:00 AM 7:00 AM 8:00 AM 9:00 AM 10:00 AM 11:00 AM 12:00 PM 1:00 PM 2:00 PM 3:00 PM 4:00 PM 5:00 PM 6:00 PM 7:00 PM 8:00 PM 9:00 PM 10:00 PM
Percent Peak 10 25 68 72 77 83 100 91 56 42 42 64 87 79 65 42 21
Max Parking 55 Spaces
5. ITE 312 Business Hotel Time of Day Parking Estimates
Spaces 114 101 73 64 56 51 51 47 44 44 50 55 58 62 71 82 98
Time 6:00 AM 7:00 AM 8:00 AM 9:00 AM 10:00 AM 11:00 AM 12:00 PM 1:00 PM 2:00 PM 3:00 PM 4:00 PM 5:00 PM 6:00 PM 7:00 PM 8:00 PM 9:00 PM 10:00 PM
Percent Peak 100 89 64 56 49 45 45 41 39 39 44 48 51 54 62 72 86
Max Parking 114 Spaces
6. ITE 701 General Office Building Time of Day Parking Estimates
Spaces 0 23 84 154 175 175 149 147 163 165 149 98 35 19 0 0 0
Time 6:00 AM 7:00 AM 8:00 AM 9:00 AM 10:00 AM 11:00 AM 12:00 PM 1:00 PM 2:00 PM 3:00 PM 4:00 PM 5:00 PM 6:00 PM 7:00 PM 8:00 PM 9:00 PM 10:00 PM
Percent Peak - 13 48 88 100 100 85 84 93 94 85 56 20 11 - - -
Max Parking 175 Spaces
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
6:00 AM 7:00 AM 8:00 AM 9:00 AM 10:00 AM 11:00 AM 12:00 PM 1:00 PM 2:00 PM 3:00 PM 4:00 PM 5:00 PM 6:00 PM 7:00 PM 8:00 PM 9:00 PM 10:00 PMParking DemandTime of Day
ITE Parking Demand Cumulative Estimates for Option 1
Based on Time of Day Demand (Suburban)
ITE Rates
City Rates
9/27/2019 Z:\P1812165 ‐ Dublin Parking (Rubicon)\Parking Analysis\Dublin Mxed Use ‐ ITE 5th Time of Day 091019
ITE (5th Ed) Suburban Parking Demand Summary for Option 2 (x1.15% Average)
Cumulative Time of Day Total Parking Demand Estimates
Cumulative Spaces 118 135 186 249 291 288 270 259 257 255 252 223 174 152 108 107 110
Time 6:00 AM 7:00 AM 8:00 AM 9:00 AM 10:00 AM 11:00 AM 12:00 PM 1:00 PM 2:00 PM 3:00 PM 4:00 PM 5:00 PM 6:00 PM 7:00 PM 8:00 PM 9:00 PM 10:00 PM
Parking Spaces Provided: 280
Time of Day Parking Estimates for Land Uses (ITE Parking 5th Edition)
1. ITE 850 Supermarket Time of Day Parking Estimates
10 11 15 15 16 16 16 17 17 14 9 6 3
Time 6:00 AM 7:00 AM 8:00 AM 9:00 AM 10:00 AM 11:00 AM 12:00 PM 1:00 PM 2:00 PM 3:00 PM 4:00 PM 5:00 PM 6:00 PM 7:00 PM 8:00 PM 9:00 PM 10:00 PM
Percent Peak ----596786879397971009983533820
Max Parking 17 Spaces
2. ITE 932 High-Turnover (Sit-Down) Restaurant Time of Day Parking Estimates
4 112931333643 39 24 18 18 28 37 34 28 18 9
Time 6:00 AM 7:00 AM 8:00 AM 9:00 AM 10:00 AM 11:00 AM 12:00 PM 1:00 PM 2:00 PM 3:00 PM 4:00 PM 5:00 PM 6:00 PM 7:00 PM 8:00 PM 9:00 PM 10:00 PM
Percent Peak 10 25 68 72 77 83 100 91 56 42 42 64 87 79 65 42 21
Max Parking 43 Spaces
3. ITE 492 Fitness - Office Time of Day Parking Estimates
Spaces 0000171512111011192627 23 0 0 0
Time 6:00 AM 7:00 AM 8:00 AM 9:00 AM 10:00 AM 11:00 AM 12:00 PM 1:00 PM 2:00 PM 3:00 PM 4:00 PM 5:00 PM 6:00 PM 7:00 PM 8:00 PM 9:00 PM 10:00 PM
Percent Peak ----625544413641699610085---
Max Parking 27 Spaces
4. ITE 312 Business Hotel Time of Day Parking Estimates
114 101 73 64 56 51 51 47 44 44 50 55 58 62 71 82 98
Time 6:00 AM 7:00 AM 8:00 AM 9:00 AM 10:00 AM 11:00 AM 12:00 PM 1:00 PM 2:00 PM 3:00 PM 4:00 PM 5:00 PM 6:00 PM 7:00 PM 8:00 PM 9:00 PM 10:00 PM
Percent Peak 100 89 64 56 49 45 45 41 39 39 44 48 51 54 62 72 86
Max Parking 114 Spaces
5. ITE 701 General Office Building Time of Day Parking Estimates
0 23 84 154 175 175 149 147 163 165 149 98 35 19 0 0 0
Time 6:00 AM 7:00 AM 8:00 AM 9:00 AM 10:00 AM 11:00 AM 12:00 PM 1:00 PM 2:00 PM 3:00 PM 4:00 PM 5:00 PM 6:00 PM 7:00 PM 8:00 PM 9:00 PM 10:00 PM
Percent Peak - 13 48 88 100 100 85 84 93 94 85 56 20 11 - - -
Max Parking 175 Spaces
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
6:00 AM 7:00 AM 8:00 AM 9:00 AM 10:00 AM 11:00 AM 12:00 PM 1:00 PM 2:00 PM 3:00 PM 4:00 PM 5:00 PM 6:00 PM 7:00 PM 8:00 PM 9:00 PM 10:00 PMParking DemandTime of Day
ITE Parking Demand Cumulative Estimates for Option 2
Based on Time of Day Demand (Suburban)
ITE Rates
City Rates
9/27/2019 Z:\P1812165 ‐ Dublin Parking (Rubicon)\Parking Analysis\Dublin Mxed Use ‐ ITE 5th Time of Day 091019
ITE (5th Ed) Suburban Parking Demand Summary for Option 3 (x1.15% Average)
Cumulative Time of Day Total Parking Demand Estimates
Cumulative Spaces 124 148 223 288 338 340 332 317 296 287 284 268 231 203 148 133 124
Time 6:00 AM 7:00 AM 8:00 AM 9:00 AM 10:00 AM 11:00 AM 12:00 PM 1:00 PM 2:00 PM 3:00 PM 4:00 PM 5:00 PM 6:00 PM 7:00 PM 8:00 PM 9:00 PM 10:00 PM
Parking Spaces Provided: 360
Time of Day Parking Estimates for Land Uses (ITE Parking 5th Edition)
1. ITE 850 Supermarket Time of Day Parking Estimates
Spaces 00001011151516161617 17 14 9 6 3
Time 6:00 AM 7:00 AM 8:00 AM 9:00 AM 10:00 AM 11:00 AM 12:00 PM 1:00 PM 2:00 PM 3:00 PM 4:00 PM 5:00 PM 6:00 PM 7:00 PM 8:00 PM 9:00 PM 10:00 PM
Percent Peak ----596786879397971009983533820
Max Parking 17 Spaces
2. ITE 932 High-Turnover (Sit-Down) Restaurant Time of Day Parking Estimates
4 112931333643 39 24 18 18 28 37 34 28 18 9
Time 6:00 AM 7:00 AM 8:00 AM 9:00 AM 10:00 AM 11:00 AM 12:00 PM 1:00 PM 2:00 PM 3:00 PM 4:00 PM 5:00 PM 6:00 PM 7:00 PM 8:00 PM 9:00 PM 10:00 PM
Percent Peak 10 25 68 72 77 83 100 91 56 42 42 64 87 79 65 42 21
Max Parking 43 Spaces
3. ITE 492 Fitness - Office Time of Day Parking Estimates
Spaces 0000171512111011192627 23 0 0 0
Time 6:00 AM 7:00 AM 8:00 AM 9:00 AM 10:00 AM 11:00 AM 12:00 PM 1:00 PM 2:00 PM 3:00 PM 4:00 PM 5:00 PM 6:00 PM 7:00 PM 8:00 PM 9:00 PM 10:00 PM
Percent Peak ----625544413641699610085---
Max Parking 27 Spaces
4. ITE 850 Supermarket Time of Day Parking Estimates
Spaces 000067999101010 10854 2
Time 6:00 AM 7:00 AM 8:00 AM 9:00 AM 10:00 AM 11:00 AM 12:00 PM 1:00 PM 2:00 PM 3:00 PM 4:00 PM 5:00 PM 6:00 PM 7:00 PM 8:00 PM 9:00 PM 10:00 PM
Percent Peak ----596786879397971009983533820
Max Parking 10 Spaces
5. ITE 932 High-Turnover (Sit-Down) Restaurant Time of Day Parking Estimates
3 7 18 19 21 22 27 25 15 11 11 17 23 21 18 11 6
Time 6:00 AM 7:00 AM 8:00 AM 9:00 AM 10:00 AM 11:00 AM 12:00 PM 1:00 PM 2:00 PM 3:00 PM 4:00 PM 5:00 PM 6:00 PM 7:00 PM 8:00 PM 9:00 PM 10:00 PM
Percent Peak 10 25 68 72 77 83 100 91 56 42 42 64 87 79 65 42 21
Max Parking 27 Spaces
6. ITE 932 High-Turnover (Sit-Down) Restaurant Time of Day Parking Estimates
3 7 18 19 21 22 27 25 15 11 11 17 23 21 18 11 6
Time 6:00 AM 7:00 AM 8:00 AM 9:00 AM 10:00 AM 11:00 AM 12:00 PM 1:00 PM 2:00 PM 3:00 PM 4:00 PM 5:00 PM 6:00 PM 7:00 PM 8:00 PM 9:00 PM 10:00 PM
Percent Peak 10 25 68 72 77 83 100 91 56 42 42 64 87 79 65 42 21
Max Parking 27 Spaces
7. ITE 312 Business Hotel Time of Day Parking Estimates
Spaces 114 101 73 64 56 51 51 47 44 44 50 55 58 62 71 82 98
Time 6:00 AM 7:00 AM 8:00 AM 9:00 AM 10:00 AM 11:00 AM 12:00 PM 1:00 PM 2:00 PM 3:00 PM 4:00 PM 5:00 PM 6:00 PM 7:00 PM 8:00 PM 9:00 PM 10:00 PM
Percent Peak 100 89 64 56 49 45 45 41 39 39 44 48 51 54 62 72 86
Max Parking 114 Spaces
8. ITE 701 General Office Building Time of Day Parking Estimates
Spaces 0 23 84 154 175 175 149 147 163 165 149 98 35 19 0 0 0
Time 6:00 AM 7:00 AM 8:00 AM 9:00 AM 10:00 AM 11:00 AM 12:00 PM 1:00 PM 2:00 PM 3:00 PM 4:00 PM 5:00 PM 6:00 PM 7:00 PM 8:00 PM 9:00 PM 10:00 PM
Percent Peak - 13 48 88 100 100 85 84 93 94 85 56 20 11 - - -
Max Parking 175 Spaces
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
6:00 AM 7:00 AM 8:00 AM 9:00 AM 10:00 AM 11:00 AM 12:00 PM 1:00 PM 2:00 PM 3:00 PM 4:00 PM 5:00 PM 6:00 PM 7:00 PM 8:00 PM 9:00 PM 10:00 PMParking DemandTime of Day
ITE Parking Demand Cumulative Estimates for Option 3
Based on Time of Day Demand (Suburban)
ITE Rates
City Rates
9/27/2019 Z:\P1812165 ‐ Dublin Parking (Rubicon)\Parking Analysis\Dublin Mxed Use ‐ ITE 5th Time of Day 091019
City Parking Spaces Required Summary for Option 1
Cumulative Time of Day Total Parking Demand Estimates
Cumulative Spaces 170 182 224 285 328 323 303 290 287 284 285 259 210 187 141 144 155
Time 6:00 AM 7:00 AM 8:00 AM 9:00 AM 10:00 AM 11:00 AM 12:00 PM 1:00 PM 2:00 PM 3:00 PM 4:00 PM 5:00 PM 6:00 PM 7:00 PM 8:00 PM 9:00 PM 10:00 PM
Parking Spaces Provided: 351
Time of Day Parking Estimates for Land Uses (ITE Parking 5th Edition)
1. ITE 850 Supermarket Time of Day Parking Estimates
Spaces 00001011151516161617 17 14 9 6 3
Time 6:00 AM 7:00 AM 8:00 AM 9:00 AM 10:00 AM 11:00 AM 12:00 PM 1:00 PM 2:00 PM 3:00 PM 4:00 PM 5:00 PM 6:00 PM 7:00 PM 8:00 PM 9:00 PM 10:00 PM
Percent Peak ----596786879397971009983533820
Max Parking 17 Spaces
2. ITE 932 High-Turnover (Sit-Down) Restaurant Time of Day Parking Estimates
Spaces 2 5 14 14 15 17 20 18 11 8 8 13 17 16 13 8 4
Time 6:00 AM 7:00 AM 8:00 AM 9:00 AM 10:00 AM 11:00 AM 12:00 PM 1:00 PM 2:00 PM 3:00 PM 4:00 PM 5:00 PM 6:00 PM 7:00 PM 8:00 PM 9:00 PM 10:00 PM
Percent Peak 10 25 68 72 77 83 100 91 56 42 42 64 87 79 65 42 21
Max Parking 20 Spaces
3. ITE 492 Fitness - Office Time of Day Parking Estimates
Spaces 0000201815141214233233 28 0 0 0
Time 6:00 AM 7:00 AM 8:00 AM 9:00 AM 10:00 AM 11:00 AM 12:00 PM 1:00 PM 2:00 PM 3:00 PM 4:00 PM 5:00 PM 6:00 PM 7:00 PM 8:00 PM 9:00 PM 10:00 PM
Percent Peak ----625544413641699610085---
Max Parking 33 Spaces
4. ITE 932 High-Turnover (Sit-Down) Restaurant Time of Day Parking Estimates
Spaces 3 6 17 18 19 21 25 23 14 11 11 16 22 20 16 11 5
Time 6:00 AM 7:00 AM 8:00 AM 9:00 AM 10:00 AM 11:00 AM 12:00 PM 1:00 PM 2:00 PM 3:00 PM 4:00 PM 5:00 PM 6:00 PM 7:00 PM 8:00 PM 9:00 PM 10:00 PM
Percent Peak 10 25 68 72 77 83 100 91 56 42 42 64 87 79 65 42 21
Max Parking 25 Spaces
5. ITE 312 Business Hotel Time of Day Parking Estimates
Spaces 165 147 106 92 81 74 74 68 64 64 73 79 84 89 102 119 142
Time 6:00 AM 7:00 AM 8:00 AM 9:00 AM 10:00 AM 11:00 AM 12:00 PM 1:00 PM 2:00 PM 3:00 PM 4:00 PM 5:00 PM 6:00 PM 7:00 PM 8:00 PM 9:00 PM 10:00 PM
Percent Peak 100 89 64 56 49 45 45 41 39 39 44 48 51 54 62 72 86
Max Parking 165 Spaces
6. ITE 701 General Office Building Time of Day Parking Estimates
Spaces 0 24 87 160 182 182 155 153 169 171 155 102 36 20 0 0 0
Time 6:00 AM 7:00 AM 8:00 AM 9:00 AM 10:00 AM 11:00 AM 12:00 PM 1:00 PM 2:00 PM 3:00 PM 4:00 PM 5:00 PM 6:00 PM 7:00 PM 8:00 PM 9:00 PM 10:00 PM
Percent Peak - 13 48 88 100 100 85 84 93 94 85 56 20 11 - - -
Max Parking 182 Spaces
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
6:00 AM 7:00 AM 8:00 AM 9:00 AM 10:00 AM 11:00 AM 12:00 PM 1:00 PM 2:00 PM 3:00 PM 4:00 PM 5:00 PM 6:00 PM 7:00 PM 8:00 PM 9:00 PM 10:00 PMParking DemandTime of Day
City Parking Spaces Required Cumulative Estimates for Option 1
Based on Time of Day Demand (ITE)
9/27/2019 Z:\P1812165 ‐ Dublin Parking (Rubicon)\Parking Analysis\Dublin Mxed Use ‐City Rates Time of Day 092719
City Parking Spaces Required Summary for Option 2
Cumulative Time of Day Total Parking Demand Estimates
Cumulative Spaces 167 176 207 267 309 302 278 267 273 274 275 243 188 167 124 134 150
Time 6:00 AM 7:00 AM 8:00 AM 9:00 AM 10:00 AM 11:00 AM 12:00 PM 1:00 PM 2:00 PM 3:00 PM 4:00 PM 5:00 PM 6:00 PM 7:00 PM 8:00 PM 9:00 PM 10:00 PM
Parking Spaces Provided: 280
Time of Day Parking Estimates for Land Uses (ITE Parking 5th Edition)
1. ITE 850 Supermarket Time of Day Parking Estimates
10 11 15 15 16 16 16 17 17 14 9 6 3
Time 6:00 AM 7:00 AM 8:00 AM 9:00 AM 10:00 AM 11:00 AM 12:00 PM 1:00 PM 2:00 PM 3:00 PM 4:00 PM 5:00 PM 6:00 PM 7:00 PM 8:00 PM 9:00 PM 10:00 PM
Percent Peak ----596786879397971009983533820
Max Parking 17 Spaces
2. ITE 932 High-Turnover (Sit-Down) Restaurant Time of Day Parking Estimates
2 5 14 14 15 17 20 18 11 8 8 13 17 16 13 8 4
Time 6:00 AM 7:00 AM 8:00 AM 9:00 AM 10:00 AM 11:00 AM 12:00 PM 1:00 PM 2:00 PM 3:00 PM 4:00 PM 5:00 PM 6:00 PM 7:00 PM 8:00 PM 9:00 PM 10:00 PM
Percent Peak 10 25 68 72 77 83 100 91 56 42 42 64 87 79 65 42 21
Max Parking 20 Spaces
3. ITE 492 Fitness - Office Time of Day Parking Estimates
Spaces 0000201815141214233233 28 0 0 0
Time 6:00 AM 7:00 AM 8:00 AM 9:00 AM 10:00 AM 11:00 AM 12:00 PM 1:00 PM 2:00 PM 3:00 PM 4:00 PM 5:00 PM 6:00 PM 7:00 PM 8:00 PM 9:00 PM 10:00 PM
Percent Peak ----625544413641699610085---
Max Parking 33 Spaces
4. ITE 312 Business Hotel Time of Day Parking Estimates
165 147 106 92 81 74 74 68 64 64 73 79 84 89 102 119 142
Time 6:00 AM 7:00 AM 8:00 AM 9:00 AM 10:00 AM 11:00 AM 12:00 PM 1:00 PM 2:00 PM 3:00 PM 4:00 PM 5:00 PM 6:00 PM 7:00 PM 8:00 PM 9:00 PM 10:00 PM
Percent Peak 100 89 64 56 49 45 45 41 39 39 44 48 51 54 62 72 86
Max Parking 165 Spaces
5. ITE 701 General Office Building Time of Day Parking Estimates
0 24 87 160 182 182 155 153 169 171 155 102 36 20 0 0 0
Time 6:00 AM 7:00 AM 8:00 AM 9:00 AM 10:00 AM 11:00 AM 12:00 PM 1:00 PM 2:00 PM 3:00 PM 4:00 PM 5:00 PM 6:00 PM 7:00 PM 8:00 PM 9:00 PM 10:00 PM
Percent Peak - 13 48 88 100 100 85 84 93 94 85 56 20 11 - - -
Max Parking 182 Spaces
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
6:00 AM 7:00 AM 8:00 AM 9:00 AM 10:00 AM 11:00 AM 12:00 PM 1:00 PM 2:00 PM 3:00 PM 4:00 PM 5:00 PM 6:00 PM 7:00 PM 8:00 PM 9:00 PM 10:00 PMParking DemandTime of Day
City Parking Spaces Required Cumulative Estimates for Option 2
Based on Time of Day Demand (ITE)
9/27/2019 Z:\P1812165 ‐ Dublin Parking (Rubicon)\Parking Analysis\Dublin Mxed Use ‐City Rates Time of Day 092719
City Parking Spaces Required Summary for Option 3
Cumulative Time of Day Total Parking Demand Estimates
Cumulative Spaces 171 184 230 292 342 338 322 308 301 298 299 275 228 203 152 152 159
Time 6:00 AM 7:00 AM 8:00 AM 9:00 AM 10:00 AM 11:00 AM 12:00 PM 1:00 PM 2:00 PM 3:00 PM 4:00 PM 5:00 PM 6:00 PM 7:00 PM 8:00 PM 9:00 PM 10:00 PM
Parking Spaces Provided: 360
Time of Day Parking Estimates for Land Uses (ITE Parking 5th Edition)
1. ITE 850 Supermarket Time of Day Parking Estimates
Spaces 00001011151516161617 17 14 9 6 3
Time 6:00 AM 7:00 AM 8:00 AM 9:00 AM 10:00 AM 11:00 AM 12:00 PM 1:00 PM 2:00 PM 3:00 PM 4:00 PM 5:00 PM 6:00 PM 7:00 PM 8:00 PM 9:00 PM 10:00 PM
Percent Peak ----596786879397971009983533820
Max Parking 17 Spaces
2. ITE 932 High-Turnover (Sit-Down) Restaurant Time of Day Parking Estimates
2 5 14 14 15 17 20 18 11 8 8 13 17 16 13 8 4
Time 6:00 AM 7:00 AM 8:00 AM 9:00 AM 10:00 AM 11:00 AM 12:00 PM 1:00 PM 2:00 PM 3:00 PM 4:00 PM 5:00 PM 6:00 PM 7:00 PM 8:00 PM 9:00 PM 10:00 PM
Percent Peak 10 25 68 72 77 83 100 91 56 42 42 64 87 79 65 42 21
Max Parking 20 Spaces
3. ITE 492 Fitness - Office Time of Day Parking Estimates
Spaces 0000201815141214233233 28 0 0 0
Time 6:00 AM 7:00 AM 8:00 AM 9:00 AM 10:00 AM 11:00 AM 12:00 PM 1:00 PM 2:00 PM 3:00 PM 4:00 PM 5:00 PM 6:00 PM 7:00 PM 8:00 PM 9:00 PM 10:00 PM
Percent Peak ----625544413641699610085---
Max Parking 33 Spaces
4. ITE 850 Supermarket Time of Day Parking Estimates
Spaces 000067999101010 10854 2
Time 6:00 AM 7:00 AM 8:00 AM 9:00 AM 10:00 AM 11:00 AM 12:00 PM 1:00 PM 2:00 PM 3:00 PM 4:00 PM 5:00 PM 6:00 PM 7:00 PM 8:00 PM 9:00 PM 10:00 PM
Percent Peak ----596786879397971009983533820
Max Parking 10 Spaces
5. ITE 932 High-Turnover (Sit-Down) Restaurant Time of Day Parking Estimates
4 7 18 19 21 22 27 25 15 11 11 17 23 21 18 11 6
Time 6:00 AM 7:00 AM 8:00 AM 9:00 AM 10:00 AM 11:00 AM 12:00 PM 1:00 PM 2:00 PM 3:00 PM 4:00 PM 5:00 PM 6:00 PM 7:00 PM 8:00 PM 9:00 PM 10:00 PM
Percent Peak 13 25 68 72 77 83 100 91 56 42 42 64 87 79 65 42 21
Max Parking 27 Spaces
6. ITE 932 High-Turnover (Sit-Down) Restaurant Time of Day Parking Estimates
1256678 7 43357653 2
Time 6:00 AM 7:00 AM 8:00 AM 9:00 AM 10:00 AM 11:00 AM 12:00 PM 1:00 PM 2:00 PM 3:00 PM 4:00 PM 5:00 PM 6:00 PM 7:00 PM 8:00 PM 9:00 PM 10:00 PM
Percent Peak 10 25 68 72 77 83 100 91 56 42 42 64 87 79 65 42 21
Max Parking 8 Spaces
7. ITE 312 Business Hotel Time of Day Parking Estimates
Spaces 165 147 106 92 81 74 74 68 64 64 73 79 84 89 102 119 142
Time 6:00 AM 7:00 AM 8:00 AM 9:00 AM 10:00 AM 11:00 AM 12:00 PM 1:00 PM 2:00 PM 3:00 PM 4:00 PM 5:00 PM 6:00 PM 7:00 PM 8:00 PM 9:00 PM 10:00 PM
Percent Peak 100 89 64 56 49 45 45 41 39 39 44 48 51 54 62 72 86
Max Parking 165 Spaces
8. ITE 701 General Office Building Time of Day Parking Estimates
Spaces 0 24 87 160 182 182 155 153 169 171 155 102 36 20 0 0 0
Time 6:00 AM 7:00 AM 8:00 AM 9:00 AM 10:00 AM 11:00 AM 12:00 PM 1:00 PM 2:00 PM 3:00 PM 4:00 PM 5:00 PM 6:00 PM 7:00 PM 8:00 PM 9:00 PM 10:00 PM
Percent Peak - 13 48 88 100 100 85 84 93 94 85 56 20 11 - - -
Max Parking 182 Spaces
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
6:00 AM 7:00 AM 8:00 AM 9:00 AM 10:00 AM 11:00 AM 12:00 PM 1:00 PM 2:00 PM 3:00 PM 4:00 PM 5:00 PM 6:00 PM 7:00 PM 8:00 PM 9:00 PM 10:00 PMParking DemandTime of Day
City Parking Spaces Required Cumulative Estimates for Option 3
Based on Time of Day Demand (ITE)
9/27/2019 Z:\P1812165 ‐ Dublin Parking (Rubicon)\Parking Analysis\Dublin Mxed Use ‐City Rates Time of Day 092719
RESOLUTION NO. XX - 20
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
* * * * * * * * * * *
APPROVING A COMMUNITY BENEFIT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF
DUBLIN AND VP-RPG DUBLIN, LLC
WHEREAS, VP-RPG Dublin, LLC, has proposed the construction of the Cambria
Hotel Project (the “project”) in Downtown Dublin at 7950 Dublin Boulevard; and
WHEREAS, the project consists of a new six-story hotel with four stories over
two stories of podium parking, and related landscape and site improvements . The
project includes a Site Development Review Permit to allow construction of the 138-
room hotel and a Minor Use Permit to allow a parking reduction for shared parking
between the proposed hotel and an existing office building; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 20-06 approving
the Site Development Review Permit and Minor Use Permit; and
WHEREAS, the Dublin City Council held a Public Hearing on June 2, 2020 and
adopted a Resolution denying an Appeal and affirming the Planning Commission’s
adoption of Resolution No. 20-06, and approved the Site Development Review Permit
and Minor Use Permit for the proposed project; and
WHEREAS, VP-RPG Dublin, LLC is seeking 52,573 square feet from the non-
residential development pool. In exchange for this allocation, VP-RPG Dublin, LLC will
contribute community benefits in the form of off-site improvements and the design,
construction and installation of a new Downtown Dublin monument sign; and
WHEREAS, the Hotel will supply approximately 50 new full-time jobs to the
community and generate new Transient Occupancy Taxes (TOT) revenue to the City.
The hotel development could yield an estimated annual TOT of $450,000 or $2.5 million
over five years. This estimate is based on an average occupancy rate of seventy-five
percent and an average daily rate of $158; and
WHEREAS, VP-RPG Dublin, LLC will design, construct and install a new
Downtown Dublin monument sign to be located on the corner of San Ramon Road and
Dublin Boulevard. This monument sign would add an entryway sign identifying the
Downtown as you enter from the west side of the city. The estimated cost for the
design, construction and installation for the sign is $200,000; and
WHEREAS, the term of the Agreement shall commence on the Effective Date
and shall remain in effect until the earlier of the following: 1) the Developer has provided
the Community Benefit to the City as provided in Section 3 of th e Agreement, 2) any of
the Project Approvals expires, or 3) Two years after the Effective D ate if no building
permit has been issued for the Project.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of
Dublin hereby approves the Community Benefit Agreement between the City of Dublin
and VP-RPG Dublin, LLC, as attached as Exhibit A to this Resolution.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council authorizes the City Manager
to execute the Agreement and gives the City Manager authority to execute any minor
amendments to the Agreement, as needed, to carry out the intent of this Resolution.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 2nd day of June, 2020, by the
following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
______________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_________________________________
City Clerk
CITY OF DUBLIN COMMUNITY BENEFIT PROGRAM AGREEMENT
VP‐RPG Dublin, LLC, 7944‐7950 Dublin Boulevard
This Community Benefit Program Agreement (“Agreement”) is entered into on this day 2nd of
June, 2020, by and between the City of Dublin, a municipal corporation (“City”) and VP‐RPG Dublin, LLC,
a California limited liability company (“Developer”). City and Developer are, from time‐to‐time,
individually referred to in this Agreement as a “Party,” and are collectively referred to as “Parties.”
RECITALS
A.On February 1, 2011, the City adopted Resolution No. 9‐11 establishing a “Downtown Dublin
Specific Plan” (the “Specific Plan”), which sets forth a comprehensive set of guiding principles,
standards, and design guidelines for the implementation of future development in Downtown
Dublin (“the Specific Plan Area”).
B.The Specific Plan regulates the density of development allowed in the Specific Plan Area by
establishing a “Base Floor Area Ratio (FAR)” for development in each of the three districts within
the Specific Plan Area.
C.The Specific Plan also establishes a pool of additional development potential, in the form of
1,320,220 square feet of non‐residential development, 150 hotel rooms and 2,500 residential
dwelling units (collectively “the Excess Capacity”) apportioned between the three districts in the
Specific Plan Area. The pool can be used by developers that wish to develop a project that
exceeds the Base FAR up to a defined “Maximum FAR” and by developers that wish to develop
residential dwelling units. Developers wishing to utilize said Excess Capacity must
participate in the Community Development Program and enter into a Community Benefit
Program Agreement with the City.
D.Developer proposes to develop certain property at 7944‐7950 Dublin Boulevard within the
Specific Plan Area (“the Property”), which is within the Transit Oriented District of the Specific
Plan Area, and as part of its proposal desires to develop a 90,700 square foot, 138‐room, four‐
story hotel on an approximately 76,000 square foot parcel (“the Project”). In exchange for the
use of this excess development capacity in the form of 52,573 square feet of commercial square
footage to enable development of the Project, Developer proposes to provide
transient occupancy tax revenue, enhanced streetscape for the drive aisle off of Dublin Blvd.,
and the design, construction and installation of a new Downtown Dublin monument sign to be
located on the corner of San Ramon Rd. and Dublin Blvd. (“the Community Benefit”).
E.Developer has applied for a Site Development Review for the Property, which approval, if
granted, together with any approvals or permits now or hereafter issued with respect to the
Project are referred to as the “Project Approvals.”
F.The City and Developer have reached agreement with respect to the Community Benefit and
desire to express herein a Community Benefit Program Agreement clearly setting forth the
Community Benefit to be provided by the Developer, and the scope and nature of excess
development capacity to be granted to Developer in exchange for said Community Development.
G.The Project is located within the Downtown Specific Plan area, which was the subject of an
Environmental Impact Report (EIR), State Clearinghouse number 20100022005. The Downtown
Dublin Specific Plan Final EIR was certified by City Council Resolution No. 08‐11 dated February 1,
2011 and updated with an Addendum adopted by the City in Resolution No 50‐14 (“Specific Plan
EIR”). Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines section 15168, the
Community Benefit Program Agreement is within the scope of the Project analyzed in the Specific
Plan EIR and no further CEQA review or document is required. This Community Program Benefit
Agreement does not impede, impair or otherwise seek to truncate or limit the City discretion in
considering any future Project Approvals for conducting any future CEQA review as required by
applicable law.
NOW, THEREFORE, with reference to the foregoing recitals and in consideration of the mutual promises,
obligations and covenants herein contained, City and Developer agree as follows:
AGREEMENT
1.Relationship of City and Developer.
It is understood that this Agreement is a contract that has been negotiated and voluntarily
entered into by the City and Developer and that the Developer is not an agent of the City. The
City and Developer hereby renounce the existence of any form of joint venture or partnership
between them, and agree that nothing contained herein or in any document executed in
connection herewith shall be construed as making the City and Developer joint venturers or
partners.
2.Effective Date and Term.
2.1 Effective Date. The effective date of this Agreement shall be the Approval Date.
Term. The term of this Agreement shall commence on the Effective Date and shall extend until the
earlier of the following: 1) the Developer has provided the Community Benefit to the City as provided in
Section 3 of this Agreement, 2) any of the Project Approvals expires, or 3) two years after the Effective
Date if no building permit has been issued for the Project.
3.Community Benefit to Be Provided by Developer.
3.1 Transient Occupancy Tax. Developer shall provide the following Community Benefit to the
City: a 138‐room Hotel which will supply more than 35 full‐time jobs to the community
and generate new Transient Occupancy Tax revenue to the City. The hotel development
is estimated to yield an annual TOT of $450,000.
3.2 Streetscape Improvements. In addition to the Developer’s contribution of a 138‐room
hotel, the creation of new full‐time jobs and transient occupancy tax, Developer shall
enhance the streetscape for the drive aisle (in between the Hooter’s building and the
Video Only building) into the property from Dublin Blvd. creating a more welcoming and
inviting corridor into the property. These enhancements would provide a fresh look and
feel of a city street into the property. Additionally, the applicant is working in good faith
with the three adjacent property owners to improve the easements in hopes of adopting
a streetscape improvement plan for the drive aisle from Regional Street.
3.3 Downtown Dublin Monument Sign. Lastly, in addition to the Developer’s contribution of
a 138‐room hotel, the creation of full‐time jobs, transient occupancy tax, and streetscape
improvements, Developers shall design, construct and install a new Downtown Dublin
monument sign similar to what is shown in Exhibit A, to be located on the corner of San
Ramon Road and Dublin Boulevard. The estimated cost for the design, construction and
installation for the sign is $200,000. The Developer shall provide the Community Benefit
to the City no later than the time of issuance of the first building permit for the Project.
In no event shall the City be required to issue a building permit unless the Community
Benefit has been provided to the City.
4.Security Deposit.Within 14 days of the Effective Date of this Community Benefit Program
Agreement, Developer shall furnish City a corporate surety bond issued by a company duly and
legally licensed to conduct a general surety business in the State of California, or an instrument
of credit equivalent to $200,000. Said security is intended to secure the provision by the
Developer of the Community Benefit described in Section 3 of this Agreement. If Developer fails
to provide the Community Benefit during the term of this Agreement, the deposit shall be
forfeit, and City shall have no obligation to return it to Developer. However, City shall return the
entire deposit if this Agreement expires without any development of the Project by the
Developer or if the Developer elects in writing to abandon its rights under the Project Approvals
and this Agreement at any time prior to the expiration of the Agreement, in which case the
Agreement shall automatically terminate.
5.
5.1
5.2
Reservation of Excess Development Capacity.
Reservation of Excess Capacity. During the term of the Agreement, and so long as each
of the Project Approvals remain in effect, City shall reserve 52,573 square feet of
commercial space allocated to the Transit Oriented District of the Specific Plan Area for
Developer’s use. If Developer fails to provide the Community Benefit during the
term of this Agreement, the Excess Capacity reserved for Developer shall
revert to the pool maintained by the City.
Limitation on City’s Obligation. This Agreement shall not be construed to require the City
to issue any Project Approval to the Developer. City is solely required to reserve the
Excess Capacity identified in Section 5.1 of this Agreement. Other than this obligation,
nothing in this Agreement shall prevent the City from denying or conditionally approving
any subsequent land use permit or authorization for the Project. All of City’s applicable
ordinances, resolutions, rules, regulations and official policies shall apply to the Project
including, but not limited to, those governing the permitted uses of the Property, design
and construction of the Project, density and intensity of use of the Project, and the
maximum height, bulk and size of proposed buildings within the Project.
6. Amendment or Cancellation.
6.1 Amendment by Mutual Consent. This Agreement may be amended in writing from time
to time by mutual consent of the parties.
7. Severability.
The unenforceability, invalidity or illegality of any provisions, covenant, condition or term of this
Agreement shall not render the other provisions unenforceable, invalid or illegal, unless a Party’s
consideration materially fails as a result.
8. Attorneys’ Fees and Costs.
If the City or Developer initiates any action at law or in equity to enforce or interpret the terms
and conditions of this Agreement, the prevailing party shall be entitled to recover reasonable
attorneys’ fees and costs in addition to any other relief to which it may otherwise be entitled. If
any person or entity not a party to this Agreement initiates an action at law or in equity to
challenge the validity of any provision of this Agreement, the parties shall cooperate in defending
such action. Developer shall bear its own costs of defense as a real party in interest in any such
action, and shall reimburse the City for all reasonable court costs and attorneys’ fees expended
by the City in defense of any such action or other proceeding.
9. Assignment.
Developer may wish to sell, transfer or assign all or portions of the Property to other developers
(each such other developer is referred to as a “Transferee”). In connection with any such sale,
transfer or assignment to a Transferee, Developer may sell, transfer or assign to such Transferee
its rights and obligations under this Agreement, so long as said transfer would not result in
development of the Property in excess of the FAR permitted by the Project Approvals. Affiliates
of Developer, including ventures in which Developer is the development partner but not the
majority owner, will not be considered Transferees for these purposes. No such transfer, sale or
assignment of Developer’s rights, interests and obligations hereunder shall occur without prior
written approval by the City Manager. The City Manager shall not unreasonably withhold
approval of any transfer and the sole criterion shall be that the proposed Transferee possesses
the financial ability to satisfy the obligations of Developer pursuant to Sections 3.1 and 3.2 of this
Agreement. Developer shall submit to the City Manager any notice of Developer’s intent to
transfer, sell or assign its interest, which shall include documentation that the Transferee satisfies
the criterion. Within five (5) business days after Developer submits its notice, the City Manager
may request any commercially reasonable documents, certifications and other information
necessary to determine whether the criterion is met, and the City Manager’s failure to request
such additional information shall constitute a determination that no such further information is
needed. The City Manager will make a written determination on any transfer, sale or assignment
on or before the later of: 1) five (5) days after Developer’s submission of additional information if
requested by the City Manager, or ten (10) calendar days after Developer’s notice of the proposed
transfer, and the City Manager’s failure to object in writing to the transfer, sale or assignment
within such time period shall constitute approval of the transfer.
10.Notices.
All notices required to be given to City under this Agreement shall be in writing and shall be
addressed as follows:
City Manager
City of Dublin
100 Civic Plaza
Dublin, CA 94568
Phone: (925) 833‐6650
Fax: (925) 833‐6651
Email: city.manager@dublin.ca.gov
All notices required to be given to Developer under this Agreement shall be in writing and shall
be addressed as follows:
VP‐RPG Dublin, LLC
L.Gerald Hunt
1840 San Miguel Dr., Suite 206
Walnut Creek, CA 94596
Phone: (925) 980‐7875
Email: jerry@rubiconpg.com
Village Investment Partners, L.P.
940 Emmett Avenue, Suite 200
Belmont, California 94002
Attention: John Glikbarg
Phone: (415) 227‐2208
Email: john@villageprop.com
11.Agreement is Entire Understanding.
This Agreement constitutes the entire understanding and agreement of the parties.
12.Legal Authority.
Each individual executing this Agreement hereby represents and warrants that he or she has fullpower and authority under the entity's governing documents to execute and deliver thisAgreement in the name of and on behalf of the company and to cause the entity to perform itsobligations under this Agreement.
13.No Third Party Beneficiaries.This Agreement is made and entered into for the sole benefit of the Parties and their successorsand assigns. No other persons shall have any right of action based upon any provision of thisAgreement.
14.Exhibits.The following documents are referred to in this Agreement and are attached hereto andincorporated herein as though set forth in full:
Exhibit A Downtown Dublin Monument Sign Rendering
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be executed as of the date and year first above written.
3350067.1
CITY OF DUBLIN
By: __________ _ Linda Smith, City Manager
Attest:
Marsha Moore, City Clerk
Approved as to form
John D. Bakker, City Attorney
VP-RPG DUBLIN, LLC, a California limited liability company
By: Delaware Retail Control, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company Its: Manager
By: Its:
Name: _;J.=..,,,r_c;,_h-'-'V\_....:...._..,__...J.!._"-'-'�-
Title: ___ V _____ _