Loading...
01-28-2014 - Agenda PacketPlanning Commission Regular Meeting City of Dublin January 28, 2014 City Council Chambers 7:00 P.M. 100 Civic Plaza 1. CALL TO ORDER & ROLL CALL 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG 3. ADDITIONS OR REVISIONS TO THE AGENDA 4. MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETINGS – January 14, 2014 5. ORAL COMMUNICATION - At this time, members of the public may address the Planning Commission on any non-agendized item(s) of interest to the public. In accordance with State Law, no action or discussion may take place on any item not appearing on the Planning Commission agenda. The Planning Commission may respond briefly to statements made or questions posed, or may request Staff to report back at a future meeting concerning the matter. Any member of the public may contact the Assistant Community Development Director regarding proper procedure to place an item on a future Planning Commission agenda. 6. CONSENT CALENDAR 7. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS 8. PUBLIC HEARINGS 8.1 PLPA-2013-00067 California Creekside Conditional Use Permit to amend the General Provisions and Development Standards for the California Creekside Planned Development Zoning. 8.2 PLPA 2013-00033 Dublin Ranch Subarea 3 General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment and Planned Development Rezone with a Stage 1 Development Plan, and PLPA 2013-00034 The Groves at Dublin Ranch (Lot 3) General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment, Planned Development Rezone with a Stage 1 and Stage 2 Development Plan, Site Development Review, and Vesting Tentative Map 8164 for 122 townhouse/condominium units. 9. NEW OR UNFINISHED BUSINESS 10. OTHER BUSINESS: Brief INFORMATION ONLY reports from the Planning Commission and/or Staff, including Committee Reports and Reports by the Planning Commission related to meetings attended at City Expense (AB 1234). 11. ADJOURNMENT This AGENDA is posted in accordance with Government Code Section 54954.2(a) and Government Code Section 54957.5 If requested, pursuant to Government Code Section 54953.2, this agenda shall be made available in appropriate alternative formats to persons with a disability, as required by Section 202 of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. Section 12132), and the federal rules and regulations adopted in implementation thereof. To make a request for disability-related modification or accommodation, please contact the City Clerk’s Office (925) 833-6650 at least 72 hours in advance of the meeting. A complete packet of information containing Staff Reports (Agenda Statements) and exhibits related to each item is available for public review at least 72 hours prior to a Planning Commission Meeting or, in the event that it is delivered to the Commission members less than 72 hours prior to a Planning Commission Meeting, as soon as it is so delivered. The packet is available in the Community Development Department. (OVER FOR PROCEDURE SUMMARY) OF DU��� i9�//�����• 82 STAFF REPORT PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: January 28, 2014 TO: Planning Commission SUBJECT: PUBLIC HEARING: PLPA-2013-00067 California Creekside Conditional Use Permit to amend the General Provisions and Development Standards for the California Creekside Planned Development Zoning (PA 95-048) Report prepared by: Seth Adams, Assistant Planner EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The Applicant is requesting approval of a Conditional Use Permit to amend the General Provisions and Development Standards for the California Creekside Planned Development Zoning (PA 95-048) in order to allow second-story additions to detached single-family homes. In addition, this amendment will permit existing homes with excess lot coverage within the development that exceed the 35% maximum for two-story homes and 40% maximum for one- story homes. The proposed amendment would not allow additional development potential or additional lot coverage to those residences already over the maximum lot coverage. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission: 1) Receive Staff presentation; 2) Open the public hearing; 3) Take testimony from the Applicant and the public; 4) Close the public hearing and deliberate; and 5) Adopt a Resolution approving a Conditional Use Permit to amend the General Provisions and Development Standards for the California Creekside Planned Development Zoning. Submitted By Reviewed By Assistant Planner Assistant Community Development Director COPIES TO: Applicant File ITEM NO.: • Page 1 of 6 DESCRIPTION: Figure 1. Project Site The project site is the California Creekside Planned Development - (PD) Zoning District, which is located within the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan area and bordered by Central Parkway to the north, Dublin Boulevard to the south, Hibernia Drive to the west, and Tassajara Creek to the east. The PD was originally approved by City Council Resolution No. 55- 96 on May 28, 1996 (Attachment 1), and includes 26.8 acres of Single-Family Residential, and 8.6 acres of Medium/High-Density Residential. The Planned Development approval permitted the construction of 277 dwelling f_ units, including 154 detached single-family homes, and 123 townhouses. The PD approval included development standards specific to California Creekside, including setbacks and yard areas, required parking, N and building height maximums. The PD specified that any other development standard that was not modified by the PD approval was to be governed by the general requirements and procedures of the R-1 District (Single-Family Residential) in the Dublin Zoning Ordinance. One such development standard that was not modified by the PD approval was lot coverage, which is limited in the R-1 District to 35% for two-story homes, and 40% for single- story homes. Also included in the original PD was Condition of Approval No. 2 which stated that additions to residences in the project were prohibited (see Attachment 1, Condition of Approval No. 2). In February of 2002 the Planning Commission approved a Conditional Use Permit to amend Condition of Approval No. 2 in order to permit single-story additions to detached, single-family dwellings within the California Creekside PD Zoning District, so long as the addition did not exceed a maximum height of 15-feet and was located to the side or rear of the home (Attachment 2). The Applicant's request (Attachment 3) is for approval of a Conditional Use Permit to further amend Condition of Approval No. 2 to permit second-story additions to detached, single-family dwellings if the addition meets all of the other development regulations within the PD. In addition to the Applicant's request, the City is initiating an amendment to the California Creekside Planned Development Zoning District to recognize homes within the PD that were built in excess of maximum lot coverage restrictions (35% for two-story homes and 40% for single-story homes) in order to change their status from legal non-conforming to legal conforming. 2 of 6 The proposed amendments are being reviewed under Section 8.32.080 of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance, which states that minor amendments to a Planned Development may be approved by the Planning Commission by means of a Conditional Use Permit as long as the amendment does not materially change the provisions or intent of the Planned Development Zoning Ordinance for the site. ANALYSIS: Single Family Residential Additions When the California Creekside Planned Development Zoning District was adopted in 1996, the purpose of prohibiting additions to homes was ostensibly to preserve the character of the development as it was originally designed and approved. While the desire to preserve the character of a neighborhood is understandable and desirable, blanket prohibitions on residential additions within a Planned Development Zoning District are not typical in Dublin and California Creekside is the only Planned Development in the city with such a prohibition. Typically, additions to homes are regulated based on maximum building height, minimum side and rear yard setbacks, and maximum lot coverage. As noted previously, the 2002 PD amendment made it possible for owners of detached single- family homes within California Creekside to build single-story additions to their homes so long as the addition did not exceed 15-feet in height and was located to the side or rear of the home, among other things. As amended in 2002, Condition of Approval No. 2 reads as follows: Additions to residences in this project are allowed under the following conditions. a. Additions are allowed to detached, single-family dwellings only. b. Additions shall be limited to the first floor and a maximum height of 15 feet. c. Additions shall be limited to side or rear yard areas. No additions shall be allowed to the front fagade of any buildings. d. Additions shall meet all development regulations of the R-1 Zoning District, including but not limited to, building setback and lot coverage requirements. e. Additions shall meet all aspects of the most currently adopted Dublin Building Code. Many of the homes in the California Creekside PD were constructed at the minimum side and rear yard setbacks resulting in very few single-family homes (approximately 30 out of 154) that could potentially be expanded on the first floor. Additionally, maximum lot coverage restrictions limit ground floor additions whereas second-story additions do not increase the lot coverage of a home. For these reasons, and combined with the fact that blanket prohibitions on residential additions are atypical for Dublin, Staff supports amending Condition of Approval No. 2 to allow second floor additions within the California Creekside PD (Attachment 4). In an effort to preserve the character of the neighborhood as originally designed and approved, Staff is proposing that all additions be required to be architecturally compatible with the existing residence. The proposed amendment to Condition of Approval No. 2 reads as follows: Additions to residences in this project are allowed under the following conditions: a. Additions are allowed to detached, single-family dwellings only. b. Additions shall meet all of the development standards within the PD Single-Family District, including but not limited to, building height, building setback and lot 3of6 coverage requirements, and applicable R-1 development standards not modified by the PD. c. Additions shall be architecturally compatible with the existing residence in terms of the building materials, colors, and elements. d. Additions shall meet all aspects of the most currently adopted Dublin Building Code. Single-Family Residential Lot Coverage As noted above, the Planned Development Zoning for California Creekside establishes certain development standards such as setbacks and yard areas, required parking, and building height maximums, and refers back to the R-1 District development regulations for all other development standards not modified by the PD approval. The purpose of these development standards is to create a neighborhood character. Lot coverage is a development standard that was not modified by the PD approval and therefore the R-1 District development regulations of 35% lot coverage for two-story homes and 40% lot coverage for single-story homes applies. During the processing of the Applicant's request, Staff discovered that some of the homes within California Creekside were approved and built in excess of the 35% and 40% lot coverage maximums allowed under the R-1 District development regulations. The result of these homes being out of compliance with the R-1 District lot coverage maximums, despite the City approving them this way, is that these residences are legal non-conforming and subject to the Non- Conforming Structures and Uses Section of the Zoning Code (Chapter 8.140); Chapter 8.140 establishes the conditions under which non-conforming structures can be maintained, improved, or replaced (Attachment 5). Lot coverage exceeding the R-1 standards of 35% and 40% is not uncommon in the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan area. These are existing homes, so the proposed change won't impact the character of the neighborhood. Therefore, Staff is proposing that the California Creekside Planned Development Zoning District be amended to recognize the homes built with excess lot coverage and therefore change their status from legal non-conforming to legal conforming. As a result, homeowners would no longer be subject to the restrictions of Chapter 8.140. The other homes within California Creekside that were built below the R-1 District lot coverage maximums would still be restricted to the 35% and 40% maximums as originally intended, and as such the character of the neighborhood would not be changed as a result of this amendment to the California Creekside development regulations. Staff is proposing to add the following lot coverage regulation for the PD Single-Family District under Section C.2 of the PD Zoning Ordinance (General Provisions and Development Standards) (Attachment 1): Amended Setbacks and Yards E. Lot Coverage: Lot Coverage shall be limited to a maximum of 40% for single-story homes, and 35% for two-story homes, with the exception of those homes originally built in excess of these standards and subsequently made legal conforming by Planning Commission Resolution No. 14-XX, which are limited to the lot coverage at which they were built. 4 of 6 CONSISTENCY WITH THE GENERAL PLAN, SPECIFIC PLAN AND ZONING ORDINANCE: The Project site is designated Single-Family Residential and Medium/High-Density Residential in the General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan, and is located in a Planned Development (PD) Zoning District permitting single-family detached houses and multifamily townhouses and condominiums. The Project, as conditioned, is consistent with the General Plan, Eastern Dublin Specific Plan, and the PD zoning. REVIEW BY APPLICABLE DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES: The Project consists of a Planned Development zoning text amendment only, and does not involve any development. If the Project is approved, any future development within the subject Planned Development Zoning District would be reviewed by the applicable departments and agencies for compliance with the amended development regulations. NOTICING REQUIREMENTS/PUBLIC OUTREACH: Public notice regarding this project was provided in accordance with State law. A Public Notice was mailed to all property owners and occupants within the affected Planned Development Zoning District, and a one-eighth page advertisement was also published in the Valley Times. In addition the Public Notice was posted at several locations throughout the City. To date, the City has received no objections regarding the Project. A copy of this Staff Report has been provided to the Applicant. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), together with the State Guidelines and City Environmental Regulations require that certain projects be reviewed for environmental impacts and when applicable, environmental documents prepared. Staff is recommending that the Project be found Categorically Exempt from CEQA, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15305, Minor Alterations in Land Use Limitations. The Project consists of a Conditional Use Permit to amend the development standards for an existing residential Planned Development Zoning District in order to allow second story additions to the detached single-family residential units within the PD, and to allow existing excess lot coverage within the development. ATTACHMENTS: 1) City Council Resolution No. 55-96 2) Planning Commission Resolution No. 02-07 3) Applicant's Written Statement 4) Resolution approving a Conditional Use Permit to amend the General Provisions and Development Standards for the California Creekside Planned Development Zoning 5) Chapter 8.140 of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance 5 of 6 GENERAL INFORMATION: APPLICANT/PROPERTY OWNER: Kevin McAuliffe, 4628 Hawk Way, Dublin, CA 94568 LOCATION: California Creekside Planned Development (PA 95- 048) ASSESSORS PARCEL NUMBERS: 986-0007-001 through 064 and 986-0006-005 through 094 (all detached single-family properties within the California Creekside Development) GENERAL PLAN LAND USE DESIGNATION: Single-Family Residential SPECIFIC PLAN LAND USE DESIGNATION: Eastern Dublin Specific Plan, Single-Family ZONING: Planned Development (PD PA 95-048) SURROUNDING USES: LOCATION ZONING GENERAL PLAN LAND USE CURRENT USE OF PROPERTY North PD Public/Semi-Public & Medium Elementary School & Density Residential Residential South PD General Commercial Shopping Center East PD Open Space/Stream Corridor Tassajara Creek West PD Medium-High Density Residential Apartments 6of6 RESOLUTION NO.55-96 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN APPROVING AND ESTABLISHING FINDINGS AND GENERAL PROVISIONS FOR A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT(PD)REZONING CONCERNING PA 95-048,CALIFORNIA CREEKSIDE WHEREAS,Kaufman&Broad of Northern California have requested approval of a Planned Development Rezoning to establish General Provisions and Development Regulations for a residential development consisting of 154 single family dwellings and 123 townhouses on approximately 35.4 gross acres(APN 946-15-1-10(por))in the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan area;and WHEREAS, a complete application for a Planned Development Rezoning is available and on file in the Planning Department;and WHEREAS,pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act(CEQA)the City has found, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15182,that the proposed residential project is within the scope of the Final Environmental Impact Report for the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan which was certified by the City Council by Resolution No. 51-93,and the Addenda dated May 4, 1993,and August 22, 1994(the"EIR"),and has further found that the proposed project is consistent with the adopted Eastern Dublin Specific Plan;and WHEREAS,the Planning Commission did hold a public hearing on said application on April 16, 1996 and did adopt Resolution 96-10 recommending that the City Council approve and establish findings, general provisions,and development standards for a Planned Development Rezoning,and recommending that the City Council adopt a Development Agreement for PA 95-048 California Creekside;and WHEREAS,proper notice of said public hearing was given in all respects as required by law;and WHEREAS,the Staff Report was submitted recommending that the City Council approve the Planned Development Rezone subject to conditions prepared by Staff;and WHEREAS,the City Council did hear and use their independent judgment and considered all said reports,recommendations and testimony hereinabove set forth. NOW,THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE Dublin City Council does hereby make the following findingsand determinations regarding said proposed Planned Development Rezone: 1. The Planned Development Rezone,as conditioned,is consistent with the general provisions, intent,and purpose of the PD District Overlay Zone of the Zoning Ordinance,the General Plan and the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan. The Planned Development Rezone will be appropriate for the subject property in terms of providing General Provisions which set forth the purpose,applicable provisions of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance,range of permitted and conditionally permitted uses,and Development Standards;which will be compatible with existing vacant and proposed commercial,office and residential uses in the immediate vicinity,and which enhance development of the Specific Plan area; and 2. The Planned Development Rezoning will not have a substantial adverse affect on health or safety or be substantially detrimental to the public welfare or be injurious to property or public improvement as all applicable regulations will be met;and 3. The Planned Development Rezoning will not overburden public services as the Dublin San Ramon Services District has stated that public services are available;and 1 ATTACHMENT I 4. The Planned Development Rezoning will be consistent with the policies of the Dublin General Plan and the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan designation of Single Family Residential,Low Density Residential,Medium Density Residential and Medium-High Density Residential;and 5. The Planned Development Rezoning will provide efficient use of the land pursuant to the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan that includes preservation of significant open areas and natural and topographic landscape features along Tassajara Creek with minimum alteration of natural land forms;and 6. ' The Planned Development Rezoning will provide an environment that will encourage the use of common open areas for neighborhood or community activities and other amenities through Conditions of Approval;and 7. The Planned Development Rezoning will create an attractive,efficient and safe environment through Conditions of Approval;and 8. The Planned Development Rezoning will benefit the public necessity,convenience and general welfare and is in conformance with Sections 8-31.0 to 8-31.19 of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance; and 9. The Planned Development Rezoning will be compatible with and enhance the general development of the area because it will be developed pursuant to Conditions of Approval and site development review;and 10. The Planned Development Rezoning will create attractive,efficient and safe development because it will be developed pursuant to Conditions of Approval and site development review. NOW THEREFORE BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT THE Dublin City Council does hereby approve a Planned Development Rezoning including the following General Provisions and Development Standards for PA 95-048, California Creekside,which constitute regulations for the use, improvement and maintenance of the 35.4±acre parcel 946-15-1-10(por)subject to the following Conditions of Approval: GENERAL PROVISIONS AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS GENERAL PROVISION A. Pose This approval is for a Planned Development(PD)District Rezoning for PA 95-048,California Creekside. This PD District Rezone includes a Land Use and Development Plan which is represented by the Tentative Map dated received April 10, 1996, Site Plan'and Preliminary Landscape Plan dated received April 2, 1996(Both Labeled Exhibit A),and the written statements provided by the Applicant dated received April 1, 1996 and on file. The PD District Rezone allows the flexibility needed to encourage innovative development while ensuring that the goals,policies and action programs of the General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan are met. More particularly,the PD District Rezone is intended to ensure the following policies are met: 1. The approval of this Planned bevelopment Rezone shall be pursuant to the term set forth in the Development Agreement approved by the City of Dublin on May 28, 1996,and recorded on 1996. In the event of conflict between the terms of the Development Agreement and the following conditions,the terms of the Development Agreement shall prevail. [PW,PL]. + 2 2. Encourage innovative approaches to site planning,building design and construction to create a range of housing types and prices,and to provide housing for all segments of the community. 3. Create an attractive,efficient and safe environment. 4. Develop an environment that encourages social interaction and the use of common open areas for neighborhood or community activities and other amenities. 5. Create an environment that decreases dependence on the private automobile. B. Dublin Zoning Ordinance-Applicable Requirements Except as specifically modified by the provisions of the PD District Rezone,all applicable and general requirements and procedures of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance R-1 District shall be applied to the PD Single Family Residential designated lands,and of the R-3 District shall be applied to the PD Medium- High Density Residential designated lands in this PD District. C. General Provisions and Development Standards 1. Intent: This Planned Development District is to be established to provide for and regulate the development of the California Creekside Subdivision. Development shall be generally consistent with the Land Use Development Plan. This approval rezones 35.4 gross acres currently zoned Business Park Industrial to 26.8 gross acres zoned PD Single Family Residential District(154 dwelling units at 5.75 dwelling units per acre)and 8.6 gross acres zoned PD Medium-High Density Residential District(123 dwelling units at 14.3 dwelling units per Acre),for a total maximum of 277 dwelling units. 2. PD Single Family Residential Permitted Uses: The following principal uses are permitted in the PD Single Family Residential district: A. Residential development limited to: 1. Single Family Detached houses Prohibited Uses: The following uses are prohibited in the PD Single Family Residential district: 1. Field Crops 2. Orchards 3. Plant Nurseries 4. Greenhouses used only for cultivation of plant materials for sale 5. Hospital Conditional Uses: All conditional uses in the R-1 District are conditional uses in the PD Single Family Residential district with the exception of prohibited uses listed above. Development Standards: Development standards within the PD Single Family district are as follows. 3 SETBACKS AND YARDS A. Minimum Single Family Setbacks: The minimum setbacks for single family detached houses and accessory structures shall be as follows: Front Setbacks: Eighteen(18)foot minimum from the property line to the garage face Fifteen(15)foot minimum from the property line to the habitable portion of the house Sideyard Setbacks: Five(5)foot minimum from the property line Street Sideyard Setbacks: Ten(10)foot minimum from the property line. Rear Yard Setbacks: Twelve(12)foot minimum from the property line Accessory Structures: Five(5)foot minimum from the property line B. Exceptions to the Setback requirements are as follows: Architectural projections(such as eves,columns,balconies,awnings,steps, and fireplaces)may encroach up to a maximum of two(2)feet into a required front,rear,or side yard setback and decks may encroach a maximum of five(5)feet into a required rear yard setback. C. Buildin Height Restrictions: Buildings are to be limited to a maximum of two(2)stories and a height of thirty(30)feet measured at the topmost point of the structure. This height limitation shall not apply to chimneys. Accessory structures are limited to a maximum height of fifteen(15)feet. D. Parkin The number of parking spaces required for each single family detached house shall be two(2)garage spaces and two(2)spaces in the driveway apron. 2. PD Multi-Family Residential Permitted Uses: The following principal uses are permitted in the PD Multi-Family Residential district: A. Residential development Iimited to: 1. Multifamily Townhouse units 2. Multifamily Condominium units Prohibited Structures: Accessory Structures are not permitted except for common area facilities such as pool equipment,restroom buildings,trash enclosures,and similar structures. 4 Prohibited Uses: The following uses are prohibited in the PD Multi-Family Residential district: 1. Field Crops 2. Orchards 3. Plant Nurseries 4. Greenhouses used only for cultivation of plant materials for sale 5. Hospital Conditional Uses: All conditional uses in the R-3 District are conditional uses in the PD Multi-Family Residential district with the exception of prohibited uses listed above. Development Standards: Development standards within the PD Multi-Family district are as follows. SETBACKS AND YARDS A. Minimum Multi-Family Setbacks: The minimum setbacks for multi-family attached houses and accessory structures shall be as follows: Front Setbacks: Ten(10)foot minimum from the public street right- of way to the garage face Ten(10)foot minimum from the public street right- of way to the habitable portion of the house Four(4)foot minimum from the public street right-of way to the porch face Zero(0)foot minimum from common area parcel lines Fifteen(15)foot minimum from adjacent buildings Sideyard Setbacks: Five(5)foot minimum from the public street right-of way Zero(0)foot minimum from common area parcel lines Fifteen(15)foot minimum from adjacent buildings Rear Yard Setbacks: Twelve(12) foot minimum from the public street right-of way Zero(0)foot minimum from common area parcel lines • Thirty(30)foot minimum from garage face to garage face Accessory Structures: Five(5)foot minimum from the public street right-of way when permitted 5 B. Exceptions to the Setback requirements are as follows: Architectural projections(such as eves,columns,balconies,awnings,steps,and fireplaces)may encroach up to a maximum of two(2)feet into a required front,rear,or side yard setback and decks may encroach a maximum of five(5)feet into a required rear yard setback. C. Building Height Restrictions: Buildings are to be limited to a maximum of two(2)habitable stories and underground garage,and a height of thirty-five(35)feet measured at the topmost point of the structure. This height limitation shall not apply to chimneys. . D. Parking: The number of parking spaces required for each multi-family detached house shall be two(2)garage spaces. Fifty-one(5 1)guest parking spaces shall be provided as shown in Exhibit A. PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REZONE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: Unless stated otherwise all Conditions of Approval shall be complied with prior to final occupancy of any building 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, r ] Planning, [BI Building. rPOI Police [,P)E Public Works, [ADM1 Administration/City Attorney,[FINI Finance. [F]Dougherty Regional Fire Authority. [DSR)Dublin San Ramon Services District. [COI Alameda County Flood Control&Water Conservation District(Zone 7). 1. The Land Use and Development Plan is conceptual in nature. No formal amendment of this PD Rezone will be required as long as the materials submitted for the Tentative Map and Site Development Review are in substantial conformance with this PD Rezone and the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan. The Community Development Director shall determine conformance or non- conformance and appropriate processing procedures for modifying this PD Rezone(i.e.staff approval,Planning Commission approval of Conditional Use Permit,or City Council approval of new PD Rezone). Major modifications,or revisions not found to be in substantial conformance with this PD Rezone shall require a new PD Rezone. A subsequent PD rezone may address all or a portion of the area covered by this PD Rezone. [PL] 2. Additions to residences in this project are prohibited. [PL] 3. The applicant shall comply with all applicable grading guidelines as indicated on page 103 of the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan. [PW,PL] 4. All project construction shall conform to all building codes and ordinances in effect at the time of building permit. [B] 5. The applicant shall comply with all Eastern Dublin Specific Plan EIR mitigation measures for mitigating potentially significant plant and animal species impacts(e.g.Applicant shall submit a preconstruction survey prepared within 60 days prior to any habitat modification to verify the presence of sensitive species. A biologist shall prepare the survey and shall be subject to the Planning Department review and approval). Any updated surveys and/or studies that may be completed by a biologist prior to Tentative Map application submittal shall be submitted with the Tentative Map application.(222,23 0)[PL] 'No, 6 e 6. Applicant shall comply with all DRFA fire standards,including minimum standards for emergency access roads and payment of applicable fees,including a Fire Capital Impact Fee. (74, 77)[F] 7. The location and siting of project specific wastewater,storm drain,recycled water,and potable water system infrastructure shall be consistent with the resource management policies of the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan. (39,40)[PL,PW] 8. Any proposed modifications or alterations to Tassajara Creek shall be approved by the City of Dublin and any required permitting agencies and shall be consistent with the policies of Eastern Dublin Specific Plan and FEIR the Eastern Dublin Comprehensive Stream Restoration Program and the Master Drainage Plan. (41)[PW,PL] 9. The garbage service provider shall be consulted to ensure that adequate space is provided to accommodate collection and sorting of petrucible solid waste as well as source-separated recyclable materials generated by the residents within this project. (279)[PL] 10. The applicant shall comply with the City's solid waste management and recycling requirements. [ADM] 11. The use of rodenticides and herbicides within the project area will be restricted to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director to reduce potential impacts to wildlife. A written statement from the developer shall be submitted to the Community Development Director to that effect prior to issuance of the Grading Permit. (221)[PL] 12. The applicant shall comply with the City's solid waste management and recycling requirements. (103,279)[ADM] 13. The applicant shall comply with all applicable action programs and mitigation measures of the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment/Specific Plan and companion Final Environmental Impact Report(FEIR),respectively,that have not been made specific Conditions of Approval of this PD Rezone. [PL] PASSED,APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 28th day of May, 1996,by the following vote: AYES: Councilmembers Barnes, Burton, Howard, Moffatt and Mayor Houston NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None Mayor ATTEST: L Deputy City Clerk GAPA95-04ftepdres 7 RESOLUTION NO. 02 - 07 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT PA 01-035,AMENDING CONDITION NO. 2 OF CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 55-96 WHICH SETFORTH THE FINDINGS AND GENERAL PROVISIONS FOR THE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REZONE OF CALIFORNIA CREEKSIDE (PA 95-048) WHEREAS, Terence Wong requests approval of a Conditional Use Permit to modify Condition 2 of City Council Resolution No. 55-96 setting forth the Findings and General Provisions for the California Creekside Planned Development Rezone approved May 28, 1996, to allow minor additions to single-family houses in the development, and WHEREAS, Section 8.32.080 of the City of Dublin Zoning Ordinance, Planned Development Zoning District states that the Planning Commission by means of a Conditional Use Permit may approve minor amendments to an adopted Development Plan upon a finding that the amendment substantially complies with and does not material change the provisions or intent of the adopted Planned Development Zoning Ordinance for the site, and WHEREAS,proper notice of said public hearing was given in all respects as required by law; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Dublin held a public hearing on said application on February 26, 2002, and WHEREAS, the proposed revisions to the Conditions of Approval have been reviewed and it has been determined that the revisions are consistent with the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan, which was adopted in 1994 and has a certified Program EIR(SCH No. 91-103064). Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), CEQA Guidelines Section 15182, the proposed project is within the scope of the Final Environmental Impact Report for the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan, which was certified by the City Council by Resolution No. 51-93 and the Addenda dated May 4, 1993 and August 22, 1994 (the ("EIR"); and WHEREAS,the staff report was submitted recommending the Planning Commission approve the Conditional Use Permit in accordance with the findings referenced below, and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did hear and consider all said reports, recommendations and testimony hereinabove set forth. NOW, THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED THAT the Dublin Planning Commission does hereby find that: I. The proposed revisions to the Conditions of Approval are compatible with the other land uses, transportation and service facilities in the vicinity as the implementation of ATTACHMENT 2 the revised conditions will allow for minor single-story additions to approximately 20% of the existing houses in this established neighborhood. 2. The proposed revisions to the Conditions of Approval 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 as the revision allows for minor additions only to existing residences. 3. The proposed revisions to the Conditions of Approval will not be injurious to property -or improvements in the neighborhood as the revised condition will allow additions that are minor in nature. 4. The proposed project will allow for adequate provisions for public access, water, sanitation and public utilities because it will use existing facilities and infrastructure, ensuring that the proposed use and related structures will not be detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare. 5. The revised Conditions of Approval will not alter the existing development pattern, therefore, the site will remain physically suited for the type, density and intensity of the planned use and those structures being proposed. 6. The proposed revisions will not be contrary to the specific intent clauses, development regulations, or performance standards established for the Planned Development Zoning District because the revised condition will still meet the intent of the development regulations and the performance standards. 7. The proposed revised Conditions of Approval are consistent with the Dublin General Plan and the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT the Planning Commission of the City of Dublin does hereby conditionally approve PA 01-035, Conditional Use Permit to revise California Creekside Planned Development Condition 2 of City Council Resolution No. 55-96 as follows: Amended Condition 2: Additions to residences in this project are allowed under the following conditions: a. Additions are allowed to detached, single-family dwellings only. b. Additions shall be limited to the first floor and a maximum height of 15 feet. c. Additions shall be limited to side or rear yard areas. No additions shall be allowed to the front facade of any buildings. d. Additions shall meet all development regulations of the R-1 Zoning District, including but not limited to, building setback and lot coverage requirements. e. Additions shall meet all aspects of the most currently adopted Dublin Building Code. PASSED,APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 25`h day of February 2002. AYES: Cm. Johnson, Musser, Jennings, Fasulkey &Nassar NOES: ABSENT: lann' g mmission Chairperson ATTEST: Planning anager GAPA#\2001\01-035\PC RESO.doc City of Dublin Planning Department 100 Civic Plaza Dublin,94568 Per my email exchanges with Assistant Planner Seth Adams,the purpose of this letter is to request an amendment to the Planned Development PA95-048 to allow a second story addition above an existing living room and family room.This would add approximately 300 square foot to accommodate our expected second child and create a 4f bedroom and small loft-play area (see attached). The addition will be architecturally compatible with the craftsman-style of my home.The exterior will be designed to match the colors, style,materials and detailing with the existing elements of my home.The idea of the addition is to have the look and feel so one would think it was an original design/build. I have also spoken to the neighbors to the right of my house about the proposed build and they are not concerned with my proposed addition as they only have one window facing my house,which is a bathroom. There is a single-story home to the back of my house but this should not effect them as this build would be to the right side/front of my house. Thank you to Seth and the team for their assistance and support thus far and for your consideration in this matter. I can be reached at 714-350-6575 or kmcauliffePearthlink.net with ANY questions. Regards, RE!CEIVJED `O B 2013 r ► €� !"PLAN Kevin McAuliffe ATTACHMENT 3 RESOLUTION NO. 14-XX A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO AMEND THE GENERAL PROVISIONS AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR THE CALIFORNIA CREEKSIDE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT ZONING (PA 95-048) PLPA-2013-00016 WHEREAS, the Applicant has requested approval of a Conditional Use Permit to amend Condition of Approval No. 2 of City Council Resolution No. 55-96 setting forth the Findings and General Provisions for the California Creekside Planned Development Rezone approved May 28, 1996 and amended February 26, 2002 by Planning Commission Resolution No. 02-07, in order to allow second story additions to detached single-family houses in the development; and WHEREAS, the City of Dublin is initiating an amendment to the California Creekside Planned Development Zoning District to change the status of existing homes built in excess of maximum lot coverage restrictions from legal non-conforming to legal conforming and to add a lot coverage regulation to the General Provisions and Development Standards for the California Creekside PD; and WHEREAS, certain residences within the California Creekside Planned Development were inadvertently approved and built in excess of the lot coverage regulations contained within Section 8.36.020(A) of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance; and WHEREAS, Section 8.32.080 of the City of Dublin Zoning Ordinance, Planned Development Zoning District, states that the Planning Commission by means of a Conditional Use Permit may approve minor amendments to an adopted Development Plan upon a finding that the amendment substantially complies with and does not materially change the provisions or intent of the adopted Planned Development Zoning Ordinance for the site; and WHEREAS, the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), together with State Guidelines and City Environmental Regulations require that certain projects be reviewed for environmental impacts and that environmental documents be prepared; and WHEREAS, pursuant to the CEQA, the Planning Commission finds this project Categorically Exempt from CEQA, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15305, Minor Alterations in Land Use Limitations; and WHEREAS, a Staff Report was submitted to the City of Dublin Planning Commission recommending approval of the Conditional Use Permit request; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on said application on January 28, 2014 at which time all interested parties had the opportunity to be heard; and WHEREAS, proper notice of said hearing was given in all respects as required by law; and ATTACHMENT 4 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did hear and consider all said reports, recommendations and testimony herein above set forth and used its independent judgment to evaluate the project. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City of Dublin Planning Commission does hereby make the following findings and determinations regarding the Conditional Use Permit: A. The proposed use and related structures are compatible with other land uses, transportation and service facilities in the vicinity in that: 1) the existing use is Single- Family Residential; 2) the amended Condition of Approval will not substantially alter the character of the Planned Development as it restricts additions to detached, single-family dwellings only, 3) the amended Condition of Approval states that additions shall be architecturally compatible with the existing residence in terms of the building materials, colors, and elements; and 4) the amendment will not allow those residences built in excess of the lot coverage regulations to be further developed in such a manner as to increase the lot coverage beyond what was originally approved and constructed. B. It 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) the amended Condition of Approval restricts additions to detached, single-family dwellings within an existing residential development; and 2) any additions to detached, single-family dwellings are required to meet all of the existing development standards for the Planned Development Zoning District, including, but not limited to building height, building setback, and lot coverage. C. It will not be injurious to property or improvements in the neighborhood in that: 1) the amended Condition of Approval restricts additions to detached, single-family dwellings within an existing residential development; and 2) the amendment will not allow those residences built in excess of the lot coverage regulations to be further developed in such a manner as to increase the lot coverage beyond what was originally approved and constructed. D. 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 amendment applies only to detached single-family dwellings within an existing residential development for which all public access, services, and utilities are in place. E. The subject site is physically suitable for the type, density and intensity of the use and related structures being proposed in that: 1) additions are limited to existing detached single-family dwellings subject to compliance with building height, setback and lot coverage development standards and would not alter the existing development pattern of the Planned Development Zoning District, including the type, density and intensity of the use and related structures. F. It 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 amendment recognizes the excess lot coverage and changes the status of those 2 of 4 residences from legal non-conforming to legal conforming; 2) the amendment will not allow those residences built in excess of the lot coverage regulations to be further developed in such a manner as to increase the lot coverage beyond what was originally approved and constructed; 3) the amendment will not change the character of the neighborhood or intent of the PD; and 4) the amended Condition of Approval requires that all additions meet the development standards for the PD Single-Family District, including but not limited to, building height, building setback, and lot coverage. G. It is consistent with the Dublin General Plan and with any applicable Specific Plans in that: 1) the site is designated as Single-Family Residential in the General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan; and 2) the amendment applies only to the detached single- family dwellings within the Planned Development Zoning District. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Planning Commission does hereby approve a Conditional Use Permit to amend Condition of Approval No. 2 of City Council Resolution No. 55- 96 for the California Creekside Planned Development as follows: Amended Condition 2: Additions to residences in this project are allowed under the following conditions: a. Additions are allowed to detached, single-family dwellings only. b. Additions shall meet all of the development standards within the PD Single-Family District, including but not limited to, building height, building setback and lot coverage requirements, and applicable R-1 development standards not modified by the PD. c. Additions shall be architecturally compatible with the existing residence in terms of the building materials, colors, and elements. d. Additions shall meet all aspects of the most currently adopted Dublin Building Code. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Planning Commission does hereby approve a Conditional Use Permit to amend City Council Resolution No. 55-96 for the California Creekside Planned Development in order to recognize the homes built with excess lot coverage and therefore change their status from legal non-conforming to legal conforming, and to add the following lot coverage regulation under General Provisions and Development Standards, General Provisions, subsection C. General Provisions and Development Standards, subsection 2. PD Single-Family Residential, Setbacks and Yards: E. Lot Coverage: Lot Coverage shall be limited to a maximum of 40% for single-story homes, and 35% for two-story homes, with the exception of those homes originally built in excess of these standards and subsequently made legal conforming by Planning Commission Resolution No. 14- XX, which are limited to the lot coverage at which they were built.. 3 of 4 PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 28th day of January 2014 by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Planning Commission Chair ATTEST: Assistant Community Development Director G:1PA#120131PLPA-2013-00067 California Creekside PD Amendment CUPIPC 1.28.141PC Reso CA Creekside CUP.docx 4 of 4 Chapter 8.140 NON-CONFORMING STRUCTURES AND USES http://www.codepublishing.com/ca/Dublin/dublin08/DublinO8l4O.ht... Chapter 8.140 NON-CONFORMING STRUCTURES AND USES 8.140.010 Purpose. To establish regulations relating to non-conforming structures and uses and to establish conditions under which non-conforming structures and uses may be maintained, restored, replaced, repaired, altered, changed, expanded, or amortized. Intent. The intent of this Chapter is to prevent the expansion of non-conforming structures and uses and to amortize them over time. 8.140.020 Non-Conforming Structure. A Non-Conforming Structure is a structure that was legally constructed prior to the effective date of this Ordinance but which does not conform to the current provisions of this Title. 8.140.030 Non-Conforming Structure Regulations. All non-conforming structures shall conform to the following regulations: A. Conformity to this Ordinance, all City Codes, and other regulations and laws.All work performed on a non-conforming structure shall be pursuant to a building permit, meet all the requirements of this Ordinance and all City Codes, and conform to any other health or safety regulations or laws imposed by local, County, State, regional, or Federal agencies in effect at the time of the work and shall not expand any non-conformity. B. Maintenance. Ordinary maintenance and minor repair of non-conforming structures is permitted if the aggregate cost of the work done in any period of 12 consecutive months does not exceed 25% of the replacement value of the structure as determined by the building official and provided further that the size of the structure or number of dwelling units is not increased. C. Restoration.A non-conforming structure which is damaged to an extent of 50% or less of its replacement cost as determined by the Building Official immediately prior to such damage may be restored only if made to conform to all provisions of this Ordinance. A non-conforming structure which is damaged to an extent of more than 50% of its replacement cost shall not be restored except as otherwise provided below for residential structures. D. Replacement of destroyed non-conforming residence.Any residential structure(s), including multifamily structures, in a residential zoning district destroyed by a catastrophe, including fire, may be reconstructed up to the original size, placement, and number of dwelling units. The Director of Community Development may require changes to the plans for the residence if necessary to protect the public health, safety and welfare. Reconstruction shall commence within two years after the catastrophe and shall be diligently pursued to completion. E. Repairs and alterations to non-conforming residence. Repairs and alterations may be made to non-conforming residences, including multifamily structures, without replacement cost limitations, if located in a residential zoning district and if the requirements of"A" above are met. ATTACHMENT 5 1 of 4 1/15/2014 2:12 PM Chapter 8.140 NON-CONFORMING STRUCTURES AND USES http://www.codepublishing.com/ca/Dublin/dublinO8/DublinO8l4O.ht... F. Repairs, interior modifications, and alterations to non-conforming non-residential structures. Repairs, interior modifications, and alterations to non-conforming non-residential structures may be made provided that none of the structural alterations shall prolong the life of the supporting members of a structure, such as bearing walls, columns, beams, or girders. Structural elements may be modified or repaired only if the Building Official determines that such modification or repair is immediately necessary to protect the public health, safety and welfare of occupants of the non-conforming structures, or adjacent property, and the cost of all repairs or alterations does not exceed 50% of the replacement cost of the non-conforming structure immediately before such repairs or alterations as determined by the Building Official. G. Seismic repairs. Reconstruction required to reinforce unreinforced masonry or otherwise seismically unsafe structures shall be permitted without replacement cost limitations, provided the retrofitting is limited exclusively to comply with earthquake safety standards. H. Loss of non-conforming structure status. If the use of a non-conforming structure is discontinued for a period of twelve or more consecutive calendar months, the structure shall lose its non-conforming structure status, and shall be removed or altered to conform to the provisions of this Ordinance. Such removal or alteration to conform to the provisions of this Ordinance shall occur within 12 months of the date that loss of non-conforming structure status is determined or within such other date the City Council decides pursuant to the hearing in Section 8.140.070 below. Failure to remove or alter the structure beyond that period, without written approval of the Director of Community Development due to unusual circumstances, constitutes a violation of this Ordinance pursuant to Chapter 8.144, Enforcement.A use of a non-conforming structure shall be considered abandoned or discontinued whenever any of the following apply: 1. The use of a non-conforming structure is discontinued for a period of twelve or more consecutive calendar months. 2. Removal of components of the use. The actual removal of characteristic furnishings, equipment, structures, machinery, or other components of the use occurs during the twelve month period. 3. No business receipts or records are available for the twelve month period. 4. Utility bills indicate that no use has occurred during the twelve month period. 8.140.040 Non-Conforming Use. A Non-Conforming use is a use of a structure or land that was legally established prior to the effective date of this Ordinance but which does not conform to the current provisions of this Title. 8.140.050 Non-Conforming Use Regulations. All non-conforming uses shall conform to the following regulations: A. Change of ownership or tenancy.The change of ownership, tenancy, or management of a non-conforming use shall not affect its non-conforming status, provided that the use, extent, and intensity of use does not change. B. Residential uses in a non-residential zoning district.A non-conforming residential use in a 2 of 4 1/15/2014 2:12 PM Chapter S.140 NON-CONFORMING STRUCTURES AND USES http://www.codepublishing.com/ca/Dublin/dublinO8/DublinO8l4O.ht... non-conforming residential structure in a non-residential zoning district may continue to be used as a residence subject to the requirements of the R-1 zoning district (if a single-family dwelling) or of the R-M zoning district (if a multifamily dwelling) until such time as the building is amortized, condemned, removed, or converted to a conforming use. C. Expansion, intensification, or modification of a non-residential use in a residential zoning district. No expansion, intensification, or modification of a non-residential use in a residential zoning district shall be permitted. D. Loss of non-conforming use status. If the non-conforming use of a structure is discontinued for a period of twelve or more consecutive calendar months, the use shall lose its non-conforming use status, and all rights to reestablish or continue the non-conforming use shall terminate regardless of any reservation of an intent not to abandon or of an intent to resume active operations. Abandonment or discontinuance of use shall be deemed to have occurred whenever any of the following apply: 1. The non-conforming use of a structure is discontinued for a period of twelve or more consecutive calendar months. 2. A non-conforming use is replaced by a conforming use. 3. Removal of components of the use. The actual removal of characteristic furnishings, equipment, structures, machinery, or other components of the use occurs during the twelve month period. 4. No business receipts or records are available for the twelve month period. 5. Utility bills indicate that no use has occurred during the twelve month period. E. Replacement of a non-conforming use with another non-conforming use is prohibited. F. Expansion or intensification of a non-conforming use is prohibited. 8.140.060 Building Permits or Certificates of Occupancy prohibited. When any non-conforming structure or use is no longer permitted pursuant to the provisions of this Ordinance (loss of non-conforming structure status, or at end of amortization period as determined by the City Council), no Building Permit or Certificate of Occupancy shall thereafter be issued for further continuance, alteration, or expansion of the use or structure. Any Building Permit or Certificate of Occupancy issued in error shall not be construed as allowing the continuation of the non-conforming structure or use. 8.140.070 Amortization. When the Director of Community Development determines that a structure or use is non-conforming, a public hearing shall be held by the City Council pursuant to Chapter 8.13-2, Notice and Hearings.At that hearing the City Council shall hear a report by the Director of Communit Development on the issue and shall determine if the structure or use should be amortized and over what period. The non-conforming structure or use shall be discontinued within the amortization period determined by the City Council. 8.140.080 Illegal Structures and Uses. 3 of 4 1/15/2014 2:12 PM Chapter 8.140 NON-CONFORMING STRUCTURES AND USES http://www.codepublishing.com/ca/Dublin/dublinO8/DublinO8l4O.ht... Nothing contained in this Ordinance shall be construed or implied so as to allow for the continuation of illegal non-conforming structures and uses. Structures and Uses which are not legally constructed or established shall be removed and/or discontinued immediately, pursuant to Chapter 8_144, Enforcement. 8.140.090 Exemption. All commercial uses that are not illegal uses that are established in commercial zoning districts at the time this Ordinance becomes effective are hereby determined to be non-conforming land uses. The Dublin Municipal Code is current through Ordinance 9-13, passed November 19, 2013. Disclaimer: The City Clerk's Office has the official version of the Dublin Municipal Code. Users should contact the City Clerk's Office for ordinances passed subsequent to the ordinance cited above. 4 of 1/15/2014 2:12 PM i9i//���I � STAFF REPORT 82 PLANNING COMMISSION 04LIF0'¢��� DATE: January 28, 2014 TO: Planning Commission SUBJECT: PUBLIC HEARING - PLPA 2013-00033 Dublin Ranch Subarea 3 General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment and Planned Development Rezone with a Stage 1 Development Plan, and PLPA 2013- 00034 The Groves at Dublin Ranch (Lot 3) General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment, Planned Development Rezone with a Stage 1 and Stage 2 Development Plan, Site Development Review, and Vesting Tentative Map 8164 for 122 townhouse/condominium units Report prepared by Mike Porto, Consulting Planner EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The Project Proponent, Kevin Fryer, is representing the property owners of two adjacent project sites: Subarea 3: The Applicant is requesting a General Plan Amendment (GPA) and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment (EDSPA) and Planned Development rezone with proposed related Stage 1 Development Plan for the 64-acre area. The proposed GPA/EDSPA would modify the acreage allocated to land uses as follows: a) Medium Density Residential (6.1 to 14 units per acre) —from 27.2 acres to 38 acres; b) Medium- High Density Residential (MHDR) (14.1 to 25.0 units per acre) — from 8.6 acres 7.5 acres; c) Rural Residential/Agriculture — from 0 acres to 14.5 acres (as a partial replacement for 24.9 acres of Open Space); and d) Stream Corridor — from 1.3 acres to 2 acres. No changes are proposed for a 2-acre Neighborhood Park. The Request includes Planned Development Zoning and Stage 1 Development Plan consistent with the GPA/EDSPA. A conceptual project of approximately 437 units is anticipated. The Groves Lot 3: The project is a General Plan/Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment to change the land use designation from High- Density Residential (25+ units per acre) to Medium-High Density Residential (MHDR) (14.1 to 25.0 units per acre) and a Planned Development rezone and related Stage 1 and Stage 2 Development Plan, Site Development Review Permit, and Vesting Tentative Map 8164 for 122 townhouse/condominium units on approximately 6.36 net acres. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission: 1) Receive Staff presentation; 2) Open the Public Hearing; 3) Take testimony from the Applicant and the public, 4) Close the public hearing and deliberate; and 5) Adopt the following: a) Resolution recommending that the City Council adopt a Resolution adopting an Addendum for Dublin Ranch Subarea 3; b) Resolution recommending that the City Council adopt a Resolution approving General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendments for Dublin Ranch Subarea 3 and The Groves Lot 3; and c) Resolution recommending that the City Council adopt an Ordinance approving a Planned Development Zoning District for Subarea 3 with a related Stage 1 Development Plan to replace uses adopted by Ordinance 24-97; d) Resolution recommending that the City Council adopt an Ordinance for the Groves Lot 3 to a Planned Development Zoning District with related Stage 1 and Stage 2 Development Plan; and e) Resolution recommending that the City Council adopt a Resolution approving the Site COPIES TO: Applicant File ITEM NO.: Page 1 of 20 G:\PA#\2013\PLPA-2013-00033 DUBLIN RANCH Subarea 3\PC Mtg 01.28.14\pc sr Kit's Comments subarea 3 and groves lot 3 011914.doc Development Review Permit and Vesting Tentative Map 8164 for Lot 3 for 122 townhouse/condominium units on approximately 8.8 gross acres (6.36 net acres). C-) Su mitted�ByOre-' R'evi6wed By Mike Porto, Consulting Planner Assistant Community Development Director PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The project proponent, Kevin Fryer, represents the owners of two adjacent projects which include Dublin Ranch Subarea 3 and The Groves Lot 3 shown in the vicinity map below. Both projects include General Plan Amendments to change land uses. State law allows only four (4) General Plan Amendments per calendar year; General Plan Amendments for specific projects can be grouped together and adopted by one Resolution. These projects, and the requested General Plan Amendments, have been consolidated into one Staff Report and presented for concurrent consideration to ensure that the City does not exceed four Amendments during 2014. } 1)[1HLM RANCH �Rll�n�vs h1.�5T DUBIN U WAY- SUBAREA 3 PRA AREA ROU"AW Ltn'3 Figure 1: VICINITY MAP Subarea 3 The subject site is located in Area B of Dublin Ranch and received PD Zoning approval in 1997 predating the Stage 1 and Stage 2 PD approval process. The 64-acre project site is undeveloped and currently vacant; it is bounded on four sides by improved streets. Since the original land use approvals in 1997, there have been no additional applications or requests for entitlements. However, precise alignments for both Dublin Boulevard and Fallon Road have been adopted and subsequently improved resulting in a reconfiguration of the development 2 of 20 areas and a request by the property owner to modify the land use layout. Preliminary grading has been done at various times on the site. The site has two hills in the northeast corner rising to an elevation of 470 feet and causing the site to slope from the northeast to the southwest. The slopes on the site range from less than 5% to 50% on the face of the hills. A stream corridor on the site travels approximately 1,000 feet from the northwest corner of the site in a southeasterly direction to the middle of the site. At that point, the water is collected in a storm drain pipe which ultimately drains to the regional water quality basin located between 1-580 and Dublin Boulevard. Surrounding streets are Central Parkway to the north, Dublin Boulevard to the south, Fallon Road to the east, and Lockhart Street to the west as shown on the vicinity map above. Uses adjacent to and surrounding the project site include: a) Fallon Community Sports Park on the north across Central Parkway; b) Fallon Gateway and a vacant site across Dublin Boulevard to the south planned for a regional medical facility; c) The Groves Lot 3, a Medium-High Density project of 122 townhouse/condominiums on a vacant site west across Lockhart Street concurrently under consideration as well as the existing 610 units of the Fairway Ranch apartments; and d) a vacant property planned for commercial, residential and open space uses across Fallon Road to the east. Abutting the project to the south and east are two properties that are part of Subarea 3, but not a part of the current request, described as: 1) General Commercial — a 2.0 acre site located along the north side of Dublin Boulevard, and 2) Semi-Public — a small site owned and used by the Dublin San Ramon Services District (DSRSD) located along the west side of Fallon Road. The current proposal by the Applicant/Property Owners, Integral Communities, includes: • General Plan/Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment to modify the acreage allocated to land uses as follows: a) Medium Density Residential (6.1 to 14 units per acre) — from 27.2 acres to 38 acres; b) Medium-High Density Residential (MHDR) (14.1 to 25.0 units per acre) — from 8.6 acres 7.5 acres; c) Rural Residential/Agriculture — from 0 acres to 14.5 acres (as a partial replacement for 24.9 acres of Open Space); and d) Stream Corridor — from 1.3 acres to 2 acres. No changes are proposed for a 2-acre Neighborhood Park. • Planned Development Rezone with related Stage 1 Development Plan The Groves Lot 3 The Groves Lot 3 is the third phase of a high-density residential neighborhood of Dublin Ranch initially approved as Fairway Ranch. A number of proposals for Lot 3 have been submitted and approved; as early as 2003 and as recently as 2013. The overall Fairway Ranch project approved in 2003 (PA 03-010) was comprised of three development parcels representing a diverse mix of both affordable and market rate multi-family housing types including senior citizen apartments, family apartments, and condominium units. 3 of 20 The project approved originally is shown in Table 1: TABLE 1: Fairway Ranch Lot Multi-Family Type_ No. of Units 1 Senior Citizen Leased/Rental Housing (55+ ears) 322 2 Multi-Family Leased/Rental Housing 304 3 For-Sale Condominium Housing 304 Total No. of Units 930 The senior housing on Lot 1 was developed with east and west components known as Cedar Grove and Pine Grove. The original Site Development Review, approved in 2003 for Lot 3 generally was approved as a mirror image of the 304-unit site plan approved for Lot 2, the existing multi-family apartment project immediately to the north of the project site currently identified as Oak Grove. In 2007, a subsequent application was approved for Lot 3, now identified as Sycamore Grove (PA 06-037). The approved project reconfigured the 304 units to include 22 Live-Work units in a 3-story townhouse facade along Dublin Boulevard. A third project was approved in March 2013 (PLPA 2012-00040) in which Lot 3 was redesigned as a 304 unit apartment complex to more closely reflect the original approval. The Project Site generally is rectangular in shape and currently vacant. The average existing slope typically is less than 1% due to rough grading to create a level building pad for the multi- family structure approved previously. The project site has an embankment approximately four to five feet in height, around the perimeter, behind the current right-of-way, for the three surrounding public streets. The embankment transitions from the flat graded building pad area to the sidewalks and perimeter street improvements constructed during the first two phases of The Groves. All surrounding streets have been improved to the back of the curb adjacent to the project site with some sidewalks and landscaping remaining to be completed as part of the project improvements. The project site will require re-grading/finish grading to accommodate the proposed townhouse building sites and internal vehicular circulation system. The project site is located north of Dublin Boulevard, south of Maguire Way (private street), east of Keegan Street, and west of Lockhart Street as shown on the vicinity map above. Uses adjacent to and surrounding the project site include: a) Oak Grove, a high-density residential apartment complex; b) the vacant site anticipated to be used for a regional medical facility across Dublin Boulevard to the south; c) Subarea 3 as described above on a vacant site across Lockhart Street to the east; and d) The Terraces, a High Density Residential condominium project of 626 units across Keegan Street to the west. The current proposal by the Applicant/Property Owner, Lennar Homes, includes: • General Plan/Specific Plan Amendment to decrease the designated land use and density from High Density Residential (HDR) (25.1 + units per acre) to Medium-High Density Residential (MDHR) (14.1 to 25 units per acre) consistent with housing type and product currently proposed. • Planned Development Rezone and related Stage 1 and 2 and Development Plans. • Site Development Review Permit for 122 townhouse/condominium units within 19 three— story structures ranging from four to eight units per building. • Vesting Tentative Map 8164 to create a subdivision for condominium purposes for 122 townhouses for sale to individual buyers with common areas to be maintained by a Homeowners Association. 4of20 ANALYSIS: The following is an analysis of the Subarea 3 project. Subarea 3 General Plan & Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment Land Use Designations The Applicant is requesting to change the General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Land Uses as shown in Table 2 and Figure 2 below. TABLE 2: Existing and Proposed Land Uses — Subarea 3 Land Use Existing Proposed Acres Units Acres Units Medium Density Residential (MDR) 27.2 166-381 38 232-532 (6.1 to 14.0 units per acre) Medium High Density Residential (MDR) 8.6 121-215 7.5 106-187 (14.1 to 25.0 units per acre) Rural Residential/Agriculture (RR/A) 0 0 14.5 0 (1 unit per 100 acres) Open Space (OS) 24.9 -- 0 -- Stream Corridor(SC) 1.3 -- 2.0 -- Neighborhood Park (NP) — No Change 2.0 -- 2.0 -- Total 64 287-596 64 338-719 Figure 2 Existing Land Uses Proposed Land Uses , I ; lk If ;1 ` C'V Medium '\1 ,�,• �1 ,� Derrity Y � \I Residential 9, i •; 18.34 ac P •,,� i-\ It I 1 ( Park j xw_ac i rr ..,.., 11 Median rn Medium / Deraity Density Residential Residential �i +q.)zx The proposed densities and land use distribution will allow for continuity of open space and a more effective utilization of the property. The requested land use distribution would group residential uses in three areas — a) 7.5 acres of MHDR along the westerly edge of the project site along Lockhart Street across from The Groves, the proposed MHDR residential development to the west; b) a 19.7-acre neighborhood of MDR north of Dublin Boulevard adjacent the open space and Neighborhood Park, and c) an MDR neighborhood of approximately 18.3 acres within the northeast area of the site. The proposed land use 5 of 20 amendments would increase the acreage for MDR and the Stream Corridor by reassigning the land currently designated Open Space and slightly reducing the acreage for MHDR. The Open Space land use would be eliminated in favor of Rural Residential/Agricultural which allows more flexible options for aesthetic improvements such vineyards, orchards, and community gardens while preserving an Open Space characteristic. The following is a further discussion of the proposed land uses. • Medium Density Residential and Medium-High Residential (MDR and MHDR) - At a maximum, the proposed acreage by use/densities would allow up to 719 units. As elsewhere in Eastern Dublin, this potential is limited through the required PD-Planned Development zoning. A project of approximately 437 units is anticipated based on a general concept plan reflecting the requested amendment to be distributed as 107 units of MHDR (14.27 units per acre) and 330 units MDR (8.68 units per acre). This figure is within the range of the existing land uses and would not represent a significant deviation from the level of development anticipated under the existing land uses. The number of units proposed within the development envelope will ensure that the on-site grading is optimized and the natural drainage is preserved. • Rural Residential/Agricultural (RR/A) - The RR/A land use is proposed for frontage along Central Parkway adjacent to the Stream Corridor and extends diagonally across the project site to the southeast corner and includes the south facing slope of the hillside as further discussed below. The RR/A designation allows the construction of one residential dwelling unit per 100 acres (1 unit/100 acres). However, since the RR/A land use is less than 100 acres, no units would be permitted within that 14.5 acre area, and the Applicant is not proposing to construct or retain any dwelling units in that area . The RR/A area would be managed by the homeowners association. • Stream Corridor (SC) - The Stream Corridor would be expanded from 1.3 acres to 2.0 acres and generally would remain in its existing location. The Stream Corridor was created to fulfill biological mitigations required for development of other portions of Dublin Ranch. • Neighborhood Park (NP) — No changes in location or size are proposed for the 2-acre Neighborhood Park. It would remain in the central location originally anticipated adjacent to residential uses and open space areas. Visual Resources The Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Visual Resource Section 6.3.4 identifies view corridors as well as certain hillsides as visually sensitive. A portion of the project site includes low lying hills that were identified in the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan as "visually sensitive ridgelands" and located within an area contemplated in the City of Dublin Scenic Corridor Policy. The Eastern Dublin Specific Plan states that these hillsides are to remain to provide a distinctive visual feature as well as provide a screen for development to the north. The Specific Plan policies do permit grading of these ridge lands providing adherence to the policies are taken into account. Previously significant graded areas of the site were needed to accommodate roadway improvements; however, that grading did conform to the Visual Resources policies. The Specific Plan allows for development on the backside of these hills within certain standards in the Specific Plan. 6of20 The south face of these hills (exposed to 1-580) were designated as Open Space to maintain the natural appearance and intended to remain in order to provide a natural backdrop and screen development to the north. The proposed designation for this area will help ensure that natural undeveloped appearance is maintained. The Applicant's grading concept will conform to the policies of the Visual Resources section of the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan. Most grading activities will occur behind or in front of the current hills with specific contour grading to blend the existing hills with the graded land form. Upon completion, the hillside will be revegetated and will serve to screen development. In addition to recontouring the hill, a small mound graded along the Fallon Road side of the site would serve to hide a large share of the Medium Density Residential planned for the northeasterly area of the project site. This neighborhood would be designed to fit within the natural contours having building pads stepped gradually to match the existing topography of the back side of the hill. Where feasible, the graded slopes would be 3:1 or less. Cut and graded slopes would be revegetated with native vegetation or vineyards. The requested General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan amendments would require adjustments to various figures, texts, and tables in the General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan to ensure consistency throughout the documents. A Resolution recommending the City Council approve a consolidated General Plan/Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment is included as Attachment 1. A draft City Council resolution, with a complete list of the proposed amendments to the General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan, is included in Exhibit A of Attachment 1. Planned Development Rezone The Applicant is requesting approval of a Planned Development Rezone with a related Stage 1 Development Plan. The proposed zoning would ensure consistency with the land use amendment. The proposed Stage 1 Planned Development Rezone includes: proposed uses, project access, phasing plan, Master Neighborhood Landscaping Plan, and master infrastructure plan as described below. Proposed Uses - A comprehensive list of permitted, conditional, and accessory uses, are provided with the Stage 1 Development Plan. General Development Standards/Design Concept Site Plan - The concept plan for the proposed project places the higher density housing along the westerly edge of the project site along Lockhart Street in the form of 107 Medium High Density units on 7.5 acres resulting in approximately 14.27 units per acre, and 330 Medium Density units, including single-family homes. The 38 acres located in the central and northeasterly areas of the project site would include 330 Medium Density units, including single-family homes at a density of 8.68 units per acre. Based on the Concept and Site Plan, the High Density Residential effectively would be 14.27 units per acre. 7 of 20 Figure 3: Sub Area 3 Site Plan j SC y ` O ` t , � I RR/A r NP t, -- u __- xernnua ; iwyy MH Y- ISFAIARi I FFFFcoF-� ---- W M L7� t Z25— reY t i l j i i The Stage 1 Development Concept and Site Plan show uses consistent with the requested General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendments. Access & Circulation - There will be two primary access points to the site. One will be located on Lockhart Street generally at the intersection with Finnian Way, south of Central Parkway. The entrance would provide access to the High Density Residential housing along Lockhart Street and to the Medium High Density housing north of Dublin Boulevard. The second point, providing access to Medium Density Residential in the northeasterly part of the project site, would be located off of Central Parkway across from the entrance to Fallon Sports Park. It is anticipated that minor vehicular access points may be included as well as emergency vehicle access points (EVA) as required. A review of the joint access points with Fallon Sports Park on Central Parkway will be more thoroughly reviewed for traffic control and land configuration in conjunction with the Site Development Review and Vesting Tentative Map once the design, unit count and final configuration of the on-site roadways are determined. A 10-foot wide paved, meandering trail/access road will follow along the stream corridor and through the RR/A area. The trail is proposed to be a continuation of the multi-use regional trail system that starts offsite in the northern portion of Dublin Ranch. The trail on the project site will start at the northwest corner of the site and travel behind the lots and the Neighborhood Park to Dublin Boulevard connecting to the Fallon Gateway retail center. A secondary trail also is proposed to connect the northerly portion of the site with the southern portion of the site through the Rural Residential/Agriculture portion of the site. Sidewalks will be constructed on all perimeter and internal streets to provide pedestrians from both the project and surrounding neighborhoods access to the nearby commercial centers. Grading - The site has undergone some preliminary grading over the years to construct the stream corridor and for drainage and vegetation management. Also, grading has occurred along the perimeter with the construction of the major roadway improvements of Fallon Road and Dublin Blvd. Future grading in conjunction with the Stage 2 Development Plan, SDR and 8 of 20 Vesting Tract Map will conform to the policies required in the Visual Resources section of the EDSP. Master Landscape Plan - A Master Landscape Plan is provided indicating compliance with the adopted Streetscape Master Plan. This plan indicates that the street tree pattern for the surrounding arterials and collector streets is consistent with that approval document. Detailed landscape plans for both the perimeter and internal streets will be provided in conjunction with the future Stage 2 Development Plan and Site Development Review. Phasing Plan - The Applicant is proposing to develop the site in two phases beginning in the north east corner of the site with Phase 1 and the moving westerly with Phase 2 A Resolution recommending the City Council adopt an Ordinance approving the Planned Development Rezoning with related Stage 1 Development Plan for Subarea 3 is included as Attachment 2 with the Draft City Council Ordinance included as Exhibit A to Attachment 2. The Applicant is required to obtain approval of a Stage 2 Development Plan and Site Development Review prior to constructing a project on this site. The Groves Lot 3 General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment The current proposal is for ownership housing at a lower density and fewer units envisioned originally in order to serve the current buyer profile and market segment anticipated for this area. Three previous higher density project approvals on this site have not resulted in construction of a project. Based on the proposed project, the total number of units for Lot 3 effectively would be reduced by 182 units or over half of the 304 multi-family units approved previously. Land Use Designations The request includes a General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment to change the land use of the 6.36-acre site from its existing designation of High Density Residential (HDR) (25.1 or greater units per acre) to Medium-High Density Residential (14.1 to 25 units per acre). The proposed MHDR land use would allow a range of 113 units to 200 units. The proposed PD rezone fixes the number of units at a maximum of 122 units as further described below. Figure 4: The Groves Lot 3 Existing Land Uses Proposed Land Uses GENjRAL��..-•',,1 CENTRAL Y _..::''\ ,1 Il I WI 175 _ I L DUBLIN BLVD. DUBLIN BLVD. 9 of 20 The requested land use amendments and the current proposal for Lot 3 reflect market conditions and optimal use of the site while remaining consistent with the surrounding community. The proposed density will allow a strong visual transition from the High Density Terrace to the west and the proposed Medium-High Density product anticipated for development on Subarea 3 to the east. The proposed MHDR land use would allow a range of 113 units to 200 units. The proposed PD rezone fixes the number of units at a maximum of 122 further described below. The requested General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan amendments would require adjustments to various figures, texts, and tables in the General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan to ensure consistency throughout the documents. A Resolution recommending the City Council approve a consolidated General Plan/Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment is included as Attachment 1. A draft City Council resolution, with a complete list of the proposed amendments to the General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan, is included in Exhibit A of Attachment 1. Planned Development Rezone The proposed Planned Development Rezone and related Stage 1 and Stage 2 Development Plan are consistent with the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance (Chapter 8.32-Planned Development Zoning) are included in Attachment 3 and described below. Proposed Uses: Permitted, Conditional, and Accessory uses related to multi-family development are listed in the proposed Ordinance adopting the Planned Development Rezoning (Attachment 3). Development Standards: The Planned Development includes Development Standards consistent with a Medium-High Density product type. The Development Regulations for the proposed project are shown as follows: TABLE 4: The Groves Lot 3 - Development Regulations Standards Medium High Density Residential Attached Multi-Family Townhouse Units Lot Size n/a Building Setback from Arterial Streets 10 feet minimum Building Setback from Property Line 10 feet minimum (on a public street) Building Setback from Property Line 0 feet minimum (not adjacent to a Public right-of-way) Building Setback from Private Street or 10 feet minimum Common Driveway Driveway Length or Garage Setback from 3 feet minimum Common Driveway or Private Street Private Open Space • Ground Level/Yard OR 100 square feet minimum Upper Level/Deck 50 square feet minimum Building Separation 10 feet minimum 10 of 20 Building Separation 10 feet minimum (both buildings 2 stories or higher) 8 feet to porch minimum Maximum Building Height 40 feet/3.5 stories Required Parking Residential parking space per unit 2 spaces within an enclosed garage Guest Parking 1 space Site Development Review SITE LAYOUT/PLOTTING — The proposed project is arranged as three-story attached townhouse units within 19 individual buildings in five building types with three variations. Buildings range from four to eight units per building. Both vehicular and pedestrian entry to the project is from Maguire Way which is a private street between Lot 2 (Oak Grove) and Lot 3 (the project site). A motorcourt on Maguire Way between the project site and Lot 2 to the north identifies the entry to an internal circulation system of drive aisles providing access to the townhouse garages. The buildings are organized with front facades and door entries facing onto a series of pedestrian paseos and open residential courtyards that create a passive, small-scale neighborhood environment. Three buildings face onto Maguire Way to the north. Also, one building at each of the southeast and southwest corners of the site are oriented towards Dublin Boulevard but are raised approximately 5 feet above street level and accessible only from an internal walkway separate from the public right-of-way. Due to topography, pedestrian access to the site on the west is limited to the Maquire entrance with two pedestrian points accessible from Lockhart Street on the east. Building placement with unit distribution is shown in Table 5, below. TABLE 5: Building/Unit Distribution Building No. of General Location Units per Units per 3-Bedroom 4-Bedroom Type Buildings Parcel (per Tract Ma Bldg. Building Type Units(i) Units(2) A 1 n/e corner Keegan Street and 4 4 2 2 Dublin Boulevard (Parcel 4) B 2 east side of Keegan Street 5 10 6 4 (Parcel 3) 2 on Lockhart Street, C 5 2 in middle of Lot 3, and 6 30 20 10 1 on Dublin Boulevard Parcels 9, 10 & a portion of 5 n/w corner of Lockhart Street CX 1 and Dublin Boulevard 6 6 4 2 (Parcel 7) 3 on Dublin Boulevard, and 2 D 7 each on Keegan Street and 7 49 35 14 Lockhart Street (Parcels 2, 6 & 8) DX 1 s/e corner of Lockhart Street 7 7 5 2 and Maguire Way Parcel 11 E 1 s/e corner Kegan Street and 8 8 6 2 Maguire Way (Parcel 1) EX 1 south side of Maguire Way 8 8 6 2 midblock (Parcel 11) Total 19 122 84 38 (') Floor Plans 1,2A&213 (2) Floor Plans 3A,3A-Alt,313&3C 11 of 20 Common areas include the vehicular circulation system but focus on the system of paseos and residential courtyards. The passive recreation facilities for the proposed project are served by a private pocket park located past the first row of townhouses at the Maguire Way entrance. Figure 5: The Groves Lot 3 - Site Plan THE GROVES I I I Oil �. t r DUBLIN BLVD. -- FLOOR PLANS — Each townhouse unit generally is configured as a three-floor walk-up with access from a street-level entry in front and an enclosed ground-level two-car garage to the rear. The floor plans offered are for either a three-bedroom or four-bedroom unit. Plan 1 and Plan 2 with its variations each have three bedrooms, and Plan 3 with its variations has four bedrooms. All end units are a variation of Plan 3 with four bedrooms, and all units in between are variations of Plans 1 and 2 with three bedrooms for a distribution of 84 three-bedroom units (70%) and 38 four-bedroom units (30%). Each unit has a ground floor bedroom with an en suite bathroom. The second level is arranged as a "great room" with living, dining, kitchen, and large deck area for most floor plans. A powder room also is located on each second level. The master bedroom with en suite master bathroom is located on the third floor along with two or three other bedrooms, depending upon the floor plan, and a second full bathroom. Laundry rooms and instantaneous water heaters are located on the third floor of all plans. Each garage is arranged with areas for trash and recycling. Also, based on a recently adopted City ordinance, all units are provided with a dedicated storage area having a minimum of 200 cubic feet separate from the garage. Each master suite has a walk-in closet, dual basins, separate water closet, and separate tub and shower. All forced air unit equipment is located in the attic above each unit and accessible from the third floor. A minimum of 10%, or 13 units, will be improved as handicapped accessible on the ground floor in accordance with the California Building Code. Approximately 34 units (all end units) potentially could serve that purpose. The floor plans are shown on Sheets A4.00 through A4.21 with potentially accessible units identified on Sheet C.7, Attachment 4. 12 of 20 TABLE 6: The Groves Lot 3 - Floor Plans Plan 'No. of Units Square Feet Bedrooms Bathrooms Buildings %of Project per Plan A, B, C, CX, D, 1 35 1,902 sf 3 3'/2 DX, E, EX 29% all buildings A, B, C, CX, D, 2A 37 2,013 sf 3 3%2 DX, E, EX 30% 49 all buildings 40% 213 10 2,013 sf 3 3'/2 D, DX, E, EX 8% 2C 2 2,013 sf 3 3'/2 E, EX 2% 3A 3 2,170 sf 4 3'/2 CX, DX, EX 2% A, B, C, CX, D, 3A-Alt 19 2,170 sf 4 3'/2 DX, E, EX 16% o 38 all buildings 31 /o 3B 15 2,170 sf 4 3'/2 B, C, D, E 12% 3C 1 2,170 sf 4 3'/2 A 1% Total 122 100.00% Plan 1 — Plan 1 is a 3-bedroom unit and is the smallest at 1,902 square feet. Plan 1 is an interior unit only, situated with units on both sides. All buildings, except Building A, include two Plan 1 units per building. The 35 units of Plan 1 represent 29% of the total project. Plan 2 — Plan 2 is also a 3-bedroom unit. The three variations on Plan 2 are the most frequently utilized plan at 49 units or 40% of the project. The 2,013 square foot interior unit is also used in each of the 19 buildings, with Plan 2A used more than once in all but Building A. Plan 3 — Plan 3 is a 4-bedroom unit and is the largest at 2,170 square feet. The ground floor bedroom also is described as a den option. All Plan 3 and its variations are end units and "Alt" may be fitted as handicapped accessible where indicated on the plans. At least one Plan 3A-Alt would be provided as an end unit in all buildings. Approximately 13 units have a ground floor yard oriented towards the paseo. ARCHITECTURE — The proposed exterior architecture is a contemporary interpretation of eclectic craftsman style consistent and compatible with Phases 1 and 2 of the project known as The Groves. Buildings would be Type V wood frame structure with a mix of exterior materials. The building roof generally is a gable form from end-to-end pitched at 4:12. Building ends may have hip construction over at least one end, gable projections over upper level windows, and shed or trellis structures over porches and decks. Roof materials are a flat concrete tile in one of two colors and standing metal seam accents over porches and some projections. In addition to the roof, exterior materials include brick veneer, stucco finish, fiber cement board siding (both horizontal and vertical), and fiber cement trim to accent windows and door frames. Brick veneer in two different colors is used to anchor the ground floor of each building below a horizontal band generally situated between the first and second floor, or second and third level. This band technique often is used to visually break up a large facade. Buildings are articulated at the second and third level with window bays and covered decks having varying depths and dimensions. In addition to the fiber cement trims in contrasting colors, other architectural elements include corbel supports for second and third level building projections and decks, gable end ridge beam 13 of 20 Pocket Park — The location of the pocket park near the Maguire Way entrance is identified within the drive aisle by enhanced paving in the form of decorative cast concrete unit paving stones leading to a scored concrete surface behind the curb face. An entry gate defines the site with a low neighborhood wall clad in a complementary brick veneer and a 3-foot high stained wooden border fence. A scored concrete footpath serves as a continuation of the adjacent paseo and divides the park into two areas. Footpath surfaces within the park are composed of scored concrete pads joined by areas of decomposed granite. This recreational amenity will provide a quiet garden retreat, as well as an area for social gatherings and other activities. Both feature landscaping with planters, fixed benches, and trash receptacles. The southerly area would include a pre-cast planter/fountain as a focal point along with lush ground cover. In addition to fixed benches, the northerly portion would be equipped with a picnic table, lighting, two stained wooden pergolas with rose vines, and a stained wooden arbor, each in an architectural style that complements the buildings. STREETSCAPE —A streetscape concept has been shown for Dublin Boulevard and street sections with proposed improvements are shown for each type of internal drive aisle. Drive aisles are generally 20 feet wide except where adjacent to perpendicular guest parking; in those cases drive aisles would be 24 feet wide, and 28 feet wide on aisles with one side of parallel parking. A small landscaped planter would be maintained within a narrow setback between garage doors along the rear elevation. Landscape treatment details are included for the four perimeter frontages: Dublin Boulevard — Street trees will be placed in a triangular pattern in the parkway behind the sidewalk to create a "grove" effect while maintaining the theme of a traditional tree-lined residential street consistent with the Streetscape Master Plan. Since the building grade is higher than street level at this location, drive aisle ends shall be treated with transparent iron fencing. Ground-level retaining walls will be hidden with a landscaped slope or, where exposed, finished with stucco or brick veneer and cap details compatible with the on-site improvements. Landscaping will consist of flowering groundcover and shrubs adjacent to the sidewalk and parkway. The mid-level and upper levels of the slope would be planted with taller shrubs and grasses to provide texture, color, and a cascading effect to control erosion. Taller upright shrubs will be placed at the top of the slope adjacent to the on-site perimeter walkway and building ends to serve as a buffer for pedestrians and screening from Dublin Boulevard. (See Attachment 4, Landscape Architecture tab, Sheet L-6) Keegan and Lockhart Streets — Landscape materials will be a continuation of the established streetscape concepts for the adjacent Oak Groves projects to the north. Corner monuments and neighborhood identification markers are proposed for both corners at Dublin Boulevard consistent with the architectural style of the project and complementary to existing monuments along Dublin Boulevard. As with Dublin Boulevard, a slight grade differential will be evident between the existing improved right-of-way and the finished building grade. A variety of flowering shrubs and grasses are proposed in a tiered arrangement with lower flowering groundcover adjacent to the sidewalk and taller cascading shrubs and grasses on the upper parts of the slope. Smaller flowering secondary trees would be used at building ends to reduce mass and scale and provide seasonal color. Street trees also would be consistent with the adopted street concept. Pedestrian access to the project site from the adjacent public right-of-way would be at two locations along the easterly edge of the project site adjacent to Lockhart Street. Pedestrian interfaces will be highlighted with flowering trees. (See Attachment 4, Landscape Architecture tab, Sheets L-7 and L-8) 15 of 20 Maguire Way — A street concept with a designated street tree already has been established for Maguire Way as part of the apartment project to the north and will be consistent along the south side adjacent to the proposed project. Accent landscaping of secondary flowering trees will be used to minimize the vertical scale of the architecture. The main entrance and marketing window to the proposed project along Maguire Way will highlight accent plantings through a combination of evergreen flowering shrubs, grasses, and ground cover. Vesting Tentative Tract Map (The Groves Lot 3, only) Vesting Tentative Tract 8164 is proposed to be subdivided for condominium purposes as follows.. TABLE 7: Vesting Tentative Map Parcel Development Parcel Acreage (net) Description 1 .34 ± Building E (Residential) 8 units 2 .55 ± Building D (Residential) 14 units 3 .35 ± Building B (Residential) 10 units 4 .20 ± Building A(Residential) 4 units 5 .48 ± Building C (Residential) 13 units 6 .48 ± Building D (Residential) 14 units 7 .27 ± Building CX (Residential) 6 units 8 .46 ± Building D (Residential) 14 units 9 .43 ± Building C (Residential) 12 units 10 .41 ± Building C (Residential) 12 units 11 .52 ± Buildings DX and EX (Residential) 15 units A 1.47 ± Internal Circulation System - Private Street B .40 ± Maguire Way- Private Street(existing) Total 6.36 122 units Conditions of Approval are included in the Resolution recommending approval (Attachment 5). All utilities are available at the property line; all perimeter streets and right-of-way already have been dedicated, and streets have been improved. Perimeter sidewalks and landscaping would be constructed as part of this project. Public Art Compliance — This project is subject to compliance with the City's Public Art Ordinance. The Ordinance requires the Applicant's contribution will be .5% of the aggregate value of the home construction to be determined and calculated by the City's Building Official. The Applicant has submitted a Public Art Compliance Report included in the project submittal package and proposes to pay in-lieu fees. An appropriate Condition of Approval has been included. (See Attachment 5, Condition 29). CONSISTENCY WITH GENERAL PLAN, SPECIFIC PLAN & ZONING ORDINANCE The application includes proposed amendments to the General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan. Subarea 3 includes a request for PD-Planned Development rezoning with related Stage 1 Development Plan. The Groves Lot 3 includes a request for Planned Development rezoning and a related Stage 1 and Stage 2 Development Plan. The proposed amendments to the General Plan and the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan reflect land uses that are compatible with the adjacent areas and surrounding development. For The Groves Lot 3, the proposed land use represents a reduction in residential density than approved previously but effectively corresponds to the number of units anticipated for this area prior to the granting of density bonuses as an incentive for providing affordable housing. The proposed project will contribute to housing opportunities and diversity of product type as a complement to the surrounding neighborhoods. The proposed Stage 1 Planned Development rezoning for both 16 of 20 projects and the proposed Stage 2 Development Plan for The Groves Lot 3 would be consistent with the requested land use amendments. Both projects have been reviewed for conformance with the Community Design and Sustainability Element of the General Plan which evaluates compatibility of the design with adjacent and surrounding development via pedestrian circulation, gathering spaces, open spaces, and integration with the village concept. In general, the proposed project furthers the goals of the Community Design and Sustainability Element of the General Plan by providing a high quality of life and preserving resources and opportunities for future generations. REVIEW BY APPLICABLE DEPARTMENT AND AGENCIES: The Building Division, Fire Prevention Bureau, Public Works Department, Dublin Police Services and Dublin San Ramon Services District reviewed the projects to ensure that they are planned and will be built in compliance with all local Ordinances and Regulations. Conditions of Approval from these departments and agencies will be included at the time of Site Development Reviews and Subdivision applications for Subarea 3 and have been included in the attached Resolution pertaining to the Site Development Review and Vesting Tentative Map (Attachment 5) for The Groves Lot 3. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: The projects are located within the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan area, which was the subject of an Environmental Impact Report for the General Plan Amendment and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan (SCH # 91103064), certified by the City Council in Resolution No. 51-93. The General Plan Amendment/Specific Plan EIR is a program EIR, which anticipated several subsequent actions related to future development in Eastern Dublin and identified some impacts from implementation of the General Plan Amendment/Specific Plan that could not be mitigated to less than significant. Upon approval of the Eastern Dublin project, the City adopted a statement of overriding considerations for such impacts. The City also adopted a mitigation-monitoring program, which included numerous measures intended to reduce impacts from the development of the Eastern Dublin area. The environmental impacts of the existing land uses were addressed by the Negative Declaration approved by the City Council in Resolution No. 140-97 for the Planned Development Rezoning for 453 acres of Dublin Ranch (Areas B-E). For Subarea 3 - The City prepared an Addendum, determining that no additional environmental analysis was required beyond the prior Eastern Dublin EIR and 1997 ND. For The Groves Lot 3 - Impacts have been found to be the same or less than those analyzed previously with no further environmental review required. In June 2003, the City prepared an Initial Study for Fairway Ranch to determine whether there would be supplemental environmental impacts occurring as a result of this project beyond or different from those already addressed in the Program EIR and the 1997 Negative Declaration. The Initial Study concluded that the proposed project could not have a significant effect on the environment because the environmental impacts of this project were fully addressed by the final EIR for the General Plan Amendment, Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment and subsequent Addenda, and the 1997 Negative Declaration. Since the number of units currently proposed for The Groves Lot 3 is less than initially evaluated, impacts from the proposed project have been found to be the same or less than those analyzed previously and would not require any further environmental review. An Initial Study was prepared for Subarea 3, and a determination was made to prepare an Addendum to the Eastern Dublin EIR and 1997 ND, included as Exhibit A to the Draft City 17 of 20 Council Ordinance. Attachment 6 is a draft Planning Commission Resolution recommending that the City Council adopt the Addendum. Pursuant to the 2002 Citizens for a Better Environment case, approval of the Addendum will include a Statement of Overriding Considerations for significant unavoidable impacts identified in the prior EIR that are applicable to the project or project site. All other EIRs NDs, Resolutions, and Ordinances referenced above and throughout the Staff Report are incorporated herein by reference and are available for review at City Hall, 100 Civic Plaza, Dublin, California during business hours. PUBLIC NOTICING: In accordance with State law, a public notice was mailed to all property owners and occupants within 300 feet of the proposed project to advertise the project and the upcoming public hearing. A public notice was also published in the Valley Times and posted at several locations throughout the City. A copy of this Staff Report has been provided to the Applicant. ATTACHMENTS: 1) Resolution recommending that the City Council adopt a Resolution approving General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendments for Dublin Ranch Subarea 3 and The Groves Lot 3 with the draft City Council Resolution attached as Exhibit A 2) Resolution recommending that the City Council adopt an Ordinance approving a Planned Development Zoning District for Subarea 3 with a related Stage 1 Development Plan to replace uses adopted by Ordinance 24-97, with the draft City Council Ordinance attached as Exhibit A 3) Resolution recommending that the City Council adopt an Ordinance for the Groves Lot 3 to a Planned Development Zoning District with related Stage 1 and Stage 2 Development Plan, with draft City Council Ordinance attached as Exhibit A 4) The Groves Lot 3 - Applicant's submittal package dated January 22, 2014 5 Resolution recommending that the City Council adopt a Resolution approving the Site Development Review Permit and Vesting Tentative Map 8164 for Lot 3 for 122 townhouse/condominium units on approximately 8.8 gross acres (6.36 net acres) 6) Resolution recommending that the City Council adopt a Resolution adopting an Addendum for Dublin Ranch Subarea 3, with draft City Council Resolution attached as Exhibit A 18 of 20 SUBAREA 3 GENERAL INFORMATION (PLPA 2013-00033): APPLICANT: Kevin Fryer 5000 Hopyard Road, Suite 170 Pleasanton, CA 94588 PROPERTY OWNER: Dublin Ranch Subarea 3 Project Owner LLC managed by Integral Communities 500 La Gonda Way, Suite 102 Danville, CA 94526 Attn: Drew Kusnick LOCATION: North of Dublin Boulevard, south of Central Parkway, east of Lockhart Street, and west of Fallon Road ASSESSORS PARCEL APN 985-0027-012 EXISTING LAND USE DESIGNATION: a) Medium Density Residential (6.1 to 14.0 units per acre) — 27.2 acres; b) Medium High Density Residential (14.1 to 25 units per acre) — 8.6 acres; c) Open Space — 24.9 acres; d) Stream Corridor — 1.3 acres; and e) Neighborhood Park — 2.0 acres EXISTING ZONING: City Council Ordinance 24-97 PROPOSED LAND USE DESIGNATION: a) Medium Density Residential (6.1 to 14.0 units per acre) — 38 acres, b) Medium High Density Residential (14.1 to 25 units per acre) — 7.5 acres; c) Rural Residential/Agricultural (1 unit per 100 acres) — 14.5 acres, d) Stream Corridor — 2.0 acres; and e) Neighborhood Park — 2.0 acres (no change). PROPOSED RE-ZONING: PD PLPA 2013-00033 SURROUNDING USES: LOCATION ZONING GENERAL PLAN LAND USE CURRENT USE OF PROPERTY North PD Parks/Public Recreation Fallon Community Sports Park Vacant South C-O Campus Office Planned Hospital/Medical Facility East PD Medium-High Density Residential, vacant and Open Space High Density Residential vacant West PD (pending approval of (pending approval for 122-unit Medium High Density Residential) townhouse/condominium project—The Groves Lot 3) 19 of 20 THE GROVES LOT 3 GENERAL INFORMATION (PLPA 2013-00034): APPLICANT: Kevin Fryer 5000 Hopyard Road, Suite 170 Pleasanton, CA 94588 PROPERTY OWNER: Lennar Homes 6121 Bollinger Canyon Road #500 San Ramon, CA 94583 LOCATION: North of Dublin Boulevard, south of Maguire Way (private street), east of Keegan Street, and west of Lockhart Street ASSESSORS PARCEL NUMBER: APN 985-0048-005-00 ZONING: Existin - PD-High Density Residential (Ord. 24-97) Proposed— PD-Medium-High Density Residential GENERAL PLAN & EASTERN DUBLIN SPECIFIC PLAN: Existin - High Density Residential Proposed- Medium-High Density Residential SURROUNDING USES: LOCATION ZONING GENERAL PLAN LAND USE CURRENT USE OF PROPERTY North PD High Density Residential Multi-family apartments (Oak Grove at Dublin Ranch) Vacant South C-O Campus Office Planned Hospital/Medical Facility Medium Density Residential Vacant East MDR (pending approval for Medium- (Dublin Ranch Subarea 3) High Density Residential) Multi-Family Residential West PD High Density Residential (The Terraces - 262 condominium units) 20 of 20 RESOLUTION NO. 14 - XX A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT A RESOLUTION APPROVING GENERAL PLAN AND EASTERN DUBLIN SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENTS FOR DUBLIN RANCH SUBAREA 3 AND THE GROVES LOT 3 PLPA-2013-00033 AND PLPA-2013-00034 WHEREAS, the Applicant, Kevin Fryer, has submitted Planning Applications for residential development on two adjacent properties. Dublin Ranch Subarea 3 (Subarea 3) would result in future development of up to 437 single family residences on an approximately 64 acre site. The project proposes General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan amendments to reallocate existing Medium High Density Residential and Medium Density Residential land uses, to reduce and change Open Space land uses to Rural Residential/Agriculture and to increase the Stream Corridor designation. The project also proposes a PD rezoning with related Stage 1 Development Plan. The Groves Lot 3 (Lot 3) proposes a residential development of up to 122 townhouse condominiums on approximately 6.6 acres. The project proposes a General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan amendment to change the existing High Density Residential land use designation to Medium High Density Residential. The project also proposes a PD rezoning with related Stage 1 and Stage 2 Development Plan to establish the zoning and development standards for the project, as well as a Site Development Review permit and Vesting Tentative Map 8164. Because of the statutory limitation on General Plan amendments per year, the two applications are being processed in a consolidated action and are collectively known as the "project"; and WHEREAS, the General Plan amendment for Subarea 3 would change the land use designations as follows: reduce Medium-High Density Residential from 8.6 acres to 7.5 acres and move this use from the northeast area of the site to the western area of the site along Lockhart Street; increase Medium Density Residential from 27.2 acres to 38 acres along either side of an open space corridor; designate 14.5 acres of existing Open Space as Rural Residential/Agriculture (as a partial replacement for 24.9 acres of existing Open Space land use designation proposed for residential and rural residential/agriculture use); and increase the existing designated Stream Corridor from 1.3 acres to 2 acres. No changes are proposed for the existing 2-acre Neighborhood Park designation. The General Plan amendment for Lot 3 would redesignate the entire site from High Density Residential to Medium-High Density Residential. Comparable amendments to the land use designations and locations for both sites would be made to the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan (Specific Plan or EDSP). In addition, other provisions of the General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan would be amended to ensure consistency with the modified land use designations for the two sites; and WHEREAS, the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), together with the State guidelines and City environmental regulations, require that certain projects be reviewed for environmental impacts and that environmental documents be prepared; and WHEREAS, the City prepared a CEQA Addendum to a prior EIR and ND for Subarea 3. For Lot 3, the project is within the scope of the program analyzed in the Eastern Dublin EIR as to land use, density and development assumptions, and also within the development ATTACHMENT l assumptions of a subsequent 1997 ND; therefore, no additional environmental review is required, as documented in the attached draft resolution; and WHEREAS, on January 28, 2014, the Planning Commission held a properly noticed public hearing on the Subarea 3 and Lot 3 projects, including the proposed General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan amendments, at which time all interested parties had the opportunity to be heard; and WHEREAS, a Staff Report dated January 28, 2014 and incorporated herein by reference described and analyzed the Subarea 3 and Lot 3 projects for the Planning Commission, including the proposed General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan amendments. The Staff Report recommended that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan amendments; and WHEREAS, on January 28, 2014, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution 14-XX recommending that the City Council adopt a CEQA Addendum for the Subarea 3 project, which resolution is incorporated herein by reference and available for review at City Hall during normal business hours; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission used their independent judgment and considered the Staff Report, the CEQA Addendum for Subarea 3, the prior EIR and other CEQA documents, and all reports, recommendations, and testimony referenced above prior to making any recommendations on the Subarea 3 and Lot 3 projects. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the foregoing recitals are true and correct and made a part of this resolution. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Planning Commission recommends that the City Council adopt the resolution attached as Exhibit A, incorporated herein by reference, approving General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan amendments to change the land use designations as proposed for Subarea 3 and Lot 3. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 28th day of January, 2014, by the following votes: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Planning Commission Chair ATTEST: Assistant Community Development Director G:IPA#120131PLPA-2013-00033 DUBLIN RANCH Subarea 31PC Mtg 01.28.141pc reso reco gpa_spa for subarea 3—lot 3 Qan 2014).doc 2 RESOLUTION NO. xx-14 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN AMENDING THE GENERAL PLAN AND THE EASTERN DUBLIN SPECIFIC PLAN FOR DUBLIN RANCH SUBAREA 3 AND THE GROVES LOT 3 PLPA-2013-00033 and PLPA-2013-00034 WHEREAS, the Applicant, Kevin Fryer, has submitted Planning Applications for residential development on two adjacent properties. Dublin Ranch Subarea 3 (Subarea 3) would result in future development of up to 437 single family residences on an approximately 64 acre site. The project proposes General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan amendments to reallocate existing Medium High Density Residential and Medium Density Residential land uses, to reduce and change Open Space land uses to Rural Residential/Agriculture and to increase the Stream Corridor designation. The project also proposes a PD rezoning with related Stage 1 Development Plan. The Groves Lot 3 (Lot 3) proposes a residential development of up to 122 townhouse condominiums on approximately 6.6 acres. The project proposes a General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan amendment to change the existing High Density Residential land use designation to Medium-High Density Residential. The project also proposes a PD rezoning with related Stage 1 and Stage 2 Development Plan to establish the zoning and development standards for the project, as well as a Site Development Review permit and Vesting Tentative Map 8164. Because of the statutory limitation on General Plan amendments per year, the two applications are being processed in a consolidated action and are collectively known as the "project"; and WHEREAS, Subarea 3 is vacant and undeveloped, with two small hills in the northeast corner of the site. A vegetated stream corridor flows from the northwest corner for approximately 1,000 feet and is collected into a storm drain pipe in the middle of the site. The site is bounded by Central Parkway to the north, Dublin Boulevard to the south, Fallon Road to the east, and Lockhart Street to the west. Lot 3 is vacant and flat and was previously graded in connection with prior development approvals. The site is located north of Dublin Boulevard, south of Maguire Way (private street), east of Keegan Street, and west of Lockhart Street. Both sites are in the Eastern Dublin area which is transitioning to urban uses pursuant to the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan adopted 1993; and WHEREAS, the General Plan amendment for Subarea 3 would change the land use designations as follows: reduce Medium-High Density Residential from 8.6 acres to 7.5 acres and move this use from the northeast area of the site to the western area of the site along Lockhart Street; increase Medium Density Residential from 27.2 acres to 38 acres along either side of an open space corridor; designate 14.5 acres of existing Open Space as Rural Residential/Agriculture (as a partial replacement for 24.9 acres of existing Open Space land use designation proposed for residential and rural residential/agriculture use); and increase the existing designated Stream Corridor from 1.3 acres to 2 acres. No changes are proposed for the existing 2-acre Neighborhood Park designation. The General Plan amendment for Lot 3 would redesignate the entire site from High Density Residential to Medium-High Density Residential. Comparable amendments to the land use designations and locations for both sites would be made to the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan (Specific Plan or EDSP). In addition, other provisions of the General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan would be amended to ensure consistency with the modified land use designations for the two sites; and 1 EXHIBIT A TO ATTACHMENT 1 WHEREAS, the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), together with the State guidelines and City environmental regulations, require that certain projects be reviewed for environmental impacts and that environmental documents be prepared; and WHEREAS, both of the sites are in Dublin Ranch Area B, which was included in two prior CEQA analyses. The 1993 Eastern Dublin EIR (EDEIR) analyzed the conversion of nearly 7,000 acres of vacant, largely grazing land to urban uses over an estimated 20-30 year timeframe. A subsequent Negative Declaration (ND) adopted in 1997 further analyzed Dublin Ranch Areas B-E in connection with Planned Development zoning for a mix of uses, including up to 1 ,875 dwelling units, approximately 485 of which were anticipated for Subarea 3 and approximately 304 anticipated for Lot 3. The existing General Plan and EDSP land use designations generally reflect the designations assumed in the prior EDEIR and ND; and WHEREAS, the City prepared a CEQA addendum to the prior EIR and ND for Subarea 3; and WHEREAS, the Lot 3 project site has been subject to a several project approvals and related CEQA reviews, as follows: a) Eastern Dublin EIR. Lot 3 is in Area B of Dublin Ranch in the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan area, which was the subject of the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report (SCH # 91103064), certified by the City Council in Resolution No. 51-93 on May 10, 1993. The Eastern Dublin EIR is a Program EIR, which analyzed the potential environmental effects of converting largely vacant lands to urban uses over a 20-30 year timeframe. The EIR anticipated several subsequent actions related to future development in Eastern Dublin, including a requirement that future development proposals be reviewed through Planned Development zoning. The City Council adopted mitigation measures to reduce numerous significant impacts to less than significant; all of the adopted mitigation measures continue to apply to implementing development in Eastern Dublin, including the Lot 3 project. The City adopted a statement of overriding considerations for impacts that were identified as significant and unavoidable. The High Density Residential land use designation assumed in the Eastern Dublin EIR for the Project site has remained unchanged since it was originally adopted. b) ND for Areas B-E. On November 18, 1997, the City Council adopted Resolution 140-97 approving a Negative Declaration (ND) for a Planned Development Rezoning of Dublin Ranch Areas B-E. Areas B-E contained approximately 453 acres, including the Lot 3 project site. The Negative Declaration addressed all topics included in the standard CEQA checklist, updating them from the prior Eastern Dublin EIR analysis. The residential land use and density assumptions were unchanged from the assumptions in the Eastern Dublin EIR. The ND concluded that all potentially significant effects from development of Areas B-E, including the Lot 3 site, were adequately analyzed in the prior EIR c) Fairway Ranch Initial Study. In June 2003, the City approved the Fairway Ranch project, which included the Lot 3 project site. The 2003 approval included up to 930 dwelling units, with 304 units anticipated for the Lot 3 site. The City prepared an Initial Study for Fairway Ranch to determine whether there would be supplemental environmental impacts occurring as a result of that project beyond or different from those already addressed in the Eastern Dublin Program EIR and the 1997 Negative Declaration. The Initial Study concluded that the proposed project could not have a significant effect on the environment because the environmental impacts of the 2 project were fully addressed by the Eastern Dublin EIR and the 1997 Negative Declaration. The City likewise relied on the 2003 Initial Study when it determined that no additional environmental review was required for subsequent approval of project revisions in 2007 and 2013. The Groves Lot 3 project proposes the same development area and residential uses as assumed in the above reviews; but substantially reduces the number of units previously reviewed and approved, from 304 to 122. Since the number of units currently proposed for Lot 3 is less than previously evaluated in the prior EIR, ND and Initial Study, impacts from the proposed project will be the same or less than those analyzed previously and would not require any further environmental review. The above referenced Eastern Dublin EIR, 1997 Negative Declaration and 2003 Initial Study, along with related Resolutions 51-93, 53-93, 140-97 and referenced project approvals, are incorporated herein by reference and available for review at City Hall during normal business hours; and WHEREAS, consistent with section 65352.3 of the California Government Code, the City obtained a contact list of local Native American tribes from the Native American Heritage Commission and notified the tribes on the contact list of the opportunity to consult with the City on the proposed General Plan amendments. None of the contacted tribes requested a consultation within the 90-day statutory consultation period and no further action is required under section 65352.3; and WHEREAS, on January 28, 2014, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution 14-XX recommending that the City Council adopt a CEQA addendum for the Subarea 3 project, which resolution is incorporated herein by reference and available for review at City Hall during normal business hours; and WHEREAS, on January 28, 2014, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution 14-XX recommending that the City Council approve the proposed General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan amendments, which resolution is incorporated herein by reference and available for review at City Hall during normal business hours; and WHEREAS, a Staff Report, dated , 2014 and incorporated herein by reference, described and analyzed the Subarea 3 project, including the General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan amendments and Planned Development rezoning with related Stage 1 Development Plan, and the Lot 3 project, including the General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan amendments and Planned Development rezoning with related Stage 1 and Stage 2 Development Plan, Site Development Review, Vesting Tentative Map, and related CEQA review for both projects, for the City Council; and WHEREAS, the City Council held a properly noticed public hearing on the Subarea 3 and Lot 3 projects, including the proposed General Plan and Easter Dublin Specific Plan amendments, on , 2014, at which time all interested parties had the opportunity to be heard; and WHEREAS, on 2014, the City Council adopted Resolution xx-xx adopting a CEQA addendum and Statement of Overriding Considerations for the Subarea 3 project, which resolution is incorporated herein by reference and available for review at City Hall during normal business hours; and 3 WHEREAS, the City Council considered the Eastern Dublin EIR, the 1997 ND, the Subarea 3 CEQA Addendum, and all above-referenced reports, recommendations, and testimony prior to taking action on the Subarea 3 and Lot 3 applications. 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 Council finds that the General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan amendments, as set forth below for Subarea 3 and Lot 3, are in the public interest, will promote general health, safety and welfare, and that the General Plan as amended will remain internally consistent. The amendments on both sites are consistent with the guiding and implementing policies of the General Plan in each of the General Plan elements and will allow for residential development on sites long planned for that purpose. The General Plan amendments noted below will ensure that the implementation of the projects for Subarea 3 and Lot 3 are in compliance with the General Plan and that each element within the General Plan is internally consistent. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council makes the following findings to support the determination that no further environmental review is required under CEQA for the proposed Lot 3 Project. These findings are based on information contained in the prior CEQA documents, the City Council Staff Report, and all other information contained in the record before the City Council. These findings constitute a summary of the information contained in the entire record. The detailed facts to support the findings are set forth in the prior CEQA documents, and elsewhere in the record. Other facts and information in the record that support each finding that are not included below are incorporated herein by reference: 1. The proposed Lot 3 Project does not constitute substantial changes to the previous projects affecting the Project site as addressed in the prior CEQA documents, that will require major revisions to the prior documents due to new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in severity of previously identified significant effects. Based on the substantially reduced number of units, all potentially significant effects of the proposed Lot 3 Project are the same or less than the impacts for the projects which were previously addressed. The proposed Project will not result in substantially more severe significant impacts than those identified in the prior CEQA documents. All previously adopted mitigation measures from the Eastern Dublin EIR continue to apply to the proposed Project and project site as applicable. 2. The City is not aware of any new information of substantial importance or substantial changes in circumstances that would result in new or substantially more severe impacts or meet any other standards in CEQA Section 21166 and related CEQA Guidelines Sections 15162/3. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Dublin finds the following: 1. No further environmental review under CEQA is required for the proposed Lot 3 Project because there is no substantial evidence in the record as a whole that any of the standards under Sections 21166 or 15162/3 are met. 2. The City has properly determined that the Lot 3 Project is within the scope of the Program EIR certified for the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan 4 and is the same or less than the amount of development assumed in the other prior CEQA reviews and project approvals. 3. The City Council considered the information in the prior CEQA documents before approving the land use applications for the proposed Project. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council hereby adopts the following amendments to the General Plan: Figure 1-1 (Land Use exhibit) shall be amended for Dublin Ranch Subarea 3 as shown below. AM x€11 n n ' . N' ,� n r � i z �f r i w r Park 2.Qt ac rF- i W i , 5 Figure 1-1 (Land Use exhibit) shall be amended for The Groves Lot 3 as shown below: --------- r + ---- �' ------ i i i 1 r � r , " , , w w I t W i can Z =l . Q 0 V Y °�- - ___.__�_� DUBLIN BLVD, Table 2.2 (Land Use Development Potential. Eastern Extended Planning Area) shall be amended as shown below (table footnotes not included): TABLE 2.2: Land Use Development Potential: Eastern Extended anning Area Classification Acres Intensity*' Units Factor Yield RESIDENTIAL Du'slacre Du's Personsldu Population High Density 56.8 25.1+ 1426+ 2.7 3850+ Medium-High Density 139.8 14.1-25.0 1971-3495 2.7 5322-9436 Medium-High Density and Retail/Office 0 14.1-25.0 0 2.7 0 Medium Density 388.9 61-14.0 2372-5445 2.7 6404-14701 Single Family 725 0.9-6.0 652-4350 2.7 1760-11745 Estate Residential 30.5 0.01-0.8 0-24 2.7 0-65 Rural Residential/Agriculture 340.2 0.01 3 2.7 8 TOTAL 1 1681.2 1 1 6424-14743+ 17344.39805 Floor Area Square Feet Square Feet COMMERCIAL Acres Ratio (millions) I Employee Jobs (Gross) General Commercial 299.1 .20-.60 2.61-7.82 510 5118-15333 General Commercial/Campus Office 95.22 .20-.80 .83-3.32 385 �3061 Mixed Use 11.3 .30-1.00 .15-.49 490 Mixed Use 2/Campus Office 22.9 .45 max .45 260 1731 Neighborhood Commercial 24.8 .25-.60 .27-.65 490 551-1327 Campus Office 195.58 .25-.80 2.13-6.82 260 8192-26214 Industrial Park 56.4 .35 max .86 590 1458 Industrial Park/Campus Office 0 .25-.35 0 425 0 TOTAL: 705.3 7.33.20.4 19511-54388 6 TABLE 2.2: Land Use Development Potential: Eastern Extended Planning Area Classification Acres Intensity" Units Factor Yield PUBLIC/SEMI-PUBLIC/OPEN SPACE Acres FAR(Gross) Square Feet Square Feet/ Jobs millions employee Public/Semi-Public 94.1 .50 max 2.05 590 3475 Semi-Public 3.2 .50 max .07 590 119 Acres Number Parks/Public Recreation 196.3 Regional Parks 1.2 1 Open Space 696.5 Schools Acres FAR(Gross) Square Feet Square Feet/ Jobs (millions)em to ee Elementary School 48.7 .50 max 1.06 590 1797 Middle School 27.8 .50 max .61 590 1034 High School 0 TOTAL: 1067.8 3.79 6425 Acres Dwelling population Square Feet Jobs Units (millions) GRAND TOTAL: 3454.3 6424-14743+ 17344-39805 11.12-24.19 25936-60813 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council hereby finds that the amendments to the to the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan for Subarea 3 and Lot 3 are consistent with the Dublin General Plan as amended because the amendments conform the Specific Plan to match the change in the General Plan land use designations for the sites and make other corresponding changes based on the changes in use. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council hereby adopts the following amendments to the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan: 7 Figure 4.1 (Land Use Map) shall be amended for Dublin Ranch Subarea 3 as shown below: 1 t s oT --� b T) � I i Park * 2.0t aC t b01A"AT 5 Figure 4.1 (Land Use Map) shall be amended for The Groves Lot 3 as shown below: ` r 1 � } t J ` J 1 f 1 J J t J - 1 / t f i ; J 4 i ` f 1 I 1 r I + 1 i � i I + 1 ` i i 1 I ~^I W+ + W cn Q� LLI ul DUBLIN BLVD. 8 Table 4.1 (Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Land Use Summary) shall be amended as shown below (table footnotes not included): TABLE 4.1: EASTERN DUBLIN SPECIFIC PLAN LAND USE SUMMARY (Amended Per Resolution No. 66-03,47-04, 223-05, 58-07, 37-08, 210-08, 176-09, 55-12, 92-12, 210-12,XX-14) Land Use Description LAND AREA DENSITY YIELD COMM ERCIAUINDUSTRIAL General Commercial 356.8 acres .25-.35 FAR 4.122 MSF General Commercial/Campus Office 87.02 acres .28 FAR 1.061 MSF Industrial Park* 61.3 acres .25-.28 FAR .747 MSF Neighborhood Commercial 61.4 acres .30-.35 FAR .871 MSF Mixed Use 4.6 acres .30-1.0 FAR .005 MSF Campus Office 178.34 acres .35-.75 FAR 3.418 MSF Subtotal 749.5 acres 10.224 MSF RESIDENTIAL High Density 59.4 acres 35 du/ac 2,079 du Medium High Density 153.5 acres 20 du/ac 3,070 du Medium Densit ** 484.0 acres 10 du/ac 4,840 du Single Famil **** 936.35 acres 4 du/ac 3,745 do(3) Estate Residential 30.4 acres 0.13 du/ac 4 du Rural Residential/A ric. 560.85 acres .01 du/ac 6 du Mixed Use 4.6 acres*** 15 du/ac 115 du Subtotal 2,229.1 acres 13,859 du PUBLIC/SEMI-PUBLIC Public/Semi-Public 95.2 acres .24 FAR .995 MSF Semi-Public 8.5 acres .25 FAR Subtotal 103.7 acres .995 MSF SCHOOLS Elementary School 66.5 acres(') 5 schools Junior High School 21.3 acres 1 school Subtotal 87.8 acres PARKS AND OPEN SPACE City Park 56.3 acres 1 park Community Park 97.0 acres 3 parks Neighborhood Park 49.0 acres 7 parks Neighborhood Square 16.7 acres 6 parks Subtotal 219 acres 17 parks Open Space 681.0 acres TOTAL LAND AREA 4,070.1 acres 9 Table 4.2 (Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Population and Employment Summary) shall be amended as shown below (table footnotes not included): TABLE 42 EASTERN DUBLIN SPECIFIC PLAN POPULATION AND EMPLOYMENT SUMMARY (Amended Per Resolution No.47-04, 223-05, 58-07, 37-08, 176-09, 55-12, 92-12, 210-12,XX-14) Land Use Designation Development Sq Ft/Employees Personsldu Jobs Commercial Industrial Park .747 MSF 590 1,266 General Commercial/Campus 1.061 MSF 385 2,756 Office* General Commercial 4.122 MSF 510 8,082 Neighborhood Commercial .885 MSF 490 1,806 Mixed Use** .005 MSF 490 10 Campus Office 3.418 MSF 260 13,416 Public/Semi Public .995 MSF 590 1,686 Semi-Public 590 TOTAL: 11.233 MSF 29,022 Residential Population High Density 2,079 2.0 4,158 Medium High Density 3,070 2.0 6,140 Medium Density 4,840 2.0 9,680 Single Family'(1) 3,745 3.2 11,894 Estate Residential 4 3.2 13 Mixed Use** 115 2.0 230 Rural Residential/A ric. 6 3.2 19 TOTAL: 13,859 32,224 Table 4.3 (Projected Jobs/Housing Balance) shall be amended as shown below (table footnotes not included): TABLE 4.3: CITY OF DUBLIN PROJECTED JOBS/HOUSING BALANCE (Amended Per Resolution No. 223-05, 58-07, 37-08, 55-1 2, 92-12, 102-12,XX 14) PLANNING AREA Dwelling Jobs Employed Balance Ratio Units Residents Existing City of 7,100 12,210 12,000 -210 1.72:1.0 Dublin Eastern Dublin 13,859 29,022 22,545 -6,477 2.09:1.0 Specific Plan Area TOTAL: 20,959 41,232 34,545 -6.687 1.97:1.0 PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this day of 2014 by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: 10 Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk G:IPA#12013iPLPA-2013-00033 DUBLIN RANCH Subarea 3 PC Mtg 01.28.141cc reso for subarea 3 lot 3 gpa_spa.docx 11 RESOLUTION NO. 14-XX A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT AN ORDINANCE REZONING DUBLIN RANCH SUBAREA 3 TO A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT ZONING DISTRICT AND APPROVING A RELATED STAGE 1 DEVELOPMENT PLAN PLPA 2013-00033 WHEREAS, the Applicant, Kevin Fryer, has submitted a Planning Application for residential development on Dublin Ranch Subarea 3 (Subarea 3) which would result in future development of up to 437 single family residences on an approximately 64 acre site ("Project"). The project proposes General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan amendments to reallocate existing Medium High Density Residential and Medium Density Residential land uses, to reduce and change Open Space land uses to Rural Residential/Agriculture and to increase the Stream Corridor designation; and WHEREAS, the project would rezone Subarea 3 to the Planned Development zoning district and would approve a related Stage 1 Development Plan for future development of up to 437 dwelling units along either side of a stream corridor and open space area; and WHEREAS, the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), together with the State guidelines and City environmental regulations, require that certain projects be reviewed for environmental impacts and that environmental documents be prepared; and WHEREAS, the City prepared a CEQA addendum to a prior EIR and ND for Subarea 3; and WHEREAS, on January 28, 2014, the Planning Commission held a properly noticed public hearing on the Subarea 3 project, including the proposed Planned Development rezoning, at which time all interested parties had the opportunity to be heard; and WHEREAS, a Staff Report dated January 28, 2014 and incorporated herein by reference described and analyzed the Subarea 3 project for the Planning Commission, including the proposed Planned Development rezoning. The Staff Report recommended that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the proposed rezoning; and WHEREAS, on January 28, 2014, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution 14-XX recommending that the City Council adopt a CEQA addendum for the Subarea 3 project, which Resolution is incorporated herein by reference and available for review at City Hall during normal business hours; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission used their independent judgment and considered the Staff Report, the Addendum and prior CEQA documents, and all reports, recommendations, and testimony referenced above prior to making any recommendations on the Subarea 3 project, including the proposed rezoning. 1 ATTACHMENT 2 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the foregoing recitals are true and correct and made a part of this resolution. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Planning Commission recommends that the City Council adopt the ordinance attached as Exhibit A, rezoning Dublin Ranch Subarea 3 to the Planned Development zoning district and approving a related Stage 1 Development Plan. The Planning Commission recommendation is based on the Staff Report analysis and recommendation and on the findings set forth in the attached draft ordinance. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 28th day of January 2014, by the following votes: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Planning Commission Chair ATTEST: Assistant Community Development Director G:IPA#120131PLPA-2013-00033 DUBLIN RANCH Subarea 31PC Mtg 01.28.141p reso_reco_pd_ord_for subarea_3_Qan_2014).doc 2 ORDINANCE NO. XX— 14 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN REZONING DUBLIN RANCH SUBAREA 3 TO A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT ZONING DISTRICT AND APPROVING A RELATED STAGE 1 DEVELOPMENT PLAN PLPA 2013-00033 The Dublin City Council does ordain as follows: SECTION 1. RECITALS A. Dublin Ranch Subarea 3 ("project") is in Dublin Ranch Area B in the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan area. On October 10, 1994, the City Council adopted Ordinance 4-94 prezoning the 1,538 acre Dublin Ranch to PD-Planned Development in accordance with the 1993 Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan. Following annexation of Dublin Ranch, the City Council adopted Ordinance 24-97 on December 2, 1997 rezoning Dublin Ranch Areas B-E to PD-Planned Development and adopting the then-required Land Use and Development Plan (LUDP) by Resolution 141-97. The LUDP established permitted uses, development standards and other regulations for future development of Areas B-E. Subarea 3 was anticipated for up to 485 units. B. The PD-Planned Development zoning for the project would supersede Ordinance 24-97 as to the Subarea 3 project area. SECTION 2. FINDINGS A. Pursuant to Section 8.32.070 of the Dublin Municipal Code, the City Council finds as follows. 1. The Dublin Ranch Subarea 3 PD-Planned Development zoning meets the purpose and intent of Chapter 8.32 in that it provides a comprehensive development plan that creates a desirable use of land that is sensitive to surrounding land uses by virtue of the layout and design of the site plan. 2. Development of the Project under the PD-Planned Development zoning will be harmonious and compatible with existing and future development in the surrounding area in that it provides residential development in an area that supports residential uses, such as the sports park to the north, but is also a transition to planned medical center and mixed uses to the south and east. The Project provides a high degree of design and landscaping to complement existing and planned uses in the area. B. Pursuant to Sections 8.120.050.A and B of the Dublin Municipal Code, the City Council finds as follows. 1. The PD-Planned Development zoning for the Project will be harmonious and compatible with existing and future development in the surrounding area in that it provides residential development in an area that supports residential uses, and the sports park to the north, but is also a transition to planned medical center and mixed uses to the EXHIBIT A TO ATTACHMENT 2 south and east. The Project provides a high degree of design and landscaping to complement existing and planned uses in the area. 2. The Project takes advantage of the flatter areas of the site to locate development. Grading on the site will ensure that much of the development is behind the small hill and not visible from Hwy. 580. The project site is in an infill area that is fully served by public services and existing roadways. There are no major physical or topographic constraints and thus the site is physically suitable for the type and intensity of the proposed residential development. 3. The PD-Planned Development zoning will not adversely affect the health or safety of persons residing or working in the vicinity, or be detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare in that the project will comply with all applicable development regulations and standards. 4. The PD-Planned Development zoning is consistent with and in conformance with the Dublin General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan, as amended, in that the proposed residential and other uses and the site plan are consistent with the land use designations for the site approved in connection with the Project. C. Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act, the City Council adopted a CEQA addendum to the Eastern Dublin EIR and 1997 Negative Declaration, as set forth in Resolution xx-14 on , 2014, which resolution is incorporated herein by reference. SECTION 3. ZONING MAP AMENDMENT Pursuant to Chapter 8.32, Title 8 of the City of Dublin Municipal Code the City of Dublin Zoning Map is amended to rezone the property described below ("Property") to a Planned Development Zoning District: 64 acres at the northwest corner of Dublin Boulevard and Fallon Road, (APN 985-0027- 012) A map of the rezoning area is shown below: LOTS& ` 'r SUB AREA 3 r r r 1 M . SE --------------- STAGEIPDIn I i PLAN J �+ f3�------------- AOUM M } ;• •.,\`__- � I DEa:@78ER]013 � Mx I /'�•�—__ -v Aso... e i *p°4%" �- - - - sH�rPD1.1 2 SECTION 4. The regulations for the use, development, improvement, and maintenance of the Property are set forth in the following Stage 1 Development Plan for the Project area, which is hereby approved. Any amendments to the Stage 1 Development Plan shall be in accordance with section 8.32.080 of the Dublin Municipal Code or its successors. Stage 1 Development Plan for Dublin Ranch Subarea 3 This is a Stage 1 Development Plan pursuant to Chapter 8.32 of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance. This Development Plan meets all the requirements for a Stage 1 Development Plan and is adopted as part of the PD-Planned Development rezoning for Dublin Ranch Subarea 3, PLPA 2013-00033. The PD-Planned Development District and this Stage 1 Development Plan provides flexibility to encourage innovative development while ensuring that the goals, policies, and action programs of the General Plan and provisions of Chapter 8.32 of the Zoning Ordinance are satisfied. 1. Statement of permitted, conditional, and accessory uses. Proposed Uses:Permitted, Conditional and Accessory Uses PD Rural Residential/Agriculture Pertr>.;tted(.6es Agricultural Accessory Use—Ofiice,outbuildings, etc. Cro p,vine,or tre e farm,truckgardeq plant nursery,greenhouse apiary.aviary,hatchery, horticulture(excludes field and stalk crops) Drainage and Water Quality Ponds and Other Related Facilities Outdoor recreation facility Private or Public Infrastructure Storm Water Detention Ponds and Other Related Facilities Trails and Maintenance Roads Trail Staging Area Winery Coadtional Uses Permitted uses subjectto reviewfor consistency with the Livermore Municipal Airport Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan(ALUCP)(August2012) PD-Medium Density Permitted L6e5 Accessory structures and uses in accordance with Section 8.90A30 of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance Combinations of attached ordetached dwellings,zero-lot line units, duplexes,townhouses,multF family dweRirigs Home occupation in act ordanc e with Chapter 8.64 of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance Multi-Family Dwelling Link Nursing homes for not more than three patients Single Family Dwelling Unit Conduow)U3es Ac essory structu res and uses located on the same site as a conditional use Assisted living facitit/ Bed and Brealdast inns Community clubhouse Community facilities Hospital in districts requiring not more than fifteen hundred(1,500)square feet of building site area per dwelling unit Large family day care homes Medical or residential care facility(7 or more clients) Mobile home parks,as regulated by the zoning ordinance Parking lot as regulated in the zoning ordinance Plant nursery orgreenhouse used onlyforthe cultivation of plant materials(wholesale only) Public and Semi�Public Facilities 3 PD-Medium Kgh Density Permitted Likes Accessory structures and uses in accordance with Section 8.40030 of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance Combination ofapartmen%condominiums,townhomes Home occupation in acc ordanc e with Chapter 8.64 of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance MultEfamily dwellings Nursing homes for not more than three patients concildOno)Uses Ac essory structures and uses located on the same ske as a conditional use Assisted Iivingfacility Bed and Brealdast inns Community clubhouse Community facilities Hospital in districts requiring not more than fifteen hundred(I,500)square feet of building site area per dwelling unit Large family day care homes Medical or residential care facility(7 or more c lients) Mobile home parks,as regulated by the zoning ordinance (larking lot as regulated in the zoning ordinance Plant nursery orgre enhouse used only for the cultivation of plant materials(wholesale only) Public and SemFPublic Facilities PD-Park Permitted Lies Neighborhood Square Recreational and educational facility Trail Staging area Sim ilarand related uses as determined by the Community Development Director ArWary Lke. Parking lot supporting a primary use 2. Stage 1 Site Plan. -� T M ,. SC r � r � RR4A ' NP rr .I .1 IpiAPAIIr A r iw MH it M i V. / -------------- +' 3. Site area, proposed densities. Gross/net area: 64 acres. Maximum number of units: 437. Allocation of units: Medium High Density Residential - 107 units-, Medium Density Residential — 330 units. 4 � i % T, 4 SC 2 ` P ` O ` � I RRIA NP .I WiAPMT tw MH w I� RmA%lRf ,,n ---- i C- M _ < Y 4. Phasing Plan. Project will be built in two phases. ' PHASE x o� o ' _. ` i r � J RRrA ;I RmAPART a 5 i 101AMMI N �� ,10 ,.Q -- •' _ WHEN THE AIRROUNMG SIR EEISWER , 1 • • ` W 6eOHW TO=F WAS RE ALLY.WICI TM S / ; sumot Rm nE erTASIw)c FxTaffE BEwOUbnsfEra ru e[E�cre�DED iRro 5 5. Master Neighborhood Landscaping Plan. /G �p�t• f\\ i � O ` SINFAlA COPM000. ` 1 \ 1 { 1 1 I RRIA _ f 4 1,i1 W WAW1 NOTE:STREET PATTERN SHOWN IS CONCEPTUAL. , 6. Grading. Future grading will conform to the policies required in the Visual Resources section of the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan as shown below: Viewshed T Sections i 1 y I 6 4-------------------- -- — — — — — — — — — — - — — — — — -- — — — — SECTION 'A' SCALE: I'm 250- ....... ....... 1�0-W OF Viewshed SECTION W SCALE: V- 150' Sections SECTION 'C* SCALE: V- 150' ------------ -- ----------- --------- -- ----------------------------SECTION W SCALE: V= 250' U- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - --- - --- - SECTION 'E' ME: V- 300' Sections 7. General Plan and Specific Plan Consistency. The Project is consistent with the General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan through companion amendments approved in conjunction with the PD rezoning. 8. Inclusionary Zoning Regulations. The Project's required inclusionary housing has been previously satisfied. No further inclusionary housing is required for the Project. 9. Aerial Photo. XUR EAST Jil 7 ii SECTION 5. OTHER ZONING REGULATIONS. Pursuant to the Dublin Zoning Ordinance, section 8.32.060.C, the use, development, improvement, and maintenance of the Project area shall be governed by the provisions of the closest comparable zoning district as determined by the Community Development Director and of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance except as provided in the Stage 1 Development Plan. SECTION 6. PRIOR PD ZONING SUPERSEDED. Ordinance 24-97 and the related Land Use and Development Plan approved in Resolution 141-97 are inapplicable as to the Project and are hereby superseded to that extent. SECTION 7. POSTING. The City Clerk of the City of Dublin shall cause this Ordinance to be posted in at least three (3) public places in the City of Dublin in accordance with Section 36933 of the Government Code of the State of California. SECTION 8. EFFECTIVE DATE. This ordinance shall take effect and be enforced thirty (30) days from and after its passage. PASSED AND ADOPTED BY the City Council of the City of Dublin, on this day of 2014, by the following votes: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk G:IPAM20131PLPA-2013-00033 DUBLIN RANCH Subarea 31PC Mtg 01.28.141cc pd_ord_and_stage_1_dp_for subarea_3_Qan_2014).doc 8 RESOLUTION NO. 14-XX A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT AN ORDINANCE REZONING THE GROVES LOT 3 TO A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT ZONING DISTRICT AND APPROVING A RELATED STAGE 1 AND STAGE 2 DEVELOPMENT PLAN PLPA 2013-00034 WHEREAS, the Applicant, Kevin Fryer, has submitted a Planning Application for The Groves Lot 3 (Lot 3) which proposes a residential development of up to 122 townhouse condominiums on approximately 8.8 gross acres ("Project"). The Project proposes a General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan amendment to change the existing High Density Residential land use designation to Medium High Density Residential. The project also proposes a PD rezoning with related Stage 1 and Stage 2 Development Plan to establish the zoning and development standards for the project, as well as a Site Development Review permit and Vesting Tentative Map 8164; and WHEREAS, the project would rezone Lot 3 to the Planned Development zoning district and would approve a related Stage 1 and Stage 2 Development Plan for development of up to 122 condominium units; and WHEREAS, the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), together with the State guidelines and City environmental regulations, require that certain projects be reviewed for environmental impacts and that environmental documents be prepared; and WHEREAS, the City has determined that the Lot 3 project is within the scope of the program analyzed in the Eastern Dublin EIR as to land use, density and development assumptions, within the development assumptions of a subsequent 1997 ND; and that no additional environmental review is required; and WHEREAS, on January 28, 2014, the Planning Commission held a properly noticed public hearing on the Project, including the proposed Planned Development rezoning, at which time all interested parties had the opportunity to be heard, and WHEREAS, a Staff Report dated January 28, 2014 and incorporated herein by reference described and analyzed the project for the Planning Commission, including the proposed Planned Development rezoning. The Staff Report recommended that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the proposed rezoning; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission used their independent judgment and considered the Staff Report, the prior EIR and other CEQA documents, and all reports, recommendations, and testimony referenced above prior to making any recommendations on the Lot 3 project, including the proposed rezoning. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the foregoing recitals are true and correct and made a part of this resolution. 1 ATTACHMENT 3 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Planning Commission recommends that the City Council adopt the Ordinance attached as Exhibit A, rezoning The Groves Lot 3 to the Planned Development zoning district and approving a related Stage 1 and Stage 2 Development Plan. The Planning Commission recommendation is based on the Staff Report analysis and recommendation and on the findings set forth in the attached draft Ordinance. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 28th day of January 2014, by the following votes: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Planning Commission Chair ATTEST: Assistant Community Development Director 2228157.1 ORDINANCE NO. XX— 14 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN REZONING THE GROVES LOT 3 TO A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT ZONING DISTRICT AND APPROVING A RELATED STAGE 1 AND 2 DEVELOPMENT PLAN PLPA 2013-00034 The Dublin City Council does ordain as follows: SECTION 1. RECITALS A. The Groves Lot 3 ("project") is in Dublin Ranch Area B in the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan area. On October 10, 1994, the City Council adopted Ordinance 4-94 prezoning the 1,538 acre Dublin Ranch to PD-Planned Development in accordance with the 1993 Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan. Following annexation of Dublin Ranch, the City Council adopted Ordinance 24-97 on December 2, 1997 rezoning Dublin Ranch Areas B-E to PD-Planned Development and adopting the then-required Land Use and Development Plan (LUDP) by Resolution 141-97. The LUDP established permitted uses, development standards and other regulations for future development of Areas B-E. The Groves Lot 3 was anticipated for up to 304 units of High Density Residential uses as part of a larger residential development. The unit count assumed a base number of units plus additional units through a density bonus. B. Several development applications have been approved based on the 1997 PD zoning, including the approximately 25-acre Fairway Ranch high density residential project approved on July 1, 2003. The current project is the third phase of the project initially approved as Fairway Ranch, which is now known as The Groves. A Site Development Review permit was approved in March 2007 to revise the site plan and allow live-work units. In March 2013, the City approved a 304 unit apartment project. None of the prior approved developments have been built. C. The PD-Planned Development zoning for the project would supersede Ordinance 24-97 as to The Groves Lot 3 project area. SECTION 2. FINDINGS A. Pursuant to Section 8.32.070 of the Dublin Municipal Code, the City Council finds as follows. 1. The Groves Lot 3 PD-Planned Development zoning meets the purpose and intent of Chapter 8.32 in that it provides a comprehensive development plan that creates a desirable use of land that is sensitive to surrounding land uses by virtue of the layout and design of the site plan. 2. Development of the Project under the PD-Planned Development zoning will be harmonious and compatible with existing and future development in the surrounding area in that the project provides higher density housing, compatible with existing higher density residential development to the north and west, and with proposed development to EXHIBIT A TO ATTACHMENT 3 the east. The Project provides a high degree of design and landscaping to complement existing and planned uses in the area. B. Pursuant to Sections 8.120.050.A and B of the Dublin Municipal Code, the City Council finds as follows. 1. The PD-Planned Development zoning for Project will be harmonious and compatible with existing and potential development in that the project provides higher density housing, compatible with existing higher density residential development to the north and west, and with proposed development to the east. The Project provides a high degree of design and landscaping to complement existing and planned uses in the area. 2. The project site is flat, in an infill area that is fully served by public services and existing roadways. There are no site challenges that will impede use of the site for the intended purposes. There are no major physical or topographic constraints and thus the site is physically suitable for the type and intensity of the proposed residential development. 3. The PD-Planned Development zoning will not adversely affect the health or safety of persons residing or working in the vicinity, or be detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare in that the project will comply with all applicable development regulations and standards. 4. The PD-Planned Development zoning is consistent with and in conformance with the Dublin General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan, as amended, in that the proposed residential use is consistent with the Medium High Density Residential land use designation for the site approved in connection with the Project. C. Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act, the City Council determined that the Project is within the scope of the Eastern Dublin EIR and other prior CEQA reviews, and that no further environmental review is required, as set forth in Resolution xx-14 on 2014, which resolution is incorporated herein by reference. SECTION 3. ZONING MAP AMENDMENT Pursuant to Chapter 8.32, Title 8 of the City of Dublin Municipal Code the City of Dublin Zoning Map is amended to rezone the property described below ("Property") to a Planned Development Zoning District: 8.8 gross acres at the northwest corner of Dublin Boulevard and Lockhart Street, APN 985-0048-005 2 A map of the rezoning area is shown below: LOT 3 & I 1 SUB AREA 3 I I - ---- ---------- _ at in Ranch M •' SC ----------'`t------------ `\ � -- STAGE 1 PD SITE PLAN -----� f ' RRIA ••'I L NP f MH 1+ to M I MWORE WAY _ _ r" DECEMBER 2013 MH �-' 1 ,• • m�a woiu wo Doom me wn.:: i • .wu,w»ee.r. rr ,.,am u. 1O rtxon+r - t11G.1 ,.aLE. ' pY[l W9WF KIri P!M,fWU.t W91S �. Ift" AMY ElpMWY6 HtG I,PY4 SHEET ------------ ------------ I PD1 . 1 n U-.:,4:" L. . I-E -L T n. SECTION 4. The regulations for the use, development, improvement, and maintenance of the Property are set forth in the following Stage 1/2 Development Plan for the Project area, which is hereby approved. Any amendments to the Stage 1/2 Development Plan shall be in accordance with section 8.32.080 of the Dublin Municipal Code or its successors. Stage 1/2 Development Plan for The Groves Lot 3 This is a Stage 1 and 2 Development Plan pursuant to Chapter 8.32 of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance. This Development Plan meets all the requirements for both a Stage 1 and Stage 2 Development Plan and is adopted as part of the PD-Planned Development rezoning for the Groves Lot 3, PLPA 2013-00034. The PD-Planned Development District and this Stage 1/2 Development Plan provides flexibility to encourage innovative development while ensuring that the goals, policies, and action programs of the General Plan and provisions of Chapter 8.32 of the Zoning Ordinance are satisfied. A separately bound document titled "Lot 3" (hereafter, "Plan Book") stamped "Received, January 22, 2014", contains information on the Project, including the Stage 1 and 2 Development Plan and is incorporated herein by reference and on file in the Dublin Community Development Department. Unless otherwise noted, the references below are to the Plan Book section "Stage 1 and Stage 2 Planned Development Rezone", hereafter "PD". 3 1. Statement of permitted, conditional, and accessory uses. Fmposed Uses:Permitted,Conditional and Accessory Uses PD-Medium HiSh Density AwMned Uses Accessory structures and uses in accordance with Section 840.030 of the DublinZoning Ordinance Combinaiors of attached or detached dwellings,zero-lotline urits,duplexes,tow nhouses,mdi-fmiy dw el Ii ngs Home occupation in accordance with Chapter8b4 of the Dubli n Zoning 0 rdi nan c 0 Multi-Fm it y D we Ili ng Unit Nu rsi nY hom es fo r not m o r e than thre a pati a nts Slnj a Family Dwefli ng Urit Commurity clubhouse C omm u ri ty facil iti es Coed&oed Uses Accessory structures and uses located on the same site as aconditional use Assisted 1 ivi ng facili ty Bed and B reakfast inn; Community clubhouse Commuri tyfacliti es H os pi tal i n distri cts r e qui ri ng not m o re than liifte e n h and re d(I,500)s q uare ft e t of buil d ng site area pe r dw el Ii ng unit Large family day care homes Medcal or resi denial care facility(!or more dients) Mobile home parks,as regulated by the zori ng ordinance Parki ng I of as r egulate d i n the z o ri ng o rdi rant e Rant nursery orgreenhouse used onlyfor the cultivatonof plantmaterials(wholesale orly) Public and Semi-Public Facilities 2. Stage 1 and 2 Site Plan. _ i I --------- ----------------------tj, -- THE GROVES I 1 r � t ' r--- e� — —--—MAGUI REW& _ 1 ° i t.� I W i t i it J Z4 I u.o I '. C 1 ..'I W 0' at � y I i s, ;. TTT i 1- - i . DUBLIN BLVD. 4 3. Site area, proposed densities. Gross/net area: 8.8/6.4 acres. Density: 19.1 du/net acres. Maximum number of units: 122. 4. Development Regulations. TYPE OF UNIT MEDIUM HIGH 14.1-25 DUTAC Lot Size ins .ft. NIA 61 dg.Setbackfrom Arterial 10' %e et Bldg.Setback from Property 10' Line on a Public Street Bldg.Setbac k from a Pro pe rtv U line not on a Public R.O.W. BI dg.Setbackfrom aPHvate 10' Street or Common Driveway Driveway Length or Garage 3'mi n' Setbackfrom Common Driveway or Private Street Privzte Open Space 100s.f.yard or 50 s.f.deck Minimum B uil di ng Se patrat on 10' Minimum BI dg.Separaoron(both I (g to porch) bl dg.2stoHes or gr eater Building Height 49 Stories 3.5 stories ring Rp qui re covers spaces, I guestspace23 Emig owr gragas uss tha gang%satbark 'Guast Parkhg map bo: 1)0%M curbs tla strovt parking 2)hi-drVaxvy parkhg 3�On-s to prkhg stall 'A.xossbk paichgraqu"d fir on-sta prkhg stet. 5. Architectural Standards. The architectural character and theme shall be as generally shown in the following exhibits. i a�m.�..swW i m t VON, • rw.o..nnM • rrsr�.ro.ro.oe� Maw i Front E*w DUBLIN INTEGRAL SITE LOT 3 CONCEPTUAL BUILDING 'B'ELEVATIONS 5 E [7 fl brat-W L.J—d a au '- s sacw eo7,z ` rr a a-a vam. L.eh EI-0- r7 a rL �L,' ffi o � . ` ! Rest Elc•.al'us. CONCEPTUAL BU LD NG 'B' ELEVATIONS 6. Phasing Plan. Project will be built in one phase. 7. Master Neighborhood/Preliminary Landscaping Plan. o . EVI ss�=" P,op..d Planl Paleae and MatedoIs Legend L-3 8. General Plan and Specific Plan Consistency. The Project is consistent with the General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan through companion amendments approved in conjunction with the PD rezoning. 9. Inclusionary Zoning Regulations. The Project will provide the City with funds to satisfy the Inclusionary Zoning Regulations. 6 10. Aerial Photo. SECTION 5. OTHER ZONING REGULATIONS. Pursuant to the Dublin Zoning Ordinance, section 8.32.060.C, the use, development, improvement, and maintenance of the Project area shall be governed by the provisions of the closest comparable zoning district as determined by the Community Development Director and of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance except as provided in the Stage 1/2 Development Plan. SECTION 6. PRIOR PD ZONING SUPERSEDED. Ordinance 24-97 and the related Land Use and Development Plan approved in Resolution 141-97 are inapplicable as to the Project and are hereby superseded to that extent. SECTION 7. POSTING. The City Clerk of the City of Dublin shall cause this Ordinance to be posted in at least three (3) public places in the City of Dublin in accordance with Section 36933 of the Government Code of the State of California. SECTION 8. EFFECTIVE DATE. This ordinance shall take effect and be enforced thirty (30) days from and after its passage. PASSED AND ADOPTED BY the City Council of the City of Dublin, on this day of 2014, by the following votes: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: 7 Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk G:1PA#120131PLPA-2013-00033 DUBLIN RANCH Subarea 31PC Mtg 01.28.141cc pd_ord_and_stage_1_2_dp_for—groves_lot_3_Uan_2014).doc II a y x z y CD W :Et �; N 0 cn N Z O = a Now -v E W � a.a. � � cn z e) Fes-- 06 Pr m CL o � v cd _ 0 E v _ 0 E Q = tr = a E 3 H p '> WE M = > oc0 M ° 4J .> N E _ J CCU ' w > c a W �• = O 'D Ew -00 a Q � a� _ a� c� 0 LO Ln -v co O cc M 0 co C Ln td � U Q a� U c c 1° = O ac — °� c _ a J %0 V) m 00 a) m N V) 00 O a) i 00 Ln w ; co M pQ � s � `" � o c � `r' Q � o o L .cU .o o ; a% c � J 0UN calf a- CZ c c � Q " 0) °L. 0 __ ca � � � E c° ° N .cif°— p N -0 vn � C>7 � cn W Ne " 'A v � CO � ^ V i F O CO O >_ m y N M O O ¢ �C �>- Ln 0 .� U vn a- ° oc � ° O � _ E .0 W V) Q Ri/ `N N ro C cN C d c c 0 O O O O cc z ro= L.a a N a) V) 0 _ 0 ww C w W W W W O p p p W W W W C C N Vf Vl L W L CL uA b4 b4!� b4 b4 10 0,0 cm c c a _� _� a c c Co _� ° J p O c c c _c c c_ _c cy cd a m V y� a_ a_ 0_ L a. a_ L a. a_ L a. a_ tL Q LL Vc a) L •� ° L L U Q U 0 0 0 0 o ° o o O ° O O o o o LL LL ° ° o ° lo ° V m m m m m m m ° ° o v m Rs � wwLLLLwLLXLL LL Xa:[L- x LL mQm v X — [V N M M � � �QmmUUUpppwww c c c c c � +� o- o- o- c c- c- ao aq ao o4 ao a4 bo aq a4 ao ao . ca «i as co ol$ v YI •� U U c)) ia a) a) U U c c c c c c c c c c C C d d_ 11- L C = c c c c c c c � vvv 'v � v � vv � vv 4+ 4+ 4+ O _ UUU00UVUU °ommmmmmmmm' EU dq 4 — N M O O — 0 0 0 C M N p N J QQaaaQ < < < < < < QaaaaaaaQQaa < < < :ob. 4+ V 4J In H � �, �w o 5 a, / 00 L L N C cz C C cn C c c O O cn W _� Q ,� _ LL o0 0O 00 � o CL cc atS o v () a) a) _v a) w w U 4-1 c co u o E N N w w LL W W W X X W i� c 41 u LL c o > p co mom U V U U ,w `� c ° O L a. U a. a) a) aA V) a4 a0 (A a0 04 a4 a0 T) bA Y/ a. a. a) a_ -0 L W s s C c c C — C C C C C LL _ LL � Q c LN +_+ +� Lc �; a) mm mmmm m A, •N v LL ° E m '� L H H a) v c .c .� co Q m ct1 co U cd QW 0 C X ° aLoo.= cco s 0 O Q Q d °�° d d _C d d d d _C a /a�jA 3 O ao4-o vii N 0) t N v U U - U u - c v c v u = i' aC t C aO aaa +' � O J — a UwpJnn n + a) a) c C CO C c °m c C C c °m41 u = QUUUUUUUUUUU c �A Ii = O — N M '= 0 0 0 0 0 0 - - - N N N N N M p - N M v- Ln %0 I� 00 0% — — — — u L - - - N N N N N [V N N N cV N N AL W _ _ v � a u u a � ro to u c `a D O L c J� O N a) L N c Q a D J cd E E -v c = c a_ E M j o = � 06 a �+ v 010 d = ii o- aco LL a , u c 3 c � t c W a. a0 vJ � .E � LF inincn > d0Q :b. 3 cv n' c c � v aci � � pppp cp 4) .2 °' � °�, ca CL L d aJ a) a) a) a) 4) c '0 a) L — H Cl ° a) a O a4 av ao ao V av E a) > c v a) N 'L = i+ Q d N (d cd cd (d L cd a•0 h V V) N a) 4. 4a a.+ a+ a.c E p c a) O N a cca - � cncncncnUcn p a _ LQ N O o v ' ° p — — �' p 6 t' L. L. -0 v L c u > in LZ < >. ° ,� a a Q -C aJ _ .c a) a1 d - (L•� O '� = v C N 7 7 C r- - N cV N cV p - p.._ L a� a) 'X aq a4 ,, cd p p p p p �+ . . . . o .41 Q > cnCL l7QU` LULL U- vfa_ a_ a. a_ a_ a_ ofinUUVCJUUV SITE REFERENCE CL N z Q W LLI V) CO F- w s > W W Gvold QVOlI NO I 0Tma'I x Q C) yp� Q GRAFTON STET p�P ___._ 06' U 'fVSSV L V w a d Q W s Q A 9AxQ V VH QVO)i Q)IVAdOH Uvold ►� 1�g0 11 O Cld O w L y LU 0 O C/) W � CL °LU a� w Ewa = V) w T � o LU CL = O V5 H / J D M 0 C� 7 m V L U� Z 00 ,r 0 QD J z i w a s • .�; r^E, LL I O m CD y t o t � m i N M v C) N L L •� L L p C O ed a QN 3 v �a .� � o vs 0 ' 4-1 al C a) •C -C a) CO N c ~ L O N'0 4.3 i0 L 7 c � 3 L 4J C �' 0 N a_ 4J E C .- N 'L • Y a) d cd 0 �—' C m cN+ 'j 3 cid u M 4 a) E _ ; •� C L (D N N .ro Ql JN O C N a) a-°) c� X U a0., 0 N E cd -p >.-C �+ 3 a c o c ro U p 0 � N 4J u � � — � a) H 4 E � L N cd a) a) 0 C u4 cd C N O fl ate_+ L C N .c OU c C> cd t N -0 N N � N ° C L N N Ln ��j O cd N t CO 41 U 3 a) O ; X u N L a) 0 �- N i+ v O u cd a) L. W .0 N N a) '^ N t t (A .0 V) �+ L 0 'y d 0 LL a) a) (A C r Q w w N Q! N C L 4) Q — = L s N 3 N 45 4-1 41 4J 4Q j cd 7 130 t/) N cd a) a) o p i L 42 N c N> .0 == C U d L N a) 3 a H L C -0 0 co � � v a) 46J O (n ,;O w c � —N aw n o co cc N C N L '4-1 L a) U C N �C 41 w U fd C 4� 14 0 3 •o v p l- o 41 - a t "- -0 c ao C I- 4.j U 4i u •c C ro 'C Q o 0 to acd a) c N •0 ; 3 N c � O d cd N L 0 d C V >. E V .N 0 w ate, c 0 — w o L a) U D C L a) _0 .0 d u C 3 i0 > + ' U c L L — L4 L o O m L d 0 N t N _ 0 N t N N 40 41 1' D C N co 4J 4_1 C L C C O 3 1 aJ v " c a o U V) v c 4) E a�i .r > in- 4J 41 0 CU CL CL x i ,- 4� t1 " C° cv L E �+ 'C N " ; 3 0 .c c E (d� cd L 1� m — H .- C L. cd 0 to L ccd O v O U N O .0 c N L O L L a u C c o a) v -C u 3 4 v w id LO N L .^ _ }' �' C N d O 3 C cNd H L 3 a •E c u N v 3 ; o o to o � �, /v, E ro IA- ° "°v_ aL' Vf `>� >. to +' v — v C v i a) O c a _� N co o •; u N O O Q o V _� o v (A � � �- u c O •° c 7 a 'u a tv c 4J a u •y, N N n C W N c a ro H H H cn 4 H 3 u° m Q 0 = H FA a 2 Q u N L a) 3 tv tv 45 R! L a) N m 3 0 3: 4-J co cd S u — a0 N y>. j O L 'o in 3 cd �.+ O L'' •L +� i a>i a c `� u a a � M 4 r JL N 4J C d .. C 4N+ cd d >: co N E c 'e 0 N -�, u — c a i >, o a) 3p > 'o > s fn O .0 O, cd cd N 'A a) d.� a) 0 a 0'41 D v w s LtQ Q > ,� a. Ht o c� 3 v a 0 W ttiox 3 4J t " �=- ON N a co N c cti N -0 >.2_ L_ N L E c ; u ~ °� > v to o 0 0 V) c co O ,+_+ N N U aL+ C N 'i Q) 30 7 �— 3 N h c u O :3 tY E p •r ' a) c Y N 0 u 4j V) E 3 C aa) 0 H v a) cn c 0 cc o a) c w L a) — o a) a-° t v 19 E -C .c^ cd N L >.° w O 1 a) 0p C td o > 4J t N cd •3 V) N cd cd W to a) Y N U > 4j L N a) co 3 >. c V U 16 0-= L. '+' J � M U N L 0 E C a) •� C O N a) •° Co 4J L_N a) 4J i c "0 C c 0 Q N C t cd i ° O U `� E c N L C -0 J v L E o > o t1 J m v E E c 3 ' N 'C o � ° Z v °- v .50 u N � 'c ca 0 U _ � vOi aJ 3 �� 0 `-' E s c C c E N cic m >• d C L p '�—' m coo c 'v O O Q N N O o `� N C "' a) � _> _c E 0 aci d 0 a v + t n m p v i _ d ++ 3 C N co cd 7 co 0 +J D cd a aci 2 O 1N `3^ v _0 �d _� v = y U � � H L v N L 1 J v N 'X o N ate+ N N a) ° L. o F� o 3 bC_0 v C cd � n u a ca 3 0 ao u C b0 co N •a) 7 N IA �' L N b0 �+ C cd OO 0 .« N a -2 G tY cud N " u O OtZ'X p d c O can C a) t N o >. > a) U cd VV)) O a+ 'N a) t a) }' N +' .0 -C L Z L N 4,j U cd C E I— N td C = C ~ 3 0 >. 4. a) cc Cdd 3 C L +j a) co , UNO U C ij L C L t aV) Ov U > _c to J c a O 3 v 0 v v L a) Q) cd N N 0 �+ L O 0 � 3 a) L co L. aa)) t E a) a '� 0 3 3 = V .° a a'o d o o t H H a O 0 o o N C co E {/f td N N L. O v_, ti � > � O G_ U N C L 3 -0 4J 4-+ cd C a) � cd V rn 'y 'O O cd H c v O Cv L O V) u c t 0 .0 tt O u c .> 'i i, >.•� C H 11 CL ao L C H L H •� o 4J b'' O.. H .Q) s u O d f1 U ° x o cL L a0 O E a C a H L. d U � % A _av d o O a) N N EA O O d L a1 V ) c a L N cd N b,0 C V H N Lc; a GPA/EDSPA a, M cz td pN w N VP M O Ol O O M O O — co M Ln O` • CL L V C) N — M — M O, O - - h �o Ln O O N M O — N lO 00 C Ln O N M '^ 00 r - - O N 10 — E O — — c"� -O — N u ca a) C N E M Q CD Ln o0000 o Q V m — 00 o, .o of .o a, m 0 � ^ L �L T Ln M V- N V- N Ln ul C O X -j Z LU u O O N N O N O u N cz �j N M M (V M L. 0 lL = u Q � �W Z Ln Ln N W O" c _ V- — V- Ln 10 r- W n Ln r� 01 V- 01 N N VI VI ti ^ Vl O O Vl r� Co p .O N OO O O, — V- N C) 1 Y O O Q Q O Q �p ti �o N N N W C N 00 O d' W 10 M d' L L L L L L — Q s O 7 Z r L1 00 p �' fV — O a a a d a d u U U u C M _ U v C d 'o � (n ao �O — OD Ln ID N J ^ w ft U 00 -- N N Ln O Ln 00 Z ° +� M — Q .Q NO N Ln M M N co jF W C O O p L tad 1- in N V- ul in Z-6 C _ N O 0 U M M M r� N r4 Go W Z Go C W Q n J J M r, — Ln V- Ln — O, r� �o M u1 M n 10 M O — �o I� r M 00 M N Co � — 1, M Ln O Xq fV I� lV �T M n O �• ^ �L! 1, n �O — OD 1� cJ N Ln O0 n O 00 M N O, M 00 V N v t- Ln Ln v — �o Ln O` v — — N M N 00 00 O, M M �y H 0 C L) — �n M rf N v M N �o — 00 N r� �O N C13 LU z Ln Q v1 N Q ^ U` W � O Q N W N Z L O O fd Q Q v _ _ j CC O_ u U a, of 0 L 0 a)c 72 W v c� u x U O E U U ~ V1 v -V; R td cd d E J 1 cd J 0 O Q E U c c Q U o L o_ a� p p '� L o 0 w 0 v Q a 2 v v oUC V U a) v s o d ° s s m U w ;� c v7 U J VI Vl N N L L L D' J W O .L J Q L j O O td J N CL N 7 �n L N J cn E E W d L L c cn c U 0_ E •Q Sao 0 Q Z m Lu_o v v u v c H n E sao Boa Q w J u °o u H U L 2 v ao N x O O aci aci ` x x '� O Q `-T o °' °' Q 0_ 00) v w 2 cn O in w I- U l7 0 O Y- E Z U S H a U U Z Z 0_ w cn V) F- H cq t 3 +� o v N 0 0 E �+ •� ,O ° E a a +-' 0 '^ + + o o v o o a w 0 Ln CZ C — •N a� 41 a C _ O LU u O C O U O C U •a) 11 �. f N - i N u1 O ++ > wl u a td N o U Dan CL Z Ln C c c cC T .N W _0 O cd a) O fl + 0 — a) ao tw 4_ cd — �. E '� cd Q `^O v U J 4+ N cd a) a Q Z ' _� N c LO V cC cd 0 J D U O y N v T ca E a 0 0 v .o %6 v 4. vi u v C L a y Q a) o = O c E Lu o a c ae W" L Ln c O N O n- "O E p � 4i = Z CD ♦+ c ° Z C J 3 cz v W h N c p � y O o v �„ a E E c Co CO J N v CL '^ c _ v o 3 a) v Q o ID W a L C. a� N ° a� (U O ,, ao E U m c,= 41 E c c E 00 Qu c IJ 0 c Ev L c c0 ° a a OZC '^ 4-J %D •X G. d C a' � v ~ c cEL° W o a) w i Q c Q O v a ° o O a N a) �+ O y C v a c -a '0 t E a V d � W N _ v a) N c c C v� c a 3 ; 3 t o d w ! O tolo v O y ,� v N N u a 0 c ccce � Q C Q a v �+ D c v0, v E E L7 d E E N Q) c v v v v v v f a) c c O a) R h J ,� bao v L is S� L 7 o cn w o tm Q E E o a v v W w 'O c� v c c Q Q — . v y Z3 O N -� c O a a- CL v 3 = v v c u J c c� Z Q Q >. V) d a) L L Vi .a i.i me c cd y.,,,Ln c v ++ E G .0 a, c c Q) v o 3 Ln y J Z c o O a o ,� l� v a) a aa, E vi � w v o ct ~ a) O 4J c (U v = C7 C7 �° N W a) a) �, u "'' M M E aJ OE DE -� — W b0 —aa E H Q o 0 0 � � = �_ ° cv af z Q cC = J J O Q � • • Q) d 2 -o N N M b0 fd Co O_ N • L v N ' LL LL LL LL LL LL 7 LL N E M O w N 00 r n O O �O 00 M 00 L N u a a s N M M M I� O � — O% a u N — M ^ Q 0 — 00 1, 00 O ^ C N N c M a� Q� L11 — cd O M M CL c O v O a N Z O LL LL LL LL LL co ro ro U , `Cld Q 7 JM M LL ONO M O Ln 'C7 LL LL CL H J, � LnooLn MC) (D M NN V > O W N CV M M M O `d w LL Q Ln W H c (A N N a) a1 a) L L a) L a) L V L a) a) W N N ii. U L L L U 67 L V lLJ V L U y L V (U L L L L L Q J Z Q ro u u u u ro u ro ro ro u ro a) u u L u V u u u m _ w � X ro ro ro ro %O L ro 00 N ro O� ro co ^ ct ro to ro ro ro X Q 1� M �} �O N M M M ro N - M ap M O O N — N O� 00 %6 O %6 O Ln M 1,.o I� O% d F" ' ? M � �O O� er -Z M M � N OS O O N Ln Cr �t v pQJ o, Ln ri v � Zc W WJ � J C Q Vf Z V � � Q WO a p, Z cd '� UL4 W � •L •L o cx Q a � o o a J �. ro p p O QE E � N * rte � � o ct IL 0 V o o p H ,� o ?� aci H H v7 `n Z r� 0 H W U U a i (4 O Z 2 °� U aa) � O M as Q c t O 'O aLi a� a J N o 4,, u w E 4J x x _ o E LIP v O U U 0 O Z2: U o 1% n w oC o CL Ln to of w (A a u U Z b u E _o w o w a u — O b v 4 0 0 o r c N m E N n J v D b v p E n v v cc o a– _0 Q1 v t° N c v o ° U > c u O N N c v n E o Ln v 0 E b p c p -E u „ E O v v Q � A N ro a 0 u N _ `° 3 ° v ao 3 v c E v pnU o c v N O X c O Z O o U O n 0 c o N O I.J b v W E V C O c v n — L c v E , v o LA LL a v ° ' rn v > o v Z LM W O" v .a o o v v c E b o u co Q ' > v O W N L N ° O V A L 0 1 c c .N F M O N O IJ Z C � b �^ c � 3 a ° C Q O a v 4 � N4 � � L v v ° c O °o Q E to vn d %O s ai — co O 3 v ° n E L '- no n. v — — 3 u x_ — d o td Q —>_ v O 00 Y u ° ° v > 3 v J V_ N ° E N L p U -� W O, i. E a ca 0o U v 3 n v CL c 'p N C b v b � � v O cC E C L N v c v ccv c d Ln dF W E L L C u O n K v L On t O N a) Ln L N CO C c ,�, E N O ''^ `° L ; x !>-' v c '> t Z O cE V V tC L L E 3 v C (d ^ W 0 W y 0 J J ^ r o v w v `p d Z ; a ai m m M N n �o v d ri c m L 'p Q Al E 7 06 IR O O r L u O N N ONO Y s n. a v '� `° O N ° 0 0 °. ao 0 3 u a) oo U v O 0 cEa -° o i n > c F= O N n c d C U C C � Z Ln Q n v V N a v > 3 0 o cd cd b v c -0 CL o u p IJ W Ln "� — C) M E N p w b a w L a co co w '; v U N A Q ~ .� c o c o N o N° U 'o o A 3 C N td OL W N ^ C7 v p o i b N N c R n v ao O O U G. d w v p ao c >� D_ w N c v v V v Y v a c v "�. v C '"' u a) aJ C c 7 bD o bQ.-0 N ro c_ (d x u N N U O `—d 0 v i y ° ° eo x v J W m 7 7 O: i+ p v b c U v L v ? O 3 C C C u Qa ° o v v v O + c v (7 s A „ v d a c b ro cC cd 41 C C v A ; v `v c n E > E d Q td cd N O v ° v '� — N a C CJ C C v v v y O 3 Y A v v R m cz L.CC O ro v p o o o ° o x N v a1 = 41 4 +' ~ c E N — - L U nv L u n. t° C C C to of Z3 N y v u c � O U c ro r yva vCni c m b E a) a1 N c�i� vii w _ v a — c0L b � � Nde � — 17171 N v uco ) � v o u c n v A . oMO _ C v 7 Q b u N cL v c b E v- O u > c b C C_ C_ O L lJ E c v vO V c H N v v v L 7 7 7 Z Q O O A T .� CL uvi b v o .V � � E v �; Q Q Q cC ro a W O ua o d v_ n c p c E v y n p d fd y cn u b w v - o ?� J L Q v = o � o E v v ° v E c d v a L1J u vOi vOi L L v n v c v x n v v v > .-ID Ll CL a- Q a an v a m _o v 'T v l7 ° v v app v a N r�i CL N En O d v m ,,, ,�., ,v `. v F �i s L v Fes- L " N 2 v F O ' ' L I cd H O _ Z v E O ~ ~ > as * O u N CL p F H y L. v L. ,a • • N _O v c O o x. * o c .d v v c 7 7 7 C Ln N x �: in v v d a Z b Z - L v -x- n a > cd I u * n * v E C C LL LL LL F- N N M j O N b41.0 bQ C) x O v 4_ N E v t p L U v C C v o O O o E p o. v O — — — a E N a 3 O rn N vE b 'a o f — — — o v E U _ E v Q cc A c 0 b b v E v d d v 0 r N u E v > I c v 0 c „ ' E a N b a F - V O co N c of C v m e p C — 00 -0 = - L v , o � L W X N ^ E o (^n U X fC 1 c O v .L Q- E m o E o Z _' >>- o c E EE L a a� v Q of o a 4' N 7 o o V P E J rn a (v v" Cn V o 3 O o Q °0 c LL- w C c, ava= 0 m n ° co ,7 � r+ O , C tC E v v a c Z 0 O 3 E p 0 i ac, J Zoo a� ++ 00 Vn a s o O cn c a v o b o m N �+ >. C O Ln LM o ° v E "p O t aJ i � � ui 2 cV Q v v E W > O c a w C w G 0 C? O.•� N M Q E Q i_ N _cli b0 Q o 0 E O cLa > O c O (� Q N Ur d a o O _0 U N O = W O E c° v — o O O En LL -0 ._ V) N N — co -2 E � v r V o E 3 v v -0°0 O v J � vU° ova Q d E = o w a? o a c v cn = ; o Q o m C v a a _O Q �! C N v E in A v d �E M — N - N V u M (7 c v N E E 3 C N a o ? N 00 Z p cn v o v E 7 N v 0, V7 N u u ao O cd 0 0 v .V O -p a) Z , IJ V N M y- O L N .- C N 1..1 N O .� i 0 a) Q = (d C 11J 0 ~ s U Z = C 0 d p .-, L U ice.,, OA-0 >O a) .C ' N `U. a H C U � v E E a C cv W cn o < p v o Z Q i Q o m v a W N L 41u, (� bA_ a) (�I w x L o d Q W N u H '� a E — W a) � Z F F- c v M )n a1 O c c O 0o N k c U .� m N - d Q W LL v7 ,O `-° O c O a) Q E C E o v a� " � � o c " 4J cVd 3 = 7 t O N 0 N N O H L O L c F N t L C to b > '� -��y.{{,., cN ✓� ccagy l`-(C7 F H * (d d V . N 0O V N C b � u , E E c b of 0 v b v E O c � co 10 M N 10 , - v C CD 00 10 L L c row ^ — N 00 N O ul Ol N N M L ) c v O d v v � O 0 O c E E N o E o O O N N N > L O ro ~ v D X C O O O N N Co N v r- X O N N N M M !V M N L N O 7 a u 10 c u IL N L O O Q ww� C ` V1 CL m C d - E - O V (� P a O Y v - L L N c v O � Z Q O O = p O al , J � J N C N ro d E li N L o U Z r 0 n u) A Q LL c Lu m >. Os a '� ^ p (A - v o Z d V o d O Ln 0 0 0 0 0 0 VI c - J L. W N ° a N N Ln V, M- Ln Ln O o o H J o a0o °) C L - W Zd LL 1: N a- N oO CO J N U "i x W Vl Cp P-- 0 E W E o a - o CO _ N ^ O LL I- 5 � Z � c 0 O Oc0 b c v 0 y,l v' c �n a 0 >. Q p c LL CN C '^ '^ E Z Z LL LL N LL LL N LL Vl o v C Z c C Ln N N N ^ 10 N 00 00 Ln Y ao a.o x v Lu O 2 d 00 �0 M Co �, — �o p� .� a) o b ao O n n N vy 'r O Ln M 00 1- OO d x v v c0 {/1 O OOD N 000 o h ON [V [V V M M iv N b c j .T O > M — i v LU J C — QC cc C .N V � b0 C O � W - " " as LV � vb � _ b E O � L OC o v = b0 � > CL cz 7 Q p o o °c ° x v 0 � n E i+ cEa L cn � v � �� � � A ro E a m U a) u tio> _ _ E 0 C:O a) d v a v -C ` c .c ° °'E � � o ° w w a) N T F o cn ° ? o g H O = C '^N JC O d U U L v,t�d v J 3 0 0 ' v a v0 app o N N s v a v 'o N v Z to O H °� _ - _ a c v v a> _ NnOO L -� � N - N 'v X j E O 4) N N +� X j O U SC900 CLLnH � inwEdF- CL Ln v0F- O;c- O C 0 a, M b4 O CL N L • a) � �C C C� al c V N C E M Q �-+ C 0 J d V V a) N C_ 7 C L a) V td W Z) C a) E C a) E Q C td CL td L C a) a) 7 cd o L v c c = O O D L M O � .n L O c'_'v b-0 cd L v t a) c u L >. p cd vi b4 C A C N - Ln (A N a) N cd L > U -0 L b4 a ct Ln cu CU ro E L 7 L C CU L O 7 y 1-0 0 cd b4 1 in O � v O H Q) (V a) vn (U a) V N E cd N t 4 1 C a) ,T N cL. a) t rl Q) C C U cvd L D a N v a) _N C C O O u Z H N 7 s c v— a a•� a L p O Z3 0 c h a 0 a Ln a, o O � d 0 0 4 N ° c v o H O a) N N cd b4 N C OV N co O O N a (1) H C a) X cd L td N O a) 4' L t _ vii .L TJ E c� v U O cd C3 > _> > = a b4 a O vi b=.0 O cd u a) O in v H 4.-� (z a) V cd y > td a) c C N > w C > > O cd cd a) O C y O C E a) O a) O — c te ate-+ u C = ro p O a.+ D C a) v s O cz O a) -a V .H 4J r3 0 N N + •� u L N O ,� bC-a a) O LL cd u p cd d O A-1 CU L v O a, V) C p 0 N O a 0 a"i c v ,_T > t Ln L O C — i C b4 cu L a) �'' cn t bL4 (U 0 th _� v o ri >. y v E c 3 u c a) N C L o ,n N O C s > a) N t o M C -0 > r,4 — (V a Rf J v _0 — >.t a) " Z a) � 4; cd O cn L a) O '-' ~ O p cn cz L o c c L a) O o v �U +' = N L O p O C > .� C R7 N -0 j a) C aJ •� V y v �� U C v aL+ '' O U O v CL C cd L btd 4 L °3 i u d a) O Z,7 v "O ° O E ° w N �o O u Q o c s a)c m 4 M a) -0 O -0 U N L 0 c O Z O ) U O v p 0 O a O a)O U+L.L cn � O L v v a a) a) s O C O '^ rd ii QC a f Z V) H a; a H a a v 4_ H- .� FL- 3 Z bo Q U 0 0 T M W N o V ■ N LU 0 :5_ CL � Q0Z � W oLLJ J p W Q G a o N s � U = o N � Y Y — — — 1�1dH�l0 2i1 ► tu- eo 0 ► z 1 1 � ► 1 t uj 1 ► 4J- ' J 1 � ' ► ' m z ' zg tu- m I 1 1 z 1 1 W 52 s � 1 1 z s i `%--------------- J f� w --- AMUS NdJ33> {� r---------- ------------------► w 1 r I I ,^---------------- ^� ( , CO 1 o ► i i 1 i ► ► , a 1 1 1 1 ► � 1 1 1 1 , ► ► , O 001 V) 1 1 1 , ► ; ; LL ► I Z 1s 1 133�1 . ► 1 0 ► 1 � ► Q 0- 1 W 1 J 1 ► ► 1 J 1 ► ' m � v, 1 � 1 1 ► ' � z ► ' Z Z z J g g 1 !► ► 1 W � 1 U 1 1 Q g i � a --------- ---�-_ .f' Z ---------------- A32US NV033>1 w {� r-------- --------------------- ^-------------------- r I E r 1 z CO 1 1 1 , ► 1 1 �/ � 1 1 1 1 ► 1 x o 1 ; ► ' W N M I O /r! N CAS 9 iN,P1DED PL—MG.IY/,.a,M y V .--- C N i' i EEE P, EPEEFEEPP t 11 r C6 fill_.._. v..a•ne3_1'�3.^.i_ii R.^^•[IARTAG/tP it �i_.. ..._ Q [hSiFRN E1 WEDR NIRG MFR NOUNCRRV J •+ter« sr V_.... Y.u♦ -....r..s. aa____� 9 r Lei �jf fill d.J ' _ ti c cc v m 123, ° .c c c .n 5c 121� ` �� c c c < a � u . � �a < v c •� v o 0 °° c o E - c - u = c X c ` E c ti wi ] < > v C i O Z, z- > C w t 3v d jv v u r•� a' s , f o '. e `u < C V Y � O � N Lm Qa, V V 3 v `o ID y ` \ M O O iE C . + a Q '_^ _ a 'n o c Nz 1 c o ? p c ti ti ti > C, a Q c C c c c < °_— e+ a c a 15 B 25 C ° C - E p C 2 0 0 z a p 3 3 0 0 " 4 x ] a. o 0 o C o o v ° _-L K W J J V1 .1. F C Wy W r ✓ �+ °`c ce o ° z ad O y O W o : E v c ? E °„ a -8 a] E ac, `.J o p� C U CJ C C T 9 < C v a E `o N O CL rn u IE L u a a a Q v cu m 75 _, v ° z z X E 3 J J � +M'A N C Q N i a EL i v 7 ` Y a_ d E _ °c o r EE E° o a a° c N m d ` 'R E Z Z o C1.nr v_ a O n a s ✓ M� °o LL ^ q N m O Cl) LO o v N m z o W u m O y, O m .c°. 3 v H �° m 0 l6 a L ( m L c O D w q m E d O O i O _ m y N W V/ �`- ra- u = m a m `•°• h !� v u E o T O O O O A Ln V L a LL J U am' c r = r r i m m Eo U m Y !•' L ` d @ V O U W N n N c u a m m _ r — N E E U O C O O i0 a.r Ln •C N �•-t1 a j m m a �i 'an m 0 m c C U U N n f O a L L 0 Cl 0 2 o a O O V w a o d c a m N o a E O °' A R > > a � o — E 'D L O n' ° ? = O is a y a a t a m O 'Q 'v y N .O On O iti A R U d m A m 3 a C m °m m •V a . " 'm m 9 u Z Z � IlJ _ N W U oc a 0 O. M C W x m Se Z 2 U' 0 2 U 5 O fu �ti a u z z w Lm-:J -� - - �; � 410111 � 111 X111 ❑�❑❑ ❑ °� O L 3 W U � -C° a d C. as �- �a.0 C o 0 o E ca� n$m a QN C' o N ° . o E c d c N a mp 1 M � a > O O yay o-00,m A N N n O 1 1 �. f0 C N C E C 71 N O -0 m C 0 u E � � c a d vwdvo ° of � o m�aME VDO 0r0 C N >LL r F c m I u v'y 0 � n c�eccrn C � o � 'oc v y= 012 (U robi U("UJoix oa. i - -- ..—..—..—..—..—..—..----- V ON RO A O ti? R 21 Po _ z U- °� S TWO f fp 7 .\ 0 j o u mi 1 '\ 2 U) 1 v � o_ 0 1 to I i O ! (V a v ; I , �• �•- W 1 '� Q1 E v 0 1 U m r^ L V 1 \ / fp N d ! v o ? 1 o m i 2 •\ � � o j V •1 L . 1 \ r 1 STAGE I & II PD 4' O a) tko o H m a) d N '4j N U cu s 1 c d L axi 5 E c v °-' v o :3 c o • L d L 7 N a� Q N o C L O+ L N U LL C � fd c O N 4-1 J i O O 4J �C O N C O � v a� ao +' N u ooc p L C Q O O 3 L N cd -0 0 C N 4+ `" o L o a C L O o O C +-+ C N L by0 4J c °1 U N v 'C N O 4-J N [Nd N O A b�0 y "O L 41 0 N ao O L N U a W 4+ _ O J n. L N L •C > '> N C H N b4 O C N N vpi 0 O 01 O _ C X N L OL �' E E L L -0 H L D cCd L N L C 4J cd v N C O m LA O cd L vii 'O a.+ LO 0 O L b00 co bq 4L.+ t L N N w > L �' O N Y N C C cLir > C .i C -0 3 p V N 4-J N L o 3 cd C m c a 0- (d O o > 7 N u N a 3 N C 4J N N m N it cd N C O 7 .3 > to (C 4J {n OZS u ° = rj 4--1 0 O '0 it d C N = O W 4J -0 c U "' N - w H apo O 4J c a cd c a •o .!n L C N O L ar y N C O c �. cd J O C a = N N L O d a+ a+ w �b4 v > a= C L y V cd N 4J N 0 u cn C m �bo N 41 co y 3 '> ° C .O N CL N 3 w y y .c!' C N con S a� •.—>, ,� E v c v y cU C6 c -_°v o o a 3 C L E co C U N X ° d L U L L U 'y� O Q N N >. v- O tC. C C Q O y __ 7 N cd U ._ b0 Q O a� a� a L a s +' cn o > 3 c cd b0 0 L a>i L L Z N 0 ° = O •� V c t u L 4-', O O N O s �+ N +J 4� N 4J s "O cd L 'C ~ _ 'L N s O ti 7 O - s 3 fCd - W 4J C to 0 4J a L cd 4J O L '-' C '^ 3 vii c •� cd c O + v a ti 5 c ' c _c _o c 3 v a� c '> _ c v 0 Co ton N cd c O co 4� 0 4� a u N O C L N 0 4J C N C ,C y.l W ° Q b0 C L C a� co H �' v .'^ a� w cd •� L c v Q v y c a) 0_ O co ct 0- '� > N E N 4J of 4J 4j c 3 A L A C a Q ��+ 4J � L s E N .0 cd j 0' .N co 4, 4J � /rN — >IA M 4J L > LQ cd L N N C L a UCO Q u � O N N L v y `~ c Y a, o v 3 c o a 3 O o H E a o .� a cd O N .Q O vi O Z �` t i 3 O av0 ,� c a c O C LO d p N > O a 3 C O C v o i 4� N V 3 _O y d C N y -0 N -0 cCd i d cLd N y p O U — j N c L X N L �-' w c N N �' c 4J b4 � L L ' v 'o D a p o N U cd a� O u L O -D u N U C U 4�J U a O c ° u a c c u y v v cd a t bo o s L 0 O V u 0 cd c- O c O a v_ 4 n 0 3 0 �°.� d .[ O C O N ao c .0_ L v O L a C L > L 1 N c L L O t 1J 72 C Q = rr rO^� = d 4J C_ Cb6o a Q d y t u fd cd O V N L N d V v V a) O 0 a L a) CO N L O 0 N E C L L L L N L L O L w O v p u 3 u 0 N c o a. _a c ~ 4) cd 'N L 7 N O 0 .0 L O LL C .O .(L n• Q _u > O N u N N ' a b.0 O 0- 4J 0 4_J C J ?� N _0) u a) m L aLJ aLJ LLL � � L O +-+ LL w = N M LA N N r L 3 ic+ Q Q Q O 4LJ — 4J E U 41 aJ H ao C y > >. bO C Ti L O u •y �` m 0 N C 41 V) 0 0 s a E p _ L cyd 0 0 c c 4J N 4J L N Q N +� L L U u N a 'G 'j O O Q • C C u CO j V ,.+ E N N O N E E .O E E u O a n Q .�. o c a O C > U O c cd s CL � a M N U C W N O N O 0- C U O L N O C N U r4 C4 'O 4--) M 44--) u EO c comic c a) N = E N U > u N 3 0! N ° o u c O > > O 0 t N N a _ o) 0 .5 N E 0_ C 0 N VI y u cd M E QC 'p y cd V N -J i d L LU N N 45 M c v co 2 CL Q N O .0 0 C', E M M N L 4'j 7 4J (� ° L 41 _3 ce N 0 N L N N J J E C ctl V, p j td L 0 N c o o s vii CC N v 4L+ 4J O 0 v aJ L 40 p C c E a N U L > U �. a L 4J cd O E a w Q p L G c Qu v .v N U `~ c c -v d O N L O C L4c J N Y L 3 No H—_'' w 4-5 b o -0 Ln � O Q cd C O V) N cd C's V) o 00 ~ td N u N s 4O d J 4, 4-1 aci 'c D .4Y '^ N 3 o o N cd c aJ F- 4J 41 u c 43 0 L-L O y C N N J b0 L — >. 7 p O N 4-+ L C N 'D L iL u 4_+ O F- M y a O E N O [d = 4) p o) N L b. O N c d W 3 C i3 c ` o c 4J C 3 V 0 L 4J 0 T C L ' Q > N N N V C °� d C N u m E V1 G) — O C N O E t C M cd L N c 0 0. 0 O 0 a c 0 0 �_ c a o s a 4J u 0 J (U 13- y 4_ O o C o cc M N G1 a C W b04 •45—J L) y �— .� .N -0 N L L a a N oa t -°JO_ s H p v i C p U a)= o -J c d cd _ C 0' LL N M N d0 O m N G. L N N V N N at Q s+ • C CNC M C O Q O J y C1 O Gl C N C W a N ���y C W Z — g a u v fp Z Q O L y O O O O _ Y W Z cud y L H � N L LA. w 00 N v •L C 0 L N J cn > aEo O ul O L = ', M N a LL N O o0 X N c .L., N Y 4 `� ao N 0 i H ' O 0 " � a L U N co O N Z $ Q cn u c° L E a o o 4-J cc (n (n L —O cd p E `-' E a E c s U > c w a 0 v 0 8i LPL C 0 0 0 3 0 O L O C N H s L O O `� 3 L � `� E E d a� N v — N L O t)b 41 ui d N -0 co N C co O U m O •= - `�°, obo J cn c%f O c O N O 3 O 'L 3 E cv = c n C (n C > N .� d 33 b4 L Y N Te J C � L N L •C E �_ C ,L > d _ 'O O m m mJ Co 4 � E � 7 O L "c° w u N m cn d J Q CO c N 3 2 L 'C d ct C ~! C co 3 LO E H O �. I c O 7 .E o = N N 3 v c 4 t v w 3 co s cc c'' 3 O _ N o E M • O 4J O C C Lr c 3 _ _co N Ou d L co C 0 0 � N C u O H W O O y N C u N N O c 4"J -v Q s E L 3 �-' o0 00 y O N u V 3 c L c ao u 0 c V N d cc a+ 0 C co ed d `� c EN � o L. U v 0 a1 L � 0 � L � 0 ^ aL+ b�Oc u C V T c C N 41 t 0 +� N N H V C 4A C 'U � 3 N IAA L L H N w 47 .� Ij M 3 0 . +-' 0 �' 3 'L O v b0 C 3 U O C E C 3 0 C u Z) C 0 t u- d (A C C 0 _� 7 vl H C vii � S u ,U (A ba C C G1 �+ ,C 3 (A N cd co L a� = L 0 .� L — 0 .� L �-+ y = L G1 a3+ C N �O = E 'V 4-J t +_+ U u y a0 a ba u a D v u 4L L. aco ,:d y N �. O 0 U :� 0 = > +>1 I H � � � +�C � L E � � N c r-y 0 C h0 0 co E d0 3 7 Z) O 'p 3 3 — cd O L O 3 � M vi Z •� v E E a (A N � E E a .� •� c .0 O u 0 3 0 3 > c O O ° u ,'^A v 0 0 0 E Ld)N O 5 C QUv2FZinUU CQQmUU2 3 `� EFCL dd s. D IL as • • • INN • summon o#mass SIR solo _�7 =� �■ �= u MM."v l'.lull �IN'!�• 'IIIGpIN J .� ■ NN alll IIIIu�IM lI ■ ■ IIIII:!W � n �� �� �.. »"II.III aN�: ■ qq MI.'IIIII' `. IIII�I!ilfN �� X'I. VIII • ■ ``.. IIn;.MI ppM (IIII IC:MM `` ■ ■ ■l�j- i ��lY�� I � � ��11..ppMli�•i! �� ■ ,��_ ��[11. 1 1 � ii��i■ ■ ■ ���� 1 1. 1• MNf.IIII I' � � IIIIIII15Nh '' ����Il1■ �j�R I: �xl:IIII l ■ ■ nlll;xx 9 x= A i /{tl�� ■ nrau:�nx :1 x ■ ' JIIJ bMM •� _� ' � �i NN'IIIIIIII ■� IPAIIUiMN� _� ■ � ��l11. C�piW'>,In,'.. � � II'I'IIG MN�., ■ _ �■ p� ,. IMValllll ■ ■ ■ �NNNNNNJ�N r � g�Mlll,,lllll, `�' �NN��� � : ■ :■f . III'I:HII =p .C{ il[ s ���l1111 � N iq .CIf: i�� ����111 ��a2H,ll:�� I ���1. 1 1 1111pppppp���� �N7� I �� � r�j�IN:I�I■■ ■ Wilmtl C Poi l,lal .•'l1:�, Nf li" ; nN'I:I IIII: cl. � d.I p�■ ■ �� pY `•��� � � ♦Mualll 'p11.�, IIII t,� �, � �� : ■ 111 v 11ll i ■ fl - ■ ■ s ■ r■■■`i■■■■■■■■■■■�■■I moos----- ---RaIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII !■ill■■■■■■� ■ ■li . Im:li�aw � ! ■���n�n�n�n�n�n�•w i ■ ■ �� � ■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■��■■ ����■FI : ■ • ■ - n.nlc::nx j ��.� F' : �.. x ,-«71 x,'« {.-«a7\ ,-a711rN-.F z•«� : IN ■� '�, ,� µlalwl a�■l``i�... umr'ix :1 ��_'�.��=�T�—�� ■ ■ :1 sil- =.IIIlnlll al�■ - IIInI:[;= ■ ■'s-IIIIIIIIIIIII INNEEMEMEMSEN MEN MONO ■ n'.IIIh.XN =,PIIIIIII .�' .�. IiIIIIII',i= ■ ■ ■1111- 1 ■• �������������� : ■ ■.fi�- INIIII'a NN C ■ ■ ■ = _ a ����IS � ���Ipurl,o `�' '�- uompw�� _■ �'!a�'�e��e:�G��e��e���■ ■ ■ IIm:NM C 'J � ■ „ ■1117 ��� I ��� ■ ■ �� �uu I � m.un ■ ■llg7,l.� *M.I II �pli■ f Iw"� � ■ ■ ■ ■ �`` • ■ • ■ ■ .� ■ x711 . «71 nom . «71 Ir» 711 ■ ■ � ' ,•� 1 ■ ��==III-T��"�Tj��°�� : ■ _ ■1F:.11■■t■■ ffff_■ 1•■•r■MI w 111■■■■■■■■■■■■ ■ . ■J. ��'..MI►1�.MILI.JIN.'7[�1N.'�Y � ■ ■�■■ ' ,111 ■ ■� 1 ■— . 71 +'! �'~ 'i �'■ ■ [ ■� III°III ■ r' ■ ' • ■ I.::i:;i::■1 1■I��jlfl■.. � ■ �1 N. i �i EE;i1 :�:�.i i, `■ ■•ten:e,:n>�n�eearlr ■ mill ■ill- Illlli!4 — r • � ■ ■ ■N Ilurn,nn 1p111 r� ■ � � ■ 1111 *��auu e■ � Inlr.i� ■ ■ 1 ■ �� ,, nn:wula �•�, ua:lu:xx G1 , ' ■ .. ■��- nrun::�n L �IU III ■■■■■L�i{�■■■■■■�■`■■■ I■ ■ ��q-�� I � II!111� ■ �i � H �� ��, LLI IbNN :I �a-ii� I. �� '��■aV�■ ■ III IIII IXM {p� 1HH1H11 ll C■ �� � ��' \����\\ x H f ■!■ uu i� `p\\\ q_ q C I�'IIIInII ■ � 1' w:nlul� ■� Inl::�n J ��jj■ p ����� IIIInPLMM �117�■Ifll�. • -If ■ �� IIIU�:� p 1 11. _J ■ ■no� IIrypJ11 ���u.l:��j�� 1 1 ���n�l.��� � �■� H 1 1Ilnllnu ■ w'.Llul' ml.r�snx ■ liri ■i.I. p_ + i ■ IN ,r! •� n ;��iM'dlllllll `�' � ,. MN'l Jallll ` ' � II�±. :I �: ■ p H y m p p p a Iuul � wluax c; w'unnul �� � .1 ■ ■ ���RR:, m�p.1:�. I,IIIIAIMW M�gllll .pl1■� � ■ ■�, :IIII:.M 4 � `` ���� �� 11 ,� � � 1 - l 1 1 ` e � � l - rim ml „4t t�. .s,N� � es7�! G�F'i iS��A GHt'• .sYNo ,tea n BIL-�,. .,�a1G Fes• ..� nn G1`�.,. I � 'Wa,LNG CNtaw� Ii��N9 CHt-4'. :a,il� GH` ! ., 'NG IEtslrk�I �. �M11 • .� N8 ��s. .sa G � ii�i�ii • . ; Cs7718 GIL s. .sy sY tom„ ,�{N� • �Y raw ICY #t1�^I �I���f�l rim ' a,N� �H , ;s, i "1. 'Nl IL onalls .3_ IN GHt s7N, 10'It., mMY.4Y� F r ■S F ■ „4ING �. I ;N9 CHr w' Ia;N9 CHt IarN� Mill! r . or • 1 w . 1 � qfi p • . gammas WIN Ul 1 f; � 1 � tt � # - . ,�' fisfff!!!af !!! ii6flisi i � I : FE, i~ i T T 7f Tf .e ll WSW r C s= aasaaaaaaaaa RAMIaaaaaasa� • 1 • N � t k u a >f a — • jl �M1:'Illl 11 • IIIII NF Win � IIIO f f wl!;illlllll �� r sm •4 t•;a nuI GMM �IViIIIIIIII `I'.. 7' II�� �� �. Illill'pIM �IU411111. -II� u"PaJIM . 4 r 4— i;uul j , noluaw1 �; ter r WER _[ , NMI• �'� �' w to�� ��' � ; I I , I Illl.ry[ \ 1 W'III • 14��`��fI��II��II��III'lyIII -dp- ;.19 6CH lam 3 � •i �! . IIIIII:.. WWI - � II II[M Affiarl IIIIII:•FF � imW i I � H p ; I'lll 11 N� IIII'11F r R WNIIIIIIIGIR �� � Illlllu.�l w0\ � •` , km •!'III IIII �� G�nuu rp, ��� lOvn�� �I�� ��NYp IIIII �- •. �� , IIIIII ISIµ �� �, 111111:dry1 "I IIIIII ' III a• �-� • �3 - } I s SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW: CIVIL • • • all NO mass/■/ gm 61 lot- ■ u ; MV ■,...::��� ��;� ��'ta11�,:�i� Vii: ■ ; � 1 I-I, . El 5, HINVIN MD: .1h „ „i _ ............. _ ........: . SAM Rome . ...small nall.sommommosoll A2 MINIM Air -1 It sm MKON gmk opp Wm Mimi Am ■ ■ . . .. :::::�■� .....� ■ T' � ■ d ■u.u...■ �.■. .■. ■.■■u■.r■■.. ...: tl �� T �.�C ■ rll4�__. n �� . a • • • • • -, • -� �r■ Ian -M16 via ,' -Irk • � •� - ., rrwirrr•r.•rra.•+r► �,i1�, ��•• � � drt t'x imam. RI Ml MN I] T' is i■ ♦Y ` ���` r' ��� I: Wit. ��, ,•�.�,� ��;.�� �• .C. ,� — �■� '. - :i 1: �, :I ice=—. .�,�i==�■�- -5 �I�I�i nl�f���� I � T. � r��� y��s!'L.��rr�%9z! �-• l:S=�l• `7F El+rrJ s lei MW �►v � * a� �� �,' •ice � .'_ �nr.'`, �#�!l���'�� ` ` '� I! r ' 1 I-� •, � :111 � �i���' +I� A ��•,y ` s. •• ��i.. r���� d��-� ���., ��,', I ��i � X11 '■ ix■■ :�. �F � ■r . U �y�(� • :�/�/ j-//////////// to �h , u .............. ■ WSW 6w ■�.. { � ' � I FBI ' 1a' i 1 ■�: ' ■■■■■.■■.■■.■■.■■.■I EMEMEMEMEMEMEMEMEME M■■■■■■■■: ■ LS NOW E", ■EI = ■ ( u� ■. well ..........:..........,, u■■■ a �•.. : y!- JAIL'--SL i�',: : ` MOM �•�':T' n n T ■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ '• ■ Li �' R ��- ■ _ m . . � aln - g ■ , g y� J � 1 iii fop • • ■ / dolp summons• ..■■■.R■.■...■■■■..:� ■■ F 1.1■.!., _ I Evans monsoon. x psi pf F '�' ■ ■ ON N I 'FAW °. MEEMEMEMEMOME■■O■■■ \\\\■FI T. - =' Mlms.m.w Mons. ....... ......... lilLawsom / ■ � .. 1�:Cf �Now I�IN�I�lN��: : nse '� ooeTi. 7. ' .:/■� �! �.!�'�� ��,fi,� �� 1sT i u;u+l�lu, b: �W�; � Idr_:h 7.�_;.. � `■ raa_®_®_®;_®_mono�: � .m a • owl M ■ � . ■ .. - i�. I, Wi 16 wil also c` • • ■ • its J 11 Iml i Mal ■ pug1. •1 ■ km 1' �� 1 111■ : loom m 111111;00000 ai�i�i ia0000i ■ ��: ■ NO ■. p � _ ■ors-®-®-®-®-®..rx.. ON momommomm 0NXII MINING ..� 66 IMF 1�. Eli.A ■F 1�■ �ONE TO some ■ , 1u of MEOW OR : p — r . • ■� ■ �■■i"4 :n �-ors !" ■ one W phi: 'gal :111 6W Mimi H orvi �' T `I , • • ■ I.i; ■■■■■iii■■■■■■■■■■■, rrr �■■■■■■■■; ■ ■ F. .............. wi 4901 low AN gonna.. - AM Wiwi Is WINS W = . AM . ��� �����; = �f��� ■ NI�NI�II�411�IN�11�� 4_ ■1. � � a u � � ■ u ■I,i •1 a �� : �■ �.ra-®-®-®-®-®-sue ■ \:I � � i'zr .L3-ijF �r.Ji TL■i!� ■ AN �■r■-4=:,. fib .� !' i : ■ AN ►i�•- ■ • N. ,I A. ■:1 ? n n ■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ �■■■■S ■ All low log ■■,,N �• � ��� 11 I ����� ��� 111 �11���� ��- 0 cD Z M M v LU Z N ago W CL W m Z W II c _ m 0 .0 • J L (Wj w a Lij U O u.l DC U v J ' N LLJ Q a W O N Z_ — W H m ------' U --------------- _____---\ fa J U� -------- ------ --- J ^ m Z TREET --- LOCKHART_S ;: ------ =-___-- _ a W W o w L- L �- - - ��1 Q c z _ L_ L- I 1 m w U cn r IBCI i I I w Z � QH `I I SCI F 1 1 V Q ZW O I 'kr i I 1 1 LL II rl -1 I i wQ a Q � 0 j w � LU I w O w o F- Q' ' I (L I I 1 I N ----------- I J LI II J m I J I L I I Li \ 1 J i I •� I I 1 V V V V V U U V V U i 1 I I I I I I I I 1 II I I I I � I I I 1 I I I 1 1 F- kr I t - IF ---- ---- ---- ---- - J i i I Lill J LI I 1 I i - ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- - IQ I I i U � I U I I I I I / I ' V • U V - - - - - � j I � I I � _ I � I I I I SCI I I m N 1 I I I vvvvvv v Vvvvv LI I I I N i w j I I I I U I I I 1 I I F F , I I I j I I j i i I I � i I I i I I 11 m I I I i I I I Z z I I I 1 :- _rn -°�ti'/ —r -------------------------- d -------------------------- ------------------------ ( ----------------- c a c 0 I E 0 r- IN 00 O co N I N SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW: LANDSCAPE I M O N P w m w u LU • '►„`���r I�MR ii .5� ��%/��►/� � � � .dl1�Z�del ����, ,o�.�. •er-••��$;�� 7►� ►, iN :moo r ._ "i.� `gay. ,,. ._,. .:....r •; rte.^ _ ■`�!���.... H �Z iP` � o ■ �� � ak 71 im i o p n 1 e � a■ru■\rorror�y ^_1■u■a±r;-uu■r■■ ��.■u■r■. ! �� ■ ■ a ■ ■.y � . ■.■ ur ■r a a■ -■ /�i (i.!�N DLO F . . ,•, 1 Wkle%ME- +I� x ■ 0 e ��. P.M.r�N, ■ _.. iii, ` ir Mi MEMO- We FW-• Mika ! 1war or a 1lga Ari+At �V'�i::Ga!%✓,��' 0 s .o u • -n 0 � Z Z_ J On • Q M F-- J F - z w co N W Z i w LLI p m v > v w3 w 2� w w w m w y awZN z= N r w a r N 2 z I w cn aO u F w a H Q Z M J w W O W Q W Z r w ~ w LLJ Z vri p w ip x w C7 O 3 Q Q w y W N 2 w ¢ w �_ r M U LL F F Zn W� r 3 0r � K m w w ¢ z°Q �F W 3W o o � w W o p o N r N r r o z ox~w z�� �U) W z� W w LL i w a i w w N w 1 LL O > m r 3 Q =W p w m Z U w w O < W LL Q W W r w • Q S p Q U W S H X Q z K x O M O w w w ¢ LL K W- 3� W' W W O a°mW m �Q� 3� viN i< w < o� w O U z LU w p jz rwm0 ��z oQ cc W w 2 3 zw W Q a r O U .. Z ¢ Z ¢ U a ¢w w> Ww _ ° LL x i a r U U W z0 ag O�O W ��m at ¢a Z O w ¢N 00 O w UM LL LLJ w ¢ M w LL W N_ W d U) V N M N N N M U N of(� w ww f� z m 3� 3.- 0� W w� m� O� W LL W W W O Q of uj W p O W J W r Z > J K J w S W ❑J O J Q J K X J J J QJ J R'LL K V w i i r Q a dU J r w r Y S 2 Z r Z r Z J W U r LU W m W Z W J W U C)h ULu OfOU W Uw Ua U7w Zw w w J u) Z>O Z O J Z W Z LL W W O m W W U M o w Q W Q W Q m W Z Q W J W LL'w U W Z Oww¢ UOOx Ow ttr rDi OS EE 7 2 rS r2 J ¢S w x ¢x ri x Q 7 Um Km co 0um 0w am mrm Um co in¢ mm tnm a rm m 3� �w vlm dm � a N w cn W j J J J J f J J J J J J E J J J J J f E J J J J J r Q 3 (� U z a as as agtiaau6° gddgg ggciou tiOgggg gcjgcj cjg O z 33 33 3°O33od° 00000 66d ? 060000 0000do a mm N �MM, M _ N^�iSiSiR m w N U)r Z ZZZtt Z Za ZZZz m zz- ZZZ0ZZ zzzzZw Z cc ¢ W d w m m 00 00 00099000 00°00 000°0 00000 00000 0 z m � g o��� a Z=O 7 a UOa 3 o o N> Q o Z Z .----N �Ox i� 0 ¢ a W 7 Z W O i" wW KW M U z f K ZZ M O Q Q aO n T .1 0Q� z WW M 3 WILD h ¢ i a4 x y n x � W U rq d Q f- U O g w°' MW� Z O W o" a w ° a W v�r r 4L�(� O LL J? r Z c7 wrc xww �zx i J cz mm w 3 0'�a• N W M a �O z 3 W ma00Y �x ° a J U LLrZW R' d' Z m LL 2 Q W O Owz Y m�a ��� ° aaa Q O LL- w LL O Z ¢ a Sz�r.�g ¢� FN F3a z w wOru �Fw-�03 W m0 �O O Q Q zvwiz r�naa;° a> �'' zz3izo o°w g>jz ~ LL U Q O V o f p Q 3 w ) 06¢ UUO�7 °o3ww 3a uaw um wwrJoW Cl) z QQ w O J Q 5 h D = 3 U w u UY mUmwtYh2K2 awOZE 000Ji zwISzO wzamWE K Z w (a Z uwi¢Q�w US— O U W F� m OSS2t11 Z W? J? ZNfn W W' O S U J > W Q O W Y C7 C 2 F U W J¢d Q o Q m 3 w w m Q z z 3 o r W J o N m J r r to w J Z z F w > w¢mz3 -J �ZQ¢Z w ¢z�Z O w m O w mZZQO U Q¢3rQ > Q W p t�t d ¢ N3 a 9 CU m a a W m��zJ r�n�;0m O�iOirn J V N Z wJ Of O m m m m ¢ZLLWQ W �U' ONZ m102L d W ¢ w ¢x ZO �OF�n O O n wZ j a w xQLL�W W zy ¢ cn0-O r V C7 ¢rc 7 ja O� Ow z 2 9 as p W Z Jew W> vOm W W_ m�m�w0 LL D LL U' 2 K jLL d =2� �� x00- N Y N a m a' UN ZJ' w a Q ao��xr W��w=, W LL 7 Z Q z i W ¢a u s oG �zmcxia x pwi w g� > z �w Jz wmUrmUKOU�Q� a w 3 z Z� ] Y zw > y oa- V wUZd w a J > > J ] O �w W ww Oz <c�vYi�v,a Q a Sp'Ps O a xww CC QOZ W;E J2O�OQWSO��g O U 3 LL x� wR' 0� M KWaw»�z wina v>? cr=�ga N� a ¢z2 W is 81Z W MWLLwi w �_ QZ>0x3�Z>ZwZ d' Z to O J m U a2a m CJ,-�zsawm° Sawa-a US w Z O°_azu N wO�oww r K O w r 7 W w_ w W ¢ w K ¢ =w w a�� N `o wiaw�a wow°�< wOwcxi°'rc O �w=¢aoa MQ w °uz< ~ z D o r Z O Z_ cq io a °O g M a fn m r O _° > j0 S Q� O�2C)O F—H Ozww�i K OsW=�O K wwwF d Q N 3 d aw' cv ci v ui ? m r Z a m US w Ua N mu0uw-,Jrc> ?u°waK LLaxxOa U' Uwc7g EK CIOU xaw 000 p ED El w U) w S S S i 32 Q 3 c� Z (.Sg�jgg VUV UVV U U U Q UUV UUVUV O 3 z 3 33 3a3 a33 3.°d3m°dO°ddod0d3 oid3m3ddd3dd°zdd°°d Z� H mti _ Ni,,�mti }� W N J N Z,Zzzz=====______=====zfi=====________ r °m m m �� X9$ °m°m °000000000000000000000J000000000000o N � w ,5 w •Ate`) C W a J 2 w ]ZQ W w w °O w > z m y & w v ¢ w w w W m x Z cal x sz LLSaw ug z x 00 �w za r> 0?xp p,ww O z z w 3tt zm Yzo m5 oxQ Mn ?¢rMi,� aw zau�LLa°o¢za� 5 2.° _ �gwg ¢a oa z�v°,a�oNYWZZZKJZNWjY6dz3a� 3aoouz L O x Oa �> .J3aQ 3aw��'rc 0002MUw�J?a0 u°)oow3xao�wu U U U wa au SU Q°�m�DUw.'—Zz ZwrzwU maux z Wpm u z°aQamoz W n m W w w O o Z oU z 8 w2j Z W O i a 0 W w -< p 3 �c7 U r , � ' ° W °Qy Z y m LL 15 y W W r w gp^ 2 UZp Z QFj a Q w ¢ vai ¢ w2 wj y= ¢ w O ¢ n �4j �q , Mo aQ W W_a aU W Nj J°O-wa w2 W= ZN > Z w W C LL W )Y 5 W Z tt w J w> w Y�❑ 0� 2 U a J J a 0 w w� w a c¢ 3 yyw > d� z ) OHM ¢ o x2 xlwfww wya W LL K oy c�j Sp S �w O 3 w w > °xaao= rz Yrc .w u° u°w�(m(]] an w-xa — F r U� QO Kw J O ] Fw¢EN a �QOy rasa NgKa w Oopin ZjOw W U r z wm a 3 LL �� 3 ww m = aOwallo�ws. awz sy°axo zss 0 z w °2 2 0u J O m csm o�- zwzwau�w_w4JO° mrr z�»aarcw» 2' H �m �� C >j �� C �rc wH v'ww°z�w¢�Owc?i�NU iz° a¢i0o oval aia j? ma o-uJM¢or Ja °-w L.L. r O r O no Q ¢ ¢° 2 maaaax?0000wwuw�wa0°� awxxxooFw- (A m ti uc'. �,_. Z m wg Z ao fN aaa uu°°000 00085wW w -Rwi Eaaaaasm wr> C 0 V O O Li r Ical alS M O N O� W Cm G U Ail LLJ WO ,V1. �' "� z./11'\! Ill\• ,i/� ^•r.^•xo■•r �'^ i sii''• w,t,.a. �y� !11 L � h> 4: ....■ X N;`r AV- MAIN MAY ■� .x..■aorlas�a�us�■'a �wr■�oi+■nr.r■�■1.-u nn es-.■� �_��� ��• ` Q;.Q fi ° ME r■[ LI v. r ■iir N� X1x1 e9�r`i rr1� or •■ ■ V ■ • �■�.-u.I�`v'J �r� ��� �pp;��p��L�y I ����° t/ �r!1 r rr Ii. ■ � �. MOM, Isle• � tl tl �I( Mlini. • r�Y°+ X� � � �"q�irS a e•Y�� SOME �M=Me�1 i Lit �•� b rr? wllOf lifl�irf ll(M�LiI� ~A rIF 1F ^f►dil3' Um err` y_i�if' mar 1����: ►; Alln ■� o ,r. � ..r � . uoou ► �.`tea. rraa•��` C;� `�� � ■� L� L! NONE�I�•..=� o. WR f pr Ism ASM, 1 '.r hid ���`,�•' ' :�► "�-, x MAR • �'�'; ��- � � ���i��.Ts�w•aa��,t��,�� are aw. �i11�i `����d�8A1 .. .. rF � •� ��� �11r IILr \s iii U:. 1111 �� v .��i :uii +►11ir ��V �► 1p �•� �Ni �i►Srx�r'er�r:3x�Sr�f in f1sQr 0 0 0 V ZQ d Z_ CIO � M O J a Y N N N N N ice.�. N --'�� d �� LL d O.m. OI .m. . ,,, � U/ • N US? a La Ada �a c �a mower d a -��� � - —�� • L Um 01ym °mm mvm now EL v ma `m Ea `ma S ma I =WON m �a ppp pp E io m ; n m n $ n In o On o o h N c L On •• ? 3 L -.[2 E 2 rnE 2 ����� `m Q W a a m oTa mTa v 3 'a y o 2 0 n o 9 o ? 0 1� !I�I� J o 0 d w d ;w m m U d • c w .,� .� 7 °�tr w°�w li 01 X ILL a' -.�.�... Q N.p1 cr ^� LLL r ^Z LL W N 0 J a- 0 I I o am 10 m m ! o LL m-' N �a J y d 2 2 W Q ~ J-4i f LU II W x $ m m I I g d cn IL of 0 - I w -- w _-, rlllll r 1:, 1''L• I I r I I I I I I I i I I ♦ -- L JI r-- I I I r N I I I I W 2 a G C I c o o m y I I 8i'41 Xa r m20 c c rn --J r I '1111 r: oN J Y J � r m w w � m I 2 3': m n d C 2 Q S U m L m I J J �'a c E O p `m v IQ �j T 1 1 1 m m Yj CO O m W On. vi > 6 C m I m 'n m w d_ o mx I _ I '', a L a CL C g 3 € g m y o w o o U� U d aim aim I U ❑ r.' V 1 � O m m=Vi O N VL t5 W Q `oa 3 a $a W \ g m m d `m m '� m a m w C m C a m N a c o m a 3 m �f 8 O 2 O d Qo m O c=a n m' a y oa a v m o 9 c- o o 3 52 P'C�y ° 3� m Ear q 3 T m m 3 m o y m m d m w._tt e a LL.-� z.-x _ C W ^O W I..L a w Y IIIIOI U _'" • w w N 2 z� Q �d Z m 0 01'- c ; O - -e ¢ E aE a aE E a °o °-' o 2 U m c m °cN m cN U W Eo U)Em O o m . m (L 0 LL N J H W W 2 U) 0 O O ❑ H LL W 0 ii Z h�. a� b " U „ n n rrn r •� --� Ll j -- } C ®� . �� L-- N E 0 i a T� g V a c ` m c_ m W O N m m J o a t h M L N N N 21 c c ffi m c F a 4—d ¢ 3 o n � Q m m o` O 4: g i N m C m 4 m C w doa ina D._� ^0 W L Q • c 0 E E 0 U I�z w ONI J N N {a{p N N N o in Nw y W�[ Oy H CJ m >v pw - mCJm v `^ � mv mm _O1v 3a3imd m d v m O cE $ Ste $ m °m0 o '0 0 my $ .o . o c o o d o a` 3 a` o a` o a` n a` r-'•o c° ;g m oE0 W m m o m a ro W a` ` U m m ° E y m y m m E y m y m J Q d Z CL w I U) _ 0 IL - 0 u I w Cv J I W o a N W `- a—' N m --� 0 I � I W I - w W a � i4 m m E 2 c f i > w > g I i I I I a m m y I I I I m L— m �.o-f. S31HV�1HO13H tQ � o gd m a ----- ----- • � m m � m m m c L m • r f y _ m E -- - - -- 3 n Q r. . 7Fl$ U m .. r• f 2S L o, I'm c c v ::E d o } o � 0 d rnNa .. ma m g G 2� o N m o mom� Z m a'a 12 c p a c o a Fs 2 o o O ' no �I Llw m mn O m J J 2'O~ d m m aU r_ vU V mU=' •• F °w'X d LLI- C � i J = � -J a } w Y r 1 W �J • W J Q � Z `m J $ n J b E ° 2 J W U lu J. t O y W A y N i0 N N �S. a�z 2 E m O w a ° o uic wa Fd m a d A $ a Ana a c ° E m o rn c w E c.N y y m LLno �^ �, " d o m Q O o ° ° 8EoQ 5 Q U- 2 et '>$ 3 yy `� za oca N Q O b .n Q'a° md cad J u > v o Q3 a °y uj u° ° � W W Z U) O H W' W LL iy I I I f I ��� ii iii ' - f :.l'J f w 0 b z� In I , I ' C 133HIS NVEMN o 0 N 9 m m d 3 E a a�L ., m 3 N 21,2 o v c m m 1 NOUN aU cca >. rn d a c',�y` a=_ o § �a rn,m_� , €'??�' o �c o c E: I�. //. m rno o a. pp op w x moo _ co'Eo {o C a °« °iU 9'm5ffi dm O ^W W • L V I c •• V / `W Y • Q� h C - I � LLJ W 1\1'1 I'� � �I • W H H W J m Q � N O N N d D o m n L E W E SAC /mmom c ma 810 ap Q a O co > >E yao2 O1 a10ia mj Cm� boo �lllp lR� a v ? o Z'D OO U mn (J`ami 2 w°� Q a LL°�K N rn.�'a' O LL N J H W W rA 0 H W LL W R LOCKHART STREET Z C I l !. F—-- I I I I I i I i I TI'n L._ --. iii I r w 1 I I FF I � I L-- O y m a n2 o L E c m w o' � v_m m rn�a a �>m..0 o o ° E 22 E 1. � m e.o�m o J �$ 210 o 2 ohao Z. O m°a-�m a? $a ma o ° OO tea 0 oE o 0 o m 8 a C O �aod td a I°i mK u liK Z-W W � L � N r •• `'C • i V O Snlnn ! S 0 N P w m w U w f hz Y it r ss Y ; - CL cu cu cu 0 co `' r _ ► + µ b a rs co cc . o CAS. 1 F I cu oo ,.,� ;;,fix . •,t� ,y'�•��!c.t�, ti°F.� � �h����i,�. tea.b_ `, {� .r F. r' �:•� O 2 Z c .. Z J tl cn m • � • 1 M � O J CV) y- O Q)N 1 • a)'C m E vJ as a c a Y i �� K N N a CU @ O U N N rn c Q J � Q) L N\ U (0 C N m . 0 -00 CL y U � o I I CU d N m C C c d L m v J co a Y, m N L \ U N 0 C Co h U m C7 CL a t m m co N c ^ ca m O N „ti. yf m c a 0- cu 'D a: N N m U L.. in O \ M m �p U N N C � ' fU i a r y _O N C o O d y CC U 0 M o J D [Qy O i N 0 U a Y m m N O p Z c all (n J \ Y 4 t4 m U) Y IIl d _ o � — N ' N w J O W > d �N p.0 .0 O • r `m ¢` E a E 0 c m o .= 0 = cn y O C E '-' 0 O E w a = a�'E +� Ems E � 0 Q)U Qr J O :� d L O L U11 O f0 ._ co li y E w N cn in k N (n a C V soianls LU LU WON P • cD .. w i0 f r , • u ■ • rsruuuu:■ me Egg- ■ tea ., . � ;� :' n�;' ! . �•� ■ Im�..._ ■ VIA Oki ■ ■u�'. �a�•��. ■ o•uouo. uour.. NONE' No w ON i ��.■r■..�r x�?; ■n:uuu uruo. . uur i r.ru / smosommusommomommoommm Sol � ■�1s errs;tea� 1 p tl J • m D � Q M 0 J • N J L N ,N _ e d Y N 'O � O N (0 its Now= now N CD pm OR J U Q 0 o _o t ci L) U t y N Mn p O C _ Lca f0 s F cu z N O O O O O D U > O O 3 'O -0 "O L V V V O C C C $ C m C c m .t5 N V cc 3m � m m '; L N N .O .0. N Y = �n�pp' m N co aD C N (O W N U x x x E x E (yS N N o (0 -2 C lid �AAIiil r L y O c L w Q O Y O (0 2] ° C U! L ��( N w C N y doom& l Y `_� 0 L O 6 O z I m 2 N U ♦,,. • L r _ .. ' LL/ C 0 CV f0 .U• N N f0 r- o (0 U O ) j � m 0L) / - 7 - C m O U 01 j U C)O U Q w U i - Cl)v m ih 3 m �� • � 1 • Z O 7 W J • W W U) fo in cc N p U O L 7 cc o o � E of 0 ) O O O •0 O O p >V U 3 3 3 3 L)a m � a $`op _o - O N N D U d C 0 `7 .L-. U fC f0 U f0 3 7 2 C 7 2 3 E y �? ul p N _0 C t; N'� U j (0 O N X � !D 00 N C L X=L 0 -00 U �1 N@ N V N .0 -0 m 3 m a� b b 4f +L+1 C W I a a (0 Y O U m O Z a Z O -0 O Q O Q � - — Q W "O W O O H E L r 1 0 cu 0 O — .0-.6 LL (A LL U Q� U C N U- L Q _0 2 O J L C U) O �' c C c O -Oi 'co cn c C7 = Q CL E N cu ca N C a � Q L (� •n 0 � @ • i SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW: ARCHITECTURE } Il.l E�i g 25 a ry c5 O aT CO z N '8�V C gg r fn a m ¢c`�aT � ictna*fi z C U N (� 8 � N pEp � = fn .120 N 00 N U ` O M p 0) Q to O U) Y co p p © © ME� � pp pp © c© Z © P � © P a C].. m © P © .0 ~ V! - Q w z a I � � ' LU o '_- --------_ � --- _ >z ___._-__ .. - a ' V 13 Li I 1 a t r I .0,2Z I s i � I I -----------4----- -----�---- I I --- ------------ , a r ; f , I an 1,mill, V I V > I ( O c 17 �b TCO LE CO C � cat; :-5--------------A 1S NdJ33�1 _ _ ••1 _ _--=_== --r .--------------- •` of J balm ft" &so �c a i1 ' o oN N c C7 L N co 4 Lo 0 Lo 46^ f i l l ! +; W V D W 11H 1 1-1 IIIH R R x_ ARM. •I•• Y • ' O S ! I f f z LAJ LAJ (o�C I = mot i 1 i t1T_ 1-IT T IIHI _. In f ii +... � j1 �� Ali {F;##�� Ili !Pip! O _ c � m rn � UQ yU W G _� L 'o m 04 C •- MC'j (D to O) /y W _c Z z J Z W of J Mac !r"'J OMT -- - OEM 0 Sa y e ddU) c U co m N CO Lo o U-) Y fill ,t �-� ;f�ss s$s I!1 ��i�-•��}����i� s !dl66- �E!�!�i,�a€�€t€t�a�� � P a' t a;z! •! sx •a yy 2• •! •et••t .a ! t t # e~ •I ! E s « I y y r .# E� /% V W V D W �C 1� w • 4 MC IF N !! as Iy aaa• •II : a � t tt" �. E PH IgI11,1'1'1i� 11OPY11 3�1 !� 1 11,1{€�l fig . P 8 i f&Pa.�•I I1 . . � i LO LO U O M; � _ C V) 0 CO LLJ C O> "O ao N C r M Cr- CUi R 3, rw-4 N O O 8 0 � 8 •N c «% E C14 c to C (0 � C T T � y (0 �LL (n 0 5 m C ( E o o o f > rn J m� mmjaU � •� L p, ` � QO Q? 8 p rn C C O `� V O - 3§ OU m V U U N (u 0 .3 3 'C O d d 41 O C9 d c� 'O N U � U (nI1 (n (nm � lL 2 (n NN {/1 ` O W O Z 4 Ln 0 In l[ C O p 2 W W - c W - o L IC w � co r a 3 O � J mtt v � o G i I FTI x V LD i �rf ao t0 .0 ,0£T 0 1 .0-101 LO m M �° C CO TCO 1n Om J U Q U W c 6 M _ o0 co C .- af c7 Jfo (n T 4 aC W Z Z_ z Z W o i .� MIMEN O OO . .,tl $ o O7 "0 OI co i �N� N C_ m ' - :15 C Qy m ami C a >, m G (n V m (n cfl Ll fn C rn E .0 d C N CO m y a N fl.V Q O J oU v c°> > � U � � L � cU � U C L.1 U -, 0 «6 O (n +'' cy i '0-- m .6 0 7 0 0 0 U V (nLL (n (ncc � U- rG0d � w N Cn O iu } :E 0 m N U [`- L � 2 c.Z i Q Lo 0 Lo Y C W W N W c _...,� W Z o T J J c r z iLL R 't l v f` i I U tp � i 1 OV16 111-16 OVA Lo 0 LO LO .0-.Oh m M �° C T Ln O C W LO J U U W M _ O rq o m � V1 Cm � LN Jccooi i • • u u • • • • • • 1!� s � Vol ISM �11111111111�� 11111 1 all In .4, ILI 1111111 , Iq �lol�l�l•1.1 � �.����.- � ,�11�11111�111111a1111 �a'�sl®�®1■lel.lr�.le1� 3�Ij111111i111111111111� all 1 ■ ■ ` � ■ ��� 1 1 111=%111 1 1 1 11111 1�■�■� � ;� �-�R 1�1 j1111111�1 j1 j111 jljl 1 ■ ■ ' � � �� 11111111111 1■■■■� . 11111111111111 1/111111 111■■■; f11f1111111111111C1/111111 �■�■� 111'1.1:1:1.11:1:1■/11%�i 111 1 ■�, � � � � w.�� 1 i 1111 ,� 1� ! 0 III�i��'i1i11'jl�il�ii111111 • - .. �� � � � � 1111 ��� 11119111111111! . .. •, 1 i11111I1i11111111 In 111 111 1 Ilf ill 1 1 _ Y � � i1 / iiiiii 'l■■ii i 111111111111111 IP11111/1 ® �i�lr/rl■I�i.l■1■1��1i111111 it 11111 1 1111 '111 !ii� 1�1 .. 1 MGM .: -- i' 111 111 1 11111111 o � a N w Q �8 1L Q� r Q N C ip Ql N EU a> -O h Ear N ~ 6- c :t:! � C m y c �, c o (n L1 t0 N p p N of y CO m N O N N C d CD ci J SU O $ > aUCn mL CD fn L w C U g; Ra « « . oO C� a�i U � (V E 0 U) LL Cn to m > LL � � a. r .r G1 CIS O rte+ } t (n f0N U CO m G N M d In (O t- co O r Z Q to 0 O > Q _4) W W c W O m Z J m J W Go a 0 _ J v n � N t0 1 �®I M P r co O O LO m LO m O M � C Cl) T 00 A G Q O m wig - E co r ` O N h lo-A T V1 C m Q M d r M N Q JOInO W Z Z z — z J W v. J O O 0 Q ..,. ... ,.,.p. 0 N w m c N O c � � �c� -p � Ccn N � � � c . L C is a�i , �v `y -CO- � ci R (n cop I� U) E O O C N E V O C a _ 0 J '? °U m m (D d m o ? d ? ` U) Q o U o o > U@ «. �p ? C) 0)Y L O O jo N Q ti cc U) uz U) w L 2OCL N C O cu V1 C`9 G r N co 00 lA h r C- O W O C O iQ f� O �nY 0 > Q W W � J W co � m co V Z D m = J .Q v = a c z O � o cu rn W S W Z z � � 1 = k IIEFI CD J m A 0 Y CD M x CCO 1- T LO O N � � �' U Q � pp Q U A-.6 a�-,6 r`.6 W � C.co O 00 m t,� CN w co C '- c vi W Z Q z z J z W o. J �.a ww ww ■w ww �w ww w� ww ww � ww v �w ww � � w - • ■■■i 1 1 i 1 1 1 i It1 i �: ■■■{ lilil 1� /Ii1�ir� l�Iili/11 i ■ I !! 111111 1111ff 1 :�■®` ;���r1�1�i R/=i1 If11�1 �■� _ i�iv��./titily - � t �iC � r �ir�rrl � ■ � 1 / 1� 111 � 111t1 -- i�■� � i!i��i�i�iii!i�1li!i�ili�i� _ 1 o: NO am a IN WIN air ■ ■ .ate. $�� � � S■�■ • :� °111111111111'%"1�1'1' l"'1 NUNN :4111 111 lot 1■ ■ ■ _ --__.. 0��1"'/ r 1/rl 111 ihlii :III ■■■ @F� ��,m��;;O,;i1�1�;il;I�Ii� � ■■■- Q s o �_ O o> C O � � � �N r N L E o o WC N E 5 o fl. O y m � mm o cu y ,> w J SU 8 o > ac) tn mL L pQ - _ c ,u, x 0 o cn ? c U 04 pp N 0 coiLCncnm3: 2 a- _ ) mN 8 L C V1 ` o O G r N (h to CO f.- 00 0 Q to 0 to Y C O 0 W W 1111' o . . J - LL V Z J m c W W V O V I o v rEol W LD UE1 LLI ..................... co d o tn to M f6 �° C M p 00 O M M J: U U Ly c c cam) j c m M C C to W A-,6 L-.6 A-.6 !� 2c z hM , .0-16C W C PMON !®# P t .4 ...�i ^, °0 0 o X a� m 0 N C �`p N ON A2_ � C7 a> "p ~ ET N ~ � � C 30 U) a) N (CD C 4 �v O a Q.w`� = Q> V N C U p C O � h « .O-� C O O N O V U U E U cn U- cn cn Cfl ii 0 d � :: N C O C r N M ' lA Or.- 00 O r Z Q In 0 In Y C O 0 > Q (D 4_ m W 0 W D J W � a • Q � C W c � O c6 W rn O` M n M {{I I H { � H � O O tf) O M' � C M CO �• 0 c g U CO C4 CO ' R C r- co C lf) q 4 JcOU) W A-le VA r0-.0D:F Z W X0-,65:; D J ^4 `z E�N w O O O �Oy i W cm C N O N N � 'O ~ ET — N ~ mL C 3 � C N y C ? a y m c o (/� V M U) co LL (n E 0 'O W , O O C a O O O U 0 0 > a U � p L 3 ` U Q o (� O «4 65 LZ C�5 co•` >>O d N N O C9 d U - ni E N L/! 'E U) cn N U CC4- O N O m G N M It In CO f- CO 01 O Q In O In Y C O > N W w ..j C W LL X V _Z 0 - W co V OIm v1cm � I 0 m a� i.0 J Ell L11 c co N r ..__ C9 .A I � � (0 :. M Of C Cl)CO CO T LO O C J` UQ U co LAJ E cR cR CmaM C Lo -Q J' f0 W 0) !� l ii� J-.6 Z .0-10C+ Z —J z &.6£ m 1 W DI J act $ o ��$ o 0) O co N C� i`p y 012 C •� t� O lL fn O 0 0 N N N O C a v cpcuO O _ mm acid Q) 4) 'i 16 d fl.�p1U � C) co ou °? � ma�io C9d �iE U (n tL In tnm > tL 2Cd `� _ ) mN 0 cc� o � Z � ci C) orn G N M '7 to CO r- C] 0) 1 O Q In O to Y C O > ~~ W W __J L W c6 J IL I - � X C7 Z_ I � J (, o _ v s � R O � m C O M W r � a 4- r t O LO In 0 M � _ C Cl) o CO wr 0 m J U Q U CD W c c 0 _ o 0 AmmN M Cy r C U) 3 J co U) m I LLJ Lo ��-.6 A-A A-A Z &X W .0-,6E o , N C �,0 0 0 O af Q) C) fD 0) m c O a� @ C N ~ N , — N ~ c t C1 LCC (n CD LL 47 N •w• N •, C d _- w c N m m c a Q) � O. C1 0 U O > U U) c O Q _ U > 'Fa cn c U C U 0 8 pp rn C� O Y w •U O Q) a) 0 ` V U -d " E fn LL C4 fn m LL O c ti O c0N U G .- N co r n cD f� 00 � Q U� O Lo Y L� so a � 0 � V Z a D z cu m 0 Y U 0 V t0 1711,17 N 00 I'LL M LO Ln M 0 C M CO LO O c C rn N ,J U Q U L1..1 c 0 co- co � O � L� (n C m 0: M �J J CD 0) c Zz v i .� o � O _ O O O O 0 O7 Q O N O OE c, c C cc (a U NtQ) E00 0E •° � O Ca J U � U U � ] V � a 2 � o o B z •- 0 a"i W> � � v� N rn E (1) iinU) LZ1oa cti O � r (n fON U 0 f O N O CC O r G r N M a In (O I,- co Gi LL O Q Lo O U7 Y r W_ M W Z � 0 m � J Q ms ` s � o W S as V c O (D co w a� rr rn tiii �•-....,. M t N I 4 co LO LO m m � G Cl) O A� ' UQ m m U W c 0M _ Ocq ` 0m � C m a: M 0 .- M N Jt0 (nrn NUNN=_ W *— z boa zZ Di J i 0 o g .. o 0 0 o c o td N EN -,5:: N ti a°i aci � o ac): C c �e cn � E 0 0 c o E o > w 4. .: rn rn a� m m y a) a) + cn o c U w p N to ca o coca `-' °o n ai o W C9 a�i U -o cN E � UU) LLU) inc` � ii � oa ` = can' mN Uo m ° rn (6 Z co .- H 4 Lo 0 Lo y W J W D t Z � Q J m J �s Q V � � Z z � CD c 0 cn c� a� w rn 0 M 0 LO f0 M 0 0 00 E—� ° LO 0 c m J UQ U W c 6 M o In ` omr- ��1 C m M C uQ CD C/)CCU rn A-A .,l-.6, l-.6 W .,0-,0£+ J W v. J N 4 E�� N _ O O O O 0 � I c @ ` � C v g 7§ U C co c > .�. � O !A O C t J °? E- 0i m m 0) CL a�i ) a� a c o � U q � > oU _m � t > �' � c`S V U O a� cg m C 7 7 O N m L v 0 N � UcniLCncnm � ii2 oa �/) � _ � mN CN 8 co ® m ` o L— Z � morn Z> Nr'iLo 'D1—com U- O �[ a � 0 ) y W J W ev X co O I Z .1 m s rr W J co co .r. 1 � I I i I o LO LO o M 0 C M T 00 O C c CU J U Q ® m U W c 0 0 Cl)cq L�� W m @ N C .- � M C r c JCDl400) A-.6 L-.6 „l-.6 W li .10-.0£ (. Z .0-.6£$ m � W o i .� M � �� N -.' Q N O O O 1 Q U) �O N C m N 47 a � (� C ti °D a=i a `� c o CD C ti A .- C - 0 0 J c� mm ; dUN m a CL0VJ 0 0o 0o C = O D U Y O � .� f0 .D 7 7 .2 O `-' N � Ui - • 0 mini ■ ■®Mont i omo, n� ; ON . .�.�■L ■ ■ ■ , , ■ OEM o .■mp�■ � IS I. Simi I in imi lilipoislissimli1ili�1-1 1 1 NJ 1 1 i,i�i�l INN.p■p® !i!1"!I:i:l:lililii�'�ililillli'ili!�lNCl�iil�lili!jlilii! ■:M:■:::®: ��■�_RUS .. ■_■.. ailllilli!!!!!i! ilia ,ii jlll AV Now I _■_■_ .l1111!!� ids=�E Egli • ■�■�� i1l1111 _ ����■ � � Illlilllill!!!1l11111 lie, i, -- e14 A 0 g o J CD N GD cV C N CD -o E N toL ® � � LL (n 'D v w a� °— O C a Q) cm co m E o p o C o E U �p ::. + r N UInLTw0im" LL2O � W } .d, (a) cN U (B O V � W Q �Nrv1rco � COCD O 0O W) 1c _0 7= Q W J u� W -a W L7 J � 0 J acc J:I - - J 1� x r ll o 1 O � m M U D C c 0 M (D w J c�c co ILI- 7. _� k _ 1 c Tl r u�u t+� O t!y o M �° CM 0 i— >>1 CO Q mM U W C M _ o00 0o ~ o E ,,: V1 cm �m M .L-.6 L-.6 L-,6 W H - Z w0-.0£ Z .o-se:F _� z v. J � � � � d ® Ire w �. � � � �■ � � .� a `s ° 0 MOM ° m _f._ :..:. _ � 2 9 c` a m 2 I cN t E. N H m r- •:9c C m m c > a c C V !O 1 "to LL fn O 'd 'D N N O _0 N -- 0 d . C m mm O "- o ` W, QO Ja� 5U p > aUcn `° L > > > ° co ,)j D O O _ C O N V V Y p ( O fn Q w, C U N C4 O d e > > V >>O -0 N N p mRn V U -6 N E Cn LL (n Cn co Cc nNm/ V1 uOYO_ �' G r N M V 'n CO r.- 00 m r '.I 1.L Z Q to O tI) Ice W J W W L7 J _ = z H o V s C 0 > (1) ED r n "11111 IEEJ1 r . o LO LO m M 0 A -11 C) Q �- O CO _ O M M J U Q � U W CM O m ~ oECR Cl? J m r m N I Z Z A,66T JJ W � W _ of J O N � �i ,t- m •N me.•M II Q N O O O 0 EDO w c N t O C � �p C N rU� F- In F- _ ® ® C :3 O CD E d o a IC 10 E O C d v rnaEimm a�i ai > = cu C/) Q0 (B O u O N O W 01 U N ca 0 V1 00mo ca L- rn Z� � m - � r N m't Lo (o I,- co 0, M O � Q uo) 0 Lo H W J W � x L J I Z 0 ..J m 4 � o W Z s � O c O co t0 N W N ao L�1 LE M 11 to o M �° ao c CO T U-1 Om o J UQ U C 0Cl) c ; `wm c° N C C � m rCN JcOfnrn rl:6 •V r6 d-i6 uj .0.0£ z Z .0-.6£T J °° W Di J m M � 0 act e O CD 0 0 W � � � r_ .� ►— E In N H m 7 C .�- m .. g s c 5 0 C m N y -0 a N N c In C V t0 fn c0 rnEmm c N E 6 �' _ .8 Cd .: rn J �' cU 3 > Q. vin m L U °mr _ _o 2 L 0UQN U) LL I ( m IL � W o -6 C°V E «+ N C ti G N CO It In COf�- 000) rn i.:ll � O SQcul)) OLn F� Q ` W J W W C.7 Z J a J 2m H Z W S O m V 1 c c C 0 s a.. w 0 fi I` � 4 0 m m M 0 C Cl) O c v m � U --- W c 0 1 � 0 m m N c � � r� J c m N -- I -I CD fn a) � � N .L•.6 .V.6 «l-.6 uj " Z /-M rV.Bii CON _ Gi J o � , 0 e 0 O o �a m O N c`a h M N C N c > c CO U j C1 M U) � ) -0—0 �, E � a) ca J mUmm ; acyc°/J' io C y � OO pp L c C U V O � N 0 (n C U N (Q p N -2 7 7 .` O � 6 V p 01 U -6 E U (AlL (A (A [D �iI.L2Oa w O C1� O (n mN U cu uomc) CO M G r N co U.) w CO 0i 00 r Q Ln O 1fl Y �J Q W W .ze M — Z Op v s o J 4 m tt c _ co c`o a� r � r co �uui u M co i cc a) 0 C" c .N M ui {� c N LO 0 M o° C M F� >>,LO y 0 M �J U Q ° U W m o c C M _ O co O E ►� �C1 r C Ln M co W Z D m Z co x �. z °° W vi .I 'fir •:�. : r=� * i + • Imp ■ ii■ ■I i■ i - -- - r•� ■ s "'GIN MEMENT SEEM y o �� IIIIIII�IIIIIII■��''� -- -" �I®��+�IIII:::::: 11111►�1111111111 � ®,�:.11111111;;;p • �� ° �� I (elf[)�� ;;::!■t - i � 11111►�111111111� � �- ____ ® ' ' 11111111;;;;'� - r- ° f 1111111�1111111■�- � - - �I��h►'�IIII������` iii ■ (( i i ---- �; r'�K `;,� III ��� oo (��/��� � • A s� ►_E I ::- 111111111111111_�'" IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII ♦ L J� 60M 01-1.14, _ V _ � 1 1, [•i•7 �►�� ;::��:�`; ::::� IIIIIIIIIIIIIII � k C � 4 ( iii ciwv'� c$ .: coo 11 it I � rac�ic 8 o 0o LO 0 wo Z ------------ CL Eel th ]gg , , co w U. M V) W o u u U Li C to a I a Mi m r :4==:i Z El � J i m � I ' o - , { J i i I lC0 I i N C i I I 0 a ; a MTrwrm L I I � rr ii I i I s _-- - -- --J »o-,sv 4 »o�-Z o M Lo c � US OJ C� Q W Ld co CO cl) Lo C r W Z Q Z J Z W Di J POT I t I ji l E' N s ii e30 IL g U N -d N E N8 = pip lY6 C 0O � �c v'f Z ----- -----, CL- ---------------- ---------------------- -- --, O oC 1 I 1 LL - 1 r 1 m 1l 1(' d_ i i 8 I x l V = , � N t am I O G 1 � 1 I ; 1 � i I 1 1 ' 1 I ? C ° a 1 1 � 1 1 X 1 1 x 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 � 1 C 1 m -YTIf[- qqryry , 1 1 i 1 1 , 1 -a'F I Fw 1 I ' r 1 J 1 a � 1 1 1 a _ 1 1 s - LLJ � I 1 so-,vv M � _ cm J Ua r C ui tO fn m W Z Q Z z Z W Di J wit XF CAP I Pill RE woo LVA Mina I all MEN ESSEN In IN all IV C'14 EEL N C ARI (0 C-4 8 -d pi E C A 04 00 Lo 0 Lo ------------------------------------ ci A6 CM ------------------------- —j C4 LA- C* ri ------------------------- x I --------------------------- ------------------—----------------------- -- ------------- 0 F-1 4-- .0-.9v ra < Q ui MCM co co CD z z Cal W mj C= C=m C= p f iP t I no d o � 4 1 it Q CUN >- Af8 8 � � N O 00 w 2 _i OOu) — e Z ® oc c - '0 ~ C X W m U I c --_ m a � � a r � F -J I � , C i W 1 I ® rrm N - I � I ---J 1 / I f Lj CL \ I I i I I L r- -l I I CL LA a i \ i 1 � M X c ❑ `rte ___ CS - , 0 U-) .OVJl 4t 0 .0-.91► .0-.5b M Of � M �� via 0 L u 0 � � W J UQ � U N..1 c c°o - 0 � H E L/! Cma: M CO N W Z Q Z z Z O°� W vi J r r rr r r� rr r r rr rr r rr i■r r rr r r� r r ...- •li a+ i a •1 i r • Iii■�I :���� _ I s� .. ■ � ■I i,i — — — .. -�- o >l, lllllll��llllll■�� � — �I®��Ilil.::::: 11111►�1111111111 — — �. ' IllllliMESA ad N. �� ' 1�1i[Il�;� ► :.east -- , HIM all MEMO J ' r'' nin��lllllll�l■ -- — — ���IIIIIIIIE��inI� all I_I __ ►1, lap J IIIII��IIIII�lllll —_ ilIII IN COME ■■ww MOOM All V ' 11111��111111111 - — ■ MINI■■■■ � � I anno ; l woman (/�tI1]�S ■■..■� ,,' illllllll��% ° 'T IIIIIIh�IIIIII■rr _-- ��_J1111,:C:::. ■■■■I.ii s - ]� ■■■EM■■' Ji pN CL t I ! { { 1 OY�0 C 10AOW) (----- -----+ 1 --------------------------------------' / / '-- - --, O z a 77 LAW C m r 1 c - 1 � i O Q r OO �a - X�LC_ -- a D T ° 1 � _ ' O � 1 -- a i x1 t - -x 1 ; 1 � � N ' _ C 'ffut rti E3 i 1 � I � 1 1 1 1 1 t r a 1 1 1 x 1 1 loi ' tV 1 1 C �riry d �J4 y 1 � 1 I 1 ; - -r 1 lillx1 1 1 L 1 � r ' J Q � Q M i C I ' 1 _ 1 a 1 / / M 0 p N ♦/1 C M r C tCDD!n 0) W Z Z z ..j Z W Di J tf ■rye , -:tf +•z z14 - • i o 1111 OUR 11�� • : Illlir�llllllllil - _ — "''�IIIIIIIMON O 3 '"MIN Aif �� [•] ..::ham;:: _ MENEM All `�-- - Oma■■I - J� Iilll,illllllllt� � .�IIIIIIIL...■I - ♦ : �•] Nil Omni ■■■N :J Illll�iilllllllll ►iillllllia:_: � ■� I _ All, Milli{i _ ,♦/I �•' snow _ , o (��1 ,� •now■ J Illll�illlllllll ® , 111111111:=:=■I Iwo ■�, . a VIA �:J VIII,�IIIIIIIIII �' 1111i1111___. f= ° T 1111111��111111■r► °° _ � i X1111,::::: SWUM r • �r l A- A.!mil Ate' s u•- { �� of f�:•�i i.�i-3wGFj • { \ { • i3 a i • S ■ ■i IMMUNE � o '`` �� ■� ■..■■■a== - Illllll�illllll■� � ___I__� .�tllll ... - : i:.11111111�son _ MINE Mon J ' Illll�tilllllllll� ® ,, ..�IIIIIIIII BMW: ■ ■I ,—. ar. ION ■■■r :J IIIII��IIIIIIIIII ., � �. ,,' i11111111==== • MUM I — -- 1�1�I7 ;� A :J Illlli�llllllllll ®• , - '..�IIIIIIII==== t• ♦ ui — •■ ■ '0 •a ■■W■I ION J Illll�illlllllll■ - — ® , e11111111I : �I ■ ■ ■--i F� :J 1111111111111111 I ® , ,�"Illllllhiii }= ° '1 IiIIII1�Illllll� – I ! I_-Imm;;; MINES _— ■�.■■i-- II■ I I JEWS KIM P i � d o� oil 1� V w C.4 G >Rii N 8 a ° W ° CO � in0Lo --------------------------------------' A6 QQ 1 i 1 C / i,llX ill � /$y l 1 1 ' J O ' 11111111 1A., O A LAM 1 1 i C JU Z_ � � W 1 Z o ED - W o sx 1 fR / -- m g W v a f � i 1 1 1 -- i 1 1 1 1 � 1 1 1 ` 1 ' N i 1 1 I 1 1 1 � 2 1 � i m t;u N C R-7IR-1 j m RIf C el 1 1 1 1 ' 1 •11 i i t ; I � ; 1 1 a J x 1 1 1 1 i 1 i 1 1 1 1 ; R'11F'1 1 1 1 1 -_ -X 1,,,X I 1 I Q CM 1 u� - rai �i 1 a ad s / � W 1=— . 1 1 ---------------------- ' ----- ---- l0-19b W Z Z ..j Z CON W Di J rrrrrr�' i • • I III � ■I, I'1 ■ oo ■ - �� c•� on y o 1- IIIIIU�,�IIIIII■�� ®I®'�IIII;::::: "'+11111111;;;; bd MT NMI pq MEANS AIR MON MEMO MEN - D a. ■■■O . ■ ■ -- ■ �:� J� 11111► 111111111■ __ — ® " ..dlllllll::::■ ,� �Q 1�1 ■ ■I 1�1. � J Illlli�llllllllll -- ■. , iU111111eee: Mill O (���)�i ■■■��®� IIIII�---------- �.' illllllll==== somm ON Mini ' 111111111111111■ ® , .d1111111NUNN, � �■ � � i • :!� IIIII��IIIIIIIIII --- — ■:�.�'11111111:::: l �- ° IIIIIIIhIIIIII■� �' ' _ �I®U11111MENNEN ■■■■M � I — !■■■■■', : iii ■ ■I ' ' (Riil� • �.��� -- '- k o � , s t� o 0 1 I N N E ct 0 CD J9 N m CD 00 V- a to LO N ' x ® LL 8 N D ggt � U. MM oG O 1` Z � o Z , m = cr r L--J --------i f k- --'J Ll L� JJ--11 p'�"CT I Fo a LL � c .o-sv O OV N 1 0 N x tr �' `•, J U Q p � ii�x, c -2_ JE Z Z � Z Di J Q � N O ■, 8 I II I ------- I �M ' a i - " ?� �I 3 ' c �CaLo § 0 t X � I � ® a E8 �i ' 88c ---� I M M N &Zt p LAM O � N Z � o cr Z � � — r , L--J E § C 04 SSZZ '" c0 f x C N C7 io c D L O 8 E CO g - - - N m N ® I a.N t_4 a I x c L b ® W . H -2:) � NN�pp ~vtDOD V LfD I I I I A-� W Z Z z Z W of J N O c O = N I I I + fn O I ----------- ------- � 'd V N x - n.. O 0 O N cl L >. LL LL V! U i m Z ' N N C ' N EL a � O J V o m �1 Z � a >r ~ z O p O O LL LL C 8 U N N m m g a. $ a C C o �. E: U- '2 M C ch p co rw- � N .- � m O 26 d CL ,2 r--... ... V1 2cm cm C C > > � m 0 0 W Z Z z JZ W of J Q o N Q M L O IL LL WOM U— — ---- W C S ; o ----- - - -- -- m � Co IL N C Q fn O > _ O ------1 a + n. � 8 cq E 05 C c N � m � N 8 co X Z �I s oc � � ° O m Co � J Q &D Q M O.d1 M z-X °o Q M i M C Z t_ C •: --------- d --------- M � a. v , i t o. L---J O C LL Lj- -------------- K co Al Q O C &ZI .��s-a &.01 17J<& M N — a O �f J U r C C � L m N **x � � M c Y J M N E M o ® $ ¢ LJ x b `. c Z z W .o-sr Di J N O _ LU c g a - --- ----, , ------� a Qa \ IN LL � � c U N o --?----J �n t m N 8 .2 co o i Tl i m U Z I N \\ M M Q { ii C C - i I _ _ a -- o a � o CD - M Z � o ----------------------- .o-s --------------------- ------- >e Z � m L J ' awl o o `s u. U. �? C N � � Cl) CO X V/ CO '� r _ ------------------ m ----------------- U � M M E ® cc 0 i a a Q ----' > A1-St .o- .o-zt Im C4 o x ap 8 O ® Q Im M LL '2 M d' ih ~ ~ C LAmA b K -' 1, _ ao y4..__ °T111111111111 C C LL coo N rn W Z Q Z � z W Di J Q �o C_ N C .� Z Z A Ci Ip (n . 0 m O b O m 0) Z "' m = Qo° = m dy � Q a ac � 3v p 7 � U6) N ,fi ~ (n ,nn I� � � V Q ,e Q Q S0 U-) W z N b LLJ 0 = U s$ S S< V (yam)22 < OOC C� O O V Q 3 w Q LLJ > o C o O < U U Z OC N N U a O W Z LAJ w �02 SZ IL w V y�y$ 0 `z u < m V=i C K W K l` O O V C, LO LO m < t0 uS M yq F� O,LI) M Q sS 2 (7 Z U Q N U 0 yU( i .J rn �o O cq O m r- V 1�0 m N C ch C r N N �' JcDCnrn a Z 8 8 S o O („7 Soc N N 2c IN z Z W ok o. J VESTING TENTATIVE MAP Jf AJ U3N J'I.-. d VaU� Ib'J N����U f.OZ-RI-li ,E M'�YIVDCa I ���9i�i�;d 8 r L'J�d?IL�i Ls��SdWOS 38IV)IOVW SISI.AVOIIHI(i 101 8a NIS30 - r F= I o 0 \ v area � o N Y cvoa wow I m 2. s w \ �. _ z W �°, �° a uuuuuuuuuuuuu u ✓ aaaaaaaaaaaaa a "� a. �sy z _ F _ �o°00000000 o m /l$ Gv;+J YdYN SY1 UL�V11,y � r r r m i a w Q y1 \o; �o'a� >j>j»j>?» TI 3a w .7�...zzsmm C — _ o m 00000000000 �LL .. .. .". ., ., ma W ❑0000000000 0 ahJ.dG,l oe (� zzzzzzzzzzz ua39�oa m ° �- 00000000000 �� m 6 w w w o ti D a000000uo uo o, j �cgw >�> JQO' oQd m F° F �o ti6 h �38 QI �l aaaa2adahaa % n, a� pia 3� y o .. xw J s Z,. aaa¢a¢¢.�aaw� a aaaaaa¢aaaa N m ro CE R,,MOw �I mo ..eons o -o °g m m mN m " d o�" �, ° w J aaaaaa¢aaaa�r `� V �wN = a w sLL m r 1 r ��, .. � .. J Q F1=F-Ffr-rr��NN w '� w�wwwwwww F, oo: W ❑0000000000��. w y ,^ yNfII VINN41 to NUl UJ ,'� _ VJO s s1, a S ai 3 0 `� r u d.. w �„ a s o mac dl a Nmo mm rmrn��am r w ov a a o ca o � - 4 _-�LOCKHART STREET 325.75'_ f ,L4 B2 b �r '.OZ sI 9t1 .Ell 94 — � 2 �z gN Q y a � rn Q I IL O it m CK CO 1 '� li .mm .9 , o�m 'L3 P\ 4 EL ,lf� ® o 3 ,091 TF Ell Se -� z u Z OCiF _ I of I _ U rr �4 113 zi 700 _�^° X110 _ m_ 96-90e 3E99,ZE°OON i 9'. m _—----------------------------------- _____ - o m 1338iS NV933N. ___ -- m m i - -- - _- r _ A �f...� `� C> t`) L r `, RESOLUTION NO. 14- XX A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE A SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PERMIT AND VESTING TENTATIVE MAP 8164 (LOT 3) FOR 122 TOWNHOUSE/CONDOMINIUM UNITS FOR AN 8.8-ACRE SITE (6.36 NET ACRES) KNOWN AS THE GROVES AT DUBLIN RANCH (LOT 3) LOCATED ALONG THE NORTH SIDE OFDUBLIN BOULEVARD BETWEEN KEEGAN STREET AND LOCKHART STREET IN THE EASTERN DUBLIN SPECIFIC PLAN AREA PLPA-2013-00034 (APN 985-0048-005) WHEREAS, the Applicant, Lennar Corporation on behalf of Dublin Ranch Lot 3 Project Owner LLC (under management of Integral Communities) submitted applications for an 8.8- acre site (6.36 net acres) known as The Groves at Dublin Ranch (Lot 3) ("Project Site"); and WHEREAS, the Project site is located along the north side of Dublin Boulevard, south of Central Parkway, west side of Lockhart Street, and east of Keegan Street within the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan and Area B of the Dublin Ranch planned community, and WHEREAS, the applications include: 1) General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan amendments to change the land use from its current designation of High Density Residential (25.1 or greater units per acre) to Medium-High Density Residential (14.1 to 25 units per acre), and 2) Stage 1 Planned Development Rezoning (PLPA 2013-00034) and new Stage 2 Development Plan; and WHEREAS, the applications also include: a) Site Development Review (SDR); and b) Vesting Tentative Tract 8164 (Lot 3) dated received January 22, 2014 for 122 townhouse/condominium units within the Project Site, and WHEREAS, the applications collectively define this "Project" and are available and on file in the Community Development Department; and WHEREAS, the Project site generally is vacant land; and WHEREAS, the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), together with the State guidelines and City environmental regulations, require that certain projects be reviewed for environmental impacts and that environmental documents be prepared. For Lot 3, the project is within the scope of the program analyzed in the Eastern Dublin EIR as to land use, density and development assumptions, and also within the development assumptions of a subsequent 1997 ND; therefore, no additional environmental review is required, as documented in the attached draft resolution; and ATTACHMENT 5 WHEREAS, on January 28, 2014, the Planning Commission held a public hearing and adopted Resolution 14-XX recommending that the City Council approve the requested amendments to the General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan from its current designation of High Density Residential (25.1 or greater units per acre) to Medium-High Density Residential (14.1 to 25 units per acre); WHEREAS, on January 28, 2014, the Planning Commission held a public hearing and adopted Resolution 14-XX recommending that the City Council approve the requested Stage 1 Planned Development (PD) Rezoning and new Stage 2 Development Plan consistent with the requested land use amendments; and WHEREAS, proper notice of said public hearing was given in all respects as required by law; and WHEREAS, a Staff Report was submitted recommending that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the Site Development Review and Vesting Tentative Tract 8164 (Lot 3); and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did hold a public hearing on said application on January 28, 2014, for this project 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 Planning Commission of the City of Dublin hereby makes the following findings and determinations regarding the proposed Site Development Review for 122 townhouse/condominium units on Lot 3 of Tract 8164 located along the north side of Dublin Boulevard between Keegan Street and Lockhart Street: Site Development Review: A. The proposal is consistent with the purposes of Chapter 8.104 of the Zoning Ordinance, with the General Plan and any applicable Specific Plans and design guidelines because: 1) The project will not undermine the architectural character and scale of development in which the proposed project is to be located; 2) the project will provide a unique, varied, and distinct housing opportunity; 3) the project is consistent with the General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Land Use designation of Medium-High Density Residential; and 4) the project complies with the development standards established in the Planned Development Plan. B. The proposal is consistent with the provisions of Title 8, Zoning Ordinance because. 1) the project contributes to orderly, attractive, and harmonious site and structural development compatible with the intended use, proposed subdivision for townhouse/condominiums, and the surrounding properties; and 2) the project complies with the development regulations set forth in the Zoning Ordinance where applicable and as adopted for PD PLPA 2013-00034. 2 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 size and mass of the proposed units are consistent with other residential developments in the surrounding area; 2) the project will contribute to housing opportunities and diversity of product type as a complement to the surrounding neighborhoods; and 3) the project will serve the current buyer profile and market segment anticipated for this area. D. The subject site is suitable for the type and intensity of the approved development because: 1) the project site originally was approved and graded for of more than twice the number of units proposed currently and can accommodate the proposed structures and uses; 2) the proposed townhouse structures to be developed on the property meet all of the development standards established to regulate development in the neighborhood overall as referenced in the adopted Stage 1 Planned Development Regulations and the approved Stage 2 Development Plan; and 3) the project will complete the three-phase multi-family residential project originally approved as The Groves/Fairway Ranch within the Dublin Ranch planned community. E. Impacts to existing slopes and topographic features are addressed because: 1) with exception of sidewalks and landscaping, the perimeter infrastructure is complete; 2) the project site will be slightly re-graded in accordance with the related Tract Map for the proposed townhouse/condominium project, and 3) retaining walls will be constructed as required to support grade differentials between building envelopes and setback or right-of-way areas. 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 development reflects the multi-family character of housing in the general vicinity; 2) the townhouse structures reflect the architectural styles and development standards for other Medium—High Density Residential projects in the area; 3) the materials proposed will be consistent with multi-family projects in the area; and 4) the color and materials proposed will be coordinated among the structures on site. 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, walls, fences, and hardscape are proposed for construction in accordance with the master plan; and 2) landscaping in common areas is coordinated through a series of paseos and footpaths; 3) common area open space has been provided in the form of a pocket park; and 4) the project will conform to the requirements of the Stage 2 Development Plan and the Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance. H. The site has been adequately designed to ensure the proper circulation for bicyclist, pedestrians, and automobiles because. 1) all infrastructure including streets, parkways, pathways, sidewalks, and streetlighting are proposed for construction in 3 accordance with the Dublin Ranch master plan; and 2) development of this project will conform to the major improvements already installed allowing residents the safe and efficient use of these facilities. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Planning Commission of the City of Dublin hereby makes the following findings and determinations regarding Vesting Tentative Map 8164 (Lot 3): Vesting Tentative Tract 8164 (Lot 3) A. The proposed Vesting Tentative Map 8164 (Lot 3) is consistent with the intent of applicable subdivision regulations and related ordinances for Dublin Ranch and the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan area. B. The design and improvements of the proposed Vesting Tentative Map 8164 (Lot 3) are consistent with the General Plan and the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan, as amended, as they relate to the subject property in that it is a subdivision for implementation consistent with adjacent residential neighborhoods designated for this type of development. C. The proposed Vesting Tentative Map 8164 is consistent with the Planned Development zoning approved for Project through the Planned Development zoning adopted for this project and therefore consistent with the City of Dublin Zoning Ordinance. D. The properties created by the proposed Vesting Tentative Map 8164 (Lot 3) will have adequate access to major constructed or planned improvements as part of the Dublin Ranch master plan. E. Project design, architecture, and concept have been integrated with topography of the project site created by the proposed Vesting Tentative Tract Map 8134 (Lot 3) to incorporate water quality measures and minimize overgrading and extensive use of retaining walls. Therefore, the proposed subdivision is physically suitable for the type and intensity of development proposed. F. The Mitigation Measures and the Mitigation Monitoring program adopted with the program EIR for the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Area and Addendum would be applicable as appropriate for addressing or mitigating any potential environmental impacts identified. G. The proposed Vesting Tentative Map 8164 (Lot 3) will not result in environmental damage or substantially injure fish or wildlife or their habitat or cause public health concerns subject to Mitigation Measures and Conditions of Approval. H. The design of the subdivision will not conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large, or access through or use of property within the proposed subdivision. The City Engineer has reviewed the map and title report and has not found any conflicting easements of this nature. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Planning Commission of the City of Dublin hereby recommends approval of the Site Development Review for the proposed project of 122 4 townhouse/condominium units within the 8.8-acre site (6.36 net acres) based on findings that the proposed project is consistent with the General Plan, the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan, the Stage 1 Planned Development Rezoning, and Stage 2 Development Plan and as shown on plans prepared by MacKay and Somps, KTGY Group Architecture + Planning, and R3 Studios Landscape Architecture dated received January 22, 2014 subject to the conditions included below. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Planning Commission of the City of Dublin hereby recommends approval of Vesting Tentative Map 8164 (Lot 3) for 122 townhouse/condominium units within the 8.8-acre site (6.36 net acres) prepared by MacKay & Somps dated January 22, 2014 subject to the conditions included below. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: Unless stated otherwise, all Conditions of Approval shall be complied with prior to the issuance of building permits or establishment of use, and shall be subject to Planning Department review and approval. The following codes represent those departments/agencies responsible for monitoring compliance of the conditions of approval. 1PL.1 Planning, [Bl Building, [PO1 Police, [PWI Public Works [P&CS1 Parks & Community Services, [ADMI Administration/City Attorney, [FINI Finance, [Fl Alameda County Fire Department, [DSRI Dublin San Ramon Services District, [C01 Alameda County Department of Environmental Health, [Z71 Zone 7. NO. Agency When Source CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Required, Prior to: PLANNING DIVISION 1. Approval. This Site Development Review PL Ongoing Standard approval is for the construction of 122 townhouses for the project known as The Groves at Dublin Ranch (Lot 3) within the Fairway Ranch neighborhood of Dublin Ranch. This approval shall be as generally depicted and indicated on the plans prepared by MacKay & Somps, KTGY Architects and R3 Studios dated received January 22, 2014 and on file in the Community Development Department, and as specified by the following Conditions of Approval for this project. 2. Permit Expiration: Construction or use shall PL One year from Standard commence within one (1) year of Site approval Development Review (SDR) approval, or the SDR shall lapse and become null and void. Commencement of construction or use means the actual construction or use pursuant to the approval, or demonstrating substantial progress toward commencing such use. If there is a dispute as to whether the SDR has expired, the City may hold a noticed public hearing to determine the matter. Such a determination may 5 NO. Agency When Source CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Required, Prior to: be processed concurrently with revocation proceedings in appropriate circumstances. If a SDR expires, a new application must be made and processed according to the requirements of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance. 3. Satellite Dishes: Prior to the issuance of PL On-going DMC Building Permits, the Developer's Architect shall 8.96.020. prepare a plan for review and approval by the D Director of Community Development and the Chief Building Official that provides a consistent and unobtrusive location for the placement of individual satellite dishes. Individual conduit will be run from the individual residential unit to the location on the building to limit the amount of exposed cable required to activate any satellite dish. It is preferred that where chimneys exist, that the mounting of the dish be incorporated into the chimney. In instances where the buildings have mechanical wells (Neighborhoods 4 and 6) that those buildings provide locations within the well for individual unit connections. In instances where neither chimneys nor mechanical wells exist, then the plan shall show a common and consistent location for satellite dish placement to eliminate the over proliferation, haphazard and irregular placement. The Covenants Conditions and Restrictions (CC&R's) shall contain language stating that the individual units contain conduit and central locations for satellite dish connections and failure to use those conduits and locations (if the resident has or wants a satellite dish) will constitute a violation of those CC&R's. The penalty for that violation shall be specified. Additionally, prior to the issuance of building permits, the developer shall prepare a disclosure statement to be signed by every first time home purchaser indicating that utilizing this dedicated conduit and central mounting location is a requirement if a satellite dish is installed. 4. Compliance with previous approvals: Any PL On-going Standard Conditions of Approval for Tract 7453 that remain incomplete and that are related to development of Lot 3 shall be satisfied. 6 NO. Agency When Source CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Required, Prior to: 5. Time Extension. The original approving PL One year Standard decision-maker may, upon the Applicant's written following request for an extension of approval prior to approval date expiration, and upon the determination that any Conditions of Approval remain adequate to assure that applicable findings of approval will continue to be met, grant a time extension of approval for a period not to exceed six (6) months. All time extension requests shall be noticed and a public hearing or public meeting shall be held as required by the particular Permit. 6. Effective Date. This approval shall become PL Ongoing Planning effective on the effective date of the following entitlements: 1. Resolution amending the General Plan and the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan for the project; and 2. Ordinance approving a Planned Development Rezone with a related State 1 and Stage 2 Development Plan for the project. If the above entitlements do not take effect, the SDR/Tentative Map approval is null and void. 7. Revocation of permit. The permit shall be PL Ongoing Standard revocable for cause in accordance with Chapter 8.96 of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance. Any violation of the terms or conditions of this permit shall be subject to citation. 8. Required Permits. Applicant/Developer shall PL, PW Issuance of Standard comply with the City of Dublin Zoning Ordinance Building Permits and obtain all necessary permits required by other agencies (Alameda County Flood Control District Zone 7, California Department of Fish and Game, Army Corps of Engineers, Regional Water Quality Control Board, State Water Quality Control Board) and shall submit copies of the permits to the Public Works Department. 9. Requirements and Standard Conditions. The Various Issuance of Standard Applicant/Developer shall comply with applicable Building Permits Alameda County Fire, 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 NO. Agency When Source CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Required, Prior to: 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 Developer shall supply written statements from each such agency or department to the Planning Department, indicating that all applicable conditions required have been or will be met. 10. Modifications: The Community Development PL On-going Standard Director may consider modifications or changes to this Site Development Review approval if the modifications or changes proposed comply with Section 8.104.100 of the Zoning Ordinance. 11. Indemnification: The Applicant/Developer shall PL, B Ongoing Standard defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City of Dublin and its agents, officers, and employees from any claim, action, or proceeding against the City of Dublin or its agents, officers, or employees to attack, set aside, void, or annul an approval of the City of Dublin or its advisory agency, appeal board, Planning Commission, City Council, Community Development Director, Zoning Administrator, or any other department, committee, or agency of the City to the extent such actions are brought within the time period required by Government Code Section 66499.37 or other applicable law; provided, however, that The Applicant/Developer's duty to so defend, indemnify, and hold harmless shall be subject to the City's promptly notifying The Applicant/Developer of any said claim, action, or proceeding and the City's full cooperation in the defense of such actions or proceedings. 12. Clean up. The Applicant/Developer shall be PL Ongoing Standard responsible for clean-up and disposal of project related trash and for maintaining a clean, litter- free site. 13. Controlling Activities. The Applicant /Developer PO, PL Ongoing Standard shall control all activities on the project site so as not to create a nuisance to the surrounding residences. 14. Noise/Nuisances. No loudspeakers or amplified PO, PL Ongoing Standard music shall be permitted to project or be placed outside of the residential buildings during construction. 8 NO. Agency When Source CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Required, Prior to: 15. Accessory Structures. The use of any PL, B, Ongoing Standard accessory structures, such as storage sheds or F 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. 16. Final building and site development plans shall PL Issuance of Project be reviewed and approved by the Community building permit Specific Development Department staff prior to the issuance of a building permit. All such plans shall insure: a. That standard residential security requirements as established by the Dublin Police Department are provided. b. That ramps, special parking spaces, signing, and other appropriate physical features for the handicapped, are provided throughout the site for all publicly used facilities. c. That continuous concrete curbing is provided for all parking stalls, if necessary. d. That exterior lighting of the building and site is not directed onto adjacent properties and the light source is shielded from direct offsite viewing. e. That all mechanical equipment, including air conditioning condensers, electrical and gas meters, is architecturally screened from view, and that electrical transformers are either underground or architecturally screened. f. That all vents, gutters, downspouts, flashings, etc., are painted to match the color of adjacent surface. g. That all materials and colors are to be as approved by the Dublin Community Development Department. Once constructed or installed, all improvements are to be maintained in accordance with the approved plans. Any changes, which affect the exterior character, shall be resubmitted to the Dublin Community Development Department for approval. h. That all exterior architectural elements visible 9 NO. Agency When Source CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Required, Prior to: from view and not detailed on the plans be finished in a style and in materials in harmony with the exterior of the building. All materials shall wrap to the inside corners and terminate at a perpendicular wall plane. i. That all other public agencies that require review of the project are supplied with copies of the final building and site plans and that compliance is obtained with at least their minimum Code requirements. 17. Fees. The Applicant/Developer shall pay all PW Zone 7 and Standard applicable fees in effect at the time of building Parkland In-Lieu permit issuance including, but not limited to, Fees Due Prior Planning fees, Building fees, Dublin San Ramon to Filing Each Services District fees, Public Facilities fees, Final Map; Other Dublin Unified School District School Impact fees, Fees Required Public Works Traffic Impact fees, City of Dublin with Issuance of Fire Services fees, Noise Mitigation fees, Building Permits Inclusionary Housing In-Lieu fees, Alameda County Flood and Water Conservation District (Zone 7) Drainage and Water Connection fees, and any other fees either in effect at the time and/or as noted in the Development Agreement. 18. Sound Attenuation. The project shall comply PL Issuance of Project with the sound attenuation measures (mitigation Building Permits Specific measures) recommended in the sound study dated 25-February-2013 by Charles M. Salter Associates. 19. Affordable Housing Agreement. The project is PL Occupancy Project subject to an Affordable Housing adopted by Specific Ordinance 08-03 which shall be in place prior to the first occupancy. 20. Final landscape plans, irrigation system plans, PL Issuance of Standard tree preservation techniques, and guarantees, building permit shall be reviewed and approved by the Dublin Planning Division prior to the issuance of the building permit. All such submittals shall insure: a. That plant material is utilized which will be capable of healthy growth within the given range of soil and climate. b. That proposed landscape screening is of a height and density so that it provides a positive visual impact within three years from the time of planting. 10 NO. Agency When Source CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Required, Prior to: c. That unless unusual circumstances prevail, at least 75% of the proposed trees on the site are a minimum of 15 gallons in size, and at least 50% of the proposed shrubs on the site are minimum of 5 gallons in size. 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 master vesting tentative map and conditions detailed in the Site Development Review packet. g. That all cut and fill slopes graded and not constructed by September 1, of any given year, are hydroseeded with perennial or native grasses and flowers, and that stock piles of loose soil existing on that date are hydroseeded in a similar manner. h. That the area under the drip line of all existing oaks, walnuts, etc., which are to be saved are fenced during construction and grading operations and no activity is permitted under them that will cause soil compaction or damage to the tree, if applicable. i. 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. j. That a permanent maintenance agreement on all landscaping will be required from the owner insuring regular irrigation, fertilization and weed abatement, if applicable. 21. Water Efficient Landscaping Regulations: The PL Ongoing Standard Applicant shall meet all requirements of the City of Dublin's Water-Efficient Landscaping Regulations, Section 8.88 of the Dublin Municipal Code.[PN] 22, I Landscape Plans. Civil Improvement PlansT PL Ongoing Standard >> NO. Agency When Source CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Required, Prior to: Joint Trench Plans, Street Lighting Plans and Landscape Improvement Plans shall be submitted on the same size sheet and plotted at the same drawing scale for consistency, improved legibility and interdisciplinary coordination. 23. Utilities. Utilities shall be coordinated with PL Ongoing Standard proposed tree placements to eliminate conflicts between trees and utilities. Utilities may have to be relocated in order to provide the required separation between the trees and utilities. 24. Open Space Areas. The open space area shall PL Ongoing Standard be planted and irrigated to create landscape that is attractive, conserves water, and requires minimal maintenance. 25. Plant Clearances. All trees planted shall meet PL Ongoing Standard the following clearances: a. 6' from the face of building walls or roof eaves. b. 7' from fire hydrants, storm drains, sanitary sewers and/or gas lines. c. 5' from top of wing of driveways, mailboxes, water, telephone and/or electrical mains d. 15' from stop signs, street or curb sign returns. e. 15' from either side of street lights. 26. Cut and Fill Areas. Cut and fill slopes graded PL Ongoing Standard and not landscaped by September 1, of any given year shall be hydroseeded with an approved native erosion control grass seed mix and that stockpiles of loose soil existing on that date are h droseeded in the same manner. 27. Irrigation System Warranty. The applicant shall PL Ongoing Standard warranty the irrigation system and planting for a period of one year from the date of installation. The applicant shall submit for the Dublin Community Development Department approval a landscape maintenance plan for the Common Area landscape including a reasonable estimate of expenses for the first five years 28. Sustainable Landscape Practices: The PL Ongoing Standard landscape design shall demonstrate compliance with sustainable landscape practices as detailed in the Bay-Friendly Landscape Guidelines by earning a minimum of 60 points or more on the Bay-Friendly scorecard and specifying that 75% of the non-turf planting only requires occasional, 12 NO. Agency When Source CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Required, Prior to: little or no shearing or summer water once established. 29. Public Art Project: The project is required to P&CS Issuance of Project comply with Sections 8.58.05A and 8.58.05D of building permits Specific Chapter 8.58 (Public Art Program) of the Dublin Zoning Municipal Code then the Applicant/Developer has Ord Chp elected to pay an in-lieu fee in accordance with 8.58 Chapter 8.58 of the Dublin Municipal Code and shall comply with the Public Art Compliance Report submitted by Applicant/Developer, dated December 19, 2013 and on file with the Planning Department. `' iW .2. - 30. General Public Works Conditions of Approval: PW Ongoing Standard Developer shall comply with the City of Dublin C of A General Public Works Conditions of Approval unless specifically modified by these Conditions of Approval. 31. Street Lighting Maintenance Assessment PW Final Map Standard District: The Developer shall request the area to C of A be annexed into a subzone of the Citywide Street Lighting Maintenance Assessment District and shall provide any exhibits required for the annexation. In addition Developer shall pay all administrative costs associated with processing the annexation. 32. Long Term Encroachment Agreement: The PW Final Map Project Developer shall enter into an "Agreement for Long Specific Term Encroachments" with the City to allow the HOA to maintain the landscape and decorative features within public Right of Way including frontage & median landscaping, decorative pavements and special features (i.e., walls, portals, benches, etc.) as generally shown on Site Development Review exhibits. The Agreement shall identify the ownership of the special features and maintenance responsibilities. The property owner will be responsible for maintaining the surface of all decorative pavements including restoration required as the result of utility repairs. 33. Joint Trench: The developer shall complete the PW Final Map Project installation of the joint trench along the Brannigan Specific Street as needed. 34. Storm Drain Treatment Measures: The PW Final Map Project developer shall install storm drain treatment Specific measures that comply with Section C.10 of the 13 NO. Agency When Source CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Required, Prior to: Municipal Regional Permit for Stormwater with regards to trash capture. The location and type of measures shall be approved by the City Engineer. Measures located on-site shall be maintained by the HOA; measures located within the public right- of-way and that accept public street runoff will be maintained by the City. 35. Traffic Impact Fees: The developer shall be PW Issuance of Standard responsible for payment of the Eastern Dublin Building Permits C of A Traffic Impact Fee (Sections 1 and 2), the Eastern Dublin 1-580 Interchange Fee, and the Tri-Valley Transportation Development Fee. Fees will be payable at issuance of building permits. 36. Eastern Dublin Traffic Impact Fee Minimum PW Issuance of Standard Payment: The developer shall be responsible for Building Permits C of A payment of a minimum portion of the Eastern Dublin Traffic Impact Fee in cash (11% Category 1 and 25% of Category 2), as specified in the resolution establishing the Eastern Dublin Traffic Impact Fee. These minimum cash payment shall be in addition to any other payment noted in these conditions and may not be offset by fee credits. PUBLIC WORKS GENERAL CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 37. The Developer shall comply with the Subdivision PW Ongoing Standard Map Act, the City of Dublin Subdivision, and C of A Grading Ordinances, 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. 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). 38. The Developer shall defend, indemnify, and hold PW Ongoing Standard harmless the City of Dublin and its agents, C of A 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 14 NO. Agency When Source CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Required, Prior to: Commission, City Council, Community Development Director, Zoning Administrator, or any other department, committee, or agency of the City related to this project to the extent such actions are brought within the time period required by Government Code Section 66499.37 or other applicable law; provided, however, that The Developer's duty to so defend, indemnify, and hold harmless shall be subject to the City's promptly notifying The Developer of any said claim, action, or proceeding and the City's full cooperation in the defense of such actions or proceedings. 39. In the event that there needs to be clarification to PW Ongoing Standard these Conditions of Approval, the Director of C of A 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 Developer to fulfill needed improvements or mitigations resulting from impacts of this project. AGREEMENTS AND BONDS 40. The Developer shall enter into a Tract PW Final Map Standard Improvement Agreement with the City for all C of A public improvements including any required offsite storm drainage or roadway improvements that are needed to serve the Tract that have not been bonded with another Tract Improvement Agreement. 41. The Developer shall provide performance (100%), PW Final Map Standard and labor & material (100%) securities to C of A guarantee the tract improvements, approved by the City Engineer, prior to execution of the Tract Improvement Agreement and approval of the Final Map. (Note: Upon acceptance of the improvements, the performance security may be replaced with a maintenance bond that is 25% of the value of the performance security.) FEES 42. The Developer shall pay all applicable fees in PW Zone 7 and Standard effect at the time of building permit issuance Parkland In-Lieu C of A including, but not limited to, Planning fees, Fees Due Prior 15 NO. Agency When Source CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Required, Prior to: Building fees, Dublin San Ramon Services District to Filing Final fees, Public Facilities fees, Dublin Unified School Map; Other District School Impact fees, Public Works Traffic Fees Required Impact fees, Alameda County Fire Services fees; with Issuance of Noise Mitigation fees, Inclusionary Housing In- Building Permits Lieu fees; Alameda County Flood and Water Conservation District (Zone 7) Drainage and Water Connection fees; and any other fees either in effect at the time and/or as noted in the Development Agreement. 43. The Developer shall dedicate parkland or pay in- PW Final Map Standard lieu fees in the amounts and at the times set forth C of A in City of Dublin Resolution No. 214-02, or in any resolution revising these amounts and as implemented by the Administrative Guidelines adopted by Resolution 195-99. PERMITS 44. Developer shall obtain an Encroachment Permit PW Start of Work Standard from the Public Works Department for all C of A construction activity within the public right-of-way of any street where the City has accepted the improvements. The encroachment permit may require surety for slurry seal and restriping. At the discretion of the City Engineer an encroachment for work specifically included in an Improvement Agreement may not be required. 45. Developer shall obtain a Grading / Sitework PW Start of Work Standard Permit from the Public Works Department for all C of A grading and private site improvements that serves more than one lot or residential condominium unit. 46. Developer shall obtain all permits required by PW Start of Work Standard other agencies including, but not limited to C of A Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation District Zone 7, California Department of Fish and Game, Army Corps of Engineers, Regional Water Quality Control Board, Caltrans and provide copies of the permits to the Public Works Department. SUBMITTALS 47. All submittals of plans and Final Maps shall PW Approval of Standard comply with the requirements of the "City of improvement C of A Dublin Public Works Department Improvement plans or Final Plan Submittal Requirements", and the "City of Map Dublin Improvement Plan Review Check List". 48. The Developer will be responsible for submittals PW Approval of Standard and reviews to obtain the approvals of all improvement C of A 16 NO. Agency When Source CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Required, Prior to: participating non-City agencies. The Alameda plans or Final County Fire Department and the Dublin San Map Ramon Services District shall approve and sign the Improvement Plans. 49. Developer shall submit a Geotechnical Report, PW Approval of Standard which includes street pavement sections and improvement C of A grading recommendations. plans, grading plans, or final map 50. Developer shall provide the Public Works PW Acceptance of Standard Department a digital vectorized file of the "master" improvements C of A files for the project when the Final Map has been and release of approved. Digital raster copies are not bonds acceptable. The digital vectorized files shall be in AutoCAD 14 or higher drawing format. Drawing units shall be decimal with the precision of the Final Map. 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. EASEMENTS 51. The Developer shall obtain abandonment from all PW Approval of Standard applicable public agencies of existing easements improvement C of A and right of ways within the development that will plans or final no longer be used. map 52. The Developer shall acquire easements, and/or PW Approval of Standard obtain rights-of-entry from the adjacent property improvement C of A owners for any improvements on their property. plans or final The easements and/or rights-of-entry shall be in map writing and copies furnished to the City Engineer. GRADING 53. The Grading Plan shall be in conformance with PW Approval of Standard the recommendations of the Geotechnical Report, grading plans or C of A the approved Tentative Map and/or Site issuance of Development Review, and the City design grading permits, standards & ordinances. In case of conflict and ongoing between the soil engineer's recommendations and City ordinances, the City Engineer shall determine which shall apply. 54. A detailed Erosion Control Plan shall be included PW Approval of Standard with the Grading Plan approval. The plan shall grading plans or C of A include detailed design, location, and issuance of maintenance criteria of all erosion and grading permits, and ongoing sedimentation control measures. NO. Agency When Source CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Required, Prior to: 55. Tiebacks or structural fabric for retaining walls PW Approval of Standard shall not cross property lines, or shall be located a grading plans or C of A minimum of 2' below the finished grade of the issuance of upper lot. grading o p its, o n 56. Bank slopes along public streets shall be no PW Approval of Standard steeper than 3:1 unless shown otherwise on the grading plans or C of A Tentative Map Grading Plan exhibits. The toe of issuance of any slope along public streets shall be one foot grading permits, back of walkway. The top of any slope along and ongoing public streets shall be three feet back of walkway. Minor exception may be made in the above slope design criteria to meet unforeseen design constraints subject to the approval of the City Engineer. IMPROVEMENTS 57. The public improvements shall be constructed PW Approval of Standard generally as shown on the Tentative Map and/or improvement C of A Site Development Review. However, the approval plans or start of of the Tentative Map and/or Site Development construction, Review is not an approval of the specific design of and ongoing the drainage, sanitary sewer, water, and street improvements. 58. All public improvements shall conform to the City PW Approval of Standard of Dublin Standard Plans and design improvement C of A requirements and as approved by the City plans or start of Engineer. construction, and ongoing 59. Streets shall be at a minimum 1% slope with PW Approval of Standard minimum gutter flow of 0.7% around bumpouts. improvement C of A plans or start of construction, and ongoing 60. Curb Returns on arterial and collector streets shall PW Approval of Standard be 40-foot radius, all internal public streets curb improvement C of A returns shall be 30-foot radius (36-foot with bump plans or start of outs) and private streets/alleys shall be a construction,and ongoing minimum 20-foot radius, or as approved by the City Engineer. Curb ramp locations and design shall conform to the most current Title 24 and Americans with Disabilities Act requirements and as approved by the City Traffic Engineer. 61. The Developer shall install all traffic signs and PW Occupancy of Standard pavement marking as required by the City units or C of A Engineer. acceptance of improvements 18 NO. Agency When Source CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Required, Prior to: 62. Street light standards and luminaries shall be PW Occupancy of Standard designed and installed per approval of the City Units or C of A Engineer. The maximum voltage drop for Acceptance of streetlights is 5%. Improvements 63. All new traffic signals shall be interconnected with PW Occupancy of Standard other new signals within the development and to Units or C of A the existing City traffic signal system by hard wire. Acceptance of Improvements 64. The Developer shall construct bus stops and PW Occupancy of Standard shelters at the locations designated and approved Units or C of A by the LAVTA and the City Engineer. The Acceptance of Developer shall pay the cost of procuring and Improvements installin these improvements. 65. Developer shall construct all potable and recycled PW Occupancy of Standard water and sanitary sewer facilities required to Units or C of A serve the project in accordance with DSRSD Acceptance of master plans, standards, specifications and Improvements requirements. 66. Fire hydrant locations shall be approved by the PW Occupancy of Standard Alameda County Fire Department. A raised Units or C of A reflector blue traffic marker shall be installed in Acceptance of the street opposite each hydrant. Improvements 67. The Developer shall furnish and install street PW Occupancy of Standard name signs for the project to the satisfaction of Units or C of A the City Engineer. Acceptance of Improvements 68. Developer shall construct gas, electric, cable TV PW Occupancy of Standard and communication improvements within the Units or C of A fronting streets and as necessary to serve the Acceptance of project and the future adjacent parcels as Improvements approved by the City Engineer and the various Public Utility agencies. 69. All electrical, gas, telephone, and Cable TV PW Occupancy of Standard utilities, shall be underground in accordance with Units or C of A the City policies and ordinances. All utilities shall Acceptance of be located and provided within public utility Improvements easements and sized to meet utility company standards. 70. All utility vaults, boxes and structures, unless PW Occupancy of Standard specifically approved otherwise by the City units or C of A Engineer, shall be underground and placed in acceptance of landscape areas and screened from public view. improvements Prior to Joint Trench Plan approval, landscape drawings shall be submitted to the City showing the location of all utility vaults, boxes and structures and adjacent landscape features and 19 NO. Agency When Source CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Required, Prior to: plantings. The Joint Trench Plans shall be signed by the City Engineer prior to construction of the joint trench improvements. CONSTRUCTION 71. The Erosion Control Plan shall be implemented PW Ongoing as Standard between October 15th and April 15th unless needed C of A otherwise allowed in writing by the City Engineer. The Developer will be responsible for maintaining erosion and sediment control measures for one year following the City's acceptance of the subdivision improvements. 72. If archaeological materials are encountered during PW Ongoing as 1993 construction, construction within 30 feet of these needed EDEIR materials shall be halted until a professional MM Archaeologist who is certified by the Society of California Archaeology (SCA) or the Society of Professional Archaeology (SOPA) has had an opportunity to evaluate the significance of the find and suggest appropriate mitigation measures. 73. Construction activities, including the maintenance PW Ongoing as Standard and warming of equipment, shall be limited to needed C of A Monday through Friday, and non-City holidays, between the hours of 7:30 a.m. and 5:30 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. 74. Developer shall prepare a construction noise PW Start of Standard management plan that identifies measures to be construction C of A taken to minimize construction noise on implementation surrounding developed properties. The plan shall ongoing as include hours of construction operation, use of needed 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. 75. Developer shall prepare a plan for construction PW Start of Standard traffic interface with public traffic on any existing construction; C of A public street. Construction traffic and parking may implementation be subject to specific requirements by the City ongoing as Engineer. needed 76. The Developer shall be responsible for controlling PW Ongoing Standard any rodent, mosquito, or other pest problem due C of A to construction activities. 77. The Developer shall be responsible for watering PW Start of Standard 20 NO. Agency When Source CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Required, Prior to: or other dust-palliative measures to control dust construction; C of A as conditions warrant or as directed by the City implementation Engineer. Ongoing as needed 78. The Developer shall provide the Public Works PW Issuance of Standard Department with a letter from a registered civil Building Permits C of A engineer or surveyor stating that the building pads or Acceptance have been graded to within 0.1 feet of the grades of shown on the approved Grading Plans, and that Improvements the top & toe of banks and retaining walls are at the locations shown on the approved Grading Plans. NPDES' 79. Prior to any clearing or grading, the Developer PW Start of Any Standard shall provide the City evidence that a Notice of Construction C of A Intent (NOI) has been sent to the California State Activities 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. 80. The Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan PW SWPPP to be Standard (SWPPP) shall identify the Best Management Prepared Prior C of A Practices (BMPs) appropriate to the project to Approval of construction activities. The SWPPP shall include Improvement the erosion control measures in accordance with Plans: the regulations outlined in the most current Implementation version of the ABAG Erosion and Sediment Prior to Start of Control Handbook or State Construction Best Construction Management Practices Handbook. The Developer and Ongoing as is responsible for ensuring that all contractors Needed implement all storm water pollution prevention measures in the SWPPP. 81. The Property Owner shall enter into an agreement PW Final Map Standard with the City of Dublin that guarantees the C of A perpetual maintenance obligation for all storm water treatment measures installed as part of the project. Said agreement is required pursuant to Provision C.3.h. of RWQCB Order R2-2009-0074 for the issuance of the Alameda Countywide NPDES municipal storm water permit. Said permit requires the City to provide verification and assurance that all treatment devices will be properly operated and maintained. This condition shall not apply if the water quality treatment measures are maintained by a GHAD or other 21 NO. Agency When Source CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Required, Prior to: public entity. 82. Keegan Signing and Striping: In conjunction with on-site improvement plans, developer shall review the intersection improvements at Dublin Blvd. and Keegan Street with City traffic Engineer relative to existing signing and stripping details and provide potential revisions necessary to satisfaction of City En ineer. Keegan Signing and Striping: In conjunction with on-site improvement plans, developer shall review the intersection improvements at Dublin 83. Blvd. and Keegan Street with City traffic Engineer relative to existing signing and stripping details and provide potential revisions necessary to satisfaction of City Engineer. Dublin Blvd. Temporary Sidewalk: Prior to the occupancy of the first unit within Lot 3, if the developer of Sub Area 3 has not begun grading 84 and construction of the southerly portion of Sub Area 3, the developer of Lot 3 shall build a temporary sidewalk 4 feet wide connecting the intersection of Lockhart Street with the entrance to Fallon Gateway. Frontage Improvements: Any public 85 improvements along the project frontage not currently constructed shall be constructed with development of this site. 86. Building Codes and Ordinances: All project B Through Standard construction shall conform to all building codes Completion and ordinances in effect at the time of building permit. 87. Retaining Walls: All retaining walls over 30 B Through Standard inches in height and in a walkway area shall be completion provided with guardrails. All retaining walls located on private property, over 24 inches, with a surcharge, or 36 inches without a surcharge, shall obtain permits and inspections from the Building Division. 88. Phased Occupancy Plan: If occupancy is B Occupancy of Standard requested to occur in phases, then all physical any affected improvements within each phase shall be required building to be completed prior to occupancy of any buildings within that phase except for items specifically excluded in an approved Phased Occupancy Plan, or minor handwork items, approved by the Community Development Department. The Phased Occupancy Plan shall 22 NO. Agency When Source CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Required, Prior to: be submitted to the Directors of Community Development and Public Works for review and approval a minimum of 45 days prior to the request for occupancy of any building covered by said Phased Occupancy Plan. Any phasing shall provide for adequate vehicular access to all parcels in each phase, and shall substantially conform to the intent and purpose of the subdivision approval. No individual building shall be occupied until the adjoining area is finished, safe, accessible, and provided with all reasonable expected services and amenities, and separated from remaining additional construction activity. Subject to approval of the Community Development Director, the completion of landscaping may be deferred due to inclement weather with the posting of a bond for the value of the deferred landscaping and associated improvements. 89. Building Permits: To apply for building permits, B Issuance of Standard Applicant/Developer shall submit five (5) sets of building permit construction plans to the Building Division 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. 90. Construction Drawings: Construction plans B Issuance of Standard shall be fully dimensioned (including building building permit 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. 91. Air Conditioning Units: Air conditioning units B Occupancy of Standard and ventilation ducts shall be screened from unit public view with materials compatible to the main building and shall not be roof mounted. Units 23 NO. Agency When Source CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Required, Prior to: shall be permanently installed on concrete pads or other non-movable materials approved by the Building Official and Community Development Director. Air conditioning units shall be located such that each dwelling unit has one side yard with an unobstructed width of not less than 36 inches. Air conditioning units shall be located in accordance with the PD text. 92. Temporary Fencing: Temporary Construction B Through Standard fencing shall be installed along the perimeter of all completion work under construction. 93. Addressing: B Issuance of Standard a. Provide a site plan with the City of Dublin's building permit address grid overlaid on the plans (1 to 30 and through scale). Highlight all exterior door openings on completion plans (front, rear, garage, etc.). (Prior to release of addresses) b. Provide plan for display of addresses. The Building Official and Director of Community Development shall approve plan prior to issuance of the first building permit. (Prior to permitting) c. Address signage shall be provided as per the Dublin Residential Security Code. (Occupancy of any Unit). d. Exterior address numbers shall be backlight and be posted in such a way that they can be seen from the street. 94. Engineer Observation: The Engineer of record B Scheduling the Standard shall be retained to provide observation services final frame for all components of the lateral and vertical inspection 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. 95. Foundation: Geotechnical Engineer for the soils B Through Standard report shall review and approve the foundation completion design. A letter shall be submitted to the Building Division on the approval. 96. Green Building: Green Building measures as B Through Standard detailed may be adjusted prior to master plan completion check application submittal with prior approval 24 NO. Agency When Source CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Required, Prior to: from the City's Green Building Official. Provided that the design of the project complies with the City of Dublin's Green Building Ordinance and State Law as applicable. In addition, all changes shall be reflected in the Master Plans. (Through Completion) The Green Building checklist shall be included in the master plans. The checklist shall detail what Green Points are being obtained and where the information is found within the master plans. (Prior to first permit) Prior to each unit final, the project shall submit a completed checklist with appropriate verification that all Green Points required by 7.94 of the Dublin Municipal Code have been incorporated. (Through Completion) Homeowner Manual — if Applicant/Developer takes advantage of this point the Manual shall be submitted to the Green Building Official for review or a third party reviewer with the results submitted to the City. (Through Completion) Applicant/Developer may choose self-certification or certification by a third party as permitted by the Dublin Municipal Code. Applicant/Developer shall inform the Green Building Official of method of certification prior to release of the first permit in each subdivision / neighborhood. 97. Electronic File: The Applicant/Developer shall B Issuance of Standard submit all building drawings and specifications for building permit this project in an electronic format to the satisfaction of the Building Official prior to the issuance of building permits. Additionally, 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. 98. Construction trailer: Due to size and nature of B Issuance of Standard the development, the Applicant/Developer, shall Building Permits provide a construction trailer with all hook ups for use by City Inspection personnel during the time of construction as determined necessary by the Building Official. In the event that the City has 25 NO. Agency When Source CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Required, Prior to: their own construction trailer, the applicant/developer shall provide a site with appropriate hook ups in close proximity to the project site to accommodate this trailer. The Applicant/Developer shall cause the trailer to be moved from its current location at the time necessary as determined by the Building Official at the Applicant/Developer's expense. 99. Copies of Approved Plans: Applicant/Developer B 30 days after Standard shall provide City with 4 reduced (1/2 size) copies permit and each of the approved plan. revision issuance 100. Cool Roofs. Flat roof areas shall have their B Through Standard roofing material coated with light colored gravel or completion painted with light colored or reflective material designed for Cool Roofs 101. Multi-Housing Crime Free Program. The B Ongoing Standard property management company shall participate in the City of Dublin Police Department's Multi- Housing Crime Free pro ram. 102. Security During Construction. PO, B, During Standard a. Fencing — The perimeter of the construction PW construction site shall be fenced and locked at all times when workers are not present. All construction activities shall be confined to within the fenced area. Construction materials and/or equipment shall not be operated or stored outside of the fenced area or within the public right-of-way unless approved in advance by the Public Works Director. b. Address Sign - A temporary address sign of sufficient size and color contrast to be seen during night time hours with existing street lighting is to be posted on the perimeter street adjacent to construction activities. c. Emergency Contact — Prior to any phase of construction, Applicant/Developer will file with the Dublin Police Department an Emergency Contact Business Card that will provide 24- hour phone contact numbers of persons responsible for the construction site. d. Materials & Tools — Good security practices shall be followed with respect to storage of 26 NO. Agency When Source CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Required, Prior to: building materials and tools at the construction site. e. Security lighting and patrols shall be employed as necessary. 103. Graffiti. The Applicant/Developer shall keep the PO, PL Ongoing Standard site clear of graffiti on a regular and continuous basis and at all times. Graffiti resistant materials should be used. Apr. ,.., �\,.:: £. •,f,,, `, ... . va�C�.jai _,. ^'r'3'.. �\ �:: a' 104. Prior to issuance of any building permit, complete DSRSD Ongoing Standard 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. 105. All mains shall be sized to provide sufficient DSRSD Ongoing Standard 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. 106. Sewers shall be designed to operate by gravity DSRSD Ongoing Standard flow to DSRSD's existing sanitary sewer system. Pumping of sewage is discouraged and may only be allowed under extreme circumstances following a case by case review with DSRSD staff. Any pumping station will require specific review and approval by DSRSD of preliminary design reports, design criteria, and final plans and specifications. The DSRSD reserves the right to require payment of present worth 20 year maintenance costs as well as other conditions within a separate agreement with the applicant for any project that requires a pumping station. 107. Domestic and fire protection waterline systems for DSRSD Ongoing Standard Tracts or Commercial Developments shall be designed to be looped or interconnected to avoid dead end sections in accordance with requirements of the DSRSD Standard Specifications and sound engineering practice. 108. DSRSD policy requires public water and sewer DSRSD Ongoing Standard lines to be located in public streets rather than in off-street locations to the fullest extent possible. If unavoidable, then public sewer or water 27 NO. Agency When Source CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Required, Prior to: easements must be established over the alignment of each public sewer or water line in an off-street or private street location to provide access for future maintenance and/or replacement. 109. Prior to approval by the City of a grading permit or DSRSD Ongoing Standard a site development permit, the locations and widths of all proposed easement dedications for water and sewer lines shall be submitted to and approved by DSRSD. 110. All easement dedications for DSRSD facilities DSRSD Ongoing Standard shall be by separate instrument irrevocably offered to DSRSD or by offer of dedication on the Final Map. 111. Prior to approval by the City for Recordation, the DSRSD Ongoing Standard Final Map shall be submitted to and approved by DSRSD for easement locations, widths, and restrictions. 112. Prior to issuance by the City of any Building DSRSD Ongoing Standard Permit or Construction Permit by the Dublin San Ramon Services District, whichever comes first, all utility connection fees including DSRSD and Zone 7, plan checking fees, inspection fees, connection fees, and fees associated with a wastewater discharge permit shall be paid to DSRSD in accordance with the rates and schedules established in the DSRSD Code. 113. Prior to issuance by the City of any Building DSRSD Ongoing Standard Permit or Construction Permit by the Dublin San Ramon Services District, whichever comes first, all improvement plans for DSRSD facilities shall be signed by the District Engineer. Each drawing of improvement plans shall contain a signature block for the District Engineer indicating approval of the sanitary sewer or water facilities shown. Prior to approval by the District Engineer, the applicant shall pay all required DSRSD fees, and provide an engineer's estimate of construction costs for the sewer and water systems, a performance bond, a one-year maintenance bond, and a comprehensive general liability insurance policy in the amounts and forms that are acceptable to DSRSD. The applicant shall allow at least 15 working days for final improvement drawing review by DSRSD before signature by the District Engineer. 28 NO. Agency When Source CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Required, Prior to: 114. No sewer line or waterline construction shall be DSRSD Ongoing Standard permitted unless the proper utility construction permit has been issued by DSRSD. A construction permit will only be issued after all of the items in Condition No. 9 have been satisfied 115. The applicant shall hold DSRSD, its Board of DSRSD Ongoing Standard Directors, commissions, employees, and agents of DSRSD harmless and indemnify and defend the same from any litigation, claims, or fines resulting from the construction and completion of the project 116. Improvement plans shall include recycled water DSRSD Ongoing Standard improvements as required by DSRSD. Services for landscape irrigation shall connect to recycled water mains. Applicant must obtain a copy of the DSRSD Recycled Water Use Guidelines and conform to the requirements therein. 117. Above ground backflow prevention DSRSD Ongoing Standard devices/double detector check valves shall be installed on fire protection systems connected to the DSRSD water main. The applicant shall collaborate with the Fire Department and with DSRSD to size and configure its fire system. The applicant shall minimize the number of backflow prevention devices/double detector check valves installed on its fire protection system. The applicant shall minimize the visual impact of the backflow prevention devices/double detector check valves through strategic placement and Ian dscapin . ARE DE 118. Fire apparatus roadways shall have a minimum F Improvement Project unobstructed width of 20 feet and an plans Specific unobstructed vertical clearance of not less than 13 feet 6 inches. Roadways under 36 feet wide shall be posted with signs or shall have red curbs painted with labels on one side; roadways under 28 feet wide shall be posted with signs or shall have red curbs painted with labels on both sides of the street as follows: "NO STOPPING FIRE LANE - CVC 22500.1". a) Fire apparatus roadways must extend to within 150 ft. of the most remote first floor exterior wall of any building. 29 NO. Agency When Source CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Required, Prior to: b) The maximum grade for a fire apparatus roadway is 12%. c) Fire apparatus roadways in excess of 150 feet in length must make provisions for approved apparatus turnarounds. 119. New Fire Sprinkler System & Monitoring F Improvement Project Requirements. In accordance with The Dublin plans Specific Fire Code, fire sprinklers shall be installed in the building. The system shall be in accordance with the current NFPA 13, 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. 120. Fire Alarm (detection) System Required. A Fire F Improvement Project Alarm-Detection System shall be installed plans Specific throughout the building so as to provide full property protection, including combustible concealed spaces, as required by 2010 NFPA 72. The system shall be installed in accordance with 2010 NPFA 72, 2010 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. 121. Gate Approvals. F Improvement Project Fencing and gates that cross pedestrian access plans Specific and exit paths as well as vehicle entrance and exit roads need to be approved for fire department access and egress as well as exiting provisions where such is applicable. Plans need to be submitted that clearly show the fencing and gates and details of such. This should be clearly incorporated as part of the site plan with details provided as necessary. • Automatic Gates. All electrically controlled 30 NO. Agency When Source CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Required, Prior to: gates shall be provided with an emergency gate over-ride key switch for fire department access. • Provide Public Safety radio repeater in parking garage. 122. Hydrants & Fire Flows. Show the location of any F Improvement Project on-site fire hydrants and any fire hydrants that are plans Specific along the property frontage as well as the closest hydrants to each side of the property that are located along the access roads that serves this property. Provide a letter from the water company indicating what the available fire flow is to this property. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 28th day of January 2014 by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Planning Commission Chair ATTEST: Assistant Community Development Director G:IPA#120131PLPA-2013-00033 DUBLIN RANCH Subarea 31PC Mtg 01.28.141PC Reso-Lot 3 SDR 1.28.14.doc 31 RESOLUTION NO. 14-XX A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT A RESOLUTION ADOPTING A CEQA ADDENDUM FOR THE DUBLIN RANCH SUBAREA 3 PROJECT PLPA 2013-00033 WHEREAS, the Applicant, Kevin Fryer, has submitted a Planning Application for residential development on Dublin Ranch Subarea 3 (Subarea 3) which would result in future development of up to 437 single family residences on an approximately 64 acre site. The project proposes General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan amendments to reallocate existing High Density Residential and Medium Density Residential land uses, to reduce and change Open Space land uses to Rural Residential/Agriculture and to increase the Stream Corridor designation. The application also proposes a Planned Development rezoning with related Stage 1 Development Plan. The applications are collectively referred to herein as the "Project"; and WHEREAS, the Project is in the General Plan Eastern Extended Planning Area and the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan area, for which the City Council certified a Program Environmental Impact Report by Resolution 51-93 ("Eastern Dublin EIR" or "EDEIR", SCH 91103064) on May 10, 1993 (resolution incorporated herein by reference). The Eastern Dublin EIR identified significant impacts from development of the Eastern Dublin area, some of which could not be mitigated to less than significant. Upon approval of the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan, the City Council adopted mitigations, a mitigation monitoring program and a Statement of Overriding Considerations (Resolution 53-93, incorporated herein by reference); and WHEREAS, the Project is located in Dublin Ranch Area B. On November 18, 1997, the City Council adopted a Negative Declaration (ND) for the Area B-E project (Resolution 140-97, incorporated herein by reference). The ND concluded that the potentially significant impacts of developing Areas B-E had been adequately described and analyzed in the Eastern Dublin EIR and that no new or more severe significant impacts would result from future development in Areas B-E; and WHEREAS, the Eastern Dublin EIR identified significant unavoidable impacts from development of the Eastern Dublin area, some of which would apply to the Project; therefore, approval of the Project must be supported by a Statement of Overriding Considerations; and WHEREAS, for the Subarea 3 Project, the City prepared an Initial Study to determine if additional review of the proposed Project was required pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15162. Based on the Initial Study, the City prepared an Addendum dated January 2014 describing the Subarea 3 Project and finding that the impacts of the proposed Project were adequately addressed in the prior EIR and ND; and WHEREAS, on January 28, 2014, the Planning Commission held a properly noticed public hearing on the Subarea 3 project, at which time all interested parties had the opportunity to be heard; and Page 1 of 3 Attachment 6 WHEREAS, a staff report dated January 28, 2014 and incorporated herein by reference described and analyzed the Subarea 3 project, including the related Addendum, for the Planning Commission and recommended adoption of the CEQA Addendum and approval of the Project; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered the CEQA Addendum as well as the prior CEQA documents, and all above-referenced reports, recommendations, and testimony before making any recommendation on the Project. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the foregoing recitals are true and correct and made a part of this resolution. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Planning Commission makes the following findings to support the determination that no further environmental review is required under CEQA for the proposed Project. These findings are based on information contained in the CEQA Addendum, prior CEQA documents, the Planning Commission staff report, and all other information contained in the record before the Planning Commission. These findings constitute a summary of the information contained in the entire record. The detailed facts to support the findings are set forth in the CEQA Addendum and related Initial Study, the prior CEQA documents, and elsewhere in the record. Other facts and information in the record that support each finding that are not included below are incorporated herein by reference: 1. The proposed Project does not constitute substantial changes to the previous projects affecting the Project site, as addressed in the prior CEQA documents, that will require major revisions to prior documents due to new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in severity of previously identified significant effects. Based on the Initial Study, all potentially significant effects of the proposed Project are the same or less than the impacts for the Eastern Dublin and Areas B-E projects which were previously addressed. The proposed Project will not result in substantially more severe significant impacts than those identified in the prior CEQA documents. All previously adopted mitigation measures continue to apply to the proposed Project and project site as applicable. 2. The Initial Study and Addendum did not identify any new significant impacts of the proposed Project that were not analyzed in prior CEQA documents. 3. The City is not aware of any new information of substantial importance or substantial changes in circumstances that would result in new or substantially more severe impacts or meet any other standards in CEQA Section 21166 and related CEQA Guidelines Sections 15162/3. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Planning Commission recommends the following to the City Council: 1. No further environmental review under CEQA is required for the proposed Project because there is no substantial evidence in the record as a whole that any of the standards under Sections 21166 or 15162/3 are met. 2. The City has properly prepared a CEQA Addendum and related Initial Study under CEQA Guidelines section 15164 to explain its decision not to prepare a subsequent or supplemental EIR or conduct further environmental review for the proposed Project. 2 of 3 3. The City Council adopt the resolution attached as Exhibit A (incorporated herein by reference) adopting the CEQA Addendum and related Initial Study (Attachment 1 to Exhibit A) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Sections 15162 and 15164 for the Project and make any further required CEQA findings. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 28th day of January 2014 by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Planning Commission Chair ATTEST: Assistant Community Development Director G:IPA#120131PLPA-2013-00033 DUBLIN RANCH Subarea 31PC Mtg 01.28.14wc reso_recom_addendum.doc 3 of 3 CEQA ADDENDUM FOR THE DUBLIN RANCH SUBAREA 3 PROJECT PLPA-2013-00033 JANUARY 28, 2014 On May 10, 1993, the Dublin City Council adopted Resolution No. 51-93, certifying an Environmental Impact Report for the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan ("Eastern Dublin EIR, SCH#91103064). The certified EIR consisted of a Draft EIR and Responses to Comments bound volumes, as well as an Addendum to the Eastern Dublin EIR dated May 4, 1993, assessing a reduced development project alternative. The City Council adopted Resolution No. 53-93 approving a General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan for the reduced area alternative on May 10, 1993. On August 22, 1994, the City Council adopted a second Addendum updating wastewater disposal plans for Eastern Dublin. The Eastern Dublin EIR evaluated the potential environmental effects of urbanizing Eastern Dublin over a 20 to 30 year period. Since certification of the EIR, many implementing projects have been proposed, relying to various degrees on the certified EIR. In 1997, a Negative Declaration was prepared for a General Plan Amendment, Specific Plan Amendment and Planned Development rezoning for approximately 453 acres of land, identified as Dublin Ranch Areas B-E and including Subarea 3 of Area B. The ND was approved by the City Council on November 18, 1997 by Resolution No. 140-97. The 1997 General Plan and Specific Plan amendments did not affect Subarea 3; the PD rezoning supplemented the prior prezoning and adopted a District Planned Development Plan and Land Use and Development Plan, in accordance with then-existing PD requirements (Resolution 141-97). The PD rezoning also included permitted uses, development standards and design guidelines applicable to Areas B-E, including Subarea 3. This Addendum has been prepared pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15164 for the project, as described below. Project Location and Description The project is located in the southeastern portion of the Eastern Extended Planning area of the City of Dublin as identified in the Dublin General Plan. More specifically, the project site is located south of Central Parkway, west of Fallon Road and north of Dublin Boulevard. Lockhart Street forms the western boundary of the site. The Alameda County Assessor's Parcel Number for the site is 985-0027-12. The current application includes construction of up to 437 Medium and Medium-High Density dwellings on the site, reserving 14.5 acres of the site for Rural Residential/Agriculture, a 2.0-acre stream corridor and a 2.0-acre Neighborhood Park on the site. The project would include grading of the site, extension of utilities and related improvements. Requested land use approvals include amendments to the Dublin General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan, a Planned Development rezoning and related improvements. Prior CEQA Analyses and Determinations As summarized above and discussed in more detail in the attached Initial Study, Subarea 3 of the Dublin Ranch property has been planned for urbanization since the Eastern Dublin approvals in 1993 and has been the subject of one subsequent Negative Declaration adopted in 1997. The Eastern Dublin EIR identified numerous environmental impacts, and numerous mitigations were adopted upon approval of the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan. For identified impacts that could not be mitigated to insignificance, the City Council adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations. No additional mitigation measures were included in the 1997 Negative Declaration. All previously adopted mitigation measures for development of Eastern Dublin identified in the Eastern Dublin EIR,that are applicable to the project and project site continue to apply to the currently proposed project as further discussed in the attached Initial Study. Current CEQA Analysis and Determination that an Addendum is Appropriate for this Project. Updated Initial Study. The City of Dublin has determined that an Addendum is the appropriate CEQA review for the Project, which proposed a minor amendment to the approved General Plan, Eastern Dublin Specific Plan and Planned Development zoning. If approved, the proposed project would change land uses on the project site as identified above. The City prepared an updated Initial Study dated January 28, 2014, incorporated herein by reference,to assess whether any further environmental review is required for this Project Through this Initial Study, the City has determined that no subsequent EIR or Negative Declaration is required for the plan and zoning amendments or the refined development details. No Subsequent Review is Required per CEQA Guidelines Section 15162. CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 identifies the conditions requiring subsequent environmental review. After a review of these conditions,the City has determined that no subsequent EIR or negative declaration is required for this project. This is based on the following analysis: a) Are there substantial changes to the Project involving new or more severe significant impacts? There are no substantial changes to the Project analyzed in the Eastern Dublin EIR, as supplemented by the 1997 Negative Declaration. The project is similar to land uses for the project site analyzed in the 1997 Negative Declaration. As demonstrated in the Initial Study,the proposed land uses for the site is similar to previously approved land used on the site and will not result in additional significant impacts, and no additional or different mitigation measures are required. b) Are there substantial changes in the conditions which the Project is undertaken involving new or more severe significant impacts? There are no substantial changes in the conditions Page 2 assumed in the Eastern Dublin EIR or the 1997 Negative Declaration. This is documented in the attached Initial Study prepared for this Project dated January 28, 2014. c) Is there new information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known at the time of the previous EIR that shows the Project will have a significant effect not addressed in the previous EIR; or previous effects are more severe; or,previously infeasible mitigation measures are now feasible but the applicant declined to adopt them; or mitigation measures considerably different from those in the previous EIR would substantially reduce significant effects but the applicant declines to adopt them? As documented in the attached Initial Study, there is no new information showing a new or more severe significant effect beyond those identified in the prior EIRs. Similarly, the Initial Study documents that no new or different mitigation measures are required for the Project. All previously adopted mitigations continue to apply to the Project. The previously certified EIRs adequately describe the impacts and mitigations associated with the proposed development on portions of the Subarea 3 property. d) If no subsequent EIR-level review is required, should a subsequent negative declaration be prepared?No subsequent negative declaration or mitigated negative declaration is required because there are no impacts, significant or otherwise, of the project beyond those identified in the Eastern Dublin EIR and previous CEQA documents for the site, as documented in the attached Initial Study. Conclusion. This Addendum is adopted pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15164 based on the attached Initial Study dated January 28, 2014. The Addendum and Initial Study review the proposed General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendments and the Planned Development rezoning amendment. Through the adoption of this Addendum and related Initial Study, the City determines that the above minor changes in land uses do not require a subsequent EIR or negative declaration under CEQA Section 21166 or CEQA Guidelines Sections 15162 and 15163. The City further determines that the Eastern Dublin EIR and the 1997 Negative Declaration adequately address the potential environmental impacts of the land use designation change for the project site as documented in the attached Initial Study. As provided in Section 15164 of the Guidelines, the Addendum need not be circulated for public review, but shall be considered with the prior environmental documents before making a decision on this project. The Initial Study, Eastern Dublin EIR, the 1997 Negative Declaration and all resolutions cited above are incorporated herein by reference and are available for public review during normal business hours in the Community Development Department, Dublin City Hall, 100 Civic Plaza, Dublin CA. Page 3 RESOLUTION NO. XX - 14 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN ADOPTING A CEQA ADDENDUM FOR THE DUBLIN RANCH SUBAREA 3 PROJECT AND ADOPTING A RELATED STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS PLPA 2013-00033 WHEREAS, the Applicant, Kevin Fryer, has submitted a Planning Application for residential development on Dublin Ranch Subarea 3 (Subarea 3) which would result in future development of up to 437 single family residences on an approximately 64 acre site. The project proposes General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan amendments to reallocate existing Medium High Density Residential and Medium Density Residential land uses, to reduce and change Open Space land uses to Rural Residential/Agriculture and to increase the Stream Corridor designation. The application also proposes a Planned Development rezoning with related Stage 1 Development Plan. The applications are collectively referred to herein as the "Project"; and WHEREAS, the General Plan amendment for Subarea 3 would change the land use designations as follows: reduce Medium-High Density Residential from 8.6 acres 7.5 acres and move this use from the northeast area of the site to the western area of the site along Lockhart Street; increase Medium Density Residential from 27.2 acres to 38 acres along either side of an open space corridor; designate 14.5 acres of existing Open Space as Rural Residential/Agriculture (as a partial replacement for 24.9 acres of existing Open Space land use designation proposed for residential and rural residential/agriculture use); and increase the existing designated Stream Corridor from 1.3 acres to 2 acres. No changes are proposed for the existing 2-acre Neighborhood Park designation; and WHEREAS, the project would also rezone Subarea 3 to the Planned Development zoning district and would approve a related Stage 1 Development Plan for future development of up to 437 dwelling units along either side of a stream corridor and open space area; and WHEREAS, the Project site is vacant and undeveloped, with two small hills in the northeast corner of the site. A vegetated stream corridor flows from the northwest corner for approximately 1,000 feet and is collected into a storm drain pipe in the middle of the site. The site is bounded by Central Parkway to the north, Dublin Boulevard to the south, Fallon Road to the east, and Lockhart Street to the west. WHEREAS, the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), together with the State guidelines and City environmental regulations, require that certain projects be reviewed for environmental impacts and that environmental documents be prepared; and WHEREAS, the Project is in the General Plan Eastern Extended Planning Area and the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan area, for which the City Council certified a Program Environmental Impact Report by Resolution 51-93 ("Eastern Dublin EIR" or "EDEIR", SCH 91103064) on May 10, 1993 (resolution incorporated herein by reference). The Eastern Dublin EIR identified significant impacts from development of the Eastern Dublin area, some of which could not be mitigated to less than significant. Upon approval of the Eastern Dublin General Plan Page I of 4 EXHIBIT A TO ATTACHMENT 6 Amendment and Specific Plan, the City Council adopted mitigations, a mitigation monitoring program and a Statement of Overriding Considerations (Resolution 53-93, incorporated herein by reference); and WHEREAS, Dublin Ranch Subarea 3 is in Dublin Ranch Area B in the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan area. On October 10, 1994, the City Council adopted Ordinance 4-94 prezoning the 1,538 acre Dublin Ranch to PD-Planned Development in accordance with the 1993 Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan. Following annexation of Dublin Ranch, the City Council adopted Ordinance 24-97 on December 2, 1997 rezoning Dublin Ranch Areas B-E to PD-Planned Development and adopting the then-required Land Use and Development Plan (LUDP) by Resolution 141-97. The LUDP established permitted uses, development standards and other regulations for future development of Areas B-E. Subarea 3 was anticipated for up to 485 units on approximately 64 acres of Medium High Density Residential and Medium Density Residential uses on either side of an open space corridor; and WHEREAS, on November 18, 1997, the City Council adopted a Negative Declaration (ND) for the Area B-E project (Resolution 140-97, incorporated herein by reference). The ND concluded that the potentially significant impacts of developing Areas B-E had been adequately described and analyzed in the Eastern Dublin EIR and that no new or more severe significant impacts would result from future development in Areas B-E; and WHEREAS, the Eastern Dublin EIR identified significant unavoidable impacts from development of the Eastern Dublin area, some of which would apply to the Project; therefore, approval of the Project must be supported by a Statement of Overriding Considerations; and WHEREAS, for the Subarea 3 Project, the City prepared an Initial Study to determine if additional review of the proposed Project was required pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15162. Based on the Initial Study, the City prepared an Addendum dated January 2014 describing the Subarea 3 Project and finding that the impacts of the proposed Project have been adequately addressed in the prior EIR and ND. The Addendum and its supporting Initial Study is attached as Exhibit A; and WHEREAS, on January 28, 2014, the Planning Commission held a properly noticed public hearing on the Subarea 3 project, at which time all interested parties had the opportunity to be heard; and WHEREAS, a Staff Report dated January 28, 2014 and incorporated herein by reference described and analyzed the Subarea 3 project and related Addendum for the Planning Commission and recommended adoption of the CEQA Addendum and approval of the Project; and WHEREAS, on January 28, 2014, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution 14-XX recommending that the City Council adopt the CEQA Addendum for the Subarea 3 project, which resolution is incorporated herein by reference and available for review at City Hall during normal business hours; and WHEREAS, a Staff Report dated 2014 and incorporated herein by reference described and analyzed the Subarea 3 project and related Addendum for the City Council and recommended adoption of the CEQA Addendum and approval of the Project; and 2of4 WHEREAS, on , 2014 the City Council held a properly noticed public hearing on the Project at which time all interested parties had the opportunity to be heard; and WHEREAS, the City Council considered the Addendum, as well as the prior EIR and ND and all above-referenced reports, recommendations, and testimony before taking any action on the Project. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the foregoing recitals are true and correct and made a part of this resolution. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council makes the following findings to support the determination that no further environmental review is required under CEQA for the proposed Subarea 3 Project. These findings are based on information contained in the CEQA Addendum, the prior CEQA documents, the City Council Staff Report, and all other information contained in the record before the City Council. These findings constitute a summary of the information contained in the entire record. The detailed facts to support the findings are set forth in the CEQA Addendum and related Initial Study, the prior CEQA documents, and elsewhere in the record. Other facts and information in the record that support each finding that are not included below are incorporated herein by reference: 1. The proposed Project does not constitute substantial changes to the previous projects affecting the Project site as addressed in the prior CEQA documents, that will require major revisions to the prior documents due to new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in severity of previously identified significant effects. Based on the Initial Study, all potentially significant effects of the proposed Project are the same or less than the impacts for project which were previously addressed. The proposed Project will not result in substantially more severe significant impacts than those identified in the prior CEQA documents. All previously adopted mitigation measures from the Eastern Dublin EIR continue to apply to the proposed Project and project site as applicable. 2. The Initial Study and Addendum did not identify any new significant impacts of the proposed Project that were not analyzed in the prior CEQA documents. 3. The City is not aware of any new information of substantial importance or substantial changes in circumstances that would result in new or substantially more severe impacts or meet any other standards in CEQA Section 21166 and related CEQA Guidelines Sections 15162/3. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Dublin finds the following: 1. No further environmental review under CEQA is required for the proposed Project because there is no substantial evidence in the record as a whole that any of the standards under Sections 21166 or 15162/3 are met. 2. The City has properly prepared an Addendum and related Initial Study under CEQA Guidelines section 15164 to explain its decision not to prepare a subsequent or Supplemental EIR or conduct further environmental review for the proposed Project. 3. The City Council considered the information in the Addendum and prior CEQA documents before approving the land use applications for the proposed Project. 3 of 4 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Dublin adopts the CEQA Addendum and related Initial Study, attached as Exhibit A (and incorporated herein by reference), pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Sections 15162 and 15164 for the Dublin Ranch Subarea 3 project. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Dublin adopts the Statement of Overriding Considerations attached as Exhibit B and incorporated herein by reference PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this day of 2014 by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk G:IPA#120131PLPA-2013-00033 DUBLIN RANCH Subarea 31PC Mtg 01.28.141cc reso_adopting addendum_and soc_Qan_2014).doc 4 of 4 Dublin ]ranch Sub Area 3 GPA & SPA PLPA-2013-00033 INITIAL STUDYI CEQA ADDENDUM Lead Agency: City of Dublin Prepared By: Jerry Haag, Urban Planner IE JAN 2 , 2114 January 28,2014 DLISLIt4 pI_ANNING EXHIBIT A Table of Contents Introduction ...................................................................................................................2 Applicant........................................................................................................................3 Project Location and Context ......................................................................................3 Prior Environmental Review Documents..................................................................3 ProjectDescription........................................................................................................4 Environmental Factors Potentially Affected.............................................................15 Determination................................................................................................................15 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts .......................................................................17 Attachmentto Initial Study .........................................................................................30 1. Aesthetics ...............................................................................................30 2. Agricultural and Forestry Resources .................................................33 3. Air Quality .............................................................................................34 4. Biological Resources .............................................................................36 5. Cultural Resources................................................................................43 6. Geology and Soils .................................................................................45 7. Greenhouse Gas Emissions..................................................................48 8. Hazards and Hazardous Materials ....................................................48 9. Hydrology and Water Quality............................................................51 10. Land Use and Planning........................................................................53 11. Mineral Resources.................................................................................54 12. Noise .......................................................................................................55 13. Population and Housing......................................................................57 14. Public Services.......................................................................................58 15. Recreation...............................................................................................60 16. Transportation/Traffic.........................................................................61 17. Utilities and Service Systems...............................................................64 18. Mandatory Findings of Significance ..................................................67 InitialStudy Preparers .................................................................................................68 Agencies and Organizations Consulted ....................................................................68 References ......................................................................................................................68 City of Dublin Environmental Checklist/ Initial Study Introduction This Initial Study has been prepared in accord with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and assesses the potential environmental impacts of implementing the proposed project described below. The Initial Study consists of a completed environmental checklist and a brief explanation of the environmental topics addressed in the checklist. Because the proposed project is generally based on the land use designations, circulation patterns etc. assigned to the project by the City of Dublin General Plan, the Initial Study relies on a Program EIR certified by the City in 1993 for the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan (the "Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report, State Clearinghouse No. 91103064). That EIR, also known in this Initial Study as the "Eastern Dublin EIR," evaluated the following impacts: Land Use, Population, Employment and Housing, Traffic and Circulation, Community Services and Facilities, Sewer, Water and Storm Drainage, Soils, Geology and Seismicity, Biological Resources, Visual Resources, Cultural Resources, Noise, Air Quality and Fiscal Considerations. In 1997, a Negative Declaration was prepared for multiple properties in the Eastern Dublin area, including Planning Area A (approximately 363 acres of land) and Areas B- E (approximately 468.5 acres of land), all located north of the I-580 Freeway, east of Tassajara Road and west of Fallon Road. This will be referred to as the "1997 ND," approved by the City Council on June 17, 1997, by City Council Resolution No. 140-97. This CEQA document analyzed amendments to the Dublin General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan, proposed Planned Development rezoning to ensure consistency between City zoning an the General Plan and the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan. The 1997 ND included the approximately 64 acres of land in Sub Area 3 of Planning Area B, which is the subject of this analysis. The subject of this Initial Study is a proposed General Plan and Specific Plan Amendment and a Planned Development (PD) rezoning with related Stage 1 Development Plan applications to develop portions of the 64-acre site located in the Eastern Dublin portion of the City of Dublin. The Development Plan includes construction of up to 437 dwellings at various densities and product types, internal roadways, open spaces and other related improvements. City of Dublin Page 2 Initial Study/Sub Area 3 Project January 2014 Applicant: Integral Communities 500 La Gonda Way, Suite 102 Danville CA 94526 Attn: Kevin Fryer (925) 899-5065 Project Location and Context The project is located in the southeastern portion of the Eastern Extended Planning area of the City of Dublin as identified in the Dublin General Plan. More specifically, the project site is located south of Central Parkway, west of Fallon Road and north of Dublin Boulevard. Lockhart Street forms the western boundary of the site. The Alameda County Assessor's Parcel Number for the site is 985-0027-12. Exhibit 1 depicts the regional setting of Dublin and Exhibit 2 shows the location of Subarea 3 in context with nearby features, including nearby roadways and adjacent creeks. The site is currently vacant and is characterized by relatively flat areas on the west side of the site with two small hills in the northeast corner rising to a height of 470 above sea level. The site generally slopes from northeast corner down to the southwest corner of the site. Slopes range from 5 to 50%. Two small "outparcels" are located in the southeast area of the site as identified on Exhibit 2. These parcels are not part of the application. In addition to the two small hills on the site. a vegetated stream corridor exists on the northwest portion of the property. The corridor extends for a length of approximately 1000 feet in a northwest-southeast direction. Land to the west of the site, west of Lockhart Street, has been developed for attached dwelling units or is vacant. Land north of the site is currently vacant and is planned for a future expansion of Fallon Sports Park. Property east of the site is vacant. Land use south of the project site includes a combination of commercial uses (Fallon Gateway Center) and vacant land. Prior Environmental Review Documents The project has been included in two previous CEQA documents, as noted below: Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan (State Clearinghouse #91103064). A Program Environmental Impact Report for the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment (Eastern Extended Planning Area) and the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan (EDSP) was certified by the City Council in 1993 by Resolution No. 51-93. This document and its related Addenda collectively are referred to as the "Eastern Dublin EIR" or "EDEIR." It evaluated the following impacts: City of Dublin Page 3 Initial Study/Sub Area 3 Project January 2014 Land Use; Population, Employment and Housing; Traffic and Circulation; Community Services and Facilities; Sewer, Water and Storm Drainage; Soils, Geology and Seismicity; Biological Resources; Visual Resources; Cultural Resources; Noise; Air Quality; and Fiscal Considerations. The City adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations (Resolution No. 53-93) for the following impacts: Cumulative loss of agriculture and open space land, cumulative traffic, extension of certain community facilities (natural gas, electric and telephone service), consumption of non-renewable natural resources, increases in energy uses through increased water treatment and disposal and through operation of the water distribution system, inducement of substantial growth and concentration of population, earthquake ground shaking, loss or degradation of botanically sensitive habitat, regional air quality,noise and alteration of visual character. The Eastern Dublin EIR was challenged in court and was found to be legally adequate. In 1994, the 1,538 acre Dublin Ranch portion of Eastern Dublin was prezoned to the Planned Development zoning district (Ordinance 4-94) and subsequently annexed to the City. 1997 Negative Declaration In 1997, a Negative Declaration was prepared for a General Plan Amendment, Specific Plan Amendment and Planned Development rezoning for approximately 453 acres of land, identified as Dublin Ranch Areas B-E and including Subarea 3 of Area B. The ND was approved by the City Council on November 18, 1997 by Resolution No. 140-97. The 1997 General Plan and Specific Plan amendments did not affect Subarea 3; the PD rezoning supplemented the prior prezoning and adopted a District Planned Development Plan and Land Use and Development Plan, in accordance with then-existing PD requirements (Resolution 141-97). The PD rezoning also included permitted uses, development standards and design guidelines applicable to Areas B-E, including Subarea 3. The related Negative Declaration and addressed all topics included in the standard CEQA checklist, updating them from the prior EDEIR analysis. . Project Description Overview. The proposed project includes construction of up to 437 attached and detached dwellings on the site, grading of the site, extension of utilities and related improvements. The applicant has requested approvals of the following in order to implement the project: amendments to the Dublin General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan and a PD rezoning with related Stage 1 Development Plan. Other City approvals, including but not limited to a Stage 2 Development Plan, a Site Development Review (SDR) permit and a Vesting Tentative Tract Map would be required to implement the proposed project. City of Dublin Page 4 Initial Study/Sub Area 3 Project January 2014 Existing Land Use Approval. The City of Dublin has approved a development plan for the site that would allow construction of up to 485 dwellings on the site (City Council Resolution 141-97, November 18, 1997) generally in the northeast and west/southwest portions of the site, on either side of the stream corridor and designated open space. Development Plan. The proposed Stage 1 Planned Development Plan is shown on Exhibit 3. As shown, residential development would generally occur in the western and north eastern portions of the site. A stream corridor located in a general northwest- south-east direction would fulfill environmental requirements for approved development projects elsewhere in Eastern Dublin. The southwest portion of the site would be reserved for Rural Residential/Agriculture uses, primarily open space. The City of Dublin, through the General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan, has previously approved a range of land uses on this site, consisting of a mix of Medium Density Residential, Medium High Density Residential, Stream Corridor, Open Space and Park. Existing land use designations would allow a range of 287 to 596 dwellings on the site as well as 24.9 acres of Open Space, a 2.0-acre Stream Corridor and a 2.0-acre Neighborhood Park. Proposed uses that would be allowed under the amended General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan and the Planned Development rezoning process would include 437 total dwellings units as shown on Table 1. Table 1. Proposed Development Summary-Subarea 3 Land Use Type Acres Max. Dwellings Density (du/ac.) Med. Density Residential 38.0 330 8.6 Medium High Density Residential 7.5 107 14.2 Rural Residential/Agriculture 14.5 -- -- Stream Corridor 2.0 -- -- Neighborhood Park 2.0 -- -- Total 64.0 437 -- Source: Project Applicant 2013 The proposed amendment would allow slightly fewer dwellings on the site than previously approved (485 approved v. 437 proposed) and would replace much of the current Open Space designated portion of the site with a Rural Residential/Agriculture (RR/A) land use designation. City of Dublin Page 5 Initial Study/Sub Area 3 Project January 2014 The applicant is proposing up to 107 multi-family dwellings in a row-condominium design. The proposal also includes up to 330 single-family homes. Proposed project design is described below. Circulation and access. Vehicular entry to the site would be provided for the southern portion of the site at the existing intersection of Finnian Way and Lockhart Street. A second access would be provided on the northern frontage along Central Parkway that would also provide access to Fallon Sports Park north of the project site. A traffic control device, either a stop sign or a traffic signal, would be installed at this intersection as determined by the Dublin Public Works Department. The internal circulation system is proposed to include a mix of local public residential streets and private alleys. Local residential streets would have a width of 36 feet, curb to curb, and a 5-foot wide sidewalk. A 10-foot wide paved meandering trail and access path is proposed along the stream corridor. The trail would be a continuation of an existing multi-use trail that starts in the north-central portion of the Dublin Ranch development. The trail would provide a pedestrian and bike connection between the north and south portions of the site. Building architecture and design. Sub Area 3 is proposed as a mix of residential densities and product types. The project would have the higher density townhome product along Lockhart Street to blend with the projects to the west of the project. As the project moves east the product would become less dense single-family homes. The northeastern corner of the project would accommodate single-family homes that would take advantage of the proximity of the project to the Fallon Community Sports Park to the north. The proposed architectural design for all products is a contemporary craftsman with a blend of materials including stucco, siding, brick veneer, concrete tile and standing seam metal roofs with decorative elements including balconies, and similar features. The residential townhomes are designed as a "6-pack " building cluster with six dwellings with front doors facing onto landscaped common paseos (open space areas). Garages of these units would be accessed from common alleys. The floor plans of these units are proposed to range in size from 1,902 s.f. to 2,170 s.f. Each of the units would have a private deck for outdoor use. The second housing type proposed in Sub Area 3 is a 3-story single family home to be located on a 30-ft. x 50-ft. lot. The front doors of this product would face either on a public street or on a common landscaped paseo. Garages would be accessed from private drive aisles. The floor plans include 3 and 4 bedrooms and range in size from 1,975 s.f. to 2,291 s.f. Each of the homes would have a private side yard for outdoor use. The third housing type proposed in Sub Area 3 is designed to be a single-family dwelling located on either a 38-ft. x 48-ft. lot or a 48-ft. x 48-ft. lot. This two and three story product would include 3-4 bedrooms with some plans offering optional 5t' City of Dublin Page 6 Initial Study/Sub Area 3 Project January 2014 bedrooms and range in size from 1,729 s.f. to 2,917 s.f. The front doors would front on a public street or on a common landscaped paseo, while the garages would be accessed from private drive aisles. Each home would have either a side or backyard for private outdoor use. The last housing type proposed for Sub Area 3 is a 6-unit cluster that would be located on 42, 45, and 54-foot wide and 48.5-foot deep lots. This product is designed to be more "traditionally oriented" with front doors off of the public street or adjacent to the garage on a private alley. The garages would be accessed from the public street or the private alley. This product ranges in size from 1,859 s.f. to 2,258 s.f. The majority of this product would be arranged into 6-unit clusters. Open Space. The existing stream corridor on the site would remain where it is currently located. A portion of the site (approx. 14.5 acres) is proposed to be redesignated from Open Space to Rural Residential/Agriculture which would allow for the flexibility of the site uses including allowing for viticulture. This would ensure that this portion of the site would remain undeveloped. Visually Sensitive Ridgelands. Two hills designated as "Visually Sensitive Ridgelands- Restricted Development" are located on the project site. The Eastern Dublin Specific Plan states that these hillsides are to remain to provide a distinctive visual feature as well as providing a screen for development. The Specific Plan allows for development on the north side of these hills as long as they follow the policies in the Specific Plan. The proposed development would shift one of the existing hills from its present location to the south to allow for less dense development on the north side of the hill. The hill would be re-graded to appear as a natural hillside and sensitive engineering design and gradual transitions are being proposed as well as revegetation to minimize visual impacts. For the majority of the northern portion of the site, the recreated hill would rise above the proposed development and block views of it. A small mound would be built on southeastern side of the development envelope and this area planted to screen any potential views to the proposed homes. As proposed, the relocation of the hill would comply with the intent of the Specific Plan to provide a distinctive visual feature and screening for development. The neighborhood behind the hillside has been designed to fit with the natural contours and the building pads would step down gradually to match the existing topography of the back side of the hill. Where feasible the graded slopes are 3:1 or less. The cut and graded slopes would be re-vegetated with native vegetation or vineyards. The second existing hill would be removed and graded to accommodate proposed development. Utility services. Domestic water, recycled and sewer service would be provided by Dublin San Ramon Services District (DSRSD). The project developer would be required to install mainline extension of sewer along the frontage, to the entrance of the project as well as the in-tract water and sewer lines and laterals. City of Dublin Page 7 Initial Study/Sub Area 3 Project January 2014 Preliminary storm drainage plans include collecting storm water runoff into a series of underground storm drain lines and transporting storm water flows in a southwest direction into a subregional stormwater detention and bio-filtration pond located immediately north of the I-580 freeway west of the site that has been sized to accommodate runoff from development of the site. Grading. The applicant proposes to grade the site to allow construction of the residential areas, roadways and related improvements. One existing hill on the site is proposed to be graded to accommodate proposed development with the other hill relocated to the south that would allow a portion of the development while screening the view of development from motorists along I-580. Grading is proposed to balance on the site. Retaining walls would be constructed on several of the proposed lots as well as in portions of open space areas. Erosion controls would be implemented during grading activities pursuant to City and Regional Water Quality Board requirements, as enforced by the City of Dublin, to protect surface water quality. Inclusionary housing. The project's inclusionary housing requirement has been satisfied with the construction of The Groves residential project just west of the project site. Requested land use approvals. A number of land use approvals are required from the City of Dublin to construct the project as proposed. These are described in more detail below. General Plan Amendment. The City of Dublin General Plan designates the Subarea 3 site as a mix of Medium High Density Residential, Medium Density Residential, Stream Corridor, Open Space and Neighborhood Park. The proposed General Plan land use designations would be generally consistent with current land use designations, but with a greater amount of Medium Density Residential and Open Space Uses and a smaller amount of Medium-High Density Residential. A portion of the current Open Space land use designation would be replaced with Medium Density Residential; most would be replaced with Rural Residential/Agriculture. Neighborhood Park and Stream Corridor uses would remain. Exhibit 3 shows existing and proposed General Plan land use designations. Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment. Similar to the requested General Plan Amendment, land use designations on the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan land Use Maps would be changed to be consistent with the amended General Plan. PD Rezoning with related Stage I Development Plan . Previously approved land uses on the site would be replaced by a new Stage I Development Plan to reflect the proposed project, as shown on Exhibit 3. In addition, the following City approvals are required in order to construct the proposed project. City of Dublin Page 8 Initial Study/Sub Area 3 Project January 2014 Stye 2 Development Plan, The Stage 2 approval would establish final land uses, land use intensity and development regulations for the project. Site Development Review (SDR). An SDR Permit is required to approve the exterior designs of structures, landscaping, project fencing, lighting and similar project details. Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map(s). Tentative and Final subdivision maps are required to create individual buildings lots, roads, easements and similar elements. City of Dublin Page 9 January 2014 Initial Study/Sub Area 3 Project 80 5 Antioc San 24 Francisco - oaklan t Project Site Dublin San so Tracy Francisco Pacific Ocean Bay S4 Livermore 80 8 Li 101 2377J' 8 0 " 10 Miles San Jose 85 9J 101 f Detail 17 Santa Cruz 52 �LCalifornia 52 EXHIBIT 1 REGIONAL LOCATION SUB AREA 3 1-06-2014 16:0:27 Ivilhauer P: 19]28 PLN CEOA Exhi—Re,,n,IL...G d. QTY Cps P 0 TY co Cpl AL A �OgptO� s A � � 4 E �� DUBLIN ,RANCH �<' DUBLIN RANCH DRIVE 1 °� MASTB CANNED a DUBLIN �a : A -- CENTRAL_ PARKWAY ,fir 3 SUBAREA 3 — — PROJECT AREA _—_-DUBLIN BOULE ARVAR D Z I-580 I-580 PLEASANTON W a EXHIBIT 2 SITE CONTEXT SUB AREA 3 I-08-2014 16:4}:}5 Wha— P:19728 PLN CEOA Exh2-Vc6nil uo.Gw 1 ► ► I \ -------- M SC RR/A NP III 7 NOTAPART ��- M H I ►w II LL' NOT APART / � II , h M / II • a 10 ��� i \% I I I ► � I II EXHIBIT 3 STAG E I P D DEVELOPMENT PLAN SUB AREA 3 1. Project description: Development of the site with up to 437 dwellings at various densities and product types, a park, open spaces and roads. The project includes, re-grading of the site, installation of retaining walls and related improvements. Requested land use entitlements include amendments to the Dublin General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan, a PD rezoning with related Stage 1 Development Plan. Future land use approvals are anticipated to include a Site Development Review (SDR) permit and a Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map(s). 2. Lead agency: City of Dublin Community Development Department 100 Civic Plaza Dublin CA 94568 3. Contact persons: Michael A Porto Consulting Planner (925) 833 6610 4. Project location: Generally located between Central Parkway and Dublin Boulevard west of Fallon Road and east of Lockhart Street. Assessor's Parcel Number 985-0027- 12 5. Project sponsor: Kevin Fryer of Integral Communities 6. General Plan designation: Existing: Medium Density Residential Medium/High Density Residential Park Stream Corridor Open Space Proposed: Medium Density Residential Medium/High Density Residential Park Stream Corridor Rural residential/Agriculture 7. Zoning: PD-Planned Development City of Dublin Page 13 Initial Study/Sub Area 3 Project January 2014 S. Other public agency required or potential approvals: • PD (Planned Development) rezoning with Stage 2 rezoning and Development Plan (City of Dublin) • Site Development Review (SDR) Permit (City of Dublin) • Vesting Tentative and Final Subdivision Maps (City of Dublin) • 1602/3 Streambed Alteration Permit (California Department of Fish and Game, possible); • State Incidental Take Permit (California Department of Fish and Game, possible); • Section 404 Permit including a Section 7 consultation (under the Endangered Species Act) from the United States Department of Fish and Wildlife (United States Army Corps of Engineers, possible); • Section 401 Clean Water Certification (San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board, possible); • Notice of Intent (San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board); • Issuance of encroachment permits (City of Dublin) • Issuance of building and grading permits (City of Dublin); and • Approval of water and sewer connections (DSRSD) City of Dublin Page 14 Initial Study/Sub Area 3 Project January 2014 Environmental Factors Potentially Affected The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "potentially significant impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. Aesthetics _ Agricultural - Air Quality Resources Biological _ Cultural Resources - Geology/Soils Resources Hazards and - Hydrology/Water _ Land Use/ Hazardous Quality Planning Materials Mineral Resources -- Noise -- Population/ Housing -- Public Services _ Recreation - Transportation/ Circulation -- Utilities/Service - Mandatory Systems Findings of Significance Determination (to be completed by Lead Agency): On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the proposed project could not have a significant effect on the environment and the previous Negative Declaration certified for this project by the City of Dublin adequately addresses potential impacts. _I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A Negative Declaration will be prepared. __I find that although the proposed project may have a significant effect on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on earlier analysis as described on the attached sheets, if the effect is a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated." A Supplemental Environmental Impact Report is required, but must only analyze the effects that remain to be addressed. X I find that although the proposed Project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be any new or substantially more severe significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects: a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR and ND pursuant to applicable standards; and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR and ND, including revisions or mitigation City of Dublin Page 15 Initial Study/Sub Area 3 Project January 2014 measures that are imposed on the proposed Project, except for those impacts which were identified as significant and unavoidable and for which a Statement of Overriding Considerations was previously adopted by the City. An Addendum to the Eastern Dublin Environmental Impact Report and the Dublin Ranch Planning Areas B-E Negative Declaration will be prepared. Signature: Date: t/111 It q Printed Name: �_ For: l City of Dublin Page 16 Initial Study/Sub Area 3 Project January 2014 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts 1) A brief explanation is required for all answers except "no impact" answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parenthesis following each question. A "no impact" answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g. the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A "no impact" answer should be explained where it is based on project-specific factors as well as general factors (e.g. the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project-specific screening analysis). 2) All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off-site as well as on-site, cumulative as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts. 3) Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then the checklist answers must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less-than-significant with mitigation, or less-than-significant. "Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect may be significant. If there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required. 4) "Negative Declaration: Less-than-Significant With Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less-than-Significant Impact." The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less-than-significant level (mitigation measures from Section 17, "Earlier Analysis," as described in (5) below, may be cross-referenced). 5) Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063 (c) (3) (D). The checklist will include a response "no new impact" in these circumstances. In this case, a brief discussion should identify the following: a) Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review. b) Impacts Adequately Addressed: Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. c) Mitigation Measures. For effects that were "Less-Than-Significant with Mitigation Measures Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project. City of Dublin Page 17 Initial Study/Sub Area 3 Project January 2014 6) Lead Agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential impacts (e.g. general plans, zoning ordinances, etc.). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated. 7) Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached and other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion. 8) This is a suggested form and lead agencies are free to use different formats; however, lead agencies should normally address the questions from this checklist that are relevant to a project's environmental effects in whatever format is selected. 9) The explanation of each agency should identify the significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question and the mitigation measures identified, if any, to reduce the impact to a less than significant level. City of Dublin Page 18 Initial Study/Sub Area 3 Project January 2014 Environmental Impacts (Note: Source of determination listed in parenthesis. See listing of sources used to determine each potential impact at the end of the checklist) Note: A full discussion of each item is found Potentially Less Than Less than No New following the checklist. Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact With Impact Mitigation 1. Aesthetics. Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic X vista? (Source: 1,3,4) b) Substantially damage scenic resources,including X but not limited to trees,rock outcroppings,and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? (Source: 1,3,4) c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character X or quality of the site and its surroundings? (Source: 6) d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare X which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? (Source: 1,4) 2. Agricultural Resources Would the project: a) Convert Prime Farmland,Unique Farmland or Farmland of Statewide Importance,as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland X Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency,to a non- agricultural use? (Source: 1,2,3) b) Conflict with existing zoning for agriculture use, X or a Williamson Act contract? (Source: 1,2,3) c) Involve other changes in the existing environment which,due to their location or nature,could result in conversion of farmland to a non- X agricultural use? (Source: 1,2,3) 3.Air Quality (Where available,the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management district may be relied on to make the following determinations). Would the project: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the X applicable air quality plan? (Source: 1,4) b)Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air X quality violation? (Source: 2,3) City of Dublin Page 19 Initial Study/Sub Area 3 Project January 2014 Potentially Less Than Less than No New Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact With Impact Mitigation c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase X of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors? (2,3.5) d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant X concentrations? (Source: 2,3,4) e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial X number of people? (Source: 5) 4.Biological Resources. Would the project a) Have a substantial adverse effect,either directly through habitat modifications,on any species X identified as a candidate,sensitive,or special status species in local or regional plans,policies or regulations,or by the California Department of Fish and Game or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?(Source: 2,3,4) b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian X habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans,policies or regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? (Source: 2,3,4) c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally X protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including but not limited to marsh, vernal pool,coastal,etc.) through direct removal,filling,hydrological interruption or other means? (Source: Source: 2,3,4) d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any X native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors,or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? (Source: 2,3,4) e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances X protecting biological resources,such as tree protection ordinances? (Source: 2,3,4) City of Dublin Page 20 Initial Study/Sub Area 3 Project January 2014 Potentially Less Than Less than No New Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact With Impact Mitigation f) Conflict with the provision of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan,Natural Community Conservation Plan or other approved local, X regional or state habitat conservation plan? (Source: 1,3,4) 5.Cultural Resources. Would the project a) Cause a substantial adverse impact in the significance of a historical resource as defined in X Sec. 15064.5? (Source: 2,3,5) b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archeological resource X pursuant to Sec. 15064.5 (Source: 2,3,5) c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique X paleontological resource, site or unique geologic feature? (Source: 2,3,5) d) Disturb any human remains,including those X interred outside of a formal cemetery? (3) 6.Geology and Soils. Would the project a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects,including the risk of loss,injury,or death involving: i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault,as delineated on the most recent Earthquake Fault Zoning Map X issued by the State Geologist or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault(Source: 2, 3) ii) Strong seismic ground shaking (2,6) X iii) Seismic-related ground failure,including X liquefaction? (2,3) iv) Landslides? (2, 3) X b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of X topsoil? (Source: 2,3) c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable,or that would become unstable as a result of the project and potentially result in on- X or off-site landslide,lateral spreading, subsidence,liquefaction or similar hazards (Source: 2,3) d) Be located on expansive soil,as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? X (Source: 2,3) City of Dublin Page 21 Initial Study/Sub Area 3 Project January 2014 Potentially Less Than Less than No New Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact With Impact Mitigation e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available X for the disposal of wastewater? (Source: 1,2) 7.Hazards and Hazardous Materials. Would the project: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport,use or disposal of hazardous materials X (Source: 2,3,5) b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the X environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? (Source: 2,3,5) c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous materials or acutely hazardous materials, X substances,or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? (Source: 2,3,4) d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Sec. 65962.5 and,as a result, X would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? (Source: 5) e) For a project located within an airport land use X plan or,where such a plan has not been adopted within two miles of a public airport of public use airport,would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? (Source: 2, 3) f) For a project within the vicinity of private airstrip, X would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? (Source: 2,4) g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with the adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? X (Source: 2,3) City of Dublin Page 22 Initial Study/Sub Area 3 Project January 2014 Potentially Less Than Less than No New Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact With Impact Mitigation h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss,injury or death involving wildland fires, X including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? (Source: 1,2,5) 8.Hydrology and Water Quality. Would the project: a)Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? (Source: 2,3 ) X b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer X volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g. the production rate of existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted? (2,3) c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of X the site or area,including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river,in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site? (Source: 2,3) d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of X the site or areas,including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river,or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site? (Source: 4,5) e) Create or contribute runoff water which would X exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? (Source: 5) f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? X (Source: 3,5) g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood X delineation map? (Source: 5) City of Dublin Page 23 Initial Study/Sub Area 3 Project January 2014 Potentially Less Than Less than No New Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact With Impact Mitigation h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood X flows? (Source: 3,5) i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss,injury,and death involving flooding, X including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? (3) j) Inundation by seiche,tsunami or mudflow? (5) X 9.Land Use and Planning. Would the project: a) Physically divide an established community? X (Source: 1,2,3.4) b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan,policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including but not limited to the X general plan,specific plan, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? (Source: 1, 2,3,4) c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? X (1,2,3,4) 10.Mineral Resources. Would the project a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the X region and the residents of the state? (Source: 1, 2) b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general Plan,specific plan X or other land use plan? (Source:1,2) 11.Noise. Would the proposal result in: a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise X levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance,or applicable standards of other agencies? (2,3) b) Exposure of persons or to generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise X levels? (Source:2, 3) c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise X levels in the project vicinity above existing levels without the project? (2,3) City of Dublin Page 24 Initial Study/Sub Area 3 Project January 2014 Potentially Less Than Less than No New Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact With Impact Mitigation d)A substantial temporary or periodic increase in X ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? (2,3) e) For a project located within an airport land use X plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working n the project area to excessive noise levels? (2, 3) f) For a project within the vicinity of a private X airstrip,would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? (Source: 2,4) 12.Population and Housing. Would the project a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, X either directly or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? (Source: 2,4) b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement X housing elsewhere? (4) c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement of X housing elsewhere? (Source: 4) 13.Public Services. Would the proposal: a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities,need for new or physically altered government facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service rations, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services? (Sources: 2,5) Fire protection X Police protection X Schools X Parks X Other public facilities X Solid Waste X City of Dublin Page 25 Initial Study/Sub Area 3 Project January 2014 Potentially Less Than Less than No New Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact With Impact Mitigation 14.Recreation: a) Would the project increase the use of existing X neighborhood and regional parks or recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated (Source: 2,5) b) Does the project include recreational facilities or X require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? (Source: 2,5) 15.Transportation and Traffic. Would the project: a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in X relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e. result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips,the volume to capacity ratio on roads or congestion at intersections)? (3,5) b) Exceed,either individually or cumulatively,a X level of service standard established by the County Congestion Management Agency for designated roads or highways? (3,5) c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns,including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in X location that results in substantial safety risks? (3,5) d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature(e.g. sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses,such as farm X equipment? (5) e) Result in inadequate emergency access? (5) X f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? (5) X g) Conflict with adopted policies,plans or programs X supporting alternative transportation (such as bits turnouts and bicycle facilities) (1,2) City of Dublin Page 26 Initial Study/Sub Area 3 Project January 2014 Potentially Less Than Less than No New Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact With Impact Mitigation 16.Utilities and Service Systems. Would the project a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the X applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? (2,3) b) Require or result in the construction of new water X or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities,the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? (2,3) c) Require or result in the construction of new storm X water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities,the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? (4,3) d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve X the project from existing water entitlements and resources,or are new or expanded entitlements needed? (3) e) Result in a determination by the wastewater X treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the providers existing commitments? (5) f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted X capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? (5) g) Comply with federal,state and local statutes and X regulations related to solid waste? (5) 17.Mandatory Findings of Significance. a) Does the project have the potential to degrade X the quality of the environment,substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels,threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, substantially reduce the number of or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? City of Dublin Page 27 Initial Study/Sub Area 3 Project January 2014 Potentially Less Than Less than No New Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact With Impact Mitigation b) Does the project have impacts that are X individually limited,but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects,the effects of other current projects and the effects of probable future projects). c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human X beings,either directly or indirectly? Sources used to determine potential environmental impacts 1. Eastern General Plan Amendment/Specific Plan 2. Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment/Specific Plan EIR 3 1997 Area B-E Negative Declaration 4. Discussion with City staff or service provider 5. Site Visit 6. Other Source XVII. Earlier Analyses a) Earlier analyses used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for review. Portions of the environmental setting, project impacts and mitigation measures for this Initial Study refer to environmental information contained in the 1993 Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report (State Clearinghouse No. 91103064), hereinafter referred to as the Eastern Dublin EIR. The Eastern Dublin EIR is a Program EIR which was prepared for the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan of which this Project is a part. It was certified by the Dublin City Council on May 10, 1993. Following certification of the EIR, the Council adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations for impacts including but not limited to: cumulative traffic, extension of certain community facilities (natural gas, electric and telephone service), regional air quality, noise and visual. The Eastern Dublin EIR reviewed transition of then vacant lands to urban uses over an approximately 20-30 year time frame. For Subarea 3, the EIR assumed land uses and patterns similar to those shown on the current General Plan and EDSP maps, with the stream corridor and open space through the middle of the site and residential to the northeast (MHDR) and west/southwest (MDR). City of Dublin Page 28 Initial Study/Sub Area 3 Project January 2014 The Eastern Dublin EIR contains a large number of mitigation measures which apply to this Project and which would be applied to any development within the Project area. Specific mitigation measures identified in the certified Eastern Dublin EIR for potential impacts are referenced in the text of this Initial Study. This Initial Study also relies on the Negative Declaration for Dublin Ranch Areas B-E, adopted by the Dublin City Council on November 18, 1997 through Resolution 140-97. The ND assumed a mix of residential and open space uses consistent with the existing General Plan and EDSP designations. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 and 15163, this Initial Study is intended to identify the potential for any new or substantially increased significant impacts on or of the project which were not evaluated in the Eastern Dublin EIR and the 1997 ND and which would require additional environmental review. City of Dublin Page 29 Initial Study/Sub Area 3 Project January 2014 Attachment to Initial Study Discussion of Checklist 1. Aesthetics Environmental Setting The project is set in an a portion of Eastern Dublin that is transitioning to urban uses under the auspices of the City of Dublin General Plan Amendment and Eastern Dublin EIR, adopted in 1993. The project site is characterized by two small but distinct hills in the northern and central portions of the site that slope to the south and west. The hills are identified as "Visually Sensitive Hillsides-Restricted Development" in the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan (see EDSP Figure 6.3). A small watercourse exists in the northwest corner of the site. No dwellings exist on the site. No public parks, scenic vistas or scenic overlooks are located on the site. As a largely rural area, minimal light sources exist on the project site. Major light sources adjacent to the site include lights from Fallon Sports Park to the north, lights from the Groves residential complex to the west and lights from the commercial center to the south. Regulatory framework Dublin General Plan.-The project area is included in the Eastern Dublin Extended Planning Area. Implementing Policy C.2 of the General Plan states that "proposed site grading and means of access will not disfigure ridgelands." Further, Implementing Policy C. 5 requires development projects to be consistent with all applicable General Plan and Specific Plan policies." Eastern Dublin Specific Plan. The City of Dublin adopted the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan (EDSP) in 1993 to guide the future development of approximately 3,300 acres of land in the eastern Dublin area. The Specific Plan includes a number of policies and programs dealing with visual resources, including but not limited to protection of ridgelines and ridgelands, scenic corridors, and hillside development. As noted above, the two hills are classed as "Visually Sensitive Ridgelands-Restricted Development" Previous CEQA documents Eastern Dublin EIR. The Eastern Dublin EIR contains a number of mitigation measures to reduce anticipated visual resource impacts from the General Plan and EDSP project. These include: • Mitigation Measure 3.8/1.0 reduced project impacts related to standardized tract development (IM 3.8/B) to a less-than-significant level. This mitigation requires City of Dublin Page 30 Initial Study/Sub Area 3 Project January 2014 future developers to establish visually distinct communities which preserves the character of the natural landscape by protecting key visual elements and maintaining views from major travel corridors. • Mitigation Measure 3.8/2.0 reduced the impact of converting the rural and open space character of the General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan area (IM 3.8/B) but not to a less-than-significant level. The mitigation measure requires implementation of the land use plan that emphasizes retention of predominant natural features. Even with adherence to this measure, IM 3.8/B would remain significant and unavoidable on both a project and cumulative level. • Mitigation Measure 3.8/3.0 would reduce the impact of obscuring distinctive natural features of the General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan area (IM 3.8/C) but not to a less-than-significant level. The mitigation measure requires implementation of the land use plan that emphasizes retention of predominant natural features. • Mitigation Measures 3.8/4.0-4.5 reduced the impact of altering the visual quality of hillsides (IM 3.8/D) to a less-than-significant level. These mitigation measures require implemtation of appropriate Eastern Dublin Specific Plan policies including but not limited to use of sensitive grading design to minimize grading, use of existing topographic features, limiting use of flat pads for construction, using building designs that conform to natural land forms, recontouring hillside to resemble existing topography and minimizing the height of cut and fill slopes. • Mitigation Measures 3.8/5.0-5.2 reduced the impact of altering the visual quality of ridges (IM 3.8/E) to a less-than-significant level. These mitigation measures limit development on main ridges that border the Specific Plan area to the north and east but are allowed on foreground hills, and would limit development in locations where scenic views would be obscured or would extend above a ridgetop. • IM 3.8/F analyzed alteration of the visual character of the Eastern Dublin flatlands. No mitigation measures were identified and the impact was identified as significant and unavoidable. • Mitigation Measure 3.8/6.0 reduced the impact of altering the visual quality of watercourses (IM 3.8/G) to a less-than-significant level. This mitigation measure protects Tassajara Creek and other stream courses from unnecessary alteration or disturbance, and adjoining development should be sited to maintain visual access to stream corridors. • Mitigation Measures 3.8/7.0 and 7/1 reduced impacts on scenic vistas (IM 3.8/I) to a less-than-significant level. These mitigation measures require protection of designated open space areas and directs the City to conduct a visual survey of the EDSP area to identify and map viewsheds. City of Dublin Page 31 Initial Study/Sub Area 3 Project January 2014 1997 ND. The 1997 ND updated the prior EDEIR analysis on aesthetics and visual resources and referenced a visual study prepared for the Area B-E project that identified refinements in project design to help address visual impacts. No additional potentially significant aesthetic impacts or mitigation measures were identified in the 1997 ND. The proposed project will be required to adhere to applicable mitigation measures related to aesthetics set forth in the Eastern Dublin EIR. Project Impacts a,b) Have a substantial adverse impact on a scenic vista or substantially damage scenic resources, including adjacent to a state scenic highway? No New Impact. The Eastern Dublin EIR identifies that implementation of the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan would result in a potentially significant impact (Impact 3.8/I), development on the project area [i.e. the Eastern Dublin planning area] will alter the character of existing scenic vistas and may obscure important sightlines). Adherence to Mitigation Measure 3.8/7.0 contained in the Eastern Dublin EIR reduced this impact to a less-than-significant impact. This measure requires the City to complete a visual assessment and guidelines for the Eastern Dublin area. The proposed project would include removing one hill area and relocating the southwestern hill to the south. The southwest facing slope of the retained hill would be planted with native grasses and vegetation to retain an open space appearance. This would screen proposed residential development on the north side of the hill from passersby on the I-580 corridor. The existing stream corridor on the western portion of the site would remain and be preserved as part of the proposed development. All of the mitigation measures contained in the Eastern Dublin EIR and the visual policies contained in the EDSP will apply to this project. No new or more severe impacts with respect to scenic vistas or scenic resources adjacent to a state scenic highway would occur than previously analyzed. No further analysis is required. C) Substantially degrade existing visual character or the quality of the site? No New Impact. The proposed project includes the consideration of a development plan on Subarea 3 of the Dublin Ranch. Aesthetic impacts would include disturbance of existing vegetation, grading of building pads and roads and construction of a mix of housing units where none now exist. The Eastern Dublin EIR addressed the following potential impacts related to visual and aesthetics impacts of adopting the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan: Impact 3.8/13: Urban development of the project site will substantially alter the existing rural and open space qualities that characterize Eastern Dublin The Eastern Dublin EIR identified one measure to mitigate this impact (Mitigation Measure 3.8/2.0, "Implement the land use plan for the project site which emphasizes retention of predominant natural features..."). Both the approved and current development plans on the project site would adhere to City of Dublin Page 32 Initial Study/Sub Area 3 Project January 2014 this mitigation measure by preserving on-site natural features (stream corridor and relocated hill). However the Eastern Dublin EIR concluded that even with adherence to this mitigation, alteration of rural and open space on the project site would remain a potentially significant impact. The proposed project would include grading and recontouring of a portion of the site, including one of the visually sensitive hillside areas to facilitate development on the project site. The proposed development plan would retain the south facing slope of the hillside as natural open space as required by the Eastern Dublin EIR. The Eastern Dublin EIR addresses the impact of visual change in the character or quality of portions of Eastern Dublin and included mitigation measures that reduced this impact to a less-than-significant level. No new or more severe impacts have been identified in this Initial Study with respect to this topic and no further analysis is required. d) Create light or glare? No New Impact. The 1997 ND identified this impact as less than significant. The project site contains minimal light sources and construction of the proposed project would add additional light sources in the form of streetlights along exterior and interior roadways as well as building and security lighting. The project area is in the process of transitioning to urban development. City of Dublin development requirements will be imposed as part of the normal and customary standard conditions to restrict spillover of unwanted light off of the project site once SDR and tentative map development applications are submitted. No new or more significant impacts would result with respect to light and glare than has been previously analyzed in previous EIR and ND and no additional analysis is required. 2. Agricultural and Forestry Resources Environmental Setting The Eastern Dublin EIR identifies the project site as a combination of "locally important farmland" and "other lands," (see EDSP Figure 3.1-13). Although it is likely that the site was historically used for grazing or other agricultural operations no agricultural operations have been observed on the project site during the preparation of this Initial Study. Figure 3.1-C contained in the Eastern Dublin EIR notes that a Williamson Act contract was previously in force on the site, but was non-renewed as of 1993 and has since expired. No other Williamson Act contracted properties exist on the site. No forests or major stands of trees exist on the site. Previous CEQA documents Eastern Dublin EIR. The Eastern Dublin EIR identified several potential impacts related to agricultural resources. Impact IM 3.1/C stated that discontinuation of agricultural uses would be an insignificant impact due to on-going urbanization trends in Dublin City of Dublin Page 33 Initial Study/Sub Area 3 Project January 2014 and the Tri-Valley area. Impact 3.1/D identified a loss of lands of Farmlands of Local Importance with approval and implementation of the General Plan and Specific Plan. This was also noted as an insignificant impact. Impact 3.1/F stated that buildout of Specific Plan land uses would have a significant and unavoidable impact on cumulative loss of agricultural and open space lands. Finally, Impact IM 3.1/E noted indirect impacts related to non-renewal of Williamson Act contracts. This impact was also identified as an insignificant impact. 1997 ND. No additional impacts to agricultural resources were identified in this document. Pro-ect Impacts a,c) Convert prime farmland to a non-agricultural use or involve other changes which could result in conversion of farmland to a non-agricultural use? No New Impact. No significant impacts were identified with respect to agricultural resources in previous CEQA documents listed above other than the cumulative loss of agricultural and open space lands. The EDEIR assumed the project site would be urbanized. No new conditions have been identified in this Initial Study with respect to conversion of prime farmland to a non-agricultural use and no new or more severe impacts would result than were analyzed in previous EIR and ND and no additional analysis is required. The proposed project would continue to contribute to cumulative loss of agricultural land and open space, which was identified as a significant and unavoidable impact in the Eastern Dublin EIR (Impact 3.1/F). b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? No New Impact. The City of Dublin has zoned the project site for a mix of residential uses, open spaces and a stream corridor. No Williamson Act contracts presently exist on the site nor are any agricultural operations on-going. No new or more severe impacts would result than have been previously analyzed in previous EIR and ND and no additional analysis is required. d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to a non forest use? No Impact. No forest land exists on the project site and no impact would result with respect to this topic. e) Involve other changes which, due to their location or nature, could result of forest land to a non forest use? No Impact. See item "d," above. 3. Air Quality Environmental Setting The project is within the Amador Valley, a part of the Livermore sub-regional air basin distinct from the larger San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin. The Livermore sub-air basin is surrounded on all sides by high hills or mountains. Significant breaks in the hills City of Dublin Page 34 Initial Study/Sub Area 3 Project January 2014 surrounding the air basin are Niles Canyon and the San Ramon Valley, which extends northward into Contra Costa County. Previous EIRs Eastern Dublin EIR. The Eastern Dublin EIR contains a number of mitigation measures to reduce anticipated air quality impacts from the General Plan and EDSP project. These include: • Mitigation Measures 3.11/1.0 reduced construction dust deposition impacts but not to a level of less than significant. MM 3.11/1.0 requires development projects to implement dust control measures. Even with these measures, the impact would remain significant and unavoidable • Mitigation Measures 3.11/2.0-4.0 reduced project and cumulative impacts related to vehicle emission from construction equipment (IM 3.11/B) but not to a less- than-significant level. These mitigations require emission control from on-site equipment, completion of a construction impact reduction plan and others. Even with adherence to these mitigations, this impact would remain significant and unavoidable. • Mitigation Measures 3.11/5.0-11.0 reduced mobile source emission from ROG and NOx (IM 3.11/C) but not to a less-than-significant level. Mitigation measures require coordination of growth with transportation plans and other measures, many of which are at a policy (not a project) level. Even with adherence to adopted mitigations, IM 3.11/C would remain significant and unavoidable. • Mitigation Measures 3.11/12.0-13.0 reduced project and cumulative impacts related to stationary source emissions (IM 3.11/E) but not to a less-than- significant level. The two adopted mitigations require reduction of stationary source emissions to the extent feasible by use of energy conservation techniques and recycling of solid waste material. Even with adherence to the two measures, stationary source emissions would remain significant and unavoidable. 1997 ND. No additional air quality impacts or mitigation measures were included in the 1997 ND. The proposed project will be required to adhere to applicable mitigation measures related to air quality. Protect Impacts a) Would the project conflict or obstruct implementation of an air quality plan? No New Impact. The amount of development proposed on the site would be less than previously considered and approved by the City of Dublin. Approved uses on the project site includes up to 485 dwellings with a mix of attached and detached dwellings which has been incorporated into the Regional Clean Air Plan. If approved, the proposed project would allow development of up to 437 dwellings with approximately the same mix of attached and detached dwellings and would City of Dublin Page 35 Initial Study/Sub Area 3 Project January 2014 represent a decrease of 47 dwellings. Therefore, approval and implementation of the proposed project would represent a substantial dwelling unit decrease on the site and would not conflict with or obstruct the regional Clean Air Plan. No new or more significant impacts would result than was previously analyzed in prior CEQA documents. No further analysis is required. b,c) Would the project violate any air quality standards or result in cumulatively considerable air pollutants? No New Impact. Air quality impacts of development of the Eastern Dublin Planning area were analyzed in the 1993 Eastern Dublin EIR. The EIR found that future development of the Eastern Dublin area, including the proposed project, would contribute to the cumulative impacts related to dust deposition, construction equipment emissions, mobile source emissions and stationary source emissions and would exceed air quality standards. These impact (Impacts (IM/3.11/A, B, C and E) were was found to be significant and unavoidable when the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan was approved. Since the proposed project is consistent with or lower than the number of dwellings anticipated in the Eastern Dublin EIR there would be no new or more severe impact with respect to violation of air quality standards than has been previously analyzed in the Eastern Dublin EIR and 1997 ND, and no additional analysis is required. d,e) Expose sensitive receptors to significant pollutant concentrations or create objectionable odors? No New Impact. No New Impact. No schools exist or are planned within or adjacent to the project area, so no impacts would result. Similarly, the site is not located adjacent to any freeways that would release significant air emissions, and in any case, the number of dwelling would decrease from the past approval. Since the proposed project does not include manufacturing or similar uses, no objectionable odors would be created. The Eastern Dublin EIR identified mobile source and stationary source emissions as potentially significant cumulative impacts which could not be mitigated to achieve the necessary reduction in source emissions needed to meet the insignificant threshold and, pursuant to CEQA, the City of Dublin adopted a Statement of Overriding Consideration for these impacts. Reducing the number of dwellings from the previous approval means fewer people will be exposed to pollutant emissions, but the impacts would still be significant. No new or more severe impacts are identified in this Initial Study beyond those identified in the Eastern Dublin EIR and 1997 ND. 4. Biological Resources Environmental Setting The following analysis is based on a Biological Resources Assessment prepared for the site by the firm of WRA Environmental Consultants dated November 20, 2013. This report is hereby incorporated by reference into this Initial Study and is available for review at the Dublin Community Development Department during normal business hours. City of Dublin Page 36 Initial Study/Sub Area 3 Project January 2014 The project site is an undeveloped area located in an urbanizing portion of the Eastern Dublin. The site contains the following biological communities as identified in the WRA report: • Non-native annual grasslands • Disturbed and developed • Mixed riparian forest • Cattail marsh • Seasonal wetlands • Freshwater marsh The seasonal wetland, marsh and mixed riparian portions of the site are located in the approximate center of the site. This area also includes re-vegetated habitat that represents mitigation for loss of sensitive habitat elsewhere within the Dublin Ranch area elsewhere in Eastern Dublin. Special-status (protected) plant species identified on the site include areas containing Congdon's tarplant and San Joaquin spearscale. A number of special-status wildlife species were observed on the Subarea 3 site, including northern harrier and white-tailed kite. Although not observed on the project in the recent biological assessment, a number of special-status wildlife species have the potential to occur on the site, including American badger, burrowing owl and loggerhead shrike. A number of trees are found on the site within the mixed riparian forest habitat area. Tree species include valley oak, box elder and willows. Regulatory framework California Fish and Wildlife Code Section 1600. Streams, lakes, and riparian vegetation as habitat for fish and other wildlife species, are subject to jurisdiction by CDFW under Sections 1600-1616 of the California Fish and Game Code. Any activity that will do one or more of the following: 1) substantially obstruct or divert the natural flow of a river, stream, or lake; 2) substantially change or use any material from the bed, channel, or bank of a river, stream, or lake; or 3) deposit or dispose of debris, waste, or other material containing crumbled, flaked, or ground pavement where it can pass into a river, stream, or lake; generally require a Section 1602 Lake and Streambed Alteration Agreement. The term "stream," which includes creeks and rivers, is defined in the California Code of Regulations (CCR) as follows: "a body of water that flows at least periodically or intermittently through a bed or channel having banks and supports fish or other aquatic life. This includes watercourses having a surface or subsurface flow that supports or has supported riparian vegetation. In addition, the term stream can include ephemeral streams, dry washes, watercourses with subsurface flows, canals, aqueducts, irrigation ditches, and other means of water conveyance if they support aquatic life, riparian vegetation, or stream-dependent terrestrial wildlife. Riparian is defined as, "on, or pertaining to, the banks of a stream;" therefore, riparian City of Dublin Page 37 Initial Study/Sub Area 3 Project January 2014 vegetation is defined as, "vegetation, which occurs in and/or adjacent to a stream and is dependent on, and occurs because of, the stream itself." Removal of riparian vegetation also requires a Section 1602 Lake and Streambed Alteration Agreement from CDFW Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. Section 404 of the Clean Water Act gives the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Corps regulatory and permitting authority regarding discharge of dredged or fill material into "navigable waters of the United States." Section 502(7) of the Clean Water Act defines navigable waters as "waters of the United States, including territorial seas." Section 328 of Chapter 33 in the Code of Federal Regulations defines the term "waters of the United States" as it applies to the jurisdictional limits of the authority of the Corps under the Clean Water Act. A summary of this definition of "waters of the U.S." in 33 CFR 328.3 includes (1) waters used for commerce; (2) interstate waters and wetlands; (3) "other waters" such as intrastate lakes, rivers, streams, and wetlands; (4) impoundments of waters; (5) tributaries to the above waters; (6) territorial seas; and (7) wetlands adjacent to waters. Therefore, for purposes of determining Corps jurisdiction under the Clean Water Act, "navigable waters" as defined in the Clean Water Act are the same as "waters of the U.S." defined in the Code of Federal Regulations above. The limits of Corps jurisdiction under Section 404 as given in 33 CFR Section 328.4 are as follows: (a) Territorial seas: three nautical miles in a seaward direction from the baseline; (b) Tidal waters of the U.S.: high tide line or to the limit of adjacent non-tidal waters; (c) Non-tidal waters of the U.S.: ordinary high water mark or to the limit of adjacent wetlands; (d) Wetlands: to the limit of the wetland. Some areas that meet the technical criteria for wetlands or waters may not be jurisdictional under the Clean Water Act. Included in this category are some man- induced wetlands, which are areas that have developed at least some characteristics of naturally occurring wetlands due to either intentional or incidental human activities. Examples of man-induced wetlands may include, but are not limited to, irrigated wetlands, impoundments, or drainage ditches excavated in uplands, dredged material disposal areas, and depressions within construction areas. In addition, some isolated wetlands and waters may also be considered outside of Corps jurisdiction as a result of the Supreme Court's decision in Solid Waste Agency of Northern Cook County (SWANCC) v. United States Army Corps of Engineers (531 U.S. 159 (2001)). Isolated wetlands and waters are those areas that do not have a surface or groundwater connection to, and are not adjacent to a "navigable waters of the U.S.", and do not otherwise exhibit an interstate commerce connection. Section 401 of the Clean Water Act. Section 401 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1341) requires any applicant for a federal license or permit to conduct any activity that may result in a discharge of a pollutant into waters of the United States to obtain a certification from the state in which the discharge originates or would originate, or, if appropriate, from the interstate water pollution control agency having jurisdiction over the affected waters at the point where the discharge originates or would originate, that the discharge will comply with the applicable effluent limitations and water quality standards. A certification obtained for the construction of any facility must also pertain City of Dublin Page 38 Initial Study/Sub Area 3 Project January 2014 to the subsequent operation of the facility. The responsibility for the protection of water quality in California rests with the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) and its nine Regional Water Quality Control Boards (RWQCBs). Federal and California Endangered Species Acts. The Federal Endangered Species Act (FESA) of 1973 prohibits federal agencies from authorizing, permitting, or funding any action that would jeopardize the continued existence of a plant or animal species listed or a candidate for listing as Threatened or Endangered under the ESA. If a federal agency is involved with a proposed action or project that may adversely affect a listed plant or animal, that agency must enter into consultation with the USFWS under Section 7 (a) (2) of the FESA. Individuals, corporations, and state or local agencies with proposed actions or projects that do not require authorizing, permitting, or funding from a federal agency but that may result in the "take" of listed species or candidate species are required to apply to the USFWS for a Section 10(a) incidental take permit. The State of California enacted similar laws to the FESA, the California Native Plant Protection Act (NPPA) in 1977 and the California Endangered Species Act (CESA) in 1984. The CESA expanded upon the original NPPA and enhanced legal protection for plants, but the NPPA remains part of the California Fish and Game Code. To align with the FESA, CESA created the categories of "threatened" and "endangered" species. The State converted all animal species listed as "rare" under the FESA into the CESA as threatened species, but did not do so for rare plants. Thus, these laws provide the legal framework for protection of California-listed rare, threatened, and endangered plant and animal species. CDFW implements NPPA and CESA, and its Wildlife and Habitat Data Analysis Branch maintain the CNDDB, a computerized inventory of information on the general location and status of California's rarest plants, animals, and natural communities. During the CEQA review process, CDFW is given the opportunity to comment on the potential of the proposed project to affect listed plants and animals. East Alameda County Conservation Strategy. The project site is located in the East Alameda County Conservation Strategy ("Conservation Strategy") Study Area. The Conservation Strategy is intended to provide an effective framework to protect, enhance, and restore natural resources in eastern Alameda County, while improving and streamlining the environmental permitting process for impacts resulting from infrastructure and development projects. The City of Dublin is a partner in the Conservation Strategy and uses the document to provide a baseline inventory of biological resources and conservation priorities during project-level planning and environmental permitting. Previous CEQA documents Eastern Dublin EIR. The Eastern Dublin EIR contains a number of mitigation measures to reduce anticipated impacts to biological resources from the General Plan and EDSP project. These include: • Mitigation Measures 3.7/1.0-4.0 reduced impacts related to direct habitat loss (IM 3.7/A) to a less-than-significant level. These mitigations require minimization of direct habitat loss due to development, preparation of City of Dublin Page 39 Initial Study/Sub Area 3 Project January 2014 vegetation management and enhancement plans and development of a grazing management plan by the City of Dublin. • Mitigation Measure 3.7/5.0 reduced impacts related to indirect loss of vegetation removal (IM 3.7/B) to a less-than-significant level. Mitigation Measure 3.7/5.0 requires revegetation of graded or disturbed areas as quickly as possible. • Mitigation Measures 3.7/6.0-17.0 reduced impacts related to loss or degradation of botanically sensitive habitats (IM 3.7/C) but not to a less-than-significant level. These measures require a wide range of steps to be taken by future developers to minimize impacts to sensitive habitat areas, including preserving natural stream corridors, incorporating natural greenbelts and open space into development projects, preparation of individual wetland delineations, preparation of individual erosion and sedimentation plans and similar actions. • Mitigation Measures 3.7/18.0-19.0 reduced impacts related to the San Joaquin kit fox (IM 3.7/D) to a less-than-significant level. These measures require consultation with appropriate regulatory agencies regarding the possibility of kit fox on project sites and restrictions on use of pesticides and herbicides. • Mitigation Measures 3.7/20.0-22.0 reduced impacts related to the red-legged frog, California tiger salamander, western pond turtle and tri-colored blackbird (IM 3.7/F-I) to a less-than-significant level. These measures require preconstruction surveys for the species and protection of impacted habitat areas. • Mitigation Measures 3.7/23.0-24.0 reduced impacts related to destruction of Golden Eagle nesting sites (IM 3.7/J) to a less-than-significant level. These measures require preconstruction surveys for this species and protection of impacted habitat areas. • Mitigation Measure 3.7/25.0 reduced impacts related to loss of Golden Eagle foraging habitat (IM 3.7/K) to a less-than-significant level. This measure requires the identification of a Golden Eagle protection zone within the Eastern Dublin planning area. • Mitigation Measure 3.7/26.0 reduced impacts related to Golden Eagle and other raptor electrocution (IM 3.7/L) to a less-than-significant level. This measure requires undergrounding of electrical transmission facilities. • Mitigation Measures 3.7/20.0 to 27.0 reduced impacts related to burrowing owl and American badger (IM 3.7/M, N) to a less-than-significant level. This measure mandates preconstruction surveys and a minimum buffer of 300 feet around burrowing owl nesting sites and American badger breeding sites during the breeding season. • Mitigation Measure 3.7/28.0 reduced impacts related to special status invertebrates (IM 3.7/S) to a less-than-significant level. This measure requires follow-on special surveys for these species during appropriate times of the year. City of Dublin Page 40 Initial Study/Sub Area 3 Project January 2014 The Eastern Dublin EIR also addresses potential impacts and mitigation measures regarding bald eagle, peregrine falcons, red-legged frog, California tiger salamander, western pond turtle the prairie falcon, northern harrier, black-shouldered kite, sharp- shinned hawk, Cooper's hawk, short-eared owl and California horned lizard. 1997 ND. The 1997 ND updated species surveys since the EDEIR but did not identify any additional potentially significant impacts or mitigation measures related to biological resources. The proposed project will be required to adhere to applicable biological resource mitigation measures adopted through the Eastern Dublin approvals, as applicable to the site. Project Impacts a) Have a substantial adverse impact on a candidate, sensitive, or special-status species? No New Impact. The Eastern Dublin EIR documents the presence of special-status plant and wildlife species within the general project area. Numerous mitigation measures are included in the Eastern Dublin EIR to reduce impacts to candidate, sensitive and special-status species to a less-than significant level. These are listed above and continue to apply to the proposed project, as applicable. Therefore, no new or more severe impacts with respect to candidate, sensitive or special-status species would occur than have been analyzed in the two previous CEQA documents and no additional analysis is required. The proposed project would continue to contribute to cumulative loss or degradation of botanically sensitive habitat, which was identified as a significant and unavoidable impact (IM 3.7/C) in the Eastern Dublin EIR. b, c) Have a substantial adverse impact on riparian habitat or federally protected wetlands? No New Impact. Wetlands and waters of the United States have been identified on the project site. Mitigation measures have been included in the Eastern Dublin EIR to reduce such impacts to a less-than-significant level. The proposed development plan (see Exhibit 3) shows that the existing wetlands, marsh areas and other biologically sensitive areas within that have been incorporated into a stream corridor areas that is protected and preserved. The Comprehensive Biological Management Plan shall also address impacts and updates to previous mitigation measures to ensure long-term protection of riparian habitat, wetlands and other waters. No new or more severe impacts would occur than have been previously analyzed with respect to this topic. No additional analysis is required. d) Interfere with movement of native fish or wildlife species? No New Impact. As assumed in the EDEIR and the 1997 ND, the project continues to provide open space area along and past a designated stream corridor. This ensures that there continues to be an opportunity for wildlife and fish species movement within the Eastern Dublin context of gradual urbanization over time. Mitigation measures contained in the EDEIR address protections for wildlife and fish species in areas not anticipated for future development. The project would be required to City of Dublin Page 41 Initial Study/Sub Area 3 Project January 2014 implement these adopted mitigations, as applicable. No new or more severe impacts would occur than have been previously analyzed with respect to potential interference with fish or wildlife movement and no additional analysis is required. e, f) Conflict with local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources or any adopted Habitat Conservation Plans or Natural Community Conservation Plans? No New Impact. Approval and construction of the proposed project could affect native oak trees and other trees species on the site. The City of Dublin affords Heritage Tree status to any oak, bay, cypress, maple, redwood, buckeye, or sycamore tree with a main trunk of at least twenty-four inches in diameter when measured at fifty-two inches above the natural grade; trees required for preservation under an approved development plan, zoning permit, use permit, site development review, or subdivision map; and trees planted as replacements for unlawfully removed trees. Permits are required for the removal of any Heritage Tree. Any Heritage Trees that are proposed for removal must be identified in future Stage 2 Development Plans, Site Development Review and Subdivision applications. Conditions regarding replacement of trees will be considered at that time. Approval of a development plan, zoning permit, site development review, or subdivision map that specifies tree removal will meet the requirements for Heritage Tree removal permitting. Additionally, a Heritage Tree Protection Plan may be required prior to issuance of permits for grading, or building unless a certified arborist has confirmed that the activities would be outside of the ground area of the drip-line of the trees and the area immediately surrounding the drip- line. The project site lies within the Eastern Alameda County Conservation Strategy (EACCS) planning area. The City of Dublin utilizes the Conservation Strategy as guidance for environmental permitting for public projects, and private development projects are encouraged to use the EACCS as a resource as well. The Conservation Strategy embodies a regional approach to permitting and mitigation for wildlife habitat impacts associated with land development, infrastructure, and other activities. The Conservation Strategy is neither a Habitat Conservation Plan nor a Natural Community Conservation Plan, but is a document intended to provide guidance during the project planning and permitting process to ensure that impacts are offset in a biologically effective manner. In any case, the project remains subject to all adopted biological resource mitigations, as applicable. As there is no previous or existing habitat conservation plan for the site, there would therefore be no new or significantly more severe impacts with respect to this topic than previously analyzed in the Eastern Dublin EIR and no additional analysis is required. City of Dublin Page 42 Initial Study/Sub Area 3 Project January 2014 5. Cultural Resources Environmental Setting Potentially historic structures. The site is vacant and contains no structures. The Eastern Dublin EIR did not identify any significant historic structures on the project site. Underground cultural resources. The Eastern Dublin EIR did not identify the presence of archeological or paleontological cultural resources on the project site. Previous CEQA documents Eastern Dublin EIR. The Eastern Dublin EIR contains a number of mitigation measures to reduce anticipated impacts to cultural resources from the General Plan and EDSP project. These include: • Mitigation Measures 3.9/1.0-4.0 reduced impacts related to disruption or destruction of identified prehistoric resources (IM 3.9/A) to a less-than- significant level. These mitigations mandate a program of mechanical and/or hand subsurface testing for the presence or absence of midden deposits, recordation of identified midden sites, collection and/or testing of resources and development of a site-specific protection program for prehistoric sites. • Mitigation Measures 3.9/5.0-6.0 reduced impacts related to the disruption or destruction of unrecorded prehistoric resources (IM 3.9B) to a less-than- significant level. • Mitigation Measures 3.9/7.0-12.0 reduced impacts related to disruption or destruction of identified historic resources to a less-than-significant level (Impact 3.9/Q. These measures would include preparing site-specific archival research for individual resources, encourage adaptive reuse of historic resources, recordation of historic sites on local state and federal registers, as appropriate and development of preservation programs for significant resources. The adopted EDEIR measures largely implemented then-Appendix K of the CEQA Guidelines. Appendix K has since been replaced by CEQA Guidelines section 15064.5, which addresses historic and archeological resources, including human remains; similarly, EDEIR references to Appendix K have been replaced with section 15064.5 in the discussions below. 1997 ND. The 1997 ND did not identify any additional potentially significant impacts or mitigation measures with respect to cultural resources. The proposed project will be required to comply with the applicable EDSP EIR cultural resource mitigation measures. City of Dublin Page 43 Initial Study/Sub Area 3 Project January 2014 Project Impacts a) Cause substantial adverse change to significant historic resources? No New Impact. No historic resources have been identified in the project area in the Eastern Dublin EIR. No residences or other structures exist on the site so no historic structures are present. No new or more severe supplemental impacts have therefore been identified for the proposed project than were disclosed in previous CEQA documents and no additional review is required. b, c) Cause a substantial adverse impact or destruction to archeological or paleontological resources? No New Impact. The Eastern Dublin EIR identifies a remote but potentially significant possibility that construction activities, including site grading, trenching and excavation, may uncover significant archeological and/or paleontological resources on development sites. The Eastern Dublin EIR categorized these resources as pre-historic cultural resources. None of these pre- historic sites were identified by the EIR within near the project site. The Eastern Dublin EIR assumed that all pre-historic sites would be disturbed or altered in some manner. This potential impact was identified and addressed in the Eastern Dublin EIR (Impact 3.9/A) and mitigation measures 3.9/1.0 through 3.9/4.0 (page 3.9-6 — 3.9-7) that require subsurface testing for archeological resources; recordation and mapping of such resources; and development of a protection program for resources which qualify as "significant" under Section 15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines. Mitigation Measures 3.9/5.0 and 3.9/6.0, described above, also were adopted to address the potential disruption of any previously unidentified pre-historic resources and would apply to the project as may be appropriate. The Eastern Dublin Specific Plan also contains policies (Policies 6-24 and 6-25) requiring research of archaeological resources prior to construction and determination of the significance and extent of any resources uncovered during grading and construction. Therefore, no new or more severe significant impacts with respect to cultural resources have been identified that have been previously analyzed in the EDEIR and 1997 ND and no additional analysis is required. d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of a forfnal cemetery? No New Impact. Existing cultural resource mitigation measures contained in the Eastern Dublin EIR through Appendix K/section 15064.5 reduced impacts to human remains to a less-than-significant level. No new or more severe significant impacts with respect to human remains are anticipated beyond those previously analyzed and no additional analysis is required. City of Dublin Page 44 Initial Study/Sub Area 3 Project January 2014 6. Geology and Soils Environmental Setting Geology and soils. The Eastern Dublin EIR notes that site soils are largely composed of undifferentiated alluvial deposits (EDSP Exhibit 3.6-C). The EDSP further notes that alluvium soils are characterized by crudely stratified Quaternary stream deposits of sand, silt and clay. Landslide potential. Portions of the site have moderate to steep slopes. Although some of the hillsides would be re-graded to allow for development, there is a potential for landslide on the site. Seismic hazard. The project area does not lie within an Earthquake Fault Zone (formerly Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zone) (see Exhibit 3.6-B contained in the EDSP EIR). Major active faults in the region that influence earthquake susceptibility include the San Andreas, Hayward, Calaveras, and Greenville Faults. The site is subject to strong ground shaking in the event of seismic activity, consistent with all of the Bay area. Tsunami and seiche hazards. The risk of damage to future improvements on the site from a tsunami or seiche is low due to the inland location of the site. Previous CEQA documents Eastern Dublin EIR. The Eastern Dublin EIR contains a number of mitigation measures to reduce anticipated impacts related to Soils, Geology and Seismicity from the General Plan and EDSP project. These include: • Mitigation Measure 3.6/1.0 reduced impacts related to primary effects of earthquake ground shaking (IM 3.6/B) but not to a less-than-significant level. This mitigation measure requires that future structure and infrastructure facilities be designed to applicable local and state building codes. • Mitigation Measures 3.9/2.0-7.0 reduced impacts related to the secondary effects of earthquake ground shaking (IM 3.9/C) to a less-than-significant level. Mitigation measures mandate building setbacks from landslides, stabilization of unstable land forms, removal and reconstruction of unstable soils, use of engineered retaining structures, use of appropriately designed and engineered fill, and design of structures to account of potential soil failure. • Mitigation Measures 3.6/9.0-10.0 reduced impacts related to substantial alteration to landforms to a less-than significant level (IM 3.6/D). Mitigations require grading plans with minimal cuts and fills and careful siting of homes and improvements to avoid excessive grading. • Mitigation Measures 3.6/14.0-16.0 reduced impacts related to expansive soils (IM 3.6/H) to a less-than-significant level. Mitigation measures require formulation City of Dublin Page 45 Initial Study/Sub Area 3 Project January 2014 of site-specific designs to overcome expansive soils, reducing the amount of moisture in the soil and by appropriate foundation and pavement design. • Mitigation Measures 3.6/17.0-19.0 reduced impacts related to natural slope stability (IM 3.6/I) to a less-than-significant level. Mitigation measures mandate formulation of use of site-specific designs based on follow-on geotechnical reviews of individual developments, limiting the location of improvements on downslopes of unstable soils, removal/reconstruction of potentially unstable slope areas and installation of surface and subsurface slope drainage improvements. • Mitigation Measures 3.6/20.0-26.0 reduced impacts related to cut and fill slope stability (IM 3.6/J) to a less-than-significant level. These measures include developing grading plans for hillside areas that minimize grading and associate cuts and fills, ensuring that grading plans comply with appropriate building codes, utilizing keys and benches as part of grading to ensure slope stability and minimizing use of unreinforced fill slopes, appropriate compaction of fill areas and on-going maintenance of slope drainage areas. • Mitigation Measure 3.6/27.0 reduced the impact related to short-term construction-related erosion and sedimentation (IM 3.6/K) to a less-than- significant level. This measure includes limiting timing of construction to avoid the rainy season and implementing a number of other specific erosion control measures. • Mitigation Measure 3.6/28.0 reduced the impact related to long-term erosion and sedimentation (IM 3.6/L) to a less-than-significant level. This measure includes installation of erosion control facilities into individual development projects, including sediment catch basins, creek bank stabilization, revegetation of graded areas and similar measures. 1997 ND. The 1997 ND updated geotechnical investigations for Dublin Ranch since the EDEIR. No supplemental impacts or mitigation measures were identified in this ND. The proposed project will be required to comply with applicable EDSP EIR soil, geologic and seismic mitigation measures. Pro-ject Impacts a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse impacts, including loss, injury or death related to ground rupture, seismic ground shaking, ground failure, or landslides? No New Impact. The Eastern Dublin EIR identified that the primary and secondary effects of ground-shaking (Impacts 3.6/B and 3.6/Q could be potentially significant impacts. With implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.6/1.0 the primary effects of ground-shaking are reduced but not to a less-than- significant level by using modern seismic design for resistance to lateral forces in construction, which would reduce the potential for structure failure, major structural damage and loss of life. A site-specific geotechnical report will be prepared by the applicant as part of future development applications, consistent City of Dublin Page 46 Initial Study/Sub Area 3 Project January 2014 with the EDEIR mitigations and as required by the City of Dublin for all residential development projects. The site-specific report will identify construction techniques, such as special footings and use of appropriate building materials, to ensure that project improvements are consistent with City and State building code requirements related to ground shaking, landslides, ground failure and other geologic hazards. No new or more severe significant impacts with respect to ground rupture, seismic ground shaking, ground failure or landslides are anticipated than have been previously analyzed and no additional analysis is required. b) Is the site subject to substantial erosion and/or the loss of topsoil? No New Impact. Construction of the proposed project improvements on the site would modify the existing ground surface and alter patterns of surface runoff and infiltration and could result in a short-term increase in erosion and sedimentation caused by grading activities (Impact 3.6/K). Long-term impacts could result from modification of the ground-surface and removal of existing vegetation (Eastern Dublin EIR Impact 3.6/Q. The project is required to implement grading and erosion controls through Mitigation Measures 3.6/27.0 and 28.0 contained in the Eastern Dublin EIR. The Eastern Dublin Specific Plan also contains a policy (Policy 6-43), which requires that new development be designed to provide effective control of soil erosion as a result of construction activities. This policy will be applied to the proposed project. With adherence to previous mitigation measures, there would be no new or more severe significant impacts than have been previously analyzed in the EDEIR and 1997 ND and no additional analysis is required. c,d) Is the site located on soil that is unstable or expansive or result in potential lateral spreading, liquefaction, landslide or collapse? No New Impact. Consistent with Eastern Dublin EIR Mitigation Measure 3.6/7.0 and standard City development conditions, the project developer will be will be required to retain a licensed geologist or equivalent to prepare a site-specific soils and geotechnical report for future Stage 2 Development Plan, SDR and tentative map applications. The report will be required to contain detailed methods to minimize impacts from shrink-swell and/or lateral spreading potential for future site improvements should these conditions be found on the site. EDEIR Mitigation Measures 3.6/9.0-10.0 will also be implemented to prepare detailed development plans with consideration of hillside conditions so as to avoid landslide potential. With adherence to the Eastern Dublin EIR mitigation measures and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan policies , no new or more severe impacts have been identified related to lateral spreading, liquefaction and other soil hazards than have been analyzed in previous CEQA documents; no additional analysis is required. e) Have soils incapable of supporting on-site septic tanks if sewers are not available? No New Impact. Proposed residences on the site would be connected to sanitary City of Dublin Page 47 Initial Study/Sub Area 3 Project January 2014 sewers provided by DSRSD, so there would be no new or more severe impacts with regard to septic systems. 7. Greenhouse Gas Emissions Environmental Setting Since certification of the Eastern Dublin EIR in 1993 and follow-on CEQA documents, the issue of contribution of greenhouse gasses to climate change has become a more prominent issue of concern as evidenced by passage of AB 32 in 2006. On March 18, 2010, amendments to the State CEQA Guidelines took effect which set forth requirements for the analysis of greenhouse gasses. The topic of the project's contribution to greenhouse gas emissions and climate change was not analyzed in the Eastern Dublin EIR or the 1997 ND. Since the Eastern Dublin EIR and ND have been certified, the determination of whether greenhouse gasses and climate change needs to be analyzed for this proposed project is governed by the law on supplemental or subsequent EIRs (Public Resources Code section 21166 and Guidelines, Sections 15162 and 15163). Greenhouse gas and climate change is not required to be analyzed under those standards unless it constitutes "new information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known at the time the previous EIR was certified as complete" (CEQA Guidelines Sec. 15162 (a) (3).) Greenhouse gas and climate change impacts is not new information that was not known or could not have been known at the time the Eastern Dublin EIR was certified and the 1997 ND approved. The issue of climate change and greenhouse gasses was widely known prior to these actions. The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change was established in 1992. The regulation of greenhouse gas emissions to reduce climate change impacts was extensively debated and analyzed throughout the early 1990s. The studies and analyses of this issue resulted in the adoption of the Kyoto Protocol in 1997. In the early and mid 2000s, GHGs and climate change were extensively discussed and analyzed in California. In 2000, SB 1771 established the California Climate Action Registry for the recordation of greenhouse gas emissions to provide information about potential environmental impacts. In 2005, the Governor issued Executive Order # S-03-05 establishing greenhouse gas emission reduction targets in California. AB 32 was adopted in 2006. Therefore, the impact of greenhouse gases on climate change was known at the time of the certification of the Eastern Dublin EIR in May 1993 and the approval of the ND in 1997. Under CEQA standards, it is not new information that requires analysis in a supplemental EIR or negative declaration. No supplemental environmental analysis of the project's impacts on this issue is required under CEQA. Project Impacts a,b Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment or conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases? As discussed above, no additional environmental analysis is required under CEQA Section 21166. 8. Hazards and Hazardous Materials (This section of the Initial Study is based on a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment prepared by Haley & Aldrich, Inc. in April 2012 ("Report on ASTM Phase I City of Dublin Page 48 Initial Study/Sub Area 3 Project January 2014 Environmental Site Assessment, Dublin Ranch Property, Subarea 3, Dublin California.") This document is incorporated into this Initial Study by reference and is available for review at the Dublin Community Development Department during normal business hours. Environmental Setting The Phase I analysis prepared by Haley & Aldrich did not identify any recognized environmental conditions on the project site. No recommendations were made in the Phase I report that would result in any remediation on the site. Previous CEQA documents Eastern Dublin EIR. This topic was not directly analyzed in the EIR; however, hazards impacts were identified in Chapter 3.4 (fire and police emergency response, wildfire hazards). 1997 ND. The ND discussed a Phase I site assessment of Areas B-E prepared since the EDEIR. No problem sites were identified and no significant impacts were expected from use of small quantities of paints, pesticides, and other similar substances typical of urban non-industrial uses. The ND also stated there was no significant risk of explosion or accidental hazardous substance release. No additional significant impacts or mitigation measures dealing with hazards or hazardous materials were included in this document. Project Impacts a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use or disposal of hazardous materials? No New Impact. There would be no impact with regard to transport, use or disposal of hazardous materials, since the proposed project involves construction of a residential development on the site. There would be no use, storage or transport of significant quantities of hazardous materials associated with the proposed development. No new or more severe impacts would therefore occur on the site than have been previously analyzed and no additional analysis is required. b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? No New Impact. Based on the discussion in subsection "a," above, no new or more severe impacts are anticipated with respect to the release of hazardous materials than were analyzed in the 1997 ND and no additional analysis is required. c) Ernit hazardous materials or handle hazardous materials or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? No Impact. Approval and implementation of the proposed project would have no impact with regard to this topic, since no schools exist or are planned near the project area. No new or more severe impact would occur with respect to emission or handling of hazardous materials within one-quarter of an existing or planned school and no additional analysis is required. City of Dublin Page 49 Initial Study/Sub Area 3 Project January 2014 d) Is the site listed as a hazardous materials site? No New Impact. The 1997 ND reported that none of Areas B-E were included on a list of hazardous waste and substance sites. No properties comprising the project area are listed on the State of California Department of Toxic Substances Control as an identified hazardous site as of November 14, 2013. There is therefore no new or more severe impacts impact with respect to this topic than have been previously analyzed and no additional analysis is required. e,f) Is the site located within an airport land use plan of a public airport or private airstrip? No New Impact. The project site lies within the Airport Influence Area (AIA) of the Livermore Municipal Airport and would therefore requires review by the Alameda County Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC). A portion of the existing Open Space land use designation lies within the Airport Protection Area and would be redesignated as Rural Residential/Agricultural (RRA) however no residential uses would be permitted consistent with the development limitations for the APA. All other permitted and conditional uses within the proposed RRA land use designation have been reviewed for consistency with the current Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP). The EDEIR discussed the potential for land use incompatibilities with respect to the airport, but identified the impact as less than significant based on the land uses being consistent with the requirements and policies of the designated areas (Impact 3.1/H). The project proposes the same type and general location of residential and open space uses but continues to limit development in the APA area. Therefore, there would not be a new or more severe impact since ALUC review for development projects was included in the Eastern Dublin EIR and this project has been reviewed by the ALUC and found to be consistent with the current ALUCP; no additional analysis is required. g) Interference with an emergency evacuation plan? No New Impact. The proposed project would include the construction of a residential project on private land. No emergency evacuation plan would be affected since no roadways would be blocked. No new or more severe impacts would result than have been previously analyzed. h) Expose people and structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? No New Impact. The project site is located in a partially developed area with residential development existing to the west (The Groves). A City park has been partially constructed to the north (Fallon Sports Park) and a commercial development to the south. Property to the east, on the east side of Fallon Road, is vacant. The project proposes a similar type and scale of development as assumed in the EDEIR and 1997 ND, and is subject to mitigation measures for Impact 3.4/E contained in Eastern Dublin EIR and to the City's Wildfire Management Plan (updated in 2002). No new or more severe significant impacts related to wildland fire hazards are anticipated beyond those in the prior EIR and ND and no additional analysis is required. City of Dublin Page 50 Initial Study/Sub Area 3 Project January 2014 9. Hydrology and Water Quality Environmental Setting Local surface water. The project site is located within the Alameda Creek watershed which drains to the San Francisco Bay via the Arroyo Del Valle and Arroyo de la Laguna. A small stream flows in a northwest-southeast direction through the project area. The project area is located within the jurisdiction of Zone 7 of the Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation District (Zone 7). Zone 7 provides maintenance of regional drainage facilities within this portion of Alameda County. Surface water quality. Water quality in California is regulated by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES), which controls the discharge of pollutants to water bodies from point and non-point sources. In the San Francisco Bay area, this program is administered by the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). Federal regulations issued in November 1990 expanded the authority of the RWQCB to include permitting of stormwater discharges from municipal storm sewer systems, industrial processes, and construction sites that disturb areas larger than one acre of land area. The City of Dublin is a co-permittee of the Alameda County Clean Water Program, which is a coordinated effort by local governments in Alameda County to improve water quality in San Francisco Bay. Flooding. The project site lies outside of a 100-year flood hazard area (Flood Insurance Rate Map, Community Panel No. 06001C0328G). Previous CEQA documents Eastern Dublin EIR. The Eastern Dublin EIR contains a number of mitigation measures to reduce anticipated impacts related to hydrology and storm drainage from the General Plan and EDSP project. These include: • Mitigation Measures 3.5/44.0-48 reduced impacts related potential flooding (IM 3.5/Y) to a less-than-significant level. These mitigation measures require new storm drainage facilities as part of new development, requires developers to prepare storm drain plans for individual development projects and requires new flood control facilities to alleviate downstream flooding potential. • Mitigation Measures 3.5/51.0 and 52.0 reduced impacts related to non-point source pollution (IM 3.5/AA) to a less-than-significant level. These mitigation measures mandate that specific water quality investigations be submitted as part of development projects and that the City should develop community-based programs to educate residents and businesses to reduce non-point source pollution. City of Dublin Page 51 Initial Study/Sub Area 3 Project January 2014 1997 ND. No potentially significant impacts or mitigation measures were included in this document. The proposed project shall adhere to all of the applicable above previous mitigation measures. Project Impacts a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? No New Impact. Approval and construction of the proposed development project would add impervious surfaces to the undeveloped site that would increase the amount of stormwater runoff and potentially degrade water quality. Mitigation Measure 3.5/51.0 contained in the EDSP EIR requires each project developer to prepare and submit a water quality investigation. The City of Dublin also requires new development proposals to adhere to the most recent surface water quality standards adopted by the Regional Water Quality Control Board. Typical methods of adherence include routing runoff water though vegetated swales or mechanical water cleaning devices, sweeping of parking lots, covering of trash dumpsters and similar actions. The required water quality investigation will be submitted and reviewed as part of the Stage 2 Development Plan and related SDR and tentative map submittals showing detailed project design. Adherence to the existing mitigation measures will ensure that no new or more significant impacts with respect to water quality violations or wastewater discharges would result than have been previously analyzed and no additional analysis is required. b) Substantially deplete groundwater recharge areas or lowering of water table? No New Impact. No new or more significant impacts are anticipated with regard to depletion of groundwater resources than have been analyzed in previous CEQA documents. Much of the site would remain as rural residential/agriculture that would allow recharge of the underground aquifer. Also, stormwater runoff from the site would be directed to an existing off-site stormwater basin located west of the site that would allow recharge into the underground aquifer. Also, the proposed water source for this project would rely on surface water supplies from DSRSD and not local groundwater supplies. The project site is not identified as a groundwater recharge area in the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan. Therefore, no new or more severe impacts would occur with respect to this topic than has been previously analyzed in earlier CEQA documents and no additional analysis is required. c) Substantially alter drainage patterns, including streambed courses such that substantial siltation or erosion would occur? No New Impact. No grading is proposed along the streambed. New impervious surfaces would be added to the project site to accommodate new dwellings, roadways, driveways and similar surfaces. Existing drainage patterns may be slightly modified based on proposed development, similar to the existing approved Development Plan. However, project stormwater runoff would flow into existing underground lines previously installed in surrounding streets designed to accept these increased flows (Jim Templeton, project engineer, 1/15/4). Moreover, adherence to Mitigation Measure 3.5/44.0 City of Dublin Page 52 Initial Study/Sub Area 3 Project January 2014 contained in the Eastern Dublin EIR reduced impacts related to changed drainage patterns and erosion to a less-than-significant level. No new or more severe impacts would result with respect to changed drainage patterns than have been previously analyzed and no additional analysis is required. d) Substantially alter drainage patterns or result in flooding, either on or off the project site? No New Impact. No impacts or significant changes to drainage patterns are anticipated as part of the project. The proposed development area lies outside of a FEMA 100-year flood hazard area. Proposed drainage patterns would generally follow current patterns (Jim Templeton, project engineer, 1/15/14). No new or more significant impacts are anticipated than have been previously analyzed and no additional analysis is required. e) Create stormwater runoff that would exceed the capacity of drainage systems or add substantial amounts of polluted runoff? No New Impact. Adherence to Eastern Dublin EIR Mitigation Measures 3.5/44.0-48.0 will reduce drainage and pollution impacts to a less-than-significant level. These mitigation measures require new storm drainage facilities as part of new development and requires developers to prepare storm drain plans for individual development projects such as the proposed project. These plans must also address the potential for increased water quality impacts. For the proposed Subarea 3 development, sub-regional drainage improvements to serve this project have already been installed (source:Jim Templeton, project engineer, 1/8/14). No new or more significant impacts have been identified in this Initial Study regarding increases in stormwater runoff than have been previously analyzed; no additional analysis is required. f) Substantially degrade water duality? Please see items "a" and "e." g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped by a Flood Insurance Rate Map? No New Impact. As noted in the Environmental Setting section, above, the site lies outside of a 100-year flood hazard zone. No new or more significant impacts are anticipated than have been previously analyzed. h, i) Place within a 100-year flood hazard boundary structures that impeded or redirect flood flow, including darn failures? No New Impact. Refer to item "g," above. j) Result in inundation by seiche, tsunami or mudflows? No New Impact. The project site is located well inland from San Francisco Bay or other major bodies of water to be impacted by a tsunami or seiche. No impacts would therefore result. 10. Land Use and Planning Environmental Setting The project site is vacant and contains no dwellings or other structures. City of Dublin Page 53 Initial Study/Sub Area 3 Project January 2014 Surrounding uses include a combination of developed and undeveloped properties within the Eastern Dublin Planning area. The Groves attached residential project has been constructed to the west. Fallon Sports Park exists north of the site, which is currently proposed for expansion. The Fallon gateway commercial project and undeveloped land exists south of the site. The property east of the site is undeveloped and is vacant. Project Impacts a) Physically divide an established community? No New Impact. The project site is located within a distinct area, between Dublin Boulevard and Central Parkway west of Fallon Road. The site would either be developed for urban uses or be reserved for agricultural and open space uses. Two small outparcels on the periphery of the Subarea 3 site are not included in this development proposal. Therefore, no existing, established community would be physically divided. No new or more significant impacts have been identified in this Initial Study than have been previously analyzed in prior CEQA documents. b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy or regulation? No New Impact. Although amendments have been requested to the General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan to change development areas on the site, the number of dwellings would be somewhat less with the proposed project than has been previously approved (485 previously approved v. 437 proposed). No changes are proposed to any regulation regulating environmental protection. No new or more significant impacts are anticipated with regard to land use regulations than have been previously analyzed in other applicable CEQA documents. c) Conflict with a habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? No New Impact. The project site lies within the Eastern Alameda County Conservation Strategy (EACCS) planning area. The City of Dublin utilizes the Conservation Strategy as guidance for environmental permitting for public projects, and private development projects are encouraged to use the EACCS as a resource as well. The Conservation Strategy embodies a regional approach to permitting and mitigation for wildlife habitat impacts associated with land development, infrastructure, and other activities. The Conservation Strategy is neither a Habitat Conservation Plan nor a Natural Community Conservation Plan, but is a document intended to provide guidance during the project planning and permitting process to ensure that impacts are offset in a biologically effective manner. There is no existing habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan for the site. There would therefore be no new or significantly more severe impacts than previously analyzed in the Eastern Dublin EIR and 1997 ND and no additional analysis is required 11. Mineral Resources Environmental Setting The project site contains no known mineral resources. This is based on the Eastern Dublin EIR. City of Dublin Page 54 Initial Study/Sub Area 3 Project January 2014 Project Impacts a, b) Result in the loss of availability of regionally or locally significant mineral resources? No New Impact. The Eastern Dublin EIR does not indicate that significant deposits of minerals exist in the project area, so no new or more severe impacts would occur than have been previously analyzed. 12. Noise Environmental Setting The City defines "noise" as a sound or series of sounds that are intrusive, irritating, objectionable and/or disruptive to daily life. Noise is primarily a concern with regard to noise sensitive land uses such as residences, schools, churches and hospitals. Although noise is controlled around commercial, industrial and recreation uses, community noise levels rarely exceed maximum recommended levels for these uses. Regulatory Setting The Noise Element of the General Plan identifies the following primary sources of noise in Dublin: traffic noise from freeways and major roadways within the community and noise generated by the BART line adjacent to the I-580 freeway. The Noise Element identifies the following maximum noise exposure levels by land use type. Table 2. City of Dublin Land Use/Noise Compatibility Standards (decibels) Land Use Normally Conditionally Normally Clearly Acceptable Acceptable Unacceptable Unacceptable Residential 60 or less 60-70 70-75 75+ Lodging Facilities 60 or less 61-80 71-80 Over 80 Schools, churches, 60 or less 61-70 71-80 Over 80 nursing homes Neighborhood 60 or less 61-65 66-70 Over 70 arks Office/Retail 70 or less 71-75 76-80 Over 80 Industrial 70 or less 71-75 Over 75 -- Source: Dublin General Plan Noise Element, Table 9-1, 2012 The City of Dublin also enforces an interior noise standard of 45 decibels for residential dwellings. Previous CEQA documents Eastern Dublin EIR. The Eastern Dublin EIR notes that major noise sources within Eastern Dublin include traffic noise from arterial roadways, helicopter overflights from ` Camp Parks RFTA, west of Tassajara Road, noise generated by development of land uses under the Specific Plan and General Plan and construction noise. No specific significant future noise sources are identified on the project site. City of Dublin Page 55 Initial Study/Sub Area 3 Project January 2014 The Eastern Dublin EIR contains a number of mitigation measures to reduce anticipated noise impacts from the General Plan and EDSP project. These include: • Mitigation Measures 3.10/1.0 reduced impacts related to exposure of proposed housing to future roadway noise (IM 3.10/A) to a less-than-significant level. This mitigation measure require that all future development projects within a future CNEL 60 noise contour have an acoustic analysis prepared to ensure that future dwelling units meet City noise exposure levels. • Mitigation Measures 3.10/4.0 and 5.0 reduced impacts related to construction noise (IM 10/E) to a less-than-significant level. These mitigation measures require developers to submit construction noise management plans and to limit hours of construction operations. 1997 ND. No new or more severe significant noise impacts were identified in this document. The proposed project will be required to comply with applicable noise mitigation measures identified above. Protect Impacts a) Would the project expose persons or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established by the General Plan or other applicable standard? No New Impact. Development of proposed residential land uses on the project site would increase noise on the project site and future residences would be subject to traffic noise from vehicles using Fallon Road, Dublin Boulevard and Central Parkway. A recommended condition of SDR and subdivision map approval would require an acoustic specialist to ensure that project features to reduce interior and exterior noise levels on the project site will conform with City noise standards. With adherence to Eastern Dublin EIR noise mitigation measures and noise standards in the General Plan, no new or more significant noise impacts have been identified than previously analyzed and no additional analysis is required. The project would contribute to cumulative noise conditions identified as Impact 3.10/B in the Eastern Dublin EIR, which is exposure of existing residences to future roadway noise. This impact was found to be significant and unavoidable in the Eastern Dublin EIR. Also, EDSP EIR Impact 3.10/D, exposure of proposed residential development to noise from future military training activities at Parks RFTA, was found to be significant and unavoidable. The project site is not located near Parks RFTA. b) Exposure of people to excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? No New Impact. The proposed project would not include construction or operational elements that would result in significant groundborne vibration levels to nearby residents (source: Kevin Fryer, applicant representative, 11/18/13). No new impacts would result with respect to vibration or groundborne vibration than was analyzed in previous CEQA documents on the project site. City of Dublin Page 56 Initial Study/Sub Area 3 Project January 2014 c) Substantial increases in permanent in ambient noise levels? No New Impact. Increased levels of permanent noise on the project site that would occur based on project development would be reduced to a less-than significant level through adherence to applicable mitigation measures contained in the Eastern Dublin EIR . No new or more significant impacts have been identified in this Initial Study than have been previously analyzed and no additional analysis is required. d) Substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels without the project? No New Impact. Increased levels of short-term construction noise generated on the project site would be reduced to a less-than- significant level through adherence to applicable mitigation measures contained in the Eastern Dublin EIR and the Dublin Noise Ordinance. These measures require project developers to limit hours of construction activity and to prepare construction noise management plans. No new or more significant impacts have been identified in this Initial Study than have been previously analyzed and no additional analysis is required. e, f) For a project located within an airport land use plan, would the project expose people to excessive noise levels? No New Impact. Impact 3.10/C in the EDEIR identified potential noise impacts from the airport as less than significant. Based on Exhibit 3-2 contained in the Livermore Municipal Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (2012), the Subarea 3 sits lies north of the noise compatibility zone for this airport. The project site would therefore not be subjected to substantial aircraft noise from this airport. No new or more significant impacts are therefore anticipated in terms of this topic than was previously analyzed in previous CEQA documents and no additional analysis is required. 13. Population and Housing Environmental Setting The project is currently vacant and contains no dwellings or other structures. Project Impacts a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly or indirectly? No New Impact. Approval of the proposed project would not induce substantial additional population growth in the Eastern Dublin area, since development on the affected properties has been envisioned in the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan and Dublin General Plan. Approval of the proposed project would result in fewer dwellings being constructed than currently approved on the site (485 units currently approved v. 437 proposed.) No new or more severe impacts would occur with respect to this topic than were previously analyzed. b,c) Would the project displace substantial numbers of existing housing units or people? No New Impact. Since the site is currently vacant, no housing units or people would be displaced should be project be approved and implemented. No new or more City of Dublin Page 57 Initial Study/Sub Area 3 Project January 2014 severe impacts than were previously analyzed are therefore anticipated with respect housing displacement. 14. Public Services Environmental Setting The following provide essential services to the community: • Fire Protection. Fire protection services are provided by the Alameda County Fire Department. The Department provides fire suppression, emergency medical response, fire prevention, education, building inspection services and hazardous material control. The nearest station is Station 18 at 4800 Fallon Road. • Police Protection: Police and security protection is provided by the Alameda County Sheriff under contact to the City of Dublin. • Schools. The Dublin Unified School District provides K-12 educational services for properties on the project site. • Library Services: Alameda County Library service. • Maintenance. Maintenance of streets, roads and other governmental facilities are the responsibility of the City of Dublin. Previous CEQA documents Eastern Dublin EIR. Applicable mitigation measures contained in Eastern Dublin EIR addressing fire and police protection include: • Mitigation Measure 3.4/7.0: Establish appropriate funding mechanisms to cover up- front costs of capital fire improvements. • Mitigation Measure 3.4/9.0: Incorporate Fire Department recommendations on project design relating to access, water pressure, fire safety and prevention into the requirements of development approval. • Mitigation Measure 3.4/10.0: Ensure, as a requirement of project approval, that an assessment district, homeowners association or other mechanism is in place that will provide regular long-term maintenance of the urban/open space interface. • Mitigation Measure 3.4/12.0: The City shall work with the Fire Department and qualified biologists to prepare a wildfire management plan for the project area. City of Dublin Page 58 Initial Study/Sub Area 3 Project January 2014 • Mitigation Measure 3.4/1.0: Provide additional personnel and facilities and revise beats as necessary in order to establish and maintain City standards for police protection service in Eastern Dublin. • Mitigation Measure 3.4/3.0-5.0: Incorporate into the requirements of project approval Police Department recommendations on project design that affect traffic safety and crime prevention. 1997 ND. No additional public service impacts or mitigation measures were identified in this document. The project will be required to comply with the above mitigation measures. Project Impacts a) Fire protection? No New Impact. Approval and implementation of the proposed project would increase the number of fire and emergency medical calls for service that would need to be responded to by the Alameda County Fire Department, the City of Dublin's contract fire department, as a result of residential development on the project site. The proposed project is required to adhere to mitigation measures, including payment of public facility impact fees to assist in funding new fire stations (Eastern Dublin EIR Mitigation Measure 3.4/7.0) . Consistent with Eastern Dublin EIR Mitigation Measure 3.4/9.0, proposed development on the project site will be conditioned to meet Fire Department requirements including but not limited to maintaining minimum water pressure and fire flow, providing adequate site access, using fire retardant building materials and similar features. Proposed development on the site will also be conditioned to be consistent with the City's adopted Wildfire Management Plan (Eastern Dublin EIR Mitigation Measure 3.4/12.0). Based on discussions with Alameda County Fire Department staff, there would be no new or substantially more severe significant impacts with respect to fire service beyond that analyzed in previous CEQA documents (source: Bonnie Terra, Alameda County Fire Department, 11/18/13) and no new or expanded fire stations would be needed to provide fire and emergency service for the proposed project. No additional analysis is required. b) Police protection? No New Impact. Similar to fire protection, there would be no new impact with regard to police protection, based on mitigation measures included in the Eastern Dublin EIR. These Mitigation Measures include paying City of Dublin public facility impact fees to assist in funding new police facilities (EDSP EIR Mitigation Measure 3.4/1.0), incorporating Police Department safety and security requirements into the proposed project, including but not limited to adequate locking devices, security lighting and ensuring adequate surveillance for structures and parking areas (EDSP EIR Mitigation Measures 3.4/3.0-5.0). Based on discussions with Dublin Police Services Department staff, there would be no new or substantially more severe impacts with respect to police service City of Dublin Page 59 Initial Study/Sub Area 3 Project January 2014 associated with the proposed project beyond that analyzed in previous CEQA documents (source: Captain Tom McCarthy, Dublin Police Services, 11/20/13). No additional analysis is required. c) Schools? No New Impact. No new impacts to school service are anticipated should the proposed project be approved since payment of mandated statutory impact fees at the time of issuance of building permits will provide mitigation of educational impacts of the proposed project pursuant to CEQA. There would be no new or substantially more severe significant impacts with respect to this impact than has been previously analyzed in previous CEQA documents. No additional analysis is required. d) Other governmental service, including maintenance of public facilities? No New Impact. As assumed in the EDEIR, maintenance of public facilities would continue to be provided by the City of Dublin with no new impacts in regard to this topic. New public facilities will be required to be designed to meet City of Dublin standards. There would therefore be no new or substantially more severe significant impacts with respect to this impact than has been previously analyzed in previous CEQA documents; no additional analysis is required. 15. Recreation Environmental Setting No neighborhood or community parks and/or recreation services or facilities exist on the project site. However, the City of Dublin maintains a wide range of park facilities throughout the community, including the Fallon Sports Park, located just north of the project site. Regional park facilities are provided by the East Bay Regional Park District, which maintains a large number of regional parks, trails and similar recreation facilities in Alameda and Contra Costa County. Previous CEQA documents Eastern Dublin EIR. Applicable mitigation measures contained in Eastern Dublin EIR addressing recreation include: • Mitigation Measure 3.4/29.0: Ensure, as a part of the approval process, that each new development provide its fair share of planned open space, parklands and trail corridors. • Mitigation Measure 3.4/31.0: Calculate and assess in-lieu park fees based on the City's parkland dedication ordinance. Credit towards parkland dedication requirements will only be given for level or gently sloping areas suitable for active recreation use. City of Dublin Page 60 Initial Study/Sub Area 3 Project January 2014 • Mitigation Measure 3.4/36.0: Require developer to dedicate public access easements along ridgetops and stream corridors to accommodate the development of trails and staging areas. 1997 ND. No significant impacts related to recreation were identified in this document. Protect Impacts a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood or regional parks? No New Impact. Approval and construction of the proposed project would increase the use of nearby City or regional recreational facilities, since it would include increasing the on-site permanent population on the site. A 2-acre neighborhood park is proposed as part of the project (see Exhibit 3). The project will also pay public facilities, which include a parks component. There would therefore be no new or more severe impacts with respect to recreation than were previously analyzed and no additional analysis is required. b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction of recreational facilities? See item "a," above. 16. Transportation/Traffic Environmental Setting Roadways and freeways. The project area is served by arterials Fallon Road, Central Parkway and Dublin Boulevard. Regional access is provided by I-580, south of the site. Existing transit service. Transit service to the project site is provided by the Livermore/Amador Valley Transit Authority (LAVTA) which provides bus service in Dublin and throughout the Tri-Valley. The Bay Area Rapid Transit District (BART) provides regional rapid transit service with the nearest station located at the Dublin Transit Center, located on the south side of Dublin Boulevard just west of Arnold Road. Existing Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities. Bicycle lanes exist along Fallon Road, Dublin Boulevard and Central Parkway. Previous CEQA documents Eastern Dublin EIR. The Eastern Dublin EIR contains a number of mitigation measures to reduce anticipated traffic impacts from the General Plan and EDSP project. These measures generally include construction of new roadways, widening of existing roadways and improvements to local freeway facilities to accommodate anticipated increases in the number of vehicles associated with the build out of the Eastern Dublin area. With the exceptions noted below, the EIR found that all traffic and transportation impacts could be reduced to less-than-significant levels with adherence to mitigation measures identified in the EIR. A number of impacts could not be reduced to a level of City of Dublin Page 61 Initial Study/Sub Area 3 Project January 2014 insignificance even with mitigations. These include: impacts to the I-580 freeway between I-680 and Hacienda Drive (IM 3.3/B), impacts to the I-580 Freeway between Tassajara Road and Airway Boulevard (IM 3.3/C), cumulative freeway impacts (IM 3.3/E) impacts to Santa Rita Road and T-580 Eastbound ramps (IM 3.3/I), and cumulative impacts to Tassajara Road (IM 3.3/N). 1997 ND. No additional potentially significant transportation impacts or mitigation measures were included in this document. The proposed project will be required to comply with all of the applicable mitigation measures for transportation and circulation impacts, including payment of traffic impact fees applicable to all new development in Eastern Dublin. Project Impacts a,b) Conflict with applicable plans related to the effectiveness of the circulation system, including all modes of travel, including intersections, streets, highways and other components or conflict with an applicable congestion management program, including level of service standards, travel demand measures and other applicable standards? No New Impact. The Eastern Dublin EIR considered the development of the project site with residential land uses and adopted mitigation measures to address the impacts of residential development throughout Eastern Dublin. The City of Dublin has approved a previous development project on the site that would have contained up to 485 dwellings. Table 3 compares estimated vehicle trips from the proposed Subarea 3 project v. trips that would have been generated from the previously approved development project. Table 3. Comparative Trip Rates-Approved v. Proposed Development (AM, PM & Daily Trips) Dail Trip AMP ak Hour Tri Rate/Unit PM Peak Hour T Rate/Unit Land Use Category Rate Total In o Out% Total In o Out% MDR(Single-Family- 9.52 0.75 25 72 1.00 63 37 Detached) MHDR(Apartment) 6.65 0.51 20 80 0.62 65 35 Size I Daily AM Peak Hour Trips PM Peak Hour Trips Approved Uses D.U. Trips I Total I In I Out Total I ' In I Out MDR 313 2,980 235 59 178 313 1 197 1 115 MHDR 172 1,144 88 18 70 106 70 37 Existing Project Trips 4,124 323 77 1 248 1 1 267 1 152 Proposed Uses MDR 330 3,142 248 62 179 330 208 122 MHDR 107 712 55 11 44 66 43 23 Proposed Project Trips 3,845 303 1 73 223 1 396 251 1 145 Net Change in Project Trips (279) 1 (19) 1 (4) (25) (24) 1 (16) (7) Sources: Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE), Trip Generation, 9t Edition, Single-family detached housing (#210) and Apartment(#220), 2012. Proposed project uses based on current plan submitted by Mission Valley Homes, Mr. Kevin Fryer, Project applicant, September 2013. City of Dublin Page 62 Initial Study/Sub Area 3 Project January 2014 Based on the above table, the proposed project would generate an estimated 279 fewer total daily trips, 19 fewer a.m. peak hour trips, and 24 fewer p.m. peak hour trips than the current approved development. However, if approved and constructed, the project would continue to contribute to significant and unavoidable cumulative project impacts as part of the larger Eastern Dublin project. The Eastern Dublin EIR identified such impacts on the following roads and transportation facilities: • I-580 freeway between I-680 and Hacienda Drive; • The Santa Rita Road/I-580 eastbound ramps; • The Dublin Boulevard/Hacienda Drive and Dublin Boulevard/Tassajara Road intersection • Other impacts to Tassajara Road, as identified in the EIR. As part of future development project applications, the project applicant will be required to consult with the Dublin Public Works Department to identify the appropriate traffic control device that would need to be installed at the proposed project entrance along the north side of Central Parkway. Overall, the proposed project would generate fewer daily trips, a.m. or p.m. trips than the currently approved project and would not result in any new or more severe impacts with respect to traffic loading on local or regional roads. MTS routes or other routes of regional significance. c) Change in air traffic patterns? No New Impact. The proposed project includes residential uses and would have no impact on air traffic patterns. No new or more severe impacts would result with respect to this topic than was previously analyzed in other CEQA documents; no additional analysis is required. d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature or incompatible use? No New Impact. Approval of the proposed project would add new driveways, sidewalks and other vehicular and pedestrian travel ways where none currently exist. The current development proposal will be required to comply with current City engineering design standards and other safety standards to ensure that no safety hazards would be created or exacerbated. No new or more severe impacts with respect to design hazards would be created than previously analyzed; no additional analysis is required. e) Result in inadequate emergency access? No New Impact. Multiple access roads would be provided to serve the site and would provide adequate emergency access to and from the site as required by the California Fire Code. No new or more severe impacts would result with respect to this topic. City of Dublin Page 63 Initial Study/Sub Area 3 Project January 2014 f) Conflict with adopted policies, plans or programs regarding public transit, pedestrian facilities or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities? No New Impact. No conflicts to plans, policies or programs that promote public transit, pedestrian use or similar features were identified in previous CEQA reviews for this project. The project developer would install sidewalks along all adjacent streets to enhance pedestrian circulation as well as on local, in-tract local streets. No new or more impacts have been identified in this Initial Study that has been previously analyzed in other CEQA documents for the project site and no additional analysis is required. 16. Utilities and Service Systems Environmental Setting The project area is served by the following service providers: • Water supply and distribution: Dublin San Ramon Services District (DSRSD). • Sewage collection and treatment; recycled water: DSRSD. • Storm drainage: City of Dublin and Zone 7. • Solid waste service: Amador Valley Industries • Electrical and natural gas power: Pacific Gas and Electric Co. • Communications: AT &T Previous CEQA documents Eastern Dublin EIR. In terms of water resources, the Eastern Dublin EIR identified overdraft of groundwater resources (Impact 3.5/P) as a potentially significant impact Adherence to Mitigation Measures 3.5/24.0 and 25.0 would reduce this impact to a level of insignificant. These measures require the City of Dublin to coordinate with DSRSD to develop recycled water resources and otherwise carefully use water resources and that all new development in the Eastern Dublin project area to connect to the DSRSD water system. Impact 3.5/Q identified an increase in water demand as a potentially significant impact, but this impact could be mitigated to an insignificant level based on implementation of Mitigation Measures 3.5/26.0-31.0. These mitigation measures require implementation of water conservation measures in individual development projects and construction of new system-wide water improvements which are funded by development impact fees. Another related impact identified in the Eastern Dublin EIR is the need for additional water treatment plant capacity (Impact 3.5/R). This impact was identified as being reduced to a level of insignificance through the implementation of Mitigation Measures 3.5/32.0-31.0, which requires improvement to the Zone 7 water system, to be funded by individual development impact fees. City of Dublin Page 64 Initial Study/Sub Area 3 Project January 2014 Impact 3.5/S (lack of a water distribution system) was identified as a potentially significant impact in the Eastern Dublin EIR, but this impact has been reduced to an insignificant level through adherence to Mitigation Measures3.5/4.34.0-38.0. These mitigations require upgrades to the project area water system and provision of a "will serve" letter prior to issuance of a grading permit. Impact 3.5/T identified a potentially significant impact related to inducement of substantial growth and concentration of population in the project area. The Eastern Dublin found that this was a significant and unavoidable impact. Regarding sewer service, the Eastern Dublin EIR identified Impact 3.5/B (lack of a wastewater collection system) as a potentially significant impact that could be mitigated through adherence to Mitigation Measures 3.5/1.0-5.0. These measures require DSRSD to prepare an area-wide wastewater collection system master plan, requires all new development to be connected to DSRSD's public sewer system, discourages on-site wastewater treatment, requires a "will-serve" letter from DSRSD and requires that all sewer facilities be constructed to DSRSD engineering standards. Impact 3.5 noted an impact with regard to extension of a sewer trunk line with capacity to serve new development, but could be reduced to an insignificant level since the proposed Eastern Dublin Specific Plan sewer system has been sized to accommodate increased sewer demand from the proposed Specific Plan project. Impact 3.5/G found that lack of wastewater disposal capacity as a significant impact. An upgraded wastewater disposal facility has been completed by the Livermore Amador Valley Water Management Agency and is currently operational. Impact 3.5/E identified lack of wastewater treatment plant capacity as a potentially significant impact, which could be reduced to an insignificant level through adherence to Mitigation Measures 3.5/8.0 and 9.0 that require provision of adequate wastewater facilities through expansion of regional wastewater collection, treatment and disposal systems. No additional mitigation measures pertaining to utilities or service systems were contained in the 1997 CEQA document. Project Impacts a)Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the RWQCB? No New Impact. The current project would contain the same type of development as analyzed in the EDEIR and 1997 Negative Declaration and, based on recent discussions with DSRSD staff (noted below) regarding this project, the proposed project would not exceed wastewater requirements of the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). No new or more significant impacts with respect to wastewater treatment requirements have been identified in this Initial Study than have been analyzed in previous CEQA documents; no additional analysis is required. b) Require new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities? No New Impact. Water, recycled water and wastewater extensions to existing mains in adjacent roadways would need to be constructed to serve the amount of development proposed in the Subarea 3 development application. According to a representative of DSRSD, District water, wastewater collection, treatment and disposal facilities from the construction of the proposed project would not result in Page 65 City of Dublin January 2014 Initial Study/Sub Area 3 Project a new or more significant impact than was analyzed in previous CEQA documents (source: Stan Kolozdie, DSRSD, 11/19/13); no additional analysis is required. The proposed project would also contribute to cumulative impacts related to consumption of non-renewable natural resources (Impact 3.4/S, increase in energy use though increased wastewater treatment and disposal and though the operation of the water system (Impact 3.5/F, H, and U), and inducement of substantial growth and concentration of population (Impact 3.5/T). All of these impacts were identified as significant and unavoidable in the Eastern Dublin EIR. c) Require new storm drainage facilities? No New Impact. The proposed project would direct stormwater runoff to an existing subregional drainage basin located west of the project site in Eastern Dublin area. This facility has been sized to accommodate peak flows from anticipated development in Eastern Dublin, including the project site so that no new and or upgraded drainage facilities are needed to support proposed development (Jim Templeton, project engineer, 1/8/14). No new or more significant impacts are anticipated with respect to storm drain facilities that have been analyzed in previous CEQA documents; no additional analysis is required. d) Are sufficient water supplies available? No New Impact. The EDEIR planned for residential uses on the site, with water service provided by DSRSD. Based on the information provided by DSRSD staff, the District has planned for future urban uses on this site and included such development in the District's Urban Water Management Plan (source: Stan Kolozdie, DSRSD, 11/19/13). Therefore, adequate water supplies are available to serve the project, as assumed in the EDEIR. No new or more significant are anticipated with respect to water supplies than have been previously analyzed and no additional analysis is required. e) Adequate wastewater capacity to serve the proposed project? See response to "a," above. e, f) Solid waste disposal? No New Impact. The project site is within the franchise area of Amador Valley Industries that provides residential and commercial solid waste pick-up and recycling services. According to representatives of the company, no solid waste service is currently provided to the area, since it is undeveloped. The topic of solid waste disposal was not identified as a potentially significant impact in previous CEQA documents and no new or more significant impacts have been identified in this Initial Study than have been previously analyzed. g) Comply with federal, state and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? No New Impact. The existing service provider will ensure adherence to federal, state and local solid waste regulations. No new or more severe impacts are anticipated impacts than have been previously analyzed. City of Dublin Page 66 Initial Study/Sub Area 3 Project January 2014 17. Mandatory Findings of Significance a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number of or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate i.inportant examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? No. Potential impacts related to biological resources, including a reduction in habitat area of fish or wildlife species, elimination of a plant or animal community, or elimination of an important example of major periods of California history or prehistory was analyzed in the Eastern Dublin EIR. The proposed project would represent less development intensity than previously analyzed in earlier CEQA documents. b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects and the effects of probable future projects). No. Cumulative impacts of the proposed Sub Area 3 project have been fully analyzed in the Eastern Dublin EIR and the 1997 ND. c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? No. No such impacts have been discovered in the course of preparing this Initial Study. Page 67 City of Dublin January 2014 Initial Study/Sub Area 3 Project Initial Study Preparers Jerry Haag, Urban Planner, project manager Agencies and Organizations Consulted The following agencies and organizations were contacted in the course of this Initial Study: City of Dublin Luke Sims, AICP, Community Development Director Jeff Baker, Assistant Community Development Director Michael Porto, Project Manager Andy Russell PE, City Engineer Obaid Khan, City Transportation Engineer Bonnie Terra, Alameda County Fire Department Darrell Jones, Alameda County Fire Department Chief Tom McCarthy, Dublin Police Services Kathleen Faubion, AICP, Assistant City Attorney California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) Website DSRSD Stan Kolozdie Applicant Representatives Kevin Fryer References Dublin General Plan, City of Dublin, Updated through 7/2/11 Eastern Dublin General Plan, Wallace Roberts & Todd, 1993 Eastern Dublin Specific Plan and General Plan Environmental Impact Report, Wallace Roberts & Todd, 1994 Eastern Dublin Comprehensive Stream Restoration Program, Sycamore Associates, 1996 Eastern Dublin Scenic Corridor Policies and Standards, David Gates & Associates, 1996 City of Dublin Page 68 Initial Study/Sub Area 3 Project January 2014 Livermore Municipal Airport Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan ESA Associates, August 2012 Parks and Recreation Master Plan, City of Dublin, 2006 update Page 69 City of Dublin January 2014 Initial Study/Sub Area 3 Project EXHIBIT B STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS 1. General. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15093, the City Council of the City of Dublin adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations for those impacts identified in the Eastern Dublin EIR as significant and unavoidable (Resolution 53-93, May 10, 1993). The City Council carefully considered each impact in its decision to approve urbanization of Eastern Dublin through approval of the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan project. The City Council is currently considering the Dublin Ranch Subarea 3 project, which would result in future development of up to 437 single family residences on an approximately 64 acre site (PLPA 2013-00033). The project proposes General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan amendments to reallocate existing High Density Residential and Medium Density Residential land uses, to reduce and change Open Space land uses to Rural Residential/Agriculture and to increase the site's Stream Corridor designation. The application also proposes a Planned Development rezoning with related Stage 1 Development Plan. The applications are collectively referred to herein as the "Project". The City Council adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations with the 1993 land use approvals for urbanization of Eastern Dublin, including the Subarea 3 property. Pursuant to a 2002 court decision, the City Council must adopt new overriding considerations for the previously identified unavoidable impacts that apply to the current Project.' The City Council believes that many of the unavoidable environmental effects identified in the Eastern Dublin EIR will be substantially lessened by implementation of previously adopted mitigation measures with future development of the Project. Even with mitigation, the City Council recognizes that the implementation of the Project carries with it unavoidable adverse environmental effects as identified in the Eastern Dublin EIR. The City Council specifically finds that to the extent that the identified adverse or potentially adverse impacts for the Project have not been mitigated to acceptable levels, there are specific economic, social, environmental, land use, or other considerations that support approval of the Project. 2. Unavoidable Significant Adverse Impacts from the Eastern Dublin EIR. The following unavoidable significant environmental impacts identified in the Eastern Dublin EIR for future development of Eastern Dublin apply to the Project. Land Use Impact 3.1F. Cumulative Loss of Agricultural and Open Space Lands; Visual Impacts 3.8/13; and, Alteration of Rural/Open Space Character Traffic and Circulation Impacts 3.318, 3.31E. 1-580 Freeway, Cumulative Freeway Impacts 1 "public officials must still go on the record and explain specifically why they are approving the later project despite its significant unavoidable impacts." (emphasis original.) Communities for a Better Environment v. California Resources Agency 103 Cal. App. 4 th 98. (2002) 2228163.1 Page 1 of Exhibit B Traffic and Circulation Impacts 3.311, 3.31M. Santa Rita Road/1-580 Ramps, Cumulative Dublin Boulevard Impacts. Community Services and Facilities Impact 3.41S. Consumption of Non-Renewable Natural Resources and Sewer Water and Storm Drainage Impact 3.5/F, H, U. Increases in Energy Usage Through Increased Water Treatment, Disposal, and Operation of Water Distribution System. Soils, Geology, and Seismicity Impact 3.618. Earthquake Ground Shaking, Primary Effects. Air Quality Impacts 3.111A, B, C, and E. Future development of the Project will contribute to cumulative dust deposition, construction equipment emissions, mobile and stationary source emissions. 3. Overriding Considerations. The City Council previously balanced the benefits of the Eastern Dublin project approvals against the significant and potentially significant adverse impacts identified in the Eastern Dublin EIR. The City Council now balances those unavoidable impacts that apply to future development on the Project site against its benefits, and hereby determines that such unavoidable impacts are outweighed by the benefits of the Project as further set forth below. The City declares that each one of the benefits included below, independent of any other benefits, would be sufficient to justify approval of the Project and override the Project's significant and unavoidable impacts. The substantial evidence demonstrating the benefits of the Project are found in these findings, and in the documents found in the administrative record for the Project. The Project will further the urbanization of Eastern Dublin as planned through the comprehensive framework established in the original Eastern Dublin approvals. The Project will create residential development that is compatible with the residential development in the vicinity of the Project. The Project will help the City toward its RHNA goal for new housing units and will help implement policies contained in the Housing Element of the General Plan. The Project will provide a multi-use trail as well as streetscape improvements such as curb, gutter, sidewalk, and landscaping that will be an amenity to the larger community and provide safer pedestrian and bicycle access between existing neighborhoods. The Project will create new revenue for the City, County, and State through the transfer and reassessment of property due to the improvement of the property and the corresponding increase in value. The Project will contribute funds to construct schools, parks, and other community facilities that are a benefit City-wide. Development of the project site will provide construction employment opportunities for Dublin residents. 2228163.1 Page 2 of