The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About8.2 Attch 5 PC Reso SEIR RESOLUTION NO. 12-XX A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL CERTIFY A SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE MOLLER RANCH/MOLLER CREEK CULVERT REPLACEMENT PROJECT AND MAKE RELATED FINDINGS PLPA 2011-00003 WHEREAS, Braddock & Logan Services (Applicant) proposes to develop up to 382 single family detached units on approximately 79.6 acres of the 226.3-acre Moller Ranch. The proposal includes an approximately 1.1-acre neighborhood park, 1.2 acres of Semi-Public land use including trails and a staging area, a system of bio-retention cells for storm water pollution control, and approximately 7.6 acres of designated Open Space, generally along Moller Creek. In connection with the proposed development, an existing Tassajara Road culvert over Moller Creek would be replaced and would include realignment of the creek and erosion control and other improvements along the creek banks and in the creek channel in an approximately 2.5 acre area. The City is processing applications for General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan amendments, a PD-Planned Development rezoning with related Stage 1 and Stage 2 Development Plans, a vesting tentative map and a development agreement, which applications and the activities described above are collectively referred to as the "Project" and are on file and available for review during normal business hours as PLPA 2011-00003 at the Planning Division, Dublin City Hall, 100 Civic Plaza, Dublin, CA 94568 ; and WHEREAS, the 226.3-acre Moller Ranch is located on the east side of Tassajara Road at the northerly City limits; the 2.5 acre culvert replacement area is located just west of the Moller Ranch in the Tassajara Road right-of-way. These areas are collectively referred to as the "Project Site"; and WHEREAS, development of the Project Site was analyzed in two prior certified EIRs, as further described in attached Exhibit A (Resolution of the City Council Certifying a Supplemental Environmental Impact Report and Adopting Mitigation Findings, Findings Regarding Alternatives, a Statement of Overriding Considerations and a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the Moller Ranch/Moller Creek Culvert Replacement Project), and in a Supplemental EIR for the Project, also as further described in attached Exhibit A; and WHEREAS, the prior EIRs identified potentially significant environmental impacts and related mitigation measures, which the City adopted together with mitigation findings and mitigation monitoring programs, which mitigation measures and monitoring programs continue to apply to development on the Project Site; and WHEREAS, the prior EIRs also identified potentially significant environmental impacts that could not be avoided by mitigation and for which the City adopted statements of overriding considerations pursuant to CEQA; and ATTACHMENT 5 WHEREAS, the City prepared a Draft and Final Supplemental EIR (together "Supplemental EIR") for the Project, as further described in attached Exhibit A. The Planning Commission considered the prior EIRs, the Project Supplemental EIR, and other documents and testimony in connection with a public hearing on the Project on November 27, 2012. WHEREAS, the Draft and Final Supplemental EIRs are separately bound documents, incorporated herein by reference, and are available for review during normal business hours in the City Planning Division, file PLPA 2011-00003. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT: A. The foregoing recitals are true and correct and made a part of this resolution. B. The• Dublin Planning Commission has reviewed and considered the Supplemental Environmental impact Report and hereby recommends that the City Council adopt the resolution in attached Exhibit A certifying the Supplemental Environmental Impact Report for the Project as complete, adequate and in compliance with CEQA, the CEQA Guidelines, and the City of Dublin Environmental Guidelines, and make all required mitigation and other findings. PASSED,APPROVED,AND ADOPTED this 27th day of November, 2012 by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Planning Commission Chair ATTEST: Assistant Community Development Director G:IPA#12011IPLPA-2011-00003 Moller Ranch B&LIPC Mtg 11.27.121PC Reso Moller SEIR.doc 2 RESOLUTION NO. XX-12 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN *********************************************** CERTIFYING A SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT AND ADOPTING MITIGATION FINDINGS, FINDINGS REGARDING ALTERNATIVES, A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS AND A MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM FOR THE MOLLER RANCH/MOLLER CREEK CULVERT REPLACEMENT PROJECT PLPA 2011-00003 WHEREAS, Braddock & Logan Services (Applicant) proposes to develop up to 382 single family detached units on approximately 79.6 acres of the 226.3-acre Moller Ranch. The proposal includes an approximately 1.1-acre neighborhood park, 1.2 acres of Semi-Public land use including trails and a staging area, a system of bio-retention cells for storm water pollution control, and approximately 7.6 acres of designated Open Space, generally along Moller Creek. In connection with the proposed development, an existing Tassajara Road culvert over Moller Creek would be replaced and would include realignment of the creek and erosion control and other improvements along the creek banks and in the creek channel in an approximately 2.5 acre area. The City is processing applications for General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan amendments, a PD-Planned Development rezoning with related Stage 1 and Stage 2 Development Plans, a vesting tentative map and a development agreement, which applications and the activities described above are collectively referred to as the "Project" and are on file and available for review during normal business hours as PLPA 2011-00003 at the Planning Division, Dublin City Hall, 100 Civic Plaza, Dublin, CA 94568; and WHEREAS, the 226.3-acre Moller Ranch is located on the east side of Tassajara Road at the northerly City limits; the 2.5 acre culvert replacement area is located just west of the Moller Ranch in the Tassajara Road right-of-way. These areas are collectively referred to as the "Project Site"; and WHEREAS, the Project Site is in Eastern Dublin for which the City adopted the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan to provide a comprehensive planning framework for future development of the area. In connection with this approval, the City certified a program EIR pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15168 (SCH: 91103064, Resolution 51-93, and Addendum dated August 22, 1994, hereafter "Eastern Dublin EIR" or "program EIR") that is available for review in the Planning Division and is incorporated herein by reference. The program EIR was integral to the planning process and examined the direct and indirect effects, cumulative impacts, broad policy alternatives, and areawide mitigation measures for developing Eastern Dublin, including the Project Site; and WHEREAS, the Eastern Dublin EIR identified potentially significant environmental impacts and related mitigation measures, which the City adopted together with mitigation findings and a Mitigation Monitoring Program (Resolution 53-93, incorporated herein by reference), which mitigation measures and monitoring program continue to apply to development in Eastern Dublin, including the Project; and EXHIBIT A TO 1 ATTACHMENT 5 WHEREAS, the Eastern Dublin EIR also identified potentially significant environmental impacts that could not be avoided by mitigation and for which the City adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations pursuant to CEQA (Resolution 53-93); and WHEREAS, in connection with a prior project on the Moller Ranch site, the City certified the Casamira Valley/Moller Ranch Project Supplemental EIR ("Casamira EIR") pursuant to CEQA section 21166 and CEQA Guidelines sections 15162 and 15163 (SCH # 2005052146) and adopted supplemental mitigation measures, a Mitigation Monitoring Program and Statement of Overriding Considerations for applicable significant unavoidable voidable impacts through Resolution 56-07, dated May 1, 2007 and incorporated herein by reference; and WHEREAS, the City prepared an Initial Study dated August 2012 for the Project consistent with CEQA Guidelines sections 15162 and 15163 and determined that a supplement to the Eastern Dublin EIR and Casamira EIR was required in order to analyze substantial changes in circumstances and new information that could result in new or potentially more severe significant impacts than identified in the prior EIRs; and WHEREAS, the City circulated a Notice of Preparation dated August 30, 2012 with the Initial Study to public agencies and interested parties for consultation on the scope of the supplemental EIR. The City also conducted a public scoping meeting on August 8, 2012; and WHEREAS, based on the Initial Study and responses to the Notice of Preparation, the City prepared a Draft Su pp lemental EIR dated September 2012 (SCH No. 2005052146) which reflected the independent judgment of the City as to the potential environmental effects of the Project. The Draft Supplemental EIR confirmed that many aspects of the Project were within the scope of the Eastern Dublin and Casamira projects and that the certified Eastern Dublin and Casamira EIRs adequately described these aspects of the Project for CEQA purposes. The Draft Supplemental EIR was circulated for the required 45 day public review period, from September 13, 2012 to October 29, 2012; and WHEREAS, the City received comment letters from State and local agencies and the applicant during the public review period. The City prepared a Final Supplemental EIR dated November, 2012, containing written responses to all comments received during the public review period, which responses provide the City's good faith, reasoned analysis of the environmental issues raised by the comments; and WHEREAS, a Staff Report, dated November 27, 2012 and incorporated herein by reference, described and analyzed the Draft and Final Supplemental EIRs and the Project for the Planning Commission; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission reviewed the Staff Report, the prior EIRs and the Draft and Final Supplemental EIRs at a noticed public hearing on November 27, 2012 at which time all interested parties had the opportunity to be heard. Following the hearing and based on the record before it, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution 12-XX recommending certification of the Supplemental EIR and Resolutions 12-XX recommending approval of the Project general plan and specific plan amendments and PD-rezoning and adopted Resolution 12-XX, conditionally approving the Project vesting tentative map, all of which resolutions are incorporated herein by reference and available for review during normal business hours at the Planning Division in City Hall at 100 Civic Plaza, Dublin, CA 94568; and 2 WHEREAS, a Staff Report dated , 2012 and incorporated herein by reference, described the Draft and Final Supplemental EIRs and the Project for the City Council; and WHEREAS, the City Council reviewed the Staff Report, the prior EIRs and the Draft and Final Supplemental EIRs at a noticed public hearing on , 2012, at which time all interested parties had the opportunity to be heard; and WHEREAS, the Draft and Final Supplemental EIRs reflect the City's independent judgment and analysis on the potential for environmental impacts and constitute the Supplemental Environmental Impact Report for the Moller Ranch/Moller Creek Culvert Replacement Project; and WHEREAS, the Project would have significant supplemental effects on the environment, most of which can be substantially reduced through supplemental mitigation measures; therefore, approval of the Project must include mitigation findings as set forth in attached Exhibit A; and WHEREAS, the Draft SEIR identified supplemental impact TRA-1-12 as significant; however the identified mitigation measure to remove a crosswalk at a busy intersection is infeasible, as further described in the Staff Report. Therefore, the impact is significant and unavoidable, as further described in attached Exhibit A; and WHEREAS, some of the significant effects cannot be lessened to a level of less than significant; therefore, approval of the Project must include findings regarding alternatives as set forth in attached Exhibit B, and must include a Statement of Overriding Considerations as set forth in attached Exhibit C; and WHEREAS, a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, as required by CEQA, is contained in attached Exhibit D; and WHEREAS, the Draft and Final Supplemental EIRs are separately bound documents, incorporated herein by reference, and are available for review during normal business hours in the City planning division, file PLPA 2011-00003. The custodian of the documents and other materials which constitute the record of proceedings for the Moller Ranch/Moller Creek Culvert Replacement Project is the Planning Division, City of Dublin Community Development Department, 100 Civic Plaza, Dublin CA 94568, attn: Mike Porto. 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 Dublin City Council certifies the following: A The Supplemental EIR has been completed in compliance with CEQA, the CEQA Guidelines and the City of Dublin Environmental Guidelines. B. The Supplemental EIR and the Eastern Dublin EIR and Casamira EIR were presented to the City Council who reviewed the considered the information contained therein prior to approving the Project. C. The Supplemental EIR reflects the City's independent judgment and analysis on the potential for 3 environmental effects of the Moller Ranch/Moller Creek Culvert Replacement Project. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Dublin City Council adopts the mitigations and mitigation findings set forth in Exhibit A, the Findings regarding Alternatives set forth in Exhibit B, the Statement of Overriding Considerations set forth in Exhibit C, and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program set forth in Exhibit D, which exhibits A, B, C and D are incorporated herein by reference. PASSED, APPROVED,AND ADOPTED this_day of , 2012 by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk G:IPA#120111PLPA-2011-00003 Moller Ranch B&LIPC Mtg 11.27.121CC Reso Moller SEIR.doc 4 EXHIBIT A FINDINGS CONCERNING SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES Pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21081 and CEQA Guidelines section 15091,the City Council hereby makes these findings with respect to the potential for significant environmental impacts from adoption and implementation of the Moller Ranch/Moller Creek Culvert Replacement Project (Project), PLPA 2011-0003, and means for mitigating those impacts. Many of the impacts and mitigation measures in the following findings are summarized rather than set forth in full. The text of the Draft and Final Supplemental EIR documents should be consulted for a complete description of the impacts and mitigations. The Draft and Final Supplemental EIR documents together constitute the Supplemental EIR(SEIR) for the Project. Supplemental Impact TRA-1-12. Project contribution to impact at Hacienda Dr./Dublin Blvd. intersection under both near-term and long-term cumulative conditions). The Hacienda Drive and Dublin Boulevard intersection would operate at LOS E during the AM peak hour under both near-term and long-term traffic conditions and would operate at LOS F during the PM peak hour. This intersection and would experience an increase in delay during the AM and PM peak hours due to the Moller Ranch development. Supplemental Mitigation SM-TRA-1-12. This mitigation is infeasible. (Revised, see FSEIR). Finding: SM-TRA-1-12 identified in the Draft SEIR is infeasible, as further explained in the Rationale below. There are no feasible mitigations for this impact. There are no feasible alternatives that avoid this significant effect, as further addressed in Exhibit D, Findings Concerning Alternatives. Rationale: Supplemental mitigation SM-TRA-1-12 calls for removal of a crosswalk at the Hacienda Drive/Dublin Boulevard intersection. Removing the crosswalk would be inconsistent with the City's adopted complete-streets policy. Also, the intersection is just over one-half mile from the Eastern Dublin BART station and adjoins the transit-oriented Dublin Transit Center, which is a Priorit Development Area as desi•nated b ABAG. The intersection is bordered b hi•h-densit residential commercial office and retail uses includin• the Hacienda Crossin l s shopping center, that are expected to generate significant pedestrian activity at buildout. Removin• the crosswalk would also .ose safet concerns in li•ht of the ex.ected heavy pedestrian traffic that would likely attempt to cross the street even without a marked crosswalk. No other feasible mitigations are identified for the intersection impacts,therefore, the impact is significant and unavoidable. . Supplemental Impact TRA-2-12: Project contribution to impact at Fallon Rd./Dublin Blvd. intersection under near term conditions. The Fallon Road and Dublin Boulevard intersection would operate at LOS F during the PM peak hour under the Near-term traffic condition and would experience an increase in delay during the PM peak hour due to the Moller Ranch development. (Revised FSEIR). Supplemental Mitigation SM-TRA-2-12. The project applicant shall optimize the signal timing splits at the intersection of Fallon Road and Dublin Boulevard. This improvement will reduce the impact to less than significant in the Near-term Plus Project condition by improving operations to a pre-project condition. Although the project would worsen the delay at the already 1 failing intersection, the improvement does not mitigate the intersection to an acceptable LOS and therefore the project shall be responsible for the entirety of the mitigation costs. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into,the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect identified in the SEIR, but not to a level of less than significant. There are no feasible alternatives that avoid this significant effect, as further addressed in Exhibit B, Findings Concerning Alternatives Rationale: The signal timing adjustment would improve operations at the intersection, but not to an acceptable LOS. The impact is significant and unavoidable and a Statement of Overriding Considerations is required to support approval of the Project, as further addressed in Exhibit C, Statement of Overriding Considerations. Supplemental Impact TRA-3-12: Project contribution to impact at Dougherty Rd./Dublin Blvd. intersection under long term cumulative conditions. The Dougherty Road and Dublin Boulevard intersection would operate at LOS F during the AM and PM peak hours under the Long-term traffic condition and would experience an increase in delay during the AM and PM peak hours due to the Moller Ranch development. Supplemental Mitigation. No mitigation feasible. Finding: There are no feasible mitigations for this impact. There are no feasible alternatives that avoid this significant effect, as further addressed in Exhibit D, Findings Concerning Alternatives. Rationale: As further explained in the Draft SEIR,this intersection has already been improved pursuant to past project approvals and related mitigations. Revised signal timing would not improve intersection performance; also, because of right-of-way constraints due to existing commercial structures and/or parking adjacent to the intersection, there is insufficient area for physical capacity improvements. The impact is significant and unavoidable and a Statement of Overriding Considerations is required to support approval of the Project, as further addressed in Exhibit C, Statement of Overriding Considerations. Supplemental Impact TRA-4-12: Project contribution to impact at the Tassajara Rd./Dublin Blvd. intersection under long-term cumulative conditions. The Tassajara Road and Dublin Boulevard intersection is expected to operate at LOS 0 during the AM peak hour and LOS F during the PM peak hour under the Long-term traffic condition and would experience an increase in LOS and delay during the AM and PM peak hours due to the Moller Ranch development.. Supplemental Mitigation. No mitigation feasible. Finding: There are no feasible mitigations for this impact. There are no feasible alternatives that avoid this significant effect, as further addressed in Exhibit D, Findings Concerning Alternatives. Rationale: As further explained in the Draft SEIR, revised signal timing would not improve intersection performance; also, because of right-of-way constraints, there is insufficient area for physical capacity improvements. The impact is significant and unavoidable and a Statement of 2 Overriding Considerations is required to support approval of the Project, as further addressed in Exhibit C, Statement of Overriding Considerations. Supplemental Impact TRA-5-12: Project contribution to impact at Tassajara Rd./I-580 WB ramps under long-term cumulative conditions. The Tassajara Road and I-580 WB Ramps intersection would operate at LOS D during the PM peak hour under the long-term traffic condition and would experience an increase in level of service to LOS E during the PM peak hour due to the Moller Ranch development. Supplemental Mitigation SM-TRA-5-12. Prior to the recordation of the first final map for the Moller project, the applicant shall pay the cost to retime the signal at the intersection of Tassajara Road and I-580 WB Ramps. This improvement will reduce the impact to less than significant in the Long-term +Project condition. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect identified in the SEIR. Rationale: Implementation of this mitigation measure will improve intersection performance to acceptable levels and reduce the impact to less than significant. Supplemental Impact TRA-6-12: Project contribution to impact at Fallon Rd./Dublin Blvd. under long-term cumulative conditions. The Fallon Road and Dublin Boulevard intersection would operate at LOS F during the PM peak hour under the Long-term traffic condition and would experience an increase in delay during the PM peak hour due to the Moller Ranch development.. Supplemental Mitigation SM-TRA-6-12. Prior to the City's issuance of the first certificate of occupancy, the applicant shall optimize the signal timing splits at the intersection of Fallon Road and Dublin Boulevard. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect identified in the SEIR. Rationale: Revising the signal timing will improve performance deficiencies resulting from the Project contribution to cumulative traffic at this intersection. Supplemental Impact TRA-7-12: Project contribution to impact along Tassajara Rd. between Fallon Rd. and County line under near-term conditions. The roadway segment along Tassajara Road from Fallon Road to the County limit will exceed the recommended ADT volume threshold for a two-lane roadway in the City of Dublin due to the Moller Ranch development.. Supplemental Mitigation SM-TRA-7-12. Prior to the City's issuance of the first certificate of occupancy for the Moller project, the applicant shall widen Tassajara Road from the project entrance to Fallon Road to four lanes. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect identified in the SEIR. 3 Rationale: Widening Tassajara Road to four lanes ensures compliance with the City's ADT volume threshold and provides sufficient width along this roadway segment to accommodate traffic increases from the Project. Supplemental Impact TRA-8-12: Project contribution to impact to impact along Tassajara Rd. between Dublin Blvd. and Gleason Dr. under long-term cumulative conditions. The roadway segment along Tassajara Road from Dublin Boulevard to Gleason Drive under the Metropolitan Transportation System is expected to operate at LOS F during the PM peak hour and under the Long-term condition and would experience a decrease in average travel speed during the PM peak hour due to the Moller Ranch development. Supplemental Mitigation SM-TRA-8-12. Prior to the recordation of the first final subdivision map for the Moller project,the applicant shall pay the cost to coordinate signals along Tassajara Road from Dublin Boulevard to Gleason Drive. The coordination of signals along Tassajara would increase the average travel speed to 11 mph, the same as without the project, and therefore will reduce the impact to less than significant in the Long-term plus Project condition. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into,the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect identified in the SEIR. Rationale: Revising the signal timing will improve roadway capacity and thus will improve performance deficiencies resulting from the Project contribution to cumulative traffic along this roadway segment. Supplemental Impact TRA-9-12: Project contribution to impact along Tassajara Rd. between I-580 and Dublin Blvd. under long-term conditions. The roadway segment along Tassajara Road from 1-580 to Dublin Boulevard would exceed the recommended ADT volume threshold for an eight-lane roadway in the City of Dublin under the Long-term traffic condition and is expected to experience an increase in volume due to the Moller Ranch development. Supplemental Mitigation SM-TRA-9-12.Northbound Tassajara Road shall be widened to five lanes from I-580 to Dublin Boulevard. The additional northbound lane would be a drop lane for the inside northbound right turn lane. An additional northbound lane would increase the ADT threshold to 80,000 vehicles per day and therefore will reduce the impact to less than significant in the Long-term+ Project condition. The City intends to include this roadway improvement in the next fee program update and therefore the project will solely be responsible to pay their impact fees. If the improvement is not added to the fee program by the time of final subdivision mapping, the project shall pay its fair share of the improvement as calculated by the City. The project's traffic volume contribution to the impact is 2%under Long-term conditions. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect identified in the SEIR. Rationale: Widening Tassajara Road to five lanes ensures compliance with the City's ADT volume threshold and provides sufficient width along this roadway segment to accommodate Project contribution to cumulative traffic. 4 Supplemental Impact TRA-10-12: Lack of vehicle storage capacity at the Tassajara Rd./ Fallon Rd. intersection. The Tassajara Road and Fallon Road intersection would provide for an inadequate eastbound left turn queue of during the PM peak hour in the Existing Plus Project and Near Term Plus Project conditions. The project would create a left-turn queue exceeding the turn pocket and then spilling out of the turn pocket into the roadway, this is a significant impact. Supplemental Mitigation SM-TRA-10-12. Prior to the City's issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy,the applicant shall restripe the existing eastbound through lane into a shared through/left turn lane and implement split phasing for the eastbound and westbound approaches at the intersection of Tassajara Road and Fallon Road. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into,the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect identified in the SEIR. Rationale: The mitigation would ensure provision of a second lane to increase queuing capacity to accommodate left-turn traffic from the Project. Supplemental Impact TRA-11-12: Lack of vehicle storage capacity at the Tassajara Rd./ Dublin Blvd. intersection. The Tassajara Road and Dublin Boulevard intersection would have provide for an inadequate eastbound left turn queue under the Long-term Plus Project conditions. The project would create a demand for an additional approximately 80 feet of the total queue that would exceed the turn pocket length in the PM peak. Since the project would create at least one car length of the total queue exceeding the turn pocket and the queue spilling out of the turn pocket is greater than one car, this impact would be significant. Supplemental Mitigation. No mitigation feasible. Finding: There are no feasible mitigations for this impact. There are no feasible alternatives that avoid this significant effect, as further addressed in Exhibit B, Findings Concerning Alternatives. Rationale: As further explained in the Draft SEIR, revised signal timing would not improve intersection performance; also, because of right-of-way constraints, there is insufficient area for physical capacity improvements. The impact is significant and unavoidable and a Statement of Overriding Considerations is required to support approval of the Project, as further addressed in Exhibit C, Statement of Overriding Considerations. Supplemental Impact BIO-1-12: Direct and Indirect impacts to annual grassland habitat and common wildlife. Construction of the proposed project would directly and indirectly impact approximately 165.14 acres of annual grassland habitat for regionally common wildlife species that occurs on the Moller Ranch. Supplemental Mitigation SM-BIO-la-12. The project applicant shall preserve grasslands at a ratio of 3:1 (preserved:impacted) as mitigation for the proposed development, for a total of 495.42 acres. In addition, to compensate for the loss of 4.95 ac of regulated habitats (jurisdictional wetlands and riparian woodlands)that function as dispersal and refuge habitat for tiger salamanders and red-legged frogs, another 14.85 ac of grasslands shall be preserved in the 5 conservation lands for a total of 510.27 acres. As described above,the loss of these regulated habitats could be mitigated for at off-site mitigation banks. All lands proposed as mitigation must provide suitable habitat for focal species impacted by the proposed project. The preservation of 510.27 ac of grasslands will satisfy EACCS habitat mitigation requirements for impacts to focal species discussed below. A conservation easement or similar mechanism shall be placed on the mitigation lands to preserve the lands in perpetuity as a natural open space and habitat for native plants and animals. An agreement establishing the conservation easement or similar mechanism on the mitigation lands must be completed prior to the initiation of construction activities. Supplemental Mitigation SM-BIO-lb-12. The project applicant shall establish an endowment in an amount to be determined by the California Department of Fish& Game (CDFG) and United States Fish& Wildlife Service (USFWS) for the long-term management, maintenance, and monitoring of the mitigation lands placed in the conservation easement or similar mechanism. The project applicant shall provide a guarantee of the endowment to the City prior to the issuance of a grading permit. Supplemental Mitigation SM-BIO-lc-12. The project applicant shall prepare and implement a comprehensive habitat mitigation and monitoring plan. The plan shall be reviewed and approved by the USFWS and CDFG. The comprehensive plan shall be approved prior to issuance of a grading permit. To comply with EACCS requirements and to mitigate for Supplemental Impacts described below, the mitigation and monitoring plan shall incorporate detailed information on the management, maintenance and monitoring of the following resources impacted by the proposed project including: a) Congdon's tarplant and San Joaquin spearscale (if present on Project site) b) California tiger salamander dispersal and refugial habitat c) California red-legged frog dispersal habitat d) Burrowing owl habitat e) San Joaquin kit fox habitat f) Golden eagle foraging habitat Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect identified in the SEIR Rationale: Implementation of all of the above mitigation measures will ensure long-term preservation of annual grasslands habitat and provide permanently protected habitat for regionally common wildlife species. Supplemental Impact BIO-2-12: Impacts to jurisdictional waters and woodland and riparian habitat. The current project footprint would impact 4.45 acres of jurisdictional habitats (approximately 0.14 acres less than the 2007 SEIR project), including impacts to 3.51 acres of seep and seasonal wetland, 0.68 acres of ephemeral and intermittent drainage and 0.26 acres of perennial drainage habitats. The current project footprint would also impact 0.50 acres of riparian habitat, a habitat that was not analyzed in the 2007 SEIR. (Revised FSEIR). 6 Supplemental Mitigation SM-BIO-2-12. The project applicant shall provide suitable compensatory, replacement habitat for loss of jurisdictional waters and woodland habitat at a minimum ratio of 1:1 for wetlands and 3:1 for riparian habitats. Replacement mitigation land may occur in off-site mitigation banks that support appropriate habitat, as approved by the City of Dublin and appropriate biological regulatory agencies. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect identified in the SEIR. Rationale: This mitigation ensures that ecologically valuable wetland and riparian woodland habitat lost due to the Project development will be replaced and permanently maintained. Supplemental Impact BIO-3-12 Water quality impacts on biological resources. The habitats that are directly associated with on-site creeks and drainage channels represent sensitive natural communities that include aquatic habitat (both seasonal and perennial) and an associated aquatic-upland transition zone. During construction phases, sediment could enter aquatic habitats through gravity or in runoff, adversely affecting water quality for fish and amphibians, including the California red-legged frog, in downstream areas. Following project construction, increased runoff from the addition of hardscape could result in increased erosion and water quality degradation within these habitats in the project area. Degradation of water quality downstream resulting from construction and residential development could impact aquatic wildlife species. Supplemental Mitigation SM-BIO-3-12. The project applicant shall implement the following water quality features: a) The project's Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) shall include specific and detailed BMPs designed to mitigate construction-related pollutants. These controls shall include methods to minimize the contact of construction materials, equipment, and maintenance supplies with stormwater within the creek and drainages. Additional control measures identified in this SWPPP will mitigate the release of construction-related pollutants from the site during the various construction phases. b) BMPs intended to reduce erosion of exposed soil in the bed and banks of the creek and drainage channels in the Project site may include, but are not limited to: soil stabilization controls, watering for dust control, perimeter silt fences, placement of hay bales and sediment basins. c) To the maximum extent practicable, all grading within the riparian and jurisdictional habitats shall occur during the dry season. If grading is to occur during the rainy season the primary BMPs selected will focus on erosion control. End-of-pipe sediment control measures (e.g., basins and traps) will be used only as secondary measures. d) Work within the low-flow channel of the riparian habitats shall not occur when there is flowing water within the channel. The creek or drainage channel shall be dewatered and flows rerouted during construction for access. Work shall only take place in areas within the native channel bed between April and October. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect identified in the SEIR. 7 Rationale: The mitigation ensures that the required SWPPP includes measures specifically intended to prevent and control erosion and sediment release during and after construction of the Project so that these pollutants do not enter and degrade onsite creeks and drainage channels.. Supplemental Impact BIO-4-12 Introduction of non-native weeds. Disturbance such as grading,vehicle movement, and increased foot traffic that results from project development could result in an increase of the spread of non-native, invasive weed species. High densities of weeds could rapidly invade and colonize freshly disturbed soils, increasing the area of cover that could ultimately impact the natural habitats within the project area. In addition, it is possible that seeds of invasive species could be inadvertently carried to the site by construction equipment or personnel. Invasion by non-native weed species could degrade the functions and values of preserved natural habitat, either on-site or in adjacent areas for native plants and wildlife species. Supplemental Mitigation SM-BIO-4a-12. To reduce the potential establishment or spread of non-native, invasive weed populations as a result of Project activities, the following measures shall be implemented. These measures shall be included in grading plans and specifications. a) Concentrations of invasive species that could serve as seed sources shall be removed prior to site grubbing or grading. b) Staging areas shall be maintained free of weeds and weed seed for the duration of their use during project construction. c) All construction equipment shall be cleaned prior to deployment on the site by removing all mud, dirt, and plant parts from all equipment, particularly undercarriages and items that may have the potential to spread and deposit weed seeds by having contact with vegetation or soil. Cleaning must occur away from sensitive habitats. d) All fill material sources shall be inspected to ensure that they are "weed free"before use and transport. Fill material shall not be used if non-native, invasive species are found growing on the material as this would indicate that seed from these species is present within the material. e) If straw is used for road stabilization and erosion control, it shall be certified by a qualified biologist that it is weed-free or weed-seed free. Supplemental Mitigation SM-BIO-4b-12. The project applicant shall develop and implement an Invasive Species Management Plan to reduce the presence and spread of non-native, invasive plant species on the site prior to grading any areas on the project site. This management plan shall outline methods to remove the existing populations of non-native, invasive weed species from the accessible portion of the site to prevent the spread of their seed during and after construction and to prevent the invasion of graded area by invasive species. This management plan shall contain details regarding the removal and treatment of these species (herbicide application, manual removal, mowing, etc), success criteria and a seeding plan to encourage native species to grow within disturbed habitat. The plan shall be submitted to the City of Dublin Community Development Department for approval, and the Department must approve the plan prior to initiation of any ground-disturbing activities. Supplemental Mitigation SM-BIO-4c-12. Landscape guidelines shall be established and implemented by the Homeowner's Association to ensure that landscape plantings at the new residences or facilities shall not include any plants that are listed on the California Invasive Plant Council Invasive Plant Inventory's list of invasive plants and that are ranked in an inventory category as having a moderate or high ecological impact on physical processes. 8 Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect identified in the SEIR. Rationale: Implementation of all of the above measures provides a comprehensive suite of actions to reduce the spread of non-native species, including but not limited to removing major invasive weed species on the Project site, and cleaning construction equipment. The measures also ensure that the actions are contained in a coordinated management plan that is reviewed and approved by the City prior to any grading related activities and implemented before, during and after Project construction. Supplemental Impact BIO-5-12 Impacts to special-status plants. Approximately 305 San Joaquin spearscale plants were found in the 2003 rare plant surveys in sparsely vegetated alkali wetlands. Updated floristic surveys are required to comply with the EACCS and impacts will be assessed based on those surveys. Because spearscale plants are CNPS List 1B species that occupy a relatively narrow habitat niche,the loss of individuals of these plants on the project site (depending on survey results) represents a large enough proportion of its regional population such that the loss is potentially significant impact. Supplemental Mitigation SM-BIO-5a-12. Special-status plant species on the project site be avoided to the extent possible and impacts be mitigated based on an assessment of how the project will affect the focal plant population, with the assessment methodology requiring appropriate agency approval. Supplemental Mitigation SM-BIO-5b-12 . Habitat for any Congdon's tarplant and San Joaquin spearscale on the project site shall be preserved at a mitigation ratio of 5:1 per the EACCS mitigation requirements. Mitigation could involve fee title purchase or conservation easement and management of the site (per supplemental mitigation measures SM-BIO-12-2a, -2b and -2c, above), with the focal plant population on the mitigation site being the same or better in terms of size and vigor. Mitigation lands may include portions of areas outside of project site, within the Moller Ranch and Brown Ranch and potentially portions of the Brown Ranch, in Alameda and Contra Costa counties. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect identified in the SEIR. Rationale: Implementation of these measures together with prior adopted mitigations ensures that habitat for special status plants shall be preserved, either on- or off-site. Supplemental Impact BIO-6-12 Impacts to California tiger salamander. The current project footprint would impact approximately 170.09 acres of dispersal and refugial California tiger salamander habitat, including annual grassland,jurisdictional wetland, and riparian woodland habitats. This would be an increase from the Casamira Valley SEIR by approximately 20.09 acres. No breeding habitat within the current project footprint was identified in current biological surveys and thus no mitigation for loss of breeding habitat is necessary. Supplemental Mitigation SM-BIO-6-12. The project applicant shall adhere to the following requirements, which replace SM-BIO-4c and -4d identified in the Casamira Valley SEIR and adopted with the 2007 project approval: 9 a) If aquatic habitat is present on a portion of the site, a qualified biologist shall stake and flag an exclusion zone prior to activities. The exclusion zone shall be fenced with orange construction zone and erosion control fencing (to be installed by construction crew). The exclusion zone shall encompass the maximum practicable distance from the work site and at least 500 feet from the aquatic feature wet or dry. b) A qualified biologist shall conduct preconstruction surveys prior to activities define a time for the surveys (before ground breaking). If individual salamanders are found, work shall not begin until they are moved out of the construction zone to a USFWS/CDFG approved relocation site. c) A USFWS-approved biologist shall be present for initial ground disturbing activities. d) If the work site is within the typical dispersal distance (per USFWS/CDFG for appropriate distances for species of interest) of potential breeding habitat, barrier fencing shall be constructed around the worksite to prevent amphibians from entering the work area. Barrier fencing may be removed within 72 hours of completion of work. e) Monofilament plastic shall not be used for erosion control, within areas adjacent to undisturbed open space. Construction personnel shall inspect open trenches in the morning and evening for trapped amphibians during construction periods. f) A qualified biologist possessing a valid ESA Section 10(a)(1)(A)permit or Service approved under an active biological opinion, shall be contracted to trap and to move amphibians to nearby suitable habitat if amphibians are found inside fenced area. g) Work shall be avoided within suitable habitat from October 15 (or the first measurable fall rain of 1" or greater, to May 1. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect identified in the SEIR. Rationale: The mitigations, together with previously adopted mitigations still applicable to the Project, continue to provide a comprehensive program for avoiding harm to CTS by safely relocating any individuals found and preventing their return to the construction and development area. Supplemental Impact BIO-7-12 Impacts to red-legged frog. Project implementation could result in the direct loss of individual red-legged frogs as a result of trampling by personnel or equipment,vehicle traffic, the collapse of underground burrows (which may be used as refugia by red-legged frogs) resulting from soil compaction due to heavy equipment use and the loss of aestivation and dispersal habitat. The current project construction footprint would impact approximately 170.09 ac of red-legged frog dispersal habitat on the site. This would be an increase of approximately 126.09 acres than was analyzed in the 2007 SEIR. Supplemental Mitigation. Implement SM-BIO-12-2 and SM-BIO-12-6. (Revised FSEIR). SM-BIO-5b from the 2007 adopted mitigations shall not be applicable to the Project because the Project will not result in loss of breeding habitat. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect identified in the SEIR. Rationale: The mitigations, together with previously adopted mitigations still applicable to the Project and habitat compensation requirements continue to provide a comprehensive program for 10 avoiding harm to red-legged frog by safely relocating any individuals found and preventing their return to the construction and development area and by providing compensating habitat for that lost to Project development. Supplemental Impact BIO-8-12 Impacts to burrowing owl. The current Project footprint would impact approximately 170.09 acres of upland burrowing owl habitat on the project site. This would be an increase from the impact area to burrowing owls identified in the 2007 SEIR by approximately 20.09 acres Supplemental Mitigation SM-BIO-8-12. The applicant shall complete the following actions with respect to burrowing owl. a) If an active nest is identified within 250 foot distance of a burrowing owl nest or a distance determined by a qualified biologists in coordination with CDFG, a proposed work area work shall be conducted outside of the nesting season(15 March to 1 September) if feasible. b) If an active nest is identified near a proposed work area and work cannot be conducted outside of the nesting season, a no-activity zone will be established by a qualified biologist. The no-activity zone shall be large enough to avoid nest abandonment and will at a minimum be a 250-feet radius from the nest. c) If burrowing owls are present at the site during the non-breeding period, a qualified biologist shall establish a no-activity zone of at least 150 feet, if feasible. d) If an effective no-activity zone cannot be established around an occupied burrow, an experienced burrowing owl biologist shall develop a site-specific plan(i.e., a plan that considers the type and extent of the proposed activity, the duration and timing of the activity, the sensitivity and habituation of the owls and the dissimilarity of the proposed activity with background activities) to minimize the potential to affect the reproductive success of the owls. f) A Burrowing Owl Exclusion Plan shall be prepared if occupied burrows cannot be avoided during the breeding season. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into,the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect identified in the SEIR. Rationale: The mitigation reflects the most current state regulatory requirements for identifying burrowing owl nests near ground disturbance areas of the Project site and establishing non- activity zones during breeding season. These requirements together with previously adopted mitigations, e.g., for habitat compensation, avoid direct loss of individual owls and provide permanently protected replacement habitat for that lost to Project development. Supplemental Impact BIO-9-12 Impacts to San Joaquin kit fox and American badger. The proposed Project would result in loss of 165.14 ac of grasslands on the site that would impact habitat for San Joaquin kit fox. Project construction could also potentially result in the destruction of an active American badger den,which could result in the take of up to one badger and/or its pups. If badgers have to be evicted from their dens, there is some potential that they will be exposed to greater predation risk or greater road mortality Supplemental Mitigation SM-BIO-9-12. The project applicant shall: a) Undertake preconstruction surveys on the project site by a USFWS/CDFG-approved biologist prior to grading or ground disturbance. b) Avoid disturbance and destruction of potential dens to the extent practicable. 11 c) If disturbance of dens is unavoidable, a qualified biologist shall determine if the dens are occupied using methodology developed in coordination with the USFWS and/or CDFG. If the dens are determined to be unoccupied,they shall be collapsed by hand in accordance with USFWS procedures. d) Exclusion zones around occupied dens will be established by a qualified biologist following USFWS procedures following current standards (potential den— 50 ft; known den— 100 ft; natal den—determined on a case-by-case basis in consultation with the USFWS and CDFG). e) Pipes will be capped and trenches equipped with exit ramps to prevent animals from becoming trapped. f) Loss of suitable kit fox habitat on the Project site will be mitigated for at a 3:1 ratio. g) If an active badger den is discovered on the Project site and cannot be avoided using the measures described above, mitigation for loss of the burrow(s) will be provided at a 3:1 ratio, and mitigation lands will be protected in perpetuity; and Implement SM-BIO-12-1(a-c), -2 and -3. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into,the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect identified in the SEIR. Rationale: The mitigations ensure that pre-construction surveys will identify any individuals on the Project site and avoid disturbance of active dens. The measures further ensure provision of permanently protected replacement habitat for that lost to Project development. Supplemental Impact BIO-10-12 Impacts to Golden eagle. Proposed project construction could impact existing foraging habitat for Golden eagles. Supplemental Mitigation. Implement SM-BIO-12-1(a-c), -2 and-3; and SM-BIO-10-12. The following steps shall be undertaken if a Golden eagle nets is discovered on the site: a) If an active nest is identified near(i.e., within 1000 ft. or as determined by a qualified biologist in consultation with the CDFG) a proposed work area, work shall be conducted outside of the nesting season (February 1 to September 1). b) If an active nest is identified near a proposed work area and work cannot be conducted outside of the nesting season, a no-activity zone shall be established by a qualified biologist. The no-activity zone shall be large enough to avoid nest abandonment and will at a minimum be 250- feet radius from the nest. c) If an effective no-activity zone cannot be established in either case, an experienced golden eagle biologist shall develop a site-specific plan(i.e., a plan that considers the type and extent of the proposed activity, the duration and timing of the activity, the sensitivity and habituation of the eagles, and the dissimilarity of the proposed activity with background activities)to minimize the potential to affect the reproductive success of the eagles. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect identified in the SEIR. Rationale: The mitigations ensure protection of any identified eagles by limiting construction work to outside the breeding season, or, by establishing a no-activity zone around active nests. 12 The measures further ensure provision of permanently protected replacement foraging habitat for that lost to Project development. Supplemental Impact BIO-11-12 Moller Creek culvert impacts to non-native grasslands. Construction of the proposed culvert replacement would impact approximately 0.5 acre of non-native annual grassland adjacent to the culvert replacement site. Supplemental Mitigation SM-BIO-11-12 The project applicant shall provide sufficient compensatory grassland habitat for loss of approximately 0.5 acres of impacted grassland habitat. The amount of replacement habitat is estimated to be approximately 2.5 acres, but the final amount of compensatory grassland shall be determined through discussions with appropriate biological regulatory agencies. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into,the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect identified in the SEIR. Rationale: The mitigation ensures that compensating non-native grasslands will be provided to replace those lost to the culvert replacement. Supplemental Impact BIO-12-12 Moller Creek culvert impacts to mixed riparian forest. Construction of the proposed culvert replacement would impact approximately one acre of mixed riparian forest. Supplemental Mitigation SM-BIO-12-12. The project applicant shall avoid construction activities that would impact mixed riparian forest. If avoidance is not possible, the applicant shall purchase of compensatory habitat or purchase appropriate mitigation bank credits. The mitigation ratio for acreage is 3:1. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect identified in the SEIR. Rationale: The mitigation ensures that mixed riparian forest will be avoided by the culvert replacement work, or, that suitable alternative habitat will be purchased. Supplemental Impact BIO-13-12 Moller Creek culvert impacts to wetlands and other waters. Construction of the proposed culvert replacement would impact an estimated 0.006 acre of seasonal wetlands and approximately 0.09 acre of waters. Also, the proposed project would fill jurisdictional features and create a new creek alignment. Supplemental Mitigation SM-BIO-13-12. The project applicant shall provide suitable compensatory, replacement habitat for loss of jurisdictional wetlands and waters at a minimum ratio of 3:1 for a total of 0.018 acre of seasonal wetland and 0.27 acre of waters. Replacement mitigation land may occur in off-site mitigation banks that support appropriate habitat, as approved by the City of Dublin and appropriate biological regulatory agencies. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the applicant shall obtain a Section 401 Water Quality Certification from the RWQCB, a Section 404 permit from the Corps, and a Streambed Alteration Agreement from CDFG. The applicant shall adhere to all conditions of approval listed in the permits obtained from the regulatory agencies. 13 Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect identified in the SEIR. Rationale: The mitigation ensures that compensating alternative wetlands and waters habitat will be provided to replace that lost due to the culvert replacement. The mitigation further ensures that all applicable water quality protection and other related regulatory requirements will be implemented for the culvert replacement. Supplemental Impact BIO-14-12 Moller Creek culvert impacts to special-status plants) Construction of the proposed culvert replacement could impact twelve special-status plant species known to occur in the project area. These include: heartscale, lesser saltscale, brittlescale, San Joaquin spearscale, round-leaved filaree, Congdon's tarplant, hispid salty bird's beak, palmate salty bird's beak, Livermore tarplant,western leatherwood, diamond- petaled California poppy, and Diablo helianthella. Supplemental Mitigation SM-BIO-14a-12. The project applicant shall conduct a focused rare plant survey during the blooming period for these species (March). An additional survey in August is necessary to determine the presence or absence of the other species. The methodology for the rare plant survey will vary by species and site-specific conditions. Impact assessment methodologies shall be approved in advance by USFWS (federally listed species) and CDFG. The floristic survey of the site must have been completed within the preceding 3 years prior to construction(under normal rainfall conditions) and spatially explicit data on the extent of the focal plant population must be available. Supplemental Mitigation SM-BIO-14b-12. The project applicant shall implement avoidance measures outlined below to avoid any impacts and shall mitigate any loss of habitat. To mitigate impacts on a plant population that cannot be avoided, a parcel where the specific plant species occurs shall be acquired through fee title purchase or conservation easement(or similar mechanism). The mitigation plan shall be equivalent to or better in terms of population size and vigor than the plant population affected at the project site. (Revised FSEIR). Enhancement plans for public and private lands that provide suitable habitat for focal plant species shall be developed to enhance suitable habitat and contribute to meeting the conservation objectives. Specific measures for affected plant species in management plans promote livestock grazing in grassland and scrub habitat, conduct prescribed burns, conduct mowing, and identify locations in or near the project site where shrub- or tree-dominated plant communities are encroaching on grassland communities (alkali meadow and scald, California annual grassland, and non-serpentine bunchgrass grassland). Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect identified in the SEIR. Rationale: The mitigation ensures that special status plants will be avoided by the culvert replacement work, or,that suitable alternative habitat will be purchased and managed through preparation and implementation of enhancement plans. Supplemental Impact BIO-15-12 Moller Creek culvert impacts to tree nesting birds and bats. Construction of the proposed culvert replacement could impact bird species that may 14 use the project site for breeding and foraging. Golden eagles may use existing eucalyptus trees adjacent to the site for nesting. Roosting bats are also likely to occur in or adjacent to the project site Supplemental Mitigation SM-BIO 15-12. The project applicant shall undertake the following: a) If the proposed project were to remove trees during the nesting bird season(February 1 — August 31)then pre-construction breeding bird surveys should be conducted within 10-14 days of ground disturbance to avoid disturbance to active nests, eggs, and/or young of ground-nesting birds. b) Any trees and shrubs in or adjacent to the project area that are proposed for removal and that could be used as nesting sites by loggerhead shrike and white-tailed kite may only be removed during the non-breeding season(September through February). c) Prior to removal of any on-site trees, a qualified bat biologist shall perform a survey to identify any roosting bats present. If a maternity roost is found,tree removal shall be postponed until the young become independent and the mothers vacate the roost; and Implement SM-BIO-10-12 for impacts to Golden eagle. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect identified in the SEIR. Rationale: The mitigations ensure that active nests or bat roosts will be identified and avoided during nesting season. Supplemental Impact BIO-16-12 Moller Creek culvert impacts to red-legged frog. A majority of the project site provides suitable dispersal and upland habitat for red-legged frog. Construction of the proposed culvert replacement could reduce this dispersal habitat. Supplemental Mitigation. Implement SM-BIO-7-12 (Revised FSEIR); and SM-BIO-16-12. The project applicant shall mitigate the loss of suitable red-legged frog habitat by protecting and enhancing occupied habitat through the purchase of similar suitable habitat or through the purchase of mitigation bank credits. The mitigation ratio for acreage is 3:1. The purchase of mitigation land outside of California Red Legged Frog Mitigation Area CZ3 requires site-specific agency approval. Additionally, in order to meet CDFG's standard of full mitigation for state-listed species under the California Endangered Species Act, the project applicant shall demonstrate habitat enhancement, not just permanent protection, on properties used for mitigation. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect identified in the SEIR. Rationale: The mitigations ensure that compensating habitat for red-legged frog will be provided for that lost due to the culvert replacement. 15 EXHIBIT B FINDINGS REGARDING ALTERNATIVES Introduction. The Eastern Dublin EIR identified four alternatives: No Project, Reduced Planning Area, Reduced Land Use Intensities and No Development. The City Council found the No Project, Reduced Land Use Intensities and No Development alternatives infeasible and then approved a modification of the Reduced Planning Area alternative. The Casamira Supplemental EIR identified a No Project/No Development Alternative, a No Project alternative for development under then-existing City and County specific and area plans, a third alternative for large-lot development, and a fourth alternative with up to 326 units. The City Council considered the four alternatives and found three of them infeasible for the specific economic, social, or other considerations set forth in Resolution 56-07 (incorporated herein by reference). The City Council adopted a less dense version of Alternative 4 (Resolution 58-07, Ordinance 09- 07, incorporated herein by reference). The Moller Ranch project Supplemental EIR identifies and analyzes a No Project/No Development alternative, a large lot development alternative, a reduced development alternative and a cluster development alternative, as further described below. Pursuant to CEQA sections 21002 and 21081(a)(3),the City Council finds the alternatives infeasible for the specific economic, social,or other considerations set forth below. The Project objectives are identified at Section 3.5 of the Draft SEIR(p. 17). Alternative 1: No Project/No Development. (DSEIR pp. 156-157.) Finding: Infeasible. Under this alternative, no development would occur on the Project site; the existing culvert would not be replaced. This alternative would avoid the Project's significant traffic impacts since it would avoid the new traffic trips generated with the proposed development. This alternative would not, however, achieve any of the project objectives, including implementation of the General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan which anticipate development of the Moller Ranch. Needed housing would not be provided with this alternative, nor would the Project's proposed trails and staging area. The existing aging culvert would not be replaced. Alternative 2: Large Lot Development. (DSEIR pp. 157-158.) Finding: Infeasible. This alternative would include development of Moller Ranch with up to 55 approximately 1-acre residential lots on roughly the same development envelope as the Project. This alternative would include trails and would include the replacement culvert. This alternative would reduce traffic generation compared to the Project but would not avoid any of the significant unavoidable impacts identified in the Supplemental EIR. This alternative would not meet Project objectives to implement development anticipated by the General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan because, although residential, it would be substantially less dense than the plans prescribe and would provide less than 15% of the housing proposed by the Project. Alternative 3: Reduced Development. (DSEIR pp. 158-159.) 16 Finding: Infeasible. This alternative would include development of Moller Ranch with 354 single family units on approximately 5,000 square foot lots. This would be fewer units than the Project so traffic generation would be reduced, but not enough to avoid the Project's significant impacts. While there would be fewer units,the lots would be larger, increasing the development area of the Project site, requiring more grading and increasing losses of biological habitat, more stabilization along Moller Creek, a second creek crossing, and providing no neighborhood park. This alternative would increase biological, grading and other impacts, but many could be reduced to less than significant, as with the Project. This alternative would be generally consistent with the density anticipated in the General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan, but would still be nearly 10% fewer units than the Project objective of 382 units. Alternative 4: Cluster Development. DSEIR pp. 160-161.) Finding: Infeasible. This alternative would cluster 380 dwellings on the site in a series of 3-unit multi-family buildings on a somewhat smaller development area than the Project. The multi- family configuration would reduce expected traffic generation but not enough to avoid any of the Project's significant unavoidable impacts. This alternative would reduce biological impacts compared to the Project, but no significant unavoidable biology impacts were identified for the Project. The alternative would be generally consistent with the density anticipated in the General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan, and would be very close to the Project objective of 382 units. This alternative would be all multi-family units and would not be consistent with the Project's proposed product of single family detached units. 17 EXHIBIT C 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 similarly considered the additional significant impacts of the 2007 Moller Ranch project and adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations for those impacts identified in the Casamira Valley Supplemental EIR as significant and unavoidable. (Resolution 56-07, May 1, 2007.) The City Council is currently considering the Moller Ranch/Moller Creek Culvert Replacement Project, PLPA 2011-0003. The Project proposes residential development of up to 382 units on the Moller Ranch property and replacement of an existing Tassajara Road culvert over Moller Creek. These actions are collectively referred to herein as the "Project". The City prepared a Supplemental EIR for the Project which identified supplemental impacts that could be mitigated to less than significant. The Supplemental EIR also identified supplemental Traffic impacts that could not be mitigated to less than significant. The City Council adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations with the 1993 land use approvals for urbanization of Eastern Dublin, including the Moller Ranch, as well as the 2007 approval of residential development on Moller Ranch. 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 must also adopt overriding considerations for the supplemental impacts identified in the Supplemental EIR as significant and unavoidable. The City Council believes that many of the unavoidable environmental effects identified in the prior EIRs and the Supplemental EIR will be substantially lessened by mitigation measures adopted with the original Eastern Dublin and the 2007 approvals and by the environmental protection measures adopted through the Project approvals, to be implemented with the 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 prior EIRs and the Project Supplemental 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, and 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 3.1/F. Cumulative Loss of Agricultural and Open Space Lands; Visual Impacts 3.8/B; and, Alteration of Rural/Open Space Character. 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. 4th 98, (2002). 18 Traffic and Circulation Impacts 3.3/B, 3.3/E. I-580 Freeway, Cumulative Freeway Impacts. Traffic and Circulation Impacts 3.3/I, 3.3/M Santa Rita Road/I-580 Ramps, Cumulative Dublin Boulevard Impacts. Community Services and Facilities Impact 3.4/S. 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 3.6/B. Earthquake Ground Shaking, Primary Effects. Air Quality Impacts 3.11/A, B, C, and E. 3. Unavoidable Significant Adverse Impacts from the 2007 Casamira Valley Supplemental EIR. The following unavoidable significant supplemental environmental impacts were identified in the prior Supplemental EIR. Supplemental Impact TRA-1 a. Project contribution to impact to Dublin/Dougherty intersection. Supplemental Impact TRA-3. Cumulative impacts to local freeways. Supplemental Impact AQ-2. Cumulative air quality emissions. 4. Unavoidable Significant Adverse Impacts from the Project Supplemental EIR. The following unavoidable significant supplemental environmental impacts were identified in the Project Supplemental EIR. Supplemental Impact TRA-2-12. Project contribution to impact at Fallon Rd./Hacienda Blvd. intersection under near term conditions. Supplemental Impact TRA-3-12. Project contribution to impact at Dougherty Rd./Dublin Blvd. intersection under long term cumulative conditions. Supplemental Impact TRA-4-12. Project contribution to impact at Tassajara Rd/Dublin Blvd. intersection under long term cumulative conditions. 5. Overriding Considerations. The City Council previously balanced the benefits of the Eastern Dublin and 2007 Moller Ranch project approvals against the significant and potentially significant adverse impacts identified in the prior EIRs. The City Council now balances those unavoidable impacts that apply to future development on the Project site as well as the supplemental unavoidable impacts identified in the Supplemental EIR, against its benefits, and hereby determines that such unavoidable impacts are outweighed by the benefits of the Project as further set forth below. The Project will further the urbanization of Eastern Dublin as planned through the comprehensive framework established in the original Eastern Dublin and the 2007 Moller Ranch approvals. The modifications to the General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan provide housing as anticipated in the Eastern Dublin approvals, with higher densities located in the 19 flatter, less geologically sensitive areas of the Project site. Development of the site will also provide construction employment opportunities for Dublin residents. 1983905.1 1983905.2 20 Ex11ibit D ea t% I. 1:4 tt o o nA 1., ri p 44 a Ny PA o o o 6 PAA Vl eAa-, 6 5,D, p G y O ° o5,, p D c p c^ *et 44 s y-6- •d ,:L) '0 ° o0 ar- v v v o d cQc o a G O 0 U 't G ,t G ' N F d CO CI I N p c6 �1 a 6 �`;. a ° 3 I. °E' ° .0 N "5 01 s a: oo'd is Gon °�✓ Z v v w 6 O 0) .0 0 v v' ct not /"4.4 .` bA N �v s t X bD 'G V +p i("11 N W G r > • w OA V d O .v R 4+ O ¢, .. ▪ O -, v t6 d G "gy p, A O w � w op o 60" G G o 0 p, ,. C s.,, N m S .G d N d c G N m p .niGli G G o G Q A 6 ..+ A N. O ., 4o ' 6 .+ .,0 GP, d n d C- y '-' O + U v ' O 'O d 0 G cU 91X0 %et n el oll- 5 s 0'N O O ¢ a O � V O N we Q'N A ' N @ O (j) acv S LL m E 0 Z G i cu Fi CV O .0a a w. •.0 ^d Q 0- 6 O 5 0 cr i+ O CT'd U �1 N ) s .., n ,... O N d U a) A aCs ,A Qzr -Qo o I- p iJ ' p 4.0 CU d o U) C d i6 "' O G o O O $ o V N p e ° o° N o � ° ° o C e.1 0 TS o a) , .C$ �, N a ca 1 v o s u G 3 j U :¢ > P. o o - U 'N v � 'v D'a " v y r 74 .0 ft 'd E O --8 ..s.,�+ C F o r a d G .0 > o a al ... . p 6 i, " p .M w U .� o t''''d d ; .v.+ N U o ' o a � , in '"0 ., a' y 0 o cn H cts "" c P. o b U v "5 U O o 0 Gr) C\I.e. 9 S 0) 7O 2 o _ CS v 0 V 6 N 6 0 N 2'0. '� o G o 40 ey 2'o 9 o d 0 o- 2 �� v d d °� ° 6 To 0,11 . �d , ° d,)a p o .c c a "9 O .N 1, ti) '° N 7 - dN 6�N y CC.. ffO o •° , � O .P v bS N O3 k e...' s ° ° y"a " 9,C1 p'' •¢ ,✓, O j a) U O O % ' ' d �' i` V O „5.., d , 8 i+ ,0 ' " t^ GA to G ' + N 'a6 N V N p Y % u'v "U � 0 ? O 0,, , o) 0 R o O ° d 0 P • o• ' R 6 N .' off ° o � 0 3 Q y o � U y ` � � �G ' d 0 0 ' f, 1)., 0 u r: 0 y N y 'Po d O o " �."9 .. o Y p' 00ce) 0) 6 ' to Q r *P)' e C 6 d r :� is, t o N ,t, ° 0 , N ° , 0, by F d � N D1� cc N E o O Z 0 0 J , a O V..,.., 0.0 0.) it3 a) ` u N cn � c „. o y N a '.. v 0 (I v) 0 O 'd 1. bA cd o .. m bA t '''' 0 C, N `'d ., O•, ,N, v V, • G '0 o v 0 2 a E: C R O 5 v r m , c v ' u" 0 . bQ ,, „ a O d 0 m 0 t d Q 0 0 0 G .Q O a) 4 g G ... r ca V .0 Ovi peA S Cv + ,:s .•. .t O r. y ° O N •Ses 6 J CO '. O ' N N V y n ¢ C • U y >-∎ i 1-∎ V .° . A cd N " 0.... W t 64 .4 eC .4 n 4 n ., ” CA 'a„,fl .„ ,u c ' a ° y A O O G^ • P S 5 w m 0 O R $ $" 0 I 9 � • N CI p . { Q 'CS.--• w vI � .-, . u) ,C, I. m N V N f v, y . N v L .-Ka N K ¢, c5a m -� 0 O .r cd 'C e' a ' 0 o Q" , ' ' p V .„0 'In' 0 bA bA 1. 1 ors N a s E w z G,r rot N v 0� a A 7 Q .9. N N tn y °6 bA LA 0 o 0 Pt 40 d R m 'o-4 la P C:' N tz Vi p a w, p ) P Is a' Q o 0 a) 1 an N c ■ Vk•t a � o d `�a �- a o 0 N . ;6, 13 0 .5 : ° ■ r 4- R o o O 0 .,cf, N y 0 0 'N d N R S+, �t� 'd 0l N 0 Is c.Qc6 0 n N R. Qe Q O+ b,0..0 4-.R �{ '7 'mod 6 �R .., �CK 0) .' ''', U @ R v to N A J '0 R ?< R . R 7 C� d v °N' G .0 C) R 0 0' ¢, 'a r 6 a) ,0 o o c t o) U iv d A O Is) 6'1) a) H " a) a)y,, N y. + .. %. . . 0 0 u N R d G p , -•` Q i ++ N , .) cf') 9 p y 0 CA , s, " R p � IA 0) c °a v. 0 o 9 R C o CWw N : o o N ° H 0.° v ° uN c 0 `\ C L °•4 P o vQ R A � � a e ,.9., ,, U v _ . d • r' U N ' G � N O d c..)n u N � )) cci 6 d Oy .� P� OV 0 c* e"5 NO . Y 0 ,,.�ta R �'N 0 'V, cP E co N IN ' 0. `m I E v I Z I 1.1:'s '-> a et 10 e v u G '0 0 on G �y p 0 p u 44 a) ap cc co W 0 To v p 0 d 'v, d 0. o m �tea is .° "0a 'a6 6 Q CU OD N a) O N G 4: (r)i . .Q 46 U , M '.0 v N d -- O a) ,L P^''� -o O - t6 O as 0 3 G ^d '- 0 3 `f' a) um v •0 G It N ru„ G a, t6 'O a.. O y 0 O .uG O d G t o R . O G d, V t G .� v u G v ,•as o as o p C+ u u u u P, a6i N ¢ o v 'u '� 'ud� m 'G6.., o u '% y to to u u 6 � o G O CO Cr' ;$.+ ^G .. 6 F. a) F ++ O v O O u .'' .O(t. P o u m u °' u G u 0 o G. G an u ; s O w o ° •� ° G ° � CO;o o ap � o o P v 4 � d ' "d 11 p.., 6 ,¢ ;, u od ta O c6 n . ., y o n T u u G P.. G 'a O -' -S s u .O G • t .1 • a) ,0 ct d O u m •C o G N 3 G u d to a at m `t u ;.0 P-. o u �' b ° m . ]G � v v " u al, on m u '4 cc CA p. co t m 0. tz G G .5 0. G u o- E- u" .v. N o Q Cl.) • u ''rd • .' s� o p t6 `nH N C., N 0 R N 4- .0 e N 7O Z O. .40 0. v VI v o 6 o Pit o y .O v • "II v +''s O 6 y OA d '+ d y Q • 3%a 0. 0 0 0 4+. � f c 6 'd P d v tip • . 'a' N� � m 6 , y d O 6 0 * i 61 y O U 4 N U G b O 7.'d 0 + f N y Q D N NN R 6 "' 3. V '' RS O * . -3 0 d V cd 0 $G3i3 � ) r , o a • a3 , IA � sy�. aa d (a ,u d, 0 N Q „d, d ` O o u ff , PA 0 o v N P.' O 6 u 0 ' , a> N o AO N r N aa, E a) 0 Z O C4 Q 5 F all o v . v 0 L). bA CA O .5 O O O v % L/1 III a o c p 0 44 v C. a o w p E�' U oai N G cs n .,., o T1 -cs ~ C LO a) o to R W O V, G o 'd Nv d `, 'd o ° y CV a r? y 0 5 a; v 3 a Z v o. 0 ¢ v v y a 0 0) Q � °a a a G . 'Q u "' Q" ° A 4 v -t1J '6 x O _ a a , N trs y o a G m v cs PN � a G (5 Q 6 aau , 0 u . • w) . . ca N -0 n `r' .a G G . g a+ '" / > ca v O cti v 3 m 3 � ° O� p 0.3 a 5 O 0. a o ca -d a E O % p.,u ca v : 4 •v 3 N 3 oA�' ark o d V 0 m " u v a v o N v •., a k+ 4 y $., ;; a dS-Ti to o d O co $v v cn d 5 a +. wa 1 F,, ' " C y '-, tt U Oo m N " �O a a o ca a y O 4 a 41.1 - - L 7 p, �' of �"9 •. 3 ∎ ^ p , t al N S ci N a m e w 0 z 0 Q ut '. IIIIIIt mo °w o � o 5 R _, N G v 'i. 0 N .+H N o V r .a N O U . amd L1 oa bA � PA....., O �� 5 - pp .00 p0 til % 14k fa) a 0. w v o a 0 P ya i (am!)u. G 'o o o o f1 o; O)G v d '-0 a ' a c R q ' .z Q' o w u d "y d o 5.G ) y ¢ a)" °N Qo x • µ 6 0-' o.Q • o d '� y+ N O 0 O R N .-c6 'P' p cd o U U 'd (c. o o o N-74 a) p Q.+ 7 0) ,.0 6 0 �, "d N 'Z p / Q a ' R U 6 4 A 6o gy �a cn d . an d .1" p, � C U d � w y �° O •" � N u on 9 0) G i6 n O aNa y N N d 5 ,r d A 0 o ° ' • , .+ 6 A, e ED t0,13 C C; b0 .v w d y,, bD r r w+ ., � N t ' ^" R , N G� 0 Z .. R ' d „” % V '" . R 0 R ... R ,. V N R 6 d „ .r 0 ,.- o o U to �r 'd . o 6 .0 0.) 0) N . o Q - d u s'. .`� cam. , �, ar 3 co P '� a a ° R a .4 .��, �n 4 N n O Z O .... c U ..+ i+ 61 O 1 O V J'' .N O O 0 O uv O„ CS O pu,, bA C5 OU blD Ct o � 0 o o o pp 0 04 w CO c tzt .� 0-+ p c) E m a ' w -, a n a w 0 N t +' ) G ue+ v 0 :+ A V J' it O N O CA C-I u I 0 w Z V U N(13. O O X O N v 0 N p Q ? w O+ C LL N `"a p N A , aS N 4 ,;r d n A 0 O y N O O Q v V ¢ d b4 .c.:', w N to pp O O u per] S1 y 6 O 0 u c6 N bA v v y 0 y an d d Q' 0 0 3 G o 'd Ov � eA c6^ 0 v a, :t4 o ,-.4 a. E a . 6-.0 u 3 7 2 ...44.) ° ° vC ' N o v 0 v 'u 0ce41 a� ` 1" ' X' 4 U' e O ca .51..)N a +m ° G �+ 'o O '1),-! .+ 0 O ot S O r, p 0 ., v ¢ 5 O .9 O w ; N l' O G Vad ... RS u N - ..' y �w O d O d . O c u m 'c O 0 t p i U O ., t3 - S U p - d N 5 o v '' w 0 al d 9 2 U a-i Zv i W N r 0 0 O c6 o 1.. N 0 c&N cab a. SIE m 7° 2 0 d oth d 0 rd 4.0 pe o v� •o ca G E r� o N O o C. T . LI- dt� , f e G �° u u u �° � 6 'o o d r5 �p 0)0. A d t v W a a� 0 AL a d (P' 0 oQ � o0 w '� •.? r� ,. 1 .A., c0 .. 0 6 c) , p N U c6 ° A U A ca 11 .a A Y ° � n? co 1- ✓ p 7 cts � a �1 '" w ." 0, ' 6 0 r� J, e, r D• d 9 � 0 9-' 9, 'Ti O Q-, N O N 7 .U N ° O- •. O ° ° H C` p ..... 6) I' I 'r./1 0 N :d 9 0 p � � o y ° 3' .0° 0 � S, .o .d � p o bu � ° U o p d I.:' v .v R ; p. � u J a i o ¢ o 6 w '7 're' d S* � ° . � e A A v J'' ? 0S603, '1: 6 P', bA bA d 'fl 0 d 2, v, 0 A d �Q. ' a � S a A °m �. - p N o u o ✓ R p 'G ° v o •c3 ••- 3 , o p o w2 p ° - � � 0 V0 4'6 ro 6 o � "PS) ' o o c, c J v .� bNA 6? 6 o 9.-6 'v, o> a bA=6-) .O i- u 0 N O C ° OU v, • 9 3 bA d P • N ° 6 w U N 6 0 �j c11 0 .74 .... p U N u a U• •■ N N N N 0.. ,n a )O z fi s'-6 v u.E,-0- so 0 p ,bo 0 0 I 4.4 to 0, V ,-.. Ili r % : pp CC w Q~ 0 •d E a) a.) tol p a 0. i N cn r+ o .4-.Z RI Q U -0 -5S O a p a) N A � +' O O O a) a) A y a) -4 . G '•' .- .r,p y O G O v -a) G ca on Q t c y o y ' 0 ¢, bra o .5 ,O .G p.-0, o :5 y u 'C Q 6 Q •P p O G E•O N Pt y O be, .0 N .O e om)O A y ca ¢ O as, O te O 'V ^ - N 4 .cN a, O , .9 Q 9, bA 0 <0 Q -- G o -•`c3 •.. CD y '0 o P.. N C RS n N ^ a) .. O to °''-0 RS S4 '5 (t , > v i. y p � 0 - , 3d ...0 CO es G ca O C „0 a) '•G a N a) G 0 .r j � ti ?..-6 tp it .3 u a s O- O 1 3 `b o p y 4 ' a, Q g,_5;0, crt z ° o a; a) „G a) G 06 � TO bA 'Q H �v ^, G v`1 �a)v G a) P O } s y O n v R tl) 4 1 HA PCI by G O O y ,, p a) G G N -- '3 y G ca N Q 3 u, r-+ V 3 0. d M V...O 0) Csi °'d ',35 a .0 S a0 Z o N U N bA bA N i ° by P O a ♦ pP u� .40 0A cD a) 'I% bA o 0-l \ % % aw 's w w a> A N by O to N ,E, N : Vt) N d U■ U� �' C6 ,n 9 a) p ii ° 0' 6 '" 'T, . 'd 'ou u '6 'Cn a) 1 'Q to o 3N ° O 9 d v �d 3 v U ° 0 d p i. ' .d • V A N 6 'd Q w Z+ G R d d v O A a) 6 a " u A Q p 'd � O 'U d ecs O r^' N N :% d N N N N a N a) 0 Z 0 R V 5 d O v r +. a o bb0 r y ,, v 1. a a - O 150-6 V 41 an t. C .' o •CI tt:tc Ch 40 65 a y 0 1:11 11' d o N w 0 04 2) a�'m � bp .c.',... Kea °P. cD c a - d 'o w y d ¢ m 0- 3 ,-- . • d P o .. Q w o ZoN p a y , v .. , y 0 d 0 o u w m U ai tp p a �' O 'fin A ' 6 „0 6 a> ..)� ' a 0 • 0o N Oa d 0 cs c..1 -0 o o _-. 0 m . a v oA L1 v `'' L a: .. G m y, V 'IA o u 0) •d 6 y o m % 6 cil p '--6' .0, 0 o , rd x, o 0, o •- Is a . ) d0 5 G bn O o a • . CI, ^6 y .73 N N 0,N O `ii iii S. d '7.O Z o `" 0 c.) �rG o ut u v O 4 G v 0 ? 0 d o d c ° •C J 1)' %to ;ao c o !_.,p., o ,0 pp N Q cv In 116iii'''n • O -,0 d P-4 P °0 v d a 2 o oa .o N f o o c N a • o R G , a. , d V 4 0 H H a- A 14 N ` .' a o . . Q, o o u v .a , p, o" ,� � p l•c y m 3 d v � Q s , G u -o �s ` N O N a� d 7^• bQ d N 0 N O :y . .,...• y ' ' " � O tJ 4a• N � ; • bA v a N /-6 ' N d h n ° ° E � R Qo � o o .. r cd 0• o " Q ) p- o cp O y d U H 0 i V •C O W 11 6 .v a) ) N a, d d N ■ O r, •� 6 ce" ' F O d O H by O+ N s+ 0 Q ..) N v G <1.1 by S N d 4 5,.- y A to J � 0 N OB � 6 9 O q.� O O to 0 Lam' N t, f les ,.. 0 0 N N N 9� O o �. U Q I 0 illiPP e. . L-.. a r y t44 " 0.'..., i".t. 0 WO 2 P °J u`s w 1 1:44 0 '9 N � o 0) w a Jr,r N P t r O O _ \ j y N , d a r "O 6 A by Ty d N •ff r-- � y y :■ r ° A O ° 0 v ^' d y y 6 d A , O O O M r y N 6 O 6 U Ijk I) a w Q-r b n J+ T R •13 m ',6 d wvR a u p ° ° U U °, ' i°d R r o 6, w N •d SO , d O ✓ . N y by i^ d ,0 A '7',y O s r N y .. O O y v y ,5 A C. m F d k' 'by N c2 .N U OO O w r• N "f�. O d 7 t� co O sy • eh � ? ,• �' ,✓N d O ' el y N 0� J e, .., y t � E"` ,j N X, 0.. O • 6 a,N f i v d °? `n ° °)o <+ y o e - a fP 4 R r p oA p 4 , G � °) @ o d o ° p � Q� e, r. r � r ° • ,2▪ ° V c a � 0. la ' ° y 'C a i•-` G 'a � r V ? ' tt1 A¢•7 � m . ' ' ' 0 Qo � �cL) 0 co , 0 a) cst 0 % $ -0,... k % i . ,40 ' '.. CII S •% t « 014.01% Q .S., # k 0 1.11 \tfl 0- $ % `� A.4 v k % O- W IAA % �ƒ e & ® \ t f 0 0 % ° k \ k �� w q@ o � .5 k* f 6 7:' 4•'u & 'ƒ / \ u k \ \ ƒ s R % �-' » ^ . ? � LI,cfl cj7 � « 0 0Af & 0 Cel \ �� \ \ � ® � ® � ' 1), t \ \6 ° % % t @ 9 $ \ A q % ' A ® < •• 4 o $ i 6 6 t % i 5 k / 3 / $ \ . \ t« c. / % � % 0 ® / 6 o - -----