No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAbout8.2 Attch 7 FEIR Exh B City of Challenge Dairy _.d Dublin 111111111 HIM fin M If all 'In"Ishi HIM , l/sail'!' r�,� I! \ �...� ` � .�� ' •��,i rl � �pR�� �` e_ __ _._ 1N� tear F C r, www wm/\�/I a tt n DUBLIN CEMETERY ; r - r t Heritage Park Final Environmental Impact Report OIL� U toot- ' r + ` �. Recel ve JU/V 0 2 2014 DUBL//V PLA/V/rr NG Heritage Park Final Environmental Impact Report SCH # 2013092043 Prepared for City of Dublin y rr Prepared by Kimley))) Horn in association with WF A MM Company June 2014 Heritage Park Final EIR Table of Contents I Introduction 1_1 1.1 Document Organization and Framework..................................................................................... 1-1 1.2 CEQA Requirements Regarding Comments and Responses........................................... 1-2 2 List of Commenters on the Draft EIR 2.1 3 Changes to the Draft EIR 3-1 4 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program 4-1 4.1 Introduction.....................................................................................................................................................4-1 4.2 Format................................................................................................................................................................4-1 4.3 Enforcement...................................................................................................................................................4-2 Kimley}»Horn Page i Heritage Park Final EIR I Introduction The Heritage Park Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) was circulated for a 45- day public review period from Monday, March 3, 2014 to Thursday, April 17, 2014, as assigned by the State of California Governor's Office of Planning and Research State Clearinghouse and consistent with CEQA regulations. Copies of the document were distributed to state, regional, and local agencies, as well as organizations and individuals, for their review and comment. This Heritage Park Final FIR has been prepared in accordance with CEQA and state and local CEQA Guidelines and represents the independent judgment of the City, as CEQA Lead Agency. This Final FIR, together with the DEIR, technical appendices, and other written documentation prepared during the FIR process, as those documents may be modified by the City Council at the time of certification, will constitute the Final FIR, as defined in the State CEQA Guidelines, Section 15132, and the City of Dublin's environmental document reporting procedures. 1.1 Document Organization and Framework This Response to Comments package is organized as follows: Section I provides a brief introduction to this report. Section 2 provides a list of agencies and interested persons commenting on the DEIR. This section also contains individual comments followed thereafter by responses. To facilitate review of the responses, an index number (e.g., I- 1, 1-2, 2-1) has been assigned to each comment and to its corresponding responses. Section 3 contains changes to the Draft FIR as a result of the comments by agencies and interested persons. City Staff has reviewed the comment letters, draft responses and information generated in the course of preparing the responses and determined that none of this material constitutes significant new information that requires a recirculation period for further public comment under CEQA Guideline Section 15088.5. None of this new material indicates that the project will result in a significant new environmental impact not previously disclosed in the DEIR. Additionally, none of this material indicates that there would be a substantial increase in the severity of a previously identified environmental impact that will not be mitigated, or that there would be any of the other circumstances requiring recirculation as described in Section 15088.5. Kimley»)Horn Page I-I Heritage Park Final EIR 1.2 CEQA Requirements Regarding Comments and Responses CEQA Guidelines Section 15204 (a) outlines parameters for submitting comments, and reminds persons and public agencies that the focus of review and comment of Draft EIRs should be, "on the sufficiency of the document in identifying and analyzing possible impacts on the environment and ways in which significant effects of the project might be avoided or mitigated." Comments are most helpful when they suggest additional specific alternatives or mitigation measures that would provide better ways to avoid or mitigate the significant environmental effects. At the same time, reviewers should be aware that the adequacy of an EIR is determined in terms of what is reasonably feasible... CEQA does not require a lead agency to conduct every test or perform all research, study, and experimentation recommended or demanded by those submitting comments. When responding to comments, lead agencies need only respond to significant environmental issues and do not need to provide all information requested by reviewers, as long as a good faith effort at full disclosure is made in the EIR." Kimley»)Horn page 1-2 Heritage Paris Final EIR 2 List of Commenters on the Draft EIR This section includes all written comments received on the DEIR and the City's responses to each comment. Comment letters and specific comments are given letters and numbers for reference purposes. Where sections of the DEIR are excerpted in this document, the sections are shown indented. Changes to the DEIR text are shown in underline for additions and 44EeeH for deletions. The following is a list of agencies and persons that submitted comments on the Draft EIR during the public review period: Table 2-I: List of Written Comments Received on the Draft EIR Comment Commenting Agency/ Person Date of Comment Letter No. I Alameda County Fire Department 4/10/14 2 Dublin San Ramon Service District 3/18/14 3 Dublin Unified School District 4/18/14 4 Dublin Historical Preservation Association 4/15/14 5 Richard Guarienti 4/16/14 6 Steve Minniear 4/7/14 Kimley)»Horn Page 2-1 % PyPMEDA CpUryTh . Comment Letter #1 OF ,82 R M E s Alameda County Fire Department DEPAR"T Fire Prevention O11 BUl eaU ` �LrFOR�`� City of Dublin 100 Civic Plaza,Dublin,California 94568 Phone:925-833-6606 Fax:925-829-9248 APPLICATION REFERRAL LETTER COMMENTS DATE: April 10, 2014 TO: Mike Porto—Consultant Project Manager FROM: Darrell Jones—Deputy Fire Marshal SUBJECT/PERMIT#: E.I.R HERITAGE PARK (PLPA 2013-00002) ADDRESS: 11875 DUBLIN BLVD Review of Planning referrals are usually based on information and plans that lack sufficient information and details for specific comments. The primary focus of our review is to assure fire access to the site. Specific fire and building code issues will be addressed during the regular building permit submittal and review process. Comments: PLEASE REVISE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT 1. Fire Access to lots #32-37 appears inadequate as shown 2. Revise 3.10 Public Services: Station 16 has single patrol not two as listed & Station 17 is second due responding station not primary= station 16 1-2 G:AFP\Dublin\Plan Check\Dublin Blvd\11875\13 PI-PA-00002 draft EIR revision required.doc Heritage Paris Final EIR Response to Comment Letter#I from Mr. Darrell Jones, Alameda County Fire Department— Fire Prevention Bureau, dated April 10, 2014 Response to Comment I-I — Fire Access to Lots #32—37 appears inadequate Comment noted. Prior to issuance of grading permits, the project applicant shall demonstrate to the City of Dublin that access to Lots #32 -37 is adequate to the satisfaction of the Alameda County Fire Department. Response to Comment 1-2—Revisions to Section 3.10 Public Services of the Draft EIR Comment noted and revisions to the DEIR, as shown in Section 3, have been incorporated into this Final EIR. Kimley»)Horn Page 2-1 Comment Letter#2 Subject: FW: Errors in Heritage Park Draft EIR -----Original Message----- From: Stan Kolodzie<kolodzie(cDdsrsd.com> To: mike.porto <mike.porto(cDdublin.ca.gov> Cc: Steven Delight<delighta_dsrsd.com>; Rhodora Biagtan <biagtant�dsrsd.com> Sent: Tue, Mar 18, 2014 10:46 am Subject: Errors in Heritage Park Draft EIR Mike, Here is a summary of the mathematic errors I found in tables 2-1 and 3.10-3 We found this Draft EIR to be inadequate due to both the presence of mathematic errors in the topics of concern to DSRSD and the omission of any discussion of recycled water. Mathematic Errors: 1) In table 2-1, the DSRSD factor for exterior water use is erroneously given as 3,125 gallons per day per acre. This factor is actually 312.5 gallons per day per acre. The resultant total exterior water calculated is in error by a factor of 10; 2) The interior water use 2-1 factor for residential units is correctly given as 225 gallons per day per unit. However, the result of multiplying this factor by 54 new units is incorrectly calculated as 1,215 gallons per day rather than the correct result of 12,150 gallons per day; 3) the Net Difference from development in Table 2-1 is incorrectly calculated to be a water savings (26,669 gallons per day) rather than an increased water demand (721.9 gallons per day). More Mathematic Errors: In a similar way, Table 3.10-3 incorrectly shows the calculation of 54 residential units times the wastewater generation factor of 256 gallons per day. The correct result of 13,824 gpd should be added to the wastewater generation of the commercial/office factor of 276 gpd to yield a subtotal of 14,100 gpd. Therefore the proposed development will actually show an INCREASE in wastewater generation of 11,674 gpd rather than a decrease as 2-2 shown in the table. Two of the entries in the far right column of this table are hard to decipher. The entrees are close to the bottom right. They are 1,3824 gpd" and "-1,1674 gpd". These two numbers don't make any sense to me. Also, they create errors in the table since 276 gpd and 1,3824 gpd" are shown to add to 1,410 gpd. Recycled Water: DSRSD did not find any discussion in the document of the use of Recycled Water for landscape irrigation to decrease the demand for potable water. DSRSD requires that 2-3 Recycled Water be used for landscape irrigation on sites other than single family homes to decrease total potable water demand.in new projects. The errors above create a significant error in that the tables purport to show that the project will reduce potable water demand and reduce wastewater handling demand. The correct numbers show the project will actually INCREASE both potable water demand and wastewater handling demand. I would be available to review these conclusions with the authors of the draft EIR if needed. Stan Kolodzie DSRSD Associate Engineer i Heritage Paris Final FIR Response to Comment Letter#2 from Mr. Stan Kolodzie, Dublin San Ramon Service District (via email), dated March 18, 2014 Response to Comment 2-1 —Table 2-1: Existing and Proposed Water Demand The commenter notes mathematical errors in Table 2-1: Existing and Proposed Water Demand relating to exterior water demand. The table has been revised in Section 3 of the Final EIR and the analysis of impacts (Impact 3.10-7 Change in Water Demand and Extension of Water Infrastructure) has been revised. The analysis of cumulative impacts to water and wastewater (Section 4.6 Cumulative Impacts — Public Services and Utilities) has also been revised. Even with the corrected water factors, project-induced and cumulative impacts will remain less than significant, as further explained in the Section 3 revisions. Response to Comment 2-2—Table 3.10-3: Wastewater Generation The commenter notes mathematical errors in Table 3.10-3: Wastewater Generation related to wastewater generation for the single-family residential units. The table has been revised in Section 3 of the Final EIR and the analysis of impacts (Impact 3.10-6 Change in Wastewater Demand) has been revised. The analysis of cumulative impacts to wastewater (Section 4.6 Cumulative Impacts — Public Services and Utilities) has also been revised. Even with the corrected wastewater factors, project-induced and cumulative impacts will remain less than significant, as further explained in the Section 3 revisions. Response to Comment 2-3 —Use of Recycled Water Commenter states they did not find any discussion in the document regarding the use of recycled water for landscape irrigation to decrease the demand for potable water which is required on sites other than single family homes in new projects. Comment noted. As part of project approvals by DSRSD to serve the proposed project, the project applicant is required to adhere to all relevant DSRSD regulations including Ordinance No. 301 which requires recycled water use for approved customer categories for all new land uses, including commercial, multi-family residential, and institutional irrigation uses. Additionally, the project applicant is required to comply with Chapter 8.88 of the Dublin Municipal Code —Water-Efficient Landscaping Regulations that reduce water use for irrigation, which requires the following: • Preparation of a water-efficient landscape worksheet to demonstrate compliance with a "maximum applied water allowance" as defined by the CA Department of Water Resources. • Preparation of a soil management report to reduce runoff and encourage healthy plan growth. • Preparation of a landscape design plan that includes the selection of water- conserving plant and turf species, the use of recycled water where available, and the use of mulch and amendments to retain moisture. • Preparation of an irrigation design plan to minimize the use of water. KimleyoHorn Page 2-2 Heritage Paris Final EIR Preparation of a grading design plan to minimize soil erosion, runoff, and water waste. Conclusion: Recalculating water and wastewater figures in accordance with the comments increases the project demand compared to the DEIR information and analysis. However, even with the increased figures, the related impacts remain less than significant. Use of recycled water is addressed in DSRSD regulations (Ord. 310) and City regulations (Ch. 8.88) and thus, already apply to the Project. This information clarifies existing regulations affecting recycled water and does not result in any new or substantially more severe impacts requiring recirculation of the DEIR. Kimley}»Horn Page 2-3 Comment Letter#3 z, DUBLIN SCHOOLS DUBLIN UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT 7471 Larkdale Avenue, Dublin,CA 94568-1599 • 925-828-2551 • www.dubIIn.k12.ca.us All Dublin Students will Become Lifelong Learners i April 18, 2014 Mike Porto, Consultant Project Manager City of Dublin j Community Development Department f 100 Civic Plaza I Dublin, CA 94568 Email: mike.porto dublin ca yov Re: Dublin Unified School District Comments re Heritage Park Draft Environmental Impact Report i [ Dear Mr. Porto: The Dublin Unified School District ("District") provides these comments in response to the City of Dublin's ("City") DRAFT Environmental Impact Report entitled Heritage Park, State Clearinghouse No. 2013092043 (referred to herein as the"DEIR"). By letter dated March 4, 2014, to Luke Sims, Community Development Director, regarding the Impact of Zone Changes, the District provided Information about the foreseeable impacts of proposed land use/General Plan Amendments, including but not limited to the Heritage Park 3-� entitlements, on the District's ability to house students generated by new residential development. A copy of that letter is enclosed. Project and Cumulative Impacts on District Schools Section 3.10 of the DEIR (Public Services and Recreation) addresses impacts on public schools that would serve the project area. Specifically, Impact 3.10-3 provides that"Implementation of the proposed project would increase the number of students in the Dublin Unified School District (DUSD). The proposed project would include the construction of 54 residential units, which would generate approximately 28 students. These students would attend Dublin Elementary School, Wells Middle School and Dublin High School. The proposed project would be required to pay school Impact fees as required under State law to the DUSD. This is considered a less than significant impact." 3-2 However, the District's high generation figures from the project, which are routinely exceeded by actual enrollment, are as follows: elementary: 19, middle school: 8 and high school: 9 students, for a total of 36 students. While the DEIR states that the three schools that would be expected to accommodate these students have sufficient space to house the students to be generated by this project, the District's March 4, 2014, letter to Mr. Sims tells a different story. Looking just at the elementary level, Dublin Elementary School is already short forty seats, well over a full classroom, of capacity to house its current student enrollment. Furthermore, as stated in the District's March 4, 2014, letter to Mr. Sims, "[O]verall, the infill project areas under consideration, Downtown Dublin Specific Plan, Dublin Ranch Sub Area 3, Frederick, The Green at Park Place, The Groves Lot 3, Heritage Park, Schaefer Ranch Unit 3, and the Transit Center Site A-1, are proposed to generate a total of 975 students from 3,628 units, 400 more than the current densities for those areas would generate. These are the "high" generation rates which District enrollment has consistently exceeded." The District urges the City to consider this cumulative development potential rather than looking at each project in isolation. At the elementary level, Dublin Elementary School will be faced with 272 new students from these project areas, and it is already short forty seats, well over a full classroom. The District plans to add six portable and six permanent classrooms to this school to house growth anticipated WITHOUT these changes in density. The DEIR's analysis of cumulative impacts fails to analyze the cumulative impacts of these projects on the District's capacity to house new students generated by these residential infill projects. While the Cumulative Impacts Analysis and Assumptions section states at Page 4-9 that cumulative impacts "were analyzed based on the proposed project's effects in combination with a summary of 3-3 projections in the adopted City of Dublin General Plan (February 11, 1985, Updated May 2013) and the City's Capital Improvement Program (CIP)," the DEIR does not describe the projects or their cumulative Impacts at all. The DEIR states at Page 4-13 that "Significant cumulative impacts to public services would occur if cumulative development would overburden the public service agencies .... Implementation of the proposed project in combination cumulative development (sic) would result in the need for the provision of ... educational services ... with the construction of residential uses at the project site." However, the DEIR then concludes that "development fees would provide funding in order to help off-set capital improvements and maintenance to these services. Therefore, the proposed project would have a less than significant cumulative impact on public services." (DEIR, P. 4-13.) In the area of educational services, this conclusion that the cumulative impact of this and other projects would be less than significant is clearly wrong, as is documented by the District's own analysis of the cumulative impacts of urban infill projects on the District's capacity to house students generated by these infill projects. (March 4, 2014, letter to Luke Sims.) Likewise, the conclusion that development fees would provide adequate funding is also clearly wrong. Developer fees pay substantially less than half the cost of school facilities to house students from new developments, and this percentage continues to decrease. Consideration of Impacts from New Schools As noted above, the DEIR only considered impacts associated with the development of the Project. However, the DEIR did not address the impacts on elementary, middle and high schools if enrollment continues to grow in spite of the lack of capacity at any of the District's schools and whether or not improvements are made to the facilities themselves to accommodate increased student enrollment. Specifically, the District notes that Heritage Park, when considered along with cumulative 3-4 development from other infill projects, will result in a number of additional unstudied impacts. For example, there will be increased traffic resulting from students being required to travel from the new development to receptor schools (schools that will need to accommodate growth generated by the infill projects). Increased vehicular traffic, in turn, will impact air quality in and surrounding the new routes of travel. Further, because the District will need to accommodate students in existing facilities with capacity, students may be required to attend any of the District's schools within the District's boundaries. Accordingly, the attendant traffic and air quality impacts will be experienced City-wide. Once again, we appreciate the City's effort to work with the District and the developers to ensure that the impact of new development on schools is as minimal as possible. However, the District requests that the impacts identified above be addressed before proceeding with approval of the Heritage Park DEIR. For purposes of the Heritage Park DEIR Response, the District's contact person is Beverly Heironimus, Assistant Superintendent of Business Services, phone: (925) 828-2551, Ext. 8041; email: heironimusbeverl dublinuscl org, Very truly yours, i Ste hen Hanke I I Superintendent AveN !B Hu Asst. Superintendent, Business Services Enclosure: March 4, 2014, letter to Luke Sims,AICP, Community Development Director cc: Marilyn J. Cleveland D-UBLIN SCHOOLS DUBLIN UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRACT 7471 Larkdale Avenue,Dublin,CA 94588-1599 • 925-828-2551 • www.dublin.kl 2.ca.us All Du tin Stude r w7rl Become Lifelong Learners March 4, 2014 Luke Sims,AICP Community Development Director City of Dublin 100 Civic Plaza Dublin CA 94568 Re: Impact of Zone Changes Dear Mr. Sims, Thank you for your letter of February 7,2014,and for seeking Information from the Dublin Unified School District concerning the foreseeable Impacts of proposed land use/General Plan Amendments, Including but not limited to the Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Amendment,on the DisMct's ability to house students generated by new residential development. As we previously discussed,the District's facilities are severely Impacted by the continuing Influx of additional students to the District resulting in virtually every school in the District being at or over capacity. This has required the addition of portable buildings each year to house the additional students. Last year,for instance, the District enrolled an additional 1000 new students requiring an additional 12 portable classrooms throughout the District. Anticipated Student Generation Overall,the project areas under consideration,Downtown Dublin Specific Plan,Dublin Ranch Sub Area 3, Fredericsenk,The Green at Park Place,The Groves Lot 3,Heritage Park,Schaefer Ranch Unit 3,and the Transit Center Site A-1,are proposed to generate a total of 975 students from 3,628 units,400 more than the current densities for those areas would generate. These are the"high"generation rates which District enrollment has consistently exceeded. The District anticipates that the Downtown Area General Plan Amendment alone will generate an additional 442 students,243 at the elementary level,93 at the middle school level,and 106 at the high school level. The District does not have the capacity to house these additional students,nor does It have the resources to increase that capacity sufficiently tD add enough classrooms to house these students. Current Capacity Looking just at the elementary level,Dublin Elementary School will be faced with 272 new students from these project areas,and It is already short forty seats,well over a full classroom. The District plans to add six portable and six permanent classrooms to this school to house growth anticipated WITHOUT these changes in density. Frederiksen Elementary School anticipates growth of 10 new students from the Transit Center Site A-1. Even without this growth,It has had to convert a computer laboratory to classroom space this year. Dougherty Elementary School will be faced with 69 additional students from these zone changes, Particularly from The Green at Park Place. Dougherty has already needed six portables this year for additional growth without these density changes. Kolb School will require space for an additional 181 students from Dublin Ranch Sub Area 3 and The Groves,Lot 3. Even without this additional enrollment,it has no available space with enrollment of over 1000 students. District Lack of Resources to Meet Capacity Needs The lack of a state bond for school construction has placed tremendous pressure on the District to rneet the challenges of continuing growth in residential population and vaulting student enrollment. A major step in addressing Dublin's current challenges for housing students and maintaining the quality of education provided Is a new state school bond. Imnicaly,the District has also been unable to assess development Impact fees that would fully these rntUgate the cost of housing new students from ese new projects. Under the Education Code provisions for dell a OpMent the impact fees,these fees were supposed to increase from meeting 50%of the cost of school facilities(Level 2) to l00%of the cost of new school facilities(Level 3)when state bond funds were no longer available. That change has been forestalled,leaving Impacted dls c s throughout the state,Including Dublin,struggling to meet the cost of school facillUes to house new students from new development without the state providing its 50%of the cost of those facilities. Mother option would be to remove the artificial limits on development Impact fees all together,returning the District,and other districts throughout the state,to the option of developers providing full mitigation of the impacts of new development on school capacity. Other options for mitigation of these Impacts include the formation of a Mello Roos Community Facility District through which future residents can repay a bond measure Issued by the CFD to pay for school facilities" funding through mitigation agreements with developers,or further Impacting the education of all students by the District being forced to Increase class sizes and decrease the teaming resources at schools in order.to house more students. Facilities do Impact leaming,and having adequate facilities Is critical to the quality of learning In Dublin's schools. We thank you again for the opportunity to address this issue before action by the Planning Commission or City Council and look forward to working with the City on ways to maintain and improve the quality of education provided in the District's schools while addressing the need for additional housing within the City. Sincerely, kV Helronimus Assistant Superintendent,Business Services Dublin Unified School District Kim McNeely Heritage Paris Final EIR Response to Comment Letter#3 from Mr. Stephen Hanke and Ms. Beverly Heironimus, Dublin Unified School District (DUSD), dated April 18, 2014 Response to Comment 3-1 — Reference to previous letter to Mr. Luke Sims, Community Development Director, City of Dublin, dated March 4, 2014. Comment noted. Response to Comment 3-2—Student Generation Rates The commenter states that the proposed project would generate approximately 36 students, eight more than the 28 assumed in the Draft EIR. As stated in the Draft EIR (page 3-132): "For planning purposes, a school district's projected student generation rates are based on dwelling units. Student generation rates are the average number of students residing in a home. It is also an indicator of the number of students that will come from new housing developments. According to the Dublin Unified School District's Demographic Study and Facilities Plan, 2011-2012, each new single-family home (large and medium lot single family home) generates an average of 0.75 K-12 students per home; medium density housing including single family residential with lots less than 4,000 square feet generates an average of 0.525 K-12 students per home; medium-high density attached housing (otherwise known as ''townhomes") generate an average 0.295 K-12 students per home; and a new high density residential (multifamily housing development) generates an average of 0.125 K-12 students per unit (DUSD 2012)." Based on the above documented student generation rates, the Draft EIR assumed a total of 28 (54 units x 0.525) K-12 students. As part of the preparation of the response to the DUSD's comment letter, the City researched and identified that a DUSD School Facility Needs Analysis (SFNA) was adopted by the DUSD Board of Trustees on August 28, 2012. This SFNA identified a student generation rate of 0.748 K-12 students for each new detached single family home on a large or medium size lot, and 0.847 K-12 students for each single family home on a small lot. Conservatively assuming a small lot generation factor, the proposed project would generate 46 K-12 students (54 x 0.847), or 10 more than identified in the comment letter. The Final EIR has been modified to reflect an assumed generation rate of 46 K-12 students associated with the proposed project. This increase represents less than one percent (>I%) of the total student capacity of 6,757 (SFNA, 2012). The difference of eighteen students from that identified in the Draft EIR is statistically insignificant and would have no effect on the development fees that will be paid as mitigation as these fees are based on actual the square footage of proposed residential and commercial buildings. Therefore, the impacts would remain less than significant as identified in the Draft EIR due to the Project's payment of development fees required under State law — See Response to Comment 3-3. Kimley»>Horn Page 2-4 Heritage Park Final EIR Response to Comment 3-3 — Project and Cumulative Impacts on the Dublin Unified School District The commenter states that the Draft EIR, when the project is considered in conjunction with other recently approved development projects, fails to adequately consider the project and cumulative impacts on enrollment and capacity limitations at schools within the Dublin Unified School District (DUSD). The impacts of the proposed project, including impacts on DUSD schools from increased enrollment, are identified in the Draft EIR. The conclusion of the Draft EIR is based on the current state law, which set per square-foot limits on school fees that may be assessed by school districts. The following is a detailed discussion regarding the legal standard for analyzing the potential impacts of proposed project on school districts under CEQA. State Funding and Developer Fees The DUSD is under the State government's jurisdiction, is subject to California Education Code regulations, and is under the governance of the State Board of Education. School capital facility funds come from various sources including State funding, State bonds, local General Obligation bonds, developer fees, surplus property sale proceeds, and School Facility Improvement and Community Facilities Districts (CFDs). Limited or no funding is available for school facilities from the federal government. Historically, the State has been responsible for passing legislation for the funding of construction of public schools. To assist in providing school facilities to serve students generated by new development projects, the State passed Assembly Bill (AB) 2926 in 1986. This bill allows school districts to collect impact fees from developers of new residential and commercial/industrial building space. Development impact fees are also referenced in the 1987 Leroy Greene Lease-Purchase Act, which requires school districts to contribute a matching share of costs for construction, modernization, and reconstruction projects. Senate Bill (SB) 50, which passed in 1998, provides a comprehensive school facilities financing and reform program, and enables a statewide bond issue to be placed on the ballot. The provisions of SB 50 allow the State to offer funding to school districts to acquire school sites, construct new school facilities, and modemize existing school facilities. SB 50 also establishes a process for determining the amount of fees developers may be charged to mitigate the impact of development on school facilities resulting from increased enrollment. Under this legislation, a school district could charge fees above the statutory cap only under specified conditions, and then only up to the amount of funds that the district would be eligible to receive from the State. The tradeoff for these funding opportunities is that the Legislature preempted the field of CEQA impacts and mitigations with respect to impacts related to "a district's ability to accommodate enrollment.'' (Government Code section 65995(e).) According to Section 65996 of the California Kimley»)Horn Page 2-5 Heritage Park Final EIR Government Code, development fees authorized by SB 50 are deemed to be 'full and complete school facilities mitigation': SB 50 establishes three levels of developer fees that may be imposed upon new development by the governing board of a school district depending upon certain conditions within a district. These three levels are as follows: Level l Level I fees are the base statutory fees. These amounts are the maximum that can be legally imposed upon new construction projects by a school district unless the district qualifies for a higher level of funding. Pursuant to Section 65995 of the California Government Code, as of January 2008, the statutory maximum Level I school fees that may be levied by a school district on new development is a maximum of$2.97 per assessable square foot of residential construction and a maximum of $0.47 per square foot of enclosed and covered space for commercial/industrial development. These rates are established by the State Allocation Board, and may be increased to adjust for inflation based upon a statewide cost index for Class B construction. To implement Level I fees, the governing board of a school district must adopt a nexus study linking development impacts and the need for construction of new facilities. Although not standard, such studies are frequently referred to as Developer Fee Justification Study (DFJS). Level2 Level 2 fees allow the school district to impose developer fees above the statutory level, up to 50 percent of new school construction costs. To implement Level 2 fees, the governing board of the school district must adopt a School Facilities Needs Analysis (SFNA) and meet other pre-requisites in accordance with Section 65995.6 of the California Government Code. The purpose of an SFNA is to determine the need for new school facilities attributable to growth from new residential development (California Government Code §65995.6). An SFNA documents that the district has met prerequisite eligibility tests and calculates the fee per square foot of new development. If the school district is eligible for State new construction funding, the State will match the Level 2 fees if funds are available. Level Level 3 fees apply if the State runs out of bond funds, allowing the school district to impose 100 percent of the cost of the school facility or mitigation minus any local dedicated school monies. If the State runs out of bond funds, the DUSD would be eligible to charge Level 3 fees. CEQA Limitations Under Senate Bill 50 SB 50 employs three primary means to preempt the field of development fees and mitigation measures related to school facilities. First, it authorizes developer fees, but KimleyoHorn Page 2-6 Heritage Paris Final EIR provides for a cap on the amount of fees, charges, dedications or other requirements which can be levied against new construction to fund construction or reconstruction of school facilities. Second, SB 50 removes denial authority from local agencies by prohibiting denial of legislative or adjudicative acts based on a developer's refusal to provide school facilities mitigation exceeding the capped fee amounts, or based on the inadequacy of school facilities. Third, it limits mitigation measures which can be required, under the California Environmental Quality Act or otherwise, to payment of the statutorily capped fee amounts and deems payment of these amounts to provide full and complete school facilities mitigation (See Chawanakee referenced below, citing to Miller& Starr, Cal. Real Estate (3d ed. 2007) § 25:49, pp. 25-213 to 25-214, fns. omitted.) Specifically, Subdivision (h) of Government Code section 65995 provides that payment of the statutory fee is "deemed to be full and complete mitigation of the impacts of any legislative or adjudicative act, or both, involving [the] development of real property ... on the provision of adequate school facilities." Furthermore, a public agency may not refuse to approve the development of real property based on the developer's refusal to provide school facilities mitigation that exceeds the amount authorized by statute. (Gov. Code, § 65995, subd. (i).) The developer fee approach is a common CEQA mitigation technique for a project's contribution to cumulative impacts (See e.g., CEQA Guidelines section 15130(a)(3).) Recent Legal Interpretation In the first major decision since the enactment of the Leroy F. Greene School Facilities Act of 1998(a.k.a. "SB 50") to examine the complex interplay between the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") and the school impact fee limitations enacted as part of SB 50, the California Court of Appeal, Fifth District held that in addition to prohibiting mitigation of impacts on school facilities beyond statutory school fees, the provisions of SB 50 allow land use agencies to exclude from their CEQA documentation any discussion or analysis of the impacts of new construction on school facilities in their CEQA documentation. (Chawanakee Unified School District v County of Madera, et al., (201 1) 196 Ca1.App.4th 1016) Background SB 50 implemented a new state funding scheme for school facilities, and expanded the school impact fee statutes to allow districts to charge additional statutory square footage fees on new development in certain circumstances. SB 50 also took away the ability of land use authorities to condition development approvals on the payment by developers of amounts in excess of statutory fees, to offset the impact of development on local school facilities. SB 50 overturned several key court decisions that collectively had formed the basis for school districts to challenge new development through the CEQA process. The Chawanakee case arose out of the approval by the County of Madera ("County'') of a large residential development that was anticipated to bring 3,200 new students into the Chawanakee Unified School District ("District''). Presumably, though unstated, the District lacked sufficient school capacity to house the anticipated students, and school impact fees KimleyoHorn Page 2-7 Heritage Park Final EIR were insufficient to provide the needed facilities. Throughout the lengthy environmental review process, the District objected to the County's Environmental Impact Report ("EIR''), citing numerous defects in the EIR. The County considered the District's objections, but approved the project. In challenging the project approval, the District contended that SB 50 did not eliminate the requirement under CEQA for full disclosure within the EIR of significant environmental effects of development on school services. The District argued that SB 50 did not affect requirements that an EIR contain a full analysis and disclosure of school-related environmental effects of a project, in order to consider alternative mitigation measures. In contrast, the County contended that SB 50 strictly limits the County's consideration, as well as mitigation, of school impacts. Decision The court held that the reference in Government Code section 65996, subdivision (a) ("section 65996(a)") to statutory fees being the "exclusive method of considering and mitigating impacts" meant that the inclusion of a description and analysis of impacts on school facilities in the EIR was not required. Because the "methods" set forth in section 65996(a) are ''exclusive," the provision eliminates the need for an EIR to contain a description and analysis of a development's impacts on school facilities. As a result, the court rejected the District's claim that the EIR approved by the County violated CEQA because it lacked any analysis of the environmental consequences for the existing school facilities that would be forced to accommodate hundreds of students beyond current overcrowded conditions. The court also examined the phrase ''impacts on school facilities,'' and determined that the Legislature's use of the word ''on" (as opposed to "related to'') narrowed the applicability of the statute by limiting the impacts excluded from consideration and mitigation under the provision. Consequently, a project's indirect impacts on parts of the physical environment that are not school facilities are not excused from being considered and mitigated. Applying this interpretation to the dispute at hand, the court agreed with the District and concluded that an impact on traffic, even if that traffic is near a school facility and related to getting students to and from the facilities, is not an impact ''on school facilities" for the purposes of section 65996(a). Therefore, such an impact must be considered in the EIR. Finally, the court also noted that the reasonably foreseeable impacts of the construction of new facilities on the non-school physical environment, such as dust that degrades air quality and noise caused by construction activity, were not "impacts on school facilities'' and were not excluded from consideration in the EIR. Endings The court's decision attempts to clarify the language of section 65996(a), as amended by SB 50, and to assist districts in understanding the legal standard to which they may hold their local land use agencies when new projects come forward. The court distinguished what kinds of environmental impacts on schools, students and facilities are required in Kimley»)Horn Page 2-8 Heritage Park Final EIR CEQA documentation, and which are not. As articulated by the court, SB 50 strictly limits the disclosure, discussion and analysis of the physical impacts of new development on school grounds, school buildings and "any school-related consideration relating to a school district's ability to accommodate enrollment." However, impacts on parts of the physical environment that are not school facilities (such as traffic, air quality, and noise), are not excused from consideration and mitigation and must be included in the EIR. Local Funding Measure C In 2004, the citizens of the City of Dublin passed Measure C, a Dublin Unified School District ("District") bond measure. Measure C authorizes the District to issue school bonds in series over time in aggregate principal amount not to exceed $184,000,000 at an interest rate not exceeding the statutory maximum. The purpose of the bonds is to finance the District projects and purposes set forth in the ballot measure and to qualify for state matching grants for school construction projects. Measure C requires an annual performance and financial audit pursuant to Education Code Section 15264 et seq.) and provides for the appointment of a citizens' oversight committee pursuant to Education Code Section 15278 et seq. to review and report on whether the funds are spent in accordance with the measure. As stated in the arguments for the (voter) bond measure, as registered with Alameda County, "Measure C will accommodate the growing student population by expanding and renovating necessary buildings at all school sites and by developing new state-of-the-art high school facilities.'' According to the Measure C Bond Update Progress Report (DUSD, March 2013), the DUSD had expended $131M in bond funds through June 2012 and has approximately $53M remaining. The final sale of Measure C funds was anticipated in 2013, but was anticipated to be sold in 2015 as a result of depression in assessed value. Current estimates of the final Measure C Bonds indicate the final sale may not occur until 2017. Economically driven delays in Measure C bond sales continue to necessitate the Board of Trustees to prioritize limited resources. Key District priorities continue to move forward at Murray Elementary School, Wells Middle School and Dublin High School. Measure E On June 26, 2012 the DUSD Board of Trustees approved and certified that Measure E (aka Dublin Quality Education and Safe Classrooms Measure) was approved by more than 55% of the votes cast at the Bond Election on June 5, 2012 (62% voted to approve). Measure E is a bond that allows the DUSD to borrow $99 million to finance school facilities projects in the measure. The bond allows for the collection of $29 for every 1 http://www.smat-tvcter.otg/2004/II/02/ca/alm/meal/C/ KimleyoHorn Page 2-9 Heritage Park Final EIR $1,000 in assessed property value. In a written statement regarding the bond, Dr. Stephen Hanke, Superintendent of the DUSD stated that Measure E will: • Protect quality education in core subjects like math, science, reading and writing • Update science and computer labs for students • Provide up-to-date computers and academic technology • Update classrooms and facilities to meet current fire, emergency and safety codes • Prevent student overcrowding • Improve energy efficiency to provide ongoing savings to fund instruction and teachers Passage of Measure E also qualified the DUSD to levy a justified Level 2 fee, based on their adopted SFNA, which was approved by the DUSD Board of Trustees on August 28, 2012. This Level 2 fee is currently $4.79 per square foot of new residential area. Conclusion Because development fees authorized by SB 50 are deemed to be "full and complete school facilities mitigation", cumulative impacts would not be applicable per the developer fees that are imposed upon each new development. For the proposed project, the applicant will be required to pay the DUSD approximately $646,650 in Level 2 fees for the single-family residential units and approximately $6,580 in Level I fees for the commercial building. Additionally, individual homeowners will be required to pay fees associated with the financing of both the Measure C and Measure E bonds. DUSD asserts that the project impact on schools is clearly not less than significant and that developer fees are inadequate mitigation. The existing discussion in the DEIR and the expanded discussion above directly refutes both assertions. The Legislature has preempted the filed in both respects and determined that statutory development fees constitute full and complete mitigation on these matters. Furthermore, the proposed project was determined to be consistent with the City of Dublin General Plan (updated May 2013) and the City's Capital Improvement Program and all cumulative impacts addressed in the Draft EIR were determined to be less than significant. Response to Comment 3-4— Indirect Cumulative Impacts The commenter notes that the Draft EIR only considered impacts associated with the development of the project, and did not consider other impacts including increased traffic resulting from students being required to travel from the proposed project to the receptor schools, and the associated impacts to air quality from these trips. Indeed, in the case of Chawanakee Unified School District vs County of Madera, described above, the court determined that impacts on parts of the physical environment that are not Kimley»)Horn Page 2-10 Heritage Park Final EIR school facilities (such as traffic, air quality, and noise), are not excused from consideration and mitigation and must be included in the EIR. The phrase "impacts on school facilities" used in Senate Bill 50 does not cover all possible environmental impacts that have any type of connection or relationship to schools. As a matter of statutory interpretation, the court concluded that the prepositional phrase "on school facilities" limits the type of impacts that are excused from discussion or mitigation to the adverse physical changes to the school grounds, school buildings and "any school- related consideration relating to a school district's ability to accommodate enrollment." (Gov. Code, § 65996, subd. (c).) Therefore, the court ruled that the project's indirect impacts on parts of the physical environment that are not school facilities are not excused from being considered and mitigated. Based on the Chawanakee case, the City examined whether there were any indirect traffic impacts on school facilities. The District says it plans to add new classrooms to accommodate existing deficiencies; it is not clear that the modest increase in students from the Project would require any additional facilities beyond those already planned. In any case, in the Heritage Park Draft EIR, the traffic analysis indicated that there would be a net reduction in the number of average daily traffic trips. Specifically it stated the following: Transportation and Circulation - As shown in Table 4-1: Trip Generation of the Proposed Project Compared to Existing Conditions, the proposed project would result in a decrease in average daily trips during the AM and PM peak hours as compared to the trip generation for the existing development. Table 4.1:Trip Generation of the Proposed Project Compared to Existing Conditions s ITE Description Code Size Units Trips Daily AM PM Existing Conditions General Office 710 I 1 0,000 SF I,4 I I 207 202 Proposed Trip Generation General Office 710 14,000 SF 294 39 94 Single Family 210 54 DU 517 41 55 Residential Total 81 1 80 149 Delta -600 -127 -53 Source:RBF Consulting 2013 Kimley>»Horn Page 2-11 Heritage Park Final EIR Given the change in land use from the existing office to largely residential, commute patterns during the AM and PM peak hours would generally be opposite. However, the relatively few number of additional students (approximately 46) traveling to three or more different schools would result in a negligible increase in traffic adjacent to school roadways and intersections, and there would be no impact. The Draft EIR concluded that the proposed project would have no impact on transportation, and correspondingly, no impact on air quality associated with transportation. There would also be no impact associated with a concentration of vehicle emissions around schools and the increase in trips to these facilities would be negligible. Finally, no construction is proposed in the immediate area of a school, and in any case, the Project would be required to implement the DER mitigations for construction noise and emissions to protect sensitive receptors in the area. Kimley>»Horn Page 2-12 Comment Letter #4 April 15, 2014 Mike Porto Community Development City of Dublin Dear Mr. Porto, I am writing today as a representative of the Dublin Historical Preservation Association (DHPA), In my capacity as President of the board of directors I have had an opportunity to review and discuss with our board the proposed Draft EIR for the project known as Heritage Park. As it sits directly across Donlon Way from the Dublin Heritage Park and Museums, it is an important component of this very historic area of the Dublin community. Having met with the developer for the project and studied the Draft EIR DHPA has still three areas of concern we would like to comment on for your consideration. Parking remains a concern for our board. We understand the vision of shared parking, and that certainly can work depending on who is sharing. If it were park guests and a business center that is closed on the week-end that would make more sense. Unfortunately,when you add fifty plus housing units to the mix, parking demands grow greater.We do understand the plan for space for two cars in the garage and two in the driveway, and while on paper it looks really good,the reality of 4-1 living in four and five bedroom homes is that usually there are older children as well many visitors or house guests that also need to be accommodated. The seven additional curbside spaces on the east side of Donlon Way that will be added will most likely be used by the residents. Our suggestion would be to include plans for shared parking at other sites close to the park as well.There are businesses to the west of the park and across Dublin Blvd. that have space that could be designated for overflow parking during Heritage activities and events. Our parking concerns tie closely to our concern for the intersection of 4_2 Dublin Blvd. and Donlon Way. Traffic coming off the hill and heading east mixing with drivers making a right turn onto Dublin Blvd. and the left turn off of Dublin Blvd. onto Donlon Way creates an adventure at best. When you add the mix of visitors who might also be trying to cross 4-2 Dublin Blvd. on foot to enter the park, we feel a dangerous situation is (cont'd.) only time away.We would like you to consider options that would make this area safer for pedestrians and drivers. Our last concern deals with the families living at Heritage Park. No where on the plan did we see any kind of tot lot or play area for younger children. We do not feel that the Heritage Park and Museums is 4-3 equipped to handle the children living across the street. These families have no playground with appropriate equipment set up for 50-100 children who could potentially be living in close proximity. Developing at least a tot lot might help families with small children in search of some play space. These comments are not made in an effort to drive away a project that offers many benefits to the city,but rather an opportunity to share concerns that we feel need to be addressed to make this project work in harmony with the wonderful investment the City and the residents of Dublin have put forth with the Heritage Park and Museums. Thank you for your consideration.We look forward to your comments. :4: Steven L. Lockhart President, D.H.P.A. Heritage Park Final EIR Response to Comment Letter#4 from Mr. Steven Lockhart, Dublin Historical Preservation Association (DHPA), dated April 15, 2014 Response to Comment 4-1 —Parking As noted in the Draft EIR, primary access to the project site would be provided off Donlon Way and would include an internal network of streets (Streets A through E). The residential component of the proposed project would include a total of 250 parking spaces, including 108 garage spaces (two per house), 108 driveway spaces (two per house), and 34 guest spaces. Additionally, six new publicly accessible parking spaces would be constructed along the east side of Donlon Way. This parking allocation of 250 residential parking spaces exceeds the City of Dublin Municipal Code Section 8.76.080 Parking Requirements by Use Type by 99 spaces which requires 151 spaces, as shown in the following: Residential Use Type Number of Parking Spaces Required Lots of 4,000 square feet or 2 in enclosed garage per dwelling plus one on-street parking space per less dwelling unit within 150 feet of that dwelling unit. Lots greater than 4,000 2 in enclosed garage per dwelling`. square feet Source: City of Dublin Municipal Code Section 8.76.080 Parking Requirements by Use Type,May 2014. The parking area for the proposed commercial building would be shared with the two adjacent properties located north of the project site (Church of Christ and the Frankie, Johnnie, and Luigi restaurant) adjacent to Dublin Boulevard. The parking lot would include 71 standard spaces; 40 compact spaces; and six accessible spaces for a total of 1 18 parking spaces. The project applicant proposes to enter into a shared parking agreement with the church and restaurant to share these spaces, taking into account hourly and day of week parking demands between the uses. With the primary hours of commercial use during the daytime, and the primary hours of the restaurant and church as evening and weekend, a shared parking program is expected to be adequate and makes more effective use of the parking lot. The shared parking agreement will be considered as part of the project approval process. Shared use parking is allowed under the City of Dublin Municipal Code Section 8.76.050 F — Parking Reductions for Shared Parking. In such cases, the Community Development Director may grant a reduction in off-street parking requirements (from the sum of the parking required by each use type) in compliance with Chapter 8.102, Minor Use Permit. Reductions for shared parking may be granted if the Community Development Director finds that each of the following standards is met: 1. A sufficient number of spaces are provided to meet the greatest parking demands of the participating use types and to ensure that there will not be a parking deficiency. KimleyoHorn Page 2-13 Heritage Park Final EIR 2. Satisfactory evidence is provided that the use types, by their natures and operating times, will not conflict with each other. 3. Overflow parking will not adversely affect any adjacent use. 4. Additional documents, covenants, deed restrictions, or other agreements as may be deemed necessary by the Community Development Director are executed to assure that the required parking spaces provided are maintained and that uses with similar hours and parking requirements as those uses sharing the parking facilities remain for the life of the documents, covenants, deed restrictions, or other agreements. Staffs preliminary review indicates that the four required findings can be met. Response to Comment 4-2 — Unsafe pedesthan/vehicular traffic Conditions at the Intersection of Dublin Boulevard and Donlon Way err The intersection of Dublin Boulevard and Donlon Way is outside of the project boundary and would not be modified as part of the proposed project. As shown in the figure below, this intersection includes special colored treatment on the pavement to clearly identify pedestrian crossings on all four segments. This pedestrian treatment is more extensive than most intersections in the City and has been constructed according to city and state design standards. r KimleyoHorn Page 2 I4 Heritage Park Final EIR Additionally, as noted in Table 4-1: Trip Generation of the Proposed Project Compared to Existing Conditions of the Draft FIR, the proposed project would result in a decrease in average daily trips during the AM and PM peak hours as compared to the trip generation for the existing development. Therefore, the project itself will result in less average daily trips at this and other intersections. Given the existing improvements, pedestrians from the proposed project or otherwise, will be able to cross safely at the Donlon Way/Dublin Boulevard intersection using the existing pedestrian crosswalks. Response to Comment 4-3 — Park Space and Recreation While the City does not believe nor endorse the statement that Heritage Park and Museum is not equipped to handle children living across the street, the project applicant has agreed to install a "tot-lot" for children living in the residential units in the proposed project, There is adequate room in the project for this added feature which has been included in the final project design as shown in the Site Development Review drawings to be reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission and City Council. KimleyoHorn Page 2-15 Comment Letter#5 April 16,2014 RECEIVE[) City of Dublin,Community Development Dept. APR 17 2014 Attn: Mike Porto, Consultant Project Manager 100 Civic Plaza Dublin, CA 94568 DUBLIN PLANNING Dear Mr. Porto I have reviewed the draft EIR for the proposed Heritage Park project and wish to offer my comments on the document and some concerns on the impacts of the development. As a Docent and member of the Heritage Guild at the Heritage Park and Museums across the street,I have a great interest in preserving and enhancing the historic nature of this area. I am also on the Board of DHPA and support the areas of concern expressed in a separate letter sent from the Board President. I have great concern of adequate parking for both the residents, the restaurant,the church, and users of the Heritage Park and Museums. Conflicts can arise with the planned shared parking. If residents or business users find it convenient to use parking on Donlon Way, this will impact available parking for weddings,funeral services,or other reserved events 5-1 at City facilities in the park as well as for scheduled special events. Extra resident and guest parking should be provided within the project complex as well as the City looking for other possible parking space outside the park for special events,etc. The aesthetics of the area will change with the removal of many of the trees and with the homes lining Donlon Way being much closer to the street than the current office complex. While the design of the homes facing the street look nice,it would be much nicer if they were set-back further from the street to retain some of the previous 5-2 ambiance. It would also be great if at least one or two of the"Heritage"walnut trees on Donlon Way could be preserved as part of the history of the area,possibly near the entrance of the project. There may be one or two in better condition than the others. I am pleased to see that a number of the existing trees along San Ramon Rd before the freeway on--ramp will be retained on the outside of the planned project sound-wall. Great effort should made to keep them healthy during construction to soften the visual effect 5-3 when entering or departing Dublin. More native trees and less ornamental trees should be planted on site. Also any plan for sycamore trees should consider that they are water loving trees. There is no mention in the EIR of the historical marker for the Murray-Green Homes located on the east side of the office complex. The developer say he plans to move it to 5-4 the project entrance,but this plan should be reflected in the EIR. Another concern is the building of homes right along the 25 foot buffer from the Calaveras Fault Line. While legal,this assumes a lot for the accuracy of the assessments 5-5 to the potential homeowners. This is a potentially significant impact to the project that has been mitigated to less than§ignificant by the seismic assessments performed. How i will this information be publicized to the potential homeowner? I would visit a business 5-5 located at that distance from the fault line,but I don't think I would want to live there! I (cont'd.) There is one glaring error in the Draft FIR that evaluates existing and proposed water demand that needs to be corrected. Especially since water usage is such a hot topic these days. Table 2-1 states that for 54 units of medium density residential, the 225 gallons per day per dwelling results in a usage of 1,215 gallons per day total,instead of 12,150 gallons per day.A major typo! I also wonder what homes with 4 to 5 bedrooms(with 5-6 kids) only uses 225 gallons per day. The table also suggests an existing usage at the office park at 11,000 gpd interior and 20,625 gpd for the exterior! In the 30 year history of the office complex have the numbers ever been that high? Have they been watering the paved parking lot each day?This table makes no sense! How many other inaccuracies of information are like this? There is an assessment for increased demand for educational facilities(impact 3.10-3) that states that the 54 residential units would generate 28 students. That means for family homes of 4 to 5 bedrooms, half of them(or more) will be occupied by a family of two. 5-7 So there will be no impact on the schools! These homes are not 2 bedroom condos or townhouses. There is a big mismatch with the specified criteria and reality. I guess that's why they think that will be no major impact on kids using the Heritage Park across the street. Many of my concerns and comments could be resolved with a less dense housing project. More on-site parking could be provided;a set-back from Donlon Way could be achieved; less existing trees would need removal; homes would not need to be located so close to the fault line;an on-site tot-lot could be provided for recreation for young children;less impact on schools and other city provided services,etc. 5-8 Only two project alternatives were provided in the Draft FIR: a No Project Alternative and a Retail/Office Alternative. Possibly the proposed project could be revised to a less dense housing layout or a third project alternative be provided for less housing. I know it is an economic issue to be viable, but one should take another look at the options. Thanks for the opportunity to comment. I look forward to your response. Sincerely, Richard Guarienti Heritage Park Final EIR Response to Comment Letter#5 from Mr. Richard Guarienti, dated April 16, 2014 Response to Comment 5-1 — Parking See response to Comment 4-1, above. The proposed project is not required to provide parking for special events associated with Heritage Park. When special events have occurred there in the past, cars were parking on the project site, which is private property, without the consent of the property owner. Furthermore, the proposed project is proposing to construct six (6) new (additional) publicly accessible parking spaces along the east side of Donlon Way. Response to Comment 5-2—Aesthetics and Tree Removal on Donlon Way The aesthetic appearance of the proposed residential units on Donlon Way and the surrounding area were analyzed in Section 3.1 Aesthetics, of the Draft EIR. The Draft FIR found that the proposed project would be consistent with the development standards and design guidelines as identified in the Dublin V7 1age Historic Area Specific Plan and would be more aesthetically appealing than the existing office building complex (see Impact 3.1-2 starting on page 3-9). Regarding preservation of''one or two'' of the walnut trees on Donlon Way, the Final FIR has been amended as they were erroneously identified as Heritage Trees which they are not. Furthermore, a Preliminary Tree Report was prepared by Hort Science (October 2013) to access the condition of the trees on the project site. The report noted that: "Twelve (12) Calif. black walnuts were present. Trees were variable in development with trunk diameters from 6'' to 57" (#5). Tree condition was variable: 4 trees were poor, 6 were fair and #25 (39'') and #41 (14") were good. Larger walnuts had been impacted by development. This species is intolerant of root severance and other changes associated with grading. In addition, trees #I — 5 were located below overhead power lines and had been pruned to maintain clearance." Based on this assessment and the fact that these California black walnut trees are not listed by the City of Dublin as Heritage Trees, they would be removed. Furthermore, PG&E were planning to eventually remove these trees due to interference with the underground gas lines. To help off-set the impacts to the Heritage Trees and other trees removed on site, the project applicant has agreed to fund the City in the amount of $19,000 to assist in the planting trees in the proposed Orchard in the Heritage Paris and Museums. This payment would be provided to the City prior to issuance of the site grading permit. Furthermore, as shown in Figure 2-13: Landscaping Plan of the Draft EIR, the proposed project would include extensive on-site landscaping. This includes planting six trees (36" box, species to be determined) along Donlon Way. Numerous other trees and shrubs KimleyoHorn Page 2-16 Heritage Park Final EIR would be planted on the project site including redwoods, crape myrtle, Japanese maple, and Southern magnolia. The extensive landscaping will provide a pleasing complement to the historic park, the residential edge and to motorists in the area. Response to Comment 5-3 —Trees Along San Ramon Road and On-site Landscaping Comment noted. The existing tree along San Ramon outside of the project sound wall will be retained and impacts during construction will be minimized during construction consistent with requirements as described in Section 7.56.090 Tree Protection of the City of Dublin Municipal Code. The selection of trees and other landscaping identified in the proposed project are addressed as part of the site development review process for consistency with requirements as described in Chapter 8.88 Water-Efficient Landscaping Regulations of the City of Dublin Municipal Code. As part of the Site Development Review, a lush landscape pallet is proposed which will greatly accentuate the area. The proposed on-site landscaping conforms to the City's plant materials listing. Response to Comment 5-4 — Relocation of the Historical Marker for the Murray-Green Homes The historical marker for the Murray-Green Homes is currently located on the west side of Building D, approximately 150 feet from the sidewalk fronting the east side of Donlon Way. The project applicant has agreed to relocate this mariner to the west side of the proposed office building and adjacent to the sidewalk. This location will be more visible to the public and will be consistent with the two existing markers located at the southwest and southeast corners of Donlon Way and Dublin Boulevard. This marker relocation has been included in the final project design as shown in the Site Development Review drawings to be reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission and City Council. Response to Comment 5-5 —Calaveras Fault Line and Buffer Potential impacts associated with the potential for fault rupture were described in Impact 3.4-2 starting on page 3-64 of the Draft FIR. The analysis found that the middle third of the proposed project is located within a currently designated AP Earthquake Fault Zone for the Calaveras Fault. A single active fault trace extends across the project site at the approximate location shown in Figure 3.4-3: Habitable Building Setback Zone. The previous AP fault trenching performed to the north and south of the project site provides adequate coverage to show that only one active fault trace from the Calaveras fault extends across the project site. Recent fault trenching performed at the project site by SFB Engineering (20 13) revealed that the active fault trace forms a straight linear line across the project site and that it is well constrained to that location. Soils observed in the trenching showed evidence of four fault rupture events, the most recent event having occurred approximately 365 years ago and that the fault rupture recurrence interval between those events is tentatively on the order Kimley)»Horn Page 2-17 Heritage Park Final EIR of about 400 to 600 years. Future fault rupture is most likely to occur along previous traces of fault rupture. Future fault rupture is expected to occur along the straight linear fault projection shown in Figure 3.4-3: Habitable Building Setback Zone. The proposed project includes a 25-foot fault set-back zone where no residential or commercial development is proposed in accordance with the recommended set-back by SFB Engineering. In addition, future development within the project site would be performed in accordance with the latest edition of the CBC, the City Building Code, and policies of the City of Dub/in Genera/ 11/an. Compliance with the statutory and design requirements would ensure that no significant impacts related to fault zone rupture would occur. Based on this analysis, the Draft FIR reasonably concluded that the potential for fault rupture is considered a less than significant impact with incorporation of the 25-foot setback into the design of the proposed project and the construction conformance requirements, and no mitigation is required. Response to Comment 5-6—Table 2-1: Existing and Proposed Water Demand See response to Comment 2-1, above. Response to Comment 5-7— Project Impacts on DUSD Schools See response to Comment 3-2, above. Furthermore, children as well as any other person is allowed and encouraged to use the adjacent Heritage Park, as this is a public park and a community asset for all residents and guests to the City of Dublin. Response to Comment 5-8—Project Density and Alternatives The commenter suggests that a less density alternative be considered in the FIR. Section 15126.6 Consideration and Discussion of Alternatives to the Proposed Project requires that an FIR describe a range of reasonable alternatives to the project, or to the location of the project, which would feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the project but would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project, and evaluate the comparative merits of the alternatives. An FIR need not consider every conceivable alternative to a project. Rather it must consider a reasonable range of potentially feasible alternatives that will foster informed decision making and public participation. An FIR is not required to consider alternatives which are infeasible. The lead agency (in this case the City of Dublin) is responsible for selecting a range of project alternatives for examination and must publicly disclose its reasoning for selecting those alternatives. There is no ironclad rule governing the nature or scope of the alternatives to be discussed other than the rule of reason. As discussed in Section 3.8 Land Use Planning of the Draft FIR determined that the proposed project would not conflict with applicable City of Dublin land use plans, policies Kimley)»Horn Page 2-18 Heritage Park Final EIR or regulations. Specifically, Impact 3.8-2 analyzed potential impacts to the City of Dublin General Plan, the Dublin Village Historic Area Specific Plan, and the City of Dublin Zoning Code and determined impacts would be less than significant. Furthermore, there are a number of project objectives (as described in Section 2.5 Purpose and Objectives) of the Draft EIR that support the proposed project. Given this analysis, it was determined that a less dense residential development project was not required under CEQA Section 15126.6 as it would not avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project. Additionally, a less-dense residential development would not feasibly enhance or augment the most of the basic objectives of the proposed project. Page 2-19 Kimley>»Horn Comment Letter #6 RECEIVED APR 0 9 2014 7 April 2014 DUBLIN PLANNING City of Dublin,Community Development Department Attn: Mike Porto, Consultant Project Manager 100 Civic Plaza Dublin, CA 94568 Subject: Comments on Draft Environmental Report(DEIR)Heritage Park EIR(State Clearing House Number 201 3092043) Dear Mr. Porto, I believe the proposed project, as described,does not adequately consider two important impacts. These impacts should be further considered before moving forward. The project will have a major impact on traffic at the corner of Donlon Way and Dublin Blvd. Currently heavy traffic on Dublin Blvd.exceeds speed limits and the large number of U- turns at the Donlon intersection increases the potential for accidents. This suggests that the introduction of more cars turning into and out of the Donlon Way intersection will increase the risk of pedestrian and vehicle accidents. This is especially the case since the intersection has no 6-1 stoplight or sign. The traffic calculations done in the report are not based on actual traffic patterns at the intersection. A new traffic analysis of the intersection should be done before the project's approval. It should determine how the project will affect traffic and what mitigations could be introduced to improve pedestrian and vehicle safety. The project will put a number of houses almost directly on an active fault line. Given the 6-2 increasing probability of a major earthquake on this fault,the proposed offset does not seem sufficient. If you have any questions,please contact me. Thank you for the opportunity to comment. Si cerely, Steven Minniear 11902 West Vomac Road Dublin,CA 94568 i i I Heritage Park Final EIR Response to Comment Letter#6 from Mr. Steven Minniear dated April 7, 2014 Response to Comment 6-1 — Unsafe pedestrian/vehicular traffic Conditions at the Intersection of Dublin Boulevard and Donlon Way See response to Comment 4-2, above. Response to Comment 6-2—Calaveras Fault Line and Buffer See response to Comment 5-5, above. Kimley)))Horn Page 2-20 Heritage Paris Final EIR 3 Changes to the Draft EIR Changes to the Draft EIR are shown on the following pages. Kimley)))Horn Page 3-1 Heritage Park DFaft Final EIR Executive Summary Table S-I: Executive Summary of Project Impacts Project Impacts Level of Significance it Measures Resulting Level of Without Mitigation Significance Aesthetics Impact 3.1-1: Damage Less than Significant No mitigation measures necessary Less than Significant to Scenic Resources along Scenic Highways Impact 3.1-2: Less than Significant No mitigation measures necessary Less than Significant Degradation of the Visual Character of the Project Site and Surrounding Area Impact 3.1-3: Light and Less than Significant No mitigation measures necessary Less than Significant Glare Air Quality Impact 3.2-1: Short- Potentially MM 3.2-1 a: Implement Short-term Less than Significant term Construction Significant Construction Best Management Emissions Practices MM 3.2-1 b: Implement NOX Reduction Measures Impact3.2-2: Long- Potentially MM 3.2-2: Implement only natural Less than Significant Term Operational Significant gas hearths in residential units Emissions—Regional Emissions Impact 3.2-3: Long- Less than Significant No mitigation measures necessary Less than Significant Term Operational Emissions- Localized Carbon Monoxide (CO) Impact 3.2-4; Long- Potentially MM 3.2-4: Provide Upgraded Less than Significant Term Operational Significant Ventilation Systems. Exposure to Emissions—Toxics Air Odorous Emissions Contaminants Impact 3.2-5: Exposure Less than Significant No mitigation measures are Less than Significant to Odorous Emissions necessary Impact 3.2-6: Long- ;gin Ne mitigatieR measures are Less than Significant Term Operational Siga+f+c-aatPotentially MM 3.2-2: Implement Emissions—Clean Air Significant only natural gas hearths in Plan Consistency. residential units Cultural Resources Impact 3.3-1: Historical Less than Significant No mitigation measures necessary Less than Signif cant Resources Kimley»)Horn Page ES-3 Heritage Park DFafFinal EIR Project Description 2.8 Infrastructure Improvements Stormwater The project site is divided into two drainage areas. These drainage areas will be maintained with the proposed improvements. Drainage Area I is 0.9 acres and it made up of the existing church and restaurant buildings. The total flow generated by Area I was estimated to be 1.7 cubic feet per second (cfs) (Carlson, Barbee Gibson, 1 1/24/13). Total post development flow was estimated to be 3.4 cfs, for a net increase of 1.7 cfs. Area I discharges into an existing 27" storm drain main located in Dublin Boulevard, which has a full flow capacity of 17.0 cfs. At present, it is not known yet if there is sufficient capacity in this 27" storm drain to accommodate the additional flow. The project applicant plans to conduct a more details analysis as part of final design to determine if there is sufficient capacity in the existing storm drain main. If not, a portion of the runoff generated by Area I would be detained within a planned bioretention area to ensure that post development flows do not exceed pre-development flows off site. Drainage Area 2 is 7.1 acres and includes the existing office buildings and parking lots. The total flow generated by Area 2 was estimated to be 1 1.7 cfs. Stormwater from Area 2 would be retained in one of two bio-retention ponds before being discharged into an existing 24'' storm drain pipe, located in the southeast corner of the site. This pipe connects to an existing concrete lined channel (Dublin Creek) located within the Caltrans right-of-way. The full flow capacity of the 24'' outlet pipe was determined to be 12.4 cfs. The total post-development flows generated by Area 2 was determined to be 8.5 cfs, or a reduction of 3.2 cfs (Carlson, Barbee Gibson, 1 1/24/13).The preliminary infrastructure improvement plans are shown in Figure 2-8: Preliminary Utility Plan and Figure 2-9: Preliminary Storm Water Management Plan. Potable Water The project site has multiple water laterals, which serve the existing office buildings located off of Donlon Way. The proposed project would include an additional connection point to the existing eight-inch main within Dublin Boulevard to create a looped system. As shown in Figure 2-8: Preliminary Utility Plan, the on-site water system will serve Single Family Residential Lots 8-54, while Lots 1-7 will be served with individual laterals from the public water main located in Donlon Way. Water Demand As shown in Table 2-1: Existing and Proposed Water Demand, the proposed project would result in man increase in the water demand of 1):6,669721.9 gallons per day as compared to the existing commercial/office uses at the project site. Kimley}>)Horn Page 2-5 Heritage Park 9mft Final EIR Project Description Table 2-1: Existing and Proposed Water Demand Land Use.. _ Unrts;and°Acres' V�later Generation,fate. Water Generation Exis6ng Land Use Commercial/Office 0.10 gallons per day/square 1 10,000 square feet(interior) and 4-P-43 12.5 1 1,000 gpd (interior) feet gallons per day per acre 20 2,062.5 gpd 6.6 Acres (exterior) (exterior) Proposed Land Use Commercial/Office 14,000 Square 0.10 gallons per day/square 1,400 gallons per day Feet feet(interior) and 342--5312.5 (interior) 0.75 Acres gallons per day per acre 2-344234.4 gallons per exterior day exterior Medium Density 54 units 225 gallons per day/dwelling -1-,212,150 gallons per Residential unit day Subtotal 2,4-t-513,550 gpd (Interior) 1,344234.4 gpd Exterior )2,550 gpd (Interior) {4 }1,828.1 gpd (Exterior) Net Difference 721.9 gpd 1. Rates from DRSD do not take into account recycled water use. Source: DRSD and RBF Consulting,2013. Sanitary Sewer As shown in Figure 2-8: Preliminary Utility Plan, the proposed project would connect to the existing eight inch sanitary sewer main located in Donlon Way. The existing sewer is approximately five feet deep at the proposed tie-in point and therefore the proposed project would require installation of a sewer pump. The on-site sewer system would serve Lots 8 to 54 and Lots I to 7 and would have laterals connecting to the existing sewer main located within Donlon Way. A separate sewer lateral would be installed for the commercial office building, which would connect to the existing main in Donlon Way. 2.9 Construction Activities Demolition, Grading and Excavation The proposed project would include grading and site preparation activities within the entire project site. This would include the demolition the two-story commercial/office buildings totaling and removal of asphalt and existing utilities, generating approximately 2,500 tons of mixed material. Figure 2-11: Demolition Plan presents the proposed demolition plan. Approximately 15,700 cubic yards of soil would be imported to the project site in order to elevate the grade on the north, east, and west parts of the project site. The proposed project also includes the construction of several retaining walls located throughout the Page 2-6 Kimley)))Horn Heritage Park DrA Final EIR Project Description project site including one at the southerly and easterly boundaries, which would be part of the proposed sound walls. The preliminary grading plan for the proposed project is shown in Figure 2-11: Preliminary Grading Plan. Tree Removal and Landscaping Based on the Preliminary Tree Report prepared by HortScience (October 2013) for the project applicant, the project site contains 137 trees. Of these, 33 were rated as Excellent, 37 Good, 40 Fair and 27 Poor. There are 19 Heritage trees as defined by Section 5.60 of the City of Dublin Municipal Code (Heritage Tree Ordinance). 18 of these Heritage trees are Coast redwood and one is a Coast live oak. As shown in Figure 2-12: Tree Removal Plan, the proposed project would remove 107 trees, 16 of which are classified as Heritage trees. 30 trees would be preserved including three Heritage trees; namely two coast redwoods (29-inch and 25- inches in diameter) and one coast live oak (28 inches in diameter) located on the perimeter of the project site. To help off-set the impacts to these Heritage Trees and other trees removed on site, the project applicant has agreed to fund the City in the amount of$19,000 to assist in the planting trees in the proposed Orchard in the Heritage Park. This payment would be provided to the City prior to issuance of the site grading permit. As shown in Figure 2-13: Landscaping Plan, the proposed project would include extensive on-site landscaping. This includes planting 44six trees (36" box) along Donlon Way. Numerous other trees and shrubs would be planted on site including redwoods, crape myrtle, Japanese maple, and Southern magnolia. 2.10 Requested Actions, Entitlements, and Required Approvals Initial entitlements required for development at the project site in the Dublin Vllage Historic Area Specific Plan include the following actions to be taken by the Dublin City Council: E/R Certification: Certification of the Heritage Park Environmental Impact Report (FIR), including findings that identify significant environmental impacts of the proposed project and mitigation measures that must be implemented as part of the Project, which will be reflected in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) and imposed as conditions of approval on subsequent discretionary approvals. This action will be adopted by resolution. Genera/Plan Amendment For the proposed residential portion of the project site, the City of Dublin Genera/Plan will be amended to: 1) Change the text to reflect the new General Plan designation from Retail/Office to Medium Density Residential and 2) Change the General Plan Land Use Map from Retail/Office to Medium Density Residential for the residential portion of the project site. Kimley»)Horn Page 2-7 Heritage Park Final HEIR Aesthetics within the planning area, which includes future development at the project site. With implementation of these design standards and guidelines, the proposed project is not anticipated to degrade the visual character of the project site and surrounding uses and is therefore considered a less than significant impact. The existing two-story office buildings were constructed between 1978 and 1981 and generally look dated and to be of poor architectural character. These buildings were constructed with wood siding and flat roofs. Perimeter balconies surround most of the office spaces resulting in dark void spaces on the ground level. The facades have little architectural detail and consist of long, unarticulated "walls The buildings are set back from the street and contain large open surface parking. From an urban design perspective, the project site is not pedestrian-friendly and would be considered incompatible with the City's design standards as described in the General P lan Community Design and Sustainability Element as well as the development standards and design guidelines as described in the Dublin Village Historic Area Specific Plan. The proposed project has been designed in accordance with the Dublin Village Historic Area Specific Plan. The proposed 54 single family residential homes would be two stories and comprised of Craftsman and American Farmhouse style. Architectural elements and details are consistent with these architectural styles providing variation in building form and providing an appropriate scale with surrounding land uses (e.g. Heritage Park and Museums). Proposed architectural details include the use of front and upstairs patios and the use of different building materials (e.g. board and batten siding and shingles) that would break up the perceived mass of the building and provide visual interest. The proposed two-story 14,000 square foot commercial office would have a wrap-around porch element, with low sloping roof planes, exposed rafter ends, and trellis work. A lobby entry at the center of the building would be comprised of a covered trellis and gable roof. An outdoor patio is also incorporated to one side, framed with a low river rock wall. The second level of the commercial building would have gable elements and sloping roofs. Mechanical equipment would be screened by the sloping roof around the perimeter. The bottom floor of the commercial office building would have river rock at the base, wall shingles at the ground level, board and battens for the second level, and a composition roof. As shown in Figure 2-12: Tree Removal Plan, the proposed project would remove 107 trees, 16 of which are Heritage trees. 30 trees would be preserved including three Heritage trees; namely two coast redwoods (29-inch and 25-inches in diameter) and one coast live oak (28 inches in diameter) located on the perimeter of the project site. To help off-set the impacts to these Heritage Trees and other trees removed on site, the project applicant has agreed to fund the City in the amount of $19,000 to assist in the planting trees in the proposed Orchard in the Heritage Park. This payment would be provided to the City prior to issuance of the site grading permit. Page 3-10 Kimley>))Horn Heritage Paris DFa€ Final EIR Aesthetics As shown in Figure 2-13: Landscaping Plan, the proposed project would include extensive on-site landscaping. This includes planting 13-six trees (36" box, species to be determined) along Donlon Way. Numerous other trees and shrubs would be planted on site including redwoods, crape myrtle, Japanese maple, and Southern magnolia. The overall change in the visual character of the project site from commercial/office uses to a combination of residential and commercial/office uses would result in a change to the character of the project site. However, the proposed project would be considered a beneficial change in that it would be more consistent with the design guidelines and historic-contextual design intended in the Dub/in Vi//age Historic Area Specific Plan and thereby, would complement the surrounding uses. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in the degradation of the visual character of the project site, which would be considered a less than significant impact. No mitigation measures are necessary. Light and Glare Impact 3.1-3: The project site and its surroundings are currently developed with buildings and site improvements that currently generate daytime and night-time light and glare. Additional sources of daytime glare and nighttime lighting would be introduced with implementation of the proposed project. The Dublin Vllage Historic Area Specific Plan includes design guidelines to reduce light and glare. With implementation of these design guidelines, the proposed project would result in a less than significant impact to light and glare. Implementation of the proposed project result in a slight increase in daytime and nighttime light and glare. The main sources of daytime glare would be from sunlight reflecting from structures with reflective surfaces, such as windows. The main sources of nighttime light and glare would be from additional lighting, including, but not limited to, internal and external building lights from proposed residential uses, parking lot lights, street lighting, site lighting, lights associated with vehicular travel (i.e., vehicle headlights), and any new security lighting associated with the new commercial building. The Dublin V//age Historic Area Specific Plan includes design guidelines that address lighting within the project site, including, site lighting (e.g. ensuring that lighting is directed and shielded) and glare (e.g. designing lighting so that only the intended area is illuminated and off-site glare is controlled. The proposed project would be required to comply with these lighting standards by demonstrating the proposed exterior lighting is non-intrusive while still providing an adequate amount of light. Compliance with the design guidelines would ensure that the proposed project does not introduce substantial light and glare which would pose a hazard or nuisance. Therefore, the proposed project would have a less than significant impact, and no mitigation is required. Kimley»#Horn Page 3-11 Heritage Park Final DFa#EIR Land Use and Planning Policy G - Encourage the diversity of garage Consistent. The single-family residential homes orientation and setbacks, architectural styles, building would be comprised of Craftsman and American materials, color and rooflines, and other design Farmhouse architectural styles. Architectural features, on all sides of all buildings in residential elements and details would include the use of front areas. and upstairs patios and the use of varying building materials (e.g. board and batten siding and shingles) that would break up the perceived mass of the building and provide visual interest. Garages would generally be recessed from the front of each home. Therefore, the proposed project would be consistent with this policy. Policy H - Orient buildings toward major Consistent. The proposed residential homes and thoroughfares, sidewalks, pedestrian pathways, and the proposed commercial/office building located gathering spaces, and incorporate clear and along Donlon Way would be oriented towards the identifiable entries where feasible in campus office street with sidewalks connecting with Dublin areas. Boulevard. Therefore, the proposed project would be consistent with this policy. 10.7.3.2. Landscaping and Natural Features Policy H - Preserve Mature trees and vegetation, Consistent. As shown in Figure 2-12: Tree Removal with special consideration given to the protection of Plan,the proposed project would remove 107 trees, groups of trees and associated under growths and 16 of which are classified as Heritage trees. 9f specimen trees. these Heritage tFees, five of them ,l f e;ack wa;,Uts leeated en the westem edge of DeRlen 1,61a),. 30 trees would be preserved including three Heritage trees; namely two coast redwoods (29-inch and 25-inches in diameter) and one coast live oak (28 inches in diameter) located on the perimeter of the project site. To help off-set the impacts to these Heritage Trees and other trees removed on site,the project applicant has agreed to fund the City in the amount of$19,000 to assist in the planting trees in the proposed Orchard in the Heritage Park. This payment would be provided to the City prior to issuance of the site grading permit. As shown in Figure 2-13: Landscaping Plan, the proposed project would include extensive on-site landscaping. This includes planting-I- six trees (36" box) along Donlon Way. Numerous other trees and shrubs would be planted on site including redwoods, crape myrtle, Japanese maple, and Southern magnolia. Kimley»)Horn Page 3-115 Heritage Park Final Braf EIR Public Services and Utilities 3.10 Public Services and Utilities This section of the Draft EIR analyzes the impacts associated with implementation of the proposed project on public services and facilities and services, including fire protection, law enforcement, schools, libraries, parks/recreation facilities, stormwater drainage, potable water, wastewater treatment, solid waste management, and other public utilities. Information in this section is derived primarily from the proposed project, as well as personal communication with service providers. Environmental Setting Fire Protection The proposed project would be served by the Alameda County Fire Department (hereinafter ''ACFD"), which provides fire protection and suppression services under contract to the City of Dublin. ACDF currently consists of 36 line personnel. ACDF has 28 fire stations, three of which are located in the City of Dublin. Station No. 16 is located at 7494 Donohue Drive; Station No. 17 is located at 6200 Madigan Avenue; and Station No. 18 is located at 4800 Fallon Road. • Station No. 16 houses one engine company, none patrol and a water tender, and a patrol. This station provides initial response to west and downtown Dublin. • Station No. 17 provides service to the west, and central core sections of Dublin and would provide second response to the project area. This station houses one engine and one truck company. • Station No. 18 provides the primary response for the eastem most portions of Dublin. This station includes one engine company and one bulldozer. Law Enforcement The proposed project would be served by the City of Dublin Police Department. Police services for the City of Dublin are performed under contract to the Alameda County Sheriffs Office. As of June 2013, the City of Dublin has 51 sworn personnel (Personal Communication with Lieutenant Nate Schmidt, Alameda County Sherrff; Department/City of Dublin Police Department, June 5, 2013). Police Services are provided by the Alameda County Sheriff personnel located at the Dublin Civic Center, 100 Civic Center Plaza. Services provided include uniformed police officers patrolling the City in marked vehicles, criminal investigations, crime prevention, drug enforcement prevention education programs, and special investigation officers responsible for narcotic and vice suppression. Response times to various places in the City can vary depending on the time of day and the available units. The average response time to a life- or-death emergency averages approximately 3.5 to five minutes. For non-emergencies, the response time is typically 15 minutes. Dispatch and some data processing functions are handled at the Sheriffs Office facilities located in Oakland, San Leandro, and Hayward. Dublin police also enforce city ordinances and state laws within the limits of the City of Dublin. KimleyoHorn Page 3-131 Heritage Park Final Draft EIR Public Services and Utilities required to pay school impact fees as required under State law to the DUSD. This is considered a less than significant impact The proposed project would allow for a future net new development potential with a maximum of 54 residential units within the project site. Children from the proposed residential dwelling units would likely attend DUSD schools including: Dublin Elementary School; Wells Middle School; and Dublin High School. Based on the DUSD's student generation rate for small lot single-family residential dwelling units of 0.847 K-12 students per home and 54 homes, the proposed project would generate approximately 2-9 46 students. As shown in Table 3.10-1: Enrollment Capacity of Schools Serving the Project Site, there is currently an excess capacity of 977 students at the schools that would serve the proposed project. Future development within the project site would be required by law to pay school impact fees at the time of the building permit issuance. The DUSD currently charges Level 2 development fees in the amount of$ 4,79 per square foot of residential development and $0.47 per square foot for commercial and industrial uses. For the proposed project the applicant will be required to pay the DUSD approximately $646,650 in Level 2 development fees for the single-family residential units and approximately $6,580 in Level I fees for the commercial building. These fees are used by the DUSD to mitigate impacts associated with long-term operation and maintenance of school facilities. Additionally, individual homeowners will be required to pay fees associated with the financing of the both Measure C and Measure E bonds which are used to help pay in part for new school facilities. A project applicant's fees would be determined at the time of the building permit issuance and would reflect the most current fee amount established by the DUSD. School fees exacted from residential and commercial uses would help fund necessary school service and facilities improvements to accommodate anticipated population and school enrollment growth within the DUSD service area, and would allow for the DUSD to allocate these funds as deemed necessary. Therefore, the increased demand on the DUSD is considered a less than significant impact on school services, and no mitigation is required. Increased Demand for Park and Recreation Facilities Impact 3.10-4: The proposed project would increase the demand for park and recreational uses within the project site. However, development projects within the project area would be required to pay the City's Public Facilities Fee prior to Building Permit issuance. This is considered a less than significant impact. Implementation of the proposed project would increase the demand for neighborhood and community parks due to the projected increase in the residential population generated by the proposed project. The City ofDubhn Genera/Plan establishes park standards that call Kimley»)Horn Page 3-143 Heritage Paris Plan Final BFaft EIR Public Services and Utilities for five net acres per 1,000 residents. Based on a population estimate of 2.73 persons per household and construction of 54 residential units, the proposed project would increase the population by approximately 147 persons. This would result in the demand of .73 acres of parks. The proposed project includes private open space at the residential units (e.g. private porches). The Parks and Community Services Department Public Facilities Fee would be applied to development at the project site. The Public Facilities Fees would vary according to the size of residential units, the location of the development, and a credit for the dedication of land and funding for construction of the parks. With payment of the City's public facilities fees (Chapter 7.78 of the City of Dublin Municipal Code), the proposed project would have a less than significant impact on park and recreation facilities in the City, and no mitigation is required. Increased Demand for Library Services or Other Public Facilities Impact 3.10-5: The proposed project would result in an increase in demand for library services. The proposed project would provide adequate property tax revenue to the City, a portion of which is used to fund libraries and other public facilities. Existing library facilities have adequate capacity to serve the proposed project. In addition, the proposed project would not physically impact other public facilities. This is considered a less than significant impact. The Dublin Library is a partnership between the City of Dublin and Alameda County Library. Although the proposed project would increase the demand for library services, funding for additional library facilities and other public facilities would be provided with an increase in property taxes and therefore additional demand for these services could be met concurrent with implementation of the proposed project. Implementation of the proposed project is not anticipated to require the construction of new library facilities; would not cause or accelerate the physical deterioration of existing library facilities; and would not physically impact other public facilities. This would be considered a less than significant impact, and no mitigation is required. Change in Wastewater Demand Impact 3.10-6 The proposed project would result in dee=easean increase in the amount of wastewater generated at the project site. Implementation of the proposed project would not require the construction of new wastewater treatment facilities, or the expansion of existing facilities. Additionally, the existing service provider has an adequate capacity to meet this demand. Therefore, this would be considered a less than significant impact DSRSD provides wastewater collection services in the project vicinity. The proposed project would connect to the existing eight inch sanitary sewer main located in Donlon Way. The existing sewer is approximately five feet deep at the proposed tie-in point and therefore the proposed project would require installation of a sewer pump. The on-site Page 3-144 Kimley 0 Hotn Heritage Park Final HEIR Public Services and Utilities sewer system would serve the Single Family Residential Lots 8 to 54 and Lots I to 7 and would have laterals connecting to the existing sewer main located within Donlon Way. A separate sewer lateral would be installed for the commercial office building, which would connect to the existing main in Donlon Way. As shown in Table 3.10-3: Proposed Wastewater Generation, the proposed project would result in a dry weather flow of 4-,4 X914,100 gallons per day (gpd) based on an average daily flow of 256 gpd per Single Family Residential unit and 367 gpd per acre for commercial/office use. Compared to the existing wastewater generation of 2,426 gpd, the proposed project would result in , Egan increase of the dry weather flow of X41 1,674 gpd. Table 3.10-3:Wastewater Generation Wasteuatep � k M ::' ..Lari'f Use, ;Un ands,fires a v.ast +ater Y ene on;Ra#e .µ. Sri i*pq, u gp Existing Land Use Commercial/Office 6.6 Acres 367.64 gallons per day per acre 2,426 gpd Subtotal 2,426 gpd Proposed Land Use Commercial/Office 0.75 Acres 367.64 gallons per day per acre 276 gpd Single Family Residential 54 SFR units 256 gallons per day per SFR 113,824 gpd SFR Subtotal +4814,410 d Total -17411,674 d *Rates fi-om DRSD picepesed Public facility improvements for sanitary sewer drainage are managed and maintained by the DSRSD DSRSD in collaboration with MWH Inc. completed a Wastewater Collection System Master Plan Update in June of 2005 Land use data form the basis for estimating wastewater flows in the collection system Based on the Wastewater Master Plan (2005), the existing sewer infrastructure system that provides service to the project area is sized to accommodate existing and planned development based on the City's General Plan and the Dublin Village Historic Area Specific Plan rg owth projections. Public facility improvements for sanitary sewer drainage are managed and maintained by the DSRSD. In the District's Capital Improvement Plan, the costs of capital improvement Projects are assigned to Local Sewer Replacement (Fund 210) and/or Local Sewer Expansion (Fund 220). The Replacement F€und represents costs that are allocated to existing users (generally through sewer rates), and the Expansion fund represents the costs allocated to future users (generally through connection fees). Implementation of these Kimley>})Horn Page 3-145 Heritage Park Plan Final HEIR Public Services and Utilities actions would ensure that adequate wastewater infrastructure exists to serve the proposed project. In addition, implementation of the proposed project would be required to comply with wastewater treatment requirements established by the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). The wastewater treatment plant has an excess capacity of 5.52 million gallons per day (DSRSD 2005) and could adequately serve the proposed project–and-4heFereFe—He `4 Additionally, tThe proposed project would be required to pay the sanitary sewer connection fee to the DSRSD 4-E�for the District to serve the proposed project. Although implementation of the proposed project would result in an increase in the demand for wastewater treatment and disposal this demand is not anticipated to result in dry weather wastewater flows that exceed existing or planned capacity of the wastewater treatment plant. This is considered a less than significant impact, and no mitigation is required. Change in Water Demand and Extension of Water Infrastructure Impact 3.10-7: Implementation of the proposed project would result in a deEFease an increase in the water demand at the project site. This would be considered a less than significant impact. As shown in Table 2 1: Existing and Proposed Water Demand the proposed project would result in an increase of 721.9 gallons per day. The project site has multiple water laterals, which serve the existing office buildings located off of Donlon Way. The proposed project would include an additional connection point to the existing eight-inch main within Dublin Boulevard to create a looped system. As shown in Figure 2-10: Preliminary Utility Plan, the on-site water system will serve Single Family Residential Lots 8-54, while Lots 1-7 will be served with individual laterals from the public water main located in Donlon Way. DSRSD is the purveyor of potable water in the City of Dublin. DSRSD purchases wholesale water from Zone 7 who in turns purchases 70 percent of its water from the State Water Project The remainder of the Zone 7 water is from groundwater aquifers through the Livermore-Amador Valley. Page 3-146 Kimley o Horn Heritage Park Final Draft EIR Public Services and Utilities DSRSD in collaboration with West Yost & Associates completed a Water Supply Master Plan Update in 2005 The Water Master Plan Update based future demand (in part) on the City of Dublin's General Plan and respective Specific Plan growth projections. The update recommends additional storage for the central Dublin area and potable water system facility improvements to support existing and future conditions. No additional pumping capacity is required for Pressure Zone I which includes the project area. Potable Water Supply Availability and Reliability - Zone 7 is DSRSD's sole potable water supplier and Zone 7 is aggressively planning for water supply programs and projects to meet the water demands of its customers through buildout of the adopted general plans. With Zone 7's planned programs and projects implemented DSRSD anticipates no water supply shortage However, if Zone 7's planned programs and projects are not implemented DSRSD anticipates: • Approximately three percent water shortage starting 2030 during Normal years; • Approximately one percent water supply shortage starting 2030 during a Single Dry Year, • For a multiple year event that starts in 2025 DSRSD will receive 100 percent of its total potable water demand in the first year, 100 percent of its total water demand in the second year, and 72 percent of its total potable water demand (28 percent water shortage) in the third year, • For a multiple year event that starts in 2030 DSRSD will receive 98 percent of its total potable water demand (2 percent water shortage) in the first year, 100 percent of its total potable water demand in the second year, and 69 percent of its total potable water demand (31 percent water shortage) in the third year, • For a multiple d yyear event that starts in 2035 DSRSD will receive 98 percent of its total potable water demand (2 percent water shortage) in the first year, 100 percent of its total potable water demand in the second year, and 69 percent of its total potable water demand (31 percent water shortage) in the third year. The Zone 7 Board of Directors adopted a revised water supply policy on October 17, 2012 which includes the following level of service goals: • Meet 85 percent of Municipal and Industrial (M&I) water demands 99 percent of the time; • Meet 100 percent of M&I water demands 90 percent of the time; • Meet at least 80 percent of the maximum month demand during an extended unplanned outage. The revised reliability policy does not change the amount of water supply available to the retailers under Normal Single Dry or Multiple Dry years. Rather, it provides Zone 7 with the additional flexibility and time necessary to evaluate develop and implement cost- effective solutions necessary to allow Zone 7 to continue to provide a reliable high-quality water supply to its customers in the face of an uncertain water supply future. Changing the third goal to reflect a prolonged outage on the maximum month instead of the maximum day should allow Zone 7 to develop more cost-effective solutions to major, prolonged KimleyoHorn Page 3-147 Heritage Park Plan Final HEIR Public Services and Utilities shortages while also providing the time necessary to communicate with and obtain a response from its customers (the water retailers). DSRSD proposed to manage and further reduce its potable water demands through additional conservation efforts and its recycled water program. However, if supply shortages do occur, DSRSD may have to invoke its Water Shortage Contingency and Drought Plan as described in the 2010 UWMP. Pursuant to Water Code Section 10910(c)(4) and based on the DSRSD 2010 UWMP, potable water demands for the proposed project can be met by the DSRSD during Normal Single Dry and Multiple Dry water years for a 20-year protection with no water supply shortage if Zone Ts planned programs and projects are implemented. If Zone Ts planned programs and projects are not implemented the proposed project would be subject to the same water conservation measures and water use restrictions as DSRSD s other existing and future potable water customers as included in DSRSD's Water Shortage Contingency and Drought Plan. Recycled WaterAuai/ability and Reliability- Although more than what was included in the DSRSD 2010 UWMP the projected recycled water demands for the proposed protect can be met as wastewater collected in the DSRSD's service area exceeds projected recycled water demands DSRSD anticipates resolving the current recycled water production limitations and actual unit recycled water use would be less than projected unit recycled water use (36 inches per year versus 48 inches per year) Furthermore DSRSD does not anticipate significant issues in its ability to provide recycled water to its customers. DSRSD s recycled water supply is reliable under Normal Single Dry, and Multiple Dry water years. Therefore pursuant to Water Code Section 10910(c)(4) and based on the DSRSD 2010 UWMP potable and recycled water demands for the proposed project can be met during Normal Single Dry and Multiple Dry years for a 20-year protection. Therefore, there is adequate capacity to serve build-out of the proposed project. Based on a review of these projections there is adequate capacity to service the proposed project In addition new development would tie into the existing service lines. Other than minor construction to improve and/or expand existing connections no major upgrades to water infrastructure will be required Additionally, the application would be responsible for the cost and construction of new infrastructure required to serve new development. Implementation of these actions would ensure that adequate water infrastructure would be available to serve the proposed project This would be considered a less than significant impact and no mitigation is required. Change in Stormwater Runoff Impact 3.10-8: Implementation of the proposed project would result in a decrease in stormwater flows through the project site. The proposed project would be required to install proposed drainage improvements and pay applicable impact fees at the time of issuance of the building permits. Therefore,this is considered a less than significant impact. Page 3-148 Kimley o Horn Heritage Park Final Draft EIR CEQA Considerations Title 24, California's Energy Efficiency Standards for Residential and Non-residential Buildings, was established by the California Energy Commission (CEC) in 1978 in response to a legislative mandate to create uniform building codes to reduce California's energy consumption, and provide energy efficiency standards for residential and non-residential buildings. In 2010, the CEC updated Title 24 standards with more stringent requirements. The 2010 Standards are expected to substantially reduce the growth in electricity and natural gas use. Additional savings result from the application of the Standards on building alterations. For example, requirements for cool roofs, lighting, and air distribution ducts are expected to save about additional of electricity. These savings are cumulative, doubling as years go by. Implementation of the project design features would result in reduced project-related GHG emissions. For example, the proposed project would comply with the Tier I requirements of Title 24, Part I I (California Green Building Standards Code) of the California Code of Regulations. Tier I requires projects to exceed Title 24 by 15 percent. Additionally, the proposed project would install high efficiency lighting. The project would adhere to all Federal, State, and local requirements for energy efficiency. As such, the proposed project would not result in the inefficient, wasteful, or unnecessary consumption of building energy. 4.5 Effects Found Not to be Significant A significant effect on the environment is defined as a substantial or potentially substantial adverse change in the physical environment (CEQA Guidelines Section 15382). The term "environment," as used in this definition, means the physical conditions that exist within the area that will be affected by a proposed project including land, air, water, minerals, flora, fauna, ambient noise and objects of historic or aesthetic significance. The area involved shall be the area in which significant effects would occur either directly or indirectly as a result of the proposed project. The "environment" includes both natural and man-made conditions (CEQA Guidelines Section 15360). Detailed analyses and discussion of environmental topics found to be significant are provided within Section 3.0 of this EIR. Section 3.0 also identifies impacts that are found to be less than significant. The project site is an urban infill area and the following environmental resources do not exist on the project site and/or are not considered to have the potential to cause a significant environmental impact. As such, detailed analyses of the following environmental resources were not included in the FIR: Agricultural and Forest Resources — The project site is developed and is not being utilized for agricultural uses. The project site is designated ''Other Land" on the Alameda County Important Farmland Map that is published by the California Department of Conservation (DOC). In addition, the project site does not contain any forest resources as defined by the CEQA Guidelines. Biological Resources - The proposed project would remove 107 trees, 16 of which are classified as Heritage trees. Page 4-6 Kimley>»Horn Heritage Park Final Drat EIR CEQA Consideration blaEk WaIA45-ieE4ed en the 30 trees would be preserved including three Heritage trees; namely two coast redwoods (29-inch and 25-inches in diameter) and one coast live oak (28 inches in diameter) located on the perimeter of the project site. To help off-set the impacts to these Heritage Trees and other trees removed on site, the project applicant has agreed to fund the City in the amount of $19,000 to assist in the planting trees in the proposed Orchard in the Heritage Park. This payment would be provided to the City prior to issuance of the site grading permit. As shown in Figure 2-13: Landscaping Plan, the proposed project would include extensive on-site landscaping. This includes planting - six trees (36'' box) along Donlon Way. Numerous other trees and shrubs would be planted on site including redwoods, crape myrtle,Japanese maple, and Southern magnolia. • Mineral Resources — According to the California Department of Conservation, California Geologic Survey, the project site is not identified as an area with significant mineral deposits (DOC 2013). • Population and Housing - The proposed project provides for the future development of a maximum of 54 residential dwelling units. Based on population estimates of 2.73 persons per household and 54 residential units, the proposed project would increase the population by approximately 147 persons upon buildout of the proposed project. With a current population of approximately 46,934 residents in the City, the proposed project would represent approximately .31 percent of this growth. Although the proposed project would increase the population in the City and includes a General Plan Amendment, the proposed designations would be consistent with the nature of surrounding development; would be within the estimate of population growth per the City of Dublin Housing Element. See also, Section 4.3 above regarding growth inducement. There is no existing housing within the project site and therefore, the proposed project would not displace any existing housing. Transportation and Circulation - As shown in Table 4-1: Trip Generation of the Proposed Project Compared to Existing Conditions, the proposed project would result in a decrease in average daily trips during the AM and PM peak hours as compared to the trip generation for the existing development. Kimley»)Horn Page 4-7 Legend Parks/Public Recreation Medium-High Density Residential ' Medium Density Residential " Retail/Office A ' Business Park/Industrial Downtown Dublin -Transit-Oriented District _ Downtown Dublin - Retail District Project Site Boundary 1 w P Source:City of Dublin,RBF Consulting(2014) Heritage Park EIR . . 0 Proposed General Plan and Specifc Plan Land Use Map CONSULTING A- - Company Figure 3.8-3 t Heritage Park Final EIR 4 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program 4.1 Introduction When approving projects with Environmental Impact Reports (EIRs) that identify significant impacts, the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires public agencies to adopt monitoring and reporting programs or conditions of project approval to mitigate or avoid the identified significant effects (Public Resources Code Section 21081.6(a)(1)). A public agency adopting measures to mitigate or avoid the significant impacts of a proposed project is required to ensure that the measures are fully enforceable, through permit conditions, agreements, or other means (Public Resources Code Section 21081.6(b)). The mitigation measures required by a public agency to reduce or avoid significant project impacts not incorporated into the design or program for the project, may be made conditions of project approval as set forth in a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP). The program must be designed to ensure project compliance with mitigation measures during project implementation. The MMRP includes the mitigation measures identified in the FIR required to address only the significant impacts associated with the project being approved. The required mitigation measures are summarized in this program; the full text of the impact analysis and mitigation measures is presented in the Draft FIR. 4.2 Format The MMRP is organized in a table format (see Table 4-I: Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program), keyed to each significant impact and each FIR mitigation measure. Only mitigation measures adopted to address significant impacts are included in this program. Each mitigation measure is set out in full, followed by a tabular summary of monitoring requirements. The column headings in the tables are defined as follows: Mitigation Measures adopted as Conditions of Approval: This column presents the mitigation measure identified in the FIR. Implementation Procedures: This column identifies the procedures associated with implementation of the migration measure. Monitoring Responsibility: This column contains an assignment of responsibility for the monitoring and reporting tasks. Monitoring and Reporting Action: This column refers the outcome from implementing the mitigation measure. Mitigation Schedule: The general schedule for conducting each mitigation task, identifying where appropriate both the timing and the frequency of the action. Verification of Compliance: This column will be used by the lead agency to document the person who verified the implementation of the mitigation measure and the date on which this verification occurred. Kimley»)Horn Page 4-1 0 o " 4) a u n_ a, rd IL w U v v m ao ro L c I C O p 0 u . CO L 0O v V) 0- -0 0-0 d C -O .in t C C a)O Q C Q O .O a d� O N >. CIO ('d+ c c c p c O ' ao a d a� C ? 0 g / * u a « / / 0 / Cl- _ w U c� kd �4 $ � t to a -c \ t . 2 � ƒ 0 /� fa- ƒ . / 0 \ / Eu § £ r k » ® z 2 ® / $ \ \ ƒ \ y / / 2 ® y p > O ye / \ . 3 ® \ \ // y 7 ¥ ƒ / E ® 4 y m u m = E _ —Cd / 2 / / -J$ ( \ © / / \ \ / / 7 / — / E $ o 'b / / = 0 � \/ x 7 7 ® ± f \ G ƒ z .- ƒ ® \ © S c % $ \ / -C E / / u / / \ \ \ 7 y = / « 0 0 m w / e ƒ e c o [ = m 2 @ « ƒ 6 « J % y § « ® / ± / ' / / \ % \ ƒ / \ e ± y .%2 $ x / q / [ / ~ / / / 0= ) ° \ [ ±_ -/ w G < 0 2 ° / ° G o y a x t \ » J 7 & ƒ 2 ) ƒ fi g \ / y u u \ 2 \ / m s $ « d / G t e z ƒ o y ® o o > e ) / 2 = e .E o c» ° 2 L- \ / \ 7 7 ƒ = j / 2 — E E / m o o t@ E_ ° g \ \ J \ .7/ / / / \ \ \ 2 % 0 / c a c a o 0 / O O u o' v v � v ro ro Alf v = C (V 0 0 O C O c C: co o cn a c -° O mQ X L- + c 0 ao (10 O v c O o -P c c ao - Oz u 0 aq ao � c O �� u ° a EC2 > � Z .� 6 °u ° UQ -v uo E ro L ado ao c CO c O t °c° c n- w U u O 4- v 4E O moo_' U4O a v C C: 0 a�O 0 O L- ro aq -C Z + X n c C cn c N c o u L + 00 -- v .0 O c O c o (u o a u Z v E u aO o E v 0- ro v v u u v_ v D ° N 0 a c a� v c D ci c v t E 2 ao a0 0 -C '4- °o ° v E ° 4- .c o v o o o v ° o v �v avO c H + o C) ro co v o avo a > ° o tiL c +, -C -0 u � E v a v O a1 c c - +, n v + ° N o + O + v 3 v O v s o v * O 0 c ) v 73 N a Nj �p c C:d `J OO +� - + O -C O O a v N N v N c N c Ln O � m -0 QI .N 0 u E '-p v v + a u o v v aO v -o +, U Es a c > 0 6b 0 ( o °- u � -o E 0 � U, o v Q Z v 0 a � 0 v u v v c o v -0 v a O n v > d O aui a� a ao X — o v N _ o o > o Q) c .,_, c Co L N -p v u L -O L +J ccs td `^ Q) O Z Ln 0 0 t 0 �.� u c o c v O m 3 Q) °� 3 o a D a N v °--o .o U o UEO a ao o ` (n u E c O + v v cn v p 12 E N N d u 7 > N u d 0 3 v v ,c L- cn Cj S cd .O- c 0 c E V -O V -p bA 0 X a N c 7 O c N -p .c O N D v aJ +, O '� N v N c ° 3 0 v o °' o o v o cd o v 0 ° °+' v N > o Y p N o Z - ao Q v Q Q F- L u > Z Q o V ro a C- + m Lo v CO 3 . . . . ■ .E o M o E a F�- o 0 ou a) c _ O O t0' D c o LO � (n 0 .N ...0 a a .L2 -0 0_ ++ LL 0 O t O d a Q ro v O N M ++- '+' cOd c0 +� C C o o � o aao c "� O 'o aco - U Ou c ' ° .O E v v o N "c U o v + a "u c c n (1) E c c CIO c;n U E E o r E o ° o ° ca c a > au E > o EoOC U0� Unr) a ao O o L v L o L Q O a, c L^ u rd L rd a u L ro O d c ew c a) ct d c � O C N o L N cd c v O L 0 + a) 0 "c + 0 d ° c O ° co a ro a L o L o E u L +- u O O v u U °_ u + ° L L � +� '� +� u a) +. v aJ - 0 c L -0 I O O O .o c o d a Ou p Ov o Ln o O cn N w Ov +� Q ao O c L ° > ._ o c D -C O aco Q +, 0 L c c o L -0 u c "+ 3 � c > v cd d D 0 c 0 Ld v > a) O w O v (d cn L N 0 rd 0 C E o - D 0 cco m L L o b rd� a 3 Q) c v ° c v- Q c� - O ro o 4� c-P 0 a_ ro � +v> a o � ° _ �d w a o E a) > ro °L o o ^ L a)+-o _0 E � m � +O-0 t O c°0 (n ° o � p ao °c °t c o u a O c n d 1- N L O N L a) C>"0 O L QJ +' - i-' v fd > -'�.', �' co -}P -0 u O ''fir o L N M O -N -- 0 c �n - L L o a) D- o a c c o Q c ° -Ln f-d O > v c 2 c u ° _ c LA O v + v O cd ro c 0 u ao n = i E ° � � c a a� c D o -c E o n - v "� n ° n v L o v O d c } } " E E _ 0 c �- `� a c ° a N s � O .Ln - v o � 0_ cd c L 3 c N U _a E t 0 "E E o � s a o c o n° o rd > E u ao w E u � F- � � ° + aovv oo = Y c cV .� �.� °� Ln E ° cd E E ° .±° E E "o ° u a o N O O 'd O N O N v a O c O O ro .L -C cad cn } + ri i U o E E a� E L .� D u + ao o U v c ° v c O 5 °+' ° °n "�_ 0 Q ° o n E _ c O E v o � v N a, c a, o n L 3 E CL c ( +, O O I- a.o � -0 E -o 0_ 0 L u Q 0- 'd L- O O c �� cad •� � u d E L W > U Q a) � ro ao cda iL � C C v d0 a) O C N O U D C L .+ a) > t% tDo O Ou cud C u c0 C C a) a) C cz -0 O uo p v M -C U O > •�dQ DC.O v rd O N - co rd , La E C O U u O 0 .>-C + � O c t - o O . z E ° a C a u cw v o o M � o - i s U d Z U c+n f2,-' E U oho c° O 0 i' 0 b C o �o .t0' O d C C O (A L o O DC Q Z a a) v ° c cd iao O ro C: C:° o c ° d eo-o a E v ° rd O o -0 .� ° L o t a L o ° ° o a Q- 0 E 2 d a d ao d � u V) a o`do 0 + n + O ro tD.0 u v o C C ao ^ -C O .O c c a0 — p -P s- � a) O O Q d +-C v � p U o O d -0 -fl d , a +d — a) Ca T d rd vi ±� C C u vi + + Cd - Ord +� 4E ±� t a) L +, U -O -0 a) N -O Cd o a p -C m 0 ro u o �n � � o v Ln u .L P u O +� C `` cd >� O 7 cd cn C u N .V LA d ao o o � o� _au) 4 c � l� v U aCO a c � w L ° a') a, _-u It CY (0 -0 o 3 0 c U aco O N E M ° *� O U a > .E U � c O Q L C ro u t O O d a) C v v O cd a) O — O rd U I o o o o a o ° �� °o d o ° o 0 0 c rd - p O a ao� U -u o — > cn o c u v Q o u o � C M —0 CD -0 Q u o °� a� � Al W t (n c � ° u U ao D u ° U t o Q Q a O 0 L o O w 0O ^ 3 ^ p ro O } a > (d C T o t m d C a� o Q u o v = co rd.° ° - 3 t D aci o c c °c C O E aJ N O Olo O C N V � QUI + ou rd N +� 01 p -D _ i O O a O rCtl N C u C N t N D -C C > OU > CO td M Q > M_ O O 0 -C L- 0 -igj o u o' EL qj L yv o0 O v b� a_ c v ao p o _ O L :L � o o V) u ao O u co c u C: o c O tDIO 0 0-0 N O O Cd cd t c a� tDIO O Q rd D D CIO M 0 V) v o n -C c c o N o° U E o cc >o° ° ° ° c o ao c O c O o cd °o co n d E c O N a U n° o C a o M O v - p E v N E E a s v -o o ° � ° E E E ' o o U E u O o C L .0 C O O �d c a t c N V p fxC Q 2- a c c O O + a—co ° co c +� D ni c tn .0 ed N v E D- U 7 -F� "D O C Ql d0 v E _O O Ld C y O O L n E bA O E L ro O _O O O O V d'V > C 7 > U o E ro a ms E ao c o o vo ao co + C O N N c V C IQ) U � V t . N a1~ Rl U N p r p O O u t O� O O= L p a p N c u c u cd cn c D b O o N o O + — v o a ° o D o > v v d ° a o Q to c ° c -Ij O U W � N p ud c + L V- it3 E tm O > N }, N o �-. N M N `� E E N > .N O N L t L cn E D W c �n O L v ^ N n C ni -O N p +1 > +- QJ C 'io d 4J U C D u d U _-- u C p O v � ct -0 -P 0 � ° ° 3 C D u � a N O o E ccd p E O N � a u a 3 0 E c L p _w'd v 3 m E °J c ,0 d L �o N O c Q N O � d Ov N o - L c u, O E a L ° L t o p v ° E E Q o v o c N 0 o °+' o ° cn 3 ° Ua Qo0D � � � ; r - cu L N — cd cd u .C t 9 N Cd nj c v � Q) 0- 0-'t o E _ a-_ v, D a = o o o c N F— cO p � O ao-� O N -� Y M U°J N g Q) c -E -° .0 cLd b.0 , E d o L v -0 N O N n +� N C O ^ p E o v E o v o 'd o v °' .� ° � a E a ° 2 U 0 a ro cl ca Eu a� v c � L O O _ (U Ln ° U ul ° Q) ao v � W � :Q) L c O E O C :3 ccdd c O u L D (1) V) ao O u co D- u ° C t T () t > O C �T 0-0 t C +O E u R3 Q) °° o ± o L +O C "J O C O N — O W — N C pp -,—o O c � C � t 'o E .� Q U t -> Cd N a) + b N "D c c u o m (o " cd O -O aJ 0 + Z u ° d }T, `^ i .u ° ro c ° 2 cLd ° --C 00-9 a) () c +- QI -C , > Q C a) L E d u O a D u C Q C O cd .C V E OO 'C -cn ° b Q) a) -+., u z Q) E N = 0 ° rd F F� v v o O Q U E ro s Q Z U O Q U 1� .� E 'CL � o m u E w W= o m 0) c_ O o w U `—ud c a L c VI V o Eo�C QZ UO Q co rd ro c L U) Q) �+ u E 0-.0 D N O o M E v -v Q) o c � a� ao - L O +, c u Q) a v_ N c � > � v O a_u .� C o Q a o o o v u o a a° ° C: ° F 2 cd a P E ao um � u O a co O " O cd Sao p — 0 � L ° v o V ° � c > $ ao0 a LI) v c ° ° O v — o C ° ro a) 0 + Z c I— b.0 C Q) ,� cd T � C 'f C � O a) dC9 d 'L Oa 0 O N O +� ON > + C 3 ° v n a ao p aCi d Q U o o a o 4- v a a c �_ x u C u _cd O u N ° C Z (v c C O Z ro L N 0_+d d ° 0 v c o O o U v Q ° O 0 u c_o C� > � J � -o TO > � .� + a.no � a � J 3 aq � E U w w c v U v " � .� a) v E o ° c E ao E ro E ° d cm aEi > D o ao i p O 3 i E Q O ro C -� v N ao 0 u c -p U a) C Q) ro > Z +, O > C C > O C ° N ao Ln rd -- (d c + w o 3 a C -I-- m u O v ° L D v o = (a — a cd v O 4 L O O u cn L d d a) c E > a ° t .c - .`u ° c C .° d M 'O L 0 M ? E a 3 3 u E a � o r�i ac 0 E EUoC c �� -oO a +, 'd u L- -D u z o u 4- 0 o u � a v CD of a w > U Q v a) brd E a- .1 a) aco 0 v o c o v u aq c c L- 0 U cn o V C c C L t -� p �-' C c � O t d aJ -u O C E O D �Q O o U v � v o s c ° _O o +, 3 c L m c ao O ao > c v e- a + c c o ai - . � U °a- C v c d O v Eo�C ° wm -o 0.0v v Ou -0 Ou m c E OL C u aA � � w C: C D- C c o U U a v c c v ° c L c C: cd c c + C M c c o � c E � O C m E c v —rd E o ° E v � 2 u o a m v o N m -a'o E u o - c am c v a p > c a tia? � c v u O a cd cd L d L C O L cd O o a eo u a Q a a) u a u Lap :+-, -C Q) c 3 a) C -o > o v ) U C - I v ro ° c ° °c . � c rd Ln co o� a� 0 g Q) a� c x ° U a) I- ° 3 + o O ° U m ni L > � .a) U o U) —mod C C v CL 3 v v v — v -b L E c E ao CL v m a rd v i a o Q) 6 V � ° c c `d c C v U u o v cn L o u d m V) +� c -0 O u u p X p U -C -0 o N m E a N C m "o N C � L O (d O — v v a° ^ O v L w c o E o c as ro a V a) o � o .0 U c O CO c — `� N cd � >, > _O Q C N -0E >: O N Q) v O `N > 0 o _ a v ao � 3 uaa � X aTi ao ° .^ 3 °J _ a�i c > ° o c° E U c c u 0 c L .a; v > v 'd ° Y C > .� v E -_ cd in rd O + n v u O v _> +_� V u Ll C a1 v a0 u O �O 2 o — L c� m a O 2 �''� d. u v C -O - boo b0 .v 0--0 c a O c _0 O d bA v v u 0.0 N 'd Ou 'd w OV = tCd E 0 a O O c _ a u a' - � ` > U , O ro Lt Al_ b E a L L I c O ° a ON :3 O u ° u tM O N 0 (1 c — +O Ql N .- _ -�? > -p tm QVJ CO cVd 0 ap �O C `� Q rd O id _4 +�-+ '+� d vi V �n N '-N - N O O u _N C b0 L u Vl N V L (� QJ ClS Vli- " L C > .0 "c c a4 v d O O C O U u O O c° u -° v c p LO N t a u 0 a N c° w O -C o a u ° o 0 0 �, L a u o a - I- a v o . .� U 3 .� u v F L .0 bo V F v ew � C L co -u O � E N D � (D .0 C L 'C v) uA N Cl- c 0 O : d 0 C uco c a U v ° Q O N 4- N L o C2 U 0 w a v , 0 C ono O co ro ° a 3 O a : c o `n � E v + d L w cm -11 D C .� �«- 0 ro N C -c i u O tm±� U cd T L u L rd E U V N O d u O '� '� Q L u O - O vi a u +L � U c c ° o > o ao " o a � a o � ° o .0 a. d �'- cd d N d u .c v +� O ca v cn d D- �- V "- +� m Z — u b�0 c ++ O .0 cd -�Ln cn C + O 0 � L L v ° M t E V o v o ao V) 0 ago E ° c� ew u c c c — "O c N o e cow l `d -C 3 c �t > ( N N -° N D o o x c ° a c O "o ° ° ° aSQ) m u a Q) c ° o .0 o aN 0° ') - — c o cd o > . O ao o ° , u � -D E N c CL a C o w o W - � D N C O c c a -C p w d 0 C U O n c Q) c v + °J } c d L o E v a u m O rd D O C N n - N N C -a N N v > a Lo � o ° o c 3 '° o +>- a Q m o m w C a E L U -- _ N -- u L QJ >, i--' v a O a a + + a cn as° c V) O c0 -O E O M > ° ao c E W u °u c c =c QE -o Q a v u O L cd p u s M sa LO O 4J ■ 3 .o u _ U > a U = c O � 'O v 0 L - 3 Q Q -- Ou Z Z m O a 4- 0 c W o u u a N ra uJ > U � C � W qp I C � c O t E cn + v — u L Rj 0 L O — N C 0 N .L d c o N E Q .� d O ado QJ ao Q °� +° ao o ? 0 c ao + c c + v o f c aco o a b p .° -Vp 4 ° L V + W c CO d d-L E 'LA 0 N N _ O QJ rid V > +-, -0 cc E o aco L r- r^ c a O � c a o 0 a c v Id � c a w 0 o is a� o E v 4-- _ 0 0 a Lj � o E 2 a- n .i� ao 0 c u Q) > c a c v � 0 o a, E 0- 0 0 -o a 0 c t t a) D E * c o d + + O i O Fro c ro 0 d 0 � Mcn T + > — o (d +� (1) > ° 0 0 �, (d +� L + o U Q) � � C cn a °' ^ d � ° v v v > 0 c w o .0 ° ° o cd a 0 S u Ld Id W � o � O ° E-d o c c +c p -° � O rd +� M 0 U C ° c ° m N V C N L N (Vd ° N N ro ) o 0 EN o ro �°U cad -� a�0 v -� N — c N u v O + 0 + v ao > 0) 0 E n c 0 a) ao V) � �d � c a u b ai o .0---°' � o o L "o o c 0 0 L ° i o CD Q o 0 6 a Z E o � U ao11 � � v °+' - C + c a O c - c N V ° L rn c co °- � � V -ro rd "rd � QJ .rn > td d O >c (n a� v "� o v ao U .ao ° 'C - E o E 0 ) E c c m (d co t � — t O v O N 0 c 0 N 0 N ° v Q N Y c n uo Q + Q o L V D o V rd u cn a U 0