Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 4.10 TL Partners Land Exchange or 19 82 STAFF REPORT CITY CLERK CITY COUNCIL File #600-30 DATE: June 16, 2015 TO: Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers FROM: Christopher L. Foss, City Manager " SUBJECT: Approval of the First Amendment to the Land Exchange Agreement and Associated CEQA Addendum with TL Partners II, LP, for Property on Tassajara Road Prepared by Jayson Imai, Senior Civil Engineer EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: TL Partners II, LP, a California limited partnership, and the City of Dublin previously entered into a Land Exchange Agreement for property located at 6960 Tassajara Road (Fredrich Parcel, APN 986-0004-002-03) and 7020 Tassajara Road (Vargas Parcel, APN 986-0004-002-01). TL Partners II has now executed and filed with the City of Dublin the First Amendment to the Land Exchange Agreement and associated CEQA Addendum to revise the land area description within the Agreement. FINANCIAL IMPACT: There will be no financial impact to the City by approving the First Amendment to the Land Exchange Agreement. TL Partners II will be responsible for all staff costs related to the processing of the Amendment and associated CEQA addendum. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the Resolution Approving the First Amendment to the Land Exchange Agreement with TL Partners II, LP; and adopt the Resolution Adopting a CEQA Addendum and a Related Statement of Overriding Considerations for an Amendment to the Land Exchange Agreement for a 2.69 Acre Area for the Tassajara Highlands (Fredrich/Vargas) Project. ubmitte` By Reviewed By Public Works Director Assistant City Manager DESCRIPTION: TL Partners II, LP, a California limited partnership (TL Partners II), developer of the parcels located at 6960 Tassajara Road (Fredrich Parcel, APN 986-0004-002-03) and 7020 Tassajara Page 1 of 3 ITEM NO. 4.10 Road (Vargas Parcel, APN 986-0004-002-01), collectively known as Tassajara Highlands, and the City of Dublin previously entered into a Land Exchange Agreement with an effective date of July 15, 2014 (Attachment 7). The Agreement involved the exchange of right-of-way and easements required for the replacement of the existing Tassajara Road culvert crossing of Moller Creek. The City Council approved the Land Exchange Agreement on July 15, 2014 with Resolution No. 126-14. TL Partners II has requested to amend the Land Exchange Agreement in order to revise the land area descriptions included within the Agreement and describe drainage, road and street frontage improvements to be constructed by the Developer within the Tassajara Road right-of- way (Attachment 8). The Amendment and related CEQA Addendum will correlate the Agreement with regulatory agency permit applications made by the Developer. Staff has prepared a Resolution Approving the First Amendment to the Land Exchange Agreement with TL Partners II, LP (Attachments 2 and 3). ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: A CEQA Addendum dated June 16, 2015 has been prepared to address the proposed project. Pursuant to Sections 15162 and 15164 of the CEQA implementing regulations, the City has determined that: (i) the proposed project remains within the scope of the previous environmental assessments of the development programs which have included the Project Site, and (ii) subject to continued implementation of the applicable mitigation measures, the proposed project will not result in any significant environmental effects that already have not been evaluated and addressed. The project is located within the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan area, which was the subject of an Environmental Impact Report for the General Plan Amendment and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan (SCH # 91103064), certified by the City Council in Resolution No. 51-93 and Addenda dated May 4, 1993 and August 22, 1994. Development of the Fredrich and Vargas properties along Tassajara Road was addressed in two subsequent MNDs in 2006 and 2007. On July 15, 2014, the City approved a land exchange agreement with the applicant. In September, 2014, the City approved the Tassajara Highlands project on the two properties, adopting a CEQA Addendum. The current project proposes to amend the 2014 land exchange agreement for approximately 2.69 acres of City-owned land. The amendment would update descriptions of a portion of the land to be exchanged (0.82 acres), vacated by the City (0.59 acres) and retained as City right- of-of-way for Tassajara Road widening (1.28 acres), and to describe drainage, road and street frontage improvements to be constructed on a portion of the City's 1.28 acres of remaining right- of-way. The proposed Addendum and supporting Initial Study are attached as Attachment 5 and document that the amendment will not result in any new or more severe impacts than identified in the prior CEQA documents. The improvements described in the project continue to be subject to all the previously adopted mitigation measures, as applicable. Staff has prepared a Resolution Adopting a CEQA Addendum and a Related Statement of Overriding Considerations for an Amendment to the Land Exchange Agreement for a 2.69 Acre Area for the Tassajara Highlands (Fredrich/Vargas) Project (Attachments 4, 5 & 6). Page 2 of 3 NOTICING REQUIREMENTS/PUBLIC OUTREACH: A copy of this report has been provided to Tim Lewis Communities, dba TL Partners II, LP. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Location Map 2. Resolution Approving the First Amendment to the Land Exchange Agreement with TL Partners II, LP 3. Exhibit "A" to Resolution, First Amendment to Land Exchange Agreement with TL Partners II, LP 4. Resolution Adopting a CEQA Addendum and a Related Statement of Overriding Considerations for an Amendment to the Land Exchange Agreement for a 2.69 Acre Area for the Tassajara Highlands (Fred rich/Vargas) Project 5. Exhibit "A" to Resolution, CEQA Addendum and Initial Study for the City of Dublin/TL Partners II, LP Revised Land Exchange Agreement Project 6. Exhibit "B" to Resolution, Statement of Overriding Considerations 7. Land Exchange Agreement with TL Partners II, LP 8. Letter from TL Partners II, LP requesting amendment to Land Exchange Agreement Page 3 of 3 �1 +'u r �u /� ;Jl/'i' J��f� S)J „iii, )%••/i ,�j%�/ u;, �/���i d� ��a G; 14' N r a !✓ °'gin '/� ' // / / 'hh, � % � / ' 0� `( r 0000 L r J a � v U �I r � 1 N / „y, o L d L U co � L 1 E d� y�I S� RESOLUTION NO. - 15 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN APPROVING THE FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE LAND EXCHANGE AGREEMENT WITH TL PARTNERS II, LP WHEREAS, the Owner, TL Partners II, LP, a California Limited Partnership, and the City of Dublin previously entered into a Land Exchange Agreement for property located at 6960 Tassajara Road (Fredrich Parcel, APN 986-0004-002-03) and 7020 Tassajara Road (Vargas Parcel, APN 986-0004-002-01), approved by City Council Resolution No. 126-14 on July 15, 2014; and WHEREAS, the Developer has executed and filed with the City of Dublin the First Amendment to Land Exchange Agreement , attached hereto as Exhibit "A," to revise the land area descriptions included within the Agreement and describe drainage, road and street frontage improvements to be constructed by the Developer on a portion of the City's 1.28 acres of remaining right-of-way; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that said First Amendment to Land Exchange Agreement is hereby approved. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Manager is hereby authorized by the City Council to execute the Agreement. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Clerk of this City Council is hereby directed to transmit said Agreement to the County Recorder for filing. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Engineer is hereby authorized by the City Council to make minor modifications to the Grant Deed documents and related exhibits attached to the Agreement prior transmitting said documents to the County Recorder for filing. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 16th day of June, 2015. AYES- NOES- ABSENT- ABSTAIN- ATTEST- Mayor City Clerk FIRST AMENDMENT TO LAND EXCHANGE AGREEMENT This FIRST AMENDMENT TO LAND EXCHANGE AGREEMENT ("Amendment") is made and entered by and between the City of Dublin ("City") and TL Partners II, LP, a California limited partnership ("Developer"). This Amendment shall be effective as of the latest date indicated next to the signatures of the Parties below (the "Amendment Effective Date") RECITALS A. WHEREAS, City and Developer entered into that certain Land Exchange Agreement with an Effective Date of July 15, 2014 (the "Exchange Agreement"), whereby City and Developer agreed to exchange certain parcels of real property. B. WHEREAS, City and Developer now desire to enter into this Amendment in order to modify, amend and/or supplement certain terms and conditions of the Exchange Agreement, as hereinafter provided. NOW, THEREFORE, for good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, City and Developer hereby agree as follows: AGREEMENT 1 . Capitalized Terms. All capitalized terms not otherwise defined herein shall have the meanings ascribed to them in the Exchange Agreement. 2. Amendment. a. Recitals G and H are hereby deleted in their entirety and replaced with the following: "G. The City is the fee owner of certain real property consisting of approximately 1.41 acres located in the City on Tassajara Road, comprised of .59 acres of former City right of way (the "Former ROW Land") and a .82 acre parcel which is a portion of Parcel 3 of Parcel Map 1193, Assessor Parcel Number 986-0004-003-00 (the "Parcel 3 Property"). The Former ROW Land and the Parcel 3 Property are referred to collectively herein as the "City Property", which is more particularly depicted and described in Exhibit F. E H. The City is also the owner of approximately 1.28 acres of right of way intended for a future road widening project (the "City ROW"), as I depicted in Exhibit F. b. Recital I is hereby dded to read in its entirety: Y Y I. Subject to the terms and conditions set forth in this Agreement, including without limitation, compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") where applicable, Developer and City have agreed that: (i) Developer shall cause the Fredrich Owner to grant City the Culvert Easement and shall cause the Vargas Owner to grant PG&E the PG&E Easement; (ii) Developer shall convey the Culvert Property to the City; (iii) City shall convey the City Property to Developer; and (iv) City shall grant Developer traffic impact fee credits for the ROW Land in accordance with the Eastern Dublin Traffic Impact Fee Administrative Guidelines." c. A new Section 5.7 is hereby added to the Exchange Agreement as follows: "City ROW. City acknowledges and agrees that Developer may be required to install certain roadway improvements within the City ROW pursuant to the conditions of approval for the Development Project." d. Section 6.1 of the Exchange Agreement is hereby deleted in its entirety and replaced with the following: "City Conveyance. Subject to satisfaction of the conditions precedent set forth in this Section, in the sole discretion of City, City shall (i) abandon the Former ROW Land and (ii) convey to Developer and Developer shall accept from City, the City Property in accordance with the terms, covenants and conditions set forth herein. The conveyance of the City Property from City to Developer shall be accomplished by recordation of a grant deed, substantially in the form attached hereto as Exhibit K ("City Grant Deed")." e. Exhibit F to the Exchange Agreement is hereby deleted and replaced with a new Exhibit F in the form attached hereto. f. Exhibit K to the Exchange Agreement is hereby deleted and replaced with a new Exhibit K in the form attached hereto. 3. Exchange Agreement Remains in Effect. Except as amended herein, the Exchange Agreement, and all terms and provisions therein, remain in full force and effect and are ratified in all respects by the parties hereto. 4. Counterparts. This Amendment may be executed in any number of counterparts and each counterpart shall be deemed to be an original document. Delivery of the executed Amendment may be accomplished by facsimile transmission and, if so, the facsimile copy shall be deemed an executed original counterpart of this Amendment. All executed counterparts together shall constitute one and the same I 2 I i document, and any signature pages, including facsimile copies thereof, may be assembled to form a single original document. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned parties have executed this Amendment as of the date first above written. CITY OF DUBLIN Dated: A Municipal Corporation By: City Manager Attest City Clerk TL PARTNERS II, LP Dated: A California limited partnership By: TL Management, Inc. Its: General Partner By: Name: Jay Timothy Lewis Its: President I i kk I 3 f f Exhibit F CITY PROPERTY AND CITY ROW i I i U U Q Q N 1 Q I a0 Z O 1 � W U d _ r --- -z I cc) E Legal Description of Parcel 3 Property ALL THAT CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY SITUATED IN THE CITY OF DUBLIN, COUNTY OF ALAMEDA, STATE OF CALIFORNIA BEING A PORTION'OF THE LANDS OF THE CITY Or,DUBLIN AS DESCRIBED IN SERIES NUMBER 2007-383390,ALAMEDA COUNTYRECORDS,MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS, -BEGINNING AT THE NORTHEASTERLY CORNER OF SAID LANDS OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN,SAID CORNER BEING ON THE WESTERLY LINE OF TASSAJARA ROAD, THENCE ALONG SAID WESTERLY LINE ALONG A NON-TANGENT CURVE TO THE RIGHT, HAVING A RADIAL BEARING OF NORTH 63°28'12" WEST,HAVING A RADIUS OF 767.00 FEET,THROUGHA CENTRAL ANGLE OF 21°3557"AND ANARC LENGTH OF 289.14 FEET- THENCE LEAVING SAID WESTERLY LINE AND ENTERING SAID LANDS OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN THE FOLLOWING TWO(2)COURSES; 1. SOUTH 64%1'16"WEST,230.24 FEET; 2. ALONG A TANGENT CURVE TO THE LEFT HAYING A RADIUS OF 914.00 FEET, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 07'41'57"AND AN ARC LENGTH OF 122.82 FEET TO A POINT ON THE WESTERLY LINE OF SAID LANDS OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN,• THENCE ALONG SAID WESTERLYLINE THE FOLLOWING TWO(2)COURSES: i 1, 1VORTH47°52'20"EST,519,92 FEET, 2. NORTH 00°35'30"EAST, 42.01 FEET TO THE NORTHWESTERLY CORNER OF SAID LANDS OF THE CITY OF D UBLIN; THENCE SOUTH 89°1857"EAST 102.18 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. CONTAINING 0.82 ACRES MORE OR LESS A PORTION OFAPN 986-0004-003-00. THE BEARINGS AND DISTANCES USED IN THE ABOVE DESCRIPTION ARE ON THE CALIFORN24 COORDINATE SYSTEM,ZONE 3. DISTANCES SHOWNARE GROUND DISTANCES PREPARED BY: �O QRQVE'SSIp�` No. C 29&51 A * Exp. 03/31/15 �l VIVO- Of C f DATE: MARK E. WOODS LICENSED CIVIL ENGINEER NO.C29857 (EXP.0313112015) STATE OF CALIFORNIA N. l.Lnn4uas 11b1)5-11 ru.c..+iron 7re;rs(br hcl RUH`!>.+dr Lai;n!1.par freGaare Pun r/Jo,T PAGE I OF2 Exhibit F — Page 3 i 7'ROMA8 A d NP'LY'NB r �� f F'f1E•'Df710N 7'F1JB7'�� �! APN 9,66-0004-00-2-03 ! J�F11E'8 N� 2008�100d07' i i N89°18'57"W 102.18' P08 N00°35'30 E 42.01' ORANO P, L1N APN 06-004-006--06 2 B�RJNu ND. 82--0017.56 `ra R-767.00' ��g• D=2l°3557" L=289.14' 220 Z3pZ/ �' �' �.'�� ( 885�0057✓d52 017Y Of;' DJBLIN R-914,00' ,�'' y rHF1tJUt311 APN 088.0009-003-00 �' 2� D�07°41'57" 985�0d57✓d62 S�RI�u NO 2007-388390 L-122,82' 986-0067-008 rJl�l.�uaH � ,�' �' �,�' ,�T 985-•dd57 081<\> 1�� �! 986-0067'-050 i / Q�pFESS/0 l ���p Ea(Fy LEGEND BOUNDARY OF DESCRIPTION a N C 29851 A EXISTING PARCEL * P, 03/31/15 P08 POINT OF BEGINNING 1p19P C 1 y �N . OF CNO EXHIBIT ;4' / PAGE 2 OF 2 /"� Deslgn Resources,Inc. DATE, JULY 10, 2014 EXCHANGE PARCEL Y/ISY{Gmk C.LwNe 9!lwlzl! )£t hZil]m.JpO SCALE, 1" - 150' M,1: Exhibit F — Page 4 Former Right of Way Land i i s Exhibit F — Page 5 I 3172.001 ASW TASSAJARA HIGHLANDS LEGAL DESCRIPTION RIGHT-OF-WAY ABANDONMENT Being a portion of Tassajara Road, and located in the City of Dublin, County of Alameda, State of California, more particularly described as follows: COMMENCING at the southerly terminus of that certain course shown as "N30°48'42"W 132.35"' on sheet 4 of that Record of Survey filed in Book 16 of Records of Survey, at Pages 37-51, Alameda County Records; thence along the property line of the land of the Thomas A. & Helene L. Fredrich Trust as described in Series No. 2008109067, Alameda County Records, South 01'25'41" West, a distance of 143.65 feet; thence continuing along said property line, South 89 018'49" East, a distance of 102.18 feet to the westerly right-of-way line of Tassajara Road and a point of curvature and the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; Thence leaving said TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING, along said westerly right-of-way line, from a radial line which bears South 63°28'04" East, along the arc of a non-tangent curve being concave to the northwest and having a radius of 767.00 feet, northeasterly 132.96 feet through a central angle of 9 055'57" to a point of curvature; Thence leaving said westerly right-of-way line, forma radial line which bears South 81'46'04"West, along the are of a non-tangent curve being concave to the northeast and having a radius of 612.00 feet, southeasterly 85.27 feet through a central angle of 7 058'58"to a point of compound curvature; Thence along said compound curve being concave to the northeast and having a radius of 1206.00 feet, southeasterly 117.13 feet through a central angle of 5°33'54"; Thence South 20°57'50" West, a distance of 30.24 feet; Thence South 64°11'24"West, a distance of 298.20 feet to a point of curvature on said westerly right-of-way line; Thence along said westerly right-of-way line, from a radial line which bears South 41'52'07" East, along the arc of a non-tangent curve being concave to the northwest and having a radius of 767.00 feet, northeasterly 289.14 feet through a central angle of 21'35'57" to the THE POINT OF BEGINNING; Containing 25,751 square feet, more or less. See Exhibit 'B, plat to accompany description, attached hereto and made a part hereof. Page 1 of 2 J:\3000-s\3172_Tassajara\Tassajara-OA\Geomatics\Dots\Plats_Descdptions\Rd AbandonmenMbandonment Descdption.docx 3172.001 ASW The Basis of Bearings for this description is the California Coordinate System, Zone 3, NAD83, as established by NGS points "GPS control PT 58" and "C226". Said bearing is taken to bear North 12°09'02" East. All distances and areas presented herein are ground data. June 2, 2015 END OF DESCRIPTION L E. SG�G 0 * EXP.08- c!'j. No.6815 9 OF CAS\F��a PREPARED BY WOOD RODGERS, INC SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA I I i i E Page 2 of 2 i J:\3000-s13172_Tassajara\Tassajara-OA\Geomatics\Dots\Plats_Descdptions\Rd Abandonment\Abandonment__Description.docx 4 TASSAJAR A HIGHLANDS PLAT TO ACCOMPANY RIGHT-OF-EAY ABANDONMENT DESCRIPTION CITY OF DUBLIN COUNTY OF ALAMEDA STATE OF CALIFORNIA I=RE®RICFI ®OC-2008109087, "O.R.A.C. �0/ D• N ,mil I S81'46'04"W(RZ POC / _ r7 it J c NBC 5N t N� N TPOB Lp S89'1849"E �� o J102.18' � o�U'• I 25,781 ±SF _ S68°13 12 WLRL S20'57'50"W 4t-* p� ,��� `L� 30.24' 9 RIGHT-OF-WAY TO BE ABANDONED BY THE i CITY OF D UBLIN 4 SpNI— IANp SG c PE1 F G * EXP:09-30 No. 6815 �Q 9lFOFCA60 WOOD �RODOORS Z �$ DEVELOPING • INNOVATIVE - DESIGN • SOLUTIONS 0 50 100 200 3301 C St., Bldg. 100-B Tel 916.341.7760 Sacramento, CA 958'16 Fax 916.341.7767 SCALE:1 "=100 JUN 02,2015 3172.001 SHEET 1 OF 1' Exhibit K FORM OF CITY GRANT DEED RECORDING REQUESTED BY: WHEN RECORDED MAIL TO: TL Partners II,L.P. c/o Tim Lewis Communities 3300 Douglas Blvd. Building 400, Suite 450 Roseville, CA 95661 THIS SPACE FOR RECORDER'S U�E ONLY Consideration Less than $100.00 GRANT DEED CITY OF DUBLIN APN 986-0004-003-00 AND CITY RIGHT OF WAY TASSAJARA ROAD, DUBLIN, CA THIS PAGE HERE TO PROVIDE ADEQUATE SPACE FOR RECORDING INFORMATION (Government Code 27361.6) GRANT DEED FOR A VALUE CONSIDERATION, receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, THE CITY OF DUBLIN,A MUNICIPAL CORPORATION (GRANTOR) hereby GRANTS to TL PARTNERS II,L.P.,A CALIFORNIA LIMITED PARTNERSHIP (GRANTEE) All of its right, title, and interest in and to that certain real property (the "Property") situated in the City of Dublin, County of Alameda, State of California, described as follows: FOR LEGAL PLAT &DESCRIPTION SEE EXHIBITS "A" and"B", ATTACHED HERETO AND MADE A PART HEREOF GRANTOR: CITY OF DUBLIN, a Municipal Corporation By: Christopher L. Foss Title: City Manager Date: Exhibit K— Page 2 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT State of California County of On before me, , (insert name and title of the officer) personally appeared ,who proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument, and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by his/her/their signatures(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument. I certify under PENALTY OF PERJURY under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing paragraph is true and correct. WITNESS my hand and official seal. (Seal) Signature of Notary Exhibit K— Page 3 Exhibit A Legal Description of Parcel 3 Property ALL THAT CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY SITUATED IN THE CITY OF DUBLIN, COUNTY OF ALAMEDA, STATE OF CALIFORNIA BEING A PORTION OF THE LANDS OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN AS DESCRIBED IN SERIES NUMBER 2007-383390,ALAMEDA COUNTY RECORDS,MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS; BEGINNING AT THE NORTHEASTERLY CORNER OF SAID LANDS OF THE CITY OF D UBLIN,SAID CORNER BEING ON THE WESTERLYLINE OF TASSAJARA ROAD, THENCE ALONG SAID WESTERLY LINEALONG A NON-TANGENT CURVE TO THE RIGHT, HAVING A RADIAL BEARING'OF NORTH 63°28'12" WEST,HAVING A RADIUS OF 767.00 FEET, THROUGHA CENTRAL ANGLE OF21°35'57"AND ANARC LENGTH OF 289.14 FEET- THENCE LEAVING SAID WESTERLY LINE AND ENTERING SAID LANDS OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN THE FOLLOWING TWO(2)COURSES; 1. SOUTH 64°11'16"WEST,230.24 FEET; 2. ALONG A TANGENT CURVE TO THE LEFT HAYING A RADIUS OF 914.00 FEET, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 07°41'S7"AND AN ARC LENGTH OF 122.82 FEET TO A POINT ON THE WESTERLY LINE OF SAID LANDS OF THE CITY OF D UBLIN,• THENCE ALONG SAID WESTERLYLINE THE FOLLOWING TWO(2)COURSES; 1• NORTH47°52'20'•EST,S19,92 FEET,• Z NORTH 00°35'30"EAST, 42.01 FEET TO THE NORTHWESTERLY CORNER OF SAID LANDS OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN,' THENCE SOUTH89°18'57"EAST, 102.18 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING CONTAINING 0.82 ACRES MORE OR LESS. A PORTION OFAPN 986-0004-003-00. i THE BEARINGS AND DISTANCES USED IN THE ABOVE DESCRIPTION ARE ON THE CALIFORNIA COORDINATE SYSTEM,ZONE 3. DISTANCES SHOWNARE GROUND DISTANCES. PREPARED BY, O Q�0 SS��Mj No, C 29851 �k Exp. Q3/31/15 •�►' civil- OF CA0F�Q�,r DATE: ' MARKE. WOODS LICENSED CIVIL ENGINEER NO.C29851 (EXP.0313112015) STATE OF CALIFORNIA 1'.01-awinga 1290-11 I(,,vmjeva 7r,tn.</;r Pc! RUH'A!,7;Lewd lk'.1c F_rrGa;tre:Parcel Jnrr PAGE 1 OF 2 Exhibit K— Page 4 THOMAS A A f-le'LPNP'L I'P1Pr),gJcH 7,gLll r APN 9,69-0004-00-2-03 002-03 I t J�'"R1B5 Nt�. 200.8-J00d67" I i Z i . bs,�a r N89°18'57'W 102,18' POB N00°35'30 E 42,01' 09ANO S LJN APN W-0004-006-06 2 SBRIEe ND 82J0d17'69 ��r, g2 rpm R=76700' D=2l*3557" A, L=289.14' A86-0067-052 017Y OF' DVBLJN , R=914.00' � 7HRr�Jt�H APN 989 0dd4�d03�00 �' ��,� D=07°41'57" 986 Od6y 062 S�AIBS Na 2001-388890 o =122,82' 986-0097-00's �' 7HN.GIIDH � �i' %i' �,� ;'�� \ A86�Od67✓d3J< �` it '. t t i , �� i APN 989-0069-003 i r r i r i R$DFESSI0k9 . LEGEND h��4 �E. itQjp BOUNDARY OF DESCRIPTION w N0. C 29$5 EXISTING PARCEL * P, 03/31/15 rt r i POB POINT OF BEGINNING 1p 01V F CAI\F�� EXHIBIT 'A' PAGE 2 OF 2 /' Design Resources,Inc /"" --ha.F a..rba.samba DA TE, JUL Y 10, 2014 EXCHANGE PARCEL ,°J a°,„°—° —Ba W.+ —k.c a.,,w aaausae to roast:wua° SCALE.- 1" 150' M,1: Exhibit K— Page 5 Exhibit B Former Right of Way Land Exhibit K— Page 6 3172.001 ASW TASSAJARA HIGHLANDS LEGAL DESCRIPTION RIGHT-OF-WAY ABANDONMENT Being a portion of Tassajara Road, and located in the City of Dublin, County of Alameda, State of California, more particularly described as follows: COMMENCING at the southerly terminus of that certain course shown as "N30°48'42"W 132.35"' on sheet 4 of that Record of Survey filed in Book 16 of Records of Survey, at Pages 37-51, Alameda County Records; thence along the property line of the land of the Thomas A. & Helene L. Fredrich Trust as described in Series No. 2008109067, Alameda County Records, South 01°25'41" West, a distance of 143.65 feet; thence continuing along said property line, South 89 018'49" East, a distance of 102.18 feet to the westerly right-of-way line of Tassajara Road and a point of curvature and the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; Thence leaving said TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING, along said westerly right-of-way line, from a radial line which bears South 63°28'04" East, along the arc of a non-tangent curve being concave to the northwest and having a radius of 767.00 feet, northeasterly 132.96 feet through a central angle of 9°55'57" to a point of curvature; Thence leaving said westerly right-of-way line, form a radial line which bears South 81'46'04"West, along the arc of a non-tangent curve being concave to the northeast and having a radius of 612.00 feet, southeasterly 85.27 feet through a central angle of 7 058'58" to a point of compound curvature; Thence along said compound curve being concave to the northeast and having a radius of 1206.00 feet, southeasterly 117.13 feet through a central angle of 5 033'54"; Thence South 20 057'50" West, a distance of 30.24 feet; Thence South 64 011'24" West, a distance of 298.20 feet to a point of curvature on said Westerly right-of-way line; Thence along said westerly right-of-way line, from a radial line which bears South 41052'07" East, along the arc of a non-tangent curve being concave to the northwest and having a radius of 767.00 feet, northeasterly 289.14 feet through a central angle of 21'35'57" to the THE POINT OF BEGINNING; Containing 25,751 square feet, more or less. { See Exhibit V, plat to accompany description, attached hereto and made apart hereof. t Page 1 of 2 J:\3000-s\3172_Tassajara\Tassajara-OA\Geomatics\Does\Plats_Descriptions\Rd Abandonment\Abandonment Description.docx r 3172.001 ASW The Basis of Bearings for this description is the California Coordinate System, Zone 3, NAD83, as established by NGS points "GPS control PT 58" and "C226". Said bearing is taken to bear North 12 009'02" East. All distances and areas presented herein are ground data. June 2, 2015 END OF DESCRIPTION L E s EXP.CW �j. No.6815 y9 OF CAL�F��� PREPARED BY WOOD RODGERS, INC SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA I Page 2 of 2 i J:\3000-s\3172_Tassajara\Tassajara-OA\Geomatics\Docs\Plats_Descdptions\Rd Abandonment\Abandonment_Description.docx C G i i TASSAJARA HIGHLANDS PLAT TO ACCOMPANY RIGHT-OF-EAY ABANDONMENT DESCRIPTION CITY OF DUBLIN COUNTY OF ALAMEDA STATE OF CALIFORNIA FREDRBCHI w DOC-2008109067, -O.R.A.C. °I �p A f S81'46'0, "WJRZ POC c 70° n L0 TPOB \ o -;O° Te S89 1849"E J102.18' 25,781 ±SF 1 S68°13'12"W(R) c5 S20'57'50"W V sz� gg,2 30.24' RIGHT-OF-WAY TO BE ABANDONED BY THE CITY OF D UBLIN f ySSNpl. LAND `SG 0 EXP:09-30 14 No. 6815 �Q TFOF CAI. DEVELOPING • INNOVATIVE - DESIGN • SOLUTIONS r°�2f/5 0 50 100 200 3301 C St., Bldg. 100-B Tel 916.341.7760 Sacramento, CA 95816 Fax 916.341.7767 SCALE:1 "=100' JUNE 02,2015 3172.001 SHEET 1 OF 1 RESOLUTION NO. XX - 15 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN ADOPTING A CEQA ADDENDUM AND A RELATED STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS FOR AN AMENDMENT TO THE LAND EXCHANGE AGREEMENT FOR A 2.69 ACRE AREA FOR THE TASSAJARA HIGHLANDS (FREDRICH/VARGAS) PROJECT PLPA 2013-00035 WHEREAS, the Applicant, TL Partners II, LP, proposes to create a development of 48 single-family detached homes on an 11.11 acre site known as the Frederick and Vargas properties, pursuant to development approvals for Tassajara Highlands in September 2014; and WHEREAS, the 2.69-acre project site is located at the northwest corner of the intersection of Tassajara Road, Fallon Road and Syrah Drive. A stretch of Moller Creek, a tributary of Tassajara Creek, is northwest of the project site; and WHEREAS, on July 15, 2014, the City approved a Land Exchange Agreement with the Applicant. The agreement is proposed for amendment to update descriptions of a portion of the land to be exchanged (0.82 acres), vacated by the City (0.59 acres) and retained as City right-of-of-way for Tassajara Road widening (1.28 acres), and to describe drainage, road and street frontage improvements to be constructed on a portion of the City's 1.28 remaining right-of-way. The proposed amendment and improvements constitute the Project; and WHEREAS, the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), together with the State guidelines and City environmental regulations, require that certain projects be reviewed for environmental impacts and that environmental documents be prepared; and WHEREAS, the Project is in the General Plan Eastern Extended Planning Area and the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan area, for which the City Council certified a Program Environmental Impact Report by Resolution 51-93 ("Eastern Dublin EIR" or "EDEIR", SCH 91103064) on May 10, 1993, which resolution is incorporated herein by reference. The Eastern Dublin EIR identified significant impacts from development of the Eastern Dublin area, some of which could not be mitigated to less than significant. Upon approval of the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan, the City Council adopted mitigations, a mitigation monitoring program and a Statement of Overriding Considerations (Resolution 53-93, incorporated herein by reference); and WHEREAS, the City Council approved Resolution 71-06 (incorporated herein by reference) for a supplemental Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) for the Mission Peak/Fallon Crossing project, which also included annexation of the Fredrich property but no proposed development or change in land use on the site; and WHEREAS, on May 1, 2007, the City Council approved Resolution 57-07 (incorporated herein by reference) for a supplemental MND for the Vargas project consisting of 33 dwellings; and WHEREAS, in July 2014, the City prepared a CEQA Addendum with supporting Initial Study to develop the 12.93-acre Tassajara Highlands residential project. The property encompassed both the Vargas and Fredrich properties. The City Council approved the Tassajara Highlands project on September 16, 2014; and WHEREAS, the Eastern Dublin EIR identified significant unavoidable impacts from development of the Eastern Dublin area and the Project site, some of which would apply to the Project; therefore, approval of the Project must be supported by a Statement of Overriding Considerations; and WHEREAS, the City prepared an Initial Study to determine if additional review of the proposed Project was required pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15162. Based on the Initial Study, the City prepared an Addendum dated June 16, 2015 describing the project and finding that the impacts of the proposed Project have been adequately addressed in the prior EIR and MNDs. The Addendum and its supporting Initial Study is attached as Exhibit A; and WHEREAS, on June 16, 2015 the City Council held a public meeting on the Project, at which time all interested parties had the opportunity to be heard; and WHEREAS, a staff report dated June 16, 2015 and incorporated herein by reference described and analyzed the project and related Addendum for the City Council and recommended adoption of the CEQA Addendum and approval of the Project; and WHEREAS, the City Council considered the Addendum, as well as the prior EIR and MNDs and all above-referenced reports, recommendations, and testimony before taking any action on the Project; NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the foregoing recitals are true and correct and made a part of this resolution. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council makes the following findings to support the determination that no further environmental review is required under CEQA for the proposed project. These findings are based on information contained in the CEQA Addendum, the prior CEQA documents, the City Council staff report, and all other information contained in the record before the City Council. These findings constitute a summary of the information contained in the entire record. The detailed facts to support the findings are set forth in the CEQA Addendum and related Initial Study, the prior CEQA documents, and elsewhere in the record. Other facts and information in the record that support each finding that are not included below are incorporated herein by reference: 1. The proposed Project does not constitute substantial changes to the previous projects affecting the Project site as addressed in the prior CEQA documents, that will require major revisions to the prior documents due to new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in severity of previously identified significant effects. Based on the Initial Study, all potentially significant effects of the proposed Project are the same or less than the impacts for project which were previously addressed. The proposed Project will not result in substantially more severe significant impacts than those identified in the prior CEQA documents. All previously adopted mitigation measures from the Eastern Dublin EIR and prior MNDs continue to apply to the proposed Project and project site as applicable. 2. The Addendum and its related Initial Study did not identify any new significant impacts of the proposed Project that were not analyzed in the prior CEQA documents. 3. The City is not aware of any new information of substantial importance or substantial changes in circumstances that would result in new or substantially more severe impacts or meet any other standards in CEQA Section 21166 and related CEQA Guidelines Sections 15162/3. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Dublin finds the following: 1. No further environmental review under CEQA is required for the proposed Project because there is no substantial evidence in the record as a whole that any of the standards under Sections 21166 or 15162/3 are met. 2. The City has properly prepared an Addendum and related Initial Study under CEQA Guidelines section 15164 to explain its decision not to prepare a subsequent or Supplemental EIR or conduct further environmental review for the proposed Project. 3. The City Council considered the information in the Addendum and prior CEQA documents before approving the amended land exchange agreement proposed by the Project. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Dublin adopts the CEQA Addendum and related Initial Study for an amendment to the Exchange Agreement, attached as Exhibit A (and incorporated herein by reference), pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Sections 15162 and 15164. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Dublin adopts the Statement of Overriding Considerations attached as Exhibit B and incorporated herein by reference. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 16th day of June, 2015 by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk CEQA ADDENDUM FOR THE CITY OF DUBLIN/TL PARTNERS II,LP REVISED LAND EXCHANGE AGREEMENT PROJECT June 16,2015 On May 10, 1993,the Dublin City Council adopted Resolution No. 51-93,certifying an Environmental Impact Report for the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan ("Eastern Dublin EIR,SCH#91103064). The certified EIR consisted of a Draft EIR and Responses to Comments bound volumes,as well as an Addendum to the Eastern Dublin EIR dated May 4, 1993,assessing a reduced development project alternative. The City Council adopted Resolution No. 53-93 approving a General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan for the reduced area alternative on May 10, 1993. On August 22, 1994,the City Council adopted a second Addendum updating wastewater disposal plans for Eastern Dublin. The Eastern Dublin EIR evaluated the potential environmental effects of urbanizing Eastern Dublin over a 20 to 30 year period. Since certification of the EIR,many implementing projects have been proposed,relying to various degrees on the certified EIR. In 2006,a Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared for the Mission Peak and Fallon Crossing project,which also included the 8.58-acre Fredrich property in the analysis. In this Addendum,this document will be referred to as the Fredrich Project Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND). The MND was approved by the City Council on May 16, 2006 by Resolution No.71-06 and addressed all topics included in the standard CEQA checklist. The MND analyzed the impacts of prezoning,annexing and developing up to 103 single-family dwellings on the 67.8-acre Mission Peak property on the east side of Tassajara Road south of Moller Creek. The MND did not assume any development on the Fredrich property as part of the analysis; however,the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan and EIR assumed the ultimate development of 68 dwellings on the Fredrich site (EDSP, Appendix 4). In 2007,the Dublin City Council adopted Resolution No. 57-07 that approved a Mitigated Negative Declaration for the 5-acre(gross) site Vargas property. In this Initial Study,this CEQA document will be called the Vargas MND. The Vargas MND analyzed the environmental impacts of amending the Dublin General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan at a less intense land use density than the 55 units assumed in the Eastern Dublin EIR,approving a Stage 1 Development Plan and prezoning for the property, approving a pre-annexation agreement and requesting annexation to the site to the City of Dublin. The project included development of 33 single-family dwellings on the site and analyzed all environmental topics included in the standard CEQA checklist. The State Clearinghouse Number for this CEQA document is#2007032020. In July 2014, the City prepared an Initial Study and Addendum for a proposed General Plan Amendment, a Specific Plan Amendment, a PD rezoning with related Stage 1 and Stage 2 Development Plan, Site Development Review (SDR), a vesting tentative subdivision map and related applications to develop the 12.93-acre Tassajara Highlands residential project, which includes both the Vargas and Fredrich properties, located in the Eastern Dublin portion of the City of Dublin. The Initial Study and Addendum, which incorporated relevant analysis and mitigation measures from the Fredrich Project MND and the Vargas Project MND as well as the Eastern Dublin EIR, will be referred to as the "2014 Addendum." After approving the 2014 Addendum and a Related Statement of Overriding Considerations, the Dublin City Council approved the Tassajara Highlands Project on September 16, 2014. The Tassajara Highlands Project includes construction of up to 54 single-family residential dwellings, internal roadways, open spaces and other related improvements. The City of Dublin owns 2.69 acres of land immediately to the south of the Tassajara Highlands Project. On August 12, 2014, the City executed, subject to applicable CEQA compliance, a Land Exchange Agreement with TL Partners II, LP ("TLP"), the applicant for the Tassajara Highlands Project. The Land Exchange Agreement provided, among other terms, for the City to convey 1.7 acres of the City-owned land to TLP. The City and TLP separately agreed that TLP would construct City road and street frontage improvements, which are necessitated by buildout of the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan, on the remaining City-owned right-of-way within the 2.69 acres. The City and TLP now propose to amend the Exchange Agreement in the following respects: a)to update descriptions of the portions of the 2.69 acres that would be exchanged(0.82 acre), vacated by the City (0.59 acre) and retained as City right-of-way for Tassajara Road widening (1.28 acres); and b)to describe the drainage, road and street frontage improvements TLP would construct on a portion of the 1.28 acres of remaining City right-of-way. An Initial Study has been prepared to analyze the potential environmental impacts of implementation of the Exchange Agreement as revised. This Addendum has been prepared pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15164 for the Project,as described below. Project Description The proposed project comprises: 1) construction and maintenance of a flow control detention basin and a portion of a bioretention basin that would serve both the Tassajara Highlands Project and the City's project to widen Tassajara Road; 2) construction, on the City's behalf, of road and street frontage improvements in the City's right-of-way along Tassajara Road at the eastern edge of the site; 3) landscaping; and 4) a multi-use recreational trail. Prior CEQA Analyses and Determinations As summarized above and discussed in more detail in the attached Initial Study,the property has been planned for Tassajara Road widening since the Eastern Dublin approvals in 1993. The Eastern Dublin EIR identified numerous environmental impacts,and numerous mitigations were adopted upon approval of the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan. For identified impacts that could not be mitigated to insignificance,the City Council adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations. Similarly,Mitigated Negative Declarations for the Fredrich property in 2006 and the Vargas property in 2007 identified supplemental impacts and mitigation measures.All previously adopted mitigation measures Page 2 for development of Eastern Dublin identified in the Eastern Dublin EIR,the 2006 Fredrich property MND (2006 MND) and the 2007 Vargas property MND (2007 MND) that were found applicable to the Tassajara Highlands Project by the 2014 Addendum were adopted. All such mitigation measures that are applicable to the proposed 2.69-acre project site continue to apply to the currently proposed Project as further discussed in the attached Initial Study. Current CEQA Analysis and Determination that an Addendum is Appropriate for this Project. Initial Study. The City of Dublin has determined that an Addendum is the appropriate CEQA review for the Project.The City prepared an Initial Study dated June 16,2015,incorporated herein by reference,to assess whether any further environmental review is required for this Project. Through this Initial Study,the City has determined that no subsequent EIR or Negative Declaration is required for the implementation of the Exchange Agreement as revised. No Subsequent Review is Required per CEQA Guidelines Section 15162. CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 identifies the conditions requiring subsequent environmental review.After a review of these conditions,the City has determined that no subsequent EIR or negative declaration is required for this Project. This is based on the following analysis: a) Are there substantial changes to the Project involving new or more severe significant impacts? There are no substantial changes to the Project analyzed in the Eastern Dublin EIR,2006 MND,2007 MND,and the 2014 Addendum.Rather than provide only Tassajara Road widening,the site would now provide Tassajara Road widening and related improvements,a flow control detention basin serving Tassajara Road widening,a portion of a bioretention basin and the Tassajara Highlands Project, landscaping,and a trail. As demonstrated in the Initial Study,the proposed land uses on the site do not represent a substantial change to either the 1993 Eastern Dublin EIR,2006 MND and 2007 MND analysis,are consistent with the 2014 Addendum, will not result in additional significant impacts,and no additional or different mitigation measures are required beyond those incorporated into this Addendum. b) Are there substantial changes in the conditions which the Project is undertaken involving new or more severe significant impacts? There are no substantial changes in the conditions assumed in the Eastern Dublin EIR,2006 MND,2007 MND or the 2014 Addendum. This is documented in the attached Initial Study prepared for this Project dated June 16,2015. c) Is there new information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known at the time of the previous EIR that shows the Project will have a significant effect not addressed in the previous EIR; or previous effects are more severe; or,previously infeasible mitigation measures are now feasible but the applicant declined to adopt them; or mitigation measures considerably different from those in the previous EIR would substantially reduce significant effects but the applicant declines to adopt them?As documented in the attached Initial Study,there is no new information showing a new or more severe significant effect beyond those identified in the 1993 Eastern Dublin Page 3 EIR,2006 MND,2007 MND analysis,and the 2014 Addendum. Similarly,the Initial Study documents that no new or different mitigation measures are required for the Project beyond those included in the prior CEQA documents.All previously adopted applicable mitigations continue to apply to the Project. The CEQA documents adequately describe the impacts and mitigations associated with the proposed development on the 2.69 acres of City land. d) If no subsequent EIR-level review is required, should a subsequent negative declaration be prepared? No subsequent negative declaration or mitigated negative declaration is required because there are no impacts,significant or otherwise,of the Project beyond those identified in the Eastern Dublin EIR,2006 MND and 2007 MND analysis,and the 2014 Addendum,as documented in the Initial Study. Conclusion. This Addendum is adopted pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15164 based on the attached Initial Study dated June 16,2015. The Addendum and Initial Study review implementation of the proposed revised Exchange Agreement as discussed above. Through the adoption of this Addendum and related Initial Study,the City determines that the above minor changes in land uses do not require a subsequent EIR or negative declaration under CEQA Section 21166 or CEQA Guidelines Sections 15162 and 15163. The City further determines that the Eastern Dublin EIR,2006 MND,2007 MND,the 2014 Addendum and this Addendum adequately address the potential environmental impacts of the implementation of the revised Exchange Agreement as documented in the attached Initial Study. As provided in Section 15164 of the Guidelines,the Addendum need not be circulated for public review,but shall be considered with the prior environmental documents before making a decision on this project. The Initial Study,Eastern Dublin EIR,the 2006 MND,the 2007 MND,the 2014 Addendum, and all resolutions cited above are incorporated herein by reference and are available for public review during normal business hours in the Community Development Department, Dublin City Hall, 100 Civic Plaza,Dublin CA. Page 4 Land Exchange Agreement Project (City of Dublin Property Adjacent to Tassajara Highlands Project) INITIAL STUDY Lead Agency: City of Dublin Prepared By: Jerry Haag, Urban Planner May 2015 Table of Contents Introduction ...................................................................................................................2 Applicant........................................................................................................................3 Project Location and Context ......................................................................................3 Prior Environmental Review Documents..................................................................4 ProjectDescription........................................................................................................6 Environmental Factors Potentially Affected.............................................................13 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts .......................................................................15 Attachment to Initial Study .........................................................................................28 1. Aesthetics ...............................................................................................28 2. Agricultural and Forestry Resources .................................................32 3. Air Quality .............................................................................................33 4. Biological Resources .............................................................................35 5. Cultural Resources................................................................................45 6. Geology and Soils .................................................................................47 7. Greenhouse Gas Emissions..................................................................50 8. Hazards and Hazardous Materials ....................................................51 9. Hydrology and Water Quality............................................................53 10. Land Use and Planning........................................................................57 11. Mineral Resources.................................................................................58 12. Noise .......................................................................................................58 13. Population and Housing......................................................................61 14. Public Services.......................................................................................61 15. Recreation...............................................................................................63 16. Transportation/Traffic.........................................................................64 17. Utilities and Service Systems...............................................................67 18. Mandatory Findings of Significance ...................................................69 InitialStudy Preparers .................................................................................................70 Agencies and Organizations Consulted ....................................................................70 References ......................................................................................................................70 City of Dublin Environmental Checklist/ Initial Study Introduction This Initial Study has been prepared in accord with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and assesses the potential environmental impacts of implementing the proposed project described below. The Initial Study consists of a completed environmental checklist and a brief explanation of the environmental topics addressed in the checklist. Because the proposed project is generally based on the land use designations, circulation patterns etc. assigned to the project by the City of Dublin General Plan, the Initial Study relies on a Program EIR certified by the City in 1993 for the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan (the "Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report, State Clearinghouse No. 91103064). That EIR, also known in this Initial Study as the "Eastern Dublin EIR," evaluated the following impacts: Land Use, Population, Employment and Housing, Traffic and Circulation, Community Services and Facilities, Sewer, Water and Storm Drainage, Soils, Geology and Seismicity, Biological Resources, Visual Resources, Cultural Resources, Noise, Air Quality and Fiscal Considerations. In 2006, a Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared for the Mission Peak/Fallon Crossing project, which also included the 8.58-acre Fredrich property in the analysis. This CEQA document was approved by the City Council on May 16, 2006 by Resolution No. 71-06. The Fredrich Project MND analyzed the impacts of prezoning, annexing and developing up to 103 single-family dwellings on the 67.8-acre Mission Peak property on the east side of Tassajara Road south of Moller Creek. The MND included the Fredrich property on the west side of Tassajara Road but did not assume any development on the Fredrich property as part of the analysis; however, the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan and EIR assumed the ultimate development of 68 dwellings on the Fredrich site (EDSP, Appendix 4). In 2007, the Dublin City Council adopted Resolution No. 57-07 that approved a Mitigated Negative Declaration for the 4.35-acre Vargas property. This will be referred to as the "Vargas Project MND." The Vargas Project MND analyzed the environmental impacts of amending the Dublin General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan from Medium-High to a Medium Density land use designation, approving a Stage 1 Development Plan and prezoning for the property, approving a pre-annexation agreement and requesting annexation to the site to the City of Dublin. The project included development of 33 dwellings on the site. In July 2014, the City prepared an Initial Study and a CEQA Addendum for a proposed General Plan Amendment, a Specific Plan Amendment, a PD rezoning with related Stage 1 and Stage 2 Development Plan, Site Development Review (SDR), a vesting tentative subdivision map and related applications to develop the 12.93-acre Tassajara Highlands residential project. The property included in that application encompassed City of Dublin Page 2 Initial Study/Tassajara Highlands Land Exchange Project May 2015 both the Vargas and Fredrich properties, located in the Eastern Dublin portion of the City of Dublin. The Initial Study and Addendum, which incorporated relevant analysis and mitigation measures from the Fredrich Project MND and the Vargas Project MND as well as the Eastern Dublin EIR, will be referred to collectively as the "2014 Addendum." After approving the 2014 Addendum and a Related Statement of Overriding Considerations, the Dublin City Council approved the Tassajara Highlands Project on September 16, 2014. The Tassajara Highlands Project includes construction of up to 54 single-family residential dwellings, internal roadways, open spaces and other related improvements. The City of Dublin owns 2.69 acres of land immediately to the south of the Tassajara Highlands Project. Can August 12; 2014, the City executed, subject to applicable CEQA compliance, a Land Exchange Agreement with TL Partners II, LP ("TLP"), the applicant for the Tassajara Highlands Project. The Land Exchange Agreement provided, among other terms, for the City to convey 1.7 acres of the City-owned land to TLP. The City and TLP separately agreed that TLP would construct City road and street frontage improvements, which are necessitated by buildout of the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan, on the remaining City-owned right-of-way within the 2.69 acres. The City and TLP now propose to amend the Exchange Agreement in the following respects: a) to update descriptions of the portions of the 2.69 acres that would be exchanged (0.82 acre), vacated by the City (0.59 acre) and retained as City right-of-way for Tassajara Road widening (1.28 acres); and b) to describe the road and street frontage improvements TLP would construct on a portion of the 1.28 acres of remaining City right-of-way. This Initial Study analyzes the potential environmental impacts of implementation of the Exchange Agreement as revised. Applicant: TL Partners II, LP 3500 Douglas Blvd., Suite 270 Roseville CA 95661 Attn: Michael O'Hara (916) 783-2300 Project Location and Context The 2.69-acre project site is located in the northern area of the Eastern Extended Planning area of the City of Dublin as identified in the Dublin General Plan. More specifically, the project site is located at the northwest corner of the intersection of Tassajara Road, Fallon Road and Syrah Drive. A stretch of Moller Creek, a tributary of Tassajara Creek, is northwest of the project site. Exhibit 1 depicts the regional setting of Dublin and Exhibit 2 shows the location of the project site in context with nearby features, including nearby roadways and adjacent creeks. Existing land uses adjacent to the project site to the north are two single-family City of Dublin Page 3 Initial Study/Tassajara Highlands Land Exchange Project May 2015 residences that will be replaced by the Tassajara Highlands Project. Land to the west is within a permanent open space easement area within and adjacent to Tassajara Creels. The Dublin Ranch West development (also known as the Wallis Ranch) lies west of the open space easement and has been approved for residential development at a mix of densities and product types. Moller Creek flows to the northwest of the project site. Located to the southeast of the project site is a residential project, known as the Fallon Crossing/Mission Peak that is currently under construction by Standard Pacific consisting of 106 single-family units. Additionally, located to the northeast of the project site is a proposed residential project by Braddock& Logan known as Moller Ranch. This project consists of up to 370 single-family lots. The 4.35-acre Vargas property comprises the northern portion of the overall Tassajara Highlands project site. The Vargas property contains one single-family dwelling and accessory outbuildings generally along the Tassajara Road frontage. The Vargas property has a gradual slope from the south to the northwest toward Tassajara Creek. Much of the Vargas site is vacant and was previously used for animal grazing. The Alameda County Assessor's Parcel Number for the Vargas property is 986-0004-002-01. The 8.58-acre Fredrich property comprises the southern portion of the Tassajara Highlands project site. This property contains one single-family dwelling and is characterized by a moderately steep hill in the northern portion of the site. The site then has a moderate slope to the southwest towards Moller Creek and Tassajara Creek. One single-family dwelling has been constructed on the Fredrich property. The County Assessor's Parcel Number for the Fredrich property is 986-0004-002-03. Exhibit 3 shows the location and configuration of the project site, existing topographic features, and trees and shrubs. Prior Environmental Review Documents The project site has been included in following CEQA documents: Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan (State Clearinghouse #91103064). A Program Environmental Impact Report for the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment (Eastern Extended Planning Area) and the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan (EDSP) was certified by the City Council in 1993 by Resolution No. 51-93. This document and its related Addenda collectively are referred to as the "Eastern Dublin EIR" or "EDEIR." It evaluated the following impacts: Land Use; Population, Employment and Housing; Traffic and Circulation; Community Services and Facilities; Sewer, Water and Storm Drainage; Soils, Geology and Seismicity; Biological Resources; Visual Resources; Cultural Resources; Noise; Air Quality; and Fiscal Considerations. The City adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations (Resolution No. 53-93) for the following impacts: Cumulative loss of agriculture and open space land, cumulative traffic, extension of certain community facilities (natural gas, electric and telephone service), consumption of non-renewable natural resources, increases in energy City of Dublin Page 4 Initial Study/Tassajara Highlands Land Exchange Project May 2015 uses through increased water treatment and disposal and through operation of the water distribution system, inducement of substantial growth and concentration of population, earthquake ground shaking, loss or degradation of botanically sensitive habitat, regional air quality, noise and alteration of visual character. The Eastern Dublin EIR was challenged in court and was found to be legally adequate. In addition, the project site was mentioned in the 2014 Addendum, which, as described above, addressed the environmental impacts of the adjacent Tassajara Highlands Project and incorporated analysis and mitigation measures from the 2006 Fredrich MND and the 2007 Vargas MND. The 2014 Addendum was not challenged in court. The Fredrich MND and the Vargas MND are summarized below. Mission Peak and Fallon Crossing Mitigated Negative Declaration In 2006, a Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared for the Mission Peak and Fallon Crossing project, which also included the 8.58-acre Fredrich property in the analysis. In this Initial Study, this document will be referred to as the Fredrich Project Mitigated Negative Declaration. The MND was approved by the City Council on May 16, 2006 by Resolution No. 71-06 and addressed all topics included in the standard CEQA checklist. The Mission Peak MND analyzed the impacts of prezoning, annexing and developing up to 103 single-family dwellings on the 67.8- acre Mission Peak property on the east side of Tassajara Road south of Moller Creek. The Mission Peak MND did not assume any development on the Fredrich property as part of the analysis; however, the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan and EIR assumed the ultimate development of 68 dwellings on the Fredrich site (EDSP, Appendix 4). Vargas Properly Mitigated Negative Declaration In 2007, the Dublin City Council adopted Resolution No. 57-07 that approved a Mitigated Negative Declaration for the 5-acre (gross) site Vargas property. In this Initial Study, The Vargas MND analyzed the environmental impacts of amending the Dublin General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan at a less intense land use density, approving a Stage 1 Development Plan and prezoning for the property, approving a pre-annexation agreement and requesting annexation to the site to the City of Dublin. The project included development of 33 single-family dwellings on the site and analyzed all environmental topics included in the standard CEQA checklist. The State Clearinghouse Number for this CEQA document is #2007032020. City of Dublin Page 5 Initial Study/Tassajara Highlands Land Exchange Project May 2015 Project Description Overview. The 2014 Tassajara Highlands Addendum did not directly address most environmental impacts of proposed TLP activities on the 2.69-acre, City-owned land located immediately south of the Tassajara Highlands project. These activities comprise: 1) construction and maintenance of two water quality and flow control basins that would serve both the Tassajara Highlands Project and the City's project to widen Tassajara Road; 2) construction, on the City's behalf, of road and street frontage improvements in the City's right-of-way along Tassajara Road at the eastern edge of the site; 3) landscaping; and 4) a recreational trail. On August 12, 2014, the City,, "subject to compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act ('CEQA'), where applicable," entered into a Land Exchange Agreement with TLP. Among other terms, the Land Exchange Agreement would convey 1.70 acres of the 2.69-acre City parcel to TLP for the two basins, landscaping and the trail. The City and TLP now propose to amend the Exchange Agreement in the following respects: a) to correct descriptions of the portions of the 2.69 acres that would be exchanged (0.82 acre), vacated by the City (0.59 acre) and retained as City right-of-way for Tassajara Road widening (1.28 acres); and b) to describe the road and street frontage improvements TLP would construct on a portion of the 1.28 acres of remaining City right-of-way. As originally approved, the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan envisioned a sweeping right turn along Tassajara Road that would have occupied much of the 2.69-acre City parcel. In 2014, however, the City determined that the intersection would operate acceptably with less extensive changes, such that less land would be needed for right-of-way improvements. TLP proposed to construct the City's approved right-of-way changes, construct a flow control detention basin, add landscaping, and construct a trail. TLP has agreed to implement mitigation measures for the City right-of-way improvements TLP would construct as well as for the improvements TLP would construct on the land exchanged or vacated by the City. Improvement Plan. The proposed development plan for the site is shown on Exhibit 4 and consists of four elements. First, the two basins would occupy almost one-half acre of the project site and would provide for both hydromodification for flow control from both the Tassajara Highlands Project and the widened Tassajara Road as well as ensuring that surface water quality standards are met. The basins are described in detail in the Stormwater Management Plan, Wood Rodgers, Inc., February 2015. This report is hereby incorporated by reference into this Initial Study and is available for review at the Dublin Community Development Department during normal business hours. Second, the road and street frontage improvements along the project site's eastern boundary with Tassajara Road would consist of curb, gutter, paving, lane line signage and striping, and one streetlight. Third, trees and drought-tolerant landscaping would be provided in new landscaping. Fourth, a multi-use recreational trail that would also provide maintenance access would be constructed as shown on Exhibit 4. City of Dublin Page 6 Initial Study/Tassajara Highlands Land Exchange Project May 2015 Grading. The applicant proposes to re-grade enough of the site to allow construction of the drainage basins, trail and City right-of-way improvements. Off-haul of approximately 8,500 cubic yards of soil, mostly from the detention basin, would be required. A destination for the material will be identified prior to issuance of a grading permit by the City. Erosion controls would be implemented during grading activities pursuant to City and Regional Water Quality Board requirements, as enforced by the City of Dublin, to protect surface water quality. Retaining walls up to approximately 4 feet in height may be required for the detention basin. Biological and hydrological resources. The applicant's consultants prepared an Addendum to the 2012 Biological Resources Analysis for the Tassajara Highlands Residential Development Project (May 2014). This document provides the current status of biological surveys for the site, provides a status report on the regulatory permitting, and identifies avoidance and minimization measures (such as pre-construction surveys) in compliance with CEQA mitigation measures. The applicant will remove any trees slated for removal during the biological window when potential special-status roosting bats are not present. This proactive avoidance measure is included in the 2014 Addendum and will also serve to remove trees before the bird nesting period. The project site includes nine living trees, four of which would be removed as part of the proposed project because they are within the grading footprint for the detention basin. This is based on a recent updated arborist report prepared by Hortscieence dated April 2015. Requested land use approvals. Requested action is execution of an Amended Land Exchange Agreement between the City of Dublin and TL Partners II, LP. City of Dublin Page 7 Initial Study/Tassajara Highlands Land Exchange Project May 2015 S N:. P :B L O 4 Martinez 4 B A Y San so 6eo Concord Rafael Richmond 580 Mill 101 Valley Walnut 24 Creek Berkeley 680 Oakland San Francisco g1a1NIad 580 S A N San Leandro -O DUBLIN F A N C I'S C 0 880 Daly 580 City Livermore BAY 101 n Hayward Pleasanton 92 280 San Mateo n Fremont e4 1 Newark Q Redwood City Half Moon Bay Palo Alto ° 880 _o ° 85 U 101 680 2e0 Sunnyvale Santa Clara San Jose u 101 n 17 Exhibit 1 CITY OF Dl1BLIiJ REGIONAL LOCATION TASSAJARA HIGHLANDS LAND EXCHANGE PROJECT 0 2 a s a 10 miles INITIAL STUDY PROJECT SITE SON O 40 GLEASON DRIV E Qf CENTRAL Q plkwy �O DUBLIN Q �� BLVD. N O RTH 5$0 SOURCE.' Project Applicant. CITY OF DUBLIN Exhibit 2 TASSAJARA HIGHLANDS LAND EXCHANGE PROJECT SITE CONTEXT INITIAL STUDY >` co too Cl L r, r t � � e _ r pr r���� s r x s r a UAW, r r co cl Lu rr } i r r' z rr> r r' r UARA J�J I©R&`-ENTIQ � �x1 IN• � MOHLER REEK ACT q> DETENTION S 3 a � BASIN • / r4 ,1 I �\ t\ SOURCE: Project Applicant. CITY OF DUBLIN Exhibit 4 TASSAJARA HIGHLANDS LAND EXCHANGE PROJECT PROPOSED IMPROVEMENT PLAN INITIAL STUDY 1. Project description: Construction and maintenance of the following improvements on 2.69 acres of land: 1) detention and bioretention basins serving the Tassajara Highlands Project and the Tassajara Road Widening Project; 2) City right-of-way improvements along the Tassajara Road boundary to the east of the project site; 3) landscaping; and 4) multi-use recreational trail. Requested action is execution of an Amended Land Exchange Agreement between the City of Dublin and TL Partners TL LP. 2. Lead agency: City of Dublin Community Development Department 100 Civic Plaza Dublin CA 94568 3. Contact persons: Michael A Porto Consulting Planner (925) 833 6610 4. Project location: Generally located at the northwest corner of the Tassajara Road/Fallon Road/Syrah Drive intersection. 5. Project sponsor: TL Partners Il, LP and the City of Dublin 6. General Plan designation: Open Space & Road right-of-way 7. Zoning: PD-Planned Development S. Other public agency required approvals: • State Incidental Take Permit (California Department of Fish and Wildlife); • Section 404 Permit including a Section 7 consultation (under the Endangered Species Act) from the United States Department of Fish and Wildlife (United States Army Corps of Engineers); • Section 401 Clean Water Certification (San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board); • Notice of Intent (San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board); and • Issuance of grading permits (City of Dublin) City of Dublin Page 12 Initial Study/Tassajara Highlands Land Exchange Project May 2015 Environmental Factors Potentially Affected The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "potentially significant impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. Aesthetics _ Agricultural - Air Quality/ Resources Greenhouse Gas Emissions Biological _ Cultural Resources - Geology/Soils Resources Hazards and - Hyurology/ V V aLcl _ Land Use Hazardous Quality Planning Materials Mineral Resources -- Noise -- Population/ Housing -- Public Services _ Recreation - Transportation/ Circulation -- Utilities/Service - Mandatory Systems Findings of Significance Determination (to be completed by Lead Agency): On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the proposed project could not have a significant effect on the environment and the previous Negative Declaration certified for this project by the City of Dublin adequately addresses potential impacts. _I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A Negative Declaration will be prepared. X I find that although the proposed Project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be any new or substantially more severe significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects: a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards; and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed on the proposed Project, except for those impacts which were identified as significant and unavoidable and for which a Statement of Overriding Considerations was previously adopted by the City. An Addendum to the Eastern Dublin Environmental Impact Report will be prepared. I find that the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects City of Dublin Page 13 Initial Studyrfassajara Highlands Land Exchange Project May 2015 (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed on the proposed project. Signature: Date: Printed Nam?: 'Jei(O L_ —S For: 4h -i O Jo City of Dublin Page 14 Initial Study/Tassajara Highlands Land Exchange Project May 2015 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts 1) A brief explanation is required for all answers except "no impact" answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parenthesis following each question. A "no impact" answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g. the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A "no impact" answer should be explained where it is based on project-specific factors as well as general factors (e.g. the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project-specific screening analysis). 2) All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off-site as well as on-site, cumulative as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts. 3) Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then the checklist answers must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less-than-significant with mitigation, or less-than-significant. "Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect may be significant. If there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required. 4) "Negative Declaration: Less-than-Significant With Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less-than-Significant Impact." The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less-than-significant level (mitigation measures from Section 17, "Earlier Analysis," as described in (5) below, may be cross-referenced). 5) Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063 (c) (3) (D). The checklist will include a response "no new impact" in these circumstances. In this case, a brief discussion should identify the following: a) Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review. b) Impacts Adequately Addressed: Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. c) Mitigation Measures. For effects that are "Less-Than-Significant with Mitigation Measures Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project. 6) Lead Agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential impacts (e.g. general plans, zoning ordinances, City of Dublin Page 15 Initial Study/Tassajara Highlands Land Exchange Project May 2015 etc.). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated. 7) Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached and other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion. 8) This is a suggested form and lead agencies are free to use different formats; however, lead agencies should normally address the questions from this checklist that are relevant to a project's environmental effects in whatever format is selected. 9) The explanation of each agency should identify the significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question and the mitigation measures identified, if any, to reduce the impact to a less than significant level. City of Dublin Page 16 Initial Study/Tassajara Highlands Land Exchange Project May 2015 Environmental Impacts (Note: Source of determination listed in parenthesis. See listing of sources used to determine each potential impact at the end of the checklist) Note: A full discussion of each item is found Potentially Less Than Less than No New following the checklist. Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact With Impact Mitigation 1. Aesthetics. Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic X vista? (Source: 2,5, 12) b) Substantially damage scenic resources,including X but not limited to trees,rock outcroppings,and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? (Source: 2,3,4,12) c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character X or quality of the site and its surroundings? (Source: 2,3,4, 12) d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare X which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? (Source: 12) 2. Agricultural Resources Would the project: a) Convert Prime Farmland,Unique Farmland or Farmland of Statewide Importance,as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland X Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency,to a non- agricultural use?(Source: 2,5) b) Conflict with existing zoning for agriculture use, X or a Williamson Act contract?(Source: 2,5) c) Involve other changes in the existing environment which,due to their location or nature,could result in conversion of farmland to a non- X agricultural use?(Source: 2,5) 3.Air Quality(Where available,the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management district may be relied on to make the following determinations). Would the project: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the X applicable air quality plan?(Source: 2,5, 12) b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air X quality violation? (Source: 2,5, 12) City of Dublin Page 17 Initial Study/Tassajara Highlands Land Exchange Project May 2015 Potentially Less Than Less than No New Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact With Impact Mitigation c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase X of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors? (2, 5,12, 13) d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant X concentrations? (Source: 2,12) e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial X number of people? (Source: 12, 13) 4.Biological Resources. Would the project a) Have a substantial adverse effect,either directly through habitat modifications,on any species X identified as a candidate,sensitive,or special status species in local or regional plans,policies or regulations,or by the California Department of Fish and Game or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?(Source: 2,5, 8) b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian X habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans,policies or regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?(Source: 2,5. 8) c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally X protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including but not limited to marsh,vernal pool,coastal,etc.) through direct removal,filling,hydrological interruption or other means? (Source: Source: 2,5. 8) d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any X native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors,or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? (Source: 3,5,8) e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances X protecting biological resources,such as tree protection ordinances? (Source: 1,7) City of Dublin Page 18 Initial Study/Tassajara Highlands Land Exchange Project May 2015 Potentially Less Than Less than No New Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact With Impact Mitigation f) Conflict with the provision of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan,Natural Community Conservation Plan or other approved local, X regional or state habitat conservation plan? (Source: 1,7) 5.Cultural Resources. Would the project a) Cause a substantial adverse impact in the significance of a historical resource as defined in X Sec. 15064.5? (Source: 2,5) b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archeological resource X pursuant to Sec. 15064.5 (Source: 2,5) c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique X paleontological resource,site or unique geologic feature? (Source: 2,5) d) Disturb any human remains,including those X interred outside of a formal cemetery? (5, 12) 6.Geology and Soils. Would the project a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects,including the risk of loss,injury,or death involving: i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault,as delineated on the most recent Earthquake Fault Zoning Map X issued by the State Geologist or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault(Source: 2, 5) ii) Strong seismic ground shaking (2,5) X iii) Seismic-related ground failure,including X liquefaction? (2,5) iv) Landslides? (2,5) X b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of X topsoil? (Source: 2,5) c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable,or that would become unstable as a result of the project and potentially result in on- X or off-site landslide,lateral spreading, subsidence,liquefaction or similar hazards (Source: 2,5) d) Be located on expansive soil,as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? X (Source: 2,5) City of Dublin Page 19 Initial Study/Tassajara Highlands Land Exchange Project May 2015 Potentially Less Than Less than No New Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact With Impact Mitigation e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available X for the disposal of wastewater?(Source: 1, 13) 7.Hazards and Hazardous Materials. Would the project: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport,use or disposal of hazardous materials X (Source: 5,9) b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the X environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? (Source: 5,9) c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous materials or acutely hazardous materials, X substances,or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? (Source: 5,9) d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Sec.65962.5 and,as a result, X would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? (Source: 9, 13) e) For a project located within an airport land use X plan or,where such a plan has not been adopted within two miles of a public airport of public use airport,would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? (Source: 5) f) For a project within the vicinity of private airstrip, X would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the.project area? (Source: 7) g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with the adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? X (Source: 11) City of Dublin Page 20 Initial Study/Tassajara Highlands Land Exchange Project May 2015 Potentially Less Than Less than No New Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact With Impact Mitigation h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss,injury or death involving wildland fires, X including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? (Source: 1,2,5) S.Hydrology and Water Quality. Would the project: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? (Source: 2,5 ) X b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer X volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g. the production rate of existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted? (2,5) c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of X the site or area,including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river,in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site?(Source: 2,5,6) d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of X the site or areas,including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river,or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site? (Source: 5,6) e) Create or contribute runoff water which would X exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? (Source: 5,6) f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? X (Source: 5,6) g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood X delineation map?(Source: 5) City of Dublin Page 21 Initial Study/Tassajara Highlands Land Exchange Project May 2015 Potentially Less Than Less than No New Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact With Impact Mitigation h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood X flows? (Source: 5) i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss,injury,and death involving flooding, X including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? (5) j) Inundation by seiche,tsunami or mudflow? (5) X 9.Land Use and Planning. Would the project: a) Physically divide an established community? X (Source: 1,2,5, 12) b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan,policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including but not limited to the X general plan,specific plan, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? (Source: 1, 2,5) c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? X (1,2) 10.Mineral Resources. Would the project a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the X region and the residents of the state? (Source: 1, 2,5) b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general Plan,specific plan X or other land use plan? (Source:1,2,5) 11.Noise. Would the proposal result in: a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise X levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance,or applicable standards of other agencies?(2,5) b) Exposure of persons or to generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise X levels? (Source: 2,5) c)A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise X levels in the project vicinity above existing levels without the project? (2,5) City of Dublin Page 22 Initial Study[Tassajara Highlands Land Exchange Project May 2015 Potentially Less Than Less than No New Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact With Impact Mitigation d)A substantial temporary or periodic increase in X ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? (2,5) e) For a project located within an airport land use X plan or,where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport,would the project expose people residing or working n the project area to excessive noise levels? (2, 5, 13) f) For a project within the vicinity of a private X airstrip,would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? (Source: 13) 12.Population and Housing. Would the project a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, X either directly or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? (Source: 1,2,5) b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement X housing elsewhere? (6) c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement of X housing elsewhere? (Source: 12) 13.Public Services. Would the proposal: a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities,need for new or physically altered government facilities,the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service rations, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services? (Sources: 5) Fire protection X Police protection X Schools X Parks X Other public facilities X Solid Waste X City of Dublin Page 23 Initial Study/Tassajara Highlands Land Exchange Project May 2015 Potentially Less Than Less than No New Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact With Impact Mitigation 14.Recreation: a) Would the project increase the use of existing X neighborhood and regional parks or recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated (Source: 2,5, 12) b) Does the project include recreational facilities or X require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? (Source: 2,5, 12) 15.Transportation and Traffic. Would the project: a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in X relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e. result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips,the volume to capacity ratio on roads or congestion at intersections)?(2,5, 11) b) Exceed,either individually or cumulatively,a X level of service standard established by the County Congestion Management Agency for designated roads or highways? (2,5, 11) c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns,including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in X location that results in substantial safety risks? (2,5) d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g. sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses,such as farm X equipment?(5, 11) e) Result in inadequate emergency access? (12) X f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? (12) X g) Conflict with adopted policies,plans or programs X supporting alternative transportation (such as bus turnouts and bicycle facilities) (1 2,5) City of Dublin Page 24 Initial Study/Tassajara Highlands Land Exchange Project May 2015 Potentially Less Than Less than No New Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact With Impact Mitigation 16.Utilities and Service Systems. Would the project a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the X applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? (2,5) b) Require or result in the construction of new water X or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities,the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? (2,5) c) Require or result in the construction of new storm X water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities,the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? (5.6) d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve X the project from existing water entitlements and resources,or are new or expanded entitlements needed? (5) e) Result in a determination by the wastewater X treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the providers existing commitments? (5) f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted X capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? (5) g) Comply with federal,state and local statutes and X regulations related to solid waste? (5) 17.Mandatory Findings of Significance. a) Does the project have the potential to degrade X the quality of the environment,substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels,threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, substantially reduce the number of or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? City of Dublin Page 25 Initial Study/Tassajara Highlands Land Exchange Project May 2015 Potentially Less Than Less than No New Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact With Impact Mitigation b) Does the project have impacts that are X individually limited,but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects,the effects of other current projects and the effects of probable future projects). c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human X beings,either directly or indirectly? Sources used to determine potential environmental impacts 1. Eastern General Plan Amendment/Specific Plan 2. Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment/Specific Plan SEIR 3. Fredrich MND 4. Vargas NfND 5. Tassajara Highlands Initial Study/Addendum to Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment/Specific Plan EIR 6. Stormwater Management Plan, Tassajara Highlands, Wood Rogers, Inc 7. Arborist Report Addendum Letter, Hortscience (April 2015) 8. Biological Resources Analysis Report Addendum for the Tassajara Highlands Residential Development Project 9. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, ENGEO (August 2014) 10. Tassajara Road/Camino Tassajara Road/Fallon Road Intersection Traffic Operations Analysis 11. Discussion with City staff or service provider 12. Site Visit 13. Other Source XVII. Earlier Analyses a) Earlier analyses used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for review. Portions of the environmental setting, project impacts and mitigation measures for this Initial Study refer to environmental information contained in the 1993 Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report (State Clearinghouse No. 91103064), hereinafter referred to as the Eastern Dublin EIR. The City of Dublin Page 26 Initial Study/Tassajara Highlands Land Exchange Project May 2015 Eastern Dublin EIR is a Program EIR which was prepared for the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan of which this Project is a part. It was certified by the Dublin City Council on May 10, 1993. Following certification of the EIR, the Council adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations for impacts including but not limited to: cumulative traffic, extension of certain community facilities (natural gas, electric and telephone service), regional air quality, noise and visual. The Eastern Dublin EIR contains a large number of mitigation measures which apply to this Project and which would be applied to any development within the Project area. Specific mitigation measures identified in the certified Eastern Dublin EIR for potential impacts are referenced in the text of this Initial Study. This Initial Study relies on two other adopted Mitigated Negative Declarations for the subject properties, as follows: • Mission Peak/Fallon Crossing Mitigated Negative Declaration, adopted by City Council Resolution No. 71-06 on May 16, 2006 ("Fredrich Project MND.") • Vargas Project Mitigated Negative Declaration, adopted by City Council Resolution No. 57-07 on May 1, 2007 ("Vargas Project MND.") In 2014, the City of Dublin adopted an Addendum to the Eastern Dublin EIR for the Tassajara Highland project. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 and 15163, this Initial Study is intended to identify the potential for any new or substantially increased significant impacts on or of the project which were not evaluated in the Eastern Dublin EIR the Mission Peak MND or the Vargas Project MND and which would require additional environmental review. City of Dublin Page 27 Initial Study/fassajara Highlands Land Exchange Project May 2015 Attachment to Initial Study Discussion of Checklist 1. Aesthetics Environmental Setting The project is set in an existing rural area of Eastern Dublin that is transitioning to urban uses under the auspices of the City of Dublin General Plan Amendment and Eastern Dublin EIR, adopted in 1993. The 2.69-acre project site is characterized by gently sloping topography created primarily by previous grading for roadways. Tassajara Road forms the easterly and southerly boundary of the site and Moller Creek flows northwest of the site. Nine trees are present on the site, including seven valley oaks and two almond trees. Surrounding land uses include two residences to the north that will be replaced by the Tassajara Highlands project. Land to the west is within a permanent open space easement area within and adjacent to Tassajara Creek. The Dublin Ranch West site (also known as the Wallis Ranch) lies west of the open space easement and has been approved for residential development at a mix of densities and product types. Moller Creek flows to the northwest of the project site. Located to the east of the project site is a residential project, known as the Fallon Crossing/Mission Peak that is currently under construction by Standard Pacific consisting of 106 single-family units. As a largely rural area, minimal light sources exist on the project site. Major light sources include house and security lighting associated with the two existing residences to the north of the project site. Limited lighting exists to the east within the Fallon Crossing/Mission Peak development, primarily security lighting. Regulatory framework Alameda County Scenic Route Element In May, 1966, Alameda County adopted a Scenic Route Element of the County General Plan. The Element identifies Tassajara Road as a Major Rural Road. The County's General Plan Element has been incorporated by reference into the City of Dublin General Plan. The Scenic Route Element contains the following principles that apply to scenic route rights-of-way: • Design scenic routes to minimize grading in rights-of-way; • Landscape rights-of-way of existing and proposed routes; • Utilize scenic route identification signs. City of Dublin Page 28 Initial Study/Tassajara Highlands Land Exchange Project May 2015 Dublin General Plan. The project area is included in the Eastern Dublin Extended Planning Area. Implementing Policy C.2 of the General Plan states that "proposed site grading and means of access will not disfigure ridgelands." Further, Implementing Policy C. 5 requires development projects to be consistent with all applicable General Plan and Specific Plan policies." Eastern Dublin Specific Plan. The City of Dublin adopted the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan (EDSP) in 1993 to guide the future development of approximately 7,200 acres of land in the eastern Dublin area. The Specific Plan includes a number of policies and programs dealing with visual resources, including but not limited to protection of ridgelines and ridgelands, scenic corridors, and hillside development. Eastern Dublin Scenic Corridor Policies and Standards. In 1996, the City of Dublin adopted scenic policies and standards for the Eastern Dublin area, known as the Eastern Dublin Scenic Corridor Policies and Standards. This document identifies the site as lying within Zone 5, the Fallon Village Open Space area. This corridor area is defined primarily by lands adjacent to public rights-of-way, which should be park, rural residential, open slopes or riparian drainage areas. Previous CEOA documents Eastern Dublin EIR. The Eastern Dublin EIR contains a number of mitigation measures to reduce anticipated visual resource impacts from the General Plan and EDSP project. These include: • Mitigation Measure 3.8/1.0 reduced project impacts related to standardized tract development (IM 3.8/B) to a less-than-significant level. This mitigation requires future developers to establish visually distinct communities which preserves the character of the natural landscape by protecting key visual elements and maintaining views from major travel corridors. • Mitigation Measure 3.8/2.0 reduced the impact of converting the rural and open space character of the General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan area (IM 3.8/B) but not to a less-than-significant level. The mitigation measure requires implementation of the land use plan that emphasizes retention of predominant natural features. Even with adherence to this measure, IM 3.8/B would remain significant and unavoidable on both a project and cumulative level. • Mitigation Measure 3.8/3.0 would reduce the impact of obscuring distinctive natural features of the General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan area (IM 3.8/C) but not to a less-than-significant level. The mitigation measure requires implementation of the land use plan that emphasizes retention of predominant natural features. • Mitigation Measures 3.8/4.0-4.5 reduced the impact of altering the visual quality of hillsides (IM 3.8/1)) to a less-than-significant level. These mitigation measures require implemtation of appropriate Eastern Dublin Specific Plan policies including but not limited to use of sensitive grading design to minimize grading, City of Dublin Page 29 Initial Study/Tassajara Highlands Land Exchange Project May 2015 use of existing topographic features, limiting use of flat pads for construction, using building designs that conform to natural land forms, recontouring hillside to resemble existing topography and minimizing the height of cut and fill slopes. • Mitigation Measures 3.8/5.0-5.2 reduced the impact of altering the visual quality of ridges (IM 3.8/E) to a less-than-significant level. These mitigation measures limit development on main ridges that border the Specific Plan area to the north and east but are allowed on foreground hills, and would limit development in locations where scenic views would be obscured or would extend above a ridgetop. • Mitigation Measure 3.8/6.0 reduced the impact of altering the visual quality of watercourses (IM 3.8/G) to a less-than-significant level. This mitigation measure protects Tassajara Creek and other stream courses from unnecessary alteration or disturbance, and adjoining development should be sited to maintain visual access to stream corridors. • Mitigation Measures 3.8/7.0 and 7/1 reduced impacts on scenic vistas (IM 3.8/I) to a less-than-significant level. These mitigation measures require protection of designated open space areas and directs the City to conduct a visual survey of the EDSP area to identify and map viewsheds. The proposed project will be required to adhere to applicable mitigation measures related to aesthetics set forth in the Eastern Dublin EIR. Project Impacts a) Have a substantial adverse impact on a scenic vista? No New Impact. The Eastern Dublin EIR identifies that implementation of the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan would result in a potentially significant impact (Impact 3.8/I), development on the project area [i.e. the Eastern Dublin planning area] will alter the character of existing scenic vistas and may obscure important sightlines). Adherence to Mitigation Measure 3.8/7.0 contained in the Eastern Dublin EIR reduced this impact to a less-than-significant impact. This measure requires the City to complete a visual assessment and guidelines for the Eastern Dublin area. This has been completed. The proposed project would include re-grading of part of the project site, primarily for the creation of bioretention and detention basins. Because the basins would be excavated and below the grade of Tassajara Road, it would not significantly affect a scenic vista. Removal of four valley oak trees, including one heritage oak (26" trunk diameter) would be required for the detention basin; the remaining trees would be retained and protected. The proposed streetscape appearance would include new street trees and drought-tolerant plantings. This developed condition of the site would be more natural than that envisioned in the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan because Tassajara Road widening has been reduced. Applicable mitigation measures contained in the Eastern Dublin EIR and the visual policies contained in the EDSP will apply to this project and no new or more severe significant impacts would occur. City of Dublin Page 30 Initial Study/Tassajara Highlands Land Exchange Project May 2015 b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including those within state scenic highway? No New Impact. The project site has frontage along Tassajara Road, a County and City-designated scenic highway. The project site adjacent to Tassajara Road consists of grassland with no significant stands of native trees, significant rock outcrops or other significant scenic resources. Four trees, including one heritage oak tree, would be removed. Proposed improvements adjacent along Tassajara Road have been anticipated in the Mission Peak MND and 2014 Addendum as well as the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan and Eastern Dublin EIR. The Eastern Dublin EIR identifies that implementation of the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan and General Plan Amendment to add new residential, commercial and similar urban uses in the then-vacant project area would result in a significant and unavoidable impact to the Eastern Dublin planning area (see EDSP Impact 3.8/B), including the Tassajara Highlands property. Mitigation measures have been included in the Eastern Dublin EIR to minimize hillside grading, although some amount of hillside grading would likely be needed to accommodate proposed development improvements. The project developer will also be required to comply with hillside grading requirements contained in the Eastern Dublin EIR to minimize the visual effects of grading. No new or more significant severe impacts would occur with respect to damage to scenic resources than analyzed in previous CEQA documents. No additional review is required. C) Substantially degrade existing visual character or the quality of the site? No New Impact. The proposed project includes the construction of water basins, right-of- way improvements, a trail and landscaping. Aesthetic impacts would include disturbance of existing grassland vegetation and four trees, and their replacement with a detention basin, paving for City right-of-way improvements along Tassajara Road, landscaping and a trail. The Eastern Dublin EIR addressed the following potential impacts related to visual and aesthetics impacts of adopting the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan: Impact 3.8/B: Urban development of the project site will substantially alter the existing rural and open space qualities that characterize Eastern Dublin The Eastern Dublin EIR identified one measure to mitigate this impact (Mitigation Measure 3.8/2.0, "Implement the land use plan for the project site which emphasizes retention of predominant natural features..."). However the Eastern Dublin EIR concluded that even with adherence to this mitigation, alteration of rural and open space on the project site would remain a potentially significant impact. Because the project site does not include significant natural features, Mitigation Measure 3.8/2.0 would not apply. No new or more severe significant impacts have been identified in this Initial Study with respect to degradation of the visual character of the site and no further review is required. City of Dublin Page 31 Initial Study[Tassajara Highlands Land Exchange Project May 2015 d) Create light or glare? No New Impact. The project site contains no existing light sources. Construction of the proposed project would add one new streetlight along the northern segment of the City right-of-way, per City standards, to match other streetlights along Tassajara Road. City of Dublin development requirements will be imposed as part of the normal and customary review process to restrict spillover of unwanted light off of the project site. No new or more severe significant impacts would result with respect to light and glare than has been previously analyzed in previous CEQA documents. No additional review is required. 2. Agricultural and Forestry Resources Environmental Setting The Eastern Dublin EIR identifies the project site as a combination of"locally important farmland" and "other lands," which lie adjacent to Tassajara Creek (see Eastern Dublin EIR Figure 3.1-13). No agricultural operations have been observed on the project site in recent years. No Williamson Act contracted properties exist on the site. No forests or major stands of trees have been observed on the site; one heritage tree as defined in the Dublin Municipal Code is present. Previous CEQA document Eastern Dublin EIR. The Eastern Dublin EIR identified several potential impacts related to agricultural resources. Impact IM 3.1/C stated that discontinuation of agricultural uses would be an insignificant impact due to on-going urbanization trends in Dublin and the Tri-Valley area. Impact 3.1/D identified a loss of lands of Farmlands of Local Importance with approval and implementation of the General Plan and Specific Plan. This was also noted as an insignificant impact. Impact 3.1/F stated that buildout of Specific Plan land uses would have a significant and unavoidable impact on cumulative loss of agricultural and open space lands. Finally, Impact IM 3.1/E noted indirect impacts related to non-renewal of Williamson Act contracts. This impact was also identified as an insignificant impact. Project Impacts a,c) Convert prime farmland to a non-agricultural use or involve other changes which could result in conversion of farmland to a non-agricultural use? No New Impact. No significant impacts were identified with respect to agricultural resources in previous CEQA documents listed above. No new conditions have been identified in this Initial Study with respect to conversion of prime farmland to a non- agricultural use. No new or more severe significant impacts would result than were analyzed in previous CEQA documents for this site and additional analysis is not required. b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? No New Impact. No Williamson Act contracts presently exist on the site nor are any City of Dublin Page 32 Initial Study/Tassajara Highlands Land Exchange Project May 2015 agricultural operations on-going. No new or more severe significant impacts would result than have been previously analyzed in other CEQA documents for the site. No additional analysis is required. d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to a non forest use? No Impact. No forest land exists on the project site and no impact would result with respect to this topic. No additional analysis is required. d) Involve other changes which, due to their location or nature, could result of forest land to a non forest use? No Impact. See item "d," above. 3. Air Quality Environmental Setting The project is within the Amador Valley, a part of the Livermore sub-regional air basin distinct from the larger San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin. The Livermore sub-air basin is surrounded on all sides by high hills or mountains. Significant breaks in the hills surrounding the air basin are Niles Canyon and the San Ramon Valley, which extends northward into Contra Costa County. Previous CEOA Documents Eastern Dublin EIR. The Eastern Dublin EIR contains a number of mitigation measures to reduce anticipated air quality impacts from the General Plan and EDSP project. These include: • Mitigation Measure 3.11/1.0 reduced impacts related to emission of construction generated dust to a less-than-significant level by requiring construction projects to water graded areas in the late morning and end of the day, cleanup mud and dust onto adjacent streets on a daily basis, covering of haul trucks, avoiding unnecessary idling of construction equipment, revegetating graded areas and similar measures. • Mitigation Measures 3.11/2.0-4.0 reduced project and cumulative impacts related to vehicle emission from construction equipment (IM 3.11/B) but not to a less- than-significant level. These mitigations require emission control from on-site equipment, completion of a construction impact reduction plan and others. Even with adherence to these mitigations, this impact would remain significant and unavoidable. • Mitigation Measures 3.11/5.0-11.0 reduced mobile source emission from ROG and NOx (IM 3.11/C) but not to a less-than-significant level. Mitigation measures require coordination of growth with transportation plans and other measures. Many of which are at a policy (not a project) level. Even with adherence to adopted mitigations, IM 3.11/C would remain significant and unavoidable. City of Dublin Page 33 Initial Study/Tassajara Highlands Land Exchange Project May 2015 • Mitigation Measures 3.11/12.0-13.0 reduced project and cumulative impacts related to stationary source emissions (IM 3.11/E) but not to a less-than- significant level. The two adopted mitigations require reduction of stationary source emissions to the extent feasible by use of energy conservation techniques and recycling of solid waste material. Even with adherence to the two measures, stationary source emissions would remain significant and unavoidable. The 2014 Tassajara Highlands Addendum incorporated the following construction mitigation measures from the Fredrich Project MND and the Vargas Project MND. Fredrich Project MND. The Fredrich MND identified three supplemental air quality mitigation measures in addition to EDSP mitigation measures: • Mitigation Measure 14 required contractors to water or cover stockpiles of debris, soil, sand or other materials that could be blown by the wind. • Mitigation Measure 15 required contractors to sweep daily (preferably with water sweepers) all paved access roads, parking areas and staging areas of construction sites • Mitigation Measure 16 required contractors to install sandbags or other erosion control measures to prevent silt runoff to public roadways. Vargas Project MND. The Vargas MND included Mitigation Measures 14 through 16 as contained in the Fredrich MND. The proposed project will be required to adhere to applicable mitigation measures related to air quality. Project Impacts a) Would the project conflict or obstruct implementation of an air quality plan? No New Impact. The proposed construction and maintenance activities on the project site would be similar to or less than those previously considered and approved by the City of Dublin. In addition, the Tassajara Highlands Project, which would be served by the project detention basin, includes up to 54 single-family dwellings, whereas the number of previously approved dwellings, 101 dwellings, was used in the preparation of the existing Regional Clean Air Plan. Therefore, approval and implementation of the proposed project would not conflict with or obstruct the regional clean air plan. No new or more severe significant impacts would result than was previously analyzed in other CEQA documents. No additional analysis is required. b) Would the project violate any air quality standards? No New Impact. The number of dwelling units included in the Tassajara Highlands project to the north fall below the minimum screening thresholds for a significant air quality impact on a project and cumulative basis and is less than half of the units considered in prior CEQA reviews. The number of build-out dwelling units would also be less than currently included in the Regional Clean Air Plan. The Project site considered under this City of Dublin Page 34 Initial Study/Tassajara Highlands Land Exchange Project May 2015 Addendum is less than 3 acres. So there would be no new or more severe significant impacts with respect to cumulative air quality impacts than have been previously analyzed and no additional review is needed. c) Would the project result in cumulatively considerable air pollutants? No New Impact. The number of dwelling units included in the Tassajara Highlands fall below the minimum screening thresholds for a significant air quality impact on a project and cumulative basis and is less than half of the units considered in prior CEQA reviews. The number of build-out dwelling units would also be less than currently included in the Regional Clean Air Plan. So there would be no new or more severe significant impacts with respect to cumulative air quality impacts than have been previously analyzed and no additional review is needed. d,e) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial significant pollutant concentrations or create objectionable odors? No New Impact. No sensitive receptors, including but not limited to schools or hospitals, exist or are planned within or adjacent to the project area, so no impacts would result. Similarly, the site is not located adjacent to any freeways or major highway corridors that would release significant air emissions. Since the proposed project does not include manufacturing or similar uses, no objectionable odors would be created. The Eastern Dublin EIR identified this impact as a potentially significant cumulative impact which could not be mitigated to achieve the eight-fold reduction in stationary source emissions needed to meet the insignificant threshold and, pursuant to CEQA, the City of Dublin adopted a Statement of Overriding Consideration for this impact. No new severe significant impacts are identified in this Initial Study beyond those identified in the Eastern Dublin EIR and other CEQA documents ad no additional analysis is needed. 4. Biological Resources Environmental Setting The project site is located south and east of Moller Creek, a tributary of Tassajara Creek. Moller Creek flows in a generally northeast-southwest direction northwest of the project site. The Eastern Dublin EIR identifies the biological character of the site as "ruderal field" which contains a mix of native and non-native species, primarily weedy species such as thistles, mustards and similar grasses (see EDSP EIR Figure 3.7-A). A recent biological analysis that includes the project site confirms this characterization ('Biological Resources Analysis Report Addendum for the Tassajara Highlands residential Development Project" prepared by Marylee Guinon LLC and Olberding Environmental Inc., dated May 2014, is hereby incorporated by reference into this Initial Study and available for review at the Dublin Community Development Department during normal business hours). City of Dublin Page 35 Initial Study[Tassajara Highlands Land Exchange Project May 2015 Existing grassland habitat on the site provides suitable habitat for a range of amphibians, reptiles birds and mammals. A number of these species are considered special-status, protected species. An analysis of existing trees on the site was conducted by HortScience dated April 15, 2015 ("Arborist Report Addendum Letter"). The Addendum Letter is hereby incorporated by reference into this Initial Study and is available for review at the Dublin Community Development Department during normal business hours. The HortScience arborist report found nine (9) living trees on the Exchange site, including seven valley oaks (one of which is large enough to qualify as a heritage tree under Dublin standards) and two almond trees. Regulatory framework California Fish and Wildlife Code Section 1600. Streams, lakes, and riparian vegetation as habitat for fish and other wildlife species, are subject to jurisdiction by CDFW under Sections 1600-1616 of the California Fish and Game Code. Any activity that will do one or more of the following: 1) substantially obstruct or divert the natural flow of a river, stream, or lake; 2) substantially change or use any material from the bed, channel, or bank of a river, stream, or lake; or 3) deposit or dispose of debris, waste, or other material containing crumbled, flaked, or ground pavement where it can pass into a river, stream, or lake; generally require a 1602 Lake and Streambed Alteration Agreement. The term "stream," which includes creeks and rivers, is defined in the California Code of Regulations (CCR) as follows: "a body of water that flows at least periodically or intermittently through a bed or channel having banks and supports fish or other aquatic life. This includes watercourses having a surface or subsurface flow that supports or has supported riparian vegetation" (14 CCR 1.72). In addition, the term stream can include ephemeral streams, dry washes, watercourses with subsurface flows, canals, aqueducts, irrigation ditches, and other means of water conveyance if they support aquatic life, riparian vegetation, or stream-dependent terrestrial wildlife. Riparian is defined as, "on, or pertaining to, the banks of a stream;" therefore, riparian vegetation is defined as, "vegetation, which occurs in and/or adjacent to a stream and is dependent on, and occurs because of, the stream itself." Removal of riparian vegetation also requires a Section 1602 Lake and Streambed Alteration Agreement from CDFG. Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. Section 404 of the Clean Water Act gives the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Corps regulatory and permitting authority regarding discharge of dredged or fill material into "navigable waters of the United States." Section 502(7) of the Clean Water Act defines navigable waters as "waters of the United States, including territorial seas." Section 328 of Chapter 33 in the Code of Federal Regulations defines the term "waters of the United States" as it applies to the jurisdictional limits of the authority of the Corps under the Clean Water Act. A summary of this definition of "waters of the U.S." in 33 CFR 328.3 includes (1) waters used for commerce; (2) interstate waters and wetlands; (3) "other waters" such as intrastate lakes, rivers, streams, and wetlands; (4) impoundments of waters; (5) tributaries to the above waters; (6) territorial seas; and (7) wetlands adjacent to waters. Therefore, for purposes of determining Corps jurisdiction under the Clean Water Act, City of Dublin Page 36 Initial Study/Tassajara Highlands Land Exchange Project May 2015 "navigable waters" as defined in the Clean Water Act are the same as "waters of the U.S." defined in the Code of Federal Regulations above. The limits of Corps jurisdiction under Section 404 as given in 33 CFR Section 328.4 are as follows: (a) Territorial seas: three nautical miles in a seaward direction from the baseline; (b) Tidal waters of the U.S.:high tide line or to the limit of adjacent non-tidal waters; (c) Non-tidal waters of the U.S.: ordinary high water mark or to the limit of adjacent wetlands; (d) Wetlands: to the limit of the wetland. Some areas that meet the technical criteria for wetlands or waters may not be jurisdictional under the Clean Water Act. Included in this category are some man- induced wetlands, which are areas that have developed at least some characteristics of naturally occurring wetlands due to either intentional or incidental human activities. Examples of man-induced wetlands may include, but are not limited to, irrigated wetlands, impoundments, or drainage ditches excavated in uplands, dredged material disposal areas, and depressions within construction areas. In addition, some isolated wetlands and waters may also be considered outside of Corps jurisdiction as a result of the Supreme Court's decision in Solid Waste Agency of Northern Cook County (SWANCC) v. United States Army Corps of Engineers (531 U.S. 159 (2001)). Isolated wetlands and waters are those areas that do not have a surface or groundwater connection to, and are not adjacent to a "navigable waters of the U.S.", and do not otherwise exhibit an interstate commerce connection. Section 401 of the Clean Water Act. Section 401 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1341) requires any applicant for a federal license or permit to conduct any activity that may result in a discharge of a pollutant into waters of the United States to obtain a certification from the state in which the discharge originates or would originate, or, if appropriate, from the interstate water pollution control agency having jurisdiction over the affected waters at the point where the discharge originates or would originate, that the discharge will comply with the applicable effluent limitations and water quality standards. A certification obtained for the construction of any facility must also pertain to the subsequent operation of the facility. The responsibility for the protection of water quality in California rests with the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) and its nine Regional Water Quality Control Boards (RWQCBs). Federal and California Endangered Species Acts. The Federal Endangered Species Act (FESA) of 1973 prohibits federal agencies from authorizing, permitting, or funding any action that would jeopardize the continued existence of a plant or animal species listed or a candidate for listing as Threatened or Endangered under the ESA. If a federal agency is involved with a proposed action or project that may adversely affect a listed plant or animal, that agency must enter into consultation with the USFWS under Section 7 (a) (2) of the FESA. Individuals, corporations, and state or local agencies with proposed actions or projects that do not require authorizing, permitting, or funding from a federal agency but that may result in the "take" of listed species or candidate species are required to apply to the USFWS for a Section 10(a) incidental take permit. The State of California enacted similar laws to the FESA, the California Native Plant City of Dublin Page 37 Initial Study/Tassajara Highlands Land Exchange Project May 2015 Protection Act (NPPA) in 1977 and the California Endangered Species Act (CESA) in 1984. The CESA expanded upon the original NPPA and enhanced legal protection for plants, but the NPPA remains part of the California Fish and Game Code. To align with the FESA, CESA created the categories of "threatened" and "endangered" species. The State converted all animal species listed as "rare" under the FESA into the CESA as threatened species, but did not do so for rare plants. Thus, these laws provide the legal framework for protection of California-listed rare, threatened, and endangered plant and animal species. CDFW implements NPPA and CESA, and its Wildlife and Habitat Data Analysis Branch maintain the CNDDB, a computerized inventory of information on the general location and status of California's rarest plants, animals, and natural communities. During the CEQA review process, CDFW is given the opportunity to comment on the potential of the proposed project to affect listed plants and animals. East Alameda County Conservation Strategy. The project site is located in the East Alameda County Conservation Strategy ("Conservation Strategy") Study Area. The Conservation Strategy is intended to provide an effective framework to protect, enhance, and restore natural resources in eastern Alameda County, while improving and streamlining the environmental permitting process for impacts resulting from infrastructure and development projects. The City of Dublin is a partner in the Conservation Strategy and uses the document to provide a baseline inventory of biological resources and conservation priorities during project-level planning and environmental permitting. Eastern Dublin Comprehensive Stream Restoration Program. The Eastern Dublin Comprehensive Stream Restoration Program was adopted by the City of Dublin in 1996 as an implementation program required by the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan. The purpose of this document is to provide more detailed requirements relating to hydrologic and biological conditions for individual development projects proposed adjacent to Tassajara Creek and its tributaries, specifically to ensure that Tassajara Creek restoration policies and programs contained in the Eastern Dublin General Plan and Specific Plan are fully implemented. Previous CEQA documents Eastern Dublin EIR. The Eastern Dublin EIR contains a number of mitigation measures to reduce anticipated impacts to biological resources from the General Plan and EDSP project. These include: • Mitigation Measures 3.7/1.0-4.0 reduced impacts related to direct habitat loss (IM 3.7/A) to a less-than-significant level. These mitigations require minimization of direct habitat loss due to development, preparation of vegetation management and enhancement plans and development of a grazing management plan by the City of Dublin. • Mitigation Measure 3.7/5.0 reduced impacts related to indirect loss of vegetation removal (IM 3.7/B) to a less-than-significant level. Mitigation Measure 3.7/5.0 requires revegetation of graded or disturbed areas as quickly as possible. City of Dublin Page 38 Initial Study/Tassajara Highlands Land Exchange Project May 2015 • Mitigation Measures 3.7/6.0-17.0 reduced impacts related to loss or degradation of botanically sensitive habitats (IM 3.7/C) but not to a less-than-significant level. These measures require a wide range of steps to be taken by future developers to minimize impacts to sensitive habitat areas, including preserving natural stream corridors, incorporating natural greenbelts and open space into development projects, preparation of individual wetland delineations, preparation of individual erosion and sedimentation plans and similar actions. • Mitigation Measures 3.7/18.0-19.0 reduced impacts related to the San Joaquin kit fox (IM 3.7/D) to a less-than-significant level. These measures require consultation with appropriate regulatory agencies regarding the possibility of kit fox on project sites and restrictions on use of pesticides and herbicides. • Mitigation Measures 3.7/20.0-22.0 reduced impacts related to the tri-colored blackbird (IM 3.7/I) to a less-than-significant level. These measures require preconstruction surveys for this species and protection of impacted habitat areas. These measures also apply to burrowing owl and badger species. • Mitigation Measures 3.7/23.0-24.0 reduced impacts related to destruction of Golden Eagle nesting sites (IM 3.7/J) to a less-than-significant level. These measures require preconstruction surveys for this species and protection of impacted habitat areas. • Mitigation Measure 3.7/25.0 reduced impacts related to loss of Golden Eagle foraging habitat (IM 3.7/K) to a less-than-significant level. This measure requires the identification of a Golden Eagle protection zone within the Eastern Dublin planning area. • Mitigation Measure 3.7/26.0 reduced impacts related to Golden Eagle and other raptor electrocution (IM 3.7/L) to a less-than-significant level. This measure requires undergrounding of electrical transmission facilities. • Mitigation Measure 3.7/20.0, 27.0 reduced impacts related to American badger (IM 3.7/M, N) to a less-than-significant level. This measure mandates a minimum buffer of 300 feet around burrowing owl nesting sites and American badger breeding sites during the breeding season. • Mitigation Measure 3.7/28.0 reduced impacts related to special status invertebrates (IM 3.7/S) to a less-than-significant level. This measure requires follow-on special surveys for these species during appropriate times of the year. The Eastern Dublin EIR also addresses potential impacts and mitigation measures regarding bald eagle, peregrine falcons, red-legged frog, California tiger salamander, western pond turtle the prairie falcon, northern harrier, black-shouldered kite, sharp- shinned hawk, Cooper's hawk, short-eared owl and California horned lizard. The 2014 Addendum incorporated the following mitigation measures from the Fredrich Project MND and the Vargas Project MND: City of Dublin Page 39 Initial Study/Tassajara Highlands Land Exchange Project May 2015 Fredrich Project MND. This document includes the following applicable mitigation measures: • Mitigation Measure 17 required the completion of spring surveys for big tar plant, large-flowered fiddleneck, diamond petaled California poppy, Congdon's tarplant and round-leaved filaree prior to start of grading or construction. Results of the surveys shall be provided to the City and California Department of Fish & Wildlife prior to construction. If these species are found, they shall be protected in place or safely relocated. • Mitigation Measure 18 required that, if required by the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service or the California Department of Fish and Game, surveys for California Tiger Salamander, red-legged frog and western pond turtle shall be conducted at least 60 days prior to start of construction. • Mitigation Measure 19 required that if California tiger salamander species are found on the site, a management plan shall be prepared and approved by appropriate resources regulatory agencies to protect these species. • Mitigation Measure 20 required the installation of a permanent herpetological fence or barrier around the north, east and southern area of the site. • Mitigation Measure 21 required California tiger salamander larval surveys be conducted in the unnamed tributary for the proposed storm drain outfall to determine the presence or absence of CTS larvae. If found, a CTS management plan shall include methods to protect CTA at the outfall location. • Mitigation Measure 22 required completion of a pre-construction survey for nesting raptors prior to commencement of grading within 100 feet of a known nesting tree. Vegetation and tree removal shall be conducted outside of the raptor breeding season. • Mitigation Measure 23 required completion of a pre-construction survey for California horned lark and other ground-nesting birds prior to grading or construction. If these species are found, a protective buffer shall be placed around the nesting area until the young have fledged. • Mitigation Measure 24 required completion of a pre-construction survey for burrowing owls prior to grading or construction between September 31 and January 31. If found, construction shall be limited within 150 feet of any occupied nest. Owls may be removed from the site with necessary permits issued by the California Department of Fish &Wildlife. • Mitigation Measure 25 required a pre-construction survey during the nesting season for burrowing owl and, if found, a minimum 250-foot wide buffer shall be maintained around active nests during the breeding season. • Mitigation Measure 26 required that if destruction of occupied burrowing owl nests are proposed, a the developer shall prepare a strategy to replace burrows City of Dublin Page 40 Initial Study/Tassajara Highlands Land Exchange Project May 2015 by enhancing existing burrows or creating artificial burrows at a 2:1 ratio on protected lands. The plan shall be approved by the California Department of Fish & Wildlife. • Mitigation Measure 30 required that all protection measures required by the California Department of Fish &Wildlife and U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service are implemented and maintained. • Mitigation Measure 31 required all construction personnel receive an education training program regarding special-status species and protection measures. • Mitigation Measure 33 required all grading activity to occur during the dry season to the extent practical. • Mitigation Measure 34 required that any riparian habitat removed to be replaced by replacement riparian habitat at a 3:1 ratio subject to the approval of the California Department of Fish &Wildlife. As part of this measure, a Riparian Habitat Management Plan shall be prepared, consistent with the Eastern Dublin Comprehensive Management Plan and Dublin Ranch Tassajara Creek management Plan. • Mitigation Measure 35 required the project developer to provide proof that all necessary permits and approvals have been obtained from necessary biological regulatory agencies prior to issuance of any City permits. • Mitigation Measure 36 required the project to comply with the Eastern Dublin San Joaquin Kit Fox Protection Plan. Vargas Project MND. The Vargas project MND contains the following mitigation measures: • Mitigation Measure 7 required a pre-construction survey for nesting raptors prior to start of grading operations within 100 feet of any known trees with nests. If active nests are found, a buffer shall be established around the tree between January 1 and August 1, or until the young have fledged. Removal of vegetation with a know raptor nest shall occur during the non-nesting season. • Mitigation Measure 8 required the completion of a pre-construction survey for Red-legged frog no more than 60 days prior to construction or grading. Should this species be identified, a qualified biologist shall work with appropriate regulatory agencies to determine additional measures to avoid impacts to this specie. • Mitigation Measure 9 required the completion of a pre-construction survey for California Tiger Salamander no more than 60 days prior to construction or grading. Should this species be identified, a qualified biologist shall work with appropriate regulatory agencies to determine additional measures to avoid impacts to this specie. • Mitigation Measure 10 required that if California Tiger Salamander are found on the site, a California Tiger Salamander management plan is to be prepared and approved by appropriate biological regulatory agencies prior to start of City of Dublin Page 41 Initial Study/Tassajara Highlands Land Exchange Project May 2015 construction. At minimum, the management plan shall include installation of barrier fences, a trapping and relocation plan, on-site presence of a qualified biologist during construction and limiting grading and vegetation clearance within a 750-foot radius of California Tiger Salamander breeding and migration areas. • Mitigation Measure 11 required the installation of a permanent herpetological fence or barrier around the north, east and southern area of the residential portion of the site. • Mitigation Measure 12 required compliance with the Eastern Dublin San Joaquin Kit Fox Protection Plan. • Mitigation Measure 13 required the completion of a pre-construction survey for Southwestern pond turtle along the Tassajara Creek corridor. If found on site, turtles shall be relocated by a qualified biologist and the site blocked from future occupancy by turtles. • Mitigation Measure 14 required the completion of a pre-construction survey for burrowing owls if ground disturbance is to occur between September 1 and January 31. If no overwintering birds are present, burrows may be removed prior to construction. If owls must be removed during this period passive relocation measures shall be prepared and implemented based on current biological regulatory guidelines prior to construction. • Mitigation Measure 15 required that if construction is scheduled during the burrowing owl nesting season (Feb. 1 —Sept. 1), a pre-construction survey shall be conducted within 30 days prior to ground disturbance. A minimum 250-foot wide buffer shall be maintained during the breeding season around active nests to avoid direct take of individuals. • Mitigation Measure 16 required that if occupied owl burrows are destroyed either during the breeding or non-breeding season, a strategy shall be developed and implemented to replace such destroyed burrows by enhancing existing burrows or creating artificial burrows at a 2:1 ratio on nearby lands and shall include permanent protection of a minimum of 6.5 acres of burrowing owl habitat per pair or unpaired resident owls agencies to determine additional measures to avoid impacts to this specie. • Mitigation Measure 17 required the completion of a pre-construction surveys for special-status plant species prior to ground disturbance. Any rare plants shall be plotted and biological regulatory agencies notified of their presence. Special-status plants shall be protected from site construction or relocated to an alternative site as required by the resource agency. • Mitigation Measure 18 required the approval of a formal wetland delineation from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers prior to issuance of building permits or a grading permit. • Mitigation Measure 19 required the project developer to retain a qualified biologist to develop a plant to mitigate impacts to 0.397 acre of wetlands at a 2:1 ratio and 0.086 acre of waters of the United States at a 1:1 ratio. City of Dublin Page 42 Initial Study/Tassajara Highlands Land Exchange Project May 2015 Appropriate methods of mitigation include creation of replacement wetlands or other methods as approved by the Corps of Engineers. • Mitigation Measure 20 required that construction and grading activities related to the trail system and grading activities located within the 100 foot creek setback shall be protected during construction of the trail and water quality pond and shall not occur during the wet season (Oct. 1-April 15). • Mitigation Measure 21 required that prior to issuance of a building or grading permit, a creek and riparian resources protection plan shall be prepared for construction of a trail and water quality pond. At minimum, the plan shall include construction fencing, project schedule and erosion control measures. The proposed project will be required to adhere to applicable biological resource mitigation measures contained in the previous CEQA documents prepared for the site. Project Impacts a) Have a substantial adverse impact on a candidate, sensitive, or special-status species? No New Impact The Eastern Dublin EIR documents or assumes the presence of special-status plant and wildlife species on the project site. Numerous mitigation measures are included in these various documents to reduce impacts to candidate, sensitive and special-status species to a less-than significant level. These are listed above. To provide a consistent method of monitoring biological mitigation measures, a recommended condition of project approval for the Tassajara Highlands project was to have a qualified biologist prepare a Comprehensive Biological Resources Management Plan to compile the various biological mitigation measures contained in the previous CEQA documents in a logical manner. Application of this Plan to the project site, prior to issuance of a grading permit, will ensure that all previous applicable measures are logically compiled to eliminate overlap and duplication and be monitored at the appropriate stage of the proposed project. Therefore, no new or more severe significant impacts with respect to candidate, sensitive or special-status species would occur than have been analyzed in the three previous CEQA documents. No additional analysis is required. The proposed project would continue to contribute to cumulative loss or degradation of botanically sensitive habitat, which was identified as a significant and unavoidable impact (IM 3.7/C) in the Eastern Dublin EIR. b, c) Have a substantial adverse impact on riparian habitat or federally protected wetlands? No New Impact. No wetlands or waters of the United States, or riparian habitat, are present on the project site. Wetlands and waters of the United States have been identified on the Tassajara Highlands project site to the north and a wetland delineation was approved by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers on July 26, 2013. An application for a water quality certification has been submitted to the Regional Water Quality Control Board was submitted in early 2014 and approval is pending. Both of these applications encompass the project site as well as the Tassajara Highlands project site, but all wetlands, waters and riparian habitat City of Dublin Page 43 Initial Study/Tassajara Highlands Land Exchange Project May 2015 were found on the Tassajara Highlands site to the north and not on the current project site. No new or more severe significant impacts would occur than have been previously analyzed with respect to this topic. No additional analysis is required. d) Interfere with movement of native fish or wildlife species? No New Impact. Mitigation measures contained in previous CEQA documents prepared to analyze previous development applications on the site contain mitigation measures that reduced this impact to a less-than-significant level. However, since there have been several previous CEQA documents adopted and certified for the site and the land immediately to the north of the site, a recommended condition of project approval will require that adopted mitigation measures from previous CEQA documents dealing with interference of fish or wildlife movement be included in the Comprehensive Biological Resources Management Plan to eliminate duplication and overlap. No new or more severe significant impacts would occur than have been previously analyzed with respect to potential interference with fish or wildlife movement and no additional analysis is required. e, f) Conflict with local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources or any adopted Habitat Conservation Plans or Natural Community Conservation Plans? No New Impact. Approval and construction of the proposed project would affect four native oak trees on the site. The City of Dublin affords Heritage Tree status to any oak, bay, cypress, maple, redwood, buckeye, or sycamore tree with a main trunk of at least twenty-four inches in diameter when measured at fifty-two inches above the natural grade. The HortScience arborist report identified the presence of one heritage valley oak tree on the site (twenty-six inches in diameter). Removal of this tree would comply with the City of Dublin Heritage Tree Ordinance under an exception to the tree removal permit requirement in accordance with Dublin Municipal Code section 5.60.050 B.3 because the city has approved the removal as part of a subdivision map. The removal of the tree is necessary to provide a flow control detention basin that will serve both the Tassajara Highlands project and the City's widening of Tassajara Road. The project site lies within the Eastern Alameda County Conservation Strategy (EACCS) planning area. The City of Dublin utilizes the Conservation Strategy as guidance for environmental permitting for public projects, and private development projects are encouraged to use the EACCS as a resource as well. The Conservation Strategy embodies a regional approach to permitting and mitigation for wildlife habitat impacts associated with land development, infrastructure, and other activities. The Conservation Strategy is neither a Habitat Conservation Plan nor a Natural Community Conservation Plan, but is a document intended to provide guidance during the project planning and permitting process to ensure that impacts are offset in a biologically effective manner. No HCP or NCCP was identified in the prior CEQA documents and none applies at present. There would therefore be no new or significantly more severe impacts with respect to this topic than previously analyzed. No new mitigation measures are required. City of Dublin Page 44 Initial Study/Tassajara Highlands Land Exchange Project May 2015 5. Cultural Resources Environmental Setting Potentially historic structures. No structures exist on the project site. The Eastern Dublin EIR did not identify any significant historic structures on the project site. Underground cultural resources. A cultural resources records search was conducted by the Northwest Information Center for the realignment of Tassajara Road and Fallon Road adjacent to the Fredrich property in 2002. No significant resources were identified in the vicinity. The records search noted the presence of other significant resources adjacent to Tassajara Creek to the south, near the 1-580 freeway, but these resources are not located near the project site. Native American resources. The Native American Heritage Commission review of the Sacred Lands File did not indicate the presence of Native American cultural resources within the project area. No former Native American villages, traditional use of the area or contemporary use of the area have been identified on or adjacent to the project site. Previous CEQA documents Eastern Dublin EIR. The Eastern Dublin EIR contains a number of mitigation measures to reduce anticipated impacts to cultural resources from the General Plan and EDSP project. These include: • Mitigation Measures 3.9/1.0-4.0 reduced impacts related to disruption or destruction of identified prehistoric resources (IM 3.9/A) to a less-than- significant level. These mitigations mandate a program of mechanical and/or hand subsurface testing for the presence or absence of midden deposits, recordation of identified midden sites, collection and/or testing of resources and development of a site-specific protection program for prehistoric sites. • Mitigation Measures 3.9/5.0-6.0 reduced impacts related to the disruption or destruction of unidentified prehistoric resources (IM 3.9B) to a less-than- significant level. • Mitigation Measures 3.9/7.0-12.0 reduced impacts related to disruption or destruction of identified historic resources (IM 3.9/C) to a less-than-significant level. These measures would include preparing site-specific archival research for individual resources, encourage adaptive reuse of historic resources, recordation of historic sites on local state and federal registers, as appropriate and development of preservation programs for significant resources. The 2014 Tassajara Highlands Addendum incorporated the following mitigation measures from the Fredrich Project MND and the Vargas Project MND. City of Dublin Page 45 Initial Study/Tassajara Highlands Land Exchange Project May 2015 Fredrich Project MND. The Fredrich MND referenced previous cultural resource impacts and mitigation measures from the Eastern Dublin EIR. Vargas Project MND. The Vargas MND contained one mitigation measure that reduced cultural resources on the Vargas site to a less-than-significant level. Mitigation Measure 30 required implementation of a contingency plan if an unrecorded resource is found during project construction. Work shall be halted in the vicinity of the site until a qualified archeologist can inspect the find and, if necessary, develop and implement a testing and recovery plan. The proposed project will be required to comply with the above cultural resource mitigation measures. Project Impacts a) Cause substantial adverse change to significant historic resources? No New Impact. No historic resources have been identified in the project area in both the Eastern Dublin EIR and the supplemental cultural resources survey completed for the Vargas property by Basin Research Associates in July 2006. Basin staff found that the existing dwellings on the Vargas property did not qualify for inclusion on the California Register of Historic Places and were therefore, not considered historic resources. The existing dwelling on the Fredrich property is of approximately the same age and similarly does not qualify as a significant resource. No structures exist on the project site itself. For these reasons, no new or more severe supplemental impacts have been identified for the proposed project than were disclosed in previous CEQA documents and no additional analysis is required. b, c) Cause a substantial adverse impact or destruction to archeological or paleontological resources? No New Impact The Eastern Dublin EIR identified a remote but potentially significant possibility that construction activities, including site grading, trenching and excavation, may uncover significant archeological and/ or paleontological resources on development sites. The Eastern Dublin EIR categorized these resources as pre-historic cultural resources. Three potential pre-historic sites were identified by the EIR near the Tassajara Highlands site. The Eastern Dublin EIR assumed that all pre-historic sites would be disturbed or altered in some manner. This potential impact was identified and addressed in the Eastern Dublin EIR (Impact 3.9/A) and mitigation measures 3.9/1.0 through 3.9/4.0 (page 3.9-6—3.9-7) that require subsurface testing for archeological resources; recordation and mapping of such resources; and development of a protection program for resources which qualify as "significant" under Section 15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines. Mitigation Measures 3.9/5.0 and 3.9/6.0, described above, also were adopted to address the potential disruption of any previously unidentified pre-historic or historic resources and would apply to the project as may be appropriate. The Eastern Dublin Specific Plan also contains policies (Policies 6-24 and 6-25) requiring research of archaeological resources prior to construction and determination of the significance and extent of any resources uncovered during grading and construction. City of Dublin Page 46 Initial Study/Tassajara Highlands Land Exchange Project May 2015 Therefore, no new or more severe significant impacts with respect to cultural resources have been identified that have been previously analyzed in other CEQA documents for the project area and no additional analysis is required. d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of a formal cemetery? No New Impact. Existing cultural resource mitigation measures contained in the Eastern Dublin EIR and the 2014 Tassajara Highlands Addendum reduced impacts to human remains to a less-than-significant level. No new or more severe significant impacts with respect to cultural impacts are anticipated beyond those previously analyzed. No additional analysis is required. 6. Geology and Soils Environmental Setting Geology and soils. This section is based on a preliminary geotechnical investigation completed by ENGEO on July 14, 2006 ("Preliminary Geological and Geotechnical Findings, Fredrich and Vargas Properties") that was updated by ENGEO in July 2012 ("Geotechnic Update.") These reports are hereby incorporated by reference into this Initial Study. The reports are available for review at the Dublin Community Development Department during normal business hours. Landslide potential. The project site is relatively flat and no significant risk from landslide activity is anticipated Seismic hazard. The project area does not lie within an Earthquake Fault Zone (formerly Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zone). Major active faults in the region that influence earthquake susceptibility include the San Andreas, Hayward, Calaveras, and Greenville Faults. The site is subject to strong ground shaking in the event of seismic activity, consistent with all of the Bay area. Tsunami and seiche hazards. Due to it's inland location away from any major bodies of water, the risk of damage to future improvements on the site from a tsunami or seiche is low. Previous CEQA documents Eastern Dublin EIR. The Eastern Dublin EIR contains a number of mitigation measures to reduce anticipated impacts related to Soils, Geology and Seismicity from the General Plan and EDSP project. These include: Mitigation Measure 3.6/1.0 reduced impacts related to primary effects of earthquake ground shaking (IM 3.6/B) but not to a less-than-significant level. This mitigation measure requires that future structure and infrastructure facilities be designed to applicable local and state building codes. City of Dublin Page 47 Initial Study/Tassajara Highlands Land Exchange Project May 2015 • Mitigation Measures 3.6/2.0-6.0 reduced impacts related to the secondary effects of earthquake ground shaking (IM 3.9/Q to a less-than-significant level. Mitigation measures mandate building setbacks from landslides, stabilization of unstable land forms, removal and reconstruction of unstable soils, use of engineered retaining structures, use of appropriately designed and engineered fill, and design of structures to account of potential soil failure. • Mitigation Measures 3.6/9.0-10.0 reduced impacts related to substantial alteration to landforms to a less-than significant level (IM 3.6/D). Mitigations require minimal grading plans with minimal cuts and fills and careful siting of homes and improvements to avoid excessive grading. • Mitigation Measures 3.6/14.0-16.0 reduced impacts related to expansive soils (IM 3.6/H) to a less-than-significant level. Mitigation measures require formulation of site-specific designs to overcome expansive soils, reducing the amount of moisture in the soil and by appropriate foundation and pavement design. • Mitigation Measures 3.6/17.0-19.0 reduced impacts related to natural slope stability (IM 3.6/I) to a less-than-significant level. Mitigation measures mandate formulation of use of site-specific designs based on follow-on geotechnical reviews of individual developments, limiting the location of improvements on downslopes of unstable soils, removal/reconstruction of potentially unstable slope areas and installation of surface and subsurface slope drainage improvements. • Mitigation Measures 3.6/20.0-26.0 reduced impacts related to cut and fill slope stability (IM 3.6/J) to a less-than-significant level. These measures include developing grading plans for hillside areas that minimize grading and associate cuts and fills, ensuring that grading plans comply with appropriate building codes, utilizing keys and benches as part of grading to ensure slope stability and minimizing use of unreinforced fill slopes, appropriate compaction of fill areas and on-going maintenance of slope drainage areas. • Mitigation Measure 3.6/27.0 reduced the impact related to short-term construction-related erosion and sedimentation (IM 3.6/K) to a less-than- significant level. This measure includes limiting timing of construction to avoid the rainy season and implementing a number of other specific erosion control measures. • Mitigation Measure 3-6/28.0 reduced the impact related to long-term erosion and sedimentation (IM 3.6/Q to a less-than-significant level. This measure includes installation of erosion control facilities into individual development projects, including sediment catch basins, creek bank stabilization, revegetation of graded areas and similar measures. The proposed project will be required to comply with applicable soil, geologic and seismic mitigation measures. City of Dublin Page 48 Initial Study/Tassajara Highlands Land Exchange Project May 2015 Project Impacts a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse impacts, including loss, injury or death related to ground rupture, seismic ground shaking,ground failure, or landslides? No New Impact. The Eastern Dublin EIR identified that the primary and secondary effects of ground-shaking (Impacts 3.6/B and 3.6/C) could be potentially significant impacts. With implementation of Eastern Dublin EIR Mitigation Measure 3.6/1.0, the primary effects of ground-shaking are reduced but not to a less-than-significant level by using modern seismic design for resistance to lateral forces in construction, which would reduce the potential for structure failure, major structural damage and loss of life. Mitigation Measures 3.6/2.0 through 3.6/7.0 contained in the Eastern Dublin EIR will be implemented to reduce the secondary effects of ground-shaking on proposed project improvements but not to a less-than-significant level. Impact 3.6/B found that impacts related to seismic action in the Eastern Dublin area could damage structures and infrastructure and would be significant and unavoidable. This finding also applies to the approved Tassajara Highlands project and the current proposed project as well. Adherence to Mitigation Measures 23 contained in the Vargas MND by the project developer will ensure that infrastructure facilities built on the project site will comply with generally recognized seismic safety standards so that effects due to ground shaking and ground failure will be less-than-significant. Overall, no new or more severe significant impacts would occur with respect to ground rupture, ground shaking, ground failure or landslides than have been previously analyzed. No additional analysis is required. b) Is the site subject to substantial erosion and/or the loss of topsoil? No New Impact. Construction of the proposed project improvements on the project site would modify the existing ground surface and alter patterns of surface runoff and infiltration. These actions could result in a short-term increase in erosion and sedimentation caused by grading activities. Long-term impacts could result from modification of the ground-surface and removal of existing vegetation (Eastern Dublin EIR Impact 3.6/Q. With implementation of Mitigation Measures 3.6/27.0 and 28.0 contained in the Eastern Dublin EIR and re-stated above, both of these impacts would be less-than-significant. The Eastern Dublin Specific Plan also contains a policy (Policy 6-43), which requires that new development be designed to provide effective control of soil erosion as a result of construction activities. This policy will be applied to the proposed project. The project includes development of the type and in the general location assumed in the prior CEQA documents. With adherence to previous mitigation measures, there would be no new or more severe significant impacts than have been previously analyzed in other CEQA documents for this site. No further analysis is required. City of Dublin Page 49 Initial StudylTassajara Highlands Land Exchange Project May 2015 c,d) Is the site located on soil that is unstable or expansive or result in potential lateral spreading, liquefaction, landslide or collapse? No New Impact. Consistent with Eastern Dublin EIR Mitigation Measure 3.6/7.0, the Tassajara Highlands project developer has commissioned a preliminary geotechnical investigation by ENGEO as updated in 2012. The report did not identify impacts related to landslide hazard on the site, although the issue of shrink-swell potential or lateral spreading was not addressed in this report. The ENGEO report and follow-on construction-level reports will be required, pursuant to standard City development requirements, to contain detailed design and construction methods to minimize impacts from shrink-swell and/ or lateral spreading potential for future site improvements should these conditions be found on the site. With adherence to Eastern Dublin EIR mitigation measures, Eastern Dublin Specific Plan policies and the findings of the construction-level geotechnical report, no new or more severe significant impacts have been identified related to lateral spreading, liquefaction and other soil hazards than have been analyzed in previous CEQA documents. No additional analysis is needed. e) Have soils incapable of supporting on-site septic tanks if sewers are not available? No New Impact. No sewer connection or septic tanks are proposed as part of the project, so there would be no new or more severe impacts with regard to septic systems. 7. Greenhouse Gas Emissions Environmental Setting Since certification of the Eastern Dublin EIR in 1993 and prior Mitigated Negative Declarations, the issue of contribution of greenhouse gasses to climate change has become a more prominent issue of concern as evidenced by passage of AB 32 in 2006. On March 18, 2010, amendments to the State CEQA Guidelines took effect which set forth requirements for the analysis of greenhouse gasses. The topic of the project's contribution to greenhouse gas emissions and climate change was not analyzed in the Eastern Dublin EIR and the 2006 and 2007 MNDs. Since the Eastern Dublin EIR and prior MNDs have already been approved, the determination of whether greenhouse gasses and climate change needs to be analyzed for this proposed project is governed by the law on supplemental or subsequent EIRs (Public Resources Code section 21166 and Guidelines, Sections 15162 and 15163). Greenhouse gas and climate change is not required to be analyzed under those standards unless it constitutes "new information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known at the time the previous EIR was certified as complete (CEQA Guidelines Sec. 15162 (a) (3).) Greenhouse gas and climate change impacts is not new information that was not known or could not have been known at the time the Eastern Dublin EIR and the prior MNDs. The issue of climate change and greenhouse gasses was widely known prior to these CEQA reviews. The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change was established in 1992. The regulation of greenhouse gas emissions to reduce climate change impacts was extensively debated and analyzed throughout the early 1990s. The studies and analyses of this issue resulted in the adoption of the Kyoto Protocol in 1997. In the early and mid 2000s, GHGs and climate change were extensively discussed and City of Dublin Page 50 Initial Study/Tassajara Highlands Land Exchange Project May 2015 analyzed in California. In 2000, SB 1771 established the California Climate Action Registry for the recordation of greenhouse gas emissions to provide information about potential environmental impacts. In 2005, the Governor issued Executive Order # S-03- 05 establishing greenhouse gas emission reduction targets in California. AB 32 was adopted in 2006. Therefore, the impact of greenhouse gases on climate change was known at the time of the certification of the Eastern Dublin EIR in May 1993 and the adoption of the prior MNDs in 2006 and 2007. Under CEQA standards, it is not new information that requires analysis in a supplemental EIR or negative declaration. No supplemental environmental analysis of the project's impacts on this issue is required under CEQA. Project Impacts a,b Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment or conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases? As discussed above, no additional environmental analysis is required under CEQA Section 21166. 8. Hazards and Hazardous Materials This section of the Initial Study is based on a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment prepared by ENGEO in August 2014 ('Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, Vacant City Parcel, Dublin, California"). This document is incorporated into this Initial Study by reference and is available for review at the Dublin Community Development Department during normal business hours. Environmental Setting The Phase I analysis prepared by ENGEO in 2014 identified the possible presence of aerially deposited lead on the site from vehicle use on Tassajara Road. Further testing by ENGEO determined that lead deposits are below actionable levels and do not constitute a Recognized Environmental Condition. Previous CEQA documents The 2014 Addendum incorporated the following mitigation measures from the Fredrich Project MND and the Vargas Project MND. Fredrich Project MND. This document re-states Eastern Dublin EIR mitigation measures for fire hazard reduction (Mitigation Measures 3.4/11.0 and 12.0). Vargas Project MND. The Vargas MND contains Mitigation Measure 24, which reduced impacts related to wildfire hazard by requiring development on the Vargas site to be designed in a manner consistent with the City's Wildfire Management Plan. Future dwellings are also required to include automatic sprinklers as well as being in compliance with Alameda County Fire Department rules and regulations, City of Dublin standards and the California Fire Code. Project Impacts City of Dublin Page 51 Initial Study/Tassajara Highlands Land Exchange Project May 2015 a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use or disposal of hazardous materials? No New Impact. There would be no impact with regard to transport, use or disposal of hazardous materials, since the proposed project involves construction of roadway and drainage improvements on the site. There would be no use, storage or transport of significant quantities of hazardous materials associated with the proposed development. The Phase I analysis prepared by ENGEO in 2014 identified the possible presence of aerially deposited lead on the site from vehicle use on Tassajara Road. Further testing by ENGEO determined that lead deposits are below actionable levels and do not constitute a Recognized Environmental Condition. Therefore, the impact from aerially deposited lead is less than significant. No new or more severe impacts would therefore occur on the site than have been previously analyzed and no new analysis is required. b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? No New Impact. Based on the discussion in subsection "a," above, no new impacts are anticipated with respect to the release of hazardous materials and no new analysis is required. c) Emit hazardous materials or handle hazardous materials or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? No Impact. Approval and implementation of the proposed project would have no impact with regard to this topic, since no schools exist or are planned near the project area. No new or more severe significant impacts with respect to emission or handing of hazardous materials within one-quarter of an existing or planned school. No additional analysis is required. d) Is the site listed as a hazardous materials site? No New Impact. No properties comprising the project area are listed on the State of California Department of Toxic Substances Control as an identified hazardous site as of August 2014. There is therefore no new or more severe significant impacts with respect to this topic than have been previously analyzed and no additional analysis is required. e,f) Is the site located within an airport land use plan of a public airport or private airstrip? No New Impact. The project site is not located near a public or private airport, airfield or airstrip. No new or more severe significant impacts are anticipated regarding airport safety than have been previously analyzed. No additional analysis is required. g) Interference with an emergency evacuation plan? No New Impact. The proposed project would include the construction of right-of-way improvements, a detention basin and a trail. No emergency evacuation plan would be affected since no roadways would be blocked. No new or more severe significant impacts would result than have been previously analyzed and no additional analysis is required. h) Expose people and structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? No New Impact. The City of Dublin Page 52 Initial Study/Tassajara Highlands Land Exchange Project May 2015 project area is located in a partially undeveloped area with residential development approved to the north (Tassajara Highlands), east (Moller Ranch and Mission Peak) and far west (Dublin Ranch West). However, significant natural areas remain to the near west (Tassajara Creek and adjacent open space easement area) and northwest (Moller Creek). The development/ open space interface was addressed in prior CEQA reviews. Adherence to mitigation measures contained in previous CEQA documents will reduce impacts to wildland fire risk to a less-than- significant level. There is no new or more severe significant impacts than previously analyzed. No additional analysis is required. 9. Hydrology and Water Quality Environmental Setting Local surface water. The project site is located within the Alameda Creek watershed which drains to the San Francisco Bay via the Arroyo Del Valle and Arroyo de la Laguna. Moller Creek, a tributary of Tassajara Creek, flows in a northeast-southwest direction northwest of the project area to Tassajara Creek to the west. The main course of Tassajara Creek flows in a north-south direction west of the site. Existing site conditions. The site is undeveloped but has been previously graded. The project area is located within the jurisdiction of Zone 7 of the Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation District (Zone 7). Zone 7 provides maintenance of regional drainage facilities within this portion of Alameda County. Surface water quality. Water quality in California is regulated by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES), which controls the discharge of pollutants to water bodies from point and non-point sources. In the San Francisco Bay area, this program is administered by the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). Federal regulations issued in November 1990 expanded the authority of the RWQCB to include permitting of stormwater discharges from municipal storm sewer systems, industrial processes, and construction sites that disturb areas larger than one acre of land area. The City of Dublin is a co-permittee of the Alameda County Clean Water Program, which is a coordinated effort by local governments in Alameda County to improve water quality in San Francisco Bay. Flooding. The project site lies outside of a 100-year flood hazard area (Flood Insurance Rate Map, Community Panel No. 03626G) City of Dublin Page 53 Initial Study/Tassajara Highlands Land Exchange Project May 2015 Previous CEOA documents Eastern Dublin EIR. The Eastern Dublin EIR contains a number of mitigation measures to reduce anticipated impacts related to hydrology and storm drainage from the General Plan and EDSP project. These include: • Mitigation Measures 3.5/44.0-48 reduced impacts related potential flooding (IM 3.5/Y) to a less-than-significant level. These mitigation measures require new storm drainage facilities as part of new development, requires developers to prepare storm drain plans for individual development projects and requires new flood control facilities to alleviate downstream flooding potential. • Mitigation Measures 3.5/51.0 to 55.0 reduced impacts related to non-point source pollution (IM 3.5/AA) to a less-than-significant level. These mitigation measures mandate that specific water quality investigations be submitted as part of development projects and that the City should develop community-based programs to educate residents and businesses to reduce non-point source pollution. These mitigations also require all development to meet the requirements of the City's Best Management Practices, the City's NPDES permit and the County's Urban Runoff Clean Water Program to mitigate stormwater pollution. The 2014 Tassajara Highlands Addendum incorporated the following mitigation measures from the Vargas Project MND. Fredrich Project MND. No Mitigation Measures applicable to the project were included in this MND. Vargas Project MND. The adopted MND contains the following mitigation measures. • Mitigation Measure 25 required the project developer to prepare a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) that lists Best Management Practices to reduce construction and post-construction activities to a less-than-significant level. Specific BMPs may include revegetation of graded areas, use of bio-filters and similar methods. The SWPPP shall conform to Regional Water Board and City of Dublin standards. A Notice of Intent shall also be obtained by the applicant from the State Water Resources Control Board. • Mitigation Measure 26 required the project developer to submit a drainage and hydrology study to the Dublin Public Works Department. The report shall identify historic stormwater flows from the site, estimated increases in stormwater flow and the ability of downstream facilities to accommodate additional flows. The report shall be submitted prior to the issuance of a grading permit and shall also document the project's fair share contribution to fund any needed downstream drainage system improvements. City of Dublin Page 54 Initial Study/Tassajara Highlands Land Exchange Project May 2015 • Mitigation Measure 27 required that the siting of storm drainage improvements be consistent with Resource Management Policies of the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan. The proposed project shall adhere to all of the applicable above previous mitigation measures. The proposed project itself includes construction and operation of a bioretention basin and detention basis to address stormwater runoff from the Tassajara Highlands Project as well as the widening of Tassajara Road. Project Impacts a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? No New Impact. Approval and construction of the proposed project would add a limited area of impervious surfaces to the essentially undeveloped site that would increase the amount of stormwater runoff and potentially degrade water quality. Mitigation Measure 3.5/51.0 contained in the EDSP EIR requires each project developer to prepare and submit a water quality investigation. Mitigation Measure 25 contained in the Vargas MND, incorporated in the 2014 Tassajara Highlands Addendum, also requires the preparation of a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan to minimize release of water pollutants that would exceed water quality standards or waste discharge requirements. A Stormwater Management Plan has been prepared for the Tassajara Highlands project site (Stormwater Management Plan, Tassajara Highlands, Wood Rogers, Inc). Adherence to the existing mitigation measures to minimize water pollution, the Stormwater Management Plan and current standard City of Dublin water quality requirements will ensure that no new or more severe significant impacts with respect to water quality violations or wastewater discharges would result than have been previously analyzed. No additional analysis is required. b) Substantially deplete groundwater recharge areas or lowering of water table? No New Impact. No new or more significant impacts are anticipated with regard to depletion of groundwater resources than have been analyzed in previous CEQA documents. The project would not use groundwater and most of the project site would remain pervious, allowing recharge of the underground aquifer. Also, an element of the project is a detention basin that would allow recharge of the aquifer in a location near Moller Creek and Tassajara Creek. Also, the proposed water source for this project would rely on surface water supplies from DSRSD and not local groundwater supplies. The project site is not identified as a groundwater recharge area in the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan. Fore these reasons, no new or more severe significant impacts would occur with respect to this topic than has been previously analyzed in other CEQA documents. No additional analysis is required. c) Substantially alter drainage patterns, including streambed courses such that substantial siltation or erosion would occur? No New Impact. New impervious surfaces would be added to the project site to accommodate right-of-way improvements and pathways. Existing drainage patterns may be slightly modified based on proposed development. However adherence to Mitigation Measure 46.0 contained in the City of Dublin Page 55 Initial Study/Tassajara Highlands Land Exchange Project May 2015 Eastern Dublin EIR and Mitigation Measures 25 and 26 contained in the Vargas MND and incorporated in the 2014 Addendum would reduce changed drainage patterns to a less-than-significant level. The project's detention basin outfall, which is located on the Tassajara Highlands project site, has been designed to avoid significant impacts to the Moller Creek streambed (Source: Wood Rogers Engineering, Tassajara Highlands Storm Water Management Plan). No new or more severe significant impacts would result with respect to changed drainage patterns than have been previously analyzed and no new analysis is needed. d) Substantially alter drainage patterns or result in flooding, either on or off the project site? No New Impact. No impacts or significant changes to drainage patterns are anticipated as part of the project. The project's detention basin has been designed to minimize potential flooding from the Tassajara Highlands Project and Tassajara Road widening. See Stormwater Management Plan, Wood Rodgers, Inc. (Feb. 27, 2015). No new or more severe significant impacts are anticipated than have been previously analyzed and no additional analysis is required. e) Create Stormwater runoff that would exceed the capacity of drainage systems or add substantial amounts of polluted runoff? No New Impact. Adherence to Eastern Dublin EIR Mitigation Measures 3.5/44.0-48.0 will reduce drainage and pollution impacts to a less-than-significant level. These mitigation measures require new storm drainage facilities as part of new development and requires developers to prepare storm drain plans for individual development projects such as the Tassajara Highlands project. Mitigation Measure 26 also requires completion of a drainage and hydrology study to identify any drainage system deficiencies and funding of system upgrades. Based upon this analysis, the project includes a hydromodification basin to ensure that the local and regional drainage system would not be exceeded. See Stormwater Management Plan, Wood Rodgers, Inc. (Feb. 27, 2015). Other water quality features have been proposed for the Tassajara Highlands Project, as previously described. No new or more severe significant impacts have been identified in this Initial Study regarding increases in stormwater runoff than have been previously analyzed and no additional analysis is required. f) Substantially degrade water quality? No New Impact. This potential issue and has been addressed above in items "a" and "e." There are no new or more severe significant impacts beyond those identified in prior CEQA reviews and no additional analysis is required. g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped by a Flood Insurance Rate Map? No New Impact. The proposed project does not include housing and would not be located within a 100-year flood hazard area. No new or more severe significant impacts are anticipated than have been previously analyzed and no additional analysis is required. h, i) Place within a 100-year flood hazard boundary structures that impeded or redirect flood flow, including dam failures? No New Impact. Refer to item "g," above. City of Dublin Page 56 Initial Study/Tassajara Highlands Land Exchange Project May 2015 j) Result in inundation by seiche, tsunami or mudflows? No New Impact. The project site is located well inland from San Francisco Bay or other major bodies of water to be impacted by a tsunami or seiche. No new or more severe significant impacts would therefore result with respect to seiches, tsunamis or mudflows than have been previously analyzed. No additional analysis is needed. 10. Land Use and Planning Environmental Setting The project site is relatively level, due in part to previous grading for roadways. Tassajara Road forms the easterly and southerly boundary of the site and Moller Creek flows northwest of the site. Surrounding land uses include two residences to the north that will be replaced by the approved Tassajara Highlands project. Land to the west is within a permanent open space easement area within and adjacent to Tassajara Creek. The Dublin Ranch West site (also known as the Wallis Ranch) lies west of the open space easement and has been approved for residential development at a mix of densities and product types. Moller Creek flows to the northwest of the project site. Located to the east of the project site is a residential project, known as the Fallon Crossing/Mission Peak that is currently under construction by Standard Pacific consisting of 106 single-family units. Project Impacts a) Physically divide an established community? No New Impact. The project site is located along the frontage of Tassajara Road and was originally planned to be occupied largely by Tassajara Road widening. Therefore, no existing, established community would be physically divided. No new or more severe significant impacts have been identified in this Initial Study than have been previously analyzed and no additional analysis is required. b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan,policy or regulation? No New Impact. The proposed project is consistent with the General Plan, Eastern Dublin Specific Plan and zoning. No changes are proposed to any regulation affecting environmental protection. No new or more severe significant impacts are anticipated with regard to land use regulations than have been previously analyzed in other applicable CEQA documents and no additional analysis is required. c) Conflict with a habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? No New Impact. The project site lies within the Eastern Alameda County Conservation Strategy (EACCS) planning area. The City of Dublin utilizes the Conservation Strategy as guidance for environmental permitting for public projects, and private development projects are encouraged to use the EACCS as a resource as well. The Conservation Strategy embodies a regional approach to permitting and mitigation for wildlife habitat impacts associated with land development, infrastructure, and other activities. The Conservation Strategy is neither a Habitat Conservation Plan nor a Natural Community Conservation Plan, but is a document intended to provide guidance during the project planning and City of Dublin Page 57 Initial Study/Tassajara Highlands Land Exchange Project May 2015 permitting process to ensure that impacts are offset in a biologically effective manner. The project site has never been within an HCP or NCCP area. There would therefore be no new or significantly more severe significant impacts than previously analyzed in the Eastern Dublin EIR and other CEQA documents prepared for this site and no additional analysis is needed. 11. Mineral Resources Environmental Setting The project site contains no known mineral resources. This is based on the Eastern Dublin EIR. Project Impacts a, b) Result in the loss of availability of regionally or locally significant mineral resources? No New Impact. The Eastern Dublin EIR does not indicate that significant deposits of minerals exist in the project area, so no new or more severe significant impacts would occur than have been previously analyzed. 12. Noise Environmental Setting The City's Noise Element of the General Plan defines "noise" as a sound or series of sounds that are intrusive, irritating, objectionable and/or disruptive to daily life. Noise is primarily a concern with regard to noise sensitive land uses such as residences, schools, churches and hospitals. Although noise is controlled around commercial, industrial and recreation uses, community noise levels rarely exceed maximum recommended levels for these uses. Regulatory Setting The Noise Element of the General Plan identifies the following primary sources of noise in Dublin: traffic noise from freeways and major roadways within the community and noise generated by the BART line adjacent to the I-580 freeway. The Noise Element identifies the following maximum noise exposure levels by land use type. City of Dublin Page 58 Initial Study/Tassajara Highlands Land Exchange Project May 2015 Table 1. City of Dublin Land Use/Noise Compatibility Standards (decibels) Land Use Normally Conditionally Normally Clearly Acceptable Acceptable Unacceptable Unacceptable Residential 60 or less 60-70 70-75 75+ Lodging Facilities 60 or less 61-80 71-80 Over 80 Schools,churches, 60 or less 61-70 71-80 Over 80 nursing homes Neighborhood F;;70;oor less 61-65 66-70 Over 70 arks Office/Retail less 71-75 76-80 Over 80 Industrial or less 71-75 Over 75 -- Source: Dublin General Plan Noise Element, Table 9-1, 2012 The City of Dublin also enforces an interior noise standard of 45 decibels for residential dwellings. Previous CEQA document Eastern Dublin EIR. The Eastern Dublin EIR notes that major noise sources within Eastern Dublin include traffic noise from arterial roadways, helicopter overflights from Camp Parks RFTA, west of Tassajara Road, noise generated by development of land uses under the Specific Plan and General Plan and construction noise. No specific significant future noise sources are identified on the project site. The Eastern Dublin EIR contains a number of mitigation measures to reduce anticipated noise impacts from the General Plan and EDSP project. These include: • Mitigation Measures 3.10/1.0 reduced impacts related to exposure of proposed housing to future roadway noise (IM 3.10/A) to a less-than-significant level. This mitigation measure require that all future development projects within a future CNEL 60 noise contour have an acoustic analysis prepared to ensure that future dwelling units meet City interior and exterior noise exposure levels. • Mitigation Measures 3.10/4.0 and 5.0 reduced impacts related to construction noise (IM 10/E) to a less-than-significant level. These mitigation measures require developers to submit construction noise management plans and to limit hours of construction operations among other things. The proposed project will be required to comply with Eastern Dublin EIR Mitigation Measures 3.1-/4.0 and 5.0. Project Impacts a) Would the project expose persons or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established by the General Plan or other applicable standard? No New Impact. Long- term operational noise associated with the proposed project would arise from use of the City right-of-way and on-site trail, as well as periodic maintenance activities at the City of Dublin Page 59 Initial Study/Tassajara Highlands Land Exchange Project May 2015 detention basin. These activities would not result in significantly high noise levels and would not be immediately adjacent to sensitive receptors. No new or more severe significant noise impacts have been identified than have previously analyzed. No additional analysis is needed. The project would contribute to cumulative noise conditions identified as Impact 3.10/B in the Eastern Dublin EIR, which is exposure of existing residences to future roadway noise. This impact was found to be significant and unavoidable in the Eastern Dublin EIR. Also, EDSP EIR Impact 3.10/D, exposure of proposed residential development to noise from future military training activities at Parks RFTA, was found to be significant and unavoidable. b) Exposure of people to excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? No New Impact. The proposed project would not include construction or operational elements that would result in significant groundborne vibration levels to nearby residents (source: Mike O'Hara, applicant representative, 8/8/13). No new or more significant severe impacts would result with respect to vibration or groundborne vibration than was analyzed in previous CEQA documents on the project site and no additional analysis is needed. c) Substantial increases in permanent in ambient noise levels? No New Impact. Increased levels of permanent noise on the project that would occur based on project construction would be reduced to a less-than significant level through adherence to applicable mitigation measures contained in the Eastern Dublin EIR, mitigation measures contained in other CEQA documents prepared for previous projects in the project vicinity and the Dublin Noise Ordinance. No new or more severe significant impacts have been identified in this Initial Study than have been previously analyzed and no additional analysis is needed. d) Substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels without the project? No New Impact. Increased levels of short-term construction noise generated on the project site would be reduced to a less-than- significant level through adherence to applicable mitigation measures contained in the Eastern Dublin EIR and the Dublin Noise Ordinance. These measures require project developers to limit hours of construction activity and to prepare construction noise management plans. No new or more severe significant impacts have been identified in this Initial Study than have been previously analyzed and no additional analysis is needed. e, f) For a project located within an airport land use plan, would the project expose people to excessive noise levels? No New Impact. No portions of the project site are located within the airport referral area for Livermore Municipal Airport. No new or more severe significant impacts are therefore anticipated in terms of this topic than was previously analyzed in previous CEQA documents. No additional analysis is needed. City of Dublin Page 60 Initial Study/Tassajara Highlands Land Exchange Project May 2015 13. Population and Housing Environmental Setting The project site is vacant and contains no structures. Project Impacts a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly or indirectly? No New Impact. Approval of the proposed project would not induce substantial additional population growth in the Eastern Dublin area, since development in the vicinity has long been envisioned in the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan and Dublin General Plan since its adoption in 1993. The proposed project's detention basin would serve fewer dwellings than originally anticipated in the Dublin General Plan and the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan (101 units previously approved v. 54 approved in the 2014 Tassajara Highlands Project approvals. Therefore, the proposed project would serve less population growth than previously anticipated. No new or more severe significant impacts than were previously analyzed are therefore anticipated with respect to this topic and no additional analysis is required. b,c) Would the project displace substantial numbers of existing housing units or people? No New Impact. The project site is vacant and no new or more severe significant impacts than were previously analyzed are therefore anticipated with respect housing displacement. No additional analysis is needed. 14. Public Services Environmental Setting The following provide essential services to the community: • Fire Protection. Fire protection services are provided by the Alameda County Fire Department. The Department provides fire suppression, emergency medical response, fire prevention, education, building inspection services and hazardous material control. The nearest station is Station 18 at 4800 Fallon Road. • Police Protection: Police and security protection is provided by the Alameda County Sheriff under contact to the City of Dublin. • Schools. The Dublin Unified School District provides K-12 educational services for properties on the project site. • Library Services: Alameda County Library service. City of Dublin Page 61 Initial Study/Tassajara Highlands Land Exchange Project May 2015 • Maintenance. Maintenance of streets, roads and other governmental facilities are the responsibility of the City of Dublin. Previous CEQA document Eastern Dublin EIR. Applicable mitigation measures contained in Eastern Dublin EIR addressing fire and police protection include: • Mitigation Measure 3.4/7.0: Establish appropriate funding mechanisms to cover up- front costs of capital fire improvements. • Mitigation Measure 3.4/9.0: Incorporate Fire Department recommendations on project design relating to access, water pressure, fire safety and prevention into the requirements of development approval. • Mitigation Measure 3.4/10.0: Ensure, as a requirement of project approval, that an assessment district, homeowners association or other mechanism is in place that will provide regular long-term maintenance of the urban/open space interface. • Mitigation Measure 3.4/12.0: The City shall work with the Fire Department and qualified biologists to prepare a wildfire management plan for the project area. • Mitigation Measure 3.4/1.0: Provide additional personnel and facilities and revise beats as necessary in order to establish and maintain City standards for police protection service in Eastern Dublin. • Mitigation Measure 3.4/3.0-5.0: Incorporate into the requirements of project approval Police Department recommendations on project design that affect traffic safety and crime prevention. The project will be required to comply with applicable mitigation measures from the Eastern Dublin EIR. Project Impacts a) Fire protection? No New Impact. No structures requiring fire protection would be added to the project site, but proposed development on the site will be required to be consistent with the City's adopted Wildfire Management Plan (Eastern Dublin EIR Mitigation Measure 3.4/12.0). For these reasons, there would be no new or substantially more severe impacts with to fire service associated with the proposed project beyond that analyzed in previous CEQA documents. No additional analysis is required. b) Police protection? No New Impact. Similar to fire protection, no structures requiring police protection would be added to the project site. Eastern Dublin EIR Mitigation Measures require the Tassajara Highlands project to pay City of Dublin public facility impact fees to assist in funding new police facilities (EDSP EIR Mitigation Measure 3.4/1.0), incorporating Police Department safety and security requirements into that project (EDSP EIR Mitigation Measures 3.4/3.0-5.0). City of Dublin Page 62 Initial Studyffassajara Highlands Land Exchange Project May 2015 For these reasons, there would be no new or substantially more severe impacts with respect to police service associated with the proposed project beyond that analyzed in previous CEQA documents and no additional analysis is needed. c) Schools? No New Impact. No residences would be constructed on the project site. Therefore, the project would not contribute to school demand. There would be no new or substantially more severe significant impacts with respect to this impact than has been previously analyzed in previous CEQA documents. d) Other governmental service, including maintenance of public facilities? No New Impact. Maintenance of public facilities would continue to be provided by the City of Dublin with no new impacts in regard to this topic. New public facilities will be required to be designed to meet City of Dublin standards. There would therefore be no new or substantially more severe significant impacts with respect to this impact than has been previously analyzed in previous CEQA documents. No new analysis is required. 15. Recreation Environmental Setting No neighborhood or community parks and/or recreation services or facilities exist on the project site. However, the City of Dublin maintains a wide range of park facilities throughout the community. Regional park facilities are provided by the East Bay Regional Park District, which maintains a large number of regional parks, trails and similar recreation facilities in Alameda and Contra Costa County. The project applicant is planning to construct a recreational trail along the western side of the project site along the east side of Tassajara Creek which will extend to the project site. Previous CEQA document Eastern Dublin EIR. Applicable mitigation measures contained in Eastern Dublin EIR addressing recreation include: • Mitigation Measure 3.4/29.0: Ensure, as a part of the approval process, that each new development provide its fair share of planned open space, parklands and trail corridors. • Mitigation Measure 3.4/31.0: Calculate and assess in-lieu park fees based on the City's parkland dedication ordinance. Credit towards parkland dedication requirements will only be given for level or gently sloping areas suitable for active recreation use. City of Dublin Page 63 Initial Study/Tassajara Highlands Land Exchange Project May 2015 • Mitigation Measure 3.4/36.0: Require developer to dedicate public access easements along ridgetops and stream corridors to accommodate the development of trails and staging areas. Project Impacts al Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood or regional parks? No New Impact. Approval and construction of the proposed project would not create demand for parks; instead, the proposed project would provide a trail that would help meet demand for recreational facilities. There would therefore be no new or more severe significant impacts with respect to recreation than were previously analyzed. b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction of recreational facilities? See item "a," above. 16. Transportation/Traffic Environmental Setting Roadways and freeways. The project area is served by Tassajara Road, an arterial road that provides access from southern Contra Costa County to the I-580 freeway and southerly into Alameda County south of the I-580 freeway. Existing transit service. The Livermore/Amador Valley Transit Authority (LAVTA) provides bus service in Dublin and throughout the Tri-Valley. The Bay Area Rapid Transit District (BART) provides regional rapid transit service with the nearest station located at the Dublin Transit Center, located on the south side of Dublin Boulevard just west of Arnold Road. Limited bus service is currently provided to the project site. Existing Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities. There are no marked pedestrian facilities adjacent to the proposed project site along Tassajara Road. However, there is a striped and paved shoulder for bicycles on either side of Tassajara Road adjacent to the project site. Previous CEQA documents Eastern Dublin EIR. The Eastern Dublin EIR contains a number of mitigation measures to reduce anticipated traffic impacts from the General Plan and EDSP project. These measures generally include construction of new roadways, widening of existing roadways and improvements to local freeway facilities to accommodate anticipated increases in the number of vehicles associated with the build out of the Eastern Dublin area. With the exceptions noted below, the EIR found that all traffic and transportation impacts could be reduced to less-than-significant levels with adherence to mitigation measures identified in the EIR. A number of impacts could not be reduced to a level of insignificance even with mitigations. These include: impacts to the I-580 freeway City of Dublin Page 64 Initial StudylTassajara Highlands Land Exchange Project May 2015 between I-680 and Hacienda Drive (IM 3.3/B), impacts to the I-580 Freeway between Tassajara Road and Airway Boulevard (IM 3.3/C), cumulative freeway impacts (IM 3.3/E) impacts to Santa Rita Road and T-580 Eastbound ramps (IM 3.3/I), and cumulative impacts to Tassajara Road (IM 3.3/N). Fredrich Project MND. This CEQA document included the following mitigation measures that affect the project site: • Mitigation Measure 79 required the project developer to advance funds to the City to acquire right-of-way and construct roadway improvements identified in the September 25, 2005 TJKM Transportation Consultants traffic impact analysis for the proposed Fallon Crossings Development project. Vargas Project MND. The following Mitigation Measures were included in the Vargas MND that affect the project site: • Mitigation Measure 29 required the project developer to widen Tassajara Road between North Dublin Ranch Drive and the City/County line to four lanes, in the event this project is developed prior to the Moller Ranch/Casamira or the Fallon Crossings projects. Additional property may be required for dedication along the project frontage, as determined by the City Engineer. The proposed project includes part of the implementation of the above transportation and circulation mitigation measures. Project Impacts a,b) Conflict with applicable plans related to the effectiveness of the circulation system, including all modes of travel, including intersections, streets, highways and other components or conflict with an applicable congestion management program, including level of service standards, travel demand measures and other applicable standards? No New Impact. The Eastern Dublin EIR considered the development of the Tassajara Highlands project site with residential land uses and adopted mitigation measures to address the impacts thereof. Additional analysis of increased traffic and circulation impacts occurred in 2006, as part of the Fredrich MND and in 2007 as part of the Vargas property development. The two approved projects would have contained up to 101 dwellings (68 dwellings on the Fredrich site and 33 dwellings on the Vargas site. Because the 2014 Tassajara Highlands approval permits only a total of 54 dwellings, the traffic and circulation impacts of that Tassajara Highlands project are reduced. As noted above, the proposed project would provide local traffic mitigation measures identified in previous CEQA documents by improving Tassajara Road. There would therefore not be any new or more severe significant impacts on the roadway system that was previously analyzed in other CEQA documents and no new analysis is needed. However, by facilitating the Tassajara Highlands project, the proposed project would also contribute to significant and unavoidable cumulative project impacts as part of the larger Eastern Dublin project. The City of Dublin Page 65 Initial Study/Tassajara Highlands Land Exchange Project May 2015 Eastern Dublin EIR identified such impacts on the following roads and transportation facilities: • I-580 freeway between I-680 and Hacienda Drive; • The Santa Rita Road/I-580 eastbound ramps; • The Dublin Boulevard/Hacienda Drive and Dublin Boulevard/Tassajara Road intersection; • Other impacts to Tassajara Road, as identified in the EIR. c) Change in air traffic patterns? No New Impact. The proposed project includes road and drainage improvements and would have no impact on air traffic patterns. No new or more severe significant impacts would result with respect to this topic than was previously analyzed in other CEQA documents. No new analysis is needed. d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature or incompatible use? No New Impact. The right-of-way improvements included in the proposed project have been designed to comply with current City engineering design standards and other safety standards to ensure that no safety hazards would be created or increased. No new or more severe significant impacts with respect to design hazards would be created than previously analyzed. No additional analysis is needed. e) Result in inadequate emergency access? No New Impact. Proposed project improvements would include a limited-access driveway for maintenance purposes. Otherwise, there would be no residences or other site improvements that would require emergency access from the site. No new or more severe significant impacts would result with respect to this topic and no additional analysis is needed. f) Conflict with adopted policies, plans or programs regarding public transit, pedestrian facilities or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities? No New Impact. No conflicts to plans, policies or programs that promote public transit, pedestrian use or similar features have been identified. The current project would include sidewalks along Tassajara Road to allow for enhanced pedestrian circulation for future project residents. No new or more severe significant impacts have been identified in this Initial Study that has been previously analyzed in other CEQA documents for the project site. No additional analysis is needed. City of Dublin Page 66 Initial Study/Tassajara Highlands Land Exchange Project May 2015 16. Utilities and Service Systems Environmental Setting The project area is served by the following service providers: • Water supply and distribution: Dublin San Ramon Services District (DSRSD). • Sewage collection and treatment; recycled water: DSRSD. • Storm drainage: City of Dublin and Zone 7. • Solid waste service: Amador Valley Industries • Electrical and natural gas power: Pacific Gas and Electric Co. • Communications: AT &T Previous CEQA documents Eastern Dublin EIR. In terms of water resources, the Eastern Dublin EIR identified overdraft of groundwater resources (Impact 3.5/P) as a potentially significant impact Adherence to Mitigation Measures 3.5/24.0 and 25.0 would reduce this impact to a level of insignificant. These measures require the City of Dublin to coordinate with DSRSD to develop recycled water resources and otherwise carefully use water resources and that all new development in the Eastern Dublin project area to connect to the DSRSD water system. Impact 3.5/Q identified an increase in water demand as a potentially significant impact, but this impact could be mitigated to an insignificant level based on implementation of Mitigation Measures 3.5/26.0-31.0. These mitigation measures require implementation of water conservation measures in individual development projects and construction of new system-wide water improvements which are funded by development impact fees. Another related impact identified in the Eastern Dublin EIR is the need for additional water treatment plant capacity (Impact 3.5/R). This impact was identified as being reduced to a level of insignificance through the implementation of Mitigation Measures 3.5/32.0-33.0, which requires improvement to the Zone 7 water system, to be funded by individual development impact fees. Impact 3.5/S (lack of a water distribution system) was identified as a potentially significant impact in the Eastern Dublin EIR, but this impact has been reduced to an insignificant level through adherence to Mitigation Measures3.5/4.34.0-38.0. These mitigations require upgrades to the project area water system and provision of a "will serve" letter prior to issuance of a grading permit. Impact 3.5/T identified a potentially significant impact related to inducement of substantial growth and concentration of population in the project area. The Eastern Dublin EIR found that this was a significant and unavoidable impact. Regarding sewer service, the Eastern Dublin EIR identified Impact 3.5/B (lack of a wastewater collection system) as a potentially significant impact that could be mitigated City of Dublin Page 67 Initial StudylTassajara Highlands Land Exchange Project May 2015 through adherence to Mitigation Measures 3.5/1.0-5.0. These measures require DSRSD to prepare an area-wide wastewater collection system master plan, requires all new development to be connected to DSRSD's public sewer system, discourages on-site wastewater treatment, requires a "will-serve" letter from DSRSD and requires that all sewer facilities be constructed to DSRSD engineering standards. Impact 3.5 noted an impact with regard to extension of a sewer trunk line with capacity to serve new development, but could be reduced to an insignificant level since the proposed Eastern Dublin Specific Plan sewer system has been sized to accommodate increased sewer demand from the proposed Specific Plan project. Impact 3.5/G found that lack of wastewater disposal capacity as a significant impact. An upgraded wastewater disposal facility has been constructed by the Livermore Amador Valley Water Management Agency and is operational. Impact 3.5/E identified lack of wastewater treatment plant capacity as a potentially significant impact, which could be reduced to an insignificant level through adherence to Mitigation Measures 3.5/7.1, 8.0 and 9.0. Project Impacts a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the RWQCB? The current project would not generate wastewater. No new or more severe significant impacts with respect to wastewater treatment requirements have been identified in this Initial Study than have been analyzed in previous CEQA documents. No additional analysis is required. b) Require new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities? No New Impact. The proposed project would use minimal water (for construction dust control and establishment of new drought-tolerant landscape plantings) and would not require water or wastewater treatment facilities. The project would not result in any new or more severe significant impacts than analyzed in the prior CEQA documents. No additional analysis is required. c) Require new storm drainage facilities? No New Impact. The proposed project would include new storm drainage facilities appropriately sized to accommodate peak stormwater runoff from nearby impervious surfaces. No additional analysis is required. d) Are sufficient water supplies available? No New Impact. Once constructed, project improvements would require minimal water. Much of the project site would be devoted to paved road improvements or a paved trail. Proposed drainage basins would be planted with native, drought tolerant material. No new or more severe significant are anticipated with respect to water supplies than have been previously analyzed. No additional analysis is required. e) Adequate wastewater capacity to serve the proposed project? See response to "a," above. e, f) Solid waste disposal? No New Impact. The project site is within the franchise area of Amador Valley Industries that provides residential and commercial solid waste pick-up and recycling services. The proposed project includes roadway and drainage improvements that would not generate any solid waste or recyclables. No additional analysis is needed. City of Dublin Page 68 Initial StudylTassajara Highlands Land Exchange Project May 2015 g) Comply with federal, state and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? No New Impact. The existing service provider will ensure adherence to federal, state and local solid waste regulations. No new or more severe significant impacts are anticipated impacts than have been previously analyzed and no additional analysis is needed. 17. Mandatory Findings of Significance a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number of or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? No New Impact. Potential impacts related to biological resources, including a reduction in habitat area of fish or wildlife species, elimination of a plant or animal community, or elimination of an important example of major periods of California history or prehistory was analyzed in the Eastern Dublin EIR, the prior MNDs and the 2014 Addendum. The proposed project would not cause new or more severe significant impacts beyond those previously identified in the prior CEQA documents. b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects and the effects of probable future projects). No New Impacts. Cumulative impacts of the proposed project in combination with the Tassajara Highlands project and other cumulative projects have been analyzed in the Eastern Dublin EIR, prior MNDs and the 2014 Addendum. The proposed project would not cause new or more severe significant impacts beyond those previously identified in the prior CEQA documents. c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? No New Impacts. Impacts of the proposed project in combination with the Tassajara Highlands project have been analyzed in the Eastern Dublin EIR, prior MNDs and the 2014 Addendum. The proposed project would not cause new or more severe significant impacts beyond those previously identified in the prior CEQA documents. City of Dublin Page 69 Initial Study/Tassajara Highlands Land Exchange Project May 2015 Initial Study Preparers Jerry Haag, Urban Planner, project manager Agencies and Organizations Consulted The following agencies and organizations were contacted in the course of this Initial Study: City of Dublin Luke Sims, AICP, Community Development Director Michael Porto, Project Manager Andy Russell PE, City Engineer Jayson Imai PE, Senior Civil Engineer Kathleen Faubion, AICP, Assistant City Attorney Tim Cremin, Assistant City Attorney California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) Website Applicant Representatives Mike O'Hara Jessica Grossman References Arborist Report Addendum Letter, Hortscience, April, 2015 Comprehensive Biological Resources Management Plan for CEQA Compliance Marylee Guinon, October 2014 Dublin General Plan, City of Dublin, Updated through 7/2/11 Eastern Dublin General Plan, Wallace Roberts & Todd, 1993 Eastern Dublin Specific Plan and General Plan Environmental Impact Report Wallace Roberts & Todd, 1994 Eastern Dublin Comprehensive Stream Restoration Program, Sycamore Associates, 1996 Eastern Dublin Scenic Corridor Policies and Standards, David Gates & Associates, 1996 Geotechnical Update, Dublin Highlands Project, ENGEO, Inc. July 2012 City of Dublin Page 70 Initial Study/Tassajara Highlands Land Exchange Project May 2015 Livermore Municipal Airport Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan ESA Associates, August 2012 Parks and Recreation Master Plan. City of Dublin, 2006 update Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Vacant City Parcel Dublin CA ENGEO, August 2014 Stormwater Management Plan, Tassajara Highlands City of Dublin CA Wood- Rogers, Inc, February 2015 City of Dublin Page 71 Initial Study/Tassajara Highlands Land Exchange Project May 2015 EXHIBIT B STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS 1. General. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15093, the City Council of the City of Dublin adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations for those impacts identified in the Eastern Dublin EIR as significant and unavoidable (Resolution 53-93, May 10, 1993). The City Council carefully considered each impact in its decision to approve urbanization of Eastern Dublin through approval of the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan project. The City Council is currently considering the Tassajara Highlands (Fredrich/Vargas) project. The project proposes a residential development on the west side of Tassajara Road at 6960 and 7020 Tassajara Road. The project site was also analyzed in two supplemental Mitigated Negative Declarations. The first was for the Mission Peak/Fallon Crossing project and was adopted on May 16, 2006 by City Council Resolution No. 71-06. The second was for the Vargas project and was adopted through City Council Resolution 57-07 on May 1, 2007. The City Council adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations with the original land use approvals for urbanization of Eastern Dublin. Pursuant to a 2002 court decision, the City Council must adopt new overriding considerations for the previously identified unavoidable impacts that apply to the Tassajara Highlands (Fredrich/Vargas) project.1 The City Council believes that many of the unavoidable environmental effects identified in the Eastern Dublin EIR will be substantially lessened by mitigation measures adopted with the original Eastern Dublin approvals and the subsequent 2006 and 2007 approvals, to be implemented with the development of the project. Even with mitigation, the City Council recognizes that the implementation of the project carries with it unavoidable adverse environmental effects as identified in the Eastern Dublin EIR. The City Council specifically finds that to the extent that the identified adverse or potentially adverse impacts for the project have not been mitigated to acceptable levels, there are specific economic, social, environmental, land use, and other considerations that support approval of the project. 2. Unavoidable Significant Adverse Impacts from the Eastern Dublin EIR. The following unavoidable significant environmental impacts identified in the Eastern Dublin EIR for future development of Eastern Dublin apply to the Tassajara Highlands (Fredrich/Vargas) project. Land Use Impact 3.1/F. Cumulative Loss of Agricultural and Open Space Lands; Visual Impacts 3.8/13; and Alteration of Rural/Open Space Character. Although development has occurred south of the project area, the site is largely "...public officials must still go on the record and explain specifically why they are approving the later project despite its significant unavoidable impacts." (emphasis original.) Communities for a Better Environment v. California Resources Agency 103 Cal.App. 4th 98, _(2002). 1 undeveloped open space land. Future development of the Tassajara Highlands site will contribute to the cumulative loss of open space land. Traffic and Circulation Impacts 3.318, 3.31E. 1-580 Freeway, Cumulative Freeway Impacts: While city street and interchange impacts can be mitigated through planned improvements, transportation demand management, the 1-580 Smart Corridor program and other similar measures, mainline freeway impacts continue to be identified as unavoidable, as anticipated in the Eastern Dublin EIR. Future development on the Tassajara Highlands site will generate less traffic than anticipated in the Eastern Dublin EIR, but will still incrementally contribute to the unavoidable freeway impacts. Traffic and Circulation Impacts 3.311, 3.31M. Santa Rita Road/1-580 Ramps, Cumulative Dublin Boulevard Impacts: The project will be required to implement all applicable adopted traffic mitigation measures, including contributions to the City's TIF program; however even with mitigation these impacts continue to be identified as unavoidable, as anticipated in the Eastern Dublin EIR. Community Services and Facilities Impact 3.41S. Consumption of Non- Renewable Natural Resources and Sewer, Water, and Storm Drainage Impact 3.51F, H, U. Increases in Energy Usage Through Increased Water Treatment, Disposal and Operation of Water Distribution System: Future development of the project will contribute to increased energy consumption. Soils, Geology, and Seismicity Impact 3.618. Earthquake Ground Shaking, Primary Effects: Even with seismic design, future development of the project could be subject to damage from large earthquakes, much like the rest of the Eastern Dublin planning area. Air Quality Impacts 3.11/A, 8, C, and E. Future development of the project will contribute to cumulative dust deposition, construction equipment emissions, mobile and stationary source emissions. 3. Overriding Considerations. The City Council previously balanced the benefits of the Eastern Dublin project approvals against the significant and potentially significant adverse impacts identified in the Eastern Dublin EIR. The City Council now balances those unavoidable impacts that apply to future development on the Tassajara Highlands (Fred rich/Vargas) site against its benefits, and hereby determines that such unavoidable impacts are outweighed by the benefits of the project as further set forth below. The project will further the urbanization of Eastern Dublin as planned through the comprehensive framework established in the original Eastern Dublin approvals. Prior approvals provided important protections to Tassajara Creek and through reasonable and protective designations for sensitive creek areas; the project will implement these protections through previously adopted mitigation measures and current development standards. The project will provide approximately 48 2 units of needed housing as well as maintaining open space on the site. Development of the site will also provide construction employment opportunities for Dublin residents. 2298238.1 3 DocuSign Envelope ID:38AF2lA9-D2A3-4F7B-9C29-3BBB83946046 LAND EXCHANGE AGREEMENT THIS LAND EXCHANGE AGREEMENT ("Agreement") is entered into as of July —, 2014 ("Effective Date") by and between the City of Dublin ("City") and TL Partners 11, LP, a California limited partnership ("Developer"). City and Developer are hereinafter collectively referred to as the "Parties." RECITALS A. Developer has entered into a Real Property Purchase and Sale Agreement for the purchase of certain real property consisting of 8.58 acres located at 6960 Tassajara Road in the City of Dublin, California known as Assessor Parcel Number 986-0004-002-03, as more particularly described on Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference (the "Fredrich Property"). Fredrich Property is currently owned by Thomas A. Fredrich and Helene L. Fredrich as Trustees of the Fredrich Family Trust (collectively, the "Fredrich Owner"), B. Developer has also entered into a Real Property Purchase and Sale Agreement for the purchase of certain real property consisting of 4.35 acres located at 7020 Tassajara Road in the City of Dublin, California known as Assessor Parcel Number 986-0004-002-01, as more particularly described on Exhibit B attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference (the "Vargas Property"). Vargas Property is currently owned by Jose L. Vargas and Violeta Vargas (collectively, the "Vargas Owner"). C. The Freddch Property and the Vargas Property are collectively referred to herein as the "Developer Property" and the Fredrich Owner and the Vargas Owner are collectively referred to herein as the "Property Owner". D. Developer is currently processing applications with the City for the development of approximately 48 single family homes on the Developer Property, together with all associated infrastructure improvements (the "Development Project"), E. In accordance with the provisions of the Dublin Municipal Code, any approval of the Development Project by the City will include (a) the dedication to the City of approximately 27,000 square feet of land on the Developer Property for inclusion in the Tassajara Road right of way, as more particularly described and depicted on Exhibit C attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference (the "ROW Land") and (b) in accordance with the provisions of the Eastern Dublin Traffic Impact Fee (the "EDTIF") Administrative Guidelines, a credit of traffic impact fees to Developer in exchange for the dedication of the ROW Land that exceeds the maximum dedication required by the Dublin Municipal Code. F. The City desires to construct a replacement culvert for the Moller Creek crossing of Tassajara Road (the "Moller Creek Culvert") prior to Developer's acquisition of the Development Property and said construction requires a construction license and easement over a portion of the Fredrich Property, as more particularly described on Exhibit Q attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference (the DRAFT Exchange Agreement V9 07 09 14 City Page 1 of 16 DocuSign Envelope ID:38AF21A9-D2A3-4F7B-9C29-3BBB83946046 "Culvert Property") as well as the creation of a new easement in favor of Pacific Gas & Electric Company (the "PG&E Easement") over a portion of the Vargas Property, as more particularly described on Exhibit E attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference , G. The City is the fee owner of certain real property consisting of approximately 1.7 acres (the"City Property") located in the City on Tassajara Rood, known as Parcel 3 of Parcel Map 1193, Assessor Parcel Number 986-0004-003-00, as more particularly described in Exhibit F attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. K Subject to the terms and conditions set forth in this Agreement, including without limitation, compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act("CEQA") where applicable, Developer and City have agreed that; (i) Developer shall cause the Fredrich Owner to grant City the Culvert Easement and shall cause the Vargas Owner to grant PG&E the PG&E Easement; (ii) Developer shall convey the Culvert Property to the City; (iii) City shall convey the City Property to Developer; and (!v) City shall grant Developer traffic impact fee credits for the ROW Land in accordance with the Eastern Dublin Traffic Impact Fee Administrative Guidelines. NOW, THEREFORE, for good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, the Parties hereby agree as follows. 1, 'Recitals: Effective Date. The Parties acknowledge that the foregoing recitals are true and correct and are incorporated herein by this reference. The effective date of this Agreement shall be the date first listed above. 2, Property Owner Conveyances to Developer, In accordance with the purchase agreements for the Developer Property, Developer will acquire the Vargas Property on or before May 2, 2015 and will acquire the Fredrich Property on or before June 20, 2015, 3. Dedication of ROW Land. Developer shall dedicate the ROW Land to City within sixty (60)days after the later to occur of: (i)final approval of a tentative map for the Development Project, with all appeal periods expired or (ii) closing on the conveyance. of bath the Fredrich Property and the Vargas Property to Developer. Upon dedication of the ROW Land, City will grant Developer TIF Credits for the ROW Land that is included in the EDTIF and that exceeds the maximum dedication required by the Dublin Municipal Code, The TIF Credits shall be granted at the greater of the rate as of July 1, 2014 ($38.65/SF) or the rate in effect at the time the TIF Credits-are granted to Developer. 4. Permit Processing. In further consideration of Developer's agreement to the terms and conditions of this Agreement, City agrees to diligently pursue the review of the mass grading plans and demolition permit,application for the Development Project. Developer acknowledges and agrees that no demolition, grading, or other construction activity shall commence until the Development Project has received all necessary approvals from the City. _. Exchange.Agreement V10 07 10 14 -... __ __ __ __ _Page 2 of_.16 DocuSign Envelope ID:38AF2lA9-D2A3-4F7B-9C29-3BBB83946046 5, Culvert Easement and Developer Conveyance to City. 5.1. Developer Culvert Easement Conveyance. No later than five (5) Business Days following the Effective Date, the Developer shall cause the Fredrich Owner to convey to City and City shall accept from the Fredrich Owner, the Culvert Easement. The conveyance of the Culvert Easement from the Fredrich Owner to City shall be accomplished by recordation of a construction license and a separate grant of easement, substantially in the form attached hereto as Exhibit G (collectively, the "Culvert Easement"). 5,2, Developer PG&E Easement Conveyance. The Developer shall use commercially reasonable efforts to cause the Vargas Owner to convey to PG&E the PG&E Easement as soon as practicable after the Effective Date. The conveyance of the PG&E Easement from the Vargas Owner to PG&E shall be accomplished by recordation of a grant of easement, substantially in the form attached hereto as Exhibit E. 5,1 Developer Conveyance. Subject to satisfaction of the conditions precedent set forth in this Section, Developer shall convey to City and City shall accept from Developer, the Culvert Property in accordance with the terms, covenants and conditions set forth herein. The conveyance of the Culvert Property from Developer to City shall be accomplished by recordation of a grant deed, substantially in the form attached hereto as Exhibit H ("Developer Grant Deed"), 5.4, Conditions Precedent. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary set forth herein, Developer's conveyance of the Culvert Property to City is expressly conditioned upon satisfaction of the following conditions ("Developer Conditions Precedent"). (i) removal by Developer of hazardous material located on the Culvert Property; (ii) City receipt of all approvals and permits necessary to construct the Moller Creek Culvert; (iii) construction by the City, its.contractors, or its permittees of(a) certain public utilities and (b) other improvements and grading necessary to construct the Moller Creek Culvert, all as identified on Exhibit I ("Culvert Improvements") attached hereto, and (iv) Developer's closing on the acquisition of the Fredrich Property; 5.5. Mutual Cooperation with Respect to the Culvert Property. In connection with the Development Project, Developer will be constructing certain storm drain facilities on the Culvert Property, including an outfall and a drainage connection Exchange Agreement V10 07-10 14. Page 3 o€16 DocuSign Envelope ID:38AF21A9-D2A3-4F7B-9C29-3BBB83946046 between the Developer Property and the City Property (the "Developer Storm Drain Facilities"), In order to ensure that both the Developer Storm Drain Facilities and the Moller Creek Culvert (the "Culvert Property Facilities") can be constructed on the Culvert Property without any adverse impact on either party's project, City and Developer agree to mutually cooperate on the design and construction of the Culvert Property Facilities. Such cooperation shall include, but not be limited to, providing initial copies of all plans and designs for each party's proposed Culvert Property Facilities, providing updated copies of plans and designs as they are developed, coordinating the location and treatment of mitigation measures required by the Agencies (as defined in Section 5.5 below), coordinating construction activities on the Culvert Property and attending periodic meetings called by either party to address conflicts or inconsistencies in the plans for the Culvert Property Facilities or issues that arise during construction of the Culvert Property Facilities. City specifically acknowledges that Developer may complete construction of the Developer Storm Drain Facilities prior to the start of construction on the Moller Creek Culvert, In that event, City and Developer acknowledge that the storm drain connection between the Developer Property and the City Property may need to be removed and then replaced in order to construct the Moller Creek Culvert and agree that City shall be solely responsible for the cost of removing and replacing Developer's storm drain connection. City further acknowledges and agrees that if City grants any third party the right to construct the Moller Creek Culvert on the City's behalf, City shall require such third party to comply with the terms of this Section 5.4, 5.6. Compliance with Agency Requirements, City and Developer acknowledge that installation of the Culvert Property Facilities will require approvals from various state and federal agencies, including without limitation the Regional Water Quality Control Board and the United States.Army Corps of Engineers (the "Agencies"). City and Developer further acknowledge that in connection with issuing permits for the Culvert Property Facilities, the Agencies may require Developer to install mitigation measures on the Culvert Property and may also require deed restrictions on the Culvert Property to enforce any such permit conditions. City agrees to accept any deed restrictions on the Culvert Property required by the Agencies and further agrees to grant Developer a long term encroachment agreement (the "Encroachment Agreement"), in the form attached hereto as Exhibit J, for the Developer to manage any mitigation areas located on the Culvert Property which are related to the Developer Storm Drain Facilities. 6. City Conveyance to Developer, 6.1, City Convey , ance. Subject to satisfaction of the conditions precedent set forth in this Section, in the sole discretion of City, City shall convey to Developer and Developer shall accept from City, the City Property in accordance with the terms, covenants and conditions set:forth herein, The conveyance of the City Property from City to Developer shall be accomplished by recordation of a grant deed, substantially in the form attached hereto as Exhibit K ("City Grant Deed"). Exchange Agreement V10 Q7-10 1 Page 4 o€16 DocuSign Envelope ID:38AF2lA9-D2A3-4F7B-9C29-3BBB83946046 62 Conditions Precedent. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary set forth herein, conveyance of the City Property to the Developer is expressly conditioned upon satisfaction of all the following conditions ("City Conditions Precedent"). (i) Developer's closing on the acquisition of the Fredrich Property and Vargas Property, as evidenced by a written notice from Developer to City delivered no later than ten (10) days after the Developer closing on the Vargas Property (the "Vargas Notice") and on Fredrich Property (the "Fredrich Notice"). 7. Closing, 7.1. Escrow; Escrow Instructions. Not later than thirty (30) days following the Effective Date, City and Developer shall open.an escrow at the office of First American Title Company, located at 6683 Owens Drive, Pleasanton, CA 94583 ("Title Company" or"Escrow Agent") or such tither title company as may be mutually agreed upon by-the Parties. Upon the opening of escrow, the Parties shall deposit with the Escrow Agent an executed copy of this Agreement, which together with such additional instructions as may be executed by either Party and delivered to the Escrow Agent, shall serve as the escrow instructions of City and Developer for the conveyance of the City Property to Developer and the conveyance of the Culvert Property to City. 72 Close of Escrow, Closing Costs. Each Party shall pay the cost of any title insurance such Party elects to purchase with respect to the property to be acquired by such Party pursuant to this Agreement. City and Developer shall each pay one-half (1/2) of all other closing costs and escrow fees (including without limitation recording fees, escrow charges, real estate transfer taxes, and documentary transfer taxes) associated with the close of escrow for the conveyance of the City Property to Developer ("Developer Close of Escrow") and the conveyance of the Culvert Property to City ("City Close of Escrow"). 7.3, Closing Documents and Funds; Timing. Provided that the conditions set forth in Section 6 have been satisfied, City and Developer shall have thirty (30) days from the date of the Vargas Notice or the Fredrich Notice, whichever is later, to deposit into escrow all the documents described in this Section (the "Closing Documents"), The Developer Close of Escrow and City Close of Escrow shall take place within five (5) Business Days following the deposit into escrow of the Closing Documents(each, a "Closing Date"). In order to comply with said conditions precedent, the Parties hereby acknowledge that the City Close of Escrow may take place prior to the Developer Close of Escrow. The Parties each agree that they shall not unreasonably condition, delay, or withhold consent to an extension of either Closing Date. (i) City Close of Escrow. The Parties shall deposit the following documents into escrow for the City Close of Escrow: Exchange Agreement V10 07-10 1.4 .. _. - Page 5 of 16 _ . DocuSign Envelope ID:38AF21A9-D2A3-4F7B-9C29-3BBB83946046 (a) City shall deposit a duly executed and acknowledged Certificate of Acceptance for the Culvert Property, substantially in the form attached to Exhibit L; (b) Developer shall deposit the fully-executed Developer Grant Deed substantially in the form attached hereto as Exhibit H sufficient to convey good and marketable fee simple title to the Culvert Property free of all title defects and encumbrances except the Permitted Exceptions (as defined in Section 11), (c) Developer and City shall each deposit into escrow their respective share of closing costs as set forth in Section 8.2, (d) Developer and City shall each deposit such additional duly executed instruments and documents as the Escrow Agent may reasonably require to consummate the conveyance of the Culvert Property to City. (ii) Developer Close of Escrow. The Partie.s shall deposit the following documents into escrow for the Developer Close of Escrow: . (a) City shall deposit a fully-executed City Grant Deed substantially in the form of Exhibit K sufficient to convey to Developer good and marketable fee simple title to the City Property free of all title defects and encumbrances except the Permitted Exceptions; (b) Developer and City shall each deposit into escrow their respective share of closing costs as set forth in Section 8.2; and (c) Developer and City shall each deposit such additional duly executed instruments and documents as the Escrow Agent may reasonably require to consummate the conveyance of the City Property to Developer. 7.4. Prorations, In connection with the conveyance of the City Property to Developer and the Culvert Property to City, the Escrow Agent shall make the following prorations: (i) property taxes and assessments shall be prorated as of the Closing Date based upon the most recent tax bill available, including any property taxes which may be assessed after the Closing Date but which pertain to the period prior to the transfer of title, regardless of when or to whom notice thereof is delivered; (H) any bond or assessment that constitutes a lien on the City Property on the Closing Date shall be assumed by Developer and any lien on the Culvert Property shall be assumed by City (provided however, it shall be a condition to Closing that any such bond or assessment be paid current by each Party). Any utility and sewer service charges shall be prorated as of the respective Closing Date, The Escrow Agentshall close escrow for the conveyance of the City Property to Developer and the Culvert Property to the City by: Exchange Agreement VIO 07 10 14 Page 6:of 16 DocuSign Envelope ID:38AF2lA9-D2A3-4F7B-9C29-3BBB83946046 (i) causing the Developer Grant Deed and the City Grant Deed to be recorded in the official records of Alameda County; (ii) issuing the Title Policies (defined in Section 10)for the City Property and the Culvert Property and delivering same to Developer and City, respectively; and (iii) delivering to Developer and City a conformed copy of the grant deeds for the property to be conveyed to each, indicating recording information thereon. On each respective Closing Date, possession of the.City Property shall be delivered to Developer and possession of the Culvert Property shall be delivered to the City, & Title Documents, No later than ten (10) Business Days following the Effective Date, each Party shell deliver or cause to be delivered to the other Party an updated title report for its respective property ("Preliminary Report") setting forth all liens, encumbrances, easements, restrictions, conditions, and other matters of record affecting title to that property ("Title Exceptions") together with copies of all instruments referred to therein. Each Party shall approve or disapprove each Title Exception within thirty (30) days following receipt of the Preliminary Report and documents relating to the Title Exceptions. Upon failure to object within such period, any Title Exceptions that are not disapproved shall be deemed to be Permitted Exceptions (as defined in Section 11). If either Party objects to any Title Exception, the other Party shall use its best efforts at its sole expense to remove from title or otherwise satisfy each such exception in a form that is reasonably satisfactory to the requesting Party within thirty (30) days following the date that the objecting Party objects to such exception. 9. Title Policy. It shall be a condition to the close of escrow that Title Company shall deliver to the each Party, no later than seven (7) days prior to each Closing Date, a title commitment for an Owner's Title Insurance Policy("Title Policy")to be issued by Title Company in an amount to be determined by the Parties, showing title to each Property, subject only to the Permitted Exceptions(as defined in Section 11), including such endorsements as may reasonably be requested by each Party and committing Title Company to issue each Title Policy to its respective Party upon the Close of Escrow. 10. Conveyance of Title. Each Party shall convey by grant deed to the other Party marketable fee simple title to its respective property, free and clear of all recorded and unrecorded liens, encumbrances, restrictions, easements, and leases, except; (i) liens for nondelinquent general and special taxes, assessments and/or bonds; and (ii) such other conditions, liens, encumbrances, restrictions, easements and exceptions as set forth in Exhibit M or approved in writing by City or Developer or deemed approved by City or Developer as provided in Section 9 (all of the foregoing, are collectively hereinafter referred to as the "Permitted Exceptions"). '',"..","..—Exchange Agreement V10 07:10 14--- __ _.. _ _.. Page 7 of 16 DocuSign Envelope ID:38AF2lA9-D2A3-4F7B-9C29-3BBB83946046 11. Due Diligence. 11.1. Feasibility Studies. During the period commencing upon the Effective Date and terminating one hundred twenty(120) days thereafter ("Due Diligence Period"), Developer and City may undertake further inspection, review and testing of the City Property and the Culvert Property, respectively, including without limitation (i) a review of the physical condition of such property, including inspection and examination of soils, environmental condition, and archeological information relating to the property; (ii) completion of Phase I and Phase 11, if required, environmental assessments; (iii) a review and investigation of the effect of any zoning, maps, permits, reports, engineering data, regulations, ordinances, and laws affecting the property, and (iv) an evaluation of the property to determine its feasibility for the Party's intended use. All of the foregoing is hereinafter collectively referred to as "Feasibility Studies." The Parties may consult with or retain civil engineers, contractors, soils and geologic engineers, architects and other specialists in its investigation, and may consult with or retain other consultants to determine if the property is suitable for each Party's intended use, Each Party shall bear the costs of its Feasibility Studies and consultations. 11.2. Contracts, Reports and Investigations. City and Developer each agree to make available within ten (10) Business Days following the Effective Date, any and all information, studies, reports, investigations, contracts, leases, rental agreements and other obligations concerning or relating to the property such Party has agreed to convey pursuant to this Agreement which are in such Party's possession or which are reasonably available to such Party, including without limitation any Phase I Environmental Site Assessments, surveys, studies, reports and investigations concerning the property's physical, environmental or geological condition, habitability, or the presence or absence of Hazardous Substances in, on or under the property and its compliance with Environmental Laws (as defined in Section 16), 12, 'Right of Ent . During the Due Diligence Period, each Party grants to the other and to the other Party's agents and employees a right of entry, to enter its property upon reasonable notice for the purpose of inspecting, examining, surveying and reviewing such property in accordance with Section 12. Each Party's inspection, examination, survey and review of such property shall be at such Party's sole expense. Each Party shall obtain the other Party's advance consent to any proposed physical testing of the property, which consent shall not be unreasonably conditioned, withheld or delayed. Physical tests shall be scheduled during normal business hours unless otherwise approved by the owner of the property to be tested. For purposes of this provision, Developer shall be responsible for obtaining consent from the Fredrich Owner for City's access to the Fredrich Property. Each Party agrees to indemnify the other Party and to hold the other Party harmless from and against all liability, loss, cost, damage and expense (including, without limitation, reasonable attorney's fees and costs of litigation) resulting from such Party's activities pursuant to this Section. This Section will survive the,,expiration or termination of this Agreement and the Close of Escrows. Exchange Agreement V1 0 07 10 14 Page 8 of 16 DocuSign Envelope ID:38AF21A9-D2A3-4F7B-9C29-3BBB83946046 13. "As Is" Purchase. Except as otherwise specified in this Agreement, each Party agrees to accept the property conveyed to it pursuant to this Agreement, including the_ land, all buildings, structures, improvements, equipment, and operating systems located on or under the land "AS IS, INHERE IS' and in its current state and condition, without any warranties whatsoever regarding its condition except as specifically described in this Agreement, and with all faults and defects, including Hazardous Substances and any other environmental conditions or hazards, if any, that may be located on, under, or around the property, whether known or unknown, suspected or unsuspected, actual or potential, and each Party assumes all responsibility for any such faults, defects, and conditions as of the Close of Escrow. 14. Representations, Warranties, and Covenants. 1.4.1. Representations and Warranties, (1) City hereby represents, warranties, and covenants that except as disclosed in writing to Developer, as of the Effective Date and as of the Close of Escrow with respect to the City Property: (a) no contracts, licenses, leases or commitments regarding the maintenance or use of the property or allowing any third party rights to use the property are in farce; (b) City knows of no pending actions, suits, condemnation or other proceedings against or affecting the property or any portion thereof or the interest of City in the property; (c) there are no threatened or pending condemnation, eminent domain, or similar proceedings affecting the property or any portion thereof (d) City knows of no receipt of notice, warning, notice of violation, administrative complaint, judicial complaint, or other formal or informal notice alleging that conditions on the property are in violation of any Environmental Law; (e) City has disclosed all material facts concerning the property; and (f) City shall comply with all local entitlement processes, (fl) Developer hereby represents, warranties, and covenants that except as disclosed in writing to City, as of the respective close of escrow on each of the l=redrich Property and the Vargas Property and as of the Close of Escrow with respect to the Culvert Property: (a) no contracts, licenses, leases or commitments regarding the maintenance or use of the property or allowing any third party rights to use the property are in force; (b) Developer knows of no pending actions, suits, condemnation or other proceedings against or affecting the property or any portion thereof or the interest of Developer in the property (c) there are no threatened or pending condemnation, eminent domain, or similar proceedings affecting the property or any portion thereof; (d) Developer knows of no receipt of notice, warning, notice of, violation, administrative complaint,judicial complaint, or other formal or informal notice alleging that conditions on the property are in violation of any Environmental Law; (e) Developer has disclosed all material facts concerning the property; and (f) Developer shall comply with all local entitlement processes. 14,2, Additional Representations. Each Party further represents and warrants that this Agreement and all other documents to which it is a party and that are delivered or to be delivered in connection herewith shall at the time of their delivery; (i) have been ..Exchange Agreement V10 07 10 14._. Page 9 of 16 DocuSign Envelope ID:38AF2lA9-D2A3-4F7B-9C29-3BBB83946046 duly authorized, executed, and delivered; (ii) be the binding obligations of that Party,(iii) collectively be sufficient to transfer all of that Party's right, title and interest in and to the property being conveyed; and (iv) not be in violation of the provisions of any agreement to which Party is a party or which affects the property being conveyed. Each Party further represents and warrants that the persons who have executed this Agreement on behalf of that Party are authorized to do, that it has the legal right to enter into this Agreement and to perform all of its term and conditions, and that this Agreement is enforceable against the Party in accordance with its terms. 14.3. Covenants. (i) City covenants that from the Effective Date and through the Close of Escrow, it: (a) shall not willingly permit any liens, encumbrances, or easements to be placed on its property other than Permitted Exceptions; (b) shall not without the prier written consent of Developer, enter into any agreement regarding the sale, rental, management, repair, improvement, or any other matter affecting its property that would be binding on developer or the property after the Close of Escrow; (c) shall not permit, except as specifically provided herein with respect to the demolition required on the City Property, any act of waste or act that would tend to diminish the value of the property for any reason, except that caused by ordinary wear and tear; and (d) shall maintain the City Property in its condition as of the date hereof, ordinary wear and tear excepted, and shall manage the property substantially in accordance with City's established practices. (ii) Developer covenants that from the respective close of escrow on each of the Fredrich Property and the Vargas Property and through the Close of Escrow, it; (a) shall not willingly permit any liens, encumbrances, or easements to be placed on the Culvert Property other than Permitted Exceptions; (b) shall not without the prior written consent of City, enter into any agreement regarding the sale, rental, management, repair, improvement, or any other matter affecting the Culvert Property that would be binding on City or the Culvert Property after the Close of Escrow; (c) shall not permit any act of waste or act that would tend to diminish the value of the Culvert Property for any reason, except that caused by ordinary wear and tear; and (d) shall maintain the Culvert Property in its condition as of the date of close of escrow on the Fredrich Property, ordinary wear and tear excepted, and shall manage the property substantially in accordance with City's established practices. 14.4. Notification. Each Party shall notify the other Party of any facts that would cause any of the representations contained in this Agreement to be untrue as of the Close of Escrow. If either Party reasonably believes that any fact materially and adversely affects the property that Party is to acquire pursuant to this Agreement, such Party shall have the option to terminate this Agreement by delivering written notice thereof to other Party. In the event either Party elects to terminate this Agreement, all funds and documents deposited into escrow by or on behalf of each Party shall be returned to that Party, and all rights and obligations hereunder shall terminate. Exchange Agreement-V10 77.:1{7 14 ._:_._ _..... . _. _ Page 10 of 16 DocuSign Envelope ID:38AF2lA9-D2A3-4F7B-9C29-3BBB83946046 15. Mutual Release and Indemnity, Each Party (i) releases and forever discharges the other Party from any and all claims and causes of action under or with respect to any Environmental Laws, including without limitation the California Hazardous Substance Account Act, California Health and Safety Code Section 25300 et seq., (including section 25359.7),the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act, ("CERCLA") title 42 U,S.C, section 9601 et seq., the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act ("R.CRA") title 42 U.S.C, section 6901 et seq.; and the Clean Water Act, title 33 U.S.C. section 2601 et seq., as these,laws may be amended in the future; and (ii) agrees to defend (with counsel approved by both Parties, which approval will not be unreasonably withheld) indemnify, protect and hold the other Party free and harmless from any claim, liability, damages of any kind, attorneys' fees, costs, etc. arising out of or resulting from the physical condition or use of the property on or after Close of Escrow, including, without limitation, due to the presence,of Hazardous Substances on the property, as well as any claims or causes of action threatened or made by anyone relating to the condition or use of the property, including, without limitation, third parties adjoining property owners, governmental agencies, or claims brought under Proposition 65, California Health and Safety Code Sections 25249;5-25249.13. 15.1. "Hazardous Substances" means any chemical, compound, material, mixture, or substance that is now or may in the future be defined or listed in, or otherwise classified pursuant to any Environmental Laws (defined below) as a "hazardous substance", "hazardous material", "hazardous waste", "extremely hazardous waste", "infectious waste", "toxic substance", "toxic pollutant", or any other formulation intended to define, list or classify substances by reason of deleterious properties such as ignitability, corrosivity, reactivity, carcinogenicity, or toxicity, The term "hazardous substances" shall also include asbestos or asbestos-containing materials, radon, methyl tertiary butyl ether, perchlorate, polychlorinated biphenyls, petroleum, petroleum products or by-products, petroleum components, oil, mineral spirits, natural gas, natural gas liquids, liquefied natural gas, and synthetic.gas usable as fuel, whether or not defined as a hazardous waste or hazardous substance in the Environmental Laws. 15.2. "Environmental Laws" means any and all federal, state and local statutes, ordinances, orders, rules, regulations, guidance documents,judgments, governmental authorizations, or any other requirements of governmental authorities, as may presently exist, or as may be amended or supplemented, or hereafter enacted, relating to the presence, release, generation, use, handling, treatment, storage, transportation or disposal of Hazardous Substances, or the protection of the environment or human, plant or animal health. 16. Miscellaneous Provisions. 16,1. Notices, Except as otherwise specified in this Agreement, all notices to be sent pursuant hereto shall be made in writing, and sent to the parties at their respective addresses specified below or to such other address as a party may designate by written Exchange Agreement V10 07 10 14 Page 11 of 16 DocuSign Envelope ID:38AF21A9-D2A3-4F7B-9C29-38BB83946046 notice delivered to the other parties in accordance with this Section. All such notices shall be sent by: (i) personal delivery, in which case notice shall be deemed delivered upon receipt; (ii) certified or registered mail, return receipt requested, in which case notice shall be deemed delivered two (2) Business Days after deposit, postage prepaid in the United States mail; (iii) nationally recognized overnight courier, in which case notice shall be deemed delivered one (1) day after deposit with such courier, or (iv) facsimile or electronic mail (provided a hard copy of such transmission is thereafter delivered in one of the foregoing prescribed methods). Developer: Director of Land TL Partners Ili LP 3500 Douglas Blvd., Suite 270 Roseville, CA 95661 City: City Manager City of Dublin 100 Civic Plaza Dublin, CA 94568 16.2. Attorneys' Fees. In any action at law or in equity, arbitration or other proceeding arising in connection with this Agreement, the prevailing party shall recover reasonable attorneys' fees and other costs, including but not limited to court costs and expert and consultants fees incurred in connection with such action, in addition to any other relief awarded. 16.3. Escrow Cancellation Charges. If the escrow fails to close by reason of a default by City or Developer hereunder, such defaulting party shall pay all escrow or other Title Company charges. If the escrow fails to close for any reason other than default by City or Developer, then City and Developer shall each pay one-half of such charges. 16.4, Amendments, Assignment. This Agreement may be amended only by a written instrument executed by the Parties hereto or their successors in title. 16.5. Severabilily. If any term, provision, or condition of this Agreement is held by a court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid or unenforceable, the remainder of this Agreement shall continue in full force and effect unless the rights and obligations of the Parties have been materially altered or abridged thereby. Exchange Agreement V10 07 10 14 Page 42 of 16 DocuSign Envelope ID:38AF21A9-D2A3-4F7B-9C29-3BBB83946046 16.6. Waiver. A waiver by either party of the performance of any covenant or condition herein shall not invalidate this Agreement nor shall it be considered a waiver of any other covenant or condition, nor shall the delay or forbearance by either party in exercising any remedy or right.be considered a waiver of, or an estoppel against, the later exercise of such remedy or right. 167. Default and Remedies. An event of default ("Default") under this Agreement shall occur if either Party falls to comply with any of such Party's covenants or obligations set forth herein and does not cure such failure within ten (10) days after receipt of written notice thereof(or in the case of a non-monetary default, fails to commence to cure such default within such 10-day period and fails to thereafter proceed with due diligence to cure such default.) Upon the occurrence of an event of default hereunder the Parties may pursue all remedies at law or in equity including the remedy of specific performance. The rights and remedies of the Parties hereunder are cumulative, and the exercise or failure to exercise one or more of such rights or remedies by either Party shall not preclude the exercise by it., at the same time or different times, of any right or remedy for the same default or any other default. 16.8. Entire Agreement, This Agreement, together with Exhibits A through M which are hereby incorporated by reference, contains the entire agreement between the Parties with respect to the subject matter hereof, and supersedes all prior negotiations, documents and discussions pertaining thereto, 16,9. Binding Effect, Due Authorization. This Agreement shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the heirs, administrators, executors, successors in interest and assigns of each of the Parties hereto. Any reference in this Agreement to a specifically named party shall be deemed to apply to any successor, heir, administrator, executor or assign of such party who has acquired an interest in compliance with the terms of this Agreement, or under law, 16.10. Parties Not Co-Venturers• No Brokers, Nothing in this Agreement is intended to or does establish the parties as partners, co-venturers, or principal and agent with one another, Each Party hereby represents and warrants to the other Party that it has retained no broker or other party to whom a commission or finder's fee is due with respect to the transactions contemplated hereby. Each Party agrees to defend, indemnify, and hold the other Party harmless from and against all claims, losses, costs, expenses and liabilities arising in connection with a breach of this representation and warranty by the indemnifying party. The terms of this Section shall survive the expiration or earlier termination of this Agreement and shall survive Close of Escrow. 16,11. No Third Party Beneficiaries. Nothing contained in this Agreement is intended by the Parties, nor shall any provision of this Agreement be deemed or construed by the Parties or by any third person, to be for the benefit of any third party, nor shall any third party have any right to enforce any provision of this Agreement or be entitled to damages for any breach by City or Developer of any of the provisions of this Agreement. Exchange Agreement-V10 07-10 14 Page 13-of-16 DocuSign Envelope ID:38AF2lA9-D2A3-4F7B-9C29-3BBB83946046 16.12, Cautions-, Interpretation. The section headings used herein are solely for convenience and shall not be used to interpret this Agreement. The Parties acknowledge that this Agreement is the product of negotiation and compromise on the part of both Parties, and the Parties agree,that since both Parties have participated in the negotiation and drafting of this Agreement, this Agreement shall not be construed as if prepared by one of the Parties, but rather according to its fair meaning as a whole,as if bath Parties had prepared it. 16.13.Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed in multiple counterparts, each of which shall be original and all of which together shall constitute one agreement. This Agreement may be executed and delivered by the exchange of electronic facsimile copies, .pdf or other electronic image files of counterparts of the signature.page, which shall be considered the equivalent of ink signature pages for all purposes. 16.14. Further Assurances. The Parties each agree to execute, acknowledge and deliver to the other such other documents and instruments, and to undertake such actions, as either shall reasonably request or as may be necessary to carry out the intent of this Agreement. 16.15. Governing Law; Time is of the Essence. This Agreement shall be interpreted under and pursuant to the laws of the State of California without regard to principle of conflicts of laws. Time is of the essence and is a material term for all conditions and provisions contained in this Agreement. 16.16.No Merger- Survival of Representations. The obligations stated herein which are intended to operate after the Close of Escrow, including without Limitation indemnification obligations, shall not merge with the transfer of title but shall remain in effect until fulfilled as provided herein. Without limiting the generality of the foregoing, the representations and warranties made by each Party shall survive Close of Escrow. 16,17. Indemnification, Each Party shall indemnify, defend and hold harmless the other Party and its respective beards, commissions, and elected and.appointed officials, employees, agents and contractors (collectively"Indemnitees") from and against all claims; actions, proceedings, demands, liabilities,judgments, losses, expenses (including reasonable attorneys' fees and expenses) and costs (collectively "Claims") arising out of or related to this Agreement including any claim, action or proceeding to attack, set aside, void or annul this Agreement or any part hereof. Each Party shall promptly notify the other Party of any such Claim. 'Nothing contained in this Section shall prohibit a Party from participating in a defense of any Claim, and if it chooses to do so, it shall be reimbursed for its reasonable attorneys' fees and expenses. The provisions of this Section shall survive the expiration or termination of this Agreement and Close of Escrow. r Exchange-Agreement V10 07-1014-_._.. _ _. _ _._. _. . Page 14 of 16 DocuSign Envelope ID:38AF2lA9-D2A3-4F78-9C29-3BBB83946046 16.18. Business Days, Performance on Day Other Than Business Day. In this Agreement "Business Days" means days other than Saturdays, Sundays, and federal and state legal holidays. If any date on which a time period scheduled to expire herein is not a Business Day, the date shall be extended to the next Business Day. r ............. _... Exchange Agreement V10 07 10 44. DocuSign Envelope ID:38AF21A9-D2A3-4F7B-9C29-3BBB83946046 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Developer and City have executed this Agreement as of the Effective Date first written above, CITY OF DUBLIN Dated: ��� A Municipal Corporation By: Cit Manager Attest Z_ City tFark TL PARTNERS 11, LP Dated: 7/14/2014 A California limited partnership By: TL Management, Inc. Its: General Partner DocuSigned by: By '�= --- Na : "y78Timethy Lewis Its: President List of Exhibits Exhibit A Fredrich Property Exhibit B -- Vargas Property Exhibit C— ROW Land Exhibit D— Culvert Property Exhibit.E- PG&E Easement Exhibit F— City Property Exhibit G — Culvert Easement Exhibit H— Developer Grant Deed Exhibit I— Culvert improvements Exhibit J — Encroachment Agreement Exhibit K— City Grant Deed Exhibit L,— Form of Certificate of Acceptance for Culvert Property , Exhibit M— Permitted Exceptions Exchange Agreement V14 07 10 14-_. . _ Page 1.6 of 16 Exhibit A FREDRICH PROPERTY Real property in the City of Dublin, County of Alameda, State of California, described as follows: PARCEL ONE: PORTION OF THE 79,45 ACRE TRACT OF LAND FIRSTLY DESCRIBED IN THE DEED BY JOSEPH S. SOTTO JR.TO RAYMOND BROWN AND JOSEPH A. BROWN, DATED FEBRUARY 4, 1952 AND RECORDED FEBRUARY 19, 1952, BOOK 660 OR, PAGE 515(AG-13911),ALAMEDA COUNTY RECORDS,A POR nON OF LOTS 9 AND 10"MAP OF THE PROPERTY OF THE ESTATE OF ELIZABETHDOUGHERTY, DECEASED, IN ALAMEDA AND CONTRA COSTA COUNTIES', FILED MAY 11, 1891, MAP BOOK 8, PAGE 5,ALAMEDA COUNTY RECORDS, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS- BEGINNING AT THE INTERSECTION OF THE SOUTHERN LINE OF SAID 79.45 ACRE TRACT WM THE CENTER LINE OF THE RE-ALIGNMENT OF TASSAJARA ROAD OR COUNTY NO, 2568,AS SAID ROAD 15 DEFINED IN THE DEED BY JOSEPH S. SEATO,JR.TO COUNTY OR ALAMEDA, DATED NOVEMBER 27, 1.946 AND RECORDED DECEMBER 5, 1946, BOOK 5041, PAGE 67(TT-107440), ALAMEDA COUNTY RECORDS; RUNNING THENCE ALONG SAID CENTER LINE OF TASSAJARA ROAD FROM A TANGENT THAT BEARS NORTH 240 33' 12" EAST ALONG A CURVE TO THE LEFT WITH A RADIUS OF 8013 FEET, A DISTANCE OF 534.82 FEET! THENCE CONTINUING ALONG SAID CENTER LINE,TANGENT WITH THE LAST NAMED COURSE, NORTH 13-45- WEST 292,66 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 660 52'09'WEST 568.93 FEET, THENCE SOUTH 30-40' 45" eAST 297.56 FEET, AND SOUTH 690 034 15"EAST 198,08 FEET TO THE CENTER LINE OF A PRIVATE ROAD KNOWN AS DOWNING ROAD; THENCE ALONG THE LAST NAMED LINE, NORTH 45' EAST 147.89 FEET TO THE EASTERN BOUNDARY LINE OF THE RANCHO SAN RAMON;THENCE ALONG THE LAST NAMED LINE SOUTH 0' 35' 30"WEST 208.28 FEET, THENCE SOUTH 740 31'05"WEST 34.35 FEET TO LAST SAID CENTER LINE OF TASSAJARA ROAD;THENCE ALONG THE LAST NAMED LINE, SOUTH 0-0 3Y 30- WEST 143.65 FEET TO A LINE DRAWN SOUTH 890 SV WEST FROM THE POINT OF BEGINNING;THENCE NORTH 8911 51' EAST 138.70 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. EXCEPTING THEREFROM THAT PORTION THEREOF WHICH LIES WITHIN THE RE-ALIGNMENT Of TASSAJARA ROAD OR COUNTY ROAD NO 2568. PARCEL TWO: BEING A PORTION OF PLOT 10, "MAP OF THE PROPERTY OF THE ESTATE OF 1E, A. DOUGHERTY", FILED MAY 11, 1891, MAP BOOK 8, PAGE 75, ALAMEDA COUNTY RECORDS, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS, BEGINNING AT THE INTERSECTION OF THE SOUTHERN BOUNDARY LIVE OF THE 79.45 ACRE TRACT OF LAND TO RAYMOND BROWN AND JOSEPH A. BROWN, RECORDED FEBRUARY 19, 1952,IN 6660 OR $15(AG-13911)AND THE EASTERLY BOUNDARY LINE OF THE FORMER RANCHO SAN RAMON; THENCE NORTH 011 35`30" EAST 143.65 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING OF THE PARCEL OF LAND TO BE DESCRIBED;THENCE NORTH 013530" EAST 208.28 rEM THENCE SOUTH 451D WEST 147.89 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 310 33' 20"EAST 132.45 FEET; AND THENCE EASTERLY 34,33 FEET'TO THE ACTUAL POINT OF BEGINNING. ASSESSORS PARCEL NO. 946-541-2-3 PARCEL THREE. ALL OF THAT CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY DESCRIBED IN REEL, 1318, IMAGE 383, SERIES NO.AW- 152055, ALAMEDA COUNTY RECORDS LYING SOUTHERLY OF THE LINE DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: COMMENCING ON THE EASTERLY LINE OF TASSAJARA ROAD AT ALAMEDA COUNTY STATION 129 + 33.50 AS SHOWN ON RECORD OF SURVEY NO.519 RECORDED NOVEMBER 13, 1974, EOOK 9 OF RECORD OF SURVEYS,PAGE 73,ALAMEDA COUNTY RECORDS; RUN NINGTHENCE SOUTH 760 15'00 1 WEST 66.00 FEET TO THE WESTERLY LINE OF TASSA3ARA ROAD;Ti ENCi SOUTH 87"47'05"WEST 30.34 FEET;THENCE SOUTH 76-08' 10- WEST 168.97 FEET;THENCE SOUTH 77-38'45'WEST SRS FEET,TORE OR LESS, TO THE CENTERLJNE OF TASWARA ROAD AS SAID ROAD EXISTED PRIOR To NOVEMBER 27, 1946, EXCEPTING THERET ROM THAT PORTION THEREOF LYING WITHIN THE UNES OF PARCELS ONE AND 7WO DESCRIBED ABOVE. City of Pleasanton,County of Alameda, State of California APN, 986-OOt4-002-03 Exhibit B VARGAS PROPERTY Real property in the City of Dublin, County of Alameda, State of California, described as follows: PARCEL ONE: A PORTION OF SECTION 28,TOWNSHIP 2 SOUTH, RANGE 1 EAST, MOUNT DIABLO BASE AND MERIDIAN,AND ALSO A PORTION OF LOTS 9 AND to, MAP OF THE PROPERTY OF THE ESTATE OF ELIZABETH DOUGHERTY, DECEASED, IN ALAMEDA AND CONTRA COSTA COUNTIES, FILED MAY 11, 1891, MAP BOOK 8, PAGE 5, ALAMEDA COUNTY RECORDS, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT THE POINT OF INTERSECTION OF THE SOUTHERN LINE OF THAT CERTAIN 79.45 ACRE PARCEL OF LAND FIRSTLY DESCRIBED IN DEED FROM JOSEPH S. SOTTO,JR.,TO RAYMOND BROWN AND JOSEPH A. BROWN, DATED FEBRUARY 14, 1952, RECORDED FEBRUARY 19, 19,52, UNDER RECORDERS SERIES NO.AG/13911,IN BOOK 6660, OF OFFICIAL RECORDS OF ALAMEDA COUNTY, PAGE 515,WITH THE CENTER LINE OF THE REALIGNMENT OF TASSAJARA ROAD,OR COUNTY ROAD NO.2568,AS SAID ROAD IS DEFINED IN THE DEED BY JOSEPH S. SOITO,JR., TO COUNTY OF ALAMEDA, DATED NOVEMBER 27, 1946, RECORDED DECEMBER 5, 1946, UNDER RECORDERS SERIES NO.TT/107440, IN BOOK 5041, OF OFFICIAL RECORDS OF ALAMEDA COUNTY, PAGE 67; RUNNING THENCE ALONG THE SAID CENTER LINE OF TASSAJARA ROAD,THE TWO FOLLOWING COURSES AND DISTANCES; NORTHEASTERLY AND NORTHERLY ALONG THE ARC OF A CURVE TO THE LEFT WITH A RADIUS OF 800,00 FEET, FROM A TANGENT WHICH BEARS NORTH 24 DEGREES, V 12', EAST, 534.82 FEET,AND THENCE NORTH 13 DEGREES 45 WEST,TANGENT TO THE SAID LAST MENTIONED ARC, 292,66 FEET TO THE ACTUAL POINT OF COMMENCEMENT;THENCE CONTINUING ALONG THE SAID CENTER LINE OF TASSAJARA ROAD THE THREE FOLLOWING COURSES AND DISTANCES: NORTHERLY AND NORTHWESTERLY ALONG THE ARC OF A CURVE TO THE LEFT WITH A RADIUS OF 800.00 FEET,A TANGENT TO THE SAID LAST MENTIONED COURSE, 363.84 FEET,THENCE NORTH 39 DEGREES, 48' 30-,WEST,TANGENT TO THE SAID LAST MENTIONED ARC, 637.44 FEET,AND THENCE NORTHWESTERLY AND NORTHERLY ALONG THE ARC OF A CURVE TO THE RIGHT WITH A RADIUS Of 800.00 FEET,TANGENT TO THE SAID LAST MENTIONED COURSE, 630.76 FEET TO THE CENTER LINE OF TASSAJARA ROAD,OR COUNTY ROAD NO, 2568,AS SAID ROAD EXISTED PRIOR TO NOVEMBER 27, 1946;THENCE ALONG THE LAST SAID CENTER LINE THE FOUR FOLLOWING COURSES AND DISTANCES;SOUTH 5 DEGREES 22',WEST 260,81 FEET;THENCE SOUTH 24 DEGREES 42', EAST 429.00 FEET;THENCE SOUTH 14 DEGREES 59', EAST 533.44 FEET;AND THENCE SOUTH 7 DEGREES 53*,WEST 46238 FEET;THENCE NORTH 66 DEGREES 52' 09", EAST 568.93 FEET TO THE ACTUAL POINT OF COMMENCEMENT. EXCEPTING THEREFROM THE FOLLOWING: A.)THAT PORTION THEREOF WHICH LIES WITHIN THE REAL16WIENT Of TASSAJARA ROAD,OR COUNTY ROAD NO. 2658, BALL OF THAT CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY DESCRIBED ON REEL 1318, IMAGE 383,SERIES NO.AW 152055,ALAMEDA COUNTY RECORDS, LYING SOUTHERLY ON THE LINE DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS, COMMENCING ON THE EASTERLY LINE OF TASSAJARA ROAD AT ALAMEDA COUNTY STATION 129+ 33.541 AS SHOWN ON RECORD OF SURVEY NO. 519 RECORDED NOVEMBER 13, 1974 IN BOOK 9 OF RECORD OF SURVEYS, PAGE 73,ALAMEDA COUNTY RECORDS, RUNNING THENCE SOUTH 76015'1141" WEST 66.00 FEET TO THE WESTERLY LINE OF TASSJARA ROAD;THENCE SOUTH 87047'05"WEST 30.34 FEET;THENCE SOUTH 76008'10"WEST 168.97 FEET, THENCE SOUTH 7703645"WEST 285 FEET, MORE OR LESS,TO THE CENTERLINE OF TASSAJARA ROAD AS SAID ROAD EXISTED PRIOR TO NOVEMBER 27, 1946, PARCEL TWO: A RIGHT Of WAY FOR DRIVEWAY PURPOSES DESCRIBED 4SFOLLOWS: COMMENCING ON THE EASTERLY LINE OF TASSAJARA ROAD AT ALAMEDA COUNTY STATION 129 + 33.30 AS SHOWN ON RECORD OF SURVEY N0, 519 RECORDED NOVEMBER 13, 1974 IN BOOK 9 OF RECORD OF SURVEYS, PAGE 7],ALAMEDA COUNTY RECORDS, RUNNING THENCE SOUTH 76»1S�)V° WEST 6b.U0 FEET T0 THE WESTERLY LINE 0F T45SA]AKA ROAD;AS SHOWN 0N SAID RECORD 0F SURVEY,T0 THE TRUE POINT Of BEGINNING;THENCE SOUTH 87»47Y)5" WEST 3O.34 FEET,THENCE SOUTH 1Q02§'/xk° EAST J03o.20 FEET T0 SAID WESTERLY LINE 0FTASSAJAPA ROAD;THENCE ALONG SAID WESTERLY LINE, NORTH 13»45'nO"WEST 292.66 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT 0FBEGINNING. APN, y86-00U4-(m2-A1 | | � � � � � � � � Exhibit C ROW LAND i EXHIBIT A LEGAL DESCRIPTION RIGHT OF WA Y DEDICATION VARGAS PROPERTY ALL THAT CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY SITUATED IN THE CITY OF DUBLIN, COUNTY OF ALAMEDA, STATE OF CALIFORNIA BEING A PORTION OF THE LANDS OF VARGAS AS DESCRIBED IN SERIES NUMBER 1987.274300, ALAMEDACOUNTYRECORDS, MORE PARTICULARLYDESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT THE SOUTHEASTERLY CORNER OF SAID LANDS OF VARGAS, SAID CORNER BEING ON THE WESTERLY LINE OF TASSAJARA ROAD, THENCE WESTERLYALONG THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF SAID LANDS OF VARGAS SOUTH 860 3229" WEST, 30.84 FEET, ` THENCE SOUTH 77014'17" WEST, 1,16 FEET, THENCE LEAVING SAID SOUTHERLY LINE AND ENTERING SAID LANDS OF VARGAS THE FOLLOWING FOUR (4) COURSES: 1. ALONG A NON-TANGENT CURVE TO THE LEFT, HAVING A RADIAL BEARING OF SOUTH 71°33'44", HAVING A RADIUS OF 1061.92 FEET, THROUGHA CENTRAL ANGLE OF 10 005'34"AND ANARC LENGTH OF 187.06 FEET; 2. NORTH 28°31'50" WEST 26.70 FEET- 3. SOUTH 61-28'10" WEST, 625 FEET 4. THENCE NORTH 26 025'38" WEST, 255.57 FEET TO A POINT ON THE WESTERLY LINE OF TASSAJARA ROAD; THENCE ALONG SAID WESTERLYLINE THE FOLLOWING TWO(2) COURSES: 1. SOUTH 38°5827"EAST, 138.38 FEET; 2• ALONG A TANGENT CURVE TO THE RIGHT HAVING A RADIUS OF 767.00 FEET, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 26°03'30"AND AN ARC LENGTH OF 348.83 FEET, TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. CONTAINING 0.35 ACRES MORE OR LESS A PORTION OF APN 986-0004-002-01. THE BEARINGS AND DISTANCES USED IN THE ABOVE DESCRIPTION ARE ON THE CALIFORNIA COORDINATE SYSTEM, ZONE 3• DISTANCES SHO WN A RE GROUND DISTANCES. FESS/Q PREPARED BY. x No. C 298x1 * Exp. 03/31/15 �Ik olvi AP CA�-�4 4 DATE: MARK E. WOODS LICENSED CIVIL ENGINEER NO, C29851 (EXP. 0313112015) STATE OF CALIFORNIA !':at;ruirv'.ri?'r;,'r -' , ;:;c, tr ?rr„t;lit r:; ,''it:;F:,'.?•Ir't.::,rriLle, ;t.,i'rrr ,i'.;ir,,: : PAGE IOF2 \\ ` LEGEND BOUNDARY OF DESCRIPTION EXISTING PARCEL APN 935-000-d-001 POB POINT OF BEGINNING ---------------- \ 1lklJLL-lrl rYANCH APN 9B5-0001-001-0-1 N38°58 27"W 138.38' CIMNo S LIN APN 9B6�ddd4�dJ5�d� w `, S4F11 NJ Bz�dd��� �, - \\ JJB- L A R=767,oo' vl�Ji�7A vA �AS \ D=26°03'30" rAPN 4168-0004--dd2-VY �r \ L-348.83' NIA \ I r d-Fll5s \ rr 1987��74dd \\ r ` I N61°28'10"E 6,25' rr N28°31'50"W 26.70' t \ i 1 R=1061,92' , POB J D=10°05'34 rr L=187,06' �, i r _ - N86 03229"E 30.84' ,E��t) }� tr JY X033 a4 N77*14'17"E RpfESSlp � N1 1.16' t i i1+ z i 7,YOMAS A A lam i ENS L NO. C 29851 rYFI�JFIICN TF1Uu7 r ; * Exp. 03/31/15 APN 956-000-41-002-03 Lp� 1 V 41 ��� �\ Brrll�C NJ �dfl8 ld9dFi7 c� 9TF Of cA\-\F�� EXHIBI T 'A' PAGE 2 OF 2 Design Resources, Inc. RIGHT OF WAY DEDICATION PIA DATE, JULY 10, 2014 VARGAS PROPERTY 7021 GUYS GBW.,SWt.150 W.fnul C—A,Cefilornfa 94598-26M TEL/9251 210-9500 SCALE: I" = 150' M, 1 t EXHIBITA LEGAL DESCRIPTION RIGHT OF WAY DEDICATION FREDRICH PROPERTY ALL THAT CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY SITUATED IN THE CITY OF DUBLIN, COUNTY OF ALAMEDA, STATE OF CALIFORNIA BEING A PORTION OF THE LANDS OF FREDRICH AS DESCRIBED IN SERIES NUMBER 2008-109067, ALAMEDA COUNTY RECORDS,MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: PARCEL `A' COMMENCING AT THE SOUTHEASTERLY CORNER OF SAID LANDS OF FREDRICH, SAID CORNER BEING ON THE WESTERLY LINE OF TASSAJARA ROAD, THENCE ALONG SAID WESTERLY LINE ALONG A NON-TANGENT CURVE TO THE LEFT, HAVING A RADIAL BEARING OF NORTH 63°28'12" WEST, HAVING A RADIUS OF 76700 FEET THROUGHA CENTRAL ANGLE OF 09°55'35"AND AN ARC LENGTH OF 132,88 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE CONTINUING ALONG THE WESTERLY LINE OF TASSAJARA ROAD AND CONTINUING ALONG A CURVE TO THE LEFT HAVING A RADIUS OF 767.00 FEET, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 16°16'53" AND AN ARC LENGTH OF 217.95 FEET- THENCE LEAVING SAID WESTERLY LINE AND ENTERING SAID LANDS OF FREDRICH THE FOLLOWING THREE (3) COURSES: I. SOUTH 34 018'37" WEST, 80.38 FEET; 2, SOUTH 04'40'43" WEST 110.96 FEET; 3, THENCE ALONG A TANGENT CURVE TO THE LEFT HAVING A RADIUS OF 612,00 FEET, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 03°34'08"AND AN ARC LENGTH OF 38.12 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. CONTAINING 0.11 ACRES MORE OR LESS. PARCEL B' BEGINNING AT THE NORTHEASTERLY CORNER OF SAID LANDS OF FREDRICH, SAID CORNER BEING ON THE WESTERLY LINE OF TASSAJARA ROAD, THENCE ALONG SAID WESTERLY LIVE SOUTH 12°54'57" EAST, 256.40 FEET; THENCE LEA VING SAID WESTERLY LINE AND ENTERING SAID LANDS OF FREDRICH THE FOLLOWING NINE(9) CO URSES.• 1. SOUTH34°18'3,7" WEST, 52,31 FEET, 2. NORTH 03°I1'40" WEST, 14.69 FEE,T,• 3. THENCE ALONG A TANGENT CURVE TO THE LEFT HAVING A RADIUS OF 1067.98 FEET, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 04 023'41"AND AN ARC LENGTH OF 81.92 FEET, w 4. SOUTH 82°24'38" WEST 2.00 FEET- 5. ALONG A NON-TANGENT CURVE TO THE LEFT, HAVING A RADIAL BEARING OF SOUTH 82°24'38" WEST, HAVING_A RADIUS OF 1065.98 FEET, THROUGHA CENTRAL ANGLE OF 05°07'33"AND AN ARC LENGTH OF 95,37 FEET,• f,.,, , (:. nr r l la7`r ! PAGE IOF3 ..,r.e_•rr' is.0 r crrcc(..!/c t. 6 NORTH 77°17'05"EAST, 2.00 FEET,- 7 ALONG A NON-TANGENT CURVE TO THE LEFT, HAVING A RADIAL BEARING OF SOUTH 77°17'05"WEST, HAVING A RADIUS OF 1067-98 FEET, THROUGHA CENTRAL ANGLE OF 05°15'50"AND AN ARC LENGTH OF 98.12 FEET, 8. SOUTH 74°24'14" WEST, 6.06 FEET 9. THENCE ALONG A NON-TANGENT CURVE TO THE LEFT, HAVING A RADIAL BEARING OF SOUTH 72°00'26" WEST, HAYING A RADIUS OF 1061.92 FEET THROUGH CENTRAL ANGLE OF 00°26'42"AND AN ARC LENGTH OF 8.25 FEET, TO THE NORTHERLY LINE OF SAID LANDS OF FREDRICH,• THENCE EASTERLYALONG SAID NORTHERLY LINE NORTH 77°14'17"EAST, 1.16 FEET,• THENCE NORTH 86°32'29"EAST, 30.84 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. CONTAINING 0.16 ACRES MORE OR LESS A PORTION OFAPN 986-0004-002-03, THE BEARINGS AND DISTANCES USED IN THE ABOVE DESCRIPTION ARE ON THE CALIFORNIA COORDINATE SYSTEM, ZONE 3. DISTANCES SHOWNARE GROUND DISTANCES PREPARED BY: �o QRpSSlpt a No. C 29851 , s!r Exp. 03/31/15 Pik DATE: MARK E. WOODS LICENSED CIVIL ENGINEER NO. 029851 (EXP• 0313112015) STATE OF CALIFORNIA PAGE 2OF3 t! J00- L A 1/IJ1-7'A VArIGA3 N77°14'17"E 1,16' t N86°3229"E 30.84' I APN f9B6i--0004-002-01 ��{�� f�_ � —POB t SrFIJrB NJ 19ft7�27'y30d 1in33'�� 2�1 t / 6 n J. �+00 00 2 6 g2 12 .8 R 6,,f0E 6 -1061 N 7`�°2 72 L=gB' !t g' D=05°1 E�R� '�0 2 ! R=j067'g 77°17 O6 J L-96.3 ° 1 \ D=05°07,33 i \ � 2,00 � t \\ R�10 65,g8 082124,3$ E{R L;81,92 PARCEL 'B' t l Oa° 3 i 2 t \\ R 1067.98 14.69 ,t \ 03°11'40� ) / \\ N N34°18'37"E 5231' i rYoj lA3 A d / \\ H-1-91V- / jrAl-DrflcN 7'rIU57' // f APJV 9S flddWUfl��d l \ 39RI-3 JVO, 2008--109061"' �� /^N89°40'39"W(RI N34°18'37"E 80,38' f �`\ I LEGEND I BOUNDARY OF DESCRIPTION �\ ---- EXISTING PARCEL \ -. R=767,D0' POB POINT OF BEGINNING \ zz o LD=16 , ' 95 " POC POINT OF COMMENCEMENT \\ R=612,00' °' w =217.95' M \ L=38,12' PARCEL 'A' 1 /Vj IV81°45'09"E(R) t Q�ROFESSIO � cHANG S LIN I 3 ADC �y APJV 9-66-0004-006-06 I RYA/ 1 ]Vol 82-00J.766 I POB w NO. C 29851 I 1 * Exp. 03/31/15 * I s , 1------R=767.00' /1 D=09°55'35" qTF OF CAL\F CITY OF DUDL JiV + p� / L=132.88' APJV 9BS-000y-003-00 �-——_—— POC 3Fr1J-3 JV0 2007-A3390 EXHIBIT 'A' PAGE 3 OF 3 RIGHT OF WA Y DEDICA TION , Design Resources, Inc. FREDRICH PROPERTY IA PlannbD m EnQlnwin9 m Survoykg OA TEr JUL Y 10, 2014 PARCEL 'A' & 'B' 1021 oft/.,.50.= W.Wt 01.0,G�1'1amle 94598-2635 rfL(9261210-9300 SGALEr I" = 100' M, 1: i Exhibit D CULVERT PROPERTY i i EXHIBIT A LEGAL 17ES01UPTION TRANSFER PARCEL RIGHT OF WAY DEDICATION t ALL THAT CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY SITUATED IN THE CITY OF DUBLIN, COUNTY OF ALAMEDA, STATE OF CALIFORNIA BEING A PORTION OF THE LANDS OF FREDRICH AS DESCRIBED IN SERIES NUMBER 2008-109067, ALAMEDA COUNTY RECORDS, MORE PAR7ICULARLYDESCRIBED,4S FOLLOWS: COMMENCING AT THE SOUTHEASTERLY CORNER OF SAID LANDS OF FREDRICH, SAID CORNER BEING ON THE WESTERLY LINE OF TASSAJARA ROAD, THENCE ALONG SAID WESTERLY LINE ALONG A NON-TANGENT CURVE TO THE LEFT, HAVING A RADIAL BEARING OF NORTH 63°28'12" WEST, HAYING A RADIUS OF 76700 FEET, THRO UGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 26°1227"AND AN ARC LENGTH OF 350.83 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE LEAVING SAID WESTERLY LINE AND ENTERING SAID LANDS OF FREDRICH THE FOLLOWING FOUR(4) COURSES: 1. SOUTH34°18'37" WEST 199.89FEET; 2. SOUTH 42°3524" WEST 62.85 FEET; 3, SOUTH 18 026'41" WEST, 49.83 FEET; 4. THENCE NORTH 84°3427" WEST 10,00 FEET TO THE WESTERLY LINE OF SAID LANDS OF FREDRICH THENCE HONG SAID WESTERLYLINE THE FOLLOWING TWO(2) COURSES: 1. NORTH 01 025'33"EAST, 64.97 FEET; 2. NORTH 3 0°43 25" WEST 113.18 FEET• THENCE LEA KING,SAID WESTERLY LINE AND PROCEEDING THENCE NORTH 34°18'37"EAST, 371.99 FEET TO A POINT ON THE WESTERLY LINE OF TASSAJARA ROAD; THENCE ALONG SAID WESTERLY LINE THE FOLLOWING SIX t6) COURSES: 1. SOUTH 12°54'57"EAST, 3626 FEET; 2. ALONG A NON-TANGENT CURVE TO THE RIGHT HAVING A RADL4L BEARING OF SOUTH 77 005'02" WEST, HAYING A RADIUS OF 767.00 FEET, THR0 UGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 02°23 -48" AND AN ARC LENGTH OF 32.08 FEET; 3. SOUTH33°30'03" WEST, 146 51 FEET, 4. SOUTH 56°229'57"EAST, 80,00 FEET, 5, NORTH 33 030'03"EAST, 48.76 FEET; 6. THENCE ALONG A NON-TANGENT CURVE TO THE RIGHT, HAVING A RADIAL BEARING OF SOUTH 88°55'37" WEST HAVING A RADIUS OF 767.00 FEET, THROUGH CENTRAL ANGLE OF 01 023'44 AND AN ARC LENGTH OF 18.68 FEET, TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. CONTAINING 0.91 ACRES MORE OR LESS A PORTION OF APN 986-0004-002-03. PAGE I OF THE BEARINGS AND DISTANCES USED IN THE ABOVE DESCRIPTION ARE ON THE CAlIFOR U COORDINATE SYSTEM, ZONE 3. DISTANCES SHORW ARE GROUND DISTANCES. ` � p PREPARED BY: �FEssl p � 'Y!1� cn No, C 29851 Exp. 03/31/15 Of cxQ DATE. MARK E. WOODS LICENSED CIVIL ENGINEER NO. C29851 (EXP, 0313112015) STATE OF CALIFORNL4 E t'. "-00'i hl '',.0;f :�?�,:1;'. .; ..eir!,•rrr;.r;:-rrl4r.� PAGE 2,OF3 ( JOS, I A VJJI-7'A VArIGA 9 ( APIv 9,65-0004-002-dY 1 5-rV—PS ND, 1967'-Z'4300 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 7,-JOMA9 A A L jrrl-FDrlJrH 7'r11J97' 1 i j1 AP)V 93 6-•0004-dU2-d3 1 1 \ ilrr�1�6 N�, 2170.8�j09067' 1 1 \ 1 1 \ 1 N12°54'57"W I' \ 36,26' \ 1 \\ X177°05,0211EfR) �-R=767,00' D=02°23'4 "' \\ N79°28'50"E(R) / Lz32,08' 7 lob N33°30'03"Ei 48,76 N88°55'37"E(R) \ �1i5 8o R_76700` cjIANG 3 1JN \�� 629so D_01°23'44" � L=18.68' APN 988-Udd4-006--0 I N89 18,6 "WIRI 3-rfJ-9 No l 1 POS LEGS D �1 !( I p>� �°� ! BOUNDARY OF DESCRIPTION ———— EXISTING PARCEL 'rte w_ ! II N, 1 R=767.00 1 POB POINT OF BEGINNING �D--26°12'28"1 POC POINT OF COMMENCEMENT N01° OJ��� L=350,83' 1 2533"E ��� ��,• / 1 wO QRO�SS I p�r 64.97' Q�� O4tl��c: N18°26'41"E N88 034'27"W I 49,83' / No, C 29851 10.00' * Exp. 03/31/15 rl7 Y Or'" DJ81 JN �TF OF CA\ APN 986-0004-003-00 k —_——_/ POC 9�rI1�9 NO, 2707-333390 EXHIBIT 'A' PAGE 3 OF 3 Design Resources, Inc. TRANSFER PARCEL / PlinnMg a Eng wwing r Surveying DA TEr JULY 10, 2014 RIGHT OF WAY DEDICA r1ON 3021 C4/°6 CL°M,Svnu 150 w,fW Cru.A,Celfforn/e 9 4 69 8-2675 TEL 19251 110.9300 SCALE: 1" = 100' M, 1: Exhibit E PG&E EASEMENT REC0RMGFS-QUESTT-D BY A-NDRE-nRAN TO P,4CHTC G-ISAIND ELECTAIC caumNT -upidsoliffs Office ADDRESS Lrcatwir Feczrdk_Fee Do--men,TTaMfEr Tax Thia 1*5 a cmieyaarce where the ctrcdduatieu and v2lue hs tus ff=siocax(ym n9i 1", Ca m FuH YKIr-a Less Lieu & RemmbinE at Time d,.We Sh.-mure of dedraur or aggreir detemrjurn-2 tam P EM (S .4LE Bk M 21C AA2E ? OM LIB?`202-01-a234 EASENIENT D=D JO',:-%E L-VARGAIS and"VIOT FT A TV.ASC—"S,lymband ani wife, hereinaRfr called G-rantor, hereby Uz--t:i to PACMCI GrAS 2UTM EUCTRIC CO2YIP.A.M7, a C alifbinia corporation,Lexeirrzftea-called Gmxntee,the Tizhi from tmze to time to cunaixuct,rezorrs-tl Lict Mall, inspect,maintain, replace.,remove, and use facifibies of the tymc hereinafter specifieJ, iogethex wirb a right of way therefor, witliin the eanexzew area a-,hereinafier 2-et faith,and ahoingress,s t1teretc, and agrais therefrom, tivex and across the laude of Gr=,,or 1-2tuate in the City of DubLin, Couuty of lameda,State of Caha"onria,dewdibeda:;fbl!loxvs: (AP1T 986-0-004-002-01-1 Parcel 1 as described in the deed fi-omAmador VaUey Savoag:;and Loan Assacizibon to jose L.lt-ar-gzs and 1.7ioleta Vargass, husbarid and vd-,3a, dated October 1, 1937 and recorded as OEzial Recorda Doc,ament No.87-2743 G!I in the Office of the Counts,Recorder of Alameda Cotmt--% Said facilifties and easement area are de!imibed as follows: Such overhangiag-wirpn, cables,cronax=.,finhues, and apIpLutenamen; as Grantee deems neces�ars, fox the dhtribution of electic enargy and cammunicztion purposes kczted wiffi- in the.parcel of?and dewribed as fdllows- A ALip of land of t'he imiabrm ividth of 2-0 feet I-'ng config , oua toaud northerly ofthe southerly boundary hue of said I-an"Is and extending from fl3p-wrestaity boundai-I lie of the CounrY Road 1-nown, as Tanajaxa Road as said road,ry shown ou the=p filed far-record November 13: 19714,m BDo-k 9 of Record of Sur-my:at Page 73,in the OfEce of'tffie Caurrvy Recorder Da'Alame da CvLmty,vventerly, MOO feet(measuxed a.10,14 said.soutEerly boundary line). lo iiimor to cm, a"Ij Lill tmv, Mid brn-'I iT=any r,r lu-n-on" *Mill WWI vanum" ::mw MA Awilme He so.04W mm"Qw t,,, zzns, i,3 tj-jjzj Xid i:ajt &yqn 1m. mw hmm awz, C,;Iclk SII. of ot�rs�r-,I -fwtnl now o� the o, p6i(q)n&Qamcc am y WN't A,fn,o 1.,r 4 bo ,�uJ 1,,0-.n latdtlic-,im�t4�lcd QmQ Own MA Wall W tWaMO Mh A&V M VWW MUMM W MR m UYNiff MY Ad Win ii &ZLid CZ.9antfif 0,vc.a- camw Nm=VVIN W 64.,Aolvc thz, 6"+1 1""Tl,',ipil To ano0u.'r •oll4c A,domed ill scti',jon-11TI M dw CaliloflliA Utilkin Co&Stiff rigi-A tolasteidl, t7mmi;�4'TA7 vv-plorv, fvmwo� aml mt, WON 000AM sod awmm m" �11d flb,mllov uJjtw%%jt:dAc,"UIA j(aiy hat I"d flic--11'art,wt "A", ullacht,l hv.rt:l-.j The kgA dmowton he"k,�m be MQP mmUd Itemw&501 dw wm"l ash MR,1.1mut camprm,um PuTawd by thmmy the pam"Im Amol 0,rll fnj"lrQ;)) 0,�;lwoc(�I f't w;d bmA it rv;pto�vc Poo 95 h"Vin .w mh ovl Arva kit�;sicml Dik kion L rkl sa ki car cor-d WNW opvxmg Dtpinmllcnt�t 6:!nr. Dim:ibwioll I:",I- �S' 2S S:X _NX IS Nl,,410 Dim),lo Pwv coid l4ciidiaji and 1 0-1 S,,R-01 L, Stt- PG&E Dw%11 swwwqq:Not 857 MM NO AM' LD of an),aff,-cwd kc,wvrmox NI-'A (D.4&ims WA WIT OF INTERES0 0106,011 SHE MY AM;MA (Vor Qluiu kiim,, tving Ordc4r 4 or tl,%l P!107 18 i7 )CN;Ul-13438 Cmmy Ahwd:i Uifii�y Noike Nu-wlvc�N/A W AfTs"al Appkal NIc", kxkioyl pretlun�d By CNTwd By R N i,.,"a w,Na mlvt ........... .,__,.... -...-. 7 hf,a i�r.�;�i.'•fat<�:7ri It r t!'�i+Ci�eq,a��F.°t;'�_z'.�iT�^aC��::}�ire�+^<r�tist v,l a��^n.�t�q�;�b��s 4 xlr:r�r`�t�u to t>te ill a_t r„tiri it_3„1 a,!,ttik,.italw Li 0,vw fkv ht.f K?t t r-t r I nalnzt i') :O um �.UJ :HQWN end thug k Who.r4t+..r m9sAaH..d<7ta iar.l.7at..�:al4rsl?tom gas;xxi,a:�,a a3.�ztt3at�t4—Tqr i.dl 'A l extof I lm PE `,NIA", £,-"F Fj�,zIJVOJ wails 9ri,� law, OF Use Slat vl l'a'itantsi.a thnS d1r� lxrutvt F.WH t k Via Ilk ,)ffl Jai 5 a) t t;'�3.:1't"Y C1_�I-1�E'I►t`ik'�l�Rtti#'� � tip{tiartu U ,a�(ei.-f"tar»aC,A3�.ra:r.ri^�i „r}�;ratiCa+;<1 I S 1 lr,�tt:.�€si�:.lhrl�ds:rt-utter!ir�,�(a of l; . t"wir,"i Pnturrrsjd) C Oda Paviflc GAs ond rleor r:Company i EXHIBIT"A" (sT ANJ O� EASEMENT'T'I ISC1.f?SUR.F. STATEMENT i},i,lyi,;i.xkP i;trt,rarwnl Avid veal itt iht rxyt v.,,,ftr y a jfin�uit t< I adrm, i1nd 01(34T) (.,nkd,aP.tt 11rs F lfnlirs 4,�ll i-r k .r..:,j,,,t to 1161.., ,a pli Am Plea.w mAd this d6closury corr$ral:)',before signing Cllr CrArla Uf t4sraxlml. * l'ofa svk� l ultrml hjkmhon<s+fP rik<443, &V"Alittal171V P ,AJ,11),Mnl • 5re grlwinF of lhit, ac.wl Ipplic,"lla taq sc,142 01, �vin of PO4 E v6 Ip fzt ifitt U t%,,t t w appl,l:ua a+5('xaty w f,4 r(-',"->`t. Ps aut,f tm exc-mrmt Is an 3c.: rux,*xJAI:ion}:v t 1. x61.6 #<i;xta kk y iii}sl€` l is„a t kit v_ry iq,,of c.,c 16x61.PC141i t::not d Sus II L4Izd to ftitkh S tray Buff tCrmil6g alii-:a vsi.,c 41-.'tit t,4 1fS.isU”,lf. ew,*llao}t 4r"17h:y tv ir.IcNl to 414;, ,4&tiiSm!!:7 riolYk1:s in the at a. lasilairaft,.;,4 of"al";tt lrt,, .l 1461atio li r of lhk a,'itwmv,-It a(w xNJI tvgkiii wa wfidillm-il r a lei i k2t+'ii'r..rf haaif r}rtasti,y mt':a.. . 1st vdw tr. !ir,, a,trs g tslsr I'lk pce ma."tt f`v2., drJ t'r>Y:!Ir irr_t tf a.i n of V64L f,,i.ii:iC You I"V-Od14:,'Ocv? Of f„hil in VJiJ,* CEi'P! t;Pn}:Yf,-�- E 44 w,�A oo;0167 It,kt„ifk,hib.,rt,lr.lttalrw.p rllti:?.,liti by VG&E 5 iq„h ,a>wkl 1st(fa;ratYp? afit`;,cal€iacakn 1,a t itii,Ptt ifres e+ti±.6. Aliditxinaltf. ,n cT,�;t`*ao<r-,MN rtit. C':ilrfPxrtti;s Are .rn=+i .ml ,stu,e a=r&r, ('i'O&V kit h {i l.iract,; a ka'iff. ja?1:t13=.IIC3=.f1 peafi`'rnt. 11 Tdrtivo(l P1wtiS[€`11'J?li°avrivi.n rm your r.rt.T n. 3`i ptithlr,f trot Sri iiw' "*Two ofI cze. ,le:Fit..in Fa€+fr I To luaiiillin;,;Opa aIeJ.J3;a,*_n from s°°a-tzP3.iCt'f CICt.1I:i f;l` s slr L1tI'e°`f`+l.ifrt}t;5. « loot_,zb riptbvasa ktt t *e??mwnt 1o,;;atila, wKtf- 1164-,”, k d,t, raxtilsli' 4t n!to K, iwiAlki'l r1Era+'ui ldn, tllakt N.Nmisfxaml;�i;aa Syal?.. f7 c4lil`:,r14i4 P411fis:Ulili3l,.,Cut3 .li S,fri1 I e ltr: is w 1'C..C's 1f.}.I. Jal tv:flat#urallt}7 ji 2 S1 9 ua1 i',f i.t Symil317 alil� F.,wi"kio for wilily fta ztj ltv)ti 91v 17:n :,m,1111."- avii:aToa k",PG&F..,'1?fa wiv-,Ilit mr3, he tetllit"i(rrt l y t%lr,3 irnart, +ar <-1,tv loo,1t)%(A� i4l",;twat I ,a ztiTk Upa r,clilre4(t3�:>n ofllt ppl:t l's it 2aSl iala E-W vtilir, iaaitk, iai$t t+: arses �1 bry }t&E, W,11M t«lr wra itiry t€Caa:latzrn i, c1xA:ftnineaf w kl; l if€Z li,04,f 441;;1`,rt3i to to taOIL by iu appikLUar.. wt Ur : ;l_*,3,L;iIt1-We 416 j),,m I,dg>>ag trill fzuj Yll Gjwl3..,lac Gild tat'?.ft'esT:.tlli thm Voo a tstlul,°�idl} n.woirlg,Olt eja,eif"vl fir.I'ia< f. I l,"o'l tl,:si csttj ata'waarizz4 C7r,t,la c!2asrPrarat witil 0i l3aact+ ttt:: lltd+l; t=i ut„t fi !! F U l. `C 1_ iltptla tc suE of if v U3,1”,.f L.Pa,ttt,rw x4l'Thr>IA--sd c;wve s.at�ritw 1z F 4Ft,14Ylf'if;No.36971857 ,47'lA #oF,)FOR#CFrR"?4r'"PURPOSCS 011 Y a If 'r APN!9138-til3U4;002-01 O,R.DOC.Aim:##x1-2'74-1#01 ACp �4 0/ �`� DATED:i�+l r,2, 1981 '� N,`� S 161a`���ej'44''){y }yy ,'t, Y�.S 98, 1t1, '1 # r^`i'�� J^FgfWU�Jta. 'Ps^St F0 " X14"1 aOi&NAIL- l�ATi. .'CO 09, ZOiJ TAt3ILLC,SOLE. f s itLa>P tPf3' R(R1) 3«} #1 ILLEGIBLE,UP 0.6' (UL34 RI) �t->ypS g +F'�l..q' 144'�'a P,(�1+(Y�1 Lt?`G'?1"a J,P 3X iVF4�3�o-1 t f f F V#° L 6.rA .+{ �RU'f` FE 1LE ilt'Cl. flli'�S �'BB{RA} #ESt{R l} to , ft-liJi�ts9S A, kkttlRl�`tt�3 � rf � 'f IiL`LS`!"r S.,a�'R1«'a7RtL"Fl 1P :9P Chi 3 !_p i 1 0,R OO ,Na-:719112�4468:ACP ; z OA7'O FXY2,?,2 (92,1.e 'R..) #tf1 �l 9 LR PC; 3 i t.tN131 ---� PARCEL LSN; _-- CEN`T-11 LIN EASEMENT AREA MONUMENT FOUND AS NOT50 (BI.) IkOS BK.9 OR PG.73 ACR A .R ALAmrOA Col-I'M RrCORGS LP, IRON P19f ON S`OtHtRIfFi;tit SHOWN At ��Ilta��?h�t�f♦'17 1�7��NEDlgc� 6OUNDARIES OR LINES ApplIcalitl 5>CA, AIT 'FF OMAS A„FREI)RICH AND HELEN=.L,FREDR.I H 1" . 'Of rOWNSH: RANGE MfR(O Ak C.0� �r��:��CIA�1F � r; �� � NVV 114 OF 1.02 Fr. A.01 E, M,LI,S#u 1*(, NE lJ+l� Ca�� r.C,t M 6>5cr 'C:HXY, SAO PLAT MAP M132:"t =N<0 34797"18. 31?I7:is 7 REFER�6 e$AOS)3K,I OR PG, !3 ACA COA5- A4.$'t HOkU O1ir WINta N Exhibit F CITY PROPERTY tE AL DESCRIPTIMN Real.popperty in the City of Cubli n Ccuntry,of Alameda,State crCa1fornia, descried d156.31GAs PARCEL 3 OF PARCEL MA NO. 1.193,.,F-LED.SEPTEMBER LG,,1974 INS PARCEL MAP BOOK M,AT PAGE 40,ALAMEDA COUNTY RECORDS .LPN; a -O -003: I I I I Exhibit G CULVERT EASEMENT 1956MIT 3/26/2014 fBM Page I of 3 EXHIBIT DESCRIPTION RIGHT OF WAY DEDICATION ALL THAT CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY SITUATED IN THE CITY OF DUBLIN, COUNTY OF ALAMEDA, STATE, OF CALIFORNIA,BEING A PORTION OF THE LANDS OF FREDRICH AS DESCRIBED IN SERIES NUMBER 2008-109067,ALAMEDA COUNTY RECO RD I S, MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: COMMENCING AT THE SOUTHEASTERLY CORNER OF SAID LANDS OF FREDRICH, SAID CORNER BEING ON THE WESTERLY LINE, OF TASSAJARA ROAD,THENCE ALONG SAID WESTERLY LINE ALONG A NON-TANGENT CURVE TO THE LEFT,HAVING A RADIAL BEARING OF SOUTH 6303645"EAST,HAVING A RADIUS OF 767.00 FEET,THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 26"15'58",AND AN ARC LENGTH OF 351.62 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE LEAVING SAID WESTERLY LINE AND ENTERING SAID LANDS OF FREDRICH THE FOLLOWING THREE(3)COURSES: 1. SOUTH 34"15'20" WEST,261.68 FEET; 2. THENCE NORTH 55044'40"WEST,38.50 FEET,TO A POINT ON THE EASTERLY LINE, OF THE LANDS OF LIN,AS DESCRIBED IN SERETS NUMBER 82-001756,ALAMEDA COUNTY RECORDS; THENCE ALONG SAID EASTERLY LINE NORTH 30048'42"WEST, I 1 1.94 FEET; THENCE RE-ENTERING SAID LANDS OF FREDRICH NORTH 34"1520"EAST,371.11 FEET,TO A POINT ONTHE WESTERLY LINE OF TASSARA ROAD; THENCE ALONG SAID WESTERLY LINE THE FOLLOWING SIX(6)COURSES: 1. SOUTH 13002'45"EAST, 34.38 FEET, 2. ALONG A CURVE TO THE RIGHT HAVING A RADIUS OF 767.00 FEET,THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 02"23'41"AND AN ARC LENGTH OF 32.06 FEET, 3. SOUTH 33'22'15"WEST, 146.51 FEET, 4. SOUTH 56(37'45"EAST, 80.00 FEET, 5. NORTH 33022'15"EAST,48.77 FEET 6. THENCE ALONG A NON-TANGENT CURVE TO THE RIGHT,HAVING A RADIAL 'BEARING OF NORTH 88"47'42"EAST HAVING A RADIUS OF 767.00 FEET',TI-IRO­uGj-IA CENTRAL ANGLE OF 01°19'35"AND AN ARC LENGTH OF 17,75 FEET, O THE POINT OF BEGINNING. CONTAINING 0.875 ACRES MORE OR LESS. ll:\19569\Plats-Legals\t,egals\F,RF,,DRICH-I JLT ROW TAKE,doc 9$69.01 T 3/26/2014 IBM Page 2 of END OF DESCRIPTION PORTION OF A.P.N.996-0004-002-03 PREPARED BY: all . �-- MARK WEHEER DATE LICENSED LAND SURVEYOR NO. 7960 (EXI'. 3/31/2016) STATE OF CALIFORNIA MACKAY& SOMPS CIVIL ENGINEERING*LAND PLANNINGOLAND SURVEYING 5142 Franklin Drive Suite©,Pleasanton,CA,94588-3355 (925)225-069() No.7960 P:\19-)69\Plats-Legals\Legals\FREDRICIJ-ULT ROW T/V1Q-.doc f \ JOEiE-- L AND / \ VIOL ETA VARCv-\5 EXN/BIT A APN 986-0004-002-01 f PACE,3'OF 3 � SERIES N0. 1987--274300 f \ f 1 � TYIDMA5 A & LEILENE L F'REDRJCH TRS y APN 986-0004-002-03 / SERIES NO. 2008-109067 / CHANO 5 I.IN APN 986-0004-005-05 L-- — — — - N34 015'20"E 371 .11 ' N13 002'45 W SERIES N0. 82-001756y / 34.38' / �' RIGHT OF WAY N79°20'56'E(R) R-767.00' DEDICATION 146,51 ' ` A=2°23'41 " / o : 0.875 AC. t N33 022'15"E L=32.06' / N33°22'15"E N55 044'40"W N56'37'45"W__,- 48.77' N88 047'42"E(R) 38.50' 80.00' ,- ---- --- / / 261 ,68' R=767.00' =1°19'35 N34 015'20aE i ~`�� ZL=17.75' POB �`x N89°52'43"W(R) N63°36'45"W(R) V\-POC f CITY OF DUBLIN APN 986-0004-003 / SERIES N0: 2007-383390 // c / 0 50 100 200 / / SCALE;1"=100' PLAT TO ACCOMPANY DESCRIPTION LEGEND RIGHT OF WAY DEDICATION BOUNDARY OF DESCRIPTION CITY Or DUBLIN CALIFORNIA — — — — — EXISTING PARCEL POB POINT OF BEGINNING MACKAY & SOMPS POC POINT OF COMMENCEMENT ENGINEERS PLANNEOS SURVEYORS 51428 FRANKLIN DR, PLEASANTON, GA 94568 (925)225-0690 DRAWN PATE SCALE JOB NO. KMR I FEBRUARY, 2014 1"=100' 19569.01T 23-25-2014 100om Ion MocDon°Id P;\19569\PLATS—LEOALS\PLATS\TABS RD OFFSITE\FREDERICH—TGCE—ULT ROW TAKE.DWO 19569,04T 02/14/20[4 IBM Page I of 3 EXHIBIT A DESCRIPTION TEMPORARY GRADING AND CONSTRUCTION EASEMENT ALL'rHAT CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY SITUATED IN THE CITY OF DUBLIN, COUNTY OF ALAMEDA, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, BEING A?ORTION OF THE LANDS OF FR-EDRICII AS DESCRIBED IN SERIES NUMBER 2008-109067,ALAMEDA COUNTY RECORDS,MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT THE SOUTHEASTERLY CORNER OF SAID LANDS OF FRED.RICH, SAID CORNER BEING ON THE WESTERLY LINE OFTASSAJARA ROAD,THENCE ALONG SAID WESTERLY LINE ALONG A NON-TANGENT CURVE TO THE LEFT,HAVING A RADIAL BEARING OF SOUTH 63036'45"EAST, HAVING A RADIUS OF 767,00 FEET,THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 26`15'58",AND AN ARC LENGTH OF 351.62 FEET, THENCE LEAVING SAID WESTERLY LINE AND ENTERING SAID LANDS OF FREDRICH THE FOLLOWING THREE (3))COURSES: 1. SOUTH 34°15'20" WEST, 172.02 FEET; 2. NORTH 55944'40" WEST, 140,00 FEET; 3. THENCE NORTH 34'15'20"EAST,328.64 FEET,TO A POINT ON THE WESTERLY LINE OF TASSARA ROAD; THENCE ALONG SAID WESTERLY LINE NORTH 1.3'02'45" WEST, 125,53 FEET; THENCE LEAVING SAID WESTERLY LINE AND RE-ENTERING SAID LANDS OF FREDRICH THE FOLLOWING TWO(2)COURSES: 1. S.QUTH05000'46" WEST, 150.97 FEET; 2. THENCE SOUTH 34015'20"WEST,31.5.90 FEET,TO A POINT ON THE WESTERLY LINE OF SAID LANDS OF FREDRICH, THENCE ALONG SAID WESTERLY LINE AND THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF SAID LANDS Or FREDRICH.THE FOLLOWING THREE(3)COURSES: 1. SOUTH 30°48'42" EAST, 13235 FEET; 2, SOUTH 01017'48" WEST, 143-63 FEET; 3. SOUTH 89024'41"EAST, 102.45 FEET,TOTI-IE POINT OIL"BEGINNING, CONTAINING 1.13 ACRES MORE OR LESS. P:\19569\Plats-Leg,ils\Legals\Ff EDRICH-TGCE,doc 19569.OIT 02/14/2014 IBM Page 2 of 3 END OF DESCRIPTION PORTION OF A.P.N.986-0004-002-03 PREPARED BY MARK*EHBE:R. — DATE LICENSED LAND SURVEYOR NO. 7960 (EXP, 3/3-1/2016) STATE OF CALIFORNIA MAcKAY& Somps CIVIL ENGINEERINGeLAND PUMING•LAND SURVEYING 5142 Franklin Drive Sulie©,Pleasanton,CA.94588-3355 (925)225-6690 NQ � No.7960 P Exp. �4 P:U 9569\Plats-Legals\Legals\FREDR1CH-TGC:E.doe / \ Ts�RIES I AIND vARGAS / EXHIBIT A \\ 0004-002-01 / PAGE 3 OF 3 / 1987-274300 T�ICA/lA 0 A & LrLEINE L >'rc:rD'RJCI-I -f'RS \ APN 986-0004-002-03 / SERIES NO. 2008-109067 / 1 / CHAING S LIN APN 986-0004-005-05 N34015'20"E 315.90` app ya o Z- - SERIES NO, 82-001756 N34°15 20"E 328.64' — vt Lo ( // �i3 TEMPORARY 172.02' I — ��3+ . � GRADING/ ° , — °'�� CONSTRUCTION N34 15 20 E �\ EASEMENT 62 `, N89°52%'43"W(R) 1,13 AC. ,�------ + �3�'�' r N6_3°36'45"W(R) P.OB 4 crry OF DUBLIN / APN 986-0004-003 " SERIES NO. 2007-383390 / / 0 50 100 200 / SCALE:1 "=100' PLAT TO ACCOMPANY DESCRIPTION LEGEND TEMPORARY GRADING AND CONSTRUCTION EASEMENT BOUNDARY OF DESCRIPTION ci1Y OF quauN CALIFORNIA — — — EXISTING PARCEL POB POINT OF BEGINNING MACKAY & SOMPS POC POINT OF COMMENCEMENT ENGINEERS PLANNERS SURVEYORS 51428 FRANKLIN DR, PLEASANTON, GA 94588 (925)225-0690 DRAWN DATE SCALE JOB N0. KMR IEBRUARY, 2014 1"-100' 79569.ObT 02-24-2014 2;27pm Inn MocDonold P:\19569\PLATS—LEGALS\PLATS\TASS RD 0FFSITE\EREDERIGI-1-TGCE—ULT ROW TAKE.GWG i Exhibit H DEVELOPER GRANT DEED RECORDING REQUESTED BY: City of Dublin No fee for recording pursuant to Government Code Section 27383 WHEN RECORDED MAIL TO: City Clerk City of Dublin 100 Civic Plaza Dublin, CA 94568 THIS SPACE FOR RECORDER'S US ONLY Consideration Less than $100.00 GRANT DEED CULVERT PROPERTY TL PARTNERS II, L.P. APN 986-0004-002-03 6960 TASSAJARA ROAD, DUBLIN, CALIFORNIA k THIS PAGE HERE TO PROVIDE ADEQUATE SPACE FOR RECORDING INFORMATION (Government Code 27361.6) GRANT DEED FOR A VALUE CONSIDERATION, receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, TL PARTNERS II, L.P., A CALIFORNIA LIMITED PARTNERSHIP (GRANTOR) hereby GRANTS to THE CITY OF DUBLIN,A MUNICIPAL CORPORATION (GRANTEE) All of its right, title, and interest in and to that certain real property (the "Property") situated in the City of Dublin, County of Alameda, State of California, described as follows: FOR LEGAL PLAT & DESCRIPTION SEE EXHIBIT "A", ATTACHED HERETO AND MADE A PART HEREOF GRANTOR: TL PARTNERS II,L.P. a California Limited Partnership By: Title: Date: ACKNOWLEDGEMENT State of California County of On before me, , (insert name and title of the officer) personally appeared who proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument, and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by his/her/their signatures(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument. I certify under PENALTY OF PERJURY under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing paragraph is true and correct. WITNESS my hand and official seal. (Seal) Signature of Notary i Exhibit .CULVERTIMPROVEMENTS I r ilk; LAND DEVELOPMENT 12667 Alcosta Blvd, Suite 170 Bringing five-star quality home San Ramon, CA 94583 925.380.1220 tel 925.389.1214 Fax April 20, 2015 Michael Porto City of Dublin 100 Civic Plaza Dublin, CA 94568 RE; Land Exchange Agreement with TL Partners II, LP, for Property on Tassajara Road File#670-20 Dear Mr. Porto: On August 12, 2014, the City of Dublin and TL Partners II, LP ("TLP") executed a.Land Exchange Agreement concerning 2.69 acres of City property south of the Tassajara Highlands Project and adjoining Tassajara road. Following discussions with City staff, TLP now requests that a revised Exchange Agreement be executed to accomplish the following: I. Amend the Exchange Agreement to include a reference to the vacation of the farmer sweeping right turn area. 2. Amend the Exchange Agreement to make reference to road/street frontage improvement work that may be required in the existing right of way area.. 3. In connection with the above amendments, update descriptions of the portions of the 2.69 acres that would be exchanged, vacated, and retained as City right-of-way for Tassajara Road widening, attaching a version of the exhibits prepared by Wood.Dodgers that shows the above pieces and the exchange parcel. 4. Request that the City ratify the Exchange Agreement, as amended. I have attached a proposed.First Amendment to the Land Exchange Agreement for your review. The August 12, 2014 Exchange Agreement was executed subject to compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act where applicable. We understand that the City plans to complete an Initial. Study/Addendum analyzing the environmental effects of implementation of the Exchange Agreement as revised. Physical changes on the 2.69-acre site subject to the revised Exchange Agreement include: Michael Porto April 20, 201.5 Page 2 a. A flow control detention basin serving the adjoining Tassajara Highlands Project and the City's Tassajara Road widening project; b. Right-of-way improvements for Tassajara Road widening; c. A multi-use trail; and d. Landscaping with trees and drought-tolerant plantings. Please contact me if you have questions regarding this request. We look forward to completing the agreement revisions expeditiously so that the important work at this 2.69-,acre site can be begun and completed as soon as possible. Thank you. Very truly 0 rs Michael S. OHara Director of Forward Planning - 2 - LEGAU 25703037 1