The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About6.5 Hansen Ranch GP Amendment qao-s6 AGENDA STATEMENT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: February 27, 1989 CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING SUBJECT: PA 87-045 Hansen Ranch General Plan Amendment Study, EIR, Planned Development Prezoning, Tentative Subdivision Map No. 5766, and Annexation request for 240 dwelling units on 147 acres, west of Silvergate Drive and north of Hansen Drive REPORT BY: Maureen O'Halloran, Senior Planner NOTE TO PUBLIC: AT THIS PUBLIC HEARING, MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC WILL HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO FULLY COMMENT ON EACH NUMBERED ISSUE LISTED BELOW. TO MAINTAIN THE FOCUS ON EACH ISSUE, PERSONS DESIRING TO COMMENT SHOULD LIMIT THEIR COMMENTS TO THE ISSUES ON THE FLOOR. IF YOUR COMMENTS ARE SIMILAR TO THOSE MADE BY OTHER SPEAKERS, PLEASE MAKE YOUR STATEMENT, BUT TRY TO AVOID NEEDLESS REPETITION. PRIOR TO SPEAKING, PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS AND GENERAL SUBJECT OF YOUR COMMENTS. THANK YOU. EXHIBITS ATTACHED: Exhibit A: Draft Resolution Making Findings and Certifying the Final EIR with a Statement of Overriding Considerations Attachment A-1: Addendum to Hansen Hill Ranch EIR dated February 7, 1989 Attachment A-2: Statement of Overriding Consideration Exhibit B: Draft Resolution Approving FEIR Mitigation Monitoring Program Attachment B-1: Hansen Hill Ranch Mitigation Monitoring Matrix Exhibit C: Draft Resolution Adopting General Plan Amendments Attachment C-1: Hansen Hill Ranch General Plan Amendment Land Use Designation RECOMMENDATION: 1. Regarding Draft Resolution Making Findings and Certifying the Final EIR with a ��• Statement of Overriding Considerations: 1) Hear Staff P resentation 2) Take testimony from the Applicant and the Public 3) Question Staff, Applicant & Public 4) Close public comment on issue 5) Council deliberation Action 6) Adopt Resolution (Exhibit A) making findings and certifying the Final EIR with a statement of overriding „ considerations or give Sta-ff and Applicant direction and continue the matter. ----------------------------------------------------------------- ITEM NO. COPIES TO: Applicant Owner PA 87-045 Bren Company Project Planner Mark Trembley, EIP . Chris Kinzel, TJKM • j 2. Regarding Draft Resolution Approving Mitigation Monitoring Program: 1) Hear Staff presentation. 2) Take testimony from the Applicant and the Public 3) Question Staff, Applicant & Public 4) Close public comment on issue 5) Council deliberation Action 6) Adopt Resolution (Exhibit B) approving the mitigation monitoring program or give Staff and Applicant direction and continue the matter. 3. Regarding Draft Resolution Adopting General Plan Amendments: 1) Hear Staff presentation. 2) Take testimony from the Applicant and the Public 3) Question Staff, Applicant & Public 4) Close public comment on issue 5) Council deliberation Action 6) Adopt Resolution (Exhibit C) adopting General Plan Amendments or give Staff and Applicant direction and continue the matter. FINANCIAL STATEMENT: The applicant is responsible for reimbursement of the City incurred cost in providing an up to date General Plan resulting from the adoption of the Hansen Hill Ranch General Plan Amendments DESCRIPTION: Background: This item was continued from the January 24, 1989 City Council Meeting. At that meeting the Council discussed the following project related issues: 1. Land use designation and density for developable areas indicating Low Density Single Family Residential (0.5 to 3.8 DU/AC) on 57.2 AC and Open Space, Stream Corridor on 89.8 AC. 2. Incorporate entire Hansen Hill Ranch project within primary planning area. 3. Amend Table 1, development policies for residential sites, page 8, and Figure 4 sites for housing development, page 9, eliminating Areas 5, 6 and 7 from the Table and Figure. 4. Amend General Plan policy and map with regard to Hansen Drive extension. 5. Amend General Plan relating to alternate roadway serving project site. 6. Amend General Plan relating to maximum acceptable level of service (LOS) for major street intersections. 7. Amend General Plan relating to fire protection buffer zone. 8. Amend General Plan relating to open space maintenance. 9. EIR and Mitigation Measures. Additionally at that meeting the Council directed Staff to prepare the necessary resolutions to: 1) certify the EIR, 2) approve the EIR mitigation monitoring program, and 3) adopt the General Plan Amendments related to the PA 87-045 Hansen Hill Ranch General Plan Amendment/EIR. Analysis: Prior to approving the General Plan Amendments the City Council will need to make findings certifying that the EIR is complete and adequate; adopt a statement of overriding consideration if the General Plan Amendments will have significant environmental impacts, and approve the EIR Mitigation Monitoring Plan. 1. Resolution Making Findings & Certifying the Final EIR with Statement of Overriding Considerations: -2- Exhibit A is the Draft Resolution making findings and certifying the final EIR. The final EIR consists of the Draft EIR dated December 1987, Final Addendum responses to comments dated May 16, 1988 and the Addendum to Hansen Hill Ranch EIR dated February 7, 1989 (see Attachment A-1) . The purpose of the Addendum (dated Feb. 7, 1989) is to amend the description of the project in the FEIR (dated May 16, 1988) to include a description of the revised project identifying the General Plan Amendment Land Use Designation as 57.2 AC Low Density Single Family Residential (0.5 to 3.8 DU/AC) and 89.8 AC Open Space, Stream Corridor as discussed at the January 24th Council Meeting. In addition to certifying the completeness of the FEIR the attached Draft Resolution 1) identifies significant adverse impacts which can be mitigated or avoided, 2) identifies insignificant impacts, 3) identifies significant adverse impacts which are unavoidable or for which substantial mitigation is infeasible, 4) identifies and finds that the four (4) project alternatives set forth in the final EIR are infeasible and 5) sets forth a statement of overriding considerations. Attachment A-2 Statement of overriding considerations (attached to the Draft Resolution) identifies the impacts to the oak/bay woodlands and riparian corridor resulting from grading for roadways through open space as impacts which cannot be mitigated to an acceptable level. However, the adverse environmental impacts to the oak/bay woodlands is considered acceptable in that the public safety and welfare benefit of providing vehicular and emergency access on site outweighs the potential adverse environmental impact. The General Plan Amendement would also provide housing consistent with the housing element and would provide economic benefits to the community in the form of potential increased tax revenues. 2. Resolution Approving Mitigation Monitoring Program The purpose of the monitoring program is to ensure compliance with the mitigation incorporated into the project to avoid or substantially lessen significant adverse impacts. The monitoring program for the Hansen Hill Ranch project follows a matrix format identifying the resource, the impact, the monitoring action, and the verification (see Exhibit B Draft Resolution Approving Monitoring Program and Attachment B-1 Hansen Hill Ranch Mitigation Monitoring Matrix) . The Monitoring Action identifies what needs to be done, who will do it and when it will be done. The verification category identifies which department or agency is the lead department responsible for overseeing the Monitoring Action. The Monitoring Program will be used during future processing stages of the project to ensure compliance with the necessary mitigation measures. 3. Resolution Adopting General Plan Amendments The following items are included in the Draft Resolution adopting the General Plan Amendment for the Hansen Hill Ranch (Exhibit Q . 1. Amend General Plan to incorporate entire Hansen Hill Ranch project within the primary planning area. As indicated previously, a portion of the project site is within the Primary Planning Area while a portion is in the Extended Planning Area. 2. Amend the land use designation on the Hansen Hill Ranch project site as noted on Attachment C-1 (attached to Exhibit C) to include: Open Space, Stream Corridor Low Density Single Family Residential (0.5 to 3.8 DU/AC) „ _ .3..•. - Amend .General Plan .to .delete. .Areas. 5_6 -and 7 from -Table -I- and Fi-guru 4 -oF - - - the General Plan. Inclusion of the entire Hansen Hill Ranch project within the primary planning area and adoption of land use density and designation eliminates the need for Areas 5,6 and 7 on Table I and Figure 4. 4. Amend General Plan policy and map with regard to Hansen Drive extension. The General Plan currently shows Hansen Drive extending to the Western Extended Planning Area. This General Plan Amendment would eliminate this extension. -3- 5. Amend General Plan to include alternate roadway serving Hansen Hill Ranch site (Valley Christian Center access road) and designate as a collector street. 6. Amend General Plan to include policy establishing Level of Service D as maximum level of service acceptable. The City's General Plan currently does not contain policies addressing acceptable level of service. Recommended policy wording is as follows: "Strive to phase development and road improvements outside the Downtown Specific Plan Area so that the operating Level of Service (LOS) for major street intersections in Dublin shall not be worse than LOS D" . 7. Amend General Plan to include policies requiring fire protection buffer zone around perimeter of residential development which interface with Open Space lands. The City's existing General Plan policies do not specifically address this issue. Recommended policy wording follows: "A Fire protection buffer zone shall be provided around the perimeter of residential development situated adjacent to undeveloped open space land." 8. Amend General Plan to include policies related to open space maintenance. The City's existing General Plan policies do not specifically address the issue of Open Space maintenance. The specific issue of dedication of open space would be addressed at the Tentative Subdivision Map and PD Zoning stage of the planning process. The following policies are recommended to address this issue: a. "Require open space management and maintenance programs for open space areas established through subdivisions and Planned Development Districts. Programs should include standards to ensure control of potential hazards; appropriate setbacks; and management of the open space so that it produces a positive and pleasing visual image. " b. "Require that land designated as open space through development approval be permanently restricted to open space use by recorded map or deed. " C. "Require revegetation of cut and fill slopes. " d. "Require use of native trees, shrubs and grasses with low maintenance costs in revegetation of cut and fill slopes. " e. "Access roads (including emergency access roads) , arterial streets and collector streets that must pass through open space areas shall be designed to minimize grading to the maximum extent possible so as not to damage the ecological and/or aesthetic value and characteristics of the open space area. " f. "Prohibit development within designated open space areas except that designed to enhance public safety and the environmental setting. " g. "Promote inclusion of hiking, bicycling and/or equestrian trails within designated open space areas. " Staff recommends the City Council adopt 1) Exhibit A Draft Resolution certifying the Final EIR with overriding considerations, 2) Exhibit B Draft Resolution approving the Mitigation Monitoring Program, 3) Exhibit C Draft Resolution adopting General Plan Amendments. The Applicant is responsible for costs the City incurs in providing an up to t� . .date General Plan. resulting.fr-om-the:-adopti-orr-of--Har,sen� H-i-l1 -Ranch -Generp, _ Plan Amendments. A subsequent Planned Development Prezoning, Tentative Map and Annexation request will require submittal of planning application materials and public hearings before the Planning Commission and City Council prior to action on those applications. -4- , RESOLUTION NO. 89 - A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ A RESOLUTION MAKING FINDINGS PURSUANT TO CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) AND CERTIFYING FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT, WITH STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS (GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT - PA 87-045 HANSEN HILL RANCH) WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held seven Public Hearings on PA 87-045, Hansen Hill Ranch General Plan Amendment and EIR on February 1 and 16, 1988, July 18, 1988, August 1, 1988, September 19, 1988, October 3 and 17, 1988; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered the written and oral testimony submitted at the public hearings; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission received and reviewed the Staff analysis and recommendation on the environmental effects of Hansen Hill Ranch General Plan Amendment (the "project") ; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission adopted its Resolution No. 88-058 recommending Council certification of the Final EIR; and WHEREAS, the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) , together with the State CEQA guidelines, require that certain projects be reviewed for environmental impact and that environmental documents be prepared; and WHEREAS, an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) on the project has been prepared pursuant to CEQA and the State CEQA guidelines; and WHEREAS, the Final EIR consists of the Draft EIR dated December 1987, Final Addendum Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR dated May 16, 1988 and Addendum to Hansen Hill Ranch EIR dated February 7, 1988, which documents are incorporated herein by this reference. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE Dublin City Council does hereby find as follows: a) The City Council has reviewed and considered the Final EIR and hereby finds and certifies that the Final EIR has been completed in conformance with the California Environmental Quality Act, and the State EIR guidelines. b) The City Council hereby finds that there are significant adverse impacts which can be mitigated, avoided, or substantially lessened by changes or alterations required in or incorporated into the project, as follows: -1- - — 1) The General Plan Amendment would allow certain growth and land use changes and intensification in the project area. However, changes and intensification must be consistent with and conform with the land use designations and policies of the City's existing General Plan and the General Plan Amendments. 2) Project construction, including roadway construction through open space areas, could impact oak/bay woodland vegetation on site. However, mitigation measures will be incorporated into the development phase of the project which will reduce these impacts. Mitigation will include: i) Any- construction activity in close proximity to mature trees should be done in a manner that will minimize trauma to the root system (see details in Chapter 3.4 Vegetation of the EIR) . ii) Disturbed areas should -be revegetated with natural tree and bush species. Specific details of the revegetation plan should be worked out in consultation with the California Department of Fish and Game, the City and the Alameda County Flood Control District. iii) General Plan Amendment policy states "access roads (including emergency access roads) , arterial streets and collector streets that must pass through open space areas shall be designed to minimize grading to the maximum extent possible so as not to damage the ecological and/or aesthetic value and characteristics of the open space. " 3) Project construction, particularly construction of the roadway through open space areas, would disturb riparian habitat areas. However, impacts will be minimized in that the following mitigation will be implemented with project development: i) The California Department of Fish and Game should be consulted as required under Section 1601-03 of the Fish and Game Code. ii) Minimize fill and cut slopes within the riparian corridor. iii) Revegetation of riparian habitats with native species in disturbed areas as well as elsewhere on the site to compensate for habitats lost in graded areas. 4) Project construction could impact wildlife with placement of a large amount of fill under roadways at the confluence of two canyons in the northwestern portion of the project site which would isolate the tributary canyon from large mammals. However, the following mitigation will reduce this impact: i) Place a box culvert under the roadway rather than a 30-inch pipe. -2- 5) Project construction, primarily roadway construction through open space areas, could result in loss of oak/bay woodlands and riparian habitats in the northwestern portion of the site. Impacts will be reduced with compliance of the General Plan Amendment policy (see item #2, iii) requiring minimal grading for roads through open space areas. Mitigation requiring revegetation will minimize these impacts. 6) Project construction, primarily grading, could impact trees. However, the following mitigation would minimize those impacts: i) Visually important trees and tree clusters should be identified and tagged in the field for protection and preservation. Lots within tree preservation areas should not be developed. 7) Project construction could result in excessive cutting and filling. Project specific grading plans will be considered at the Tentative Map and Planned Development level of the planning process. Specific mitigation will be applied at that stage of development and may include the following: i) Develop site grading plan which avoids cut slopes of greater than 2:1. Place cuts for building pads behind structures. Landscape with native materials. Cut and fill volumes should be balanced when possible or used on adjacent site if fill is needed. 8) Project development when combined with the cumulative impacts of other projects have the potential for decrease in the level of service (LOS) at Dublin Boulevard/San Ramon Road from LOS D to LOS F. However, implementation of mitigation to widen the eastbound intersection to have two right turn lanes, two left turn lanes and two through lanes will minimize the potential impact. c) The City Council hereby finds that there are identified insignificant impacts, as follows: 1) Construction and grading within the project area may impact geology and soil conditions resulting in reactivation of landslides and imbalanced cut and fill. However, project specific grading plan and mitigation reviewed and implemented at the Subdivision and Planned Development stage of review renders this potential impact as insignificant. 2) Construction within the project area may increase flows and velocities of Martin Canyon Creek, and result in erosion during construction and erosion from roof and lot drainage. However, implementation of mitigation measures such as detention basins, drop structures, rip-rap, erosion and sediment control plan will minimize these impacts such that they are considered insignificant. -3- 3) Filling of the saddle between the knolls which is not specifically a part of this project (in that it does not involve General Plan Amendments) is considered an insignificant impact in that filling the saddle may be considered enhancement to the ridgeline. 4) Development within the project site area may result in changes to the visual quality of the site as the site changes from rural to suburban. However, lot design and layout and building materials which will be reviewed and mitigated at subsequent levels of review (Subdivision, Planned Development, and Site Development Review) render this impact insignificant. 5) Development within the project site could impact police, fire, recreation, telephone, gas, electric and other utilities. However, the potential impacts are considered insignificant in that project specific mitigation will be established and implemented at subsequent levels of review. Additionally, costs for utilities will be borne by the developer and homeowner. 6) Development in the project site would generate an increase in demand for water and sewer services. However, the capacity of the facilities are anticipated to be adequate to accommodate the increased demand so as to render the potential impacts insignificant. 7) Development within the project site will generate an increase in school enrollment and a corresponding increase in school operating costs. However, the potential impact is considered insignificant in that the student increase is considered within the facilities capacity and State law allows school districts to impose development impact fees. 8) Potential noise and air quality impacts associated with construction activity on the site are considered insignificant in that mitigation measures will be implemented and applied to the project at subsequent levels of project specific review and consideration. 9) Development of the project site will result in an insignificant impact to historic and archaeological resources in that there are no known historic or archaeological resources on the site. Additionally, mitigation will be implemented during the construction stage of development requiring construction activity to stop and retension of a qualified archaeologist to examine the site if archaeological material is encountered during the project construction. d) The City Council hereby finds that there would be significant adverse impacts which are unavoidable, in that specific physical, social, economic or other considerations make substantial mitigation or project alternatives infeasible, as follows: -4- 1) Oak/Bay Woodlands and Riparian Corridor Impacts: The grading for roadways through open space areas (oak/bay woodland and riparian corridor areas) will reduce habitat value and result in removal or potential damage of individual trees. The primary areas in which potential habitat disturbance will occur is in the northwestern portion of the project site, and within the southeastern portion of the site in the vicinity of Martin Canyon Creek. The specific impacts of roadway grading will be determined during review of detailed grading plans which will be required for consideration of the- Subdivision Map. Impacts are anticipated to be minimized through compliance with the General Plan Amendment policy requiring roadways through open space areas to be designed to minimize grading to the maximum extent possible so as not to damage the ecological or aesthetic value and characteristics of the open space. e) The City Council hereby finds that ,'four (4) alternatives, as more fully set forth in the Final EIR, were considered and are found to be infeasible, for specific economic, social or other considerations, as follows: Alternative #1 - No Project The "no project" alternative assumes that the site would remain in open space, allowing one dwelling unit on the site. The "no project" alternative fails to provide needed housing, along with the associated increase in property tax revenues, and is thus considered infeasible. Alternative #2 - Neighborhood Context Alternative This alternative assumes approximately 175 single-family detached homes on 50 acres, or 3.5 dwelling units per acre. This alternative would result in less housing than the project and less affordable housing than the project. Traffic generated by this alternative would be less than that generated by the project. This alternative is infeasible in that it would not provide an adequate number of housing units and the associated increase in the property tax reveues. Alternative #3 - Mitigated Alternative This alternative assumes approximately 202 dwelling units (179 single- family and 24 townhouses) with a net density from approximately 2.9 units per acre to 4.1 units per acre. This alternative would avoid development on ridgelines, oak woodlands and would eliminate extensive cut and fill. Traffic impacts would be essentially the same as those of alternative #2, Neighborhood Context Alternative. This alternative would result in less housing than the project while at the same time resulting in greater density in some areas. This alternative is infeasible in that it would not meet the housing needs or associated tax revenue and would not allow for vehicle access through open space areas. -5- Alternative #4 - Creek-Oriented Alternative This alternative assumes a total of 280 dwelling units with a high number of multi-family units and a lower number of detached single-family units. This alternative assumes a large amount of grading and greater impact to woodland and riparian corridor areas. This alternative is infeasible in that it would allow for destruction of environmentally significant woodland and riparian habitat areas. The number of units and density is infeasible in that it would not be compatible with surrounding residential land uses. f) The City Council further has set forth a Statement of Overriding Considerations explaining the need to proceed with the project although not all expected environmental effects may be mitigated or eliminated, which Statement is marked Attachment A-1 and is attached hereto as if fully set forth herein. g) The City Council hereby adopts the .'Statement of Overriding Considerations, certifies that the Final EIR for the General Plan Amendment PA 87-045 is complete, with the mitigation measures, stipulations, corrections, and Overriding Considerations as included, and stipulates that the mitigation measures set forth in the Final EIR be incorporated in the implementation of the General Plan, as amended. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 27th day of February, 1989. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk -6- ADDENDUM TO HANSEN HILL RANCH ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (EIR) FEBRUARY 7, 1989 INTRODUCTION The State CEQA guidelines (California Administrative Code, Title 14, Section 15164) require preparation of an Addendum to an EIR under the following circumstances: (1) None of the conditions described in Section 15162 (subsequent EIR) calling for preparation of a subsequent EIR have occurred. (A subsequent EIR is typically required if there are changes in the project which involve significant environmental impacts not addressed in the previous EIR or if significant new information is available) ; (2) Only minor technical changes or additions are necessary to make the EIR under consideration adequate under CEQA; and (3) The changes to the EIR made by the addendum do not raise important new issues about the significant effects on the environment. CEQA Guidelines indicate that the addendum need not be circulated for public review but can be included in or attached to the final EIR. Additionally, the CEQA guidelines state that the decision-making body shall consider the addendum with the final EIR prior to making a decision on the project. PROJECT DESCRIPTION (IN DEIR AND FEIR) The Applicant revised the proposed project from the project evaluated in the DEIR completed on December 22, 1987. The Final EIR (FEIR) response to written comments dated May 16, 1988 includes a description of that revised project, which was again subsequently revised (December 28, 1988) . Figure 1 page 4 illustrates the revised land use designation plan for the Hansen Hill Ranch site. Figure 2 page 5 represents the Applicant' s proposed site plan included on page 2-2 of the FEIR (revised from the plan included in the DEIR) . ttNTA:L__- (Addendum to EIR] ? ' � ;w au The purpose of this Addendum is to amend the FEIR description of the project. PROJECT DESCRIPTION (REVISED) The project consists of the following General Plan amendments: 1. Incorporate entire Hansen Hill Ranch project within primary planning area. 2. The Hansen Hill Ranch site- (see Figure 1, page 4) General Plan Land Use Designation 57.2 acres (58.5 gross acres) Low Density Single Family Residential (0.5 to 3.8 DU/Acre) ; 89.8 Acres open space stream corridor; for a total project site of 147 acres (148.3 gross acres) . 3. Amend Table 1, development policies for residential sites, page 8, and Figure 4 sites for housing development, page 9, eliminating Areas 5, 6 and 7 from the Table and Figure. 4. Amend General Plan policy and map with regard to Hansen Drive extension (delete Hansen Drive Extension) . 5. Amend General Plan relating to alternate roadway serving project site (add collector street north from Dublin Boulevard through Valley Christian Center site) . 6. Amend General Plan relating to maximum acceptable level of service (LOS) for major street intersections (add policy establishing LOS D as maximum) . 7. Amend General Plan relating to fire protection buffer zone (add policy requiring fire protection buffer zone around perimeter of residential development adjacent to undeveloped open space land) . 8. Amend General Plan relating to open space maintenance to include the following policies: a. "Require open space management and maintenance programs for open space areas established through subdivisions and Planned Development districts. Programs should include standards to ensure control of potential hazards; appropriate setbacks; and management of the open space so that it produces a positive and pleasing visual image. " b. "Require that land designated as open space through development approval be permanently restricted to open space use by recorded map or deed. " C. "Require revegetation of cut and fill slopes. " d. "Require use of native trees, shrubs and grasses with low . .maintenance.,-costs: in• reveget-a*_ion of cut and •f ill-'•sl'opes%':` -2- [Addendum to EIR] e. "Access roads (including emergency access roads) , arterial streets and collector streets that must pass through open space areas shall be designed to minimize grading to the maximum extent possible so as not to damage the ecological and/or aesthetic value and characteristics of the open space area. " f. "Prohibit development within designated open space areas except that designed to enhance public safety and the environmental setting. " g. "Promote inclusion of hiking, bicycling and/or equestrian trails within designated open space areas. " REVISED PROJECT (COMMENTS) The revised project eliminates residential development within oak/bay woodland areas, riparian habitat stream corridor areas and areas of 30% or greater slopes. However, the revised project allows roadways through. designated open space areas -with minimal grading. Conceptual project circulation is modified eliminating the need for the previously proposed separate off-site emergency access north of the project site. The revised project significantly reduces the impacts to the oak/bay woodland and stream corridor riparian vegetation areas from the impacts which would occur with the previous proposed plan. However, some impacts to these areas will still occur with roadways traversing designated open space areas. The revised project reduces the density range to 0.5 - 3.8 DU/Acre resulting in a reduced maximum unit yield possible for the site (222 DU based upon gross acreage of 58.5 acres) . -3- [Addendum to EIR] HANSEN II.LLL RANC11 CENERAL PLAN AMI,;NDH1:14 T PA 87-045 LAND U-SH. D[iSIGNATION Low Density Single Family Residantial (0. 5 Lo 3.8 DU/ACRE) 57.2 Acres (58.5 gror•s acres) a �• _ y Open Spocc, •,trcam Gurrldor / ,� L•�.:- -�. '\"��: 89.8 acres _—��♦; ` 1 Collector SLrr eL in Open :;pace /(�' �I�S: /•, = _.� \ ! rig `\\\ .\�`\ ♦rM:I�\\` ' r w LOW UEIJSJ'I'Y SINCLI:-['A19:[LY E `\�p� } a�;• l\1`�.�`-j'L�- l�l� !�/�r�i�C�.•'1��, �n'��I��I� �-r'�(:t(�- `�\�'�'�1�� \\.,-. ��?f/rr/J � ~' . _=__�u •�. �l , � 11� _ , . , ✓.. �. ,,.. \. �. _ � `lam • •i�� ti �r� \14 `41 `� t}> .v.� C°�� 1/l(r (`;:-l= ~i� ` 'C'I �j �'-"r'• a� �\ t' //illy'` �f�t�a•�vn�1 1 (�r�4 J�?t� \ /'• 7 —• � �\4•'� l+r_ �1 11 Ft'•// !-i ti! '. �rl(� 't �� r.• C� � t� .. b te.• '''L�� •{-• \�� e: •'�'r�rry,•r �• ,ter} •FaY �L•J� r r,: ,� �A� ,,rr• r, � .)^� r _ \ L014 DENSITY ? 'S ��'tiS tE��;. '1, �. .. /�JJ V I p. a ! �;a'1�.Q�y j`i�.l�t1 �• ��\C!%� r."Low DI:115I'1'Y r :;T..t� `:. �' SINCL1: 1FAPIILY Kam:�PI� i f �rl1�uI;Iv - - yS vr'� 'r If ttl.l �, ,�\. J [ l� `= t `�.�\♦��''�♦.��,� _ =___ - fir- �rtt�TS�J I�� tl �E1L�,2��f'� OPEN SPACE \�♦`�,=„ tea;/, _ _-' °” ;ice�i�`i2'•' 4. :i`vivi::R'g. i ,•yam..'t: � ..t.. } .. , REVISED PLAN RONIN �;^'..�'.:,i•'''��'� ;_' :'..,,\ faint[:[ Wwul r:n n't6 nL:.uf.,n�r.5 '�_ fit•-;""£�:� ••` 1. ..� ^� ;;-.�i`''� ,• �. - . I 41 1'1ciplibullwud Uldls „ r NIELSEN PI(OPE[ITY .'�.:`��.�Ti[:,;.`I � \'�i.w•,w^ww�w^^w�ee'�,Pl,;e1 I `� ��t!rjti'�1::.,�.ai•� ::. �•..i ^\e� ^t...� ��,p �:`t l�P / l/ ' ��J��/-� :.I` ,a .\.. `:��'a5..wri� �r,rp �♦Lx.(t Ca.J Ft� / -a..r. �✓"•l.. `:i: - .l^ ;�ft <`1 (� ��•; •�, `ter J� _ ae tj11j }. `1 '•t, ..;•.,! '•.` �• "wn Cii,��.. /ate �(�°�M•�y'.4..•�J� .. .. ��..-�, , '^;��'.s��:?i�+1''' �sr--e�. it -`!�L',.• �� , \ V •I '' w. ~ 1. `'� 'hlS:�= I'. "\SnR�tAS�;;� to rf�'►r.n,_17-' (�.,:/J l�.l?Jt W �F`,,,•f_-.. ..4 .--. ,y. / y Ci F a ✓. �..tJ.. �A' r V`t._. .r �- a M p II.C' .�� nil `' � •�i� Its\t•� J ;'_• �;.. `.�� -c v etn,r.�_.C. Vi`I •/]."'•' 4 r w, J .I !'' �f .C r. ..._.— ._ �C`?C:.�.: ;•'or,�,__.. �.'.' .?, ';+ (r^ � ., JOB tF1:• J vdili �fbs I> �` y •. :u �4i - .��- �t.� - '_.%:' ��` 11 sb- :. - a '"• � �'U •a' ,'�^,• it f:.• _ Y•. ,:,l. � t '' <,�� 14�i.�, ,ir-..�rz ' �:. ^` ''ia\t�`1. ' -'c; >s ,�., e n' �� i;�• �.t� I. `)' L1.:.,.-..• "r' ..-_ 1!: yi t ' --•��'�� r �.... ('�1... • f 'G�w.� `•i � �',� �� ' .� •j`�'e'�1 n - —_ ;o.'n J�:�r �...�. R�:� rn-- ,,p \`� \� / (.� . /r '` �. �•'• t t 'r'r. �n r/�'�..,C a ,� o -�,:,( rP �v_ OL! ! :�� : a� i.y !fi• _-_ ; �_��•� ,�'t� dc-t..;tt„�. t -- ~/'C` ,(' C;% �� • MWI�0'1 .""( "-•rL?::"'•-L�l:.. .i �," (.r� Jai-.:.. j+{' f •,yie4� !•• t/V (c•--Oi. ��` w)•)—_4F. .S CG'C!I�r•'t 'p . �.r�.``'_.��t, �,(��r�s� e.^e�+��' -`t'"'1 `'1 t nw" 'r" :-rrn �I•I� °e' ' �>;1 .(:: ter.--•._r ��i .�i V.�,"`•li:�'j. - _ -•.;•'�:A:.��•'�,�ra t^I,-� (,1� ('I� '(�tJ(._ tll=,li'� .�.�.:__ .Sn°•9'=°-nt�\{u g�.l�•�—G'�rC fr ��'.-=:•r� n �`>',yr-k?u;"=: - ;\�•` •�� `�:�` .. _..fA.�. ` �.:�`�1; :,J��.••".,f4•-,.y ,t..trM�rrs.,^-.-�s;:•r, .,^,� ((a ^,,,. �1;_�'yt- u.t^y,�d'•S k�?'.a�''•: 1 ``� •.:: -7 ;i,:9+•I�,�� .y. �+ l7-; /�C): )t5\�:I�l�.l�/`lti�h_ 1"•�� n''�,ff:1p^°eUC��,�\(��tl 1��.��_•�[r1�/1 , �e?�'.e'��='"_<\:�'_ - '�.=%-\�+- _ ! '• � t---t::.-. �l-.:r��..._.•! L�`•�'_1.�r.J.� .11{'tJ/��;J�'-�//•r�.''� �� r.'✓.? /t��V` •--_ ,n CA VALLEY CHRISTIAN CENTER + `71St � � � '. •... '��,,. � ^� 6 BLAYLOCK, -- t �GLEASON.&FLETCHER r' - 1�,\2. 7t=} ' v tir is � ., - .• ATTACHMENT A-2 STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS HANSEN HILL RANCH GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT PA 87-045 The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires that the Lead Agency balance the benefits of a proposed project against its unavoidable environmental risk in determining whether to recommend approval of the project. If the benefits of a proposed project outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental effects, the adverse environmental effects may be considered "acceptable" . Where the decision of the Lead Agency would allow the occurrence of significant effects which are identified in the Final EIR but are not at least substantially mitigated, the Lead Agency is required to state in writing the specific reasons to support its action based on the Final EIR and/or other information in the record. Such statement will be included in the record of the project approval. The following unavoidable environmental impacts are associated with the proposed Hansen Hill Ranch General Plan Amendment PA 87-045 as identified in the Final Environmental Impact Report for the project, consisting of the document entitled Draft Environmental Impact Report dated December 1987 and Final Addendum Responses to Comments on Draft EIR dated May 16, 1988 and Addendum to Hansen Hill Ranch EIR dated February 7, 1989. These impacts cannot be mitigated to acceptable levels or avoided through changes or alterations to the basic project: Oak/Bay Woodlands and Riparian Corridor Impacts: The grading for roadways through open space areas (oak/bay woodland and riparian corridor areas) will reduce habitat value and result in removal or potential damage of individual trees. The primary areas in which potential habitat disturbance will occur is in the northwestern portion of the project site, and within the southeastern portion of the site in the vicinity of Martin Canyon Creek. The specific impacts of roadway grading will be determined during review of detailed grading plans which will be required for consideration of the Subdivision Map. Impacts are anticipated to be minimized through compliance with the General Plan Amendment policy requiring roadways through open space areas to be designed to minimize' grading to the maximum extent possible so as not to damage the ecological or aesthetic value and characteristics of the open space. The City Council has considered the public record on the proposed General Plan Amendment and does determine that the adoption and implementation of the General Plan Amendment PA 87-045 would result in the following substantial public benefits: 1. The adverse environmental impacts to the oak/bay woodland and riparian habitat corridor are considered "acceptable" as the public safety and welfare benefit of providing vehicular and emergency access on site, outweighs the,.•pptenti.al• adverse: environmental--impacts to the-:oak/bay-=woodlands=--and ."-.° -' "°.i tiles=�I riparian habitats. [CC Reso EIR 2/27/89] - ' ;r,; ;1 ; 2. The General Plan Amendment would provide for needed housing consistent with the housing element of the General Plan. 3. The General Plan Amendment would provide economic benefits for the community in terms of potential increased tax revenues. The City Council has weighed the above benefits of the proposed General Plan Amendment against its unavoidable environmental risks and adverse environmental effects identified in the Final EIR and hereby determines that those benefits outweigh the risks and adverse environmental effects and therefore further determines that these risks and adverse environmental effects are "acceptable". [CC Reso EIR 2/27/89] -2- RESOLUTION NO. 89 - A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ A RESOLUTION ADOPTING A MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM (HANSEN HILL RANCH) WHEREAS, Public Resources Code 21081.6 requires the City to adopt a reporting or monitoring program for changes in a project or conditions imposed to mitigate or avoid significant environmental effects in order to ensure compliance during project implementation; and WHEREAS, on February 27, 1989 the City Council adopted Resolution No. making findings certifying the Hansen Hill Ranch EIR and Addendum as complete and adequate; NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE Dublin City Council does hereby adopt the "Hansen Hill Ranch Mitigation Monitoring Matrix" attached hereto as Attachment B-1 as the monitoring program required by Public Resources Code 21081.6. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 27th day of February, 1989. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk Re%. n►oh� r�� S�'` �e PA 87-045 HANSEN HILL RANCH MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM MATRIX FEBRUARY 17, 1989 The Applicant shall be responsible for any and all costs incurred in monitoring mitigation measures. For detailed information on impacts and mitigation measures refer to Hansen Hill Ranch Environmental Impact Report. RESOURCE IMPACTS MONITORING .ACTION VERIFICATION Vegetation Oak/Bay Woodland 1. Prior to issuance of 1. Public Works due to roadway grading permits, the Dept (PWD) with construction developer submits arborist Planning Dept through open space horticulturalist report. input Grading permits will not be issued unless plans reflect recommendation in arborist/horticulturalists report 2a. The Developer shall 2a. Planning with identify significant PWD input trees and tree clusters on T.Map and grading plans. 2b. Prior to issuance of 2b. PWD with grading permit, signi- Planning input ficant trees and tree clusters shall be tagged in the field for protection. 3. Prior to issuance of 3. Planning with grading permits, the input from PWD developer shall submit CA Dept of Fish a revegetation landscape and Game and and irrigation plan for other appro- disturbed areas. priate agency as needed. [Monitor Matrix 2/27] 'R A tR °? y' S RESOURCE IMPACTS MONITORING ACTION VERIFICATION Vegetation Riparian/stream 1. Prior to issuance of 1. (a) Planning corridor due to grading permits the (b) PWD with roadway grading developer shall (a) Planning construction submit verification of input through open Fish and Game permit (c) Planning space areas (b) submit grading plan with Fish minimizing cut and fill slopes and Game within riparian corridor (c) input submit revegetation landscape plan (see 3 above) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Wildlife Isolation of 1. The Developer shall 1. PWD with large mammals submit grading and Planning input due to roadway improvement plans prior construction issuance of grading permit. Grading permit will not be issued unless the plans incorporate mitigation measures addressed in the EIR requiring box culvert under roadway at confluence of two canyons in northwestern portion of site. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Grading/ Excessive Cut 1. The developer submits 1. Planning Dept Topography and Fill grading plans incon- with PWD input junction with T.Map Planning Application ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Traffic Potential 1. Prior to issuance of 1. PWD with input decrease in building or grading from City Traf- level of service permits, the developer fic Consultant Dublin Blvd./San pays to the City a San Ramon Road Traffic Mitigation Fee as compensation for project's fair share of cost of improvements required to mitigate traffic inpacts, or developer constructs improvements [Monitor Matrix 2/271 -2- RESOURCE IMPACTS MONITORING ACTION VERIFICATION Traffic 2. City acquires 2. PWD right-of-way at cost to the developer ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Geology/ Reactivation of 1. Prior to grading, 1. PWD Soil landslide, soil developer submits revised shrink-swell soils report/geotechnical report and erosion control/maintenance plan with improvement plans. Grading permits will not be issued unless plans reflect recommendation of soils report/geotechnical report, erosion control and maintenance plan. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hydrology Increased flow/ 1. Developer submits 1. PWD velocities of revised drainage plans/ Martin Canyon hydrology report, grading Creek permits will not be issued unless plans reflect recommendation in hydro- logy report. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Visual Site Change 1. Developer submits 2. Planning Dept Quality from rural Planning Application to suburban for Planned Development, Tentative Map, including zoning regulations (setbacks, building heights, etc. ) , lot design and layout for City Council review and approval. [Monitor Matrix 2/27] -3- RESOLUTION NO. 89 - A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ADOPTING GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENTS FOR PA 87-045 HANSEN HILL RANCH WHEREAS, The Hansen Hill Development Corporation, an affiliate development company of Venture Corporation has requested a General Plan Amendment Study, Planned Development Prezoning, Tentative Subdivision Map No. 5766 and Annexation to allow a maximum of 240 dwelling units on 147+ acres in unincorporated Alameda County west of Silvergate Drive and north of Hansen Drive; and WHEREAS, on August 11, 1986 the City Council authorized a General Plan Amendment Study for the Hansen Hill Ranch property; and WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of State Planning and Zoning Law, it is the function and duty of the Planning Commission of the City of Dublin to review and recommend action on proposed amendments to the City's General Plan; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held four Public Noticed Study Sessions on the Hansen Hill Ranch planning applications on February 2, 1987, February 17, 1987, August 23, 1988 and August 24, 1988, and two noticed field trips on February 27, 1988 and August 20, 1988; and WHEREAS, notice of Planning Commission Public Hearings was published in the Herald, posted in public buildings, and mailed to property owners within 300 feet of the project in accordance with California State Law; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held seven noticed public hearings to consider the General Plan Amendment and EIR for PA 87-045 Planning Application for Hansen Hill Ranch on February 1, 1988, February 16, 1988, July 18, 1988, August 1, 1988, September 19, 1988, October 3, 1988 and October 17, 1988; and WHEREAS, the Staff analysis was submitted recommending amendments to the General Plan relating to General Plan Land Use Designation and Density, the Primary Planning Area, Table I and Figure 4, policy and map relating to Hansen Drive extension, alternate roadway serving Hansen Hill Ranch, policies [CC Reso GPA 2/27/89] ?A Ittso establishing an acceptable level of service (LOS) for intersections in Dublin, and policies establishing fire protection buffer zone around perimeter of residential development interfacing with open space lands; and WHEREAS, the General Plan Amendment has been reviewed in accordance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act; and WHEREAS, an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) has been prepared pursuant to CEQA; and WHEREAS, on October 17, 1988, the Planning Commission, after considering all written and oral testimony submitted at the public hearings, adopted Resolution No. 88-058 recommending City Council certification of the EIR and Resolution No. 88-059 recommending adoption of General Plan Amendments; WHEREAS, the City Council held one Public Noticed Field Trip on November 27, 1988; and WHEREAS, Notice of City Council Public Hearings was published in the Herald, posted in public buildings and mailed to property owners within 300 feet of the project in accordance with California State Law; and WHEREAS, the City Council held six Public Hearings to consider PA 87-045 Hansen Hill Ranch General Plan Amendment on November 14, 1988, November 29, 1988, December 13, 1988, January 10, 1989, January 24, 1989 and February 27, 1989; and WHEREAS, the General Plan Amendment has been reviewed in accordant- with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) ; and WHEREAS, a Staff analysis of the Planning Commission recommendation, Staff recommendation and the Applicant' s proposal was submitted to the City Council; and WHEREAS, the City Council considered all written and oral testimony submitted at the Public Hearings; and WHEREAS, on February 27, 1989, the City Council adopted Resolution No. making findings certifying the Hansen Hill Ranch EIR and Addendum as adequate and complete. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE Dublin City Council does hereby approve the following General Plan Amendments for PA 87-045 Hansen Hill Ranch as discussed by the Planning Commission and as modified by the City Council which modifications are not substantial: 1. Amend Figure 1 Dublin General Plan Primary Planning Area to: a. include the entire Hansen Hill Ranch site (APN 941-110-1-9 and APN 941-110-2) within the Primary Planning Area. [CC Reso CPA 2/27/89] -2- b. amend the land use designations on Hansen Hill Ranch site, as noted on Attachment C-1 to include: - Open Space, Stream corridor - Low Density Single-Family Residential (0.5 - 3.8 units per acre) C. eliminate Hansen Drive extension through Valley Christian Center site. d. include alternate roadway serving Hansen Hill Ranch site from Dublin Boulevard through the Valley Christian Center and designate roadway as a collector street. 2. Amend Table 1, Development Policies for Residential Sites, page 8, and Figure 4, Sites for Housing Development, page 9, eliminating Area 5, 6 and 7 from the Table and Figure. 3. Eliminate implementing Policy 5.1G page 19, "Reserve Right-of-Way for Hansen Drive Extension to the Western Hills" . 4. Amend 5.0, Land Use and Circulation Section: Circulation and Scenic Highways Element to include a policy establishing the maximum level of service acceptable for intersections within the City: "Strive to phase development and road improvements outside the Downtown Specific Plan Area so that the operating Level of Service (LOS) for major street intersections in Dublin shall not be worse than LOS D. " 5. Amend 8.0 Environmental Resources Management Section: Seismic Safety and Safety Element 8.2.2 Fire Hazard & Fire Protection implementing policies to include a policy requiring fire protection buffer zone around perimeter of residential development which interface with open space lands: "A fire protection buffer zone shall be provided around the perimeter of residential development situated adjacent to undeveloped open space land" . 6. Amend 7.0 Environmental Resources Management Section: Conservation Element to include policies relating to open space maintenance: A. "Require open space management and maintenance programs for open space areas established through subdivisions and Planned Development districts. Programs should include standards to ensure control of potential hazards; appropriate setbacks; and management of the open space so that it produces a positive and pleasing visual image." B. "Require that land designated as open space through development approval be permanently restricted to open space use by recorded map or deed. " [CC Reso GPA 2/27/89] -3- C. "Require revegetation of cut and fill slopes. " D. "Require use of native trees, shrubs and grasses with low maintenance costs in revegetation of cut and fill slopes. " E. "Access roads (including emergency access roads) , arterial streets and collector streets that must pass through open space areas shall be designed to minimize grading to the maximum extent possible so as not to damage the ecological and/or aesthetic value and characteristics of the open space area. " F. "Prohibit development within designated open space areas except that designed to enhance public safety and the environmental setting. " G. "Promote inclusion of hiking, bicycling and/or equestrian trails within designated open space areas. " BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT THE Dublin City Council does hereby direct the Staff to edit, format, and print the up to date Dublin General Plan with all City Council approved revisions and without any other substantive changes. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT THE Dublin City Council does hereby direct that the Applicant, is responsible for all costs the City incurs in providing an up to date Dublin General Plan resulting from the adoption of Hansen Hill Ranch General Plan Amendments. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 27th day of February, 1989. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk [CC Reso CPA 2/27/89] -4- IIANSEN II LLL RANCH , Gl,"NERAL PLAN AMENDIII{[IT VA 87-045 LAND USE DES LGNATTON - Low Density Single Family Itesicr _ntial (0.5 Co 3.8 D0/ACRl3) • 57.2 -Acres (58.5 gross acres) P- 1 n � (L` Open apace, Slrcam Corridor � /p 89.8 acres 7/C ----- Coll.ecCur fit reel in Upen Space "=:2c p l'EN S P A C L•' N •- l�()/` - LOW DENSITY SINGLE FAIII.LY w 1 - I� 1 1'I i/�, y�c;. p(�r• Ir,�,�f, t__,--;;;: t -� rlit, ^-+ `\��:iy�, t��_-�^•j,�lt O,�` 11 � �/{ •IV /•(}°,I�\�� •11I'l�ii��/rir i�:Yr'� 1�a1� ��!\�-�`v� ��• y''nT- ' T �:•�:� < lX0 \{�� fc ,y. rbv cX �jJ r:yt�� 'c f �Se.' �Il�l .� 1•fa e�,�� ^ c�j�^r �'• ^ .� lv tQ �. y �� lt ��.�' P r��{/, fCiiJi l'ZS tiv T'G`� �-� r'e Q ry r} LOW ll teL'NSIlY ��? `c"''` s�'ti5'lttll'�;.�1rt' i 1' l,,� a}��'',+Y r>� I �� i' IP: y �,•,r�•, `;'=f uJ� ��. , �`\�= ��'LU�I lll•.IJS'f.'1' �''�cizr ��..�'y• `.'� :�• N tlrGFl Ia SINGLE'' 1 APIILY r� � r I \� ^1 'L� r \`r I l.. {SINGLE L'AIITLY'r�•• ,\` �� •�� :-� --=-•'.'J =��'�'{3I;J'• � '`"-�.L � r �• rT� 1"� ' �� t I��l`-"��'`}�,�,`�"d'�y��. C•J �• `)`` -�� --==-___ /t,,�,-/,v4. � �I rn �tc��r�ll+ �7e:l�cl n�u •�� '1":�n'�.��Q" _- OPEN SPACE r � .�.:\ .\ .1: i"1 'is ,•n ,.,;r.. G le'• -T R C. r •:r I 1 :h ':i Wit'.•: 3: K �iL 1t •r _f M 'l .r - �. T t• Y�. .s. •Y• M it! i' c.r K td' � c -. •r••' .tia- is y +1` n: :'fit K F. g 1:. =F. tl cam. �? 'Y sYe•"„';e;•.'i YYi: ,�. :`L' a V. }` Q. }:Sr ,r •\ :<�n :tip:..+:`: 5 +t r. R.. . :'_ltr.-� s+t 1% v i•. - •.i, r -d.� bh;' •.:>'...��:;� t,. ` 'r�i.f,.,t•:,�\••t:ih,'iif'�:i':,t�.l�.'::i a"': _ '.y:i .. "R�.� .'V. :�: �'�,F > i fit' ec, .• ..5;♦• t .. .i .. "J 7 .ray :r: a<.>t.. :i'- ,.'!°,�,� „'<• 'xl: ,r a. rti ..•L+- .t. • • .:.�.,. :.<a[•>-''.�V i.YM1l r,',�,y'[ Jar.l.• ';,{•t` r�. .,,; "'r.�