Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout5.1 SchaeferRnchDevelopIssues '. ',.r . '~~ t - - CITY CLERK File # Dlf]lZJlQ]-~1Q] AGENDA STATEMENT CITY COUNCIUPLANNING COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING DATE: APRIL 8,1996 SUBJECT: STUDY SESSION. Development Issues Schaefer Ranch Project Report Prepared by: Tasha Huston, Associate PI~er ~ EXHIBITS ATTACHED: Exhibit 1 Draft Schaefer Ranch Project General Plan Amendment (GP A) document Street Name map Open Space plan Exhibit 2. Exhibit 3. RECOMMENDATION: Review 3 specific development issues regarding this project; Instruct staff to move forward with processing of project as directed by the Planning Commission and City Council FINANCIAL STATEMENT: . The consultant contract for preparation of the General Plan Amendment document and EIR is being financed by the project Applicants. BACKGROUND Before detailed review of the Schaefer Ranch project proceeds, it is appropriate to address development issues that may affect the physical design and institutional framework of the project. An exhaustive environmental study has been done and to his credit, the developer has responded to many of the issues raised. The purpose of this study session is to review 3 specific development issues with the City Council and Planning Commission regarding the project and give staff direction. Staff believes it is far better to surface these issues at an early stage so that the developer does not incur substantial costs on detailed plans only to discover that he did not respond to Commission and Council consensus on issues affecting the design and institutional framework of his project. No decision will be made regarding the project application at this meeting, and the many merits of the project proposal will not be discussed. Specific direction on the major development issues Will assist staff in reviewing the proposed Planned Development and Tentative Map submittals. DESCRIPTION This project site is within the City's Western Extended Planning Area. The Dublin General Plan states that - specific development in this area will be determined when municipal services can be provided and through General Plan refinement studies. ------------------------copmsio~-a~M;;i~----------------c~a~-~--- Community Development Director Senior Planner Project Planner Planning SecretaIy Project File Applicants ITEM NO. S. J ~. . ....(-<. '.1 ;;'" . . " Previous planning in the Western Extended Planning area began in 1989, with the preparation ofa Specific Plan and General Plari Amendment for the entire area. An EIR was prepared and certified in 1992, but the Western Dublin Specific Plan and General Plan Amendment were rejected in a City referendum in January of 1993. The current Schaefer Ranch development proposal involves a much smaller area than the previous .Western Dublin project. The current proposal was designed as'the result of the input provided by concerned citizens, governing agencies, and service agencies in numerous meetings during and since the previous planning efforts in the Western Dublin area. The City Council authorized the Staff to conduct a General Plan Amendment Study for the Schaefer Ranch project, including preparation of an EIR, in July of 1994. The EIR document has been prepared and was distributed in December of 1995. A Study Session and Pub1icInput meeting to review the EIR was held before the Planning Commissiop on " January 16 and February 20, 1996. At those meetings, comments were made by members of the public regarding the General Plan policy amendments proposed for this' development. In addition, project analysis has uncovered some potential issues with the project proposal. Therefore, thisspeci81' study session meeting has been scheduled in order to review the primary issues and receive direction as to whether the proposed policy amendments are consistent with City goals. Oncethe Council and Commission either reaftinn 6r revise the current policy assumptions, the staff will use this input to continue processing the specific development applications.. DEVELOPMENT ISSUES The issues which have been raised could. affect the viability of the Schaefer Ranch project. Themore significant issues for which staft"is asking direction affect the following areas: A. ProvisioDofPublic Services, including Fir~ service and Schools B. Accessto,other Western Dublin properties from the Schaefer Ranch project C. ParkLand requirements and Ownership and maintenance of Open Space lands Below are explanations of the major topics to be discussed at the study session. A. Provision of Public Services" These. issues relate to City policy as"to- .which school district will serve the proposed developmeI\t, and what is the aCceJ>tablelevel of fire and emergency medical service to the area. Schools The project EIR notes that the project site is currently .within the Castro Valley Unified School District. A district boundary change to include the residential development would be needed if the DublinlJnified School District would' serve the project. This is not an issue that the City can resolve. While the .Dublin School district has not taken a formal position on this issue, they have considered the Schaefer Ranch 2 ..;1WP. '" . - projections for school children generation and included these children in the District's estimates, resulting in the plan to keep Neilsen Elementary school open 8Jld to reopen Dublin Elementary school. The question is: _ Will the City request that the project be served by the Dublin School District? _ Or is a signed mitigation agreement by the Developer with the Castro Valley District appropriate? Incidentally, staff from the Dublin Unified School District and Castro Valley Unified School District are planning to meet this month to discuss the options available for serving students of this development. If the City would like to see this issue discussed by the Dublin School Board, and ask the Board to take a formal position on the matter, it may be requested to be addressed at the next Board meeting on April 17. The current General Plan policies regarding schools are included in Exhibit 1. Fire The General Plan identifies the Dougherty Regional Fire Authority (DRFA) as the provider of urban fire protection for the City. DRFA's standards call for fire stations within 1.5 miles of each other for the best response time for fire and emergency medical service. Other than the project having a longer response time than other areas in the City, the project in itself normally would not generate the need for a fire station unless substantial new development occurs elsewhere in the nearby vicinity. A fiscal study was done, as discussed in the project EIR, which concluded that this project alone could not support a new fire station or an interim facility. It is also uncertain whether additional development in the Western Dublin area would occur in the future to the extent necessary to support a fire station. Given these. constraints, the developer has worked with the DRFA staff to develop measures to mitigate fire concerns, such as sprinklers and smoke detectors in all buildings. The DRFA Board approved these measures at its November 20, 1995 meeting. The question is: _ Are the proposed measures to mitigate fire and emergency medical response appropriate to the City? The proposed policy for fire service is included in the General Plan Amendment document (Exhibit 1). B. Access to other Western Dublin properties The proposed development does not provide streets stubbed to the property lines which could be used to serve through.traffic to other properties in Western Dublin extended planning area; The applicants suggest that the Eden Canyon interchange is intended to provide primary access to any future development in Western Dublin beyond their property. The project does include a road network which, with slight modifications, could provide limited access to adjacent properties such as for emergency vehicle access. However, the General Plan discourages the use of residential collector streets as carriers of through traffic. It is highly unlikely that road extensions to provide primary access to the Western Dublin extended planning area could be provided through this site given the design of the present project. 3 . '. ."," .' 0"'" ~';'." '. . .. The project adeS include the following road exte~ions: '.'. ITo the West: Dublin Boulevard would be extended to the project site, as a two.lanearterial. When the road reaches the Estate Residential neighborhood, it narrows and becomes Schaefer Ranch Lane The road is designed as a private, .two-Iane residential collector street with a 34 feet widecurb~to..curb width, and a 60'wide right.ofway to the project's western boundary. This roa<J, serves 9 residentiallots of3 to 20 acr~s. If the 60' wide right of way were made public,:it would allow the potential for this street to be widened in the future to serve limited traffic from properties : to the west ~ ' n. To the NQrth: The projeot's northern road network involves roads which are typically two.lane residential C()lJector streets with 36 feetwidecurb,;to.curb width, and aSO' wide right. of way to the project's t10rthern boutiaary. This type of road is intended to serve local traffic to the residential . " aieaandnot as a carrier of through trafficL.'The design layout with multiple residential lots directly fronting ont() these roads also discourages their use as major traffic routes. The questions are: ... Are the aCctss easflments'toth'e wutern andnorthem property lines as proposed by the developer acceptable ,as designed? ...Or,$/tt!J,uldpubltc right-of-way and/or roads be stubbed at these points for potential limitedfuture trajJtc~ . Incidentally, several of the properties:tothe north and west of the project site are currently under Williamson Act Land'Conservation conttacts. Information on the ownership of the adjacent lands and. the status of the Conservation contracts wiD be available at the meeting. Also, the property immediatoly to the north is appatently the subject of.purchase. negotiations With the East Bay Regional Parks District. The 10C8tionor the Dublin Boulevard extension and Schaefer Ranch Lane can be seen on the' Street Name map., attached. as E,mtbit 2. ". Tbearrow on this map shows the location of a potential access point to the adjacent properties: The wotding~1he proposed General Plan policy (limiting future primary'aecessto Eden Canyon Road) is included'jn~bit 1. c. Park'Lalid.riquirements. and.ownenhip&: maintenance of Schaefer Ranch Open Spacelandl ParkLand ftqIilremeDts In accordance with Chapter 9.28 of1he Dublin Municipal Code (Quimby Act Ordinance), the proposed,project would generate . the need for approxUnate1y 7.6 acres of parkland. Of this amount, 2.3 acres .,9\1ld be designated for'neighborboodparb (1.5 acres per 1000 persons) and 5.3 acres would be desis*te4for .. CbmtnUnityparb:(3.S'acresper 1000 perscms)... The project's design includes 2.3 acres of'~neigbl?orh~,<park" , f~'ibut:the = ancftypes of these facilities do not meet the standards of the Parks and Re<aatioaMlster .Plan'of1he requirements of the Quiinby Act." "') :,,", . -"~ . The City's neighborhood park located nearest to this project is Mape Park which is several miles from the proposed residences. The closest community parks are Shannon Park and the Dublin Sports Grounds. This project would also be subject to the Public Facilities Fee, however, as there were not approved development plans for the Western Dublin Extended Planning Area at the. time that the Public Facilities Fee Justification Study was ~one, growth projections for this area were excluded from the Study. If the Schaefer Ranch project is approved the. fee will need to be recalculated to address the impact that the increased population will have on the City's current and planned facilities. The existing Public Facilities Fee contains the following components for devel<!pment outside of Eastern Dublin: Community Parks, Land; Community Parks, Improvements; Community Buildings; Libraries; and Civic Center. Neighborhood Park development in areas outside of Eastern Dublin are subject to the provisions of the Quimby Act. Although the proposed project has not been reviewed by the City's Parks and Community Services Commission, the Parks and Community Services Director has stated the preference for the project to be redesigned to include a neighborhood park. As contained in the Parks and Recreation Master Plan, neighborhood parks should be dispersed throughout the community and should be designed and sited to provide a neighborhood identity and social focus (Guiding Policy 1.3). Further development of parks of less than 5 acres are discouraged (Action Program Ie). The question is: -Should the project provide a public neighborhood park on site? -If yes, should the neighborhood park be designed in accordance with the standards of the Parks and Recreation Master Plan (minimum 5 to 7 acres)? Or, should the standards of the Master Plan be modified for this project? -If a 5 to 7 acre public neighborhood park is provided, should the developer be entitled to a "credit" towards a reduction in the community parks, land component of the Public Facilities Fee? Ownership and maintenance The project proposes over 161 acres of public open space for dedication as a regional park. Maintenance of these open space parklands is a potential issue only if there are any problems with the East Bay Regional Parks District (EBRPD) accepting ownership and maintenance of the open space areas. If open space is maintained by a homeowner's association, policies may be needed to address the relationship between private maintenance and public use of the trails and open space lands. The question is: _ Will the East Bay Regional Parks District accept maintenance of the open space lands? _ If EBRPD does not maintain the open space, will the City require that open areas are placed into a private Homeowners Association for ownership and maintenance? A map showing the proposed Open Space lands is attached as Exhibit 3. ~::'.. . '. '"~ Il. ,. . .. I I Ii CONCLUSION Once direction is provided regarding these issues; staffwill continue processing the EIR and General Plan Amendment proposed for this project, along with the related applications including Prezoning to a Planned Developm(mt district, Annexation, and Tentative Map review. The processing steps and estimated schedule for the City's consideration of the. project andEIR. are as follows: December 27, 1995:EIR Public Comment Period Begins Janwuy 16, .J!996: . EIR Public Comment Meeting and Study .Session before the Planning Commission. February 20, 1996:. .Gontinued EIR.Public Comment Meeting and Study Session before the Planning "Commission; Em Public Comment Period . Ends' . i I I i I. April 8, 1996: . Joint Study Session before the Planning Commission and City Council; General Plan Amendment (GPA) Document under review April 23, 1996: Contract Amendment.. Consultant responding to Comments on ElR MayIO, 1996: June 4, 1996: Final EiR. Distributed July, 1996: Planning CommiS$ion Public Hearil}i for recommendation to City Council on;em ~ertification and QP A.t4option.. PD/Prezone. and Annexation . City Council Public Hearings on EIR Certification and GP A adoption. REcoMMENDATION: Review and discuss development issues regarding this project; Instruct sta1Ito .move forward with processing of project as directed by the Planning Commission and City Council \l, (g:\petl\1994\94028\8lUT....96~doc ) I l I ; -. ! i . .1 , I '~ e e ;~ I I :.:J liD : :";1 I I:~:j in !. . '. . 1:._: : e..'. I i"J> , I ~- ! I.... , , I , ; [.ffi:; . I'" I :.~'.. , i ~g DRAFT Schaefer Ranch Project. , General Plan Amendment 7i ::'j March 1996 , '. :] j ..!1 .lij U: .. ' . - 'ill., D ,"-.;.) prepared by WPM'Planning Team, Inc. '_ 1181 Street, Suite 1B .' , ... Sacramento CA 95814 ,,' for ........... "] ...J City of Dublin . Planning Department 100 Civic Plaza Dublin CA 94568 1 ;;j h .'::j . 'u . 0" . . .' :.. ,. -. -, ~ t.:j ~ ;-:.) :_-.1 U - . '.'u~t'l --, 'i ., 1 .. . .,::~.~ ~. ,~:.\ ~ . .. "".J ? ~~1 - . \1 .:., Pi ~ + ';; ~-- ~ ,.::j ..<-: : .~.:. ~<t -:-1 :<.: ~ '.'1 .." . -~ ..-, e e TABLE OF CONTENTS Part 1: Introduction 1.1 Background and Rationale for General Plan Amendment 1.2 The Planning Process for the Western Extended Planning Area 1.3 Project and Site Characteristics 1.4 Policies for the Western Extended Planning Area 1.5 How to Use this Document Part 2: Schaefer Ranch Project ~neml Plan Amendment GP A 1.4 GPA 1.8.1 GPA 2.0 GPA 2.1.4 GPA 3.1 GPA 3.2 GP A 3.3 GP A 5.1 GP A 7.0 GP A 7.1 GPA 7.2 GP A 7.3 GPA 7.7 GPA 8.2.2 GP A 8.2.3 Figures 1-2 1-3 2-2 2-4 8-1 9-1 9-2 Tables Table 2-2 Primary Planning Area and Extended Planning Area Land Use Classification Land Use Element Residential Land Use Open Space for Preservation of Natural Resources and for Public Health and Safety Agricultural Open Space Open Space for Outdoor Recreation Trafficways Conservation Element Stream Corridors and Riparian Vegetation Erosion and Siltation Control Oak Woodlands Open Space Maintenance/ Management Fire Hazard and Fire Protection Flooding [revision of selected General Plan figures] Extended Planning Area Schaefer Ranch General Plan Amendment Map Development Potential Development Potential - Western Extended Planning Area Geologic Hazards Existing Noise Exposure Contours 2005 Projected Noise Exposure Contours Schaefer Ranch Land Use and Housing Characteristics page 1 1 2 2 2 page 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 13 15 16 17 19 21 5 ,~ ""1 .>1 ';'1 ;:::.-1 "-) ~~.: ~) '-,1 ..-J 1 . ~:-~ ......j... i-:;. =-_-01 -:. :1 >-J ,.,",'\ :':"-\ ~< oJ I':. '-.-:1 .. , . J .:"./ ~"~ ! e e Part 1: Introduction 1.1 Background and Rationale for General Plan Amendment Dublin's current General Plan was adopted in 1985. A number of amendments have been adopted since that time, including extensive changes incorporated in the 1994 Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment. The General Plan includes site-specific policies for the central part of Dublin (the Primary Planning Area). However, the Planning Area for ultimate growth in Dublin also includes large areas to the east and west of the current built.up area of the City. These locations are called the Extended Planning Area. At the time the General Plan was adopted, there were no proposals for development in the Extended Planning Area, and land was still available for additional growth in the Primary Planning Area. However, in recognition of future needs for expansion, the General Plan established basic policies for addressing future expansion into these areas. The Plan notes that, for the Western Extended Planning Area, "The location, extent, and density of residential development will be determined when municipal services can be provided and through General Plan refinement studies."(Dublin General Plan, page ii). The General Plan also states that "many or most development proposals in the extended planning area will require a General Plan amendment." (Dublin General Plan, page 2) The current planning program for the Schaefer Ranch project in the Western Extended Planning Area is in keeping with the original direction provided by the General Plan. This General Plan Amendment thus is a logical outgrowth of the City's earlier planning efforts. 1.2 The PllInning Process for dIe Western Extended Planning Area Detailed planning efforts in the Western Extended Planning Area began in 1989, with the preparation of the Western Dublin Specific Plan and General Plan Amendment for the entire area. An EIR was prepared and certified in 1992. The Western Dublin Specific Plan and General Plan Amendment subsequently were rej ected in a City referendum. The current Schaefer Ranch development proposal involves a much smaller area. In this General Plan Amendment, the Schaefer Ranch proj ect site is referred to as the Schaefer Ranch sector of the Western Extended Planning Area. 1 e e 1.3 Project and Site Chamcteristics Figure 1-2 shows the location of the project site in the Western Extended Planning Area. General characteristics include the following: Location. Between Dublin and Castro Valley, along the north side of 1-580. Area. about 500 acres. Existing site characteristics. Existing rangeland, predominantly a series of ridges and canyons, with considerable woodland. A limited number of rural residences are located in the Westem Extended Planning Area. Project landowners and oroponents. Schaefer Heights Associates control most of the land on the project site, and have submitted a development proposal to the City. A 48-acre parcel within the project site is owned by Dennis and Laurie Gibbs. 1.4 Policies for the Western Extended Planning Area The General Plan has an established format where some policies apply on a citywide basis, while other policies are directed only to the Primary Planning Area or Extended Planning Area. This General Plan Amendment continues this selective policy approach. This document is not intended to serve as a comprehensive general plan update for Dublin. Instead, this General Plan Amendment provides necessary text and map revisions to update certain information in the General Plan. - ". ..'. The Extended Planning Area includes both Western and Eastern Dublin. This General Plan Amendment establishes policies which are geared specifically to the Western Extended Planning Area. 1.5 How to Use This Document Chapter 2 includes the actual text and figure revisions which constitute the General Plan Amendment. Typically, to provide context for the amended text, the entire section or subsection of the. current General Plan is included. The fulI text of the current General Plan is available for review at the Dublin Planning Department. · Additions are noted in italics. . Deletions are identified by a "strikeout" with a solid line through the text to be deleted. · Material in brackets is not part of the amendment, but describes formatting of text. 2 ,-. .'-' '.- ,., 1-, e e l.t , I 1"-' ~~j :\ll ,- . F. -..1 I iJ Ii.]':': I!-' ,j~ ..: I '~"l ',.." I ~.~(~~ 1:.':1 I '. I . ~ . . :.:i ::~ :.! ~{ ,.~ . .~- :'. :....... ", , ..\ --.J --I .::.': "ft-,-:, ,..:~ .- . .-'. __aJ 7'1 '.-'1 :..-1 .'. Part 2: Schaefer Ranch Project General Plan Amendment AMENDMENT 1.4: PRIMARY PLANNING AREA AND EXTENDED PLANNING AREA. [Add the following text to end of Section 1.4.] Western Extended Plannine A rea This area presents a unique opportunity for the City of Dublin. The Western Extended Planning A rea is strategically located in the Bay A rea, and includes part of the open space corridor which stretches from Contra Costa County to Santa Clara County. With its steep terrain and scenic oak woodlands, this area has important open space values for Dublin and the region. A t the same time, the Western Extended Planning A rea, consisting of about 3,255 acres, provides a unique opportunity for carefully planned development. Most of the Planning Area has convenient access to Interstate 580. In addition, major ridgelines screen most of the site from key offsite view points. There is thus the potential to add housing and recreational facilities in this area, without major disruption of existing neighborhoods or damage to scenic values in the SUlTOunding area The General Plan includes policies which are specifically geared to the unique qualities and opportunities of this section of the City. It is the intent of the City of Dublin to balance open space goals with housing and recreational needs in the Western Extended Planning A rea A n open space corridor on the main ridgeline will be preserved, with a regional trail extending across the site. Key ridgelines, most woodland areas, and other important features will be protected. Development will be clustered for increased land use efficiency. Within these sectors of clustered development, intensive grading and selective tree removal will be permitted, although proposed development shall respect natural features whenever possible. 3 e e AMENDMENT 1.8.1: LAND USE CLASSIFICATION. [Add the following text at end of section.] Westem Extended P1anninll A rea Residential Residential: RUTal ResidentiaVAgriculture (1 unit per 100 gross residential acres). See description under Eastern Extended Planning A rea Residential: Estate (0.01 - 0.8 units per gross residential acre). Typical ranchettes and estate homes are within this density range. A ssumed household size is 3.2 persons per unit. Residential: Single-family (0.9 to 6.0 units per gross residential acre). See description under Primary Planning A rea Other land use catef{ories Open Space. See description under Eastern Extended Planning A rea Commercial, public/semi.public, and other land use categories for the Primary Planning A rea are applicable in the Western Extended Planning A rea .-.' 4 ..0, ! ->.\ I '1 1.< I.':' I ': I I:::.} ,: '~1 ......~ -.>} :.: .j J '.~ I ,] '., ;'.'1 ,. '1 . .~.~ ] ...-;~ i~~' _ - , ~ : .1 ~:.} , -, '.' '., ~ . .1 '"\.1.. . .' '-, . ~. > .- e e AMENDMENT 2.0: LAND USE ELEMENT [Add the following text and table at the end of Section 2.0.] Wes/em Extended Planning Area Figure 1-3 illustrates generalized land use and circulation for the Schaefer Ranch sector of the Western Extended Planning A rea This sector of the City includes about 500 acres. This part of the Western Extended Planning Area will add a maximum of 474 housing units. Development at this maximum level could result in a population of about 1,517. Table 2-2 summarizes land use and housing characteristics for the Schaefer Ranch sector of the Western Extended Planning Area The predominant land uses would be open space and residential uses. Retail/office uses would also be included. Table 2-2 Schaefer Ranch Project Land Use and Housing Characteristics Land Use Designation Acres Dwelling units (maximum) Residential: Estate 99.8 11 Residential: Single Fam ily 108.0 463 Retail Office 10.7 -- Public/Semi-Public 33.9 -- Open Space 251.6 -- TOTAL 504.0 474 5 e It AMENDMENT 2.1.4: RESIDENTIAL LAND USE. [Add the following text to the end of Section 2.1.4.] Western Extended P/.flIUdn/l A rea Guidinll Policv D. A ny development in the Western Extended Planning A rea shall be integrated with the natural setting. Require clustering of development in areas with fewer constraints. Inwlementine Policies E. The location, extent and density of residential development will be determined when municipal services can be provided and through General Plan refinement studies. F Approval of residential development in the Western Extended Planning Area will require determ ination that: (1) Utilities and public sqfety services w ill be provided at approved standards without financial burden to Dublin residents and businesses. (2) Proposed site grading and means of access will not disfigure the ridgelands as viewed from areas of existing development in Dublin. Any necessary grading and construction shall be planned so as to protect visual qualities. (3) Timing of development will not result in premature termination of viable agricultural operations on adjoining lands. .. (4) The fiscal impact of new residential development in the Western Extended Planning A rea suppons itself and does not draw upon and di/ute the fiscal base of the remainder of the city. '.'" 6 1- e e I. . AMENDMENT 3.1: OPEN SPACE FOR PRESERVATION OF NATURAL RESOURCES AND FOR PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY. 1 i i~ I';.., I" i'--l ";:--1 [Add the following text to the end of this section.] Western Extended Planni1U! A rea .- ",'..J ..-. Guidi1U! Policies - Western Extended Planni1U! Area :. _ 1 ::-~ 'r:. , ' !:l I:~~J , E. Development generally shall be confined to areas where slopes are under thirty percent, as part of an overall cluster development concept on approved development plans. Within projects proposing clustered development and ancillary facilities in the Western Extended Planning Area, land alteration on slopes over thirty percent may be considered where the follow ing conditions are present: ~"l :-'1 Public health and safety risks can be reduced to an acceptable level. Proposed land alteration would be necessary to achieve a basic public need, such as housing, recreation, street access, or public facilities. . . ;>::1 Long-teTm visual qualities can be maintained for residents of Dublin and nearby communities. -:-1 ; "1 ~:i) F Existing large stands of woodland and coastal scrob in the Western Extended Planning A rea shall be protected wherever possible. Grassland sites shall be considered for development in preference to native shrob and woodland areas. !.1 JmolementiDl! Polin. Western Extended PlanniD.2 Area ~'J ... ~.J .'. '-= G. As conditions of development project approval, require detailed tree surveys, protection measures for existing trees to remain, and replanting of native vegetation. ~. j J 1'.1 7 j , , .J e e AMENDMENT 3.2: AGRICULTURAL OPEN SPACE. [Revise text so that policies apply to entire Extended Planning Area.] 3.2 AGRICULTURAL OPEN SPACE Eastern Extended Planning Area Excluding parcels fronting on 1.580, much of the Eastern Extended Planning Area is under Williamson Act Agreement (Government Code Section 51200, et. seq.), and Alameda County zoning sets minimum parcel size at 100 acres. Under the Williamson Act, property taxes are based on the agricultural value of land rather than its market value. The contract automatically renews each year for the new 10.year period unless the owner or the County gives notice of non.renewal. Guidiol!: Policy - Eastem Extended Planninl!: Area A. Lands currently in the Williamson Act agricultural preserve can remain as rangeland as long as the landowner(s) wish to pursue agricultural activities. The City does not support the cancellation of Williamson Act contracts, unless some compelling public interest would be served. The urban land use designations in the General Plan Land Use Map illustrate ultimate (i.e. long.term) urban development potential, and do not represent a call for the cessation of agricultural activities. To pursue development of their property, any development proposal must be consistent with the General Plan and applicable specific plan policies for the site. A development application cannot be approved until a property owner has notified the applicable agency of the intent to cancel, or not renew, any prevailing Williamson Act contract on the subj ect property. Imolementinl!: Policy. Eastem Extended Planninl!: Area B. Approval of development of agricultural land not under contract shall require findings that the land is suitable for the intended use and will have adequate urban services, and that conversion to urban use will not have significant adverse effects on adjoining lands remaining under contract. 8 ::;\ '1 . ,'j .-::) : i.,: ",f --:'~-:: '. .~ ~ ':"'1 ..( . .~ t ,...:. ~ . :.:i ,'.:, ....j 1 .', ,W', - -, . : ~ : ....' , \ It e AMENDMENT 3.3: OPEN SPACE FOR OUfDOOR RECREATION. [Add the following at end of section] Guidine Policies - Western Extended PiannitlJ! Area N. Provide a north~south trail link across the Planning A rea, as part of a regional trail network. 0. Create a local trail network which links large areas of penn anent open space, while providing convenient access from nearby residential areas. Maximize visual exposure to open space, and provide multiple local physical access points to increase public enjoyment of open space. P. Provide active recreation facilities to serve neighborhood residents. lnwlementine Policv - Western Extended Pianni1U! Area Q. In conjunction with development approvals, promote land dedication or reservation, and improvements for a ridge/ine regional trail and other trail links. 9 e e [AMENDMENT 5.1: TRAFFICWAYS. [Reletter policies as follows] Policy~ 5.1.M Policy ~ 5.l.N Policy ~ 5.1.0 Policy ~ 5.l.P [Add the following at end of section.] Westem Extended Planni1lll Area - Additio1U1/ Policies Guidinl! Policies Q. Provide an efficient circulation system for the Westem Extended Planning A rea, including linkage to the rest of the City, altemate transportation modes, and sensitivity to environmental concems. A II properties must have public access. R. The primary access for the Schaefer Ranch sector of the Westem Extended Planning A rea shall be via Dublin Boulevard and Schaefer Ranch Road. Other sections of the Westem Extended Planning A rea shall have primary access via the Eden Canyon interchange. lmolemenli1lll Policv S. Require the following mqjor circulation improvements in the Westem Extended Planning A rea: Extension of Dublin Boulevard to Schaefer Ranch Road. .. . . Collector streets to provide access to residential neighborhoods and nonresidential uses, as identified in specific development plans. - '., '-_"i 10 ] i!':"l q:, , II':: :n , , ~ >~..\ 1~1 -( ..I '-"'1 -:') TI q ".'" ~. . J -0" '. I '.':-j ~<j ;"l -,; 1 .- . - . -J -- I '-j ;--j ,00 " .- , .:..../ e e AMENDMENT 7.0: CONSERVATION ELEMENT. [Revise page 7-1 as follows] ENVIRONMENTAL RFSOURCFS MANAGEMENT: CONSERV A nON ELEMENT Government Code sec. 65302 (d) requires that conservation elements plan for the conservation, development and use of natural resources. The statute lists resources that must be included and suggests other resources that may be included in the element. Finally, the statute specifically requires that countywide and any other water development, control, or conservation agencies be included in the element's water analysis. Dublin's Conservation Element addresses the following statutorily required elements: water resources, agricultural and other soils, rivers and streams, and wildlife habitats. Other important resources discussed in this element are air quality and archaeological and historical resources. Many conservation related resources are also important in the context of other elements. For example, agricultural and other open spaces are discussed in sec. 3.0 Parks and Open Space and sec. 4.0 Schools, Public Lands and Utilities Elements. Soil conditions related to earthquakes and flood hazard from local streams are discussed in sec. 8.0 Seismic Safety and Safety Element. Each of these element's counterparts in the Technical Supplement may also be consulted for information and background on resource related planning policies. Still other statutorily required resources do not occur in Dublin's planning area and are therefore not discussed. Specifically, Dublin is an inland city which contains no artificial or natural harbors. Likewise, the planning area contains no fisheries or mineral extraction areas. Air quality and wastewater disposal have been the Tri-Valley's most difficult conservation issues affecting urban growth, even with construction of the Livermore Amador Valley Wastewater Management Association (LA VWMA) pipeline, and significantly improved air quality. The extent of anticipated development now draws greater attention to other conservation issues -- conversion of agricultural land to urban uses; loss of open space; hazards posed by development in steep and landslide prone areas; increased runoff; and erosion and stream siltation. Additionally, the prospect of renewed or intensified air quality and sewage disposal problems accompanies plans approved or under consideration that would result in up to 200,000 jobs in the Tri-Valley. The planning area includes three zones that are distinct in terms of topography, vegetation, and soils. The urban area within the city's borders and the undeveloped area just north of 1- 580 east of Tassajara Road form part of the flat valley floor. The land east of Camp Parks Military Reservation and Santa Rita Rehabilitation Center and south of the county line consists of grassy rolling hills with occasional steep slopes, and the westernmost part of the planning area is composed of ridgelands covered primarily by grasslands with oak and woodlands on steep slopes and in winding canyons. (These zones are referred to below as the valley, eastern hills, and western hills portions of the planning area, respectively). 11 e e [AMENDMENT 7.0 continued] The western hills form part of the ridgelands extending from Contra Costa to Santa Clara counties, established as an area of regional significance by a 1980 National Parks Service study. The ridgelands have been the subject of preservation efforts over the years, and also have been protected by the difficulty of development on the steep slopes and ridges. The ridgelands of the western hills are characterized by grazing land and good quality gremg laRd 8ftd woodland and forest habitats with high natural resource values. Perhaps most important, the western hills form part of a greenbelt that rings the Bay Plain, preventing continuous urban spread. A n open space corridor, centered on the main ridgeline in the Western Extended Planning A rea, is included in the General Plan. This open space corridor will incorporote visually~ prominent ridgelands, as well as woodland and coastal scrub habitat. A north~south regional trail will provide access to this areafor hiking and nature study. [no change to remainder of section] ....' 12 .- - ' .,...., I' :',.::1 I 11 I/J I 1'-:',-1 i .'..i , '-~'.:l .~; "_:"l 1<\ 7J i.': :i 1'""':"-' ',-_"i ..-. --. ::l ~: =} ~,: I n '. . .....t -- . ,.- .... e e AMENDMENT 7.1: STREAM CORRIDORS AND RIPARIAN VEGETATION [revise text as follows] 7.1 STREAM CORRIDORS AND RIPARIAN VEGETATION The primary planning area is in the Livermore drainage unit of the Alameda Creek watershed. Of the many streams in this drainage area, one flows through the City -- Alamo Creek. The creek runs along the eastern side of Dublin near Dougherty Road. A major portion of the creek is channelized, and remaining sections have mostly been improved as a result of subdivision developments. The Extended Planning Area lies within other watersheds. Several significant streams traverse the Extended Planning Area -- Hollis Canyon and Martin Canyon Creeks in the western hills Daslin and Tassajara and Cottonwood Creeks in eastern Dublin. Refer to the following documents for information on these water courses (available from the City Planning Department): Western Dublin Environmental Setting - November 27, 1989. Western Dahlin Draft Speeifie PlaR Deeember 1991 Western DaBliB Draft GeBeral Pie Amen.ameBt Deeemher 1991 Western Dublin Final!)fa{t Environmental Impact Report - Deeemher 1991 May 1992. Eastern Dublin Environmental Setting - November 1988 Eastern Dublin Specific Plan, General Plan Amendment, and Environmental Impact Report - 1994. to be }3eblished iB 1992. Extensive areas of riparian vegetation are located along stream courses in the Western Extended Planning A rea This riparian woodland has importance to wildlife in the area Considerable damage to riparian areas has resulted from intensive gnzzing. Guidill2 Policies - PrilR8J'\' PI8RRiRI!: Ale8 aad Easwftl :E.teRded Pl8BI1iRI!: Ale8 A. Protect riparian vegetation as a protective buffer for stream quality and for its value as a habitat and aesthetic resource. B. Promote access to stream corridors for passive recreational use and to allow stream maintenance and improvements as necessary, while respecting the privacy of owners of property abutting stream corridors. lmolementill2 Policies . PftllllUV PlanniR2: Ale8 8Bd Easteftl :E..Rlled Pl8RRiR2 Ale8 C. Enforce watercourse ordinance in developed areas of city. D. Require open stream corridors of adequate width to protect all riparian vegetation, improve access, and prevent flooding caused by blockage of streams. 13 e e [GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 7.1 CONTINUED] E. Require revegetation of creek banks with species characteristic of local riparian vegetation, where construction requires creekbank alteration. F. CeIBfllete &Bel aaept the Western BBEI E85tern DlIbliB GeBeral PI8ft AmeRElmeat &Bel Speeifie PIBB Swmes iB a timely mar.aer. A dditiona/ Guidine Policv - Westem Extended Pltmnilll! Area F While alteration of riparian vegetation will be necessary in some situations, special considerotion shall be given to protection or enhancement of riparian woodland in the Western Extended Planning A rea 14 I I l ~ I 1 ~ ~ J -~ 1 > ,j 1 J J j :.1 .1 'J e e AMENDMENT 7.2: EROSION AND SILTATION CONTROL [Revise text as follows] 7.2 EROSION AND SILTA nON CONTROL GuidiD2 Policies . Primarv Plannin2: Area and Eastern Extended Plannin2: Area A. Maintain natural hydrologic systems. B. Regulate grading and development on steep slopes. Imolementin2: Policies . Primarv Plannin2: Area and Eastern Extended PlannilU! Area C. Enact and enforce erosion and sedimentation ordinance establishing performance standards in relation to maintenance of water quality and protection of stream courses. D. Enact ordinance requiring on-site runoff control. E. Review development proposals to insure site design that minimizes soil erosion and volume and velocity of surface runoff. F. Restrict development on slopes of over 30 percent. G. Development projects shall comply with the requirements of the Urban Runoff Program. GuidiN! Policies - Westem Extended PlanniN! Area H. Maintain natural hydrologiC systems. Contain any net increase of runoff onsite or with approved offsite measures. 1. Regulate grading and development on steep slopes, with special concern for potential problems of erosion and siltation. InwlementiN! Policies - Westem Extended PlannilU! Area J. Require erosion control plans for proposed development. Erosion control plans shall include recommendations for preventing erosion and scour of dminageways, consistent with biological and visual values. K. In general, restrict areas of steep slopes (more than 30%) to permanent open space, as pari of an overall cluster development concept on approved plans. A. ny development in otherwise restricted areas shall require substantial mitigation which has considerable benefit to the community, in keeping with the standards of General Plan Policy 3.1.E. L. Development projects shall comply with the requirements of the Urban Runoff Program. 15 e e AMENDMENT 7.3: OAK WOODLANDS (Revise text as follows] 7.3 OAK WOODLANDS Most of the oak woodland within the Dublin Planning Area is concentrated in the Western Extended Planning A rea In addition to California live oaks, other species such as laurel are a vital part of this plant community. This woodland has important visual and biological qualities. GuidiDl! Policv - Primarv Plannin2 Area and Eu1em Ex1ended Plannin2 Area A. Protect oak woodlands. Imolementin2 Policy - Primarv Plannin2 Area and Eas1em Ex1ended Plannin.e: Area B. Require preservation of oak woodlands. Where woodlands occupy slopes that otherwise could be graded and developed, permit allowable density to be transferred to another part of the site. Removal of an individual oak tree may be considered through the project review process. C. Develop a heritage tree ordinance. Guidifll! Policies - Westena Extended Plannifll! A rea .: .> D. There shall be an emphasis on preservation of oak woodland in the Western Extended , Planning A rea Development shall be clustered in grassland areas wherever possible, in order to protect existing trees. However, as part of comprehensive planning for development in this area, some oak woodland may need to be removed. Removal of oaks shall be allowed only after all feasible site planning efforts have been made to preserve trees. .-: E. Any removed trees shall be replaced, and existing trees to remain shall be protected Il11Dlementimt Policies - Westem Extended PlIIImifll! A rea .-.i F Require effective replacement of existing trees which are scheduled for removal. G. Require detailed protection measures for trees to remain. 16 : : : '. : : ; .--- . ] 1 1 ':\ :-:-:1 l . .- ~ '] I' -0 ~ 'O- J .. ::5.) N" , . [.- J .- . . ~1 '-" .- l ;'-1 :-.1 <i :i ..:'_1 }j 1 :.::;! :'.; :J"' .' J e e AMENDMENT 7.7: OPEN SPACE MAINTENANCE/ MANAGEMENT [Revise text as follows] 7.7 OPEN SPACE MAINTENANCFJ MANAGEMENT Acquisition of existing open space areas has been accomplished through Planned Developments and subdivision approvals. Since the existing City is mostly built out, there will be no additional major areas set aside for open space. In the Western and Eastern Extended Planning Areas, substantial areas of open space will be designated for open space. Refer to the Western Eastern Dublin Specific Plan for additional information. The Specific Plan for Eastern Dublin contains is expeeted to be 60mpletea ill 1992. It will oontain designated areas of open space and mechanisms for maintenance and management. In addition, the City's Park and Recreation Master Plan contains (to be eompletea ill 1992) will eOBtmB information on open space acquisition and maintenance. Guidinl! Policv 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. Imolementil12 Policies B. Require that land designated and offered as open space in conjunction with 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. (See also Implementing Policy H below) F. Prohibit development within designated open space areas except that designed to enhance public safety and the environmental setting. 17 e e [AMENDMENT 7.7: OPEN SPACE MAINTENANCE/ MANAGEMENT - continued] G. Promote inclusion of hiking, bicycling, and/or equestrian trails within designated open space areas. SupplementaJy Implementing Policy - Eastem Extended Planning Area H. Due to difficult terrain, some damage to ecological and aesthetic values may result from construction of streets and emergency access TOads in the Eastern Extended Planning Area These TOads shall be designed to incorporate feasible measures which minimize adverse effects on visual and biological resources. :.:. .< 18 e e AMENDMENT 8.2.2 FIRE HAZARD AND FIRE PROTECTION [Amend text and add Implementing Policy F as follows] 8.2.2 Fire Hazard and Fire Protection The Daegherty Regieaal Fire A1:ltharity (DRF A) previtles 1:lrbs fire preteetioa with a sworn staff of 50 respaaclisg to aver 1,250 Galls per year froRi two statioas. The "3" ias1:lrsGe rating giVeR to the distriet is the best reasaaably Bek.ievable. Dougherty Regional Fire Authority (DRFA) selVes as the fire deparlment for the City of Dublin and as such provides all fire prevention, fire protection and First Responder Emergency Medical SelVices within the City. 1 ; For fire protection, the Authority requires 1,500 gallons per minute for two hours, which equates to 180,000 gallons. Dublin San Ramon Services District (DSRSD) supplies water to the City of Dublin. Currently (1992), the District has a capacity of 10,500 gallons per minute. On a peak day, 5,250 gallons per minute is used for domestic purposes, leaving 3,750 gallons per minute for fire fighting or other uses. According to the Fire Authority, there has been sufficient water to accommodate fire calls in the City of Dublin (personal communication, Harold Ritter, former Fire Chief, Dougherty Regional Fire Authority, January 23, 1992). J ~ Steep, inaccessible slopes and brush create a high fire hazard in the western hills. Majef pers8IlBel ed eqaiflHleat additi8as weuld Be aeeded to preteGt aevelepmeRt in the extended pl81'lBiBg area. DRF A Elees clti'reRtly pf-a',ide prateetian ta Camp Parks Military Reservation eEl ta Ssm Rita Rehabilitatian Center \HIder eORtraet with the CO\iflty af Alameda. DRFA will need to modernize its fleet and make stqffing adjustments to protect development in the extended planning area For projects that are constructed outside a fire station selVice area and/or inteiface with open space, certain built-in fire protection measures will be necessary. '.1 :.: ., ::} J Guidinl! Policv A. Require special precautions against fire as a condition of development approval in the western hills outside the primary planning area. : - ~ Imolementill!! Policies B. A fire protection buffer zone shall be provided around the perimeter of residential development situated adjacent to undeveloped open space land. ., :J C. Enact a high hazard ordinance specifying sprinklers for all habitable structures beyond five minutes response time from a station. ~., ;-i :'-j -'" D. Continue to enforce the City's Fire Safe Roof and Spark Arrestor ordinances. ..; 19 ~~J e e [AMENDMENT 8.2.2 FIRE PROTECTION - continued] Guidio2 Pelie,' Policies - Extended Planninl! Area E. Prepare and implement a plan for facilities and personnel at one or more fire stations east of Tassajara Road, as a condition of development approval in the Eastern Extended Planning Area. F. For development in the vicinity of Schaefer Ranch Road, fire sprinklers and other measures shall be provided in proposed stroctures as conditions of approval, in lieu of fire station improvements. However, it is the City's intent that a full fire station shall be provided in the Western Extended Planning A rea before any substantial development proceeds beyond the general vicinity of Schaefer Ranch Road. A fire station site shall be reserved in the general vicinity of Schaefer Ranch Road near Interstate 580. .... .... . . .". :. . 20 e e ~l '.,:\ [AMENDMENT 8.2.3: FLOODING. Revise text as follows.] 8.2.3 Flooding -.\ ~- ' j Figure 8-2 delineates flood prone areas in the existing City limits. The areas shown identify the 100 and 500 year flood zones. Since this map was published, the City has implemented some downstream improvements, and the map will ultimately be amended by the Flood Emergency Management Agency. No 100 year or 500 year flood zones have been identified in the Western Extended Planning A rea '0'1 :1 :.'] .. ,. J :1 ~~~J f~ Most of the areas in the 100 year flood plain have been built upon. Any new construction in flood prone areas is required to construct the floor above the floodplain level, per the requirements of the City Public Works Department. Flooding has not been a major problem in Dublin. In 1983, heavy storms carried debris down from the western hills, blocking drains and causing flooding of backyards and several homes in the Silvergate area. Drains were cleaned, and the situation was alleviated. ?? J . U Some channel improvements were made in the Scarlett Court area in 1983, and improvements were also implemented along Alamo Creek, adjacent to Dougherty Road. There are currently (as of January 1992) no major flood improvement projects needed or planned for the City of Dublin. GuidilU! Polin ::, .) .=: A. Regulate development in hill areas to minimize runoff by preserving woodlands and riparian vegetation. Retain creek channels with ample right-of-way for maintenance and for maximum anticipated flow. q ;., Imolementinl! Policies . PrilB8l'\' PIIIRBiBI! ARa 8Bd EasEJ1I ~teRded PI8DRiB2 ARa (See also Conservation Element policies) j ~ B. Require dedication of broad stream corridors as a condition of subdivision or other development approval. C. Protect riparian vegetation and prohibit removal of woodlands wherever possible. Replant vegetation according to the standards in the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan or other applicable standards (see also General Plan Guiding Policy 3.l.A). j J J D. Require drainage studies of entire small watersheds and assurance that appropriate mitigation measures will be completed as needed prior to approval of development in the extended planning area. E. Continue to participate in the Federal Emergency Management Agency's (FEMA) flood msurance program. F. Prepare an annual update of flood prone areas and related issues and present to the City Council for their information and appropriate action, if any. I 1 ) 21 '" t ~ ~ z . . 5. ... ... <C "' c: K ... . ..... .. N ....J ~ .. 0 0 " elll 0.. . CD .. .. ; - . . ....J CO In .. .. . . ~ ... II. .. < <C "' c: ~<C . ::::. EOO ~ 0: ~ A 01 . . 0 .IIlg -0: "' W .. . o.. ..J- . C .; .c ..... .o. c: Z ~ II.. ...c: ... 0: . CO .- -. c: ....!!! W ... W uii: . .E 0: .0 ..J ;A- (!) ... fF) .. . .u .s . c: ... .s. ~ 0: . :J . ;;: .. :li :a . z -;: .0 ';( . 0 ... . i..J .. .. II: . II: 0 A- lii ....J Z ... D~ I I' I' ~ m "' <( .:! :1 :J ,J .. 0 ... I 1~. ", v...../ .. ~ .-', I i~ i~ :~ ,". -fl j ~ Ih~ ui ~ ~ ...' !it.t h1t!i tll -" tIll 21:".1 '" 6j!tll!ll.H1l L lB "Pf . " ij1 = i I . H ~~i!~l !1!Ci C ao'a 0"111 I ~~ 0 = z Q} 0 U . 0<13 I ~ i= Ol Q} Z= ::5 .f; ~ Co ~~ C'? => 6~ e I U0::2 ..... Cl::: a.. ~ (]) U '0 .c: . b .... Q}o ~ ::l~'Oc " 0) Co ~< -- W Q} c:: u.. en >< =>wQ) <~ - o C Q} Z Q) 0 == ::5i~ u . ~ 00 ., i j j ~ :I ~ J '\ ~I ~ - , ;-.., :; '.1 j J ~ il '.' -; " J ] j :~} '1 :J -" 'J j I i ~ I IS a oCI I I i ~l a I ! ~1 /Ii ~ ~~;! i - ='1 C B E c..~ 0 i~ ~ ~ I ~~W u ~ i i i ~ g j i R I l! j i i ~ j c: - CD fi ~l -!! ~I ;;;::> E~ CDQ IlIQ a:~ u;.o I~ JR- 1ij~ ~~ iii w Q. U) e. ~ i D'';' II{::::: w 't:I " ::::::::: ~ ! :::: ::::::m I ~ oCI J I 11 ~ 1!i ~BI 'V i:!'j c:s i'CD Ii e e cr- oJ --------1 ....----., I L,......... I I I I ~- oJ ~ f 'E r-- OJ '" 0 '" a. ~ 'E dl OJ ~ E l "" Iii ;: 0 "" 1ii e. 0; OJ a; i ~ E "" 0 ii CJ 0 :S ~ := -g '" OJ C ~ > 3= CII '" ..: OJ '" "' ;ff ~ 0 "0 "0 i \........ "0 "0 co co --' '" '" Q. OJ ...J ."l > _<c Zl 0 0 .Il t: C'" Q. OJ l5. 15 OJ ~ ~ '1 > Q. 0 OJ "" :> Vi 0 ..: a. 0 'i c... ,go: [jDRID 1 CII c ~ ~:g 00 .1-> '" !3 8 ,.., .<\ .~.] .':1 ,-. . c E ] ci~ ~-E "''' .~ .8 ~~ i'" ~" ~i i .. 1li~ ,nre l~ :~fi ~i~ ""li"' i~t !lii lei I.. -t: I c. .tl g I~! ICI~ s ~.li ~l ~f~ f~l .,' ----------- ..:' .. . . '. / .-.- ::.:- (f) e e :) ;'i OJ ~ e ... :J ...~ 0 o " ....." - 0 c: ;:'" cS ... ...... ... ... ,,< '" ! - "" ...~ ... " :J ... " & '" .. ..0: ... ...,., i:e )( E W !-;: -0.. GJ ~::; :- .~ eft ...E "0 "'- ...J ~E z ~ '-' ! (f~ => ~ I" ...t ...... If ;:: .!! d1 ~VOI..: ,'...i.H:J;~~i~'CC .' .' .' .' .' .' .' .' ..-\: 1 ... , , 1: 't;1" s'f:l .. /-:= o~ .@ c::..e....~. i. .. eo!! c:.. e~ Q. 'l<~o~...~::... LU"'t:O: LU"'tQQ i.~.~iillir _c:~o-e:~c: ..c:~ ..C:~C: :f.!!!U) e-:f.!!! r;:o!! ~Q.. llJ~Q.oQ. u E:. iii Gl iii g '" '" -< "C ~ &:: ell .. Q; '" , .; "' ::: I ~ I i:1I! .. :r. ::E :: . ... ... '" .!! - Cii .r:. b () iI.i ! u .....~.-.-... , ~_._-., ...1 :; ~ j j ;. .1 ., ::1 9-4 Figure 9-1 N I C7I CI.I I- :0 C7I ..... e - Qr~I':'1 '\o!.lIJ~OI'\(.lC " .' .' " ." -, -' I , . ~ I ---.. :' 1:: ,/ ~;. i !.e . 1-..--....... i e . , / , "Co"Ct ...J 1;10 I e-el I ~ J~ e \, , bl&ib~ "IIi li ! !;:!~ ..Jj1i -,-. ~. ~ 6 9-5 ) ! :;.j,f ( ; ~ ~ !~ ------ .--...-..;-...,[ j ; I >, ... ... ...., 0'" - ::l o -... .. ... ... ... ... ... ::lee '" - '" 1.1..: ...'" ... '" ""... .. 0.. ... ..." i:; l!! !'i: -0.. ""..... ;:.= ...l!! ""- ~E '-' .. ~~ fI'" ...~ ...... Figure 9-2 f! := o - c <3 ! := en o ~ ~ cu en "0 Z E ~ .- e Q. an Q Q N ~.~I '""'~ - -j 'J "....\ ;-:'-.~ "'l - , : .. ~ I . ~ e (C ] en c:: ~ o I- W '? ~en ..- I- W Q.) en::;E ..... ~....... ::J _....... .9> 65 Z ~1- Z J ~ l! ,a ~ -> f..) f..) 10 · IZ ~~ ~. ~ ~< ~~ <rJ == U · rn ~ ... B ~ 1 e N ;ffj / / I II ~ Ii 'I 8 ~ ~ j !l' ~ 's '" a; il' ~ ~ EXHIBIT 2. l~'l~i~', .,......,.<",..:I';''',....~. .1) ---~,."-'.'l ~t~]~~:~i~~ll~g1ii@i;,>~'IIJi\' ,. "'.' <.., ,...... I --." ..' """""1'" "., ~ l,t{;Y "~~W1 "-'.:"-'." .. , ~:r . I I I I I I I I I / / .- .- /' , , .- .... .- , , z ~ roa.. 'UJ cr)u 0><( ....a.. 5,(1) U:Z UJ a.. o == u · Z= <I-( ~~ ~. ~ ~< ~~ <tJ = u. 00 1r iii E 1I) 'fi 8 ~ ~ III .>< ~ : ~ ~ as '1:1 l: o(l :s .8 'iij .! .l:o ';; 1il ~ l: 0 '0. i f 1I) i II: f. i c . c! . ~ . .i . . ~ l'vol:/ :s Je~ :;:0 ~ III III as oj 8 ~ 8- .. i III III E c: cP '0 g. +> .>< 0 ~ 8. iii ..c; D.. S oil 1il ~ l: .c ~ ,g :s , l: CI. 13 0 III 'C :g as C. l: cP ~i!j ~ B cP 8- CI. II: oil ~ 1;- 0 Cii ~aIaI ~ !!n,o g lD E as i > Q) .f: ..... C\I -l .\: E D..lIIlD ~ fj W D.. I 0 ~DII z ~ '" w ~~ " ~ w ~ I ...J ~, 1 Y,' . o . I ~~ I ~~ I EXHIBIT 3