Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 6.2 The Groves Townhouse-Condo UntsOF t'� , - &2 STAFF REPORT CITY CLERK CITY COUNCIL File #410 - 30/450 -30 DATE: February 18, 2014 TO: Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers FROM: Christopher L. Foss, Acting City Manager J SUBJECT: The Groves at Dublin Ranch (Lot 3) General Plan and astern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment, Planned Development Rezone with a Stage 1 and Stage 2 Development Plan, Site Development Review, and Vesting Tentative Map 8164 for 122 townhouse /condominium units (PLPA 2013 - 00034) (Related agenda item: 3; action on the General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment will be deferred to item 3) Prepared by Mike Porto, Consulting Planner EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The Applicant is requesting a Planned Development Rezone and related Stage 1 and Stage 2 Development Plan, Site Development Review Permit, and Vesting Tentative Map 8164 for 122 townhouse /condominium units on approximately 6.36 net acres. The Applicant is also requesting a General Plan /Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment to change the land use designation from High- Density Residential (25+ units per acre) to Medium -High Density Residential (MHDR) (14.1 to 25.0 units per acre) which will be heard under a separate Staff Report. FINANCIAL: None. All costs associated with this project are borne by the applicant. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the City Council conduct the public hearing, deliberate, waive the reading and INTRODUCE an Ordinance rezoning The Groves Lot 3 to a Planned Development Zoning District and approving a related Stage 1 and 2 Development Plan; and adopt Resolution approving the Site Development Review Permit and Vesting Tentative Map 8164 (Lot 3) for 122 townhouse /condominium units for an 8.8 acre site (6.36 net acres) known as The Groves at Dublin Ranch (Lot 3) located along the north side of Dublin Boulevard between Keegan Street and Lockhart Street in the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Area. Page 1 of 13 ITEM NO. 6.2 Submitted By Community Development Director DESCRIPTION "Reviewed By Acting Assistant City Manager The Groves Lot 3 is the third phase of a high- density residential neighborhood of Dublin Ranch initially approved as Fairway Ranch. The overall Fairway Ranch project approved in 2003 (PA 03 -010) was comprised of three development parcels representing a diverse mix of both affordable and market rate multi - family housing types including senior citizen apartments, family apartments, and condominium units. The original project approval in 2003 is shown in Table 1: TABLE 1: Fairwav Ranch Lot Multi - Family Housing Type No. of Units 1 Senior Citizen Leased /Rental Housing (55+ years) 322 2 Multi - Family Leased /Rental Housing 304 3 For -Sale Condominium Housing 304 Total No. of Units 930 The senior housing on Lot 1 was developed with east and west components known as Cedar Grove and Pine Grove. The original Site Development Review, approved in 2003 for Lot 3, generally was approved as a mirror image of the 304 -unit site plan approved for Lot 2, the existing multi - family apartment project immediately to the north of the project site currently identified as Oak Grove. In 2007, a subsequent application was approved for Lot 3, now identified as Sycamore Grove (PA 06 -037). The approved project reconfigured the 304 units to include 22 Live -Work units in a 3 -story townhouse facade along Dublin Boulevard. A third project was approved in March 2013 (PLPA 2012 - 00040) in which Lot 3 was redesigned as a 304 unit apartment complex to more closely reflect the original approval. The Project Site generally is rectangular in shape and currently vacant. The average existing slope typically is less than 1 % due to rough grading to create a level building pad for the multi- family structure approved previously. The project site has an embankment approximately four to five feet in height, around the perimeter, behind the current right -of -way, for the three surrounding public streets. The embankment transitions from the flat graded building pad area to the sidewalks and perimeter street improvements constructed during the first two phases of The Groves. All surrounding streets have been improved to the back of the curb adjacent to the project site with some sidewalks and landscaping remaining to be completed as part of the project improvements. The project site will require re- grading /finish grading to accommodate the proposed townhouse building sites and internal vehicular circulation system. The project site is located north of Dublin Boulevard, south of Maguire Way (a private street), east of Keegan Street, and west of Lockhart Street as shown on the vicinity map above. Uses adjacent to and surrounding the project site include: a) Oak Grove, a high- density residential apartment complex-, b) the vacant site anticipated to be used for a regional medical facility across Dublin Boulevard to the south-, c) Subarea 3 on a vacant site across Lockhart Street to Page 2 of 13 the east; and d) The Terraces, a High Density Residential condominium project of 626 units across Keegan Street to the west. Current Proposal: The current proposal by the Applicant /Property Owner, Lennar Homes, includes: • General Plan /Specific Plan Amendment to decrease the designated land use and density from High Density Residential (HDR) (25.1 + units per acre) to Medium -High Density Residential (MDHR) (14.1 to 25 units per acre) consistent with housing type and product currently proposed. • Planned Development Rezone and related Stage 1 and 2 and Development Plans. • Site Development Review Permit for 122 townhouse /condominium units within 19 three — story structures ranging from four to eight units per building. • Vesting Tentative Map 8164 to create a subdivision for condominium purposes for 122 townhouses for sale to individual buyers with common areas to be maintained by a Homeowners Association. ANALYSIS The proposed General Plan Amendment and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment, Planned Development Rezone, Site Development Review and Tentative Map are discussed below. General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment State Law limits General Plan amendments to four per General Plan Element calendar year. This approval would be the first amendment to the Land Use Element for 2014. In order to avoid amendments in excess of the number permitted by State law, General Plan amendments for specific projects can be grouped together and adopted by one resolution. Therefore, The Groves Lot 3 Residential Project proposed General Plan Amendment has been grouped together with the proposed Subarea 3 General Plan Amendment as a separate item to be heard on the same agenda and approved with one action (Resolution). All approvals under this agenda item will not become effective until the General Plan Amendment item is approved and effective. Specific Plan amendments are not limited to four per year; however, the proposed amendments have been grouped together with their companion General Plan Amendments. Although the General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan amendments will be acted upon as a separate item, the information is repeated here in order to fully understand the application. The current proposal is for ownership housing at a lower density and fewer units than originally envisioned in order to serve the current buyer profile and market segment anticipated for this area. Three previous higher density project approvals on this site have not resulted in construction of a project. Based on the proposed project, the total number of units for Lot 3 effectively would be reduced by 182 units from the 304 multi - family units approved previously. Land Use Designations The request includes a General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment to change the land use of the 6.36 -acre site from its existing designation of High Density Residential (HDR) (25.1 or greater units per acre) to Medium -High Density Residential (14.1 to 25 units per acre). Page 3 of 13 The proposed MHDR land use would allow a range of 113 units to 200 units. The proposed PD rezone fixes the number of units at a maximum of 122 units as further described below. Figure 4: The Groves Lot 3 Existing Land Uses Proposed Land Uses ----- - - - - -} ---- - - - - -- --- - - - - -- --- - - - - -- TW�- PMCWY•_ CEN r 1 I � I wi LU u~i '; Medium Hi uri ii U)i I ! Density I Z =1 a Residential =1 w of w 6.4tac of ) 1C J�— J he DUBLIN BLVD. DUBLIN BLVD. The requested land use amendments and the current proposal for Lot 3 reflect market conditions and optimal use of the site while remaining consistent with the surrounding community. The proposed density will allow a strong visual transition from the High Density Terrace to the west and the proposed Medium -High Density product anticipated for development on Subarea 3 to the east. The proposed MHDR land use would allow a range of 113 units to 200 units. The proposed PD rezone fixes the number of units at a maximum of 122 unit s as described below. The requested General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan amendments would require adjustments to various figures, texts, and tables in the General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan to ensure consistency throughout the documents. The proposed General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan Amendment will be considered as a separate agenda item. The draft City Council resolution, with a complete list of the proposed amendments to the General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan, is included with that agenda item. Planned Development Rezone The proposed Planned Development Rezone and related Stage 1 and Stage 2 Development Plan are consistent with the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance (Chapter 8.32 - Planned Development Zoning) are included in Attachment 1 and described below. Proposed Uses: Permitted, Conditional, and Accessory uses related to multi - family development are listed in the proposed Ordinance adopting the Planned Development Rezoning (Attachment 1). Development Standards: The Planned Development includes Development Standards consistent with a Medium -High Density product type. The Development Regulations for the proposed project are shown as follows: Page 4 of 13 TABLE 2: The Groves Lot 3 - Development Requlations Standards Medium High Density Residential Attached Multi - Family Townhouse Units Lot Size n/a Building Setback from Arterial Streets 10 feet minimum Building Setback from Property Line (on a public street) 10 feet minimum Building Setback from Property Line (not adjacent to a Public right -of -way) 0 feet minimum Building Setback from Private Street or Common Driveway 10 feet minimum Driveway Length or Garage Setback from Common Driveway or Private Street 3 feet minimum Private Open Space • Ground Level/Yard OR 100 square feet minimum • Upper Level /Deck 50 square feet minimum Building Separation 10 feet minimum Building Separation (both buildings 2 stories or higher) 10 feet minimum 8 feet to porch minimum Maximum Building Height 40 feet /3.5 stories Required Parking Residential parking space per unit 2 spaces within an enclosed garage Guest Parking 1 space Site Development Review SITE LAYOUT /PLOTTING — The proposed project is arranged as three -story attached townhouse units within 19 individual buildings in five building types with three variations. Buildings range from four to eight units per building. Both vehicular and pedestrian entry to the project is from Maguire Way which is a private street between Lot 2 (Oak Grove) and Lot 3 (the project site). A motorcourt on Maguire Way between the project site and Lot 2 to the north identifies the entry to an internal circulation system of drive aisles providing access to the townhouse garages. The buildings are organized with front facades and door entries facing onto a series of pedestrian paseos and open residential courtyards that create a passive, small -scale neighborhood environment. Three buildings face onto Maguire Way to the north. Also, one building at each of the southeast and southwest corners of the site are oriented towards Dublin Boulevard but are raised approximately 5 feet above street level and accessible only from an internal walkway separate from the public right -of -way. Due to topography, pedestrian access to the site on the west is limited to the Maquire Way entrance with two pedestrian points accessible from Lockhart Street on the east. Building placement with unit distribution is shown in Table 5, below. Page 5 of 13 TABLE 3: Buildina /Unit Distribution Building No. of General Location Units per Units per 3- Bedroom 4- Bedroom Type Buildings Parcel (per Tract Map) Bldg. Building Type Units(l) Units (2) A 1 n/e corner Keegan Street and 4 4 2 2 Dublin Boulevard (Parcel 4) B 2 east side of Keegan Street 5 10 6 4 (Parcel 3) 2 on Lockhart Street, C 5 2 in middle of Lot 3, and 6 30 20 10 1 on Dublin Boulevard (Parcels 9, 10 & a portion of 5) n/w corner of Lockhart Street CX 1 and Dublin Boulevard 6 6 4 2 (Parcel 7) 3 on Dublin Boulevard, and 2 D 7 each on Keegan Street and 7 49 35 14 Lockhart Street (Parcels 2, 6 & 8) DX 1 s/e corner of Lockhart Street 7 7 5 2 and Maguire Way (Parcel 11) E 1 s/e corner Kegan Street and 8 8 6 2 Maguire Way (Parcel 1) EX 1 south side of Maguire Way 8 8 6 2 midblock (Parcel 11) Total 19 122 84 38 (1) Floor Plans 1, 2A & 2B (2) Floor Plans 3A, 3A -Alt, 3B & 3C Common areas include the vehicular circulation system but focus on the system of paseos and residential courtyards. The passive recreation facilities for the proposed project are served by a private pocket park located past the first row of townhouses at the Maguire Way entrance. LU w W tr c LU �I I I II Fiaure 2: The Groves Lot 3 - Site Plan THE GROVES i DUBLIN BLVD. I I - I II m FLOOR PLANS — Each townhouse unit generally is configured as a three -floor walk -up with access from a street -level entry in front and an enclosed ground -level two -car garage to the Page 6 of 13 rear. The floor plans offered are for either a three - bedroom or four - bedroom unit. Plan 1 and Plan 2 with its variations each have three bedrooms, and Plan 3 with its variations has four bedrooms. All end units are a variation of Plan 3 with four bedrooms, and all units in between are variations of Plans 1 and 2 with three bedrooms for a distribution of 84 three - bedroom units (70 %) and 38 four - bedroom units (30 %). Each unit has a ground floor bedroom with an en suite bathroom. The second level is arranged as a "great room" with living, dining, kitchen, and large deck area for most floor plans. A powder room also is located on each second level. The master bedroom with en suite master bathroom is located on the third floor along with two or three other bedrooms, depending upon the floor plan, and a second full bathroom. Laundry rooms and instantaneous water heaters are located on the third floor of all plans. Each garage is arranged with areas for trash and recycling. Also, based on a recently adopted City ordinance, all units are provided with a dedicated storage area having a minimum of 200 cubic feet separate from the garage. Each master suite has a walk -in closet, dual basins, separate water closet, and separate tub and shower. All forced air unit equipment is located in the attic above each unit and accessible from the third floor. A minimum of 10 %, or 13 units, will be improved as handicapped accessible on the ground floor in accordance with the California Building Code. Approximately 34 units (all end units) potentially could serve that purpose. The floor plans are shown on Sheets A4.00 through A4.21 with potentially accessible units identified on Sheet C.7, Attachment 3. TABLE 4: The Groves Lot 3 - Floor Plans Plan No. of Units Square Feet Bedrooms Bathrooms Buildings % of Project per Plan A, B, C, CX, D, 1 35 1,902 sf 3 3' /z DX, E, EX 29% all buildings A, B, C, CX, D, 2A 37 2,013 sf 3 3' /z DX, E, EX 30% 49 all buildings 40% 2B 10 2,013 sf 3 3' /z D, DX, E, EX 8% 2C 2 2,013 sf 3 3' /z E, EX 2% 3A 3 2,170 sf 4 3' /z CX, DX, EX 2% A, B, C, CX, D, 3A -Alt 19 38 2,170 sf 4 3' /z DX, E, EX 16% 31% all buildings 313 15 2,170 sf 4 3' /z B, C, D, E 12% 3C 1 2,170 sf 4 3' /z A 1% Total 122 100.00% Plan 1 — Plan 1 is a 3- bedroom unit and is the smallest at 1,902 square feet. Plan 1 is an interior unit only, situated with units on both sides. All buildings, except Building A, include two Plan 1 units per building. The 35 units of Plan 1 represent 29% of the total project. Plan 2 — Plan 2 is also a 3- bedroom unit. The three variations on Plan 2 are the most frequently utilized plan at 49 units or 40% of the project. The 2,013 square foot interior unit is also used in each of the 19 buildings, with Plan 2A used more than once in all but Building A. Page 7 of 13 Plan 3 — Plan 3 is a 4- bedroom unit and is the largest at 2,170 square feet. The ground floor bedroom also is described as a den option. All Plan 3 and its variations are end units and "Alt" may be fitted as handicapped accessible where indicated on the plans. At least one Plan 3A -Alt would be provided as an end unit in all buildings. Approximately 13 units have a ground floor yard oriented towards the paseo. ARCHITECTURE — The proposed exterior architecture is a contemporary interpretation of eclectic craftsman style consistent and compatible with Phases 1 and 2 of the project known as The Groves. Buildings would be Type V wood frame structure with a mix of exterior materials. The building roof generally is a gable form from end -to -end pitched at 4:12. Building ends may have hip construction over at least one end, gable projections over upper level windows, and shed or trellis structures over porches and decks. Roof materials are a flat concrete tile in one of two colors and standing metal seam accents over porches and some projections. In addition to the roof, exterior materials include brick veneer, stucco finish, fiber cement board siding (both horizontal and vertical), and fiber cement trim to accent windows and door frames. Brick veneer in two different colors is used to anchor the ground floor of each building below a horizontal band generally situated between either the first and second floor, or the second and third level. This band technique often is used to visually break up a large facade. Buildings are articulated at the second and third level with window bays and covered decks having varying depths and dimensions. In addition to the fiber cement trims in contrasting colors, other architectural elements include corbel supports for second and third level building projections and decks, gable end ridge beam details, wooden deck railings and porch posts accented with kickers, corbelled pot shelves, and decorative shutters for upper level windows. All front doors are detailed with a four -pane window at the top to allow natural light. All windows are presented as double -hung, and each rear elevation reflects the metal sectional garage doors serving each unit. Since all of the proposed buildings share similar forms and features, the building type among the five types listed is more a function of unit mix and color scheme rather than architectural style. The architectural style is carried into the landscape and open space plan with the proposed hardscape materials and amenities within the common recreational and open space areas. Two colors schemes are shown along with the proposed brick veneer accent materials and roof materials. (See Attachment 3, Sheet A5.00) The buildings adjacent to Dublin Blvd will require interior and exterior sound attenuation in accordance with the requirements of the Mitigation Measures contained in the EDSP and the recommendations of the March 2013 acoustic study. PARKING — The proposed townhouse project would be built in compliance with the standard currently shown with the proposed PD rezoning of 2 covered spaces per unit within an enclosed garage plus one guest space per unit for a total parking requirement of 366 spaces. This figure includes: a) 244 covered spaces — 2 spaces per units within an attached enclosed garage b) 123 guest spaces (122 spaces required) provided The location of parking provided is shown on Attachment 3 Sheet C.3 Page 8 of 13 LANDSCAPING - As in any higher density community, landscaping and recreational amenities are used to provide quality open areas and visual relief. The landscaping is generous and has been designed to be compatible and complement the architecture as to theme and character of the residential structures. Plantings and hardscape elements are used to create neighborhood identification and an attractive community entry. All project streets, perimeter sidewalks, interior sidewalks, paths, paseos, and common areas are shaded and enhanced by trees and plantings to soften architectural ends, highlight entries, and minimize the overall scale of the structures. A combination of evergreen and deciduous trees, shrubs, groundcover, and grasses are proposed for color, texture, contrast, screening, direction to amenities, and overall project identity. The proposed listing of plant materials is shown on Attachment 3, Landscape Architecture tab, Sheet L -2. Paseos - Pedestrian circulation is accommodated and emphasized by a series of paseos which serve as the common areas, interface with front door entries, and presentation of the neighborhood image. The paseos feature a scored concrete pathway of approximately 4 feet wide flanked by narrow trees, shade tolerant flowering shrubs, and groundcover. Each end unit entrance is highlighted by an arbor, attached to a low front porch railing, in a style complementary to the building architecture. The residential paseos range in width from approximately 12 feet between front porch railings to 20 feet between building facades. Depending upon length, each paseo is designed with one or more residential courtyards or "landings" of scored concrete as a complement to the landscaping; the proposed landscape plan shows 13 of these features. Pedestrian level bollards are proposed to provide pathway illumination. (See Attachment 3, Landscape Architecture tab, Sheet L -4) Pocket Park — The location of the pocket park near the Maguire Way entrance is identified within the drive aisle by enhanced paving in the form of decorative cast concrete unit paving stones leading to a scored concrete surface behind the curb face. An entry gate defines the site with a low neighborhood wall clad in a complementary brick veneer and a 3 -foot high stained wooden border fence. A scored concrete footpath serves as a continuation of the adjacent paseo and divides the park into two areas. Footpath surfaces within the park are composed of scored concrete pads joined by areas of decomposed granite. This recreational amenity will provide a quiet garden retreat, as well as an area for social gatherings and other activities. Both feature landscaping with planters, fixed benches, and trash receptacles. The southerly area would include a pre -cast planter /fountain as a focal point along with lush ground cover. In addition to fixed benches, the northerly portion would be equipped with a picnic table, lighting, two stained wooden pergolas with rose vines, and a stained wooden arbor, each in an architectural style that complements the buildings. STREETSCAPE — A streetscape concept has been shown for Dublin Boulevard and street sections with proposed improvements are shown for each type of internal drive aisle. Drive aisles are generally 20 feet wide except where adjacent to perpendicular guest parking; in those cases drive aisles would be 24 feet wide, and 28 feet wide on aisles with one side of parallel parking. A small landscaped planter would be maintained within a narrow setback between garage doors along the rear elevation. Landscape treatment details are included for the four perimeter frontages: Dublin Boulevard — Street trees will be placed in a triangular pattern in the parkway behind the sidewalk to create a "grove" effect while maintaining the theme of a traditional tree -lined Page 9 of 13 residential street consistent with the Streetscape Master Plan. Since the building grade is higher than street level at this location, drive aisle ends shall be treated with transparent iron fencing. Ground -level retaining walls will be hidden with a landscaped slope or, where exposed, finished with stucco or brick veneer and cap details compatible with the on -site improvements. Landscaping will consist of flowering groundcover and shrubs adjacent to the sidewalk and parkway. The mid -level and upper levels of the slope would be planted with taller shrubs and grasses to provide texture, color, and a cascading effect to control erosion. Taller upright shrubs will be placed at the top of the slope adjacent to the on -site perimeter walkway and building ends to serve as a buffer for pedestrians and screening from Dublin Boulevard. (See Attachment 2, Landscape Architecture tab, Sheet L -6) Keegan and Lockhart Streets — Landscape materials will be a continuation of the established streetscape concepts for the adjacent Oak Groves projects to the north. Corner monuments and neighborhood identification markers are proposed for both corners at Dublin Boulevard consistent with the architectural style of the project and complementary to existing monuments along Dublin Boulevard. As with Dublin Boulevard, a slight grade differential will be evident between the existing improved right -of -way and the finished building grade. A variety of flowering shrubs and grasses are proposed in a tiered arrangement with lower flowering groundcover adjacent to the sidewalk and taller cascading shrubs and grasses on the upper parts of the slope. Smaller flowering secondary trees would be used at building ends to reduce mass and scale and provide seasonal color. Street trees also would be consistent with the adopted street concept. Pedestrian access to the project site from the adjacent public right -of -way would be at two locations along the easterly edge of the project site adjacent to Lockhart Street. Pedestrian interfaces will be highlighted with flowering trees. (See Attachment 3, Landscape Architecture tab, Sheets L -7 and L -8) Maguire Way — A street concept with a designated street tree already has been established for Maguire Way as part of the apartment project to the north and will be consistent along the south side adjacent to the proposed project. Accent landscaping of secondary flowering trees will be used to minimize the vertical scale of the architecture. The main entrance and marketing window to the proposed project along Maguire Way will highlight accent plantings through a combination of evergreen flowering shrubs, grasses, and ground cover. Vesting Tentative Tract Map TABLE 5: Vestina Tentative MaD Parcel Development Parcel Acreage (net) Description 1 .34 ± Building E (Residential) 8 units 2 .55 ± Building D (Residential) 14 units 3 .35 ± Building B (Residential) 10 units 4 .20 ± Building A (Residential) 4 units 5 .48 ± Building C (Residential) 13 units 6 .48 ± Building D (Residential) 14 units 7 .27 ± Building CX (Residential) 6 units 8 .46 ± Building D (Residential) 14 units 9 .43 ± Building C (Residential) 12 units 10 .41 ± Building C (Residential) 12 units 11 .52 ± Buildings DX and EX (Residential) 15 units A 1.47 ± Internal Circulation System - Private Street B .40 ± Maguire Way - Private Street (existing) Total 6.36 122 units Page 10 of 13 Conditions of Approval are included in the Resolution recommending approval (Attachment 2). All utilities are available at the property line; all perimeter streets and right -of -way already have been dedicated, and streets have been improved. Perimeter sidewalks and landscaping would be constructed as part of this project. Inclusionary Housing — The project is subject to the City's Inclusionary Zoning Regulations (Chapter 8.68 of the Municipal Code). Under the terms of the Regulations, the Developer has a 15 unit affordable housing obligation, which obligation may be satisfied by several means. The Developer has proposed an "alternate method of compliance" under Section 8.68.040.E to satisfy its 15 unit affordable housing obligation, which proposal is subject to City Council approval. The Developer has proposed to pay fees of $1,300,000 in lieu of constructing the 15 affordable housing units. The Developer has agreed to make the payment on or before July 1, 2014. If the Developer fails to make the payment when due, the City may withhold further approvals and authorizations for the Project, and may elect to revoke the approval of the alternate method of compliance and apply the Regulation's standard requirements (Attachment 2, Condition 19). The fees collected in lieu of the development of onsite Inclusionary Units will be used to assist with the development of affordable units in locations that are superior locations for affordable units because of access to transit and services. Public Art Compliance — This project is subject to compliance with the City's Public Art Ordinance. The Ordinance requires the Applicant's contribution will be .5% of the aggregate value of the home construction to be determined and calculated by the City's Building Official. The Applicant has submitted a Public Art Compliance Report included in the project submittal package and proposes to pay in -lieu fees. An appropriate Condition of Approval has been included. (See Attachment 2, Condition 29). CONSISTENCY WITH GENERAL PLAN, SPECIFIC PLAN & ZONING ORDINANCE The application includes proposed amendments to the General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan. The Groves Lot 3 includes a request for Planned Development rezoning and a related Stage 1 and Stage 2 Development Plan. The proposed amendments to the General Plan and the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan reflect land uses that are compatible with the adjacent areas and surrounding development. The proposed land use represents a reduction in residential density than approved previously but effectively corresponds to the number of units anticipated for this area prior to the granting of density bonuses as an incentive for providing affordable housing. The proposed project will contribute to housing opportunities and diversity of product type as a complement to the surrounding neighborhoods. The proposed Stage 1 Planned Development rezoning and the proposed Stage 2 Development Plan for The Groves Lot 3 would be consistent with the requested land use amendments. The Groves Lot 3 has been reviewed for conformance with the Community Design and Sustainability Element of the General Plan which evaluates compatibility of the design with adjacent and surrounding development via pedestrian circulation, gathering spaces, open spaces, and integration with the village concept. In general, the proposed project furthers the goals of the Community Design and Sustainability Element of the General Plan by providing a high quality of life and preserving resources and opportunities for future generations. Page 11 of 13 REVIEW BY APPLICABLE DEPARTMENT AND AGENCIES: The Building Division, Fire Prevention Bureau, Public Works Department, Dublin Police Services, Dublin San Ramon Services District and Alameda County Airport Land Use Commission reviewed the projects to ensure that they are planned and will be built in compliance with all local Ordinances and Regulations. Conditions of Approval from these departments and agencies are included in the attached Resolution pertaining to the Site Development Review and Vesting Tentative Map (Attachment 2). ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: The project is located within the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan area, which was the subject of an Environmental Impact Report for the General Plan Amendment and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan (SCH # 91103064), certified by the City Council in Resolution No. 51 -93. The General Plan Amendment /Specific Plan EIR is a program EIR, which anticipated several subsequent actions related to future development in Eastern Dublin and identified some impacts from implementation of the General Plan Amendment /Specific Plan that could not be mitigated to less than significant. Upon approval of the Eastern Dublin project, the City adopted a statement of overriding considerations for such impacts. The City also adopted a mitigation- monitoring program, which included numerous measures intended to reduce impacts from the development of the Eastern Dublin area. The environmental impacts of the existing land uses were addressed by the Negative Declaration approved by the City Council in Resolution No. 140 -97 for the Planned Development Rezoning for 453 acres of Dublin Ranch (Areas B -E). Impacts have been found to be the same or less than those analyzed previously with no further environmental review required. In June 2003, the City prepared an Initial Study for Fairway Ranch to determine whether there would be supplemental environmental impacts occurring as a result of this project beyond or different from those already addressed in the Program EIR and the 1997 Negative Declaration. The Initial Study concluded that the proposed project could not have a significant effect on the environment because the environmental impacts of this project were fully addressed by the final EIR for the General Plan Amendment, Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment and subsequent Addenda, and the 1997 Negative Declaration. Since the number of units currently proposed for The Groves Lot 3 is less than initially evaluated, impacts from the proposed project have been found to be the same or less than those analyzed previously and would not require any further environmental review. All other EIRs NDs, Resolutions, and Ordinances referenced above and throughout the Staff Report are incorporated herein by reference and are available for review at City Hall, 100 Civic Plaza, Dublin, California during business hours. Planning Commission Actions: On January 28, 2014, the Planning Commission held a public hearing to review the Groves Lot 3 project. At the public hearing, the Planning Commission discussed the proposed General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment, Planned Development Rezone with related Stage 1 and Stage 2 Development Plan. The Planning Commission Staff Report is included as Attachment 4 and the draft minutes of the Planning Commission meeting are included as Attachment 5. Page 12 of 13 The Commission deliberated and approved the following resolutions by a 4 -1 vote: • Resolution 14 -4, recommending that the City Council adopt a Resolution amending the General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan (Attachment 6); • Resolution 14 -6, recommending the City Council approve a Planned Development Rezone with a related Stage 1 and Stage 2 Development Plan (Attachment 7); • Resolution 14 -7, recommending the City Council approve a Site Development Review permit and Vesting Tentative Map 8164 for 122 Townhouse /Condominium units (Attachment 8) PUBLIC NOTICING: In accordance with State law, a public notice was mailed to all property owners and occupants within 300 feet of the proposed project to advertise the project and the upcoming public hearing. A public notice was also published in the Valley Times and posted at several locations throughout the City. A copy of this Staff Report has been provided to the Applicant. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Ordinance rezoning The Groves Lot 3 to a Planned Development Zoning District and approving a related Stage 1 and 2 Development Plan 2. Resolution approving the Site Development Review Permit and Vesting Tentative Map 8164 (Lot 3) for 122 townhouse /condominium units for an 8.8 acre site (6.36 net acres) known as The Groves at Dublin Ranch (Lot 3) located along the north side of Dublin Boulevard between Keegan Street and Lockhart Street in the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Area 3. Applicant's submittal package dated January 22, 2014 4. January 28, 2014 Planning Commission Staff Report 5. January 28, 2014 Draft Planning Commission Minutes 6. Planning Commission Resolution 14 -4, recommending that the City Council adopt a Resolution amending the General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan for the Subarea 3 and The Groves Lot 3 7. Resolution 14 -6, recommending the City Council approve a Planned Development Rezone with a related Stage 1 and Stage 2 Development Plan 8 Resolution 14 -7, recommending the City Council approve a Site Development Review permit and Vesting Tentative Map 8164 (Lot 3) for 122 Townhouse /Condominium units for an 8.8 -acre site (6.36 net acres) known as The Groves at Dublin Ranch (Lot 3) Page 13 of 13 ORDINANCE NO. XX – 14 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN * * * * * * * * * * * * * * REZONING THE GROVES LOT 3 TO A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT ZONING DISTRICT AND APPROVING A RELATED STAGE 1 AND 2 DEVELOPMENT PLAN PLPA 2013-00034 The Dublin City Council does ordain as follows: SECTION 1. RECITALS A. The Groves Lot 3 (“project”) is in Dublin Ranch Area B in the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan area. On October 10, 1994, the City Council adopted Ordinance 4-94 prezoning the 1,538 acre Dublin Ranch to PD-Planned Development in accordance with the 1993 Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan. Following annexation of Dublin Ranch, the City Council adopted Ordinance 24-97 on December 2, 1997 rezoning Dublin Ranch Areas B-E to PD-Planned Development and adopting the then-required Land Use and Development Plan (LUDP) by Resolution 141-97. The LUDP established permitted uses, development standards and other regulations for future development of Areas B-E. The Groves Lot 3 was anticipated for up to 304 units of High Density Residential uses as part of a larger residential development. The unit count assumed a base number of units plus additional units through a density bonus. B. Several development applications have been approved based on the 1997 PD zoning, including the approximately 25-acre Fairway Ranch high density residential project approved on July 1, 2003. The current project is the third phase of the project initially approved as Fairway Ranch, which is now known as The Groves. A Site Development Review permit was approved in March 2007 to revise the site plan and allow live-work units. In March 2013, the City approved a 304 unit apartment project. None of the prior approved developments have been built. C. The PD-Planned Development zoning for the project would supersede Ordinance 24-97 as to The Groves Lot 3 project area. SECTION 2. FINDINGS A. Pursuant to Section 8.32.070 of the Dublin Municipal Code, the City Council finds as follows. 1. The Groves Lot 3 PD-Planned Development zoning meets the purpose and intent of Chapter 8.32 in that it provides a comprehensive development plan that creates a desirable use of land that is sensitive to surrounding land uses by virtue of the layout and design of the site plan. 2. Development of the Project under the PD-Planned Development zoning will be harmonious and compatible with existing and future development in the surrounding area in that the project provides higher density housing, compatible with existing higher density residential development to the north and west, and with proposed development to 1 the east. The Project provides a high degree of design and landscaping to complement existing and planned uses in the area. B. Pursuant to Sections 8.120.050.A and B of the Dublin Municipal Code, the City Council finds as follows. 1. The PD-Planned Development zoning for Project will be harmonious and compatible with existing and potential development in that the project provides higher density housing, compatible with existing higher density residential development to the north and west, and with proposed development to the east. The Project provides a high degree of design and landscaping to complement existing and planned uses in the area. 2. The project site is flat, in an infill area that is fully served by public services and existing roadways. There are no site challenges that will impede use of the site for the intended purposes. There are no major physical or topographic constraints and thus the site is physically suitable for the type and intensity of the proposed residential development. 3. The PD-Planned Development zoning will not adversely affect the health or safety of persons residing or working in the vicinity, or be detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare in that the project will comply with all applicable development regulations and standards. 4. The PD-Planned Development zoning is consistent with and in conformance with the Dublin General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan, as amended, in that the proposed residential use is consistent with the Medium High Density Residential land use designation for the site approved in connection with the Project. C. Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act, the City Council determined that the Project is within the scope of the Eastern Dublin EIR and other prior CEQA reviews, and that no further environmental review is required, as set forth in Resolution xx-14 on _______________, 2014, which resolution is incorporated herein by reference. SECTION 3.ZONING MAP AMENDMENT Pursuant to Chapter 8.32, Title 8 of the City of Dublin Municipal Code the City of Dublin Zoning Map is amended to rezone the property described below (“Property”) to a Planned Development Zoning District: 8.8 gross acres at the northwest corner of Dublin Boulevard and Lockhart Street, APN 985-0048-005 2 A map of the rezoning area is shown below: SECTION 4. The regulations for the use, development, improvement, and maintenance of the Property are set forth in the following Stage 1/2 Development Plan for the Project area, which is hereby approved. Any amendments to the Stage 1/2 Development Plan shall be in accordance with section 8.32.080 of the Dublin Municipal Code or its successors. Stage 1 and 2 Development Plan for The Groves Lot 3 This is a Stage 1 and 2 Development Plan pursuant to Chapter 8.32 of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance. This Development Plan meets all the requirements for both a Stage 1 and Stage 2 Development Plan and is adopted as part of the PD-Planned Development rezoning for the Groves Lot 3, PLPA 2013-00034. The PD-Planned Development District and this Stage 1/2 Development Plan provides flexibility to encourage innovative development while ensuring that the goals, policies, and action programs of the General Plan and provisions of Chapter 8.32 of the Zoning Ordinance are satisfied. A separately bound document titled “Lot 3” (hereafter, “Plan Book”) stamped “Received, January 22, 2014”, contains information on the Project, including the Stage 1 and 2 Development Plan and is incorporated herein by reference and on file in the Dublin Community Development Department. Unless otherwise noted, the references below are to the Plan Book section “Stage 1 and Stage 2 Planned Development Rezone”, hereafter “PD”. 3 1. Statement of permitted, conditional, and accessory uses. 2. Stage 1 and 2 Site Plan. 4 3. Site area, proposed densities. Gross/net area: 8.8/6.4 acres. Density: 19.1 du/net acres. Maximum number of units: 122. 4. Development Regulations. 5. Architectural Standards. The architectural character and theme shall be as generally shown in the following exhibits. 5 6. Phasing Plan. Project will be built in one phase. 7. Master Neighborhood/Preliminary Landscaping Plan. 8. General Plan and Specific Plan Consistency. The Project is consistent with the General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan through companion amendments approved in conjunction with the PD rezoning. 9. Inclusionary Zoning Regulations. The Project will provide the City with funds to satisfy the Inclusionary Zoning Regulations. 6 10. Aerial Photo. SECTION 5. OTHER ZONING REGULATIONS. Pursuant to the Dublin Zoning Ordinance, section 8.32.060.C, the use, development, improvement, and maintenance of the Project area shall be governed by the provisions of the closest comparable zoning district as determined by the Community Development Director and of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance except as provided in the Stage 1/2 Development Plan. SECTION 6. PRIOR PD ZONING SUPERSEDED. Ordinance 24-97 and the related Land Use and Development Plan approved in Resolution 141-97 are inapplicable as to the Project and are hereby superseded to that extent. SECTION 7. POSTING. The City Clerk of the City of Dublin shall cause this Ordinance to be posted in at least three (3) public places in the City of Dublin in accordance with Section 36933 of the Government Code of the State of California. SECTION 8. EFFECTIVE DATE. This ordinance shall take effect and be enforced thirty (30) days from and after its passage. PASSED AND ADOPTED BY the City Council of the City of Dublin, on this _________ day of _____________ 2014, by the following votes: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: 7 _____________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _____________________________ City Clerk G:\PA#\2013\PLPA-2013-00033 DUBLIN RANCH Subarea 3\PC Mtg 01.28.14\cc pd_ord_and_stage_1_2_dp_for_groves_lot_3_(jan_2014).doc 8 RESOLUTION NO. XX - 14 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN APPROVING A SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PERMIT AND VESTING TENTATIVE MAP 8164 (LOT 3) FOR 122 TOWNHOUSE/CONDOMINIUM UNITS FOR AN 8.8-ACRE SITE (6.36 NET ACRES) KNOWN AS THE GROVES AT DUBLIN RANCH (LOT 3) LOCATED ALONG THE NORTH SIDE OF DUBLIN BOULEVARD BETWEEN KEEGAN STREET AND LOCKHART STREET IN THE EASTERN DUBLIN SPECIFIC PLAN AREA PLPA-2013-00034 (APN 985-0048-005) WHEREAS , the Applicant, Lennar Corporation on behalf of Dublin Ranch Lot 3 Project Owner LLC (under management of Integral Communities) submitted applications for an 8.8- acre site (6.36 net acres) known as The Groves at Dublin Ranch (Lot 3) (“Project Site”); and WHEREAS , the Project site is located along the north side of Dublin Boulevard, south of Central Parkway, west side of Lockhart Street, and east of Keegan Street within the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan and Area B of the Dublin Ranch planned community; and WHEREAS , the applications include: 1) General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan amendments to change the land use from its current designation of High Density Residential (25.1 or greater units per acre) to Medium-High Density Residential (14.1 to 25 units per acre), and 2) Stage 1 Planned Development Rezoning (PLPA 2013-00034) and new Stage 2 Development Plan; and WHEREAS , the applications also include: a) Site Development Review (SDR); and b) Vesting Tentative Tract 8164 (Lot 3) dated received January 22, 2014 for 122 townhouse/condominium units within the Project Site; and WHEREAS , the applications collectively define this “Project” and are available and on file in the Community Development Department; and WHEREAS, the Project site is generally vacant land; and WHEREAS, the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), together with the State guidelines and City environmental regulations, require that certain projects be reviewed for environmental impacts and that environmental documents be prepared. The project is within the scope of the program analyzed in the Eastern Dublin EIR as to land use, density and development assumptions, and also within the development assumptions of a subsequent 1997 ND; therefore, no additional environmental review is required, as documented in the attached draft resolution; and WHEREAS, on January 28, 2014, the Planning Commission held a public hearing and adopted Resolution 14-04 recommending that the City Council approve the requested amendments to the General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan from its current designation of High Density Residential (25.1 or greater units per acre) to Medium-High Density Residential (14.1 to 25 units per acre); WHEREAS, on January 28, 2014, the Planning Commission held a public hearing and adopted Resolution 14-06 recommending that the City Council approve the requested Stage 1 Planned Development (PD) Rezoning and Stage 2 Development Plan consistent with the requested land use amendments; and WHEREAS , proper notice of said public hearing was given in all respects as required by law; and WHEREAS , a Staff Report was submitted recommending that the City Council approve a Site Development Review and Vesting Tentative Tract 8164 (Lot 3); and WHEREAS , the City Council did hold a public hearing on said application on February 18, 2014, for this project at which time all interested parties had the opportunity to be heard; and WHEREAS , the City Council did hear and use independent judgment and considered all said reports, recommendations, and testimony hereinabove set forth. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Dublin hereby makes the following findings and determinations regarding the proposed Site Development Review for 122 townhouse/condominium units on Lot 3 of Tract 8164 located along the north side of Dublin Boulevard between Keegan Street and Lockhart Street: Site Development Review : A. The proposal is consistent with the purposes of Chapter 8.104 of the Zoning Ordinance, with the General Plan and any applicable Specific Plans and design guidelines because: 1) The project will not undermine the architectural character and scale of development in which the proposed project is to be located; 2) the project will provide a unique, varied, and distinct housing opportunity; 3) the project is consistent with the General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Land Use designation of Medium-High Density Residential to be adopted in conjunction with the approval of the Project; and 4) the project complies with the development standards established in the Planned Development Plan. B. The proposal is consistent with the provisions of Title 8, Zoning Ordinance because: 1) the project contributes to orderly, attractive, and harmonious site and structural development compatible with the intended use, proposed subdivision for townhouse/condominiums, and the surrounding properties; and 2) the project complies with the development regulations set forth in the Zoning Ordinance where applicable and as adopted for PD PLPA 2013-00034. C. The design of the project is appropriate to the City, the vicinity, surrounding properties, and the lot in which the project is proposed because: 1) the size and mass of the proposed units are consistent with other residential developments in the 2 surrounding area; 2) the project will contribute to housing opportunities and diversity of product type as a complement to the surrounding neighborhoods; and 3) the project will serve the current buyer profile and market segment anticipated for this area. D. The subject site is suitable for the type and intensity of the approved development because: 1) the project site originally was approved and graded for of more than twice the number of units proposed currently and can accommodate the proposed structures and uses; 2) the proposed townhouse structures to be developed on the property meet all of the development standards established to regulate development in the neighborhood overall as referenced in the adopted Stage 1 Planned Development Regulations and the approved Stage 2 Development Plan; and 3) the project will complete the three-phase multi-family residential project originally approved as The Groves/Fairway Ranch within the Dublin Ranch planned community. E. Impacts to existing slopes and topographic features are addressed because: 1) with exception of sidewalks and landscaping, the perimeter infrastructure is complete; 2) the project site will be slightly re-graded in accordance with the related Tract Map for the proposed townhouse/condominium project, and 3) retaining walls will be constructed as required to support grade differentials between building envelopes and setback or right-of-way areas. F. Architectural considerations including the character, scale and quality of the design, site layout, the architectural relationship with the site and other buildings, screening of unsightly uses, lighting, building materials and colors and similar elements result in a project that is harmonious with its surroundings and compatible with other developments in the vicinity because: 1) the development reflects the multi-family character of housing in the general vicinity; 2) the townhouse structures reflect the architectural styles and development standards for other Medium–High Density Residential projects in the area; 3) the materials proposed will be consistent with multi-family projects in the area; and 4) the color and materials proposed will be coordinated among the structures on site. G. Landscape considerations, including the location, type, size, color, texture and coverage of plant materials, and similar elements have been incorporated into the project to ensure visual relief, adequate screening and an attractive environment for the public because: 1) all perimeter landscaping, walls, fences, and hardscape are proposed for construction in accordance with the master plan; and 2) landscaping in common areas is coordinated through a series of paseos and footpaths; 3) common area open space has been provided in the form of a pocket park; and 4) the project will conform to the requirements of the Stage 2 Development Plan and the Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance. H. The site has been adequately designed to ensure the proper circulation for bicyclist, pedestrians, and automobiles because: 1) all infrastructure including streets, parkways, pathways, sidewalks, and streetlighting are proposed for construction in accordance with the Dublin Ranch master plan; and 2) development of this project 3 will conform to the major improvements already installed allowing residents the safe and efficient use of these facilities. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the proposal by Developer to pay, on or before July 1, 2014, a fee of $1,300,000 in-lieu of constructing fifteen (15) Inclusionary Units as an alternate method of complying with the Inclusionary Zoning Regulations is consistent with the purposes of the Inclusionary Zoning Regulations for the reasons that follow: 1. Fees collected in lieu of the development of onsite Inclusionary Units will be used to assist with the development of affordable units in locations that are superior locations for affordable units because of access to transit and services. 2. The fees will be received earlier (on or before July 1, 2014) than in-lieu fees are due under the Regulations (prior to first building permit). 3. The units in the Project are townhome units that are likely to be priced more affordably than other units in the City of Dublin. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Dublin hereby makes the following findings and determinations regarding Vesting Tentative Map 8164 (Lot 3): Vesting Tentative Tract 8164 (Lot 3) A. The proposed Vesting Tentative Map 8164 (Lot 3) is consistent with the intent of applicable subdivision regulations and related ordinances for Dublin Ranch and the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan area. B. The design and improvements of the proposed Vesting Tentative Map 8164 (Lot 3) are consistent with the General Plan and the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan, as anticipated amendments as part of the Project , as they relate to the subject property in that it is a subdivision for implementation consistent with adjacent residential neighborhoods designated for this type of development. C. The proposed Vesting Tentative Map 8164 is consistent with the Planned Development zoning approved for Project through the Planned Development zoning adopted for this project and therefore consistent with the City of Dublin Zoning Ordinance. D. The properties created by the proposed Vesting Tentative Map 8164 (Lot 3) will have adequate access to major constructed or planned improvements as part of the Dublin Ranch master plan. E. Project design, architecture, and concept have been integrated with topography of the project site created by the proposed Vesting Tentative Tract Map 8134 (Lot 3) to incorporate water quality measures and minimize overgrading and extensive use of retaining walls. Therefore, the proposed subdivision is physically suitable for the type and intensity of development proposed. F. The Mitigation Measures and the Mitigation Monitoring program adopted with the program EIR for the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Area and Addendum would be 4 applicable as appropriate for addressing or mitigating any potential environmental impacts identified. G. The proposed Vesting Tentative Map 8164 (Lot 3) will not result in environmental damage or substantially injure fish or wildlife or their habitat or cause public health concerns subject to Mitigation Measures and Conditions of Approval. H. The design of the subdivision will not conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large, or access through or use of property within the proposed subdivision. The City Engineer has reviewed the map and title report and has not found any conflicting easements of this nature. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Dublin hereby approves the Site Development Review for the proposed project of 122 townhouse/condominium units within the 8.8-acre site (6.36 net acres) based on findings that the proposed project is consistent with the General Plan, the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan, the Stage 1 Planned Development Rezoning, and Stage 2 Development Plan, as they are to be amended as part of the Project approvals, and as shown on plans prepared by MacKay and Somps, KTGY Group Architecture + Planning, and R3 Studios Landscape Architecture dated received January 22, 2014 subject to the conditions included below. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Dublin hereby approves Vesting Tentative Map 8164 (Lot 3) for 122 townhouse/condominium units within the 8.8-acre site (6.36 net acres) prepared by MacKay & Somps dated January 22, 2014 subject to the conditions included below. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: Unless stated otherwise, all Conditions of Approval shall be complied with prior to the issuance of building permits or establishment of use, and shall be subject to Planning Department review and approval. The following codes represent those departments/agencies responsible for monitoring compliance of the conditions of approval. [PL.] Planning, [B] Building, [PO] Police, [PW] Public Works [P&CS] Parks & Community Services, [ADM] Administration/City Attorney, [FIN] Finance, [F] Alameda County Fire Department, [DSR] Dublin San Ramon Services District, [CO] Alameda County Department of Environmental Health, [Z7] Zone 7. NO. Agency When Source CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Required, Prior to: PLANNING DIVISION PL Ongoing Standard 1. Approval. This Site Development Review approval is for the construction of 122 townhouses for the project known as The Groves at Dublin Ranch (Lot 3) within the Fairway Ranch neighborhood of Dublin Ranch. This approval shall be as generally depicted and indicated on 5 NO. Agency When Source CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Required, Prior to: the plans prepared by MacKay & Somps, KTGY Architects and R3 Studios dated received January 22, 2014 and on file in the Community Development Department, and as specified by the following Conditions of Approval for this project. 2. Permit Expiration: PL One year from Standard Construction or use shall approval commence within one (1) year of Site Development Review (SDR) approval, or the SDR shall lapse and become null and void. Commencement of construction or use means the actual construction or use pursuant to the approval, or demonstrating substantial progress toward commencing such use. If there is a dispute as to whether the SDR has expired, the City may hold a noticed public hearing to determine the matter. Such a determination may be processed concurrently with revocation proceedings in appropriate circumstances. If a SDR expires, a new application must be made and processed according to the requirements of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance. 3. Satellite Dishes:PL On-going DMC Prior to the issuance of 8.96.020. Building Permits, the Developer's Architect shall D prepare a plan for review and approval by the Director of Community Development and the Chief Building Official that provides a consistent and unobtrusive location for the placement of individual satellite dishes. Individual conduit will be run from the individual residential unit to the location on the building to limit the amount of exposed cable required to activate any satellite dish. It is preferred that where chimneysexist, that the mounting of the dish be incorporated into . the chimney In instances where the buildings have mechanical wells that those buildings provide locations within the well for individual unit connections. In instances where neither chimneys nor mechanical wells exist, then the plan shall show a common and consistent location for satellite dish placement to eliminate the over proliferation, haphazard and irregular placement. The CovenantsConditions and Restrictions (CC&R's) shall contain language stating that the 6 NO. Agency When Source CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Required, Prior to: individual units contain conduit and central locations for satellite dish connections and failure to use those conduits and locations (if the resident has or wants a satellite dish) will constitute a violation of those CC&R's. The penalty for that violation shall be specified. Additionally, prior to the issuance of building permits, the developer shall prepare a disclosure statement to be signed by every first time home purchaser indicating that utilizing this dedicated conduit and central mounting location is a requirement if a satellite dish is installed. 4. Compliance with previous approvals: PL On-going Standard Any Conditions of Approval for Tract 7453 that remain incomplete and that are related to development of Lot 3 shall be satisfied. 5. Time Extension.PL One year Standard The original approving following decision-maker may, upon the Applicant’s written approval date request for an extension of approval prior to expiration, and upon the determination that any Conditions of Approval remain adequate to assure that applicable findings of approval will continue to be met, grant a time extension of approval for a period not to exceed six (6) months. All time extension requests shall be noticed and a public hearing or public meeting shall be held as required by the particular Permit. PL Ongoing Planning 6. Effective Date. This approval shall become effective on the effective date of the following entitlements: 1. Resolution amending the General Plan and the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan for the project; and 2. Ordinance approving a Planned Development Rezone with a related State 1 and Stage 2 Development Plan for the project. If the above entitlements do not take effect, the SDR/Tentative Map approval is null and void. Standard 7. Revocation of permitPL Ongoing . The permit shall be revocable for cause in accordance with Chapter 8.96 of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance. Any 7 NO. Agency When Source CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Required, Prior to: violation of the terms or conditions of this permit shall be subject to citation. PL, PW Issuance of Standard 8. Required Permits . Applicant/Developer shall Building Permits comply with the City of Dublin Zoning Ordinance and obtain all necessary permits required by other agencies (Alameda County Flood Control District Zone 7, California Department of Fish and Game, Army Corps of Engineers, Regional Water Quality Control Board, State Water Quality Control Board) and shall submit copies of the permits to the Public Works Department. Standard 9. Requirements and Standard Conditions. Various Issuance of The Building Permits Applicant/Developer shall comply with applicable Alameda County Fire, Dublin Public Works Department, Dublin Building Department, Dublin Police Services, Alameda County Flood Control District Zone 7, Livermore Amador Valley Transit Authority, Alameda County Public and Environmental Health, Dublin San Ramon Services District and the California Department of Health Services requirements and standard conditions. Prior to issuance of building permits or the installation of any improvements related to this project, the Developer shall supply written statements from each such agency or department to the Planning Department, indicating that all applicable conditions required have been or will be met. 10. Modifications: PL On-going Standard The Community Development Director may consider modifications or changes to this Site Development Review approval if the modifications or changes proposed comply with Section 8.104.100 of the Zoning Ordinance. 11. Indemnification:PL, B Ongoing Standard The Applicant/Developer shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City of Dublin and its agents, officers, and employees from any claim, action, or proceeding against the City of Dublin or its agents, officers, or employees to attack, set aside, void, or annul an approval of the City of Dublin or its advisory agency, appeal board, Planning Commission, City Council, Community Development Director, Zoning Administrator, or any other department, committee, or agency of the City to the extent 8 NO. Agency When Source CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Required, Prior to: such actions are brought within the time period required by Government Code Section 66499.37 or other applicable law; provided, however, that The Applicant/Developer's duty to so defend, indemnify, and hold harmless shall be subject to the City's promptly notifying The Applicant/Developer of any said claim, action, or proceeding and the City's full cooperation in the defense of such actions or proceedings. Standard 12. Clean up.PL Ongoing The Applicant/Developer shall be responsible for clean-up and disposal of project related trash and for maintaining a clean, litter- free site. Standard 13. Controlling ActivitiesPO, PL Ongoing . The Applicant /Developer shall control all activities on the project site so as not to create a nuisance to the surrounding residences. Standard 14. Noise/NuisancesPO, PL Ongoing . No loudspeakers or amplified music shall be permitted to project or be placed outside of the residential buildings during construction. Standard 15. Accessory Structures.PL, B, Ongoing The use of any F accessory structures, such as storage sheds or trailer/container units used for storage or for any other purpose during construction, shall not be allowed on the site at any time unless a Temporary Use Permit is applied for and approved. 16. Final building and site development plansPL Issuance of Project shall building permit Specific be reviewed and approved by the Community Development Department staff prior to the issuance of a building permit. All such plans shall insure: a. That standard residential security requirements as established by the Dublin Police Department are provided. b. That ramps, special parking spaces, signing, and other appropriate physical features for the handicapped, are provided throughout the site for all publicly used facilities. c. That continuous concrete curbing is provided for all parking stalls, if necessary. d. That exterior lighting of the building and site 9 NO. Agency When Source CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Required, Prior to: is not directed onto adjacent properties and the light source is shielded from direct offsite viewing. e. That all mechanical equipment, including air conditioning condensers, electrical and gas meters, is architecturally screened from view, and that electrical transformers are either underground or architecturally screened. f. That all vents, gutters, downspouts, flashings, etc., are painted to match the color of adjacent surface. g. That all materials and colors are to be as approved by the Dublin Community Development Department. Once constructed or installed, all improvements are to be maintained in accordance with the approved plans. Any changes, which affect the exterior character, shall be resubmitted to the Dublin Community Development Department for approval. h. That all exterior architectural elements visible from view and not detailed on the plans be finished in a style and in materials in harmony with the exterior of the building. All materials shall wrap to the inside corners and terminate at a perpendicular wall plane. i. That all other public agencies that require review of the project are supplied with copies of the final building and site plans and that compliance is obtained with at least their minimum Code requirements. Standard 17. Fees. PW Zone 7 and The Applicant/Developer shall pay all Parkland In-Lieu applicable fees in effect at the time of building Fees Due Prior permit issuance including, but not limited to, to Filing Each Planning fees, Building fees, Dublin San Ramon Final Map; Services District fees, Public Facilities fees, Other Fees Dublin Unified School District School Impact fees, Required with Public Works Traffic Impact fees, City of Dublin Issuance of Fire Services fees, Noise Mitigation fees, Building Permits Inclusionary Housing In-Lieu fees, Alameda County Flood and Water Conservation District (Zone 7) Drainage and Water Connection fees, 10 NO. Agency When Source CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Required, Prior to: and any other fees either in effect at the time and/or as noted in the Development Agreement. 18. Sound Attenuation.PL Issuance of Project The project shall comply Building Permits Specific with the sound attenuation measures (mitigation measures) recommended in the sound study dated 25-February-2013 by Charles M. Salter Associates. 19. Affordable Housing.PL On or before Project The project is subject to July 1, 2014 Specific the City’s Inclusionary Zoning Regulations (Chapter 8.68 of the Municipal Code). Under the terms of the Regulations, Developer has a 15 unit affordable housing obligation, which obligation may be satisfied by several means. Developer proposed an “alternate method of compliance” under Section 8.68.040.E to satisfy its 15 unit affordable housing obligation, which proposal is subject to City Council approval. In particular, Developer has proposed to pay fee of $1,300,000 in lieu of construction of the 15 affordable housing units. The City Council has found that the Developer’s proposal meets the purposes of the Inclusionary Zoning Regulations. Developer shall make the payment on or before July 1, 2014. If Developer fails to make the payment when due, the City may withhold further approvals and authorizations for the Project, and may elect to revoke the approval of the alternate method of compliance and apply the Regulation’s standard requirements. 20. Final landscape plans, irrigation system plansPL Issuance of Standard , building permit tree preservation techniques, and guarantees, shall be reviewed and approved by the Dublin Planning Division prior to the issuance of the building permit. All such submittals shall insure: a. That plant material is utilized which will be capable of healthy growth within the given range of soil and climate. b. That proposed landscape screening is of a height and density so that it provides a positive visual impact within three years from the time of planting. c. That unless unusual circumstances prevail, at least 75% of the proposed trees on the site 11 NO. Agency When Source CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Required, Prior to: are a minimum of 15 gallons in size, and at least 50% of the proposed shrubs on the site are minimum of 5 gallons in size. d. That a plan for an automatic irrigation system be provided which assures that all plants get adequate water. In unusual circumstances, and if approved by Staff, a manual or quick coupler system may be used. e. That concrete curbing is to be used at the edges of all planters and paving surfaces where applicable. f. That all cut and fill slopes conform to the master vesting tentative map and conditions detailed in the Site Development Review packet. g. That all cut and fill slopes graded and not constructed by September 1, of any given year, are hydroseeded with perennial or native grasses and flowers, and that stock piles of loose soil existing on that date are hydroseeded in a similar manner. h. That the area under the drip line of all existing oaks, walnuts, etc., which are to be saved are fenced during construction and grading operations and no activity is permitted under them that will cause soil compaction or damage to the tree, if applicable. i. That a guarantee from the owners or contractors shall be required guaranteeing all shrubs and ground cover, all trees, and the irrigation system for one year. j. That a permanent maintenance agreement on all landscaping will be required from the owner insuring regular irrigation, fertilization and weed abatement, if applicable. 21. Water Efficient Landscaping RegulationsPL Ongoing Standard : The Applicant shall meet all requirements of the City of Dublin’s Water-Efficient Landscaping Regulations, Section 8.88 of the Dublin Municipal Code.[PN] 22. Landscape Plans. PL Ongoing Standard Civil Improvement Plans, 12 NO. Agency When Source CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Required, Prior to: Joint Trench Plans, Street Lighting Plans and Landscape Improvement Plans shall be submitted on the same size sheet and plotted at the same drawing scale for consistency, improved legibility and interdisciplinary coordination. 23. Utilities. PL Ongoing Standard Utilities shall be coordinated with proposed tree placements to eliminate conflicts between trees and utilities. Utilities may have to be relocated in order to provide the required separation between the trees and utilities. 24. Open Space Areas. PL Ongoing Standard The open space area shall be planted and irrigated to create landscape that is attractive, conserves water, and requires minimal maintenance. 25. Plant Clearances.PL Ongoing Standard All trees planted shall meet the following clearances: a. 6’ from the face of building walls or roof eaves. b. 7’ from fire hydrants, storm drains, sanitary sewers and/or gas lines. c. 5’ from top of wing of driveways, mailboxes, water, telephone and/or electrical mains d. 15’ from stop signs, street or curb sign returns. e. 15’ from either side of street lights. 26. Cut and Fill Areas.PL Ongoing Standard Cut and fill slopes graded and not landscaped by September 1, of any given year shall be hydroseeded with an approved native erosion control grass seed mix and that stockpiles of loose soil existing on that date are hydroseeded in the same manner. 27. Irrigation System Warranty.PL Ongoing Standard The applicant shall warranty the irrigation system and planting for a period of one year from the date of installation. The applicant shall submit for the Dublin Community Development Department approval a landscape maintenance plan for the Common Area landscape including a reasonable estimate of expenses for the first five years Sustainable Landscape Practices : The 28. PL Ongoing Standard landscape design shall demonstrate compliance with sustainable landscape practices as detailed in the Bay-Friendly Landscape Guidelines by earning a minimum of 60 points or more on the Bay-Friendly scorecard and specifying that 75% 13 NO. Agency When Source CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Required, Prior to: of the non-turf planting only requires occasional, little or no shearing or summer water once established. 29. Public Art Project:P&CS Issuance of Project The project is required to building permits Specific comply with Sections 8.58.05A and 8.58.05D of Zoning Chapter 8.58 (Public Art Program) of the Dublin Ord Chp Municipal Code then the Applicant/Developer has 8.58 elected to pay an in-lieu fee in accordance with Chapter 8.58 of the Dublin Municipal Code and shall comply with the Public Art Compliance Report submitted by Applicant/Developer, dated December 19, 2013 and on file with the Planning Department. PUBLIC WORKS 30. General Public Works Conditions of Approval: PW Ongoing Standard C of A Developer shall comply with the City of Dublin General Public Works Conditions of Approval unless specifically modified by these Conditions of Approval. Standard 31. Street Lighting Maintenance Assessment PW Final Map C of A District : The Developer shall request the area to be annexed into a subzone of the Citywide Street Lighting Maintenance Assessment District and shall provide any exhibits required for the annexation. In addition Developer shall pay all administrative costs associated with processing the annexation. Project 32. Long Term Encroachment Agreement: PW Final Map The Specific Developer shall enter into an “Agreement for Long Term Encroachments” with the City to allow the HOA to maintain the landscape and decorative features within public Right of Way including frontage & median landscaping, decorative pavements and special features (i.e., walls, portals, benches, etc.) as generally shown on Site Development Review exhibits. The Agreement shall identify the ownership of the special features and maintenance responsibilities. The property owner will be responsible for maintaining the surface of all decorative pavements including restoration required as the result of utility repairs. Project 33. Storm Drain Treatment Measures: PW Final Map The Specific developer shall install storm drain treatment measures that comply with Section C.10 of the 14 NO. Agency When Source CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Required, Prior to: Municipal Regional Permit for Stormwater with regards to trash capture. The location and type of measures shall be approved by the City Engineer. Measures located on-site shall be maintained by the HOA; measures located within the public right-of-way and that accept public street runoff will be maintained by the City. 34. Traffic Impact Fees:PW Issuance of Standard The developer shall be Building Permits C of A responsible for payment of the Eastern Dublin Traffic Impact Fee (Sections 1 and 2), the Eastern Dublin I-580 Interchange Fee, and the Tri-Valley Transportation Development Fee. Fees will be payable at issuance of building permits. Standard 35. Eastern Dublin Traffic Impact Fee Minimum PW Issuance of C of A Building Permits Payment: The developer shall be responsible for payment of a minimum portion of the Eastern Dublin Traffic Impact Fee in cash (11% Category 1 and 25% of Category 2), as specified in the resolution establishing the Eastern Dublin Traffic Impact Fee. These minimum cash payment shall be in addition to any other payment noted in these conditions and may not be offset by fee credits. PUBLIC WORKS GENERAL CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 36. The Developer shall comply with the Subdivision PW Ongoing Standard Map Act, the City of Dublin Subdivision, and C of A Grading Ordinances, the City of Dublin Public Works Standards and Policies, the most current requirements of the State Code Title 24 and the Americans with Disabilities Act with regard to accessibility, and all building and fire codes and ordinances in effect at the time of building permit. All public improvements constructed by Developer and to be dedicated to the City are hereby identified as “public works” under Labor Code section 1771. Accordingly, Developer, in constructing such improvements, shall comply with the Prevailing Wage Law (Labor Code. Sects. 1720 and following). Standard 37. The Developer shall defend, indemnify, and hold PW Ongoing C of A harmless the City of Dublin and its agents, officers, and employees from any claim, action, or proceeding against the City of Dublin or its agents, officers, or employees to attack, set 15 NO. Agency When Source CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Required, Prior to: aside, void, or annul an approval of the City of Dublin or its advisory agency, appeal board, Planning Commission, City Council, Community Development Director, Zoning Administrator, or any other department, committee, or agency of the City related to this project to the extent such actions are brought within the time period required by Government Code Section 66499.37 or other applicable law; provided, however, that The Developer's duty to so defend, indemnify, and hold harmless shall be subject to the City's promptly notifying The Developer of any said claim, action, or proceeding and the City's full cooperation in the defense of such actions or proceedings. Standard 38. In the event that there needs to be clarification to PW Ongoing C of A these Conditions of Approval, the Director of Community Development and the City Engineer have the authority to clarify the intent of these Conditions of Approval to the Developer without going to a public hearing. The Director of Community Development and the City Engineer also have the authority to make minor modifications to these conditions without going to a public hearing in order for the Developer to fulfill needed improvements or mitigations resulting from impacts of this project. AGREEMENTS AND BONDS 39. The Developer shall enter into a Tract PW Final Map Standard Improvement Agreement with the City for all C of A public improvements including any required offsite storm drainage or roadway improvements that are needed to serve the Tract that have not been bonded with another Tract Improvement Agreement. 40. The Developer shall provide performance (100%), PW Final Map Standard and labor & material (100%) securities to C of A guarantee the tract improvements, approved by the City Engineer, prior to execution of the Tract Improvement Agreement and approval of the Final Map. (Note: Upon acceptance of the improvements, the performance security may be replaced with a maintenance bond that is 25% of the value of the performance security.) 16 NO. Agency When Source CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Required, Prior to: FEES 41. The Developer shall pay all applicable fees in PW Zone 7 and Standard effect at the time of building permit issuance Parkland In-Lieu C of A including, but not limited to, Planning fees, Fees Due Prior Building fees, Dublin San Ramon Services District to Filing Final fees, Public Facilities fees, Dublin Unified School Map; Other District School Impact fees, Public Works Traffic Fees Required Impact fees, Alameda County Fire Services fees; with Issuance of Noise Mitigation fees, Inclusionary Housing In-Building Permits Lieu fees; Alameda County Flood and Water Conservation District (Zone 7) Drainage and Water Connection fees; and any other fees either in effect at the time and/or as noted in the Development Agreement. 42. The Developer shall dedicate parkland or pay in-PW Final Map Standard lieu fees in the amounts and at the times set forth C of A in City of Dublin Resolution No. 214-02, or in any resolution revising these amounts and as implemented by the Administrative Guidelines adopted by Resolution 195-99. PERMITS Standard 43. Developer shall obtain an Encroachment Permit PW Start of Work C of A from the Public Works Department for all construction activity within the public right-of-way of any street where the City has accepted the improvements. The encroachment permit may require surety for slurry seal and restriping. At the discretion of the City Engineer an encroachment for work specifically included in an Improvement Agreement may not be required. Standard 44. Developer shall obtain a Grading / Sitework PW Start of Work C of A Permit from the Public Works Department for all grading and private site improvements that serves more than one lot or residential condominium unit. 45. Developer shall obtain all permits required by PW Start of Work Standard other agencies including, but not limited to C of A Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation District Zone 7, California Department of Fish and Game, Army Corps of Engineers, Regional Water Quality Control Board, Caltrans and provide copies of the permits to the Public Works Department. SUBMITTALS Standard 46. All submittals of plans and Final Maps shall PW Approval of C of A 17 NO. Agency When Source CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Required, Prior to: comply with the requirements of the “City of improvement Dublin Public Works Department Improvement plans or Final Plan Submittal Requirements”, and the “City of Map Dublin Improvement Plan Review Check List”. Standard 47. The Developer will be responsible for submittals PW Approval of C of A and reviews to obtain the approvals of all improvement participating non-City agencies. The Alameda plans or Final County Fire Department and the Dublin San Map Ramon Services District shall approve and sign the Improvement Plans. Standard 48. Developer shall submit a Geotechnical Report, PW Approval of C of A which includes street pavement sections and improvement grading recommendations. plans, grading plans, or final map Standard 49. Developer shall provide the Public Works PW Acceptance of C of A Department a digital vectorized file of the “master” improvements files for the project when the Final Map has been and release of approved. Digital raster copies are not bonds acceptable. The digital vectorized files shall be in AutoCAD 14 or higher drawing format. Drawing units shall be decimal with the precision of the Final Map. All objects and entities in layers shall be colored by layer and named in English. All submitted drawings shall use the Global Coordinate System of USA, California, NAD 83 California State Plane, Zone III, and U.S. foot. EASEMENTS Standard 50. The Developer shall obtain abandonment from all PW Approval of C of A applicable public agencies of existing easements improvement and right of ways within the development that will plans or final no longer be used. map Standard 51. The Developer shall acquire easements, and/or PW Approval of C of A obtain rights-of-entry from the adjacent property improvement owners for any improvements on their property. plans or final The easements and/or rights-of-entry shall be in map writing and copies furnished to the City Engineer. GRADING Standard 52. The Grading Plan shall be in conformance with PW Approval of C of A the recommendations of the Geotechnical Report, grading plans or the approved Tentative Map and/or Site issuance of Development Review, and the City design grading permits, standards & ordinances. In case of conflict and ongoing 18 NO. Agency When Source CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Required, Prior to: between the soil engineer’s recommendations and City ordinances, the City Engineer shall determine which shall apply. Approval of Standard 53. A detailed Erosion Control Plan shall be included PW grading plans or C of A with the Grading Plan approval. The plan shall issuance of include detailed design, location, and grading permits, maintenance criteria of all erosion and and ongoing sedimentation control measures. Approval of Standard 54. Tiebacks or structural fabric for retaining walls PW grading plans or C of A shall not cross property lines, or shall be located issuance of a minimum of 2’ below the finished grade of the grading permits, upper lot. and ongoing Approval of Standard 55. Bank slopes along public streets shall be no PW grading plans or C of A steeper than 3:1 unless shown otherwise on the issuance of Tentative Map Grading Plan exhibits. The toe of grading permits, any slope along public streets shall be one foot and ongoing back of walkway. The top of any slope along public streets shall be three feet back of walkway. Minor exception may be made in the above slope design criteria to meet unforeseen design constraints subject to the approval of the City Engineer. IMPROVEMENTS 56. The public improvements shall be constructed PW Approval of Standard generally as shown on the Tentative Map and/or improvement C of A Site Development Review. However, the plans or start of approval of the Tentative Map and/or Site construction, Development Review is not an approval of the and ongoing specific design of the drainage, sanitary sewer, water, and street improvements. Standard 57. All public improvements shall conform to the City PW Approval of C of A of Dublin Standard Plans and design improvement requirements and as approved by the City plans or start of Engineer. construction, and ongoing Approval of Standard 58. Streets shall be at a minimum 1% slope with PW improvement C of A minimum gutter flow of 0.7% around bumpouts. plans or start of construction, and ongoing Approval of Standard 59. Curb Returns on arterial and collector streets PW improvement C of A shall be 40-foot radius, all internal public streets plans or start of curb returns shall be 30-foot radius (36-foot with construction, bump outs) and private streets/alleys shall be a and ongoing 19 NO. Agency When Source CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Required, Prior to: minimum 20-foot radius, or as approved by the City Engineer. Curb ramp locations and design shall conform to the most current Title 24 and Americans with Disabilities Act requirements and as approved by the City Traffic Engineer. Standard 60. The Developer shall install all traffic signs and PW Occupancy of C of A pavement marking as required by the City units or Engineer. acceptance of improvements 61. Street light standards and luminaries shall be PW Occupancy of Standard designed and installed per approval of the City Units or C of A Engineer. The maximum voltage drop for Acceptance of streetlights is 5%. Improvements Standard 62. All new traffic signals shall be interconnected with PW Occupancy of C of A other new signals within the development and to Units or the existing City traffic signal system by hard wire. Acceptance of Improvements Standard 63. The Developer shall construct bus stops and PW Occupancy of C of A shelters at the locations designated and approved Units or by the LAVTA and the City Engineer. The Acceptance of Developer shall pay the cost of procuring and Improvements installing these improvements, if applicable. Standard 64. Developer shall construct all potable and recycled PW Occupancy of C of A water and sanitary sewer facilities required to Units or serve the project in accordance with DSRSD Acceptance of master plans, standards, specifications and Improvements requirements. Standard 65. Fire hydrant locations shall be approved by the PW Occupancy of C of A Alameda County Fire Department. A raised Units or reflector blue traffic marker shall be installed in Acceptance of the street opposite each hydrant. Improvements Standard 66. The Developer shall furnish and install street PW Occupancy of C of A name signs for the project to the satisfaction of Units or the City Engineer. Acceptance of Improvements Standard 67. Developer shall construct gas, electric, cable TV PW Occupancy of C of A and communication improvements within the Units or fronting streets and as necessary to serve the Acceptance of project and the future adjacent parcels as Improvements approved by the City Engineer and the various Public Utility agencies. Standard 68. All electrical, gas, telephone, and Cable TV PW Occupancy of C of A utilities, shall be underground in accordance with Units or the City policies and ordinances. All utilities shall Acceptance of 20 NO. Agency When Source CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Required, Prior to: be located and provided within public utility Improvements easements and sized to meet utility company standards. Standard 69. All utility vaults, boxes and structures, unless PW Occupancy of C of A specifically approved otherwise by the City units or Engineer, shall be underground and placed in acceptance of landscape areas and screened from public view. improvements Prior to Joint Trench Plan approval, landscape drawings shall be submitted to the City showing the location of all utility vaults, boxes and structures and adjacent landscape features and plantings. The Joint Trench Plans shall be signed by the City Engineer prior to construction of the joint trench improvements. CONSTRUCTION 70. The Erosion Control Plan shall be implemented PW Ongoing as Standard between October 15th and April 15th unless needed C of A otherwise allowed in writing by the City Engineer. The Developer will be responsible for maintaining erosion and sediment control measures for one year following the City’s acceptance of the subdivision improvements. 71. If archaeological materials are encountered PW Ongoing as 1993 during construction, construction within 30 feet of needed EDEIR these materials shall be halted until a MM professional Archaeologist who is certified by the Society of California Archaeology (SCA) or the Society of Professional Archaeology (SOPA) has had an opportunity to evaluate the significance of the find and suggest appropriate mitigation measures. 72. Construction activities, including the maintenance PW Ongoing as Standard and warming of equipment, shall be limited to needed C of A Monday through Friday, and non-City holidays, between the hours of 7:30 a.m. and 5:30 p.m. except as otherwise approved by the City Engineer. Extended hours or Saturday work will be considered by the City Engineer on a case-by- case basis. Standard 73. Developer shall prepare a construction noise PW Start of C of A management plan that identifies measures to be construction taken to minimize construction noise on implementation surrounding developed properties. The plan shall ongoing as include hours of construction operation, use of needed 21 NO. Agency When Source CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Required, Prior to: mufflers on construction equipment, speed limit for construction traffic, haul routes and identify a noise monitor. Specific noise management measures shall be provided prior to project construction. Standard 74. Developer shall prepare a plan for construction PW Start of C of A traffic interface with public traffic on any existing construction; public street. Construction traffic and parking implementation may be subject to specific requirements by the ongoing as City Engineer. needed 75. The Developer shall be responsible for controlling PW Ongoing Standard any rodent, mosquito, or other pest problem due C of A to construction activities. Standard 76. The Developer shall be responsible for watering PW Start of C of A or other dust-palliative measures to control dust construction; as conditions warrant or as directed by the City implementation Engineer. Ongoing as needed Standard 77. The Developer shall provide the Public Works PW Issuance of C of A Department with a letter from a registered civil Building Permits engineer or surveyor stating that the building or Acceptance pads have been graded to within 0.1 feet of the of grades shown on the approved Grading Plans, Improvements and that the top & toe of banks and retaining walls are at the locations shown on the approved Grading Plans. NPDES Standard 78. Prior to any clearing or grading, the Developer PW Start of Any C of A shall provide the City evidence that a Notice of Construction Intent (NOI) has been sent to the California State Activities Water Resources Control Board per the requirements of the NPDES. A copy of the Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) shall be provided to the Public Works Department and be kept at the construction site. Standard 79. The Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan PW SWPPP to be C of A (SWPPP) shall identify the Best Management Prepared Prior Practices (BMPs) appropriate to the project to Approval of construction activities. The SWPPP shall include Improvement the erosion control measures in accordance with Plans: the regulations outlined in the most current Implementation version of the ABAG Erosion and Sediment Prior to Start of Control Handbook or State Construction Best Construction Management Practices Handbook. The Developer and Ongoing as 22 NO. Agency When Source CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Required, Prior to: is responsible for ensuring that all contractors Needed implement all storm water pollution prevention measures in the SWPPP. Standard 80. The Property Owner shall enter into an PW Final Map C of A agreement with the City of Dublin that guarantees the perpetual maintenance obligation for all storm water treatment measures installed as part of the project. Said agreement is required pursuant to Provision C.3.h. of RWQCB Order R2-2009-0074 for the issuance of the Alameda Countywide NPDES municipal storm water permit. Said permit requires the City to provide verification and assurance that all treatment devices will be properly operated and maintained. This condition shall not apply if the water quality treatment measures are maintained by a GHAD or other public entity. DUBLIN BLVD. TEMPORARY SIDEWALK Keegan Signing and Striping: In conjunction with on-site improvement plans, developer shall review the intersection improvements at Dublin Blvd. and Keegan Street with City traffic Engineer 81. relative to existing signing and stripping details and provide potential revisions necessary to satisfaction of City Engineer. Dublin Blvd. Temporary Sidewalk: Prior to the occupancy of the first unit within Lot 3, if the developer of Sub Area 3 has not begun grading and construction of the southerly portion of Sub 82. Area 3, the developer of Lot 3 shall build a temporary sidewalk 4 feet wide connecting the intersection of Lockhart Street with the entrance to Fallon Gateway. Frontage Improvements: Any public improvements along the project frontage not 83. currently constructed shall be constructed with development of this site. BUILDING DIVISION 84. Building Codes and Ordinances: B Through Standard All project Completion construction shall conform to all building codes and ordinances in effect at the time of building permit. B 85. Retaining WallsThrough Standard : All retaining walls over 30 completion inches in height and in a walkway area shall be provided with guardrails. All retaining walls located on private property, over 24 inches, with a surcharge, or 36 inches without a surcharge, shall 23 NO. Agency When Source CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Required, Prior to: obtain permits and inspections from the Building Division. B 86. Phased Occupancy PlanOccupancy of Standard : If occupancy is any affected requested to occur in phases, then all physical building improvements within each phase shall be required to be completed prior to occupancy of any buildings within that phase except for items specifically excluded in an approved Phased Occupancy Plan, or minor handwork items, approved by the Community Development Department. The Phased Occupancy Plan shall be submitted to the Directors of Community Development and Public Works for review and approval a minimum of 45 days prior to the request for occupancy of any building covered by said Phased Occupancy Plan. Any phasing shall provide for adequate vehicular access to all parcels in each phase, and shall substantially conform to the intent and purpose of the subdivision approval. No individual building shall be occupied until the adjoining area is finished, safe, accessible, and provided with all reasonable expected services and amenities, and separated from remaining additional construction activity. Subject to approval of the Community Development Director, the completion of landscaping may be deferred due to inclement weather with the posting of a bond for the value of the deferred landscaping and associated improvements. B Standard 87. Building Permits:Issuance of To apply for building permits, building permit Applicant/Developer shall submit five (5) sets of construction plans to the Building Division for plan check. Each set of plans shall have attached an annotated copy of these Conditions of Approval. The notations shall clearly indicate how all Conditions of Approval will or have been complied with. Construction plans will not be accepted without the annotated resolutions attached to each set of plans. Applicant/Developer will be responsible for obtaining the approvals of all participation non-City agencies prior to the issuance of building permits. B Standard 88. Construction DrawingsIssuance of : Construction plans building permit shall be fully dimensioned (including building 24 NO. Agency When Source CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Required, Prior to: elevations) accurately drawn (depicting all existing and proposed conditions on site), and prepared and signed by a California licensed Architect or Engineer. All structural calculations shall be prepared and signed by a California licensed Architect or Engineer. The site plan, landscape plan and details shall be consistent with each other. B Standard 89. Air Conditioning UnitsOccupancy of : Air conditioning units unit and ventilation ducts shall be screened from public view with materials compatible to the main building and shall not be roof mounted. Units shall be permanently installed on concrete pads or other non-movable materials approved by the Building Official and Community Development Director. Air conditioning units shall be located such that each dwelling unit has one side yard with an unobstructed width of not less than 36 inches. Air conditioning units shall be located in accordance with the PD text. B Standard 90. Temporary FencingThrough : Temporary Construction completion fencing shall be installed along the perimeter of all work under construction. Addressing: B Standard 91. Issuance of a. Provide a site plan with the City of Dublin’s building permit address grid overlaid on the plans (1 to 30 and through scale). Highlight all exterior door openings on completion plans (front, rear, garage, etc.). (Prior to release of addresses) b. Provide plan for display of addresses. The Building Official and Director of Community Development shall approve plan prior to issuance of the first building permit. (Prior to permitting) c. Address signage shall be provided as per the Dublin Residential Security Code. (Occupancy of any Unit). d. Exterior address numbers shall be backlight and be posted in such a way that they can be seen from the street. 92. Engineer ObservationB Scheduling the Standard : The Engineer of record final frame shall be retained to provide observation services 25 NO. Agency When Source CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Required, Prior to: for all components of the lateral and vertical inspection design of the building, including nailing, hold downs, straps, shear, roof diaphragm and structural frame of building. A written report shall be submitted to the City Inspector prior to scheduling the final frame inspection. B Standard 93. FoundationThrough : Geotechnical Engineer for the soils completion report shall review and approve the foundation design. A letter shall be submitted to the Building Division on the approval. B Standard 94. Green Building:Through Green Building measures as completion detailed may be adjusted prior to master plan check application submittal with prior approval from the City’s Green Building Official. Provided that the design of the project complies with the City of Dublin’s Green Building Ordinance and State Law as applicable. In addition, all changes shall be reflected in the Master Plans. (Through Completion) The Green Building checklist shall be included in the master plans. The checklist shall detail what Green Points are being obtained and where the information is found within the master plans. (Prior to first permit) Prior to each unit final, the project shall submit a completed checklist with appropriate verification that all Green Points required by 7.94 of the Dublin Municipal Code have been incorporated. (Through Completion) Homeowner Manual – if Applicant/Developer takes advantage of this point the Manual shall be submitted to the Green Building Official for review or a third party reviewer with the results submitted to the City. (Through Completion) Applicant/Developer may choose self-certification or certification by a third party as permitted by the Dublin Municipal Code. Applicant/Developer shall inform the Green Building Official of method of certification prior to release of the first permit in each subdivision / neighborhood. Standard 95. Electronic FileB Issuance of : The Applicant/Developer shall 26 NO. Agency When Source CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Required, Prior to: submit all building drawings and specifications for building permit this project in an electronic format to the satisfaction of the Building Official prior to the issuance of building permits. Additionally, all revisions made to the building plans during the project shall be incorporated into an “As Built” electronic file and submitted prior to the issuance of the final occupancy. Standard 96. Construction trailer: B Issuance of Due to size and nature of Building Permits the development, the Applicant/Developer, shall provide a construction trailer with all hook ups for use by City Inspection personnel during the time of construction as determined necessary by the Building Official. In the event that the City has their own construction trailer, the applicant/developer shall provide a site with appropriate hook ups in close proximity to the project site to accommodate this trailer. The Applicant/Developer shall cause the trailer to be moved from its current location at the time necessary as determined by the Building Official at the Applicant/Developer’s expense. Standard 97. Copies of Approved Plans: B 30 days after permit and each Applicant/Developer shall provide City with 4 revision reduced (1/2 size) copies of the approved plan. issuance Standard 98. Cool Roofs. B Through Flat roof areas shall have their completion roofing material coated with light colored gravel or painted with light colored or reflective material designed for Cool Roofs Standard 99. Multi-Housing Crime Free Program. B Ongoing The property management company shall participate in the City of Dublin Police Department’s Multi- Housing Crime Free program. SECURITY AND POLICE Standard 100. Security During ConstructionPO, B, During . PW construction a. Fencing – The perimeter of the construction site shall be fenced and locked at all times when workers are not present. All construction activities shall be confined to within the fenced area. Construction materials and/or equipment shall not be operated or stored outside of the fenced area or within the public right-of-way unless approved in advance by the Public 27 NO. Agency When Source CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Required, Prior to: Works Director. b. Address Sign - A temporary address sign of sufficient size and color contrast to be seen during night time hours with existing street lighting is to be posted on the perimeter street adjacent to construction activities. c. Emergency Contact – Prior to any phase of construction, Applicant/Developer will file with the Dublin Police Department an Emergency Contact Business Card that will provide 24- hour phone contact numbers of persons responsible for the construction site. d. Materials & Tools – Good security practices shall be followed with respect to storage of building materials and tools at the construction site. e. Security lighting and patrols shall be employed as necessary. Standard 101. GraffitiPO, PL Ongoing . The Applicant/Developer shall keep the site clear of graffiti on a regular and continuous basis and at all times. Graffiti resistant materials should be used. DSRSD Standard 102. Prior to issuance of any building permit, complete DSRSD Ongoing improvement plans shall be submitted to DSRSD that conform to the requirements of the Dublin San Ramon Services District Code, the DSRSD “Standard Procedures, Specifications and Drawings for Design and Installation of Water and Wastewater Facilities”, all applicable DSRSD Master Plans and all DSRSD policies. Standard 103. All mains shall be sized to provide sufficient DSRSD Ongoing capacity to accommodate future flow demands in addition to each development project's demand. Layout and sizing of mains shall be in conformance with DSRSD utility master planning. Standard 104. Sewers shall be designed to operate by gravity DSRSD Ongoing flow to DSRSD’s existing sanitary sewer system. Pumping of sewage is discouraged and may only be allowed under extreme circumstances following a case by case review with DSRSD staff. Any pumping station will require specific 28 NO. Agency When Source CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Required, Prior to: review and approval by DSRSD of preliminary design reports, design criteria, and final plans and specifications. The DSRSD reserves the right to require payment of present worth 20 year maintenance costs as well as other conditions within a separate agreement with the applicant for any project that requires a pumping station. Standard 105. Domestic and fire protection waterline systems for DSRSD Ongoing Tracts or Commercial Developments shall be designed to be looped or interconnected to avoid dead end sections in accordance with requirements of the DSRSD Standard Specifications and sound engineering practice. Standard 106. DSRSD policy requires public water and sewer DSRSD Ongoing lines to be located in public streets rather than in off-street locations to the fullest extent possible. If unavoidable, then public sewer or water easements must be established over the alignment of each public sewer or water line in an off-street or private street location to provide access for future maintenance and/or replacement. Standard 107. Prior to approval by the City of a grading permit or DSRSD Ongoing a site development permit, the locations and widths of all proposed easement dedications for water and sewer lines shall be submitted to and approved by DSRSD. Standard 108. All easement dedications for DSRSD facilities DSRSD Ongoing shall be by separate instrument irrevocably offered to DSRSD or by offer of dedication on the Final Map. Standard 109. Prior to approval by the City for Recordation, the DSRSD Ongoing Final Map shall be submitted to and approved by DSRSD for easement locations, widths, and restrictions. Standard 110. Prior to issuance by the City of any Building DSRSD Ongoing Permit or Construction Permit by the Dublin San Ramon Services District, whichever comes first, all utility connection fees including DSRSD and Zone 7, plan checking fees, inspection fees, connection fees, and fees associated with a wastewater discharge permit shall be paid to DSRSD in accordance with the rates and schedules established in the DSRSD Code. 29 NO. Agency When Source CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Required, Prior to: Standard 111. Prior to issuance by the City of any Building DSRSD Ongoing Permit or Construction Permit by the Dublin San Ramon Services District, whichever comes first, all improvement plans for DSRSD facilities shall be signed by the District Engineer. Each drawing of improvement plans shall contain a signature block for the District Engineer indicating approval of the sanitary sewer or water facilities shown. Prior to approval by the District Engineer, the applicant shall pay all required DSRSD fees, and provide an engineer’s estimate of construction costs for the sewer and water systems, a performance bond, a one-year maintenance bond, and a comprehensive general liability insurance policy in the amounts and forms that are acceptable to DSRSD. The applicant shall allow at least 15 working days for final improvement drawing review by DSRSD before signature by the District Engineer. Standard 112. No sewer line or waterline construction shall be DSRSD Ongoing permitted unless the proper utility construction permit has been issued by DSRSD. A construction permit will only be issued after all of the items in Condition No. 9 have been satisfied Standard 113. The applicant shall hold DSRSD, its Board of DSRSD Ongoing Directors, commissions, employees, and agents of DSRSD harmless and indemnify and defend the same from any litigation, claims, or fines resulting from the construction and completion of the project Standard 114. Improvement plans shall include recycled water DSRSD Ongoing improvements as required by DSRSD. Services for landscape irrigation shall connect to recycled water mains. Applicant must obtain a copy of the DSRSD Recycled Water Use Guidelines and conform to the requirements therein. Standard 115. Above ground backflow prevention DSRSD Ongoing devices/double detector check valves shall be installed on fire protection systems connected to the DSRSD water main. The applicant shall collaborate with the Fire Department and with DSRSD to size and configure its fire system. The applicant shall minimize the number of backflow prevention devices/double detector check valves 30 NO. Agency When Source CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Required, Prior to: installed on its fire protection system. The applicant shall minimize the visual impact of the backflow prevention devices/double detector check valves through strategic placement and landscaping. FIRE DEPT Project 116. Fire apparatus roadways shall have a minimum F Improvement Specific unobstructed width of 20 feet and an plans unobstructed vertical clearance of not less than 13 feet 6 inches. Roadways under 36 feet wide shall be posted with signs or shall have red curbs painted with labels on one side; roadways under 28 feet wide shall be posted with signs or shall have red curbs painted with labels on both sides of the street as follows: “NO STOPPING FIRE LANE - CVC 22500.1”. a) Fire apparatus roadways must extend to within 150 ft. of the most remote first floor exterior wall of any building. b) The maximum grade for a fire apparatus roadway is 12%. c) Fire apparatus roadways in excess of 150 feet in length must make provisions for approved apparatus turnarounds. 117. New Fire Sprinkler System & Monitoring F Improvement Project plans Specific Requirements. In accordance with The Dublin Fire Code, fire sprinklers shall be installed in the building. The system shall be in accordance with the current NFPA 13, CA Fire Code and CA Building Code. Plans and specifications showing detailed mechanical design, cut sheets, listing sheets and hydraulic calculations shall be submitted to the Fire Department for approval and permit prior to installation. This may be a deferred submittal. 118. Fire Alarm (detection) System Required. F Improvement Project A Fire plans Specific Alarm-Detection System shall be installed throughout the building so as to provide full property protection, including combustible concealed spaces, as required by 2010 NFPA 72. The system shall be installed in accordance with 2010 NPFA 72, 2010 CA Fire, Building, Electrical, 31 NO. Agency When Source CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Required, Prior to: and Mechanical Codes. If the system is intended to serve as an evacuation system, compliance with the horn/strobe requirements for the entire building must also be met. All automatic fire extinguishing systems shall be interconnected to the fire alarm system so as to activate an alarm if activated and to monitor control valves. 119. Gate Approvals. F Improvement Project plans Specific Fencing and gates that cross pedestrian access and exit paths as well as vehicle entrance and exit roads need to be approved for fire department access and egress as well as exiting provisions where such is applicable. Plans need to be submitted that clearly show the fencing and gates and details of such. This should be clearly incorporated as part of the site plan with details provided as necessary.  Automatic Gates. All electrically controlled gates shall be provided with an emergency gate over-ride key switch for fire department access.  Provide Public Safety radio repeater in parking garage. 120. Hydrants & Fire FlowsF Improvement Project . Show the location of plans Specific any on-site fire hydrants and any fire hydrants that are along the property frontage as well as the closest hydrants to each side of the property that are located along the access roads that serves this property. Provide a letter from the water company indicating what the available fire flow is to this property. 121. The Applicant shall work with Staff to enhance the P Project side elevations that face Dublin Blvd., including Specific Dublin Blvd. and Keegan Street, and Dublin Blvd. and Lockhart Street exposures. th PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 18 day of February 2014 by the following vote: AYES: NOES: 32 ABSENT: ABSTAIN : ______________________________ Mayor ATTEST: ____________________________ City Clerk G:\PA#\2013\PLPA-2013-00033 DUBLIN RANCH Subarea 3\CC Mtg 2.18.14\CCSR and Attch 2.18.14 The Groves Lot 3\Att 2 CC Reso The Groves Lot 3 SDR VTM 2.18.14.doc 33 CD W :Et �; N 0 cn N Z O = a Now -v E W � a.a. � � cn z e) Fes-- 06 Pr m CL o � v cd _ 0 E v _ 0 E Q = tr = a E 3 H p '> WE M = > oc0 M ° 4J .> N E _ J CCU ' w > c a W �• = O 'D Ew -00 a Q � a� _ a� c� 0 LO Ln -v co O cc M 0 co C Ln td � U Q a� U c c 1° = O ac — °� c _ a J %0 V) m 00 a) m N V) 00 O a) i 00 Ln w ; co M pQ � s � `" � o c � `r' Q � o o L .cU .o o ; a% c � J 0UN calf a- CZ c c � Q " 0) °L. 0 __ ca � � � E c° ° N .cif°— p N -0 vn � C>7 � cn W Ne " 'A v � CO � ^ V i F O CO O >_ m y N M O O ¢ �C �>- Ln 0 .� U vn a- ° oc � ° O � _ E .0 W V) Q Ri/ `N N ro C cN C d c c 0 O O O O cc z ro= L.a a N a) V) 0 _ 0 ww C w W W W W O p p p W W W W C C N Vf Vl L W L CL uA b4 b4!� b4 b4 10 0,0 cm c c a _� _� a c c Co _� ° J p O c c c _c c c_ _c cy cd a m V y� a_ a_ 0_ L a. a_ L a. a_ L a. a_ tL Q LL Vc a) L •� ° L L U Q U 0 0 0 0 o ° o o O ° O O o o o LL LL ° ° o ° lo ° V m m m m m m m ° ° o v m Rs � wwLLLLwLLXLL LL Xa:[L- x LL mQm v X — [V N M M � � �QmmUUUpppwww c c c c c � +� o- o- o- c c- c- ao aq ao o4 ao a4 bo aq a4 ao ao . ca «i as co ol$ v YI •� U U c)) ia a) a) U U c c c c c c c c c c C C d d_ 11- L C = c c c c c c c � vvv 'v � v � vv � vv 4+ 4+ 4+ O _ UUU00UVUU °ommmmmmmmm' EU dq 4 — N M O O — 0 0 0 C M N p N J QQaaaQ < < < < < < QaaaaaaaQQaa < < < :ob. 4+ V 4J In H � �, �w o 5 a, / 00 L L N C cz C C cn C c c O O cn W _� Q ,� _ LL o0 0O 00 � o CL cc atS o v () a) a) _v a) w w U 4-1 c co u o E N N w w LL W W W X X W i� c 41 u LL c o > p co mom U V U U ,w `� c ° O L a. U a. a) a) aA V) a4 a0 (A a0 04 a4 a0 T) bA Y/ a. a. a) a_ -0 L W s s C c c C — C C C C C LL _ LL � Q c LN +_+ +� Lc �; a) mm mmmm m A, •N v LL ° E m '� L H H a) v c .c .� co Q m ct1 co U cd QW 0 C X ° aLoo.= cco s 0 O Q Q d °�° d d _C d d d d _C a /a�jA 3 O ao4-o vii N 0) t N v U U - U u - c v c v u = i' aC t C aO aaa +' � O J — a UwpJnn n + a) a) c C CO C c °m c C C c °m41 u = QUUUUUUUUUUU c �A Ii = O — N M '= 0 0 0 0 0 0 - - - N N N N N M p - N M v- Ln %0 I� 00 0% — — — — u L - - - N N N N N [V N N N cV N N AL W _ _ v � a u u a � ro to u c `a D O L c J� O N a) L N c Q a D J cd E E -v c = c a_ E M j o = � 06 a �+ v 010 d = ii o- aco LL a , u c 3 c � t c W a. a0 vJ � .E � LF inincn > d0Q :b. 3 cv n' c c � v aci � � pppp cp 4) .2 °' � °�, ca CL L d aJ a) a) a) a) 4) c '0 a) L — H Cl ° a) a O a4 av ao ao V av E a) > c v a) N 'L = i+ Q d N (d cd cd (d L cd a•0 h V V) N a) 4. 4a a.+ a+ a.c E p c a) O N a cca - � cncncncnUcn p a _ LQ N O o v ' ° p — — �' p 6 t' L. L. -0 v L c u > in LZ < >. ° ,� a a Q -C aJ _ .c a) a1 d - (L•� O '� = v C N 7 7 C r- - N cV N cV p - p.._ L a� a) 'X aq a4 ,, cd p p p p p �+ . . . . o .41 Q > cnCL l7QU` LULL U- vfa_ a_ a. a_ a_ a_ ofinUUVCJUUV SITE REFERENCE CL N z Q W LLI V) CO F- w s > W W Gvold QVOlI NO I 0Tma'I x Q C) yp� Q GRAFTON STET p�P ___._ 06' U 'fVSSV L V w a d Q W s Q A 9AxQ V VH QVO)i Q)IVAdOH Uvold ►� 1�g0 11 O Cld O w L y LU 0 O C/) W � CL °LU a� w Ewa = V) w T � o LU CL = O V5 H / J D M 0 C� 7 m V L U� Z 00 ,r 0 QD J z i w a s • .�; r^E, LL I O m CD y t o t � m i N M v C) N L L •� L L p C O ed a QN 3 v �a .� � o vs 0 ' 4-1 al C a) •C -C a) CO N c ~ L O N'0 4.3 i0 L 7 c � 3 L 4J C �' 0 N a_ 4J E C .- N 'L • Y a) d cd 0 �—' C m cN+ 'j 3 cid u M 4 a) E _ ; •� C L (D N N .ro Ql JN O C N a) a-°) c� X U a0., 0 N E cd -p >.-C �+ 3 a c o c ro U p 0 � N 4J u � � — � a) H 4 E � L N cd a) a) 0 C u4 cd C N O fl ate_+ L C N .c OU c C> cd t N -0 N N � N ° C L N N Ln ��j O cd N t CO 41 U 3 a) O ; X u N L a) 0 �- N i+ v O u cd a) L. W .0 N N a) '^ N t t (A .0 V) �+ L 0 'y d 0 LL a) a) (A C r Q w w N Q! N C L 4) Q — = L s N 3 N 45 4-1 41 4J 4Q j cd 7 130 t/) N cd a) a) o p i L 42 N c N> .0 == C U d L N a) 3 a H L C -0 0 co � � v a) 46J O (n ,;O w c � —N aw n o co cc N C N L '4-1 L a) U C N �C 41 w U fd C 4� 14 0 3 •o v p l- o 41 - a t "- -0 c ao C I- 4.j U 4i u •c C ro 'C Q o 0 to acd a) c N •0 ; 3 N c � O d cd N L 0 d C V >. E V .N 0 w ate, c 0 — w o L a) U D C L a) _0 .0 d u C 3 i0 > + ' U c L L — L4 L o O m L d 0 N t N _ 0 N t N N 40 41 1' D C N co 4J 4_1 C L C C O 3 1 aJ v " c a o U V) v c 4) E a�i .r > in- 4J 41 0 CU CL CL x i ,- 4� t1 " C° cv L E �+ 'C N " ; 3 0 .c c E (d� cd L 1� m — H .- C L. cd 0 to L ccd O v O U N O .0 c N L O L L a u C c o a) v -C u 3 4 v w id LO N L .^ _ }' �' C N d O 3 C cNd H L 3 a •E c u N v 3 ; o o to o � �, /v, E ro IA- ° "°v_ aL' Vf `>� >. to +' v — v C v i a) O c a _� N co o •; u N O O Q o V _� o v (A � � �- u c O •° c 7 a 'u a tv c 4J a u •y, N N n C W N c a ro H H H cn 4 H 3 u° m Q 0 = H FA a 2 Q u N L a) 3 tv tv 45 R! L a) N m 3 0 3: 4-J co cd S u — a0 N y>. j O L 'o in 3 cd �.+ O L'' •L +� i a>i a c `� u a a � M 4 r JL N 4J C d .. C 4N+ cd d >: co N E c 'e 0 N -�, u — c a i >, o a) 3p > 'o > s fn O .0 O, cd cd N 'A a) d.� a) 0 a 0'41 D v w s LtQ Q > ,� a. Ht o c� 3 v a 0 W ttiox 3 4J t " �=- ON N a co N c cti N -0 >.2_ L_ N L E c ; u ~ °� > v to o 0 0 V) c co O ,+_+ N N U aL+ C N 'i Q) 30 7 �— 3 N h c u O :3 tY E p •r ' a) c Y N 0 u 4j V) E 3 C aa) 0 H v a) cn c 0 cc o a) c w L a) — o a) a-° t v 19 E -C .c^ cd N L >.° w O 1 a) 0p C td o > 4J t N cd •3 V) N cd cd W to a) Y N U > 4j L N a) co 3 >. c V U 16 0-= L. '+' J � M U N L 0 E C a) •� C O N a) •° Co 4J L_N a) 4J i c "0 C c 0 Q N C t cd i ° O U `� E c N L C -0 J v L E o > o t1 J m v E E c 3 ' N 'C o � ° Z v °- v .50 u N � 'c ca 0 U _ � vOi aJ 3 �� 0 `-' E s c C c E N cic m >• d C L p '�—' m coo c 'v O O Q N N O o `� N C "' a) � _> _c E 0 aci d 0 a v + t n m p v i _ d ++ 3 C N co cd 7 co 0 +J D cd a aci 2 O 1N `3^ v _0 �d _� v = y U � � H L v N L 1 J v N 'X o N ate+ N N a) ° L. o F� o 3 bC_0 v C cd � n u a ca 3 0 ao u C b0 co N •a) 7 N IA �' L N b0 �+ C cd OO 0 .« N a -2 G tY cud N " u O OtZ'X p d c O can C a) t N o >. > a) U cd VV)) O a+ 'N a) t a) }' N +' .0 -C L Z L N 4,j U cd C E I— N td C = C ~ 3 0 >. 4. a) cc Cdd 3 C L +j a) co , UNO U C ij L C L t aV) Ov U > _c to J c a O 3 v 0 v v L a) Q) cd N N 0 �+ L O 0 � 3 a) L co L. aa)) t E a) a '� 0 3 3 = V .° a a'o d o o t H H a O 0 o o N C co E {/f td N N L. O v_, ti � > � O G_ U N C L 3 -0 4J 4-+ cd C a) � cd V rn 'y 'O O cd H c v O Cv L O V) u c t 0 .0 tt O u c .> 'i i, >.•� C H 11 CL ao L C H L H •� o 4J b'' O.. H .Q) s u O d f1 U ° x o cL L a0 O E a C a H L. d U � % A _av d o O a) N N EA O O d L a1 V ) c a L N cd N b,0 C V H N Lc; a GPA/EDSPA a, M cz td pN w N VP M O Ol O O M O O — co M Ln O` • CL L V C) N — M — M O, O - - h �o Ln O O N M O — N lO 00 C Ln O N M '^ 00 r - - O N 10 — E O — — c"� -O — N u ca a) C N E M Q CD Ln o0000 o Q V m — 00 o, .o of .o a, m 0 � ^ L �L T Ln M V- N V- N Ln ul C O X -j Z LU u O O N N O N O u N cz �j N M M (V M L. 0 lL = u Q � �W Z Ln Ln N W O" c _ V- — V- Ln 10 r- W n Ln r� 01 V- 01 N N VI VI ti ^ Vl O O Vl r� Co p .O N OO O O, — V- N C) 1 Y O O Q Q O Q �p ti �o N N N W C N 00 O d' W 10 M d' L L L L L L — Q s O 7 Z r L1 00 p �' fV — O a a a d a d u U U u C M _ U v C d 'o � (n ao �O — OD Ln ID N J ^ w ft U 00 -- N N Ln O Ln 00 Z ° +� M — Q .Q NO N Ln M M N co jF W C O O p L tad 1- in N V- ul in Z-6 C _ N O 0 U M M M r� N r4 Go W Z Go C W Q n J J M r, — Ln V- Ln — O, r� �o M u1 M n 10 M O — �o I� r M 00 M N Co � — 1, M Ln O Xq fV I� lV �T M n O �• ^ �L! 1, n �O — OD 1� cJ N Ln O0 n O 00 M N O, M 00 V N v t- Ln Ln v — �o Ln O` v — — N M N 00 00 O, M M �y H 0 C L) — �n M rf N v M N �o — 00 N r� �O N C13 LU z Ln Q v1 N Q ^ U` W � O Q N W N Z L O O fd Q Q v _ _ j CC O_ u U a, of 0 L 0 a)c 72 W v c� u x U O E U U ~ V1 v -V; R td cd d E J 1 cd J 0 O Q E U c c Q U o L o_ a� p p '� L o 0 w 0 v Q a 2 v v oUC V U a) v s o d ° s s m U w ;� c v7 U J VI Vl N N L L L D' J W O .L J Q L j O O td J N CL N 7 �n L N J cn E E W d L L c cn c U 0_ E •Q Sao 0 Q Z m Lu_o v v u v c H n E sao Boa Q w J u °o u H U L 2 v ao N x O O aci aci ` x x '� O Q `-T o °' °' Q 0_ 00) v w 2 cn O in w I- U l7 0 O Y- E Z U S H a U U Z Z 0_ w cn V) F- H cq t 3 +� o v N 0 0 E �+ •� ,O ° E a a +-' 0 '^ + + o o v o o a w 0 Ln CZ C — •N a� 41 a C _ O LU u O C O U O C U •a) 11 �. f N - i N u1 O ++ > wl u a td N o U Dan CL Z Ln C c c cC T .N W _0 O cd a) O fl + 0 — a) ao tw 4_ cd — �. E '� cd Q `^O v U J 4+ N cd a) a Q Z ' _� N c LO V cC cd 0 J D U O y N v T ca E a 0 0 v .o %6 v 4. vi u v C L a y Q a) o = O c E Lu o a c ae W" L Ln c O N O n- "O E p � 4i = Z CD ♦+ c ° Z C J 3 cz v W h N c p � y O o v �„ a E E c Co CO J N v CL '^ c _ v o 3 a) v Q o ID W a L C. a� N ° a� (U O ,, ao E U m c,= 41 E c c E 00 Qu c IJ 0 c Ev L c c0 ° a a OZC '^ 4-J %D •X G. d C a' � v ~ c cEL° W o a) w i Q c Q O v a ° o O a N a) �+ O y C v a c -a '0 t E a V d � W N _ v a) N c c C v� c a 3 ; 3 t o d w ! O tolo v O y ,� v N N u a 0 c ccce � Q C Q a v �+ D c v0, v E E L7 d E E N Q) c v v v v v v f a) c c O a) R h J ,� bao v L is S� L 7 o cn w o tm Q E E o a v v W w 'O c� v c c Q Q — . v y Z3 O N -� c O a a- CL v 3 = v v c u J c c� Z Q Q >. V) d a) L L Vi .a i.i me c cd y.,,,Ln c v ++ E G .0 a, c c Q) v o 3 Ln y J Z c o O a o ,� l� v a) a aa, E vi � w v o ct ~ a) O 4J c (U v = C7 C7 �° N W a) a) �, u "'' M M E aJ OE DE -� — W b0 —aa E H Q o 0 0 � � = �_ ° cv af z Q cC = J J O Q � • • Q) d 2 -o N N M b0 fd Co O_ N • L v N ' LL LL LL LL LL LL 7 LL N E M O w N 00 r n O O �O 00 M 00 L N u a a s N M M M I� O � — O% a u N — M ^ Q 0 — 00 1, 00 O ^ C N N c M a� Q� L11 — cd O M M CL c O v O a N Z O LL LL LL LL LL co ro ro U , `Cld Q 7 JM M LL ONO M O Ln 'C7 LL LL CL H J, � LnooLn MC) (D M NN V > O W N CV M M M O `d w LL Q Ln W H c (A N N a) a1 a) L L a) L a) L V L a) a) W N N ii. U L L L U 67 L V lLJ V L U y L V (U L L L L L Q J Z Q ro u u u u ro u ro ro ro u ro a) u u L u V u u u m _ w � X ro ro ro ro %O L ro 00 N ro O� ro co ^ ct ro to ro ro ro X Q 1� M �} �O N M M M ro N - M ap M O O N — N O� 00 %6 O %6 O Ln M 1,.o I� O% d F" ' ? M � �O O� er -Z M M � N OS O O N Ln Cr �t v pQJ o, Ln ri v � Zc W WJ � J C Q Vf Z V � � Q WO a p, Z cd '� UL4 W � •L •L o cx Q a � o o a J �. ro p p O QE E � N * rte � � o ct IL 0 V o o p H ,� o ?� aci H H v7 `n Z r� 0 H W U U a i (4 O Z 2 °� U aa) � O M as Q c t O 'O aLi a� a J N o 4,, u w E 4J x x _ o E LIP v O U U 0 O Z2: U o 1% n w oC o CL Ln to of w (A a u U Z b u E _o w o w a u — O b v 4 0 0 o r c N m E N n J v D b v p E n v v cc o a– _0 Q1 v t° N c v o ° U > c u O N N c v n E o Ln v 0 E b p c p -E u „ E O v v Q � A N ro a 0 u N _ `° 3 ° v ao 3 v c E v pnU o c v N O X c O Z O o U O n 0 c o N O I.J b v W E V C O c v n — L c v E , v o LA LL a v ° ' rn v > o v Z LM W O" v .a o o v v c E b o u co Q ' > v O W N L N ° O V A L 0 1 c c .N F M O N O IJ Z C � b �^ c � 3 a ° C Q O a v 4 � N4 � � L v v ° c O °o Q E to vn d %O s ai — co O 3 v ° n E L '- no n. v — — 3 u x_ — d o td Q —>_ v O 00 Y u ° ° v > 3 v J V_ N ° E N L p U -� W O, i. E a ca 0o U v 3 n v CL c 'p N C b v b � � v O cC E C L N v c v ccv c d Ln dF W E L L C u O n K v L On t O N a) Ln L N CO C c ,�, E N O ''^ `° L ; x !>-' v c '> t Z O cE V V tC L L E 3 v C (d ^ W 0 W y 0 J J ^ r o v w v `p d Z ; a ai m m M N n �o v d ri c m L 'p Q Al E 7 06 IR O O r L u O N N ONO Y s n. a v '� `° O N ° 0 0 °. ao 0 3 u a) oo U v O 0 cEa -° o i n > c F= O N n c d C U C C � Z Ln Q n v V N a v > 3 0 o cd cd b v c -0 CL o u p IJ W Ln "� — C) M E N p w b a w L a co co w '; v U N A Q ~ .� c o c o N o N° U 'o o A 3 C N td OL W N ^ C7 v p o i b N N c R n v ao O O U G. d w v p ao c >� D_ w N c v v V v Y v a c v "�. v C '"' u a) aJ C c 7 bD o bQ.-0 N ro c_ (d x u N N U O `—d 0 v i y ° ° eo x v J W m 7 7 O: i+ p v b c U v L v ? O 3 C C C u Qa ° o v v v O + c v (7 s A „ v d a c b ro cC cd 41 C C v A ; v `v c n E > E d Q td cd N O v ° v '� — N a C CJ C C v v v y O 3 Y A v v R m cz L.CC O ro v p o o o ° o x N v a1 = 41 4 +' ~ c E N — - L U nv L u n. t° C C C to of Z3 N y v u c � O U c ro r yva vCni c m b E a) a1 N c�i� vii w _ v a — c0L b � � Nde � — 17171 N v uco ) � v o u c n v A . oMO _ C v 7 Q b u N cL v c b E v- O u > c b C C_ C_ O L lJ E c v vO V c H N v v v L 7 7 7 Z Q O O A T .� CL uvi b v o .V � � E v �; Q Q Q cC ro a W O ua o d v_ n c p c E v y n p d fd y cn u b w v - o ?� J L Q v = o � o E v v ° v E c d v a L1J u vOi vOi L L v n v c v x n v v v > .-ID Ll CL a- Q a an v a m _o v 'T v l7 ° v v app v a N r�i CL N En O d v m ,,, ,�., ,v `. v F �i s L v Fes- L " N 2 v F O ' ' L I cd H O _ Z v E O ~ ~ > as * O u N CL p F H y L. v L. ,a • • N _O v c O o x. * o c .d v v c 7 7 7 C Ln N x �: in v v d a Z b Z - L v -x- n a > cd I u * n * v E C C LL LL LL F- N N M j O N b41.0 bQ C) x O v 4_ N E v t p L U v C C v o O O o E p o. v O — — — a E N a 3 O rn N vE b 'a o f — — — o v E U _ E v Q cc A c 0 b b v E v d d v 0 r N u E v > I c v 0 c „ ' E a N b a F - V O co N c of C v m e p C — 00 -0 = - L v , o � L W X N ^ E o (^n U X fC 1 c O v .L Q- E m o E o Z _' >>- o c E EE L a a� v Q of o a 4' N 7 o o V P E J rn a (v v" Cn V o 3 O o Q °0 c LL- w C c, ava= 0 m n ° co ,7 � r+ O , C tC E v v a c Z 0 O 3 E p 0 i ac, J Zoo a� ++ 00 Vn a s o O cn c a v o b o m N �+ >. C O Ln LM o ° v E "p O t aJ i � � ui 2 cV Q v v E W > O c a w C w G 0 C? O.•� N M Q E Q i_ N _cli b0 Q o 0 E O cLa > O c O (� Q N Ur d a o O _0 U N O = W O E c° v — o O O En LL -0 ._ V) N N — co -2 E � v r V o E 3 v v -0°0 O v J � vU° ova Q d E = o w a? o a c v cn = ; o Q o m C v a a _O Q �! C N v E in A v d �E M — N - N V u M (7 c v N E E 3 C N a o ? N 00 Z p cn v o v E 7 N v 0, V7 N u u ao O cd 0 0 v .V O -p a) Z , IJ V N M y- O L N .- C N 1..1 N O .� i 0 a) Q = (d C 11J 0 ~ s U Z = C 0 d p .-, L U ice.,, OA-0 >O a) .C ' N `U. a H C U � v E E a C cv W cn o < p v o Z Q i Q o m v a W N L 41u, (� bA_ a) (�I w x L o d Q W N u H '� a E — W a) � Z F F- c v M )n a1 O c c O 0o N k c U .� m N - d Q W LL v7 ,O `-° O c O a) Q E C E o v a� " � � o c " 4J cVd 3 = 7 t O N 0 N N O H L O L c F N t L C to b > '� -��y.{{,., cN ✓� ccagy l`-(C7 F H * (d d V . N 0O V N C b � u , E E c b of 0 v b v E O c � co 10 M N 10 , - v C CD 00 10 L L c row ^ — N 00 N O ul Ol N N M L ) c v O d v v � O 0 O c E E N o E o O O N N N > L O ro ~ v D X C O O O N N Co N v r- X O N N N M M !V M N L N O 7 a u 10 c u IL N L O O Q ww� C ` V1 CL m C d - E - O V (� P a O Y v - L L N c v O � Z Q O O = p O al , J � J N C N ro d E li N L o U Z r 0 n u) A Q LL c Lu m >. Os a '� ^ p (A - v o Z d V o d O Ln 0 0 0 0 0 0 VI c - J L. W N ° a N N Ln V, M- Ln Ln O o o H J o a0o °) C L - W Zd LL 1: N a- N oO CO J N U "i x W Vl Cp P-- 0 E W E o a - o CO _ N ^ O LL I- 5 � Z � c 0 O Oc0 b c v 0 y,l v' c �n a 0 >. Q p c LL CN C '^ '^ E Z Z LL LL N LL LL N LL Vl o v C Z c C Ln N N N ^ 10 N 00 00 Ln Y ao a.o x v Lu O 2 d 00 �0 M Co �, — �o p� .� a) o b ao O n n N vy 'r O Ln M 00 1- OO d x v v c0 {/1 O OOD N 000 o h ON [V [V V M M iv N b c j .T O > M — i v LU J C — QC cc C .N V � b0 C O � W - " " as LV � vb � _ b E O � L OC o v = b0 � > CL cz 7 Q p o o °c ° x v 0 � n E i+ cEa L cn � v � �� � � A ro E a m U a) u tio> _ _ E 0 C:O a) d v a v -C ` c .c ° °'E � � o ° w w a) N T F o cn ° ? o g H O = C '^N JC O d U U L v,t�d v J 3 0 0 ' v a v0 app o N N s v a v 'o N v Z to O H °� _ - _ a c v v a> _ NnOO L -� � N - N 'v X j E O 4) N N +� X j O U SC900 CLLnH � inwEdF- CL Ln v0F- O;c- O C 0 a, M b4 O CL N L • a) � �C C C� al c V N C E M Q �-+ C 0 J d V V a) N C_ 7 C L a) V td W Z) C a) E C a) E Q C td CL td L C a) a) 7 cd o L v c c = O O D L M O � .n L O c'_'v b-0 cd L v t a) c u L >. p cd vi b4 C A C N - Ln (A N a) N cd L > U -0 L b4 a ct Ln cu CU ro E L 7 L C CU L O 7 y 1-0 0 cd b4 1 in O � v O H Q) (V a) vn (U a) V N E cd N t 4 1 C a) ,T N cL. a) t rl Q) C C U cvd L D a N v a) _N C C O O u Z H N 7 s c v— a a•� a L p O Z3 0 c h a 0 a Ln a, o O � d 0 0 4 N ° c v o H O a) N N cd b4 N C OV N co O O N a (1) H C a) X cd L td N O a) 4' L t _ vii .L TJ E c� v U O cd C3 > _> > = a b4 a O vi b=.0 O cd u a) O in v H 4.-� (z a) V cd y > td a) c C N > w C > > O cd cd a) O C y O C E a) O a) O — c te ate-+ u C = ro p O a.+ D C a) v s O cz O a) -a V .H 4J r3 0 N N + •� u L N O ,� bC-a a) O LL cd u p cd d O A-1 CU L v O a, V) C p 0 N O a 0 a"i c v ,_T > t Ln L O C — i C b4 cu L a) �'' cn t bL4 (U 0 th _� v o ri >. y v E c 3 u c a) N C L o ,n N O C s > a) N t o M C -0 > r,4 — (V a Rf J v _0 — >.t a) " Z a) � 4; cd O cn L a) O '-' ~ O p cn cz L o c c L a) O o v �U +' = N L O p O C > .� C R7 N -0 j a) C aJ •� V y v �� U C v aL+ '' O U O v CL C cd L btd 4 L °3 i u d a) O Z,7 v "O ° O E ° w N �o O u Q o c s a)c m 4 M a) -0 O -0 U N L 0 c O Z O ) U O v p 0 O a O a)O U+L.L cn � O L v v a a) a) s O C O '^ rd ii QC a f Z V) H a; a H a a v 4_ H- .� FL- 3 Z bo Q U 0 0 T M W N o V ■ N LU 0 :5_ CL � Q0Z � W oLLJ J p W Q G a o N s � U = o N � Y Y — — — 1�1dH�l0 2i1 ► tu- eo 0 ► z 1 1 � ► 1 t uj 1 ► 4J- ' J 1 � ' ► ' m z ' zg tu- m I 1 1 z 1 1 W 52 s � 1 1 z s i `%--------------- J f� w --- AMUS NdJ33> {� r---------- ------------------► w 1 r I I ,^---------------- ^� ( , CO 1 o ► i i 1 i ► ► , a 1 1 1 1 ► � 1 1 1 1 , ► ► , O 001 V) 1 1 1 , ► ; ; LL ► I Z 1s 1 133�1 . ► 1 0 ► 1 � ► Q 0- 1 W 1 J 1 ► ► 1 J 1 ► ' m � v, 1 � 1 1 ► ' � z ► ' Z Z z J g g 1 !► ► 1 W � 1 U 1 1 Q g i � a --------- ---�-_ .f' Z ---------------- A32US NV033>1 w {� r-------- --------------------- ^-------------------- r I E r 1 z CO 1 1 1 , ► 1 1 �/ � 1 1 1 1 ► 1 x o 1 ; ► ' W N M I O /r! N CAS 9 iN,P1DED PL—MG.IY/,.a,M y V .--- C N i' i EEE P, EPEEFEEPP t 11 r C6 fill_.._. v..a•ne3_1'�3.^.i_ii R.^^•[IARTAG/tP it �i_.. ..._ Q [hSiFRN E1 WEDR NIRG MFR NOUNCRRV J •+ter« sr V_.... Y.u♦ -....r..s. aa____� 9 r Lei �jf fill d.J ' _ ti c cc v m 123, ° .c c c .n 5c 121� ` �� c c c < a � u . � �a < v c •� v o 0 °° c o E - c - u = c X c ` E c ti wi ] < > v C i O Z, z- > C w t 3v d jv v u r•� a' s , f o '. e `u < C V Y � O � N Lm Qa, V V 3 v `o ID y ` \ M O O iE C . + a Q '_^ _ a 'n o c Nz 1 c o ? p c ti ti ti > C, a Q c C c c c < °_— e+ a c a 15 B 25 C ° C - E p C 2 0 0 z a p 3 3 0 0 " 4 x ] a. o 0 o C o o v ° _-L K W J J V1 .1. F C Wy W r ✓ �+ °`c ce o ° z ad O y O W o : E v c ? E °„ a -8 a] E ac, `.J o p� C U CJ C C T 9 < C v a E `o N O CL rn u IE L u a a a Q v cu m 75 _, v ° z z X E 3 J J � +M'A N C Q N i a EL i v 7 ` Y a_ d E _ °c o r EE E° o a a° c N m d ` 'R E Z Z o C1.nr v_ a O n a s ✓ M� °o LL ^ q N m O Cl) LO o v N m z o W u m O y, O m .c°. 3 v H �° m 0 l6 a L ( m L c O D w q m E d O O i O _ m y N W V/ �`- ra- u = m a m `•°• h !� v u E o T O O O O A Ln V L a LL J U am' c r = r r i m m Eo U m Y !•' L ` d @ V O U W N n N c u a m m _ r — N E E U O C O O i0 a.r Ln •C N �•-t1 a j m m a �i 'an m 0 m c C U U N n f O a L L 0 Cl 0 2 o a O O V w a o d c a m N o a E O °' A R > > a � o — E 'D L O n' ° ? = O is a y a a t a m O 'Q 'v y N .O On O iti A R U d m A m 3 a C m °m m •V a . " 'm m 9 u Z Z � IlJ _ N W U oc a 0 O. M C W x m Se Z 2 U' 0 2 U 5 O fu �ti a u z z w Lm-:J -� - - �; � 410111 � 111 X111 ❑�❑❑ ❑ °� O L 3 W U � -C° a d C. as �- �a.0 C o 0 o E ca� n$m a QN C' o N ° . o E c d c N a mp 1 M � a > O O yay o-00,m A N N n O 1 1 �. f0 C N C E C 71 N O -0 m C 0 u E � � c a d vwdvo ° of � o m�aME VDO 0r0 C N >LL r F c m I u v'y 0 � n c�eccrn C � o � 'oc v y= 012 (U robi U("UJoix oa. i - -- ..—..—..—..—..—..—..----- V ON RO A O ti? R 21 Po _ z U- °� S TWO f fp 7 .\ 0 j o u mi 1 '\ 2 U) 1 v � o_ 0 1 to I i O ! (V a v ; I , �• �•- W 1 '� Q1 E v 0 1 U m r^ L V 1 \ / fp N d ! v o ? 1 o m i 2 •\ � � o j V •1 L . 1 \ r 1 STAGE I & II PD 4' O a) tko o H m a) d N '4j N U cu s 1 c d L axi 5 E c v °-' v o :3 c o • L d L 7 N a� Q N o C L O+ L N U LL C � fd c O N 4-1 J i O O 4J �C O N C O � v a� ao +' N u ooc p L C Q O O 3 L N cd -0 0 C N 4+ `" o L o a C L O o O C +-+ C N L by0 4J c °1 U N v 'C N O 4-J N [Nd N O A b�0 y "O L 41 0 N ao O L N U a W 4+ _ O J n. L N L •C > '> N C H N b4 O C N N vpi 0 O 01 O _ C X N L OL �' E E L L -0 H L D cCd L N L C 4J cd v N C O m LA O cd L vii 'O a.+ LO 0 O L b00 co bq 4L.+ t L N N w > L �' O N Y N C C cLir > C .i C -0 3 p V N 4-J N L o 3 cd C m c a 0- (d O o > 7 N u N a 3 N C 4J N N m N it cd N C O 7 .3 > to (C 4J {n OZS u ° = rj 4--1 0 O '0 it d C N = O W 4J -0 c U "' N - w H apo O 4J c a cd c a •o .!n L C N O L ar y N C O c �. cd J O C a = N N L O d a+ a+ w �b4 v > a= C L y V cd N 4J N 0 u cn C m �bo N 41 co y 3 '> ° C .O N CL N 3 w y y .c!' C N con S a� •.—>, ,� E v c v y cU C6 c -_°v o o a 3 C L E co C U N X ° d L U L L U 'y� O Q N N >. v- O tC. C C Q O y __ 7 N cd U ._ b0 Q O a� a� a L a s +' cn o > 3 c cd b0 0 L a>i L L Z N 0 ° = O •� V c t u L 4-', O O N O s �+ N +J 4� N 4J s "O cd L 'C ~ _ 'L N s O ti 7 O - s 3 fCd - W 4J C to 0 4J a L cd 4J O L '-' C '^ 3 vii c •� cd c O + v a ti 5 c ' c _c _o c 3 v a� c '> _ c v 0 Co ton N cd c O co 4� 0 4� a u N O C L N 0 4J C N C ,C y.l W ° Q b0 C L C a� co H �' v .'^ a� w cd •� L c v Q v y c a) 0_ O co ct 0- '� > N E N 4J of 4J 4j c 3 A L A C a Q ��+ 4J � L s E N .0 cd j 0' .N co 4, 4J � /rN — >IA M 4J L > LQ cd L N N C L a UCO Q u � O N N L v y `~ c Y a, o v 3 c o a 3 O o H E a o .� a cd O N .Q O vi O Z �` t i 3 O av0 ,� c a c O C LO d p N > O a 3 C O C v o i 4� N V 3 _O y d C N y -0 N -0 cCd i d cLd N y p O U — j N c L X N L �-' w c N N �' c 4J b4 � L L ' v 'o D a p o N U cd a� O u L O -D u N U C U 4�J U a O c ° u a c c u y v v cd a t bo o s L 0 O V u 0 cd c- O c O a v_ 4 n 0 3 0 �°.� d .[ O C O N ao c .0_ L v O L a C L > L 1 N c L L O t 1J 72 C Q = rr rO^� = d 4J C_ Cb6o a Q d y t u fd cd O V N L N d V v V a) O 0 a L a) CO N L O 0 N E C L L L L N L L O L w O v p u 3 u 0 N c o a. _a c ~ 4) cd 'N L 7 N O 0 .0 L O LL C .O .(L n• Q _u > O N u N N ' a b.0 O 0- 4J 0 4_J C J ?� N _0) u a) m L aLJ aLJ LLL � � L O +-+ LL w = N M LA N N r L 3 ic+ Q Q Q O 4LJ — 4J E U 41 aJ H ao C y > >. bO C Ti L O u •y �` m 0 N C 41 V) 0 0 s a E p _ L cyd 0 0 c c 4J N 4J L N Q N +� L L U u N a 'G 'j O O Q • C C u CO j V ,.+ E N N O N E E .O E E u O a n Q .�. o c a O C > U O c cd s CL � a M N U C W N O N O 0- C U O L N O C N U r4 C4 'O 4--) M 44--) u EO c comic c a) N = E N U > u N 3 0! N ° o u c O > > O 0 t N N a _ o) 0 .5 N E 0_ C 0 N VI y u cd M E QC 'p y cd V N -J i d L LU N N 45 M c v co 2 CL Q N O .0 0 C', E M M N L 4'j 7 4J (� ° L 41 _3 ce N 0 N L N N J J E C ctl V, p j td L 0 N c o o s vii CC N v 4L+ 4J O 0 v aJ L 40 p C c E a N U L > U �. a L 4J cd O E a w Q p L G c Qu v .v N U `~ c c -v d O N L O C L4c J N Y L 3 No H—_'' w 4-5 b o -0 Ln � O Q cd C O V) N cd C's V) o 00 ~ td N u N s 4O d J 4, 4-1 aci 'c D .4Y '^ N 3 o o N cd c aJ F- 4J 41 u c 43 0 L-L O y C N N J b0 L — >. 7 p O N 4-+ L C N 'D L iL u 4_+ O F- M y a O E N O [d = 4) p o) N L b. O N c d W 3 C i3 c ` o c 4J C 3 V 0 L 4J 0 T C L ' Q > N N N V C °� d C N u m E V1 G) — O C N O E t C M cd L N c 0 0. 0 O 0 a c 0 0 �_ c a o s a 4J u 0 J (U 13- y 4_ O o C o cc M N G1 a C W b04 •45—J L) y �— .� .N -0 N L L a a N oa t -°JO_ s H p v i C p U a)= o -J c d cd _ C 0' LL N M N d0 O m N G. L N N V N N at Q s+ • C CNC M C O Q O J y C1 O Gl C N C W a N ���y C W Z — g a u v fp Z Q O L y O O O O _ Y W Z cud y L H � N L LA. w 00 N v •L C 0 L N J cn > aEo O ul O L = ', M N a LL N O o0 X N c .L., N Y 4 `� ao N 0 i H ' O 0 " � a L U N co O N Z $ Q cn u c° L E a o o 4-J cc (n (n L —O cd p E `-' E a E c s U > c w a 0 v 0 8i LPL C 0 0 0 3 0 O L O C N H s L O O `� 3 L � `� E E d a� N v — N L O t)b 41 ui d N -0 co N C co O U m O •= - `�°, obo J cn c%f O c O N O 3 O 'L 3 E cv = c n C (n C > N .� d 33 b4 L Y N Te J C � L N L •C E �_ C ,L > d _ 'O O m m mJ Co 4 � E � 7 O L "c° w u N m cn d J Q CO c N 3 2 L 'C d ct C ~! C co 3 LO E H O �. I c O 7 .E o = N N 3 v c 4 t v w 3 co s cc c'' 3 O _ N o E M • O 4J O C C Lr c 3 _ _co N Ou d L co C 0 0 � N C u O H W O O y N C u N N O c 4"J -v Q s E L 3 �-' o0 00 y O N u V 3 c L c ao u 0 c V N d cc a+ 0 C co ed d `� c EN � o L. U v 0 a1 L � 0 � L � 0 ^ aL+ b�Oc u C V T c C N 41 t 0 +� N N H V C 4A C 'U � 3 N IAA L L H N w 47 .� Ij M 3 0 . +-' 0 �' 3 'L O v b0 C 3 U O C E C 3 0 C u Z) C 0 t u- d (A C C 0 _� 7 vl H C vii � S u ,U (A ba C C G1 �+ ,C 3 (A N cd co L a� = L 0 .� L — 0 .� L �-+ y = L G1 a3+ C N �O = E 'V 4-J t +_+ U u y a0 a ba u a D v u 4L L. aco ,:d y N �. O 0 U :� 0 = > +>1 I H � � � +�C � L E � � N c r-y 0 C h0 0 co E d0 3 7 Z) O 'p 3 3 — cd O L O 3 � M vi Z •� v E E a (A N � E E a .� •� c .0 O u 0 3 0 3 > c O O ° u ,'^A v 0 0 0 E Ld)N O 5 C QUv2FZinUU CQQmUU2 3 `� EFCL dd s. D IL as • • • INN • summon o#mass SIR solo _�7 =� �■ �= u MM."v l'.lull �IN'!�• 'IIIGpIN J .� ■ NN alll IIIIu�IM lI ■ ■ IIIII:!W � n �� �� �.. »"II.III aN�: ■ qq MI.'IIIII' `. IIII�I!ilfN �� X'I. VIII • ■ ``.. IIn;.MI ppM (IIII IC:MM `` ■ ■ ■l�j- i ��lY�� I � � ��11..ppMli�•i! �� ■ ,��_ ��[11. 1 1 � ii��i■ ■ ■ ���� 1 1. 1• MNf.IIII I' � � IIIIIII15Nh '' ����Il1■ �j�R I: �xl:IIII l ■ ■ nlll;xx 9 x= A i /{tl�� ■ nrau:�nx :1 x ■ ' JIIJ bMM •� _� ' � �i NN'IIIIIIII ■� IPAIIUiMN� _� ■ � ��l11. C�piW'>,In,'.. � � II'I'IIG MN�., ■ _ �■ p� ,. IMValllll ■ ■ ■ �NNNNNNJ�N r � g�Mlll,,lllll, `�' �NN��� � : ■ :■f . III'I:HII =p .C{ il[ s ���l1111 � N iq .CIf: i�� ����111 ��a2H,ll:�� I ���1. 1 1 1111pppppp���� �N7� I �� � r�j�IN:I�I■■ ■ Wilmtl C Poi l,lal .•'l1:�, Nf li" ; nN'I:I IIII: cl. � d.I p�■ ■ �� pY `•��� � � ♦Mualll 'p11.�, IIII t,� �, � �� : ■ 111 v 11ll i ■ fl - ■ ■ s ■ r■■■`i■■■■■■■■■■■�■■I moos----- ---RaIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII !■ill■■■■■■� ■ ■li . Im:li�aw � ! ■���n�n�n�n�n�n�•w i ■ ■ �� � ■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■��■■ ����■FI : ■ • ■ - n.nlc::nx j ��.� F' : �.. x ,-«71 x,'« {.-«a7\ ,-a711rN-.F z•«� : IN ■� '�, ,� µlalwl a�■l``i�... umr'ix :1 ��_'�.��=�T�—�� ■ ■ :1 sil- =.IIIlnlll al�■ - IIInI:[;= ■ ■'s-IIIIIIIIIIIII INNEEMEMEMSEN MEN MONO ■ n'.IIIh.XN =,PIIIIIII .�' .�. IiIIIIII',i= ■ ■ ■1111- 1 ■• �������������� : ■ ■.fi�- INIIII'a NN C ■ ■ ■ = _ a ����IS � ���Ipurl,o `�' '�- uompw�� _■ �'!a�'�e��e:�G��e��e���■ ■ ■ IIm:NM C 'J � ■ „ ■1117 ��� I ��� ■ ■ �� �uu I � m.un ■ ■llg7,l.� *M.I II �pli■ f Iw"� � ■ ■ ■ ■ �`` • ■ • ■ ■ .� ■ x711 . «71 nom . «71 Ir» 711 ■ ■ � ' ,•� 1 ■ ��==III-T��"�Tj��°�� : ■ _ ■1F:.11■■t■■ ffff_■ 1•■•r■MI w 111■■■■■■■■■■■■ ■ . ■J. ��'..MI►1�.MILI.JIN.'7[�1N.'�Y � ■ ■�■■ ' ,111 ■ ■� 1 ■— . 71 +'! �'~ 'i �'■ ■ [ ■� III°III ■ r' ■ ' • ■ I.::i:;i::■1 1■I��jlfl■.. � ■ �1 N. i �i EE;i1 :�:�.i i, `■ ■•ten:e,:n>�n�eearlr ■ mill ■ill- Illlli!4 — r • � ■ ■ ■N Ilurn,nn 1p111 r� ■ � � ■ 1111 *��auu e■ � Inlr.i� ■ ■ 1 ■ �� ,, nn:wula �•�, ua:lu:xx G1 , ' ■ .. ■��- nrun::�n L �IU III ■■■■■L�i{�■■■■■■�■`■■■ I■ ■ ��q-�� I � II!111� ■ �i � H �� ��, LLI IbNN :I �a-ii� I. �� '��■aV�■ ■ III IIII IXM {p� 1HH1H11 ll C■ �� � ��' \����\\ x H f ■!■ uu i� `p\\\ q_ q C I�'IIIInII ■ � 1' w:nlul� ■� Inl::�n J ��jj■ p ����� IIIInPLMM �117�■Ifll�. • -If ■ �� IIIU�:� p 1 11. _J ■ ■no� IIrypJ11 ���u.l:��j�� 1 1 ���n�l.��� � �■� H 1 1Ilnllnu ■ w'.Llul' ml.r�snx ■ liri ■i.I. p_ + i ■ IN ,r! •� n ;��iM'dlllllll `�' � ,. MN'l Jallll ` ' � II�±. :I �: ■ p H y m p p p a Iuul � wluax c; w'unnul �� � .1 ■ ■ ���RR:, m�p.1:�. I,IIIIAIMW M�gllll .pl1■� � ■ ■�, :IIII:.M 4 � `` ���� �� 11 ,� � � 1 - l 1 1 ` e � � l - rim ml „4t t�. .s,N� � es7�! G�F'i iS��A GHt'• .sYNo ,tea n BIL-�,. .,�a1G Fes• ..� nn G1`�.,. I � 'Wa,LNG CNtaw� Ii��N9 CHt-4'. :a,il� GH` ! ., 'NG IEtslrk�I �. �M11 • .� N8 ��s. .sa G � ii�i�ii • . ; Cs7718 GIL s. .sy sY tom„ ,�{N� • �Y raw ICY #t1�^I �I���f�l rim ' a,N� �H , ;s, i "1. 'Nl IL onalls .3_ IN GHt s7N, 10'It., mMY.4Y� F r ■S F ■ „4ING �. I ;N9 CHr w' Ia;N9 CHt IarN� Mill! r . or • 1 w . 1 � qfi p • . gammas WIN Ul 1 f; � 1 � tt � # - . ,�' fisfff!!!af !!! ii6flisi i � I : FE, i~ i T T 7f Tf .e ll WSW r C s= aasaaaaaaaaa RAMIaaaaaasa� • 1 • N � t k u a >f a — • jl �M1:'Illl 11 • IIIII NF Win � IIIO f f wl!;illlllll �� r sm •4 t•;a nuI GMM �IViIIIIIIII `I'.. 7' II�� �� �. Illill'pIM �IU411111. -II� u"PaJIM . 4 r 4— i;uul j , noluaw1 �; ter r WER _[ , NMI• �'� �' w to�� ��' � ; I I , I Illl.ry[ \ 1 W'III • 14��`��fI��II��II��III'lyIII -dp- ;.19 6CH lam 3 � •i �! . IIIIII:.. WWI - � II II[M Affiarl IIIIII:•FF � imW i I � H p ; I'lll 11 N� IIII'11F r R WNIIIIIIIGIR �� � Illlllu.�l w0\ � •` , km •!'III IIII �� G�nuu rp, ��� lOvn�� �I�� ��NYp IIIII �- •. �� , IIIIII ISIµ �� �, 111111:dry1 "I IIIIII ' III a• �-� • �3 - } I s SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW: CIVIL • • • all NO mass/■/ gm 61 lot- ■ u ; MV ■,...::��� ��;� ��'ta11�,:�i� Vii: ■ ; � 1 I-I, . El 5, HINVIN MD: .1h „ „i _ ............. _ ........: . SAM Rome . ...small nall.sommommosoll A2 MINIM Air -1 It sm MKON gmk opp Wm Mimi Am ■ ■ . . .. :::::�■� .....� ■ T' � ■ d ■u.u...■ �.■. .■. ■.■■u■.r■■.. ...: tl �� T �.�C ■ rll4�__. n �� . a • • • • • -, • -� �r■ Ian -M16 via ,' -Irk • � •� - ., rrwirrr•r.•rra.•+r► �,i1�, ��•• � � drt t'x imam. RI Ml MN I] T' is i■ ♦Y ` ���` r' ��� I: Wit. ��, ,•�.�,� ��;.�� �• .C. ,� — �■� '. - :i 1: �, :I ice=—. .�,�i==�■�- -5 �I�I�i nl�f���� I � T. � r��� y��s!'L.��rr�%9z! �-• l:S=�l• `7F El+rrJ s lei MW �►v � * a� �� �,' •ice � .'_ �nr.'`, �#�!l���'�� ` ` '� I! r ' 1 I-� •, � :111 � �i���' +I� A ��•,y ` s. •• ��i.. r���� d��-� ���., ��,', I ��i � X11 '■ ix■■ :�. �F � ■r . U �y�(� • :�/�/ j-//////////// to �h , u .............. ■ WSW 6w ■�.. { � ' � I FBI ' 1a' i 1 ■�: ' ■■■■■.■■.■■.■■.■■.■I EMEMEMEMEMEMEMEMEME M■■■■■■■■: ■ LS NOW E", ■EI = ■ ( u� ■. well ..........:..........,, u■■■ a �•.. : y!- JAIL'--SL i�',: : ` MOM �•�':T' n n T ■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ '• ■ Li �' R ��- ■ _ m . . � aln - g ■ , g y� J � 1 iii fop • • ■ / dolp summons• ..■■■.R■.■...■■■■..:� ■■ F 1.1■.!., _ I Evans monsoon. x psi pf F '�' ■ ■ ON N I 'FAW °. MEEMEMEMEMOME■■O■■■ \\\\■FI T. - =' Mlms.m.w Mons. ....... ......... lilLawsom / ■ � .. 1�:Cf �Now I�IN�I�lN��: : nse '� ooeTi. 7. ' .:/■� �! �.!�'�� ��,fi,� �� 1sT i u;u+l�lu, b: �W�; � Idr_:h 7.�_;.. � `■ raa_®_®_®;_®_mono�: � .m a • owl M ■ � . ■ .. - i�. I, Wi 16 wil also c` • • ■ • its J 11 Iml i Mal ■ pug1. •1 ■ km 1' �� 1 111■ : loom m 111111;00000 ai�i�i ia0000i ■ ��: ■ NO ■. p � _ ■ors-®-®-®-®-®..rx.. ON momommomm 0NXII MINING ..� 66 IMF 1�. Eli.A ■F 1�■ �ONE TO some ■ , 1u of MEOW OR : p — r . • ■� ■ �■■i"4 :n �-ors !" ■ one W phi: 'gal :111 6W Mimi H orvi �' T `I , • • ■ I.i; ■■■■■iii■■■■■■■■■■■, rrr �■■■■■■■■; ■ ■ F. .............. wi 4901 low AN gonna.. - AM Wiwi Is WINS W = . AM . ��� �����; = �f��� ■ NI�NI�II�411�IN�11�� 4_ ■1. � � a u � � ■ u ■I,i •1 a �� : �■ �.ra-®-®-®-®-®-sue ■ \:I � � i'zr .L3-ijF �r.Ji TL■i!� ■ AN �■r■-4=:,. fib .� !' i : ■ AN ►i�•- ■ • N. ,I A. ■:1 ? n n ■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ �■■■■S ■ All low log ■■,,N �• � ��� 11 I ����� ��� 111 �11���� ��- 0 cD Z M M v LU Z N ago W CL W m Z W II c _ m 0 .0 • J L (Wj w a Lij U O u.l DC U v J ' N LLJ Q a W O N Z_ — W H m ------' U --------------- _____---\ fa J U� -------- ------ --- J ^ m Z TREET --- LOCKHART_S ;: ------ =-___-- _ a W W o w L- L �- - - ��1 Q c z _ L_ L- I 1 m w U cn r IBCI i I I w Z � QH `I I SCI F 1 1 V Q ZW O I 'kr i I 1 1 LL II rl -1 I i wQ a Q � 0 j w � LU I w O w o F- Q' ' I (L I I 1 I N ----------- I J LI II J m I J I L I I Li \ 1 J i I •� I I 1 V V V V V U U V V U i 1 I I I I I I I I 1 II I I I I � I I I 1 I I I 1 1 F- kr I t - IF ---- ---- ---- ---- - J i i I Lill J LI I 1 I i - ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- - IQ I I i U � I U I I I I I / I ' V • U V - - - - - � j I � I I � _ I � I I I I SCI I I m N 1 I I I vvvvvv v Vvvvv LI I I I N i w j I I I I U I I I 1 I I F F , I I I j I I j i i I I � i I I i I I 11 m I I I i I I I Z z I I I 1 :- _rn -°�ti'/ —r -------------------------- d -------------------------- ------------------------ ( ----------------- c a c 0 I E 0 r- IN 00 O co N I N SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW: LANDSCAPE I M O N P w m w u LU • '►„`���r I�MR ii .5� ��%/��►/� � � � .dl1�Z�del ����, ,o�.�. •er-••��$;�� 7►� ►, iN :moo r ._ "i.� `gay. ,,. ._,. .:....r •; rte.^ _ ■`�!���.... H �Z iP` � o ■ �� � ak 71 im i o p n 1 e � a■ru■\rorror�y ^_1■u■a±r;-uu■r■■ ��.■u■r■. ! �� ■ ■ a ■ ■.y � . ■.■ ur ■r a a■ -■ /�i (i.!�N DLO F . . ,•, 1 Wkle%ME- +I� x ■ 0 e ��. P.M.r�N, ■ _.. iii, ` ir Mi MEMO- We FW-• Mika ! 1war or a 1lga Ari+At �V'�i::Ga!%✓,��' 0 s .o u • -n 0 � Z Z_ J On • Q M F-- J F - z w co N W Z i w LLI p m v > v w3 w 2� w w w m w y awZN z= N r w a r N 2 z I w cn aO u F w a H Q Z M J w W O W Q W Z r w ~ w LLJ Z vri p w ip x w C7 O 3 Q Q w y W N 2 w ¢ w �_ r M U LL F F Zn W� r 3 0r � K m w w ¢ z°Q �F W 3W o o � w W o p o N r N r r o z ox~w z�� �U) W z� W w LL i w a i w w N w 1 LL O > m r 3 Q =W p w m Z U w w O < W LL Q W W r w • Q S p Q U W S H X Q z K x O M O w w w ¢ LL K W- 3� W' W W O a°mW m �Q� 3� viN i< w < o� w O U z LU w p jz rwm0 ��z oQ cc W w 2 3 zw W Q a r O U .. Z ¢ Z ¢ U a ¢w w> Ww _ ° LL x i a r U U W z0 ag O�O W ��m at ¢a Z O w ¢N 00 O w UM LL LLJ w ¢ M w LL W N_ W d U) V N M N N N M U N of(� w ww f� z m 3� 3.- 0� W w� m� O� W LL W W W O Q of uj W p O W J W r Z > J K J w S W ❑J O J Q J K X J J J QJ J R'LL K V w i i r Q a dU J r w r Y S 2 Z r Z r Z J W U r LU W m W Z W J W U C)h ULu OfOU W Uw Ua U7w Zw w w J u) Z>O Z O J Z W Z LL W W O m W W U M o w Q W Q W Q m W Z Q W J W LL'w U W Z Oww¢ UOOx Ow ttr rDi OS EE 7 2 rS r2 J ¢S w x ¢x ri x Q 7 Um Km co 0um 0w am mrm Um co in¢ mm tnm a rm m 3� �w vlm dm � a N w cn W j J J J J f J J J J J J E J J J J J f E J J J J J r Q 3 (� U z a as as agtiaau6° gddgg ggciou tiOgggg gcjgcj cjg O z 33 33 3°O33od° 00000 66d ? 060000 0000do a mm N �MM, M _ N^�iSiSiR m w N U)r Z ZZZtt Z Za ZZZz m zz- ZZZ0ZZ zzzzZw Z cc ¢ W d w m m 00 00 00099000 00°00 000°0 00000 00000 0 z m � g o��� a Z=O 7 a UOa 3 o o N> Q o Z Z .----N �Ox i� 0 ¢ a W 7 Z W O i" wW KW M U z f K ZZ M O Q Q aO n T .1 0Q� z WW M 3 WILD h ¢ i a4 x y n x � W U rq d Q f- U O g w°' MW� Z O W o" a w ° a W v�r r 4L�(� O LL J? r Z c7 wrc xww �zx i J cz mm w 3 0'�a• N W M a �O z 3 W ma00Y �x ° a J U LLrZW R' d' Z m LL 2 Q W O Owz Y m�a ��� ° aaa Q O LL- w LL O Z ¢ a Sz�r.�g ¢� FN F3a z w wOru �Fw-�03 W m0 �O O Q Q zvwiz r�naa;° a> �'' zz3izo o°w g>jz ~ LL U Q O V o f p Q 3 w ) 06¢ UUO�7 °o3ww 3a uaw um wwrJoW Cl) z QQ w O J Q 5 h D = 3 U w u UY mUmwtYh2K2 awOZE 000Ji zwISzO wzamWE K Z w (a Z uwi¢Q�w US— O U W F� m OSS2t11 Z W? J? ZNfn W W' O S U J > W Q O W Y C7 C 2 F U W J¢d Q o Q m 3 w w m Q z z 3 o r W J o N m J r r to w J Z z F w > w¢mz3 -J �ZQ¢Z w ¢z�Z O w m O w mZZQO U Q¢3rQ > Q W p t�t d ¢ N3 a 9 CU m a a W m��zJ r�n�;0m O�iOirn J V N Z wJ Of O m m m m ¢ZLLWQ W �U' ONZ m102L d W ¢ w ¢x ZO �OF�n O O n wZ j a w xQLL�W W zy ¢ cn0-O r V C7 ¢rc 7 ja O� Ow z 2 9 as p W Z Jew W> vOm W W_ m�m�w0 LL D LL U' 2 K jLL d =2� �� x00- N Y N a m a' UN ZJ' w a Q ao��xr W��w=, W LL 7 Z Q z i W ¢a u s oG �zmcxia x pwi w g� > z �w Jz wmUrmUKOU�Q� a w 3 z Z� ] Y zw > y oa- V wUZd w a J > > J ] O �w W ww Oz <c�vYi�v,a Q a Sp'Ps O a xww CC QOZ W;E J2O�OQWSO��g O U 3 LL x� wR' 0� M KWaw»�z wina v>? cr=�ga N� a ¢z2 W is 81Z W MWLLwi w �_ QZ>0x3�Z>ZwZ d' Z to O J m U a2a m CJ,-�zsawm° Sawa-a US w Z O°_azu N wO�oww r K O w r 7 W w_ w W ¢ w K ¢ =w w a�� N `o wiaw�a wow°�< wOwcxi°'rc O �w=¢aoa MQ w °uz< ~ z D o r Z O Z_ cq io a °O g M a fn m r O _° > j0 S Q� O�2C)O F—H Ozww�i K OsW=�O K wwwF d Q N 3 d aw' cv ci v ui ? m r Z a m US w Ua N mu0uw-,Jrc> ?u°waK LLaxxOa U' Uwc7g EK CIOU xaw 000 p ED El w U) w S S S i 32 Q 3 c� Z (.Sg�jgg VUV UVV U U U Q UUV UUVUV O 3 z 3 33 3a3 a33 3.°d3m°dO°ddod0d3 oid3m3ddd3dd°zdd°°d Z� H mti _ Ni,,�mti }� W N J N Z,Zzzz=====______=====zfi=====________ r °m m m �� X9$ °m°m °000000000000000000000J000000000000o N � w ,5 w •Ate`) C W a J 2 w ]ZQ W w w °O w > z m y & w v ¢ w w w W m x Z cal x sz LLSaw ug z x 00 �w za r> 0?xp p,ww O z z w 3tt zm Yzo m5 oxQ Mn ?¢rMi,� aw zau�LLa°o¢za� 5 2.° _ �gwg ¢a oa z�v°,a�oNYWZZZKJZNWjY6dz3a� 3aoouz L O x Oa �> .J3aQ 3aw��'rc 0002MUw�J?a0 u°)oow3xao�wu U U U wa au SU Q°�m�DUw.'—Zz ZwrzwU maux z Wpm u z°aQamoz W n m W w w O o Z oU z 8 w2j Z W O i a 0 W w -< p 3 �c7 U r , � ' ° W °Qy Z y m LL 15 y W W r w gp^ 2 UZp Z QFj a Q w ¢ vai ¢ w2 wj y= ¢ w O ¢ n �4j �q , Mo aQ W W_a aU W Nj J°O-wa w2 W= ZN > Z w W C LL W )Y 5 W Z tt w J w> w Y�❑ 0� 2 U a J J a 0 w w� w a c¢ 3 yyw > d� z ) OHM ¢ o x2 xlwfww wya W LL K oy c�j Sp S �w O 3 w w > °xaao= rz Yrc .w u° u°w�(m(]] an w-xa — F r U� QO Kw J O ] Fw¢EN a �QOy rasa NgKa w Oopin ZjOw W U r z wm a 3 LL �� 3 ww m = aOwallo�ws. awz sy°axo zss 0 z w °2 2 0u J O m csm o�- zwzwau�w_w4JO° mrr z�»aarcw» 2' H �m �� C >j �� C �rc wH v'ww°z�w¢�Owc?i�NU iz° a¢i0o oval aia j? ma o-uJM¢or Ja °-w L.L. r O r O no Q ¢ ¢° 2 maaaax?0000wwuw�wa0°� awxxxooFw- (A m ti uc'. �,_. Z m wg Z ao fN aaa uu°°000 00085wW w -Rwi Eaaaaasm wr> C 0 V O O Li r Ical alS M O N O� W Cm G U Ail LLJ WO ,V1. �' "� z./11'\! Ill\• ,i/� ^•r.^•xo■•r �'^ i sii''• w,t,.a. �y� !11 L � h> 4: ....■ X N;`r AV- MAIN MAY ■� .x..■aorlas�a�us�■'a �wr■�oi+■nr.r■�■1.-u nn es-.■� �_��� ��• ` Q;.Q fi ° ME r■[ LI v. r ■iir N� X1x1 e9�r`i rr1� or •■ ■ V ■ • �■�.-u.I�`v'J �r� ��� �pp;��p��L�y I ����° t/ �r!1 r rr Ii. ■ � �. MOM, Isle• � tl tl �I( Mlini. • r�Y°+ X� � � �"q�irS a e•Y�� SOME �M=Me�1 i Lit �•� b rr? wllOf lifl�irf ll(M�LiI� ~A rIF 1F ^f►dil3' Um err` y_i�if' mar 1����: ►; Alln ■� o ,r. � ..r � . uoou ► �.`tea. rraa•��` C;� `�� � ■� L� L! NONE�I�•..=� o. WR f pr Ism ASM, 1 '.r hid ���`,�•' ' :�► "�-, x MAR • �'�'; ��- � � ���i��.Ts�w•aa��,t��,�� are aw. �i11�i `����d�8A1 .. .. rF � •� ��� �11r IILr \s iii U:. 1111 �� v .��i :uii +►11ir ��V �► 1p �•� �Ni �i►Srx�r'er�r:3x�Sr�f in f1sQr 0 0 0 V ZQ d Z_ CIO � M O J a Y N N N N N ice.�. N --'�� d �� LL d O.m. OI .m. . ,,, � U/ • N US? a La Ada �a c �a mower d a -��� � - —�� • L Um 01ym °mm mvm now EL v ma `m Ea `ma S ma I =WON m �a ppp pp E io m ; n m n $ n In o On o o h N c L On •• ? 3 L -.[2 E 2 rnE 2 ����� `m Q W a a m oTa mTa v 3 'a y o 2 0 n o 9 o ? 0 1� !I�I� J o 0 d w d ;w m m U d • c w .,� .� 7 °�tr w°�w li 01 X ILL a' -.�.�... Q N.p1 cr ^� LLL r ^Z LL W N 0 J a- 0 I I o am 10 m m ! o LL m-' N �a J y d 2 2 W Q ~ J-4i f LU II W x $ m m I I g d cn IL of 0 - I w -- w _-, rlllll r 1:, 1''L• I I r I I I I I I I i I I ♦ -- L JI r-- I I I r N I I I I W 2 a G C I c o o m y I I 8i'41 Xa r m20 c c rn --J r I '1111 r: oN J Y J � r m w w � m I 2 3': m n d C 2 Q S U m L m I J J �'a c E O p `m v IQ �j T 1 1 1 m m Yj CO O m W On. vi > 6 C m I m 'n m w d_ o mx I _ I '', a L a CL C g 3 € g m y o w o o U� U d aim aim I U ❑ r.' V 1 � O m m=Vi O N VL t5 W Q `oa 3 a $a W \ g m m d `m m '� m a m w C m C a m N a c o m a 3 m �f 8 O 2 O d Qo m O c=a n m' a y oa a v m o 9 c- o o 3 52 P'C�y ° 3� m Ear q 3 T m m 3 m o y m m d m w._tt e a LL.-� z.-x _ C W ^O W I..L a w Y IIIIOI U _'" • w w N 2 z� Q �d Z m 0 01'- c ; O - -e ¢ E aE a aE E a °o °-' o 2 U m c m °cN m cN U W Eo U)Em O o m . m (L 0 LL N J H W W 2 U) 0 O O ❑ H LL W 0 ii Z h�. a� b " U „ n n rrn r •� --� Ll j -- } C ®� . �� L-- N E 0 i a T� g V a c ` m c_ m W O N m m J o a t h M L N N N 21 c c ffi m c F a 4—d ¢ 3 o n � Q m m o` O 4: g i N m C m 4 m C w doa ina D._� ^0 W L Q • c 0 E E 0 U I�z w ONI J N N {a{p N N N o in Nw y W�[ Oy H CJ m >v pw - mCJm v `^ � mv mm _O1v 3a3imd m d v m O cE $ Ste $ m °m0 o '0 0 my $ .o . o c o o d o a` 3 a` o a` o a` n a` r-'•o c° ;g m oE0 W m m o m a ro W a` ` U m m ° E y m y m m E y m y m J Q d Z CL w I U) _ 0 IL - 0 u I w Cv J I W o a N W `- a—' N m --� 0 I � I W I - w W a � i4 m m E 2 c f i > w > g I i I I I a m m y I I I I m L— m �.o-f. S31HV�1HO13H tQ � o gd m a ----- ----- • � m m � m m m c L m • r f y _ m E -- - - -- 3 n Q r. . 7Fl$ U m .. r• f 2S L o, I'm c c v ::E d o } o � 0 d rnNa .. ma m g G 2� o N m o mom� Z m a'a 12 c p a c o a Fs 2 o o O ' no �I Llw m mn O m J J 2'O~ d m m aU r_ vU V mU=' •• F °w'X d LLI- C � i J = � -J a } w Y r 1 W �J • W J Q � Z `m J $ n J b E ° 2 J W U lu J. t O y W A y N i0 N N �S. a�z 2 E m O w a ° o uic wa Fd m a d A $ a Ana a c ° E m o rn c w E c.N y y m LLno �^ �, " d o m Q O o ° ° 8EoQ 5 Q U- 2 et '>$ 3 yy `� za oca N Q O b .n Q'a° md cad J u > v o Q3 a °y uj u° ° � W W Z U) O H W' W LL iy I I I f I ��� ii iii ' - f :.l'J f w 0 b z� In I , I ' C 133HIS NVEMN o 0 N 9 m m d 3 E a a�L ., m 3 N 21,2 o v c m m 1 NOUN aU cca >. rn d a c',�y` a=_ o § �a rn,m_� , €'??�' o �c o c E: I�. //. m rno o a. pp op w x moo _ co'Eo {o C a °« °iU 9'm5ffi dm O ^W W • L V I c •• V / `W Y • Q� h C - I � LLJ W 1\1'1 I'� � �I • W H H W J m Q � N O N N d D o m n L E W E SAC /mmom c ma 810 ap Q a O co > >E yao2 O1 a10ia mj Cm� boo �lllp lR� a v ? o Z'D OO U mn (J`ami 2 w°� Q a LL°�K N rn.�'a' O LL N J H W W rA 0 H W LL W R LOCKHART STREET Z C I l !. F—-- I I I I I i I i I TI'n L._ --. iii I r w 1 I I FF I � I L-- O y m a n2 o L E c m w o' � v_m m rn�a a �>m..0 o o ° E 22 E 1. � m e.o�m o J �$ 210 o 2 ohao Z. O m°a-�m a? $a ma o ° OO tea 0 oE o 0 o m 8 a C O �aod td a I°i mK u liK Z-W W � L � N r •• `'C • i V O Snlnn ! S 0 N P w m w U w f hz Y it r ss Y ; - CL cu cu cu 0 co `' r _ ► + µ b a rs co cc . o CAS. 1 F I cu oo ,.,� ;;,fix . •,t� ,y'�•��!c.t�, ti°F.� � �h����i,�. tea.b_ `, {� .r F. r' �:•� O 2 Z c .. Z J tl cn m • � • 1 M � O J CV) y- O Q)N 1 • a)'C m E vJ as a c a Y i �� K N N a CU @ O U N N rn c Q J � Q) L N\ U (0 C N m . 0 -00 CL y U � o I I CU d N m C C c d L m v J co a Y, m N L \ U N 0 C Co h U m C7 CL a t m m co N c ^ ca m O N „ti. yf m c a 0- cu 'D a: N N m U L.. in O \ M m �p U N N C � ' fU i a r y _O N C o O d y CC U 0 M o J D [Qy O i N 0 U a Y m m N O p Z c all (n J \ Y 4 t4 m U) Y IIl d _ o � — N ' N w J O W > d �N p.0 .0 O • r `m ¢` E a E 0 c m o .= 0 = cn y O C E '-' 0 O E w a = a�'E +� Ems E � 0 Q)U Qr J O :� d L O L U11 O f0 ._ co li y E w N cn in k N (n a C V soianls LU LU WON P • cD .. w i0 f r , • u ■ • rsruuuu:■ me Egg- ■ tea ., . � ;� :' n�;' ! . �•� ■ Im�..._ ■ VIA Oki ■ ■u�'. �a�•��. ■ o•uouo. uour.. NONE' No w ON i ��.■r■..�r x�?; ■n:uuu uruo. . uur i r.ru / smosommusommomommoommm Sol � ■�1s errs;tea� 1 p tl J • m D � Q M 0 J • N J L N ,N _ e d Y N 'O � O N (0 its Now= now N CD pm OR J U Q 0 o _o t ci L) U t y N Mn p O C _ Lca f0 s F cu z N O O O O O D U > O O 3 'O -0 "O L V V V O C C C $ C m C c m .t5 N V cc 3m � m m '; L N N .O .0. N Y = �n�pp' m N co aD C N (O W N U x x x E x E (yS N N o (0 -2 C lid �AAIiil r L y O c L w Q O Y O (0 2] ° C U! L ��( N w C N y doom& l Y `_� 0 L O 6 O z I m 2 N U ♦,,. • L r _ .. ' LL/ C 0 CV f0 .U• N N f0 r- o (0 U O ) j � m 0L) / - 7 - C m O U 01 j U C)O U Q w U i - Cl)v m ih 3 m �� • � 1 • Z O 7 W J • W W U) fo in cc N p U O L 7 cc o o � E of 0 ) O O O •0 O O p >V U 3 3 3 3 L)a m � a $`op _o - O N N D U d C 0 `7 .L-. U fC f0 U f0 3 7 2 C 7 2 3 E y �? ul p N _0 C t; N'� U j (0 O N X � !D 00 N C L X=L 0 -00 U �1 N@ N V N .0 -0 m 3 m a� b b 4f +L+1 C W I a a (0 Y O U m O Z a Z O -0 O Q O Q � - — Q W "O W O O H E L r 1 0 cu 0 O — .0-.6 LL (A LL U Q� U C N U- L Q _0 2 O J L C U) O �' c C c O -Oi 'co cn c C7 = Q CL E N cu ca N C a � Q L (� •n 0 � @ • i SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW: ARCHITECTURE } Il.l E�i g 25 a ry c5 O aT CO z N '8�V C gg r fn a m ¢c`�aT � ictna*fi z C U N (� 8 � N pEp � = fn .120 N 00 N U ` O M p 0) Q to O U) Y co p p © © ME� � pp pp © c© Z © P � © P a C].. m © P © .0 ~ V! - Q w z a I � � ' LU o '_- --------_ � --- _ >z ___._-__ .. - a ' V 13 Li I 1 a t r I .0,2Z I s i � I I -----------4----- -----�---- I I --- ------------ , a r ; f , I an 1,mill, V I V > I ( O c 17 �b TCO LE CO C � cat; :-5--------------A 1S NdJ33�1 _ _ ••1 _ _--=_== --r .--------------- •` of J balm ft" &so �c a i1 ' o oN N c C7 L N co 4 Lo 0 Lo 46^ f i l l ! +; W V D W 11H 1 1-1 IIIH R R x_ ARM. •I•• Y • ' O S ! I f f z LAJ LAJ (o�C I = mot i 1 i t1T_ 1-IT T IIHI _. In f ii +... � j1 �� Ali {F;##�� Ili !Pip! O _ c � m rn � UQ yU W G _� L 'o m 04 C •- MC'j (D to O) /y W _c Z z J Z W of J Mac !r"'J OMT -- - OEM 0 Sa y e ddU) c U co m N CO Lo o U-) Y fill ,t �-� ;f�ss s$s I!1 ��i�-•��}����i� s !dl66- �E!�!�i,�a€�€t€t�a�� � P a' t a;z! •! sx •a yy 2• •! •et••t .a ! t t # e~ •I ! E s « I y y r .# E� /% V W V D W �C 1� w • 4 MC IF N !! as Iy aaa• •II : a � t tt" �. E PH IgI11,1'1'1i� 11OPY11 3�1 !� 1 11,1{€�l fig . P 8 i f&Pa.�•I I1 . . � i LO LO U O M; � _ C V) 0 CO LLJ C O> "O ao N C r M Cr- CUi R 3, rw-4 N O O 8 0 � 8 •N c «% E C14 c to C (0 � C T T � y (0 �LL (n 0 5 m C ( E o o o f > rn J m� mmjaU � •� L p, ` � QO Q? 8 p rn C C O `� V O - 3§ OU m V U U N (u 0 .3 3 'C O d d 41 O C9 d c� 'O N U � U (nI1 (n (nm � lL 2 (n NN {/1 ` O W O Z 4 Ln 0 In l[ C O p 2 W W - c W - o L IC w � co r a 3 O � J mtt v � o G i I FTI x V LD i �rf ao t0 .0 ,0£T 0 1 .0-101 LO m M �° C CO TCO 1n Om J U Q U W c 6 M _ o0 co C .- af c7 Jfo (n T 4 aC W Z Z_ z Z W o i .� MIMEN O OO . .,tl $ o O7 "0 OI co i �N� N C_ m ' - :15 C Qy m ami C a >, m G (n V m (n cfl Ll fn C rn E .0 d C N CO m y a N fl.V Q O J oU v c°> > � U � � L � cU � U C L.1 U -, 0 «6 O (n +'' cy i '0-- m .6 0 7 0 0 0 U V (nLL (n (ncc � U- rG0d � w N Cn O iu } :E 0 m N U [`- L � 2 c.Z i Q Lo 0 Lo Y C W W N W c _...,� W Z o T J J c r z iLL R 't l v f` i I U tp � i 1 OV16 111-16 OVA Lo 0 LO LO .0-.Oh m M �° C T Ln O C W LO J U U W M _ O rq o m � V1 Cm � LN Jccooi i • • u u • • • • • • 1!� s � Vol ISM �11111111111�� 11111 1 all In .4, ILI 1111111 , Iq �lol�l�l•1.1 � �.����.- � ,�11�11111�111111a1111 �a'�sl®�®1■lel.lr�.le1� 3�Ij111111i111111111111� all 1 ■ ■ ` � ■ ��� 1 1 111=%111 1 1 1 11111 1�■�■� � ;� �-�R 1�1 j1111111�1 j1 j111 jljl 1 ■ ■ ' � � �� 11111111111 1■■■■� . 11111111111111 1/111111 111■■■; f11f1111111111111C1/111111 �■�■� 111'1.1:1:1.11:1:1■/11%�i 111 1 ■�, � � � � w.�� 1 i 1111 ,� 1� ! 0 III�i��'i1i11'jl�il�ii111111 • - .. �� � � � � 1111 ��� 11119111111111! . .. •, 1 i11111I1i11111111 In 111 111 1 Ilf ill 1 1 _ Y � � i1 / iiiiii 'l■■ii i 111111111111111 IP11111/1 ® �i�lr/rl■I�i.l■1■1��1i111111 it 11111 1 1111 '111 !ii� 1�1 .. 1 MGM .: -- i' 111 111 1 11111111 o � a N w Q �8 1L Q� r Q N C ip Ql N EU a> -O h Ear N ~ 6- c :t:! � C m y c �, c o (n L1 t0 N p p N of y CO m N O N N C d CD ci J SU O $ > aUCn mL CD fn L w C U g; Ra « « . oO C� a�i U � (V E 0 U) LL Cn to m > LL � � a. r .r G1 CIS O rte+ } t (n f0N U CO m G N M d In (O t- co O r Z Q to 0 O > Q _4) W W c W O m Z J m J W Go a 0 _ J v n � N t0 1 �®I M P r co O O LO m LO m O M � C Cl) T 00 A G Q O m wig - E co r ` O N h lo-A T V1 C m Q M d r M N Q JOInO W Z Z z — z J W v. J O O 0 Q ..,. ... ,.,.p. 0 N w m c N O c � � �c� -p � Ccn N � � � c . L C is a�i , �v `y -CO- � ci R (n cop I� U) E O O C N E V O C a _ 0 J '? °U m m (D d m o ? d ? ` U) Q o U o o > U@ «. �p ? C) 0)Y L O O jo N Q ti cc U) uz U) w L 2OCL N C O cu V1 C`9 G r N co 00 lA h r C- O W O C O iQ f� O �nY 0 > Q W W � J W co � m co V Z D m = J .Q v = a c z O � o cu rn W S W Z z � � 1 = k IIEFI CD J m A 0 Y CD M x CCO 1- T LO O N � � �' U Q � pp Q U A-.6 a�-,6 r`.6 W � C.co O 00 m t,� CN w co C '- c vi W Z Q z z J z W o. J �.a ww ww ■w ww �w ww w� ww ww � ww v �w ww � � w - • ■■■i 1 1 i 1 1 1 i It1 i �: ■■■{ lilil 1� /Ii1�ir� l�Iili/11 i ■ I !! 111111 1111ff 1 :�■®` ;���r1�1�i R/=i1 If11�1 �■� _ i�iv��./titily - � t �iC � r �ir�rrl � ■ � 1 / 1� 111 � 111t1 -- i�■� � i!i��i�i�iii!i�1li!i�ili�i� _ 1 o: NO am a IN WIN air ■ ■ .ate. $�� � � S■�■ • :� °111111111111'%"1�1'1' l"'1 NUNN :4111 111 lot 1■ ■ ■ _ --__.. 0��1"'/ r 1/rl 111 ihlii :III ■■■ @F� ��,m��;;O,;i1�1�;il;I�Ii� � ■■■- Q s o �_ O o> C O � � � �N r N L E o o WC N E 5 o fl. O y m � mm o cu y ,> w J SU 8 o > ac) tn mL L pQ - _ c ,u, x 0 o cn ? c U 04 pp N 0 coiLCncnm3: 2 a- _ ) mN 8 L C V1 ` o O G r N (h to CO f.- 00 0 Q to 0 to Y C O 0 W W 1111' o . . J - LL V Z J m c W W V O V I o v rEol W LD UE1 LLI ..................... co d o tn to M f6 �° C M p 00 O M M J: U U Ly c c cam) j c m M C C to W A-,6 L-.6 A-.6 !� 2c z hM , .0-16C W C PMON !®# P t .4 ...�i ^, °0 0 o X a� m 0 N C �`p N ON A2_ � C7 a> "p ~ ET N ~ � � C 30 U) a) N (CD C 4 �v O a Q.w`� = Q> V N C U p C O � h « .O-� C O O N O V U U E U cn U- cn cn Cfl ii 0 d � :: N C O C r N M ' lA Or.- 00 O r Z Q In 0 In Y C O 0 > Q (D 4_ m W 0 W D J W � a • Q � C W c � O c6 W rn O` M n M {{I I H { � H � O O tf) O M' � C M CO �• 0 c g U CO C4 CO ' R C r- co C lf) q 4 JcOU) W A-le VA r0-.0D:F Z W X0-,65:; D J ^4 `z E�N w O O O �Oy i W cm C N O N N � 'O ~ ET — N ~ mL C 3 � C N y C ? a y m c o (/� V M U) co LL (n E 0 'O W , O O C a O O O U 0 0 > a U � p L 3 ` U Q o (� O «4 65 LZ C�5 co•` >>O d N N O C9 d U - ni E N L/! 'E U) cn N U CC4- O N O m G N M It In CO f- CO 01 O Q In O In Y C O > N W w ..j C W LL X V _Z 0 - W co V OIm v1cm � I 0 m a� i.0 J Ell L11 c co N r ..__ C9 .A I � � (0 :. M Of C Cl)CO CO T LO O C J` UQ U co LAJ E cR cR CmaM C Lo -Q J' f0 W 0) !� l ii� J-.6 Z .0-10C+ Z —J z &.6£ m 1 W DI J act $ o ��$ o 0) O co N C� i`p y 012 C •� t� O lL fn O 0 0 N N N O C a v cpcuO O _ mm acid Q) 4) 'i 16 d fl.�p1U � C) co ou °? � ma�io C9d �iE U (n tL In tnm > tL 2Cd `� _ ) mN 0 cc� o � Z � ci C) orn G N M '7 to CO r- C] 0) 1 O Q In O to Y C O > ~~ W W __J L W c6 J IL I - � X C7 Z_ I � J (, o _ v s � R O � m C O M W r � a 4- r t O LO In 0 M � _ C Cl) o CO wr 0 m J U Q U CD W c c 0 _ o 0 AmmN M Cy r C U) 3 J co U) m I LLJ Lo ��-.6 A-A A-A Z &X W .0-,6E o , N C �,0 0 0 O af Q) C) fD 0) m c O a� @ C N ~ N , — N ~ c t C1 LCC (n CD LL 47 N •w• N •, C d _- w c N m m c a Q) � O. C1 0 U O > U U) c O Q _ U > 'Fa cn c U C U 0 8 pp rn C� O Y w •U O Q) a) 0 ` V U -d " E fn LL C4 fn m LL O c ti O c0N U G .- N co r n cD f� 00 � Q U� O Lo Y L� so a � 0 � V Z a D z cu m 0 Y U 0 V t0 1711,17 N 00 I'LL M LO Ln M 0 C M CO LO O c C rn N ,J U Q U L1..1 c 0 co- co � O � L� (n C m 0: M �J J CD 0) c Zz v i .� o � O _ O O O O 0 O7 Q O N O OE c, c C cc (a U NtQ) E00 0E •° � O Ca J U � U U � ] V � a 2 � o o B z •- 0 a"i W> � � v� N rn E (1) iinU) LZ1oa cti O � r (n fON U 0 f O N O CC O r G r N M a In (O I,- co Gi LL O Q Lo O U7 Y r W_ M W Z � 0 m � J Q ms ` s � o W S as V c O (D co w a� rr rn tiii �•-....,. M t N I 4 co LO LO m m � G Cl) O A� ' UQ m m U W c 0M _ Ocq ` 0m � C m a: M 0 .- M N Jt0 (nrn NUNN=_ W *— z boa zZ Di J i 0 o g .. o 0 0 o c o td N EN -,5:: N ti a°i aci � o ac): C c �e cn � E 0 0 c o E o > w 4. .: rn rn a� m m y a) a) + cn o c U w p N to ca o coca `-' °o n ai o W C9 a�i U -o cN E � UU) LLU) inc` � ii � oa ` = can' mN Uo m ° rn (6 Z co .- H 4 Lo 0 Lo y W J W D t Z � Q J m J �s Q V � � Z z � CD c 0 cn c� a� w rn 0 M 0 LO f0 M 0 0 00 E—� ° LO 0 c m J UQ U W c 6 M o In ` omr- ��1 C m M C uQ CD C/)CCU rn A-A .,l-.6, l-.6 W .,0-,0£+ J W v. J N 4 E�� N _ O O O O 0 � I c @ ` � C v g 7§ U C co c > .�. � O !A O C t J °? E- 0i m m 0) CL a�i ) a� a c o � U q � > oU _m � t > �' � c`S V U O a� cg m C 7 7 O N m L v 0 N � UcniLCncnm � ii2 oa �/) � _ � mN CN 8 co ® m ` o L— Z � morn Z> Nr'iLo 'D1—com U- O �[ a � 0 ) y W J W ev X co O I Z .1 m s rr W J co co .r. 1 � I I i I o LO LO o M 0 C M T 00 O C c CU J U Q ® m U W c 0 0 Cl)cq L�� W m @ N C .- � M C r c JCDl400) A-.6 L-.6 „l-.6 W li .10-.0£ (. Z .0-.6£$ m � W o i .� M � �� N -.' Q N O O O 1 Q U) �O N C m N 47 a � (� C ti °D a=i a `� c o CD C ti A .- C - 0 0 J c� mm ; dUN m a CL0VJ 0 0o 0o C = O D U Y O � .� f0 .D 7 7 .2 O `-' N � Ui - • 0 mini ■ ■®Mont i omo, n� ; ON . .�.�■L ■ ■ ■ , , ■ OEM o .■mp�■ � IS I. Simi I in imi lilipoislissimli1ili�1-1 1 1 NJ 1 1 i,i�i�l INN.p■p® !i!1"!I:i:l:lililii�'�ililillli'ili!�lNCl�iil�lili!jlilii! ■:M:■:::®: ��■�_RUS .. ■_■.. ailllilli!!!!!i! ilia ,ii jlll AV Now I _■_■_ .l1111!!� ids=�E Egli • ■�■�� i1l1111 _ ����■ � � Illlilllill!!!1l11111 lie, i, -- e14 A 0 g o J CD N GD cV C N CD -o E N toL ® � � LL (n 'D v w a� °— O C a Q) cm co m E o p o C o E U �p ::. + r N UInLTw0im" LL2O � W } .d, (a) cN U (B O V � W Q �Nrv1rco � COCD O 0O W) 1c _0 7= Q W J u� W -a W L7 J � 0 J acc J:I - - J 1� x r ll o 1 O � m M U D C c 0 M (D w J c�c co ILI- 7. _� k _ 1 c Tl r u�u t+� O t!y o M �° CM 0 i— >>1 CO Q mM U W C M _ o00 0o ~ o E ,,: V1 cm �m M .L-.6 L-.6 L-,6 W H - Z w0-.0£ Z .o-se:F _� z v. J � � � � d ® Ire w �. � � � �■ � � .� a `s ° 0 MOM ° m _f._ :..:. _ � 2 9 c` a m 2 I cN t E. N H m r- •:9c C m m c > a c C V !O 1 "to LL fn O 'd 'D N N O _0 N -- 0 d . C m mm O "- o ` W, QO Ja� 5U p > aUcn `° L > > > ° co ,)j D O O _ C O N V V Y p ( O fn Q w, C U N C4 O d e > > V >>O -0 N N p mRn V U -6 N E Cn LL (n Cn co Cc nNm/ V1 uOYO_ �' G r N M V 'n CO r.- 00 m r '.I 1.L Z Q to O tI) Ice W J W W L7 J _ = z H o V s C 0 > (1) ED r n "11111 IEEJ1 r . o LO LO m M 0 A -11 C) Q �- O CO _ O M M J U Q � U W CM O m ~ oECR Cl? J m r m N I Z Z A,66T JJ W � W _ of J O N � �i ,t- m •N me.•M II Q N O O O 0 EDO w c N t O C � �p C N rU� F- In F- _ ® ® C :3 O CD E d o a IC 10 E O C d v rnaEimm a�i ai > = cu C/) Q0 (B O u O N O W 01 U N ca 0 V1 00mo ca L- rn Z� � m - � r N m't Lo (o I,- co 0, M O � Q uo) 0 Lo H W J W � x L J I Z 0 ..J m 4 � o W Z s � O c O co t0 N W N ao L�1 LE M 11 to o M �° ao c CO T U-1 Om o J UQ U C 0Cl) c ; `wm c° N C C � m rCN JcOfnrn rl:6 •V r6 d-i6 uj .0.0£ z Z .0-.6£T J °° W Di J m M � 0 act e O CD 0 0 W � � � r_ .� ►— E In N H m 7 C .�- m .. g s c 5 0 C m N y -0 a N N c In C V t0 fn c0 rnEmm c N E 6 �' _ .8 Cd .: rn J �' cU 3 > Q. vin m L U °mr _ _o 2 L 0UQN U) LL I ( m IL � W o -6 C°V E «+ N C ti G N CO It In COf�- 000) rn i.:ll � O SQcul)) OLn F� Q ` W J W W C.7 Z J a J 2m H Z W S O m V 1 c c C 0 s a.. w 0 fi I` � 4 0 m m M 0 C Cl) O c v m � U --- W c 0 1 � 0 m m N c � � r� J c m N -- I -I CD fn a) � � N .L•.6 .V.6 «l-.6 uj " Z /-M rV.Bii CON _ Gi J o � , 0 e 0 O o �a m O N c`a h M N C N c > c CO U j C1 M U) � ) -0—0 �, E � a) ca J mUmm ; acyc°/J' io C y � OO pp L c C U V O � N 0 (n C U N (Q p N -2 7 7 .` O � 6 V p 01 U -6 E U (AlL (A (A [D �iI.L2Oa w O C1� O (n mN U cu uomc) CO M G r N co U.) w CO 0i 00 r Q Ln O 1fl Y �J Q W W .ze M — Z Op v s o J 4 m tt c _ co c`o a� r � r co �uui u M co i cc a) 0 C" c .N M ui {� c N LO 0 M o° C M F� >>,LO y 0 M �J U Q ° U W m o c C M _ O co O E ►� �C1 r C Ln M co W Z D m Z co x �. z °° W vi .I 'fir •:�. : r=� * i + • Imp ■ ii■ ■I i■ i - -- - r•� ■ s "'GIN MEMENT SEEM y o �� IIIIIII�IIIIIII■��''� -- -" �I®��+�IIII:::::: 11111►�1111111111 � ®,�:.11111111;;;p • �� ° �� I (elf[)�� ;;::!■t - i � 11111►�111111111� � �- ____ ® ' ' 11111111;;;;'� - r- ° f 1111111�1111111■�- � - - �I��h►'�IIII������` iii ■ (( i i ---- �; r'�K `;,� III ��� oo (��/��� � • A s� ►_E I ::- 111111111111111_�'" IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII ♦ L J� 60M 01-1.14, _ V _ � 1 1, [•i•7 �►�� ;::��:�`; ::::� IIIIIIIIIIIIIII � k C � 4 ( iii ciwv'� c$ .: coo 11 it I � rac�ic 8 o 0o LO 0 wo Z ------------ CL Eel th ]gg , , co w U. M V) W o u u U Li C to a I a Mi m r :4==:i Z El � J i m � I ' o - , { J i i I lC0 I i N C i I I 0 a ; a MTrwrm L I I � rr ii I i I s _-- - -- --J »o-,sv 4 »o�-Z o M Lo c � US OJ C� Q W Ld co CO cl) Lo C r W Z Q Z J Z W Di J POT I t I ji l E' N s ii e30 IL g U N -d N E N8 = pip lY6 C 0O � �c v'f Z ----- -----, CL- ---------------- ---------------------- -- --, O oC 1 I 1 LL - 1 r 1 m 1l 1(' d_ i i 8 I x l V = , � N t am I O G 1 � 1 I ; 1 � i I 1 1 ' 1 I ? C ° a 1 1 � 1 1 X 1 1 x 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 � 1 C 1 m -YTIf[- qqryry , 1 1 i 1 1 , 1 -a'F I Fw 1 I ' r 1 J 1 a � 1 1 1 a _ 1 1 s - LLJ � I 1 so-,vv M � _ cm J Ua r C ui tO fn m W Z Q Z z Z W Di J wit XF CAP I Pill RE woo LVA Mina I all MEN ESSEN In IN all IV C'14 EEL N C ARI (0 C-4 8 -d pi E C A 04 00 Lo 0 Lo ------------------------------------ ci A6 CM ------------------------- —j C4 LA- C* ri ------------------------- x I --------------------------- ------------------—----------------------- -- ------------- 0 F-1 4-- .0-.9v ra < Q ui MCM co co CD z z Cal W mj C= C=m C= p f iP t I no d o � 4 1 it Q CUN >- Af8 8 � � N O 00 w 2 _i OOu) — e Z ® oc c - '0 ~ C X W m U I c --_ m a � � a r � F -J I � , C i W 1 I ® rrm N - I � I ---J 1 / I f Lj CL \ I I i I I L r- -l I I CL LA a i \ i 1 � M X c ❑ `rte ___ CS - , 0 U-) .OVJl 4t 0 .0-.91► .0-.5b M Of � M �� via 0 L u 0 � � W J UQ � U N..1 c c°o - 0 � H E L/! Cma: M CO N W Z Q Z z Z O°� W vi J r r rr r r� rr r r rr rr r rr i■r r rr r r� r r ...- •li a+ i a •1 i r • Iii■�I :���� _ I s� .. ■ � ■I i,i — — — .. -�- o >l, lllllll��llllll■�� � — �I®��Ilil.::::: 11111►�1111111111 — — �. ' IllllliMESA ad N. �� ' 1�1i[Il�;� ► :.east -- , HIM all MEMO J ' r'' nin��lllllll�l■ -- — — ���IIIIIIIIE��inI� all I_I __ ►1, lap J IIIII��IIIII�lllll —_ ilIII IN COME ■■ww MOOM All V ' 11111��111111111 - — ■ MINI■■■■ � � I anno ; l woman (/�tI1]�S ■■..■� ,,' illllllll��% ° 'T IIIIIIh�IIIIII■rr _-- ��_J1111,:C:::. ■■■■I.ii s - ]� ■■■EM■■' Ji pN CL t I ! { { 1 OY�0 C 10AOW) (----- -----+ 1 --------------------------------------' / / '-- - --, O z a 77 LAW C m r 1 c - 1 � i O Q r OO �a - X�LC_ -- a D T ° 1 � _ ' O � 1 -- a i x1 t - -x 1 ; 1 � � N ' _ C 'ffut rti E3 i 1 � I � 1 1 1 1 1 t r a 1 1 1 x 1 1 loi ' tV 1 1 C �riry d �J4 y 1 � 1 I 1 ; - -r 1 lillx1 1 1 L 1 � r ' J Q � Q M i C I ' 1 _ 1 a 1 / / M 0 p N ♦/1 C M r C tCDD!n 0) W Z Z z ..j Z W Di J tf ■rye , -:tf +•z z14 - • i o 1111 OUR 11�� • : Illlir�llllllllil - _ — "''�IIIIIIIMON O 3 '"MIN Aif �� [•] ..::ham;:: _ MENEM All `�-- - Oma■■I - J� Iilll,illllllllt� � .�IIIIIIIL...■I - ♦ : �•] Nil Omni ■■■N :J Illll�iilllllllll ►iillllllia:_: � ■� I _ All, Milli{i _ ,♦/I �•' snow _ , o (��1 ,� •now■ J Illll�illlllllll ® , 111111111:=:=■I Iwo ■�, . a VIA �:J VIII,�IIIIIIIIII �' 1111i1111___. f= ° T 1111111��111111■r► °° _ � i X1111,::::: SWUM r • �r l A- A.!mil Ate' s u•- { �� of f�:•�i i.�i-3wGFj • { \ { • i3 a i • S ■ ■i IMMUNE � o '`` �� ■� ■..■■■a== - Illllll�illllll■� � ___I__� .�tllll ... - : i:.11111111�son _ MINE Mon J ' Illll�tilllllllll� ® ,, ..�IIIIIIIII BMW: ■ ■I ,—. ar. ION ■■■r :J IIIII��IIIIIIIIII ., � �. ,,' i11111111==== • MUM I — -- 1�1�I7 ;� A :J Illlli�llllllllll ®• , - '..�IIIIIIII==== t• ♦ ui — •■ ■ '0 •a ■■W■I ION J Illll�illlllllll■ - — ® , e11111111I : �I ■ ■ ■--i F� :J 1111111111111111 I ® , ,�"Illllllhiii }= ° '1 IiIIII1�Illllll� – I ! I_-Imm;;; MINES _— ■�.■■i-- II■ I I JEWS KIM P i � d o� oil 1� V w C.4 G >Rii N 8 a ° W ° CO � in0Lo --------------------------------------' A6 QQ 1 i 1 C / i,llX ill � /$y l 1 1 ' J O ' 11111111 1A., O A LAM 1 1 i C JU Z_ � � W 1 Z o ED - W o sx 1 fR / -- m g W v a f � i 1 1 1 -- i 1 1 1 1 � 1 1 1 ` 1 ' N i 1 1 I 1 1 1 � 2 1 � i m t;u N C R-7IR-1 j m RIf C el 1 1 1 1 ' 1 •11 i i t ; I � ; 1 1 a J x 1 1 1 1 i 1 i 1 1 1 1 ; R'11F'1 1 1 1 1 -_ -X 1,,,X I 1 I Q CM 1 u� - rai �i 1 a ad s / � W 1=— . 1 1 ---------------------- ' ----- ---- l0-19b W Z Z ..j Z CON W Di J rrrrrr�' i • • I III � ■I, I'1 ■ oo ■ - �� c•� on y o 1- IIIIIU�,�IIIIII■�� ®I®'�IIII;::::: "'+11111111;;;; bd MT NMI pq MEANS AIR MON MEMO MEN - D a. ■■■O . ■ ■ -- ■ �:� J� 11111► 111111111■ __ — ® " ..dlllllll::::■ ,� �Q 1�1 ■ ■I 1�1. � J Illlli�llllllllll -- ■. , iU111111eee: Mill O (���)�i ■■■��®� IIIII�---------- �.' illllllll==== somm ON Mini ' 111111111111111■ ® , .d1111111NUNN, � �■ � � i • :!� IIIII��IIIIIIIIII --- — ■:�.�'11111111:::: l �- ° IIIIIIIhIIIIII■� �' ' _ �I®U11111MENNEN ■■■■M � I — !■■■■■', : iii ■ ■I ' ' (Riil� • �.��� -- '- k o � , s t� o 0 1 I N N E ct 0 CD J9 N m CD 00 V- a to LO N ' x ® LL 8 N D ggt � U. MM oG O 1` Z � o Z , m = cr r L--J --------i f k- --'J Ll L� JJ--11 p'�"CT I Fo a LL � c .o-sv O OV N 1 0 N x tr �' `•, J U Q p � ii�x, c -2_ JE Z Z � Z Di J Q � N O ■, 8 I II I ------- I �M ' a i - " ?� �I 3 ' c �CaLo § 0 t X � I � ® a E8 �i ' 88c ---� I M M N &Zt p LAM O � N Z � o cr Z � � — r , L--J E § C 04 SSZZ '" c0 f x C N C7 io c D L O 8 E CO g - - - N m N ® I a.N t_4 a I x c L b ® W . H -2:) � NN�pp ~vtDOD V LfD I I I I A-� W Z Z z Z W of J N O c O = N I I I + fn O I ----------- ------- � 'd V N x - n.. O 0 O N cl L >. LL LL V! U i m Z ' N N C ' N EL a � O J V o m �1 Z � a >r ~ z O p O O LL LL C 8 U N N m m g a. $ a C C o �. E: U- '2 M C ch p co rw- � N .- � m O 26 d CL ,2 r--... ... V1 2cm cm C C > > � m 0 0 W Z Z z JZ W of J Q o N Q M L O IL LL WOM U— — ---- W C S ; o ----- - - -- -- m � Co IL N C Q fn O > _ O ------1 a + n. � 8 cq E 05 C c N � m � N 8 co X Z �I s oc � � ° O m Co � J Q &D Q M O.d1 M z-X °o Q M i M C Z t_ C •: --------- d --------- M � a. v , i t o. L---J O C LL Lj- -------------- K co Al Q O C &ZI .��s-a &.01 17J<& M N — a O �f J U r C C � L m N **x � � M c Y J M N E M o ® $ ¢ LJ x b `. c Z z W .o-sr Di J N O _ LU c g a - --- ----, , ------� a Qa \ IN LL � � c U N o --?----J �n t m N 8 .2 co o i Tl i m U Z I N \\ M M Q { ii C C - i I _ _ a -- o a � o CD - M Z � o ----------------------- .o-s --------------------- ------- >e Z � m L J ' awl o o `s u. U. �? C N � � Cl) CO X V/ CO '� r _ ------------------ m ----------------- U � M M E ® cc 0 i a a Q ----' > A1-St .o- .o-zt Im C4 o x ap 8 O ® Q Im M LL '2 M d' ih ~ ~ C LAmA b K -' 1, _ ao y4..__ °T111111111111 C C LL coo N rn W Z Q Z � z W Di J Q �o C_ N C .� Z Z A Ci Ip (n . 0 m O b O m 0) Z "' m = Qo° = m dy � Q a ac � 3v p 7 � U6) N ,fi ~ (n ,nn I� � � V Q ,e Q Q S0 U-) W z N b LLJ 0 = U s$ S S< V (yam)22 < OOC C� O O V Q 3 w Q LLJ > o C o O < U U Z OC N N U a O W Z LAJ w �02 SZ IL w V y�y$ 0 `z u < m V=i C K W K l` O O V C, LO LO m < t0 uS M yq F� O,LI) M Q sS 2 (7 Z U Q N U 0 yU( i .J rn �o O cq O m r- V 1�0 m N C ch C r N N �' JcDCnrn a Z 8 8 S o O („7 Soc N N 2c IN z Z W ok o. J VESTING TENTATIVE MAP Jf AJ U3N J'I.-. d VaU� Ib'J N����U f.OZ-RI-li ,E M'�YIVDCa I ���9i�i�;d 8 r L'J�d?IL�i Ls��SdWOS 38IV)IOVW SISI.AVOIIHI(i 101 8a NIS30 - r F= I o 0 \ v area � o N Y cvoa wow I m 2. s w \ �. _ z W �°, �° a uuuuuuuuuuuuu u ✓ aaaaaaaaaaaaa a "� a. �sy z _ F _ �o°00000000 o m /l$ Gv;+J YdYN SY1 UL�V11,y � r r r m i a w Q y1 \o; �o'a� >j>j»j>?» TI 3a w .7�...zzsmm C — _ o m 00000000000 �LL .. .. .". ., ., ma W ❑0000000000 0 ahJ.dG,l oe (� zzzzzzzzzzz ua39�oa m ° �- 00000000000 �� m 6 w w w o ti D a000000uo uo o, j �cgw >�> JQO' oQd m F° F �o ti6 h �38 QI �l aaaa2adahaa % n, a� pia 3� y o .. xw J s Z,. aaa¢a¢¢.�aaw� a aaaaaa¢aaaa N m ro CE R,,MOw �I mo ..eons o -o °g m m mN m " d o�" �, ° w J aaaaaa¢aaaa�r `� V �wN = a w sLL m r 1 r ��, .. � .. J Q F1=F-Ffr-rr��NN w '� w�wwwwwww F, oo: W ❑0000000000��. w y ,^ yNfII VINN41 to NUl UJ ,'� _ VJO s s1, a S ai 3 0 `� r u d.. w �„ a s o mac dl a Nmo mm rmrn��am r w ov a a o ca o � - 4 _-�LOCKHART STREET 325.75'_ f ,L4 B2 b �r '.OZ sI 9t1 .Ell 94 — � 2 �z gN Q y a � rn Q I IL O it m CK CO 1 '� li .mm .9 , o�m 'L3 P\ 4 EL ,lf� ® o 3 ,091 TF Ell Se -� z u Z OCiF _ I of I _ U rr �4 113 zi 700 _�^° X110 _ m_ 96-90e 3E99,ZE°OON i 9'. m _—----------------------------------- _____ - o m 1338iS NV933N. ___ -- m m i - -- - _- r _ A �f...� `� C> t`) L r `, n� 19 -n— `82 STAFF REPORT PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: January 28, 2014 TO: Planning Commission SUBJECT: PUBLIC HEARING - PLPA 2013 -00033 Dublin Ranch Subarea 3 General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment and Planned Development Rezone with a Stage 1 Development Plan, and PLPA 2013- 00034 The Groves at Dublin Ranch (Lot 3) General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment, Planned Development Rezone with a Stage 1 and Stage 2 Development Plan, Site Development Review, and Vesting Tentative Map 8164 for 122 townhouse /condominium units Report prepared by Mike Porto, Consulting Planner EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The Project Proponent, Kevin Fryer, is representing the property owners of two adjacent project sites: Subarea 3: The Applicant is requesting a General Plan Amendment (GPA) and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment (EDSPA) and Planned Development rezone with proposed related Stage 1 Development Plan for the 64 -acre area. The proposed GPA /EDSPA would modify the acreage allocated to land uses as follows: a) Medium Density Residential (6.1 to 14 units per acre) — from 27.2 acres to 38 acres; b) Medium - High Density Residential (MHDR) (14.1 to 25.0 units per acre) — from 8.6 acres 7.5 acres; c) Rural Residential /Agriculture — from 0 acres to 14.5 acres (as a partial replacement for 24.9 acres of Open Space); and d) Stream Corridor — from 1.3 acres to 2 acres. No changes are proposed for a 2 -acre Neighborhood Park. The Request includes Planned Development Zoning and Stage 1 Development Plan consistent with the GPA /EDSPA. A conceptual project of approximately 437 units is anticipated. The Groves Lot 3: The project is a General Plan /Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment to change the land use designation from High - Density Residential (25+ units per acre) to Medium -High Density Residential (MHDR) (14.1 to 25.0 units per acre) and a Planned Development rezone and related Stage 1 and Stage 2 Development Plan, Site Development Review Permit, and Vesting Tentative Map 8164 for 122 townhouse /condominium units on approximately 6.36 net acres. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission: 1) Receive Staff presentation; 2) Open the Public Hearing; 3) Take testimony from the Applicant and the public; 4) Close the public hearing and deliberate; and 5) Adopt the following: a) Resolution recommending that the City Council adopt a Resolution adopting an Addendum for Dublin Ranch Subarea 3; b) Resolution recommending that the City Council adopt a Resolution approving General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendments for Dublin Ranch Subarea 3 and The Groves Lot 3; and c) Resolution recommending that the City Council adopt an Ordinance approving a Planned Development Zoning District for Subarea 3 with a related Stage 1 Development Plan to replace uses adopted by Ordinance 24 -97; d) Resolution recommending that the City Council adopt an Ordinance for the Groves Lot 3 to a Planned Development Zoning District with related Stage 1 and Stage 2 Development Plan; and e) Resolution recommending that the City Council adopt a Resolution approving the Site COPIES TO: Applicant File ITEM NO.: Page 1 of 20 C: \Users \agenda \Desktop \6.2 attach 4.doc Development Review Permit and Vesting Tentative Map 8164 for Lot 3 for 122 townhouse /condominium units on approximately 8.8 gross acres (6.36 net acres). Submitted By Mike Porto, Consulting Planner PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Reviewed By Assistant Community Development Director The project proponent, Kevin Fryer, represents the owners of two adjacent projects which include Dublin Ranch Subarea 3 and The Groves Lot 3 shown in the vicinity map below. Both projects include General Plan Amendments to change land uses. State law allows only four (4) General Plan Amendments per calendar year; General Plan Amendments for specific projects can be grouped together and adopted by one Resolution. These projects, and the requested General Plan Amendments, have been consolidated into one Staff Report and presented for concurrent consideration to ensure that the City does not exceed four Amendments during 2014. Figure 1: VICINITY MAP Subarea 3 The subject site is located in Area B of Dublin Ranch and received PD Zoning approval in 1997 predating the Stage 1 and Stage 2 PD approval process. The 64 -acre project site is undeveloped and currently vacant; it is bounded on four sides by improved streets. Since the original land use approvals in 1997, there have been no additional applications or requests for entitlements. However, precise alignments for both Dublin Boulevard and Fallon Road have been adopted and subsequently improved resulting in a reconfiguration of the development 2 of 20 DUBL W RANCH L U MN KAWN DWE MASTERAANNED CON61LINM DUBLINY � H Y CLIP J ML PANG *'AY SUBAREA 3 PROJECT AREA B(lliEl�AAD � - LOT 3 PR JE - Figure 1: VICINITY MAP Subarea 3 The subject site is located in Area B of Dublin Ranch and received PD Zoning approval in 1997 predating the Stage 1 and Stage 2 PD approval process. The 64 -acre project site is undeveloped and currently vacant; it is bounded on four sides by improved streets. Since the original land use approvals in 1997, there have been no additional applications or requests for entitlements. However, precise alignments for both Dublin Boulevard and Fallon Road have been adopted and subsequently improved resulting in a reconfiguration of the development 2 of 20 areas and a request by the property owner to modify the land use layout. Preliminary grading has been done at various times on the site. The site has two hills in the northeast corner rising to an elevation of 470 feet and causing the site to slope from the northeast to the southwest. The slopes on the site range from less than 5% to 50% on the face of the hills. A stream corridor on the site travels approximately 1,000 feet from the northwest corner of the site in a southeasterly direction to the middle of the site. At that point, the water is collected in a storm drain pipe which ultimately drains to the regional water quality basin located between 1 -580 and Dublin Boulevard. Surrounding streets are Central Parkway to the north, Dublin Boulevard to the south, Fallon Road to the east, and Lockhart Street to the west as shown on the vicinity map above. Uses adjacent to and surrounding the project site include: a) Fallon Community Sports Park on the north across Central Parkway; b) Fallon Gateway and a vacant site across Dublin Boulevard to the south planned for a regional medical facility; c) The Groves Lot 3, a Medium -High Density project of 122 townhouse /condominiums on a vacant site west across Lockhart Street concurrently under consideration as well as the existing 610 units of the Fairway Ranch apartments; and d) a vacant property planned for commercial, residential and open space uses across Fallon Road to the east. Abutting the project to the south and east are two properties that are part of Subarea 3, but not a part of the current request, described as: 1) General Commercial — a 2.0 acre site located along the north side of Dublin Boulevard, and 2) Semi - Public — a small site owned and used by the Dublin San Ramon Services District (DSRSD) located along the west side of Fallon Road. The current proposal by the Applicant /Property Owners, Integral Communities, includes: • General Plan /Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment to modify the acreage allocated to land uses as follows: a) Medium Density Residential (6.1 to 14 units per acre) — from 27.2 acres to 38 acres; b) Medium -High Density Residential (MHDR) (14.1 to 25.0 units per acre) — from 8.6 acres 7.5 acres; c) Rural Residential /Agriculture — from 0 acres to 14.5 acres (as a partial replacement for 24.9 acres of Open Space); and d) Stream Corridor — from 1.3 acres to 2 acres. No changes are proposed for a 2 -acre Neighborhood Park. • Planned Development Rezone with related Stage 1 Development Plan The Groves Lot 3 The Groves Lot 3 is the third phase of a high- density residential neighborhood of Dublin Ranch initially approved as Fairway Ranch. A number of proposals for Lot 3 have been submitted and approved; as early as 2003 and as recently as 2013. The overall Fairway Ranch project approved in 2003 (PA 03 -010) was comprised of three development parcels representing a diverse mix of both affordable and market rate multi - family housing types including senior citizen apartments, family apartments, and condominium units. 3 of 20 The project approved originally is shown in Table 1: TABLE 1: Fairwav Ranch Lot Multi - Family Housing Type No. of Units 1 Senior Citizen Leased /Rental Housing (55+ years) 322 2 Multi - Family Leased /Rental Housing 304 3 For -Sale Condominium Housing 304 Total No. of Units 930 The senior housing on Lot 1 was developed with east and west components known as Cedar Grove and Pine Grove. The original Site Development Review, approved in 2003 for Lot 3 generally was approved as a mirror image of the 304 -unit site plan approved for Lot 2, the existing multi - family apartment project immediately to the north of the project site currently identified as Oak Grove. In 2007, a subsequent application was approved for Lot 3, now identified as Sycamore Grove (PA 06 -037). The approved project reconfigured the 304 units to include 22 Live -Work units in a 3 -story townhouse facade along Dublin Boulevard. A third project was approved in March 2013 (PLPA 2012 - 00040) in which Lot 3 was redesigned as a 304 unit apartment complex to more closely reflect the original approval. The Project Site generally is rectangular in shape and currently vacant. The average existing slope typically is less than 1 % due to rough grading to create a level building pad for the multi- family structure approved previously. The project site has an embankment approximately four to five feet in height, around the perimeter, behind the current right -of -way, for the three surrounding public streets. The embankment transitions from the flat graded building pad area to the sidewalks and perimeter street improvements constructed during the first two phases of The Groves. All surrounding streets have been improved to the back of the curb adjacent to the project site with some sidewalks and landscaping remaining to be completed as part of the project improvements. The project site will require re- grading /finish grading to accommodate the proposed townhouse building sites and internal vehicular circulation system. The project site is located north of Dublin Boulevard, south of Maguire Way (private street), east of Keegan Street, and west of Lockhart Street as shown on the vicinity map above. Uses adjacent to and surrounding the project site include: a) Oak Grove, a high- density residential apartment complex; b) the vacant site anticipated to be used for a regional medical facility across Dublin Boulevard to the south; c) Subarea 3 as described above on a vacant site across Lockhart Street to the east; and d) The Terraces, a High Density Residential condominium project of 626 units across Keegan Street to the west. The current proposal by the Applicant /Property Owner, Lennar Homes, includes: • General Plan /Specific Plan Amendment to decrease the designated land use and density from High Density Residential (HDR) (25.1 + units per acre) to Medium -High Density Residential (MDHR) (14.1 to 25 units per acre) consistent with housing type and product currently proposed. • Planned Development Rezone and related Stage 1 and 2 and Development Plans. • Site Development Review Permit for 122 townhouse /condominium units within 19 three — story structures ranging from four to eight units per building. • Vesting Tentative Map 8164 to create a subdivision for condominium purposes for 122 townhouses for sale to individual buyers with common areas to be maintained by a Homeowners Association. 4 of 20 ANALYSIS: The following is an analysis of the Subarea 3 project. Subarea 3 General Plan & Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment Land Use Designations The Applicant is requesting to change the General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Land Uses as shown in Table 2 and Figure 2 below. TABLE 2: Existina and Proposed Land Uses — Subarea 3 Land Use Existing Proposed Acres Units Acres Units Medium Density Residential (MDR) ,, (6.1 to 14.0 units per acre) 27.2 166 -381 38 232 -532 Medium High Density Residential (MDR) �, •\ (14.1 to 25.0 units per acre) 8.6 121 -215 7.5 106 -187 Rural Residential /Agriculture (RR/A) 1J (1 unit per 100 acres) 0 0 14.5 0 Open Space (OS) 24.9 -- 0 -- Stream Corridor (SC) 1.3 -- 2.0 -- Neighborhood Park (NP) — No Change 2.0 -- 2.0 -- Total 64 287 -596 64 338 -719 Figure 2 The proposed densities and land use distribution will allow for continuity of open space and a more effective utilization of the property. The requested land use distribution would group residential uses in three areas — a) 7.5 acres of MHDR along the westerly edge of the project site along Lockhart Street across from The Groves, the proposed MHDR residential development to the west; b) a 19.7 -acre neighborhood of MDR north of Dublin Boulevard adjacent the open space and Neighborhood Park, and c) an MDR neighborhood of approximately 18.3 acres within the northeast area of the site. The proposed land use 5 of 20 Existing Lana uses Proposed Lana uses ____ ,, `� �, •\ Medium Density .� 1J Residential t\ ,\ s� 18.3± ac s\ 54 n!aimx tream Condor Corridor \ t.5�a I 1.31 ac r 1 1 24.9: ac Fa'k � y Medium / P j Medium / Density Density / Residential �c Resldentlal j 197= 17.2. ac JO;� �-„c �• The proposed densities and land use distribution will allow for continuity of open space and a more effective utilization of the property. The requested land use distribution would group residential uses in three areas — a) 7.5 acres of MHDR along the westerly edge of the project site along Lockhart Street across from The Groves, the proposed MHDR residential development to the west; b) a 19.7 -acre neighborhood of MDR north of Dublin Boulevard adjacent the open space and Neighborhood Park, and c) an MDR neighborhood of approximately 18.3 acres within the northeast area of the site. The proposed land use 5 of 20 amendments would increase the acreage for MDR and the Stream Corridor by reassigning the land currently designated Open Space and slightly reducing the acreage for MHDR. The Open Space land use would be eliminated in favor of Rural Residential /Agricultural which allows more flexible options for aesthetic improvements such vineyards, orchards, and community gardens while preserving an Open Space characteristic. The following is a further discussion of the proposed land uses. • Medium Density Residential and Medium -High Residential (MDR and MHDR) - At a maximum, the proposed acreage by use /densities would allow up to 719 units. As elsewhere in Eastern Dublin, this potential is limited through the required PD- Planned Development zoning. A project of approximately 437 units is anticipated based on a general concept plan reflecting the requested amendment to be distributed as 107 units of MHDR (14.27 units per acre) and 330 units MDR (8.68 units per acre). This figure is within the range of the existing land uses and would not represent a significant deviation from the level of development anticipated under the existing land uses. The number of units proposed within the development envelope will ensure that the on -site grading is optimized and the natural drainage is preserved. • Rural Residential /Agricultural (RR /A) - The RR /A land use is proposed for frontage along Central Parkway adjacent to the Stream Corridor and extends diagonally across the project site to the southeast corner and includes the south facing slope of the hillside as further discussed below. The RR /A designation allows the construction of one residential dwelling unit per 100 acres (1 unit /100 acres). However, since the RR /A land use is less than 100 acres, no units would be permitted within that 14.5 acre area, and the Applicant is not proposing to construct or retain any dwelling units in that area . The RR /A area would be managed by the homeowners association. • Stream Corridor (SC) - The Stream Corridor would be expanded from 1.3 acres to 2.0 acres and generally would remain in its existing location. The Stream Corridor was created to fulfill biological mitigations required for development of other portions of Dublin Ranch. • Neighborhood Park (NP) — No changes in location or size are proposed for the 2 -acre Neighborhood Park. It would remain in the central location originally anticipated adjacent to residential uses and open space areas. Visual Resources The Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Visual Resource Section 6.3.4 identifies view corridors as well as certain hillsides as visually sensitive. A portion of the project site includes low lying hills that were identified in the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan as "visually sensitive ridgelands" and located within an area contemplated in the City of Dublin Scenic Corridor Policy. The Eastern Dublin Specific Plan states that these hillsides are to remain to provide a distinctive visual feature as well as provide a screen for development to the north. The Specific Plan policies do permit grading of these ridge lands providing adherence to the policies are taken into account. Previously significant graded areas of the site were needed to accommodate roadway improvements; however, that grading did conform to the Visual Resources policies. The Specific Plan allows for development on the backside of these hills within certain standards in the Specific Plan. 6 of 20 The south face of these hills (exposed to 1 -580) were designated as Open Space to maintain the natural appearance and intended to remain in order to provide a natural backdrop and screen development to the north. The proposed designation for this area will help ensure that natural undeveloped appearance is maintained. The Applicant's grading concept will conform to the policies of the Visual Resources section of the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan. Most grading activities will occur behind or in front of the current hills with specific contour grading to blend the existing hills with the graded land form. Upon completion, the hillside will be revegetated and will serve to screen development. In addition to recontouring the hill, a small mound graded along the Fallon Road side of the site would serve to hide a large share of the Medium Density Residential planned for the northeasterly area of the project site. This neighborhood would be designed to fit within the natural contours having building pads stepped gradually to match the existing topography of the back side of the hill. Where feasible, the graded slopes would be 3:1 or less. Cut and graded slopes would be revegetated with native vegetation or vineyards. The requested General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan amendments would require adjustments to various figures, texts, and tables in the General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan to ensure consistency throughout the documents. A Resolution recommending the City Council approve a consolidated General Plan /Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment is included as Attachment 1. A draft City Council resolution, with a complete list of the proposed amendments to the General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan, is included in Exhibit A of Attachment 1. Planned Development Rezone The Applicant is requesting approval of a Planned Development Rezone with a related Stage 1 Development Plan. The proposed zoning would ensure consistency with the land use amendment. The proposed Stage 1 Planned Development Rezone includes: proposed uses, project access, phasing plan, Master Neighborhood Landscaping Plan, and master infrastructure plan as described below. Proposed Uses - A comprehensive list of permitted, conditional, and accessory uses, are provided with the Stage 1 Development Plan. General Development Standards /Design Concept Site Plan - The concept plan for the proposed project places the higher density housing along the westerly edge of the project site along Lockhart Street in the form of 107 Medium High Density units on 7.5 acres resulting in approximately 14.27 units per acre, and 330 Medium Density units, including single - family homes. The 38 acres located in the central and northeasterly areas of the project site would include 330 Medium Density units, including single - family homes at a density of 8.68 units per acre. Based on the Concept and Site Plan, the High Density Residential effectively would be 14.27 units per acre. 7 of 20 Figure 3: Sub Area 3 Site Plan The Stage 1 Development Concept and Site Plan show uses consistent with the requested General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendments. Access & Circulation - There will be two primary access points to the site. One will be located on Lockhart Street generally at the intersection with Finnian Way, south of Central Parkway. The entrance would provide access to the High Density Residential housing along Lockhart Street and to the Medium High Density housing north of Dublin Boulevard. The second point, providing access to Medium Density Residential in the northeasterly part of the project site, would be located off of Central Parkway across from the entrance to Fallon Sports Park. It is anticipated that minor vehicular access points may be included as well as emergency vehicle access points (EVA) as required. A review of the joint access points with Fallon Sports Park on Central Parkway will be more thoroughly reviewed for traffic control and land configuration in conjunction with the Site Development Review and Vesting Tentative Map once the design, unit count and final configuration of the on -site roadways are determined. A 10 -foot wide paved, meandering trail /access road will follow along the stream corridor and through the RR /A area. The trail is proposed to be a continuation of the multi -use regional trail system that starts offsite in the northern portion of Dublin Ranch. The trail on the project site will start at the northwest corner of the site and travel behind the lots and the Neighborhood Park to Dublin Boulevard connecting to the Fallon Gateway retail center. A secondary trail also is proposed to connect the northerly portion of the site with the southern portion of the site through the Rural Residential /Agriculture portion of the site. Sidewalks will be constructed on all perimeter and internal streets to provide pedestrians from both the project and surrounding neighborhoods access to the nearby commercial centers. Grading - The site has undergone some preliminary grading over the years to construct the stream corridor and for drainage and vegetation management. Also, grading has occurred along the perimeter with the construction of the major roadway improvements of Fallon Road and Dublin Blvd. Future grading in conjunction with the Stage 2 Development Plan, SDR and 8 of 20 Vesting Tract Map will conform to the policies required in the Visual Resources section of the EDSP. Master Landscape Plan - A Master Landscape Plan is provided indicating compliance with the adopted Streetscape Master Plan. This plan indicates that the street tree pattern for the surrounding arterials and collector streets is consistent with that approval document. Detailed landscape plans for both the perimeter and internal streets will be provided in conjunction with the future Stage 2 Development Plan and Site Development Review. Phasing Plan - The Applicant is proposing to develop the site in two phases beginning in the north east corner of the site with Phase 1 and the moving westerly with Phase 2 A Resolution recommending the City Council adopt an Ordinance approving the Planned Development Rezoning with related Stage 1 Development Plan for Subarea 3 is included as Attachment 2 with the Draft City Council Ordinance included as Exhibit A to Attachment 2. The Applicant is required to obtain approval of a Stage 2 Development Plan and Site Development Review prior to constructing a project on this site. The Groves Lot 3 General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment The current proposal is for ownership housing at a lower density and fewer units envisioned originally in order to serve the current buyer profile and market segment anticipated for this area. Three previous higher density project approvals on this site have not resulted in construction of a project. Based on the proposed project, the total number of units for Lot 3 effectively would be reduced by 182 units or over half of the 304 multi - family units approved previously. Land Use Designations The request includes a General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment to change the land use of the 6.36 -acre site from its existing designation of High Density Residential (HDR) (25.1 or greater units per acre) to Medium -High Density Residential (14.1 to 25 units per acre). The proposed MHDR land use would allow a range of 113 units to 200 units. The proposed PD rezone fixes the number of units at a maximum of 122 units as further described below. Figure 4: The Groves Lot 3 txisting Lana uses vroposea Lana uses ----- - - - - -} ---- - - - - -- - - -- - CEN PKWY -:' , • - - -- -- CEN TW�- i PK ; ! / I ` I Medium High ii u~i I i u~i Density I Z =1 a Residential =1 Lu of w of -- - - -J Y %_ - _-__-_J Y J� DUBLIN BLVD. DUBLIN BLVD. 9 of 20 The requested land use amendments and the current proposal for Lot 3 reflect market conditions and optimal use of the site while remaining consistent with the surrounding community. The proposed density will allow a strong visual transition from the High Density Terrace to the west and the proposed Medium -High Density product anticipated for development on Subarea 3 to the east. The proposed MHDR land use would allow a range of 113 units to 200 units. The proposed PD rezone fixes the number of units at a maximum of 122 further described below. The requested General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan amendments would require adjustments to various figures, texts, and tables in the General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan to ensure consistency throughout the documents. A Resolution recommending the City Council approve a consolidated General Plan /Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment is included as Attachment 1. A draft City Council resolution, with a complete list of the proposed amendments to the General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan, is included in Exhibit A of Attachment 1. Planned Development Rezone The proposed Planned Development Rezone and related Stage 1 and Stage 2 Development Plan are consistent with the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance (Chapter 8.32 - Planned Development Zoning) are included in Attachment 3 and described below. Proposed Uses: Permitted, Conditional, and Accessory uses related to multi - family development are listed in the proposed Ordinance adopting the Planned Development Rezoning (Attachment 3). Development Standards: The Planned Development includes Development Standards consistent with a Medium -High Density product type. The Development Regulations for the proposed project are shown as follows: TABLE 4: The Groves Lot 3 - Development Regulations Standards Medium High Density Residential Attached Multi - Family Townhouse Units Lot Size n/a Building Setback from Arterial Streets 10 feet minimum Building Setback from Property Line (on a public street) 10 feet minimum Building Setback from Property Line (not adjacent to a Public right -of -way) 0 feet minimum Building Setback from Private Street or Common Driveway 10 feet minimum Driveway Length or Garage Setback from Common Driveway or Private Street 3 feet minimum Private Open Space • Ground Level/Yard OR 100 square feet minimum • Upper Level /Deck 50 square feet minimum Building Separation 10 feet minimum 10 of 20 Building Separation (both buildings 2 stories or higher) 10 feet minimum 8 feet to porch minimum Maximum Building Height 40 feet /3.5 stories Required Parking 3- Bedroom Residential parking space per unit 2 spaces within an enclosed garage Guest Parking 1 space Site Development Review SITE LAYOUT /PLOTTING — The proposed project is arranged as three -story attached townhouse units within 19 individual buildings in five building types with three variations. Buildings range from four to eight units per building. Both vehicular and pedestrian entry to the project is from Maguire Way which is a private street between Lot 2 (Oak Grove) and Lot 3 (the project site). A motorcourt on Maguire Way between the project site and Lot 2 to the north identifies the entry to an internal circulation system of drive aisles providing access to the townhouse garages. The buildings are organized with front facades and door entries facing onto a series of pedestrian paseos and open residential courtyards that create a passive, small -scale neighborhood environment. Three buildings face onto Maguire Way to the north. Also, one building at each of the southeast and southwest corners of the site are oriented towards Dublin Boulevard but are raised approximately 5 feet above street level and accessible only from an internal walkway separate from the public right -of -way. Due to topography, pedestrian access to the site on the west is limited to the Maquire entrance with two pedestrian points accessible from Lockhart Street on the east. Building placement with unit distribution is shown in Table 5, below. TABLE 5: Building /Unit Distribution Building No. of General Location Units per Units per 3- Bedroom 4- Bedroom Type Buildings Parcel (per Tract Map) Bldg. Building Type Units(l) Units (2) A 1 n/e corner Keegan Street and 4 4 2 2 Dublin Boulevard (Parcel 4) B 2 east side of Keegan Street 5 10 6 4 (Parcel 3) 2 on Lockhart Street, C 5 2 in middle of Lot 3, and 6 30 20 10 1 on Dublin Boulevard (Parcels 9, 10 & a portion of 5) n/w corner of Lockhart Street CX 1 and Dublin Boulevard 6 6 4 2 (Parcel 7) 3 on Dublin Boulevard, and 2 D 7 each on Keegan Street and 7 49 35 14 Lockhart Street (Parcels 2, 6 & 8) DX 1 s/e corner of Lockhart Street 7 7 5 2 and Maguire Way (Parcel 11) E 1 s/e corner Kegan Street and 8 8 6 2 Maguire Way (Parcel 1) EX 1 south side of Maguire Way 8 8 6 2 midblock (Parcel 11) Total 19 122 84 38 (1) Floor Plans 1, 2A & 213 (2) Floor Plans 3A, 3A -Alt, 313 & 3C 11 of 20 Common areas include the vehicular circulation system but focus on the system of paseos and residential courtyards. The passive recreation facilities for the proposed project are served by a private pocket park located past the first row of townhouses at the Maguire Way entrance. rlgure o: I ne vroveS Lot s - site clan RANKS 0� +r Il��t I dell Ij�`� t�,�ll 'rte _• FLOOR PLANS — Each townhouse unit generally is configured as a three -floor walk -up with access from a street -level entry in front and an enclosed ground -level two -car garage to the rear. The floor plans offered are for either a three - bedroom or four - bedroom unit. Plan 1 and Plan 2 with its variations each have three bedrooms, and Plan 3 with its variations has four bedrooms. All end units are a variation of Plan 3 with four bedrooms, and all units in between are variations of Plans 1 and 2 with three bedrooms for a distribution of 84 three - bedroom units (70 %) and 38 four - bedroom units (30 %). Each unit has a ground floor bedroom with an en suite bathroom. The second level is arranged as a "great room" with living, dining, kitchen, and large deck area for most floor plans. A powder room also is located on each second level. The master bedroom with en suite master bathroom is located on the third floor along with two or three other bedrooms, depending upon the floor plan, and a second full bathroom. Laundry rooms and instantaneous water heaters are located on the third floor of all plans. Each garage is arranged with areas for trash and recycling. Also, based on a recently adopted City ordinance, all units are provided with a dedicated storage area having a minimum of 200 cubic feet separate from the garage. Each master suite has a walk -in closet, dual basins, separate water closet, and separate tub and shower. All forced air unit equipment is located in the attic above each unit and accessible from the third floor. A minimum of 10 %, or 13 units, will be improved as handicapped accessible on the ground floor in accordance with the California Building Code. Approximately 34 units (all end units) potentially could serve that purpose. The floor plans are shown on Sheets A4.00 through A4.21 with potentially accessible units identified on Sheet C.7, Attachment 4. 12 of 20 TABLE 6: The Groves Lot 3 - Floor Plans Plan No. of Units Square Feet Bedrooms Bathrooms Buildings % of Project per Plan A, B, C, CX, D, 1 35 1,902 sf 3 3' /z DX, E, EX 29% all buildings A, B, C, CX, D, 2A 37 2,013 sf 3 3' /z DX, E, EX 30% 49 all buildings 40% 2B 10 2,013 sf 3 3' /z D, DX, E, EX 8% 2C 2 2,013 sf 3 3' /z E, EX 2% 3A 3 2,170 sf 4 3' /z CX, DX, EX 2% A, B, C, CX, D, 3A -Alt 19 38 2,170 sf 4 3' /z DX, E, EX 16% 31% all buildings 313 15 2,170 sf 4 3' /z B, C, D, E 12% 3C 1 2,170 sf 4 3' /z A 1 Total 122 100.00% Plan 1 — Plan 1 is a 3- bedroom unit and is the smallest at 1,902 square feet. Plan 1 is an interior unit only, situated with units on both sides. All buildings, except Building A, include two Plan 1 units per building. The 35 units of Plan 1 represent 29% of the total project. Plan 2 — Plan 2 is also a 3- bedroom unit. The three variations on Plan 2 are the most frequently utilized plan at 49 units or 40% of the project. The 2,013 square foot interior unit is also used in each of the 19 buildings, with Plan 2A used more than once in all but Building A. Plan 3 — Plan 3 is a 4- bedroom unit and is the largest at 2,170 square feet. The ground floor bedroom also is described as a den option. All Plan 3 and its variations are end units and "Alt" may be fitted as handicapped accessible where indicated on the plans. At least one Plan 3A -Alt would be provided as an end unit in all buildings. Approximately 13 units have a ground floor yard oriented towards the paseo. ARCHITECTURE — The proposed exterior architecture is a contemporary interpretation of eclectic craftsman style consistent and compatible with Phases 1 and 2 of the project known as The Groves. Buildings would be Type V wood frame structure with a mix of exterior materials. The building roof generally is a gable form from end -to -end pitched at 4:12. Building ends may have hip construction over at least one end, gable projections over upper level windows, and shed or trellis structures over porches and decks. Roof materials are a flat concrete tile in one of two colors and standing metal seam accents over porches and some projections. In addition to the roof, exterior materials include brick veneer, stucco finish, fiber cement board siding (both horizontal and vertical), and fiber cement trim to accent windows and door frames. Brick veneer in two different colors is used to anchor the ground floor of each building below a horizontal band generally situated between the first and second floor, or second and third level. This band technique often is used to visually break up a large facade. Buildings are articulated at the second and third level with window bays and covered decks having varying depths and dimensions. In addition to the fiber cement trims in contrasting colors, other architectural elements include corbel supports for second and third level building projections and decks, gable end ridge beam 13 of 20 details, wooden deck railings and porch posts accented with kickers, corbelled pot shelves, and decorative shutters for upper level windows. All front doors are detailed with a four -pane window at the top to allow natural light. All windows are presented as double -hung, and each rear elevation reflects the metal sectional garage doors serving each unit. Since all of the proposed buildings share similar forms and features, the building type among the five types listed is more a function of unit mix and color scheme rather than architectural style. The architectural style is carried into the landscape and open space plan with the proposed hardscape materials and amenities within the common recreational and open space areas. Two colors schemes are shown along with the proposed brick veneer accent materials and roof materials. (See Attachment 4, Sheet A5.00) The buildings adjacent to Dublin Blvd will require interior and exterior sound attenuation in accordance with the requirements of the Mitigation Measures contained in the EDSP and the recommendations of the March 2013 acoustic study. PARKING — The proposed townhouse project would be built in compliance with the standard currently shown with the proposed PD rezoning of 2 covered spaces per unit within an enclosed garage plus one guest space per unit for a total parking requirement of 366 spaces. This figure includes: a) 244 covered spaces — 2 spaces per units within an attached enclosed garage b) 123 guest spaces (122 spaces required) provided The location of parking provided is shown on Attachment 4 Sheet C.3 LANDSCAPING - As in any higher density community, landscaping and recreational amenities are used to provide quality open areas and visual relief. The landscaping is generous and has been designed to be compatible and complement the architecture as to theme and character of the residential structures. Plantings and hardscape elements are used to create neighborhood identification and an attractive community entry. All project streets, perimeter sidewalks, interior sidewalks, paths, paseos, and common areas are shaded and enhanced by trees and plantings to soften architectural ends, highlight entries, and minimize the overall scale of the structures. A combination of evergreen and deciduous trees, shrubs, groundcover, and grasses are proposed for color, texture, contrast, screening, direction to amenities, and overall project identity. The proposed listing of plant materials is shown on Attachment 4, Landscape Architecture tab, Sheet L -2. Paseos - Pedestrian circulation is accommodated and emphasized by a series of paseos which serve as the common areas, interface with front door entries, and presentation of the neighborhood image. The paseos feature a scored concrete pathway of approximately 4 feet wide flanked by narrow trees, shade tolerant flowering shrubs, and groundcover. Each end unit entrance is highlighted by an arbor, attached to a low front porch railing, in a style complementary to the building architecture. The residential paseos range in width from approximately 12 feet between front porch railings to 20 feet between building facades. Depending upon length, each paseo is designed with one or more residential courtyards or "landings" of scored concrete as a complement to the landscaping; the proposed landscape plan shows 13 of these features. Pedestrian level bollards are proposed to provide pathway illumination. (See Attachment 4, Landscape Architecture tab, Sheet L -4) 14 of 20 Pocket Park — The location of the pocket park near the Maguire Way entrance is identified within the drive aisle by enhanced paving in the form of decorative cast concrete unit paving stones leading to a scored concrete surface behind the curb face. An entry gate defines the site with a low neighborhood wall clad in a complementary brick veneer and a 3 -foot high stained wooden border fence. A scored concrete footpath serves as a continuation of the adjacent paseo and divides the park into two areas. Footpath surfaces within the park are composed of scored concrete pads joined by areas of decomposed granite. This recreational amenity will provide a quiet garden retreat, as well as an area for social gatherings and other activities. Both feature landscaping with planters, fixed benches, and trash receptacles. The southerly area would include a pre -cast planter /fountain as a focal point along with lush ground cover. In addition to fixed benches, the northerly portion would be equipped with a picnic table, lighting, two stained wooden pergolas with rose vines, and a stained wooden arbor, each in an architectural style that complements the buildings. STREETSCAPE — A streetscape concept has been shown for Dublin Boulevard and street sections with proposed improvements are shown for each type of internal drive aisle. Drive aisles are generally 20 feet wide except where adjacent to perpendicular guest parking; in those cases drive aisles would be 24 feet wide, and 28 feet wide on aisles with one side of parallel parking. A small landscaped planter would be maintained within a narrow setback between garage doors along the rear elevation. Landscape treatment details are included for the four perimeter frontages: Dublin Boulevard — Street trees will be placed in a triangular pattern in the parkway behind the sidewalk to create a "grove" effect while maintaining the theme of a traditional tree -lined residential street consistent with the Streetscape Master Plan. Since the building grade is higher than street level at this location, drive aisle ends shall be treated with transparent iron fencing. Ground -level retaining walls will be hidden with a landscaped slope or, where exposed, finished with stucco or brick veneer and cap details compatible with the on -site improvements. Landscaping will consist of flowering groundcover and shrubs adjacent to the sidewalk and parkway. The mid -level and upper levels of the slope would be planted with taller shrubs and grasses to provide texture, color, and a cascading effect to control erosion. Taller upright shrubs will be placed at the top of the slope adjacent to the on -site perimeter walkway and building ends to serve as a buffer for pedestrians and screening from Dublin Boulevard. (See Attachment 4, Landscape Architecture tab, Sheet L -6) Keegan and Lockhart Streets — Landscape materials will be a continuation of the established streetscape concepts for the adjacent Oak Groves projects to the north. Corner monuments and neighborhood identification markers are proposed for both corners at Dublin Boulevard consistent with the architectural style of the project and complementary to existing monuments along Dublin Boulevard. As with Dublin Boulevard, a slight grade differential will be evident between the existing improved right -of -way and the finished building grade. A variety of flowering shrubs and grasses are proposed in a tiered arrangement with lower flowering groundcover adjacent to the sidewalk and taller cascading shrubs and grasses on the upper parts of the slope. Smaller flowering secondary trees would be used at building ends to reduce mass and scale and provide seasonal color. Street trees also would be consistent with the adopted street concept. Pedestrian access to the project site from the adjacent public right -of -way would be at two locations along the easterly edge of the project site adjacent to Lockhart Street. Pedestrian interfaces will be highlighted with flowering trees. (See Attachment 4, Landscape Architecture tab, Sheets L -7 and L -8) 15 of 20 Maguire Way — A street concept with a designated street tree already has been established for Maguire Way as part of the apartment project to the north and will be consistent along the south side adjacent to the proposed project. Accent landscaping of secondary flowering trees will be used to minimize the vertical scale of the architecture. The main entrance and marketing window to the proposed project along Maguire Way will highlight accent plantings through a combination of evergreen flowering shrubs, grasses, and ground cover. Vesting Tentative Tract Map (The Groves Lot 3, only) Vesting Tentative Tract 8164 is proposed to be subdivided for condominium purposes as follows.. TABLE 7: Vesting Tentative Map Parcel Development Parcel Acreage (net) Description 1 .34 ± Building E (Residential) 8 units 2 .55 ± Building D (Residential) 14 units 3 .35 ± Building B (Residential) 10 units 4 .20 ± Building A (Residential) 4 units 5 .48 ± Building C (Residential) 13 units 6 .48 ± Building D (Residential) 14 units 7 .27 ± Building CX (Residential) 6 units 8 .46 ± Building D (Residential) 14 units 9 .43 ± Building C (Residential) 12 units 10 .41 ± Building C (Residential) 12 units 11 .52 ± Buildings DX and EX (Residential) 15 units A 1.47 ± Internal Circulation System - Private Street B .40 ± Maguire Way - Private Street (existing) Total 6.36 122 units Conditions of Approval are included in the Resolution recommending approval (Attachment 5). All utilities are available at the property line; all perimeter streets and right -of -way already have been dedicated, and streets have been improved. Perimeter sidewalks and landscaping would be constructed as part of this project. Public Art Compliance — This project is subject to compliance with the City's Public Art Ordinance. The Ordinance requires the Applicant's contribution will be .5% of the aggregate value of the home construction to be determined and calculated by the City's Building Official. The Applicant has submitted a Public Art Compliance Report included in the project submittal package and proposes to pay in -lieu fees. An appropriate Condition of Approval has been included. (See Attachment 5, Condition 29). CONSISTENCY WITH GENERAL PLAN, SPECIFIC PLAN & ZONING ORDINANCE The application includes proposed amendments to the General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan. Subarea 3 includes a request for PD- Planned Development rezoning with related Stage 1 Development Plan. The Groves Lot 3 includes a request for Planned Development rezoning and a related Stage 1 and Stage 2 Development Plan. The proposed amendments to the General Plan and the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan reflect land uses that are compatible with the adjacent areas and surrounding development. For The Groves Lot 3, the proposed land use represents a reduction in residential density than approved previously but effectively corresponds to the number of units anticipated for this area prior to the granting of density bonuses as an incentive for providing affordable housing. The proposed project will contribute to housing opportunities and diversity of product type as a complement to the surrounding neighborhoods. The proposed Stage 1 Planned Development rezoning for both 16 of 20 projects and the proposed Stage 2 Development Plan for The Groves Lot 3 would be consistent with the requested land use amendments. Both projects have been reviewed for conformance with the Community Design and Sustainability Element of the General Plan which evaluates compatibility of the design with adjacent and surrounding development via pedestrian circulation, gathering spaces, open spaces, and integration with the village concept. In general, the proposed project furthers the goals of the Community Design and Sustainability Element of the General Plan by providing a high quality of life and preserving resources and opportunities for future generations. REVIEW BY APPLICABLE DEPARTMENT AND AGENCIES: The Building Division, Fire Prevention Bureau, Public Works Department, Dublin Police Services and Dublin San Ramon Services District reviewed the projects to ensure that they are planned and will be built in compliance with all local Ordinances and Regulations. Conditions of Approval from these departments and agencies will be included at the time of Site Development Reviews and Subdivision applications for Subarea 3 and have been included in the attached Resolution pertaining to the Site Development Review and Vesting Tentative Map (Attachment 5) for The Groves Lot 3. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: The projects are located within the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan area, which was the subject of an Environmental Impact Report for the General Plan Amendment and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan (SCH # 91103064), certified by the City Council in Resolution No. 51 -93. The General Plan Amendment /Specific Plan EIR is a program EIR, which anticipated several subsequent actions related to future development in Eastern Dublin and identified some impacts from implementation of the General Plan Amendment /Specific Plan that could not be mitigated to less than significant. Upon approval of the Eastern Dublin project, the City adopted a statement of overriding considerations for such impacts. The City also adopted a mitigation- monitoring program, which included numerous measures intended to reduce impacts from the development of the Eastern Dublin area. The environmental impacts of the existing land uses were addressed by the Negative Declaration approved by the City Council in Resolution No. 140 -97 for the Planned Development Rezoning for 453 acres of Dublin Ranch (Areas B -E). For Subarea 3 - The City prepared an Addendum, determining that no additional environmental analysis was required beyond the prior Eastern Dublin EIR and 1997 ND. For The Groves Lot 3 - Impacts have been found to be the same or less than those analyzed previously with no further environmental review required. In June 2003, the City prepared an Initial Study for Fairway Ranch to determine whether there would be supplemental environmental impacts occurring as a result of this project beyond or different from those already addressed in the Program EIR and the 1997 Negative Declaration. The Initial Study concluded that the proposed project could not have a significant effect on the environment because the environmental impacts of this project were fully addressed by the final EIR for the General Plan Amendment, Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment and subsequent Addenda, and the 1997 Negative Declaration. Since the number of units currently proposed for The Groves Lot 3 is less than initially evaluated, impacts from the proposed project have been found to be the same or less than those analyzed previously and would not require any further environmental review. An Initial Study was prepared for Subarea 3, and a determination was made to prepare an Addendum to the Eastern Dublin EIR and 1997 ND, included as Exhibit A to the Draft City 17 of 20 Council Ordinance. Attachment 6 is a draft Planning Commission Resolution recommending that the City Council adopt the Addendum. Pursuant to the 2002 Citizens for a Better Environment case, approval of the Addendum will include a Statement of Overriding Considerations for significant unavoidable impacts identified in the prior EIR that are applicable to the project or project site. All other EIRs NDs, Resolutions, and Ordinances referenced above and throughout the Staff Report are incorporated herein by reference and are available for review at City Hall, 100 Civic Plaza, Dublin, California during business hours. PUBLIC NOTICING: In accordance with State law, a public notice was mailed to all property owners and occupants within 300 feet of the proposed project to advertise the project and the upcoming public hearing. A public notice was also published in the Valley Times and posted at several locations throughout the City. A copy of this Staff Report has been provided to the Applicant. ATTACHMENTS: 1) Resolution recommending that the City Council adopt a Resolution approving General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendments for Dublin Ranch Subarea 3 and The Groves Lot 3 with the draft City Council Resolution attached as Exhibit A 2) Resolution recommending that the City Council adopt an Ordinance approving a Planned Development Zoning District for Subarea 3 with a related Stage 1 Development Plan to replace uses adopted by Ordinance 24 -97, with the draft City Council Ordinance attached as Exhibit A 3) Resolution recommending that the City Council adopt an Ordinance for the Groves Lot 3 to a Planned Development Zoning District with related Stage 1 and Stage 2 Development Plan, with draft City Council Ordinance attached as Exhibit A 4) The Groves Lot 3 - Applicant's submittal package dated January 22, 2014 5 Resolution recommending that the City Council adopt a Resolution approving the Site Development Review Permit and Vesting Tentative Map 8164 for Lot 3 for 122 townhouse /condominium units on approximately 8.8 gross acres (6.36 net acres) 6) Resolution recommending that the City Council adopt a Resolution adopting an Addendum for Dublin Ranch Subarea 3, with draft City Council Resolution attached as Exhibit A 18 of 20 SUBAREA 3 GENERAL INFORMATION (PLPA 2013 - 00033): APPLICANT: Kevin Fryer 5000 Hopyard Road, Suite 170 Pleasanton, CA 94588 PROPERTY OWNER: Dublin Ranch Subarea 3 Project Owner LLC managed by Integral Communities 500 La Gonda Way, Suite 102 Danville, CA 94526 Attn: Drew Kusnick LOCATION: ASSESSORS PARCEL EXISTING LAND USE DESIGNATION: EXISTING ZONING: PROPOSED LAND USE DESIGNATION: PROPOSED RE- ZONING: SURROUNDING USES: North of Dublin Boulevard, south of Central Parkway, east of Lockhart Street, and west of Fallon Road APN 985 - 0027 -012 a) Medium Density Residential (6.1 to 14.0 units per acre) — 27.2 acres; b) Medium High Density Residential (14.1 to 25 units per acre) — 8.6 acres; c) Open Space — 24.9 acres; d) Stream Corridor — 1.3 acres; and e) Neighborhood Park — 2.0 acres City Council Ordinance 24 -97 a) Medium Density Residential (6.1 to 14.0 units per acre) — 38 acres, b) Medium High Density Residential (14.1 to 25 units per acre) — 7.5 acres; c) Rural Residential /Agricultural (1 unit per 100 acres) — 14.5 acres, d) Stream Corridor — 2.0 acres; and e) Neighborhood Park — 2.0 acres (no change). PD PLPA 2013 -00033 LOCATION ZONING GENERAL PLAN LAND USE CURRENT USE OF PROPERTY North PD Parks /Public Recreation Fallon Community Sports Park Vacant South C -O Campus Office Planned Hospital /Medical Facility East PD Medium -High Density Residential, vacant and Open Space High Density Residential vacant West PD (pending approval of (pending approval for 122 -unit Medium High Density Residential) townhouse /condominium project — The Groves Lot 3) 19 of 20 THE GROVES LOT 3 GENERAL INFORMATION (PLPA 2013 - 00034): APPLICANT: Kevin Fryer 5000 Hopyard Road, Suite 170 Pleasanton, CA 94588 PROPERTY OWNER: LOCATION: ASSESSORS PARCEL NUMBER: ZONING: GENERAL PLAN & EASTERN DUBLIN SPECIFIC PLAN: SURROUNDING USES: Lennar Homes 6121 Bollinger Canyon Road #500 San Ramon, CA 94583 North of Dublin Boulevard, south of Maguire Way (private street), east of Keegan Street, and west of Lockhart Street IG1 �►Es %�'�iI�LE:�iI�1•'�iI�7 Existin - PD -High Density Residential (Ord. 24 -97) Proposed — PD- Medium -High Density Residential Existin - High Density Residential Proposed - Medium -High Density Residential LOCATION ZONING GENERAL PLAN LAND USE CURRENT USE OF PROPERTY North PD High Density Residential Multi- family apartments (Oak Grove at Dublin Ranch) Vacant South C -O Campus Office Planned Hospital /Medical Facility Medium Density Residential Vacant East MDR (pending approval for Medium- (Dublin Ranch Subarea 3) High Density Residential) Multi - Family Residential West PD High Density Residential (The Terraces - 262 condominium units) 20 of 20 DRAFT DRAFT Planning Commission Minutes Tuesday, January 28, 2014 CALL TO ORDER/ROLL CALL Tuesday, January A regular meeting of the City of Dublin Planning Commission was held on 28, 2014 , in the City Council Chambers located at 100 Civic Plaza. Chair Bhuthimethee called the meeting to order at 7:01:12 PM Present: Chair Bhuthimethee; Vice Chair Goel; Commissioners Do, O’Keefe, and Kohli; Jeff Baker, Assistant Community Development Director; Kit Faubion, City Attorney; Seth Adams, Assistant Planner; Mike Porto, Consulting Planner; and Debra LeClair, Recording Secretary. Absent: None ADDITIONS OR REVISIONS TO THE AGENDANONE – MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETINGS – On a motion by Cm. Goel and seconded by Cm. O’Keefe, on a vote of 5-0, the Planning Commission unanimously approved the minutes of the January 14, 2014 meeting. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS NONE – CONSENT CALENDAR NONE – WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONSNONE – PUBLIC HEARINGS – PLPA-2013-00067 California Creekside 8.1 Conditional Use Permit to amend the General Provisions and Development Standards for the California Creekside Planned Development Zoning Seth Adams, Assistant Planner, presented the project as outlined in the Staff Report. Cm. Goel asked if the developer requested a variance for the additions that were built specific lots as non-conforming. Mr. Adams answered no; he felt it was an oversight. Cm. Goel asked why the oversight is coming to the Planning Commission at this point. Jeff Baker, Assistant Community Development Director, responded that the City became aware of the situation when the homeowner submitted a Site Development Review application to build an addition. He stated that, as Staff researched the application, it was discovered that when the subdivision was built, approximately 12-15 years ago, certain homes were inadvertently approved at a lot coverage that exceeded what the Planned Development allowed. Planning Commission January 28, 2014 Regular Meeting Page | 8 DRAFT DRAFT Cm. Goel felt that, if the Planning Commission approves the amendment, it should apply to all homeowners in the development giving them similar or equal opportunity for lot coverage. Mr. Baker answered that the Planning Commission is considering a proposal to formally adopt an amendment to legalize what has already been built. The amendment would not change the standards for other residents to further intensify their homes beyond the approved max lot coverage. He stated that the adjacent homeowners bought their homes knowing the neighboring house was there and are not proposing to intensify the development any further than what they bought into. Cm. Goel asked if the Planning Commission would be amending the PD for those specific lots or providing a variance. Mr. Baker answered that the Planning Commission would be amending the PD in order to allow the homes that were built at the excess lot coverage to be legalized. Cm. Goel asked if there had been any feedback from the community. Mr. Baker answered no. Cm. Do asked, of the homes built at the excess lot coverage, what was the percentage above the 35% to 40%. Mr. Adams answered that he found some lots as high as 48% on a two-story home. Cm. Do asked how many homes were built at the excess lot coverage. Mr. Adams responded that Staff is unclear. He stated that once one home was discovered, additional homes were analyzed that appeared to have been built in excess of the standard. It then became apparent that there were more. Chair Bhuthimethee opened the public hearing. Ravi Bala, 4632 Hawk Way, neighbor of property owner, spoke regarding the project. He stated that, although the Applicant is a great neighbor, he was concerned with the proposed addition to his neighbor’s home and how it would impact the light and view at his own home. He stated that he had not seen the plans for the addition yet. Chair Bhuthimethee asked what side of the Applicant’s property his property was located. Mr. Bala stated that his home, if facing the Applicant’s house, is on the right side. Cm. Goel asked if his home faced east/west or north/south and asked if he was concerned with the light during the morning or evening. Mr. Bala answered that his home faces east with a window on the east and the south sides. He felt that there is a lot of natural light from the south window during midday, but the east facing window receives very little light. He stated that the south window faces the Applicant’s house which is where the addition would be located. Planning Commission January 28, 2014 Regular Meeting Page | 9 DRAFT DRAFT Cm. Kohli asked if he is objecting to any addition and also asked if he had discussions with the Applicant regarding the addition and its impacts on his residence. Mr. Bala responded that he is not objecting to any addition but he had not reviewed the plans yet. Mr. Baker stated that the Planning Commission is reviewing an amendment to the PD that proposes to allow second floor additions and would be the standard for the entire PD; the Planning Commission is not reviewing a specific Site Development Review (SDR) Permit at this time. Kevin McAuliffe, Applicant, spoke in favor of the project. He stated that he is willing to work with his neighbor to reduce the impact of the addition to Mr. Bala’s home. Chair Bhuthimethee closed the public hearing. Cm. Kohli asked, if the amendment is approved, will the SDR for the addition be heard by the Planning Commission or will it become a private matter between the neighbors. Mr. Baker answered that currently the zoning does not allow for the addition. If the PD Amendment is approved, the Applicant will be required to submit an application for an SDR; if the addition is under 500 sf, it would not require SDR. Cm. Kohli asked if there were any other comments, either for or against the amendment. Mr. Baker answered no. Cm. Goel asked if a notice was sent to all homeowners in the area. Mr. Baker answered that all the residents within PD district were sent notices for the hearing. Cm. Goel asked if the PD Amendment would impact 30 of the 150 homes. Mr. Adams answered that at the time of the first PD amendment, which allowed for first floor additions, of the 154 homes in the development, only approximately 30 homes could potentially build a first floor addition because of lot coverage restrictions. He added that the current PD Amendment proposal would allow second story additions to all 154 homes in the development just as is allowed throughout the City. Cm. Goel asked if other homeowners within the development wanted to build an addition, would they require approvals of the other property owners, how would they obtain a permit and would impacts to other properties be considered when approving the SDR. Mr. Baker answered that residential additions under 500 sf do not require an SDR permit. If the addition is larger than 500 sf, according to a citywide Zoning Code, it would require an SDR permit which could be approved by the Community Development Director and also requires noticing all property owners/residents within 300 feet of the project. Cm. Goel asked for an explanation of the SDR requirement of less-than 500 sf for residential additions and how the 500 sf was determined. Planning Commission January 28, 2014 Regular Meeting Page | 10 DRAFT DRAFT Mr. Baker responded that the requirement is part of the Zoning Code and was approved along with other Zoning Code amendments through a recommendation by the Planning Commission. Cm. Goel asked if the 500 sf guideline could be altered. Cm. Baker answered that it could be altered for the current PD Amendment, but not citywide. Cm. Goel asked if altering the Zoning Code would require a different process and how could the Planning Commission change the guideline. Mr. Baker asked Cm. Goel if he was concerned with the public notice part of the SDR process. Cm. Goel asked if the Planning Commission approved the PD Amendment; how would that happen and how would that alter the application process for a typical SDR permit. Mr. Baker responded that it would depend on what part of the SDR process that the Planning Commission wanted to change. He felt that Cm. Goel wanted to require an addition, over a nd certain size, to require a public notice so that if a neighbor were building a 2 floor addition the neighbors would be notified. He felt that the Planning Commission could require any addition above a certain square footage to require an SDR and that requirement would be added to the PD. Cm. Goel asked if the SDR permit would be heard by the Planning Commission. Mr. Baker answered that the Planning Commission could also require a public hearing before the Planning Commission for those SDRs. He stated that currently the Zoning Code helps to streamline some of the smaller projects by allowing approval at the Staff level by the Community Development Director. He stated that the Planning Commission could consider a similar process by establishing the size threshold and anything over that threshold would require an SDR permit approved by the Community Development Director or if the Planning Commission wants to hear all of those projects they can set it up that way also. Cm. Goel felt that the question was: if the Planning Commission wanted to alter the square footage requirement for an SDR, would that modification mean that the current item would need to come to the Planning Commission again or would it be part of the current item. Mr. Baker responded that the Planning Commission could make the square footage requirement part of the agendized item and take action on it at this meeting. Kit Faubion, City Attorney, responded that the project before the Planning Commission addresses the PD zoning for the development through a Conditional Use Permit (CUP). That means this is a minor amendment and would not change the concept of the zoning. She suggested that, as the Planning Commission is considering alternatives, they should look at whether this is still minor enough that it fits within the CUP process for amending the PD zoning as opposed to something more complicated. Cm. Goel asked if reducing the square footage for SDR approval would fall under the CUP process for amending the PD Zoning. Planning Commission January 28, 2014 Regular Meeting Page | 11 DRAFT DRAFT Mr. Baker answered that when the Planning Commission determines what they want to do, Staff could give them more definitive answers, but changing the square footage for SDR approval would appear to be a minor amendment to the PD which could be handled through a CUP. Cm. O’Keefe agreed with Cm. Goel regarding lowering the square footage requirement for noticing the neighbors. He also felt that it would be appropriate to legalize all non-conforming homes through the PD Amendment. Cm. Do agreed. Cm. Kohli agreed and felt that the community should be able to address the issue between themselves but felt that there should be measures in place to ensure that the neighbors are informed of additions that may impact their homes. He felt that the homeowners should have the option to bring an SDR application for a second story addition to the Planning Commission. Cm. O’Keefe clarified that he would not be in favor of bringing all SDRs to the Planning Commission and would continue to support Staff level approvals, if the SDR is a certain size. Chair Bhuthimethee clarified that the PD Amendment for the CA Creekside development was brought to the Planning Commission because it is unique in the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan (EDSP), in that it is different than every other development. She stated that the CA Creekside nd PD is the only PD in the City that does not allow 2 story additions. Mr. Baker agreed. Chair Bhuthimethee felt that the Planning Commission was in support of legalizing the legal non-conforming homes so that every PD in the EDSP would be the same. Cm. Goel stated that he is in support of legalizing the non-conforming homes. He was concerned, as a realtor, that second story additions could be a problem. He was also concerned that CA Creekside was the only development that chose not to allow additions and wanted to know more about the history of that decision. He felt there should be systems in place to avoid this situation in the future. He felt that if the SDR permits, above a certain square footage, were allowed to be approved at Staff level, it would not allow for public input. He felt that a home that is subject to an impact may not be able to have the level of opportunity to speak in position through a Staff level choice. He was unhappy with the SDR process. Chair Bhuthimethee stated that the SDR’s would still go through a Staff review. Her concern about reducing the SDR Zoning Code for this PD to 200 sf, or whatever is decided, is that the CA Creekside PD would still be the only development in the City with a 200 sf restriction. Cm. Kohli asked if when homeowners bought their homes, they bought them with the understanding that there was no option for additions. Mr. Baker responded that the zoning was set up that way when the development was approved, but was not sure if the residents understood the zoning requirements or if they knew the restrictions at the time they purchased their home. Cm. Kohli asked if there were other developments with this restriction in Dublin. Planning Commission January 28, 2014 Regular Meeting Page | 12 DRAFT DRAFT Mr. Baker responded that each PD is slightly different, but none have this type of standard regarding additions. He stated that when the CA Creekside PD was originally adopted there were no additions allowed. There was a subsequent PD amendment to allow first floor additions and the proposed PD Amendment would allow second story additions. Cm. O’Keefe felt that the Planning Commission is in agreement to allow the community to build second story additions to their homes. He stated that the resident who spoke did not have concerns with allowing second floor addition. He felt that if the Planning Commission lowers the square footage requirement for noticing, the residents will receive a notice and have an opportunity to speak with Staff regarding their concerns. Mr. Baker answered yes; the residents would be able to voice their concerns and Staff would take those into consideration. He stated that there is also the option that the Community Development Director could refer the decision making to the Planning Commission. Cm. O’Keefe stated that he would like for the process for SDR’s to remain at Staff level, with the option to refer decision making to the Planning Commission if needed. Cm. Kohli agreed. Cm. Goel stated that his position was to create a trigger mechanism whereby an SDR will not be approved automatically because it is in Building Code conformance. He would like to see a process that creates the noticing and seeks the approval process. He agreed that all SDR permit applications do not need to be heard by the Planning Commission. He was concerned with a harsh trigger and felt that 200 sf (10’X20’) is easy to achieve on the back of a home. He felt that there was some type of underlining reasons why the PD was set up with these restrictions and why the Planning Commission only allowed for the lower story; he felt that there was more to it than meets the eye. Cm. Do agreed and felt it was important for the public to have the option of knowing that there will be an addition that could impact their home. She agreed that the trigger for noticing should be a 200 sf addition. Chair Bhuthimethee asked if 200 sf is what the Planning Commission is proposing. Cm. Goel felt it should be lower but agreed with 200 sf. He felt the decision should be subject to comment from Staff and the City Attorney as far as what can and cannot be done and how to achieve it. Mr. Baker asked if the Planning Commission is proposing to modify the Resolution: Amended Condition #2 to add item “e,” which would read: Residential additions which are over 200 sf in size shall be subject to Site Development Review by the Community Development Director in accordance with the Zoning Ordinance permit procedures. Mr. Baker stated that would trigger the noticing as well as the opportunity to refer decision making to the Planning Commission. Cm. Goel asked if the Community Development Director would still be able to refer the decision to the Planning Commission if he felt it was necessary. Planning Commission January 28, 2014 Regular Meeting Page | 13 DRAFT DRAFT Mr. Baker stated that there is a process in the Zoning Code that allows for that. On a motion by Cm. Goel and seconded by Cm. Kohli, on a vote of 5-0, the Planning Commission unanimously adopted, with a modification to Condition #2 by adding item “e” as stated above: RESOLUTION NO. 14 - 02 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO AMEND THE GENERAL PROVISIONS AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR THE CALIFORNIA CREEKSIDE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT ZONING PLPA 2013-00033 Dublin Ranch Subarea 3 8.2 General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment and Planned Development Rezone with a Stage 1 Development Plan, PLPA 2013-00034 The Groves at Dublin Ranch (Lot 3) and General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment, Planned Development Rezone with a Stage 1 and Stage 2 Development Plan, Site Development Review, and Vesting Tentative Map 8164 for 122 townhouse/condominium units Mike Porto, Consulting Planner, presented the project as outlined in the Staff Report. Subarea 3 - Discussion Cm. Goel asked if the Initial Study CEQA addendum is part of the project tonight. Mr. Porto answered that the Planning Commission is being requested to adopt a resolution recommending that the City Council approve the document. Chair Bhuthimethee asked about the $1.8 million Community Benefit Payment for the Fallon Sports Park. She asked if there was any thought about trails in the project and mentioned she had read something about the stream corridor. Mr. Porto responded that currently there is an existing open space corridor that starts in Area A of Dublin Ranch along the west side of Fallon Road. Adjacent to the trail is a mitigation area that was required by Fish and Wildlife to mitigate areas of development in other portions of Dublin Ranch. He explained the route of the trail and pointed out an area that was planted in conjunction with the resource agency requirement. He stated that the developer would be required to submit Site Development Review in the future to connect the trail to the park and then to the intersection of Dublin Blvd and Fallon Gateway. Chair Bhuthimethee asked if there is a trail connecting to the open space area to the east of Fallon Road. Planning Commission January 28, 2014 Regular Meeting Page | 14 DRAFT DRAFT Mr. Porto responded that, in the Parks and Trails Master Plan, there is an east/west trail on Dublin Blvd. He stated that it is intended that there be a trail on the north and south sides of Dublin Blvd. which is an on-street bike path. Chair Bhuthimethee asked about the “bumps” on the site; she asked if the one on the southeast will be retained. Mr. Porto pointed out the hill that will be retained. He stated that it will be slightly modified, but it has been slightly modified before. Chair Bhuthimethee asked if the hill he pointed out was the one that was moved. Mr. Porto answered yes; he added that both “bumps” on the project were moved. He stated that Fallon Road was supposed to follow a certain trajectory but, because of the red legged frogs, they had to push Fallon Road and ended up pushing the hill westerly and at the same time the alignment of Central Parkway also required the hillside to be reconfigure. Cm. Goel referred the Planning Commission to Table 2 in the Staff Report. He stated that Staff mentioned that the current project represents a reduction in housing units, but from his review on the upper end of the acreage calculations, the net units are actually increasing by 120 units and asked if that was accurate. Mr. Porto answered yes based on the range of the land uses that are being proposed. Cm. Goel asked if that would be the maximum amount of units for this development. Ms. Faubion stated that the General Plan has a range of units for each land use designation. She stated that within Eastern Dublin all development requires Planned Development Zoning and which sets the range for the minimum and maximum number of units. She stated that, while the General Plan range might go to 600-700 units, the required PD Ordinance fixes that at a lesser amount. Therefore, a developer could not build a development of 719 units; the PD Zoning would not allow it. Cm. Goel felt that the PD Zoning would use the new basis of the upper limit of 719 units as its basis for setting its threshold lower. Ms. Faubion answered that the PD sets a maximum number of units and in this case the maximum number would be 437 units. Mr. Porto stated that the current allowable development potential on the site, based on the existing Planned Development Zoning, is 484 units. He added that the developer has proposed to build no more than 437 units; the initial study and CEQA addendum only studied 437 units. Therefore, it is intended that the developer will follow this application with another application for a Stage 2 Development Plan which will lock in the number of units, an SDR locking in the number of units and a vesting tentative map locking in the number of units. Cm. Goel referred to Page 57 of the CEQA document which mentions the Livermore Airport and its impact. He asked if this development took into consideration the potential use of the pending Kaiser property and any air path associated with that project. Planning Commission January 28, 2014 Regular Meeting Page | 15 DRAFT DRAFT Mr. Porto stated that Kaiser has not submitted an application for their property and it is unknown what they will do. Cm. Goel felt Kaiser had not been considered with this project. Mr. Porto answered no; not at this time. Mr. Baker responded that, if Kaiser or some other project were to submit an application, an analysis would be done as part of that project and impacts to the surrounding areas would be considered. Cm. Goel felt that the Kaiser project would have impacts on this project. Mr. Baker asked if Cm. Goel was referring to a possible future helicopter or helipad. Cm. Goel answered yes; potentially, because the project would not have taken into account the impact of the Kaiser project. Mr. Baker answered that, if and when they submit an application and it includes a heliport that would be analyzed as part of that project. Cm. Goel referred to Page 61 of the CEQA Addendum that was related to previous CEQA documents regarding transportation and traffic. He read a section that referred to the number of impacts that could not be reduced to a level of insignificance even with mitigations. He asked if there were any thoughts about mitigation measures regarding traffic impacts. Ms. Faubion stated that the context for this CEQA document is an addendum which means the impacts of developing these sites were examined on an EIR level through the Eastern Dublin EIR, out 20-30 years, and looked at potential traffic impacts at key intersections. Mitigations were identified where they could be, and they will continue to apply to all the development in Eastern Dublin. She stated that for some intersections there were not sufficient mitigations to reduce them all the way so they were identified as significant and unavoidable. The consequence of that was that the City Council had to make overriding considerations weighed against the benefits of the project. She stated that going through the addendum process and looking at a particular site, occasionally some mitigation might be found that arises in connection with the site. But the big picture impacts have not changed over time. She added that the CEQA document is referring back to the determination of significance to the Eastern Dublin EIR and if there are additional mitigations they are identified in the addendum or other subsequent documents. Jerry Haag, Environmental Consultant, author of the CEQA Addendum, stated that the Applicant would be required to pay the Eastern Dublin Transportation Impact Fees which help build a lot of the program improvements that are anticipated as part of the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan. He mentioned that there is current construction on I-580 to widen a portion of it which is partially paid for by the Eastern Dublin Transportation Fees. He stated that, even though the transportation issues cannot be fully mitigated, it can be helped by the fees. Cm. Goel asked Mr. Haag to explain the Comparative Trip Rate analysis table in the Addendum. He was interested in the capacity of Dublin Blvd which is currently approaching a level of service F. Planning Commission January 28, 2014 Regular Meeting Page | 16 DRAFT DRAFT Mr. Haag stated that is correct. He added that, as the City Attorney pointed out, this is one piece of a large puzzle which is the Eastern Dublin Area. He stated that when the Eastern Dublin EIR was certified in 1993 they assumed that traffic would be bad but this project would be contributing fewer peak trips than was analyzed 20 years ago. Cm. Goel interpreted the information that there would be a reduction of 24 trips with the project. Mr. Haag answered that the project would be reducing 279 trips on a 24 hour basis which would be a small reduction, but a reduction. Cm. Goel asked if the analysis took into consideration that Dublin Blvd is proposed to connect with Airway Blvd and the peak flow associated with that at 2035 calculations. Mr. Haag responded that they assumed the Dublin Blvd traffic model at build out which is used for the calculation and confirmed by the City Traffic Engineer and was taken into consideration. Cm. Goel asked if the City Traffic Engineer had reviewed the document recently. Mr. Haag answered yes; he reviewed the document that is being examined tonight. Cm. Goel interpreted the statement on Page 63 of the Addendum as “if approved and constructed the project would continue to contribute significant and unavoidable accumulative project impacts as part of the larger Eastern Dublin project.” Mr. Haag stated that is a true statement. He stated that there would be a small reduction; the addendum states that the City is making a small change to the 1993 EDEIR, and that document said that if of all the land uses that are assumed in the General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan (EDSP), one of the intersections will be overburdened. He stated that when the City adopted the EDSP they made a decision that there would be traffic impacts but the benefit of the project outweighed those impacts, so they approve the project anyway. He stated that the City has been operating that way in Eastern Dublin for 20 years. Ms. Faubion gave a brief background regarding the addendum process. She stated that CEQA has strict rules for when an EIR has already been prepared for a project; there are limitations as to whether and what type of review the City can require for subsequent projects. She stated that the current project will not have any worse or substantially more severe impacts than assumed the first time. She stated that the development of the project is proposed to be reduced from 484 to 437 and then the question is - is there an impact that is a new significant impact; the answer is no because the impact was identified in the 1993 EDEIR; is it substantially more severe than identified before, no; it is not worse and could be better because of the reduction in the number of units. Chair Bhuthimethee asked if the “weeded patch” will be retained or will it be developed and asked Mr. Porto to point it out on the slide. Mr. Porto pointed out the area on the slide and answered that the plan was conceived after comments were received by the Applicant from the City Council at their meeting regarding the development aspects that were a concern for them in this area. The Applicant heard what City Council said and felt they produced a development that meets those concerns. Planning Commission January 28, 2014 Regular Meeting Page | 17 DRAFT DRAFT Chair Bhuthimethee asked if the hill is the area that was to be retained for viticulture. Mr. Porto answered yes. Chair Bhuthimethee asked if the topography would remain but possibly be developed into vineyards. Mr. Porto answered yes. Chair Bhuthimethee felt that was a best case scenario and asked if there is a worst case scenario regarding that area. She asked if the area could be developed into anything but the vineyard as proposed. Mr. Porto answered yes; it’s a hillside so it would be difficult to grow any crops other than grapes. He stated that the area needed the Rural Residential/Agricultural land use designation to allow the vineyard to occur. Chair Bhuthimethee asked if the vineyard could occur if the area were designated open space. Mr. Porto answered no; it would have to be something conducive to a hillside development and grapes were the only crop that had potential. Chair Bhuthimethee asked if the thought was to preserve the hill and the view corridor, could it be restored to resemble the other hills behind it. Mr. Porto asked if Chair Bhuthimethee was asking to rebuild the hills that are already there. Chair Bhuthimethee answered no; she was asking if anyone thought to keep the hill and restore it as native land as opposed to creating a vineyard. Mr. Porto answered that the land is private open space, not public open space and it is the developer’s responsibility to develop it in some way. He felt that the developer will probably install landscaping to enhance what is currently there. Chair Bhuthimethee opened the public hearing. Kevin Fryer, on behalf of both Applicants, spoke in favor of the project. He thanked Staff for their efforts on the project. He stated that there is a more detailed plan for the project but it is not ready to be submitted as yet. He stated that the idea for the “open space” and the intention to change the designation from Open Space to Rural Residential was to allow activation of the space. He felt it serves as a visual barrier and their intention is to continue that use by moving the easterly hill down and retaining the vitality and screening of the open space. He stated that, at the time the project was submitted to City Council, there was a discussion regarding potential viticulture, which has morphed over time, and the reality is that the use is very complicated. He stated that trail connectivity is an essential part of the plan and they would like to preserve some open space on the project. He stated that they initially studied 484 units on the site but their land plan is for 437 units and they hope to bring the plan to the Planning Commission in the near future. He stated that the developers have no intention of increasing that number. He stated they would like to move forward with the land plan and they are very happy with it. He Planning Commission January 28, 2014 Regular Meeting Page | 18 DRAFT DRAFT stated that City Council’s direction was to maintain the essential idea of the hills and still provide additional community benefit. He stated they looked for something that would immediately provide recreation opportunities in the area and identified funding for the Astroturf fields at the Fallon Sports Park. He stated their plan is to provide the community benefit above the park fees that would otherwise be paid and to provide those funds as soon as the project is approved. He stated that the project was brought to the City Council previously and the Applicant was asked to come back and study converting additional open space, as long as the unit count did not increase, they would maintain visual screening, create an amenity, and be able to provide additional community benefit. He stated they would appreciate the opportunity to move the project forward and to address the Planning Commission’s concerns. Chair Bhuthimethee asked if they cannot plant a vineyard, is it still worth it to convert the Open Space to Rural Residential/Agriculture. Mr. Fryer responded that he was not sure if the Rural Residential uses would allow for a vineyard but would defer to Staff. Mr. Porto responded that the Rural Residential/Agricultural land use gives the Applicant more opportunity to do something. He stated that the Open Space criteria of the General Plan and EDSP is limiting. He stated that in other developments land use changes were allowed from Open Space to Rural Residential/Agricultural in order to have more flexibility because they thought the Open Space land use criteria was too restrictive. Mr. Fryer mentioned that the plan will come back for the Planning Commission’s review but the goal is to have something passive that would allow pedestrian access. Cm. Goel asked, besides the existing and the proposed land uses, what other combinations were reviewed. Mr. Fryer answered that they reviewed quite a few and their intention was to leave the Medium High Density on the northeast corner of the site and it was a late decision to change that. They worked with their team to find a better way to transition off the land uses to the west. He stated that they looked at a variety of land uses within medium density, but nothing less dense. He stated they focused on the medium-high and medium density, which was their vision for the site for a long time. He felt that there had been a variety of different product types reviewed in medium density on several areas within the project. Cm. Goel stated that he understood why they moved the medium high density to the western area of the site. He felt that moving up the project they could have focused more on lower density. He felt that as the hill goes up it transitions to other developments. He stated that to the east of Fallon Road is all open space across from the medium density area and was concerned how this project will look with the surrounding developments. Mr. Fryer responded that there is open space immediately east and south of Central Parkway and mixed use to the north of Central Parkway on the east side of Fallon Road and the Jordan Ranch, a mixed use townhouse project, on the corner. He felt that there is a variety of projects on that corner. He stated that being across from Fallon Sports Park and across from open space, there are more single-family traditional product types in the area. He stated their plan was to stay within the medium density range which is a slightly denser version than a low density project. Planning Commission January 28, 2014 Regular Meeting Page | 19 DRAFT DRAFT Chair Bhuthimethee closed the public hearing. Cm. Goel was concerned with the location for the nearest opportunity for an elementary school and felt that was Kolb Elementary is above its capacity. He felt that if the development moves forward, the other school that is supposed to alleviate the overcrowding at Kolb, will not be built in time. Cm. Kohli stated that there are two elementary schools that are going to be built; one in Positano and one by Jordan Ranch. Cm. Goel was still concerned with the elementary schools capacity. Chair Bhuthimethee felt that this development will be less dense than what was originally planned for. Cm. Goel disagreed; and was still concerned with the density of the project. He stated that he supported the element that moves the medium density closer to Lockhart Street but felt that it created more circulation problems with a drastic impact. He felt that the City did not anticipate the level of density or parking problem at the development across from Lowes and felt that this project would add to that problem. He stated he understood the General Plan and felt it sounded nice to have $1.8 million and Phase II of the Fallon Sports Park come forward is an attractive element, but, at the end of the day, he did not feel the community is going to say that they got a nice community park, but is still sitting in traffic and can’t get from point A to point B. He stated that he was concerned about the project from a complete perspective. Cm. O’Keefe stated that the Applicant has stated that they have locked in at 437 units but the range goes to 596 units. Cm. Goel stated that Staff indicated they have never gone to the maximum which is a calculation that is within the General Plan to provide a range of what the land use can deliver. Cm. O’Keefe asked Cm. Goel if he is concerned about a bait and switch where the Applicant changes his mind and instead of building 437 units they want 719 units. Cm. Goel answered no; because Staff indicated it would not be allowed to go to the upper limit. He stated that was not his concern, his concern is that, although it looks attractive at 437 units, he felt that the Planning Commission needs to look at what this development means to the overall plan. He stated that he understood, from a General Plan perspective, that it might fit nicely but some of the changes shown in Figure 2 of the Staff Report, compared to the density, he would rather keep the open space. Chair Bhuthimethee asked Staff to clarify that, if the Planning Commission denies the project, the Applicant is already approved for more than 437 units. Mr. Porto answered yes; and that the EDEIR studied 484 units in 1993 and if the development goes above that number it will trigger another environmental analysis that would head towards an EIR, therefore, it would be a significant work effort to exceed the 484 units that are already approved for under the existing General Plan Land Use designation. Planning Commission January 28, 2014 Regular Meeting Page | 20 DRAFT DRAFT Chair Bhuthimethee wanted to ensure that the Planning Commission understood that if they deny the project the Applicant is already approved for 484 units. Cm. Goel stated that is only 47 more units and should be put into perspective. Chair Bhuthimethee asked if there would be no Community Benefit Payment as well, if denied. Mr. Porto responded that the Community Benefit Payment is based on the development that the City Council expressed when they approved the General Plan Amendment study. They expressed the issue of taking some of the Open Space area and changing it to Rural Residential/Agriculture and possibly expanding the land use areas for development, but at a lower density. He stated that resulted in the developer offering $1.8 million up front as part of the community benefit for that allowance. Cm. O’Keefe stated that he is in support of the project and can make all the findings. Cm. Do stated that she is in support of the project and can make all the findings. She supported changing the Open Space to Rural Residential/Agriculture because, if there is open space that you cannot do anything with, it adds to the blandness of the hills. If it can be changed to make it visually better she is in support of that. Chair Bhuthimethee stated that she likes the open space and the hills. Her main interest was the connectivity to the trails and what type of community benefit the City is acquiring. Cm. Goel felt that the trail alignment can still be maintained along the eastern side of the stream corridor on both proposals. He felt that there is no drastic, appealing change between the two proposals. He felt that the only attractive change is the 47 unit reduction; a $1.8 million Community Benefit; and it moves the medium high density to immediately east of Lockhart Street and takes the eastern top portion and changes it to medium density, but adds a lot more units on the top of the hill side. He stated that if the density were lower, at 400 units or less, on Fallon Road along the entire western perimeter, there would be better view appeal and may alleviate the congestion. He felt that the Planning Commission should look at the big picture in the General Plan and also felt that the Planning Commission does not have to approve every project. Chair Bhuthimethee asked Mr. Baker for help with how to proceed. Mr. Baker suggested taking a straw vote on the 3 actions related to this project and then move on to The Groves Lot 3 and do the formal actions at the end of both presentations. He mentioned the three actions before the Planning Commission: Recommending that the City Council approve the CEQA Addendum; Recommending that the City Council approve the proposed GPA/EDSPA and Recommending that the City Council approve the Planned Development Zoning and Stage 1 Development Plan. Cm. Kohli asked if the Planning Commission denies the project what is the result and if the Planning Commission recommends City Council approve the project what is the result. Chair Bhuthimethee responded that the Planning Commission is only recommending to the City Council because it is ultimately their decision. Planning Commission January 28, 2014 Regular Meeting Page | 21 DRAFT DRAFT Cm. Kohli wanted to be clear as to the consequences of not recommending approval to the City Council as far as total units. Mr. Baker responded that the Planning Commission will make a recommendation the City Council who will make the final decision. If the project were not to be approved the developer is currently approved for 484 units, so they could fall back to that approval. Cm. Kohli asked if the project is approved at 484 units, could the developer go higher. Mr. Baker answered that if they wanted to go higher they would need to do a CEQA analysis and amend the PD so they would have to come back to the Planning Commission. Cm. Kohli understood that 400+ units will be built and what he felt Cm. Goel was concerned about was for the Planning Commission to take a step back and look at the development in the entire area and how the Planning Commission should approach development in general. Cm. Goel agreed with Cm. Kohli but was concerned with the number of units in the project and did not feel that this is the best package. He felt there are a lot of issues with the General Plan and many traffic issues that the Planning Commission must keep that in mind as part of their purview and understanding. He stated that the Planning Commission is making a recommendation to the City Council and he wanted to be able to say, as a Planning Commissioner, he looked at the project with full intent. Chair Bhuthimethee asked for a straw vote on the recommendations to City Council: Adopt a Resolution adopting an Addendum for Dublin Ranch Subarea 3: in favor Chair Bhuthimethee, Cm. Do, Cm. O’Keefe, Cm. Kohli against Cm. Goel Adopt a Resolution approving General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendments for Dublin Ranch Subarea 3 and The Groves Lot 3: in favor Chair Bhuthimethee, Cm. Do, Cm. O’Keefe, Cm. Kohli against Cm. Goel Adopt an Ordinance approving a Planned Development Zoning District for Subarea 3 with a related Stage 1 Development Plan to replace uses adopted by Ordinance 24-97: in favor Chair Bhuthimethee, Cm. Do, Cm. O’Keefe, Cm. Kohli against Cm. Goel The Groves Lot 3 - Discussion Mike Porto, Consulting Planner, presented the project as outlined in the Staff Report. Cm. Kohli asked if the original idea for this project was for 300+ apartments. Mr. Porto answered that it was originally condominiums that would be similar to the apartments. Planning Commission January 28, 2014 Regular Meeting Page | 22 DRAFT DRAFT Cm. Kohli asked why the number has been cut in half. Mr. Porto deferred the question to the Applicant. Cm. O’Keefe asked if there is a visual of the elevation from Dublin Blvd. Mr. Porto answered no; not a complete overall look, only individual buildings. Cm. O’Keefe mentioned to Staff that, in the future, the Planning Commission would appreciate seeing the overall look of projects that face major thoroughfares, such as Dublin Blvd. Cm. Goel referred to a table on Sheet GPA.1 in the project plans and stated that in the presentation the project is for 122 units but the table indicates 90+ units and asked for an explanation. Mr. Porto answered that the proposed SDR is for 122 units. He stated that the table Cm. Goel is referring to is the Applicant’s table which does not show a range. Cm. Goel asked if the project plans are what is being approved. Mr. Baker responded that the Planning Commission is not approving all the pages in the project plans. Cm. Goel asked if the Planning Commission is reviewing the proposed SDR at a higher density than is shown on the table on Sheet GPA.1 in the project plans. Mr. Porto explained the range of the table on Sheet GPA.1. Cm. Goel felt that the elevation for the exterior of the buildings seemed different. Mr. Porto responded that this project is a significant upgrade from the Fairway Ranch project that is there now and will block it from Dublin Blvd. Cm. Goel asked how this project compares to the project to the west on Dublin Blvd. Mr. Porto responded that The Terraces are 100% stucco and also a high density site which means there are 70 du/acre. He stated that with the current project there are different buildings, which are smaller buildings and the materials incorporate stucco as well as wood and stone. He stated that it is a transitional piece of architecture going easterly and the development will tier down from the other developments along Dublin Blvd. which include; The Villas, a high density project at 32 du/acre; the parcel designated for the Promenade; and The Terraces, another high density project. Cm. Goel asked if the roof color and material type are different. Mr. Porto answered yes; but is very similar to the surrounding projects such as Fairway Ranch. Cm. Goel stated that he understands the feathering out of the projects but was concerned with the hard transition look and referred to Sheet A2.00 of the project plans. Planning Commission January 28, 2014 Regular Meeting Page | 23 DRAFT DRAFT Chair Bhuthimethee stated that the Planning Commission previously approved an apartment buildings project on the same site. Cm. Goel felt that the apartment buildings had a similar look and feel and the transition wasn’t so hard. He felt that this project was too drastic. Chair Bhuthimethee felt that the apartment project, that was approved earlier, was higher. Mr. Porto answered yes; the apartment project was a four story, solid building located along the frontage of Dublin Blvd, with undulations but it was a much more massive structure. Cm. Goel felt that the earlier project was pushed back further from the street. Mr. Porto answered that there was a parking garage in the center of the apartment project that was completely wrapped by the buildings. He stated that the building was taller in order to screen the parking structure and was a massive front along Dublin Blvd. Chair Bhuthimethee opened the public hearing. Kevin Fryer, Applicant, spoke in favor of the project. He responded to the question regarding why the reduction in units. He stated that the decision was due to market conditions. He apologized for not including an elevation of the buildings from Dublin Blvd. but felt that trying to fit the elevation onto an 11X17 page would make it difficult to see. He suggested that they look at Sheets L-11 and A2 and discussed those sheets. Cm. O’Keefe stated that he is very happy with the buildings but asked if the Applicant would consider including more enhancement to the sides of houses that will be seen from Dublin Blvd. He felt that the front elevation has good detail, but felt there could be more done with the sides that face Dublin Blvd. He asked if the Applicant would agree to add enhancement to those sides of the houses that face Dublin blvd. Chair Bhuthimethee agreed and stated that the previous approval addressed Dublin Blvd very uniformly but felt that there are not too many instances where the sides of the homes are visible. She asked if the Applicant would agree to further enhance those side elevations that are visible along Dublin Blvd. She also asked about the view down the middle of the project and if there will be double loaded garages. Mr. Porto answered yes; he pointed out where she was referring to on the site plan. Mr. Fryer stated that the dark line on the Dublin Blvd. frontage is an area where a landscape pocket was created to create vertical landscape opportunities to screen that area from Dublin Blvd. Chair Bhuthimethee asked if there will be some landscaping along the double loaded garages. Mr. Fryer answered yes and agreed to add enhancement to the side elevations of the units that can be seen from Dublin Blvd. Chair Bhuthimethee asked if the Applicant could use more brick on the brick veneer wall so that there would be more brick than stucco along Dublin Blvd. Planning Commission January 28, 2014 Regular Meeting Page | 24 DRAFT DRAFT Mr. Porto stated that the area Chair Bhuthimethee was referring to will be landscaped so if brick is used it will be hidden. He stated that the Applicant accentuated the brick area that will be visible. The stucco areas will be heavily planted. Cm. Goel was concerned with not having a view from Dublin Blvd. and being able to determine what it will look like. He asked if the Applicant had an elevation that would look directly onto Sheet L-9, Section A. He was concerned with the shielding element that is happening along Dublin Blvd. He stated that he is torn between looking at the architectural elements, the conceptual drawings, how the project will piece together, and the continuity with adjacent developments. He appreciated the fact that the project feathers out and that it is a lower density, but felt that the final picture is missing and asked if he could provide that clarity. Mr. Fryer deferred the question to the landscape architect for the project. Roman DeSota, landscape architect, came to the public podium to answer the question. Cm. Goel asked if there is an elevation that would show a cross section of Sheet L-9 looking directly at the project from Dublin Blvd. He stated that he would like to determine where the transitions are from east to west and from the back of the unit on Dublin Blvd. Mr. DeSota responded that the section is focusing in on one area of the pop-out. He stated that the concept of the Dublin Blvd. frontage, from landscape standpoint, is similar in materials from east to west, etc., the brick is highlighted picking parts of the architecture and integrating them into the landscaping. He stated that the pop-out toward Dublin Blvd. will be brick and located closer to the walkway. He added that the landscape plant materials is a variety of plant materials to match or pull together with the adjacent neighborhood to the west, only good plants to slope the situation, using a swath planting where plants are used in great abundance. He stated the trees will comply with the existing street tree program. Chair Bhuthimethee was concerned with the ends of the double loaded roadways and felt that the residents could drive out that way. Mr. Porto answered that there is a grade change there to prevent the residents from driving out of them or backing over a curb. Mr. DeSota responded that he tried to provide trees to screen headlights and shrubs as “barriers” at the end of each alley. Chair Bhuthimethee closed the public hearing. Cm. Do stated that she is in support of the project, liked the reduction of units and can also make the findings. Cm. O”Keefe agreed and stated that he is in support of the project. He stated that he would like to add a Condition of Approval to have Staff work with the Applicant on enhancing the sides of the units that face Dublin Blvd. including the units on the corner of Dublin and Lockhart and Dublin and Keegan. He trusts that Staff will work well with the Applicant to see that the enhancements are made that best fit within their budget and with what the Planning Commission would like. He stated that he can make the findings. Planning Commission January 28, 2014 Regular Meeting Page | 25 DRAFT DRAFT Cm. Goel was concerned with the entire project and how it pieces together and how it blends with the surrounding developments. He felt that there were missing pieces that prevented him from supporting the project. Cm. Kohli stated that he is in support of the project, likes the focus on owner occupied houses which is important to him and likes the fact that the number is reduced, referring to the issues regarding school overcrowding the Cm. Goel brought up. He agreed with the Planning Commission regarding the enhancements to the units on Dublin Blvd. Chair Bhuthimethee stated that she is in support of the project and agreed with the other th Commissioners that it is a good reduction in units. She stated that since this is the 4 rendition for the same property she hoped that this would be the one to be built. She thanked the Applicant for agreeing to enhance the homes facing Dublin Blvd. She stated that she can make the findings. Added to the SDR Resolution: Condition #123: The Applicant shall work with Staff to enhance the side elevations that face Dublin Blvd., including Dublin Blvd. and Keegan Street and Dublin Blvd. and Lockhart Street exposures. On a motion by Cm. O’Keefe and seconded by Cm. Do, on a vote of 4-1, with Cm. Goel voting no, the Planning Commission adopted: RESOLUTION NO. 14- 03 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT A RESOLUTION ADOPTING A CEQA ADDENDUM FOR THE DUBLIN RANCH SUBAREA 3 PROJECT RESOLUTION NO. 14 - 04 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT A RESOLUTION APPROVING GENERAL PLAN AND EASTERN DUBLIN SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENTS FOR DUBLIN RANCH SUBAREA 3 AND THE GROVES LOT 3 PLPA-2013-00033 AND PLPA-2013-00034 RESOLUTION NO. 14- 05 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN Planning Commission January 28, 2014 Regular Meeting Page | 26 DRAFT DRAFT RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT AN ORDINANCE REZONING THE GROVES LOT 3 TO A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT ZONING DISTRICT AND APPROVING A RELATED STAGE 1 AND STAGE 2 DEVELOPMENT PLAN RESOLUTION NO. 14- 06 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT AN ORDINANCE REZONING DUBLIN RANCH SUBAREA 3 TO A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT ZONING DISTRICT AND APPROVING A RELATED STAGE 1 DEVELOPMENT PLAN PLPA 2013-00033 RESOLUTION NO. 14- 07 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE A SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PERMIT AND VESTING TENTATIVE MAP 8164 (LOT 3) FOR 122 TOWNHOUSE/CONDOMINIUM UNITS FOR AN 8.8-ACRE SITE (6.36 NET ACRES) KNOWN AS THE GROVES AT DUBLIN RANCH (LOT 3) LOCATED ALONG THE NORTH SIDE OF DUBLIN BOULEVARD BETWEEN KEEGAN STREET AND LOCKHART STREET IN THE EASTERN DUBLIN SPECIFIC PLAN AREA PLPA-2013-00034 (APN 985-0048-005) NEW OR UNFINISHED BUSINESS – NONE OTHER BUSINESS - NONE Brief INFORMATION ONLY 10.1 reports from the Planning Commission and/or Staff, including Committee Reports and Reports by the Planning Commission related to meetings attended at City Expense (AB 1234). 10.2 Mr. Baker informed the Planning Commissioners that the Planning Commissioners Academy will be held March 26-28, at the Burlingame Marriott Hotel. He polled the Commissioners as to their availability for the conference. 10.3 Cm. Do asked about the opening of Hobby Lobby and was concerned that they were closing all their stores. Mr. Baker responded that the Building Department has issued their building permit. Planning Commission January 28, 2014 Regular Meeting Page | 27 DRAFT DRAFT ADJOURNMENT – The meeting was adjourned at 9:37:36 PM Respectfully submitted, Planning Commission Chair ATTEST: Jeff Baker Assistant Community Development G:\MINUTES\2014\PLANNING COMMISSION\01.28.14 DRAFT PC MINUTES (CF).doc Planning Commission January 28, 2014 Regular Meeting Page | 28 RESOLUTION NO. 14 - 04 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT A RESOLUTION APPROVING GENERAL PLAN AND EASTERN DUBLIN SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENTS FOR DUBLIN RANCH SUBAREA 3 AND THE GROVES LOT 3 PLPA-2013-00033 AND PLPA-2013-00034 WHEREAS, the Applicant,Kevin Fryer, has submitted Planning Applications for Dublin Ranch Subarea 3 (Subarea 3) residential development on two adjacent properties. would result in future development of up to 437 single family residences on an approximately 64 acre site. The project proposes General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan amendments to reallocate existing Medium High Density Residential and Medium Density Residential land uses, to reduce and change Open Space land uses to Rural Residential/Agriculture and to increase the Stream Corridor designation. The project also proposes a PD rezoning with related Stage 1 The Groves Lot 3 (Lot 3) Development Plan. proposes a residential development of up to 122 townhouse condominiums on approximately 6.6 acres. The project proposes a General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan amendment to change the existing High Density Residential land use designation to Medium High Density Residential. The project also proposes a PD rezoning with related Stage 1 and Stage 2 Development Plan to establish the zoning and development standards for the project, as well as a Site Development Review permit and Vesting Tentative Map 8164. Because of the statutory limitation on General Plan amendments per year, the two applications are being processed in a consolidated action and are collectively known as the “project”; and WHEREASSubarea 3 , the General Plan amendment for would change the land use designations as follows: reduce Medium-High Density Residential from 8.6 acres to 7.5 acres and move this use from the northeast area of the site to the western area of the site along Lockhart Street; increase Medium Density Residential from 27.2 acres to 38 acres along either side of an open space corridor; designate 14.5 acres of existing Open Space as Rural Residential/Agriculture (as a partial replacement for 24.9 acres of existing Open Space land use designation proposed for residential and rural residential/agriculture use); and increase the existing designated Stream Corridor from 1.3 acres to 2 acres. No changes are proposed for Lot 3 the existing 2-acre Neighborhood Park designation. The General Plan amendment for would redesignate the entire site from High Density Residential to Medium-High Density Residential. Comparable amendments to the land use designations and locations for both sites would be made to the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan (Specific Plan or EDSP). In addition, other provisions of the General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan would be amended to ensure consistency with the modified land use designations for the two sites; and WHEREAS, the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), together with the State guidelines and City environmental regulations, require that certain projects be reviewed for environmental impacts and that environmental documents be prepared; and WHEREASSubarea 3. , the City prepared a CEQA Addendum to a prior EIR and ND for Lot 3, For the project is within the scope of the program analyzed in the Eastern Dublin EIR as to land use, density and development assumptions, and also within the development assumptions of a subsequent 1997 ND; therefore, no additional environmental review is required, as documented in the attached draft resolution; and WHEREAS , on January 28, 2014, the Planning Commission held a properly noticed Subarea 3 Lot 3 public hearing on the andprojects, including the proposed General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan amendments, at which time all interested parties had the opportunity to be heard; and WHEREAS , a Staff Report dated January 28, 2014 and incorporated herein by reference Subarea 3 Lot 3 described and analyzed the andprojects for the Planning Commission, including the proposed General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan amendments. The Staff Report recommended that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan amendments; and WHEREAS, on January 28, 2014, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution 14-03 Subarea 3 recommending that the City Council adopt a CEQA Addendum for the project, which resolution is incorporated herein by reference and available for review at City Hall during normal business hours; and WHEREAS , the Planning Commission used their independent judgment and considered Subarea 3, the Staff Report, the CEQA Addendum for the prior EIR and other CEQA documents, and all reports, recommendations, and testimony referenced above prior to making Subarea 3 Lot 3 any recommendations on the andprojects. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the foregoing recitals are true and correct and made a part of this resolution. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Planning Commission recommends that the City Council adopt the resolution attached as Exhibit A, incorporated herein by reference, approving General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan amendments to change the land use Subarea 3 Lot 3 designations as proposed for and. th PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 28 day of January, 2014, by the following votes: AYES: Bhuthimethee, Do, O’Keefe, Kohli NOES: Goel ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ______________________________ Planning Commission Chair ATTEST: ______________________________ Assistant Community Development Director G:\PA#\2013\PLPA-2013-00033 DUBLIN RANCH Subarea 3\PC Mtg 01.28.14\pc reso reco gpa_spa for subarea 3_lot 3 (jan 2014).doc 2 RESOLUTION NO. 14-06 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT AN ORDINANCE REZONING THE GROVES LOT 3 TO A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT ZONING DISTRICT AND APPROVING A RELATED STAGE 1 AND STAGE 2 DEVELOPMENT PLAN PLPA 2013-00034 WHEREAS, The the Applicant,Kevin Fryer, has submitted a Planning Application for Groves Lot 3 (Lot 3) which proposes a residential development of up to 122 townhouse condominiums on approximately 8.8 gross acres (“Project”). The Project proposes a General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan amendment to change the existing High Density Residential land use designation to Medium High Density Residential. The project also proposes a PD rezoning with related Stage 1 and Stage 2 Development Plan to establish the zoning and development standards for the project, as well as a Site Development Review permit and Vesting Tentative Map 8164; and WHEREAS, Lot 3 the project would rezone to the Planned Development zoning district and would approve a related Stage 1 and Stage 2 Development Plan for development of up to 122 condominium units; and WHEREAS, the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), together with the State guidelines and City environmental regulations, require that certain projects be reviewed for environmental impacts and that environmental documents be prepared; and WHEREASLot 3 , the City has determined that the project is within the scope of the program analyzed in the Eastern Dublin EIR as to land use, density and development assumptions, within the development assumptions of a subsequent 1997 ND; and that no additional environmental review is required; and WHEREAS , on January 28, 2014, the Planning Commission held a properly noticed public hearing on theProject, including the proposed Planned Development rezoning, at which time all interested parties had the opportunity to be heard; and WHEREAS , a Staff Report dated January 28, 2014 and incorporated herein by reference described and analyzed the project for the Planning Commission, including the proposed Planned Development rezoning. The Staff Report recommended that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the proposed rezoning; and WHEREAS , the Planning Commission used their independent judgment and considered the Staff Report, the prior EIR and other CEQA documents, and all reports, recommendations, Lot 3 and testimony referenced above prior to making any recommendations on the project, including the proposed rezoning. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the foregoing recitals are true and correct and made a part of this resolution. 1 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Planning Commission recommends that the City The Groves Lot 3 Council adopt the Ordinance attached as Exhibit A, rezoning to the Planned Development zoning district and approving a related Stage 1 and Stage 2 Development Plan. The Planning Commission recommendation is based on the Staff Report analysis and recommendation and on the findings set forth in the attached draft Ordinance. th PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 28 day of January 2014, by the following votes: AYES: Bhuthimethee, Do, O’Keefe, Kohli NOES: Goel ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ______________________________ Planning Commission Chair ATTEST: ______________________________ Assistant Community Development Director 2228157.1 RESOLUTION NO. 14 - 07 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE A SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PERMIT AND VESTING TENTATIVE MAP 8164 (LOT 3) FOR 122 TOWNHOUSE/CONDOMINIUM UNITS FOR AN 8.8-ACRE SITE (6.36 NET ACRES) KNOWN AS THE GROVES AT DUBLIN RANCH (LOT 3) LOCATED ALONG THE NORTH SIDE OFDUBLIN BOULEVARD BETWEEN KEEGAN STREET AND LOCKHART STREET IN THE EASTERN DUBLIN SPECIFIC PLAN AREA PLPA-2013-00034 (APN 985-0048-005) WHEREAS , the Applicant, Lennar Corporation on behalf of Dublin Ranch Lot 3 Project Owner LLC (under management of Integral Communities) submitted applications for an 8.8- acre site (6.36 net acres) known as The Groves at Dublin Ranch (Lot 3) (“Project Site”); and WHEREAS , the Project site is located along the north side of Dublin Boulevard, south of Central Parkway, west side of Lockhart Street, and east of Keegan Street within the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan and Area B of the Dublin Ranch planned community; and WHEREAS , the applications include: 1) General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan amendments to change the land use from its current designation of High Density Residential (25.1 or greater units per acre) to Medium-High Density Residential (14.1 to 25 units per acre), and 2) Stage 1 Planned Development Rezoning (PLPA 2013-00034) and new Stage 2 Development Plan; and WHEREAS , the applications also include: a) Site Development Review (SDR); and b) Vesting Tentative Tract 8164 (Lot 3) dated received January 22, 2014 for 122 townhouse/condominium units within the Project Site; and WHEREAS , the applications collectively define this “Project” and are available and on file in the Community Development Department; and WHEREAS, the Project site generally is vacant land; and WHEREAS, the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), together with the State guidelines and City environmental regulations, require that certain projects be reviewed for Lot 3, environmental impacts and that environmental documents be prepared. For the project is within the scope of the program analyzed in the Eastern Dublin EIR as to land use, density and development assumptions, and also within the development assumptions of a subsequent 1997 ND; therefore, no additional environmental review is required, as documented in the attached draft resolution; and WHEREAS, on January 28, 2014, the Planning Commission held a public hearing and adopted Resolution 14-04 recommending that the City Council approve the requested amendments to the General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan from its current designation of High Density Residential (25.1 or greater units per acre) to Medium-High Density Residential (14.1 to 25 units per acre); WHEREAS, on January 28, 2014, the Planning Commission held a public hearing and adopted Resolution 14-06 recommending that the City Council approve the requested Stage 1 Planned Development (PD) Rezoning and new Stage 2 Development Plan consistent with the requested land use amendments; and WHEREAS , proper notice of said public hearing was given in all respects as required by law; and WHEREAS , a Staff Report was submitted recommending that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the Site Development Review and Vesting Tentative Tract 8164 (Lot 3); and WHEREAS , the Planning Commission did hold a public hearing on said application on January 28, 2014, for this project at which time all interested parties had the opportunity to be heard; and WHEREAS , the Planning Commission did hear and use independent judgment and considered all said reports, recommendations, and testimony hereinabove set forth. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission of the City of Dublin hereby makes the following findings and determinations regarding the proposed Site Development Review for 122 townhouse/condominium units on Lot 3 of Tract 8164 located along the north side of Dublin Boulevard between Keegan Street and Lockhart Street: Site Development Review : A. The proposal is consistent with the purposes of Chapter 8.104 of the Zoning Ordinance, with the General Plan and any applicable Specific Plans and design guidelines because: 1) The project will not undermine the architectural character and scale of development in which the proposed project is to be located; 2) the project will provide a unique, varied, and distinct housing opportunity; 3) the project is consistent with the General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Land Use designation of Medium-High Density Residential; and 4) the project complies with the development standards established in the Planned Development Plan. B. The proposal is consistent with the provisions of Title 8, Zoning Ordinance because: 1) the project contributes to orderly, attractive, and harmonious site and structural development compatible with the intended use, proposed subdivision for townhouse/condominiums, and the surrounding properties; and 2) the project complies with the development regulations set forth in the Zoning Ordinance where applicable and as adopted for PD PLPA 2013-00034. 2 C. The design of the project is appropriate to the City, the vicinity, surrounding properties, and the lot in which the project is proposed because: 1) the size and mass of the proposed units are consistent with other residential developments in the surrounding area; 2) the project will contribute to housing opportunities and diversity of product type as a complement to the surrounding neighborhoods; and 3) the project will serve the current buyer profile and market segment anticipated for this area. D. The subject site is suitable for the type and intensity of the approved development because: 1) the project site originally was approved and graded for of more than twice the number of units proposed currently and can accommodate the proposed structures and uses; 2) the proposed townhouse structures to be developed on the property meet all of the development standards established to regulate development in the neighborhood overall as referenced in the adopted Stage 1 Planned Development Regulations and the approved Stage 2 Development Plan; and 3) the project will complete the three-phase multi-family residential project originally approved as The Groves/Fairway Ranch within the Dublin Ranch planned community. E. Impacts to existing slopes and topographic features are addressed because: 1) with exception of sidewalks and landscaping, the perimeter infrastructure is complete; 2) the project site will be slightly re-graded in accordance with the related Tract Map for the proposed townhouse/condominium project, and 3) retaining walls will be constructed as required to support grade differentials between building envelopes and setback or right-of-way areas. F. Architectural considerations including the character, scale and quality of the design, site layout, the architectural relationship with the site and other buildings, screening of unsightly uses, lighting, building materials and colors and similar elements result in a project that is harmonious with its surroundings and compatible with other developments in the vicinity because: 1) the development reflects the multi-family character of housing in the general vicinity; 2) the townhouse structures reflect the architectural styles and development standards for other Medium–High Density Residential projects in the area; 3) the materials proposed will be consistent with multi-family projects in the area; and 4) the color and materials proposed will be coordinated among the structures on site. G. Landscape considerations, including the location, type, size, color, texture and coverage of plant materials, and similar elements have been incorporated into the project to ensure visual relief, adequate screening and an attractive environment for the public because: 1) all perimeter landscaping, walls, fences, and hardscape are proposed for construction in accordance with the master plan; and 2) landscaping in common areas is coordinated through a series of paseos and footpaths; 3) common area open space has been provided in the form of a pocket park; and 4) the project will conform to the requirements of the Stage 2 Development Plan and the Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance. 3 H. The site has been adequately designed to ensure the proper circulation for bicyclist, pedestrians, and automobiles because: 1) all infrastructure including streets, parkways, pathways, sidewalks, and streetlighting are proposed for construction in accordance with the Dublin Ranch master plan; and 2) development of this project will conform to the major improvements already installed allowing residents the safe and efficient use of these facilities. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Planning Commission of the City of Dublin hereby makes the following findings and determinations regarding Vesting Tentative Map 8164 (Lot 3): Vesting Tentative Tract 8164 (Lot 3) A. The proposed Vesting Tentative Map 8164 (Lot 3) is consistent with the intent of applicable subdivision regulations and related ordinances for Dublin Ranch and the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan area. B. The design and improvements of the proposed Vesting Tentative Map 8164 (Lot 3) are consistent with the General Plan and the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan, as amended, as they relate to the subject property in that it is a subdivision for implementation consistent with adjacent residential neighborhoods designated for this type of development. C. The proposed Vesting Tentative Map 8164 is consistent with the Planned Development zoning approved for Project through the Planned Development zoning adopted for this project and therefore consistent with the City of Dublin Zoning Ordinance. D. The properties created by the proposed Vesting Tentative Map 8164 (Lot 3) will have adequate access to major constructed or planned improvements as part of the Dublin Ranch master plan. E. Project design, architecture, and concept have been integrated with topography of the project site created by the proposed Vesting Tentative Tract Map 8134 (Lot 3) to incorporate water quality measures and minimize overgrading and extensive use of retaining walls. Therefore, the proposed subdivision is physically suitable for the type and intensity of development proposed. F. The Mitigation Measures and the Mitigation Monitoring program adopted with the program EIR for the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Area and Addendum would be applicable as appropriate for addressing or mitigating any potential environmental impacts identified. G. The proposed Vesting Tentative Map 8164 (Lot 3) will not result in environmental damage or substantially injure fish or wildlife or their habitat or cause public health concerns subject to Mitigation Measures and Conditions of Approval. H. The design of the subdivision will not conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large, or access through or use of property within the proposed subdivision. The City 4 Engineer has reviewed the map and title report and has not found any conflicting easements of this nature. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Planning Commission of the City of Dublin hereby recommends approval of the Site Development Review for the proposed project of 122 townhouse/condominium units within the 8.8-acre site (6.36 net acres) based on findings that the proposed project is consistent with the General Plan, the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan, the Stage 1 Planned Development Rezoning, and Stage 2 Development Plan and as shown on plans prepared by MacKay and Somps, KTGY Group Architecture + Planning, and R3 Studios Landscape Architecture dated received January 22, 2014 subject to the conditions included below. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Planning Commission of the City of Dublin hereby recommends approval of Vesting Tentative Map 8164 (Lot 3) for 122 townhouse/condominium units within the 8.8-acre site (6.36 net acres) prepared by MacKay & Somps dated January 22, 2014 subject to the conditions included below. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: Unless stated otherwise, all Conditions of Approval shall be complied with prior to the issuance of building permits or establishment of use, and shall be subject to Planning Department review and approval. The following codes represent those departments/agencies responsible for monitoring compliance of the conditions of approval. [PL.] Planning, [B] Building, [PO] Police, [PW] Public Works [P&CS] Parks & Community Services, [ADM] Administration/City Attorney, [FIN] Finance, [F] Alameda County Fire Department, [DSR] Dublin San Ramon Services District, [CO] Alameda County Department of Environmental Health, [Z7] Zone 7. NO. Agency When Source CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Required, Prior to: PLANNING DIVISION PL Ongoing Standard 1. Approval. This Site Development Review approval is for the construction of 122 townhouses for the project known as The Groves at Dublin Ranch (Lot 3) within the Fairway Ranch neighborhood of Dublin Ranch. This approval shall be as generally depicted and indicated on the plans prepared by MacKay & Somps, KTGY Architects and R3 Studios dated received January 22, 2014 and on file in the Community Development Department, and as specified by the following Conditions of Approval for this project. 2. Permit Expiration: PL One year from Standard Construction or use shall approval commence within one (1) year of Site Development Review (SDR) approval, or the SDR shall lapse and become null and void. 5 NO. Agency When Source CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Required, Prior to: Commencement of construction or use means the actual construction or use pursuant to the approval, or demonstrating substantial progress toward commencing such use. If there is a dispute as to whether the SDR has expired, the City may hold a noticed public hearing to determine the matter. Such a determination may be processed concurrently with revocation proceedings in appropriate circumstances. If a SDR expires, a new application must be made and processed according to the requirements of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance. 3. Satellite Dishes:PL On-going DMC Prior to the issuance of 8.96.020. Building Permits, the Developer's Architect shall D prepare a plan for review and approval by the Director of Community Development and the Chief Building Official that provides a consistent and unobtrusive location for the placement of individual satellite dishes. Individual conduit will be run from the individual residential unit to the location on the building to limit the amount of exposed cable required to activate any satellite dish. It is preferred that where chimneysexist, that the mounting of the dish be incorporated into . the chimney In instances where the buildings have mechanical wells (Neighborhoods 4 and 6) that those buildings provide locations within the well for individual unit connections. In instances where neither chimneys nor mechanical wells exist, then the plan shall show a common and consistent location for satellite dish placement to eliminate the over proliferation, haphazard and irregular placement. The CovenantsConditions and Restrictions (CC&R's) shall contain language stating that the individual units contain conduit and central locations for satellite dish connections and failure to use those conduits and locations (if the resident has or wants a satellite dish) will constitute a violation of those CC&R's. The penalty for that violation shall be specified. Additionally, prior to the issuance of building permits, the developer shall prepare a disclosure statement to be signed by every first time home 6 NO. Agency When Source CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Required, Prior to: purchaser indicating that utilizing this dedicated conduit and central mounting location is a requirement if a satellite dish is installed. 4. Compliance with previous approvals: PL On-going Standard Any Conditions of Approval for Tract 7453 that remain incomplete and that are related to development of Lot 3 shall be satisfied. 5. Time Extension.PL One year Standard The original approving following decision-maker may, upon the Applicant’s written approval date request for an extension of approval prior to expiration, and upon the determination that any Conditions of Approval remain adequate to assure that applicable findings of approval will continue to be met, grant a time extension of approval for a period not to exceed six (6) months. All time extension requests shall be noticed and a public hearing or public meeting shall be held as required by the particular Permit. PL Ongoing Planning 6. Effective Date. This approval shall become effective on the effective date of the following entitlements: 1. Resolution amending the General Plan and the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan for the project; and 2. Ordinance approving a Planned Development Rezone with a related State 1 and Stage 2 Development Plan for the project. If the above entitlements do not take effect, the SDR/Tentative Map approval is null and void. Standard 7. Revocation of permitPL Ongoing . The permit shall be revocable for cause in accordance with Chapter 8.96 of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance. Any violation of the terms or conditions of this permit shall be subject to citation. PL, PW Issuance of Standard 8. Required Permits . Applicant/Developer shall Building Permits comply with the City of Dublin Zoning Ordinance and obtain all necessary permits required by other agencies (Alameda County Flood Control District Zone 7, California Department of Fish and Game, Army Corps of Engineers, Regional Water Quality Control Board, State Water Quality Control Board) 7 NO. Agency When Source CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Required, Prior to: and shall submit copies of the permits to the Public Works Department. Standard 9. Requirements and Standard Conditions. Various Issuance of The Building Permits Applicant/Developer shall comply with applicable Alameda County Fire, Dublin Public Works Department, Dublin Building Department, Dublin Police Services, Alameda County Flood Control District Zone 7, Livermore Amador Valley Transit Authority, Alameda County Public and Environmental Health, Dublin San Ramon Services District and the California Department of Health Services requirements and standard conditions. Prior to issuance of building permits or the installation of any improvements related to this project, the Developer shall supply written statements from each such agency or department to the Planning Department, indicating that all applicable conditions required have been or will be met. 10. Modifications: PL On-going Standard The Community Development Director may consider modifications or changes to this Site Development Review approval if the modifications or changes proposed comply with Section 8.104.100 of the Zoning Ordinance. 11. Indemnification:PL, B Ongoing Standard The Applicant/Developer shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City of Dublin and its agents, officers, and employees from any claim, action, or proceeding against the City of Dublin or its agents, officers, or employees to attack, set aside, void, or annul an approval of the City of Dublin or its advisory agency, appeal board, Planning Commission, City Council, Community Development Director, Zoning Administrator, or any other department, committee, or agency of the City to the extent such actions are brought within the time period required by Government Code Section 66499.37 or other applicable law; provided, however, that The Applicant/Developer's duty to so defend, indemnify, and hold harmless shall be subject to the City's promptly notifying The Applicant/Developer of any said claim, action, or proceeding and the City's full cooperation in the defense of such actions or proceedings. 8 NO. Agency When Source CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Required, Prior to: Standard 12. Clean up.PL Ongoing The Applicant/Developer shall be responsible for clean-up and disposal of project related trash and for maintaining a clean, litter- free site. Standard 13. Controlling ActivitiesPO, PL Ongoing . The Applicant /Developer shall control all activities on the project site so as not to create a nuisance to the surrounding residences. Standard 14. Noise/NuisancesPO, PL Ongoing . No loudspeakers or amplified music shall be permitted to project or be placed outside of the residential buildings during construction. Standard 15. Accessory Structures.PL, B, Ongoing The use of any F accessory structures, such as storage sheds or trailer/container units used for storage or for any other purpose during construction, shall not be allowed on the site at any time unless a Temporary Use Permit is applied for and approved. 16. Final building and site development plansPL Issuance of Project shall building permit Specific be reviewed and approved by the Community Development Department staff prior to the issuance of a building permit. All such plans shall insure: a. That standard residential security requirements as established by the Dublin Police Department are provided. b. That ramps, special parking spaces, signing, and other appropriate physical features for the handicapped, are provided throughout the site for all publicly used facilities. c. That continuous concrete curbing is provided for all parking stalls, if necessary. d. That exterior lighting of the building and site is not directed onto adjacent properties and the light source is shielded from direct offsite viewing. e. That all mechanical equipment, including air conditioning condensers, electrical and gas meters, is architecturally screened from view, and that electrical transformers are either underground or architecturally screened. 9 NO. Agency When Source CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Required, Prior to: f. That all vents, gutters, downspouts, flashings, etc., are painted to match the color of adjacent surface. g. That all materials and colors are to be as approved by the Dublin Community Development Department. Once constructed or installed, all improvements are to be maintained in accordance with the approved plans. Any changes, which affect the exterior character, shall be resubmitted to the Dublin Community Development Department for approval. h. That all exterior architectural elements visible from view and not detailed on the plans be finished in a style and in materials in harmony with the exterior of the building. All materials shall wrap to the inside corners and terminate at a perpendicular wall plane. i. That all other public agencies that require review of the project are supplied with copies of the final building and site plans and that compliance is obtained with at least their minimum Code requirements. Standard 17. Fees. PW Zone 7 and The Applicant/Developer shall pay all Parkland In-Lieu applicable fees in effect at the time of building Fees Due Prior permit issuance including, but not limited to, to Filing Each Planning fees, Building fees, Dublin San Ramon Final Map; Services District fees, Public Facilities fees, Other Fees Dublin Unified School District School Impact fees, Required with Public Works Traffic Impact fees, City of Dublin Issuance of Fire Services fees, Noise Mitigation fees, Building Permits Inclusionary Housing In-Lieu fees, Alameda County Flood and Water Conservation District (Zone 7) Drainage and Water Connection fees, and any other fees either in effect at the time and/or as noted in the Development Agreement. 18. Sound Attenuation.PL Issuance of Project The project shall comply Building Permits Specific with the sound attenuation measures (mitigation measures) recommended in the sound study dated 25-February-2013 by Charles M. Salter Associates. 19. Affordable Housing Agreement.PL Occupancy Project The project is Specific subject to an Affordable Housing adopted by 10 NO. Agency When Source CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Required, Prior to: Ordinance 08-03 which shall be in place prior to the first occupancy. 20. Final landscape plans, irrigation system plansPL Issuance of Standard , building permit tree preservation techniques, and guarantees, shall be reviewed and approved by the Dublin Planning Division prior to the issuance of the building permit. All such submittals shall insure: a. That plant material is utilized which will be capable of healthy growth within the given range of soil and climate. b. That proposed landscape screening is of a height and density so that it provides a positive visual impact within three years from the time of planting. c. That unless unusual circumstances prevail, at least 75% of the proposed trees on the site are a minimum of 15 gallons in size, and at least 50% of the proposed shrubs on the site are minimum of 5 gallons in size. d. That a plan for an automatic irrigation system be provided which assures that all plants get adequate water. In unusual circumstances, and if approved by Staff, a manual or quick coupler system may be used. e. That concrete curbing is to be used at the edges of all planters and paving surfaces where applicable. f. That all cut and fill slopes conform to the master vesting tentative map and conditions detailed in the Site Development Review packet. g. That all cut and fill slopes graded and not constructed by September 1, of any given year, are hydroseeded with perennial or native grasses and flowers, and that stock piles of loose soil existing on that date are hydroseeded in a similar manner. h. That the area under the drip line of all existing oaks, walnuts, etc., which are to be saved are fenced during construction and grading operations and no activity is permitted under 11 NO. Agency When Source CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Required, Prior to: them that will cause soil compaction or damage to the tree, if applicable. i. That a guarantee from the owners or contractors shall be required guaranteeing all shrubs and ground cover, all trees, and the irrigation system for one year. j. That a permanent maintenance agreement on all landscaping will be required from the owner insuring regular irrigation, fertilization and weed abatement, if applicable. 21. Water Efficient Landscaping RegulationsPL Ongoing Standard : The Applicant shall meet all requirements of the City of Dublin’s Water-Efficient Landscaping Regulations, Section 8.88 of the Dublin Municipal Code.[PN] 22. Landscape Plans. PL Ongoing Standard Civil Improvement Plans, Joint Trench Plans, Street Lighting Plans and Landscape Improvement Plans shall be submitted on the same size sheet and plotted at the same drawing scale for consistency, improved legibility and interdisciplinary coordination. 23. Utilities. PL Ongoing Standard Utilities shall be coordinated with proposed tree placements to eliminate conflicts between trees and utilities. Utilities may have to be relocated in order to provide the required separation between the trees and utilities. 24. Open Space Areas. PL Ongoing Standard The open space area shall be planted and irrigated to create landscape that is attractive, conserves water, and requires minimal maintenance. 25. Plant Clearances.PL Ongoing Standard All trees planted shall meet the following clearances: a. 6’ from the face of building walls or roof eaves. b. 7’ from fire hydrants, storm drains, sanitary sewers and/or gas lines. c. 5’ from top of wing of driveways, mailboxes, water, telephone and/or electrical mains d. 15’ from stop signs, street or curb sign returns. e. 15’ from either side of street lights. 26. Cut and Fill Areas.PL Ongoing Standard Cut and fill slopes graded and not landscaped by September 1, of any given 12 NO. Agency When Source CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Required, Prior to: year shall be hydroseeded with an approved native erosion control grass seed mix and that stockpiles of loose soil existing on that date are hydroseeded in the same manner. 27. Irrigation System Warranty.PL Ongoing Standard The applicant shall warranty the irrigation system and planting for a period of one year from the date of installation. The applicant shall submit for the Dublin Community Development Department approval a landscape maintenance plan for the Common Area landscape including a reasonable estimate of expenses for the first five years Sustainable Landscape Practices : The 28. PL Ongoing Standard landscape design shall demonstrate compliance with sustainable landscape practices as detailed in the Bay-Friendly Landscape Guidelines by earning a minimum of 60 points or more on the Bay-Friendly scorecard and specifying that 75% of the non-turf planting only requires occasional, little or no shearing or summer water once established. 29. Public Art Project:P&CS Issuance of Project The project is required to building permits Specific comply with Sections 8.58.05A and 8.58.05D of Zoning Chapter 8.58 (Public Art Program) of the Dublin Ord Chp Municipal Code then the Applicant/Developer has 8.58 elected to pay an in-lieu fee in accordance with Chapter 8.58 of the Dublin Municipal Code and shall comply with the Public Art Compliance Report submitted by Applicant/Developer, dated December 19, 2013 and on file with the Planning Department. PUBLIC WORKS 30. General Public Works Conditions of Approval: PW Ongoing Standard C of A Developer shall comply with the City of Dublin General Public Works Conditions of Approval unless specifically modified by these Conditions of Approval. Standard 31. Street Lighting Maintenance Assessment PW Final Map C of A District : The Developer shall request the area to be annexed into a subzone of the Citywide Street Lighting Maintenance Assessment District and shall provide any exhibits required for the annexation. In addition Developer shall pay all administrative costs associated with processing the annexation. 13 NO. Agency When Source CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Required, Prior to: Project 32. Long Term Encroachment Agreement: PW Final Map The Specific Developer shall enter into an “Agreement for Long Term Encroachments” with the City to allow the HOA to maintain the landscape and decorative features within public Right of Way including frontage & median landscaping, decorative pavements and special features (i.e., walls, portals, benches, etc.) as generally shown on Site Development Review exhibits. The Agreement shall identify the ownership of the special features and maintenance responsibilities. The property owner will be responsible for maintaining the surface of all decorative pavements including restoration required as the result of utility repairs. Project 33. Joint Trench: PW Final Map The developer shall complete the Specific installation of the joint trench along the Brannigan Street as needed. Project 34. Storm Drain Treatment Measures: PW Final Map The Specific developer shall install storm drain treatment measures that comply with Section C.10 of the Municipal Regional Permit for Stormwater with regards to trash capture. The location and type of measures shall be approved by the City Engineer. Measures located on-site shall be maintained by the HOA; measures located within the public right-of-way and that accept public street runoff will be maintained by the City. 35. Traffic Impact Fees:PW Issuance of Standard The developer shall be Building Permits C of A responsible for payment of the Eastern Dublin Traffic Impact Fee (Sections 1 and 2), the Eastern Dublin I-580 Interchange Fee, and the Tri-Valley Transportation Development Fee. Fees will be payable at issuance of building permits. Standard 36. Eastern Dublin Traffic Impact Fee Minimum PW Issuance of C of A Building Permits Payment: The developer shall be responsible for payment of a minimum portion of the Eastern Dublin Traffic Impact Fee in cash (11% Category 1 and 25% of Category 2), as specified in the resolution establishing the Eastern Dublin Traffic Impact Fee. These minimum cash payment shall be in addition to any other payment noted in these conditions and may not be offset by fee credits. PUBLIC WORKS GENERAL CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 14 NO. Agency When Source CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Required, Prior to: 37. The Developer shall comply with the Subdivision PW Ongoing Standard Map Act, the City of Dublin Subdivision, and C of A Grading Ordinances, the City of Dublin Public Works Standards and Policies, the most current requirements of the State Code Title 24 and the Americans with Disabilities Act with regard to accessibility, and all building and fire codes and ordinances in effect at the time of building permit. All public improvements constructed by Developer and to be dedicated to the City are hereby identified as “public works” under Labor Code section 1771. Accordingly, Developer, in constructing such improvements, shall comply with the Prevailing Wage Law (Labor Code. Sects. 1720 and following). Standard 38. The Developer shall defend, indemnify, and hold PW Ongoing C of A harmless the City of Dublin and its agents, officers, and employees from any claim, action, or proceeding against the City of Dublin or its agents, officers, or employees to attack, set aside, void, or annul an approval of the City of Dublin or its advisory agency, appeal board, Planning Commission, City Council, Community Development Director, Zoning Administrator, or any other department, committee, or agency of the City related to this project to the extent such actions are brought within the time period required by Government Code Section 66499.37 or other applicable law; provided, however, that The Developer's duty to so defend, indemnify, and hold harmless shall be subject to the City's promptly notifying The Developer of any said claim, action, or proceeding and the City's full cooperation in the defense of such actions or proceedings. Standard 39. In the event that there needs to be clarification to PW Ongoing C of A these Conditions of Approval, the Director of Community Development and the City Engineer have the authority to clarify the intent of these Conditions of Approval to the Developer without going to a public hearing. The Director of Community Development and the City Engineer also have the authority to make minor modifications to these conditions without going to a public hearing in order for the Developer to 15 NO. Agency When Source CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Required, Prior to: fulfill needed improvements or mitigations resulting from impacts of this project. AGREEMENTS AND BONDS 40. The Developer shall enter into a Tract PW Final Map Standard Improvement Agreement with the City for all C of A public improvements including any required offsite storm drainage or roadway improvements that are needed to serve the Tract that have not been bonded with another Tract Improvement Agreement. 41. The Developer shall provide performance (100%), PW Final Map Standard and labor & material (100%) securities to C of A guarantee the tract improvements, approved by the City Engineer, prior to execution of the Tract Improvement Agreement and approval of the Final Map. (Note: Upon acceptance of the improvements, the performance security may be replaced with a maintenance bond that is 25% of the value of the performance security.) FEES 42. The Developer shall pay all applicable fees in PW Zone 7 and Standard effect at the time of building permit issuance Parkland In-Lieu C of A including, but not limited to, Planning fees, Fees Due Prior Building fees, Dublin San Ramon Services District to Filing Final fees, Public Facilities fees, Dublin Unified School Map; Other District School Impact fees, Public Works Traffic Fees Required Impact fees, Alameda County Fire Services fees; with Issuance of Noise Mitigation fees, Inclusionary Housing In-Building Permits Lieu fees; Alameda County Flood and Water Conservation District (Zone 7) Drainage and Water Connection fees; and any other fees either in effect at the time and/or as noted in the Development Agreement. 43. The Developer shall dedicate parkland or pay in-PW Final Map Standard lieu fees in the amounts and at the times set forth C of A in City of Dublin Resolution No. 214-02, or in any resolution revising these amounts and as implemented by the Administrative Guidelines adopted by Resolution 195-99. PERMITS Standard 44. Developer shall obtain an Encroachment Permit PW Start of Work C of A from the Public Works Department for all construction activity within the public right-of-way of any street where the City has accepted the 16 NO. Agency When Source CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Required, Prior to: improvements. The encroachment permit may require surety for slurry seal and restriping. At the discretion of the City Engineer an encroachment for work specifically included in an Improvement Agreement may not be required. Standard 45. Developer shall obtain a Grading / Sitework PW Start of Work C of A Permit from the Public Works Department for all grading and private site improvements that serves more than one lot or residential condominium unit. 46. Developer shall obtain all permits required by PW Start of Work Standard other agencies including, but not limited to C of A Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation District Zone 7, California Department of Fish and Game, Army Corps of Engineers, Regional Water Quality Control Board, Caltrans and provide copies of the permits to the Public Works Department. SUBMITTALS Standard 47. All submittals of plans and Final Maps shall PW Approval of C of A comply with the requirements of the “City of improvement Dublin Public Works Department Improvement plans or Final Plan Submittal Requirements”, and the “City of Map Dublin Improvement Plan Review Check List”. Standard 48. The Developer will be responsible for submittals PW Approval of C of A and reviews to obtain the approvals of all improvement participating non-City agencies. The Alameda plans or Final County Fire Department and the Dublin San Map Ramon Services District shall approve and sign the Improvement Plans. Standard 49. Developer shall submit a Geotechnical Report, PW Approval of C of A which includes street pavement sections and improvement grading recommendations. plans, grading plans, or final map Standard 50. Developer shall provide the Public Works PW Acceptance of C of A Department a digital vectorized file of the “master” improvements files for the project when the Final Map has been and release of approved. Digital raster copies are not bonds acceptable. The digital vectorized files shall be in AutoCAD 14 or higher drawing format. Drawing units shall be decimal with the precision of the Final Map. All objects and entities in layers shall be colored by layer and named in English. All 17 NO. Agency When Source CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Required, Prior to: submitted drawings shall use the Global Coordinate System of USA, California, NAD 83 California State Plane, Zone III, and U.S. foot. EASEMENTS Standard 51. The Developer shall obtain abandonment from all PW Approval of C of A applicable public agencies of existing easements improvement and right of ways within the development that will plans or final no longer be used. map Standard 52. The Developer shall acquire easements, and/or PW Approval of C of A obtain rights-of-entry from the adjacent property improvement owners for any improvements on their property. plans or final The easements and/or rights-of-entry shall be in map writing and copies furnished to the City Engineer. GRADING Standard 53. The Grading Plan shall be in conformance with PW Approval of C of A the recommendations of the Geotechnical Report, grading plans or the approved Tentative Map and/or Site issuance of Development Review, and the City design grading permits, standards & ordinances. In case of conflict and ongoing between the soil engineer’s recommendations and City ordinances, the City Engineer shall determine which shall apply. Approval of Standard 54. A detailed Erosion Control Plan shall be included PW grading plans or C of A with the Grading Plan approval. The plan shall issuance of include detailed design, location, and grading permits, maintenance criteria of all erosion and and ongoing sedimentation control measures. Approval of Standard 55. Tiebacks or structural fabric for retaining walls PW grading plans or C of A shall not cross property lines, or shall be located issuance of a minimum of 2’ below the finished grade of the grading permits, upper lot. and ongoing Approval of Standard 56. Bank slopes along public streets shall be no PW grading plans or C of A steeper than 3:1 unless shown otherwise on the issuance of Tentative Map Grading Plan exhibits. The toe of grading permits, any slope along public streets shall be one foot and ongoing back of walkway. The top of any slope along public streets shall be three feet back of walkway. Minor exception may be made in the above slope design criteria to meet unforeseen design constraints subject to the approval of the City Engineer. IMPROVEMENTS 57. The public improvements shall be constructed PW Approval of Standard 18 NO. Agency When Source CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Required, Prior to: generally as shown on the Tentative Map and/or improvement C of A Site Development Review. However, the plans or start of approval of the Tentative Map and/or Site construction, Development Review is not an approval of the and ongoing specific design of the drainage, sanitary sewer, water, and street improvements. Standard 58. All public improvements shall conform to the City PW Approval of C of A of Dublin Standard Plans and design improvement requirements and as approved by the City plans or start of Engineer. construction, and ongoing Approval of Standard 59. Streets shall be at a minimum 1% slope with PW improvement C of A minimum gutter flow of 0.7% around bumpouts. plans or start of construction, and ongoing Approval of Standard 60. Curb Returns on arterial and collector streets PW improvement C of A shall be 40-foot radius, all internal public streets plans or start of curb returns shall be 30-foot radius (36-foot with construction, bump outs) and private streets/alleys shall be a and ongoing minimum 20-foot radius, or as approved by the City Engineer. Curb ramp locations and design shall conform to the most current Title 24 and Americans with Disabilities Act requirements and as approved by the City Traffic Engineer. Standard 61. The Developer shall install all traffic signs and PW Occupancy of C of A pavement marking as required by the City units or Engineer. acceptance of improvements 62. Street light standards and luminaries shall be PW Occupancy of Standard designed and installed per approval of the City Units or C of A Engineer. The maximum voltage drop for Acceptance of streetlights is 5%. Improvements Standard 63. All new traffic signals shall be interconnected with PW Occupancy of C of A other new signals within the development and to Units or the existing City traffic signal system by hard wire. Acceptance of Improvements Standard 64. The Developer shall construct bus stops and PW Occupancy of C of A shelters at the locations designated and approved Units or by the LAVTA and the City Engineer. The Acceptance of Developer shall pay the cost of procuring and Improvements installing these improvements. Standard 65. Developer shall construct all potable and recycled PW Occupancy of C of A water and sanitary sewer facilities required to Units or serve the project in accordance with DSRSD Acceptance of 19 NO. Agency When Source CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Required, Prior to: master plans, standards, specifications and Improvements requirements. Standard 66. Fire hydrant locations shall be approved by the PW Occupancy of C of A Alameda County Fire Department. A raised Units or reflector blue traffic marker shall be installed in Acceptance of the street opposite each hydrant. Improvements Standard 67. The Developer shall furnish and install street PW Occupancy of C of A name signs for the project to the satisfaction of Units or the City Engineer. Acceptance of Improvements Standard 68. Developer shall construct gas, electric, cable TV PW Occupancy of C of A and communication improvements within the Units or fronting streets and as necessary to serve the Acceptance of project and the future adjacent parcels as Improvements approved by the City Engineer and the various Public Utility agencies. Standard 69. All electrical, gas, telephone, and Cable TV PW Occupancy of C of A utilities, shall be underground in accordance with Units or the City policies and ordinances. All utilities shall Acceptance of be located and provided within public utility Improvements easements and sized to meet utility company standards. Standard 70. All utility vaults, boxes and structures, unless PW Occupancy of C of A specifically approved otherwise by the City units or Engineer, shall be underground and placed in acceptance of landscape areas and screened from public view. improvements Prior to Joint Trench Plan approval, landscape drawings shall be submitted to the City showing the location of all utility vaults, boxes and structures and adjacent landscape features and plantings. The Joint Trench Plans shall be signed by the City Engineer prior to construction of the joint trench improvements. CONSTRUCTION 71. The Erosion Control Plan shall be implemented PW Ongoing as Standard between October 15th and April 15th unless needed C of A otherwise allowed in writing by the City Engineer. The Developer will be responsible for maintaining erosion and sediment control measures for one year following the City’s acceptance of the subdivision improvements. 72. If archaeological materials are encountered PW Ongoing as 1993 during construction, construction within 30 feet of needed EDEIR these materials shall be halted until a MM 20 NO. Agency When Source CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Required, Prior to: professional Archaeologist who is certified by the Society of California Archaeology (SCA) or the Society of Professional Archaeology (SOPA) has had an opportunity to evaluate the significance of the find and suggest appropriate mitigation measures. 73. Construction activities, including the maintenance PW Ongoing as Standard and warming of equipment, shall be limited to needed C of A Monday through Friday, and non-City holidays, between the hours of 7:30 a.m. and 5:30 p.m. except as otherwise approved by the City Engineer. Extended hours or Saturday work will be considered by the City Engineer on a case-by- case basis. Standard 74. Developer shall prepare a construction noise PW Start of C of A management plan that identifies measures to be construction taken to minimize construction noise on implementation surrounding developed properties. The plan shall ongoing as include hours of construction operation, use of needed mufflers on construction equipment, speed limit for construction traffic, haul routes and identify a noise monitor. Specific noise management measures shall be provided prior to project construction. Standard 75. Developer shall prepare a plan for construction PW Start of C of A traffic interface with public traffic on any existing construction; public street. Construction traffic and parking implementation may be subject to specific requirements by the ongoing as City Engineer. needed 76. The Developer shall be responsible for controlling PW Ongoing Standard any rodent, mosquito, or other pest problem due C of A to construction activities. Standard 77. The Developer shall be responsible for watering PW Start of C of A or other dust-palliative measures to control dust construction; as conditions warrant or as directed by the City implementation Engineer. Ongoing as needed Standard 78. The Developer shall provide the Public Works PW Issuance of C of A Department with a letter from a registered civil Building Permits engineer or surveyor stating that the building or Acceptance pads have been graded to within 0.1 feet of the of grades shown on the approved Grading Plans, Improvements and that the top & toe of banks and retaining walls are at the locations shown on the approved 21 NO. Agency When Source CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Required, Prior to: Grading Plans. NPDES Standard 79. Prior to any clearing or grading, the Developer PW Start of Any C of A shall provide the City evidence that a Notice of Construction Intent (NOI) has been sent to the California State Activities Water Resources Control Board per the requirements of the NPDES. A copy of the Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) shall be provided to the Public Works Department and be kept at the construction site. Standard 80. The Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan PW SWPPP to be C of A (SWPPP) shall identify the Best Management Prepared Prior Practices (BMPs) appropriate to the project to Approval of construction activities. The SWPPP shall include Improvement the erosion control measures in accordance with Plans: the regulations outlined in the most current Implementation version of the ABAG Erosion and Sediment Prior to Start of Control Handbook or State Construction Best Construction Management Practices Handbook. The Developer and Ongoing as is responsible for ensuring that all contractors Needed implement all storm water pollution prevention measures in the SWPPP. Standard 81. The Property Owner shall enter into an PW Final Map C of A agreement with the City of Dublin that guarantees the perpetual maintenance obligation for all storm water treatment measures installed as part of the project. Said agreement is required pursuant to Provision C.3.h. of RWQCB Order R2-2009-0074 for the issuance of the Alameda Countywide NPDES municipal storm water permit. Said permit requires the City to provide verification and assurance that all treatment devices will be properly operated and maintained. This condition shall not apply if the water quality treatment measures are maintained by a GHAD or other public entity. Keegan Signing and Striping: In conjunction 82. with on-site improvement plans, developer shall review the intersection improvements at Dublin Blvd. and Keegan Street with City traffic Engineer relative to existing signing and stripping details and provide potential revisions necessary to satisfaction of City Engineer. DUBLIN BLVD. TEMPORARY SIDEWALK Keegan Signing and Striping: In conjunction 83. with on-site improvement plans, developer shall 22 NO. Agency When Source CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Required, Prior to: review the intersection improvements at Dublin Blvd. and Keegan Street with City traffic Engineer relative to existing signing and stripping details and provide potential revisions necessary to satisfaction of City Engineer. Dublin Blvd. Temporary Sidewalk: Prior to the occupancy of the first unit within Lot 3, if the developer of Sub Area 3 has not begun grading and construction of the southerly portion of Sub 84. Area 3, the developer of Lot 3 shall build a temporary sidewalk 4 feet wide connecting the intersection of Lockhart Street with the entrance to Fallon Gateway. Frontage Improvements: Any public improvements along the project frontage not 85. currently constructed shall be constructed with development of this site. BUILDING DIVISION 86. Building Codes and Ordinances: B Through Standard All project Completion construction shall conform to all building codes and ordinances in effect at the time of building permit. B 87. Retaining WallsThrough Standard : All retaining walls over 30 completion inches in height and in a walkway area shall be provided with guardrails. All retaining walls located on private property, over 24 inches, with a surcharge, or 36 inches without a surcharge, shall obtain permits and inspections from the Building Division. B 88. Phased Occupancy PlanOccupancy of Standard : If occupancy is any affected requested to occur in phases, then all physical building improvements within each phase shall be required to be completed prior to occupancy of any buildings within that phase except for items specifically excluded in an approved Phased Occupancy Plan, or minor handwork items, approved by the Community Development Department. The Phased Occupancy Plan shall be submitted to the Directors of Community Development and Public Works for review and approval a minimum of 45 days prior to the request for occupancy of any building covered by said Phased Occupancy Plan. Any phasing shall provide for adequate vehicular access to all parcels in each phase, and shall substantially conform to the intent and purpose of the subdivision approval. No individual building shall 23 NO. Agency When Source CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Required, Prior to: be occupied until the adjoining area is finished, safe, accessible, and provided with all reasonable expected services and amenities, and separated from remaining additional construction activity. Subject to approval of the Community Development Director, the completion of landscaping may be deferred due to inclement weather with the posting of a bond for the value of the deferred landscaping and associated improvements. B Standard 89. Building Permits:Issuance of To apply for building permits, building permit Applicant/Developer shall submit five (5) sets of construction plans to the Building Division for plan check. Each set of plans shall have attached an annotated copy of these Conditions of Approval. The notations shall clearly indicate how all Conditions of Approval will or have been complied with. Construction plans will not be accepted without the annotated resolutions attached to each set of plans. Applicant/Developer will be responsible for obtaining the approvals of all participation non-City agencies prior to the issuance of building permits. B Standard 90. Construction DrawingsIssuance of : Construction plans building permit shall be fully dimensioned (including building elevations) accurately drawn (depicting all existing and proposed conditions on site), and prepared and signed by a California licensed Architect or Engineer. All structural calculations shall be prepared and signed by a California licensed Architect or Engineer. The site plan, landscape plan and details shall be consistent with each other. B Standard 91. Air Conditioning UnitsOccupancy of : Air conditioning units unit and ventilation ducts shall be screened from public view with materials compatible to the main building and shall not be roof mounted. Units shall be permanently installed on concrete pads or other non-movable materials approved by the Building Official and Community Development Director. Air conditioning units shall be located such that each dwelling unit has one side yard with an unobstructed width of not less than 36 inches. Air conditioning units shall be located in accordance with the PD text. 24 NO. Agency When Source CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Required, Prior to: B Standard 92. Temporary FencingThrough : Temporary Construction completion fencing shall be installed along the perimeter of all work under construction. Addressing: B Standard 93. Issuance of a. Provide a site plan with the City of Dublin’s building permit address grid overlaid on the plans (1 to 30 and through scale). Highlight all exterior door openings on completion plans (front, rear, garage, etc.). (Prior to release of addresses) b. Provide plan for display of addresses. The Building Official and Director of Community Development shall approve plan prior to issuance of the first building permit. (Prior to permitting) c. Address signage shall be provided as per the Dublin Residential Security Code. (Occupancy of any Unit). d. Exterior address numbers shall be backlight and be posted in such a way that they can be seen from the street. 94. Engineer ObservationB Scheduling the Standard : The Engineer of record final frame shall be retained to provide observation services inspection for all components of the lateral and vertical design of the building, including nailing, hold downs, straps, shear, roof diaphragm and structural frame of building. A written report shall be submitted to the City Inspector prior to scheduling the final frame inspection. B Standard 95. FoundationThrough : Geotechnical Engineer for the soils completion report shall review and approve the foundation design. A letter shall be submitted to the Building Division on the approval. B Standard 96. Green Building:Through Green Building measures as completion detailed may be adjusted prior to master plan check application submittal with prior approval from the City’s Green Building Official. Provided that the design of the project complies with the City of Dublin’s Green Building Ordinance and State Law as applicable. In addition, all changes shall be reflected in the Master Plans. (Through Completion) 25 NO. Agency When Source CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Required, Prior to: The Green Building checklist shall be included in the master plans. The checklist shall detail what Green Points are being obtained and where the information is found within the master plans. (Prior to first permit) Prior to each unit final, the project shall submit a completed checklist with appropriate verification that all Green Points required by 7.94 of the Dublin Municipal Code have been incorporated. (Through Completion) Homeowner Manual – if Applicant/Developer takes advantage of this point the Manual shall be submitted to the Green Building Official for review or a third party reviewer with the results submitted to the City. (Through Completion) Applicant/Developer may choose self-certification or certification by a third party as permitted by the Dublin Municipal Code. Applicant/Developer shall inform the Green Building Official of method of certification prior to release of the first permit in each subdivision / neighborhood. Standard 97. Electronic FileB Issuance of : The Applicant/Developer shall building permit submit all building drawings and specifications for this project in an electronic format to the satisfaction of the Building Official prior to the issuance of building permits. Additionally, all revisions made to the building plans during the project shall be incorporated into an “As Built” electronic file and submitted prior to the issuance of the final occupancy. Standard 98. Construction trailer: B Issuance of Due to size and nature of Building Permits the development, the Applicant/Developer, shall provide a construction trailer with all hook ups for use by City Inspection personnel during the time of construction as determined necessary by the Building Official. In the event that the City has their own construction trailer, the applicant/developer shall provide a site with appropriate hook ups in close proximity to the project site to accommodate this trailer. The Applicant/Developer shall cause the trailer to be moved from its current location at the time 26 NO. Agency When Source CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Required, Prior to: necessary as determined by the Building Official at the Applicant/Developer’s expense. Standard 99. Copies of Approved Plans: B 30 days after permit and each Applicant/Developer shall provide City with 4 revision reduced (1/2 size) copies of the approved plan. issuance Standard 100. Cool Roofs. B Through Flat roof areas shall have their completion roofing material coated with light colored gravel or painted with light colored or reflective material designed for Cool Roofs Standard 101. Multi-Housing Crime Free Program. B Ongoing The property management company shall participate in the City of Dublin Police Department’s Multi- Housing Crime Free program. SECURITY AND POLICE Standard 102. Security During ConstructionPO, B, During . PW construction a. Fencing – The perimeter of the construction site shall be fenced and locked at all times when workers are not present. All construction activities shall be confined to within the fenced area. Construction materials and/or equipment shall not be operated or stored outside of the fenced area or within the public right-of-way unless approved in advance by the Public Works Director. b. Address Sign - A temporary address sign of sufficient size and color contrast to be seen during night time hours with existing street lighting is to be posted on the perimeter street adjacent to construction activities. c. Emergency Contact – Prior to any phase of construction, Applicant/Developer will file with the Dublin Police Department an Emergency Contact Business Card that will provide 24- hour phone contact numbers of persons responsible for the construction site. d. Materials & Tools – Good security practices shall be followed with respect to storage of building materials and tools at the construction site. e. Security lighting and patrols shall be employed as necessary. 27 NO. Agency When Source CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Required, Prior to: Standard 103. GraffitiPO, PL Ongoing . The Applicant/Developer shall keep the site clear of graffiti on a regular and continuous basis and at all times. Graffiti resistant materials should be used. DSRSD Standard 104. Prior to issuance of any building permit, complete DSRSD Ongoing improvement plans shall be submitted to DSRSD that conform to the requirements of the Dublin San Ramon Services District Code, the DSRSD “Standard Procedures, Specifications and Drawings for Design and Installation of Water and Wastewater Facilities”, all applicable DSRSD Master Plans and all DSRSD policies. Standard 105. All mains shall be sized to provide sufficient DSRSD Ongoing capacity to accommodate future flow demands in addition to each development project's demand. Layout and sizing of mains shall be in conformance with DSRSD utility master planning. Standard 106. Sewers shall be designed to operate by gravity DSRSD Ongoing flow to DSRSD’s existing sanitary sewer system. Pumping of sewage is discouraged and may only be allowed under extreme circumstances following a case by case review with DSRSD staff. Any pumping station will require specific review and approval by DSRSD of preliminary design reports, design criteria, and final plans and specifications. The DSRSD reserves the right to require payment of present worth 20 year maintenance costs as well as other conditions within a separate agreement with the applicant for any project that requires a pumping station. Standard 107. Domestic and fire protection waterline systems for DSRSD Ongoing Tracts or Commercial Developments shall be designed to be looped or interconnected to avoid dead end sections in accordance with requirements of the DSRSD Standard Specifications and sound engineering practice. Standard 108. DSRSD policy requires public water and sewer DSRSD Ongoing lines to be located in public streets rather than in off-street locations to the fullest extent possible. If unavoidable, then public sewer or water easements must be established over the alignment of each public sewer or water line in an off-street or private street location to provide 28 NO. Agency When Source CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Required, Prior to: access for future maintenance and/or replacement. Standard 109. Prior to approval by the City of a grading permit or DSRSD Ongoing a site development permit, the locations and widths of all proposed easement dedications for water and sewer lines shall be submitted to and approved by DSRSD. Standard 110. All easement dedications for DSRSD facilities DSRSD Ongoing shall be by separate instrument irrevocably offered to DSRSD or by offer of dedication on the Final Map. Standard 111. Prior to approval by the City for Recordation, the DSRSD Ongoing Final Map shall be submitted to and approved by DSRSD for easement locations, widths, and restrictions. Standard 112. Prior to issuance by the City of any Building DSRSD Ongoing Permit or Construction Permit by the Dublin San Ramon Services District, whichever comes first, all utility connection fees including DSRSD and Zone 7, plan checking fees, inspection fees, connection fees, and fees associated with a wastewater discharge permit shall be paid to DSRSD in accordance with the rates and schedules established in the DSRSD Code. Standard 113. Prior to issuance by the City of any Building DSRSD Ongoing Permit or Construction Permit by the Dublin San Ramon Services District, whichever comes first, all improvement plans for DSRSD facilities shall be signed by the District Engineer. Each drawing of improvement plans shall contain a signature block for the District Engineer indicating approval of the sanitary sewer or water facilities shown. Prior to approval by the District Engineer, the applicant shall pay all required DSRSD fees, and provide an engineer’s estimate of construction costs for the sewer and water systems, a performance bond, a one-year maintenance bond, and a comprehensive general liability insurance policy in the amounts and forms that are acceptable to DSRSD. The applicant shall allow at least 15 working days for final improvement drawing review by DSRSD before signature by the District Engineer. 29 NO. Agency When Source CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Required, Prior to: Standard 114. No sewer line or waterline construction shall be DSRSD Ongoing permitted unless the proper utility construction permit has been issued by DSRSD. A construction permit will only be issued after all of the items in Condition No. 9 have been satisfied Standard 115. The applicant shall hold DSRSD, its Board of DSRSD Ongoing Directors, commissions, employees, and agents of DSRSD harmless and indemnify and defend the same from any litigation, claims, or fines resulting from the construction and completion of the project Standard 116. Improvement plans shall include recycled water DSRSD Ongoing improvements as required by DSRSD. Services for landscape irrigation shall connect to recycled water mains. Applicant must obtain a copy of the DSRSD Recycled Water Use Guidelines and conform to the requirements therein. Standard 117. Above ground backflow prevention DSRSD Ongoing devices/double detector check valves shall be installed on fire protection systems connected to the DSRSD water main. The applicant shall collaborate with the Fire Department and with DSRSD to size and configure its fire system. The applicant shall minimize the number of backflow prevention devices/double detector check valves installed on its fire protection system. The applicant shall minimize the visual impact of the backflow prevention devices/double detector check valves through strategic placement and landscaping. FIRE DEPT Project 118. Fire apparatus roadways shall have a minimum F Improvement Specific unobstructed width of 20 feet and an plans unobstructed vertical clearance of not less than 13 feet 6 inches. Roadways under 36 feet wide shall be posted with signs or shall have red curbs painted with labels on one side; roadways under 28 feet wide shall be posted with signs or shall have red curbs painted with labels on both sides of the street as follows: “NO STOPPING FIRE LANE - CVC 22500.1”. a) Fire apparatus roadways must extend to within 150 ft. of the most remote first floor exterior wall of any building. 30 NO. Agency When Source CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Required, Prior to: b) The maximum grade for a fire apparatus roadway is 12%. c) Fire apparatus roadways in excess of 150 feet in length must make provisions for approved apparatus turnarounds. 119. New Fire Sprinkler System & Monitoring F Improvement Project plans Specific Requirements. In accordance with The Dublin Fire Code, fire sprinklers shall be installed in the building. The system shall be in accordance with the current NFPA 13, CA Fire Code and CA Building Code. Plans and specifications showing detailed mechanical design, cut sheets, listing sheets and hydraulic calculations shall be submitted to the Fire Department for approval and permit prior to installation. This may be a deferred submittal. 120. Fire Alarm (detection) System Required. F Improvement Project A Fire plans Specific Alarm-Detection System shall be installed throughout the building so as to provide full property protection, including combustible concealed spaces, as required by 2010 NFPA 72. The system shall be installed in accordance with 2010 NPFA 72, 2010 CA Fire, Building, Electrical, and Mechanical Codes. If the system is intended to serve as an evacuation system, compliance with the horn/strobe requirements for the entire building must also be met. All automatic fire extinguishing systems shall be interconnected to the fire alarm system so as to activate an alarm if activated and to monitor control valves. 121. Gate Approvals. F Improvement Project plans Specific Fencing and gates that cross pedestrian access and exit paths as well as vehicle entrance and exit roads need to be approved for fire department access and egress as well as exiting provisions where such is applicable. Plans need to be submitted that clearly show the fencing and gates and details of such. This should be clearly incorporated as part of the site plan with details provided as necessary. 31 NO. Agency When Source CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Required, Prior to:  Automatic Gates. All electrically controlled gates shall be provided with an emergency gate over-ride key switch for fire department access.  Provide Public Safety radio repeater in parking garage. 122. Hydrants & Fire FlowsF Improvement Project . Show the location of plans Specific any on-site fire hydrants and any fire hydrants that are along the property frontage as well as the closest hydrants to each side of the property that are located along the access roads that serves this property. Provide a letter from the water company indicating what the available fire flow is to this property. 123. The Applicant shall work with Staff to enhance the P Project side elevations that face Dublin Blvd., including Specific Dublin Blvd. and Keegan Street, and Dublin Blvd. and Lockhart Street exposures. th PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 28 day of January 2014 by the following vote: AYES: Bhuthimethee, Do, O’Keefe, Kohli NOES: Goel ABSENT: ABSTAIN : ______________________________ Planning Commission Chair ATTEST: ____________________________ Assistant Community Development Director 32 G:\PA#\2013\PLPA-2013-00033 DUBLIN RANCH Subarea 3\PC Mtg 01.28.14\PC Reso-Lot 3 SDR 1.28.14.doc 33