Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Item 6.1 Jordan Ranch & Dubin Ranch Subarea 3
OF t'�&2 STAFF REPORT CITY CLERK V CITY COUNCIL File #420 - 30/450- 20/600 -60 DATE: October 6, 2015 TO: Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers FROM: Christopher L. Foss, City Manager J SUBJECT: General Plan /Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendments, Planned Development Rezoning with related Stage 1 Development Plans for portions of: 1) Jordan Ranch (PLPA 2015 - 00045); 2) Dublin Ranch Subarea 3 (PLPA 2015 - 00046); and 3) Wallis Ranch (PLPA 2015 - 00047). In addition, Jordan Ranch has submitted an application for Planned Development Zoning with and Stage 2 Development Plan, Site Development Review Permit and Vesting Tentative Maps 8267 and 8269 for Parcel H and Neighborhood 7; and a Development Agreement Amendment with BJ -ROF Jordan Ranch LLC Mission Valley Properties. Prepared by Mike Porto, Consulting Planner EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The City Council will consider the following General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Land Use changes: 1) Jordan Ranch - change 3.7 acres from Parks /Public Recreation to Public /Semi Public and change 4.6 acres identified as Parcel H from Mixed Use to Medium Density Residential (6.1 to 14.0 units per acre); and 2) Dublin Ranch Subarea 3 - (Irongate) change 10.4 acres from Rural Residential /Agriculture to Parks /Public Recreation. A Planned Development rezone with related Stage 1 Development Plan is proposed in accordance with these land use changes. Jordan Ranch also proposes to include Planned Development Zoning with a Stage 2 Development Plan, Site Development Review Permit and Vesting Tentative Maps for Parcel H (VTM 8267) and Neighborhood 7 (VTM 8269). An amendment to the Jordan Ranch Development Agreement is also proposed. Changing Parcel H to MDR would remove the potential for 115 units and 5,000 square feet of retail commercial and replaces it with 45 units,(five units are detached 2 -story homes and 40 units are 3 -story duets). Neighborhood 7, approved previously for approximately 100 Medium Density units, includes 105 detached 3 -story units. The City Council will also consider land use changes for the Wallis Ranch project to help address a potential future parkland deficit that is unrelated to the school /park site changes in Jordan Ranch. The City and the Wallis Ranch developer propose to create additional parkland by way of a General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment and Planned Development Zoning to change 1.9 acres from Semi - Public to Parks /Public Recreation. This proposal does not modify the number of residential units in the Wallis Ranch development. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the City Council conduct the public hearing; deliberate; and take the following actions: Page 1 of 11 ITEM NO. 6.1 a) Adopt the Resolution adopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration, Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program and Statement of Overriding Considerations for the Jordan Ranch /Subarea 3/Wallis Ranch Project-, b) Adopt the Resolution approving General Plan/ Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendments for portions of Dublin Ranch Subarea 3 (Irongate), Wallis Ranch and Jordan Ranch-, c) Waive the reading and INTRODUCE an Ordinance approving a Planned Development Rezoning with related Stage 1 Development Plan for portions of Jordan Ranch, Dublin Ranch Subarea 3 and Wallis Ranch, and approving a related Stage 2 Development Plan Amendment for portions of Jordan Ranch-, d) Adopt the Resolution approving a Site Development Review Permit and Vesting Tentative Maps 8267 (Parcel H) and 8269 (Neighborhood 7) for the Jordan Ranch project-, and e) Waive the reading and INTRODUCE an Ordinance approving a Development Agreement Amendment between the City of Dublin and BJ -ROF Jordan Ranch LLC (Mission Valley Properties) for the Jordan Ranch Project. Submitted By Community Development Director PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Reviewed By Assistant City Manager Background This Staff Report addresses changes to three separate projects, including Jordan Ranch and Dublin Ranch Subarea 3, as well as Wallis Ranch, as generally identified in the Vicinity Map below. The proposed changes to Jordan Ranch and Dublin Ranch Subarea 3 are interrelated as discussed below. The proposed changes to Wallis Ranch are not related to the Jordan Ranch /Subarea 3 changes but are included in this Staff Report to comply with State Law regarding the number of actions approving General Plan Amendments, per Element, per year. Jordan Ranch /Subarea 3 The City Council has entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the Dublin Unified School District (DUSD) to help DUSD obtain the rights to a site to build a school, at minimal cost to the District and at no cost to the City. The City and DUSD have discussed a proposal that involves land currently designated as Parks /Public Recreation for a joint use school and park site and development of a site currently dual- designated for school and residential purposes, for residential use within the Jordan Ranch project area. DUSD is interested in the new school /park site because of its need for additional school facilities, the need for a site that can accommodate up to 950 students, and its lack of funds to purchase the site within Jordan Ranch that allows school uses. The re- designation would reduce the amount of parkland acreage in Eastern Dublin. City Staff, with the assistance of the Jordan Ranch developer, approached Lennar Homes to discuss options for the City to obtain the Rural Residential /Agriculture site on Subarea 3 to help address Page 2 of 11 this reduction parkland. Lennar Homes was amenable to the Staff's request. The land use designation for this site is proposed to be changed to Parks /Public Recreation and used as a future park site. City parks are acquired and paid for by developers through the City's Public Facility Fee program. The fees collected are allocated to park and facilities construction through the City's Capital Improvement Program (CIP). The City Council's priorities in the current five -year CIP (in funding order) are Emerald Glen Recreation and Aquatic Complex, Fallon Sports Park Phase 2, and Jordan Ranch Neighborhood Park. Under the proposed agreement, the developer would construct the Jordan Ranch neighborhood park, which is approved and designed, in March 2017. A proposed Development Agreement memorializes this agreement as further discussed below. Wallis Ranch The City's Parks and Recreation Master Plan requires five acres of parkland per 1,000 residents. In the City's 2015 Update of the Master Plan, it is projected that the City will have a parkland deficit, at build -out, of approximately 10 acres. This deficit is not related to the school /park site discussed above. City staff approached Trumark Homes to discuss options for the City to obtain additional parkland within Wallis Ranch. Trumark was amenable to converting a 1.9 -acre Semi - Public site to Parks /Public Recreation. Fig. 1: Vicinity Map If w_IS RANCH e,f s- JORDAN _ DUBLIN - -- -- - Current Request Jordan Ranch — The 189.4 -acre Jordan Ranch project is located east of Fallon Road near the southeasterly City limits as shown in the vicinity map. The Jordan Ranch property was first approved in 2002 and revised in 2005 to allow up to 1,064 dwellings at various densities. Subsequent approvals have reduced the development potential to 964 dwellings. Three sites in Jordan Ranch are discussed in this Staff Report including a new school site, Neighborhood 7, and Parcel H. Page 3 of 11 New School Site: The proposed school site is part of a 17.2 acre future Community Park site that is located at the southeast corner of Central Parkway and Sunset View (10.1 acres are located on Jordan Ranch property and 7.1 acres are located on the Chen property to the south). The City Council initiated a General Plan Amendment Study for this site on February 17, 2015. The City proposes to change 3.7 acres within the Jordan Ranch community park area from Parks /Public Recreation to Public /Semi - Public to accommodate the building area for a future flexible K -8 school. The 3.7 acres is exclusive of outdoor play areas, parking fields, the multi- purpose room and field areas that can be used jointly for park and school purposes. Neighborhood 7: This 9.2 -acre site is located on the southeast side of Panorama Drive. The site includes dual Medium Density Residential and Public /Semi - Public land use designations and has approved zoning which allows up to 100 dwellings or school uses. The applicant is requesting approval of entitlements to develop 105 dwelling units on the site. However, no General Plan land use changes are requested because the site is already designated for Medium Density Residential consistent with the proposed project. Parcel H: The 4.6 -acre site is located at the northeast corner of Central Parkway and Fallon Road. The land use designation and zoning for Parcel H was changed from Open Space to Mixed Use in 2012, and allows for up to 115 dwellings and 5,000 sf of commercial use. The property owner is requesting approval to change the land use designation from Mixed Use to Medium Density Residential and related entitlements to reduce the residential development from 115 units to 45 units and eliminate the commercial component of the project. The applicant has requested this change to reduce transportation impacts related to moving the school from its originally proposed location and increasing the student capacity. Dublin Ranch Subarea 3 (irongate) — The 64 -acre Subarea 3 community is bounded by Central Parkway on the north, Dublin Boulevard on the south, Fallon Road on the east, and Lockhart Street on the west. The existing General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan (EDSP) land use designations for Subarea 3 include a 10.4 acre area designated Rural Residential /Agriculture (RR /A). The City proposes to change the land use designation from Rural Residential /Agriculture to Parks /Public Recreation. Wallis Ranch — The 184 -acre Wallis Ranch is located near the northerly City limits west of Tassajara Road and east of the Parks Reserve Forces Training Area (PRFTA). The General Plan /Eastern Dublin Specific Plan land uses and Planned Development Zoning were originally adopted in 2005. Amendments to the zoning in 2014 reduced the number of approved dwellings from 935 to 806. Included within Wallis Ranch is a 1.9 -acre site designated Semi - Public. This site is located immediately south of a future park side and to west across Tassajara Road from the Quarry Lane School. The proposed GPA /EDSPA would change a 1.9 -gross acre site from Semi - Public to Parks /Public Recreation. Tonight, the City Council is asked to take action on the proposed land use amendments, zoning and related entitlements listed below and as discussed in this Staff Report. Jordan Ranch • GPA /EDSPA (New School Site & Parcel H): Change 3.7 acres from Parks /Public Recreation to Public /Semi - Public, and 4.6 acres from Mixed Use to Medium Density Residential. • Planned Development Rezone with a Stage 1 Development Plan (New School Site & Parcel H). Page 4 of 11 • Planned Development Rezone with a Stage 2 Development Plan (Neighborhood 7 & Parcel H). • Site Development Review Permit (Neighborhood 7 & Parcel H). • Neighborhood 7 for 105 units of 3 -story detached units. • Parcel H for 45 units, 5 of which are single - family detached and 40 duet units described as 2 and 3 -story homes attached at ground level. • Vesting Tentative Maps 8269 and 8267 (Neighborhood 7 & Parcel H). • Development Agreement Amendment (Jordan Ranch). Subarea 3 • GPA /EDSPA: Change the land use designation of 10.4 acres from RR /A to Parks /Public Recreation. • Planned Development Rezone with a Stage 1 Development Plan. Wallis Ranch • GPA /EDSPA: Change the land use designation of 1.9 acres from Semi - Public to Parks /Public Recreation. • Planned Development Rezone with a Stage 1 Development Plan. ANALYSIS: General Plan /Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment Jordan Ranch — The proposed General Plan /EDSP Amendment (GPA /SPA) would change the land use designation of the 4.6 acre Parcel H from Mixed Use to Medium Density Residential (6.1 to 14.0 units /acre), and 3.7 -acres of the Community Park site from Parks /Public Recreation to Public /Semi - Public for a flexible K -8 school site to serve 950 students. The remainder of the Community Park site would remain designated as Parks /Public Recreation for joint use between the City and the School District. The proposed land use amendments are shown on the Land Use m PROPOSED LAND USE EXISTING LAND USE Stage 1 Jordan Ranch Page 5 of 11 Stage 2 Jordan Ranch Dublin Ranch Subarea 3 (Irongate) — The proposed GPA /SPA would change the designation of a 10.4 acre site from Rural Residential /Agriculture to Parks /Public Recreation. This proposed park site would offset the loss of parkland within Jordan Ranch. The existing and proposed land use designations for Subarea 3 are shown below: Wallis Ranch — The City and Trumark Homes propose to change the land use designation of a 1.9 acre site in Wallis Ranch from Semi - Public to Parks /Public Recreation to offset a potential future parkland deficit in Eastern Dublin. The proposed land use change is shown below: The proposed amendments to the General Plan and EDSP require adjustments to various figures, texts, and tables in both documents to ensure consistency throughout the documents as shown in the attached Resolution (Attachment 1). Planned Development Rezone A Planned Development Rezone with a Stage 1 Development Plan is proposed for the new school site in Jordan Ranch, the proposed park site in Subarea 3, and the proposed Wallis Ranch park site. The proposed Stage 1 PDs are consistent with the proposed GPA /EDSPA. Page 6 of 11 A Planned Development Zoning Stage 2 Development Plan is proposed for Jordan Ranch Neighborhood 7 and Parcel H. The zoning for Neighborhood 7 would allow 105 detached 3- story units. The zoning for Parcel H would allow 45 units including 5 single - family detached homes and 40 attached duets. With this approval, Jordan Ranch would include a total of 899 units. This is a reduction for the 1,064 units originally approved in 2005 which was reduced to 964 units in 2012. Please refer to Ordinance included as Attachment 2 for the proposed Planned Development Zoning. Site Development Review and Vesting Tentative Map The Jordan Ranch applicant requests approval of a Site Development Review Permit (SDR) and Vesting Tentative Maps for Parcel H and Neighborhood 7 of Jordan Ranch as discussed below. The proposal is consistent with the existing design and development standards adopted for Jordan Ranch which planned to provide both single family and multi - family housing. The proposed resolution approving the SDR and VTMs is included as Attachment 3. Parcel H The Applicant proposes to construct five detached two -story homes and 40 three -story duets. The duets are plotted so that each unit shares a common wall at the ground level only. The proposed density would be 9.78 units per acre consistent with the proposed Medium Density (6.1 -14 du /ac) land use designation. Access to the site would be taken from Central Parkway and Jordan Ranch Drive. The proposed project provides 2 garage spaces plus 1 guest space per unit. The following depicts the proposed site plan and elevations for Parcel H. Please refer to the Planning Commission Staff Report (Attachment 4 — pages 9 -12) for a complete discussion of the project. The project plans are included as Attachment 5. Site Plan — Parcel H Page 7 of 11 �. .:sir Page 7 of 11 Elevations — Parcel H Neighborhood 7 The Applicant proposes to construct 105 single - family detached alley loaded homes on Neighborhood 7. Primary access to the site is from Panorama Drive. All of these homes face onto a neighborhood street or a private park and take vehicular access from a motorcourt or driveway. The site plan includes extensive use of pedestrian paseos to interconnect the project and adjacent neighborhoods. The proposed density would be 11.41 units per acre consistent with the existing Medium Density (6.1 -14 du /ac) land use designation. The proposed project provides 2 garage spaces plus 1 guest space per unit. The following depicts the proposed site plan and elevations for Neighborhood 7. Please refer to the Planning Commission Staff Report (Attachment 4 — pages 12 -15) for a complete discussion of the project. The project plans are included as Attachment 5. Site Plan — Neighborhood 7 Page 8 of 11 Aiy.aW. tat. y! —Axrrt Trr I' M.iner�.ne. M1tw Development Agreement Amendment — Jordan Ranch The City and the developer of Jordan Ranch have negotiated an amendment to the existing Jordan Ranch Development Agreement (Attachment 6, Exhibit A). The amendment will vest the developer's right to construct the project proposed in the current approvals. It has no impact on the developer's existing entitlements. In exchange, the DA amendment will provide two community benefits. First, the developer will construct the Jordan Ranch neighborhood park currently designed and ready for construction. A recent estimate for the park improvements is $1.965 million. The Developer would not receive any park improvement credits for the first $1.6 million of the construction costs, but would receive park credits for the cost /amount above that. Put another way, the City would receive a $1.6 million community benefit and relieve the City's Public Facility Fee program from having to pay for the park. In turn, cash flow for future parks would could be available (likely) sooner than would otherwise be expected. The next neighborhood park would be Sean Diamond Park, which is currently in design. Another community benefit negotiated was the purchase of affordable housing credits. Following the City Council action on the Green project earlier this year, there is no longer a purchaser of the credits created by the Veteran's Affordable Housing project in the Downtown. Rather than make in -lieu payments for the 15 unit obligation, Staff requested that the Developer purchase 15 credits available from this project within four months of the effective date of the approval. This will add $1.5 million in funds to the City's Affordable Housing program and offset a portion of the City's current $6.4 million investment in the Downtown project. The primary intent of a development agreement is to vest the land use approvals and provide certainty to the City and the developer. On September 22, 2015, the Planning Commission adopted a resolution recommending that the City Council deny an Ordinance approving the amendment to the Development Agreement (Attachment 6). ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: All of the subareas have been subject to prior CEQA review in connection with prior project approvals. The prior CEQA reviews included the Eastern Dublin EIR and three supplemental EIRs, among others. Therefore, the City prepared an Initial Study in accordance with CEQA Section 21166 and related CEQA Guidelines sections 15162/15163 to determine whether additional environmental review is required for the proposed general plan and Stage 1 PD Page 9 of 11 rezoning approvals. Based on the Initial Study, the City determined that a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) should be prepared, mostly to examine the potential for potential significant effects related to future development of a school on one of the Jordan Ranch sites. The MND is attached as Exhibit A to Attachment 6 of this staff report. The City received several public and agency comments on the MND during the public review period (as well as some late comments). Although not required by CEQA, the City prepared responses to the public comments raising environmental issues, given the public interest in the project. The public comments and responses are attached as Exhibit B to Attachment 6 of this staff report. Subsequent to release of the MND, the Jordan Ranch applicants submitted additional applications requesting development project approvals for two sites: Parcel H and Neighborhood 7. Staff carefully reviewed the additional applications to determine if they required the MND to be recirculated for public review under CEQA Guidelines section 15073.5. Staff determined that the MND did not need to be recirculated for public review because one of the sites, Parcel H, had been analyzed in 2012 for potential mixed use development of up to 105 dwellings and 5,000 square feet of retail commercial. The current project proposes potential Medium Density Residential development at 45 rather than 105 dwellings and without the retail commercial uses. These potential uses and densities were analyzed in the MND prepared for the project. The additional applications identified project lotting patterns, internal circulation, architecture and landscaping. These additional features do not affect previously identified significant impacts, mitigation measures, or the findings of the MND. The other site, Neighborhood 7, had also been analyzed in 2012 for potential residential development of up to 100 units under a dual residential /school land use designation allowing future development of either school or residential uses. The additional application now proposes 105 units. Staff determined that the additional 5 lots in Neighborhood 7 would not add a new significant impact to those identified in prior CEQA reviews. As noted in the MND, future development on Jordan Ranch has been analyzed in three EIRs (Eastern Dublin EIR, EDPO SEIR, Fallon Village SEIR) and two recent CEQA addenda in 2010 and 2012. To document this review and determinations, staff prepared an appendix to the MND which is attached as Exhibit C of Attachment 6. As documented in the MND and appendix for the currently proposed approvals, other than the impacts identified in the MND, there are no new or more severe significant impacts that identified in the prior environmental reviews. Further, all previously adopted mitigation measures continue to apply to the development sites unless otherwise specified in the MND. The prior environmental reviews are identified in the MND and are available for review at City Hall during normal business hours. On September 22, 2015, the Planning Commission voted not to recommend that the City Council adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration. Attachment 7 is a Resolution adopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration for Jordan Ranch, Dublin Ranch Sub Area 3 and Wallis Ranch. The MND, comments and responses, and appendix are attached and included as Exhibits A, B, and C, respectively. CEQA also requires that approval of an MND also approve a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) in accordance with CEQA Guidelines section 15097. The required MMRP is attached to the City Council draft resolution as Exhibit D and the Statement of Overriding Consideration attached as Exhibit E. PLANNING COMMISSION REVIEW The Planning Commission considered the proposed project at its meeting on September 22, 2015. Written public comments received after the Planning Commission Agenda was published Page 10 of 11 are included as Attachments 8 and 9. The Planning Commission recommended, by a 3 -2 vote, that the City Council not approve the project. The Planning Commission Resolution and Meeting minutes are included as Attachments 10 and 11. 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 sites to advertise the project and the upcoming public hearing. A public notice also was 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 approving General Plan /Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendments for portions of Dublin Ranch Subarea 3 (Irongate), Wallis Ranch and Jordan Ranch 2. Ordinance approving Planned Development Rezoning with related Stage 1 Development Plan for portions of Jordan Ranch, Dublin Ranch Subarea 3 and Wallis Ranch and approving a related Stage 2 Development Plan for portions of Jordan Ranch 3. Resolution approving a Site Development Review Permit and Vesting Tentative Maps 8267 (Parcel H) and 8269 (Neighborhood 7) for the Jordan Ranch project 4. Planning Commission Staff Report dated September 22, 2015 5. Project plans dated received on September 14, 2015 6. Ordinance approving a Development Agreement Amendment between the City of Dublin and BJ -ROF Jordan Ranch LLC (Mission Valley Properties) for the Jordan Ranch Project, with the Development Agreement Amendment included as Exhibit A 7. Resolution adopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration, Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program and Statement of Overriding Considerations for the Jordan Ranch /Subarea 3/Wallis Ranch Project, with Exhibits A through E 8. Written public comments received after Planning Commission Agenda was published 9. Written public comment received after the Planning Hearing 10. Planning Commission Resolution 15 -08 dated September 22, 2015 11. Draft Planning Commission Meeting minutes dated September 22, 2015 Page 11 of 11 RESOLUTION NO. XX - 15 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN * * * * * * * * * APPROVING GENERAL PLAN AND EASTERN DUBLIN SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENTS FOR PORTIONS OF DUBLIN RANCH SUBAREA 3 (IRONGATE), WALLIS RANCH, AND JORDAN RANCH (PLPA 2015-00045, 2015-00046 AND 2015-00047) WHEREAS, the Applicant, Mission Valley Properties, proposes to develop 45 homes on a 4.6-acre site known as Parcel H, to provide a School site on a 3.7- acre site south of Central Parkway within Jordan Ranch, and to develop 105 detached units on a 9.2-acre site known as Neighborhood 7; and WHEREAS , the application for the proposed development includes a General Plan/Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendments to change the land use designation of the 4.6 acre site located at 4233 Fallon Road (APN 985-0098-006) between Central Parkway and Jordan Ranch Drive from Mixed Use (MU) to Medium Density Residential (6.1 to 14.0 units per acre). The land use amendment and proposed development on the 4.6-acre site would reduce the residential density for the site; however, this site is not on the Housing Element inventory of affordable housing opportunity sites and the redesignation would not raise Housing Element consistency issues; and WHEREAS , the application also includes a General Plan/Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendments to change the land use designation of the 3.7-acre site located east of Fallon Road and along the south side of Central Parkway (portion of APN 985-0027-007-02) from Parks/Public Recreation to Public/Semi-Public; and WHEREAS, in addition to the three sites in Jordan Ranch, the City of Dublin proposes to amend the land use for two other sites. One site within Dublin Ranch Subarea 3 (known as Irongate) is 10.4 acres. The other site within Wallis Ranch is 1.9 acres; and WHEREAS , the General Plan/Eastern Dublin Specific Plan land use amendments initiated by the City propose to change the 10.4-acre site within Dublin Ranch Subarea 3 located south of Central Parkway and north of Dublin Boulevard between Lockhart Street and Fallon Road from Rural/Residential Agriculture (RR/A) to Parks/Public Recreation (P/PR) (portion APN 985-0027-012); and WHEREAS , the General Plan/Eastern Dublin Specific Plan land use amendments initiated by the City propose to change the 1.9-acre site within Wallis Ranch located along the west of Tassajara Road north of Dublin Ranch Road (APN 986-0045-009) from Semi-Public (SP) to Parks/Public Recreation (P/PR); and WHEREAS , related applications for the properties referenced above also include Planned Development rezoning with related Stage 1 and/or Stage 2 Development Plans, Site Development Review, Vesting Tentative Maps, and/or Development Agreement amendments. The proposed amendments, development and applications are collectively known as the “Project”; and 1 WHEREAS ,consistent with California Government Code Section 65352.3, the City obtained a contact list of local Native American tribes from the Native American Heritage Commission and notified the tribes on the contact list of the opportunity to consult with the City on the proposed General Plan and Specific Plan amendments. None of the contacted tribes requested a consultation within the 90-day statutory consultation period and no further action is required under section 65352.3; 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. To comply with CEQA, the City prepared and circulated a Mitigated Negative Declarations (MND) for the Project; and WHEREAS , on September 22, 2015, the Planning Commission held a properly noticed public hearing on the Project, 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 , following the public hearing on September 22, 2015 the Planning Commission approved Resolution 15-08 recommending that the City Council not approve the MND and proposed General Plan/Eastern Dublin Specific Plan amendments, which resolution are incorporated herein by reference; and WHEREAS , a Staff Report, dated October 6, 2015 and incorporated herein by reference, described and analyzed the MND, the Project, including the General Plan and Specific Plan amendments, and the Planning Commission recommendations for the City Council; and WHEREAS , on October 6, 2015 the City Council held a properly noticed public hearing on the Project, 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, on October 6, 2015, the City Council adopted Resolution XX-15 approving the MND and adopting a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program and Statement of Overriding Considerations; and WHEREAS, the City Council used their independent judgment and considered the MND and prior CEQA documents, and all above referenced reports, recommendations, and testimony prior to approving the General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan amendments. 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 based on the entirety of the record, the City Council finds that the General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan amendments are in the public interest and that the General Plan and the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan as so amended will remain internally consistent, and that the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan as amended is consistent with the General Plan, as amended. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council hereby adopts the following amendments to the General Plan. 2 A. Amend the Land Use Map (Figure 1-1a) of the General Plan as shown below: B. Amend Table 2.2 in the General Plan to increase the amount of Medium Density Residential by 4.6 acres; decrease Mixed Use by 4.6 acres; increase Parks/Public Recreation 8.6 acres; reduce Rural Residential/Agriculture by 10.4 acres; reduce Semi-Public by 1.9 acres; and increase Public/Semi-Public by 3.7 acres. (Table footnotes not included). TABLE 2.2: Land Use Development Potential: Eastern Extended Planning Area Classification Factor Yield Acres Intensity** Units RESIDENTIAL Du’s/acre Du’s Persons/du Population 25.1+ 1,409+ 2.7 3,804+ High Density 56.14 137.81 14.1-25.0 1,943-3,445 2.7 5,246-9,302 Medium-High Density 0 0 2.7 0 Medium-High Density and 14.1-25.0 Retail/Office 394.71 6.1-14.0 2,408-5,526 2.7 6,502-14,920 Medium Density 725 0.9-6.0 652-4,350 2.7 1,760-11,745 Single Family Estate Residential 30.5 0.01-0.8 0-24 2.7 0-65 329.8 0.01 3 2.7 9 Rural Residential/Agriculture 1673.96 6,415- 17,321-39,845+ TOTAL 14,757+ Floor Square Feet Square Acres Area (millions) Feet / Jobs COMMERCIAL Ratio Employee (Gross) 299.1 .20-.60 2.61-7.82 5,118-15,333 General Commercial 510 95.22 .20-.80 .83-3.32 385 2,155-7,325 General Commercial/Campus Office 3 TABLE 2.2: Land Use Development Potential: Eastern Extended Planning Area Classification Factor Yield Acres Intensity** Units Mixed Use 6.7 .30-1.00 .09-.29 490 178-596 Mixed Use 2/Campus Office 22.9 .45 max .45 260 1,731 Neighborhood Commercial 21.29 .25-.60 .23-.56 490 470-1,143 195.58 .25-.80 2.13-6.82 8,192-26,214 Campus Office 260 56.4 .35 max .86 590 1,458 Industrial Park 0 .25-.35 0 425 0 Industrial Park/Campus Office 697.19 7.20-20.12 19,302-53,800 TOTAL: Square FAR Square Feet PUBLIC/SEMI-PUBLIC/OPEN Acres Feet/ Jobs (Gross) (millions) SPACE employee 2.13 590 3,610 Public/Semi-Public 97.8 .50 max .03 590 48 Semi-Public 1.3 .50 max Acres Number Parks/Public Recreation 204.9 Regional Parks 1 1.2 Open Space 699.56 Square FAR Square Feet Schools Acres Feet/ Jobs (Gross) (millions) employee 48.7 1.06 Elementary School .50 max 590 1797 27.8 .61 Middle School .50 max 590 1034 0 High School TOTAL: 1081.26 3.83 6,489 Square Dwelling Acres Population Feet Jobs Units (millions) 6,415-17,321- GRAND TOTAL: 3,452.41 11.03-23.95 25,791-60,289 14,757+ 39,845+ C. Amend the Parks and Open Space Map (Figure 3-1) of the General Plan to include the 10.4 acre site in Subarea 3 and 1.9 acre site in Wallis Ranch designated as Parks/Public Recreation and remove the 3.7 acre site in Jordan Ranch that is redesignated as Public/Semi Public in accordance with the General Plan Amendment consistent with the adopted changes to the General Plan Land Use Map (Figure 1-1). D. Amend the Schools and Public Lands Map (Figure 4-1) of the General Plan to include the 3.7 acre site in Jordan Ranch south of Central Parkway designated Public/Semi-Public in accordance with this General Plan Amendment consistent with the adopted changes to the General Plan Land Use Map (Figure 1-1). BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council hereby adopts the following amendments to the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan for Jordan Ranch, Subarea3 and Wallis Ranch. 4 A. Amend the Land Use Map (Figure 4.1) of the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan to reflect the land uses as follows: B. Amend Table 4.1 in the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan to increase the amount of Medium Density Residential by 4.6 acres; decrease Mixed Use by 4.6 acres; increase Parks/Public Recreation 8.6 acres; reduce Rural Residential/Agriculture by 10.4 acres; reduce Semi-Public by 1.9 acres; and increase Public/Semi-Public by 3.7 acres. All footnotes remain except to eliminate the following footnote: ***4.6 acres is the same acreage as listed in the Commercial and Residential Mixed Use cells. The 4.6 acres under Residential is not included in the sum of Residential uses in this table. 5,000 square feet of commercial and 115 units are anticipated on the mixed use sites (total). The FAR for Mixed Use governs both commercial and residential uses. TABLE 4.1 EASTERN DUBLIN SPECIFIC PLAN LAND USE SUMMARY (Amended Per Resolution Nos. 66-03, 47-04, 223-05, 58-07, 37-08, 210-08, 176-09, 76-10, 55-12, 92-12, 210-12, 198-13, 19-14, 159-14) Land Use Description LAND AREA DENSITY YIELD COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL General Commercial 356.8 acres .25-.35 FAR 4.122 MSF General Commercial/Campus Office 87.02 acres .28 FAR 1.054 MSF Industrial Park* 61.3 acres .25-.28 FAR .747 MSF Neighborhood Commercial 57.89 acres .30-.35 FAR .812 MSF Mixed Use 0 acres .30-1.0 FAR 0 MSF Mixed Use 2/Campus Office***** 25.33 acres .45 FAR .497 MSF Campus Office 153.01 acres .35-.75 FAR 2.986 MSF Subtotal 741.35 acres 10.218 MSF 5 TABLE 4.1 EASTERN DUBLIN SPECIFIC PLAN LAND USE SUMMARY (Amended Per Resolution Nos. 66-03, 47-04, 223-05, 58-07, 37-08, 210-08, 176-09, 76-10, 55-12, 92-12, 210-12, 198-13, 19-14, 159-14) Land Use Description LAND AREA DENSITY YIELD RESIDENTIAL High Density 58.74 acres 35 du/ac 2,056 du Medium High Density 156.61 acres 20 du/ac 3,132 du Medium Density** 482.06 acres 10 du/ac 4,820 du Single Family**** 947.25 acres 4 du/ac 3,789 du Estate Residential 30.4 acres 0.13 du/ac 4 du Rural Residential/Agric. 539.55 acres .01 du/ac 5 du Mixed Use 0 0 du Subtotal 2,214.56 acres 13,806 du PUBLIC/SEMI-PUBLIC Public/Semi-Public 96.8 acres .24 FAR 1.012 MSF Semi-Public 8.6 acres .25 FAR .094 Subtotal 105.4 acres 1.106 MSF SCHOOLS Elementary School 66.5 acres 5 schools Junior High School 21.3 acres 1 school Subtotal 87.8 acres PARKS AND OPEN SPACE City Park 56.3 acres 1 park Community Park 93.3 acres 3 parks Neighborhood Park 50.9 acres 7 parks Neighborhood Square 16.7 acres 6 parks Natural Community Park 10.4 acres 1 park Subtotal 227.6 acres 18 parks Open Space 684.06 acres TOTAL LAND AREA 4060.77 acres C. Amend Table 4.2 in the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan (footnotes not included): TABLE 4.2 EASTERN DUBLIN SPECIFIC PLAN POPULATION AND EMPLOYMENT SUMMARY (Amended Per Resolution No. 47-04, 223-05, 58-07, 37-08, 176-09, 76-10, 55-12, 92-12, 210-12, 198-13, 19-14, 159-14) Land Use Designation Development Sq Ft/ Persons/du Population Employees Commercial Industrial Park .747 MSF 590 1,266 General 1.054 MSF 385 2,738 Commercial/Campus Office* General Commercial 4.122 MSF 510 8,082 Neighborhood .812 MSF 490 1,657 Commercial Mixed Use 0 MSF 490 0 6 TABLE 4.2 EASTERN DUBLIN SPECIFIC PLAN POPULATION AND EMPLOYMENT SUMMARY (Amended Per Resolution No. 47-04, 223-05, 58-07, 37-08, 176-09, 76-10, 55-12, 92-12, 210-12, 198-13, 19-14, 159-14) Land Use Designation Development Sq Ft/ Persons/du Population Employees Mixed Use 2/Campus .497 MSF 260 1,910 Office**** Campus Office 2.986 MSF 260 11,485 Public/Semi Public 1.012 MSF 590 1,715 Semi-Public .094 MSF 590 159 TOTAL: 11.324 MSF 29,012 Residential High Density 2,056 2.0 4,112 Medium High Density 3,132 2.0 6,264 Medium Density 4,749 2.0 9,498 Single Family*** 3,789 3.2 12,125 Estate Residential 4 3.2 13 Mixed Use 0 2.0 0 Rural Residential/Agric. 5 3.2 16 TOTAL: 13,735 32,128 D. Amend Table 4.3 (footnotes not included). TABLE 4.3 CITY OF DUBLIN PROJECTED JOBS/HOUSING BALANCE (Amended Per Resolution No. 223-05, 58-07, 37-08, 176-09, 76-10, 55-12, 92-12, 210-12, 198-13, 19-14, 159-14) PLANNING Dwelling Jobs Employed Balance Ratio AREA Units Residents Existing City of 7,100 12,210 12,000 -210 1.02:1.0 Dublin Eastern Dublin 13,806 29,012 22,366 -6,646 1.30:1.0 Specific Plan Area TOTAL: 20,906 41,222 34,366 -6,865 1.32:1.0 E. Amend Section 4.8.4 Parks and Open Space to include the following definition of a Natural Community Park (Insert after Neighborhood Square). Natural Community Park. Natural Community Parks of varying size offer a variety of passive recreational opportunities that attract a range of age groups of people looking for a more serene park experience as further described in the Parks and Recreation Master Plan. Natural Community Parks should feature areas that are primarily un-programmed and more natural in appearance, often including features that have historically exited on site, such as hills, creek or wetland features, or man-made structures such as bridges or small buildings. Examples of uses include trails, sitting areas, wildlife viewing area and nature interpretive areas with signage. 7 44 4 F. Amend Table 4.6. TABLE 4.6 TOWN CENTER-- RESIDENTIAL SUBAREA DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL Designation Acres Density Development Potential High Density 33.6 35 du/ac 908 du Medium High Density 44.9 20 du/ac 852 du Medium Density189.010 du/ac1,949 du Single Family 89.2 4 du/ac 399 du Subtotal 356.7 --- 4,108 du Open Space 49.8 --- City Park 56.3 --- 1 park Community Park80.6---1 park Neighborhood Park11.6---2 parks Neighborhood Square 7.5 --- 5 parks Natural Community Park 10.4--- 1 park Semi-Public --- --- 0 msf Subtotal 216.2 --- Elementary School 31.1 --- 3 schools TOTAL604---4,108 dwelling units 10 parks 3 elementary schools G. Amend Table 4.9. TABLE 4.9 FALLON VILLAGE CENTER SUBAREA DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL Designation Acres Density Development Potential Medium Density Residential 37 10 du/ac 416 du (1) Medium High Residential 16.7 20 du/ac 334 du Residential Subtotal 53.7 -- 750 du Neighborhood Park 2.7 -- -- Community Park 14.6 -- -- Public/Semi Public 5.7 -- -- Open Space 3.6 -- -- Park/Open Space Subtotal 20.9 -- 1 community park 1 neighborhood square Semi-Public 6.2 -- -- Total 87.4 -- 70,032 sf commercial 819 du 1 community park 1 neighborhood square 1. Underlying Medium Density Residential on Jordan school site now shown (PLPA 2010-00068). Up to 105 units possible and determined at Stage 2 Development Plan. *Note: The prior Junior High School land use designation has been changed to Medium-High Density Residential. 8 H. Amend Table 4.10 (footnotes not included). TABLE 4.10 FOOTHILL RESIDENTIAL SUBAREA DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL Designation Acres Density Development Potential Medium-High Desnity Residential 27.1 20 du/ac 542 du Medium Density Residential 218 10 du/ac 2,180 du Single Family Residential* 868.7 4 du/ac 3,475 du (1) Estate Residential 30.4 .13 du/ac 4 du Rural Residential 536.9 .01 du/ac 5 du Residential Subtotal 1691.5 -- 6,206 du Open Space 607.5 -- -- Regional Park 11.7 -- 1 Neighborhood Park 39.3 -- 4 Neighborhood Square 6.4 -- 2 Park/Open Space Subtotal 665 -- 7 parks Elementary School 22.7 3 Schools Junior High School 1.4 1 School High School 55.3 1 School School Subtotal 79.4 5 Schools Public/Semi-Public 7.2 .24 FAR Semi-Public 5.3 .24 FAR -- Total 2,448.4 -- 6,206 du 7 parks 5 schools I. Maps to be updated in accordance with the land use amendments: Figure 6.1 - Open Space Framework J. Appendix 3: Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Land Use Summary by Planning Subarea will be amended to reflect land use amendments. K. Appendix 4: Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Land Use Summary by Land Owners will be amended to reflect land use amendments. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this Resolution shall take effect thirty days after the date of adoption. 9 PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this _______ day of ______ 2015 by the following votes: AYES : NOES : ABSENT : ABSTAIN : ________________________________________ Mayor ATTEST : _______________________________________ City Clerk 10 ORDINANCE NO. XX – 15 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN * * * * * * * * * * * * * * APPROVING PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REZONING WITH RELATED STAGE 1 DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR PORTIONS OF JORDAN RANCH, DUBLIN RANCH SUBAREA 3 AND WALLIS RANCH AND APPROVING A RELATED STAGE 2 DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR PORTIONS OF JORDAN RANCH (PLPA 2015-00045, 2015-00046 AND 2015-00047) The Dublin City Council does ordain as follows: SECTION 1. RECITALS A. On _____, the City Council adopted Resolution XX-15 approving a General Plan/Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment to change the land use designation of a 4.6 acre site known as Parcel H and located at 4233 Fallon Road (APN 985-0098-006) between Central Parkway and Jordan Ranch Drive from Mixed Use (MU) to Medium Density Residential (6.1 to 14.0 units per acre). The resolution also approved a General Plan/Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment to change the land use designation of a 3.7-acre site located east of Fallon Road and along the south side of Central Parkway (portion APN 985-0027-007-02) from Community Park to Public/Semi-Public for future development of a school; and B. In addition, the City Council also adopted General Plan/Eastern Dublin Specific Plan amendments for two other sites. One site within Dublin Ranch Subarea 3 (known as Irongate) is 10.4 acres located south of Central Parkway and north of Dublin Boulevard between Lockhart Street and Fallon Road and was changed from Rural/Residential Agriculture (RR/A) to Parks/Public Recreation (P/PR) (portion APN 985-0027-012). The other site within Wallis Ranch is 1.9 acres located along the west side of Tassajara Road north of Dublin Ranch Road (APN 986-0045-009) and was changed from Semi-Public (SP) to Parks/Public Recreation (P/PR); and C. For Jordan Ranch II, the Applicant, Mission Valley Properties, proposes to develop 45 homes on a 4.6 acre site known as Parcel H and provide for a joint School/Park on a 10.1-acre site south of Central Parkway within Jordan Ranch. In addition, a 9.2 acre Medium Density Residential site (Neighborhood 7) is proposed for development of 105 detached town homes. The proposed amendments, development and applications are collectively known as the “Project;” and D. 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. To comply with the CEQA, the State Guidelines and City environmental regulations, the City prepared and circulated a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) for the Project; and E. Following a public hearing on September 22, 2015, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution 15-08 recommending that the City Council not approve the CEQA Mitigated Negative Declaration for the project, and recommending that the City Council not approve the Project General Plan and Specific Plan amendments, Planned Development Zoning, Site Development Review, Vesting Tentative Maps and Development Agreement. 1 F. A Staff Report, dated October 6, 2015 and incorporated herein by reference, described and analyzed the Project, including the Planned Development rezoning and related Stage 1 and 2 Development Plan amendment, for the City Council. G. On October 6, 2015, the City Council held a properly noticed public hearing on the Project, including the proposed Planned Development rezoning and related Stage 1 and 2 Development Plan amendment, at which time all interested parties had the opportunity to be heard. H. On October 6, 2015, the City Council adopted Resolution XX-15 approving the CEQA Mitigated Negative Declaration and adopting a Statement of Overriding Considerations for the Project, and adopted Resolution XX-15 approving General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan amendments for the Project, which resolutions are incorporated herein by reference and available for review at City Hall during normal business hours. I. The City Council considered the CEQA Mitigated Negative Declaration and related prior CEQA documents, the Planning Commission recommendation, and all above-referenced reports, recommendations, and testimony prior to taking action on the Project. SECTION 2: FINDINGS AND DETERMINATIONS I. Pursuant to Section 8.32.070 of the Dublin Municipal Code, the City Council finds as follows. 1. The proposed Planned Development rezone with related Stage 1 and Stage 2 Development Plan amendments meets the purpose and intent of Chapter 8.32 in that it provides a comprehensive development plan for the affected sites 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 Planned Development zoning and the related Stage 1 and 2 Development Plan amendments will be harmonious and compatible with existing and future development in the surrounding area in that it will maintain the open space character of the 10.4 acres in Subarea 3 and augment the existing park designations on Wallis Ranch. The Parcel H and Neighborhood 7 Development Plans will provide residential development consistent with the surrounding development by providing unique floor plan designs and the incorporation of open space components. The school site would be developed in the future by the Dublin Unified School District and is located convenient to residential uses and has good roadway access. B. Pursuant to Sections 8.120.050.A and B of the Dublin Municipal Code, the City Council finds as follows. 1. The Planned Development zoning for the Project and the related Stage 1 and 2 Development Plan will be harmonious and compatible with existing and potential development in the surrounding area in that they maintain the open space character of the 10.4 acres in Subarea 3 and augment the existing park designations in Wallis Ranch. The Parcel H and Neighborhood 7 Development Plans will provide residential development consistent with the surrounding development by providing unique floor plan designs and the incorporation of open space components. The proposed site plan has taken into account sensitive adjacencies and will provide a wide range of amenities to the 2 surrounding neighborhoods. The school site would be developed in the future by the Dublin Unified School District and is located convenient to residential uses and has good roadway access. 2. The project site is physically suitable for the type and intensity of the zoning district being proposed in that the project maintains and increases open space and park opportunities in Subarea 3 and Wallis Ranch. The Parcel H and Neighborhood 7 Development Plans are consistent with the general character and density of adjacent residential development. The development project site conditions in the Stage 2 Development Plans are documented in the Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) and previously certified environmental documents, and the project will implement all adopted mitigation measures, including those identified in the MND. There are no site conditions that were identified that will present an impediment to development of any of the sites for the intended purposes. There are no major physical or topographic constraints on the development sites. Thus, all of the sites are physically suitable for the type and intensity of the park, open space, school or residential uses approved through the Planned Development zoning. 3. The 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 and will implement all adopted mitigation measures. The Project uses are compatible with surrounding uses. 4. The Planned Development zoning is consistent with the Dublin General Plan, as amended, and the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan, as amended, in that the proposed park and residential uses are consistent with the Parks/Public Recreation and Medium Density Residential land use designations approved for the sites. The school site would be developed in the future by the Dublin Unified School District and is consistent with the approved Public/Semi-Public land use designation. C. Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act, the City Council approved a CEQA Mitigated Negative Declaration, Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, and Statement of Overriding Considerations on October 6, 2015, as set forth in Resolution XX-15, which resolution is incorporated herein by reference and available for review at City Hall during normal business hours. 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 to a Planned Development Zoning District. The “Project sites” or “Properties” are described as follows: 3 LOCATION:Jordan Ranch is located east of Fallon Road near the southeasterly City limits. The rezoning is approved for Parcel H and Neighborhood 7, both north of Central Parkway, and the school site along the south side of Central Parkway, as shown below. 4233 Fallon Road Vesting Tentative Map 8024. Parcel H - APN 985-0098-006 Site E-5 - APN 985-0108-001, and Park/School Site – APN 985-0098-002 (APN 985-0027-007-02, 985-0027-006-04) SUBJECT AREAS Jordan Ranch Dublin Ranch Subarea 3 is bounded by Central Parkway on the north, Dublin Boulevard on the south, Fallon Road on the east, and Lockhart Street on the west. The 10.4-acre rezoning site bisects the project area in a band generally running from the northwest to the southeast between Central Parkway and Dublin Boulevard. Vesting Tentative Map 8187 APN 985-0027-012; as shown below: 4 SUBJECT AREA Parks/Public Recreation Subarea 3 Wallis Ranch generally is located near the northerly City limits, west of Tassajara Road and east of the Parks Reserve Forces Training Area (PRTFA) and County regional trail. The 1.9-acre land rezoning site is located at the southerly boundary north of Dublin Ranch Road, Vesting Tentative Map 7515, APN 986-0045-009, as shown below. Parks/Public Recreation SUBJECT AREA Wallis Ranch SECTION 4. APPROVAL OF STAGE 1 AND 2 DEVELOPMENT PLAN The regulations for the use, development, improvement, and maintenance of the Project sites are set forth in the following Stage 1 and 2 Development Plan for the Affected Sites as defined below, which is hereby approved. Any amendments to the Stage 1 and 2 Development Plan shall be in accordance with section 8.32.080 of the Dublin Municipal Code or its successors. 5 Stage 1 Development Plan for all sites and Stage 2 Development Plan for the Jordan Ranch II Project The Stage 1 Development Plan applies to Jordan ranch Public/Semi Public (school site), the Sub Area 3 Park/Public Recreation site and the Wallis Parks/Public recreation site. The Stage 2 Development Plan applies to Jordan Ranch Parcel H and Neighborhood 7. This is a Stage 1 and Stage 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 set forth in Chapter 8.32 of the Zoning Ordinance and is adopted as a part of the Planned Development Rezoning of Jordan Ranch (PLPA 2015-00045), Subarea 3 (PLPA 2015-00046) and Wallis Ranch (PLPA 2015-00047). The Planned Development District and this Stage 1 and 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. 1. Statement of Permitted, Conditional and Accessory Uses. PD – Medium Density Residential Permitted Uses Accessory structures and uses in accordance with Section 8.40.030 of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance Attached and/or detached dwelling, zero-lot line units, single-family units, duplexes, townhouses, multi-family dwellings Home occupation in accordance with Chapter 8.64 of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance Small family day care homes Other similar uses as determined by the Community Development Director Conditional Uses Accessory structures and uses located on the same site as a conditional use Bed and Breakfast inns Community clubhouse Community facilities Large family day care homes Other similar uses as determined by the Community Development Director Parks/Public Recreation Permitted Uses, including, but not limited to: Public or private infrastructure Public parks and recreation facility- active or passive Trails and maintenance roads, including emergency vehicle access Water quality, drainage, and other similar facilities, including swales and basins Other similar uses as determined by the Community Development Director 6 Public/Semi Public Permitted Uses, including, but not limited to: Public or private educational facilities Other uses as consistent with the General Plan Land Use for Public/Semi Public as determined by the Community Development Director. 2. Stage 1 and 2 Site Plan. SUBJECT AREA Parks/Public Recreation Stage 1 Site Plan - Dublin Ranch Subarea 3 (Irongate) 7 Parks/Public Recreation SUBJECT AREA Stage 1 Site Plan – Wallis Ranch 8 SUBJECT AREAS Stage 1 Site Plan – Jordan Ranch II Stage 2 Site Plan Jordan Ranch II – Parcel H 9 Stage 2 Site Plan Jordan Ranch II – Neighborhood 7 3. Site area, proposed densities. Site Use Acres Units Density DR Subarea 3 (Irongate) P/PR 10.4 0 N/A Wallis Ranch P/PR 1.9 0 N/A P/PR subtotal 12.30 Jordan Ranch II – Parcel H MDR 4.6 45 9.78 du per acre Jordan Ranch II – MDR 9.2 105 11.41 units per acre Neighborhood 7 subtotal 13.8 150 10 4. Development regulations. Minimum (unless otherwise noted) Standard Parcel H Neighborhood 7 (Tract 8267) (Tract 8269) Lot Size 2,030 sf 1,856 sf Lot Width/Frontage Typical Street 45 ft 32 ft Cul-de-Sac/Knuckles 25 ft 25 ft (measure at right-of-way) Lot Depth N/A N/A Lot Coverage 55% 60% Building Height (maximum) 35 ft 40 ft Stories (maximum) 3 3 Setbacks (minimum)(1) Front Yard Living Area 10 ft 7 ft first floor 5 ft upper floors Porch/Deck 10 ft 4 ft Encroachments(2) 2 ft maximum into 2 ft maximum into required setback required setback Side Yard Interior Lot 4 ft 4 ft Corner Lot 7 ft 7 ft Porch/Deck 4 ft (7 ft at corner) 4 ft (7 ft at corner) Encroachments(2) 2 ft maximum into 2 ft maximum into required setback required setback Rear Yard Living Area 12 ft 12 ft to centerline of alley to centerline of alley (Parcel Line) (Parcel Line) Garage or Lower Floors 14 ft 14 ft to centerline of alley to centerline of alley (Parcel Line) (Parcel Line) Usable Private Yard 200 sf 50 sf deck Parking Two (2) enclosed Two (2) enclosed covered spaces per covered spaces per unit plus one (1) unit plus one (1) uncovered guest uncovered guest space per unit which space per unit which may be curbside. may be curbside. Notes: (1) Setbacks are measured from the property line except as otherwise noted. (2) Encroachments may include window bays, chimneys, furred columns or walls, A/C units and other architectural projections. 5. Phasing Plan. No development is proposed on the park or school sites. For the residential development, backbone infrastructure will be installed with the area constructed in 11 accordance with Conditions of Approval. An individual phasing plan will be prepared in conjunction with building permit issuance. 6. Preliminary/Master Neighborhood Landscape Plans. Master Neighborhood Landscape Plan for Jordan Ranch II Parcel H NOT A PART OF THIS PROPOSAL PREVIOUSLY APPROVED Master Neighborhood Landscape Plan for Jordan Ranch II Neighborhood 7 7. Architectural Standards – Parcel H and Neighborhood 7 only The following architectural standards apply only to Jordan Ranch, Parcel H and Neighborhood 7 despite any language to the contrary. References to “multi-family” 12 neighborhoods and single-family neighborhoods apply to Parcel H and Neighborhood 7 respectively. 13 14 15 Refer to Ordinance 13-10 Refer to Ordinance 13-10 16 8. Landscape Standards. Parcel H and Neighborhood 7 only The following landscape standards apply to Jordan Ranch, Parcel H and Neighborhood 7 despite any language to the contrary. References to “multi-family” neighborhoods and single-family neighborhoods apply to Parcel 4 and Neighborhood 7 respectively. 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 9. Affordable Housing/Inclusionary Zoning – Jordan Ranch The proposed project will create an additional affordable housing requirement of 15 units. The developerproposed to satisfy its obligation under the Inclusionary Zoning Regulations through the use of affordable unit credits. It willpurchasethesecredits fromeither the City orEden Housingcreated in the Veterans Project under development in Downtown Dublin. The purchase will eitherprovide an additional funding stream for the Veterans Housing projector result in the City receiving additional affordable housing funds for use in other projects. 10. Aerial Photos. Dublin Ranch Subarea 3 (Irongate) Wallis Ranch 30 Jordan Ranch II 11. Applicable Requirements of Dublin Zoning Ordinance. Except as specifically provided in this Stage 1 and 2 Development Plan amendment, the use, development, improvement and maintenance of the property 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 pursuant to Section 8.32.060.C except as provided in the Stage 1 and Stage 2 Development Plan. No development shall occur on this property until a Site Development Review permit has been approved for the property. 12. Compliance with adopted Mitigation Measures. The Applicant/Developer shall comply with all adopted mitigation measures of the Eastern Dublin EIR, EDPO SEIR, Fallon Village SEIR, and the Mitigated Negative Declaration adopted for the Project, as applicable. 13. Affected Sites. The Stage 1 Development Plan applies to the following rezoning sites as shown in section 3 of this ordinance: 10.4-acre park site in Dublin Ranch Subarea 3 1.9-acre park site in Wallis Ranch 3.7-acre school site in Jordan Ranch 4.6-acre Parcel H in Jordan Ranch 9.2-acre Neighborhood 7 in Jordan Ranch The Stage 2 Development Plan also applies to Parcel H and Neighborhood 7 in Jordan Ranch. 31 SECTION 5. PRIOR PD ZONING SUPERSEDED The following PD zoning ordinances are herebysuperseded as to the Affected Sites: a. Ordinance No. 05-14 – Dublin Ranch Subarea 3 (Irongate) b. Ordinance No. 11-14 – Wallis Ranch c. Ordinance No. 09-12 – Jordan Ranch SECTION 6. POSTING OF ORDINANCE 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 7. EFFECTIVE DATE This Ordinance shall take effect thirty (30) days following its adoption PASSED AND ADOPTED BY the City Council of the City of Dublin, on this _________ day of _____________ 2015, by the following votes: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: _____________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _____________________________ City Clerk 32 RESOLUTION NO. XX-15 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN * * * * * * * * * * * APPROVING A SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PERMIT AND VESTING TENTATIVE MAPS 8267 (PARCEL H) AND 8269 (NEIGHBORHOOD 7) FOR THE JORDAN RANCH PROJECT PLPA 2015-00045 WHEREAS, the Applicant, Mission Valley Properties, proposes to develop 45 homes on a 4.6 acre site known as Parcel H. In addition, Neighborhood 7 is a 9.2 acre Medium Density Residential site proposed for development of 105 detached units. The proposed Parcel H and Neighborhood 7 development and related applications are collectively known as the “Jordan Ranch Project”; and WHEREAS , the application for the Jordan Ranch project includes General Plan/Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendments to change the land use designation of the 4.6 acre Parcel H site located at 4233 Fallon Road (APN 985-0098-006) between Central Parkway and Jordan Ranch Drive from Mixed Use (MU) to Medium Density Residential (6.1 to 14.0 units per acre); and WHEREAS , the related applications for the Jordan Ranch project also include General Plan/Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendments and proposed Planned Development rezoning for a 3.7-acre school site, a 10.4-acre property within Dublin Ranch Subarea 3 (Irongate) and a 1.9-acre property within Wallis Ranch. None of these three land use amendment sites is part of the Site Development Review or Vesting Tentative Map applications. WHEREAS , the application for all properties referenced within Jordan Ranch also includes a Planned Development rezoning with related Stage 1, and Stage 2 Development Plan, Site Development Review, Vesting Tentative Subdivision Maps 8267 and 8269, and Development Agreement amendment for Parcel H and Neighborhood 7; 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. To comply with CEQA, the City prepared and circulated a draft Mitigated Negative Declarations (MND) for the Project; and WHEREAS , a Staff Report, dated September 22, 2015 and incorporated herein by reference, analyzed the MND and the Project for the Planning Commission. Following a duly noticed public hearing on the Project on September 22, 2015, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution 15-08 recommending that the City Council not adopt the MND, and not adopt the related General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan amendments, Planned Development rezone with related Development Plans, Site Development Review Permit and Vesting Tentative Maps 8267 (Parcel H) and 8269 (Neighborhood 7), which resolutions are incorporated herein by reference; and WHEREAS , following a duly noticed public hearing on October 6, 2015, the City Council adopted Resolution XX-15 adopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration, Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program and Statement of Overriding Considerations, Resolution XX-15 approving the General Plan/Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendments for the Project (including Parcel H), which 138 Page of resolutions are incorporated herein by reference and available for review at City Hall during normal business hours; and WHEREAS , following the public hearing on October 6, 2015, the City Council also adopted Ordinance XX-15 approving the requested Planned Development rezoning with related Stage 1 and Stage 2 Development Plan amendment for the Project, which ordinance is incorporated herein by reference; and WHEREAS , a Staff Report for the City Council, dated October 6, 2015 and incorporated herein by reference, described and analyzed the Project, including the Site Development Review permit and Vesting Tentative Maps 8267 and 8269 for Parcel H and Neighborhood 7; and WHEREAS, on October 6, 2015, the City Council held a properly noticed public hearing on the Project, including the proposed Site Development Review permit and Vesting Tentative Maps 8267 and 8269, at which time all interested parties had the opportunity to be heard; and WHEREAS, the City Council considered the MND, and all above referenced reports, recommendations and testimony before approving the Site Development Review Permit and Vesting Tentative Maps for Parcel H and Neighborhood 7. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the above recitals are true and correct and made a part of this resolution. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Dublin hereby makes the following findings and determinations regarding the proposed Site Development Review for a development of 45 homes on 4.6 acre site (Parcel H) and 105 3-story detached units on a 9.2-acre site (Neighborhood 7) within Jordan Ranch: 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 be consistent with the architectural character and scale of development in the area; 2) the project will provide a needed and attractive housing opportunity; 3) the project is consistent with the General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan land use designations of Medium Density Residential; and 4) the project complies with the development standards established in the Planned Development ordinance for the Project. 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, and the surrounding properties; and 2) the project complies with the development regulations set forth in the Zoning Ordinance where applicable and in the adopted PD Ordinance _____ for the Project. 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 houses is consistent with other existing and approved residential development in the surrounding area; 2) the project will contribute to housing opportunities as a complement to the surrounding neighborhoods; and 3) the project will serve the current buyer profile and market segment anticipated for this area. 238 Page of D. The subject sites are suitable for the type and intensity of the approved development because: 1) the Project development respects the natural drainage and avoids steeper slopes, which are designated for open space; 2) the Project will implement all applicable prior adopted mitigation measures; 3) the project sites are or will be fully served by public services and existing roadways; 4) the project sites have adequate vehicular access to transportation arterials. E. Impacts to existing slopes and topographic features are addressed because: 1) the Project is required to comply with all previously adopted mitigation measures designed to ensure slope stability; 2) grading on the site will ensure that the site drains away from any structures and complies with the Regional Water Quality Control Board requirements; 3) most of the steeper areas of the site are in designated open space; and 4) 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 Project provides a high degree of design and landscaping to complement existing uses in the area; 2) the structures reflect the architectural styles and development standards in the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan for residential buildings in the area and previously adopted for Jordan Ranch; and 3) the color and materials proposed will be consistent with the requirements of the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan and Jordan Ranch Stage 2 Development Plan. 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) generous landscaping is proposed within setback from major roads; 2) landscaping in common areas and among the neighborhoods is coordinated through a system of connecting trails; 3) in addition to the internal trail system, common area open space has been provided in the form of small parks, seating areas, and paseos; 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) the project site provides opportunities for pedestrian and bicycle circulation; and 2) the project will provide a system of interconnecting trails among the neighborhoods within Jordan Ranch and adjacent neighborhoods and public recreation areas. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Dublin hereby makes the following findings and determinations regarding Vesting Tentative Maps 8267 and 8269: Vesting Tentative Tract Maps 8267 and 8269 A. The proposed Vesting Tentative Maps 8267 and 8269 are consistent with the intent of applicable subdivision regulations and with the General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan. 338 Page of B. The design and improvements of the proposed Vesting Tentative Maps 8267 and 8269 are consistent with the General Plan and the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan, as amended, in that the developments design and infrastructure are consistent with adjacent residential neighborhoods designated for this type of development. C. The proposed Vesting Tentative Maps 8267 and 8269 are consistent with the Planned Development zoning approved for Project in Ordinance _____, and therefore consistent with the City of Dublin Zoning Ordinance. D. The properties created by the proposed Vesting Tentative Maps 8267 and 8269 will have adequate access to major constructed or planned improvements as part of the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan. E. Project design, architecture, and concept have been integrated with topography of the project site created by Vesting Tentative Maps 8267 and 8269 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 proposed Vesting Tentative Maps 8267 and 8269 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. G. The design of the subdivisions 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 Mitigation Measures adopted with the MND and prior EIRs continue to apply to the Project Site Development Review and Vesting Tentative Maps for Parcel H and Neighborhood 7. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Dublin City Council hereby approves the Site Development Review for a development of 45 homes on a 4.6 acre site known as Parcel H and of 105 3-story detached units on a 9.2 acre site known as Neighborhood 7 within Jordan Ranch as shown on plans prepared by Dahlin Group-Architecture Planning, Ruggeri Jensen Azar-Engineering Planners Surveyors, and Gates + Associates received September 14, 2015 and subject to the conditions included below. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Dublin City Council hereby approves Vesting Tentative Maps 8267 and 8269 prepared by Dahlin Group-Architecture Planning, Ruggeri Jensen Azar- Engineering Planners Surveyors, and Gates + Associates received September 14, 2015 and 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, 438 Page of [FIN] Finance, [F] Alameda County Fire Department, [DSR] Dublin San Ramon Services District, [CO] Alameda County Department of Environmental Health, [Z7] Zone 7. NO. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Agency Prior to: Source PLANNING GENERAL CONDITIONS 1. Approval. This Site Development Review approval PL Ongoing Planning shall be as generally depicted and indicated on the project plans prepared by Dahlin Group- Architecture Planning, Ruggeri Jensen Azar- Engineering Planners Surveyors, and Gates + Associates received September 14, 2015, on file in the Community Development Department, and other plans, text, and diagrams relating to this Site Development Review, and as specified as the following Conditions of Approval for this project. This approval is subject to adopting the Mitigated Negative Declaration, and companion General Plan and Specific Plan Amendments and related Planned Development Zoning. 2. Permit Expiration. Construction or use shall PL One Year DMC commence within one (1) year of Site Development After Effective 8.96.020. Review Permit approval or the Permit shall lapse Date D and become null and void. If there is a dispute as to whether the Permit 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 Permit expires, a new application must be made and processed according to the requirements of this Ordinance. 3. Time Extension. The original approving decision-PL Prior to DMC maker may, upon the Applicant’s written request for Expiration 8.96.020. an extension of approval prior to expiration, upon Date E the determination that all Conditions of Approval remain adequate and all applicable findings of approval will continue to be met, grant an extension of the approval for a period not to exceed six (6) months. All time extension requests shall be noticed and a public hearing shall be held before the original hearing body. 4. Compliance. The Applicant/Property Owner shall PL Ongoing DMC operate this use in compliance with the Conditions 8.96.020. of Approval of this Site Development Review F Permit, the approved plans and the regulations established in the Zoning Ordinance. Any violation of the terms or conditions specified may be subject to enforcement action. 5. Revocation of Permit. The Site Development PL Ongoing DMC Review approval shall be revocable for cause in 8.96.020.I 538 Page of accordance with Section 8.96.020.I of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance. Any violation of the terms or conditions of this permit shall be subject to citation. 6. Requirements and Standard Conditions. The Various Building Standard Applicant/ Developer shall comply with applicable Permit City of Dublin Fire Prevention Bureau, Dublin Public Issuance 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. 7. Required Permits. Developer shall obtain all PW Building Standard permits required by other agencies including, but Permit not limited to Alameda County Flood Control and Issuance 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. 8. Fees. Applicant/Developer shall pay all applicable Various Building Various fees in effect at the time of building permit issuance, Permit including, but not limited to, Planning fees, Building Issuance fees, Traffic Impact Fees, TVTC fees, Dublin San Ramon Services District fees, Public Facilities fees, Dublin Unified School District School Impact fees, Fire Facilities Impact fees, Alameda County Flood and Water Conservation District (Zone 7) Drainage and Water Connection fees; or any other fee that may be adopted and applicable. 9. Indemnification. The Developer shall defend, ADM Ongoing Administra indemnify, and hold harmless the City of Dublin and tion/City its agents, officers, and employees from any claim, Attorney 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 638 Page of 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 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. 10. Clarification of Conditions. In the event that there PW Ongoing Public needs to be clarification to the Conditions of Works 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 to this project. 11. Clean-up. The Applicant/Developer shall be PL Ongoing Planning responsible for clean-up & disposal of project related trash to maintain a safe, clean and litter-free site. 12. Modifications. Modifications or changes to this PL Ongoing DMC Site Development Review approval may be 8.104.100 considered by the Community Development Director if the modifications or changes proposed comply with Section 8.104.100 of the Zoning Ordinance. 13. Lighting. Lighting is required over exterior PL, PW Building Municipal entrances/doors. Exterior lighting used after daylight Permit Code hours shall be adequate to provide for security Issuance needs. PLANNING – PROJECT SPECIFIC 14. PL Prior to first Project Public Art Contribution . Developer shall fulfill the occupancy Specific Public Art Contribution through the provision of in- lieu fees. Prior to the recordation of the final map for the project, Developer shall obtain the total building valuation of the project from the Building Official, and the value of the applicant’s required public art project shall be determined by the Community Development Director . 15. Inclusionary Housing: This project is subject to the PL Recordation Project City’s Inclusionary Zoning Regulations (Chapter of the first specific 8.68 of the Municipal Code). Affordable final map 738 Page of Housing/Inclusionary Zoning – The Jordan Ranch Project is subject to an Affordable Housing Agreement (AHA) approved on ________ by City Council Resolution _____. The proposed project will create an additional affordable housing requirement of 15 units. The developerproposed to satisfy its obligation under the Inclusionary Zoning Regulations through the use of affordable unit credits. It willpurchasethesecredits fromeither the City orEden Housingcreated in the Veterans Project under development in Downtown Dublin. The purchase will eitherprovide an additional funding stream for the Veterans Housing projector result in the City receiving additional affordable housing funds for use in other projects. 16. Street Lights. Street lights selected for this PL In conjunction Project subdivision shall have the ability to accept cut-off with approval Specific shielding to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. of improvement plans 17. Satellite Dishes: The Developer's Architect shall PL Prior to the DMC prepare a plan for review and approval by the issuance of 8.96.020. Director of Community Development and the Chief Building D Building Official that provides a consistent and Permits 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 chimneys exist, 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. LANDSCAPING 18. PL Issuance of Standard Final Landscape Construction Documents. The building final planting and irrigation design shall: permits a. Utilize plant material that will be capable of healthy growth within the given range of soil and climate. b. Provide landscape screening that is of a 838 Page of height and density so that it provides a positive visual impact within three years from the time of planting. c. Provide that 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 a minimum of 5 gallons in size. d. Provide concrete curbing at the edges of all planters and paving surfaces where applicable. Final landscape construction documents shall: a. Provide specific landscape and irrigation plans for non-typical and corner lots. This requirement includes any lot that varies more than five feet in width from the typical plan. b. Specify 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 stockpiles of loose soil existing on that date are hydroseeded in a similar manner. c. Specify 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. d. Include a warranty from the owners and/or contractors to warrant all trees, shrubs and ground cover and the irrigation system for one year from the date of project acceptance by the City. 19. Maintenance Agreement. A permanent PL Issuance of Standard maintenance agreement on all common area the building landscaping will be required from the owner insuring permit regular irrigation, fertilization and weed abatement. 20. Tree Preservation. Tree preservation techniques, PL Issuance of Standard and guarantees, if applicable, shall be reviewed and the building approved by the Dublin Planning Division prior to permit the issuance of the building permit. 21. Street Trees and Accent Trees. Street trees shall PL Issuance of Standard be spaced between 30 and 50 feet on center or the building approximately one per typical lot. Corner lots shall permit provide a minimum of two trees and a maximum of three street trees per lot. Generally, each lot will provide one accent tree, space permitting. 938 Page of 22. Water Efficient Landscaping Regulations. The PL Issuance of Standard Applicant shall meet all requirements of the City of the building Dublin's Water-Efficient Landscaping Regulations, permit Section 8.88 of the Dublin Municipal Code. 23. Bio-Retention Areas. The designed bio-retention PL Issuance of Standard areas shall be enhanced to create an open space the building landscape that is landscape attractive, conserves permit water, and requires minimal maintenance. 24. Plant Clearances. All trees planted shall meet the PL Issuance of Standard following clearances: the building a. 6' from the face of building walls or roof eaves permit 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. 20' from either side of a streetlight 25. Irrigation System Warranty. The Applicant shall PL Issuance of Standard warranty the irrigation system and planting for a the building period of one year from the date of installation. The permit 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. 26. Walls, Fences and Mailboxes. Applicant shall PL Issuance of Standard work with staff to prepare a final wall, fencing and the building mailbox plan that is consistent with Dublin Municipal permit Code and the design character of the architecture. The design of the mailbox station shall be upgraded to provide an enclosure or housing for the gang mailboxes so that they are integrated into the structure. Mailbox locations shall be integrated within the landscape and shall comply with USPS requirements. 27. Sustainable Landscape Practices. The PL Issuance of Standard landscape design shall demonstrate compliance the building with sustainable landscape practices as detailed in permit the Bay-Friendly Landscape Guidelines by earning a minimum of 60 points or more on the Bay-Friendly scorecard, meeting 9 of the 9 required practices and specifying that 75% of the non-turf planting only requires occasional, little or no shearing or summer water once established. Final selection and placement of trees, shrubs and ground cover plants shall ensure compliance with this requirement. Herbaceous plants shall be used along walks to reduce maintenance and the visibility of the sheared branches of woody ground cover plants. Planters for medium sized trees shall be a minimum of six 1038 Page of feet wide. Small trees or shrubs shall be selected for planting areas less than six feet wide. 28. Copies of Approved Plans. The Applicant shall PL Construction Standard provide the City with one full size copy, one reduced (1/2 sized) copy and one electronic copy of the approved landscape plans prior to construction. BUILDING 29. Building Codes and Ordinances. All project B Through Standard construction shall conform to all building codes and Completion ordinances in effect at the time of building permit. 30. Retaining Walls. All retaining walls over 30 inches B Through Standard in height and in a walkway shall be provided with Completion guardrails. All retaining walls over 24 inches with a surcharge or 36 inches without a surcharge shall obtain permits and inspections from the Building & Safety Division. 31. Phased Occupancy Plan. If occupancy is B Occupancy of Standard requested to occur in phases, then all physical any affected improvements within each phase shall be required building 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 Department of Community Development. 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 Director of Community Development, 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. 32. Building Permits. To apply for building permits, B Issuance of Standard Applicant/Developer shall submit five (5) sets of Building construction plans to the Building & Safety Division Permits 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 1138 Page of 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. 33. Construction Drawings. Construction plans shall B Issuance of Standard be fully dimensioned (including building elevations) building accurately drawn (depicting all existing and permits 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. 34. Air Conditioning Units. Air conditioning units and B, PL Occupancy of Standard ventilation ducts shall be screened from public view Unit 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 Chief Building Official and Director of Community Development. 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. Air conditioning units shall comply with Section 8.36.060,C,3 of the Zoning Ordinance. 35. Temporary Fencing. Temporary Construction B Through Standard fencing shall be installed along the perimeter of all Completion work under construction. 36. Addressing B Standard a) Provide a site plan with the City of Dublin’s address grid overlaid on the plans (1 to 30 Prior to scale). Highlight all exterior door openings release of on plans (front, rear, garage, etc.). The site addresses plan shall include a single large format page showing the entire project and individual sheets for each neighborhood. 3 copies on full size sheets and 5 copies reduced sheets. b) Provide plan for display of addresses. The Building Official shall approve plan prior to Prior to issuance of the first building permit. (Prior to permitting permitting) c) Addresses will be required on the front of the dwellings. Addresses are also required near Prior to the garage door opening if the opening is not permitting on the same side of the dwelling as the front 1238 Page of door. d) Address signage shall be provided as per the Occupancy Dublin Residential Security Code. of any Unit e) Exterior address numbers shall be backlight and be posted in such a way that they may Occupancy be seen from the street. of any Unit f) Driveways servicing more than one (1) individual dwelling unit shall have a minimum Prior to of 4 inch high identification numbers, noting permit the range of unit numbers placed at the issuance, entrance to each driveway at a height and through between 36 and 42 inches above grade. The completion light source shall be provided with an uninterruptible AC power source or controlled only by photoelectric device. 37. Engineer Observation. The Engineer of record B Scheduling Standard shall be retained to provide observation services for the final all components of the lateral and vertical design of frame the building, including nailing, hold-downs, straps, inspection 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. 38. Foundation. Geotechnical Engineer for the soils BPermit Standard report shall review and approve the foundation issuance design. A letter shall be submitted to the Building Division on the approval. 39. Green Building B Standard Green Building measures as detailed in the SDR Through package may be adjusted prior to master plan Completion 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 Prior to first the master plans. The checklist shall detail what permit 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 Through completed checklist with appropriate verification that Completion 1338 Page of all Green Points required by 7.94 of the Dublin Municipal Code have been incorporated. (Through Completion) Homeowner Manual – if Applicant takes advantage Prior to first of this point the Manual shall be submitted to the permit Green Building Official for review or a third party reviewer with the results submitted to the City. (Project) Prior to approval of Landscape plans shall be submitted to the Green the Building Official for review. (Prior to approval of the landscape landscape plans by the City of Dublin) plans by the City of Dublin Developer may choose self-certification or certification by a third party as permitted by the Prior to Dublin Municipal Code. Applicant shall inform the approval of Green Building Official of method of certification the plans by prior to release of the first permit in each subdivision the City of / neighborhood. Dublin 40. Copies of Approved Plans. Applicant shall B30 days after Standard provide City with 2 reduced (1/2 size) copies of the permit and City of Dublin stamped approved plan. each revision issuance 41. Cool Roofs. Flat roof areas shall have their roofing B Through material coated with light colored gravel or painted Completion with light colored or reflective material designed for Cool Roofs. 42. Solar Zone – CA Energy Code BIn Standard Show the location of the Solar Zone on the site conjunction plan. Detail the orientation of the Solar Zone. This with Master information shall be shown in the master plan check Plan check, on the overall site plan, the individual roof plans and prior to the plot plans. This condition of approval will be issuance of waived if the project meets the exceptions provided Building in the CA Energy Code. Permits 43. Wildfire Management. Provide in the master BPrior to Standard drawing set, a sheet detailing which lots are issuance of adjacent to open space and subject to the Wildfire Building Management provisions of the code. Permits 44. Recreation Centers. Building permits are B Through Standard required for all recreation centers, swimming pools, Completion spas, park structures and associated amenities and are required to meet the accessibility and building codes. Recreation area shall be considered conceptual in nature only, items such as accessibility and permit requirements shall be reviewed during the permitting process. 1438 Page of 45. Options. Selected options that affect the square B Through Standard footage of the dwellings shall be listed on the Completion building permit application. Selected options that affect the footprint of the dwelling shall be shown on the plot plan 46. Roof Plans. Detail Solar Zones on a plan type B Through Standard basis, show for each orientation as defined by Completion section 110.10.2 Energy Code (SDR) 47. B Through Standard Floor Plans. Show location of water heater (SDR) Completion 48. Universal Design Ordinance. ALL units shall B Through Standard meet or exceed the requirements for Universal Completion Design (UDO). If an exemption is granted for the entry to the primary entrance, this will NOT release the unit from the remaining UDO requirements. [Can they do this?] 49. Household Waste Materials. Removal of existing B Prior to Project household waste materials on the site shall be issuance of Specific monitored by a qualified professional and that Grading normal and customary testing be performed for lead Permits and based paint and asbestos building materials prior to issuance of demolition of existing on-site buildings. Compliance demolition with this condition shall be demonstrated to the permit Building Official prior to obtaining a demolition permit. 50. ET Adjustment Factor. The Building Standards Commission has recently amended the ET Adjustment Factor to 0.55. Landscape Architect of record shall verify that the submitted plans meet these new requirements. 51. Accessibility. Play areas shall meet the requirements of the CA Building Code for Accessibility to the play equipment and dining tables. FIRE 52. Site Plan. The site plan needs to show sufficient detail to reflect an accurate and detailed layout of the site for review and record purposes. The site plan will need a scale that will allow sufficient details for review purposes and include, but not be limited to the following: The site parking and circulation layout including fences, gates, fire land locations and turnarounds. Location of all fire appliances including fire hydrants, fire connections, fire sprinkler risers and fire control valves. The location of all building openings including the exit discharge pathway for building exits. 1538 Page of Note the location of exit lighting for these pathways as well. The location of any overhead obstructions and their clearances. 53. New Fire Sprinkler System Requirements. In F Prior to CA accordance with The Dublin Fire Code, fire issuance of Building / sprinklers shall be installed in all buildings. The Building Residential system shall be in accordance with the NFPA 13D, Permits Code the CA Fire Code and CA Building / Residential Code. 54. Fire apparatus. Roadways shall have a minimum F In CA unobstructed width of 20 feet and an unobstructed conjunction Building / vertical clearance of not less than 13 feet 6 inches. with Site Residential Roadways under 36 feet wide shall be posted with Improvement Code signs on one side; roadways under 28 feet wide Drawings shall be posted with signs both sides of the street as follows: “NO STOPPING FIRE LANE - CVC 22500.1”. 1. Fire apparatus roadways must extend to within 150 ft. of the most remote first floor exterior wall of any building. 2. The maximum grade for a fire apparatus roadway is 12%. 3. Fire apparatus roadways in excess of 150 feet in length must make provisions for approved apparatus turnarounds. 4. Where the vertical distance between grade plane and the highest roof surface exceeds 30 feet, aerial fire apparatus access roads shall be provided. Having a minimum 26’ unobstructed width in the immediate vicinity of the building. 55. Gate Approvals. Fencing and gates that cross F Prior to CA pedestrian access and exit paths, as well as vehicle issuance of Building / entrance and exit roads and Emergency Vehicle Building Residential Access ways, need to be approved for fire Permits Code 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. 56. Hydrants & Fire Flows. Show the location of any F Prior to CA on-site fire hydrants and any fire hydrants that are issuance of Building / along the property frontage as well as the closest Building Residential hydrants to each side of the property that are Permits Code located along the access roads that serves this property. Provide a letter from the water company 1638 Page of indicating what the available fire flow is to this property. DSRSD 57. Complete improvement plans shall be submitted to DSRSD Issuance of Standard DSRSD that conform to the requirements of the any building Dublin San Ramon Services District Code, the permit DSRSD “Standard Procedures, Specifications and Drawings for Design and Installation of Water and Wastewater Facilities”, all applicable DSRSD Master Plans and all DSRSD policies. 58. All mains shall be sized to provide sufficient DSRSD Issuance of Standard capacity to accommodate future flow demands in any building addition to each development project’s demand. permit Layout and sizing of mains shall be in conformance with DSRSD utility master planning. 59. Sewers shall be designed to operate by gravity DSRSD Issuance of Standard flow to DSRSD’s existing sanitary sewer system. any building Pumping of sewage is discouraged and may only be permit 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. 60. Domestic and fire protection waterline systems for DSRSD Issuance of Standard Tracts or Commercial Developments shall be any building designed to be looped or interconnected to avoid permit dead end sections in accordance with requirements of the DSRSD Standard Specifications and sound engineering practice. 61. DSRSD policy requires public water and sewer lines DSRSD Issuance of Standard to be located in public streets rather than in off-any building street locations to the fullest extent possible. If permit 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. 62. Prior to approval by the City of a grading permit or a DSRSD Issuance of Standard site development permit, the locations and widths of any building all proposed easement dedications for water and permit sewer lines shall be submitted to and approved by DSRSD. 63. All easement dedications for DSRSD facilities shall DSRSD Issuance of Standard be by separate instrument irrevocably offered to any building 1738 Page of DSRSD or by offer of dedication on the Final Map. permit 64. Prior to approval by the City for Recordation, the DSRSD Issuance of Standard Final Map shall be submitted to and approved by any building DSRSD for easement locations, widths, and permit restrictions. 65. Prior to issuance by the City of any Building Permit DSRSD Issuance of Standard or Construction Permit by the Dublin San Ramon any building Services District, whichever comes first, all utility permit 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. 66. Prior to issuance by the City of any Building Permit DSRSD Issuance of Standard or Construction Permit by the Dublin San Ramon any building Services District, whichever comes first, all permit 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. 67. No sewer line or waterline construction shall be DSRSD Issuance of Standard permitted unless the proper utility construction any building permit has been issued by DSRSD. A construction permit permit will only be issued after all of the items in Condition No. 66 have been satisfied. 68. The applicant shall hold DSRSD, its Board of DSRSD Issuance of Standard Directors, commissions, employees, and agents of any building DSRSD harmless and indemnify and defend the permit same from any litigation, claims, or fines resulting from the construction and completion of the project. 69. Improvement plans shall include recycled water DSRSD Issuance of Standard improvements as required by DSRSD. Services for any building landscape irrigation shall connect to recycled water permit mains. Applicant must obtain a copy of the DSRSD Recycled Water Use Guidelines and conform to the requirements therein. 70. DSRSD has no objections to this proposed alternate DSRSD Issuance of Project 1838 Page of site plan should such a site plan be permissible with any building Specific the revised Tassajara Road right of way and under permit Dublin Zoning regulations. 71. DSRSD Issuance of Project Development plans will not be approved until any building Specific landscape plans are submitted and approved. permit 72. DSRSD Issuance of Project Grading for construction shall be done with recycled any building Specific water. permit 73. Temporary potable irrigation meters in areas with DSRSD Issuance of Project recycled water service shall only be allowed for any building Specific cross-connection and coverage testing for a permit maximum of 14 calendar days. 74. Where the narrow width of a proposed alley or cul-DSRSD Issuance of Project de-sac would make the standard spacing between any building Specific water mains and sewer mains unworkable, the permit developer shall design water mains and sewer mains to meet DSRSD requirements and California Division of Drinking Water requirements. 75. This project is within the area where the Department DSRSD Issuance of Project of Public Health has permitted DSRSD to use any building Specific recycled water within the front yards of SFRs which permit are managed by HOA. Should the developer choose to employ recycled water for this use, all front yards in the development will be irrigated with recycled water. 76. DSRSD Code Section 3.20.110, Duty to Connect – DSRSD Issuance of Project Recycled Water, requires the use of recycled water any building Specific for irrigation uses within the DSRSD water service permit area. Unless exempted by the District Engineer, the developer shall install a recycled water distribution system and use recycled water for approved landscape irrigation demands. Recycled water will be available as described in the DSRSD Water Master Plan Update, December 2005. Applicant must submit landscape irrigation plans to DSRSD. All irrigation facilities shall be in compliance with District’s “Recycled Water Use Guidelines” and Department of Health Services requirements for recycled water irrigation design. PUBLIC WORKS GENERAL CONDITIONS 77. General Conditions of Approval. Developer shall PW On going Standard comply with the following General Conditions of Approval for Vesting Tentative Tract Maps 8267 and 8269. 78. Street Lighting Maintenance Assessment PW First final map Public District . The Developer shall petition to have the Works project area annexed into the Citywide Lighting 1938 Page of 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. 79. Ownership and Maintenance of Improvements. PW First Final Public Ownership and maintenance of street right-of-ways, map and on Works common area parcels, GHAD parcels and open going space areas and improvements shall be by the GHAD, City of Dublin and the Homeowner’s Association. Prior to acceptance of the final map for processing, the applicant shall supply an “Ownership and Maintenance Exhibit” for review and approval. Exhibit shall detail which areas are to be owned and maintained by the GHAD, the City of Dublin, and the Homeowners Association. City of Dublin shall maintain public streets (pavement and curb & gutter). HOA shall maintain all common area landscaping and irrigation, all landscaping and irrigation in parkway strips, adjacent to private streets and drives and within public right-of-way, all public sidewalks adjacent to the project and common walkways. GHAD to maintain improvements within the GHAD parcels. 80. Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions PW First Final Public (CC&Rs). A Homeowners Association(s) shall be Map; modify Works formed by recordation of a declaration of with Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions to govern successive use and maintenance of the landscape, decorative Final Maps pavement and other features within the public right- of-way contained in the Agreement for Long Term Encroachments; all private road improvements; all open space and common area landscaping; all stormwater treatment measures; and all trail improvements. Said declaration shall set forth the Association name, bylaws, rules and regulations. The CC&Rs shall also contain a provision that prohibits the amendment of those provisions of the CC&Rs requested by City without the City’s approval. The CC&Rs shall ensure that there is adequate provision for the maintenance, in good repair and on a regular basis, of the private roads, landscaping & irrigation, stormwater treatment measures, public trail, decorative pavements, fences, walls, drainage, lighting, signs and other related improvements. The Developer shall submit a copy of the CC&R document to the City for review and approval relative to these conditions of approval. 81. Phased Improvements. Right-of-way dedication PW First Final Public 2038 Page of and installation of public and private improvements Map Works may be done in phases as indicated on the Tentative Map and Site Development Review, subject to the review and approval of the City Engineer. With each phased Final Map, the City Engineer shall identify all improvements necessary to serve and access the phased lots created, including stormwater treatment measures required to meet the provisions of the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) Municipal Regional Permit (MRP). All rights-of-way and improvements, including utilities and traffic signal installation and modifications, identified by the City Engineer for construction within the boundaries of each phase of the development shall be required with the Final Map for that phase. In addition, the City Engineer may require the Developer to perform off-site grading in order to conform site grading to the adjacent grade outside of the phase proposed for development. 82. Private street and common area subdivision PW Final Map Standard improvements . Common area improvements, private streets, private drives and all other subdivision improvements owned or maintained by the homeowners’ owners association are subject to review and approval by the City Engineer prior to Final Map approval and shall be included in the Tract Improvement Agreement for each respective tract. Such improvements include, but are not limited to: curb & gutter, pavement areas, sidewalks, access ramps & driveways; enhanced street paving; parking spaces; street lights (wired underground) and appurtenances; drainage facilities; utilities; landscape and irrigation facilities; open space landscaping; stormwater treatment facilities; striping and signage; and fire hydrants. 83. Private Street Easements. Public Utility PW Final Map Standard Easements (PUE), Sanitary Sewer Easements (SSE) and Water Line Easements (WLE) shall be established over the entire private street right-of- ways within all subdivisions. The PUE, SSE and WLE dedication statements on each Final Map are to recite that the easements are available for, but not limited to, the installation, access and maintenance of sanitary and storm sewers, water, electrical and communication facilities. Project entry monument signs and walls shall not be located within these easements. 84. Private Street Easements. The Developer shall PW Final Map Standard 2138 Page of dedicate Emergency Vehicle Access Easements (EVAE) over the clear pavement width of all private streets and drives. Easement geometry shall be subject to the approval of the City Engineer and Fire Marshall. 85. Intersections: The design of the intersections shall PW Final Map or Public be generally as shown on the Tentative Map and improvement Works the Site Development Review. The Developer shall plans submit details of the typical intersection layout showing the design for the ramps, sidewalks, entry walls, stop signs, landscape planters, street trees, crosswalk locations and decorative pavement to be approved by the City Engineer prior to the submittal of the Improvement Plans. Decorative pavement shall not be installed within crosswalks. Final design details shall be subject to review and approval by the City Engineer. 86. Monuments. Final Maps shall include private street PW Monuments Public monuments to be set in all private streets. Private to be shown Works street monuments shall be set at all intersections on Final Map and as determined by the City Engineer.and installed prior to acceptance of improvements 87. Stormwater Source Control. “No Dumping Drains PW Grading/ApprStandard to Bay” storm drain medallions per City Standard oval of Detail CD-704 shall be placed on all public and improvement private storm drain inlets.plans 88. Trash Capture. The project Stormwater PW Approval of Standard Management Plan shall incorporate trash capture Grading measures such as screens, filters or CDS/Vortex Improvement units to address the requirements of Provision C.10 Plans of the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) Municipal Regional Permit (MRP) to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. 89. PW Approval of Standard Grading. The toe of any slope shall be one foot Grading back of sidewalk. The top of any slope shall be Plans or three feet back of walkway. Minor exceptions may issuance of be made in the above slope design criteria to meet grading unforeseen design constraints subject to the permit and on approval of the City Engineer. going 90. PW Approval of Standard Front yard Grading: Finish grading for all front Grading yards shall be of variable slope with a maximum of Plans or 3:1 between hinge points located a minimum of issuance of fifteen feet (15’) behind back-of-walk (10 feet if there grading is a building encroachment) and three feet (3’) permit and on behind back of walk. going 2238 Page of 91. Curb Ramps: Curb ramp layouts are not approved PW Approval of Standard at this time. The number, location and layout of all improvement curb ramps shall be reviewed and approved by the plans or start City Engineer with the Improvement Plans of associated with each Final Map. All pedestrian construction ramps shall be designed and constructed to provide On going direct access to marked or unmarked crosswalks. Each pedestrian ramp shall be oriented such that it is aligned and parallel to the marked or unmarked crosswalk it is intended to serve. Pedestrian ramps serving more than one marked or unmarked crosswalk shall not be provided, unless specifically approved by the City Engineer. 92. Utilities. All new utility service connections, PW Approval of Standard including electrical and communications, shall be Improvement installed underground. Electrical transformers shall Plans or start be installed in underground vaults within an of appropriate utility easement or public service construction easement.On going 93. Landscape Plans. Developer shall submit design PW 1 st submittal Standard development Landscape Plans with the first plan or check for the street improvement plans and final improvement map for each respective tract. The Landscape plans and Plans shall show details, sections and supplemental approved with information as necessary for design coordination of Final Map the various civil design features and elements including utility location to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Complete Landscape Plans shall be concurrently approved with the Tract Improvement Agreement and Final Map. 94. Street Light and Joint Trench Plans. Streetlight PW 1 st submittal Standard Plans and Joint Trench Plans shall be submitted or with the first plan check for the street improvement improvement plans and final map for each respective tract. The plans and final streetlight plan and joint trench plan shall be approved completed prior to Final Map approval for each prior to Final respective subdivision. Map 95. Geotechnical Investigation. The Developer shall PW 1 st submittal Standard submit a design level geotechnical investigation of grading report defining and delineating any seismic hazard. plans and on The report shall be prepared in accordance with going guidelines published by the State of California. The report is subject to review and approval by a City selected peer review consultant prior to the acceptance of each Final map. The applicant shall pay all costs related to the required peer review. The recommendations of those geotechnical reports shall be incorporated into the project plans subject 2338 Page of to the approval of the City Engineer. 96. Grading. The disposal site and haul truck route for PW Approval of Public any off-haul dirt materials shall be subject to the grading plans, Works review and approval by the City Engineer prior to or start of the approval the improvement plans or issuance of construction a Grading Permit. If the Developer does not own or issuance of the parcel on which the proposed disposal site is grading located, the Developer shall provide the City with a permit Letter of Consent, signed by the current owner, approving the placement of off-haul material on their parcel. A grading plan may be required for the placement of the off-haul material. 97. Dust Control/Street Sweeping. The Developer PW Start of Public shall provide adequate dust control measures at all construction Works times during the grading and hauling operations. All On going trucks hauling export and import materials shall be provided with tarp cover at all times. Spillage of haul materials and mud-tracking on the haul routes shall be prevented at all times. Developer shall be responsible for sweeping of streets within, surrounding and adjacent to the project if it is determined that the tracking or accumulation of material on the streets is due to its construction activities. 98. Underground Obstructions. Prior to demolition, PW Prior to Standard excavation and grading on any portion of the project grading and site, all underground obstructions (i.e., debris, septic construction tanks, fuel tanks, barrels, chemical waste) shall be identified and removed pursuant to Federal, State and local regulations and subject to the review and approval by the City. Excavations shall be properly backfilled using structural fill, subject to the review and approval of the City Engineer. 99. Central Parkway Improvements. The Developer PW Final map Public shall modify Central Parkway improvements east of and Works Panorama Way and west of Tract 8100 boundary improvement line to provide: plans for Tract 8267 or permanent sidewalk improvements along the Tract 8269, north side of Central Parkway whichever is remove eastbound left turn pocket first provide adequate area for vehicular turn- around movements at eastbound Central Parkway Improvements shall be to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. TRACT 8267 (Parcel H Tract 8024) 100. Revised Tentative Map. Prior to acceptance of the Prior to First final map for processing, the applicant shall submit Final Map a revised Vesting Tentative Map that includes all and prior to 2438 Page of parcel and lot dimensions, a list of parcel uses, a first submittal map indicating ownership and maintenance of Grading responsibilities, easements, typical lot drainage, Plan typical lot utility layout and all standard items required on a tentative tract map. 101. Noise Study. A site-specific Noise Study for Parcel P Prior to Planning H development shall be submitted. Building Permit Issuance 102. Landscape Features within Public Right of Way. PW Final Map Standard The Developer shall enter into an “Agreement for Long Term Encroachments” with the City for maintaining the landscape features within public Right of Way including frontage landscaping, decorative pavements and special features (i.e. walls, monuments, fences, etc.), and landscaping and sidewalks along the east side of Fallon Road, and along the north side of Central Parkway as generally shown on Site Development Review exhibits. The Agreement shall identify the ownership of the special features and maintenance responsibilities. The Developer will be responsible for maintaining all decorative pavements including restoration required as the result of utility repairs. 103. Private Streets: The owner shall dedicate private PW Approval of Public street and drive right-of-way and install complete final map and Works street improvements for the proposed private improvement streets within the development as shown on the plans Tentative Map as Street A, Street B, Street C, Street D, Street E, Drive A, Drive B and Drive C). 104. Master Drainage Plan: The Developer shall PW Final Map for Public provide a Master Drainage Plan for the proposed tract 8267 or Works development within the Tract 8267 area to the issuance of satisfaction of the City Engineer. grading permit, approval of grading plans 105. Drainage Release Easements: The Developer PW Final Map Public shall dedicate to the City of Dublin drainage release Works easements on any privately owned parcels (HOA or GHAD) that accept storm drainage from public owned streets or parcels. 106. Storm Drain Easements. The Developer shall PW Final Map Public dedicate to the City of Dublin storm drain Works easements on any privately owned parcels (HOA or GHAD) that contain storm drain systems which convey storm drainage from public owned streets or parcels. 2538 Page of 107. Stormwater Management. The provided PW Prior to Public Stormwater Management Plan included with the approval of Works Tentative Map is approved in concept only. The grading, final Stormwater Management Plan is subject to improvement City Engineer approval prior to approval of the Tract plans Improvement Plans. Approval is subject to the developer providing the necessary plans, details, and calculations that demonstrate the plan complies with the standards outlined in the Water Quality Certification and Waste Discharge Requirements for Jordan Ranch Project, issued by the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board. 108. Stormwater Management. If the project is PW Grading, Public developed in phases, suitable stormwater treatment improvement Works and hydromodification measures shall be installed plans for each with each phase such that the stormwater runoff phase from the impervious areas created or replaced within the boundaries of each phase shall be properly treated and metered with stormwater treatment and hydromodification measures constructed with that phase or in previous phases. 109. Storm Water Treatment Measures Maintenance PW Final Map Standard Agreement. Developer shall enter into an Agreement with the City of Dublin that guarantees the property owner’s perpetual maintenance obligation for all stormwater treatment measures installed as part of the project. Said Agreement is required pursuant to Provision C.3 of the Municipal Regional Stormwater NPDES Permit, Order No. R2- 2009-0074. Said permit requires the City to provide verification and assurance that all treatment devices will be properly operated and maintained. The Agreement shall be recorded against the property and shall run with the land. 110. Landscape Improvements: All landscape PW Final Map Public plantings, irrigation, decorative pavements, and and Works structures as approved with the Site Development improvement Review within the public right of way, along all plans for private streets and drives dedicated with Tract Tract 8267 8267, along the regional trail corridor, within all On going common area parcels dedicated with Tract 8267 shall be approved concurrently with the Improvement Plans, Tract Improvement Agreement and Final Map for Tract 8267. TRACT 8269 (School Site – Parcel A Tract 8100) 111. Revised Tentative Map. Prior to acceptance of the Prior to First final map for processing, the applicant shall submit Final Map a revised Tentative Map that includes all parcel and and prior to lot dimensions, a list of parcel uses, a map first submittal 2638 Page of indicating ownership and maintenance of Grading responsibilities, easements, typical lot drainage, Plan typical lot utility layout and all standard items required on a tentative tract map. 112. Landscape Features within Public Right of Way. PW Final Map Standard The Developer shall enter into an “Agreement for Long Term Encroachments” with the City for maintaining the landscape features within public Right of Way including frontage landscaping, decorative pavements and special features (i.e. walls, monuments, fences, etc.), and landscaping and sidewalks along the east side of Panorama Way, and along Street J, Street K and Street L, as generally shown on Site Development Review exhibits. The Agreement shall identify the ownership of the special features and maintenance responsibilities. The Developer will be responsible for maintaining all decorative pavements including restoration required as the result of utility repairs. 113. The project Applicant shall submit the following PW Prior to Project plans to Public Works for approval: issuance of Specific a. Signing and striping plan the building b. Detailed street cross-sections permit c. Location of pedestrian ramps. d. Intersections of K Street and J Street with Panorama Drive shall be designed to accommodate existing street infrastructure on Panorama Drive, to the satisfaction of the Public Works Department. e. Intersection visibility triangles for all intersections. Intersection visibility shall be determined by Safe Stopping Sight Distance (SSSD) Criteria as outlined in the current Caltrans Highway Design Manual. Assume 30 MPH for all streets. Landscaping features, architectural structures, or any similar elements taller than 30 inches shall not be installed within the SSSD triangles. 114. PW Prior to Project All internal streets ( J, K, L, etc.) shall be private issuance of Specific streets. the building permit 115. PW Prior to Project On-street parking on any Public Street shall not be issuance of Specific allowed within an intersection including T- the building intersection. permit 116. PW Prior to Project On-street parking on any street shall be restricted issuance of Specific within 15 feet of any fire hydrant. the building 2738 Page of permit 117. Private Streets: The owner shall dedicate private PW Approval of Public street and drive right-of-way and install complete final map and Works street improvements for the proposed private improvement streets within the development as shown on the plans Tentative Map as Street J, Street K and Street L, Drive A, Drive B and Drive C, Drive D, Drive E, Drive F, Drive G, Drive H, Drive I, Drive J, Drive K and Drive L. 118. Offsite Grading Easement. Prior to issuance of a PW Issuance of Public grading permit for Tract 8269 – School Site, a Grading Works grading easement shall be obtained from the Pemit owners of the adjoining Neighborhood 5 property. 119. Master Drainage Plan: The Developer shall PW Final Map for Public provide a Master Drainage Plan for the proposed Tract 8269 or Works development within the Tract 8269 area to the issuance of satisfaction of the City Engineer.grading permit, approval of grading plans 120. Drainage Release Easements: The Developer PW Final Map Public shall dedicate to the City of Dublin drainage release Works easements on any privately owned parcels (HOA or GHAD) that accept storm drainage from public owned streets or parcels. 121. Storm Drain Easements. The Developer shall PW Final Map Public dedicate to the City of Dublin storm drain Works easements on any privately owned parcels (HOA or GHAD) that contain storm drain systems which convey storm drainage from public owned streets or parcels. 122. Stormwater Management. The provided PW Prior to Public Stormwater Management Plan included with the approval of Works Tentative Map is approved in concept only. The grading, final Stormwater Management Plan is subject to improvement City Engineer approval prior to approval of the Tract plans Improvement Plans. Approval is subject to the developer providing the necessary plans, details, and calculations that demonstrate the plan complies with the standards outlined in the Water Quality Certification and Waste Discharge Requirements (“Order”), for Jordan Ranch Project, issued by the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board. 123. Stormwater Management. If the project is PW Grading, Public developed in phases, suitable stormwater treatment improvement Works and hydromodification measures shall be installed plans for each with each phase such that the stormwater runoff phase from the impervious areas created or replaced 2838 Page of within the boundaries of each phase shall be properly treated and metered with stormwater treatment and hydromodification measures constructed with that phase or in previous phases. 124. Storm Water Treatment Measures Maintenance PW Final Map Standard Agreement. Developer shall enter into an Agreement with the City of Dublin that guarantees the property owner’s perpetual maintenance obligation for all stormwater treatment measures installed as part of the project. Said Agreement is required pursuant to Provision C.3 of the Municipal Regional Stormwater NPDES Permit, Order No. R2- 2009-0074. Said permit requires the City to provide verification and assurance that all treatment devices will be properly operated and maintained. The Agreement shall be recorded against the property and shall run with the land. 125. Landscape Improvements: All landscape PW Improvement Public plantings, irrigation and other improvements as Plans Works shown in the Site Development Review package within and with Tract 8269 shall be completed with Tract 8269. Landscape Plans for these improvements shall be approved concurrently with the Improvement Plans, Tract Improvement Agreement and Final Map for Tract 8269. PUBLIC WORKS STANDARD CONDITIONS: GENERAL 126. Developer shall comply with the following City of PW On goingStandard Dublin Public Works Standard Conditions of Approval (“Standard Condition”) unless specifically modified by Project Specific Conditions of Approval above. Standard Conditions shall apply to Vesting Tentative Tract Maps 8267 and 8269. 127. The Developer shall comply with the Subdivision PW On goingStandard Map Act, the City of Dublin Subdivision, and 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). 128. The Developer shall defend, indemnify, and hold PW On goingStandard harmless the City of Dublin and its agents, officers, and employees from any claim, action, or 2938 Page of 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. 129. If there are conflicts between the Tentative Map PW On goingStandard approval and the SDR approval pertaining to mapping or public improvements the Tentative Map shall take precedent. Agreements and Bonds 130. The Developer shall enter into a Tract Improvement PW First Final Standard Agreement with the City for all public improvements Map & including any required offsite storm drainage or Successive roadway improvements that are needed to serve the Maps Tract that have not been bonded with another Tract Improvement Agreement. 131. The Developer shall provide performance (100%), PW First Final Standard and labor & material (100%) securities to guarantee Map & the tract improvements, approved by the City Successive Engineer, prior to execution of the Tract Maps 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 132. The Developer shall pay all applicable fees in effect PW Zone 7 and Standard at the time of building permit issuance including, but Parkland In- not limited to, Planning fees, Building fees, Dublin Lieu Fees San Ramon Services District fees, Public Facilities due prior to fees, Dublin Unified School District School Impact filing each fees, Public Works Traffic Impact fees, Alameda Final Map, County Fire Services fees, Noise Mitigation fees, other fees Inclusionary Housing In-Lieu fees, Alameda County required with Flood and Water Conservation District (Zone 7) issuance of Drainage and Water Connection fees and any other building 3038 Page of fees as noted in the Development Agreement. permits 133. Traffic Impact Fees. The Developer shall be PW Issuance of Standard responsible for payment of the Eastern Dublin Building Traffic Impact Fee (Sections 1 and 2), the Eastern Permits Dublin I-580 Interchange Fee, and the Tri-Valley Transportation Development Fee. Fees will be payable at issuance of building permits. 134. Eastern Dublin Traffic Impact Fee Minimum PW Issuance of Standard Payment. The Developer shall be responsible for Building payment of a minimum portion of the Eastern Dublin Permits 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 payments shall be in addition to any other payment noted in these conditions and may not be offset by fee credits. 135. PW Prior to First Standard Dublin Ranch Eastside Storm Drain Benefit Final Map or Project District (G-3 Culvert). In accordance with Dublin First Building Specific Municipal Code Section 7.74.290, the Developer Permit, shall pay the applicable benefit charges for the whichever is property. earlier 136. The Developer shall dedicate parkland or pay in-lieu PW Prior to filing Standard fees in the amounts and at the times set forth in City final map of Dublin Resolution No. 60-99, or in any resolution revising these amounts and as implemented by the Administrative Guidelines adopted by Resolution 195-99. Permits 137. Developer shall obtain an Encroachment Permit PW Start of work Standard 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. 138. Developer shall obtain a Grading/Sitework Permit PW Start of workStandard from the Public Works Department for all grading and private site improvements that serves more than one lot or residential condominium unit. 139. Developer shall obtain all permits required by other PW Start of workStandard agencies including, but not limited to Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation District Zone 7, California Department of Fish and Wildlife, Army Corps of Engineers, Regional Water Quality Control Board, Caltrans and provide copies of the permits to the Public Works Department. 3138 Page of Submittals 140. All submittals of plans and Final Maps shall comply PW Approval of Standard with the requirements of the “City of Dublin Public improvement Works Department Improvement Plan Submittal plans or final Requirements”, and the “City of Dublin Improvement map Plan Review Check List”. 141. The Developer will be responsible for submittals PW Approval of Standard 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 Ramon map Services District shall approve and sign the Improvement Plans. 142. Developer shall submit a Geotechnical Report, PW Approval of Standard which includes street pavement sections and improvement grading recommendations. plans, grading plans or final map 143. Developer shall provide the Public Works PW Acceptance Standard Department a digital vectorized file of the “master” of CAD files for the project when the Final Map has improvements been approved. Digital raster copies are not and release acceptable. The digital vectorized files shall be in of bonds 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. Final Map 144. All Final Maps shall be substantially in accordance PW Approval of Standard with the Tentative Maps approved with this Final Map application, unless otherwise modified by these conditions. Multiple final maps may be filed in phases, provided that each phase is consistent with the tentative map, that phasing progresses in an orderly and logical manner and adequate infrastructure is installed with each phase to serve that phase as a stand-alone project that is not dependent upon future phasing for infrastructure. 145. All rights-of-way and easement dedications required PWApproval of Standard by the Tentative Map shall be shown on the Final Final Map Map. 146. Any phasing of the final mapping or improvements PWApproval of Standard of a Tentative Map is subject to the approval and Final Map conditions of the City Engineer. 147. Street names shall be assigned to each PWApproval of Standard public/private street pursuant to Municipal Code Final Map Chapter 7.08. The approved street names shall be 3238 Page of indicated on the Final Map. 148. All Final Maps shall include street monuments to be PWMonuments Standard set in all public streets. to be shown on final map and installed prior to acceptance of improvements Easements 149. PW Approval of Standard The Developer shall obtain abandonment from all improvement applicable public agencies of existing easements plans or and right of ways that will no longer be used. appropriate final map 150. The Developer shall acquire easements, and/or PW Approval of Standard obtain rights-of-entry from the adjacent property improvement owners for any improvements on their property. The plans or easements and/or rights-of-entry shall be in writing appropriate and copies furnished to the City Engineer. final map Grading 151. The Grading Plan shall be in conformance with the PW Approval of Standard recommendations of the Geotechnical Report, the grading plans approved Tentative Map and/or Site Development or issuance of Review, and the City design standards & grading ordinances. In case of conflict between the soil permits. engineer’s recommendations and City ordinances, On going the City Engineer shall determine which shall apply. 152. Remedial Grading. The grading plan shall include PW First Final Standard a remedial grading plan prepared by the project Map or geotechnical consultant, outlining areas of slide Issuance of repair, benches, keyways, over-excavation at cut-fill Grading transitions, subdrains, and other recommendations Permits of the consultant. The remedial grading plan will be subject to review and approval by the City’s own geotechnical consultant. 153. PW Approval of Standard A detailed Erosion Control Plan shall be included grading plans with the Grading Plan approval. The plan shall or issuance of include detailed design, location, and maintenance grading criteria of all erosion and sedimentation control permits. measures. On going 154. Tiebacks or structural fabric for retaining walls shall PW Approval of Standard not cross property lines, or shall be located a grading plans minimum of 2’ below the finished grade of the upper or issuance of lot. grading permits. On going 155. Resource Agency Permits. Prior to the filing of PW Prior to First Standard the first final map, and prior to start of any grading Final Map or 3338 Page of of the site as necessary, permits shall be obtained Issuance of from the US Army Corps of Engineers, the San Grading Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Permit Board, the State California Department of Fish and Game, and the US Fish and Wildlife Service for the grading or alternation of wetland areas within the site. The project shall be modified as needed to respond to the conditions of the permits. In the event that permits require the creation of permanent habitat or other mitigation measures within the project limits, the Developer shall provide (1) conservation easements or other land use restrictions over the project as required by the resource agencies, and (2) provide funding for ongoing maintenance of habitat areas in the form of an endowment (to the City or third party) or ongoing assessments (through the GHAD). The City reserves the right to modify or add conditions of approval as needed in response to the final permit conditions from the resource agencies. Improvements 156. The public improvements shall be constructed PW Approval of Standard generally as shown on the Tentative Map and/or grading plans Site Development Review. However, the approval or issuance of of the Tentative Map and/or Site Development grading Review is not an approval of the specific design of permits. the drainage, sanitary sewer, water, and street On going improvements. 157. All public improvements shall conform to the City of PW Approval of Standard Dublin Standard Plans and design requirements improvement and as approved by the City Engineer. plans or start of construction. On going 158. Public streets shall be at a minimum 1% slope with PW Approval of Standard minimum gutter flow of 0.7% around bump-outs. improvement Private streets and alleys shall be at minimum 0.5% plans or start slope. of construction. On going 159. Curb Returns on arterial and collector streets shall PW Approval of Standard be 40-foot radius, all internal public streets curb improvement returns shall be minimum 30-foot radius (36-foot plans or start with bump outs) and private streets/alleys shall be a of minimum 20-foot radius, or as approved by the City construction. Engineer. Curb ramp locations and design shall On going conform to the most current Title 24 and Americans with Disabilities Act requirements and as approved by the City Traffic Engineer. 3438 Page of 160. Any decorative pavers/paving installed within City PW Approval of Standard right-of-way shall be done to the satisfaction of the improvement City Engineer. Where decorative paving is installed plans or start at signalized intersections, pre-formed traffic signal of loops shall be put under the decorative pavement. construction. Decorative pavements shall not interfere with the On going placement of traffic control devices, including pavement markings. All turn lane stripes, stop bars and crosswalks shall be delineated with concrete bands or color pavers to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Maintenance costs of the decorative paving shall be the responsibility of the Homeowners Association. 161. The Developer shall install all traffic signs and PW Occupancy of Standard pavement marking as required by the City Engineer. units or acceptance of improvements . 162. PW Occupancy of Standard Street light standards and luminaries shall be units or designed and installed per approval of the City acceptance of Engineer. The maximum voltage drop for improvements streetlights is 5%. . 163. The Developer shall construct bus stops and PW Occupancy of Standard 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. . 164. PW Occupancy of Standard Developer shall construct all potable and recycled units or water and sanitary sewer facilities required to serve acceptance of the project in accordance with DSRSD master improvements plans, standards, specifications and requirements. . 165. PW Occupancy of Standard Fire hydrant locations shall be approved by the units or Alameda County Fire Department. A raised reflector acceptance of blue traffic marker shall be installed in the street improvements opposite each hydrant. . 166. PW Occupancy of Standard The Developer shall furnish and install street name units or signs for the project to the satisfaction of the City acceptance of Engineer. improvements . 167. Developer shall construct gas, electric, cable TV PW Occupancy of Standard and communication improvements within the units or fronting streets and as necessary to serve the acceptance of project and the future adjacent parcels as approved improvements by the City Engineer and the various Public Utility . agencies. 3538 Page of 168. All electrical, gas, telephone, and Cable TV utilities, PW Occupancy of Standard shall be underground in accordance with the City units or policies and ordinances. All utilities shall be located acceptance of and provided within public utility easements and improvements sized to meet utility company standards. . 169. All utility vaults, boxes and structures, unless PW Occupancy of Standard 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 170. The Erosion Control Plan shall be implemented PW On-going as Standard between October 15th and April 15th unless needed 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. 171. If archaeological materials are encountered during PW On-going as 1993 construction, construction within 100 feet of these needed EDEIR materials shall be halted until a professional MM 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. 172. Construction activities, including the maintenance PW On-going as Standard and warming of equipment, shall be limited to needed 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. 173. Developer shall prepare a construction noise PW Start of Standard management plan that identifies measures to be construction taken to minimize construction noise on surrounding implementatio developed properties. The plan shall include hours n and on- of construction operation, use of mufflers on going as construction equipment, speed limit for construction needed traffic, haul routes and identify a noise monitor. Specific noise management measures shall be provided prior to project construction. 3638 Page of 174. PW Start of Standard Developer shall prepare a plan for construction construction traffic interface with public traffic on any existing implementatio public street. Construction traffic and parking may n and on- be subject to specific requirements by the City going as Engineer. needed 175. The Developer shall be responsible for controlling PW On-going Standard any rodent, mosquito, or other pest problem due to construction activities. 176. The Developer shall be responsible for watering or PW On-going Standard other dust-palliative measures to control dust as conditions warrant or as directed by the City Engineer. 177. The Developer shall provide the Public Works PW Issuance of Standard Building Department with a letter from a registered civil permits or engineer or surveyor stating that the building pads acceptance of have been graded to within 0.1 feet of the grades improvements shown on the approved Grading Plans, and that the top & toe of banks and retaining walls are at the locations shown on the approved Grading Plans. Storm Water Quality (NPDES) 178. Prior to any clearing or grading, the Developer shall PW Start of any Standard provide the City evidence that a Notice of Intent construction (NOI) has been sent to the California State Water activities 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. 179. PW SWPPP to be Standard The Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan prepared (SWPPP) shall identify the Best Management prior to Practices (BMPs) appropriate to the project approval of construction activities. The SWPPP shall include the improvement erosion control measures in accordance with the plans, regulations outlined in the most current version of implementatio the ABAG Erosion and Sediment Control Handbook n prior to start or State Construction Best Management Practices of Handbook. The Developer is responsible for construction ensuring that all contractors implement all storm and on-going water pollution prevention measures in the SWPPP. as needed. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this ____day of _____, 2015 by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: 3738 Page of ABSTAIN: ______________________________ Mayor ATTEST: ______________________________ City Clerk 3838 Page of � OF DUB 2 STAFF REPORT � PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: September 22, 2015 TO: Planning Commission SUBJECT: PUBLIC HEARING: General Plan /Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendments, Planned Development Rezoning with related Stage 1, and in some cases, Stage 2 Development Plans for portions of: 1) Jordan Ranch (PLPA 2010 - 00068); 2) Dublin Ranch Subarea 3 (PLPA 2013 - 00033); and 3) Wallis Ranch (PLPA 2013 - 00034). In addition, Jordan Ranch has submitted an application for a Site Development Review Permit and Vesting Tentative Maps 8267 and 8269 for Parcel H and Neighborhood 7; and a Development Agreement amendment with BJ -ROF Jordan Ranch LLC Mission Valley Properties. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The City Council is helping the Dublin Unified School District locate a site for a school within Jordan Ranch at minimal cost. This is proposed to be achieved by converting a portion of an existing park site in Jordan Ranch to school uses and offsetting the parkland reduction by acquiring land within the Dublin Ranch Subarea 3 (Irongate) development. The City and the Wallis Ranch developer proposes to convert additional land within Wallis Ranch to parkland to offset a potential future parkland deficit in Eastern Dublin. The Planning Commission will consider and make a recommendation to the City Council regarding General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Land Use changes for the following: 1) Jordan Ranch — change 3.7 acres from Parks /Public Recreation to Public /Semi Public and change 4.6 acres identified as Parcel H from Mixed Use to Medium Density Residential (6.1 to 14.0 units per acre); 2) Dublin Ranch Subarea 3 (Irongate) — change 10.4 acres from Rural Residential /Agriculture to Parks /Public Recreation; and 3) Wallis Ranch — change 1.9 acres from Semi - Public to Parks /Public Recreation. A Planned Development rezone with related Stage 1 Development Plan is proposed for all three sites. Jordan Ranch also proposes to include a Planned Development Rezone with a related Stage 2 Development Plan, Site Development Review Permit, and Vesting Tentative Maps for Parcel H and Neighborhood 7, as well as a Development Agreement Amendment. Changing Parcel H to Medium Density Residential will remove the potential for 115 units and 5,000 square feet of retail commercial and replace it with 45 units of which five units are detached 2 -story homes and 40 units are 3 -story duets. Neighborhood 7, approved previously for approximately 100 Medium Density Residential units, is proposed to include 105 detached 3 -story units. 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 take the following actions: COPIES TO: Applicant File Page 1 of 22 [file name] ITEM # 8.2 a) Adopt a Resolution recommending that the City Council adopt a Resolution adopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Jordan Ranch /Subarea 3/Wallis Ranch Project; b) Adopt a Resolution recommending that the City Council adopt a Resolution approving General Plan /EDSP Amendments for portions of Dublin Ranch Subarea 3 (Irongate), Wallis Ranch and Jordan Ranch; c) Adopt a Resolution recommending that the City Council adopt an Ordinance approving a Planned Development Rezoning with related Stage 1 Development Plan for portions of Jordan Ranch, Dublin Ranch Subarea 3 (PLPA 2013 - 00033) and Wallis Ranch (PLPA 2013 - 00035, and approving a related Stage 2 Development Plan Amendment for portions of Jordan Ranch, (09 -011 and PLPA 2010 - 00068); d) Adopt a Resolution recommending that the City Council adopt a Resolution approving a Site Development Review Permit and Vesting Tentative maps 8267 (Parcel H) and 8269 (Neighborhood 7) for the Jordan Ranch II project; and e) Adopt a Resolution recommending that the City Council adopt an Ordinance approving a Development Agreement Amendment between the City of Dublin and BJ -ROF Jordan Ranch L LC ission Iley Properties) for the Jo r n h II Project. Submitted By Re ed By Consulting Planner Assistant Commun ty evelopment Director PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Background This staff report addresses changes to three separate projects, including Jordan Ranch, Dublin Ranch Subarea 3, and Wallis Ranch as generally identified in Figure 1 below. The City Council has entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the Dublin Unified School District (DUSD) to help DUSD obtain the rights to a site to build a school, at minimal cost. The City and DUSD have discussed a proposal that involves land currently designated as Parks /Public Recreation for a joint use school and park site and development of a site currently dual- designated for school and residential purposes, for residential use within the Jordan Ranch project area. DUSD is interested in the new school /park site because of its need for additional school facilities and its lack of funds to purchase the site within Jordan Ranch that allows school uses. The re- designation would create a deficit in parkland acreage in Eastern Dublin. City Staff approached Lennar Homes to discuss options for the City to obtain the Rural Residential /Agriculture site on Subarea 3 to help address this parkland deficit. Lennar Homes was amenable to the Staffs request. The land use designation for this site is proposed to be changed to Parks /Public Recreation and used as a future park site. The City's Parks and Recreation Master Plan requires five acres of parkland per 1,000 residents. It appears that the City will have a parkland deficit at build -out of approximately 10 acres. Because of this known deficit, City staff approached Trumark Homes to discuss options for the City to obtain additional parkland within Wallis Ranch. Trumark was amenable to converting the Semi - Public lands to Parks /Public Recreation and agreed to make the request to the City Council for consideration. 2 of 22 City parks are acquired and paid for by developers through the City's Public Facility Fee program. The fees collected are allocated to park and facilities construction through the Capital Improvement Program (CIP). The City Council's priorities in the current five -year CIP include Fallon Sports Park, Jordan Ranch Neighborhood Parks and the Emerald Glen Recreation and Aquatic Complex. There is currently no funding set aside in the five -year CIP to construct the public park sites in Wallis Ranch. However, under the proposed agreements, the developers would construct and deliver the park will deliver the Jordan Ranch neighborhood park and Wallis Ranch park sooner than they would be delivered and make funds that would have otherwise been used for Jordan Ranch Park construction available for the construction of other parks in the community Tonight, the Planning Commission is requested to make a recommendation to the City Council regarding the proposed land use amendments, zoning and related entitlements as discussed in this Staff Report. The negotiated deal points of the transactions with the developers of these sites are not within the Planning Commission's purview. The deal points of the agreements with the developers of these properties will be considered by the City Council at a future date. 9: VI r l DiJBLIN - - - - - -- a Jordan Ranch — The 189.4 -acre Jordan Ranch project is located east of Fallon Road near the southeasterly City limits as shown in the vicinity map. The Jordan Ranch property was first approved in 2002 and revised in 2005 to allow up to 1,064 dwellings at various densities. Subsequent approvals have reduced the development potential to 964 dwellings. Three sites in Jordan Ranch are discussed in this Staff Report including a future school site, Neighborhood 7, and Parcel H. New School Site: The proposed 3.7 acre School site is part of a larger 10.1 acre site that is bounded by Central Parkway and Medium High Density Residential in the form of 3 -story townhomes and townhouse /flat combinations under construction to the north. Park/Public Recreation surrounds the proposed site on the west, east and south and property outside of 3 of 22 Jordan Ranch to the south (Chen property) is a continuation of the Parks /Public Recreation land use designation. The existing land use designation for this site is Parks/Public Recreation and currently anticipated as a future Community Park. The City initiated a General Plan Amendment Study for this site on February 17, 2015. The City proposes to change 3.7 acres from Parks /Public Recreation to Public /Semi - Public to allow for a future elementary/middle school in an effort to help DUSD acquire a school site at minimal cost. Neighborhood 7: This 9.2 -acre site is located on the southeast side of Panorama Drive and is bounded to the north and west by Jordan Ranch Neighborhoods 2 and 3 (Medium Density Residential) across Panorama Drive with attached and detached residential homes currently under construction, to the south by Neighborhood 5 (Medium Density Residential) and approved for future detached residential homes. Vacant land (Croak property) currently designated RR/A and P /PR outside Jordan Ranch abuts the site to the east. The 9.2 acre Neighborhood 7 includes dual Medium Density Residential and Public/Semi- Public land use designations and zoning which allows up to 100 dwellings or school uses. Grading has occurred and a substantial amount of infrastructure is complete. However, additional grading may be in order based on project approvals. The applicant is requesting approval of entitlements to develop 105 dwelling units on the site. However, no land use changes are requested because the site is already designated for Medium Density Residential consistent with the proposed project. Parcel H: Parcel H is a 4.6 -acre site at the northeast comer of Central Parkway and Fallon Road. The site is surrounded to the north by Neighborhood 1 (Single - Family Residential) with detached homes, to the west by Fallon Sports Park, and to the south and east by Open Space. The land use designation and zoning for Parcel H was changed from Open Space to Mixed Use in 2012, and allows for up to 115 dwellings and 5,000 sf of commercial use. Grading has occurred and a substantial amount of infrastructure is complete. However, additional grading may be in order based on project approvals. The City Council approved the initiation of a General Plan Amendment Study for this site on April 7, 2015. The property owner is requesting approval to change the land use designation from Mixed Use to Medium Density Residential and related entitlements to reduce the residential development from 115 units to 45 units and eliminate the commercial component of the project. Dublin Ranch Subarea 3 ( /rongate) — The 64 -acre Subarea 3 community is bounded by Central Parkway on the north, Dublin Boulevard on the south, Fallon Road on the east, and Lockhart Street on the west. The existing General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan (EDSP) land use designations for Subarea 3 include a 10.4 acre area designated Rural Residential /Agriculture (RR/A) and essentially serving as open space. The 10.4 acre area generally crosses the site from northwest to the east/southeast. Uses to the northeast and west/southwest within Subarea 3 generally have been approved for Medium Density Residential with some Medium High Density Residential, Park, and Open Space /drainage. Construction is currently underway for the residential uses surrounding the site. A 2.5 -acre vacant commercial site abuts Subarea 3 on the south, and the Fallon Gateway community shopping center is situated across Dublin Boulevard. The Dublin San Ramon 4 of 22 The City Council approved " initiation of a General Plan Amendment Study for this site on Auiguist 18, . p IN dM PA/ED PA/EDS r would cha rige a 1.9-gross acre site from Pub Park/Public Recreation and parkland' t r d deficit AF following: Current Request: The of proposed project i'N addressed in this Staff Report. Recreation. • jGPA/EDSPA: Change the landuse designation of 10.4 acres from RR/A to Parks/Publ • Planned Development Rezone Development Wallis Ranq GIPA/EDSPA: Change the land use designation of 1.9 acres from Semi-Public to Parks/Pubfic Recreation. M OI i' III,» �Y .ice Mw UM WIM .w.. " Stage 2 Jordan Stage I Fix— Na LAU SE PRO PO S E �Di LAND USE Waft Ranch — The project includes, a 1.9 acre site designated Semi-Public. The City and Trumark Homes propose to change the land use idesignailtion of this 1.9 acre site to a ParWPublic Recreation to offset a potential future, plarkland deficit in Easte�rn Dublin. The proposed GPAJEDiSiPA land use change is shown below: ixiSTING LAN POSED AD U... I L — — -------- The proposed amendments to the General Plan and EDSP require adjustments to Various figures, texts, and tables in both documents to ensure consistency throughout the dowment's as shown in, the attached resolution. A Resolution recommending City, Council approve a GPA/ED,SPA is included as Affachment 11 with the draft City Coundil Resolution included as Exhibit A. M " Planned Development Rezone A Planned Development Rezone with a Stage 1 Development Plan is proposed for the new school site in Jordan Ranch as well as the proposed park sites in Subarea 3 and Wallis Ranch. The proposed Stage 1 PD's are consistent with the proposed GPA/EDSPA. A Planned Development rezone with related Stage 1 and Stage 2 Development Plan is proposed for Jordan Ranch Neighborhood 7 and Parcel H. The zoning for Neighborhood 7 allows 105 detached 3 -story units. The zoning for Parcel H allows 45 units including 5 single - family detached homes and 40 attached duets.The proposed Stage 1 and Stage 2 Development Plans are included as Exhibit A to Attachment 2. Based on the proposed amendments and plans, the total unit count for the overall Jordan Ranch development would be 899 units, which is a reduction from the 964 units approved previously in 2012 and the 1,064 units with the original approval of Fallon Village in 2005 (a reduction of 165 units). A Resolution recommending that the City Council adopt an Ordinance approving the Planned Development rezone with related Stage 1 Development Plans and Stage 2 Development Plans are included as Attachment 2 with the draft City Council Ordinance included as Exhibit A. Site Development Review A Site Development Review has been requested for Parcel H and Neighborhood 7 of Jordan Ranch. General Design and Development standards adopted previously for Jordan Ranch state Jordan Ranch is planned to provide both single family and multi - family housing through a variety of neighborhood styles. The design guidelines include seven architectural styles: (A) Farmhouse, (B) Cottage, (C) Shingle, (D) Folk Victorian, E) Italianate, F), Colonial, and G) Rural Contemporary. The adopted standards also included the following objectives: • Architecture shall be simple in massing and form and provide visual interest. • Architectural elements and materials shall be mixed and matched among elevation styles to provide variety. • Color palettes shall be bold and appropriate to the style. The guidelines were intended to create affordability by design by making a conscious effort to limit the size of the homes and maximize the public and private open space within the community. The community and neighborhood streetscape is based on a hierarchical system of thematic landscape monuments to introduce the community image and enhance the proposed architecture. The monuments reflect the ranch character of the community while complementing the existing entry elements of the adjacent Positano community to the north. Community entries have been designated in the overall Fallon Village plan for the intersection of Fallon Road /Central Parkway, Fallon Road /Jordan Ranch Drive, Central Parkway /Panorama Drive (southeast of Neighborhood 7) and at Central Parkway /Sunset View Drive in the vicinity of the School site. Elements include community themed walls and fences, identification monolithic monuments, and accent trees and plantings. The design of residential neighborhoods in Jordan Ranch provides a series of common open spaces intended to serve the residents. These common areas provide a range of passive and active recreational opportunities within Jordan Ranch that are separate from City parks. Not 8 of 22 mom Plan 3 – Plan 3 is the largest at 2,196 square feet in a 2 -story building. Five homes are configured as a detached unit situated on corners with the most visibility from the nearby arterial roads. The floor plans for both the attached and detached versions of Plan 3 basically are same. Living, dining, and kitchen are located on the ground floor along with a full bathroom and bedroom with walk -in closet. The Master bedroom /bathroom, 2 bedrooms, laundry room, loft, and a full bathroom with dual basins are located on the second floor. TART P 'I- Plnnr Plnnc — Parr_al H ldatar_hpd and duetsl Plan Square Feet Bedrooms Bathrooms Parking Elevations Stories 1 2,020 sf 4 4 2 A& G 3 2 2,035 sf 4 3'/2 2 A& G 3 2 corner same features as Plan 2 with slightly larger garage A & G 3 3 attached 2,196 sf 4+ loft 3 2 A& G 2 3 detached same size and features as Plan 3 attached A & G 2 Elevation styles: Both elevation styles are available for reach of the three floor plans. (A) Farmhouse and (G) Rural Contemporary Parking The proposed parking for Parcel H is described below and is the consistent with the City's standard parking requirements. The proposed location of parking is shown on Attachment 3, Sheet 4. a) 90 covered spaces — 2 spaces per unit within an attached enclosed garage (same as City standard) b) 45 guest spaces (same as City standard) provided as: - 23 spaces curbside along internal streets (Street A, C and D) (on -site) - 22 perpendicular spaces in designated locations within the neighborhood Landscape /Streetscape Plan Landscape plans for Parcel H focus on three areas: • Area A - northeast corner of Fallon Road /Central Parkway • Area B – Secondary entrance at Central Parkway and Street A • Area C – Setback area east of the primary entrance at Jordan Ranch Drive across from Neighborhood 1 The primary entrance is marked by embellished landscape to enhance the entrance leading to the loop circulation system. Attention has been paid to the pedestrian circulation including sidewalks along the streets, motorcourt treatment, and paseos between groups of buildings. Several common areas with accent plants and seating will be provided adjacent to the Open Space area to the east and serve as trail connections. Streetscape sections include landscaped slopes within front setback areas and along streets, motorcourts, drives, alleys, and individual and shared driveways. Some landscaping frontage along Fallon Road already has been installed. Landscape layout and details for Parcel H are shown In Attachment 3, Sheets L -19 and L -27. Walls and Fences - The Landscape Plans identify on Sheet L -3 the type, style, and placement of walls and fences that will be used within Neighborhood 7. This project proposes 2 different types of fencing in addition to retaining wall systems. The fence types include: 6 -foot solid 11 of 22 wooden good neighbor fence; 6 -foot and 4.5 -foot wooden lattice top fence; 3.5 -foot ornamental metal guard rail. Retaining Wall - There is a considerable slope along the Neighborhood 7's eastern boundary where it adjoins the Croak property. It was intended that the Croak property and this site be graded together however, entitlements on the Croak parcel have lagged. Panorama Drive is constructed and homes are currently being constructed along it and the Croaks would not give the Applicant permission to grade onto their property. Panorama Drive will be extended onto the Croak property at some time in the future. The grade for this road dictates that grading will be required to make a logical transition. This grading will also affect the landform adjacent to the proposed residences. In the Interim, a series of retaining walls, heavily landscaped and accented with a pedestrian trail will be utilized along the eastern boundary (Sheet L -9). Internal paseos will terminate at this trail therefore linking the various paseos together with the trail system. Neighborhood 7 Site Layout/Plottin,g This site is proposed to be developed with 105 detached, alley - loaded units. Lots 1 through 56 are arranged in 14 rows of 4 units placed perpendicular to the easterly and southerly boundaries. Each of these homes faces onto a paseo or small private park. Lots 57 through 105 are plotted in a radial pattern conforming to the Panorama Drive boundary. These homes face onto neighborhood streets or a private park. All homes take vehicular access from a motorcourt (single entrance) or driveway (two -way access). The units in Neighborhood 7 also are plotted to takE: advantage of reciprocal easements and fence position between the lots to create lot areas with dimensions suitable for air conditioning equipment. Ample storage for trash and recycling as well as additional items is included in the garages. Based the proposed Development Regulations, the minimum lot size is 1856 square feet with a maximum lot coverage of 60 %. Minimum usable private yard area is a 50 square foot private deck. Residential density for Neighborhood 7 would be 11.41 units per acre consistent with the MDR land use designation and proposed PD zoning. The Applicant has provided a plotting or "fit" list (Sheets 10 and 11 of the Applicant's separately bound civil submittal package (Attachment 3). With the exception of 7 corner lots, all plans fit on all lots. This flexibility allows for enhanced sales and marketing while maintaining sufficient diversity along the street scene for both neighborhoods. 12 of 22 Al a1 -71—$ 1 i ! ca A-, Zia- `>1 SA rt8 (�r1 M R i f •a� Ilk A �� � ��t���Af'•)g5I h ~'R Ni a rtii� cart 21 CFA 66 rr�rr :JMd :�M2 (!i® .. 6!A � 1 WC;A r gk. 0-,2 ,DNS co& Access & Circulation Both vehicular access points to Neighborhood 7 are from Panorama Drive along the westerly and northerly boundary. Street J intersects in an east -west direction north of Central Parkway. Street K runs in a north -south direction and intersects at the terminus of Panorama Drive where it connects to Table Mountain Road in Neighborhood 2 to the north. Street J and K are connected by Street L which parallels the arc of Panorama Drive internally within Neighborhood 7. Drives D and E are located behind the lots facing Street L providing alley access to Lots 57 through 105 (49 Lots). Seven motorcourts (Drives F, G, H, I, J, K, and L) provide garage access to 56 lots (Lots 57 through 105). Parcel E is provided to provide pedestrian access from Neighborhood 5 to the south allowing Neighborhood 5 residents access to the proposed open space (Parcel A) in this project. Architecture Four architectural styles would be available for this Neighborhood: (A) Farmhouse, (B) Cottage, (C) Shingle and (G) Rural Contemporary. These styles also are used in Neighborhood 5 adjacent and south of Neighborhood 7 (Please refer to Attachment 2, Exhibit A for a description of these styles). Color and materials are shown on Sheets Al -02 through Al -04. Floor Plans — Three floor plans are available for the 105 homes. The range in size of the 3 -story detached townhomes is limited between the smallest (Plan 1) and the largest (Plan 3). All three plans have a covered entry on the ground floor along with the attached 2 -car garage and dedicated storage space. Plan 1 has a ground floor laundry room, and Plans 2 and 3 have one bedroom with full en suite bathroom at ground level. Kitchens in Plans 1 and 3 have an island, and all plans have an outdoor deck on the second floor as an extension of the living area which faces the paseo or landscaped setback. All three plans have a third floor Master suite located at the 13 of 22 front of each unit; each Master suite has a shower, walk -in closet, dual basins, and separate water closet. Features specific to each floor plan are described as follows: Plan 1 — This Plan is the smallest at 1,959 square feet. In addition to the ground floor described above, the Universal Design Ordinance (UDO) version of Plan 1 provides for a powder room on the ground floor. 'The second floor is exclusively living, kitchen, and dining areas with a powder room. All three bedrooms are located on the third floor with the Master suite as described above and a secondary full bathroom. A corner configuration also is available with essentially the same layout, but with a slightly larger floor plate that extends through all three levels. Plan 2 — Plan 2 is a 4- bedroom, 2,025 square foot unit having one downstairs bedroom with an adjacent full bathroom. The second floor area includes the living room, dining area, kitchen, laundry room, and powder room with separate water closet. Three bedrooms, including the Master suite as described, above are located on the third floor. As a privacy option, the Master suite door may be relocated closer or further from the landing area. A corner configuration with essentially the same layout as the interior unit is available; however, additional area is occupied by furred walls and provides very little extra usable area other than extra floor or cabinet space. Plan 3 — The area of Plan 3 is 2,095 square feet and is not significantly larger than Plan 1, the smallest. Like Plan 2, a bedroom with full en suite bath is located on the ground floor. The second floor includes the living room, dining area, kitchen, laundry room, and powder room with separate water closet. The Master suite along with two bedrooms, a secondary full bathroom, and landing area are located on the third floor. As with Plan 1, the corner configuration of Plan 3 would have the same layout as an interior unit, but with a slightly larger floor plate that extends through all three levels. TABLE it: Floor Plans — Neighborhood 7 3-story detached ("pull-a art" townhomes Plan Square Feet ; Bedrooms Bathrooms Parking Elevations Stories 1 1,959 sf 3 2%2 + %2 2 B, C& G 3 1 corner 2,011 sf 3 2%2 +'/2 2 B, C& G 3 2 2,025 sf 4 3'/2 2 A, B& G 3 2 corner 2,040 sf 4 3%2 2 A, B& G 3 3 2,095 sf 4 3%2 2 A, B& C 3 3 corner 21164 sf 4 3%2 2 A, B& C 3 Total Elevation styles: (A) Farmhouse, (B) Cottage, (C) Shingle, and (D) Rural Contemporary. All floor plans offer a Universal Design Ordinance option (UDO - handicapped accessible). Floor plan details and plotting of potential UDO units are shown on the following Sheets: For Parcel Fl, UDO plans are shown on Sheets A13 -06, A13 -10, and A13 -15 for Plans 1, 2, and 3, respectively with plotting shown on Sheet 7 of the Planned Development. For Neighborhood 7, UDO _plans are shown on Sheets A10 -07, A10 -20, and A10 -33 for Plans 1, 2, and 3, respectively, with plotting shown on Sheet 15 of the Planned Development. Parking 14 of 22 The proposed parking for Neighborhood 7 is described below and the guest parking exceeds the City's standard parking requirement of 1 space per unit. The proposed location of parking is shown on Attachment 3, Sheet 12. a) 210 covered spaces — 2 spaces per unit within an attached enclosed garage (same as City standard) b) 107 guest spaces (exceeding City standard) provided as: - 77spaces curbside along internal streets (Street J, K and L) (on -site - 30 spaces curbside along Panorama Drive Landscape /Streetscape Plan Details have been provided for street frontage. Sheet L -1 shows the common areas in Neighborhood 7 that have been given special attention for landscape and hardscape design. These areas include: • Parcel A - Park provided with lawn, walkways, shelter over group table and BBQ, tot lot, seating, lending library, large canopy trees, orchard, game tables, small flowering trees, and ground cover. This area will be owned and maintained by the Homeowner's Association (Sheets L -10 & L -11. • Parcel B & C – Pedestrian corridor area (Sheet L -10 thru 1 -12) between ParK AND Panorama Drive. • Parcel D – This is a trail with maintenance access along the boundary between Neighborhood 7 of Jordan Ranch and the undeveloped Croak property to the east. (Sheet L- 9) • Park between Neighborhood 7 and Neighborhood 5 to the south - Transition slope provided with lawn, walkways, steps, screen trees, bench overlook with view, meditation garden with retaining wall, and demonstration garden. (Sheet L -10 and L -11) • Individual Paseos – Sheets L -7 and L -8 Paseos are provided with paved walkways, groves of trees, shade and canopy trees, specimen trees, rose gardens, native plants, benches and seating, raised planters, potted plants, and vine arbors. The Pedestrian corridors have walkways, plantings, and seating. A Resolution recommending that the City Council adopt a Resolution approving the Site Development Review is included as Attachment 4 and would be part of an action also approving the subdivision maps. Affordable Housing /lnclusionary Zoning – Jordan Ranch The proposed project will create an additional affordable housing requirement of 15 units. The developer proposed to satisfy its obligation under the lnclusionary Zoning Regulations through the use of affordable unit credits. It will purchase these credits from either the City or Eden Housing that were create by the Veterans Project under development in Downtown Dublin. The purchase will either provide an additional funding stream for the Veterans Housing project or result in the City receiving additional affordable housing funds for use in other projects. Vesting Tentative Tract Maps 8267 & 8269 – Jordan Ranch As stated above, the application for Jordan Ranch includes Vesting Tentative Map 8267 for Parcel H and Vesting Tentative Map 8269 for Neighborhood 7. Specifics for the two subdivision maps are shown in Table 5 as follows: 15 of 22 TABLE 5: Vesting Tentative Maps 8267 and 8269 Parcel Acres Use Description 4.6 Vesting Tentative Map 8267 56 units Lots 1- 45 Medium Density Residential Duets Attached and Detached 45 units two and three stories streets public right -of -way Streets A, B, C, D, E and parking paseos common area pedestrian access setbacks common area setbacks All perimeter streets and right -of -way will be dedicated, and perimeter streets will be improved, including perimeter and internal sidewalks and landscaping. A Planning Commission Resolution recommending City Council approval the Site Development Review Permit and Vesting Tentative Maps 8267 and 8269 is provided as Attachment 4 with the City Council Resolution included as Exhibit A. Development Agreement Amendment — Jordan Ranch The City and the developer of Jordan Ranch have negotiated an amendment to the existing Jordan Ranch Development Agreement (Attachment 5, Exhibit A). The amendment will vest the developer's right to construct the project proposed in the current approvals. It has no impact on the developer's existing entitlements. In exchange, the DA amendment will provide two community benefits. First, the developer will construct the neighborhood park currently designed and ready for construction, up to a value of $1.6 million, without receiving any credit under the City's Public Facilities Fee program. A recent estimate for the park improvements is $1.95 million. The difference will be provided in a credit to the developer to be used against units in the project. The community will receive a benefit in the form of accelerated delivery of parks that would otherwise await the City's collection of adequate Public Facilities Fee revenue to build parks. In addition, the developer's purchase of affordable unit credits from the Veterans project will either offset the City's Affordable Housing Fund contribution to the Veterans project or make additional affordable housing funds available to the City. The primary intent of a development agreement is to vest the land use approvals and provide certainty to the City and the developer. The Planning Commission's role is to review the development agreement, as it relates to land use, and make a recommendation to the City Council. The negotiated deal points of the agreement are outside the purview of the Planning Commission. 16 of 22 9.2 Vesting Tentative Map 8269 Medium Density Residential 56 units Lots 1 -56 Detached (Pull - Apart) three stories Alley-loaded Townhouses Medium Density Residential 49 units Lots —57 -105 Detached (Pull - Apart) three stories Alley-loaded Townhouses A Park Park B pedestrian Corridor between Park and Street L C pedestrian Corridor between Street L and Panorama Drive pedestrian Corridor along maintenance road and easterly boundary streets public right-of-way Streets J,K & L alleys/driveways rivate motorcourts Drives F, G, H, I, J, K, and L All perimeter streets and right -of -way will be dedicated, and perimeter streets will be improved, including perimeter and internal sidewalks and landscaping. A Planning Commission Resolution recommending City Council approval the Site Development Review Permit and Vesting Tentative Maps 8267 and 8269 is provided as Attachment 4 with the City Council Resolution included as Exhibit A. Development Agreement Amendment — Jordan Ranch The City and the developer of Jordan Ranch have negotiated an amendment to the existing Jordan Ranch Development Agreement (Attachment 5, Exhibit A). The amendment will vest the developer's right to construct the project proposed in the current approvals. It has no impact on the developer's existing entitlements. In exchange, the DA amendment will provide two community benefits. First, the developer will construct the neighborhood park currently designed and ready for construction, up to a value of $1.6 million, without receiving any credit under the City's Public Facilities Fee program. A recent estimate for the park improvements is $1.95 million. The difference will be provided in a credit to the developer to be used against units in the project. The community will receive a benefit in the form of accelerated delivery of parks that would otherwise await the City's collection of adequate Public Facilities Fee revenue to build parks. In addition, the developer's purchase of affordable unit credits from the Veterans project will either offset the City's Affordable Housing Fund contribution to the Veterans project or make additional affordable housing funds available to the City. The primary intent of a development agreement is to vest the land use approvals and provide certainty to the City and the developer. The Planning Commission's role is to review the development agreement, as it relates to land use, and make a recommendation to the City Council. The negotiated deal points of the agreement are outside the purview of the Planning Commission. 16 of 22 CONSISTENCY WITH GENERAL PLAN /EDSP & ZONING ORDINANCE: The proposed amendment to the General Plan /EDSP and Planned Development Rezoning reflect land uses that are compatible with open space preservation and neighborhood character within the area. The proposed project will contribute to housing opportunities and diversity of product type as a complement to the surrounding neighborhoods. The proposed Planned Development rezoning would be consistent with the existing land use designations and requested land use amendments. The proposed development sites in Jordan Ranch are already designated for urban level residential development and services. No open space designation would be converted to a residential designation. The proposed school site land use amendment takes advantage of its proximity to a park designation to allow for joint school /public recreational uses on the park designated land. The resulting joint school /park use is an efficient way to provide needed school and public park opportunities. The proposed Subarea 3 and Wallis land use amendments provide additional park land to offset a potential future deficit. Both are ideal sites for a public park designation as the Wallis site is adjacent to an existing park designation, and the Subarea 3 site provides the potential for a centrally located park that rises above the flatter Dublin plain for a unique hiking and viewing experience. As such, the Jordan, Subarea 3 and Wallis land use amendments and the proposed development are complementary and further the General Plan housing, recreation and resource protection goals. Staff reviewed Project consistency with the recently updated Housing Element since the proposed land use and zoning amendments and development for Parcel H in Jordan Ranch would reduce the development potential from 115 dwelling units to 45 units. Parcel H is not listed on the inventory of available sites for affordable housing; therefore, the reduced residential density would not be inconsistent with the Housing Element and would not trigger state law restrictions regarding no- net -loss of affordable housing sites. The proposed project has been reviewed for conformance with the Community Design and Sustainability Element of the General Plan. The proposed development on Jordan Ranch has been designed to be compatible with adjacent and surrounding development via architectural elevations, site planning, and design details and integration with the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan area over all. The Applicant intends to exceed the City of Dublin Green Building Ordinance and will exceed the 50 point threshold in the City's program. 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 project to ensure that the Project is established in compliance with all local Ordinances and Regulations. Conditions of Approval from these departments and agencies are included in the Resolution approving Site Development Review and Tentative Map Subdivisions (Attachment 4). ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: All of the subareas have been subject to prior CEQA review in connection with prior project approvals. The prior CEQA reviews included the Eastern Dublin EIR and three supplemental EIRs, among others. Therefore, the City prepared an Initial Study in accordance with CEQA Section 21166 and related CEQA Guidelines sections 15162/15163 to determine whether additional environmental review is required for the proposed general plan and Stage 1 PD rezoning approvals. Based on the Initial Study, the City determined that a Mitigated Negative 17 of 22 Declaration (MND) should be prepared, mostly to examine the potential for potential significant effects related to future development of a school on one of the Jordan Ranch sites. The MND is attached as Exhibit A to Attachment 6 of this staff report. The City received several public and agency comments on the MND during the public review period (as well as some late comments). Although not required by CEQA, the City prepared responses to the public comments raising environmental issues, given the public interest in the project. The public comments and responses are attached as Exhibit B to Attachment 6 of this staff report. Subsequent to release of the MND, the Jordan Ranch applicants submitted additional applications requesting development project approvals for two sites: Parcel H and Neighborhood 7. Staff carefully reviewed the additional applications to determine if they required the MND to be recirculated for public review under CEQA Guidelines section 15073.5. Staff determined that the MND did not need to be recirculated for public review because one of the sites, Parcel H, had been analyzed in 2012 for potential mixed use development of up to 105 dwellings and 5,000 square feet of retail commercial. The current project proposes potential Medium Density Residential development at 45 rather than 105 dwellings and without the retail commercial uses. These potential uses and densities were analyzed in the MND prepared for the project. The additional applications identified project lotting patterns, internal circulation, architecture and landscaping. These additional features do not affect previously identified significant impacts, mitigation measures, or the findings of the MND. The other site, Neighborhood 7, had also been analyzed in 2012 for potential residential development of up to 100 units under a dual residential /school land use designation allowing future development of either school or residential uses. The additional application now proposes 105 units. Staff determined that the additional 5 lots in Neighborhood 7 would not add a new significant impact to those identified in prior CEQA reviews. As noted in the MND, future development on Jordan Ranch has been analyzed in three EIRs (Eastern Dublin EIR, EDPO SEIR, Fallon Village SEIR) and two recent CEQA addenda in 2010 and 2012. To document this review and determinations, staff prepared an appendix to the MND which is attached as Exhibit C of Attachment 6. As documented in the MND and appendix for the currently proposed approvals, other than the impacts identified in the MND, there are no new or more severe significant impacts that identified in the prior environmental reviews. Further, all previously adopted mitigation measures continue to apply to the development sites unless otherwise specified in the MND. The prior environmental reviews are identified in the MND and are available for review at City Hall during normal business hours. A Resolution recommending that the City Council adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration is included as Attachment 6 with the public MND, comments and responses, and appendix as described above, ,attached and included as Exhibits A, B, and C, respectively. CEQA also requires that approval of an MND also approve a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) in accordance with CEQA Guidelines section 15097. The required MMRP is attached to the City Council draft resolution as Exhibit D. 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 sites to advertise the project and the upcoming public hearing. A public notice also was 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. 18 of 22 ATTACHMENTS: 1. Resolution recommending that the City Council adopt a Resolution approving General Plan /EDSP Amendments for portions of Dublin Ranch Subarea 3 (Irongate), Wallis Ranch and Jordan Ranch; with draft City Council Resolution attached as Exhibit A. 2. Resolution recommending that the City Council adopt an Ordinance approving a Planned Development Rezoning with related Stage 1 Development Plan for portions of Jordan Ranch, Dublin Ranch Subarea 3 (PLPA 2013 - 00033) and Wallis Ranch (PLPA 2013 - 00035), and approving a related Stage 2 Development Plan Amendment for portions of Jordan Ranch, (09 -011 and PLPA 2010 - 00068) with the Ordinance attached as Exhibit A. 3. Applicant's submittal package dated September 14, 2015 4. Resolution recommending that the City Council adopt a Resolution approving a Site Development Review Permit and Vesting Tentative maps 8267 (Parcel H) and 8269 (Neighborhood 7) for the Jordan Ranch II project with the City Council Resolution included as Exhibit A 5. Resolution recommending that the City Council adopt an Ordinance approving a Development Agreement Amendment between the City of Dublin and BJ -ROF Jordan Ranch LLC (Mission Valley Properties) for the Jordan Ranch II Project with draft Ordinance included as Exhibit A 6. Resolution recommending that the City Council adopt a Resolution adopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Jordan Ranch /Subarea 3/Wallis Ranch Project, with Exhibits A through D as described above. 19 of 22 GENERAL INFORMATION: PROPERTY OWNER/APPLICANT: Dublin Ranch Subarea 3 Lennar Homes 6111 Bollinger Canyon Road, Suite 550 San Ramon, CA 94583 Attn: Michael Snoberger /Gordon Jones Wallis Ranch Trumark Homes 4185 Blackhawk Circle Road Danville, CA 94506 Attn: Christopher Davenport Jordan Ranch Mission Valley Properties 5000 Hopyard Road, Suite 170 Pleasanton, CA 94588 Attn: Kevin Fryer City of Dublin 100 Civic Plaza Dublin, CA 94568 LOCATION: Dublin Ranch Subarea 3 is bounded by Central Parkway on the north, Dublin Boulevard on the south, Fallon Road on the east, and Lockhart Street on the west. The 10.4 -acre land use amendment site bisects the project area in a band generally running from the northwest to the southeast between Central Parkway and Dublin Boulevard. Vesting Tentative Map 8187 APN 985 - 0027 -012 Wallis Ranch generally is located near the northerly City limits west of Tassajara Road and east of the Parks Reserve Forces Training Area (PRTFA) and EBRPD regional trail. The 1.9 -acre land use amendment site is located at the southerly boundary of the Wallis property north of Dublin Ranch Road. Vesting Tentative Map 7515 APN 986- 0045 -009 Jordan Ranch is located east of Fallon Road near the southeasterly City limits with Parcel H and Neighborhood 7, both north of Central Parkway, and the School Site along the south side of Central Parkway. 4233 Fallon Road Vesting Tentative Map 8267 and 8269 Parcel H - APN 985 - 0098 -006 Neighborhood 7 - APN 985- 0108 -001, and School Site — APN 985 - 0098 -002 20 of 22 GENERAL PLAN: Dublin Ranch Subarea 3 Existing — Rural Residential /Agriculture (RR/A) Proposed — Parks /Public Recreation (P /PR) ZONING: SURROUNDING USES: Dublin Ranch Subarea 3 Wallis Ranch Existin — Semi - Public (SP) Proposed — Parks /Public Recreation (P /PR) Jordan Ranch Existin — Mixed Use (MU), Parks /Public Recreation (P /PR) and Medium Density Residential Underlay (MDR) Proposed — Medium Density Residential (MDR) and Public /Semi - Public Dublin Ranch Subarea 3 Existing — PD -Rural Residential /Agriculture (RR/A) (PLPA 2013 - 00033) Ord 09 -14 Proposed — PD- Parks /Public Recreation (P /PR) Wallis Ranch Existing — PD- Semi - Public (SP) Ord 02 -07 Proposed — PD- Parks /Public Recreation (P /PR) Jordan Ranch Existing — PD -Mixed Use (MU), and PD- Medium Density Residential Underlay (MDR) Ord 13 -10 Proposed — PD- Medium Density Residential (MDR) and PD- Public /Semi - Public 21 of 22 CURRENT USE OF LOCATION ZONING GENERAL PLAN LAND USE PROPERTY Fallon Community North PD Parks /Public Recreation Sports Park + Future Medium Density Residential Residential Medium Density Residential Vacant — Future Commercial South C -O General Commercial and Residential Open Space Vacant East PD Public /Semi - Public station for DSRSD West PD Medium High Density Residential The Groves apartments 21 of 22 Wallis Ranch LOCATION ZONING GENERAL PLAN LAND USE CURRENT USE OF PROPERTY North PD Park/Public Recreation Vacant within Wallis Ranch Single- family residential within South MDR Stream Corridor, Regional Park, Natural drainage, agriculture, North PD and Medium Density Residential [industrial], open space /recreation East MDR & Medium Density Residential and private school, industrial uses, NIHDR Open Space and outdoor storage South PD Public Lands Camp Parks Reserve Training West OS and Open Space Facility (PRTF), EBRPD Rural Residential /Agriculture, regional trail, and vacant Jordan Ranch LOCATION ZONING GENERAL PLAN LAND USE CURRENT USE OF PROPERTY Residential: Single- family residential within Low Density /Single - Family and Jordan Ranch in various North PD Medium High Density Residential stages of completion or vacant north of proposed School site Medium High Density north of Central Parkway Residential site South PD Open Space and Vacant Medium Density Residential Rural Residential /Agriculture, East PD Medium Density Residential, Vacant Park/Public Recreation, and Open Space PD Park/Public Recreation, West Open Space, and Fallon Sports Park, Open PD -CP Medium Density Residential Space, and [vacant] 22 of 22 . p C Z W ow W etp U Z Z ,0 < W MI O N it W A A (W" a En . • ♦ U • ILA Q Ai WI D g, 0. U) - W 117 2 ILI A ® o �¢ a� 17 LU 1 KAI -1 (4 --1 z Z W O Z N W 54 V) W 1 G R 7 C . o J J O N L 0 0 o E 0 —1 _J O _.1 _OJ o • O a.+ 4)0 C C C E C C j O• O D 0 U U v U U o 0 N G d .[ V 5 O V O y 5 C N T a J J C 0 O ° O +I > A V) N N ° p J J — c y J cUv CD $ 5 c c c E E A a 0 c > c CJ U CJ ro :1 N c 2 c `0 0 0 0 41 a c oL� 0o J UJ U A m A QC7Q000 < Q QQC� OQQOt7QC7 2 LL c u" Q Q v Q Q Q U O Q Q Q A ro m -° A A c c c c C C C C C C 0 0 0 0 .0 0 0 0 0 0 c +' o 'D 0 0 0 c C c C C C c C C '''7- 0- c", °-, p„ n. 5: .� . . a) i N t A A A A N A A A A A A 8 Q '.- `'° o o > > > > > > > > > > a, i E Li) H . a a a. a. a• a. • L a . 0 0 $ 0 0 $ 0 0 4) 4) 4) 4) 4) 4) 4) 4) 4) 4) `'� 0 O O O $ $ $ $ O O o 0 0 0 o LL. LL c' U- u- c4 LL ce w w w w w w W w w w —vAi 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 _ - - N N N M M — — — — N N N N M M �' A > >LL LL_ LL LL LL LL LL LL. LL LL LL on on on 09 on On o0 00 00 on on on on on on on on 00 ) o J J J - - N N N N N M M M C C C C C C .G .G. C C C C c C c C c c A � ' .. a+ +.+ Y a+ a+ a+ a+ ++ ++ "p 'O -0 77 $ -0 D 'O 'D 'O 'O 'D 'O 'O "O 'O 'O -0 ' ° ° ° 'c 'c 'c "c 'c 'c "c 'c 'c "c "c 5 '5 '5 5 '5 '5 '5 '5 '5 '5 '5 '5 '5 '5 '5 '5 '5 '5 nDLncni4DDDDDD » D » mmmmmmmm mmmmmmmmmm N m _o .- N M 0' 8"' Ln ? n 0 O. O — N M V' �n I` W O• O N M V' In .O r CXJ D` O — N M F_ O O O O O O O O O O N N N N N N N N N N M M M M Ch 01 K1 Cn C7 M M Cn C7 M Cn CC) M CM M cn CO M M M C1 M M Cn M en KI M M M M C7 C7 C7 O 0 0 Q Q Q < Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q < Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q • • 0 . C O O O m a a a a 0 0 0 a c to 00 to A 0 d N LL 0) rE ° ° J J J ° J J J ° J J J i0 , V C > c C C > C C L. c .> C c L bc 0E o 0 U J U U U D U U °o � U � 0 U LL C m m m in m 0 U U V 0 0 j U Q Q Q Q Q m m m m V O 0 U Q Q Q Q Q m m a0 m (" 0 U c t o C c C C c c c c c c c c c c c 5 C c C c c c c c c C c c c c c c �iiLJiia ii A ° aaC A ° 5: 8! A ° aA. aaa .+9 n. aa ° aA. aa .3 d � aa . 8!8! 1 -Oaaa O- N 0' 0-. .b 4a.. '; .b 4- Cy. A Cf, A L t t 4.., .0 C+. A y.. N g a 0 5 `o o 0 8A .2 _9> o` o` 0 , `o `0 0 > `o o `o o > o` `0 0 > o `. 0 > 0 0 O > `o `O > `O 0 0 > A N o 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 O d o 0 0 d o 0 o d o 0 0 $ d o o $ d o 0 o d N > b LL LL LL ce W L L a' w LL LL •L' W L_922 LL LL DO w LL IL CC LU U. LL cC w LL. LL LL. CC w LL LL +L^ w LL LL cL W p) J J N N N N N N N N N N N N N M M M M M M en M CM fn M M M O > ,— +y .0 C 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 AND F_ VJ D u) cc) a a. a. C6 01- a. a. a. 0_ 0- 0_ 0_ a_ a. a. LL a. a_ d d LL LL LL a a a. LL LL a. a. a. a. O. d LL d 0- 0- a. ..s'~ . Qi — N M V ., Jr t` 00 0• O — N M V' )n '. r CO G. O — N M a' to JC r CO Cr, O — N M V' V1 .0 N- 00 O` O N M JO O O O O O O O O N N N N N N N N N N co M M M M M M M M M V' V' V' CD 0 CD CD CD O CD 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O CD CD O CD 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CD CD C) .. o. a < < < < < < QQQQQQQQaa < < < < < Q < < < < Q < Q QQQQQQQQ < < < < < z W _= — n Ui W W Z u E a. a og J Z 0 a s Fr iiJ 14 Z O a W g on Z r LL Z A > o o A. C c Z W 0 4) LL N " L L O $ E Z °" o a,z LL a U d Q n �� .E 0 ° L L la c “a Z O N LL .D 'N 'D C N N / O U Y H V) LL A ti O C ti N W c 0 WW 0 Oo N J z `o U Z Z 0 o Q m` 3 u u I..1 / O N O >, E U C Z A y H O O W T".b Oi L L L ILI 0 W 0 "MO N m O L 'b o C J J N N N N 'O E y U U U W ro ca m0 >i°_ a Mbn Qbn''° ro a a v E 0° A ro ro Ln Ln A — ? m F. Ln tea) d d W ,4 cm c' v o m Z Qvv } a y N b A A 0 , m c 6 d i D ' 0- ,,---•' ,m 0 , 43 C c . 00 ° w 4) y CO ycC mce I. I O ' C c U Z C C A b 0 > T C A A A Y C ++'.+ N A A 'O 01 w E '' ‘&' i ° V) E _gill N N ' C C C U C LL Li Li a b o J d A G E U C E LL E = - L 'O 'O 'o am i_- ro H waA on ro nQm y � Z F .0 S d �^ A N .a .0 c c- d D - do d a a a W 1 'O .O ,0 C O O C C) .d .d y E ,G w Q O {, A A Ugp .V .O LL W (r, A C c c . ,, H > 0. Z ° ) T a ro m `m m ? c c r °' ,? 0 !i c N N > N N N °) f• > 0 0 o m o w • ..1 0 . ainH- LLF- I— O a. o_ aa. awwLi) aain winwwLUI— LLU. h` in VW ODUU66U J al Z _ 0 O v) Z w ., III / — N M V CU CO W O a Z O — N M V' N CA Z O N M n 04 � Z O O O O O O O U Q N M V n J N co G Q N N N N C4 N N N V 0 .d J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J 11 J J .11 J J J J J J J J ` U Q Q Q Q Q Q Q 1111111111111111111111Y elik -g ■II 1— , I 1111 i 0 $R 1 I i : +I •''. i g nil - 1 R I Is !I S31.1213c1011e1 A3-1'1VA NOISSIVil i . I I VIN7:10A1-1VO Nnena NI HONV 1- el NVCIE10 „ katilliir!'•' ,....,..=,„„.....„.„..."...e._ , ,, , , ,. ..! ... , ..,,,.. , : ....,-. T, ; 7. f T f •,il - - ' . :' , = - ,,,,, i,..'k i F , h% Eal . •le' i 1 [ ,f r.,,ir-■ . "—'' ' • i ,1 'st.4' gr- II: .„ ,,,,, ,,,-**-•,,-,-..- , ,, „,,'-,,,,7, , , ,,2 , . p,t, ;i_Fir.4 iu, : ; - ft, "el g., . _ „, ,, - , y '),ifict, --L, \ *,,,,%- , -v. ,:' , ' l•-:1 tn, for,' gity— ---i'l 1 \,tv. 'k<;7-, - \\-,:,4 cif. ,,,ts %• .'"`4. -- it -11---."„i 1 ,,,' PA' ' \ ,,;,1,.. '' ,,s,-,,,,",-;,, '.',/.•:'4.7* '-..,"‘. 1 ::: 41,,,,,-areilet , 1 `',,9 : ' ' 's s... , e ' '""•.,...---- , , . . '' o . 14 . „,,, \., ah-- 4- c u ,4t', ; 5.fria,, P: '4'2 40 , rz,p, 4,,,_ir,t •,,,L..,:' . .. ..4, ' \'''' 1114110 ' 'CT ''''4C1011 I a,. i 1 11 ..'--"' f 11.■ 0., 'W, E, ' „. 4 ,.„,,„t .., .. , , 0 •• „,..< -, 1, ''‘; ''' '''' ,,:a 44-% 48, ,4,4,... 4c,,. \ ■,.,..'4,41. ) 44....‘ ■ 4...4. :::...",..e ' : 1 sN li,,' , ,..I ' - 2,1 ', ''' 4s-''' , ' ' pr.' :1*.7:!' ot 'It' • a- ' .;• ' , ' : ii, Z , 4 1-1 ' ril // ., if . I , U <‘ td* ''''-t-o - L,C..,,' , '''s..--,:! . o , I t [ I v, ic ., k, 4 ' ;"'**it E— '..1,•—•4 ' 'rii ' : 1 '.. w o_ .tli 1 0 ' ' I . ...,.,,,, --...,, '"" ,A. ,,..; ... I , .....7 .., 1 , ,,I' f.. ■,, ,,., _.;,.__ „.„ - :4 # • '"'" ' //,,„ ''' le ■ , 1 ' , ''.....,, t'c ? , - 4,`4., -■ ' ,i __,..4,.. ------- V • .. 4 , '''' ' . .-1, ic loy.ki 41,-C,` - ,:t ' ft .,`ti"„•-•-- ..:-.'-' =. , ,--- ---,4 7- 2 :„ . „- ilt* ! / / • . 1 / 1 i ' 11' 6 j A ' 11 i ,,,,■ 1041A ii i i ' i 1 I• ,,f, 1 'S \ ^*., '''' . ' -41).:/' .■ .,,,‘1***,, 11 11 % _,..1 4'?e ,., , - ' , - — ''' iiii,:': ' ■t ^. I 1 uli— - 1 .''' 1 i .4 4 - l.i cg,i ' .i.'::. ' - i . ..../„. , . 4 ? ”, . 1 011 , 1! 11t,‘, 1'4'3 : -'-'4i*.;•1' V.: ' ;1-1' I .lj '4,,,- - -- L— = . __.' ‘j 1CN-4 I • 1 11,---''11, '''''' * A; Hirt if, 14 1101 1 04 "-,''"il ' Pli i •• ' 1 y, I i!lt 1 1 1 4, , ,- _ -4,,.. ` - ,. ,,,,,, . ....iksA '', , • ' I — .. •',4,„1, .7_-_---. , 1—'il,t -H • i ' i 41 ;'';', ' ''q''.'. • ' .. tie ,,e-v.D. figia ,F,d, __ I 'I_ _ ___ , : 's ,, , i *.r." ...;\ E'l .' , .' ' ' 1 ' '44'',4;ier "--.:,. ' #- ••••' - -1 ' 1 .* ': ' ' " . 4114 - * - ''' -"-- -*"*".141044„,:, - , —-_:1---—0 •1-..--t4, .•' -'•s.,/ - ••• 4-'`. .-- ,k,...§-4...,,act;,7'•-:..-r-, -•••• -• II i , liraHO ...3 7 d 14 °u c w O o S31.1213dOeId A3'11VA NOISSIW °I I = z HO`Nf®na N►HI 3SVHd - HDN` el Nv®2iof a � . W T. �a N y I i 1 ,,, 4 —] . k I ,,,/ -6 .! )1.-- / 1-l' /, '.'f ''�`�►' � ' a dfi=:i iI - 7—1 „,111 ''- it, 4 N., - tr..- ,,C.d*-. ,,,, 44?..• 317.1'. r. I 4, g ,,' ,`," I; i i i ,+v ..1 "is L\, I r I, ) 9 F I - 0\ IBLI .t.'• I -*... tik ' v ' . <0 Q aMia y 11/ • C, � OA � M . r a�.:...� � VA , Y . $P y rd 'a I e I '¢ k, !I fik i e# i jli Jr a 3 laans is(a ■I n■_r_ ,, I}i - -- _ .% q 1;i4 • , a a ` ,a }: a a g ; ll1 ., — 4 m ..t.a a I .m U R I. d aeua ih a a F : ra J., 1'' : m dl`ls E ii3 `� i#:• r 3 a 2 7. R s m o __ off, •- [ V) ," a L. m ' S v : ? . S $ a o fit. , E .1,p _1 laans 12 -' j r _ - �� _ 1 _ _ -_ — - -. .�DMJ�IO4 IDnlla.) _-x—.�- 1�_.. I '. r . a 2 S Ti G ��o i 8 u m Z_,O S r of i y Z S31J,2i3dO2ld A3 T1VA NOISSIW = a N$ V3`NI 19f4 NMI 3SVlId - HaNda VV®aor >M Z 1 z :: :ij 1' �w 1+ • .. o L..CLimpa:1 1 Y ;,fir -.,, 4 .. clot --�,� ! , I w � b � e�',` • 1 a s /Q,1`i���; , E ite AN* a v,111 411111111-1704,4 ;�1' i 111 � I ;pie iV ** i 'V S V • 0 L 41 .3*AkAtat 1111111111111 N d m ti �Fs�� Ittl 11 \ N I \I .firt , Itiiiiwilwm, Iii ,1_, I V :k l`�► Us * *AM 1 ■ , >/�. ;sss or ao LL a a for 1 tir‘;or 1474 4111 , WC" sti" ‘ ■ 4 3 v o . LL r rt' le ' Ille: ' tgpv iiiiroihig,, it si.,0111- _ _wmpipg. ---r. .E3 H N M w � � n I w w Q M J N 0 U .. k O S3112i3dOeld A311VA NOISSIVI °9 y o o a V3 `NI-lana NI III 3SVHd - H3NV21 Nvaeio ,`,Y, W a L2 z E, a M7111£111 LY 1 § 1 L f x i•i■Noi __,,,,_ 1•1� 97 .9 .9-.L .9 I•I- V r I i I•I� W e /I�\ - lP� I.1� < W m ).n AIL ' 1.1- r l: .._._.. ._.:.,�.__. I.1∎ J �� 1_,I i. 1.1 j{ x I 3 1•∎� 6 W ` o I.1,�� •1Ifp f o I.1��� m N I•I���� i Q G c g., 0 1.1���■ F' 99 g # 4 o u �i5 1.1∎�7� •� Z C - -3 K y z I < •:���u! yd1 �y1ap IL - A x q a 1 A °g a § 1•1•111111---1•1111 ? B ti• g Z "_�i\� B °10 u9 . �\ —-—- :gyp E a O 1-", 8- .0 W . 5 N W '. V 1. V Q W f ° 0; m ;e o 1TLI• o i q� I � F Ii !:ii JiI C o l to 3 I 3 N I zl m = 9 D v !Iii I \s I. iI I O r f j g �14 4,',j 1 5, O d 2 3 i i1 I �I /1 I '§ `O 3 ` u � o a I` 1,1 W e r § E i !( r Ill , i✓ Z 1 a .0 LL ? m Q i r o g II - Nt1l(11 B \ = O g �"B to - o E B Q 1 l I^ I Zp 3 Q g v m E p�o IILLIII` n I V • N NW NO-L U N a u q$ w U Q o ~ , v a ."- 1» o ��I' ' m _I o E c o V I . N N W § 2 c II o" 0 .nn YI i : II! II SEECEC 111mill tliiii � . a= g g _ B;^ EZTII N _ vfr ; Q m . Y uuu Z .▪ o 5 A >s = A .v.o rC :o 7, sago N lawn .y!N O till w J cr a °u°o m I U O N u = Z( O zu en o SBIid3dOdd A3-ndn NOISSIW " o VO Nnena NI III 3SVHd -H3NVN Nvaeio a i = O 0 a i, `:'o z s _ = v A c o t d ILL 0. ..7. ::: Z F W I C .M LL ] 9 s'.4 k E u 3 N > ,ft0000.�, .'4: i `�: 1 aw -. — � , 1 /. �� N • it ii Lz sz • i 9Z • st L� f 91 II 8Z !Ii i 1 • ••�•••••••..•t .q I 817 I 1 1 1 1 I I I I C�- I "t'r I f4 I I 4 1 I £L ' I I I I • I 1 ' If P 1 i 1 I LL 1 I I 1 I '-II 1 I a� 1 4L I I . I I I l6 II i1 I 04 EL 1 I 1 I I 1 Sr I 18 I 7£I I 1 1 I I ill SC 1 11,Le 9,,,. '-:O I j i ■11■I N j ______,J11 N 1 I ! i 1 1' j I t i $ 5 I L4 j 1 1 / ors f y" �� ¢ 00, Y0 U o 0 e5 ti I o �co 0 S311a3dO2id A3-11VA NOISSIW _ o 0 ZU I" 3Jm d7`NI'Iana NI III 3SVHd - H3NV21 Nvaelor < i ` a J 2 LT. Ae ,?--aZ 1g N cw '24`.' N C a• u LL d• r I I \ / \ • —L� f1 I� . • r I • is • • • • • • • • •• I J I I ▪ - I I 1 . L • • L 1 I I s I • i to I 1 I I __ I 1 J • I 1T —1 I \ '' '° I I _ L- I I J I • i • I • irLt � 9L* Elk .411■ I 1! 1fl1 < I ¢ c0 o Q UN� I .. o ¢a N V S3I1e13dO2id A311VA NOISSI W H m a V3`N 19fl NI Ili 3SVHd - HONV2I NVC1210 = to o'' 1 0 -:2. = L 00 0) y Z u c y E0 E 0 0) . 0 R o - , _ r `,I MOMEM M...1 E wit 1111�� I�h _ . .1i, i.- ��; iii . r-� % \ 1 iii �i := I '__i //- ` . , ''''N', '-'" \ ��. ;\ 11 11111! I - II4i p_ —--ill ,i ,41r, 7// i /\) ,. .,,,,„\., _,, -'-' /17-1----117; 1---5sItt_-_[_°- 1 -, 1 ---1-1''' vy 1 \ ,\• \ 1% 1 -- - II-- r ■ - ', idi , J.J I T\■ ,' --- 1.-■!Ui i _ I � III■ -' Try r i••.• �. . • • ' : 'N,,,., )\,,_7.--Aivi---::i__..- /cal iii7,17/ DO J �t 1 1 ,.,� • .r.•• f I I 11 V . ' "s' 1 1 I I .! , I ' 1 � I I I i 1 1 + Ir II / , 1 1 j J / i r - 7 N I \ Q L1 / u n 1 ' ,,':,, -' .--- , . yr-- • . • . 1ii.../,- . . ej44 i RI „w n u '-c4:4!' Q J f,,1 u m O N S3112i3dO2id A3T1VA NOISSIIN °' H I _ oa o d VO`Nf®na NJ III 3SVHd ° HONVel NNI®2iOf a ., E �e a i ,� v v 3 f► 1 c 1 :1 X b m V u _E t p 9 c tl d I if J N _c O P F f IT: II ..T0010111, r110,51041, - ittliM). .41. lilacs C........J. j ° 'e ;0 *". a �! " ;= l f et a . ,�: 3 �> l Dp ,. w -- !!k NR!.a. , � _�..r_ , I d iar rarity *a.�r ■IMor. lwi� � ■■ri1i1.-Irte 4;tp„VokYivia,..... 11011.1r, l',1r,14",i,,r--il:1111111Ar4 itiN J-1 t Ars a. ;it oili mow. sii....",:crafia,..ite*tivAatt r ' 41 X11 Q y �' I y , ,.1 I W U= a CC m R i 9 _a W L d' A . a O m.l W W y C I U 0 A J`..O Vp P o VLL 4 — ems, C' Nus---......-. 'rte t 1 :. r �, L � N O ~■ 3 % N _ Q 1 .ate». "", N 14". . 't ' mow iit ,: 4 Ilibr.-.--- [ W 1"i IIP '''' ' 2 • I 't a o. a J,—. /, x 1- z 3: r(f m P O o 00 0. O / N QW V ii `� _ 0 aV Q z- — < I w aLL Wv — QLL a_ 11.111 45.=! .. R' eo e9 H I „ a°= m S31.1113dOeId AB flVA NOISSIW l� m o a= d y z E bO`Nnena NI hI[ 3SVHd -H3NV?I Nva2Ior io a 3 Y (y,;..... .1 I , yj ....1 .6, . :Te-r. ••• , ,,. L T z,s d .. . .---- Y t NN...ai v a illf, . lit 1--g „ilk . ., ..L.... il f , _ , ,..„,,i1 _adh,j,,,,,Nrp._ „,..,,,„, .” �R i _ fA r11! tcf . . I , mit.,tat r-41,-;;Foi Licoroott 7 iligliriAtTAtir4,-,,. fa ,, tdit ,i. -.,...- up.r..... * . . ,..... ,, ,,..„. 4 • — ,.. ,_ 4 .., , ,... i '..77.1F Mn - II i 1144W4 -10141Ciaft". i•, , •• : Pt Ml*C11 .0 f ' 'wires =��' iii .', m 'T ..milt`. 1 `��:i...z AI u■ til ® W El .IR ''''' i f. i , _ I ,-7',1 -a im 4 IR, . .. w y C N U 6 C V R '^ V b N u y d as Q m E rt F K C !it .2 C o l7 y 2 4 a 11 u y c ac a b 5LLi "o � ; . p c 9 J_9 m uro v c - a a d .� v ; u o 5 Z a L 3 a pw v= E S 0 O p d C W.y° p C % A O 5a Q U aat5 S3 U' R aWE co, d p C C O9 11 i LL L y S. ,, H > Va mp A a y c w a S E q ? d u 2 a ' y a F i 1 ` m [ oo 3 E. � 1 j wi . i t ,: i *0 Stlire:,VW:,ArMIVI4,4011111111.iiiiljrit*Aaci, ,,-,.•a,;th , i drip:ONSPII v., ii, NA VNTO111•10.171.440...40-,...._ 1_, ‘7,__,..., i.e... 4 91 1 ' , Icy► 1 ; CO 0 - C. I " l H = n ; u a 0. Do dv d F C b p C c v a p c m 00 Q `y N L ip C C Q ; U w' > w Ind EIS < G "< 2 Jai w 1 00 -- UQ Q H ° z z o SHIJ2iadO2ld A311VA NOISSIW w I" ,Zm a as m z �VO`N79na NI III 3SYHd - H3NVt NV® 10f a ;a '1 TV �iiin Ili 1 i s o c rN O„� �;8 ; U . eq u IT vi L 1 !i W~ z C ? _ I 1 d d .�.� � r a it iLL N N 1 1 �(V1 'i M a 11 1 ( t I . .. Y f 1 3t3> r l M1l N,_,i[° ., . .", i IS fl es ger-A C4tR N`o'S a O t 'jj i s ON ;pa°°o Oo i t' -41 r� �a ' a. ij1 3 a u d 9 - o._ 4• 11, i 10 H n c o t C • r. III 1 .V N N d Y k j I 1 :1 r1=L1 .1 11 j Q 1 , it . N W s Y '� ; 'fit �;I dFi. orl�teJ SIYR K ,+ t J 1 I n 2 i4 44,,:. .:Ar ai*it1� I 1 ' z:t �y WS W..c I.. W a 01 v - ��111` I a m M �s iill1! „— 41114U 1 a Itv. IF In I s.ai v E '" c m "_ai filk' I i ut ra. +f r , _.....A L sr .F-1,,1 ,:f % iti , Y r 1 j d N 'I a 0 7. a C H 0.-. —n p m a o O O ,= a$o S3111:13dO2id A l 1VA NOISSI W ; 1! . yr = r a W y n i ry eS31121AdOeId A311VA NOISSIW - o v __ _ w a VD Nnana NI III 3SVHd- H3NVEI Nyaao a 1 - Z a f/ . a.‘,',44 -rf"' • I.:6 -, . -/ ...:: /44( \ ..; :. \ e' .' *� i..ry. wain 1 411 , Z. .y..,....erg II Y - ♦ m I —12 a ;146 112`,0,1..• e ., i IN am i�/1 �.. I'1 Ai OP-11- 4°,1**0,/4.1 ,•iitti . I I fa , b. NIB tit, Ail,,_!*Z9z,,tsF.fo. ..i_ -,1 1,, lir jai. r 0, 391 ; 0 in c ss ss 31aans "m E m r w v °° Arir'1t'AKS s A E .11. • OIL u I [ -.; I _ u ■ i /. ' ■ — liAlli,,,74.,_ • i iii * v t r ... 1 y •c.. •■i v s ■L4O ' 4♦♦ ,* •* '_ it -••s-10.24410.,, kii 3 r--- ilk o. 47 ! 4Ii fl 9 ' S(� IL y 09 le, 9 T. A I T dIP♦' 4.1 I.P --------'--- _ a nsZ1i►1.usirr► _e S .0.1.r. r410101160411' o c c V laaJls m O u'1 n r, T------------- j .T. o'a U Z =In. anassisim. till < z N till o '7 O F. m m f U O n 'I H a S31. e3dO2ld A3"T1VA NOISSIW _ z m o a E w (n d3 Nnena NI 3SVHd - HONV? NtraelOf a Z e a iii n- • .e 3 f -Y w . H m •c I. L LL ,„ it,'\.2.,,,,-='-' // 1 Si- ''\,/ E y*4 LI la \ f /Nti,:ii.t1.‘fpwy a tom m, ) s / \ ` ♦ `E . C o C -:'' *****-*:-- . V, / \ 1 .,, ,."".'-'- a--..._________/ / J I f rr ♦1 r ►:.'v� tom`'♦��•` a 7 o f1 I —�ji`j� cE apt I • D p 117i 1 M Q J c° iliQ •W m I K 71 ' Q it a S3LLe DdOdd A311VA NOISSIW IW I 'vO`N-9 O NI III 3svHd -HONVII NVCIelOf,d . iii W P. W * Y 'Q . 0 U . . • _... .11..11..11. 2,..6.�► - 1 , -yl� 1 `����,.- __ Kam.,.:__I I�M _M I t .. _, \\y\ \ N. `, I� WWI'Al II -I,� V� q � i r r--Lit-_-1 i 1 i r L•1\\X • '1•41111, i `----, umi"1 I 11,\( 11 li 111 I \ , - -7. : /111:47 4 *1 o ( - I - \ % . ''-'Ts'`'-- ' /*1 :7 4.1,1 ) (if. 1 I - • ,, 1 • 4 � \1 \ . u /-1 q I I I i I I - -- 1 1 1 I I ,�1 I - 1 1 -4 r/ r� S i1 1 ,N rI, II I I I �� � .,.. 1 I I §i , a 1 �: i 11 I lI Iii u A ( fl I i L1i 1,--...,..... L_______„qMy`� .1,-1,t, i}„i ,l "'8”.�, -_ = ilk_ �� p ;p� / , r. \ am--,y - �� ____-1.....,/' ` l / \ �'— b i!riII" CD Q Q3 mo a m 'UY O r uo 1 o Q a O zo-2i c6 " S3Ild]dO2id A3'11VA NOISSIW a¢g m °' >-,4g02 E VO'Nnana NI III 3SVHd - HONV� NvueIOf Q''' W a Z E 1 0 .-L,,!)p Y 3 f ' C.--:—..:—DI: a d a a 2 3C∎ c c u LL 4' Bpi 1�° �' ■ sl • 41. - ii 21 R W /ill 3 } Gk¢ p y •1C N ----. yy 1■ fl F Oka its . o , , ft,i.,*,- ff • z 4. t ". z 4 l �i %. -.-,,d'au' -* lir — —moil y a Z 3AMO VWYNONHd °r O_ rai 3 f ,..,.. .. a Al... �.. .w► v. `sp_i;v .til % s 'li :tom �� �1 # C,a 4 0 le '''nir ;'4; I F.s'_ a � lire '1�' :'�> r ii W ��� �+111" c i WAritt P.t �.� ��., W•I�ilit�% 'ti_� i Ili �iu Z `— '�� 7► i 1 " � r 1 W a r . ; ; . 'it,,-..± N g EI E b F 0 F V1 ilk a a i in W F J m I a n u° o°� S31.12d]dOeid A31-IVA NOISSIW = o da Nnena NI III 3SVHd - HONVel NVU2IOf d i" H z m a v yQ.. F 2 `N = 5 _ 01 a v o m 2 t o v 3 '` .2,. , m"a `oE, ca X5 E. my - E% 0 1. °o Y� it: o d8 a 2, c. Z 'L b a' ` n= S;.a �'m �'` e r c :,a o f U 'o v zc y y, W N¢ In¢ Wu° IV UU ail�: U� m� Ii v.�' P. ��- U> �, d w N v d E c A d iii/ -.--3A,:.:1----.--;:. a F • GlI1 vb 0., 0 Q (Ct t� 0 •�..�� 4�r.: ® ® :: .. �'I z 3 4. Pel., a /''--0- ®—� I II 0 �_c fui I� _ o / O R Oo O o * Ob 0 00 �l h i;F 1' 0 41 ril 8 40 J ♦ . s I ° 1� ' 411 II ward 14710.•• 00 4*Ole • ' �. viii �i ai II 0 ® ® • O ® O N 1 I g d Wale , I O ®o® E 00 0 ® o v • o «-• 7 j OV; ® ® 00 ® ® ' II ®- C- . 0 e 141) 6 0 R.Y AIF 400t, lawlS 6- 0 Q• �! INNO ( �/'�1 - e la '11P 1 4P \\ I O I 4M �i .\ �► �C a► �\ /''A 0 0 . - O 0,00 I_ =—.ry =,-T_ -,0w-,�-f mss--as -O s!lir Ao Wdto-0'ar) J ti_r_ '- ti� �, 1 \ i1� e z Q M J 4 a-. �g d O N H <T, a 53I1 dO2Id A3T1VA NOISSIW ? = d vo`N�l9na NI ILL 3SVHd , HON�d2l N�da2�OC' a d Z a N N e _ Y 9 9 1r 11~ �q mfg 9 _ 9 9 9 't i° allli 4 S O ° ei . 9 $ i e c € ° a 3.p c ✓ a t� 3 i b jet_ a 9 �s 2ItikiEBgSoi E2—i,8_ o ryzot� tam--1 S s �opo "9k11Ft° u� � � t IL T� $` � O � `3 0 � o �'E 3�� Q p S � rd '-� c E S ^ 3�c � a °7�� m° J�Ar2 LL $ S l� � �m� l� � � 81 � >.P 3 .Rowommlto- LL . 3 9 u W : kit- . ° _ Y a 3 ma't fill// a V p ' J g V e g 9.1 3 1 .§ Q 8 i o . i O e - k.7: ; ± .2 jl.o . . El < jt o ii i Ill g 111 su> E- 1' Hhi " E . �° ] ^ 9 9 – a aFE -� q9 � � pS 4 F e 7e 11 ?? �F ie q E. 62E a E o eN tl 'U ' 882 a ERa 1 rxa a .1?, 7 a0' 3a E a g > 3 6 £�6� a°Y "6 0 m' 0 c ta _ e $ €N V , ,. o„ ,,„ c q E -L .e2 l W O 0 M J O 0 µ - 101- P . , � ta c 2 .13 kC : a md~ R a 6ta6xiS ag � 5 ,No7s 3 E2i18OI th35-63 4- 9 e o o 2 a _ 0 2 g_ -. 4r3 it q eY { { e p . `o ° 6 ! 4 > t� q«� qa°V °$ 2.g : $ U 1 e 1 ° V$ S ° c �lr el 9 4 61- �t � Ol � 9 � 4 �° � '-° O � W�^ 07 0 I !hH1'd t Q� kO__O^ po{O, x ya_„ a V g 1IilHiiU k3 dflItilH �.... 2 o� -06.6 aufili£E rd . 4 l� � RS ,z =Lho �dS . — zz g V v V Q. E 1pmiRi Iii; r i J W ,W ' Q z N g ao i°o s p o S3112i3dO2id AB11VA NOISSIIN ° - z o= w m, d VONnena NI III 3SVHd - HDNVel Nvamor a w z" a a i a g °m Q A m v b m bb Z LLkq vl .SOa r en 1 q welOSagg ESQ &qb UUg aasq agrn �tornoEf§2 nm � am50a9'1t4 812, R, . ug .,�sE ( m 3gmZJainmm ,BE amY3.33.s6560ai $a3J £ � mdS7 ��U _U1 a a m C § 3 m a ▪ o a Q j Q — _ J o - y 1- n rnm 1 qt- 0 t- 3 q k q 2 .25. - ° q �L-2• B `li g q t 3 � ° ° les s 1O - - OP m i Sl Q1 O 0 � g q � �la v q b� ti tt o ` �m � O Q m r g J Q _ 2 a g m 07 Z El-',.5 1 k, 9[M20 1 m 1 E� 6 2 � 0 O O 1 5 V m 3 4ji q Vj Q- n q 41$1 E a g 3 3 0am m ° s 5 .4 E-2 q z 1B31 A 1 ,3r �$ 3 , uu 5-DI 31ip_ ili u °' d) m o i W > m �u m T b — 07 X m Iq • s 119 q u3 e � g b ba v ' k e bu o II! C J o g £r q e _c q I1LLa44-'0yY u -' I . q t� q p m 1_ c 114 1iI 6i1H 3� iJO ZZa 1 1I >>� a- 3 o z z m q b 11. - 6 y q 4c Q c N j — — .-Z g i § � E S m . O _ $ - _ $ t E-.-0 m m d) Qa _ NN S -s- �P Q 3 • (Q� W 01 t 0 c v iiQ O U a - a c o f a 8 a • O 5 a a$• -, > • -5 Q Z ; 9- E U ri-5_ g Q m • aL II F• S E 4 m O_c q Q m Q z a q� � � d o O q W � 'Is g m , > > 6 `114 E v ZS m O 9_ 2 9 j tl sv _3+8y O 3 `•j 2 c2 -2 O I— 2 ! 1 1111tI5 €iF/tAt�i a lk&k 221za4q ',97k 1 K .,,,,,PA o T Z 1 a ��F�- » O 8W�n� o 1- ~ i O a� N E zri J O if ilk; w s < � W a N + �: VI o 0 CO 531.1.t13dOeid AB11VA NOISSIW 'ii, N O a VO`NI19f]Q NI III 3SVHd - HDNVa Nva iOC' a H Z P. a zZ a y < � , m o µ K W -r Q o~ y f H . r gz of In =W!'m a •, q N N N y V �z A .\ Y ;�h N a Q ��L M l J • I- 1 S C • to; . I p , . i o, a �s 1 o0 oN I Qo F f' N' 3a r " o l7 °J la y,111111► �r ' i Hill'' �A+ Unlit or 1*L 11 110 Ili ii" �1 u�uua r -, eo it• 1 $ to 3 U d S,, +r b + a 4 / ` v 0 a. ,1 ,.....„, c4 3■' . a- satudadoud A311VA NOISSIW V°•Nlign a NI HI 3SYHd - HONV8 Nvatior : 4 1= i 4 d i- i=- >. 1 LI It' iiii .'., „.,.•"/ z Jordan Ranch Drive 3 C° Il■i031100., A. ts .'.. t 1-- -—7. -v .• 1 ... L. LS ,- ,:.-..:---'A ,,--... •466641111tb,ego I,21- ILV- ,.. 1 \ *,-.1s.-4--,,,kfi• k, eitt mi...is NIA I'''w N _•_-_----,--••io. d.,„,.11r ,-Illi NO& 1.6 \4tAro""""r- 40411 4 t•.1, ,tt , . E lir :*. ...4 ' (A i 42 'r-OSI:•'. - • 4 2 , •: - .. 4 ‘ 1 1 E k - tr ti (. i' F. to 11)!1:- i-,. 7; ti, '(4 J.'• ,;;.z 6 i. , , \ IIIN .1 .-.'' i li - 2 em.••• 7.4-10 8 • N .ii :4161 . • • ..• . ,,,, : .., - ,.. ,•)! 1 ....; .,q.2 1s.,i., • I. a r L i , . • , I,.- 14111 1 -13: _ t „ •46141,, < i i 7,1-- a a [; - : 7 3 .0. —"":■1 ......,.. ° .../It — - 24,■•., ,..■-• us......... t. .31111h Pitt'. _— -..g .. . ../7G .,X • .....- -,.. C i I illowir...= - — " 4\A i k41 1 1 ,irt-,....14•••■ Wis.. 1.1011, . •■•:;ion 7 i t o prpoo.a 414 . a 7u .. 0 t. - 4'-', :-% 4.. ,.. cr. :,n, t•••• ?, ,; ‘tai Li lit -t, - - vie in , .. ;44 -0, 2 -411,7" ''' 2 li • r 1 AL.:. 4i1 .r ...,,„, ,,..„ ,,, ELr, 44-‘ • -,• An'TOt " '- g • - 110 l' ;WES...fts. `:- ...:4. . tt, '10,, . --10 - • '.-IQ ' iitt i,.._.......„..k.A,8,4„, . lip , ".. •' A , "- " I !AO". ' . * •:,f I 44 i ii>x _IAL4p. 1 A......4 116 ' _ •_,-,46‘., tib_ - blio • .: I I Mt 1, 5 i`t".. .*; ., ' I l't ..-0•6 5 1 .,„••41,,„.„.4.1„,„,..... _, ,, 1,, ...,... . .- 1- ik .• :11 aqi I - .5 t• v, ,:oi•- I V Z J '4 :4 Z. ig fl ' "v• ie • ; 5 „ fa. Ill - 6, ' — ,44, - • 1,4 ; "- - 6 1,-7 -- 7.-, -. .4 . :: `,'••..1%. ....-1-:-- Al, Z. 141.•- -_ L . Vre-t-,•-`a" Vill - ---' J w - ... = , Central ParkwGY , -' --- 'E' r I; C° ' i - LE;7, e 17; `; t - _ - 6-- - - 015.' §. -2, t T.1 ,2 ii,--- ,__- - _ __---, _- 2-. . r 1 2 1 2 ;I i Iiii C N W N ■ .W- 5 C J 'ii m < Z m S31Jx13dOeid AA-IIVA NOISSI VI VO`NI'18f O NI a Il. z a III 3sv�� - �arvva n�vaaor ji u -7 t s b9 a. '"N 0 t 0 OJI n i Ty u r:11;:".144137... C^ ; c E c s. J VI to, J €:„:,°: D lava"�"� -- n 3 ' ; z . . ,. I o ± � �n., Z ' ~ I ' ;. 44 ‘. ' . . ! Ow m h Q i E E lir E ti 1; .� �a tL" pia ^.� 4i�j �f.1 .r.--- =14,4�. ill : x - �'` � ,''kit :i 1 1 ;It —.0'. 1 V��44 #° . 'eWwsi % � 4 cc , a 414, . ' ......7.1" ...... ce r'.7.~,,1 �„ Q 3 121:10* Z Ir11}*t':om 1 �� S 4:16 Zi- 3 „P F E • a p n' K 1-.4, 5 ,,,tits I4 Z Central Porkway wa "���—' c $ 8. u' wm a Central Par .5.3 d ^ A u ;A F y p LL O; C _ N C c r a 1 . 9 N O Q Y f E $ cm ✓✓ x 3 E YU O b W VI f f N illj N o °li 09 2 1 S311213dOeid A3T1VA NOISSIW I_ z v N - =w E VO`NI-ana Ni III 3SVHd - HDNV2I NVaeOf 1 E W a 9! W , Mt M�, i vt '. �n iAtrY4Y, �.�'� ii i' 'llllltlul -- • ''l lik. 15 ---1 ,, , .7,i, * -'1,1,iniblvi 5 , d i• IlljEl 1 ?c-CCH111111111111111°171114‘ 7 „, 211,111:1:;1' i Jiti '.I.'i', J >- et 4‘ i I, ;3 _,...1 ct . �'►X I 1 ` I O II a W '�^1L wk . ; i e i �� O Ili 4% •�'ll�� 11 1 @ 3 a S W41". N Z E _. ce\ 1 i''' t _I , 0 --,-.: ,i, ,, I .E g l s re 4 <.,,., iI'i Z d ii!iift " m 1 rx I o 1�'� g d ii . `3.S E W il _ W_ f 3 h! d ■ W l0 c C__I F` ✓1^ W N ill N Z o 11111 wN +k $1 ii J 90 ° ¢ o S3112i3dO2dd A31`1VA NOISSIW °' - I .. o= a da`N1l9na NI III 3SVHd - HONVN N)l®2�Of A a i - Wii c . a c d C to .0 b Poll J Q f: I 1 ,;,-- 11'11,i!.,-..:..141C:.:At‘.:::5.: i "17 k . x .,,,, 2 Jo i�i o u w �- Z l s o 1-Ig a!llit'' ..-1;II Y _ �� - o N 1- ce W J N ill 1=1 a Lij JJJ u. W /o U • U ,_ k W Y 5 E- -. n c---- y N W i d � C h P N W N C �,f l I }' U ] 3 U W b C u c ° x w� a viit t N E C u d L III f Q I N c ..� A wi N ri V. � �+ � W +s J a. + u F- w \ Z Q '� ,` 0 Q / O mosIwun1 5e .....r� 2 ct 1 W 1/ a d Z ( r V j� ='X Q-te ,x, .., i EA a 1, � J U c QQ ]E i i _ S y a 'L V g c c m N 3 0C 00 Li f i N O C C a ut K _ O A W n W W 3 V W 5 mow z E'�4 < 1e1 H M N Q ;': 1 H log S31i213dO21d A3"1`1VA NOISSWI Si ILI 1 1 E v el dO`Ni land NI III 3SVHci - HONVeI NV®�Of a 1 - E. ' .1.3 m ° c F d ',,/ . 1 -O N .4. ,fit - - O W z " $1- o° • 0 Li a W ul r= _ b ro 1-1s..W �. Ti 1I d II k 9 d . N 1. O E, C S IL a F`- « £ N - In a i A ; 2 v w _, N E 1 ■ a 1 y 0, ,d _1 W ' S H r N \ L 0 d : r ' tap. N ,i a 7,.,_'NOV f pool'r' - !� 1 I •' i - '1 N t. Mau9.a.ea:aooe-_.,_4,=!L.S. s�, ._.Z�7:, wt Tit.w!- ir' /AIN a ��.� � - .t aka r 4�ate. � �4�!��i.�`R�.'=..r_«s°. 1:04,`/O Q'�•r.. ■l ` ' Ill g ifl!�` - r ., =_��I k 6 'l 1 �J f►� 111 . N N ry �..L :01111 Imo — - - -- --- — — — N N .a. �� _ ti 11<<- silk , ititte , . ___I-J .4,-i cdpir- III j Tr " 1 'Oer.ll 5 2 < ..i r (Se ■1 N FT. a S3112:1 acl0e1c1 1.3111VA NOISSIW E vo Nnena N1111 3svHd - HONVel Nvaaor E J 0 tt,g 1 _ 1 , 111■1 7w14.0000.0.9„,..0,, 14.., b. is.,,,t111 •1 'der- ............, Al. _. * 140010"' .....rti•I* ,ii* _th ou. IONIA^." , ,,,, ..... A , 101041,11,\ I AlikkAilla.s...olow __ _ iliCe: g .0. ti ( 01041,1104441*! ' Vio' r ,. c i 12 . . . UP.t) ID . . ),4 i,, '0, '4 $-. <, c , 4.,,....•• •o•-• 1•", 4.„ 6 t 0 .:,* P' 1 1 6 1 I llif 4,111,-- ' 0,_____ 1 thii x t i r.410, i te L tli c• '.°' lit ,IIN 1 ' -.4., ii: • - .i • ,,,,i,., brit I I ilt - i/1:* •as' it si'''''' '411 "•r—a% 'iii 1 ali:4 i,,..."44.T • ,, ail al •AA.A.I• • 111 IN 1110,Z :a li 0. i .. ,F. •tri. vim , - •Illill•iiiii■-miller- •• gad '. 411111_ • 4?.... ''• , I•4-- • - .4 41' -''''''C' ' 'Mar "IOW,_ f '; v- 961''- • ""..):-..1,1,1,r, 1/1\ /le 11C104•1 0 0' - '',„,••4i., i 04 44- -,70.11411111414.1 Its ■ a ■ • '111 it; N V ,V t I lli j -I , -v- I-•/.••57, .lo-.. — \.. 1 1 44i LI ' — - ..., ii„ At I Lian!ti ,..---"- j.„ :ILI .,ri',...'---IL,* _ Al t c Mit, - rroll„.,.. v. Ifl! I JR 1 *ILr • . Ukows, — • 1 . a 41 .306 i ,-----...„, - et Ali . I rt ... .._ ■••,..t leap ... ..,,, .. , empirperwrim Arr- L r 1 1 .4 fr I lk. At ? St 7 .„ 4. 110 11 ' 1 e■ 41 1 4* . *- - •,t —..—;Ap• k_.••• •••■,z-B-1 4.; .4 AO Ilk ;LI - - ..„ ..1 f 2• .0, 7 I It - 3'. • , ,• • .1ph ..- 12 ..- ra i.1 - ,,....i.e. ....., .., . , , , . .._•m........„..i, . 114 • r A 4 t.41O t ii ,° ' - -•". < 4: ill . t, '• I il 1 1 ., I- -- [ rs-7 ma... 1 j "hie• Pr •' t 1 **4 1 i ti: ' ' 1 ,,,,, ..,I.iy, ...1, lir...*A• . -%4k., S • WMP'.3.101'1..,,. •:f ,"". :;7.. 4.Alf' 7., va. , •a.,,,.a 0111......i.I.1;* ti:-! ' its ,L it, -- — \'4.... - --* '1 --,-•-'''''''-'' centgdparkWOY • fig, � W 1 z LO N .4.4'"' 1.7' J W +! a r7,8 WU' C1 39 = N O S311::3dO2id A3T1HA NOISSIW = z= a VO`Nllena NI III 3SVHd - H3NVel NVQ2JOI a a B. S •x i Lt� i� ! b A I•1I■III■ ; LL s I•I� .y U Q 1:1- L Q 3 O c O W U J Q A 1 I ill LT, m ,}o; M w.,4 IIIIII•1I'II �������� •�»∎�M: 4' a AL. 1.1�1•■��1 ��� O Q 3 d m gz 0�Ili - ' I L .....N i....: , h., .:.,,IW II 1' W w b v ME E m e ..'11° a� W ��:i 3 V m ,., • 9 f\RI -_. ' E -t 0 1 E m E r .'1 1-, o 2 �fm li+'� i N � ��n• v U 2 ; E $ = a a .i: r 1- o YYI . o LL : $E�.. a J J o F u ;o ,'- Q o t a g v ° 1 - E, '0 9„ o o 0 7, U 3 o 11f 1 N R Q - °° m n S31.L2i3dO2id I a A3T1VA NOISSIIN '°9 0. = w-i V3` ena NI III 3SVHd - HONVe eI NVaOf a I I a - W k T. to a fi III L . - - r, `„ i Joao Munch Cane 4i40.1 ., re .,,,..,:orr....„„..,..„, ____ .0, .„ ... .. , . 4,,,,,,.... _I, paw iv • -t' , :frsoo . �� I IV ir - I c r r le i �R,; 1 f N a 0 AN/ ii{srr� = d,, PIG • l uses ' ,7 - ., '1' is u5 EN Vitt - i U -_ ti p 12 iii 4 ^ • r ...� j of �a LL6' 7� 6m, i �r ■ L ■.... - a' ,' .d� rlluw.�L...r■ru. , ,■r iii 4 .11111.•111111111 N 1 i 4i g h v �� Y II s • - ' u, 100.0 �E• •t -a o 0 y o c " A. Eg Li jai • UV WS Kli 3 _ ■ ;I ! e*IiF � sr. 0 E o MI • f I a �a t �..,- v o• i� a • -�- �.I f. tri O a ° !. _ • W toll c in' 1'uv 0 W O 1 t it ,- ...IL- -� 1 , • aka. t' 1/:►4. I Y. fie*" ' ■ %AO AI , 't ___,„,..-' -Central Central ParkWaY H' w IIQ N J t 5 r uu 2 Z D ¢ ai S31.Le113dOdd A3'T1VA NOISSIW N W w E ` II 3SVHcI - HONV2I NV®tiOf a W d� Nnena NI x _a N a vi o. 'z i; 4 o 4110Pailij � �g� g� ` " !'A ; a ° f� i a$ xo 9 z f wLL oo �J kM o ��f L2�of x w . " o w Si' az a 1 _ 4 �- c yr r j fi ut moo r 3 o - ( 41 ///www .dye o 1 **Met- ' N y i nt 1'w.1� v b T1' R �y � C Y1 Y< , ',F') N O. Tr) 1 �s M �, F f 'L- a. r V C MO iix '. o iiii .„ > c +§ > �" a Q Fil R F LI a _ S31.1213dO21dA3-11VA NOISSIW ° ; y VIN2IOJflVO`Nf611d NI m e o ; N H�Nt/2� Nbra?�O[' P { �j _■ k 'ilk b<� \ Rs t t t..k� ,/� �.i�t r �T is k 1 C 0 I /� r r V �p .��5t „ " "ti ey I I edr��*10 S i0 44 �� & ♦ , ttte Y-Rte Z �i-�IR 1 s` � C"� ��,�� 1 r') ." " i w y��� �r gip V. _ - '� ( , �,, t II I i ,‘ i a K ' °emu 4 Q �''� r 1} A• N �j V `j` • R 4 1 +' "fir - ",/ • {. \ ., 'r� �..L ft, .� P P `4 ri � "r� F t yr� y ;(( ' i W U ti .,. B ..'..,,,,ydr i ..,;.,_-i -.. r.,,,,* . -A ivi , .' . - ' .:7---,,,,, to, /. --...A_; x R Y A y W . y ' '{ F o -4 i • I.44 U cn s a k w 7 1 '� 4 r � ' � 1. 0. ��r r � e t 4 t R R � 1 r ° r.f.r i� a1 S r :ri t b4 y y � -' i "" %r_ i 1. ,` . I'M t JJ , ' ir - -I . b `4' . .:"itt%P' .."1 ,,,„,„4,0,„,i4.1%,, .\\ 4h ! e; 1 /`� n� • y �\ I# `_ ,l, 4 '� 11 1111; L 'I ei._, I Itt { -*I' ' " rk ', /�i I l 1 t ,' IL .•1 I �! 'i�- Sal ,�- ,'rf, ..fi�w, y 4 i 1 , i v� csa 9 117 -111i11; 6.1 t S311.83dOeld A31-1VA NOISS11/4 > o 8 VINel0A1-1VO Nrisna NI HoNyei N110210f o u 0 0 (/) 0 -J CO ES (I) (..;) 0 0 >- 0 0 03 7,E ae.! iT! iv rt 3dOeld A31-1VA NOISSIV4 = V(NeOJflYDNflflaNI I HONVel NVCIelOr or, IJ Cl) z LJJ U U 0 !Ix s S ' ilii ' 0 a riai i j5 y V Done S3I12i3dOeIdA311VANOISSIW Q_ i.m W o: W vINaoInvo'N nana NI HONVe! Nva2iOr o» 8° L. , i ? 0 _^'' [11 0 ci) - m EC O O f" O `n ( Z k , Ilq, O v),--z< r . , , , ilitio. , „ 01, .... , - 1 U ;.„.,,,, .., . , „DI .. , .. .„... t, . 4 il . I1I ■ r1 K'. a 1' .i.) 8 to M Y l ' t =a O Q 00 S311213dO2id A311VA NOISSIW - 2 LI �d3`N179f1a NI III 3SVHd -HDN�I Nda�Ior� W" W F tx 0 P H ig z 3 - - ^°-- - ^ -- _ as Y 9 a R NM e g R , CI 1 1 11 1 1 1 1 z fO E .0 ", Y. Z g Y % O s c ~ P e t IX cn 3 0 w S ; F v f 9 jg m Ili P 3 1 , s 9 1 cog a o f g€ € 1;Y F s s if €h � b Cosa ¢4¢ $i� 3 0 P 4Y iti '1 a lif Z TI:z W Z � �1 8; ; � 5 � � $9a�y 2“1P'11121 g �3 z 2e 0 A 7 8 ES;gli 8= Em3 i eI Is 3 4 11A ' �~ F°111 ''Iii a q § s 31,44�� 2e Q 8 $7 $� M. .$ Y P illy,t is 3..0 IA �E ,:?. Eat - � o l .% $3 y a SSS -<7 !to/ z me¢am� moo-�a 3s3 5E33355 o o EBBS&sas°a$ c I ill i j m H ! € I ! ! !! !f !f!!! !!!! !! $! i! SMARM !AM !!if !i4!!j! - a 4! €s ?im I . g - — a c �1! u 0 al�iW 4 y �W C ei Z z S]WJ]d02id A3-1"1`dA NOISSIW W 2 " =- Z W� VO'Nlnena NI HI 3SVHd-H3NY Nva2�or d= '6 t I. 1 I ,. ti , w._ , • E 4 g i 3 g 3 5 > 3 _• I IL,I ' g ' f I l 1g I I i III , cm E t g 1 l o 1 ai 1 11 F 4112;1 31; eis ;y m;. $ a 1 2 iilgl ilili hIH w i t ?i:JJhi §u1 iaI1III !! II1II! vop 1°33I a #e . 82 e8o W3W d C g; F£-3"= Y 8 ?4= =ddy s see ° W — — LL ° e ff fffff If If 1 fflf 1f if Al 111 JAI II fff fff III f :ff 111111 ff ff Z li II � W O I • �1ii .1.1 0 k �,W w a 9 S3IiU3dO2id AB1 1VA NOISSIW =W o Wzi z f VO'Nriana NI Ill 3SVHd -HONE1 NVDEIOf =_ (t ^ o• e T --- n _ __ _ n__ — — — — — ¢ a • ¢ T g___ - n n ¢aa e- a¢ x t. It1 E i a fr 1 :- j 13 O !! H E d o f 1` E.I c u E F, {,'a i i t i 5 i ? • n a 91 a 'ii _ F c y ° s gg°? . = 1 i = { a ?F; A r2' A 1 i " , t° iqg 2a E 'o ;IifjJ .{ { 7SF 9 fi 1 ER is �C ;gsEI2 1 1' P j O sa ! 11 � s wog ern Jpp 1i ! ii a 111e 0 Ee?. 1 ! 7$ Imm lip I'I `si.' pp=a°l ;., .17 93 5 s4 �JJid!JiijP S.A121, u�2 8683 88 °68 i 1 IIII #!IIII IIg 12211 HIM 2121 Hi 21 g I Mg 1.1 ••EE i I UEI II !I EII I I MI t C f i a fi iiJZ Q 5', 3,-4 - S311:13dO21d A3YA NOISSIW et ' a o» 11 bO N1iana 1V1 11 1 3SVHd-HON1o/M Nva2io d== e > 0 z o 0 w 2 Z o o ZLLd 0 =S oZ o s Z � o O� l4 a° .�� ' y D O Z� <9 N zd, . JO O go OSZ 50 F oJt ,Q = O z„7a j IPH �21�p a iZz a�� g 00'�o< o � ZNa z g LL. P . • F x = Z A"'— Illii I g o o Z ti 0 Z w0 = Oz W ozEp m0 Ld n6 is Fp0 L. Z et li_ Q zg° LL < 1 Z g0L- o - -, O - „ ,wzr, ,1 o mh o 1oa qt,' TsLL aviu Vx i z Z 01 ro gL.' !Ww am °O ■■ gW p w �V a O 0. . Sz. Q w w . Om W r 111111 I p o Z =1 g.6 oz 5g o 0 w Z < a �a H o � a of W K O ai V '2LLL a 3 p0 q0 zW O v. m .004 <F V .,m z °j F lj 0 i 0, Z i = g_z Z zd xUwV UO0i00 ♦, ,� F O_ °° � � jQOW in Op000 O g WWa 6UO 0005 8000 pir- Hi U zO 2▪ Oi* 605 E 96W•nf (3333 it• O Z ~ I Q O id Z6-ii ._ i m=?z Z a w sr— 0 = 8zU w z o u 0 S 0 # = o . , m zS ti o gg 00 - lop a 5g 8 w u =F 077” FLL'2= g2 z < UFFF � Z igg Fi hg HazF p pOD O O ,°' g V° Lib' �° °p° o'EF o ° z � z g 0 s I ` a, o Z Zx a Mil < os w W S311213dOtld AST7VA NOISSIW I. � W 4W V3 N-ana NI 1113SVHd-H3NV Nvaeior d=_ . _a)0° a_ a)L a) o MNC y ° a) a) a) 03 ° 3z c •moo EUa) c E 3 °iE > ° ° � as 3 a 0 ° 09� o� E ° ° E ° ° m c c o 3-00 Z2. o o 5 Q Q :o� 0 n 0w-° ° O_� E. 00a -0-4- ? cc ;sou Z Z -°< o °:06 OO O Qw o m.= c E ° d m m E d) c E 0 a o �o 00 ° 00 > ma) E ° o 0 > °u U °� a) o 0 0 O) t o m a) o N 0 0) 2 r • 0o 8-`oEoo -> 00 o"0 '68 -° 'a) E a `o °) o°e-o °) �mgmw go �m00 3230) ' c 0`0 • c.. . _ • cp a) �c o.co c N O o O a) 0 0 co j.,4§ a U O O 3-O EE•92 E .0° -O ° a, !t cu co� 0 ° v z °•°m Q §-o � at72 u ° >. ° rnay-PE a ' cc o Z Z c 0 -- 00 o ai . ai Eo a) a) o•Ea.) E 08-00 1 0 O � o 0 m O U C Z. 0� 0 ooN oam „.E u ° 0 0 2 m oo .G o �aa t r1 • 8 mo °U ` e0 ra .. ce a 19-t?,- w gym W-0 m0tu ce•0 m 323a v) Z 2 ° c ° oi. i o :! c ? omt c z ' . -° ° o „ Q : ° ; a .- . pt wc° ° a) & ° ° �o ¢ ¢ .o 1 Z Z a sl °° O ° 0 o c c � °y °aC zaa ° ° 2 O U w Q E O VI = 4=C Na 2•0 ^•° O ° OO C 0 Lo omVo > � oaa� I OoII ° :� TA 1°Ov 32r? rg 2 E•_o3 i a . � °- a) E 52 wu5 2 33 St 30 ;a a° i 3L3 °o) a) 2-$ .7, 8 Z mo ° ! w -0-a 00• • s Z z< °— Q 0 1 L s ! 0 7 C L C E ! i ° s = a) a ` iu. w °! a ! c s 1 s o E U ° c p 0 a _ O ; o : • . s c 0 2 ° 4 0 a c ; = 1 s 0 s T o 0'0o 0Y as : _ 6 c1 s c N 'o ! > •e E j g 0 E : * ° a° ° 1 c s o w° o ° 0 < E • ; ! 1 ) , c o : o c' y7) U ! P E o c o E • i �o 2 • a Lu 2U : 1s 3s •• 11s c410 s m • °o 2 • £ — 0 " : ° z i i • : a� ° s . ' o a o e W s O o s s o f a< s = • o m ° V L 0 °- r •S 0. • ; • • s ! I o ! E- e E . t•: j 2 • a : t•. o ` 1 t g ° a m e ° 0 0 o ° s o a ' 1 ° • U e s E ° u o E E 3 0 • • ' E o U 0i or o v . p O E d a oa_ . . ► Sa i s ; : cu i ! ! t U s 2� a) Aso_ 5 c 0 0 o a d o !!� o lid ' "= o., 9 � . S3112i3dO2IdA31-IVA NOISSIW d o- • )1.i t as- ° 1 VO'NI'7»na NI HI 3SVHd- HONHt1 NVa2101" z d ,,d . LL as =' zz eeeel- eo qw -9 i 0. 4 8 1w iP i T1 i 2$ H ° °-, 3 i II I . .o�i,m� - __ I1 .a=.9 222 a 2 I�.a,Z ; I - gym 1.--.0 111'1111Il� �IiI J u s�I i::: I'etg0 ! fl_ 1' I 30vaoas I 0.�.... ,11 -a-.e+,- ' -1 ttt t c lead I�.o-,Z Hai `.7, �B 1 g C k---..on 4a I, § ulll6: � 1 § I I II 11111111' NVIMIRAI tl p I111 °�) $ CH O" �4 ado a ��IflhIIII!IIII2@ 2 0I�.0 z,—.1 - _ Ems i � A-1+ —.O-.VL __ 11, ..— pi im I 30.,01: I ax �I .0-s+ ■I LTV,- t I. .a-t Il (L ♦ pa o a i R 31—.0 r; I lillialxa i 'JIM °s ggg I �I w I.• .0 99 1 et I'! 1 0 AI i 3 '.. M i 1 5 R ..: S31.1.113dOeiel A3-1-IVA NOISSIMI 0.0i: ,'"e■ ff, 110`NlIena NI Ill 3SYHd -HONVII Nvatior t.,• •W:, sE g ;°'. i w, i p ‘7, , q 1 52 I I g 1 '54, R r, k 8 2 ,. :.a . 0 It 110 OM 111■L_1 144 ' y r.61' .11111,1111 l[11111111111, . s.• I, H H H H TIM 21 OM Lii. IML1=1 111=1111 1!11"11.1111 1 eta i 1 11 g I III IIIIIIIIIIII In I: 11 j*Ivil r 1 i 0 1111 '-LT.mum■ p 21 ' -11111 .r....... ........m.. Lt mum Lill 11 .11111111‘ii T: 1111111111_ mon sim csymil, witar . um likmipg ki ma. um1101 -- mm IMMO I p I MA ■ILIMIIIIM._ ■Al -s ! _ H H H WWI NI 0 MUNI, I I =MS=EA_M rilimmin 1 1111111111 Illm--- —1 M. - 1111111 i IM 0141111111111.- I p Oil i r,„„„id aii 0 77( E .0_ rum-1 7 1 ----v4, .1 411 '':0 ill I I A iiii. MI oil OP" II g 1 II I lit =1(SW]re MIMI=17 1 I In numm. m 111. om ...111 a illimEll 'to. H H H H U1111111111111111E I I ' ti la numummaire 1 riill 41..iar 111 illillj 11101111 011111ek41 r§ 1 Mill gm I ,.....1 Tomo 1 il illit 0,4"- littli„! 1 7 ver=7;11...a, iii 11 1, d 11 ,§ Ml MI IP Eel' 71 MO I E-5 .... IIIIMPI iiiiiMiiii IIII.o n 1— —i 1— 0=1 '=ii r. E 1111E, 1.117– mini I. 151 VIII° 11011 11 Mill N PIM--Im, —. a ,11 i wifill„„r11/ . F,F l' ii -- rir.idi ifinhill""Pi IP"-: E,`' •= rimim-1 7 • g limlffil i 11 ill II 7' • Li g 7 I retie ail 1 'X 111 e, .;.0 pollsv, fl - . . _,. ..„ 9•141 r: 8 o.m I . ' Illiouroll '..A 1§ g Ill on g i I i I 1 I Z a +1 °` O � a $m R S311213dOHdA311VA NOISSIW d - - W VO`NI-Inna NI HI 3SYHd - HONYI NV dOf=al .= a 8 s 'yI 6 Z s B A LL I. .o-....,E .0-.L-0- 3ov oiS O i t iii4 1 ill II W LL LL LL LL l\ I I II Q Q Q Q II�t 1 I [Q!Q N Cl) (n 1 ,?t- or i E.III O I r N U _ m I p Z ,40„o-,17 m M k==4 I► N Z N &0-,bl; a 1J. 1i►O A m 0o0 O ° °III ►\ � - i` , 00 o i w 0 CZ ¢ m LI u g m co I- °a LL 0 o tj L ,.0-.85 1 l 1113rI° III- ---• ° :IIICI 1,), a� KIIIHhII _. le mill I ' p"'Al i #.; *. 1 •i 1,,,, cl �l z d��. w r 11 III� l�711�!� -w AII' 1111111111111111111 � 1 l N 1 M ' OF U D � 0 m W9 CO lyyy m 1 . : Z ILO 'IYU K8 FmW-x I a�' W °Ww �1P�a ii .4m^ 0 O 0 01 ; .�. :. F∎ \ 0 w 1 1- 11. o 1[411 o Z a M. $11 3..Q Q0 R a aS3112i3dO?dd A311VA NOISSIW o - d do`Nrlena N1 III 3SVHd -HONY I Nv4210f d Z= e d g Li s nr o-,az•.,c L ..0-1 w 30V8OIS O iliiiii W III IIII ` Z LL LL LL LL LL • WI 1 % 0 d d Q ci ci FO OW II E T co co co�} Z II►�a..0,v Z m " O O tl k j 1 W ►_ 14 O 0 cc Q M .0-.17 L U 4 ,L_4 U &2'N O .. NR 411V 1 W g p�0 I a i Z O OLLO 9 O o �o w LL LL ��i• �� O Z W fQoa 1 Liw Ik‘lir —1 l gm ce u- 0 I_ . — . — . _ . ! . — . _ . _ . — . .0-.85 m Z o L 111111111111111111111111 / 2. �-I, o .%O z 'C=a # J N LJJ W ' ' II 1111 X111 Q O A Q@ Li z • 1r0 W 2 0 11==111 0 II o :�I' II II �= II V- J LL N a W OQ w m_ w O N U gH 1 1 m- W /'1'i' +' I I \ i- z IL° II - 0 0. 111161111 II Qo W U a fI• I N. o 1111 ° 4 i o Q +I $2 gi S311.113dO1IdA3-11YA NOISSIW °` a E' _ Z° W d oe ga °xW W //O'NI-mina NI III 3SYHd -HONY2I NvaElOf d e d H 1 7 1...,,,, . :9!-- . ___. fl o-az..,e I ----L I I I I 0.L i 3°JV2101S JO i l V IIIIII I� 0 I-- LL LL LL LL LL \ CL LL f3 C7 C! G f7 W � , r v Z J UJ!Q fn 2 g n0��z. p 2 fn0 D)r- W O QQo F � . . m O J MOD 1— 01• co ce N § 2 W 1 n0-37 0. J 0 .,o-,t7 L. Q§ — II NR __ __ 1•h '' W O0O CC �' iN o I DG 0 0 Jp Q 00 w r--..-, �� ► 44 Q Z Q ZO� tea' C7 I !--g-! li ►ep ° g LLB= • V) Ce „0-.85 11 C $.1 f S3LL213dO2d A3T1s/A NOISSINI ..4 I°= _d d z= d f do`NISna NI III 3SYHd- HEN Nda?Io z 0 az ,k.o 30� 2o2 f a w Z -7 , 0 1- 0 Z z c U .m f L N>Q u 2), l .1.1— 11P _ is 0 L �o dog z 1"[_ Q1L. -I- JJ ; 11 h I- 1Li s o ce t--. .ii' I. s j w i',11 ,0 ZL Z HL I I - , II I i I t �— ill @.)L _ - _, s z s iL I 'I,I zL i /I 1 i 1 C1 O 1__ .1 .'llffliIMII Is Z G.ez i ii ° Fri i o R S311.e13dOHd A311VA NOISSIIN a' - z W dO`Nlnana NI III 3SVHd - HONYd NVaeiOr d Z= o d 4 Eli I- i Mk o z a 3 V Co,1 - 6 ❑< III mum'3 ,E o0 - a = a 4 ,11 ,,o F 3' w 00 0 lf.�evIII Z W ---I—I a Q L ■ I I I II I J i- C� '.l..".! W 1i1< \ t io.., O U I I- "II z o 0 oow E0� (2� gz� (2 i= _ _ 1 w o f6L - o°ou LL ? ooz oou z . uw�0 0 z 3' �woz 0 LT- g o ��oz o 0 0 > �o 60u7 0 o o >z�0 o o z <x >z-o D 0 0 °I30 3 � 3 0 00 °v u=ig� N 3 3 a zZ °J N 11�'.il d1��i N- Q ® d m a Z O 3 O i■ 2 _ ® '• ° 0000 Y ~ 0 a ..�I : -II 0000 > 1 m w w 0000 J ® 3 J w I .. i, i :0000 _,_ u_ cz 0:131=11 [E113 m m m = _ - oc W W W z /�. I_ z Z 0 .i1�i ic,�ib,• O 0 (� ti Vi! ! U U H DI NM :111' Q Q Z I UM o KIN* 5ei 0000 ° i '-a i_,;;• °- 11 Q ;E• 0000 Q = -II w' — 11 1 'i:, J W I= W LU I INII I- r.:■i 0000 Q il Z ,,ten a l -I = —, O P I 1_ ° IBS s a WI FOo� U S3L AI3dO2Id A311VA NOISSIN a o' -d W s`Nn9na NI III 3SYHd -HONV Nda Ior d z. • d° va f._ . — . — . — — . — . — . _ .o 2OV1:IOlS iliiili i' 11111111 --II I-: LL U-LL 1 s'l1 ddd d Q co con LL LL U'�d (V .__ QyQ 1 1 1 ° z •�♦4„0-.ti m •M C7§ p6=# j w iI 0-.46 z N ", :i : 5 1 L4JL (Q a' a' N R 1 1 1 /116 a ' Z 2 0-1 Si O O -1 w l ' O z 0 ��;_ O a M LL 01- ° 0 o in LL ,.0-.84 l'j 1 I . o ""'111,121 °�IIIIIIIII �� .'�" -�I IIiOal 1111 mi! 111111111 roommilir4;, z I I ICI Y w a_ III' b II !■I1111�I VA. Z III 111111111111111111 IIIIIi�Id ` o l l N M o . I . c w? - 1 co U . j J , r t) .,,,, Z ..L. . rim N 2 Ce IR'„ _'F= I I M mV O / 11 2m II O O 0 =e1 0 cY 1 l I - ii SBIld3dO2ldA3T1VA NOISSIW ° d , 8*' . a W a, _ ^ z W dO(NI'Iana NI III 3S`YHd - H3NVH Nva?Jor d Z= d°o 1— . iL ' ' 4 F— I o-.oa..re IO I I I I I „0-,L i 3`JtlNOlS J i I i i i i i w ck _I III II II I Z LL LL LL LL LL I I `` _ I I l/ d(O d Q „O.ZI rn g W �••� CO M W W O in Q r l y Q .♦�� `, Z N o °§ i=I Z W �„0,4 m O:R * g li�x ,,�\ Z Q \ lY N �Illo W2 IL 0 �I�" d '' LI LI ZCp OZO 0 H ,i�1. O Cr w N°„ < C9 , J J (o IX O C, � Ll d M LL(n H I- 0 1 LIIIIr N • -LEW • 0 r, ..0-,85 ► U Z w l'11111111111111MM ,��: O ' Q iii e LL v !1 - �� �� Z W 4 j o Id u , Ltm !!I J U i ♦ Q a U Z / a- 11-7:1 Ow .o• LL O LL '1._ 11 2m = w H O . — Q U a N Q Z ill il 6.- ! � II O p e U — S3LL213d02id A3'1-IVA NOISSIW a o g= == d g s bO Ni-ena NI III 3SVHd- HONYi Nva Io d o in Z O H azo faw 3Ocg Z N d 2 � N W?n 1-00 OcL Z�W J U omw HI V t Zl w J / 0ww i -U w .ii� U_ 0 Q o j NI r I, = Z u w r LL 0 _I II Z � s ws� 0 A; I W zi 0 Ce / 1, z I• / c I— I 1 -ill I •i NI s I w s zt Z O O Y Is Z1 IT. ° .1 I11 Z m o Q EI Q°ff R 01 S31.1.213dOedA311VA NOISSIW a I a . Z W <4W .-4 eO`Nriena NI III 3SYHd -HONVel NbaaOr =.= .' ..Z. e 6 w .: r l I■ � in,i - I■■+■_■N■E■_rAi4 N IMEMMENEMEMErir V■n■■■III■■iII■r VIIIINNICIIIMIEF NIIMIIIMMOIr !■:ws' I,.■�..,m o mows '�,i.■ ■.. z 0 N w 8 C.)0 O p II 3 --- 412 II■ \r _ ___ ma 1M Pllll 111 .1 \■ .: rirEt1 -I ... e - �i 1.1 �1..w-::::iims: �_I O to I oa O'Z r F F E HI O O °-°a m u, 3 6 LLz 00 u p� , LLz Fp m O Z f O ?? u z 3? 8 °z3 °vysCe 3 vii 'v 3 28 r /m If♦ r ■■ € J ti::!... €ireE :: K Z ._ 0_ _. ■. _>Url:i :'_r = z J 11111 "' ... ::., . ° 1 ,, , 11 - c7, U_ ) U = = oc Cw _ C w Z w CY i�61= z CY 0 ____- =°°s°-=t° 0 0 0 : U U Q I.. O I ■ O 1-- "■ : ■ O ® e - .I < .. -,_ - �0UU I•' •I W L.,, 000a ■� z Ce lli 1 a I I 1U N Q Z + 3,Q N �! °g R S31.11:13d0t1d A3T1VA NOISSIW ° d o. • W J=W bO`Nfena NI HI 3SVHd-H3NVN Nva for d z= , d 8 W r- — . — . — ,_ . — — . .PALx.✓.0 3 -11'Jtl2101S O I i 1 l l :1111 111 n ,L 0� iiiii 11 l 1111 II �I-I- r I- I j' ' .. LL LL LL LL LL I d Q d d Q ci) II ' 0I r- 0 co b u0-,ZI. W ,^ fn M W r W co M § 1 6-1 Z W I Al 1 n0-,b m LO , Z \ .0-j7 I, § 3 li_1 �1 ° z° �N� e1/o ,1� I W oo L. Z O o u O O LLOLL W . I� t ■ ° gw ��� rz o Mart , 1--- Fi . •0-,99 • 1 f !.'OHHH!,'' 1�IIIIIIII CD III illailliall ii li ' 1i I/�1 Z i: , a O l n "i mmm1 . o LLJ N 1 l II1i1iiGiHI" Empipm ri..„ . = z ��I. 7E, moo_ i g _ NW - D oc 0▪. 5.1 I I Lo ,1 2m 11 O - T J OF .i am DI lL a w 1 l I- i 3 in 2 a S311213dONd A31 111A NOISSWJ hi . h r VO'Nnena NI III 3SYHd - H3Nd21 Nvaaor =W= .86 s EL,- a dLLU ,,__,, ;,:);.:— o-o¢=.o-s lO __ „0-.L� W I 3`JVNOlS J 1111111 Z I iiiiiill Q u u u U. _ .♦ O LL LLLL LL LL ■ I U d Q d d Q tQ CO CO CO CO i Q F �♦ y = Z Q N I I I o § �_ Z w 0.b m R'w k # ��,= Z Q N R' 0,b6� cats li_1 5 . N^' �,Ir o I� d. W 2 o_1 O z II a I� 0 O 8 oZ0 W 11.I •4J o g W �0� w I g.'7.'�3� : LJ d M LL co F=- F- (¢.7 i- 0 •• 00-.89 (D z w 1. 1'u1111111111111111111ll r��M 0 L` �la Yet o 4 - �I c� �� z m W ' z0 Z ,,0 0 IL!' '1I l Q ce 0 owe U r Q @ 0 z 2 11 II C•1 o Oo w CO o.' 2m ° MP 14m = w II = 0 01 Fl 1111111 aoe III. P °U @� ,N iii ' z a S3LLa3doad A3'T1YA NOlSSIPJ it, <0 a ti Y3`Nf7ena NI Ill 3S`IHd- HONE NVa JOf d== o d 8 s z 0 0* �� 0*w w?z ,0o z zoo 05v 0.0 M ":1 6a 1 [I 0.0 o 0 OUP K w 0,., ED �,1 I- jam'° �� _ zz1.N e I— ' Z z, I , �� a Li ,s o LL h w .0 Z , i qq ce �..rL � it /��_ I U I ..% QL i V G 1 0 ED '! viii �� ' � .Ia �� Z LL Ce zips �ws� O Z Is ilk n 1i9� � r 0$41- to, ° r 41 D°E e R S3Ii BdO2IdA3-11YA NOISSIW °` a o . ^Q W V3`Nlnena NI III 3SYHd -HONVEI Nya2lo d W= N SQ LL Lu Z 0 �QJ ,1 l'. 0 O I� 0 LL Z ■ —�- 3 v In O Virar i Z WZ2Z ., '',`,5- w <01,i5 F c O Y (9(nr7 2 ° _1 b Z 0 a 0 w ce Q v 00 0 0 1 f 3 0 0 3 3 3 III�� Z O II 1:..1 1 O• >_ Win! IIIIIIII "� w Al ir-I" o0 0 E w cc O f ZF F J 00 LL w F 0ZUZ F '' �O� K 7 ,�,)LL . W?Q O ? N <0ce0 00 0 0 °°Z0 0u w zo OLL ov0—iF 0 2 06 W( 0O LL 0 0 OZ 0 0 7JQ'(� 0 0 -<' oo 3? 0 3 0=500 0 Q aw o ow?o1 0 0 00W 0 v7' w m VNLLK 3 0 wF 02<vl e 3 3 /' IIII 1 t o 0 �� i -' o loo° Z Z Z ® a O Z a 3 p --h■■- ��01 > ® s W —I Z J 0000 J W m I- m ,0000, Q ® ® _ ..� V ' ° MU o0—c 0 W L_--=–_—=_________---=– O U U O Q --_ �- . -- ® Z �I Z 0 _.,...,-._;;1--- ® O 1111 O ® 0°>==i a Q - w r=1 1111 VIII ° J W - 1111 J - �� I�IIIII = w J w -�-�-I�Hid I..I.I F— I "' - 1111 ,� _ --I=I-uIII ,...., , Z -- Q IIIII .� O 1�n - _ ° Ce -■1• i ■ oo e } N Q N N g O n Q " Q S311.a3dOOId A3 TIYA NOISSII d o - m' ee M V3`Nlnena NI III 3SYHd -HONV21 Nva2:1Or d==o d 8 7 _ _ [0 "?r „ .PAL w.t,£ 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I I • 1 3�J--- 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 111111 II I O �:1J_LLL 1 ABEL�* X11111114.ml,_:j d�a a ci fan CO(n N In uO".Z6—� W 2 cAER,'D N a 1 C7 ..0'.L Q H CO M N N 7 O O ■ O �§ o d g OO • m O OLLO O O w 1 ` -i O Z■ a W n O 0 m U. s oa Li- Q v LLOF F 1 f- O N W ir ..0-.89 r j 1 l 1- a 0 '.1111111!dl11;�lh T' == ■1111 1! , Y m Z Ii IM1! ' IIIii!111� Z ".> iiI n ■�IIIIiii z4IZ.oIICI ce IIIo � �� IIMJ 111111 ° INN II ° IIIIIIIIII � o : : ---- N 1111-111 Ilimsal o 1 I N 1 f eIIIIIICIIIIII11I M O o LiIi" , II ° LIJ CO Way 1=I =1 II z Ikl i LTA, � N cc; �_� II Ob dL— W o 0. I OW O° •1 itill ._ U O Oi aim[ 2 Q w 11- 1l7e. $!: z +I 3.4 '- SBI.Ld3dOeldA3-11VA NOISSIW °` d o g b3'Nnena NI III 3SVHd - H3NYI Nva2Ior = o o d z 0 ,..i. • __,® .o-.oz r.�-.s i _ 30%2101$ 1 1 1 11 1 „ ii' �I� oC 111111 II . 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 -- 11 J_1_LL I/- 11! ______ �II' K w' Z LL LL LL LL LL O - t .� �� I''III' U�\ N CO K1 O • �I�. a C7 C3 M C7 M �_-_� CO to CO N „O,Z 6 ►I v rn o e rn j� W V E to CO CO CO o v I.hi „o,vG a x pi_ I „o,9 g 0 cc N« .� ° oi. 0- O 000 E!7!` W H O LL 0 LL W (--- . C,.., 1- oe rzi J J m ce W 2 O Q __- LL. O a LL CO I- I- 0 • r 1 — . — . — , — . — — l_ . N 0;89 ►j Q Z LY 0 , Z #Y--i 0 II � Y q/ 11 1� Q II 1'j: ',� Wm O o w ■swim • 11T Hi it_____- _1 oe P U d Q Z � o 0 M f o I a o z = r = LL r Z / w U a c) !1n 1 O 4 O N Q Z °I f 2 o6 81 1'F,, o S311213dO2d A311VA NOISSIW d 5�vo N enu NII 3SVHd -HDNVel Nva Ior d z I d 8 N t ,.t O 0210 S �1 1 1 1 1 1 I I IA, 3.x.01$ 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 111111 11/ �� 11J_1_LL '�� K 0 LLLLLL LL LL H NO-1Z I.-0.1 Fri I ,-� 12 m AN LII°m o v o <0 i �1! III „0-.L a0 i N M . MIN V W - Om 4 _ a I .° ' o „0,b L a R '� O „0,9 Z ?�' o NR = I Ob O f 0_10 1 LL J ogw " x a m oO d LLhF I- : N IY .''',2-1_ . _, LL X0-,89 i'l a I CV 3 4 S311k13dO?3d A3T1VA NOISSIW � 4 I Z W 4 S W N o W Ito`Ninena NI III 3SVHd- HONVN NVO IOf =W= z 8 6 Z P. e 1 K z 0 F- <3.1 0 fw .t f0D ZNa N W z n H z z-w w>< Q�� o --? IN 0 o rc ON 0 '- qia m H w NI — Owt U N Q ac ZN —1 F=L ' , Z N NI O N m a .I Q Loo 1 1/ s N �. 9 / . b m J LL 61 ul j<., Z t 0 -* CV Ai $1 C.11 0 :Tr 3 n 4 f pup! ,,....... I ..- S3112:13c10elelA711;AsvNOHISc:11011H r. 1 VO 1411-1911C1 NI III ONVel N+vi a_;,,,111,91,0/:ir . ::::I ozi 7A r, i-- L I.Aiim NI _4 1 _ -' , / LLI . • 2 / n / z 0 I 1 1J 7( v) E 0 3 an 0 / , 0 0& 0 0° // / I = 0,., ,o 0 0 / 8 _z 0 _ E z D CO I 3 w li , 2 /H , 1 -7.T , 1 - 1- T ,-,N,‘,, rr , ' z )C4------- 1 .1 _ , A FAr /P .... r, [ 0 < :\ / S- 0_ ■ir).g. .... 1 1-w Mu = o E Z• I,- 6 co' ,'":5- Lliz 0 Lu z 0 0 '2 3 2 9 2 ,, 0 o 5 o o 2 2 , d 8 L!._ P, s' .7..? 8 9.1. 8 . 0 7., a Oa 3_, a r z 1-0 ,,, 0 u A.. 1.11.1111111. /1/111111 I II = NM 1 = / Ig_M I 7<- _ Zt <= ' 1 . 6" = =, 0 MI i =.- - :g. . - z O 1 1 - . : z 0 ,_„,„„.„1„,„ i=„1„,1=„„„„ , __ 0 13 1111 < 111 _1 I i•-• ° LLJ Kaa El . 1111 11 Bill'I''M'Hill'I'llIlIl. 1 1.1.1.011111111111111111111111111; 0 1 1.--. lmu u_ " 1 LLI LLI -J W IY :‹ = <= = . fY LU Z Le LLJ -I.' ir m LI., w z 0 z w w U 0 U 1- U ( 0 Iill MI < I- I- < z < MI z IFFIII! 11■1,1 0 IIIIIMIlli lizz z 0 ...,.„.„ „„ 1:: II.: l '=1 ill I= HMI 1. Z711111 IRIIIINIIIIIII ..< 0. : IllIl Wil L.J. 112Y1 1"'"i"i illim ....1 LU ,ME == 11111 0000 0 i= Am, HI.... ..RRREI ..* 1 1 Pll I==1,1 i= < > LLJ -I ( 111011111111 „la, - LimmiliiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiHuounil k i , z 0 u_ '(0=1 im, .,[uoo' ce. , . . . < . ...= ■■ Ham qvill 115111111111 II ' 0 M - t. s M tril+1 il 0 Z S311H3dO�1d A31-1VA NOISSIW °` a Q do_ dO'Nflnn°M ill 3SVHd -HONV I NYOdOf d== o .18 K. i®. V2101£ �IVIII Ilj N��l 3�'dNOlS 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I . 11J_I_LL I I, 1�. _ --- ��' K LL LL LL LL II } Iu 7 �71IE O 4 II'�� a C1 CJ C7 O C7 H 110-Z� II - _ N O N 01 W (� W FO O 0 K u0-1 _m H n1 co C7R e ► Z E ..0".171. ► 2 00".5 NPv • Q.° d 00 �LLO 4 m r o _ O Z O W ce *r m O Q W ;oCe g¢ J J CO 0'W 2 O a U_ a v LLuo1— f- 0 J— N . _ . _ . _ _ . _ . _ . _ 4L t- L A ..0-.84 ■1111 II ■ iz II i--; ¢ I i �� ;i � 0111,111■■41''' -1111111111111- I ■■■ III Z ''N111I' * PI 0 m III Z.IIo O P� Z � IIMIIII o; � �: ■ : - � IIIIIIIIII111 iie 0 pinmummin 0 N _ m II■ IIIIIIIIIIIII1II m w§ Fi1 m° _ II m m _ N ce m - ¢w v III z II o4 /1 i! mm 'SIN - �_ 0 II Wo •1 a o mll [�] o o' ;; aim :, 0 w I v ��� 1 0 I' Z NI I mil m S3LL2i3dO2id A31 IYA NOISSIW d o= f ° W<T- adW I ce YO`Nl�ena Ni III 3SYHd- HON`d2l N` a IOf d== d 8 g 0 � _ . 30Vi101S 1 : 1 1 1 1 I iliellrilii OL III III II Z 111111 II _____+-H_I_Ll II = Z LLJ I. U' O a O LL LL LL LL LL 1011111�_!!' .4 a C0 Cs c! co C1 Q tom—..0-z 6—� m rn o A v = N co r rf ..0-.L i oo Z a -- a. , K m c9 a a �► Z O ObL� �s u 0.5 U2 4. -I LL O h W^ O D W a mV O w LL LL J r __ Q ���rA w D � J J m cc(I = O a U- d v EMI- I- U' .:41_ „, LL • ..0-.e5 • ED z 0 fY■ 0 ___ 0 J 1---4 E �� CI•IMPPIIA■�I' --T;: o ti==-4 Ym✓ Z a1 a �ii iipiiii . t` w w W U 0- m Z 0 ck 0 0 2 ■1■1 LL 4 1 O Im o U J ce II k Q re V PI In ,(tr� I r CC Ili O^ +3 X11 0 0 E m R O( Qisa Z m S311e13dO2ld AalIVA NOISSIW - s0_ a � w �° F VO'NI'19na NI III 3SVHd - HONY?J NVCIHOf =W= 8 6 Z L v y z Z 0 H c Z MoD ZsQa "-oU) _L � f z U)z 0 O Z ow u om6 N y Q Q 0 O K O o g o 0 .I z b SC a% I F ZL d w W I •Ib 'm O Z w w <,, f z — w rf m . ', I x )-.. o.% Z IL r� 4 t r; _1 v °� U_ 4 00 ILL /� - �, LL Z iii. •Ib W0 rS% c IY U L co . ■ N 1 m co c,s, 1 t I L 11 ■,. .. ..'1'___. i t Wt 011 r S I■' ... e m SBLLdBdO2Id ATI7YA NOISSIW Ell d o p - 2 m °OxW z4 iw VO`Nnena NI III 3SVHd -HQNY2I Nva iof "� w P.2 F. e 1 w Z oz OE 3 3D 0 H �;II /Ti ' a 'i ui �l ii' o c�� o r oz ?� E oo. I..1 MO I..- Ea ao o>L o Qo /� - Z LJ..I or 0 0 2 33x 3 om � ��■I, .. 111E1 aQ ill li LLJ 1MM.1111 IIIIIL 11 1 • LLJ r - .. \# .111 IF Z oe �. Z O(...) „, Z 0„ N N m Z z re N °z OvO�0 2 O O > o k LL w ��oz o 0 0 o P �c�u� a o u Z o >zi3O . 6f zp a O °vwS� f 3 ;J. 3 0010 D 0 eu... f ✓i ] I ' III I NM OM 1::* NE1 m .. o0 00 ® _ is ® ;14.="E= Z - z z O e: o o :: —. 0000 e_�% Q : 0000 a W z w 0000 w I:: I_ w® m N I::.� 0000 \ I __ .i lU LLJ 0 W = m m = W w Ce J m L"z 0 Z O 0 0 Q I .I I ■I� Q In E_ •• I M- :::1. w •:: 0000 Q w W °0000 w I:: NCI. ..:I o 0000 W LLI O e W ■ r. iiii $1 { 3 A - Ili I 0 g SaLLe13dO�Id A7T IVA NOISSIW °` 14.o It V3`Nlnena NI III 3SVHd- HONVdd NVa2IOr =W= .I 8 P.2 d , s d .o-.oz*.o-.c I I I I i i i i l -wit i ® �I I I I , ��11 IM -.L-H- LL I I/ 1A = n ______ .1' , °4h i-:LL 1L LL tL g N N N 0 uO ZLNH 0 j 2NW OD W N N` ? O U Uv � O ° ■ � O O LL o u_oo N R Wo .a O _,0� w WIN L d m LL WI- I-vr N _ _ ce LL A ..0-.89 ►J 1 f ;I , °I■ I : l, •T111 I �I I 0_: o I i a k H ms'_ i ` OIIlIP' 1 g=Z pro II .1 1 II ?: „i 0 P I o 11011111111 46* if -II 1111111111 I III_=III Ie Z 0 U, _ m ■ 1IIIIII1111111 00. ..irIi ICI o I I c,o E 'II - WO — . No: " � fm° I1I I f Ob � _ w" . - y,i i •• 0 W c c, m� O ] o 0 M _ , = c LL 0 w I- II! 1 co CNI OH ii 6 Z a Fill! a 'S3LW3dO21dA3T1VANOISSIW m g° rd W HO N-lsna NI 1II 3SVHd -H3NY2I Nva2or d z= 8 6 s 0 V rt -- .0-"".S I I I I 1 1 1 1 1 " ,+4V+—: CY 3�JtlN01S 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 !A W 1 1 LL 1 1/160 I1 .4 Z 11 J_I_ ���' 1" o LL U-LL LL l~L I IIIIiIlUI 0 a U)d a a way CO CO q I�—x0 ZL� No O °v o a (A cii a0 a0 O V C7 1 § ..0-.L-� C7 W < N t CC CO a ^ g ��.0-.b l s 2 I 0-.9 ZS 4 L O § O �o . r,R 0 2 0 0 � O OU-O w^ O LLO W O LL J i . m --1 O O Q W n H J J 03 IWI O a LL d v LL co H H U' _ _ _ _ -� _ � • ..0-.89 0 z a _ O _ ;; ; u- ,___, 5 1 1 wieirok L,': w U a CD Z ' l I F. o ,j...17, Lit z - J 2 rn I K ' 1 U LL W 0. i 1 1 w 03 / 3e Z ..._ /� � z I < O U Lt , r 2 I IN i°� a S31113dO21d A3T VA NOISSIW d o W IC E N V3`Nfena NI III 3SVHd - HDNYI Nva of=W= :8 s dZd o d� 2 Z 0 F Q?0 haw 3o% ZNCl --N w? -Z 0Z� Z 0 w U ()m W 2 8 Q o — --- 0 0 If . -r°'14;,,,,0 . , --lz t c t 0 Z Lu+V c,U , CD- ,e iiii:7___. 1s.£ d Ll ZL i ( I �i+ 0 L 1- O Is Z iii 'I =� '�s� Zl IS Z W .b O , , rr. -r k -,r Yyy CD- !i S Z i` 7 IS£ V I s 'U Z f g III / rh' I j LL I x 0 I ' 0 Ce Pal ` 0 �1Ai 1 o z .47c °g R S31.Le13dO2ad AallYA NOISSIPI d o a . = W J.= r4 bO`NI-lena NI Ill 3SYHd -H3NVEI NvaiOr _a_ s L Z s e d w LI (7-------- St* 2 m Z f a v1- 3 O 0 3 Oz O• 3? o m0 coo r.LQQ wLL 7 0 1111MI - 0- 14 W 1— ao II I l 1 1LJ o Z a O o O0 0 3 Of .-... o cU 3- 0 o3 3o - -� - ° Z O o- o mp 90 o6 3 wm m"u ° 1! ;DI �ii _1 i [ wZ I�r 6 ro,„ 3 z~ u - �O J O w� J °00 to� o WZ 0,2 o . Wz, '' 0 3 0NQ o . w owZ m Y 0 Z �N 0 u4 C7yg x 0 0rz°" O 0 Z W<wZ 0 0 u �O`3Z o Dwwc7 0 0 0=50 O O ow?o O O D �Za o ���? p 3 vw woe 3 3 'v play 3 3 u, O epUwc 3 O w, o 0 pfvul /---- ___=___.---- ---------------- ---- --- ---- 11 I. 1" —I.- ® o ® o o a Z Z _ o O --= 1111 O 3 ¢ !I!I - ___ w Z J _1 ® - ® w hi---- --_-__ LL' �Illlll- F X11 5 w !:: ::i 111111—, J I 11 Fe LD (7 = w w w II Z O w I rk u O MI O a = ® ¢ ¢z - IMI O - = Z r= IIII�- �lllllll1==1■1 w f z _.,_ , ,, .0,„- _ � m O_ Lu> = _ 0 LT,_, ���� a• o 1----- _, IL- - _, ,_ 0 u_ K__, _,, _ ,.., c, —____ .--IIIIIII _ . i_ ____ IIIII___=_. i ____„1, 0 a IN 1 M I5 i o k N z h Q Oo a ' a S3a dO21dAMIN/ANOISSIW • ,4W zo m g V3Nlena NI III 3SVHd - HONVel NbaaOr =d = o zr 30V2101S O t ..0-1 _r) 2 oe I u0-s - F-i� i— I- LL LL LL LL LL 00O 0 0 O m w^ (0 CO (0 (/) 0"Z6-0.i w - m.9 I 03 L))ON)Ga�O 0 v N 1 -- �' - a N Q ___ �; 00 °' re R 1 ,♦�" b�� NR i o = g W � ix w O d Q! m 0-0 I' w�� a ~ 0 ....ZO . O ~O •i• ,I, o,v 0 g m �8� O - N L — . _ . _ _ . _ . — . _ u.. .0;99 IIII�11 X111 IIII�111� X19 o rIMIMMI �:l �r-■�!�■a� 111 �1,o IIIIIIIIII�� z * r► 0! 0 � iIN = / Z Z 1111 Q II%_', ■n �� * z II IIIIIIIIIIIII ��I�I�III HUulilill 111111111 11111111 c_ z iI �. . 0 l N 1 l 3 i- t t II m l I I � WA®� 0 Zi Z �� Milli N �'IIIII II 0. :. �I •- II o o3 F - [ 1 °1111 11111 0 w 1- N 11a( 4 o Q04 a9 S31 L?JdO�Id J311dA NOISSI W o d= W .,0 VO`Nnena Ni III 3SVHd -HONV I N`daRAOf j"E e Ef g° s EVE ,�V 1-- , :91.:--- I 30b4101S O ) "0-,L i w 1• 02'4 O LL LL LL LL LL F OCea o.5 • coo i ci d I m W U)(A U) co co I'I f— m° O�o ao rn .o'.Z L—� W M W m rm rn • 1♦ Q § Q. N ~ 0 99 ce§ nit:.0 b6 = tor" w rM NR g n OoJm U i-- I W �� E 11w ■ III vim O OO Z QD ~ZO U 2, a 1 L- 0 „o-.89 Q Z I 1111111111 I�� g\J II 111111110 o 2. Lu:I:nI:iLI4 .11h, .... 1 w r .I N o W< U a Q Iii�\ J Wa- 2N. ,/ : �r �IIIII _- lN m 11 �1�1I1 ° i O ■ I w o- Q U ce a c) j!! 7 M 11i� 4 O It Z o a + : 3�� � S31Jb3dOeIdJl3TIHA NOISSIW °� a o' . <Q III 3SVHd - H3NY?� Nval[or J m VO`NI'79na N1 W a$2 s dZd o �LL� I 1,E OIS O 1 „0.L 3`Jb'2fOlS J e r" §❑.� W.. II O N V co (n W 1•I O / \ v O (n CO of O V = N 0 , ,, L E11111111111 N°ry / grirr•;$ 2OJ 0__--- poll _ 0 a• w � 0 L� a 0 LL 1 4 Z J [L ���� �I u0,b O Q w ����� _ _ U- a a Li w LIJ r=- .. I— J_ Li .0-'99 i . to a +i Fil to Fill QkN z c S3112i3d0?3d A3'7'IdA NOISSIW W VO Ni-Iana NI III 3SVHd - HONH?:1 N` ado 6 Z= , d 2 1 o NI O Z 4 4,s0 sL i� g 1 Is g Zl ' Z �^ Zl j 01 'r,i 0 �_ _ -- j ° : 1 °iti, ' '1 ce Z Ce O L ai�" a L r o — i S l -. 4 1- v4__ I i [J Is Z s N L ill ' O 0 1 � ` 0o a Z R S31I213dO21d A311VA NOISSIW o= . W = il tO`N'19f4 N1 il3SVHd - H3NyI Nyalo W e Lu j F z z 0 W ti LL O o w ,0 °- z.9 < 3 Ou O2 0 0 z� ��'p �� O O z a O O p .+ < O O aw O O 0 3 3 Nf 3 as 3 =! w ri 1.."1 ' ---------= ',/ighimm • ALL � o �I. I _ O z z 0 MIS II Q vi z O x O 0 0 % z IIIIIIIIIIIII�) II i iiii iiM _ Z IIII • I I n L', o w : II 1111 0 w ill r N . r . zz 00 Lu N Z H goy w Z z r g p O�Z 7,z 0 N 00 ° no�OZ o o 0 o a 0 O O mo0Li 0°6" u O o O 0 Ilp'%IIIIIIIII���I ©IIIII �I ' 1 .dimm\L.............IIIII�- 1:1==1 f==1 = > Q Q ��oo� a Z a Z t O O ® r o ° -1 ==1 MOO F ® • 0000 IIIII w, 11111101 I d K\VfflIIIIIJIIIIIIIflflINHIIIIIIIIJIIFIOII m I I III � w - _ Q Q Q w w w —c 11�illiiul 1 III i z O U U Q II ~ Q z `�_I==I� z IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII :Il�ulIIIIIII - 0 O _,_I I;mm ��i X11 = �mm ■ Q kill "' 'i ® < III MOO odlllllllll .—' J II J ' I ° 0aa� w IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII I I I I I �. ® W III , 01111 :1== I I I I I I z IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII `� I III uuulu1uu111 !- ° �I „1111111 IIIII: 0 .:Illllllllllllllllllllllli\IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII LJJ - J ill! I o M 1l!� Q O N r Z Q ^} i NN N 6.8 „ .,S3LLdBdO2idAT HA NOISSIW d o» - W W = r VO Nlena NI III 3SVHd- HONY2i NVadOf d 'i 8 d - - - - - � -- _ 30vaols a ..0-,L r\ M O If r r r LL �/ I O-s LL LL LL LL LL H ix° d d d Q d O m W`7 to NN N fn n0-.7.L. � W - m e - f/) M T CD 0 V_, IIIIMI J N O ✓/ m Q w on �..0,b1 P. ax ' = o ----- 11 _► O CL H O o ui LL LL J 0 1 a O U H IIII LL- do u_ of 0 t. o ul ul LL 1,... „0-,89 • l l 1' l' nn�1111 11 vrion I, >r II -ED ill iii �II�_. Z nnnnnln111111�IIIIIIIII IIo„�►1 I1 .I Mill O 1 l N 1 f 0) O W 0 ' kasst s, H Otr QQ I I O a : i>n 1 1 IL g _, 2 IX0 ��®■ mp m 121.Elitb N e ms Z N / o II 8 0 �' CIL �. 0 < II o 0. C 0 . i; . . 0 oc I- 3 1111 +I 3 a VI I ^ e °g m R SBLLH3dO2dd A3"11YA NOISSIW d y - g° i VO`mien°NI III 3SVHd -HONYtI Nvatior d J Z W 2p z E d 1— . 1L ,,:i):— . --.. 30tlNO1S / v LL.I ,� M 8b I ~ LLLL LL LL LL CC- „o,9 p 0 U wcia a ci (q m N N CO u0-i7.L.——� W m o I `-' W fn M w CO m 1N o 10 m 0 IT N 4 �� °U vmi cc R 00-,171.�= Us ItuIIi!hhhh1 J_ Ce 2 O°J 0 _____ I,' = 0 °J W O I— 0 1■�1 D. p Z 0 LL Z W J Cli �..0.b p °w �U� 1��I�IIN��.a� g m ° IIII — • a � LL(0 I- ° .�,c•.o�,u 3�Jtl2101S I- 1 ce 0 1 I- . _ . - . _ . _ . . _ . _ . ,.0-,89 m Z I _ _ ,� ���11���_ w HIOIIIIIIIIIIIHIIIIiiiiiiiii 11111� �°HIII p . 1111 11111 1111 s' A� �_�:�_ 1111 II, We � Z Si i I IM IIH�ni 6_41 N W _Y _Imp — U Qo c V a m c,0 ■ immill. (Nonft_ °® N o2m p II K• I• I All I� ce '-- m° _ O .11111111111 O ! F- L2 Qo c U d i!! M ill! p$1 6 Q Z^4+ 3 N Fil a g' - 5z�`S3112l3dOJd ATI1YA NOISSIIN do`Nfl9flQ NI III 3SYHd -HON�dtl Nva io d 2 a d r N Z o 0a Q Z 3 O O d �f� W?^ ,-0 o Z z-s--,, N Q.. CCf- O OK wp- o y O Z w 3'04121 L �w�w L �:� n 3'00121 Z l F 5 M Z ; �Q c' ' ✓ ei („ L / ZRn nL —� cP �Y 301381 Z L �'P0 ! OD L I N z I1AA I Z1 �1 I^ � •— Q r11 1. I LL I 0 • — 1 0 ■ k,/,/>, I •TQ W Z Ii I IY L I 39a 1 I, k',' -� _I L N �L ! 5r* :;c ' L s0 m I Z el s� N' 1I LL Z 1 I �e >>a', O ' ^ 1--1-- 0 kl- ---,, I I_.. __I L Z1 co Y N SSF % S3LL 3. 1d3doeId A11YA NOISSINI °` a i« - M Q W_=YO`NI 13110 NI II 3SYHd -H3NV I Nva2Io = e dw kN K W q 1 .: 3 3 3 0 :, _ I.- 10- a rIlioX711 41,..e,?4:07.).03 W777771 :I i Iill ■N = m \111, I 11111M b111 =y i Q I =1 OEM RN' F- •n Q ROI MORN??111 0 V IL I Q 41L ■.,L.• ::..11111� ozi- . I- U ooW x m EO, 0 °x i v fob o LL 3 3o O2ZZ a U0 2 ❑o a .WoZ o CZ LT O° - Z 600 z 0 ❑0 OZ u ❑ V 0 0 3 o D }zip 3� ' J °y500 v v P,8 .o3 > 00 7 '1 } m m ____......_f z , Z 6 ® S O M ..�1 , NQ 000 ® `���� w z J MOD J :. I • ' ._ ,:.. ° , a \jre ' ' ".,..::::::;... .: 0 D -, 00 . W LU ` . O / ° U I!• I:i•I O V Q Z �� o�[ o 0 ° ,� �0�� ::■ Q ■I J LU 5 0000 = 1_..INI "'LU :MI " M ,0110Li Ce 7 Pll (-NZ 1111111.11MINIII U_ ° O M o $g SBLWBdO2Id A3'11YA NOISSIW a o' R eO`Nnena NI III 3SVHd - H3NV?i Nva?ior _(1Q a,-,'6 s W.2 a v LL n ,..__... .-:4-:— JO,> 30V0lS [1:) M f O re O b 41-14,9-1-Pr Lo__► Q'{%. F LL LL L LL L L 1 • O m W:7 coo Co 00 N 4 co 0) w / CO 0)m o a `, Q N re 110 cn N P1111 111II►• LL 1 I .M O 0 o Li; 1 ��:_ LL_ a v LL uu'i 1- o I o N ..0-.89 ■ 1 l ` J11bi 1i 1 11 iii es W ] <• z, • ° 0 II a II II/ f2I Y MI >J� _111101:: � 1 r�� ri I ► w o ' I 0 1 . g II . os LL ==i _ �� wink _�A z 0 LU 1 1 ■ O Ce O I ;: MID ;: Oy U inF ii o. m �. ' 2 /, \ =, N3NI1 W 8 m 4 U IMMMI MOM- N ° Z MIMI ., ,x11 f o o W m� Li- ck _ -. -,11016.1.111111111.1.11.1". urnmomasomm,im e � a � +' g. 3 7 Q S LL I d023dA3.1-Idn NOISSIW � a o' • `° W do*menu Ni II13S`dHd -HONVN NVa?Ior "T- s ,TAT- o d g O -, 3Jtl2f01S O J l 4.O.L Z 1• M om �� oC rri i 2 O- u0-.b O LL LL LL LL LL `` d d d d d I m W o V _ (n(q(n CO (p uO-.Z L _ m- g 2 3 N II W W (� Mrn3 0 Q r� U a N • 4 ' o- c:,<9 i 0 A o ,..., (..) I 4-e=.ou 30V1:101S I' �Z' C a b �C1 � , �g - 2 d Oo O F_ ce ZJ ..z LL a d • n�LL a � LL I— W LT 0 I. N „0-.89 U Z ril � I =,III g Elmo ��ii Z tin 11111 ,. w� 11 IN W 4 1 °z 5 -- \ ���111'1�I'll _ _._• o W -- I ��• J Z oe 4 x _. � O LC_ U IMMI Milli _ J,. g'= c_11111" 9 0 0 IN o 01 O■ ° 11111111111 P ° 1r II 1l�i ° N ti Z 4-,i O nQ n El egg z S3LL213dO21d A31 1VA NOISSIW W VO`Nliana Ni III 3S'VHd -HON NV RIOT d Z=° d tt z p oe 2o faw Ocg O� E, w?z o - z ZO� U O m tE N -< �e Q u]S 1-u'O —_ wp- tn gj0 i pF y �0 11 i o Ai d c='1-- I ry pwv O2ZL K U f ,. y•l' ta,5M w� v I p90 Z at N I. i n �` Z s s Zl i u' il 1,11 �� Z1�s� , I�'' �� q Z 1 1 LL 1 0 1 : 0 l r° I w N 0, N I� ; ,l l,'�,,i'I 14 O Sul-,---, S' 4,q'S 0 7-�j---- U ..,„..0:: ^t“) a � , p2 Z L Z S 1 I.� 1 S S 1 a� Zl ,I A Z1. 0 li -- .� Zl 111 i I_ 0 o +1 3:.4 S31i213dOZidA3-11VANOISSIW °� I a1a . z J= "'Q W VO`NPiana NI III 3SYHd -H3NY2I NYadO!- F.W= .x w p Zs a 6w r Z Z 0 _ 3 O m a o o ° o N w za o o z li I a Y fa O O O �a I♦■ INIr M■■ ii.I §. c7 n et 3 3 3 ;••-I- , ■ ■ P iii. ra-lr- I ..y.j�� Ir�liYi�l A hi`VIII t.I `'.I-z I� 5- ,, a %■ i:; ■\ice ■�■� U F 0 cr; 0 _■:■-■4_P■_■:■_■V.■: . O O = 0 ,, 1 . NI•prpalinetudin-. ..r.-- : W [1 w V U. I::M - w Z .. ■•_ It; = .v —= Z K ooW Q Z S LT- U , ue O O 0 LL m - 00 E m � z Z O Q d F E Z w�O 0 0 0 u J Z F O u ? w u o � ONg� 3 00 i •o3 > ckp u -_ IM U >- U _ u _ ------------ a - —- - _ -- __- p --ii Z 2 - Z I Z •ii O �e-�', feel o O ■■ - - _ 1111 Q r:a a = 1111 a =_ _ >Lu O. Y w 1 1111 J LU - �::■I W g 1111 = , w I w •� „ . --.-_. =: -- _- -.III J .....=.° . ........ � I. .fi — C) = V =ce w .'• w w Z • 1!:IF:M1''' ”fee l"_7 OU U I- ........................................_ _ Q Q Z -- - Z O ■r 1111 jr .■ � a ■I a r:■I 1111 . ■ LLI ::■� J 1111, J I I I■I w IN" J::■ .■ fill OZ . 11 •..,_, w = o I w ::101.,.7.,milliNI■11 u- dl's 5 o 3 �IRR M ii w Q 0Yp0 � i r ■+ a S31.1213dO2ld ATrIVA NOISSIW ° V3 Nnana NI III 3SVHd -H3NVH Nvaiior odd s zs - :. - a I h Q Kh zw o � o 4, m D a r I a z oz j i° °z i Z 0k nO. + O 8 z� og kh z°� :: W < Z ggwz �za a'xo QOOO p� z 8 O gW° FO ou g'6, 9§222 O O < (id ''0 O : OZ3'l ao000 r o ? z°� gus 5� ZaaE F3��GGm 1 ; k z 0 I ,_. ` a , j sir a _ x CO 3 Z O oZ o ° .�._ 1 s_.' L.' Z &x z 0 x� � i mm. 4� .. N u zw OR ..O°�O o OH $$77 Z LL NF Kok flU A F !;h Og2 y0g2 w < L4FU a3z-Z Z Z Z --i0 00 O O O �O p°�`Fu Z ?a a og :46$,1 I _ ((' W g L' Q • T z Lu i ; d1 oo O i'I z U 0 _..'.!.S, O 0 7 I m ti" /f,*Y._,, Ir! 0 f Ali A z›, .7( Pro .. i SMIAI3dOeid A311VA NOISSI W =a o� n b3`Nfana NI III 3SVHd-HONXJ Nva?IOr W Zo r. O U r: O O O C c'^ O ° o c _ c of 2 < O O O aL g,,9" 'S E E U 6 . > O 3 0 o a c „ = o ° c -035 0 o ° 3 0 c `o o 2 °r) c Z m 'a o '^o c °- O- o6 t 0E �_ u 0 °' E °-° 'o °- a1 o0 � ° 02 o > ° o� `oo oO0 0 ma 3aci 3 mm° mu � om-O° 3 °0 o 00) c'0 O t.(2 N E o� a s o o O� c - c m„,a O 0 0 0220 i'•• m a O1.', c tV a °wU ° O �+ 0 ° X O U C O O L O D< Z Z < O O/O c N U L a 0 r� 0 = °° 6 ; mE OE cE -OOIIao �� � vo � awe Em oo ° � 0) 0 Eo 00m �° cvnQ w�� . 3 3 -O ° -O o 0 0 o ° E c E U 3 o E �n it 1m 323 °8) h ho v2° p < ca) • E ; i d a 2 O O O °•6 . i O O 0 U g o c -O .p. C U) > > cl O .U O c > p) ,-00 w•--00 oZ yc Q o:�? Q 3 ° Q c � ° II0-° 0 Z2U0 g gv 0c Z 1 =II Z °v Z ° � 0 000U 0 � �.t 0 o ..E 0 : c E 2 _a " °-'- c .9.'g-5 ,9 °D4LE > UO € o oa EESE zcc12 D U opUO �;oa i �� H ,no 22 ,98 wo ° m i • - : o m a ago Y Q,n0 ,7; — Q O i ° c L C C w U- O i O t r 1 E O 0.6:0 O O > 0 N O +0 1 = i 1 0 �._ c m a N Ui U 1 c01 ! 2 s t a � 3 o u p a mm 2E . 1 0 •; • 10 m-„ o c c Uo---d co U : .E . : :: =1 al : ° LO 86 ,214,' 0 Z N. O)j o 22 0oc ! c 1 : I I . c E 20 oc u_E o 6p • : O o O•'er y ! • pmt . Ot .°0 • • • c o f `oE uo ° ° °s °) ) O J t 6 . ; . L t c • i • -o : > O U ° 0) 075— c C U) _ : W U £ t : S : o 0 0 Q-° > 2.0)1^.0 O c . , b _o : `o w $ 6E-2 „ > 0 m U ; E U : ; . .0 . ° 1 : E _ t 0 o et -°? o II E E -C t] y •t o£ 20 : 11 O i = • I : 11 O . a2 8- 6 O C y .§15) C y }L 1 : t ` : o i t ' 1 ° ° E T o?o -°°_. “0 >. - c ua+ f ! •c rcmi ! : : E'- : 1 : . c E ! 11 `8-0 U ° C cn'Sa oQ c o2$ 1 6 6 0a i x E • . d z3 . 1 ? : 'oU r i ! r E u o 2 Et E a E cp e o t = 0 o : t t c . cm : o o 1 ao X oo a lA .- o Ilan, 1 0 �� R S31.12iBdO2IdA3"11YA NOISSIW I _» 8 d3*Angina NI 1113SYHd - HONHI Nvaaor o t2-l i f R 0 i4 illi 0 Bt '. :1 2 z_ 0 4 E 1 V O® a+xs^ MR" 1�IIiii11111 IpIIiIpIj ullllllll it 'IJ ii ■ s ° f 1 tjPiIItI II • �e St o I IIIIII I!E F : F aE% 1 IIIl �N 11 g_I * III o w ;`y -�° 1111 ., F R: I. /I �I'!! ' � m T� I mg, ml, — 4 k I Ana ,WIIIIIlllll�j� —IIM 18p 1111111 8 ? e . B,I11111111Ih•111 . of Ler.- I§t,,,,,,li,...,.,.'s> — L 11■11■. w 1 e I!I IIIIII . I� — — 3 - Z C'.1,7 ,ti IIIIII §' [I� _i_i411.III MII IIIIII ' II' — g 1 z R O _� m me •�„ , .. ,,......_I ,„ u .. Ih . 4 I - du'ta'_WM I — gI11 I. I 8., m 1 e ®O. — is x 1 ITgir. ...- ::tli - ° -- _ _11C1,m■e I ---''•;V Vi P I i-V. ' I� Z II� .IIDI 1 ! le `' — ° 11.40 d111111l IIIIIIIIIII 'lllllllll l IIIII I■ _ :i v q InV-Y'Y'� 111111. n u '�iI I° — 3}� pp 1111 pi o ° tit il�_ 1y Lc� . &IIMH11 IIIIII 4”--11' 8 o + [�II I HIIi.°II Itl O a; 7!'1 g m m 1 1 8 3 . JFO III $ U• Ii!!!II' k IIIII n A. o-PA. k= I >�. IT i I if O p ___ ° 14a Ill s M U III;IIIIII. I� — — C� o '' � NM m I � 5 ) I °,1•; 4L 1 plllll" IIIIII g ____! Z _ (I) ��,� i s 'g: m 710 +I _ q 1 11 1 4 i F1.1 4 ' Pillii 1 i 'G'g = . – ; S3LILH3dOeld A31-1VA NOISSIW i 2 >0.- ,n d z 1 V3'NI-ISM]NI III 3SVHd -HONIfel NVCItIOr ti 6 6' ffS i g k 1 o w. atathiirw-^-, min EiiE M i;; 10 g vi 411 g ws' liq ' 15 'ig llllll Min - ■ re g g a ;" ri i'r0 L Nam arra ,, LI. Im•MMIN pw 1 ARIL gi .- z I 2 k 1: SMOONIM.1,1 IMMI EIVIIM. iii 10191 (-) 1"44 I L 01 li al q iso 1 in 1 .m. I IA &II 'IPA 1 Ind mrall„ ill iiiii_ I, timinii 111111111111M _II i .r.2 WOON.N., i 15 i_ ilmoi ,ineimmo 1 11111111111111111 r N 0.,,, 1 -„, _ : 'I, .1 I -- :AA i. am.....w - oil Iv , — 1 i LI • . 1 2 Golailaiiiallummhz it i -g s, g: 2 I 11 riumo li 1 ..,.... , ,,t1 1111111,1_11111i _1 iv I .,: 1 ill all 110! I A IIVE:=2M Ill dill irillin wirAIN IN ■mgd L. %MAN 1111111111111 -24 XI f-- H.-- IliiiMEM T"--li , 11171W11 lc; 111! al 1 :I Pril •.ii .,: i_ii a_,..,„ ,..„. L,:i , , ..lllllll....„ . 1=e, ,"111111111111 ,H7 — 1 8r. 0 hq: - .......,. ,I,. • - 0 xi . aim . . . ,,,.__Ai' _ ..... n ... 2 0.1 n; LI ipq o n in rl a I P I Vi AIX .'' _ ... - —7_ --4— 1111-4-42111 U'l Dmmtwmill * = 111111111111111111 1.- 1 I 01 I im 91. I 111! 6 1 I buummmuml yid L. , 1= 1—"111111111111111 .. r — 1 ?, 6 . win .lllll III ,i . 1 • "1""%me h 40 8 1. - .g 9 E 2 iiiiiiiiM...I'ill111111M—IiNaL I o pp M +5 V a S311 BdOHd A311dA NOISSIW == $o N VO`Ml-lena NI 1[13S`dHd -HONXe1 Nv42iOf o s a a w yy S o 0 Z i g 0 r g 2 Z m �'P i1.4�41 EIIm1�IL Ili .II w i ■ IIIIIIIIN 10101101 JIVIIID 1i]1:• IL M ' g z gmg no� I I-IIIIIIIIIII— F z CO_ ..Io!oi -c]I�I�JL °� 40 �i=tea ii I. " ir� li MN of MI i 1.1!1.1 5:]I MOM IL I ' I ' - `IIIM °s g t rc 0 I I =m m r-g lid'-'WA JiamIL ILL ., m r.. „ - o m` _1 ] m 1 N111 1I11 I a o 2 S 0 i- S gNh N N .M • ili Q + 7 ee o 11111 w e oh °` < S31Ld3dO�d A3-11VA NOISSIW o 1 °Z° _= - : W 0 VO 1N1'1GflQ NI III 3S`dHd -HON� Nv42iOf=m _ o a= =$ s 72 .o-,OL i i / i ,.0-371 „0-.Lb „0-s l \ \ - - - - - - - in I i , \ -t all _ o I•�I o3 10 m 0°_ ► p:. x �' I __ '\ (► o X Q _ u )-N O w rt — o! o, .0-.06 Q N U 4 U --ii } I Nlg «_1 __ur_-A iff■C I ce ^ \I 4 111111 1 ■I O O ri___ i11ii1 -I 4iw\>71 w° F- t, I II II 300015 D,' \ \ \ — 1111 r 111 FIFO ol =1II 1 ii 111 Q0, ,,,, o, ii I / Bii► n Illg.-ill 1 ► 1 I g o o NIA s� I�!u J1" !!' ii 1 z I I U I I tL I I ioiiX ie ti__ :; / 1-2 I % Q N Q I- you Z 0 U WCL= 1 cif I—Ce.L. mew Nm'O ¢W7 2 co:2a 0 0 J 0 M013501N3d0 U u- ■ m ill 1111111 �N ������1I1III I- LL LL !I� NNN N N Q 1li� 4 R v Z M S O r O re O{ a Q <w < W ci Oj0 S3123O?d A3--dA NOISSI °o o o " z W°VO`NI`6na NI III 3SVHd- HEN J Nd4210f a LL N 0<W Z= _ a .0-.OL / .0-.41 / .0-.14 / .0-.9 1 \ \ — — — — — — — — 1-r--.. Q i 'fllJ! i 0 03§ i a 4 <4= J o If111144 / q c" a = 0'AL Z N U4� . .- -1 } \Ill, 1 1 1-N Nra 1 11g 1 0 11111 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 " I n 1 " O / O r`--y y�--7 I " `I I . A\ a. os LL 't— Q 0 1\ 1 ' 'I 30tlO1S D-' H \ \ \ — \ _ _ ,y LL. va, 11111111111111111111111a, - ggg g g--- - ..... 'ra 1 0,103 0 0 T1.01$ 21 N M 1 $n 2 Q ti Z, °rco� S3112 dOHdA311VANOISSIW o 8 m H . a r W d d3`N'ena NI III 3SdHd -HONV I Nt42l0[ W N ° ^ / / ..0-.0L L / / / / .0-,41 ..0-,14 .0-.51 \ \ — — — — — — — II \ \ — --I I g VAR I 10 0°. I► w- �'' j �m IoX 0 o a a 0ez in En N c-.):, .°vm II Q Iln ► 'I t 1-t 1 4 11111 IY� ° j 0 Q � . I� ; I� , lIC1.° X .0 }— _-_fi__ __Y I�-�11�¢ �I K e°i ri__, ‘ II��L II�� 30Vtl015 7. V) R O L-,-J4r-JL-.--1 0 V W \ \ \ — —U ,4 LL. O 0 pill �•�NI s o ����� ;ilk II►�1 0!:- 4 -t to �� 11Z; I IZ„� _ IJ 7 a ■i 1!k !! !! 1 oll I O I U I I LU ■ IYI: IYI ti -1-DI i V N X 1-Q m N--- g pi o gN Z I. ml , . _ 203` 0 0 -- J --- M0139 01 9340 U -. L_ ii A m el Z IIIII�I�”) >LL .- ° ._ _. _ �� .- LL ft LL LL 11171 $.1 A a °I °g o o < . S31.11:13dO21dA3"1VANOISSIN & °=LL _= • g W F-D �O� JQ $¢ N w N� 7 a ILL y O U, i Z 5 YO NI-Tana NI III 3syHd- HONV2i Nvatio odd o =a' 3g \ \ \ 1 I , R i II tttt = II § RI 1 ct,- k0 2 ZC v ! N31,11-1 �' W? 11 y „0-. 01 f0 N `0 N n m m E0 Z N N I II � a = ,,, i K I+--1 -L I I W LLI3 F 911i ° ----- ti / ��IC ? 111111 �� "111 ce ; 1— N O O.. 0 S ice U L / / / / ..0-.41 .0-,l4 .0-.91. / / .0-.OL r— �- --- -- ---� I II! �I 11111111 —II ii �I IEr .--- __ II h��I Bonn " .�, II �'�� �IIIIIIIIIIIIIIII ��� _.zt I ® OZ IIZxII �I o'►�� g III"all �1 llllimillllllllmiiiIII II TIFIll �► O o ,_,__ 11111111111111 11 nIIIIIIIIIIII it um._∎_!i!i!_ z — V w N Q j m F O o di < co Z o;m M 1-WF< N � Mm � O p Oi T J b,x w N31,111 Q U Q 0 I ___1 U. ,..— � It 1 RrY. Z N N N 4al N Q ~ 0 ce S3LL?I dOadA31wANOISSIW II 0 8 °o _ Qo eee 8 s bJ N1191aNI II 3SVHd -H�NX�1 Nda?�Of zm H= o LQ .g z LL 6, > Ez LL1 WI" 1It .9-,£1. g n 17 0 .1. 6 6= o4)= - Ub� O."� Y n - N°N a N3NI1 LW,m .o,o t N Ir - g N cn ___= Z X01111 ° W k{ LLi 3 , 1 i d 0 1>1\-.) r,-w---r r re 0 II\K/I I\Ir/ I I III a Y � { \ \ OO r y .0-.9 / ce I ( ) a: 4 d { \ . - .0-,41 .0-34 .0-.91. / .0-,0L Q Z \/ z,w IL c•m L F- lN n_w �gm = lli oL I1 v uunul O III u uo _ -- N3NIl'1dO 1-/ -) I ' / w w N Z g ° - - - - - l < U a Q Q 6Wn gym_: oq E - o c 1IIO1IHi ' LL I o w• r 1- Z Q O P U 0_• Q ills I-. z ggg ° ° il�i a= S m z M ad at O. r 4 o N �gz m <w R S3112i3dO2id A3'7'IVA NOISSIIN ` °o _= W 0 v3`Ni1ena NI III 3SVHd- H3NVel Nvazior =p LL N g ° 1 _<= z 8 z s .LL= It at H . . . - - JI \ I r r W V\Q g * a a o KRd I- -I - Q K I ie N c Q u N«m ' r y' x m .0'.0l / ;, co Z C71 P � �/I 1--,-- • 3 -1 =1 = = Z \ .. I W I O eo Fl rc/ rTr 1ILII o O 4 �-_, Lt = Ii a LL ¢ i, U v : LL / 1 / / .0-37 L .0-d4 .0-,9 L / / .0-,OL LLtLL LL LL !I! 3 dcid g c 7 N N N N N l�� fQ imn ry q II° o o°S31123dO2d A3TWA NOISSIW m° m `i VI o . z o _ o s dO Nfena NI III 3SVHd -HONV2i NVO IOf _ IN ai 3m \ \ \ — - -ii v i x . r -5: L...� " fill -s !pl --, .9-,El I g .- a oM o wR. Oaf ' N°r a N3NI1 W 9 4 0-01 N ..m N z }N - ce W �I0III \ \ . 1__.-k=4i I EM1�11 IIIIII .4° 1 V- F N O u - —�\ \ / / / / .0-,41 ,.0-34 „0-.91 .0-,0L / r---1 ---- -- ---�- — — 1 1 1 1111 f i II �,■�!1111111�II �iom-i� I �: -- , I 1 � ,,_�, „ IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII �i� Z. 11 � —1=" ��� a�� 1IIIIH1i o1► " o 11 wisp-.CCCCCCCCCCCCCC� hip iiis� z U w CO - II_ U TAI S: :l ^ 5 < ,i I I N--- - = 80, - 1 1 ors �i ►� Z w� II• /11 J wo�= r� w . I N¢W t- I ° N mm m 1 / 04o _ OJ 00� o w re;w 1 N3NI1 m 2 t-§m )1111111 ilk: I •� �111111�I'I ij--j H LLLLLL LL !P I NNN y N oi 110 0+ o if Q o S31J.213dOtid A3-1'It/A NOISSIW 8E20& LL z LL .. N W dO`NI-Iena NI III 3S�Hd -H�NH?i Nva 10 LL = o = o =g o `s6 3 {---- — — — ■■ I L Z=01 j 1 1 w A J I- g - -L- ..... :'� + . �_ CD- F. U q N3NI1 W°.F:. ..0-.06 I N N Na m�ti. Z N Y1 p N I 1 _; _L__ __ 4--1 �� • U- _Y I- "I- 1111111- °cc 0 11 ce F F 1\/I\ I\ Y 4 { A. 0 .0-3'6 .0-.69 .0-.s6 / .o-.oc U Z ' - Z:w ILc,U L FT =°o. 1Om I Ya IO I, OW ''1""''1'"" U ' O Illi _ ■. f o ►1� LL I N3N11.1dO `_- // o Ill• W`_- cn Z Q p 1 — — — — — < V a_ Q U r to m rK=w I Z gym_.- Ck 1.11 r " I ° o O JIN3NIl m I 13° 0 II „--, 9 OC 1 I. ► i_ Z <- 0 w U a Q ttt LL LL LL - LL- -- 1115 3 LL 222 g d 7 N N N N N III • eN¢ gO N M S fe r m 0 ?o ° 8 Q rr SBI1d3dO2Id A311YA NOISSIW Z s H D ,00 E...- W'ci 1/3`Nllena NI II 3syHd -H3NbeI Nbadiof=e LL r, Ni_ 8=LL W / / / / / .0-,Z l „0-,84 .0-.01 0? NA \ \ O 4 I 0? 11 st- i in 101111"....401 T Ce w M.1 10. o��e∎ °- Al A i I / m§m m II I IIII� I� Iiiiiii ® I V11011111 =_ k. 2? ai, ....,„, .,„„ ,, , ‘ , ; , , 011 s ,_,,,,,„-_, ,, r. ii. , ,_ Ii„ 11 EE,,.-,] . . Nr. ,„ ,...,. • I. Z ar (. o-s a Ngm AsO I Q. . ,._ O O e 1 D_ Cr I i t ■ W J J Li I Q F m II I i m II iei iei 11 I Io -° E Z t cc .Iu ^ Q W. o Q f m N3I1 CO W At&'_ p p O � W' w m moo, ❑. . u_ . I I m°m CI p I U I I 1.0 LL LL OOd d O V !I� wo vwv w y ills a c R 3 x + ow z Q W a8g <Z R S31J.213dO2Id A311VA NOISSIW ' 1-o S=o .. ; y= � f o� Mao ' H a LLrg ° ci it' ' 20 W d� tvl-lena NI p� 3S�Hd - H�N� N`da�lOf .0-.OL .0-21. .0-.84 .0-.01 \ \ / . fV O N z 01 5 _ °w§° ¢ A �.�a A. U m VIII N I��I lila H. N 1 ,III , II ,‘ � 1 ; I 1 � 1I1i11llEM �C�nj 1=x\- rc\.=i\\I 1 ,I 1 1 -' Z/_V I o ; ,°mw� •� Z Y IiiJ iI- �� I ---- �z O . Z bU o ck NEa li -'-.1 O I Q� O O .-\—i ___Iii - z . 1 Li � z 1 I 1 5 , RIP `' :Z I Q Q �I I I �m I 1111' Miei I I = ~x a Z LL oe -. Q 1 __ = a y x J Q §w. m'°w Z r N3NI1 aril M Z o CO �"z O WD 0:2 DIM A o Q W p bi W" m a I IIL Kxw p.ry U W V U- 0 1 1 m°e. I , . I H a LLLLL LL LL 1 p ddo d d in MI 7 � N N N N N� = a , O N P.'z a z h + o='$. D m o 0 r S31 -IHANOISSIN °� ?o °og w =2 . gQ o i-o0 a g F�� W dO`Nfl9fla NI I113S`dHd- HON`d2] N`da2lOf=d N= _<_ _0= W .LL. w / .0-.0L / / y / .0-.ZL .0-.84 .0-.O1. \ \ / 9 N\ ° V t En I 'e T',...T_ . 11 o M .♦ rr ♦♦4p■ o«, � Q- . +I �. 11II Q to,--;,---, v �- : '',--r-+ I o m , 11111 I I i=w N I- o m 1o�m11 �� o 0 0 III § lul zO y i Z 0v" Y P I I Y U? � N?... O I a ce b 0 ° r T 1 1 1 o? N ., .. , ..-..=,. III +1 1011 0 ts ci A 8 :t-t. ; .- S31.1a13dObld A311VA NOISSIW .- - -° - tr, ,,, A 2 A i vo Nnana NI ill 3SYHd - HONYd Nvatior ii :II kei min:' M ,. f. 0.1.41111 ;MA M I .......len, zil rirvi=11 1 ' iIIIIII i& -"---1111 uo — milli! I III !I _ Ai 1 _ 1 Rill mg. 1 , Ai im 1 kiii i M WI 4 i ' 1 MI 1111111mg o a RE:udr-Will11111 _ A 1111111 1 REILI-411k111111111 '' 11..11111111.111.1111 0 Ot 0-1 ,11 lir _ 1 . , . 0 II. 3 it st o , a ai ;11 1A • 1 _ 1 A 1 sp. IIIII I al • IA= IIIIIIjRIII III ' 1 'zr IA= 1IIIHE I ' 1 1,1 - -- .-- -.--- ,. 2 a oo— 1—f 'A' I ' smmo_ i_ I L.)-} I „, ill 0 lit - , 0 it 2 Ilii il. :, ir 1 1, 1=4 1=1= 1 1 --. II 2 I - 21 ■L' I 1 LL 'i .,,z -2 • .74■ • 0 ,1 Ire 11111111111M II 1 I L I. 1 1 4 paid Ji ,... iiiai Um,- , I ;5E11 II , I gril il , .. 7, itallamil NI% ' I MilliiiIIIIIN :(5, , liEl MEM .., , iliami Jimiiii.K. -1.1.1.1 .1.0...,L. 1 I .1117: I, ii,U! RI lgt, _ Mill ■I 1 i 2 I 2 CI ' '' Mk _ ■ 2 rom — 1 0 ; =.......11.411 , IIIIIIV I IMIMPHIMI ,1 I_ 1 H L_ _1 p., ri ,1 5 A +i Fi :c1 7t 4 ' ° NI 1 S311.4113d0Hd A7111VA NOISSIW a-15 MO 1 vo*menu NMI 3SVHd - HONVt1 Nvaaor Ea g-1`712 AU _ _ _______..____ ■.7.3 7- ....-- . al. , • I )16-1011• lal.I i r■ II Ink*" ii■IN m ilmom 111 __i MI6 ■-2.111. _ 1 III 11111111 OM i IIIIIIIII m. g 1 11 1 1 Elo mmil NNW N: Rret. —au Rio, ,1■1 14,11,1 iqffl 1 IlEm si -t-IK1.1.0Lig.v,Willi I" i -- -- --111111111h III g IIIMmi 1.101 F 1 RE.‘,/,Tvigtit. jilli 1.0________________ . 1111111•••11111.11•. .0•L . AOL .,... r 21=1 ..,.• I - 'Ci1 1 II II I 1 3 ,t, , NH- • It II A • 1 II_II Er illi i i 6 AN i 1 1 j 1 0 ;,- 1 IN Ara 1111111 1 I 1 I .. liAnx 1111111(11 1 II I 0 .2f H --- f- --1 L___I ,:A:---r...z.--- I 2 "IMINN * 1-f- V "--- --- .=,=,-. 1 i II ,, C 2 3 IN n lin 111 • • ¢ • c .=..=..= MI Z a 1 2 . . I 11V Tiiiiiiiiiliirn II I :',), 1 m 11 It 1 =i I_ _I 4pli 011e11a 1.16 a11=M 1 u li 1 ....w, . r giri T 1 I 1 wow I "IL 1:1143"1111 141 'i 1 IIIN I IIIIIIIIIIIIII Ohl u g§ ._ Ili.4i- A=L. I I ill la:i L11.1.102. r)- 2 1LIW LI:II 1 _ AT71. M I I i, I 1 1 =1 I i I I 1 I ■ IM.1111 1.i _ _ = _ !!!19 o m #1 i • oz Mil I i ._aO R SBLL2iBdO2]d 'T1 A3VA NOISSIW .=,: - z R W v3`Nr�ena NI III 3SYHd - HONV2I Nvaaor o Li.....1 e m 8 s . Z 0 0 F Q 6 0 1 . 2! - fyz J ' 4 s zAli T" Lh€ KI zo o / L J Y� .. , Z(]w � f ' i, o m 11 11 Ii II I1 1 II III I __ (4 j- ___ W a 11 . � I 1/ z J a lu - Soak f'L J J o, 3oarc , .- Q w 11 5 /� . I _ �p� 1 LL L ' J o• _ �-. �� � 111• ,1II�L �ww / _ _ z ..wv - - - - - o Z t m Z rc N e 7, i ._ �, _111 . Fv1 �' � 4 , � s I I i o sL� U a n_ r 11,1 f Ira t .'vr s r NI 14 [ill 1/r r A, (III k. , LL% vilr r Z I i j I „ „l� 9 I „�� Tl ) g m „ 1 , ,,__ ,.IS!„ r Ii 5 . , . im 1 § G. 110 1 s. , . 8 7z Ia S311e13dMid A3-11VA NOISSIW i g ° 0 R g vo Nnena NI III 3SVHd -HONVN Nvatior ..oa sr a, ;T. i••MITI•IIM•II• -‘ ,.- t', IrM17111111111111 . , I • ILA_ IT p -a.E.III Na - I • rl' PP •.Es LIM I 7 i 1 I At I , , 1 - , • al . 1 laying : .1 it ,,,, , I 11 i.„,,,,, I,,•: limip 111. iL . • A I I i IE — [0: ... 1 it AkNO • I 0. il I I 1 ° 111 I 1 1 •111 I III w 0, .g II.1 III i Ill III !, M s II M• IIII S 2; -----..- I - • :: . RII ITM =Ail I, _.....,..1 1111 in Ali 11 g .3■ P. • ---i- . ----- IIMW‘ 0 ig:r2,2‘141 11111111H _ I' w i REINT24.13111111111 - 1 0 IIMICI _ _ ;'.. sr.ot A.Ot I - - I - - WIN • 0 t? ' t • 7 MN .i..........., sibm, ....... ...lei . I .PlimPIII A 111111111111111 1 I 1 1 114 = iiirrimmilif i` I itiviwl .....PI Pt I 1...iriillt ALL 1 :, AU ilL 1 1 i, ' — 1 • 2 N D. --'--- ---- z —"7" ci I 2 , HINE—, 1 1 V>51---CSI--- I 1 ':' il le - IP 0 I ii . - II II II ¢ 11 /j IIII 0 1 1 I II 1 1, I_II ...... I 2 1 , I . It 2 ri I ik7iiiiiimoin 1______T- Vt 1 I.- 1 Er 2 F§ . ,s A 1 '-. At...i.c Iliai .iiii: 1 ariiii- --■ ' , i 1 44, 1 2 I _ Aill el I 2 1 3 F I I I=fill F II ITIM MI 99 " 1 i — — 1_ I_ PI 1 § 0 N 1/11 . i A .1— ('r. Fi +1 1 1 71 = 9 E S31.12ABelOblel A31-IVA NOISSIW vo`Nriena NI III 3SVHd -HONVI1 Nvatior .4., 0 0! 1. .0,1 .0.e■ PAL EMZEMEMEIMENIMMIUMMINIMINIMINNOM AIIIIIIICIMIIIIIIIIIIII ' !'r‘ .t IrmillEstri. ......11111111 % 1 _ I I I I i 1 1 11111MIC I_A km-. P 7.ITI IPC31' - LII°1-1-A "Im=1-1 • MAI 1 . in,„4„4/,‘,4., 1111 ill," ell il _ ,11 is"rw, -811119 1: Ein-111: El . • ,, I , _ E 1 ; II 0 # Ak II C 111 * I I i 1 1 0 .11 6 Itillili ,,-'11 NI 1 . . M• IEEE ' 0 II• ' ;EMMA' ..1 'i ..- / IIT -- IIII MI 'T , RI....._ 1 i. ii .1,-- --1 Ai 11E.In 11.....L111111 le — • <T, ..F, „ . 7; E1331,z-fdA,,. . I . 1 1:41.]:--ZALV II IIMM'M F l''' II 0 0 At .0 Lt A01 ...L-... -1.-,, I I . .yr __ dill 6 fi =1%4 co, : ,ossmilL 69 =v., .Immi.11 A igr.41mmlnIL,/ NM I IIIIIIIIIIIIIM I I 11111111111111M .. sam=r. - ,41T 1.0.1 OR :6, 1.11.1 rill . 1 1 1 ALL .. ALL . q i, 0 , - - _r_ ,_ ‘i ...it-. am 1.imm- A II 2, 1 II 1 ill 0 lic 1 ii II 3 11 0 1 II 11 3 il II ..1.4 LI 1,. II LI I.LI I . %:, (.2. 21 2 . ., - 2 ... . ,,.-. iTi...,.- • 0 • 0 . IC 11111111111111 s ,), 1• 1 ri L __ ' I gi 2 3 -$o s 11116- 14 jai. I o 11. -iii Jiasmill, I o 6 lit a 1:36H.111 01 ill li 1 I _ ' r ii 2 2 '6 rill _ ■ I P. RS _ ■ _I o s -2 r, =•L____■lull =1•11=11.41 9 .i I 11111111111111M11 ? I 1 M1111111111113r.il n I F I_ I! i o ri ill i; 15 1 0° a SBI1e13dO2IdA3 -IVANOISSIW °` _' o 2go W VO`Nlnsna NI III 3SVHd - H3Ny J Nvaaor o lq= - m g? s z 0 0Z I k-.o K Z X117 r 1 ,_\>>, [_,i > ,_ : ,,,.4/„,II v>z 1',II\- ' 6 I 30003 ' l 1 aoam ! ro W r O m w Z w J— y -L -.. ,,,, 1 vi- I " d 1 w a ' L„,,,,,,L, .- I, _ z / z 1 I 4 --- 8 ■ jai _Iiiip---..:;r_7,1., ,J Ill 't-fi ".* �t 'jf � ' � L ' r a� �r W jz x J I _/ ti _--, il • a1 z r I o1 -f r =n . ,I � m ! •.-L--- f 1 w�„ Fi, I / I 1',nI Ade 15 .,. IT r ii 1 0 , co 0 a S31J.213dO2ldA3-lVANOISSIW =« • 2 us . dO`Nlnena NI III 3SVHd- H3NXII Nvauo = _ e mmo OMMIIIIIIIIIIii /IUUUf•UUUUIIU v 11 Will i1 L '�, ,gIIIIIIp � 1: IiliF Ak N i In PI I o:5111� Nei- 1' - ' ���J •O roi 1 0 am unnnnuli a o A 1 JJIW ' o w o, - y . ul _l =z Iz 0 z 0 m 0 vi & w X q -g M 41 co c11 in III i l I'' 9 S31.1.213dOtIdA311VA NOISSIW 1 vo Nrigna NI III 3SVHd- HONVM Nvatior I' 2 o • a'Z 2 8 2 .., O. .2 o 0 _ Ilmlim._ w-z \ is■mar,4 .7 S 16, o p hi 2 1 LT, -'' ■; r A LI ,1 6 _____ ___________ 1 I Mr 4I IF trl ,'. :1! 1 cr 1[91 0 A 9111 x , z uR S3112i3dO2idA31'VANOISSIW W 4 W hW G< VON"igna NIII 3SVHd- HDNYI NVa?IOf m w W b K � 3Z rii' o S / li II_ i Q H l S O ;1. II',' � ■I■i. Q M INC II�mF• J - �IrI 1��' h■ lil f; I',I�,.h 1111 C li ) 1111 g �ii1a z O 'WAIL) o w _ Di L I uii u ilivommlimmav a� o o u, ,I iiiil 1I o g LL W _° z 8 fo ci T ��r °LL Z 1 ai : c,za Z Z 6o . � - o ).-21-0 f 1-.» iir 0-3 , QV) • a N3 g. u • g I I�• J7 3 ■I°i■ A as, z ���'��JJP� r Mil 0 III'„'ll �//. II��II. U-1 = W a I,1 \`__E '�l ■i■■ J ..--g if....._ VIII _ \` - �r =� pi 1��1 11 O 3 lilli� i�I Q = z z� W r I i 1 1 lI li J im O o z On, is-no mill; w -! I"I"I�! ' w 0 w o o 1-...—......a. Z ��� LL °ov a � a° c�z W ,g�oz o 0oo moo zr Z v � °0 g. o y °°N uu 3 u 111111' I V LJI� 11111' I '1111∎11111;i:ii 1111 i� 110 VIII VIII 1111 ,I0 Inn 1IU 110 =iuu= Q Q a10H i Q 3 Z Z O T 0 /'!_ u'® 0 =111111 m j W Q ulnnni W \� J J \ IL 1111 i- =1111 MI lisrill�i S p "" °1000 a oe ,.-_ ., i S31.1213dOeld A3'T1VA NOISSIW N e� ^V' z _ �JW QQ W VO`NI-lena NI IfI3SVHd -HONYE1 NIdatlOf o<_ „w 4 d. i,,; 5 3 m pz 30 / 01111110 l</ / uI z . 0. MP L251 r•- •710,:'■..ill.. J =°= ��, I Ili hall 1111 0 �� nil 1111 o E Il,��sill s 6 z L\ IF Z I- w. ,= II,,I,I ° °p? f 1O. TT tri.11,zo z°o R 65'°- > i ITI_J 1 I I I °pO ° < <tn ° din u ' r gu ■P. ,- If T Z O !MP 3 I� 1• < ` .he F1nni a II , tr 'l!- ii■ Q z 11 A y � � 4� — I�I'�I" ����O ■■� �Li iti O uui w ■ = _ _ _ Il� j�illi_ ■■� U W I � Q � Hu w _ _l� 1 dh Z O 5 o z '_VIII�II' ■■■I��� Q = LL ?u z Illill0 II inn 0 0 > = ae' ■e'!l:!• w I u a z ..ems-..4 �i Z O Q o ■PE w LL 0°w -8 I.J o, f tE ? a 30 1 6 L i ti o>U' U' Z w LL °? z-� `AZ Z U ZO Z oO 2O E O ° g° . 0.3 ewo e Ij a IV VI Q Q j 11111_ VIII , - illlli l� .� lA�ijl w / 1111 ® w > 1111111 VIII 1;11 1111 101 < �'i—==dI IIIII� O VIII 1111 �® 11111' Q ', U 7 uu� ni1 .'i ° ly:i 1- — Q ' i Q I < Z �5,'' Z dI Z 3 O W O Y Ian- In' !_ =111111 m Q III�II Yri;i Q !�= a® _ W Inns "' 'N4i w all III J WI w -� Li.. 0 D "' q w un "����11:.,II�� i = '' -1111 u_n_ ® a, ._ _ . MA\ J :lii CV 110 ii A SBIi.eiBdO2Id A3"1'1VA NOISSIW °� z _- u4 LI vo`NI"lena NI g<E , m W s Ill 3SVHd- H�N1 NtI42�Of ., f - 3w 0 z> zo 0z 3z o .-< p0 0 v 3 i..+3 u. Ililllll■�.` P !I /—'�.!I — !•'.I •�.I •■, w �♦Imo Is!! IIIIIIIII s 'Ill ��IIIIIIIII'I i■■■i■iii o iliuy!�1�■�jll�■■!�li H LL a z y rr IRE:. \ IFIIIII___a Z 0 Z o z z I I Mil ■ I -e f !MM1. > O I^ f O O rw ill •f v3 y 1 I V 6 Ij1j'II • /! I� IH1111111111111IH11111I111II ■11111W-01 = Z W• imam ■ 1� - 1 1 1 1 0z o NS a o O�I.I w f 1111 rill I IIIL.I o L : v _ Z a f! a 1! J w a D Z _ 3 ��1 ' IM_IIIIIII ".11 w J Z o a _• w I 1IIII' O ET O O N N z K Oo �,+• JI- .J l z moil J ,, �N' 1- f 0,, ' , v Z Z 'It Z O d u �] w 1'Z y�oZ nn zO Z >O pw p V N -' . 0-, W 0 V . O O °«sue a z3 f Iii � '1111 INa on on 1' IIIIII ,=1 .�— IIIIII liii1IIIIIIIIIII1111 1111 ® > J,IlllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllI'll''i Imi' nni °11 TM g lin U 1111 ® O uw o (� 0 z O ,�� O Z O n inoli 11l i�■ '® Q 11U m Inn =II W II���IIII1 ��n J \� W 111 u■-■ ° II I .��\—uiiiii 1m. _ LU 11111111111111 L-13 VIII 111 nn UJ PA r2 i� ;!!!y! N Iii $I o R S31.L213dO2IdA311VA NOISSIW °` _ - 0 z Qo VO`NI-Iena NI III 3SVHd -HONYeI Nva io o = e m W 3Z a !ZO Z> c Q N 1 w � 9 �'j i Q 3 1,3 o N / IIIIIIII �Yl;i v .I I.:. E paripbk, ill r �i�l.w�1.w�1 LLJ 111111/111 Iii�Ii X111111111 LLJ ��; IIIIIIII a Ill��ll�ii� ��i ■ i�o � ��� IIIIIIIIII I���I�Ii o■ws ;r� ; � ;r it .r■�i .r■tl I...LL f z < " joy: • (11 Iouoiomm�lr — O 3 o > } I I 11111 �j:r1 u a O z z L--JI -�.1• >_ u soh INC W MR 41 re CD O I1 IJ al. L.0 Ill__ IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIll1IIIIIII•IIIII_I_I_II_II. Ilia NE 0:a. i Mel'hill" Ilalogi nal lt 0, z 1111�li1►;11■IIIIIII.I o O w !■�IIIIIII I Q U u7 Z ��� i Imo i■■■�!. _• �� 3 a3 IIIIIIII - wJ • a-. u w i f hirsrli i1 w Hi w r i x a a v I.-_ : Z IIIIL 0 II — W W IIIi,_ . O Z g pw NO LL N a z O O a - > O z ,z,0 5 v w O iii 0 P in III11 11 IMI 1.........i ' �m••1111111 AL w 1111 ® w > l�llllllllllllllull1111111 1111 '711-1 L i IIIIIIIIIII �IIIIII1I IRON o 1111 ,III II I o ,,,, VIII VIII U 11Il :6_ _ IIIII g p il O �— g O ,� III IIII e® � < ¢ ull IIIIIIIIIIIIII w nn 111111 la ;15 J 1111 nn I I II( w J LU w A IIIII� VT 1111 on 11 Q w IIIIIIIIII __-1 .' Fe 111111 \r J ill! 1 CO OH ii ej) i1 4 S311:13dO?ldA]11VA NOISSIW a s z o W dO`Nruana NI III 3SVHd- H3NV?. Nvaaor _2= s e mw Z� 0 0 ff e3- i"U N — / I Q G iI I ., °Q ,, -I z / 1111 o z 1 0 A =1111 1111 w -- w J �- S Ce , N O M� o ili z,,, � W '• •■ ' � ■ v � i Iiiiii 2LL� b 1111!1.•1 .Q Z 1 f O III' Pi dli 0_ ■'il. L � .u .iii'mild 17, �ii�� ' jig.. r 11111 I 'Il11f1, z � 1 "1 1__ li�����ij ► = W > _� 'II� Z ip•li 0 LU H Il�illi�lil 1.411 > Z w 1111 1I�II ioi 11■■■1•11 W i w emir d 1 O ! ���� C O Q ce i H w0,-11 f L 3 L. Z 24- ! . E>c� c�z Lt. w f0C5 i 2 �ez ZV w OU�Z0 2 'Og �� > >-z. Z 0 DZO ¢., 2 °vNgone v vii (J 7.5> Fey 1111 IM lr 'I /` 1111 j i i • I'd's " (IIII1 1111 X11!U °ii 1111 110001 11111.11111 r- -=-111111 I VIII' , MOO OH IIII1, ® ''---- Inu= Ii110 uul�i Q Q !1111 ' II 0l Z IIE �lillij 71 / ® 11111 Illlli;i Z Z II�� Z f 111111+i. ° mill Qom, O -1111 0 j. .10='!' 1= a =_1111 a urn III Q -1111 > • _�= w il 1114%.--VIII w L 11101 ml~ w W w - _ LL Q U' LU 11.1 BS 0. 'I�N cli +1 in SBIl I3dO2ld A3�1-IVA NOISSIW 1 `� VO`Nrlena NI III 3SVHd - HONY?� Nva Ior o a= o m 2 0 0 o1 e3' on lee EM IIW1111 ;‹ w z.,/ I !I II /=_ �z �=.: /� 00, _ LU ., . , 1111' 1111 __ p a_ Ov- vaii . (11=IICZI W II �1 N mill Imo <a OOw i 1. o \ — F F F O— •W K�0 gZ F b 1111 PIA 0- 0m ..Ii O� a O o O O0 u . 1111 ; 1 u tiO ER N < uw 0oo in m - NO O0 �� OQ E INC F'6E >-- 0 w I.cl. fp.1 IL. Q ruuiH .pill —lu �.� ;. 0;1-( r 4, \\_ li nu N a \!LJUI' ''SID' z inn' w III; +ii.!1 O o I 11111111 s::�10:�0I N um, I F z �!Rie:���:�� Z 1 I 0 p ° II Ion OQ 1111111 Lu o O J � !NE w L.L. :': Z ,_, w� EP: LL& F N c» Oz i��l. 0 p Q = 0 v Z Z U w O o u .o Z �w6Z OLL 0 10 a o R N > _,-O u .,(20 R",%.3 Z j '?O p ..so , O3 O vv a u u. f u a i • 1111! u pa I 1111 I1�� _ !al I, 1111 a® uu i,u nu 1 ;11111-1111111;11 - -- ,I® ¢ uMOH! 11111 I°=—.„,., 111114 Li= = .c, r I' w Iniil I C I .a w w Ino ion �l Z Z Inn — w / O II I 11111 = 111111 il���lnl = le v !1111 ) _ iii , a 1—Q / 10 0 1 a i° 111111, r z �1.i `� z �'_] II I z 1 111111 IIIIU';�I, 0 fril inn Ih=.tl O _1111 O i■_ i∎lI I I- < =1111 Q -- 111111 I_•.:�`. . It , a ''' i \Iln, w i rri`1, _, LU U _ U- iiui Q O LL • w J � IY M II! 1 o co 1!I a �I R Mil N S3112i3dO21d A311VA NOISSIW ._ . z 4 W fs VO Nnena NM! 3SYHd - HONY2i Nva?Io =< _, s mw Z 8 0a „, e3F r ( / " AI z /1011 G Z iluililli 3 = 0 J z ! 1- 1111 W H LL W J = ce o i- W 111111 '�1■' N \ II Iumm1a�I Z_ MIA a \ J b y a 111 �•I Ili 2 O O w O Y 11111gtWO w U U z A t.. p. , ,(_!, Q� N N Im l 2= MP uiu 0 1/'' tli Hp W , iIIIIIIIII∎ ! . MI11111111111111111111.iii MITI�•' _ 1— 0 or OUI'jI.1 III'LLI cti I I■■■I■II J J Ce- z w 3 a 3 ■'I W d I 0 o3 N N Luij o IA O # W F p j O �NL. u_ Ce H u)OF F z Z gLLw wH °oe 0 N 0 0 ,5 OOZ a z 3 w Z � O 0 LL 0 z0 _ „> Aw'O z U 2 a o=g0 S O>Z E '- O O V h w R' O N z 3 N N N VIII'. ji�f !1!! '1 IIIIIIIIIIIIIUi�. MID l'' � mil mi e On 111111111111111111 IIIIIIIIIIIII17111111111111�iiiiii�i� �!��! I (I ....I r �� ��h IIIIIIIIIIIII VIII VIII p u„,,id, 000 11111/11 .. .. M b mil ® O un- Inuit O U ® Z \ 1111111 •IIIii Z MI Iii Z IIIIIIII ® o 111111 O 1 ■i Q ill -- ;\ I1fal� II�� mlliiiii, 1unn u���h)�I w 1,.I�__VIII `Q J I ^ 4 &- X111 1 $5.- C Pt I a R S3112i3dO2Id AB-11VA NOISSIW N 6 d e Z S o (IMMI 0 W HO`N"9f4N1 IH I13S�Q Hd - H�N�I� Nba 210f o=Q s 0 Z p1Q3a rm / j i: il ti i; , /I IW I l lla vat\IIII II-- W W z 1i� ti m l NI!! 7 ll: U y 1111 'ii :',L b h Y gold i 0 o a N 4� N L I Ifil _ 111111 ..1- it. i IW ML. 0 O /1111. W 0 A .., Z ,�: a �11111111111111111111111111111�11I a■■Q¢ Ir W_ Q z °s 1D I I I I �■i■�'_! w 111111 1 w p - 1 ,, z,3 N N e IIIIP ,,_:•_ !r alW M z o w 1:17 11 I MO�_; Z NZF a o X17 E O d LL .R, z z w b OW 2 z ''LHOz O zz. < 6 > y Z U N- Z Z >Z-o f 5 av w w 0 0 Q.gae a in 13 ti E 11111 MI 1111 OH 111111 1 1111 II"� °' Jl�llllllllllli IIIIIII im 0 d1 C7 nu nu ® _IIIII 11111 •l W W 6 ilium, :Hi,., VIII VIII ■i' z z VIII w (\ (I,.... .'. O 0 um 1111 LIL1L�1 v "' z 11111111111'' Q r.0.: �: z IIIIIIIII �1 0 111 W lulu �, w 10 10111 W i�I\Mil LIJI "H w Q U- Ei\ 1 Lu 1 CU • n In ii $1 14 °l F z 83Ii IBdO dA311VANOISSW _« - z . _,= N< , w s dO`NI18na NIlI[ 3Sd-d - H�Nd2i Nva Iof _ m s L Li a L z fw 0 z O >(� O a 3 o u z6o, Rz8 z F � D 650 N Z U t7, v c, 0> II s I'U r.-,..- -- N /P., WI tn Iii.. - ill .. z le 02 ws z u Ko= LL u z0 a o U O �WOz ---w j >Z -LL o ezp ti °,gn 893 j I° n w . l•.I Q Imo. ��" P Z D .il 0 N I liilli� , L2. :II _ _gm _PP z oe 7rmi. 2 Q _ N Z F E 3 gLL� 1 3 LI p owe 0p� LL p a u°CZp �OZ p v z� 6pu,_ u z t ! p rZ.p -- 9_0 D N F U p N LL N O U WI ig•. sam 11=1 =I.uiII HHH�� __ I --1nn Mt H U f0 00I 1111 _mi Q " 0II0I -, — - I���I�I 1 I:Lj _O IIM ~w J Mil w Lu s M +I 11111111 Iiii $.1 I : ° S31.L2IBdoe[d A311VA NOISSIW °I H;f i o s eO`Nlnana NI III 3SVHd -H3NVd Nvatio o.0 d S'±' K ° Z 0,, a z O - oo 3 ZO O O 3 u z O. Z j Tae 00� f ' pz I v iv U> A. // v, I :ua Miiu aii■I O /A111111111 DU ' N II III '- 66 ow I CZ o rr f> - — Z =2 0 w ° O 0 �o ceoz 'u O "' -' ' a• w 09,(2S On zO N O N o> LJJ .- 1 ! •l.I Z ■a Z O ° 1 ..!iii -O U MMEiliglimil 1 MINT. I-21 ,,,si ■,,, ,..„ , NM, /iii' Z OOw u_ L.L 0 it 0 < OoZo - O U z § ��Oz O > U 6U' U,� U Z Z' 8 azt-p tii v� u oNgp 1 v �O / It 111111111111111 "MI /! 1 ilia IIIj un' III nu', 1111 ® i1 6, Kw,',' , 1111 - LEI 11 1 11 b 1111 0 1 I I1111 Isom . EIllllii Z IIIIIIIIIII loo�l z , EN 111�IIIIIII o �� O 1111 O \ VIII 11111111111' ~ 1111 Hu > MIlllllli w Oil Ce vino] w i \ 1111111111 111111 Lnn J w Q n LU UJ Ce " ' w �\ VIII 8 1 � PI CV e ,� N s - S311.2113dO21d AZ TWA NOISSIW ° ` a, F w YO`Nrlena NI III 3SYHd - HONY1 Nvaelo F a ti m 1 w a a.o. m � 1WJ W X F W� Z Z �W W w w Will 0 INrom'• !ii N ZZ�< a Z <� UUg. GC7W �'Z om+bv t<auwWm S6ZaZLL mTd' ¢ �Ja ZP KK�w<F �a(Z9(Z'JOO ad)zq^a FO V am 00<7WWZmaWgi G~-'i 7g o1FU .3 > w� � �� g�<aw WOOgI� wogg,o, <L, am EWimuaa ui6< a �� z d orcaNaa$c°0HTT=f' ar<oZ�12t o O o�Zarcrc'-K�u�-i o� a°a����o �joioi; `U'g wp<O�lla 11111 I ; NO<<OO 11 inSa<4»Mn§§§§§§§§n n nn nnn pp ZZO°waonn g r u n s 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 § f WUyE�L 11 00 W =SS=2222 KKK=KKKK K ZW IIINOixx CC OwwJ_,_,_,w 0000000 O F °° agaaaaa iiiii i ° i i W W . N � ca o.---- n .; uoiNrrrN NN rru I'm sk. V ,-• � �o pgni q up mum do-Do.._1 7 Z r V) \\ • ,-*40' pm 1-,��� 4118! 1 ir°.t `` UJ N. r� o.. MB" �a�y III 2 ,„ `v , ,$, °000��oa©o ii 1' tc/ , Ante \ �. .erL cletreca iiiiim I O i _ O � �. ,\. ••#,,/,�•=12 lid ' ' . ..mi (1) W ' ' - '( 15 . xy%V. • 11111111 r 1 r- : LV Q , 1 �1/..,.�, Q a = i_ Y �I '' ,/' , \ \\�\ ' ` : .� fig . \441. „,, , i Z CI pip L �- ', � ; � � � �,�. il 1 tp 111v �� ,-,,_,:e.� _ I� V Co 11 tt ,‹ + _r--- j ,. 1, , E, , Z ■AII \,\� a,��' .,.as 1 / .r,�-..._ • 1 yam, �. ` ;".�—� ao ' , /' • � As F • // 0 1✓ N Z J r" ` i- C%1 N B e 8 9 O d S311113dO2id A3"ITdA NOISSIW 0` c w u Iii da`NI'lena NI III 3SVHd - H�N�I N�da�l0[` a a a m y I. a a c g; Wv n ,, m Y a E p_p d iq . l ' E 8 0 0< '5 1 i E€ Aga 1 � E 4 4 4 4 c € Ee o K o gym° A m 5 o � �e4wg 2 4 q 4 a - g ry X a N b ,'F ° n - u v d g iii C E ii Y A%d a 'a a F H O E E$g` LL w 9 r' J .. @ $ .E21 0 d $ a m 3 w m0OQ �o = LL j j 2 y A, a . .°9- a I I ' I. i VB02 10\211 d• l30dtd / . !I in 1 , . 1 jA1603,ACJIIIIII , _ . ..'.' alihrfilitill illirrillVtriall partirl 40iii-y..3, wpm. ---I , . ,..,,IteaseLia it mi Ea Nal 1,-- j, i F' . _.,_., if t'�I� _ . ..=��� f �SP fAA'� ►I►w.. �. �� © aw 0 h yaa31 dnv II ` tZ 'I o o 1 -n i)I � �:vatic ,�� ®,�= � � �' 'nii�� ��L°JI:rIP�I� I rlr°�1�►",'tr a ,-_,..........,,,..„......,... s ,..„.,a+ rimmo..! L j `-a, g .1.-___,.._,..:41 ,,,,..,:11 W.it -1 14,31-=,,.",,. ':.,'...,',,,,,,ktigtec,44 kftes ,,,'\ C=7 OV021 NOT7yj .:nm�a,.o b.oua�✓w yo�w-m���„«-uoi.m...K.-mr,,.�m,.W,.�i�o�.i��o 1lii a CO co W PI ii I 0 g Ill t it S311.E13dO2id AB-TWA NOISSII J c W $ -- - U U W VO eNrlena NI ill 3SVHd - HONV J NYa2iOf 9 a a N CO N O se 2 o Q N C a L S C N J A U O . N@ t o m a a 8` m aZo 0 U O 2O$ m U C T-5 ,7,152 a N E i m `y _ s31= mc tn.2c o ' E E o o am s :. d U " °£a_ m 0 1m m ` m o m > d ao . y$ c .c3 of H2 3 A > v tN TA N 4 t L O m C n H E as c m d y a 'go' 608E00 4EE „ � = Ewe d `mom yace6o `o � oc8 c -C o 8- E a Eo o c o n c o a 0 8E2,0,-o. = ET 5 n2° 0« @ ikE w ot a Q E o C J 2 1 85 E X w 02 D w c m o lO a'- 1! % o ` v st.m E e Q% o .a, 2c' sd.c2 L . Z ¢'g c 0a a. 8 1.-.5.-E.L 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 O y 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 g 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 y 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 R#1 1 1 1 1 J= 833333°111111111111111111111x�11111111111 s1 O m u F.-d S 1 1„1 1 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 O O O O O O g 3 7 3 3 e 3 3 3 i v. .jp$ 999=111 1 1 .N rr r.,.ne^.n r,.,. C O B! !I r. .^.. °$-p r.r r r.,...g R X R R A R R 7:7 7 7 7 AS awvswo.eua[41[107/U6 7410.4a6001a-xe-771.were-mammatiewiums.mookeauwl g Illy .3' N 8 ,: z Z a ilI a I NYCUUOf 0 L U C m IX C m 9 1 T N C 7° 4° n - C S i a oa oC u ;L 0 co 7 Z. .0 N A m c u N III e m c i v P =°° c rn O. s m c m m : Si CO Z. cw°iai�u i amen a,,,1 c . 'yr F OIgOW a 1 L g4 VI. t I I / / / I I ' i i I I -_.... / I I 1 I I I II Y 1720E ua1 1 I,, I J. �a�avd 1 Maria!g. / / I a mow 1 a I I ...—1 . L I krt.FAIN"11113 , U i Rs r--P4-0,.........2,1,,,.......................„.....7i...azuzze. L ,„07, 1", , , _____) ii,„ ,____ I �! �3316 / 4 1 � � m �' ���0831.y1 N r W � I ' sR ' 11 I*11 n ,„, , .... ,,,, ._ _,.,__ _,,... .., t, . 1 TT- „owe plow I I liar.„„fr , ...iiii .... , , - .... a . .1.02,..--ell i s 1 elm _ kolorlici-smigiviiialmtkimiii-eorieulairt , , , z , 11, .....‘i I I,_! Imilfilliti gawp i '”' t %tic ,,_ ,___....., .... ..,,L. ,r__ Awl ❑ • --- 01/03 Nog7yj ar dwnls.ro m aria aaa.sa'xxxarriaririaalx IDwta-avVnuaa riari minlaavm'1a s p 1 10 CD .2 Cs1 'hi $.1 g e i- 411. w 13 z` w w S3L1213e1OHeIAXTWANOISSIW ix o W v3`Nrlena NI III 3S;Hd - H3Nyi vciuor a a a y 0 0 0 W ► a W -J I \ \ + \ I% / v \ \ % ��°a/ g- WI ., Ilik riStrir rtilfilaritir ............. 4, ,,............., ,. .. _ , 00, ,,,,,,.,.,_. , ..,,.,... stait ----irplifrvii,1 M \•fir— ��� 1„ gRIN I, _J I --tf,,:4--.___t__________)- imp,,,,...,. .L.IL „, :: 4:, ,, mtv,I,41,-, , , AI �'� 't� Imo`" iMy \ \\ Z 1SFY+ ` • 1 •� r L �J III ---, n t \ ..,.... i mionsuilit , # --WIN'E Iditrilj-altil-MIMINI;.,MN\ - F, ,1111.111-11) -1 sk i®I r\ 0 .n - �- `\ i t Ill 1 Fitt N Z -$ 3 A N• z a w` a LL a till NOISSIN 5311273dO1d A31 N-HOXJ NVaeOf 3SdHd doNriena Ni III m E i '3 � 'o m i A 2 c rnE °s Li e E 55 v m @ o a y E e N 0 V C � m Gp �+w Q C �_ ` 5 a V N m T E L L N D h C m,a H S pN g —L 7 7 019 1 w u Fe, Ea o .. ,10 LL LL w y m E E w c d 0 to 7, m 0 X t „ 0 6 S= '�« 2 m 41 _1 Z �i wi a I � , , i I i noe LOVai J. 733dVd EggirrillErrill—itir- I 101J11.2 rithill OPP'....---4 01 - — - r re 1._ ir:alall 14,ititi wri „..41„ii.- 1 q a _ mill___ vi�v k gt,: :::774::::':1,-/- ' -�N+ �7111•1� '��,1 � ri ` ----n i rat: .1-'4,..i.r.‘1% ,,,,,11 ,f; , 4 IM:." I®:I i . t kr......wii 411"':''i'tif,;:i:':::V:iiViitt .**;4041011t44 ol —�—___ avoa NOTIVA A F a{ W I i11 8 e 2 n N 14 c'z N. F p Rill 1 Jv x S31.1113d0Hcl AZTIVA NOISSIW O` a w $ WZ V w d0`Nllena NI III ESVHd - HaNVEI N`dallo e o a a q O o C Oi a+ O W C O N $ £W W u = V a m m a g o a a, c. x a 4 Cm m 'o 8. C. d lib woc " .S.6 u QN K u c tb 1 Ed , d 12 .3W vm qv a a 1 Asia.. -. gm o m s c v a S . g° 'Ea 0' R m '" a m y TA vy 0m Oa 1, m v daLL -8y 9il E- 2 _ 3 OC JyN A ? ;7 v c, O OF y C:3 m: d -to.5 o AZ IL u v LLu O m a a <A a a a0 .- z 0 oa. -a 's'5 Toe 3 C L`w y a 01 • O * r V m ,>_ w J • Z m� To M Q I I noe I �V21 1 , n ➢�� 1 -ra, iii, man-�anms 1- i L a __ 1 ill lie------Tt . ,,,_.....,„„„,,...,„„, e.,,.. ..1,,,„.. ,,,,. .„,...wou ; ,, , .... � l � • �\,.. Aw F � ipr A . � �je -ava vow ; . �1. W llik lifttrWriliz It - Magi\ n ' lir:000.. 41 - jii&__MA.I1 Italaral..PUNI" r 1 I 1 2 ft—11111 4 all-gli'Nit"-——112--M111-4 I 11.___ilia ,I I I IN ill 1 iim 0 m i r , , , ; z,... . quiavars... .0,t i 14 V in 4144f P , 1 9 I "'--.11,4 r::.i lb,./.."7---377'---1_4. Mii_ ikre itilyt t'r, 1 w (VON NO/TVA .s a:,aasvo..n r..,a ou.w,c&N-QsnxJo -ovow m..e-a m,uvuem�ums�looaa�xarea�o A - H 1• LL W a din 1. Naw 0.120. a S3LL1:13dO21d A37TdA NOISSIV4 w i o w V)NIl9fla NI H�NXd Nfa2�Of E o a o "s 8 s:e4; i -e`s eae°^ ma 7 6..fi ta.0 IS = 5 !.2.1.441.144 c eaa 8 r? 1 26. 11 66. t3 h ../ e de5as ti " q o "9" g e� r q„eei`6o a °8a I "6 6 -;,g'eE5 16. VAE a O11 'S.$16. 61,5 d d 3 4aalll a. .112 0 o J Z - 6t " £ aold • 0 g S T;,a, Zu.ta ■ 0 ✓ ❑ 0. i [ 6.ald 1 0 5 a a) U A Z In x Ej A 6 g ifl pp ■ _ O ", !3:.? 89 a s a d e '�17�Q .xi bt - oaa.9 ga ai Rs si nllll8l' J ' U cd `3' 91 a " 9 9 52 3 Q a� 5?f ;',.g . 5 9 9 5 e.= ms r r U] w .721 ro d9 °, � y � c° e f g . m o - - s s9sy u ' o v Ty 5 s. a� v 6. a q = s 22 a • p i"a7 .6.40 a E7 a e v 3 .3E' : s a Sid s6 G 5a -- - �.a, ��c -1r e=u 'B 6 El- - 1. i6. ap= `. 112 .G .t .'8 '$ a m .7 v 11 y' m s s s 9 _ Vie, r .8 a � Cd a =4198 a E I °°a F F G O6. 9S '. ° .. N n -° ve =°a a6. 9 9 9 a , 77 o ,E 6..7 u a a a I 8 z 11 IA 5 a. hi ' 8 d -N N Z a O L o a #g $ o = o S3112�3dO21d AB TWA NOISSIW Z= VO`Nliena NI III 3SVHd - H3NHII NvaaOr Z a al / oo°„ ,,� 14y' 1 a8 051 ox es G , ® e© g ® 1 O O O O g / ® o 6s� oo°O°° o 00 s s > . / o O0 00 8 1® ® ® d / g 1 Og 051 On 0rg - _� ` ® 8 00 , , , O O O O s a ' Ntoo ' N4 -Firr<1 -- -.,..''' _ si e-, ee "re% ° / 6c, a 7; e e e,,..0,= 1 ® 8, 00 ! '' ! a: a oat �o°r ";,, ,®° ,441,9-<01^ eel , ` 1o:avog o 0 ® # ® O^ ✓ ® 8 a; O 13�ltld d - ! 001: 00g �� 1 1 OOk 00� '&0644%1`4 a I , I Og 08 Og 0:ill I 0 0 0 0 00" 00 008 00� ' ® e ® __ osoxos o o 1 o� Pee es Ilea- Sri,"' _` m' _„ a x', d 13�11/d CC N J g$ a e a I- ® III ® e <a . ®`e < g ®floe- 0. '; 108 0 On al `o e n S c ` € DO o0 c0- c0- e0 I t`. 0 0 e I E is' ill 'm n a a s S p , $® a m ® ® * ® a ‘1 14 2 , -, h _O0 OO 00" 00- 00" 00 ` m s 31 00 00 00' .00- 00� (De Q8 08 OA 08 ! O Tit r O O O m F, s 00 00 00 00" 00� 00 � a LI s 5 4 /� z. ` / PV Q05 AVM -... .133 NJ av9 O f1tlON06aq y ` �, of .t P s\- . Q P 0\),__ P e H 133a1S 1 C�—H I- I �O ---_ AYMHatla 1tla1N33 ss asmswn iv axsr cWlY[no'uax-mimiwUN U mvs-w pMrMam wnp5l uowm+[snl a Iha W F = N 10 C u, ids S311.1a3dOt{d A3-TWA NOISSINI >m z VO 14111:11-1C1 NI III 3SVHd - HONXdI NYaaOf ° z a y 6 L_ ° 9 C U 3 O O R J L_ N a V p a O 6 2 uot `- uw oe g• A L F o , tic O O O O a 0 N a y — N O >` 0 0+B O • d C ° 0y o J ` 2E 0 ° d H t E E o L o 5 N aL E L o 0m 0 T, 0i $46 Ed Y d p°O) ED£ c _ -SD ° E ' y ` C L'98 3 (0 C C. w N 0)a Tf W c-°L.t O E c D y C nac—.. nE t0 -08 - 0 § 2 _ y t0 w E a« G g o E E dc aoy S W 0c 5-- O ` T3 c ° C -.. c kn E�' c oda ig Eco ao °'v tc 127mfi3S LOS L c £o a%°X c dE m a0(z C'- = t1 Be -` L < s o 6 y L L L Z Q ° 2 O L C 2 V f a a B 3 3 3^R????????????????3????????????????????????????????? Rxxrtx xxrtxxxggxx xxx88x0 xgxxYxxxxggx�xxxggxxxxxxxxxYxxY EI???l???????????????? ?????3 3 3 3 3 3 1 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 1 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 R0??0 00000 _00000?g_x_"00 000000000€???000000000000????Cg jRRRR:ARRRRR"aRRAAAARRASRRRARRSSRRRRRRS4RRRRRRSSRRRRR §I of??? ???????????????? ??????????3??????????????3 3 3 1 3 3 3 3 3x0 00000x ?x000000 x000??????0000000000?????????0000? gRRRRSRRRRRR^.7RRRRRR:SRRRSRRRRRRSSRRRRRR:RARRRRR9sRRRRR 661??? ???????????????? ????????????????????????????????? O 0x00 ???0??00???X 000 X 0CCCCC00000?q ???? 1 3 ???i??3??????3 3 3 3?W????????3 3 3 3 3?3 3 3 3 3?3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 ;0000 CC000 ?X000000 ??? 0 ????0000CCC00?? $ RRR R ^R g r r r r r�R R 6P?? 0 0 0 0 0 0 0?0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 3 3 3 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 1;;;;;::::;;;;:::w55===:======:1======::======::::::: 3I1??`3 1`3???????????????8 3 3 3 3 3????3 0 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3?? s00????rrrr ??C 0? rg0????0?????0????0???0 0X????C SRRR RR^ ^RRR ▪yp 3 3 3 ?3 3??3 3 3 3?3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3?3 3 3 3 3????????????????3?? f8888 xxxxgYxx 8888 00x0 00x0 xgxxxxgxxx xx rtxxrtg ▪ W 47,▪ O v !it?3? ???3??3?????????i?????????3??3???????????3????3 3 3 3 W? C i C t ; "g^ggg0xxxxxggggxxrxx xxxgxrY xxggxxxxxxxxx:xxxxxgxxxx: ▪ ag } 6I: ^,R B S S S S S S S S S S S S S 9 3 0 5 S 9 R S S i•°6 6 R R S S S S S S R.R 0 S S S R R S S S S S p= 16 i 12VES m/iiiiA.i.;xiiikii//iii.fiiiii.i/./iiiiiiiiiiiiii$$ �1ii e) s$ .°3 9 Q J 7 G 1 1 3 5 3I-°^•°°^° 'r^°°°.°°R'`"^0 A R 0 R R R 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0°0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 elu w csi S31.11:13dO�ld AM-WA NOISSIW ei s C 0 z VO`Nnena NI III 3SVHd - HONY Nvaelo 9 0 g y «O g c m `o t m m V a t a m p `p m . % a m a a J m 8! .0 0 0� � «O O m o a m a m C m m o_`m g-g '53f- d 1�U a` 5a1,°o cc 0 m m t�a N Q 0 m E ° s g N La O 020120 . m a oa$ ogo °v« c y i c _o E s o m d .; § m c=a ro m « 8 V m c 4.t. m go = w a a c-£ a E m L m p ° m g E m o f E a« N.a ro m p m m 8 a ro t a c m E d m L g S F;Ot. `a` 2 a E d V O i C 0 p d G — m 222,6 a m a @ y, m L m 28"V -0, a• m- 3 H- L m c A a t, ? - m C q- m • m m«a - pl 6p CCCOmg8 LLH L Z 6sp .02a£ 0o - aa 1 1 a 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1H 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 1 OA 1 1 1 1?3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 Xgxxxxgxg000 00000x00 000000000xg0Sgxxxxxgggggxggq x 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 3 1 3 1 1 1 1 4 1 1 1 1 1 1 0000000000000000000000000000000000 X xxxxXx0XXx x000 R$R 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4'" R R 9 R R 4 4^'----`^--:3 Y 4 5 Y@ 4 3 R 3 S R 1 1$1 3 1 3 3 3 3 1 1 3 3 3 1 1 1 1„ 1 1 4 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 N 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1!;1 1 1 1 1 1 ---------------------------------- 0 : S Y S S:Y 5 4 4 4 R R 4 4 R: 111111111311111111 „11111111111118 11111111$111111 0000 xggggggggggggxtf44 gg#gg:gggftgtSggr,"gxx 000 ^^....4 4 7^.4 4 4 S 3 F 8 S E R R^i^7 S F R F^R R R W, R 4 4 4 4..7 E R R R R R.^.R 11811131111311111118 11111111111118$11111111$111111 H!f tigg XXXMH,Igfx„gH!:::inT+a'.mm3`.f f Ug`.g !'QAiT!k'S`. .^„4 4 4 4 4 ::4 4 4 7 4:4 ERR.^,...7 F F R R R R R R R F 4 9 7 9 8"i 4 S F F R R R a F 11 8111 111111111111 1881111111111111 8$111111111111111 g i n g g n g.xn 4 4 f g m i ,i i%m e g g g g g m g g g e g e i p g m g e f e f e e g g g g e 4 g n 4 R R 3 7 7 4 4 4 7 7 S S 3 4 4 4 4 4 a R R F F 8 4 4 7 4..4 4 4 4 8.^,x R R 4 e 11111111111 111313318 1111111111111RS111111111111111 ▪ g g g g g X X X g g g g e g g g g x g x g r x x g X x X x x g x g g g g g g x X x x 4 4 4 g x O g uO 4 4 4�7 4 4 4 4-4:E R R-R 4 4 R R€,A R R R R R 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 I F F R R R'?,a - r,n e: 118?? 3333333111 1111181 1111111111118811111111111111 O . tin gggsge xxxxx x 4 0400,0x00 sXg400Xxxxxggggggg0X gg.xxg 0000000;;;;ia 44RARRR 4)4s33;R^ 0ii RiiR W Zs ?1„1 1111111111111118111111111111 „ ?1111111$311111 42uOggxx eg;Xggxgm--nggxxxxxxg0g0gggxg Xgxxxxxxxgg^gggg y o 7 0;;;;;;;;;S^ 4 R R A:' 4 4 4 4 4 B 4 F R E 3 3 i 4 4 4 4 R Y A R G F C q i! .a 0 a ry a ry a'o!! ! 1 s F r .m.0 0 0 0 0 R N N R R R R R R 6 I N R .Y u,1$ es S S 6 S S S m Z S E a S 4 S S°, C Y^ R P 8 6 X a ERR%R R R a 8 a E a a G a a E o a a E E J�6 .s xsm rro 0 001*(001W,0a»swmu000*07�nx m,..-a-mn .v W,csvm,a\wum UO PI 1 I I ha 0 A I-• N o z o $ $ 1 a eg S3112l3dObld A3"P WA NOISSI V4 Q z al z 2 x i 1- VO'N1'1enCI NI III 3SVHd - H3NY I Nvaaor a Z a til . Iaka I t -- 77. - age if „,:, .„ ,i_, . La o .0 qi N ,- M i a � O o n o ° ca H p N N : 4,as , 1 g e N a z O. i1:, ' a d ii co 4 i 1 2.:E s$ Li i cie,'' a ' n ■ E ® 1 r- 1 O 13311Vd w I Nom r ae I 1 ;' la333 11 a u dN ria••� FIJ m� _.:�.. .,>.., I I d 139Mtld a m u o U .+ y C " O7 o Y - N --' '— R N 1x n c co m�0 C$ .1 '' f i0 O110 °. 1 qq ' 'I ip C al„ C b 9p W b N II= Lum a a N C O G I • d I N ' NE �' i� i'Pi 1$ E a a• a n 1- Sri .' �' d �� iI0 0l0 0II I es - m $._ $ tv O w 7 N d' U pi C7�� H d o S� — iN E nw 4 1332116 Ol O -i� E 0 N 1 N C` 2 j triOR^', 1 Fes- 1 01 a op S m I I �_. ∎ W q OI= IL �_ G , b w OF` P p Q w� oC E 's LL , a F- d N 'C ?�! °' r N \ ♦� V N 111 %181 a U. e .`� a z.k a O 1— �� H 33211s ' - 1 70c — d1 N` J - 1 A A I. AVMNefVd 1VNIN30 .s.s.wswo w osm>iavve 090 CV�CVW09 a90A 0990-09-mnrwawmsluounia0CVVIa R_ PI 1 ' M 3111 $.1 ^ 8 ' N$ m o /4 $ X W K i d S3LL�13dO d ABT1YA NOISSIW ! w vo Nnena NI ill 3SVHd - HONIfel NVQ JOf a Z a Zv \ N'' oo_____ ___-4---- - - — , a Igite , - , ... /616,1400001=7,177;',,,,ri , 3 ONO 0 r-y��'' V'I a .YI4YA �lfO ,:/.....'''''. S �, I S I� 7 s I 13110, 4 __ „..,,, t tu, ,, ,: 1 . r,4 F k e ' ,,4,.., ' 12 „el v 4, , =Ali 1 , --------/ N g g 4 , :.?"' 44'* t 1 i t , 41-. < , L4-CICI ' AMR MO PIM MR 1 a I r) '14 + ie r K , .1DONSIERM1184 I , ,,. 1 a 7.-, ou, . ,.., a MELEE 3:11.' EC Ell..111 C �. 1 - IRE ZIIIEC MillEE.7 / ,/.„ ------ �P` d 133816 &.108 AQ V ?rtnxoem w %O W ' p _ N 111-n P J O I N t33als v c J 449._:------ _- AYMN21Vd 1Va1N30 �s am�sru m nur s�WVS e+oww-airoun-sn-mr\x mbrs-sxmel/nuavu iuroslioouv\auarrl a 8 111 4 N co i i z& N 5 o i5 g• roil I . 1 W 0 S3LLL13dO21d A3'T1VA NOISSIN1 a VO`NI'lena N1III 3SYHd -H3NY Nva�ior LL Z - -II i -- Ilk 1_ I m� it � F / �1NYdYUN)NV X] 4a 461:100050„,==.1. �}® R I r. / + a�3 $del g .� , , 1 g n I t � I H 133 Yd I 4 '' s 7 $ E m 2 0 .Ott d ' '& �_ B 1 + `� 9 1 C E g 1`c °s E 1 a -" E e a i / _ 1 $ 1 .,...yd I a °' v k d \1 e 1 4 g c . mo pp oe N y 2 O N f� `' I t Iy� I g R b -6- d CN OI N —� Q r J L t O N W 1 . EI L,- 9 e W 11 tt4 ©� I $ ��[: w u E. E% E.s g o �u �t S•- w s 8 ---- J I :t 73 �B 1 i a v 2 E a - r 1 I c c �w �« z° m d 1E3 Yd 2 - r vi v g .rr 0, tr wa. R 1 IP - lies Isign H F4 LI I 1 N IL IM L L N Y A N a I`i N � - II - a gv tt 11 Z " ° P ' A ,.. P 5 Q � d O Y ` 0 15 LL H .1 13a1S O = L y ` tlAtlM 91 31 tldN00NY o w —` �F P ----- Li t 5 Q PJ\O' p► H �aa1s V I Q � go � 1 /NYMMN 3M/03-------t,._.. AYMNUV41 IN33 m■i� I g W n ° RI z o 8 S31.1.d13dOZ{d A31 1HA NOISSIW ` w a m zz VO`NP7ena NI III 3SVHd - 1-13N1/11 NHaaOf ?o Z a ti \ IQOI 1 i to - Is •\ r's ■ ❑ sown 1 ;,.` • • • • i � e es 3 .rte Y 1 • • • • ,: U V ` i- ❑ .,. 0r s I I J II I 1 1 ' 30 $ 0 O / g a O i SO50'O gO o x '' °a w i / ❑ o `r< 'fA 0 ❑ .,../ ,/ "� � °p g S , II■ G■g■ 4■ _ g 8 , ' • ❑B • / • • i❑ 0 ' a ❑ = rnQ° m m d fa 13 A x! E C if � I".-- i st 0 r. ❑ :❑ I 1 O 139LVd n L o� t ; '•.. I 1 • • • • g f 1y �. ❑ ❑ j i t', ^❑ '% < J I$■ 9■ B■ ■ j i W I • • • • O T CI 7 pao fix . •�a to go ❑ 8•■ `;: Ig■ N■N■ $■I., ++ Lmm of v ~ �. • • • • a .p a•: V•oIl!4 So •• 11■ e■F■ O■I• I 1 12 1 �a . . . .W o IIM 'o l® O I a j N I a I. S � VMMI®np � gyp ® O / X ■N❑ $❑ ..I d 6 3.g •° -p I�Ja]] °0pp 1® ¢O at•■ �� Y Y a; Y'p d ;� w d Wy e $°a °u y g Q y.A ,.N I / • / *2)1; e c .1F0 c O1 .64, 5g re P 2 ` W 20 W 2 J ~ w° 21),-1,, -t. °c C p c p S c £l AVM 3133a1s 0` 3W 3$' $°+W 3'Iy4NO8NY•1 O p N d . g9 C y�• . ) Ell T,., ,,, ,. )xC ' �� Q♦ i " . 11-5 ma a ...,s s om 0. ° . t -- --i ill , _ , , ,.j , 17, ox .t 1). • ■=1■01111101 c g3.2 t112 111 ti) mu v LL2 LLQW U. U.< < V II • •�J I _ • ❑ 0 - II y • ! P i � I I 0� Q -- -_ ----- r. - � � , — - AYMNNtld 1W1 U430 s ewmiswo w mm3 eioVY/e ao-rucvtrvmun-amtilx mwesrmMrevew uupslmuv\smeaa^I n III C ,z 1 1 ow w I" Z X - O 0 5 Go N•o▪ 2a O d QU_ S3L6213dOeId A311YA NOISSWJ w z zo i z d3`Nfena NI ill 3SVHd - H3NX�1 NvaeIo o o z a= 2 t 14. g sit a .PA: g aggo" . oE°e . 1^131,,;'-g° =ismety °.eEs /&,,i 5 /.93,111i TICS .�`" • .51E"sO .9s°E Csim 97.9`f LE"4 y JiS�. ."Aq F.5.'4� .. ;r.s gO re a Ee3°>.°s. v``g°''2, Ke"Zg53`9■11 e1 i9 ROax133 ItAtI;Ls a "as ,s;1► s • o e 89g;o^e 6 io � d' b •5oJ E @8t`5E 13.0.01E 01`..g Pig w .51:its 5`-.:.plill :.01:1,21; "°"ei l2i 1p 5 '° :a � a ° 1 e E" .. 90 ` 4 2 co al o ��.�i 1 II F Ilia c uem • 0 o 1 'Eiji =A Iro o. 4y 9 q �=-illllli..a ■ O o S I nil 0 0 O o y Z aeld • ❑ 0 1 11111•11•1•••--I•■ a� ma .� W 1 i- z— U "0. I veld • ❑ 0 ❑ O d O z g rga =. Y. A• `" m gex ...4`g 7� 8 ° a •v o o `sal Sae sa . . O °s m sE +:/ w 7E� Ex 'a I a 41 � w _"� et; � omss � o • o a°= ?.�a ;° � " F i " 11°xi l e Q as sz :11 `� 5 " 1 I1 • G 5m ,t: "� • a °1 ■ 1- 111 0 0 Ee : a x 5 "e aee .<" 1 `� r s1: " vea13 1 o . q ;.'' ;8_'x `Tabs e e e411 I 'r • N Ec, 9 ° -s '•S E-9' . i o i i i 1 1 lG 1 I•■ avi I5a .2 a7 �mm .• i7 3 `J g " "1 `- O . G" 6 O ,.. °3 ill Ili a Os • x q ' '81 I1.e ,T , s ` y s.2b CIS ° e s■ O g1 ilii < °d ! 555 .'".'°"° P, "Es _'°s� .5° _ 'd 'R 'F G' p. o''e o -8 eg`d a 4:1 s _ 9S_s", e 9m 'Ed z �_4 ,4 340•00 _ N 1 VS J W y ui N LL z ■ @ 1 z 1111 W i z S x w z N f o OISSIW QeIOr iVAN3dOZidA3TS3LL2I VHd-HONXI NVdo`NI'lanQ NI��� 3S . \ ', ' V 1 E ,-{-m.rIi.iti , I �o W If a, 1 �yi E EE',ID pld 4® m I/ i. iH{hi� 1111 II I r, e)O I R \\ Ai� o. TO�f \ ' a W�� :7A\ 0 . 0 ‘,,,,,,,, J', � pa ® 1 riN x \s"...,,,.,„,.\:,,,„,,\TLIL.4 , 1 ,...4,,,...,;; , ff. I ill=3 ' , , \\\, , `',;••,,,\, ,\,,O,V1.7 #41.4:4741...-11-Llawat171111111 —7. ).\\\, E-\'',\ ,iihi.‘\A 41,-,-)', tin ,\\,. .„. \ ‘. , ,, Intl; 1,‘ \ ..\,40.., ,, \,., _ ..,\ \\ \ ,,,,i ‘\,_ ,; 1 l! G1/ , \,r,:: ,\,- ' iii,lirli1,\10)/i,\,,,,Ap t' :ii: , 1">, ' 1,, 1 ,.' „,,,,,,:',,,\'\ ', ',17IPP's , Ti011■41•41, ,, ifirititit '1 I \ ` � �'- '` /I j 1 14, o ° li t; r .\\\\ •\' \ ,.. /'VIII ilk "-----1.14'''t '7 ,' _ '`r t. 1_ 1 \' \` \\ ,1$;• ' ' ,,,Ali#,I � ;' ��ie1��1Q—..-7 ear lig Qmv vxa3i vsitl �{Y nr m— ,� 91��C[lm�10?itiye ee� L \\,,,,,. ...,„,--..r 2L _____ xxa -iuilx imri-sxavinw+m ranaslw,Wzaw1 a swo xe„vs MO�iwswaw s S31.10H 13TIVA NOISS111:HO! .04.vm. g i ' V .35.VD NOVIVSY3, 00Z 3015.31117117 108V.OB. St1043,,n5•5b3,,N.,•5■133.,°N V1N210d111/0.t.i.Nnoo va3vonv•N11en0 Aokuo 13VZV-N3SN3C-Itia9erni L 00014210E1H013Ne.H.13311Vd-HONVII NVC .....RIOr - 8 .. "3411%, I dVW 133HS 31111 3ALLV1N31 ONLLS3A .o.s.0 . ,.,„„ uo.A.13 VOION3t11.331.15 m V ai a 104 Wn gll--'&' ' M —.— wax cc ara4 ill 11 1 ,T... .-.. r i 6 ,.: ,... =, < 4111 • z..,„ . i '‘1 „,„„, 1-,,, EEi<8%it=0 i 1 111 1 It ;11 1:1i Zi il'216.tgESE ii t att!al 8at.taii_; Q: 11 10111, hki iaiiit, . , x tkais.....n,i,1 z = 1 aiia■f. ge, ..,,R al X N . § V , - al 9 i a ni■r Mr, '6 ce,88Fig0A== ;k1 !1IA 4' lIkl 11Q1121g Pi z 61 g §1. li 2 i 2 11 k"°t1,1R 110g L-,,; „„ c.i,•i 4 vi gi r.: cd ai (g- .., -, - . . ,..v.,... :.• :1 t V_ t,',,VZ -,:; . Li. %(a, 111.1111,'-'11111111111n- .....,,„\ , j 1.'1' ° ..."....r' 10,70:L'u,IP,. 10 Mr Mr , ,, , , :.,„::.; ,,,,..''-. S 112 Ull"- LL .. \ ,\\„. ,: ',, .\.;,\- ,0i,,i.,,, ,. ,:zTT::.,,,, ,.. ...7„1. _•.1.1-..-9 ,s; . lirf, t ■ ,‘„i,‘,2: ‘,'':s s: .1t - tt... '; I'FrA3 tiWITIefIlj ' t, M1 I 11 .,' *Pr Val) FAMIlk''' ll' I 'L I 1q7',',‘ ,, , . . .,,,,„,,,,,,, . 0,4 v,r ,,,44:1D7 ElEl!'m F-15S IR Al"1".1.-- ..,i.. 1 r. = -,..--- A';--,7-4-4..‘.`,.......:-‘,''' , .'4■h 4%. , c.,., ,,--...,z,_„, , -,-. / . ,..,,,,,, ., -,\.‘ -,..,0 .,ii■...\ -4,4; foz-tbl.,deee. ■■ `‘ 4/ 1 - - a U.1 i = .., ,,.-:/ / ,,.,,,,ird,,,„ , . - * �cpep©)11111:Pur c''o- ' 44/•',4,4■41kr"cN '' 1P ‘4A.TOV," 3..y...d 4 „4,,, vjr11,:ir > 0 Ce ,t ;#40,, #11'*.,.' , .%. 41k10+hi-41_11111trallit r---A-0 '' ips uj , , ,,■/,- A*.,....\;, .- ,.. ..'s . w•itt Ur.mil , '" 1,1 i , 4 ...No Z 0 0 . ,.c. ■, v/002,; § . , ,i■ # -;--- , =MI=MO a ■ 111 •H' „ , r".. imork•■■• 0. '‘Illt','°0\0 ----- ---,,,-,,,,,,:., ci. < M 1',., aiiiii u g.1 ,. ...t., ., ,..... ., .. ...,.. , . . ...,,R , I all, 0 : g=g 1•••• CL 0 -,--.'.1auv,. .0$11t, 2a ■•■ 1 :IN::: 00111111\ Ilia- z z 1 LLI '.=._,-, ligliv., .- o Lij ,e II■- Z -- - '. ;'.. it iimiW\ ...4, (C) , \. ;Air et dip. , .Haii, 4.411■,,.- ,. -.,.., _....,-2.\.\\ I— cp NI ,.., r------ ill)* litAtir * ----,---74 '. -,1. ---;,;:, ' 0 ..■ CO r'f% 1/(1111''11101111 411■1t 411Mit-,v V‘s\ ,s,.; ,.::„ Alt.,'---,.......,- (.9 LL 1— c7i ' ' ")111tHimmiri Zia, Sroilso,'', s.,.. ,-. . '''.'',;s4;;::;..7•444F "'-y,, W Z 0"'") Cg..). ‘c1.-.o._) p.,-,',:':-"-',l'I4:-'il ii4si;.a-il„lilsI s,tf,ii,,,,,,-t,-.1 111,1 4 1.p-la1-1/-'11 l i,`ei,,.,l4,,,4i„gwk.,4n0..t i',,e.■W i.■r.mta.i■„W.11„l,,:-e,1',-"*i,A-g--e1L,l.-l-et";,;'.Y i.:l o m.iI'mmImaNaffmam mNi.lIly e k r k,!1Z.''=slN,.l•IIl%I E o MN mIs'‘,-.s--s:'I i.,„'.-.,,.s,..„ ';1..,?,:2 g z 5 o-..:. _'''',";,,,'`;-,''),:„„';,,','',,',:.?.•,',.,:,,,e',,,':/,/, ins. r! : '_-,-' ;,sq, 1— il Ig u > -'-- WWII' 411111, ■,; ' ..”..''' 1.` , , '' ' ,_.„Ni. --.... ......--_, -. ,,....MO „ .,,,,,c.p„ar.o.".. ,,,,, .191(„.i. • _,.....--<-, . ,..-.- -11,41pl. - •■■--, A - . , vs- .1•••;,-..,..P.*,,,..It , , - .i-..7!' ,::, , :re' ' ..4mi ,..,...,) \\ \., . __ ---....... ....2..1..., . . . .. - . ) , . . 1, ,. t ,. .. & , • , 1 '” ■ , k z gl La i . ti. 4 t 1 is...•kil 1 ; § I i w „,Pirol li o' ,A .i,1 7 iI4E1 til %ww`l gli I I P k . ...-.. cc T ; tl : i w 11 15: Et ' ..A•.' • 13 ) i x 1 TJ) it I 1 I li D Or 're WOsO. 0 53 ION ATRIA NOISSIN 210! °' _ C R PK. NINsrixOOn 3. 10SVND uea YINSOA1VO'AINf1O0 va3WVIV'N19l0 jO ALIO ° § o b 13VZVN3SN3t-1 3991114 L a00HIOSHJ3N B.H.130Wd-HONY I Ya or N SlIV130 OW SNOLL03S 1tl01dAl ° uo b ar era w p ii 5 O> ....11914E., dVIN 3N1V1N31 ONIIS3A ,",,,i y q e.3. gli In 1 d ilj ao a F YI I i e. U o� #� 4 O Ir 1 pll 2 b 4 ._ ma,- Er IL 2 a 1, "' 2!! i I W •, MI L,8 .... • rc zo a of • y. —� — 1 0 °0"kmi as - Z v tit R M T g Y " C91 AMMO) I • 1 =r "EI Y 1 , W €i 9 ?e' ., R KJ s t 111111111,/ arms'avl —� ✓ I.I araroe 2-, b al .4. R U g F_ R e a # , O Aw0.10 ti e W Y 8 co g h F nl C Ti : I n 1 3 ' r� ra _ \a3 ^.=N yr 8 _y 2,1 ss ■ ■ ■ ■ • 4 g yy . in. 1; a" 3 i I l 8 9° �I s 8 4a0 1e i 1 iW Is te.mn.o•r cm s aro aoaw-anuounven.,aaar.-s.-aw1xou,m moos,wouolxovrin O t LZ()xre OOIe-tz is�zei Uroeofi S36OH A3TVA NOISSIII:NW e ws,a ra•w. �a mt emirs o of VIN21OdI1VO'ALNfO0 V03WV1V'Nriena AO ALIO .-r O_,,, , >:Itlztl N3SN3f R13��Rti L 000H2109HJI3N I.H.13321Vd•HONV21 NV0210P M. - a6 T SlIV130ONVSNOI103S1VOIdAl ' a 4 0 dVW 3ALLV1N31 ONIIS3A Win' w°>o w a�.as,aa, _ .a F 4 ; g 4 s, s, % i0 a N e - -1 =al $ is gi { �� e" laic Y � 0 CC M11 V ,i W W 0)e a i € ea > g U i\[ a ‘'•'? 8 e L e $ .:% or a Z " r, r 1 I a co S yg U 1a s si a tl 1 W a — � 0 m W $k sl 0 ¢O -I W a d „A \�� '„= 0 IL S �� alb m i > a aaa � b � $ \\.p m~?a s a d W aa x M; W e b � O i i , U 8 ; q N Z J f Y- >>cc a tl 0 kl o,a� 1.i• cl N !IA Ill ” _ W q Ill m is m b £ ' LL OIL a „I lip I° '� � I \ cc a ! , . E a- ” V")! r 1 ifil . - ., C --@ R i—. ; 5 m e .f I 6 by d W 13 o1 h m l\.. ! > J Z II. b W \ I @ f 0 k, N b 12 o 2 rg > c e 1 1 0 a > P iv a Bas °$ 2 l 0¢2 c - w e 3 o a . ° Pii 0a \��§1 � `. a4 a Oa c?. $ r eav-io(a)xre oa,e-a (ieoia S OH A3TVA Noisstr1.804 >nn�ie,a ° aaso i0rs.ns aos nos•i,uiew ear VIN OAITVO'AINlo0 Va3V V1V Nnena AO A113 4• ° r 6 avzv-N3SN3f-Ii3serni L 0OOHI108H9I3N I.H.133 IVd•H3N1/1I NYa or v 4v - § •1 u ONION/HO 3N1A 1V3IdA1-H 133Wd dWJ 3AIIVIN31 ONI193A 151: n w os v n Al. BYO :$ 4:i i14- .J0 I OW oeteror Oa b O N �;11♦�� O In O fir' SIN( 1 I ag PAD 491.6 PAD 492.8 PAD 493.6 PAD 490.8 ��ii (X !r V I O �m, — .,. "� h PAD 488.3 . PAD 487.3 PAD 488.3 ���� PAD 489.3 Igt:>X- I a a e v 'r' •1 ./. vT g >ow e •4 . R e F Z _ ^: .1 o 1 —1 1 24 23 22 21 20 11111 --' tli " PAD 433.1 PAD 432.4 PAD 431.8 �& ii iii I 1 .F ?I .T,� ii hi m I : 5„ �� gl 110 : " 1 V I - A figh I ■ E I -- zt — II® __ _ _ • .! 1II . Ce Ce CO , ! mI ;,� PAD 427.5 PAD 428.8 PAD 428.2 // 4:G 1 26 28 27 28 29 `-- x I AS dsmuw nr era,move.014.-,wuowvuW trace-w-anArouaw..1mroaw1zoear, Does-eat rrivsviwva Dale-ee ( i� aw 53110H A3TVA NOISSIV :b O! ......... �+ ws.a o• . Doe 4E o VINNOAI1VO'AJ.NfO0 YO3Wtlltl'Wlgf1O AO AliO .. h MOW 21HZb�N3SN3f Ri399nti 1000Ha08H9I3N V.H.13011Vd•HONVel NVmIOr $ tl N t T,� T Ntlld Alllllfl ONtl ONIOtlUO H 13O1ldd o 0 owx va w .a �zk N '�i(,L� dtlW 3ALLtl1N31 ONIlS3A u b 4 igo 81 4 —N t g - I , 1 t J 1. \ ' A( f A l � ° e fRAG�`\, ■802^ �� \ / r\� Y5 ®��a. r "�� ,�3""—..A*B '.' �I -era 1 v - tom • r i n _�--°,--`°-,°_ f by 4 ra/KO�u t. �� rp.yn t .ain� C aRNE\ ' RDAN Nn V'r "tI : •wwen o,.,i ..a .a. ,m9ANC6F git.,, ,IA N i z-__.-. 1 �� ,, - - r-munvii.a.. ,,,iliiiiiiiirr4,041 . , - ...4 _ g 9 _ail• ,111111... . r-- -,11 J... , ..-.E.,,,..-.4...,,,,,...,,, , ,4 / I ft g '� @Fre !, �� i a /1 V.:1AL. �A ' ' ..'",: , ''# ���=ail . �� l* ' for —Ee A lit � Ir-e yap ..�,r ' i �� Ni p.::,9., i.3+�K:1 µ i 15 I 9 �"YU Ts �� - (,, f 11 i i� I , il 1 I ,,,,1 ;I ., I 14 .4 ihrz.: 24 2�" 22 20 PI: sw..� �R�...� I wv .. I ,.., 1 , � �_ :kiz ->1:: ,1 110 1�ral c- I' I ° \ --''''"V'It-r-TirWiliiiii ,iitionia,_, ti _, ,, -I �� � : - , 4,1\ \ :r 4.,,,Ir VI —7 !-- Nu vli.ry,wr -`4..... ,--, -1 J.i ii: , I fir ..��■i ;�j 1�r� �' tr, I a '' ��a,aa FT��' / 1�. _ {34 31- !F,7 it I r � -rte. 1 rib Aa. Ie iii '' Lilo.,EP' .. , .. , '�;t bl J. . ri i r i'Q i i I a�. ���1.,0114. i� A A l pppsss�,�,�,���1 37 as lilk � Ear».: '''',..N.7"..--\ � �' t 01'i',1'E'' v1 46 j 44: 1 �111,� 'm' L...,a..jf .. _ I F 4 ww , ? l'.' ,� n n In^ , � • 1_ _ _ _ _,,, .1 , G —� �s xsrwswa m mss c,o4/. aaxs.x-animim-rtt4 axrssxaall.muxv.vuraluouol.aew'1 s .eseava nai(S"6 Z"ooi°nnaLie io1,.%"o... 53110H A377VA NOISSIN NOf .r. 8 R tlIN2104I1V0'ALNl0O V03WV11/'NIISl0 dO ALIO . =LitZV N3SN3f-?I3JJflH OI3 V.H.13321Vd H3NV21 NY OP r ,,o ?NV-Id 101:11N00 NOISON3-H 133k1Vd M dVW 3ALLtl1N31'JNI1S3A ms r b q !'1S i N Pil; a °•7;0 $Z a : 1° a • a ,a o ! � w l X43 as p a y1 -l/ 0 S ¢ �m O tta :N 4$=� C t \O W U1 >! 4., ¢ II 8A MYg 38 f e 0 aka$ ,, sl7�lg',4:! l ¢ �6 O Z ga IP▪ A 7 8`3na 3° a�3 m .ff w w ® °— � n IMO. Mme p3 ;m W 0 o IN ;1.-.1 ra yi �i z J ¢ I tl 4 m w Q , r 0 J .° r Y sI i E t2. ■ D V y ` .Wt 3 y� Fm JORDAN RAN°�/ �A6oa_o _- -_ '- iiii``` ggi gls,_g If.* 0 ! p 4 1 'g - 111 SOS �� Wv i °� Z 1 Wal V. 03t 1 - 1 1 ji ‘‘, , , 4,... ' • _ALS I , 1 �j _ a 1331118 .1. E1.7- i� —jam— - I Sitri:11Z:117pirl El ilb W __ iipi` Z py 7 1 Ye" 2�I�IIII.� N i I p I ggl w t ' _ I 1 111 at Latigallig gJ-"6 -wi Iml,F=1.7. .....?... -Lc cG g a •,, zg U J W r-----La -I -.1 1 4 1.... ...7 -La.:at-lei ~ „ 25 I 4 I ,, A ,r,..........NINIfilig 1 :, i iiir V in 1 „...,,_ J,, ...._. / __, _ I ■ \ 1 O 36 37 -- ,Lr O Z 1'. i I ow s 133111s V/' — -------�i as_ = A p 211Ji ill m iii J -ilia =mad Fg 1m '- F1111171 ® F LLJ 1 GEN7RA�/ ?ARKWAY -zz Xszs�xve Dale-z ltzei 3HO666 S3WOH A3Titln NOISSIW tl0! 0 0 TOM IS cts,e n,, rs a aos�ry xo oerro Dec. VINNOAI1VO'A1NftO0 VO3WVlV 6NIl8ttO AO/WO >_ ZIvZt/-N3SN3f-11:1399f1131 D�f12i L a00H2109HOI3N'I.H.13021Vd-H3NY I Nva210P �' Y¢¢X . g :i dVW 3OVNIVNO NV1d 1N3W3OVNVW a31VMWUOIS A IVNIWIl3dd D1u c �.a e 4 8 p'� dVW 3N1tl1N31 ONIlS3A ,""-„: .ro a@ V S a N r a 5 � II8 5 t 03 10 11 1 lfl ...1, 14 $ it m <�ti :£1 Aga € e a t 3y S 14'`s 1118 C '; Q W a oLt.■IERrIMMI No I oft N ,, i, * t An � egrE �p rcirciir .4k. 'T.' 1.- 1116._ifill ......, _.„, ... ji 'ill IR i IL.. 1 Lirlimil '',!j..1 ii ni 11 f g a 4; it 4 it _+ w ', II� � Y.. 4s` . 1 ii 0 i 1 ,BEN �. i _ 6 WI- ir`, r $ 1 „."wirdi awl Of wr$3, i .,4 Millrii Ne'610//1010/.11gli g ligil 4! lifil. it i1 $1 0 "4 5 'C 9 96 ni �i1� i x tie II* .$71,....._03,11,....V4S.a !?Ill • -4,,. °1 1 04[111 I_ow ■I !(_ i a i R ...k ', �,'NG Lf i ii i:: ,-4 :=Ig g h I I a a � a i • - i @a =lip P11 < gp i � � i � ♦ _.= It C _ w� , aa4 1 1 RK,NAY R\ Yi7> I gal pi I ,- I. PA 4i I GEN«` CI 8 111 igi i , v g xi � 111 -''_ -111 ti;. _t. g - 1 gyq i'� O'C 1 !II I�ff l l i t6/ iga .i C a tltl I aaa k 1 I (/ I 2 E®k W q 3h \II 1 ', U'fa as t S Gy pYYp l'6y d$�¢p¢a 1gg- \ 11 FZ !�$ S3 RCS W3C 1 N; 7 \I W t I \ a damlmo m e6 sa 660/6/6 0 660imun+a\0 mwe-a-m4iwuab 46604wu 660904 s sas-� e�za3 x.e "'',g' is ;:brow o 53NON A3TVA N0155111 tl0! ess. ie mz Hire a sa. VINilOiI1VO'A.LNf O3 tl03W1/ltl'NI19f10 dO ALIO•2IVZt%-N3SN3f 12�3sena L a00H2l09HJI3N$.H.l33Wd•HJNV�!N\I�IOP 9 :°ao g ;1 'I MIN T Ntlld kIIlllfl ONtl ONIOtltlO'L OOOHMO9HOI3N p u�p u m«sun u.a •i i N —�. u® dtlW 3ALLtl1N31 9NIlS3A "'a'a'" b 4 o a. § �fire- ���:::.:((..,:,, Y x - I n-�x9 .......'':00'l 9 18Vd ' ', ,. g w. s;, +b" '% zx.:=--.; _ t,y 0 1�J21Vd .\` N— a` - �i £gFi - T" lctU�o a l I g-I 1 5.r ay K� __ ``II Ni t .. 4 I, g• .� Fx a --- i^ aaaw rr a 1i q pry Y Yi "- erg. I I n an I v g gi i , d d� i� d S .�. n °: 1 Lie II . 'g govl y��03 [ / i � s � e' er / ', 4 �aM i�I p ¢ ';' ,.L4-11,11%'.-. m,. r ri it �'ii ....ai io ti '4 m pi A ! A, 4 ��%/ ( z 2 -,,,,'7,',..F. . '..' :.' 1CP15: Eirir,,il AI.,\\'.'', Y Z r / .sq 416,.....:44 x K9 ` , Nf/ � .'H',.., RI_ iti - Allt47,i S P. tie, . .i elLr'''' fr':'1. '' 4 J.:II- ''-''\''' ,ir, ",'4,."11.,/„,:"... g.... litiiii •••: ,,, .11,10.!..,111>ii % '''.: i,11414.n! .; 4 tli„k;!,.51:014;,,!..1.71.v..wrt..1/4i71 i 1 ii,,,\ r •, : 1 Iv "i ,PM-. , 11417:i 10117.:ii ' ri - - 1 i'llh C s p m r 1$4"44i- f ... QQKI.I i #41 ..,,-t �'.I Ii. n „ 1 , n I� g nit '� I ... ZI it�' F '471,4P �n , A A x I Y 8 IL _f______ Q1f.,.IB ( -6(_ Z9H Fen .Z9 n �. i t3�N ez .: '' W n m 9 z9 e£,_.dti I;, I .K ,I' u u m - re • 4' s� , , .7 ,i - j F.:ti, .i!rilf, 4,,,,.,,.4,4_,„.44 ,,•,.. -..7 ,. „, — AVM � QO a+nvaNOear �,l, I I I, . �, _ 4 ' ' , �� II O4P \ � 1 . ' ' r'e I �� x Gaut �� ---- -- I --.- I. . ..._. II 4 -- 1 i« I X." - :.r u - rr+ r ..... .... (7, �3xw rcS/Na aa'wav-nummvaelx na vewI 7fipNI13:- ! i . xl+aw 4___ ro_ - meV u ew;x u \ma zuV t` 4XtlMNM I m a,na sl - s�I _�• (. II I I CI � q �scar T Y. ..2 L_ aT� �se�x r » azih a ----f- '1—. A S3AOH A311VA NOISSIII AO! v:4. I g 1 i III 6 ia)°,;§ aavntiv'Nnena 40 A.1.10 _ .ir ‘(..)-,,,, 00#4"a,V1.4%°,... VINNOAIIVO'M NnO3 V ____.ci.Hotmti watiOr ...z, . 3.1.VC IS 4 Ili! HNO9H013N ItIVZV-N3S NO 0 3A r=zs a'r-'-1 ta—i 9 9 n IA LOOOMINO9dHi00,ildi3 vNNwoollami.HivsilL33.eat Nouo: 34411■ t t.:=-,!' i 1 ;I 11 i. '411 111 illp ,;,' ..1 iiii ill i!,; !i , .,4 i-N- s 1- 1 i P a 1 pN I gi i z,- ;4k 1 = o 1 M77O nA111= o 0 i 1i frim.l M.. Is1 1, ii 1ic z o-_ 1 .'i wl. - t\ ' ii ,,. 5',' 1 -1- P'g - 1- - \ , ..... angel ': 1 $ S la -,„ , w ,--■ ' 0 i *P- / -,00'„jt40M114t6*'" '4"6"4111" : (QCQJ 1211 'kr' ' alk .401,ta ■ ' i-R z < ',■, - - , „Av1/4111,' I $ 1 = ,,t el; L li 11 '1 k T 111 t'' - E _I „.. ... I 4-- '- i ' 0 Aier 2 "A•iiri ' Ill '10.C11 ' , „,.... . 0E0 AO " W.ifr *•,° . 2 zarma° '- \•. / 4 Alltipz.„ „re , a • -•''' •,„i!" M '4t. ,01#00 r• • il ; .... In 1 d aim I 4ko rill 2 g_ 11:11 4;441111 INL ' 1 k . ‘hr 4.-I'f"_ :Nri',■:- -,4,i,_ , '''.#4,4„,71-",„.:,•;2:-. . ';;",,,f.„.. to/ mu , „ IR:•:,1 g 1;i11 a-- i « i oti ###.-. - - '-'1,tv - `,...... 1 1 nil■ 1 ii 1 , , . ,t,,111 ...4.- . . , .41.11si1 .., 1211 ii Li...m7.7.7m t:,_ , . illici 1 A +I.-a--; II ilM'slili 1111 ' 3 411/I Ili 1 i • Eli - Elumi O , murill ,. , 1_1E1.7' - I. - -, , ,,, ,,, , , , . . ,„ - , , 0, - s 1• 1 Awn A 1.33211G ■V 40 \ I o ' - I/- . . . *. . . . - ill w _ 'Iti ! iI 1 1; iii 4z z AA ul () 1 1$. s.g ill , N!.., ;.k ,91; I 1\ 0 11!1 1 : @q; 7-1 •t ll zr, . q 14 n "%NJ ,., i336IG. 0 i %Of 1 littil.i ca S, M , 011)•_ ,\.., . -1)• ‘ 1 1 *C c?Cl _ _■() v4 23■All Ve-P .11■13S olans1 ao go1svoreal a ORDINANCE NO. XX-15 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * APPROVING A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT AMENDMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF DUBLIN AND BJ-ROF JORDAN RANCH LLC [MISSION VALLEY PROPERTIES] FOR THE JORDAN RANCH PROJECT (PLPA 2015-00045) THE DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. RECITALS A. The Applicant, BJ-ROF Jordan Ranch LLC [Mission Valley Properties], proposes to develop Parcel H of Jordan Ranch with 45 homes on 4.6 acres and Neighborhood 7 with 105 3-story detached units on 9.2 acres within the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan (“Specific Plan”) area. The project proposes a General Plan/Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment to change the land use designations of the 4.6 acre Parcel H site from Mixed Use (MU) to Medium Density Residential (MDR) (6.1 to 14.0 units per acre) and of a 3.7-acre site from Community Park to Public/Semi-Public and consistent PD-Planned Development rezoning with Stage 1 and/or Stage 2 Development Plan amendment. Site Development Review and Vesting Tentative Maps 8267 and 8269, respectively, are proposed for the 4.6-acre Parcel H site and the 9.2-acre Neighborhood 7 site. The proposed development and applications are collectively known as the “Project”; related approvals of the applications are collectively known as the “Project Approvals”; and B. The Project site is located east of Fallon Road at Central Parkway, west of Croak Road and south of Positano Parkway. Parcel H is at 4233 Fallon Road in the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan area; and C. The Applicant and City desire to amend the Development Agreement adopted by Ordinance 14-10. The amendment, which is attached as Exhibit A and incorporated herein by reference, addresses, among other things, community benefit in the form of park improvements and acquisition of affordable housing credit from a specific affordable housing project; and D. Development of the Project site was addressed in the Eastern Dublin EIR, Supplemental EIRs for EDPO and Fallon Village and subsequent Addenda in 2010 and 2012; and E. 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. To comply with CEQA, the City prepared a Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Project; and F. On September 22, 2015 following a duly noticed public hearing, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution 15-08 recommending that the City Council not adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration and recommending that the City Council not approve the proposed General Plan/Eastern Dublin Specific Plan amendments Planned Development rezone, Site Development Review and Vesting Tentative Maps, which Resolution is incorporated herein by reference and available for review at City Hall during normal business hours; and G. On September 22, 2015, the Planning Commission held a properly noticed public hearing on the Project, including the proposed Development Agreement amendment, and adopted Resolution 15-08 recommending that the City Council not adopt the Development Agreement amendment, which Resolution is incorporated herein by reference and available for review at City Hall during normal business hours; and H. The City Council held a properly noticed public hearing on the Project, including the proposed Development Agreement amendment, on October 6, 2015 at which time all interested parties had the opportunity to be heard; and I. A staff report dated October 6, 2015 and incorporated herein by reference, described and analyzed the Project, including the Development Agreement amendment, for the City Council; and J. The City Council used their independent judgment and considered the staff report, the MND, and all reports, recommendations and testimony referenced above and adopted Resolution No. XX-15 adopting the MND, Resolution XX-15 approving the General Plan/Eastern Dublin Specific Plan amendments, Ordinance XX-15 adopting amended Planned Development zoning, and Resolution XX-15 approving the Site Development Review and Vesting Tentative Maps, prior to approving the Development Agreement amendment. The above referenced resolutions and ordinance are incorporated herein by reference and are available for review at City Hall during normal business hours; and K. The City Council has considered the recommendation of the Planning Commission to adopt the Development Agreement amendment, including the Planning Commission’s reasons for its recommendation, the staff report, all comments received in writing, and all testimony received at the public hearing prior to approving the Development Agreement amendment. Section 2. FINDINGS AND DETERMINATIONS On the basis of: (a) the foregoing Recitals which are incorporated herein, (b) the City of Dublin General Plan; (c) the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan, (d) the Mitigated Negative Declaration and prior environmental documentation, (e) the staff report; (f) information in the entire record of proceedings for the Project, and on the basis of the specific conclusions set forth below, the City Council finds and determines that: 1. The Development Agreement as amended is consistent with the objectives, policies, general land uses and programs specified and contained in the City’s General Plan and the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan in that: (a) the General Plan and Specific Plan land use designations (as amended), policies, programs and objectives are incorporated into the Development Agreement and not altered by the Development Agreement amendment; and (b) the Project is consistent with the fiscal policies of the General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan with respect to the provision of infrastructure and public services. 2 2. The Development Agreement as amended is compatible with the uses authorized in, and the regulations prescribed for, the land use districts in which the real property is located, as set forth in the applicable Planned Development zoning ordinance. 3. The Development Agreement as amended is in conformity with public convenience, general welfare, and good land use policies in that the Project will implement land use guidelines set forth in the General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan. 4. The Development Agreement as amended will not be detrimental to the health, safety, and general welfare in that the Developer’s proposed Project will proceed in accordance with all the programs and policies of the General Plan, Eastern Dublin Specific Plan, and Project Approvals. 5. The Development Agreement as amended will not adversely affect the orderly development of property or the preservation of property values in that the Project will be consistent with the General Plan, the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan, and Project Approvals. 6. The Development Agreement as amended complies with the requirements of §§ 65864 et seq. of the California Government Code and Dublin Municipal Code Chapter 8.56 and specifies the duration of the agreement, the permitted uses of the property, the density or intensity of use, the maximum height and size of proposed buildings, and provisions for reservation or dedication of land for public purposes. The Development Agreement amendment contains an indemnity and insurance clause requiring the developer to indemnify and hold the City harmless against claims arising out of the development process, including all legal fees and costs. Section 3. APPROVAL The City Council hereby accepts the Planning Commission recommendation and approves the Development Agreement amendment attached as Exhibit A and authorizes the City Manager to execute it. Section 4. RECORDATION Within ten (10) days after the Development Agreement as amended is fully executed by all parties, the City Clerk shall submit the amended Agreement to the County Recorder for recordation. Section 5. EFFECTIVE DATE AND POSTING OF ORDINANCE This Ordinance shall take effect on the date the Applicant acquires fee title to the Property. The City Clerk of the City of Dublin shall cause the 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. PASSED AND ADOPTED BY the City Council of the City of Dublin, on this _____ day of ______, 2015 by the following votes: AYES: 3 NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: _____________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: ________________________________ City Clerk 4 City Clerk City of Dublin 100 Civic Plaza Dublin, CA 94568 Fee Waived per GC 27383 Space above this line for Recorder's use .1091 ��* ,F ma ATTACHMENT I EXHIBIT A RECITALS THIS FIRST AMENDMENT TO DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT (this "Amendment") is made and entered in the City of Dublin on this _ day of --, 2015, by and between the City of Dublin, a Municipal Corporation (hereafter "City") and BJP-ROF Jordan Ranch LLC, a Delaware limited liability company (hereafter referred to as "Developer") pursuant to the authority of §§ 65864 et seq. of the California Government Code and Dublin Municipal Code, Chapter 8.56. City and Developer are, from time-to-time, individually referred to in this Agreement as a "Party," and are collectively referred to as "Parties." A. California Government Code §§65864 et seq. ("Development Agreement Statute") and Chapter 8.56 of the Dublin Municipal Code (hereafter "Chapter 8.56") authorize the City to enter into a Development Agreement for the development of real property with any person having a legal or equitable interest in such property in order to establish certain development rights in such property. B. Developer owned, and still owns portions of, certain real property ("the Property") consisting of approximately 187.9 acres of land and that is more particularly described in Exhibit A attached hereto and is incorporated herein by reference. C. Developer proposed, and has proceeded with, the development of the Property with a mixed use project consisting of up to 964 dwelling units, 100 units fewer than anticipated under the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan, up to 5,000 square feet of retail use, a range of public parks, public and semi-public uses, open spaces and roadways ("the Project"). D. In 2010, Developer applied for and the City approved various land use approvals in connection with the development of the Project, including, without limitation, a Stage 1 Planned Development Zoning and Development Plan for the Fallon Village Project (Ord. No. 32-05 adopted by the City Council on December 20, 2005); a Stage 2 Planned Development Rezoning and Development Plan (Ord. No. 13-10 adopted by the City Council on June 22, 2010), Site Development Review (SDR) (Planning Commission Resolution No. 10-25 adopted on May 11, 2010), a Vesting Tentative Tract Map (Planning Commission Resolution No. 10-25 adopted on May 11, 2010). The foregoing are referred to collectively as the Original Project Approvals E. In conjunction with the Original Project Approvals, the Parties entered into a Development Agreement, dated June 22, 2010, and recorded as Instrument No. 2010206466 in the Official Records of Alameda County on July 27, 2010 ("the Agreement"), that gave the Developer a vested right, for a period of 10 years, to develop the project in accordance with the Original Project Approvals. The Development Agreement specified that subsequent approvals would only be vested if the City and Developer entered into an amendment to the Development Agreement. F. Developer has transferred various portions of the Property to other property developers that developed or are developing portions of the Project, and in conjunction with those property sales it has assigned the Development Agreement, as to the properties were transferred, to the purchasers. Developer still owns certain real property ("the Remainder Property") consisting of approximately 14.6 acres of land that it intends to further develop and that is more particularly described in Exhibit B. G. The Original Project Approvals identified the site of a proposed Dublin Unified School District elementary school on a portion of the Remainder Property. In 2012, the General Plan and the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan were amended to create a Medium Density Residential "underlay" to allow the development of residential units on the School Site. The City approved various land use approvals, including, without limitation, a General Plan amendment and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment (Resolution No. 92-12 adopted by the City Council on June 5, 2012) that increased the total number of residential units authorized in the Project from 780 to 864, plus the potential for up to 100 units on the school site, for a total of 964 units ("the 2012 Approvals"). . H. The City and the Dublin Unified School District have engaged in discussions that have resulted in a tentative agreement that would result in the placement of the proposed school at a different location thereby allowing the Developer to develop the elementary site pursuant to the Medium Density Residential underlay designation. In furtherance of that tentative agreement, and the Developer's related development proposal, Developer has applied for, and the City is processing, various land use approvals, including, without limitation, a General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment (Resolution No. 15- _ adopted by the City Council on , 2015); a Stage 1 and Stage 2 Planned Development Zoning and Development Plan (Ord. No. _ adopted by the City Council on ); a Site Development Review approval (SDR) (Resolution No. adopted on _, 2015); a Vesting Tentative Tract Map (Resolution No. 10-25 adopted on , 2015) ("the Current Project Approvals ").. The Current Project Approvals and the 2012 Approvals collectively are referred to as the "Subsequent Project Approvals." I. The Subsequent Project Approvals also will reduce the residential density of the Original Project Approvals and eliminate the requirement to construct 5000 square feet of commercial on the "Parcel H" of Tract 8024. The end result of the Subsequent Project Approvals is to reduce the approved residential units in the Project from 964 to 899 units. J. The City Council has found that, among other things, the Development Agreement, as amended by this Amendment, is consistent with the City's General Plan and the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan, as amended by the Subsequent Project Approvals, and has been reviewed and evaluated in accordance with the Development Agreement Statute and Chapter 8.56. K. City and Developer have reached agreement and desire to express herein an amendment to the Development Agreement that will facilitate the development of, and vest the Developer's rights to develop the Remainder Property consistent with the Subsequent Project Approvals, subject to conditions set forth herein, and in exchange for certain community benefits provided herein, including the Developer's facilitation of the City/School District lease. L The development of the Property and the Project has been evaluated in three environmental impact reports certified by the City: (1) Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report, State Clearinghouse No. 91103064; (2) East Dublin Properties Stage 1 Development Plan and Annexation Supplemental EIR (State Clearinghouse No. 2001052114); and (3) Fallon Village Project Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (State Clearinghouse Number 2005062010) (collectively, "Prior EIRs"). On June 2, 2010, the City Council approved an addendum to the Prior EIRs through Resolution 80-10. On June 5, 2012, the City Council approved a second addendum to the Prior EIRs through Resolution 91-12. The Prior EIRs, and the addenda, specifically addressed the General Plan, Specific Plan and Planned Development Zoning for the Project. The addenda addressed the 2012 Approvals, In conjunction with the review of the Current Project Approvals, the City prepared an Initial Study dated August 2015 to determine whether these approvals will result in any new or substantially more severe significant environmental impacts than those analyzed in the Prior EIRs and addenda or whether any other standard requiring further environmental review under CEQA are met (Public Resources Code section 21166 and CEQA Guidelines sections 15162 and 15163). The Initial Study determined that the Current Project Approvals did not trigger any of the CEQA standards requiring further environmental review, except as to traffic/transportation. The City prepared and circulated a draft Mitigated Negative Declaration, dated August 4, 2015. The City Council considered and approved the Mitigated Negative Declaration and a related Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (Reno. No. _ adopted by the City Council on 2015) prior to approving the Current Project Approvals. M. On , 2015, the City Council of the City of Dublin adopted Ordinance No. — approving this Amendment ("the Approving Ordinance"). The Approving Ordinance will take effect on ("the Amendment Approval Date"). N. As this Amendment pertains only to the Remainder Property, the City and Developer are the only parties required to effect the amendment. NOW, THEREFORE, with reference to the foregoing recitals and in consideration of the mutual promises, obligations and covenants herein contained, City and Developer agree as follows: Fneigi.124kyll Section 1. Vested Rights. The Subsequent Project Approvals (as defined in Recital H above) shall, notwithstanding anything to the contrary in the Development Agreement, become part of the law Developer is vested into under the Development Agreement. Section 2. Term. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in the Agreement, the term of the Development Agreement, solely as to the Remainder Property, shall be extended until 5 years after the Amendment Approval Date. Section 3. Improvement of Jordan Ranch Neighborhood Park. Developer shall, as a community benefit in exchange for the vested rights conferred by this amendment, improve Jordan Ranch Neighborhood Park in accordance with City requirements, consistent with the Parks and Facilities Master Plan adopted by the City Council on May 19, 2015. City and Developer shall, by November 17, 2015, enter into, contingent on the effectiveness of this Amendment, an otherwise standard improvement agreement that includes the following terms: a. Developer will commence the improvements detailed in the City- prepared plans, dated August 27, 2015 and on file with the Parks and Community Services Director, by March 1, 2016, provided that City has supplied final plans by February 15, 2016, with completion no later than March 1, 2017 except as may be extended by weather delays as allowed for in the City's standard specifications. Developer shall maintain the improvements for three months following substantial completion. The City and Developer presently anticipate that the cost of the improvements would be $1,965,000. b. Upon posting security for the completion of the improvements under the terms of the improvement agreement, the 150 approved residential units in the Remainder Property would be exempted from the neighborhood park improvement component of the Public Facilities Fee. The value of the exemption from the Public Facilities Fee, based on the fee in the to-be-adopted update to the Public Facilities Fee, is approximately $365,000. Developer will not receive credits for the additional costs of the improvements that exceed the value of the exemption. Section 4. Compliance with Inclusionary Zoning Requirements. Subparagraph 5.3.7.a of Development Agreement (set out in Exhibit B to the Development Agreement) specified the Developer's alternative method of complying with the Inclusionary Zoning Regulations for the Project proposed in the Original Project Approvals. The residential units proposed in excess of the 780 contemplated in the Original Project Approvals are not covered by that provision, and the Developer must demonstrate compliance with the Inclusionary Zoning Regulations for the 119 residential units proposed in the Subsequent Project Approvals in excess of the 780 units covered by the "alternative method of compliance." Notwithstanding Subparagraph 5.3.7.a (set out in Exhibit B to the Development Agreement) and anything to the contrary in the Inclusionary Zoning Regulations, Developer shall satisfy its affordable housing obligation for the 119 residential units proposed in excess of the 780 units covered by the Development Agreement through the application of 15 affordable unit credits purchased from either the City or Dublin Family, L.P., an affiliate of Eden Housing, Inc. ("Eden") created as a result of Eden's construction of an affordable housing development in Dublin ("Eden Project"). Under the Regulatory Agreement for the Eden Project, the City has the right to such credits unless the proceeds of the sale of such credits are necessary for Eden to cover any gap between the permanent financing and the costs of the development and construction costs of the Eden Project. Eden and the City have agreed to sell such credits to Developer for $1,500,000. Developer shall purchase such credits no later than 120 days following the Amendment Approval Date. The City will use the deposited funds to purchase the credits from either the City or Eden on Developer's behalf in accordance with the terms of the Regulatory Agreement. Nothing in this Amendment amends the terms of the Regulatory Agreement with respect to Eden's rights to the affordable housing credits or funds from the proceeds of the sale of such credits. Upon such deposit, Developer's obligation under this paragraph and the Inclusionary Zoning Regulations will be satisfied in full for the 119 residential units proposed in the Subsequent Project Approvals in excess of the 780 residential units covered by the "alternative methods of compliance" in the Development Agreement. Section 5. All other provisions of the Development Agreement shall remain in full force and effect. Section 6. Recordation. The City shall record a copy of this Amendment against the Remainder Property within ten (10) days following execution by all parties. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Amendment to be executed as of the date and year first above written. :zn Attest: Caroline Soto, City Clerk wffid� -• �. • M John Bakker, City Attorney 114.273 2454193.9 1111,11RO] 51 111115 101MINIU012WOM, BJP-ROF JORDAN RANCH LLC, a Delaware limited liability company By: Fallon-Jordan, LLC, a California limited liability company, its manager By: MVP Development California, LLC a California limited liability company, its managing member / ", _/ A / 144 By: Robert Radanovich, member 11WA Real property in the County of Alameda, State of California, described as follows: EMEMEM Exhibit A RESOLUTION NO. XX-15 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN ____________________________________________________________________________ ADOPTING A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION, MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS FOR THE JORDAN RANCH/SUBAREA 3/WALLIS RANCH PROJECT (PLPA 2015-00045, 2015-00046 and 2015-00047) WHEREAS, the Applicants, Mission Valley Properties, Trumark Homes and Lennar Homes propose revisions to prior approvals on the Jordan Ranch, Wallis Ranch and Dublin Ranch Subarea 3 sites, respectively. The proposed revisions include General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan amendments, Planned Development rezonings with amended Stage 1 Jordan Ranch Development Plans for portions of the (re-designating 3.7 acres of an existing Community Park site to Public/Semi-Public for future development of a school and changing an Subarea 3 existing Mixed Use land use on 4.6 acres to Medium Density Residential); (re- designating 10.4 acres from Rural Residential/Agricultural to Park/Public Recreation); and the Wallis Ranch (re-designating a 1.9 gross acre site in the south portion of the property from Semi-Public to Park/Public Recreation) properties in the Eastern Dublin Planning area. The Applicants for Jordan Ranch have also submitted recent applications for Planned Development rezoning with related Stage 2 Development Plan, Site Development Review, vesting tentative maps and a Development Agreement amendment for Parcel H and Neighborhood 7, as follows: Parcel H is the 4.6 acre Mixed Use site proposed for redesignation to Medium Density Residential and is also proposed for development of 45 dwelling units; Neighborhood 7 is a 9.2 acre site proposed for development of 105 dwelling units. The proposed revisions, development and related applications collectively comprise the “Project”; and WHEREASJordan Ranch , the Project sites are located as follows: : East of Fallon Subarea 3 Road, north and south of Central Parkway; : South of Central Parkway, north of Wallis Ranch Dublin Boulevard; : West of Tassajara Road, south of City limit line and east of Camp Parks RFTA; and WHEREAS, the Project sites are located in Eastern Dublin, for which the City Council adopted the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan, and certified a program Environmental Impact Report (hereafter Eastern Dublin EIR) pursuant to California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) Guidelines section 15168 (SCH 91103064; City Council Jordan Ranch Resolution No. 51-93). The site was further analyzed in two supplemental EIRs Subarea 3 and two CEQA addenda, most recently in 2012. was further included in a 1997 Negative Declaration and was specifically addressed in a 2014 addendum. Development on Wallis Ranch was further analyzed in a supplemental EIR, a Mitigated Negative Declaration, and most recently in a 2014 addendum. These various documents identified many mitigation measures, all of which continue to apply to the Project, as appropriate. The Eastern Dublin EIR, as well as the supplemental EIRs identified significant unavoidable impacts for which the City adopted statements of overriding considerations; and WHEREAS , the City prepared an Initial Study dated August 2015 for the proposed land use changes and Planned Development rezoning with related Stage 1 Development Plan consistent with CEQA section 21166 and CEQA Guidelines sections 15162 and 15163. While 1 most of the land use changes and Stage 1 Development Plan impacts were addressed in prior CEQA reviews, the Initial Study concluded that additional mitigation was required to avoid potentially significant traffic and transportation impacts beyond those identified in the prior EIRs and other CEQA documents. The additional impacts and mitigations related to the potential for future development of a school on 3.7 acres south of Central Parkway. The school district has not developed or proposed specific site plans for the future school; however, the Applicant prepared a traffic study based on available detail including the identified location and an anticipated 950-student enrollment; and WHEREAS, based on the Initial Study, the City prepared a draft Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) dated August 4, 2015 which identified mitigations for the future school that were developed by the school district and Jordan Ranch Applicant that would avoid the identified additional impacts where clearly no additional significant effects would occur. The draft MND reflected the City’s independent judgment and analysis of the potential additional environmental impacts of the Project, including conceptual future development of a school. The MND and supporting Initial Study were circulated for public review from August 7, 2015 through September 8, 2015 and are attached as Exhibit A; and WHEREAS, the City received several public and agency comments on the MND during the public review period (as well as some late comments). Given the public interest in the project, the City prepared written responses to the public comments that raised environmental issues, although CEQA does not require such responses for an MND. The public comments and written responses are attached as Exhibit B; and WHEREAS, after the MND was released for public review, the Jordan Ranch applicants submitted additional applications requesting development project approvals for two sites: Parcel H and Neighborhood 7. Staff carefully reviewed the additional applications to determine if they required the MND to be recirculated for public review under CEQA Guidelines section 15073.5. Staff determined that the MND did not need to be recirculated for public review. This is because one of the sites, Parcel H, had been analyzed in 2012 for potential mixed use development of up to 105 dwellings and 5,000 square feet of retail commercial. The current project proposes potential Medium Density Residential development at 45 rather than 105 dwellings and without the retail commercial uses, a substantial reduction from the prior analyzed development. Further, the potential 45 units were assumed in the MND through the Stage 1 Development Plan zoning. The additional applications identified project lotting patterns, internal circulation, architecture and landscaping; however, these additional features do not raise new or affect previously identified significant impacts, mitigation measures, or the findings of the MND. The other site, Neighborhood 7, had also been analyzed in 2012 for potential residential development of up to 100 units under a dual residential/school land use designation allowing future development of either school or residential uses. The additional application now proposes 105 units. Staff determined that the additional 5 lots in Neighborhood 7 would not add a new significant impact or require additional mitigation beyond those identified in the MND and prior CEQA reviews and would not otherwise trigger the recirculation standards under CEQA Guidelines section 15073.5; and WHEREAS, t o document the determination that the additional development applications on Parcel H and Neighborhood 7 did not trigger recirculation of the MND, staff prepared an appendix to the MND which is attached as Exhibit C. As documented in the MND and appendix for the currently proposed approvals, other than the impacts identified in the MND, the Project proposals in the additional applications will not result in new, avoidable significant impacts 2 requiring additional mitigation measures beyond those previously adopted and those identified in the MND. Further, all previously adopted mitigation measures continue to apply to the development sites unless otherwise specified in the MND. The prior environmental reviews are identified in the MND and are available for review at City Hall during normal business hours; and WHEREAS, the prior EIRs identified significant unavoidable impacts that could apply to the Project; therefore, approval of the Project must be supported by a Statement of Overriding Considerations; and WHEREAS, a staff report, dated September 22, 2015 and incorporated herein by reference, described and analyzed the Mitigated Negative Declaration (including appendix and comments and responses to comments) and the Project for the Planning Commission; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission reviewed the staff report and the Mitigated Negative Declaration (including appendix, comments and responses to comments) at a noticed public hearing on September 22, 2015 at which time all interested parties had the opportunity to be heard; and WHEREAS, following the public hearing, the Planning Commission, adopted Resolution 15-08 recommending that the City Council not adopt the above-referenced Mitigated Negative Declaration; and WHEREAS, a staff report, dated October 6, 2015 and incorporated herein by reference, described and analyzed the Mitigated Negative Declaration (including appendix, comments and responses to comments), the Project, and the Planning Commission recommendations for the City Council; and WHEREAS, the City Council reviewed the staff report, the Mitigated Negative Declaration (including appendix, comments and responses to comments), and the Planning Commission recommendations at a noticed public hearing on October 6, 2015 at which time all interested parties had the opportunity to be heard; and WHEREAS , the Mitigated Negative Declaration includes the above referenced comments and responses to comments, appendix and consists of attached Exhibits A, B and C, and reflects the City’s independent judgment and analysis on the potential for environmental impacts from the Project. The Mitigated Negative Declaration (including Exhibits A, B and C) and related project and environmental documents, including the prior Eastern Dublin EIR and all of the prior environmental documents referenced in the Mitigated Negative Declaration are incorporated herein by reference, and are available for review in the City Planning Division at the Dublin City Hall, during normal business hours. The custodian of the documents and other materials which constitute the record of proceedings for the Project is the City of Dublin Community Development Department, 100 Civic Plaza, Dublin CA 94568, attn: Mike Porto. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT the foregoing recitals are true and correct and made a part of this resolution. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT the City Council hereby finds as follows: 1. The Mitigated Negative Declaration together with the previously certified EIRs and other referenced prior CEQA documents adequately describe the impacts of the Project. 3 2. There is no substantial evidence in light of the whole record before the City (including the initial study and comments received) that the Project, as mitigated, will have a significant effect on the environment beyond those identified in the MND and prior CEQA documents. 3. The Mitigated Negative Declaration reflects the City’s independent judgment and analysis as to the potential environmental effects of the Project. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT the Dublin City Council has reviewed and considered the Mitigated Negative Declaration prior to taking action on the Project applications. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council hereby adopts the Mitigated Negative Declaration consisting of attached Exhibits A, B and C, and adopts the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program attached as Exhibit D, and adopts the Statement of Overriding Considerations attached as Exhibit E. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this ___ day of _____, 2015. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ______________________ Mayor ATTEST : ____________________________________ City Clerk 4 OF QQ Mf RECEIVE[ 82 CITY OF DUBLIN 6- 0 a 20 ' l �. 100 Civic Plaza, Dublin, California 94568 Website: http: / /www.dublin.ca.gov Notice of Intent to Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration for a General Plan Amendment, Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment and other actions for various properties in the Eastern Dublin Planning Area The City of Dublin has prepared an Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative Declaration for public review as follows: PROJECT: Consideration of a General Plan Amendment, an amendment to the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan, Planned Development rezoning and Stage 1 Planned Development amendments for portions of the Jordan Ranch (re- designating an existing Community Park site to a joint School/Park site and changing an existing Mixed Use land use to Medium Density Residential); Subarea 3 (re- designating 10.75 acres from Rural Residential/Agricultural to Park/Public Recreation); and the Wallis Ranch (re- designating a 1.9 acre site in the south portion of the property from Semi - Public to Park land) properties in the Eastern Dublin Planning area. LOCATIONS: Jordan Ranch: East of Fallon Road, north and south of Central Parkway. Subarea 3: South of Central Parkway, north of Dublin Boulevard. Wallis Ranch: West of Tassajara Road, south of City limit line and east of Camp Parks RFTA. SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS ANTICIPATED: Traffic, pedestrian and bicycle safety. APPLICANTS: City of Dublin Lennar Homes BJP ROF Jordan Ranch LLC 100 Civic Plaza 6111 Bollinger Canyon, #550 c/o Mission Valley Properties Dublin CA 94568 San Ramon, CA 94583 5000 Hopyard Road, Ste. 170 Pleasanton, CA 94588 COMMENT PERIOD: The comment period begins on August 7, 2015. The close of comment period for the Mitigated Negative Declaration is 5:00 pm, September 8, 2015. Comments should be forwarded to: City of Dublin — Community Development Department Attn: Michael Porto 100 Civic Plaza Dublin CA 94568 For further information contact Michael Porto, Project Planner, at the City of Dublin Community Development Department at (925) 833 6610. The Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative Declaration and referenced documents will be available at City Hall, 100 Civic Plaza, Dublin, CA [note: per 15072(g)(4)] during business hours. �(_51K"Lo Luke Sims, AICP Community Development Director Dated: August 3, 2015 Published: August 7, 2015 Area Code (925) • City Manager 833 -6650 • City Council 833 -6650 • Personnel 833 -6605 • Economic Development 833 -6650 Finance 833 -6640 • Public Works/ Engineering 833 -6630 • Parks & Community Services 833 -6645 • Police 833 -6670 Planning/ Code Enforcement 833 -6610 • Building Inspection 833 -6620 • Fire Prevention Bureau 833 -6606 Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative Declaration Project: General Plan Amendment/EDSP Amendment for Jordan Ranch Subarea 3 Wallis Ranch Lead Agency: City of Dublin August 2015 Table of Contents Introduction................................................................................... ............................... 2 Prior Environmental Impact Reviews ........................................ ............................... 2 Applicant/ Contact Persons ......................................................... ............................... 7 ProjectDescription ........................................................................ ............................... 7 Environmental Factors Potentially Affected ........................... ............................... 24 Determination.............................................................................. ............................... 24 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts ..................................... ............................... 26 Environmental Impacts .............................................................. ............................... 27 Earlier Analyses/ Incorporation by Reference ........................ ............................... 37 Discussion of Checklist .............................................................. ............................... 39 1. Aesthetics ......................................................................... ............................... 39 2. Agricultural & Forestry Resources ............................... ............................... 43 3. Air Quality ....................................................................... ............................... 44 4. Biological Resources ....................................................... ............................... 54 5. Cultural Resources .......................................................... ............................... 60 6. Geology and Soils ........................................................... ............................... 63 7. Greenhouse Gas Emissions ............................................ ............................... 66 8. Hazards and Hazardous Materials .............................. ............................... 67 9. Hydrology and Water Quality ...................................... ............................... 72 10. Land Use and Planning ................................................ ............................... 76 11. Mineral Resources ......................................................... ............................... 77 12. Noise ............................................................................... ............................... 78 13. Population and Housing .............................................. ............................... 87 14. Public Services ............................................................... ............................... 88 15. Recreation ......................................................................... .............................90 16. Transportation/ Traffic ................................................. ............................... 93 17. Utilities and Service Systems ..................................... ............................... 106 18. Mandatory Findings of Significance ........................ ............................... 109 Initial Study Preparers ............................................................. ............................... 110 Agencies and Organizations Consulted ................................ ............................... 110 References.................................................................................. ............................... 111 Attachment 1- Traffic Analysis/ Supplemental Memo ......... ............................... 112 INITIAL STUDY Eastern Dublin Planning Area - Jordan Ranch, Wallis Ranch & Subarea 3 Properties City of Dublin Environmental Checklist/ Initial Study Introduction This Initial Study has been prepared in accordance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act ( "CEQA ", Pub. Res. Code §§ 21000 et seq.,) and the CEQA Guidelines (Cal. Code Regs. title 14, §§ 15000 - 15387). This Initial Study analyzes whether any further environmental review is required for portions of three properties located in the Eastern Dublin Planning area under the standards of Public Resources Code section 21166 and CEQA Guidelines sections 15162 and 15163. Development of the three properties has been previously analyzed in one environmental impact report, three supplemental environmental impact reports and a number of Addendums to these documents. These are fully described below in this Initial Study. This Initial Study analyzes whether additional minor changes to the development program for the Jordan Ranch property, Subarea 3 property and the Wallis Ranch property would result in any new or substantially more severe significant environmental impacts than those analyzed in these prior CEQA documents or whether any other of the other standards requiring further environmental review under CEQA are met. This Initial Study assesses program changes and development -level activities to implement that program through a General Plan Amendment, an Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment, Stage 1 rezoning and other related entitlements for the three Subareas. Prior Environmental Impact Review Documents This Initial Study consists of a completed environmental checklist and a brief explanation of the environmental topics addressed in the checklist. A considerable amount of CEQA work has been done already for future development in Eastern Dublin, including the project Subareas. These are identified below. Eastern Dublin EIR (all Subareas) A program -level EIR was certified by the City of Dublin in 1993 that includes all of three properties that are the subject of this document. Certified through Resolution No. 51 -93 by the City of Dublin in 1993, for the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan (Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan Environmental Impact City of Dublin Page 2 Initial Study /Eastern Dublin Properties August 2015 Report, State Clearinghouse No. 91103064). This document will be referred to as the "Eastern Dublin EIR" or "EDEIR" in this Initial Study. The Eastern Dublin EIR evaluated the following impacts: Land Use; Population, Employment and Housing; Traffic and Circulation; Community Services and Facilities; Sewer, Water and Storm Drainage; Soils, Geology and Seismicity; Biological Resources; Visual Resources; Cultural Resources; Noise; Air Quality; and Fiscal Considerations. As part of the City's approval of the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan through Resolution No. 53 -93, the City Council adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations for the following impacts: cumulative loss of agriculture and open space land, cumulative traffic, extension of certain community facilities (natural gas, electric and telephone service), consumption of non - renewable natural resources, increases in energy uses through increased water treatment and disposal and through operation of the water distribution system, inducement of substantial growth and concentration of population, earthquake ground shaking, loss or degradation of botanically sensitive habitat, regional air quality, noise and visual. The Eastern Dublin EIR was challenged in court and was found to be legally adequate. The City Council also certified an Addendum dated May 4, 1993 which assessed the modifications to the Reduced Planning Area alternative and concluded that this alternative "will have no environmental impacts not addressed in the Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan." (May 4, 1993 Addendum, p. 1.) The Addendum further concluded that no subsequent or supplemental EIR was required under CEQA Guidelines section 15162 or 15163 for approval of the modified alternative. A second Addendum was later prepared, dated August 22, 1994. The second Addendum updated plans for providing sewer services to Eastern Dublin. The May 10, 1993 certified EIR, the May 4, 1993 Addendum and the August 22, 1994 Addendum are collectively referred to hereafter as the Eastern Dublin EIR, or the "EDEIR" and are incorporated herein by reference into this Initial Study. These documents are available for review at the Dublin Community Development Department during normal business hours. Eastern Dublin Property Owner Supplemental EIR (Tordan Ranch Subarea). In 2001, the East Dublin Property Owners (EDPO) requested annexation, pre - zoning and related approvals for a 1,120 acre Project Area, including the Jordan Ranch Property. The Project Area was within the development area previously approved by the City in 1993; and was within the scope of the project /program analyzed in the Eastern Dublin EIR. In response to EDPO and consistent with the City's practice for projects in Eastern Dublin, in 2001 the City prepared an Initial Study to determine if the annexation and pre- zoning requests would require additional environmental review beyond that set forth in the Eastern Dublin EIR. That 2001 Initial Study disclosed that many of the anticipated impacts of the proposed annexation and pre- zoning were adequately addressed in the Eastern Dublin EIR. This was predictable given the comprehensive planning for the development area; the Eastern Dublin EIR's analysis of buildout under the Dublin General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan land use designations and policies; the long term 20 -30 year focus of the Dublin General Plan, Eastern Dublin Specific Plan and City of Dublin Page 3 Initial Study /Eastern Dublin Properties August 2015 Eastern Dublin EIR analyses; the fact that annexation and pre- zoning actions were specifically contemplated in the Eastern Dublin EIR; and the fact that the annexation request proposed the same land uses analyzed for the Project Area in the Eastern Dublin EIR. Although the 2001 Initial Study concluded that the Eastern Dublin EIR adequately analyzed most of the potential environmental impacts of the proposed annexation and rezoning, it also identified the potential for some new significant impacts or substantially intensified impacts beyond those analyzed in the Eastern Dublin EIR. The City determined that the potential new and/or substantially intensified impacts required review at an EIR level and concluded that a Supplemental EIR should be prepared. So, in 2001 and 2002, the Eastern Dublin EIR was updated and supplemented by the East Dublin Properties Stage 1 Development Plan and Annexation Supplemental EIR (State Clearinghouse No. 2001052114). That Supplemental EIR, referred to in this Initial Study as the "2002 SEIR" provided updated analyses of agricultural resources, biology, air quality, noise, traffic and circulation, schools, and utilities. In certifying the 2002 SEIR and approving the prezoning, the City Council, through Resolution No. 40 -02, adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations for cumulative air quality and cumulative traffic impacts. The 2002 SEIR was challenged in court and was found to be legally adequate. In 2005, a second Supplemental EIR (identified as the "2005 Supplement" or "2005 SEIR" in this Initial Study) was prepared and certified by the City of Dublin for the Fallon Village project, which included the same properties as the 2002 SEIR (see City Council Resolution No. 222 -05). The second SEIR addressed new and detailed information for the proposed development areas, as well as several changes in circumstances since the prior EIRs which could have affected the impacts and /or mitigations previously identified for the Fallon Village Project. Such changes in the previously analyzed project and circumstances included, but were not limited to: 1) continued development in the Tri- Valley area and beyond with potential changes in commute patterns and traffic intensities, which also may affect air quality and noise within or on the Project area; 2) changes in the provision and distribution of some public services (schools) and public utilities (water, wastewater, and storm drainage), 3) changes in circulation patterns on the Fallon Village site; 4) completion of a Resource Management Plan (RMP) for biological and cultural resources on the Fallon Village site and additional site - specific biological and cultural resources studies which did not previously exist; 5) changes in the development density and intensity in the Fallon Village Project area that may increase impacts over those previously reviewed; and 6) submittal of Stage 2 Development Plans, subdivision maps and other permit applications containing detailed development plans for the northern portion of Fallon Village known as Positano not previously reviewed at a project level. Unlike the Eastern Dublin EIR and the 2002 SEIR, the 2005 Supplemental EIR was a combination Program -level document and a Project -level document. The program -level portion of 2005 SEIR focused on the new or substantially increased significant impacts of potential future development pursuant to a proposed General Plan, Eastern Dublin Specific Plan, and Stage 1 Development Plan amendments for the entire 1,138 -acre project area, including the Jordan Ranch Project site. Additionally, the 2005 Supplemental EIR reviewed proposed individual development projects for the northern City of Dublin Page 4 Initial Study /Eastern Dublin Properties August 2015 portion of the area, the environmental impacts they would generate, and the avoidance and mitigation measures they would employ at a project - level. The Jordan Ranch property was analyzed at a program level in this document. However, it was intended to be used as the environmental review for the approval of future project level entitlements (such as the Stage 2 Planned Development Zoning, a Vesting Tentative Tract Map and SDR) unless the standards under Public Resources Code section 21166 and CEQA Guidelines sections 15162 and 15163 were met. In 2010, the Dublin City Council approved a Planned Development Rezoning and related Stage 2 Development Plan, Site Development Review (SDR), a Vesting Tentative Tract Map, and a Development Agreement on the Jordan Ranch property. An Addendum to the Eastern Dublin and other applicable Supplemental EIRs was also certified by the City Council (City Council Resolution No. 80 -10, adopted on June 2, 2010). This action allowed a minor redistribution of uses on the site as well as a minor change to the land use program. Under the 2010 approvals, a mix of 780 dwelling units, up to 12,000 square feet of commercial uses, a range of public parks, public and semi- public uses, open spaces and roadways were approved. A second Addendum was approved by the City of Dublin in June 2012 for certain portions of the Jordan property (City Council Resolution No. 91 -12, adopted June 5, 2012). The project included an amendment to the Dublin General Plan and the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan that approved a "School" land use designation on 10.1 acres on the eastern side of the Jordan Ranch. The school was programmed to accommodate approximately 500 students plus staff. At the same time, an underlying land use designation of Medium Density Residential land uses to allow development of approximately 100 units in keeping with the mid -point of the density range if the School was not constructed was also approved. The previously designated Semi - Public and Medium High Density Residential land uses south of the School site were replaced with a Medium Density Residential land use designation with an underlying Semi - Public land use designation to allow for the potential expansion of the school site if additional acreage was needed. Finally, previous 4.5 -acre Open Space land use designation was replaced with a Mixed -Use designation that would have contained up to 5,000 square feet of retail and non - residential uses and up to 115 residences. Subarea 3 Subarea. In 2014, the City of Dublin approved an Addendum to the 1993 Eastern Dublin EIR (City Council Resolution No. 17 -14, dated May 20, 2014) and amendments to the Dublin General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment to develop portions of the 64 -acre Subarea 3 site located in the Eastern Dublin portion of the City of Dublin. The Development Plan includes construction of up to 437 dwellings at various densities and product types, internal roadways, open spaces and other related improvements. This action also changed an existing Open Space land use designation to Rural Residential/ Agriculture for a portion of the site. Previously, in 1997, a Negative Declaration was prepared for multiple properties in the Eastern Dublin area, including Planning Area A (approximately 363 acres of land) and Areas B -E (approximately 468.5 acres of land), all located north of City of Dublin Page 5 Initial Study /Eastern Dublin Properties August 2015 the I -580 Freeway, east of Tassajara Road and west of Fallon Road. This will be referred to as the "1997 ND," approved by the City Council on June 17, 1997, by City Council Resolution No. 140 -97. This CEQA document analyzed amendments to the Dublin General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan, proposed Planned Development rezoning to ensure consistency between City zoning an the General Plan and the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan. The 1997 ND included the approximately 64 acres of land in Sub Area 3 of Planning Area B, which is the subject of this analysis. Wallis Ranch Subarea. In 2004, a Supplemental Environmental Impact Report was certified by the City of Dublin for the Dublin Ranch West property, also known as the Wallis Ranch or Wallis Property. The Dublin Ranch West SEIR was certified by the City Council on March 15, 2005, by City Council Resolution No. 42 -05. This CEQA document analyzed annexation of the property to the City of Dublin and Dublin San Ramon Services District (DSRSD), amendments to the Dublin General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan, a Planned Development prezoning and Stage 1 Development Plan. Following certification of the SEIR, the City of Dublin subsequently approved a PD rezoning with related Stage 2 Development Plan for the site, a Site Development Review (SDR) permit, a vesting tentative subdivision map and a Development Agreement. The SEIR analyzed traffic and transportation and other impacts of constructing 1,034 dwellings on the site, although the City ultimately approved 935 dwellings. This SEIR identified significant and unavoidable impacts with respect to project exceedances of Bay Area Air Quality Management District air quality standards on a project and cumulative level. In 2007, the City of Dublin approved a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) to analyze improvements within approximately 11.6 acres of land located immediately north of the Wallis Ranch property that was the subject of the 2005 SEIR. This property is under the same ownership as the Wallis Ranch, but is located in the unincorporated portion of Contra Costa County rather than within Dublin and Alameda County. The analyzed the proposed placement of an Emergency Vehicle Assess (EVA), a herpetological barrier and a bioswale within this area. The MND was adopted by Dublin City Council Resolution No. 18 -07 on February 20, 2007. Proposed land use approvals included an amended Stage 1 Development Plan for Dublin Ranch West as well as a Vesting Master and Tentative Maps, Site Development Review and Development Agreement. An Addendum (City Council Resolution No. 17 -14, dated May 20, 2014) to the Dublin Ranch West SEIR was prepared by the City of Dublin in 2014. The Addendum analyzed a proposal to reduce the total number of dwellings on the Wallis Ranch property than previously approved by the City. The project, approved by the City in 2014 as well as the CEQA Addendum, reduced the total City of Dublin Page 6 Initial Study /Eastern Dublin Properties August 2015 buildout of the site from 935 to 806 dwellings, included a 3.0 acre private park not included in the previous approval and slightly relocated the alignment of on- site roadways. The Eastern Dublin EIR, 2002 SEIR, 2005 SEIR, 1997 ND and various EIR, MND and Addendum documents referenced above are collectively referred to in this Initial Study as "prior CEQA documents." This Initial Study has been prepared to address the most recently requested land use entitlements for the three Subareas as described more fully below. This Initial Study further examines whether additional environmental review is required under CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 or 15163. The resolutions, ordinances and prior CEQA documents referenced above are incorporated by reference, and are all available for review by the public during normal business hours at the Community Development Department, Dublin City Hall, 100 Civic Plaza, Dublin, 94568. Applicant /Contact Persons Jordan Ranch Mission Valley Properties Attn: Mr. Kevin Fryer 5000 Hopyard Road, Suite 170 Pleasanton, CA 94588 Phone: (925) 467 9900 Wallis Ranch Trumark Homes 4185 Blackhawk Circle Road, Suite 200 Danville, CA 94506 Christopher Davenport Phone: 925 - 309 -2503 Sub Area 3 Lennar Homes 6111 Bollinger Canyon Road, Suite 550 San Ramon, CA 94583 Michael Snoberger Phone: 925 - 327 -8306 Project Description Project location and context. The project includes proposed General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendments for three Subareas in the Eastern Dublin Planning Area. Exhibit 1 shows the regional location of Dublin within the larger Bay Area. Exhibit 2 shows the location of the three Subareas comprising the project site. These City of Dublin Page 7 Initial Study /Eastern Dublin Properties August 2015 three subareas are described below. Collectively, these three subareas constitute the "project" which is the subject of this Initial Study. • Jordan Ranch subarea. The 189 -acre Jordan Ranch is located east of Fallon Road and north and south of Central Parkway. Two portions of the overall Jordan Ranch are included in the project, as follows. Exhibit 3 shows the location of the Jordan Ranch Subarea. a) One portion consists of 11.1 acres of land located on the south side of Central Parkway at Sunset View Drive, currently designated as a "Community Park." The proposed land use designation would be to a "Park/ School" designation that would allow development of a combination elementary and middle school by the Dublin Unified School District (DUSD). The school is anticipated to accommodate approximately 950 students with joint park facilities on the site. Assuming this project is approved, the existing portion of the Jordan Ranch designated for a future "School," located on the eastern side of the Jordan Ranch, would be developed consistent with it's underlying General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan land use designation of Medium Density Residential (6.1 to 14 du/ ac). This would allow between 68 and 154 dwellings could be accommodated on the site. Up to 112 dwellings are proposed on the former School site if the project is approved. b) The second portion of the Jordan Ranch Subarea would include replacing an existing 4.6 -acre "Mixed Use" land use designation that would currently allow up to 115 residential units and up to 5,000 square feet of retail commercial uses with a "Medium Density Residential (6.1 -14.0 du/ ac.)" land use designation that would allow development of between 28 and 64 dwellings. Up to 45 dwellings are proposed on this site. The two portions of Jordan Ranch Subarea are vacant and were used for cattle grazing, but have been graded as part of the larger, approved Jordan Ranch project. Surrounding land uses include Dublin Sports Park, being developed on the west side of Fallon Road, west of the project site, single family residences in the Positano community to the north and generally vacant lands to the east and south. Proposed General Plan and EDSP Amendments included in this project include: Subarea 3. The 64 -acre Subarea 3 is located south of Central Parkway, west of Fallon Road and north of Dublin Boulevard. Lockhart Street forms the western boundary of the site. Exhibit 4 shows the location of this Subarea, The project includes changing the Dublin General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan land use designation from "Rural Residential / Agriculture" to "Parks / Public Recreation" for 10.75 acres of the overall property. This area is generally located City of Dublin Page 8 Initial Study /Eastern Dublin Properties August 2015 in the south - central portion of the site, is vacant and is characterized by moderate to steep slopes. Land to the west of Subarea 3, west of Lockhart Street, has been developed for attached dwelling units or is vacant. Land north of Subarea 3 is currently vacant and is planned for a future expansion of Fallon Sports Park. Property east of the Subarea is vacant. Land use south of Subarea 3 includes a combination of commercial uses (Fallon Gateway Center) and vacant land. Wallis Ranch. The Wallis Ranch consists of 184.1 acres of land located in northern portion of Dublin generally bounded by the Alameda / Contra Costa line to the north, Parks Reserve Forces Training Area (Parks RFTA) to the west, Tassajara Road to the east and the Tassajara Creek to the south. The approved Wallis includes approximately 1.9 acres of land that is designed for Semi Public uses in the Dublin General Plan and the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan. The project includes amendments to both of these documents to change the designation from Semi Public to "Parks/ Public Recreation" use. Exhibit 5 shows the location of the Wallis Ranch Subarea. The sites on the Wallis Ranch property are currently vacant. Project Characteristics Overview. Amendments have been requested to both the Dublin General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan to change land use designations for three areas of the Eastern Dublin Planning area. The proposed changes are described by the subareas described in the previous section. Jordan Ranch subarea. Proposed General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan land use changes to the two portions of the overall Jordan Ranch property are shown on Exhibit 6. The City of Dublin and the Dublin Unified School District have entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) whereby the proposed Elementary School on the Jordan Ranch property would be relocated to another portion of the property. The existing 10.1 -acre "School" site located in the approximate center of the overall Jordan Ranch would be developed as "Medium Density Residential," consistent with the site's underlying General Plan and Specific Plan land use designation. This portion of the Subarea would have a development capacity of between 68 and 154 dwellings. Up to 112 dwellings are currently proposed on this site. The first portion of the Jordan Ranch Subarea consists of 11.1 acres of land located on the south side of Central Parkway designated as a "Community Park." The proposed land use designation for this site is proposed to be a combined "School/ Park/ Public Recreation" to facilitate the development of a City of Dublin Page 9 Initial Study /Eastern Dublin Properties August 2015 combination elementary school and middle school with a maximum enrollment of up to 950 students and associated faculty. There would be some joint use of the site as a City park. Previous CEQA analyses conducted by the City assumed development of a 500 - student school within the Jordan Ranch property. The second portion of the Jordan Ranch affected by this application includes 4.6 acres of land located on the northeast corner of Central Parkway and Fallon Road. This property is currently designated for "Mixed Use." The proposed change is from "Mixed Use" that would allow development of up 115 residential units and up to 5,000 square feet of retail commercial space to "Medium Density Residential (6.1 -14.0 du / ac)" that would permit development of up to 45 dwellings. Table 1 shows approved and proposed land use designations on the Jordan Ranch property. City of Dublin Page 10 Initial Study /Eastern Dublin Properties August 2015 v FBI �i t� i-i O v Q .IZ v O O �r V �i t� X W ri y lz 3 LO 'o cn s EE �22 �o N W s cu Q cu E O O � O U -a ql) O CU m � m cu v, Z3 Z m zz a Z3 of EE cu cu °oa m o q Ld N N c Z3 CU s QL E ~ Q. C Z3 C � a o� a cc c 4 y cu sp EE Lo c a o cu q) -a rp) 0 CO 0 O C a -1-- C p -rj p q C 4 > 0 k m ro iU 0 U o m-0 ° mo O 3 E o ro m o c � c 0) E?Q) o co O D N - C E CU CU 1 N o C O 3 cz W c c o O > `0=° 00 nc ='o oEE 3 (A Q U �s cz cn N co 00 N cz N Ln 00 P'� O ,y O Z N � cl co cu� Q � � N cu 00 N �--I Ln 00 O En ed C! + 4-; 1 Z O v c�i n : O °'�o �3 oQ v 75 Ln N p ('� t--I t--I 00 N t--I Ln 00 C,4 o O .s v O �' CS' cu cu O N Ln N � p 3z'� +o cu Q Ln Iri _ y N N 00 �p r 00 N p eM U N � � N N" Lr) 0 O bA p d N O .� N � + O Az u x .. G a a Q� ���v o x�.��� U] cn 3 LO 'o cn s EE �22 �o N W s cu Q cu E O O � O U -a ql) O CU m � m cu v, Z3 Z m zz a Z3 of EE cu cu °oa m o q Ld N N c Z3 CU s QL E ~ Q. C Z3 C � a o� a cc c 4 y cu sp EE Lo c a o cu q) -a rp) 0 CO 0 O C a -1-- C p -rj p q C 4 > 0 k m ro iU 0 U o m-0 ° mo O 3 E o ro m o c � c 0) E?Q) o co O D N - C E CU CU 1 N o C O 3 cz W c c o O > `0=° 00 nc ='o oEE 3 (A Q U �s cz Subarea 3. The 64 -acre Subarea 3 is located south of Central Parkway, west of Fallon Road and north of Dublin Boulevard. Lockhart Street forms the western boundary of the site. The project includes changing the Dublin General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan land Use designation from "Rural Residential/ Agriculture" to "Parks/ Public Recreation" for 10.75 acres of the overall property. This area is generally located in the south - central portion of the site, is vacant and is characterized by moderate to steep slopes. Exhibit 7 shows the proposed General Plan and EDSP designations for this subarea. The proposed park is intended as a primarily passive open space feature and minimal activity is anticipated to occur on this portion of the site. Wallis Ranch Subarea. The existing Dublin General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan for the Wallis Ranch property includes approximately 1.9 acres of land that is designated for "Semi Public" uses that would allow a range of uses including but not limited to day care centers, youth centers, senior centers and similar uses. The project includes amendments to the General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan to change the designation from "Semi Public" to "Park/ Public Recreation" use. The proposed General Plan and EDSP Amendment is shown on Exhibit S. PD Rezoning and Stage 1 and 2 Development Plan. Stage 1 Development Plan amendments are proposed for all of the areas affected by this application. Stage 2 Rezoning and Site Development Reviews (SDR) will need to be approved by the City of Dublin in the future to allow future development on each of the properties affected by this application. Building Designs. Future building designs will be subject to SDR approval by the City of Dublin. Access, Circulation and Parkin. Access to and from each of the various properties comprising the project would not change from existing patterns. It is anticipated that the School proposed on the Jordan property would take primary access at the signalized Central Parkway / Sunset View Drive intersection. Utility Services: Utility services to support proposed land uses would be supplied by Dublin San Ramon Services District ( DSRSD). DSRSD is currently providing domestic water, recycled water and sanitary sewer service to the larger Jordan Ranch, Subarea 3 and Wallis Ranch properties. Water Quality Protection. The future improvements on each of the various subareas comprising the project area will be to be subject to Best Management Practices to support water quality standards as enforced by the City of Dublin. This may include but will not be limited to construction of vegetated bio - swales, bio- retention basins and similar facilities. Water quality improvements will be required to be approved by the City of Dublin prior to issuance of any building permits. City of Dublin Page 12 Initial Study /Eastern Dublin Properties August 2015 Project Grading. A majority of the Subareas have been rough graded as part of adjoining, approved development projects. Additional fine grading would occur on most of the Subareas to accommodate future improvements. An exception would include 10.75 acres of Subarea 3, which has been rough graded, but which is proposed to remain as a natural park area. Development Agreements. The City of Dublin has entered into Development Agreements with the owners of three properties included in the application. Amendments may be required to some or all of these Development Agreements. Amendments to the terms of the Development Agreement(s) are not anticipated to result in any significant environmental impacts beyond those caused by the implementation of the project analyzed in this Initial Study. Requested land use entitlements. The following land use entitlements have been requested to allow implementation of the proposed Project: • General Plan Amendment (GPA) to modify land uses as described above; • Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment (EDSPA) to modify land uses as described above; • Planned Development rezoning with Stage 1 Development Plan amendments for consistency with the GPA /EDSPA; • Amendments to current Development Agreement(s), where applicable City of Dublin Page 13 Initial Study /Eastern Dublin Properties August 2015 - - - - - - - - - - ..,, I\\ - 4' N O R T H NTS MACKAY & SOMPS ucw¢s w.wws wzcmu I I z — — — — 1 -580 UB ARE 3 EXHIBIT 2 EASTERN DUBLIN General Plan Amendment MAY 2015 VICINITY MAP 05 -19 -2015 4:30pm Amanda Karchefski P: \19728 \PLN \EXH —P \EASTERN DUBLIN PROPERTIES EXHIBIT_2O15O519.DWG WALLIS - - RANCH` � I I I o� I I f r� ob I I I I I I I I I JORDAN DUBLIN D��o RANCH PoSITANO �I ARKWA I 9 a � D WAY �I o �I k�DN o,� LLI $F1' DRIYC ?o I� CENTRAL L - - - - - - - - - - ..,, I\\ - 4' N O R T H NTS MACKAY & SOMPS ucw¢s w.wws wzcmu I I z — — — — 1 -580 UB ARE 3 EXHIBIT 2 EASTERN DUBLIN General Plan Amendment MAY 2015 VICINITY MAP 05 -19 -2015 4:30pm Amanda Karchefski P: \19728 \PLN \EXH —P \EASTERN DUBLIN PROPERTIES EXHIBIT_2O15O519.DWG AQ spous PARK .*' Ak wT (BY OTI IERSI� ' x vt _ t >. ` N O R T H NTS MACKAY & SOMPS OPEN OPEN SPACE NEIGHBORHOOD PARK RANCH SUB vF.IGHF�fi 100D �� '' f } ."•., t EXHIBIT 3 JORDAN RANCH GPA &SPA SUB AREA LOCATION MAY 2015 AMR a i AQ spous PARK .*' Ak wT (BY OTI IERSI� ' x vt _ t >. ` N O R T H NTS MACKAY & SOMPS OPEN OPEN SPACE NEIGHBORHOOD PARK RANCH SUB vF.IGHF�fi 100D �� '' f } ."•., t EXHIBIT 3 JORDAN RANCH GPA &SPA SUB AREA LOCATION MAY 2015 lO Z \ SUB AREA �O \ O \ I \ w Iw of I-- / I of / z I 0 � \ I � I EXHIBIT 4 SUB AREA 3 N O R T H NTS GPA & SPA MUKAY & SOMPS SUB AREA LOCATION e- I... wM,e orn MAY 2015 0 - 22 -22-020151021*24orr�mandoAKgp*dty4d�} �N \EgH. \Rggl2I S[V1A E IRTUDY_EXHIBIT 4_SUB3.DWG 1 �= r7 _ . _•u -' _ ..� L ._ � � a F, G .r. t,.�- 1GOEv.,i'2 M :+ 2-T1 WALLIS RANCH SUB AREA NOR T ti NTS MACKRY & SOWS )6-23-2015 9:07am Amanda Karchefsk?: NG\GPA—EDSPA\INITIAL STUDY EXHIBIT 5.DWG 1-1--i EXHIBIT 5 WALLIS RANCH GPA & SPA SUB AREA LOCATION JUNE 2015 4 - , "3 xNN ;*raa�. Y�"�51 x t (e �»hx� -=`�s. •^'� ter` NCIGI-IBORIIOOD , T r d PARK r r r �� EXISTING LAND USE " lr n f 1S, } r. N fi MIXED USE � yn a � �..PXOPOSED LAND USE: : 1 MEDIUM DENSITY r ` "i x�� s+ t C RESIDENTIAL { SPORTS PARK v n (BY OTI IERSI g ',� x wa NN {` ..9 V + �,'^y" tom` 101.1� 11 -'f,, z•! c�;' "z OPEN SPACE .✓ �.' ti r � EXISTING LAND USE:" N O R T H NTS MACKAIf & SOMPS EXHIBIT 6 JORDAN RANCH GPA &SPA EXISTING & PROPOSED USES MAY 2015 t,� #f z COMMUNITY PARK ' " P 6 W, by c APROPOSEDL9NDUSE: t z ,ny .. - OPEN SPACE .upr + T IiCH00RHOOD ""a _ SOUAiir Sh rr Y N O R T H NTS MACKAIf & SOMPS EXHIBIT 6 JORDAN RANCH GPA &SPA EXISTING & PROPOSED USES MAY 2015 co 40� N 0 R T H NTS MACKAY & SOM 9&-20620N 15 3520*2pm Amondc;ANajtdf3P�cY $h'�diN\EFHJ 7� 0 0 70 EXHIBIT 7 SUB AREA 3 GPA & SPA EXISTING & PROPOSED USES DY—EXHIBIT 4—SUB3.DWG / EXISTING LAND USE: PUBLIC /SEMI PUBLIC PROPOSED LAND USE: PARK I I I I i \11 I I 1 1 J EXHIBIT 8 N O R T H WALLIS RANCH NTS GPA & SPA EXISTING & PROPOSED USES MACKAY & SONS MAY 2015 06 -17 -2015 2:29pm Amanda Karchelsi?: \19604 \PLANNING \GPA_EDSPA \INITIAL STUDY—EXHIBIT S.DWG 1. Project description: The applicant requests approval of a General Plan Amendment, an amendment to the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan, Planned Development rezoning and Stage 1 Planned Development amendments for portions of the following properties in the Eastern Dublin Planning area: Jordan Ranch: Redesignating an existing Community Park site on the south side of Central Parkway at Sunset View Drive to a joint School/ Park site; changing an existing Mixed Use land use designation on the northeast corner of Fallon Road and Central Parkway to Medium Density Residential. Subarea 3: Redesignating 10.75 acres of the site from Rural Residential/ Agricultural to Park/ Public Recreation. Wallis Ranch: Redesignating a 1.9 -acre site in the south portion of this property from Semi - Public to a Park land use designation. 2. Lead agency: City of Dublin 100 Civic Plaza Dublin, CA 94583 3. Contact person: Mike Porto, Dublin Planning Department (925) 833 6610 4. Project locations: Jordan Ranch: East of Fallon Road, north and south of Central Parkway. Subarea 3: South of Central Parkway, north of Dublin Boulevard. Wallis Ranch: West of Tassajara Road, south of City limit line and east of Camp Parks RFTA. 5. Project contact persons: Tordan Ranch Mission Valley Properties Attn: Mr. Kevin Fryer 5000 Hopyard Road, Suite 170 Pleasanton, CA 94588 Phone: 925 467 -9900 City of Dublin Page 22 Initial Study /Eastern Dublin Properties August 2015 6. Existing General Plan & Specific Plan Land Use designations: Wallis Ranch Trumark Homes 4185 Blackhawk Circle Road, Suite 200 Danville, CA 94506 Christopher Davenport Phone: 925 309 -2503 Sub Area 3 Lennar Homes 6111 Bollinger Canyon Road, Suite 550 San Ramon, CA 94583 Michael Snoberger Phone: 925 327 -8306 Jordan Ranch: Mixed -Use, School & Community Park Subarea 3: Rural Residential/ Agriculture Wallis Ranch: Semi - Public. 7. Proposed General Plan & Jordan Ranch: Medium Density Residential Specific Plan Land Use (6.1 -14.0 du /ac.)/ School /Park designations: Subarea 3: Park/ Public Recreation Wallis Ranch: Park/ Public Recreation 8. Existing & Proposed PD- Planned Development Zoning: 9. Other public agency necessary, potential and /or desired approvals: • Grading Plans, Improvement Plans, and Building Permits (Dublin) • Sewer and water connections (DSRSD) • Encroachment permits (City of Dublin) • Notice of Intent (State Water Resources Control Board) City of Dublin Page 23 Initial Study /Eastern Dublin Properties August 2015 Environmental Factors Potentially Affected The environmental factors checked below may be potentially affected by this Project, involving at least one impact that is a "potentially significant impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. - Aesthetics - Agricultural - Air Quality Resources - Biological - Cultural Resources - Geology / Soils Resources - Hazards and - Hydrology /Water - Land Use/ Hazardous Quality Planning Materials - Mineral Resources - Noise - Population/ Housing - Public Services - Recreation X Transportation/ Circulation - Utilities/ Service - Mandatory Systems Findings of Significance Determination On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the proposed Project could not have a significant effect on the environment and a Negative Declaration will be prepared. I find that the proposed Project could not have a significant effect on the environment and a Addendum will be prepared. X I find that although the proposed Project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the Project. A Mitigated Negative Declaration will be prepared. I find that although the proposed project may have a significant effect on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on earlier analysis as described on the attached sheets, if the effect is a "potentially significant impact" or City of Dublin Page 24 Initial Study /Eastern Dublin Properties August 2015 "potentially significant unless mitigated." An Environmental Impact Report is required, but must only analyze the effects that remain to be addressed. Signature: Wax 1 a+o Date: • f 04 C Printed Name: Michael Porto, Planning Consultant For: City of Dublin Community Development Department City of Dublin Page 25 Initial Study /Eastern Dublin Properties August 2015 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts 1) A brief explanation is required for all answers. Certain "no impact" answers are supported by the information sources the lead agency cites in the parenthesis following each question. A "no impact" answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g. the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A "no new impact" answer applies where there is no impact of the proposed project beyond that which was considered previously in the 1993 EIR, the 2002 SEIR, the 2005 SEIR, or other prior EIR or MND.. A "no impact /no new impact" answer should be explained where it is based on project- specific factors as well as general factors (e.g. the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project- specific screening analysis). 2) All answers must take account of the whole action, including off -site as well as on -site, cumulative as well as project - level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts. 3) "Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect is significant. It there are one or more "potentially significant impact" entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required. 4) "Negative Declaration: Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated" implies elsewhere the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "potentially significant effect" to a "less than significant impact ". The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level. City of Dublin Page 26 Initial Study /Eastern Dublin Properties August 2015 Environmental Impacts (Note: Source of determination listed in parenthesis. See listing of sources at end of checklist used to determine each potential impact). Note: A full discussion of each item is found following the checklist. Aesthetics. Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse impact on a scenic vista? b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including but not limited to trees, rock outcroppings and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? (Source: 2,3,4,8) c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? (Source: 2,3,4,8) d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare, which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? (Source: 8) 2. Agricultural Resources. Would the project: a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland or Farmland of Statewide Importance, as show on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to a non - agricultural use? (Source: 2,3,4) b) Conflict with existing zoning for agriculture use or a Williamson Act contract? (2) c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of forestland (as defined by PRC Sec. 12220(g), timberland (as defined in PRC Sec. 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined in PRC Sec. 51104 (g)? (Source: 1,2,7) d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non - forest use? (1,8) e) Involve other changes in the existing environment that, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of farmland to a non - agricultural use or conversion of forestland to a non - forest use? (Source: 8) City of Dublin Initial Study /Eastern Dublin Properties Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Less than Significant Impact No New Impact X X X X X X X X X Page 27 August 2015 3. Air Quality (Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management district may be relied on to make the following determinations). Would the project: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? (Source: 2) b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? (Source: 2,9) c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non - attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors? (2) d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? (2,8) e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? (2, 8) 4. Biological Resources. Would the project a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive or special status species in local or regional plans, policies or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? (2,3,4) b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies or regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? (2,3,4) c) Have a substantial adverse impact on federally protected wetlands (including but not limited to marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption or other means? (2, 3,4) City of Dublin Initial Study /Eastern Dublin Properties Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Less than Significant Impact No New Impact X X X X X X X X Page 28 August 2015 d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? (2,3,4) e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? f) Conflict with the provision of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan or other approved local, regional or state habitat conservation plan? (Source: 1, 2) 5. Cultural Resources. Would the project a) Cause a substantial adverse impact in the significance of a historical resource as defined in Sec. 15064.5? (Source: 2,3,4) b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archeological resource pursuant to Sec. 15064.5? (Source: 2,3,4) c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or unique geologic feature? (Source: 2,3,4) d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of a formal cemetery? (2, 8) 6. Geology and Soils. Would the project a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist - Priolo Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist or based on other known evidence of a known fault? (Source: 1, 3) ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? (2,3,4) iii) Seismic - related ground failure, including liquefaction? (Source: 2,3,4) iv) Landslides? (Source: 2,3,4) b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? (Source: 2,3,4) City of Dublin Initial Study /Eastern Dublin Properties Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Less than Significant Impact No New Impact X X X X X X X X X X X X Page 29 August 2015 c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project and potentially result in on- and off -site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? (2) d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18 -1 -B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? (Source: 2) e) Have soils capable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for wastewater disposal? (7 ) 7. Greenhouse Gas Emissions. Would the project: a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment? (7) b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases? 8. Hazards and Hazardous Materials. Would the project: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use or disposal of hazardous materials? (2,3,5 5) b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous into the environment? (2,3) c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one - quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? (Source: 2,3,4) City of Dublin Initial Study /Eastern Dublin Properties Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Less than Significant Impact No New Impact X X X X X X X X Page 30 August 2015 d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites complied pursuant to Government Code Sec. 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? (9) e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such plan has not been adopted, within 2 miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? (Source: 2, 9) f) For a project within the vicinity of private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? (Source: 2, 9) g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with the adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? (Source: 2, 9) h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? (2) 9. Hydrology and Water Quality. Would the project: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? (Source: 2, 9) b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g. the production rate of existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? (Source: 2) City of Dublin Initial Study /Eastern Dublin Properties Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Less than Significant Impact No New Impact X X X X X X X Page 31 August 2015 c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off - site? (Source: 2,3,4,7) d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or areas, including through the alteration of a course or stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off -site? (Source: 2,3 ,4) e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? (Source: 2,3,4) f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? (Source: 2,3,4) g) Place housing within a 100 -year flood hazard area as mapped on a Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood delineation map? (Source: 7) h) Place within a 100 -year flood hazard area structures which impede or redirect flood flows? (Source: 7) i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, and death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? (Source: 7) j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami or mudflow? 10. Land Use and Planning. Would the project: a) Physically divide an established community? (Source: 1, 2,3,4) City of Dublin Initial Study /Eastern Dublin Properties Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Less than Significant Impact No New Impact X X X X X X X X X Page 32 August 2015 b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? (Source: 1, 2) c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? (Source: 1, 2) 11. Mineral Resources. Would the project a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? (1) b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? (Source: 1) 12. Noise. Would the proposal result in: a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? (2,5) b) Exposure of persons or to generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? (Source: 2,5) c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above existing levels without the project? (2,5) d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels without the project? (2,5) e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working n the project area to excessive noise levels? (2, 5) City of Dublin Initial Study /Eastern Dublin Properties Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Less than Significant Impact No New Impact X X X X X X X X X Page 33 August 2015 f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? (5) 13. Population and Housing. Would the project a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? (1, 2) b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? (1, 8) c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the replacement of housing elsewhere? (Source: 1, 8) 14. Public Services. Would the proposal: a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services? (Source: 7) Fire protection? Police protection? Schools? Parks? Other public facilities 15. Recreation: a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? (Source: 7) b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? (Source: 7) City of Dublin Initial Study /Eastern Dublin Properties Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Less than Significant Impact No New Impact X X X X X X X X X X X Page 34 August 2015 16. Transportation and Traffic. Would the project: a) Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system, taking into account all modes of transportation, including mass transit and all non- motorized travel and relevant components of the circulation system, including but not limited to intersections, streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths and mass transit? (Source: 2,3,4, 6) b) Conflict with an applicable congestion management program, including but not limited to, level of service and travel demand measures, or other standards established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways ? - (Source: 2,6) c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? (Source: 2,6) d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g. sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses, such as farm equipment? (Source: 6) e) Result in inadequate emergency access? (6) f) Conflict with adopted policies, plans or programs regarding public transit, bicycle or pedestrian facilities or otherwise decrease the performance of safety of such facilities? (1) 17. Utilities and Service Systems. Would the project a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? (Source: 7) City of Dublin Initial Study /Eastern Dublin Properties Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Less than Significant Impact No New Impact X X X X X X X Page 35 August 2015 b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? (7) c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? (7) d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing water entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? (7) e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the providers existing commitments? (Source: 7) f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? g) Comply with federal, state and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? (7) 18. Mandatory Findings of Significance. a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self- sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number of or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? City of Dublin Initial Study /Eastern Dublin Properties Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Less than Significant Impact No New Impact X X X X X X X Page 36 August 2015 b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ( "Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects and the effects of probable future projects). c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Less than Significant Impact No New Impact X X Sources used to determine potential environmental impacts 1. Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment/ Specific Plan 2. Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment/ Specific Plan EIR 3. 2005 Eastern Dublin Property Owners' Supplemental EIR 4. 2005 Dublin Ranch West Supplemental EIR 5. Project Acoustic Analysis (Illingworth & Rodkin) (2015) 6. Project Traffic Impact Analysis (Fehr & Peers) (2015) 7. City staff or other regulatory agency 8. Site Visit 9. Other Source XVII. Earlier Analyses and Incorporation By Reference a) Earlier analyses used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for review. The following Environmental Impact Reports have been used in the preparation of the Initial Study. All are available for review at the City of Dublin Community Development Department, 100 Civic Plaza, Dublin CA, during normal business hours. Each of the following documents are hereby incorporated by reference into this Initial Study. • Eastern Dublin Environmental Impact Report, May, 1993, (SCH #91103064) • East Dublin Properties Stage 1 Development Plan and Annexation Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report, January 2002 and Final SEIR (March 2002) (SCH #2001052114) City of Dublin Page 37 Initial Study /Eastern Dublin Properties August 2015 • Fallon Village Project Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report, August 2005 and Final SEIR (SCH #2005062010) • Initial Study /EIR Addendum, Jordan Ranch Property, City File #PA 09- 011, April 2010. This Initial Study analyzes whether any further environmental review than that performed in these prior certified CEQA documents are required for the proposed project under the standards of Public Resources Code section 21166 and CEQA Guidelines section 15162 and 15163. This Initial Study analyzes whether the proposed changes to the Dublin General Plan, Eastern Dublin and other applicable regulatory documents for portions of the Jordan Ranch, Subarea 3 and the Wallis Ranch property will result in any new or substantially more severe significant environmental impacts than those analyzed in prior CEQA documents or whether any other of the standards requiring further environmental review under CEQA are met. If the Initial Study determines that there are no new or substantially more severe environmental impacts than those analyzed in the prior CEQA documents and no CEQA standard for subsequent or supplemental review is met, then the impact is identified as "No New Impact." If the particular topic was not analyzed in a previous CEQA document and no impact is identified in this Initial Study, this be identified as a "No Impact" finding. City of Dublin Page 38 Initial Study /Eastern Dublin Properties August 2015 Discussion of Checklist 1. Aesthetics Environmental Setting The project subareas are set in a formerly rural area of Eastern Dublin that has transitioned to urban uses under the auspices of the City of Dublin General Plan Amendment and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan, adopted in 1993. Jordan Ranch Subarea: The overall Jordan Ranch site is characterized by a combination of rolling hills and grasslands with shallow to moderate topographic relief. The western portion of the site adjacent to Fallon Road are typically flatter than the eastern portion. The areas included in this application is vacant but has been rough graded as part of the larger, approved Jordan Ranch development. No creeks streams or other bodies of water are located on the three portions of the site nor are any major stands of trees or major rock outcroppings. Similarly, no existing parks, playgrounds, scenic vistas or places of public gathering are located on any of the subareas. Subarea 3 Subarea: The overall Subarea 3 is characterized by two small but distinct hills in the northern and central portions of the site that slope to the south and west. The hills are identified as "Visually Sensitive Hillsides - Restricted Development" in the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan (see EDSP Figure 6.3). No public parks, scenic vistas or scenic overlooks are located on the site. Wallis Ranch Subarea: The existing natural topography of the Wallis Ranch includes consists of steep slopes in the western portion of the site adjacent to Parks RFTA transitioning to moderate to gentle slopes in the approximate center of the site. The portion of the site lying adjacent to Tassajara Creek is generally flat. Land included in this subarea is located in the flatter, southern portion of the Wallis Ranch property. No parks or other public gathering places currently exist on this property. Scenic highways within and adjacent to the Eastern Dublin Planning area include the I- 580 freeway south of Eastern Dublin and Tassajara Road that extends in a north -south direction through Eastern Dublin. Development is underway on all three properties (Jordan Ranch, Subarea 3 and Wallis Ranch) but not on the various Subareas that are included in this project. No light sources exist on any of the project Subareas. Regulatory framework and Previous CEOA documents Eastern Dublin Specific Plan. The City of Dublin adopted the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan (EDSP) in 1993 to guide the future development of approximately 3,400 acres of land in the Eastern Dublin area. City of Dublin Page 39 Initial Study /Eastern Dublin Properties August 2015 Eastern Dublin EIR. The Eastern Dublin EIR contains a number of mitigation measures to reduce anticipated visual resource impacts from the General Plan and EDSP project. These include: • Mitigation Measure 3.8/ 1.0 reduced project impacts related to standardized tract development (IM 3.8/ A) to a less - than - significant level. This mitigation requires future developers to establish visually distinct communities which preserves the character of the natural landscape by protecting key visual elements and maintaining views from major travel corridors. Mitigation Measure 3.8 / 2.0 reduced the impact of converting the rural and open space character of the General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan area (IM 3.8 / B) but not to a less- than - significant level. The mitigation measure requires implementation of the land use plan that emphasizes retention of predominant natural features. Even with adherence to this measure, IM 3.8 / B would remain significant and unavoidable on both a project and cumulative level. • Mitigation Measure 3.8/3.0 reduced the impact of obscuring distinctive natural features of the General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan area (IM 3.8/C) but not to a less -than- significant level. The mitigation measure requires implementation of the land use plan that emphasizes retention of predominant natural features. Mitigation Measures 3.8/4.0 -4.5 reduced the impact of altering the visual quality of hillsides (IM 3.8/D) to a less- than - significant level. These mitigation measures require implementation of appropriate Eastern Dublin Specific Plan policies including but not limited to use of sensitive grading design to minimize grading, use of existing topographic features, limiting use of flat pads for construction, using building designs that conform to natural land forms, recontouring hillside to resemble existing topography and minimizing the height of cut and fill slopes. Mitigation Measures 3.8/5.0 -5.2 reduced the impact of altering the visual quality of ridges (IM 3.8/ E) to a less- than - significant level. These mitigation measures limit development on main ridges that border the Specific Plan area to the north and east but allow development on foreground hills. The measures also limit development in locations where scenic views would be obscured or would extend above a ridge top. • Mitigation Measures 3.8/7.0 and 7.1 reduced impacts on scenic vistas (IM 3.8/ I) to a less- than - significant level. These mitigation measures require protection of designated open space areas and directs the City to conduct a visual survey of the EDSP area to identify and map viewsheds. Jordan Subarea: No new or more significant aesthetic resource impacts the 1993 EDSP EIR were identified in the 2002 or 2005 Eastern Dublin Supplemental EIRs or an Addendum documents. City of Dublin Page 40 Initial Study /Eastern Dublin Properties August 2015 Subarea 3: No new or more significant aesthetic impacts were identified in the Subarea 3 Addendum or the 1997 ND. Wallis Ranch: No new or more significant impacts to aesthetic resources were identified in the 2005 Dublin Ranch West Supplemental EIR, the 2007 MND or any Addendum documents prepared for this property. Eastern Dublin Scenic Corridor Policies and Standards. In 1996, the City of Dublin adopted scenic policies and standards for the Eastern Dublin area, known as the Eastern Dublin Scenic Corridor Policies and Standards. This document identifies the Jordan Ranch as lying within Zone 5, the Fallon Village Open Space area. This corridor area is defined primarily by lands adjacent to public rights -of -way, which should be park, rural residential, open slopes or riparian drainage areas. Policy 11 states that development should "celebrate open space, with distant views as well as with foreground view and right -of -way landscaping." The proposed project will be required to adhere to all applicable mitigation measures from previous EIRs and other land use regulations dealing with aesthetics, visual conditions and light and glare. Project Impacts a) Have a substantial adverse impact on a scenic vista? No New Impact. Approval and implementation of the proposed project would result in no new or significant severe impacts regarding scenic vistas, since no scenic vistas currently exist on any of the Subareas. Approval and implementation of the project would relocate an approved school site from the eastern portion of the Jordan Ranch to a site on the south side of Central Parkway. A proposed Community Park in this location would be eliminated. However, the proposed School would be constructed with a joint public park that would allow a public gathering place and views of nearby hillsides and other features. Proposed public parks on Subarea 3 and the Wallis Ranch project would facilitate the public's ability to view scenic vistas. No new or substantially more severe impacts regarding substantial adverse impacts on scenic vistas have been identified with regard to the proposed Project that have not been analyzed in the Eastern Dublin EIR or other CEQA documents. b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including visual resources within state scenic highway? No New Impact. All of the Subareas have been graded as part of approved adjacent development projects (Jordan Ranch, Subarea 3 and Wallis Ranch), so that no scenic resources exist on these Subareas. City of Dublin Page 41 Initial Study /Eastern Dublin Properties August 2015 Approval and implementation of the proposed project would result in a public school on the south side of Central Parkway, which is currently designated for a Community Park. Views of the proposed school would be largely blocked by a range of small hills that exist north of I -580 and south of Central Parkway. No other major structures would be allowed by the project that would result in a substantial damage to scenic resources, including any resources located adjacent to a state or local scenic highway. All of the mitigation measures contained in the Eastern Dublin EIR and visual policies contained in the EDSP would apply to the current project. The Project would result in no new or substantially more severe significant impacts regarding scenic resources than have been analyzed in the prior CEQA documents. C) Substantially degrade existing visual character or the quality of the site? No New Impact. The proposed Project includes consideration of a General Plan Amendment and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment that would relocate approved uses (Jordan Ranch Subarea) and reduce future potential development on the Subarea 3 site and the Wallis Ranch Subarea. All of the Subareas have been graded and no significant visual resources remain. The Eastern Dublin EIR addressed the following potential impacts related to visual and aesthetics impacts of implementing the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan: Impact 3.8/13: Urban development of the project site will substantially alter the existing rural and open space qualities that characterize Eastern Dublin The Eastern Dublin EIR identified the following measure to mitigate this impact Mitigation Measure 3.8/2.0, "Implement the land use plan for the Project site which emphasizes retention of predominant natural features..." However, the EIR concluded that even with adherence to this mitigation, alteration of rural and open space in the Project area would remain a potentially significant impact. With adherence to Eastern Dublin Specific Plan policies to protect visual resources in Eastern Dublin and appropriate Eastern Dublin EIR mitigation measures, there would be no new or more severe significant impacts than analyzed in previous CEQA documents that affect the three Subareas. d) Create light or glare? No New Impact. The three subareas contain no light sources and construction of the proposed project would add additional light sources on the Jordan Ranch Subarea in the form of streetlights along collector and interior roads, lighting associated with school uses, as well as new housing and yard lights. Additional lights would be installed within future parks in the Wallis Ranch Subarea. For the Jordan Ranch subarea, the potential effect of increased light and glare was analyzed in the Initial Studies for the 2002 SEIR (p. 77) and the 2005 SEIR. City of Dublin Page 42 Initial Study /Eastern Dublin Properties August 2015 These analyses concluded that no significant light and glare impacts would result from development of the EDSP in the Fallon Village area, including the Jordan Ranch property. No lighting would be installed on the proposed park on the Subarea 3 site. The Initial Study adopted as part of the EIR for the Wallis Ranch Subarea found that the potential for significant light and glare impacts from build -out of the overall Wallis Ranch would be less- than - significant (p. 28). City development requirements to restrict spillover of unwanted light will apply to this proposed Project. Therefore, no new or substantially more severe significant impacts have been identified with respect to light and glare impacts than have been previously analyzed in prior CEQA documents. 2. Agricultural & Forestry Resources Environmental Setting and Previous CEQA Documents Figure 3.1 -13 contained in the Eastern Dublin EIR identifies the three Subareas as "lands of locally important farmlands." EDSP Impact 3.1 / F found that the cumulative loss of agricultural lands was a significant and unavoidable impact of urban development in the Eastern Dublin planning area. Impact 3.1 / C found the discontinuance of agricultural operations to be less- than - significant. No other impacts with respect to prime agricultural lands for any of the tree Subareas beyond those analyzed in the 1993 Eastern Dublin EIR. None of the Subareas contain any significant trees or forests. Project Impacts a,c) Convert prime farmland to a non - agricultural use or involve other changes which could result in conversion of farmland to a non - agricultural use ? No New Impact. None of the land encompassed in the three Subareas are currently used for agricultural production. Future uses of the various Subareas as parks, a school and /or residential land uses would therefore not result in such a conversion. Therefore, approval and implementation of the proposed project would result in no new or substantially more severe significant impacts than have been analyzed in prior CEQA documents. b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? No New Impact. Two of the three Subareas comprising the project are presently zoned for non - agricultural urban uses and would not conflict with any existing agricultural zoning and would not conflict with any Williamson Act Agreements. City of Dublin Page 43 Initial Study /Eastern Dublin Properties August 2015 Subarea 3 is presently designated for Rural Residential/ Agricultural land use and would be converted to future Park. Therefore, no new or more severe significant impacts would result with respect to these topics than have been previously analyzed. d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to a non forest use? No Impact. No forest land exists on any of the project Subareas and no impact would result with respect to this topic. No additional analysis is required. d) Involve other changes which, due to their location or nature, could result of forest land to a non forest use? No Impact. See item "d," above. 3. Air Quality Background. The project is located in the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin. Ambient air quality standards have been established at both the State and Federal level. The Bay Area meets all ambient air quality standards with the exception of ground -level ozone, respirable particulate matter (PMJ and fine particulate matter (PM,.,). High ozone levels are caused by the cumulative emissions of reactive organic gases (ROG) and nitrogen oxides (NOx). These precursor pollutants react under certain meteorological conditions to form high ozone levels. Controlling the emissions of these precursor pollutants is the focus of the Bay Area's attempts to reduce ozone levels. Highest ozone levels in the Bay Area occur in the eastern and southern inland valleys that are downwind of air pollutant sources. High ozone levels aggravate respiratory and cardiovascular diseases, reduced lung function, and increase coughing and chest discomfort. Particulate matter is another problematic air pollutant in the Bay Area. Particulate matter is assessed and measured in terms of respirable particulate matter or particles that have a diameter of 10 micrometers or less (PM1J and fine particulate matter where particles have a diameter of 2.5 micrometers or less (PM2.5). Elevated concentrations of PMIO and PM2_5 are the result of both region - wide (or cumulative) emissions and localized emissions. High particulate matter levels aggravate respiratory and cardiovascular diseases, reduce lung function, increase mortality (e.g., lung cancer), and result in reduced lung function growth in children. The ambient air quality in a given area depends on the quantities of pollutants emitted within the area, transport of pollutants to and from surrounding areas, local and regional meteorological conditions, as well as the surrounding topography of the air basin. Air quality is described by the concentration of various pollutants in the City of Dublin Page 44 Initial Study /Eastern Dublin Properties August 2015 atmosphere. Units of concentration are generally expressed in parts per million (ppm) or micrograms per cubic meter (µg /m3). The project is located within the Livermore Valley. The Livermore Valley forms a small sub regional air basin distinct from the larger San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin. The Livermore Valley air basin is surrounded on all sides by high hills or mountains. Significant breaks in the hills surrounding the air basin are Niles Canyon and the San Ramon Valley, which extends northward into Contra Costa County. The terrain of the Livermore - Amador Valley influences both the climate and air pollution potential of the sub- regional air basin. As an inland, protected valley, the area has generally lighter winds and a higher frequency of calm conditions when compared to the greater Bay Area. The occurrence of episodes of high atmospheric stability, known as inversion conditions, severely limits the ability of the atmosphere to disperse pollutants vertically. Inversions can be found during all seasons in the Bay Area, but are particularly prevalent in the summer months when they are present about 90% of the time in both morning and afternoon. According to the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD), air pollution potential is high in the Livermore Valley, especially for ozone in the summer and fall. High temperatures increase the potential for ozone, and the valley not only traps locally generated pollutants but can be the receptor of ozone and ozone precursors from upwind portions of the greater Bay Area. Transport of pollutants also occurs between the Livermore Valley and the San Joaquin Valley to the east. During the winter, the sheltering effect of terrain and its inland location results in frequent surface -based inversions. Under these conditions pollutants such as carbon monoxide from automobiles and particulate matter generated by fireplaces and agricultural burning can become concentrated. National and state ambient air quality standards. As required by the Federal Clean Air Act, National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) have been established for six major air pollutants: carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen dioxide (NO,), ozone (03), particulate matter, including respirable particulate matter (PM,,) and fine particulate matter (PM2.5), sulfur oxides, and lead. Pursuant to the California Clean Air Act, the State of California has established the California Ambient Air Quality Standards ( CAAQS). Relevant Current State and Federal standards are summarized in Table 2. CAAQS are generally the same or more stringent than NAAQS. Air Quality Monitoring Data. The significance of a pollutant concentration is determined by comparing the concentration to an appropriate ambient air quality standard. The standards represent the allowable pollutant concentrations designed to ensure that the public health and welfare are protected, while including a reasonable margin of safety to protect the more sensitive individuals in the population. The San Francisco Bay Area is considered to be one of the City of Dublin Page 45 Initial Study /Eastern Dublin Properties August 2015 cleanest metropolitan areas in the country with respect to air quality. BAAQMD monitors air quality conditions at more than 20 locations throughout the Bay Area. The closest monitoring station to the project site is in Livermore at the 793 Rincon Avenue monitoring station. Summarized air pollutant data for this station is provided in Table 3. This table shows the highest air pollutant concentrations measured at the station over the three -year period from 2012 through 2014. Note that BAAQMD discontinued monitoring of carbon monoxide in 2009 at this station. These data show that ozone levels exceeded State or federal standards each year over the past three years. The PMz.5 24 -hour standard was exceeded in 2013 and 2014. Ambient Air Quality Status. Areas with air pollutant levels that exceed adopted air quality standards are designated as "nonattainment" areas for the relevant air pollutants. Nonattainment areas are sometimes further classified by degree (marginal, moderate, serious, severe, and extreme for ozone, and moderate and serious for carbon monoxide and PMIJ or status ( " nonattainment- transitional "). Areas that comply with air quality standards are designated as "attainment" areas for the relevant air pollutants. "Unclassified" areas are those with insufficient air quality monitoring data to support a designation of attainment or nonattainment, but are generally presumed to meet the ambient air quality standard. State Implementation Plans must be prepared by states for areas designated as federal nonattainment areas to demonstrate how the area will come into attainment of the exceeded federal ambient air quality standard. The Bay Area is considered a marginal nonattainment area for ozone under the NAAQS and nonattainment for ozone under the CAAQS (both 1- and 8 -hour standards). The Bay Area is also designated as nonattainment for the 24 -hour PM2.5 NAAQS. The Bay Area is also considered nonattainment for the State annual PMz.5 standard and the 24 -hour PMlo standard. The region is designated attainment or unclassified for all other ambient air quality standards. Sensitive Receptors. There are groups of people more affected by air pollution than others. The California Air Resources Board (CARB) has identified the following persons who are most likely to be affected by air pollution: children under 14, the elderly over 65, athletes, and people with cardiovascular and chronic respiratory diseases. These groups are classified as sensitive receptors. Locations that may contain a high concentration of these sensitive population groups include residential areas, hospitals, daycare facilities, elder care facilities, elementary schools, and parks. The closest sensitive receptors are newly constructed on -site residences on the west site of Sunset View Drive, northwest of the project construction site. Additional residences are located at farther distances from the site to the east, west, and north. City of Dublin Page 46 Initial Study /Eastern Dublin Properties August 2015 Table 2. Relevant California and National Ambient Air Quality Standards Pollutant Averaging Time California Standards National Standards Ozone 8 -hour 0.070 ppm (137 4g /m3) 0.075 ppm (1474g /M3) 1 -hour 0.09 ppm (180 µg /m3) — Carbon monoxide 1 -hour 20 ppm (23 mg / m3) 35 ppm (40 mg / m3) 8 -hour 9.0 ppm (10 mg/m') 9 ppm (10 mg/m') Nitrogen dioxide 1 -hour 0.18 ppm (339 4g /m3) 0.100 ppm (188 4g /m3) Annual 0.030 ppm (57 µ / m3) 0.053 ppm (100 4g/M3) Sulfur Dioxide 1 -hour 0.25 ppm (655 µ / m3) 0.075 ppm (196 µ / m3) 24 -hour 0.04 ppm (105 µ / m3) 0.14 ppm (365 µ / m3) Annual — 0.03 ppm (56 µ / m3) Particulate Matter (PMIO) Annual 20 µ /m3 — 24 -hour 50 4g/M3 150 p /M3 Particulate Matter (PM2,5) Annual 12 µ / m3 12 µ / m3 24 -hour — 35 µ /in Source: bAAUMu and E HA, 2015. Notes: ppm = parts per million mg /m3 = milligrams per cubic meter Ng /m3 = micrograms per cubic meter Toxic Air Contaminants. Toxic air contaminants (TAC) are a broad class of compounds known to cause morbidity or mortality (usually because they cause cancer). TACs are found in ambient air, especially in urban areas, and are caused by industry, agriculture, fuel combustion, and commercial operations (e.g., dry cleaners). TACs are typically found in low concentrations, even near their source (e.g., diesel particulate matter near a freeway). Because chronic exposure can result in adverse health effects, TACs are regulated at the regional, state, and Federal level. City of Dublin Page 47 Initial Study /Eastern Dublin Properties August 2015 Table. 3. Highest Measured Air Pollutant Concentrations at Livermore Station Station Pollutant Average Time Measured Air Pollutant Levels 2012 2013 2014 Ozone (03) 1 -Hour 0.102 ppm 0.096 ppm 0.093 ppm 8 -Hour 0.090 ppm 0.077 ppm 0.080 ppm Carbon Monoxide (CO) 8 -Hour ND ND ND Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2) 1 -Hour 0.053 ppm 0.051 ppm 0.049 ppm Annual 0.010 ppm 0.011 ppm 0.010 ppm Respirable Particulate Matter (PMto) 24 -Hour ND ND ND Annual ND ND ND Fine Particulate Matter (PM2,5) 24 -Hour 31.1 ug /m3 40.1 ug /m3 42.9 ug /m3 Annual 6.6 ug /m3 8.4 ug /m3 7.6 ug /m3 Source: CARB, 2015. Notes: ppm =parts per million and ug /m3 = micrograms per cubic meter. Values reported in bold exceed ambient air quality standard. ND = No data. Diesel exhaust is the predominant TAC in urban air and is estimated to represent about three - quarters of the cancer risk from TACs (based on the Bay Area average). According to the CARB, diesel exhaust is a complex mixture of gases, vapors and fine particles. This complexity makes the evaluation of health effects of diesel exhaust a complex scientific issue. Some of the chemicals in diesel exhaust, such as benzene and formaldehyde, have been previously identified as TACs by the CARB, and are listed as carcinogens either under the state's Proposition 65 or under the Federal Hazardous Air Pollutants programs. CARB has adopted and implemented a number of regulations for stationary and mobile sources to reduce emissions of diesel particulate matter (DPM). Several of these regulatory programs affect medium and heavy duty diesel trucks that represent the bulk of DPM emissions from California highways. These regulations include the solid waste collection vehicle (SWCV) rule, in -use public and utility fleets, and the heavy -duty diesel truck and bus regulations. In 2008, CARB approved a new regulation to reduce emissions of DPM and nitrogen oxides from existing on -road heavy -duty diesel fueled vehicles.' The regulation requires affected vehicles to meet specific performance requirements between 2012 and 2023, with all affected diesel vehicles required to have 2010 model -year ' Available online: http:// www,. arb. ca. rJ ov/ msprog /onrdiesel /onrdiesel_htni. Accessed: July 8, 2015. City of Dublin Page 48 Initial Study /Eastern Dublin Properties August 2015 engines or equivalent by 2023. These requirements are phased in over the compliance period and depend on the model year of the vehicle. BAAQMD. The BAAQMD is the regional agency tasked with managing air quality in the region. At the State level, CARB (a part of the California Environmental Protection Agency) oversees regional air district activities and regulates air quality at the State level. The BAAQMD published CEQA Air Quality Guidelines are used in this assessment to evaluate air quality impacts of projects. Previous CEQA documents Eastern Dublin EIR. The Eastern Dublin EIR analyzed both construction and operational impacts and contains a number of mitigation measures to reduce anticipated air quality impacts from implementation of the General Plan and EDSP project. These include: • Mitigation Measure 3.11 / 1.0 reduced project construction dust impacts (IM 3.11 / A) to less than significant through measures such as watering construction sites, covering exposed construction surfaces and trucks, and cleaning construction vehicles. The cumulative impact remained significant and unavoidable. Mitigation Measures 3.11 / 2.0 -4.0 reduced project and cumulative impacts related to vehicle emission from construction equipment (IM 3.11 / B) but not to a less - than- significant level. These mitigations require emission control from on -site equipment, completion of a construction impact reduction plan and others. Even with adherence to these mitigations, this impact remained significant and unavoidable. • Mitigation Measures 3.11 / 5.0 -11.0 reduced mobile source emissions from ROG and NOx (IM 3.11 / C) but not to a less- than - significant level. Mitigation measures require coordination of growth with transportation plans and other measures, many of which are at a policy (not a project) level. Even with adherence to adopted mitigations, IM 3.11 / C remained significant and unavoidable. Mitigation Measures 3.11/12.0-13.0 reduced project and cumulative impacts related to stationary source emissions (IM 3.11 / E) but not to a less -than- significant level. The two adopted mitigations require reduction of stationary source emissions to the extent feasible by use of energy conservation techniques and recycling of solid waste material. Even with adherence to the two measures, stationary source emissions remained significant and unavoidable. 2002 Fallon Village SEIR (Jordan Ranch). The 2002 Supplemental EIR found two supplemental air quality impacts, as follows: • Supplemental Impact AQ -1 found that mobile source emissions of Reactive Organic Gases (ROG), Nitrogen Oxide (NOx) and Particulate Matter (PM -10) City of Dublin Page 49 Initial Study /Eastern Dublin Properties August 2015 would be significant as related to the overall EDPO Project. Even with adherence to the Eastern Dublin EIR Mitigation Measures, these emissions would be a significant and unavoidable cumulative impact. • Supplemental Impact AQ -2 found that emission of carbon monoxide that would be generated from vehicle trips as a result of project buildout would not exceed local, state or federal standards for emission of carbon monoxide. This impact was therefore less- than - significant. 2005 Fallon Village SEIR (Jordan Ranch). The 2005 Supplemental EIR found three supplemental air quality impacts, as follows: Supplemental Impact SM -AQ -1 identified supplemental impacts with respect to construction related air quality impacts and that the overall development envelope associated with the Fallon Village project was larger than analyzed in previous CEQA documents. Adherence to Supplemental Mitigation SM -AQ -1 requires more stringent measures to be undertaken by individual developers in the Fallon Village area to reduce construction air quality impacts to a less -than- significant level. Supplemental Impacts SM -AQ -2 and SM -AQ -3 found that regional air emissions associated with vehicle trips in the overall Fallon Village project area would exceed BAAQMD significance thresholds for ozone precursors. The SEIR included Supplemental Mitigation Measure SM -AQ -2 to reduce these impacts, however, the items included in this Supplemental Mitigation Measure would not reduce regional emissions below BAAQMD standards and these impacts remained significant and unavoidable. 2005 Wallis Ranch SEIR. This document identified the following significant supplemental impacts and supplemental air quality mitigation measures. Mitigation Measure SM -AQ -1 reduced impacts related to construction emission from construction activities (Supplemental Impact AQ -1) to a less- than - significant level. Specific items listed in this measure required contractors to cover stockpiles of debris, sweep paved access roads and parking areas and construction staging areas and install sandbags or equivalent to prevent silt runoff from construction areas. Mitigation Measure SM -AQ -2 reduced Supplemental Impact AQ -2 but not to a less- than - significant level. Supplemental Impact AQ -2 noted that the project would result in a regional emission increase exceeding BAAQMD thresholds for emission of ozone precursors. Mitigation Measure SM -AQ -2 required the project proponent to coordinate with the regional public transit provider to extend service the site along with transit improvements, the project developer to provide bike paths and sidewalks, consider a local shuttle service to regional transit hubs and City of Dublin Page 50 Initial Study /Eastern Dublin Properties August 2015 consider installing a telecommute center. Even with adherence to all of these features, this impact would remain significant and unavoidable. • Supplemental Impact AQ -3 noted that project emissions of ozone would exceed the BAAQMD threshold of significance for this pollutant. Adherence to Supplemental Mitigation Measure SM -AQ -2 would partially but not fully reduce this impact to a less- than - significant level and this impact would remain significant and unavoidable. No significant air quality impacts were identified in the Subarea 3 CEQA document. The proposed project will be required to comply with applicable mitigation measures set forth in previous CEQA documents. Project Impacts a) Would the project conflict with or obstruct implementation of an air quality plan? No New Impact. The Eastern Dublin EIR identified Impact 3.11 / E regarding increased stationary source air emissions from future development of Eastern Dublin that would remain significant even with implementation of Mitigation Measures 3.11/12.0 and 13.0. The Eastern Dublin EIR also assumed increased development in other areas, such as the San Joaquin Valley, and related commutes to the Bay Area, and identified cumulative mobile source impact IM 3.11 / C as significant and unavoidable, even after mitigation. Upon approval of the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan, the City adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations for these two impacts. The Bay Area Air Quality Management District's (ABAG) Clean Air Plan is predicated on population projections for local agencies within the District based on ABAG's regional population projections, which, in turn is based on a compilation of local agency general plan documents. Development allowed under the proposed project would be generally consistent with the type and amount of development allowed under the Dublin General Plan and the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan although it could contain slightly more residential units than currently approved (35 units, see Table 1). Previous approvals in 2005 for the overall Jordan Ranch property included development of up to 1,064 dwellings, as analyzed in the 2005 SEIR, as opposed to the 899 dwellings currently being considered on the overall Jordan Ranch property plus a 900 - student Elementary School. There would therefore be no new or substantially more severe significant impacts with respect to conflicts with the regional air quality plan than has been previously analyzed in prior CEQA documents. b) Would the project violate any air quality standards? No New Impact. The air quality analysis focuses on the proposed 950 - student elementary and middle school development, since this project element would generate the most vehicular traffic City of Dublin Page 51 Initial Study /Eastern Dublin Properties August 2015 and contain future sensitive air quality receptors. Other project elements would include local parks that would generate minimal vehicular traffic. Project and cumulative air emission impacts. The 1993 Eastern Dublin EIR identified emission of Reactive Organic Gases (ROG) and Nitrogen Oxides (NOx) from vehicles as a significant and unavoidable impact (Impact IM 3.11 / Q. Although the EIR identified several possible measures to mitigate this impact, including but not limited to implementation of a transportation demand program, encouragement of mixed -use developments and similar measures, any reduction of mobile source emissions could not be reduced to less- than - significant levels. This conclusion was reiterated in the 2002 and 2005 SEIR documents as well as the 2010 Addendum as related to the Jordan Ranch property. Construction air impacts. The current BAAQMD significance threshold for construction dust impact is based on the appropriateness of construction dust controls. If the appropriate construction controls are to be implemented, then air pollutant emissions for construction activities would be considered less -than- significant. Mitigation Measure MM 3.11 / 1.0 in the East Dublin EIR identifies the construction controls that provide reduction of air emissions during construction phases of development projects and the Project applicant will be required to adhere to these requirements. Eastern Dublin EIR Mitigation Measure 3.11 / 1.0 has been supplemented with 2005 SEIR Mitigation Measure SM -AQ -1 to ensure that current BAAQMD construction air quality impacts are reduced to a less - than- significant level. There would therefore be no new or substantially more severe significant impacts with respect to this impact than has been previously analyzed in prior CEQA documents. Air pollutant emissions were not quantified in the 2012 Initial Study for Jordan Ranch Phase 2. For comparison, a model run was conducted for the 2014 Approved uses, which included: 550 - student "Elementary School," 19.6 acres entered as "City Park," 513 dwelling units entered as "Single - Family Housing," 238 dwelling units entered as "Apartments Low Rise," 61 dwelling units entered as "Congregate Care," and 35,000 square feet of retail entered as "Strip Mall." A construction build -out scenario, including CalEEMod default equipment list and phasing schedule for a project of this type and size was used. As shown in Table 4, construction of the 2014 Approved uses would also not exceed BAAQMD thresholds, though emissions would be slightly increased over the proposed project. Construction activities, particularly during site preparation and grading would temporarily generate fugitive dust in the form of PMlo and PM2.5. Sources of fugitive dust would include disturbed soils at the construction site and trucks carrying uncovered loads of soils. Unless properly controlled, vehicles leaving the site would deposit mud on local streets, which could be an additional source of airborne dust after it dries. Fugitive dust emissions would vary from day to day, depending on the nature and magnitude of construction activity and local weather conditions. Fugitive City of Dublin Page 52 Initial Study /Eastern Dublin Properties August 2015 dust emissions would also depend on soil moisture, silt content of soil, wind speed, and the amount of equipment operating. Larger dust particles would settle near the source, while fine particles would be dispersed over greater distances from the construction site. Table 4. Construction Period Emissions EDSP EIR air quality Mitigation Measure 3.11 / 1.0 and Supplemental Mitigation Measure SM -AQ -1 from the 2005 Fallon Village SEIR provides specific methods for reduction of fugitive dust from construction sites. The BAAQMD has adopted updated measures to further reduce construction level impacts. and future project developerls) of individual projects within the three subareas will be required as a condition of project approval to implement the most current BAAQMD dust reduction methods. No new or more severe significant air quality impacts would result regarding violation of air quality standards than have been previously analyzed. c) Would the project result in cumulatively considerable air pollutants? No New Impact. See item "b." d,e) Expose sensitive receptors to significant pollutant concentrations or create objectionable odors? No New Impact. A portion of the proposed project (Subarea 1) would include approval and construction of a 950 - student elementary school and middle school on an 11.1 -acre site located on the south side of Central Parkway east of Fallon Road. The school would be occupied during a portion of the day by young children that are sensitive receptors. Adherence to Mitigation Measure 3.11 / 10 supplemented by Supplemental Mitigation Measure SM -AQ -1 and current BAAQMD standard measures for dust control, this impact would remain less - than- significant. The proposed park in Subarea 3 would be located in a generally topographically steep area and used as a natural, passive park. Few users of the park are therefore anticipated that would expose a significant number of people to significant City of Dublin Page 53 Initial Study /Eastern Dublin Properties August 2015 Pm" PM'.' Scenario ROG NOx Exhaust Exhaust Total Construction emissions (tons) 20.42 tons 52.89 tons 2.18 tons 2.03 tons Average daily emissions 9.8 lbs. 25.4 lbs. 1.0 lbs. 1.0 lbs. (pounds), BAAQMD Thresholds (pounds per 54 lbs. 54 lbs. 82 lbs. 54 lbs. day) Exceed Threshold? No No No No 2014 Approval 11.3 lbs. 30.2 lbs. 1.2 lbs. 1.1 lbs. Notes: 'Assumes 4,160 workdays. EDSP EIR air quality Mitigation Measure 3.11 / 1.0 and Supplemental Mitigation Measure SM -AQ -1 from the 2005 Fallon Village SEIR provides specific methods for reduction of fugitive dust from construction sites. The BAAQMD has adopted updated measures to further reduce construction level impacts. and future project developerls) of individual projects within the three subareas will be required as a condition of project approval to implement the most current BAAQMD dust reduction methods. No new or more severe significant air quality impacts would result regarding violation of air quality standards than have been previously analyzed. c) Would the project result in cumulatively considerable air pollutants? No New Impact. See item "b." d,e) Expose sensitive receptors to significant pollutant concentrations or create objectionable odors? No New Impact. A portion of the proposed project (Subarea 1) would include approval and construction of a 950 - student elementary school and middle school on an 11.1 -acre site located on the south side of Central Parkway east of Fallon Road. The school would be occupied during a portion of the day by young children that are sensitive receptors. Adherence to Mitigation Measure 3.11 / 10 supplemented by Supplemental Mitigation Measure SM -AQ -1 and current BAAQMD standard measures for dust control, this impact would remain less - than- significant. The proposed park in Subarea 3 would be located in a generally topographically steep area and used as a natural, passive park. Few users of the park are therefore anticipated that would expose a significant number of people to significant City of Dublin Page 53 Initial Study /Eastern Dublin Properties August 2015 pollutant concentrations. The two proposed park sites on the Wallis Ranch Subarea are not located near regional freeways or major roadways that would result in exposure of a significant number of users to significant pollutant concentrations. None of the existing or proposed uses would, by their nature, generate significant pollutant concentrations or objectionable odors. Therefore, significant impacts on adjacent sensitive residence uses would not result and there would be no new or substantially more severe significant impacts with respect to this impact than has been previously analyzed in prior CEQA documents. 4. Biological Resources Environmental Setting Plant and wildlife resources for the three Subareas were analyzed in the Eastern Dublin EIR as well as CEQA documents for each of the Subareas. All of the previous CEQA documents also analyzed wildlife and riparian resources, fish and wildlife corridors and cumulative impacts to biological resources. Plant communities. Five habitat types have been identified on the various Subareas. These include: Annual grasslands. Annual grasslands consist of grass and forb species such a wild oat, soft chess, ripgut brome, thistle and similar species. Wetlands. A number of seasonal and perennial wetlands, seeps and others waters are present on portions of the Jordan Ranch Subarea, but likely not on the other two Subareas. Riparian. Riparian habitat was observed in the southwestern corner of the site at the confluence of three swales on the Jordan Ranch Subarea. A number of willow trees form a dense to moderately dense canopy over the lower reaches of the swale area. Stock pond /ornamental pond. Three stock ponds are found within the drainage swales located on the Jordan Ranch Subarea. A 0.29 -acre pond is the largest of the ponds and is surrounded riparian vegetation, such as cattails, common rush and fiddle dock. No ponds have been identified on other Subareas. Developedllandscaped. A portion of Jordan Ranch Subarea was formerly occupied by the residence and associated outbuildings, since demolished. This Subarea is characterized by non - native ornamental landscaping, such as eucalyptus trees, juniper and similar material. Other Subareas remain vacant/ Special- status species and habitats City of Dublin Page 54 Initial Study /Eastern Dublin Properties August 2015 All three Subareas have been graded pursuant to grading permits issued by the City of Dublin and any former special - status plants, wildlife species or habitats have been fully mitigated pursuant to certified or approved CEQA documents. Previous CEQA documents The regulatory framework for this Project includes previous EIRs and regulations for protection of biological resources. Eastern Dublin EIR. The Eastern Dublin EIR contains a number of mitigation measures to reduce anticipated impacts to biological resources from the General Plan and EDSP project. These include: • Mitigation Measures 3.7/ 1.0 -4.0 reduced impacts related to direct habitat loss (IM 3.7/ A) to a less - than - significant level. These mitigations require minimization of direct habitat loss due to development, preparation of vegetation management and enhancement plans and development of a grazing management plan by the City of Dublin. • Mitigation Measure 3.7/5.0 reduced impacts related to indirect loss of vegetation removal (IM 3.7/B) to a less -than- significant level. Mitigation Measure 3.7/5.0 requires revegetation of graded or disturbed areas as quickly as possible. Mitigation Measures 3.7/ 6.0 -17.0 reduced impacts related to loss or degradation of botanically sensitive habitats (IM 3.7/C) to a less- than - significant level. These measures require a wide range of steps to be taken by future developers to minimize impacts to sensitive habitat areas, including preserving natural stream corridors, incorporating natural greenbelts and open space into development projects, preparation of individual wetland delineations, preparation of individual erosion and sedimentation plans and similar actions. • Mitigation Measures 3.7/18.0-19.0 reduced impacts related to the San Joaquin kit fox (IM 3.7/ D) to a less -than- significant level. These measures require consultation with appropriate regulatory agencies regarding the possibility of kit fox on project sites and preparation of and adherence to a kit fox protection plan. • Mitigation Measure 3.7/28.0 reduced impacts related to special status invertebrates (IM 3.7/ S) to a less -than- significant level. This measure requires completion of special surveys for individual species prior to site disturbance. The Eastern Dublin EIR also addresses potential impacts and mitigation measures regarding bald eagle, peregrine falcons, red - legged frog, California tiger salamander, western pond turtle the prairie falcon, northern harrier, black - shouldered kite, sharp - shinned hawk, Cooper's hawk, short -eared owl and California horned lizard, as well as other protected species. City of Dublin Page 55 Initial Study /Eastern Dublin Properties August 2015 The proposed project will be required to adhere to applicable biological resource mitigation measures contained in the Eastern Dublin EIR. 2002 Supplemental EIR (Jordan Ranch). This EIR identified a large number of supplemental biological mitigation measures for the entire Fallon Village project area, including the Jordan Ranch Subarea. These are identified as Supplemental Mitigation Measures SM -13I0-1 through SM- 13I0-45. The supplemental mitigation measures require completion of rare plant and wildlife surveys, preparation of a Resource Management Plan (RMP), avoid or replace wetlands. 2005 Supplement (Jordan Ranch). This Supplement identifies additional supplemental impacts and mitigation measures, as listed below, for the Fallon Village project area, including the Jordan Ranch Subarea. A number of the supplemental mitigation measures are revisions to mitigation measures contained in earlier EIRs. Supplemental mitigation measures are: Mitigation Measure SM -13I0-1 requires the restoration or enhancement of riparian habitat at a 3:1 ratio (on an acreage basis), preferably within the proposed aquatic and buffer zone or corridor zone management areas on -site. If mitigation within the Project area is not feasible, then the developer shall mitigate impacts to central coast riparian scrub through the restoration or enhancement of riparian habitat at a 3:1 ratio (measured by acreage) at an off -site location acceptable to the City. • Mitigation Measure SM -13I0-2 requires that if avoidance is infeasible, then mitigation lands providing similar or better habitat for CRLF shall be preserved and protected in perpetuity. • Mitigation Measure SM -13I0-3 requires individual developers of parcels to create and/or enlarge suitable breeding ponds at a 2:1 ratio, in or adjacent to areas currently supporting CTS and with sufficient surrounding upland habitat to provide a high likelihood of establishment and persistence of a breeding population. • Mitigation Measure SM -13I04 requires developers of individual parcels to acquire, preserve, and manage suitable upland habitat at a 1:1 ratio in or adjacent to areas currently supporting CTS and within 2200 feet of a suitable breeding pond. • Mitigation Measure SM -13I0-1 (revised) requires special steps to be taken by individual developers if special - status plants cannot be avoided during project construction. • Mitigation Measure SM -13I0-2 (revised) requires that during the breeding season (February 1- August 31) prior to submittal of Stage 2 development proposals for a particular parcel, or during a subsequent breeding season but prior to the initiation of construction, a survey shall be conducted according to CDFG City of Dublin Page 56 Initial Study /Eastern Dublin Properties August 2015 protocols to determine whether Burrowing Owls are present, and if present, the number of nesting pairs of Burrowing Owls present on the parcel. • Mitigation Measure SM -13I0-3 (revised) requires pre - construction surveys for burrowing owls be conducted by a qualified biologist prior to any ground disturbance between September 1 and January 31. Mitigation Measure SM -13I0-4 (revised) requires that if construction is scheduled during the burrowing owl nesting season (February 1— August 31), pre - construction surveys should be conducted on the entire site - specific Project area and within 500 feet of such Project area prior to any ground disturbance. A minimum buffer (at least 250 feet) shall be maintained during the breeding season around active burrowing owl nesting. • Mitigation Measure SM -13I0-5 (revised) requires that if destruction of occupied (breeding or non - breeding season) burrowing owl burrows, or any burrows that were found to be occupied during pre - construction surveys, is unavoidable, a strategy will be developed to replace such burrows by enhancing existing burrows or creating artificial burrows at a 2:1 ratio. The proposed project will be required to comply with applicable mitigation measures set forth in previous EIRs. Resource Management Plan (RMP) (Jordan Ranch Subarea). Consultants working for the City of Dublin completed a Resource Management Plan in 2004 for the Fallon Village overall area. Completion of the RMP was required as a result of Supplemental Mitigation Measure SM -13I0-1 contained in the 2002 Supplemental EIR. The RMP evaluated potential impacts to sensitive biological resources on the Eastern Dublin Property Owners' area, an approximately 1120 -acre area that was analyzed in both the 2002 and 2005 Supplemental EIRs. The RMP includes a comprehensive analysis of sensitive plant and wildlife species within the area, potential habitat for such species and the presence of wetlands and other waters. The RMP also includes a constraints analysis to guide future development of properties included in the RMP study area. 2005 Dublin Ranch West SEIR (Wallis Subarea). Chapter 4.3 of this SEIR contained a comprehensive update regarding potential species and identified the following significant biological impacts. Supplemental Impact BIO -1 noted an impact to California Tiger Salamander (CTS) species. Supplemental Mitigation Measures SM -13I0-1 through BIO -7 reduced this impact to a less- than - significant level by requiring preparation of a CTS Management Plan, installation of a barrier fence, conducting CTS larval studies, acquiring compensatory CTS estivation habitat area, completion of an Open Space Management Plan, appointment of a biological resource monitor during construction and providing biological resource education to construction staff. City of Dublin Page 57 Initial Study /Eastern Dublin Properties August 2015 Supplemental Impact BIO -2 found a significant impact with respect to California red - legged frogs (CRLF). This impact was reduced to a less - than- significant level through adherence to Supplemental Mitigation Measures SM -BIO -8 though BIO -10. These supplemental measures required CRLF avoidance measures during prior to and during construction, provision of compensatory upland and dispersal habitat land and limitations on grading activities during the rainy season. Supplemental Impact BIO -3 noted an impact regarding breeding birds. Adherence to Supplemental Mitigation Measures SM -BIO -5 through 7 and 11 and 12 reduced this impact to a less- than - significant level by limiting tree removal to appropriate times of the year, establishing buffers around trees with nests and conducting pre- construction surveys for protected birds prior to construction. Supplemental Impact BIO -4 noted an impact with regard to bat species. Adherence to Supplemental Mitigation Measures SM -BIO -5 through 7 and 13 reduced this impact to a less- than - significant level by requiring preconstruction surveys for bat species. If occupied bat nests are found, a qualified biologist shall implement an exclusion plan to prevent further occupancy. Supplemental Impact BIO -5 found an impact with respect to Burrowing Owls. Adherence to Supplemental Mitigation Measures SM -BIO -5 through 7 and 14 reduced this impact to a less- than - significant level by requiring preconstruction surveys for owl species, limiting construction periods and creating alternative burrows away from construction areas. The mitigation requires the project developer to develop a management plan for enhancement of burrows, monitoring of burrows, funding assurance and similar measures. Supplemental Impact BIO -6 found an impact with loss of special - status plants. Adherence to Supplemental Mitigation Measures SM -BIO -5 through 7 and 15 reduced this impact to a less - than - significant level by requiring compensatory habitat for loss of Congdon s tarplant lost to construction and be requiring the project developer to prepare a detailed mitigation and monitoring plan for this species. Supplemental Impact BIO -7 noted an impact regarding loss of riparian habitat. Adherence to Supplemental Mitigation Measures SM -BIO -5 and 6, 16 and 17 reduced this impact to a less- than - significant level by mandating replacement riparian habitat at a 3:1 ratio and completing a Riparian Habitat Management Plan to compensate loss of this habitat type. A Tree Removal and Preservation Plan is also required to protect trees from construction activity and to require replacement trees for those lost to construction. City of Dublin Page 58 Initial Study /Eastern Dublin Properties August 2015 Supplemental Impact BIO -8 found a temporary impact with loss of aquatic habitat. Adherence to Supplemental Mitigation Measures SM -13I0- 6 and 18 reduced this impact to a less- than - significant level by requiring all aquatic habitat to be replaced to pre - project conditions. A Restoration Plan for Tassajara Creek was also required that would minimize impacts to aquatic resources during construction. No new or more significant biological resource impacts were identified in the Subarea 3 Addendum or ND. The proposed project will be required to adhere to applicable biological resource mitigation measures contained in the above documents. Project Impacts a) Have a substantial adverse impact on a candidate, sensitive, or special- status species? No New Impact. The Eastern Dublin EIR and other applicable prior CEQA documents the presence of special - status plant and wildlife species within the general project area. Numerous mitigation measures are included in prior CEQA documents to reduce impacts to candidate, sensitive and special- status species to a less -than significant level. These are listed above and continue to apply to the proposed project, as applicable. Also, all of the Subareas have been graded as part of each respective underlying project so that they have been disturbed. Therefore, no new or more severe impacts with respect to candidate, sensitive or special - status species would occur than have been analyzed in the two previous CEQA documents and no additional analysis is required. The Eastern Dublin Specific Plan includes policies to protect special status species (Policies 6 -17 and 6 -20). The proposed development project will adhere to the Specific Plan policies and all previously adopted mitigation measures, as applicable. As identified in previous EIRs for the Eastern Dublin area and other CEQA documents for the project area, impacts associated with loss or degradation of botanically sensitive habitats on a project and cumulative level (Eastern Dublin EIR Impact 3.7/ C, and 2002 SEIR Impact BIO 3) will remain Significant and Unavoidable for this project as well. There would therefore be no new or substantially more severe significant impacts with respect to this impact than has been previously analyzed in prior CEQA documents. b, c) Have a substantial adverse impact on riparian habitat or federally protected wetlands? No New Impact. Wetlands and waters of the United States have been identified adjacent to The Jordan Ranch Subarea. Mitigation measures have been included in the Eastern Dublin EIR and the 2005 SEIR to reduce such impacts to a less - than- significant level. Property included in the Subarea 3 and the Wallis Ranch Subarea are generally located on upland elevations and do not contain wetlands, riparian habitat or other waters. There would therefore be no new or City of Dublin Page 59 Initial Study /Eastern Dublin Properties August 2015 substantially more severe significant impacts with respect to this impact than has been previously analyzed in prior CEQA documents. d) Interfere with movement of native fish or wildlife species? No New Impact. The Wallis Ranch and Jordan Ranch Subareas would be located on generally upland ground elevations surrounded by existing development, proposed development or roadways. The Subarea 3 site is linear in nature and would provide for wildlife migration. This Subarea would be retained as a natural park and would provide no barrier to on -site migration There would therefore be no new or substantially more severe significant impacts with respect to this impact than has been previously analyzed in prior CEQA documents. e, f) Conflict with local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources or any adopted Habitat Conservation Plans or Natural Community Conservation Plans? No New Impact. No significant standard of trees are located on any of the subareas, since all of the Subareas have been previously graded pursuant to approved grading plans. There would therefore be no new or substantially more severe significant impacts with respect to this impact than has been previously analyzed in prior CEQA documents. 5. Cultural Resources Environmental Setting The 1993 Eastern Dublin EIR and Supplemental EIRs contain a comprehensive listing of historic, archeological, Native American and other cultural resources in the overall Eastern Dublin area. No structures exist on any of the three Subareas and no evidence of formal or informal cemeteries have been identified in any previous CEQA document completed in the Eastern Dublin Planning Area. Previous CEQA documents. The Eastern Dublin EIR contains a number of mitigation measures to reduce anticipated impacts to cultural resources from the General Plan and EDSP project. Mitigation measure applicable to this Project include: Mitigation Measures 3.9/1.0-4.0 reduced impacts that could be caused as a result of disruption or destruction of identified prehistoric resources. These measures require approval of a program for testing for presence or absence of midden deposits and, if significant deposits are found, recordation of such resources on State survey forms, and retention of a qualified archeologist to develop a protection plan for such resources in accordance with CEQA. • Mitigation Measures 3.9/5.0 -6.0 reduced impacts related to the disruption or destruction of unrecorded prehistoric resources (IM 3.913) to a less -than- significant level. City of Dublin Page 60 Initial Study /Eastern Dublin Properties August 2015 2005 SEIR (Jordan Ranch Subarea). The 2005 Supplemental EIR that affected the Jordan Ranch property identified Supplemental Impact CUL -3 regarding cultural resource site C- ALA -508H on the Jordan site but not on the current Subarea. Supplemental Mitigation Measure SM -CUL -3 requires a detailed cultural resources assessment for the identified cultural site prior to the approval of a Stage 2 Development Plan on the Jordan Ranch. The assessment shall determine if the cultural site is eligible for listing on the California Register of Historical Resources and any recommendations made in the cultural resources assessment shall be incorporated into the Stage 2 Development Plan as conditions of approval. This assessment has been performed by Basin Research Associates as described below. As required by Supplemental Mitigation Measure SM -CUL -3 contained in the 2005 SEIR, a site - specific cultural resource assessment was prepared by the firm of Basin Research Associates dated June 9, 2009 for the entire Jordan Ranch property. The Basin Report is incorporated by reference into this Initial Study and is available for review at the Dublin Development Services Department during normal business hours. The Basin Report summarized comprehensive research on Site CA- Ala -508H on the Jordan Ranch site, including a field visit and subsurface testing using a backhoe. The Report found a less- than - significant quantity of subsurface cultural material at this identified site. Previous archeological materials reported in the 2005 SEIR on the Jordan Ranch site were not found. The one artifact found (a slab metate) was likely a former surface artifact that was buried through natural or mechanical means. The Basin Report did not recommend additional testing, however, the following recommendations should be included as conditions of project approval which implements the mitigation measures in the prior EIRs for protection of cultural resources: 1) Spot monitoring of construction excavations shall be undertaken during site clearing and excavations of up to five feet in depth. The monitoring program shall be at the discretion of the Project archeologist. 2) Project grading specifications shall include warning language to alert the contractor as to the potential for buried cultural resources. 3) A minimum of one meeting shall be held between the Project archeologist and grading contractors for a briefing on procedures to be followed in the event of discovering a cultural artifact. 4) If any cultural artifacts are exposed or discovered during site clearing or grading, operations shall cease within a 30 -foot radius of the find and the Project archeologist consulted for evaluation and further recommendations. Possible recommendations could include further evaluation, collection, recordation and analysis of such find, followed by completion of a professional report. 5) Treatment of any Native American burials found during construction shall be in accordance with the requirements of the State of California Public Resources Code, in consultation with the Native American Heritage Commission. No cultural resources were identified in the Wallis Ranch SEIR or the Subarea 3 Addendum. City of Dublin Page 61 Initial Study /Eastern Dublin Properties August 2015 The proposed project will be required to comply with applicable cultural resource mitigation measures contained in previous CEQA documents. Project Impacts a) Cause substantial adverse change to significant historic resources? No New Impact. No historic resources exist on any of the three Subareas, based on a historic resources survey conducted as part of the Eastern Dublin EIR, so there would no impacts with regard to historic resources on the site that have not been analyzed in previous EIRs. There would therefore be no new or substantially more severe significant impacts with respect to this impact than has been previously analyzed in previous CEQA documents. b, c) Cause a substantial adverse impact or destruction to archeological or paleontological resources or human remains? No New Impact. The Eastern Dublin EIR identifies a remote but potentially significant possibility that construction activities, including site grading, trenching and excavation, may uncover significant archeological and /or paleontological resources on development sites. Mitigation Measures 3.9/ 1.0 through 3.9/4.0 (page 3.9 -6 — 3.9 -7) require subsurface testing for archeological resources if such are found during site disturbance; recordation and mapping of such resources; and development of a protection program for resources which qualify as "significant" under Appendix K of the CEQA Guidelines (now included in CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5). Mitigation Measures 3.9/5.0 and 3.9/6.0, described above, also were adopted to address Eastern Dublin IM 9 /13, the potential disruption of any previously unidentified pre- historic resources and would apply to the project as may be appropriate. The Basin Report completed for the earlier Jordan Ranch project in 2009 did not identify the presence of significant archeological resources on Jordan Ranch property, although a number of recommendations are included in the Report (listed above) that have been met. No new or substantially more severe impacts with regard to archeological or paleontological impacts have been identified than were previously analyzed in previous CEQA documents. No new or substantially more severe impacts with regard to archeological or paleontological impacts have been identified than were previously analyzed in previous CEQA documents. d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of a formal cemetery? No New Impact. A remote possibility exists that historic or pre - historic human resources could be uncovered one or more of the project subareas during follow - on grading and construction activities. At the time the Eastern Dublin EIR was certified, the potential for impacts on unknown and unsurveyed human remains was not a separate CEQA checklist item, as in current Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines. Former Appendix K, Archeological Impacts, specifically addressed City of Dublin Page 62 Initial Study /Eastern Dublin Properties August 2015 human remains, which provisions now have been incorporated into CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5 and apply to the project pursuant to Mitigation Measures 3.9/5.0 and 6.0. However, this potential impact was analyzed as part of the 2005 SEIR for the Jordan Ranch Subarea and addressed by Supplemental Mitigation Measure SM- CUL -1. No new or more substantially severe impacts are anticipated with regard to disturbance of human remains than have been previously identified and no new mitigation measures are required. 6. Geology and Soils Environmental Setting Soils, geologic and seismic conditions were analyzed in Chapter 3.6 of the Eastern Dublin EIR. Previous CEQA documents Eastern Dublin EIR. The Eastern Dublin EIR contains a number of mitigation measures to reduce anticipated impacts related to Soils, Geology and Seismicity from the General Plan and EDSP project. These include: • Mitigation Measure 3.6/1.0 reduced impacts related to primary effects of earthquake ground shaking (IM 3.6 / B) but not to a less- than - significant level. This mitigation measure requires that future structure and infrastructure facilities be designed to applicable local and state building codes. Mitigation Measures 3.9/2.0 -8.0 reduced impacts related to the secondary effects of earthquake ground shaking (IM 3.9/C) to a less- than - significant level. Mitigation measures mandate building setbacks from landslides, stabilization of unstable land forms, removal and reconstruction of unstable soils, use of engineered retaining structures, use of appropriately designed and engineered fill, and design of structures to account of potential soil failure. • Mitigation Measures 3.6/9.0 -10.0 reduced impacts related to substantial alteration to landforms to a less -than significant level (IM 3.6/D). Mitigations require minimal grading plans with minimal cuts and fills and careful siting of homes and improvements to avoid excessive grading. • Mitigation Measures 3.6/14.0 -16.0 reduced impacts related to expansive soils (IM 3.6/H) to a less- than - significant level. Mitigation measures require formulation of site - specific designs to overcome expansive soils, reducing the amount of moisture in the soil and by appropriate foundation and pavement design. • Mitigation Measures 3.6/17.0 -19.0 reduced impacts related to natural slope stability (IM 3.6/I) to a less- than - significant level. Mitigation measures mandate City of Dublin Page 63 Initial Study /Eastern Dublin Properties August 2015 formulation of use of site - specific designs based on follow -on geotechnical reviews of individual developments, limiting the location of improvements on downslopes of unstable soils, removal/ reconstruction of potentially unstable slope areas and installation of surface and subsurface slope drainage improvements. Mitigation Measures 3.6 / 20.0 -26.0 reduced impacts related to cut and fill slope stability (IM 3.6 / J) to a less- than - significant level. These measures include developing grading plans for hillside areas that minimize grading and associated cuts and fills, ensuring that grading plans comply with appropriate building codes, utilizing keys and benches as part of grading to ensure slope stability and minimizing use of unreinforced fill slopes, appropriate compaction of fill areas and on -going maintenance of slope drainage areas. • Mitigation Measure 3.6/27.0 reduced the impact related to short -term construction- related erosion and sedimentation (IM 3.6/K) to a less -than- significant level. This measure includes limiting timing of construction to avoid the rainy season and implementing a number of other specific erosion control measures. • Mitigation Measure 3.6/28.0 reduced the impact related to long -term erosion and sedimentation (IM 3.6 / Q to a less -than- significant level. This measure includes installation of erosion control facilities into individual development projects, including sediment catch basins, creek bank stabilization, revegetation of graded areas and similar measures. 2005 Supplemental EIR (Jordan Subarea). The 2005 SEIR included one additional mitigation measure. Supplemental Mitigation Measure GEO -1 deals with grading of steeper slopes on properties north of the Jordan Ranch and does not apply to this Project. The topic of soils and geology was not identified as a significant environmental topic in the 2014 Subarea 3 Addendum or the 2004 Wallis SEIR. Project Impacts a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse impacts, including loss, injury or death related to ground rupture, seismic ground shaking, ground failure, or landslides? No New Impact. Although none of the project Subareas are located within an Earthquake Fault Zone (formerly Alquist- Priolo Zone), the Eastern Dublin EIR identified that the primary and secondary effects of ground shaking (Impacts 3.6 / B and 3.6 / Q could be potentially significant impacts on proposed improvements. With implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.6 / 1.0 the primary effects of ground - shaking are reduced to a less- than - significant level by using modern seismic design for resistance to lateral forces in construction, which would reduce the potential for structure failure, major structural damage and loss of life. City of Dublin Page 64 Initial Study /Eastern Dublin Properties August 2015 Mitigation Measures 3.6 / 2.0 through 3.6 / 7.0 contained in the Eastern Dublin EIR will be implemented to reduce the secondary effects of ground shaking on proposed project improvements to a less- than - significant level. Adherence to Mitigation Measures 3.6 / 20.0 through 3.6 / 26.0 by the project developer will ensure that effects of landsliding and ground failure on proposed project improvements will be less- than - significant. There would therefore be no new or substantially more severe significant impacts with respect to this impact than has been previously analyzed in previous CEQA documents. b) Is the site subject to substantial erosion and /or the loss of topsoil? No New Impact. Although the Jordan ranch and Wallis Ranch Subareas are currently vacant and have been rough graded pursuant to City approvals, further construction of the project improvements on the Jordan Ranch Subarea and the Wallis Ranch Subarea would modify the existing ground surface and alter patterns of surface runoff and infiltration. These actions could result in a short -term increase in erosion and sedimentation caused by grading activities (see Eastern Dublin EIR Impact 3.6/K). Long -term impacts could result from modification of the ground - surface and removal of existing vegetation (Eastern Dublin EIR Impact 3.6/ Q. No additional grading is anticipated on the Subarea 3 site. With implementation of Mitigation Measures contained in the Eastern Dublin EIR and an erosion control plan, impacts related to substantial erosion and loss of topsoil would not be significant. There would therefore be no new or substantially more severe significant impacts with respect to this impact than has been previously analyzed in previous CEQA documents. c,d) Is the site located on soil that is unstable or expansive or result in potential lateral spreading, liquefaction, landslide or collapse? No New Impact. Portions of the project Subareas are underlain by soil types with high shrink -swell potential, which have the potential to cause damage to foundations, slabs, and pavement (Eastern Dublin EIR Impact 3.6/H). With adherence to the mitigation measures contained in the Eastern Dublin EIR, potential shrink -swell impacts would be less -than- significant. Consistent with applicable mitigation measures, project developers will be required by Eastern Dublin EIR mitigation measures to retain a qualified soils and geotechnical consultant to prepare a site - specific analysis of future building sites. Recommendations included in each of site - specific soil reports will be reviewed by the City of Dublin Public Works Department and will be included in grading and constructions plans and specifications to comply with Eastern Dublin EIR mitigation measures and EDSP policies regarding soil hazards. There would therefore be no new or substantially more severe significant impacts with respect to this impact than has been previously analyzed in previous CEQA documents. City of Dublin Page 65 Initial Study /Eastern Dublin Properties August 2015 e) Have soils incapable of supporting on -site septic tanks if sewers are not available? No New Impact. Proposed residences and other land uses that would be approved as part of this application would be connected to sanitary sewers provided by DSRSD, so there would be no impacts with regard to septic systems. There would therefore be no new or substantially more severe significant impacts with respect to this impact than has been previously analyzed in previous CEQA documents. 7. Greenhouse Gas Emissions Environmental Setting Since certification of the Eastern Dublin EIR in 1993 and the SEIRs in 2002, 2004 and 2005, the issue of contribution of greenhouse gasses to climate change has become a more prominent issue of concern as evidenced by passage of AB 32 in 2006. On March 18, 2010, amendments to the State CEQA Guidelines took effect which set forth requirements for the analysis of greenhouse gasses. The topic of the Project's contribution to greenhouse gas emissions and climate change was not analyzed in the Eastern Dublin EIR and the 2002 and 2005 SEIRs. Since the Eastern Dublin EIR and SEIRs have been certified, the determination of whether greenhouse gasses and climate change needs to be analyzed for this proposed Project is governed by the law on supplemental or subsequent EIRs (Public Resources Code section 21166 and CEQA Guidelines, Sections 15162 and 15163). Greenhouse gas and climate change is not required to be analyzed under those standards unless it constitutes "new information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known at the time the previous EIR was certified as complete (CEQA Guidelines Sec. 15162 (a) (3).) Greenhouse gas and climate change impacts is not new information that was not known or could not have been known at the time the Eastern Dublin EIR and SEIRs were certified. The issue of climate change and greenhouse gasses was widely known prior to the certification of these EIRs. The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change was established in 1992. The regulation of greenhouse gas emissions to reduce climate change impacts was extensively debated and analyzed throughout the early 1990s. The studies and analyses of this issue resulted in the adoption of the Kyoto Protocol in 1997. In the early and mid 2000s, GHGs and climate change were extensively discussed and analyzed in California. In 2000, SB 1771 established the California Climate Action Registry for the recordation of greenhouse gas emissions to provide information about potential environmental impacts. In 2005, the Governor issued Executive Order # S -03 -05 establishing greenhouse gas emission reduction targets in California. AB 32 was adopted in 2006. Therefore, the impact of greenhouse gases on climate change was known at the time of the certification of the Eastern Dublin EIR in May 1993 and the certification of the SEIRs in 2002, 2004 and 2005. Under CEQA standards, it is not new information that requires analysis in a supplemental EIR or negative declaration. No supplemental environmental analysis of the Project's impacts on this issue is required under CEQA. City of Dublin Page 66 Initial Study /Eastern Dublin Properties August 2015 Project Impacts a,b Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment or conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases? No New Impacts. As discussed above, no additional environmental analysis is required under CEQA Section 21166. 8. Hazards and Hazardous Materials Environmental Setting The topic of hazards and hazardous materials was not analyzed in the Eastern Dublin EIR. Hazardous materials conditions on the project Subareas are identified below. Jordan Ranch. The 2005 SEIR, prepared for the Fallon Village Project area of which the Jordan Ranch Property site is a component, identified a number of Supplemental Impacts and Supplemental Mitigation Measures for individual properties included in the overall Fallon Village project area. Supplemental Impact HAZ -2 identified the possibility of soil and/or groundwater contamination and the exposure of individuals from release of such materials, including portions of the Jordan Property. Supplemental Mitigation Measure HAZ -3b requires remediation of contamination on a number of sites within the Fallon Village area, including the Jordan Ranch. In addition, Supplemental Mitigation Measure 3b requires the Jordan Ranch owner to inform the Alameda County Environmental Health Services Department of an unauthorized release of fuel hydrocarbons (diesel and gasoline) in the vicinity of a removed underground storage tank on the property. Additional subsurface investigation was then required to identify the extent of possible contamination and to evaluate the potential for groundwater contamination. Also, the supplemental mitigation measure required completion of a Phase II Environmental Site Assessment to determine if any soil or groundwater contamination exists near former barn structures. A Phase I and II Environmental Site Assessment was prepared for the overall Jordan Ranch by the firm of ATC Associates, Inc., dated June 9, 2008, which includes two portions of the Subarea. The report is hereby incorporated by reference into this Initial Study and the report is available for review at the Dublin Community Development Department during normal business hours. These studies noted that an underground storage tank (since removed) existing on a portion of Subarea 3 as well as several other sources of contamination in surrounding area, such as above - ground fuel tanks and a former diesel fuel tank storage area. Subsequently, a Corrective Action Plan and an Updated Plan to remediate hazardous materials on the site have been prepared by the firm of ENGEO, Inc. A copy of the Updated Action Plan is available for review at the Dublin Community Development Department during normal business hours. With adherence to the Corrective Action Plan, there would be no significant impacts with respect to release of hazardous materials into the environment. City of Dublin Page 67 Initial Study /Eastern Dublin Properties August 2015 As of mid -2015, remediation of the Jordan property has been completed and necessary clearance documents from applicable regulatory agencies filed with the City of Dublin (source: M. Porto, Dublin Community Development Department, 7/13/15). The Jordan Ranch Subareas are all located out of an Airport Hazard Area as identified on the latest Livermore Municipal Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (2012). Subarea 3. The Initial Study for this property prepared in 2014 did not find any significant impacts on this property related to the release of hazardous materials into the environment. This conclusion is based on a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment prepared for the site by Haley & Aldrich, Inc. in 2012. This document is available for review at the Dublin Community Development Department during normal business hours. This portion of the project area lies inside the Airport Influence Area (AIA) for Livermore Municipal Airport. Wallis Ranch. The 2014 Addendum did not identify the presence of significant environmental substances on the property that could be released into the environment. This conclusion was based on a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment prepared for the overall Wallis Ranch property in 2013 by Cornerstone Earth Group. The Cornerstone Phase I report is available for review in the Dublin Community Development Department during normal business hours. The Wallis Ranch portion of the project lies northeast of the Livermore Airport and outside of the AIA. Portions of the Wallis Ranch may be subject to infrequent overflights of helicopters from Parks RFTA that lies west of the site. Previous CEQA documents The 2005 Fallon Village SEIR contains the following supplemental mitigation measures related to hazards and hazardous materials that pertain to the Jordan Ranch Subarea. • Supplemental Mitigation SM -HAZ -1 requires preparation of site - specific analysis to determine the presence of lead based paint and/or asbestos in structures to be demolished in the Fallon Village area. Supplemental Mitigation HAZ -2 requires the removal of identified hazardous conditions on sites in the Fallon Village area prior to future development on properties. Supplemental Mitigation SM- HAZ -3b requires remediation of contaminated areas of the Jordan Ranch property. In addition, the Jordan Ranch owner shall inform the Alameda County Environmental Health Department of an unauthorized release of fuel hydrocarbons (gasoline and diesel) in the vicinity of an underground storage tank that had been previously removed. Additional subsurface investigations are required to determine the lateral and horizontal City of Dublin Page 68 Initial Study /Eastern Dublin Properties August 2015 extent of any potential contamination and, if found, is required to be removed as directed by the Alameda County Environmental Health Department. The additional investigations were also required to determine the extent of contamination caused by diesel fuel storage drums, weed killer and other contaminants in former barn structures on the Jordan site. • Supplemental Mitigation SM- HAZ -3f requires abandonment and destruction of any private wells on the site. • Supplemental Mitigation SM- HAZ -3g requires septic systems and leach fields within the Fallon Village project area to be pumped out and removed under permits from the Alameda County Environmental Health Department. Proposed development on the Jordan Ranch Subarea will be required to adhere to the above mitigation measures. No mitigation measures have been adopted for the Subarea 3 site or the Wallis Ranch Subarea. Project Impacts a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use or disposal of hazardous materials? No New Impact. There would be no impact with regard to transport, use or disposal of hazardous materials, since the proposed project would include a school use, additional residences and parks. The proposed school use would include storage and use of small amounts of lawn and garden supplies and storage of cleaning supplies and paints, these would not be substantial quantities. None of the other proposed land uses would involve o use, storage or transport of significant quantities of hazardous materials. There would therefore be no new or substantially more severe significant impacts with respect to this impact than has been previously analyzed in previous CEQA documents. b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? No New Impact. The 2005 Fallon Village SEIR and supplemental environmental site investigations for the Jordan Ranch property identified the presence of contaminated soils and groundwater on the site as a result of previous agricultural operations on the site. To comply with 2005 Fallon Village Supplemental Mitigation Measures, the project developer has completed a Phase I and II Environmental Site Assessment and has contacted the Alameda County Environmental Health Department. Supplemental Mitigation SM -HAZ 3b requires remediation of identified contaminated areas. In order to implement this Mitigation Measure, the applicant's consultant (ENGEO, Inc.) has prepared a Corrective Action Plan to remediate contaminated soil and groundwater contamination on the site. Proposed remediation actions that have been completed include a combination of excavating contaminated soil from the site, extracting contaminated groundwater under the site and pumping biodegradable/ oxidation material into the subsurface via a well. City of Dublin Page 69 Initial Study /Eastern Dublin Properties August 2015 No significant impacts related to the release of hazardous materials have been identified for Subarea 3 or the Wallis Ranch property based on recently completed Phase I Environmental Site Assessments. No new or substantially more severe impacts with respect to release of hazardous materials have been identified in this Initial Study than has been previously analyzed in previous CEQA documents. c) Emit hazardous materials or handle hazardous materials or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one - quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? No New Impact. Approval and implementation of the proposed project would have a less - than- significant impact with respect to this topic. A future elementary school site is shown on the Jordan Ranch property. The proposed project includes a relocation of an existing school site already designated on the Jordan Ranch, which was planned for the northeast portion of the site. The proposed site of a joint school and park would be on the south side of Central Parkway. As noted in subsection "b," above, the Jordan Ranch property has been fully remediated from identified soil hazards. Although the Quarry Lane private school is located just to the east of the Wallis Ranch Subarea, approval and implementation of the proposed General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment would have no impact with regard to this topic, since a substantial quantity of hazardous materials or acutely hazardous materials would not be released from the project site. Proposed uses on the Wallis Ranch Subarea would be parks. No existing or proposed schools exist within one - quarter mile of the Subarea 3 portion of the project. There would therefore be no new or substantially more severe significant impacts with respect to this impact than has been previously analyzed in previous CEQA documents. d) Is the site listed as a hazardous materials site? No New Impact. No properties comprising the project area are listed on the State of California Department of Toxic Substances Control as an identified hazardous site as of May 27, 2015. There is therefore no impact with regard to this topic. There would therefore be no new or substantially more severe significant impacts with respect to this impact than has been previously analyzed in previous CEQA documents. e,f) Is the site located within an airport land use plan of a public airport or private airstrip? No New Impact. The Jordan Ranch Subarea is located north of the Livermore Airport and outside of any airport safety zone and the Airport Influence Area (AIA) of the airport. However, this Subarea does lie within the airport height referral area of the airport, as documented on Figure 3.1 -D. Pursuant to Supplemental Noise Mitigation Measure SM- NOISE -1 contained in the 2005 SEIR, Jordan Ranch project City of Dublin Page 70 Initial Study /Eastern Dublin Properties August 2015 developers, including those included in this Subarea, will be required to provide notification to future purchases of dwellings about the presence of Livermore Airport. Subarea 3 lies within the AIA and Safety Zone 7 of the Livermore Municipal Airport. Any General Plan Amendment that proposes new land uses in the AIA must be reviewed for consistency with Chapter 8.35 (Airport Overlay Zoning District) of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance. The proposed General Plan Amendment would change approximately 12 acres of Rural Residential/ Agricultural (RRA) lands to Park. The Park designation is not contrary to the allowed uses within the AIA and Safety Zone 7 and is a comparable open space use to RRA. Since RRA and Park are comparable open space land use designations there would be no new or more severe significant impacts with respect to this topic. The Eastern Dublin EIR discussed the potential for land use incompatibilities with respect to the airport, but identified the impact as less- than - significant based on the land uses being consistent with the requirements and policies of the designated areas (Impact 3.1 / H). The project proposes a similar type of open space in the same location as existing RRA lands and does not propose additional development within the AIA. Therefore, there would not be a new or more severe significant impact than analyzed in the prior CEQA documents. No additional analysis is required. The Wallis Ranch Subarea is located northwest of the Livermore Municipal Airport AIA and any airport safety zone and is not subject to regular aircraft overflights. However, as noted in the Eastern Dublin EIR, properties in the western portion of the Eastern Dublin Planning Area, generally locate adjacent to Tassajara Road, is subject to occasional overflights from military helicopters from nearby Parks RFTA. This activity was not identified as a significant hazard impact in the Eastern Dublin EIR. There would therefore be no new or substantially more severe significant impacts with respect to this impact than has been previously analyzed in previous CEQA documents. g) Interference with an emergency evacuation plan? No New Impact. The proposed project would include changes to the Dublin General Plan and the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan that would affect a local school site, residential and local park uses. No emergency evacuation plan would be affected since no roadways would be blocked. There would therefore be no new or substantially more severe significant impacts with respect to this impact than has been previously analyzed in previous CEQA documents. h) Expose people and structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? No New Impact. The potential for wildfire impacts was analyzed in the Eastern Dublin EIR and, with adherence to mitigation measures contained in the Eastern Dublin EIR, impacts related to wildland fire would be less- than - significant. These mitigation measures include Mitigation Measure 3.4/6.0, requiring project developers to assist in City of Dublin Page 71 Initial Study /Eastern Dublin Properties August 2015 funding new fire stations and other facilities in Eastern Dublin, Mitigation Measure 3.4/9.0 requiring use of non - combustible roof materials, and maintaining water fire flow and pressure, establishing low -fuel buffers between structures and wildland areas and installing fire sprinklers in buildings. There would therefore be no new or substantially more severe significant impacts with respect to this impact than has been previously analyzed in previous CEQA documents. 9. Hydrology and Water Quality Environmental Setting Local surface water. The project Subareas are located within the Arroyo Las Positas watershed, a sub -basin of the Alameda Creek watershed. This watershed drains westerly into and through the Arroyo Mocho to the Arroyo de la Laguna, which discharges into Alameda Creek near Sunol and ultimately into San Francisco Bay near Union City. All of the Subareas are located within the jurisdiction of Zone 7 of the Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation District (Zone 7). Zone 7 provides maintenance of regional drainage facilities within this portion of Alameda County. Surface water quality. Water quality in California is regulated by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES), which controls the discharge of pollutants to water bodies from point and non -point sources. In the San Francisco Bay area, this program is administered by the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board ( RWQCB). Federal regulations issued in November 1990 expanded the authority of the RWQCB to include permitting of stormwater discharges from municipal storm sewer systems, industrial processes, and construction sites that disturb areas larger than one acre of land area. The City of Dublin is a co- permittee of the Alameda County Clean Water Program, which is a coordinated effort by local governments in Alameda County to improve water quality in San Francisco Bay. In 1994, the RWQCB issued a set of recommendations for New and Redevelopment Controls for Storm Water Programs. These recommendations include policies that define watershed protection goals, set forth minimum non -point source pollutant control requirements for site planning, construction and post- construction activities, and establish criteria for ongoing reporting of water quality construction activities. Watershed protection goals are based on policies identified in the San Francisco Bay Basin Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan), and the entire program relies on the implementation of Best Management Practices to limit pollutant contact with stormwater runoff at its source and to remove pollutants before they are discharged into receiving waters. The California Stormwater Quality Task Force has published a series of Best Management Practices handbooks for use in the design of source control; and treatment programs to achieve the water quality objectives identified by the Basin Plan for the beneficial uses of surface waters, groundwaters, wetland and marshes. City of Dublin Page 72 Initial Study /Eastern Dublin Properties August 2015 Surface water quality is affected by a number of pollutants generated from existing structures, parking areas and open space uses on the project area, including but not limited to petrochemicals (oil and grease), yard and landscape chemicals (herbicides, pesticides and fertilizers), and similar sources. Flooding. The project Subareas lies outside of a 100 -year flood hazard area as mapped by the Federal Emergency Management Agency FEMA (source: Flood Insurance Rate Map Community Panel #s 06001C0328G, 06001CO329G and 06001C0326G). Previous CEOA documents Eastern Dublin EIR. The Eastern Dublin EIR contains a number of mitigation measures to reduce anticipated impacts related to hydrology and storm drainage from the General Plan and EDSP project. These include: Mitigation Measures 3.5 / 44.0 -48.0 would reduce impacts related potential flooding due to increased runoff into creeks (IM 3.5 / Y) to a less- than - significant level. These mitigation measures requires new storm drainage facilities as part of new development, requires developers to prepare storm drain plans for individual development projects and requires new flood control facilities to alleviate downstream flooding potential. Mitigation Measures 3.5 / 51.0 - 55.0 would reduce impacts related to non -point source pollution (IM 3.5 / AA) to a less- than - significant level. These mitigation measures mandate that specific water quality investigations be submitted as part of development projects and that the City should develop community -based programs to educate residents and businesses to reduce non -point source pollution. 2005 Fallon Village SEIR (Jordan Ranch). The 2005 SEIR identified two Supplemental Impacts and Mitigation Measures related to hydrology and water quality: Supplemental Impact SD -1 found that surface water quality standards had been updated from regulations in effect when the 1993 Eastern Dublin EIR was certified. Mitigation Measure SD -1 requires that properties in the Stage 1 Development Plan adhere to water quality source control and hydrologic design recommendations contained in the February 2005 ENGEO report. These recommendations relate to limiting the volume and quantity of stormwater runoff entering local and regional drainage facilities. • Supplemental Mitigation Measure SD -2 requires that individual development projects in the Fallon Village area comply with hydromodification provisions contained in the Alameda County Clean Water Program. If no Alameda County Clean Water Program permit has been approved before individual development proposals are approved by the City of Dublin, applicants may be required to City of Dublin Page 73 Initial Study /Eastern Dublin Properties August 2015 submit hydrologic and hydraulic analyses to be reviewed and approved by the City of Dublin and Zone 7. Payment of Zone 7 fees is also required. No significant Hydrology and Water Quality impacts were identified in previous CEQA documents for either the Subarea 3 or Wallis Ranch properties. Future development on all of the project Subareas will be required to adhere to the above mitigation measures. Project Impacts a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? No New Impact. Adherence to mitigation measures set forth in the Eastern Dublin EIR, the 2005 SEIR (as applied to the Jordan Ranch Subarea) and the Alameda County Clean Water Program as enforced by the City of Dublin will ensure that construction allowed by the proposed project would not violate water quality standards or any waste discharge requirements. The Jordan Ranch developer has constructed a water quality basin in the southwestern portion of the site to intercept storm water and cleanse contaminants and erosion from runoff prior to entering the G -3 facility that would accommodate future development on this property. The water quality basin has been constructed to City of Dublin, Zone 7 and Regional Water Quality Control Board standards and specifications. Project developers on the other two Subareas will be required to prepare master storm drain and water quality plans to meet Eastern Dublin EIR mitigation measure requirements as well as Alameda County Clean Water Program requirements. There would therefore be no new or substantially more severe significant impacts with respect to this impact than has been previously analyzed in previous CEQA documents. b) Substantially deplete groundwater recharge areas or lowering of water table? No New Impact. Major portions of all three Subareas have been slated for future urban uses since adoption of the 1993 Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan. Proposed residential uses on the Jordan Ranch Subarea would rely on imported water sources provided by Zone 7 and the Dublin San Ramon Services District, not locally pumped groundwater. No supplemental impacts would therefore occur with regard to this topic. As identified in Eastern Dublin EIR Mitigation Measure 3.5/49.0, and as identified in subsection "a," above, future individual developments will include features to minimize surface and groundwater pollution, consistent with Alameda County Clean Water Program and City of Dublin standards. There would therefore be no new or substantially more severe significant impacts with respect to this impact than has been previously analyzed in the previous CEQA documents. City of Dublin Page 74 Initial Study /Eastern Dublin Properties August 2015 c) Substantially alter drainage patterns, including streambed courses such that substantial siltation or erosion would occur? No New Impact. New impervious surfaces would be added to the Jordan Ranch Subarea to accommodate new dwellings, a school, roadways, driveways and similar surfaces. Although the existing main drainage swale on the Jordan Ranch would be used for primary drainage, existing drainage patterns would be slightly modified based on proposed development to channelize existing sheet flow into the main swale and then transported to Zone 7's G -3 box culvert just west of Fallon Road and north of the I -580 freeway. As identified in subsection "a," a water quality basin has been constructed on the Jordan Ranch site to minimize impacts related to siltation and erosion, consistent with the Alameda County Clean Water Program. Adherence to Mitigation Measure 3.5/46.0 contained in the Eastern Dublin EIR would reduce changed drainage patterns to a less- than - significant level for all three Subareas. This mitigation measure requires the future project developers to prepare a Master Drainage Plan for each respective development project with each respective Subarea prior to commencement of construction. Adherence to mitigation measures contained in the Eastern Dublin EIR, the 2005 SEIR for the Jordan Ranch Subarea and other local and regional water quality standards will reduce impacts from Subarea developments such related to siltation and erosion to a less -than- significant level. With adherence to previously adopted mitigations, there would therefore be no new or substantially more severe significant impacts with respect to this impact than has been previously analyzed in previous CEQA documents. d) Substantially alter drainage patterns or substantially increase surface water runoff that would result in flooding, either on or off the project site? No New Impact. The Eastern Dublin EIR and 2005 SEIR for the Jordan Ranch Subarea identified a number of mitigation measures to which future individual development projects on the three Subareas must conform to reduce drainage and flooding impacts to a less -than- significant level. These include preparation of a Master Drainage Plan for each individual development proposal, as required by Eastern Dublin EIR Mitigation Measure 3.5/46.0 and each individual project developer contributions to funding regional drainage improvements, as required by Mitigation Measures 3.5/47.0 and 48.0. Payment of local and regional drainage fees to the City of Dublin and Zone 7 will meet the requirements of these mitigation measures. There would therefore be no new or substantially more severe significant impacts with respect to this impact than has been previously analyzed in previous CEQA documents. e) Create stormwater runoff that would exceed the capacity of drainage systems or add substantial amounts of polluted runoff? No New Impact. The ability of downstream drainage facilities to accommodate additional quantities of stormwater runoff from each Subarea have been addressed in previous EIRs. The City of Dublin will require compliance with applicable mitigation measures to ensure that drainage City of Dublin Page 75 Initial Study /Eastern Dublin Properties August 2015 impacts will be reduced to a less- than - significant level. Consistent with Eastern Dublin EIR Mitigation Measures 2.6/47.0 and 48.0, the individual developers on each Subarea will be required to pay regional drainage fees to assist in funding backbone drainage facilities identified in the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan. There would therefore be no new or substantially more severe significant impacts with respect to this impact than has been previously analyzed in previous CEQA documents. f) Substantially degrade water quality? No New Impact. This is a less -than- significant issue and has been addressed above in item "a." g) Place housing within a 100 -year flood hazard area as mapped by a Flood Insurance Rate Map? No New Impact. The Subareas lie outside of a 100 -year flood hazard zone as mapped by FEMA. This is identified in the Environmental Setting section of this Initial Study. There would therefore be no new or substantially more severe significant impacts with respect to this impact than has been previously analyzed in the previous CEQA documents. h, i) Place within a 100 -year flood hazard boundary structures that impeded or redirect flood flow, including dam failures? No New Impact. Refer to item "g," above. j) Result in inundation by seiche, tsunami or mudflows? No New Impact. All three Subareas are located well inland from San Francisco Bay or other major bodies of water to be impacted by a tsunami or seiche. Adherence to mitigation measures contained in the Eastern Dublin EIR as identified in subsection 6 of this Initial Study (Geology and Soils) will ensure that impacts from mudflows would be less - than- significant. These measures include Eastern Dublin Mitigation Measure 3.6 / 20.0, that requires grading plans that minimize areas to be graded, Mitigation Measure 3.6/22.0, requiring completion of site specific geotechnnical investigations and installation of retaining structures and Mitigation Measure 3.6/23.0, requiring placements of subsurface keys and benches to stabilize graded slopes. There would therefore be no new or substantially more severe significant impacts with respect to this impact than has been previously analyzed in the previous CEQA documents. 10. Land Use and Planning Environmental Setting Existing land uses. All of the three subareas comprising the project are currently vacant and contain no buildings. Regulatory setting Land use on the Project Subareas is regulated by the Eastern Dublin General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan (EDSP), both of which were adopted in 1993. The applicants have requested City of Dublin approval of amendments to the General Plan City of Dublin Page 76 Initial Study /Eastern Dublin Properties August 2015 and the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan as well as other land use entitlements documented in the Project Description section of this Initial Study. Approval of the requested land use entitlements would allow an increase of up to 35 dwellings on the Jordan Ranch property from the 2014 City approval (see Table 1 in the Project Description), relocation of a planned school on the same property in conjunction with a City Park, deletion of a planned Community Park on the same property. Proposed actions would also include converting a Rural Residential/ Agriculture area of approximately 10.75 acres on Subarea 3 to a Park and converting an existing Public Semi - Public site on the Wallis Ranch Subarea to a Park. Project Impacts a) Physically divide an established community? No New Impact. Each of three Subareas comprising the project site are vacant. Development of dwellings and other land uses on the site as proposed in this project would not divide any established communities and no impact would result. There would therefore be no new or substantially more severe significant impacts with respect to this impact than has been previously analyzed in previous CEQA documents. b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy or regulation? No New Impact. Amendments have been requested to the General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan to change land use designations on the Subareas. No changes are proposed to any regulation regulating environmental protection. No new or more significant impacts are anticipated with regard to land use regulations than have been previously analyzed in other applicable CEQA documents. c) Conflict with a habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? No New Impact. None of the project Subareas are located within a habitat conservation plan area or natural community conservation plan area. There would therefore be no new or substantially more severe significant impacts with respect to this impact than has been previously analyzed in previous CEQA documents. 11. Mineral Resources Environmental Setting No significant quantities of mineral resources exist on any of the project Subareas according to the Eastern Dublin General Plan, the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan, the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan EIR or any of other CEQA documents that affect the project site. Project Impacts a, b) Result in the loss of availability of regionally or locally significant mineral resources? No New Impact. None of the City of Dublin land use regulatory documents or applicable EIRs indicate that significant deposits of minerals exist on any of the Subareas, so no impacts would occur. City of Dublin Page 77 Initial Study /Eastern Dublin Properties August 2015 12. Noise Environmental Settin Noise is defined as unwanted sound. Airborne sound is a rapid fluctuation of air pressure above and below atmospheric pressure. Sound levels are usually measured and expressed in decibels (dB) with 0 dB corresponding roughly to the threshold of hearing. Decibels and other technical terms are defined in Table 1. Most of the sounds heard in the environment do not consist of a single frequency, but rather a broad band of frequencies, with each frequency differing in sound level. The intensities of each frequency add together to generate a sound. The method commonly used to quantify environmental sounds consists of evaluating all of the frequencies of a sound in accordance with a weighting that reflects the facts that human hearing is less sensitive at low frequencies and extreme high frequencies than in the frequency mid- range. This is called "A" weighting, and the decibel level so measured is called the A- weighted sound level (dBA). In practice, the level of a sound source is conveniently measured using a sound level meter that includes an electrical filter corresponding to the A- weighting curve. Typical A- weighted levels measured in the environment and in industry are shown in Table 2 for different types of noise. Although the A- weighted noise level may adequately indicate the level of environmental noise at any instant in time, community noise levels vary continuously. Most environmental noise includes a conglomeration of noise from distant sources which create a relatively steady background noise in which no particular source is identifiable. To describe the time - varying character of environmental noise, the statistical noise descriptors, L01, Lio/ L50, and L90, are commonly used. They are the A- weighted noise levels equaled or exceeded during 1 %, 10 %, 50 %, and 907o of a stated time period. A single number descriptor called the L,q is also widely used. The Len is the average A- weighted noise level during a stated period of time. In determining the daily level of environmental noise, it is important to account for the difference in response of people to daytime and nighttime noises. During the nighttime, exterior background noises are generally lower than the daytime levels. However, most household noise also decreases at night and exterior noise becomes very noticeable. Further, most people sleep at night and are very sensitive to noise intrusion. To account for human sensitivity to nighttime noise levels, the DaylNight Average Sound Level (Ldn or DNL) was developed. The Lan divides the 24 -hour day into the daytime of 7:00 am to 10:00 pm and the nighttime of 10:00 pm to 7:00 am. The nighttime noise level is weighted 10 dB higher than the daytime noise level. The Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) is another 24 -hour average which includes both an evening and nighttime weighting. City of Dublin Page 78 Initial Study /Eastern Dublin Properties August 2015 Existing noise environment. The project site is located south of Central Parkway, about 800 feet east of Fallon Road and about a half -mile north of Interstate 580 (1- 580) in Dublin, California. The project site is bounded by Central Parkway to the north, new development property to the east, and hillsides/ open space to the south and west. Illingworth & Rodkin, Inc. completed a series of noise measurements to quantify existing ambient noise levels. The noise monitoring survey consisted of one long -term noise measurement beginning Wednesday, May 27, 2015 and ending Friday, May 29, 2015. Two short -term (10- minute) noise measurements were also made to complete the survey. Noise monitoring locations are shown on Exhibit 9 and long -term measurement data are shown in Attachment 2. The proposed project location is currently an undeveloped, vacant property. Noise - sensitive residential land uses are located east of the project site and north of Central Parkway, primarily near the Sunset View Drive intersection (in the current stage of development). The nearest residences are across Central Parkway approximately 150 feet from the project site. The noise environment in the site vicinity results primarily from local traffic along Central Parkway, Fallon Road, vehicle traffic along I -580, and construction associated with ongoing development near the site. Site LT -1 was located near the northwest corner of the project site, along Central Parkway, 45 feet from the centerline. This location was selected to quantify the daily trend in noise levels along the roadway near the western portion of the site. The primary noise sources during the measurement were local traffic and construction during the day, and highway traffic at night. Hourly average noise levels typically ranged from 59 to 64 dBA Len during the day, from 56 to 61 dBA Len during the evening, and from 52 to 57 dBA Le at night. The 24 -hour average CNEL at this location ranged from 63 to 64 dBA ZNEL. Residences to the north would be located farther from the roadway than the measurement location and would be exposed to lower noise levels. Ambient noise levels at the nearest noise sensitive receivers were calculated to be 3 dB lower than LT -1 noise levels, resulting in a range of 60 to 61 dBA CNEL. Two short -term noise measurements were made in conjunction with the long- term measurements on May 29, 2015 in order to quantify the variation in noise levels at locations further from local traffic and construction noise sources. Site ST -1 was located near the southwest corner of the project site, 430 feet south of the intersection of Central Parkway and Sunset View Drive. The 10- minute average noise level measured on May 29, 2015 between 1:40 pm and 1:50 pm was 52 dBA Len. A comparison of these data to the daily trend in noise levels measured at LT -1 was made to estimate the CNEL at Site ST -1, which was 55 dBA CNEL. Site ST -2 was located near the southeast corner of the project site, 440 feet south of the center of Central Parkway. The 10- minute average noise level measured on May 29, 2015 between 1:10 pm and 1:20 pm was 52 dBA Len, and between 1:20 pm and 1:30 pm the measured noise level was 53 dBA Leg. A comparison of these data to the daily trend in noise levels measured at Site LT -1 was made to estimate City of Dublin Page 79 Initial Study /Eastern Dublin Properties August 2015 the CNEL at Site ST -2, which was 55 dBA CNEL. Table 5 summarizes the results of these short -term measurements. Table 5. Summary of Short -Term Noise Measurements (dBA) Noise Measurement Date Conditionally Acceptable Normally Unacceptable Clearly Unacceptable Residential 60 or less CNEL Location Time L,Q L... L(10) L(50) L 90 + ST -1: 430 feet south of 5/29/2015 -- Neighborhood arks 60 or less 60 -65 65 -70 Central Parkway, near 1:10 -1:20 prn 52 63 54 50 48 55 southwest corner of 1 75+ -- site. 1:20 -1:30 pm 53 64 55 51 48 55 ST -2: 440 feet south of Central Parkway, near 5/29/2015 52 65 55 48 45 55 southeast corner of 1:40 -1:50 pm site. * CNEL levels were estimated based on noise levels measured at LT -1 during corresponding intervals. Regulatory setting The Noise Element of the Dublin General Plan identifies the following primary sources of noise in Dublin: traffic noise from freeways and major roadways within the community and noise generated by the BART line adjacent to the I -580 freeway. The Noise Element identifies the following maximum noise exposure levels by land use type. Table 6. City of Dublin Land Use /Noise Compatibility Standards (decibels) Land Use Normally Acceptable Conditionally Acceptable Normally Unacceptable Clearly Unacceptable Residential 60 or less 60 -70 70 -75 75+ Lodging Facilities 60 -70 70 -80 80+ -- Schools, churches, nursing homes 60 -70 70 -80 80+ -- Neighborhood arks 60 or less 60 -65 65 -70 70+ Office /Retail 70 or less 70 -75 75 -80 80+ Industrial 70 or less 70 -75 1 75+ -- Source: Dublin General Plan Noise Element, Table 9 -1 The City of Dublin also enforces an interior noise standard of 45 decibels for residential dwellings. City of Dublin Page 80 Initial Study /Eastern Dublin Properties August 2015 Previous CEOA documents Eastern Dublin EIR. The Eastern Dublin EIR contains a number of mitigation measures to reduce anticipated noise impacts from the General Plan and EDSP project. These include: • Mitigation Measures 3.10/ 1.0 would reduce impacts related to exposure of proposed housing to future roadway noise (IM 3.10/A) to a less- than - significant level. This mitigation measure requires that all future development projects have an acoustic analysis prepared to ensure that future dwelling units meet City noise exposure levels. • Mitigation Measures 3.10/4.0 and 5.0 would reduce impacts related to construction noise (IM 10 / E) to a less- than - significant level. These mitigation measures require developers to submit construction noise management plans and to limit hours of construction operations. 2002 SEIR (Jordan Ranch). The 2002 Supplement contains two supplemental mitigation measures dealing with noise impacts, as follows: • Supplemental Mitigation Measure SM- NOISE -1 requires a noise insulation plan for general commercial and industrial land uses for specific development projects located within a 70 decibel noise contour. • Supplemental Mitigation Measure SM- NOISE -2 limits heavy truck traffic to designated arterial roads and truck routes in the Fallon Village area. The 2002 SEIR found that exposure of proposed and existing housing to noise levels in excess of City standards established in the Noise Element was a significant and unavoidable impact. 2005 SEIR (Jordan Ranch). The SEIR prepared in 2005 contains the following supplemental noise mitigation measures: • Supplemental Mitigation Measure SM- NOISE -1 requires that residents of residential developments in the Fallon Village area receive written notification of aircraft overflights from Livermore Airport • Supplemental Mitigation Measure SM- NOISE -2 requires an acoustical study must be prepared for future residential projects in the Fallon Village area. The proposed project will be required to comply with applicable noise mitigation measures contained in the previous EIRs. City of Dublin Page 81 Initial Study /Eastern Dublin Properties August 2015 Project Impacts a,c) Would the project expose persons or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established by the General Plan or other applicable standard and result in a substantial increases in permanent in ambient noise levels? No New Impact. The land use compatibility guidelines applicable to this project are designed to provide guidance in determining when special sound insulation treatments may be necessary in order to adequately control the intrusion of environmental noise. In this case, 70 dBA CNEL is the acceptable exterior noise limit for schools. The California Building Code noise threshold is 65 CNEL. The noise exposure at the site is less than 65 dBA CNEL and is compatible with the proposed land use. For the most intensive proposed use associated with the project, the combination elementary and middle school located on the south side of Central Parkway and at the intersection of Central Parkway and Sunset View Drive, a detailed noise analysis was completed by the firm of Illingworth & Rodkin, Inc. Their analysis is as follows. Traffic noise impacts. Typically, a significant permanent noise increase would occur if the project would increase noise levels at noise sensitive receptors by 3 dBA CNEL or greater where ambient noise levels exceed the normally acceptable noise level standard. Where ambient noise levels are at or below the normally acceptable noise level standard, noise level increases of 5 dBA CNEL or greater would be considered significant. Ambient noise levels at the nearest receptors are above 60 dBA CNEL at times, and would exceed 60 dBA CNEL with the project; therefore, the 3 dBA CNEL or greater significance threshold would apply. Vehicle traffic associated with the project was evaluated to determine whether or not the project would result in a substantial permanent increase in noise levels existing without the project. Traffic data provided by Fehr & Peers were reviewed to calculate traffic noise level increases expected as a result of the project. These data included turning movement counts at six intersections for existing conditions and projections for cumulative conditions with school traffic, and cumulative conditions without school traffic. Link volumes under the project scenario were compared to existing link volumes to calculate the noise increase attributable to the project. Traffic noise levels along Central Parkway and Sunset View Drive were projected to increase by 3 dBA CNEL during the AM peak hours. This noise increase would be noticeable during the AM peak hours. However, project - generated traffic would not cause a substantial increase in daily average noise levels. On a 24 -hour average basis, the CNEL is calculated to increase by less than 1 dBA assuming a 3 dBA Len increase in existing traffic noise levels during the AM peak hours. The largest relative traffic noise increases are expected in areas with relatively low existing traffic volumes. Additionally, receivers in the site's vicinity are new construction and would have no baseline noise exposure from which to compare noise increases in City of Dublin Page 82 Initial Study /Eastern Dublin Properties August 2015 the environment. The traffic noise increase resulting from the project would not be substantial or result in a significant impact. Parking lot noise. There is potential for a surface parking lot to be located on a portion of the site adjacent to residences. The major noise sources attributed to parking lot activities are the sounds of vehicles as they drive by, noise generated when vehicles start their engines, door slams, and the occasional sound of car alarms or horns. Illingworth & Rodkin, Inc. has calculated noise generated by a similar parking lot in close proximity to residences. Maximum and average noise levels resulting from activities in the proposed parking lot were assessed at residential receptors 150 feet from the project site, either across Central Parkway to the north or along Central Parkway to the east. These residences are likely to be nearest the school's parking lot. Predicted parking lot noise levels were then compared to existing ambient noise. Maximum instantaneous noise levels at 150 feet from parking lot activities would range from about 47 to 57 dBA LmaX as a result of typical activities and could reach 67 dBA Lmz x when car alarms are sounded. Noise levels from typical activities are lower than measured hourly Leq noise levels conditions during the day. When car alarms are sounded, noise levels could exceed measured hourly average conditions by 3 to 8 dBA during the day. However, maximum noise levels under current conditions are typically within the 65 to 80 dBA LmaX range during the daytime. While maximum instantaneous noise levels resulting from a parking lot would be audible and may be considered intrusive, the quantitative noise increase would not be substantial and the impact would be less than significant. The hourly average noise level resulting from noise - generating activities in the proposed parking lot would reach 37 dBA Leg at a distance of 150 feet from the acoustical center of a hypothetical parking area (sensitive receptors would not be any closer) and would fall below typical hourly average noise levels during the day. Similarly, CNEL noise levels resulting from the operation of the parking lot would reach 44 dBA CNEL at the nearest residential receivers, but would be below existing ambient conditions. On an hourly average or daily average basis, the operation of the proposed parking lot would not substantially increase ambient noise levels above levels existing without the project. Noise from outdoor activities. Schools typically include play /P.E. areas for students. The acoustical center of play areas are not expected to be closer than 250 feet from the nearest residential outdoor use area to the north or east. Noise from children playing is dependent on play times, total number of students outside at one time, and the number of hours per school day where children would be outside at recess or participating in a physical education class. City of Dublin Page 83 Initial Study /Eastern Dublin Properties August 2015 Illingworth & Rodkin, Inc. has measured noise generated by outdoor activities at schools at several locations in the Bay Area. Average noise levels from outdoor activities at schools typically range from 72 to 74 dBA Leg at a distance of 25 feet with 20 to 30 children at play. However, since the distance between play area and residential outdoor use area would increase by 225 feet, those adjusted average noise levels would decrease by 10 dBA. Overall, average noise levels from outdoor activities are calculated to be 62 to 64 dBA Len at a distance of 250 feet. Maximum noise levels typically result from whistles and voices, and can reach 81 dBA L.. ax at a distance of 25 feet, which is calculated to be 71 dBA L,,,aX at 250 feet. Average noise levels at the nearest residential outdoor use areas are calculated to reach 62 dBA Len, which would fall within the range of typical daytime noise levels (currently from 58 to 66 dBA Len). Based on the above calculations, use of the outdoor activity areas could generate a noise level as high as 57 dBA CNEL at a distance of 250 feet. When the new noise source is added to the existing noise levels at residences (i.e., 61 dBA Ldp, during weekdays), day -night average noise levels would remain at 61 dBA CNEL and would not be significant based o City General Plan noise standards. Noise from mechanical equipment. Proposed structures on site would include ventilation systems that would be expected to generate relatively low noise levels. Such ventilation systems would be designed with standard Building Code requirements and would not be expected to generate high noise levels either within or outside of the project area. Future noise levels due to mechanical equipment operation is not expected to be noticeable above existing traffic noise levels at nearby noise - sensitive uses and this impact is would not be significant. Future park uses on Subarea 3 and the Wallis Ranch Subareas would be subject to applicable mitigation measures contained in previous CEQA documents to ensure that no significant noise impacts would result. There would be no new or substantially more severe noise impacts with respect to generation of noise in excess of City standards than have been analyzed in previous CEQA documents. b) Exposure of people to excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? No New Impact. According to the project applicant, normal construction methods would be used to build the proposed project so there would be limited and less - than- significant generation of groundborne noise or vibration. There would therefore be no new or substantially more severe significant impacts with respect to this impact than has been previously analyzed in previous CEQA documents. d) Substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels without the project? No New Impact. Future individual projects City of Dublin Page 84 Initial Study /Eastern Dublin Properties August 2015 constructed on each of the Subareas will be required to adhere to construction noise mitigation measures included in the Eastern Dublin EIR to minimize the impacts of construction noise, including Eastern Dublin EIR Mitigation Measure 3.10/4.0 and Mitigation Measure 3.10/5.0, to reduce this impact to a less -than- significant level. No new or more substantially severe impacts with respect to construction noise have been identified in this Initial Study than have been previously analyzed in other CEQA documents for the project Subareas. e, f) For a project located within an airport land use plan, would the project expose people to excessive noise levels? No New Impact. Subarea 3 is located within the height referral area of the Livermore Airport. The noise analysis prepared for the project did not identify significant aircraft noise from Livermore Municipal Airport on this site. No new or more severe significant impacts would occur than previously analyzed. City of Dublin Page 85 Initial Study /Eastern Dublin Properties August 2015 0 MACKAY,&SWS I_;Xl fi13I' r 9 J('-')RDAT,,� FZAN'Cll G'P A & )PA NOISE NllF1'AS(AU-�,lvll",,NT LOCATIONS 13. Population and Housing Environmental Setting The project Subareas are all currently vacant and contain no dwellings. Project Impacts a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly or indirectly? No New Impact. The three Subareas have been planned for a mix of residential and commercial land uses, parks, open spaces and other land uses since adoption of the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan in 1993. The Eastern Dublin EIR analyzed the growth inducing impact (Impact 3.5/T) related to providing water service to the Eastern Dublin area. The configuration of uses on the site and surrounding areas have been slightly modified for all three Subareas over the past few years as identified in the Project Description section of this Initial Study. On the Jordan Ranch Subarea, the current proposal could result in construction of an increase of up to 40 dwellings above that included in the 2014 City land use approval. This would result by relocating the approved School site to the south and replacing this portion of the Jordan Ranch with Medium Density Residential dwellings. The increased residential development potential would still be below the maximum residential buildout analyzed for the Jordan Ranch in the 2005 SEIR, which is 1,064 dwellings. The proposed project would have the effect of reducing one dwelling from the Subarea 3 portion of the project. This would be due to the proposed re- designation of the "Rural Residential/ Agricultural (RRA)" portion of the site to "Park." The current RRA designation would allow one dwelling unit within Subarea 3, whereas none would be allowed under the proposed "Park" land use designation. No residences would be affected on the Wallis Ranch Subarea as part of this project. Based on the above discussion that the potential increase in the number of dwelling units at build -out would be small and consistent with previous CEQA documents, there would therefore be no new or substantially more severe significant impacts with respect to this impact than has been previously analyzed in previous CEQA documents. b,c) Would the project displace substantial numbers of existing housing units or people? No New Impact. None of the Subareas contain existing dwelling units and no impact would result with regard to displacement of dwellings or population on the site. There would be no new or substantially more severe significant impacts with respect to this impact than has been previously analyzed in the previous CEQA documents. City of Dublin Page 87 Initial Study /Eastern Dublin Properties August 2015 14. Public Services Environmental Setting The following provide essential services to the Project Site: • Fire Protection. Fire protection services are provided by the Alameda County Fire Department. The Department provides fire suppression, emergency medical response, fire prevention, education, building inspection services and hazardous material control. • Police Protection: Police and security protection is provided by the Dublin Police Services Department headquartered at the Dublin Civic Center, 100 Civic Plaza just east of downtown Dublin. • Schools. The Dublin Unified School District provides K -12 educational services for properties in the Eastern Dublin area. • Library Services: Alameda County Library service. • Maintenance. Maintenance of streets, roads and other governmental facilities are the responsibility of the City of Dublin. Previous CEQA documents Applicable mitigation measures contained in Eastern Dublin EIR addressing fire and police protection include: • Mitigation Measure 3.4/7.0: Establish appropriate funding mechanisms to cover up -front costs of capital fire improvements. • Mitigation Measure 3.4/9.0: Incorporate Fire Department recommendations on project design relating to access, water pressure, fire safety and prevention into the requirements of development approval. • Mitigation Measure 3.4/10.0: Ensure, as a requirement of project approval, that an assessment district, homeowners association or other mechanism is in place that will provide regular long -term maintenance of the urban /open space interface. • Mitigation Measure 3.4/12.0: The City shall work with the Fire Department and qualified biologists to prepare a wildfire management plan for the project area. • Mitigation Measure 3.4/1.0: Provide additional personnel and facilities and revise beats as necessary in order to establish and maintain City standards for police protection service in Eastern Dublin. City of Dublin Page 88 Initial Study /Eastern Dublin Properties August 2015 • Mitigation Measure 3.4/3.0-5.0: Incorporate into the requirements of project approval Police Department recommendations on project design that affect traffic safety and crime prevention. No significant impacts to public services were identified in other previous CEQA documents affecting the three Subareas. Future development on all three Subareas will be required to adhere to Eastern Dublin mitigation measures. Project Impacts a) Fire protection? No New Impact. Approval and implementation of the proposed project would slightly increase the number of fire and emergency medical calls for service that would need to be responded to by the Alameda County Fire Department, the City of Dublin's contract fire department. This is due to a small increase in the maximum number of dwellings that would be allowed on the Jordan Ranch Subarea than currently allowed (up to 35 dwellings). Future development on all of the Subareas will be required to adhere to mitigation measures, including payment of public facility impact fees to assist in funding new fire stations (Eastern Dublin EIR Mitigation Measure 3.4/7.0), so that impacts to the Alameda County Fire Department related to approval and construction of the proposed Project would be less- than - significant. Consistent with Eastern Dublin EIR Mitigation Measure 3.4/ 9.0, proposed developments on the Subareas will be conditioned to meet Fire Department requirements including but not limited to maintaining minimum water pressure and fire flow, providing adequate site access and using fire retardant building materials. Proposed development will also be conditioned to be consistent with the City's adopted Wildfire Management Plan (Eastern Dublin EIR Mitigation Measure 3.4/12.0). Based on discussions with Alameda County Fire Department staff, there would be no new or substantially more severe significant impacts with respect to fire service beyond that analyzed in previous CEQA documents (source: Bonnie Terra, Alameda County Fire Department, 5 / 15 / 15). b) Police protection? No New Impact. Similar to fire protection, there would be no new impact with regard to police protection, based on the following mitigation measures included in the Eastern Dublin EIR. These Mitigation Measures include paying City of Dublin public facility impact fees to assist in funding new police facilities (Mitigation Measure 3.4/ 1.0) incorporating Police Department safety and security requirements into the proposed Project, including but not limited to adequate locking devices, lighting and ensuring adequate surveillance for structures and parking areas (Mitigation Measures 3.4/ 3.0 -5.0). The proposed project would be a minor increase in residential development on the Jordan Ranch compared to the 2012 Addendum but less development than assumed in the 2005 SEIR. Thus the project is not a substantial change from the City of Dublin Page 89 Initial Study /Eastern Dublin Properties August 2015 analyses and conclusions in prior CEQA documents. There would therefore be no new or substantially more severe significant impacts with respect to police protection than has been previously analyzed in previous CEQA documents. Based on discussions with Dublin Police Services Department staff, there would be no new or substantially more severe impacts with respect to police service beyond that analyzed in previous CEQA documents (source: Captain Dennis Houghtelling, Dublin Police Services, 5/21/15). c) Schools? No New Impact. There would be no new impacts to school service should the proposed project be approved since payment of mandated statutory impact fees at the time of issuance of building permits will provide mitigation of educational impacts of the proposed project pursuant to CEQA. Approval of the proposed project would also result in the relocation of an existing School site on a portion of the Jordan Ranch to a site south and west of the current site. The proposed school would be developed and operated by the Dublin Unified School District (DUSD). The proposed school would provide K -8 educational services with an estimated maximum enrollment of between 900 and 950 students. The approved development plan for the Jordan Ranch included future construction of a 500 - student elementary school. The City of Dublin and Dublin Unified School District recently entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) to facilitate development of the school. There would therefore be no new or substantially more severe significant impacts with respect to this impact than has been previously analyzed in previous CEQA documents. d) Other governmental service, including maintenance of public facilities? No New Impact. Maintenance of public facilities would continue to be provided by the City of Dublin with no new impacts in regard to this topic. New public facilities will be required to be designed to meet City of Dublin standards. There would therefore be no new or substantially more severe significant impacts with respect to this impact than has been previously analyzed in previous CEQA documents. e) Solid waste generation? No New Impact. See item 17 "f" and "g," below. 15. Recreation Environmental Setting No neighborhood or community parks and /or recreation services or facilities are currently located on the project site. The Dublin General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan designate a number of future park sites on the overall Jordan Ranch Subarea 3 and Wallis Ranch properties. These include: City of Dublin Page 90 Initial Study /Eastern Dublin Properties August 2015 • Jordan Ranch: A 5.8 -acre neighborhood park, a 2.7 -acre neighborhood square and an 11.1 -acre community park is currently planned. • Subarea 3: A 2.7 -acre Neighborhood Square is approved within Subarea 3. • Wallis Ranch: Two public neighborhood parks and a private park totaling 12.4 acres are approved on this property. The City of Dublin offers a range of park, recreation and cultural services. Regional park facilities are provided by the East Bay Regional Park District, which maintains a large number of regional parks, trails and similar recreation facilities in Alameda and Contra Costa Counties. Previous CEQA documents Eastern Dublin EIR. The Eastern Dublin EIR identified a number of mitigation measures related to parks and recreational facilities, as follows. Mitigation Measures 3.4/20.0 -28.0 calls for the acquisition and development of new parks and other outdoor facilities in Eastern Dublin, requiring land dedication and/or park in -lieu fees for new subdivisions and similar techniques to provide for additional park and recreational features. Implementation of all of the mitigation measures identified in the Eastern Dublin EIR would result in a ratio of 6.7 acres of parkland per 1000 population in Eastern Dublin. Mitigation Measures 3.4/ 29.0 -31.0 requires that each new development in Eastern Dublin provide a fair share of parks and open space facilities. Development of a parks implementation plan was also called for, to identify and prioritize parkland in Eastern Dublin. Finally, adoption of a park in -lieu fee program was required as a mitigation measure to reduce this impact to a level of insignificance. Consistent with these mitigations, the City requires residential project developers to dedicate parkland at the time of subdivision approval and pay Public Facility Fees (which includes park in -lieu fees) to fund both the development of neighborhood and community park facilities as well as other community facilities. • Mitigation Measure 3.4/32.0 requires the establishment of a trail system with connections to planned regional and subregional trails, which would reduce this impact to an insignificant level. • Mitigation Measures 3.4/33.0 -36.0 call for use of natural stream corridors and major ridgelines to create a comprehensive, integrated trail system that allows safe and convenient pedestrian access, and required developers to dedicate public access along ridgetops and stream corridors to accommodate trail and staging areas. City of Dublin Page 91 Initial Study /Eastern Dublin Properties August 2015 2002 SEIR (Jordan Ranch property). The 2002 SEIR described a proposed action of that project to detach the Project area from the Livermore Area Recreation and Parks District (LARPD) as part of the larger reorganization that also included annexation of the Project area to the City of Dublin and Dublin San Ramon Services District. Under the reorganization proposal, the City of Dublin would provide parks and recreation facilities and services to Project area residents as part of the larger spectrum of municipal services. The reorganization was approved by the Alameda County Local Agency Formation Commission in 2002 and the site now receives park and recreation facilities and services from the City of Dublin. 2004 Dublin Ranch West SEIR (Wallis Ranch property). This SEIR contained Supplemental Impact Park -1, which found a potentially significant impact with respect to an inconsistency between the proposed development plan and the City's Park and Recreation Master Plan. This was reduce to a less- than - significant level by requiring the project developer to amend the Development Plan to add an additional 1.04 net acre of Neighborhood Park and a 1.9 -acre Neighborhood Park within the project site. No park impacts or mitigation measures were contained in the Subarea 3 Addendum. The project developer will be required to comply with all applicable mitigation measures contained in previous CEQA documents. Project Impacts a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood or regional parks? No New Impact. Approval and construction of the proposed project would increase the use of nearby City and regional recreational facilities, since it would include increasing the on -site permanent population on the Jordan Ranch by 35 dwellings. However, a joint school and park is proposed on this property, which would provide a City recreational area. The Jordan Ranch project applicant is required to comply with Eastern Dublin EIR mitigation measures, including payment of City public facilities fees to assist the City to purchase and/or improve parks throughout the community that could be used by Project residents. The proposed project would increase parkland on Subarea 3 and the Wallis Ranch Subarea. City staff has determined that the proposed project would not result in a significant impact with respect to use of neighborhood or commercial parks (source: Paul McCreary, Dublin Director of Parks and Community Services, 6/1/15) There would therefore be no new or substantially more severe significant impacts with respect to this impact than has been previously analyzed in previous CEQA documents. b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction of recreational facilities? No New Impact. See item "a," above. The proposed project would include slightly decreasing the amount of public parkland on the Jordan Ranch project but would increase parkland on Subarea 3 and the Wallis Ranch property. City of Dublin Page 92 Initial Study /Eastern Dublin Properties August 2015 There would therefore be no new or substantially more severe significant impacts with respect to this impact than has been previously analyzed in the previous CEQA documents. 16. Transportation /Traffic Environmental Setting Existing roadway_ y tem. The Jordan Ranch and Subarea 3 Subareas are served by the following roadways. Fallon Road is a north -south arterial roadway that connects I -580 to Tassajara Road. It currently provides two travel lanes in each direction, with the exception of the segment that provides three lanes in each direction between Central Parkway and Gleason Drive. Between I -580 and Central Parkway, this segment is ultimately planned to provide three lanes in each direction. This roadway is being upgraded as development occurs on parcels fronting the roadway, and will ultimately provide sidewalks and bicycle facilities along its length. Fallon Road is a designated route of regional significance. Central Parkway is an east -west roadway that extends from Arnold Road to east of Fallon Road. Between Arnold Road and Tassajara Drive, and east of Fallon Road, it is a designated collector roadway. Between Tassajara Road and Fallon Road, it is a designated arterial roadway. It generally provides one travel lane in each direction with a landscaped median, bicycle lanes and sidewalks along portions of the roadway that have fronting development. On- street parking is allowed on some portions of the roadway. Positano Parkway is an east -west roadway that extends from Fallon Road to Croak Road. It is a two -lane arterial with a landscaped median, sidewalks, and bike lanes. On- street parking is not allowed on this facility. Dublin Boulevard is an east -west designated arterial roadway in the City of Dublin General Plan that extends from west of San Ramon Road to its current terminus at Fallon Road. It is generally a four to six lane facility with a landscaped median. No on- street parking is permitted on this facility. Dublin Boulevard is a designated route of regional significance. Bicycle lanes and sidewalks are provided on portions of Dublin Boulevard. Lockhart Street is a north -south collector roadway that extends from Dublin Boulevard to Gleason Drive. This facility is complete with a landscaped median and bike lanes. Sidewalks are present where there is adjacent development — sidewalk infill would occur as the adjacent lands become developed. On- street parking is not allowed on this facility. City of Dublin Page 93 Initial Study /Eastern Dublin Properties August 2015 Sunset View Drive is a local residential roadway that spans north from Central Parkway inside the project area. It is a two -lane facility with on- street parking and sidewalks. Panorama Drive is a north -south local residential facility inside the project area that parallels Sunset View Drive to the east. It is also a two -lane facility with on- street parking and sidewalks. In addition to the above roadways, the Wallis Ranch Subarea is served by Tassajara Road, an arterial roadway that connects Santa Rita Road in Pleasanton to the south with Contra Costa County to the north. Tassajara Road generally has four lanes of travel, two in each direction, and is planned to have six lanes at buildout. Pedestrian facilities. Pedestrian facilities include sidewalks, pathways, crosswalks, and pedestrian signals. Sidewalks are provided along most roadways in the immediate study area, although there are portions of Central Parkway and Fallon Road where the roadway has not yet been constructed to its ultimate width and sidewalks have not yet been constructed. Sidewalks have also been constructed along portions of Tassajara Road. Bicycle facilities. Class II A bicycle lanes are provided on Dublin Boulevard, Fallon Road and Central Parkway. A series of Class I paths are also provided throughout the eastern Dublin area. Transit service. Transit service in the area is provided by Wheels, Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART), and Altamont Commuter Express (ACE). Existing traffic operations. Existing operations were evaluated for the weekday AM, afternoon and PM peak hours at the study intersections, based on the volumes and lane configurations shown on Table 3 of the attached traffic analysis (Attachment 2). Observed peak hour factors2 were used at all intersections for the existing analysis. Where the observed PHF was less than 0.75, a minimum value of 0.75 was used. Truck, pedestrian and bicycle activity was factored into the analysis. As shown, study intersections operate at overall acceptable service levels in accordance with benchmarks set by the City of Dublin during the morning, afternoon and evening peak hours. Detailed intersection LOS calculation worksheets are presented in Appendix B of the full traffic analysis. Vehicle queuing. Field observations confirmed the calculated levels of service along with the extent of existing vehicle queues, which are contained within the z The relationship between the peak 15- minute flow rate and the full hourly volume is given by the peak -hour factor (PHF) based on the following equation: PHF= Hourly volume /(4* volume during the peak 15 minutes of flow). The analysis of level of service is based on peak rates of flow occurring within the peak hour because substantial short-term fluctuations typically occur during an hour. City of Dublin Page 94 Initial Study /Eastern Dublin Properties August 2015 existing vehicle storage. Detailed intersection queuing calculation worksheets are also presented in Appendix B of the full traffic analysis. Previous CEQA documents Eastern Dublin EIR. The Eastern Dublin EIR includes the following mitigation measures • Mitigation Measures 3.3/1.0 and 3.3/4.0) were adopted which reduced impacts on I -580 between Tassajara Road and Fallon Road and on I -680 north of I -580 to a level of insignificance. • Mitigation Measures 3.3/2.0, 2.1, 3.0 and 5.0 were adopted to reduce impacts on the remaining I -580 freeway segments and the I -580 / 680 interchange. Even with mitigations, however, significant cumulative impacts remained on I -580 freeway segments between I -680 and Dougherty Road and, at the build -out scenario of 2010, on other segments of I -580. Mitigation Measures 3.3/ 6.0 — 8.0, 10.0 and 12.0 were adopted to reduce impacts to the Dougherty Road/ Dublin Boulevard, Hacienda Drive/ I -580 Eastbound Freeway Ramps, Tassajara Road /I -580 Westbound Freeway Ramps, Airway Boulevard/ Dublin Boulevard intersections and long El Charro Road to a level of insignificance. These mitigations include construction of additional lanes at intersections, coordination with Caltrans and the neighboring cities of Pleasanton and Livermore to restripe, widen or modify on -ramps and off -ramps and interchange intersections, and coordination with Caltrans to modify certain interchanges. Development projects within the Eastern Dublin project area are also required to contribute a proportionate share to the multi- jurisdictional improvements through the Eastern Dublin traffic impact fee program and the Tri- Valley Transportation Development Fee program. • Mitigation Measures 3.3/13.0 and 14.0 were adopted to reduce impacts on identified intersections with Dublin Boulevard and Tassajara Road. • Mitigation Measures 3.3/15.0-15.3 and 16.0— 16.1 generally require coordination with transit providers to extend transit services and coincide pedestrian and bicycle paths with signals at major street crossings. 2002 SEIR (Jordan Ranch Subarea). The following mitigation measures were included in the 2002 SEIR. • Supplemental Mitigation Measure SM- TRAFFIC -1 requires individual developers in the Fallon Village area to contribute a pro -rata share of widening the I -580 /Hacienda Drive eastbound ramp to include an additional left turn lane. • Supplemental Mitigation Measure SM- TRAFFIC -2 requires individual developers in the Fallon Village area to contribute a pro -rata share of widening City of Dublin Page 95 Initial Study /Eastern Dublin Properties August 2015 the northbound Hacienda Drive overcrossing from 3 to 4 lanes as well as modifying the westbound loop on -ramp to meet Caltrans design standards. • Supplemental Mitigation Measure SM- TRAFFIC -3 requires individual developers in the Fallon Village area to contribute a pro -rata share of converting the east bound I- 580 /Santa Rita to a shared left - turn /through lane. • Supplemental Mitigation Measure SM- TRAFFIC -4 requires individual developers in the Fallon Village area to install a signal at the Dublin Boulevard / Street D intersection. • Supplemental Mitigation Measure SM- TRAFFIC -5 requires individual developers in the Fallon Village area to contribute a pro -rata share of installing a traffic signal at the Fallon Road/ Project Road intersection. • Supplemental Mitigation Measure SM- TRAFFIC -6 requires individual developers in the Fallon Village area to contribute a pro -rata share of reconfiguring the Dublin Boulevard/ Dougherty Road intersection. • Supplemental Mitigation Measure SM- TRAFFIC -7 requires individual developers in the Fallon Village area to construct an additional through lane on northbound Fallon Road, an additional left -turn lane and an additional through lane on southbound Fallon Road. • Supplemental Mitigation Measure SM- TRAFFIC -8 requires individual developers in the Fallon Village area to fund a feasibility study for possibly relocating the Fallon Road /Dublin Boulevard intersection further north and adding a new signalized intersection south of the relocated Fallon Road/ Dublin Boulevard intersection. • Supplemental Mitigation Measure SM- TRAFFIC -9 requires individual developers in the Fallon Village to fund widening Fallon Road between the I -580 freeway and Dublin Boulevard to eight lanes, for widening Fallon Road between Dublin Boulevard and Central Parkway to six lanes and for widening Fallon Road between Central Parkway and Project Road to four lanes. The Fallon Road /I -580 overcrossing shall also be widened to six lanes. • Supplemental Mitigation Measure SM- TRAFFIC -10 requires individual developers in the Fallon Village area to widen Central Parkway between Tassajara Road and Fallon Road to four lanes. 2005 SEIR (Jordan Ranch Subarea). The 2005 SEIR contained the following traffic and transportation mitigation measures: • Supplemental Mitigation Measure SM -TRA -1 requires individual project developers in the Fallon Village area to advance construction of the Dougherty Road/ Dublin Boulevard intersection improvements or, if the City's Traffic City of Dublin Page 96 Initial Study /Eastern Dublin Properties August 2015 Impact Fee Program is updated in the future to fund these improvements, use of traffic fees would mitigate this cumulative impact. • Supplemental Mitigation Measure SM -TRA -2 requires all project developers in the Fallon Village area to fund the widening of the I -580 eastbound off ramp at Santa Rita Road to accommodate additional peak hour cumulative traffic. Supplemental Mitigation Measure SM -TRA -3 requires project developers in the Fallon Village area to contribute a pro -rata share of funding to widen the Central Parkway/ Hacienda Drive intersection to accommodate anticipated cumulative traffic. All mitigation measures adopted upon approval of the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan EIR, the 2002 SEIR and the 2005 SEIR shall apply to the proposed Project. 2005 SEIR (Wallis Ranch Subarea). This CEQA document identified the following significant supplemental impacts and mitigation measures: • Supplemental Mitigation Measure TRA -1 reduced the impact of additional traffic along Tassajara Road segments near the project site to a less- than - significant level by requiring the developer to widen Tassajara Road to four travel lanes between North Dublin Ranch Drive to the northern project access road. Supplemental Mitigation Measure TRA -2 reduced the impact of potential traffic safety impacts to a less- than - significant level by requiring installation of traffic signals at the two project entrances, provide an east- bound right -turn lane, provide northbound left -turn capacity from Tassajara Road onto project access drives, provide a northbound left -turn lane from Tassajara Road onto the southern access drive and provide a southbound right -turn pocket with a taper on Tassajara Road at both access roadways. The proposed project will be required to comply with all of the above transportation and circulation mitigation measures. Some of the required transportation improvements have already been completed, some are underway and some are planned for the future with funding provided through the Eastern Dublin TIF Program Project Impacts a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial to existing traffic load and street capacity? No New Impact. To assess the potential traffic and transportation impact of the proposed 950 - student elementary and middle school, the firm of Fehr & Peers completed a comprehensive traffic analysis of this portion of the project. Other portions of the proposed project would generally involve future park development in the Subareas which was not deemed to generate a significant amount of traffic. The Fehr & Peers report is included as Attachment 1 as well as a supplemental City of Dublin Page 97 Initial Study /Eastern Dublin Properties August 2015 memorandum documenting that future development of a 950 - student elementary and middle school would result in the same or less intensive traffic impacts than the 900 - student elementary school analyzed in the base traffic analysis. Background traffic model information is not contained in this Initial Study, but is available at the City of Dublin Community Development Department during normal business hours. A summary of the traffic analysis is as follows: Project trip generation. For this project, several sources of trip generation data were reviewed, including Fehr & Peers trip generation surveys at several elementary schools in the Tri- Valley Area. This data was compared to trip generation rates presented in the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual, (9th Edition) with the resulting trip generation estimates shown in Table 5 of the full traffic analysis (see Attachment 1). Also see Table 1 in the Addendum Report found in Attachment 1. Elementary School sites surveyed in the Tri Valley Area were typically neighborhood schools with some students observed walking /biking to school, but with the majority of students being driven to school. The surveyed rates reflect about 13 percent of the student population walking to school. Given the number of housing units within the immediate vicinity of the school, the walk percentage was increased to 25 percent, or 225 students. The resulting vehicle trip rate per student, accounting for a 25 percent walk share, is higher than the maximum trip rate per student noted in the ITE Trip Generation Manual. For this assessment, Table 1 notes that construction of the proposed elementary and middle schools would result in a total of 911 trips during the a.m. peak, 468 trips in the afternoon peak (end of a school day) and 305 trips in the p.m. peak hour. Project trip distribution and assignment. Project trip distribution refers to the directions of approach and departure that vehicles would take to access and leave the site. Estimates of regional project trip distribution were developed based on existing travel patterns in the area, a select zone analysis using the City of Dublin travel demand model, and prior analysis prepared for the site. General trip distribution estimates are presented in Table 7 of the traffic analysis (see Attachment 1). Many school trips are part of the parent/ guardian trip chain that typically involves dropping off a child at school on the way to work or other daily errands, and while it represents a new trip within the immediate project area, it does not represent new trips to the regional roadway system. This interaction was accounted for in the assignment of trips to study area City of Dublin Page 98 Initial Study /Eastern Dublin Properties August 2015 intersections. Project trips were assigned to the roadway network based on the general directions of approach and departure shown in Table 7 but the route that people take to the site could vary. Separate trip assignments are shown for existing and future conditions as the full connection of Croak Road to Dublin Boulevard would affect how vehicles arrive to/ depart the area, especially the school site. Table 7, below, summarized trip generation by land use type: Table 7. Project Trip Distribution Roadway Project Trip Assignment Residential Use School Use Fallon Road North 20% 20% Fallon Road South 60% 109/0 Central Pkwy. East 59/o 10% Central Pkwy. West 10% 309/o Positano Pkwy. East 5% 309/o Total 1009/0 100% Source: City of Dublin Fallon Village Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report, August 2005, Jordan Ranch Stage II Submittal — Site Development Review, April 20, 2011, and Fehr & Peers, 2015 Existing traffic with Project conditions. The project -only traffic volumes were added to the existing peak hour traffic volumes to estimate the Existing with Project peak hour intersection turning movement volumes, as shown on Table 8 of the full traffic analysis. For this scenario it was assumed that Central Parkway would connect to Croak Road, connecting to Dublin Boulevard, in the eastbound direction only. No changes to the lane configuration or traffic control were assumed at any of the study intersections. Traffic signal timings, peak hour factors, heavy vehicle percentages, and pedestrian and bicycle activity at the study intersections were left unchanged from existing conditions for the initial analysis. Existing with Project conditions were evaluated using the same methods described in Chapter 1 of the traffic analysis (see Attachment 1). The analysis results are presented in Error! Reference source not found., based on the traffic volumes and lane configurations. Table 8 also includes the operations results for the Existing without Project conditions for comparison purposes. With the addition of trips related to the build -out of the remaining portions of Jordan Ranch, intersections in the study area would degrade, but would continue to operate within the City's established level of service for intersection operations over the peak hour. Near -term conditions. The results of the level of service calculations under near -term conditions without and with the project is described in this City of Dublin Page 99 Initial Study /Eastern Dublin Properties August 2015 section. Traffic volumes for Near -Term without Project conditions comprise existing volumes plus traffic generated by approved but not yet constructed and occupied developments in the area. Near -Term with Project conditions are defined as Near -Term without Project conditions plus net new traffic generated by the proposed project. Traffic volumes for the Near -Term conditions were developed through the use of the updated City of Dublin Travel demand model considering buildout of a portion of the Dublin Kaiser project, which is proposed on Dublin Boulevard at Keegan Street. The forecasts represent likely traffic conditions in the area over the next ten years. Near -Term without Project traffic volumes are shown on Figure 7 of the full traffic analysis. The forecasts include the vehicle trip generation of the entitled land uses as presented previously in Table 9 of the full traffic analysis. The net -new trip generation associated with the project was added to the without project forecasts, with the resulting forecast presented on Figure 8 of the full traffic analysis. The completion of the Central Parkway connection to Croak Road, which connects to Dublin Boulevard, was assumed to be completed as a one lane, bi- directional roadway. No modifications to the study intersection lane geometries were assumed. Pedestrian and bicycle activity at the study intersections were left unchanged from existing conditions except for the with project condition where additional pedestrian activity was assumed at the intersections that provide primary access to the school site. Heavy vehicle percentages were adjusted to a uniform two percent of traffic. Traffic signal timings were optimized at some intersections to reflect shifts in travel patterns as the City of Dublin routinely adjusts traffic signal timings to ensure optimal travel flow through the City. Levels of service calculations were conducted to evaluate intersection operations under Near -Term conditions both without and with the project. The LOS results are summarized in Error! Reference source not found. In the Near -Term condition prior to the land uses changes associated with the project, the study intersections would operate at an acceptable service level. With the net - change in trips related to the build -out of the remaining portions of Jordan Ranch, study intersection operations would degrade, but would continue to operate within the City's established level of service for intersection operations over the peak hour. Cumulative traffic conditions. Cumulative traffic forecasts were developed using the updated City of Dublin travel demand model, representing existing traffic, plus traffic from approved and pending developments, as well as development that could occur under the current General Plan. The traffic forecasts also reflect traffic shifts that could occur with construction of new regional roadway facilities, including the El Charro Road extension City of Dublin Page 100 Initial Study /Eastern Dublin Properties August 2015 from Stoneridge Drive to Stanley Boulevard and the extension of Dublin Boulevard east to North Canyons Parkway. Other regional roadway improvements include the planned widening of Stanley Boulevard to provide three lanes in each direction from east of Isabel Avenue. The resulting forecasts and intersection lane configurations are presented on Error! Reference source not found. for the without project condition, which reflects build -out of Jordan Ranch with the currently entitled uses. The net - new trip generation from the proposed project was added to the Cumulative without Project traffic volumes to estimate the Cumulative with Project traffic volumes, as shown on Figure 10 of the full traffic analysis. Modifications to the intersection of Central Parkway at Fallon Road were assumed in the analysis of Cumulative conditions. Pedestrian and bicycle activity at the study intersections were left unchanged from existing conditions except for the with project condition where additional pedestrian activity was assumed at the intersections that provide primary access to the school site. Heavy vehicle percentages were adjusted to a uniform two percent of traffic. Traffic signal timings were optimized to better accommodate shifts in travel patterns as the City of Dublin routinely adjusts traffic signal timings to ensure optimal travel flow through the City. Levels of service calculations were conducted to evaluate intersection operations under Cumulative conditions both without and with the Project. The LOS results are summarized in Table 10 of the full traffic analysis. The corresponding LOS and queue calculation sheets are included in Appendix B of the full traffic analysis. The results of the LOS calculations indicate that with planned development in Dublin and adjacent jurisdictions in the Cumulative conditions, the intersections in the vicinity of Jordan Ranch are projected to operate at acceptable service levels in the Cumulative conditions and the net - change in vehicle trip generation from the proposed project would not degrade peak hour operations beyond the established LOS thresholds. Based on the foregoing, there would be no new or substantially more severe significant impacts with respect to existing, near -term and cumulative traffic operations than have been analyzed in previous CEQA documents. b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a LOS standard established by the County CMA for designated roads)? No New Impact. An analysis of regional roadways has been prepared to comply with requirements of the Alameda County Transportation Commission (Alameda CTC). The Alameda CTC requires the analysis of project impacts to Metropolitan Transportation System (MTS) roadways identified in the congestion management plan (CMP) for development projects that would generate more than 100 PM City of Dublin Page 101 Initial Study /Eastern Dublin Properties August 2015 peak hour trips. As noted in subsection "a, "above, the proposed project could generate more than 100 PM peak hour trips. This analysis completed by Fehr & Peers considers the impact of the project on freeways, major arterials, and other major roadways as designated by Alameda CTC. Main items of discussion include the geographic scope of the Alameda CTC roadway analysis, the analysis method, and the results for 2025 and 2040. Freeway and surface street segments in Dublin were included in this analysis: • Interstate 580 (2 segments) • Dublin Boulevard (2 segments) • Fallon Road (3 segments) Operations of the MTS freeway and surface street segments were assessed based on volume -to- capacity (V / C) ratios. For freeway segments, a per -lane capacity of 2,000 vehicles per hour was used. For surface streets, a per -lane capacity of 800 vehicles per hour was used. These capacities do not reflect additional capacity provided at intersections through turn pockets. Roadway segments with a V / C ratio greater than 1.0 are assigned LOS F. In terms of significance criteria, the addition of project traffic could cause a significant impact on an MTS roadway segment if: • The addition of project traffic causes a segment's operation to degrade to LOS F. • The addition of project trips causes the V / C ratio to increase by more than 0.02 on a segment that already operates at LOS F without the project traffic. The MTS PM Peak Hour roadway segment analysis under 2025 and 2040 conditions are provided in Table 11 of the full traffic analysis for the 2025 condition and Table 12 for the 2040 condition. The analysis results show that the addition of project traffic would not result in LOS F conditions nor increase the volume -to- capacity ratio by more than 0.02 on a segment projected to operate deficiently prior to the consideration of the project. Therefore, the project impact to MTS roadway segments is considered less - than- significant. Based on the foregoing, there would be no new or substantially more severe significant impacts with respect to existing, near -term and cumulative traffic operations than have been analyzed in previous CEQA documents. City of Dublin Page 102 Initial Study /Eastern Dublin Properties August 2015 c) Change in air traffic patterns? No New Impact. The proposed project would have no impact on air traffic patterns, since it involves a a future school, residential development, City parks and related land uses. There would be no new or substantially more severe significant impacts with respect to this impact than has been previously analyzed in previous CEQA documents. d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature or an incompatible use? Less - than - Significant with Mitigation. Intersections that provide primary access to the school site are projected to operate acceptably with the project in all scenarios over the course of the peak hour. However, around school bell times, there may be periodic congestion as students are dropped -off or picked -up within the same time frame. Operations of the intersections of the Central Parkway with Fallon Road, Sunset View Drive/ School Entry and Panorama Drive intersections were also evaluated for the peak 15- minutes around bell times for the morning and afternoon peak hours to assist in the sizing of intersections to better accommodate school traffic flows. This analysis was conducted through the use of a 0.50 peak hour factor for movements that would have a high proportion of school related traffic around bell times, including movements to/ from Central Boulevard at Fallon Road and Sunset View Drive. Around bell times, operations of the Fallon Road/ Central Parkway and Sunset View Drive/ Central Parkway are projected to degrade to LOS E or F for brief periods of time. Further widening of the Fallon Road at Central Parkway intersection is not recommended, but improvements to the school access roadway are recommended to maintain traffic flow on Central Parkway, as discussed below. The 95th percentile vehicle queues for the major movements that serve the school site were calculated for the Cumulative conditions for the morning and afternoon peak period when school traffic would be most concentrated. Vehicle queues are projected to extend beyond the available storage length for the southbound left -turn movement on Fallon Boulevard to Central Parkway with the addition of project traffic, and the vehicle queues could be excessive around bell times (1 to 3 traffic signal cycles). Based on the above information, there would be a potentially significant vehicular impact with construction of the proposed elementary and middle school. Adherence to Mitigation Measure TRA -1 will reduce this to a less - than- significant level. Mitigation Measure TRA -1. The following features shall be included in the final design for the elementary and middle school: a) Extend the southbound left -turn pocket on Fallon Road at Central Parkway approximately 200 feet. Signal timings at this intersection should be monitored by the City and additional City of Dublin Page 103 Initial Study /Eastern Dublin Properties August 2015 green time provided for the southbound left -turn movement around bell times to minimize potential for vehicle queue spillback to block the thorough lane. b) Construct an eastbound right -turn only lane on Central Parkway at the Sunset View Drive intersection serving the school site. c) The existing Class IIa bicycle lane shall be converted to a right - turn only lane in conjunction with the construction of a raised curb along the length of the turn pocket and improvements made to the Class I facility along the south side of Central Parkway. The final design shall be coordinated with the City of Dublin Transportation and Operations Manager. d) Traffic signal operations at the Fallon Road and Sunset View Drive intersections with Central Parkway shall be monitored by the City of Dublin staff to establish time of day traffic signal timing to best accommodate peak school traffic. e) A school drop -off zone shall be established on the south side of Central Parkway along the proposed school frontage between Sunset View Drive and Panorama Drive. f) The northbound approach to Central Parkway at Sunset View Drive (the proposed school driveway) to provide a northbound left -turn lane in addition to a through -right shared lane. g) Consider providing off -set bell times for different grade levels to reduce peak period traffic volumes. h) The final site plan for the proposed school shall be reviewed to ensure that drop- off /pick -up zone is designed to accommodate peak activities and that sufficient parking is provided to accommodate parking demands and occasional peak demands, such as back to school night. Pedestrian access to the school would be provided by a network of sidewalks, signalized pedestrian crossings, and unsignalized pedestrian crossings. Sidewalks are expected to be constructed as part of the school development to provide access to the campus from Central Parkway. There could be potentially significant pedestrian access impacts with respect to the school. There may also be relatively high levels of pedestrian activity at which could result in a potentially significant impact. Adherence to the following measure will reduce these impacts to a less- than - significant level. City of Dublin Page 104 Initial Study /Eastern Dublin Properties August 2015 Mitigation Measure TRAF -2. The final school design shall include the following: a) Existing school related signs and street markings shall be removed and new school crossings and signs shall be installed within the new school zone. b) Pedestrian crossings should be discouraged across the south and west legs of the Central Parkway at Sunset View Drive intersection to further minimize pedestrian/ vehicle conflicts. Pedestrian crossings should also be discouraged across the south and west legs of the Central Parkway/ Sunset View Drive intersection. c) A crossing guard or installation of a traffic signal shall be considered at the Central Parkway/ Sunset View Drive intersection to provide safe pedestrian access across Central Parkway to the campus. d) A raised barrier (fence) shall be installed along the median of Central Parkway from near the intersection of Fallon Road at Central Parkway to near the intersection of Panorama Drive at Central Parkway to discourage mid -block pedestrian crossings. The final location of the fence should be coordinated with the City of Dublin Transportation and Operations Manager based on a field visit. Class IIa bicycle lanes are provided on Central Parkway along the future frontage of the school. There could be significant impacts connecting the existing trail to the future school and ensuring that adequate bicycle parking is provided on the campus. Adherence to the following measure will mitigate this impact to a less- than - significant level. Mitigation Measure TRAF -3. The final design of the proposed school on the Jordan Subarea shall include the following feature a connection from Central Parkway to the school site shall be provided to facilitate bicycle travel to the campus. Bicycle parking shall also be provided on campus as determined by the Dublin Unified School District. e) Result in inadequate emergency access? No New Impact. The proposed project would provide multiple points of entry from each of the Subareas. No new or significantly more severe impacts are therefore anticipated with respect to this topic than have been previously analyzed in Project CEQA documents. f) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? Less -than- significant with mitigation. The traffic report notes that no transit presently exist on Central Parkway east of City of Dublin Page 105 Initial Study /Eastern Dublin Properties August 2015 Fallon Road. Lack of transit would be a significant impact and would be reduced to a less- than - significant level by adherence to the following measure. Mitigation Measure TRAF -4. The Dublin Unified School District shall coordinate with LAVTA to determine is a bus stop should be constructed on Central Parkway in front of the proposed school. Also see the discussion in subsection "d," above regarding potential impacts to bicycle facilities. Reference Mitigation Measures TRA -2 and TRA -3 to reduce this impact to a less -than- significant level. 17. Utilities and Service Systems Environmental Setting The Project area is served by the following service providers: • Domestic and recycled water supply: Dublin San Ramon Services District (DSRSD). • Sewage collection and treatment; recycled water: DSRSD. • Storm drainage: City of Dublin and Zone 7. • Solid waste service: Amador Valley Industries • Electrical and natural gas power: Pacific Gas and Electric Co. • Communications: A T & T. Previous EIRs Eastern Dublin EIR. In terms of water resources, the Eastern Dublin EIR identified overdraft of groundwater resources (Impact 3.5/P) as a potentially significant impact Adherence to Mitigation Measures 3.5/24.0 and 25.0 would reduce this impact to a level of insignificant. These measures require the City of Dublin to coordinate with DSRSD to develop recycled water resources and otherwise carefully use water resources and that all new development in the Eastern Dublin project area to connect to the DSRSD water system. Impact 3.5 / Q identified an increase in water demand as a potentially significant impact, but this impact could be mitigated to an insignificant level based on implementation of Mitigation Measures 3.5/26.0 -31.0. These mitigation measures require implementation of water conservation measures in individual development projects and construction of new system -wide water improvements which are funded by development impact fees. Another related impact identified in the Eastern Dublin EIR is the need for additional water treatment plant capacity (Impact 3.5/R). This impact was identified as being reduced to a level of insignificance through the City of Dublin Page 106 Initial Study /Eastern Dublin Properties August 2015 implementation of Mitigation Measures 3.5 / 31.0 -32.0, which requires improvement to the Zone 7 water system, to be funded by individual development impact fees. Impact 3.5/S (lack of a water distribution system) was identified as a potentially significant impact in the Eastern Dublin EIR, but this impact has been reduced to an insignificant level through adherence to Mitigation Measures 3.5 / 34.0 -38.0. These mitigations require upgrades to the project area water system and provision of a "will serve" letter prior to issuance of a grading permit. Impact 3.5 / T identified a potentially significant impact related to inducement of substantial growth and concentration of population in the project area. The Eastern Dublin EIR found that this was a significant and unavoidable impact. Regarding sewer service, the Eastern Dublin EIR identified Impact 3.5/B (lack of a wastewater collection system) as a potentially significant impact that could be mitigated through adherence to Mitigation Measures 3.5/1.0-5.0. These measures require DSRSD to prepare an area -wide wastewater collection system master plan, requires all new development to be connected to DSRSD's public sewer system, discourages on -site wastewater treatment, requires a "will- serve" letter from DSRSD and requires that all sewer facilities be constructed to DSRSD engineering standards. Impact 3.5/C noted an impact with regard to extension of a sewer trunk line with capacity to serve new development, but could be reduced to an insignificant level since the proposed Eastern Dublin Specific Plan sewer system has been sized to accommodate increased sewer demand from the Specific Plan project. Impact 3.5/ G found that lack of wastewater disposal capacity as a significant impact. An upgraded wastewater disposal facility is presently being constructed by the Livermore Amador Valley Water Management Agency. Impact 3.5 / E identified lack of wastewater treatment plant capacity as a potentially significant impact, which could be reduced to an insignificant level through adherence to Mitigation Measure 3.5 / 8.0, which requires that wastewater treatment and disposal be made available to meet anticipated development in Eastern Dublin. 2002 SEIR (Jordan Ranch property). The 2002 SEIR identified two supplemental impacts related to utilities and service systems. Supplemental Impact UTS -1 identified an uncertain energy supply within this portion of PG & E's service territory. Mitigation Measures SM -UTS -1 required City discretionary review prior to installation of any on- site power generators and SM -UTS -2 requires that applicants for Site Development Review approvals obtain will serve letters from PG & E prior to approval of such applications. Supplemental Impact SM -2 identified a supplemental impact with regard to constraints of PG & E's local distribution system. This impact would be mitigated by adherence to Supplemental Mitigation Measures UTS -1 and 2. No other impacts related to utilities or services systems were included in previous CEQA documents for Subarea 3 or the Wallis Ranch property. All mitigation measures contained in the Eastern Dublin EIR and 2002 SEIR (Jordan Ranch) will apply to the proposed project. City of Dublin Page 107 Initial Study /Eastern Dublin Properties August 2015 Project Impacts a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the RWQCB? No New Impact. All project Subareas are located within the service area of DSRSD. Applicable mitigation measures contained in the Eastern Dublin EIR will apply to this project to ensure that adequate funding is supplied to DSRSD so that water and wastewater facilities are consistent with wastewater discharge requirements mandated by the Regional Water Quality Control Board. No new or substantially more severe supplemental impacts have been identified in this Initial Study than have been analyzed in previous CEQA documents. b) Require new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities? No New Impact. The EDSP and Eastern Dublin EIR require developers of each individual project in the Eastern Dublin area to fund their fair share contribution to construct major, backbone infrastructure systems as well as to either fund or construct local water and wastewater facilities shown in the EDSP. Therefore, although new water and wastewater facilities could be needed to serve future proposed development on three Subareas, these facilities have been identified in the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan. As part of project review by the City of Dublin, DSRSD and Zone 7 staffs, future individual project developer(s) within the three Subareas will either be required to future development projects or pay development impact fees to assist in the construction of regional water and wastewater facilities. DSRSD staff have indicated that there is adequate long -term wastewater collection and treatment capacity exists to serve future development that could be constructed under the amended General Plan and Specific Plan (source: Stan Kolodzie, DSRSD, 5/27/15) There would therefore be no new or substantially more severe significant impacts with respect to this impact than has been previously analyzed in previous CEQA documents. c) Require new storm drainage facilities? No New Impact. Future development on he three Subareas would require new drainage facilities to support proposed development. The Eastern Dublin Specific Plan identifies storm drain facilities to be constructed in the Eastern Dublin Planning Area to ensure that adequate drainage is provided. Future project developers within each of the Subareas will be required to either construct these facilities or pay development impact fees to assist in the construction of regional drainage facilities. There would therefore be no new or substantially more severe significant impacts with respect to this impact than has been previously analyzed in previous CEQA documents. d) Are sufficient water supplies available? No New Impact. Future development that would be allowed on the three Subareas would incrementally increase the need for potable water in Eastern Dublin. Future park areas would be connected to DSRSD's recycled water line for irrigation of plantings (source: M. Porto, Dublin Community Department, 7/13/15). DSRSD staff have confirmed that the District has master planned future growth in the District Urban Water Management Plan City of Dublin Page 108 Initial Study /Eastern Dublin Properties August 2015 and an adequate supply of water will be available. District staff also notes that the supply of water could be limited to all users in the future during period of water shortages (source: Stan Kolodzie, DSRSD, 5 / 27/ 15). No new or more severe significant impacts with respect to a long -term water supply have been identified in previous CEQA documents. e) Adequate wastewater capacity to serve the proposed project? No New Impact. See response to "a," above. f) Solid waste disposal? No New Impact. The project area is within the franchise area of Amador Valley Industries, a company that provides residential and commercial solid waste pick -up and recycling services. Impacts related to solid waste disposal were analyzed in the Eastern Dublin EIR and since development under the proposed project would generally be consistent with previous extent and nature of land use approvals that were analyzed in the prior CEQA documents, no new or substantially more severe impacts are anticipated than have been previously analyzed in prior CEQA reviews. g) Comply with federal, state and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? No New Impact. The existing service provider will ensure adherence to federal, state and local solid waste regulations should the project be approved. There would therefore be no new or substantially more severe significant impacts with respect to this impact than has been previously analyzed in the prior CEQA documents 18. Mandatory Findings of Significance a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self - sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number of or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? No New Impact. Potential impacts related to substantial reduction of fish or wildlife species or their respective species, reduce the range or number of endangered plant or animal species or eliminate examples of major period of California history or prehistory in the eastern Dublin area have been analyzed and mitigated in the 1993 Eastern Dublin EIR, Supplemental EIRs and other prior CEQA documents. As identified in the above Initial Study, the proposed project would cause no new or substantially more significant impacts on biological or cultural resources beyond those identified in previous CEQA documents. b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ( "Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects and the effects of probable future projects). No New Impact. Significant and unavoidable impacts have been identified with City of Dublin Page 109 Initial Study /Eastern Dublin Properties August 2015 regard to cumulative biological, air quality and transportation issues for the overall Eastern Dublin project, of which the three Subareas are a component. The proposed project would not result in new or substantially more severe significant cumulative impacts than have been previously analyzed in previous CEQA documents by the City. c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? No New Impact. No such impacts have been discovered in the course of preparing this Initial Study. There would therefore be no new or substantially more severe significant impacts with respect to this impact than has been previously analyzed in previous EIRs. Initial Study Preparers Jerry Haag, Urban Planner, project manager Kathrin Tellez, Fehr & Peers, traffic and transportation Michael Thill, Illingworth & Rodkin, acoustics Jordan Roberts, Illingworth & Rodkin, acoustics Josh, Carmen, Illingworth & Rodkin, air quality Amanda Karchefski, MacKay & Somps, exhibits Agencies and Organizations Consulted The following agencies and organizations were contacted in the course of this Initial Study: City of Dublin Luke Sims, AICP, Community Development Director Jeff Baker, AICP, Assistant Community Development Director Michael Porto, Planning Consultant/ Project Manager Andrew Russell, City Engineer Jayson Imai, Senior Civil Engineer Obaid Khan, Senior Transportation Engineer Kathleen "Kit" Faubion, AICP, Assistant City Attorney Bonnie Terra, Alameda County Fire Department Dennis Houghtelling, Dublin Police Services Paul McCreary, Director, Dublin Parks and Community Services Dublin San Ramon Services District (DSRSD) Stan Kolodzie, engineer California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) Website Applicant Representatives Kevin Fryer, Michael Snoberger, Chris Davenport City of Dublin Page 110 Initial Study /Eastern Dublin Properties August 2015 References California Environmental Quality Act Air Quality Guidelines, Bay Area Air Quality Management District, 2011 Dublin General Plan, City of Dublin, Updated through 11 / 18 / 14 Dublin Ranch West Project, Supplemental Environmental Impact Report, City of Dublin, November 2014 Eastern Dublin Specific Plan and General Plan Environmental Impact Report, Wallace Roberts & Todd, 1994, Updated through 10 / 7/ 14 Eastern Dublin Properties Stage 1 Development Plan and Annexation, Draft Supplemental EIR, City of Dublin, January 2002 Eastern Dublin Scenic Corridor Policies and Standards, David Gates & Associates, 1996 Fallon Village Project, Draft Supplemental EIR, City of Dublin August 2005 Livermore Municipal Airport, Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan, ESA Associates, August 2012 City of Dublin Page 111 Initial Study /Eastern Dublin Properties August 2015 Attachment 1 Jordan Subarea Traffic Analysis & Supplemental Memorandum City of Dublin Page 112 Initial Study /Eastern Dublin Properties August 2015 Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment Transportation Assessment Prepared for: City of Dublin July 2015 WC15 -3236 FEHR�PEERS Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment Transportation Assessment July 2015 Table of Contents 1.0 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................. ..............................1 StudyPurpose ......................................................................................................................................... ..............................1 ReportOrganization ............................................................................................................................. ..............................1 Study Locations and Analysis Scenarios ............................................................................... ..............................5 Scenarios................................................................................................................................................... ..............................5 AnalysisMethods ................................................................................................................................... ..............................6 SignalizedIntersections .............................................................................................................. ..............................6 UnsignalizedIntersections ......................................................................................................... ..............................7 SignificanceCriteria .............................................................................................................................. ..............................8 2.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS ..................................................................................... .............................10 RoadwaySystem .................................................................................................................................. .............................10 Existing Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities .................................................................................... .............................11 PedestrianFacilities .................................................................................................................... .............................11 BicycleFacilities ............................................................................................................................ .............................11 ExistingTransit Service ...................................................................................................................... .............................12 ExistingTraffic Counts ....................................................................................................................... .............................13 ExistingOperations ............................................................................................................................. .............................15 IntersectionOperations ............................................................................................................ .............................15 VehicleQueuing ........................................................................................................................... .............................16 3.0 PROJECT CHARACTERISTICS ............................................................................ .............................17 ProjectDescription .............................................................................................................................. .............................17 ProjectTrip Generation ..................................................................................................................... .............................18 Project Trip Distribution and Assignment .................................................................................. .............................21 4.0 EXISTING WITH PROJECT CONDITIONS ......................................................... .............................25 Existing with Project Traffic Volumes and Roadway Improvements ............................. ............................... 25 Analysis of Existing with Project Conditions ............................................................................. .............................25 5.0 NEAR -TERM CONDITIONS ................................................................................ .............................28 19 Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment Transportation Assessment July 2015 Near -Term Intersection Volumes and Near -Term Roadway Improvements ............... .............................28 Analysis of Near -Term Conditions ................................................................................................ .............................31 6.0 CUMULATIVE CONDITIONS .............................................................................. .............................33 Cumulative Intersection Volumes and Roadway Improvements ...................................... .............................33 Analysis of Cumulative Conditions ............................................................................................... .............................36 7.0 ALAMEDA COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION ROADWAY ANALYSIS ...................... 38 Alameda CTC Roadway Analysis Study Area ............................................................................ .............................38 TrafficForecasts .................................................................................................................................... .............................38 AnalysisMethod ................................................................................................................................... .............................39 SignificanceCriteria ............................................................................................................................ .............................39 AnalysisResults .................................................................................................................................... .............................39 8.0 SCHOOL SITE ACCESS CONSIDERATIONS ....................................................... .............................44 Vehicular Site Access and Circulation .......................................................................................... .............................44 Pedestrian Access and Circulation ................................................................................................ .............................47 Bicycle Access and Circulation ........................................................................................................ .............................47 TransitAccess and Circulation ........................................................................................................ .............................48 Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment Transportation Assessment July 2015 Appendices (under separate cover) Appendix A: Traffic Count Data Appendix B: Peak Hour Level of Service and Queue Analysis Worksheets Appendix C: Peak Bell Time Level of Service and Queue Analysis Worksheets Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment Transportation Assessment ® July 2015 List of Figures Figure 1 Project Site Vicinity and Study Intersection Locations ................................................... ..............................2 Figure2 Project Site Plans ........................................................................................................................... ..............................3 Figure 3 Existing Conditions Peak Hour Traffic Volumes, Intersection Lane Configuration and Traffic Table 4 Control............................................................................................................................................. .............................14 Figure 4 Existing Conditions Project Trip Assignment ................................................................... .............................23 Figure 5 Future Conditions Project Trip Assignment ...................................................................... .............................24 Figure 6 Existing with Project Build -out Peak Hour Traffic Volumes ...................................... ............................... 26 Figure 7 Near -Term without Project Peak Hour Traffic Volumes ............................................... .............................29 27 Figure 8 Near -Term with Peak Hour Traffic Volumes ..................................................................... .............................30 Figure 9 Cumulative without Project Peak Hour Traffic Volumes .............................................. .............................34 36 Figure 10 Cumulative with Project Peak Hour Traffic Volumes ..................................................... .............................35 List of Tables Table 1 Signalized Intersection LOS Criteria ....................................................................................... ..............................7 Table 2 Unsignalized Intersection LOS Criteria .................................................................................. ..............................8 Table 3 Existing Conditions Peak Hour Intersection Levels of Service ................................... .............................15 Table 4 Project Development Summary ............................................................................................. .............................18 Table 5 900- Student Elementary School Trip generation Estimates ....................................... .............................19 Table 6 Jordan Ranch Trip Generation ................................................................................................ .............................20 Table7 Project Trip Distribution ............................................................................................................ .............................22 Table 8 Existing with project Condition Peak Hour Intersection Levels of Service ......... ............................... 27 Table 9 Near -Term Condition Peak Hour Intersection Levels of Service .............................. .............................31 Table 10 Cumulative Condition Peak Hour Intersection Levels of Service ............................ ............................... 36 Table 11 2025 PM Peak Hour CMP Roadway Segment Analysis ................................................ .............................40 Table 12 2040 PM Peak Hour CMP Roadway Segment Analysis ................................................ .............................42 Table 13 Peak Bell Time Assessment Intersection Levels of Service .......................................... .............................45 Table 14 Cumulative Condition Vehicle Queue Summary ............................................................. .............................45 ® iv Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendm ent Transportation Assessment July 2015 1' • • This report presents the analysis and findings of the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan (EDSP) Amendment transportation impact assessment (TIA). This chapter discusses the TIA purpose, analysis methods, criteria used to identify significant impacts, and report organization. The study's purpose is to evaluate the transportation impacts of the proposed Eastern Dublin Specific Plan amendment. The approximately 10 -acre site is within the Jordan Ranch development — located east of Fallon Road, south of Positano Parkway, and traversed by Central Parkway, as shown on Figure 1. The Specific Plan Amendment would change the land use designation on a portion of the site from parks /public recreation to park /public recreation /school to accommodate a proposed elementary school. A conceptual project site plan is shown on Figure 2a for the 2012 approved project, and on Figure 2b for the current proposal. This study addresses the project's impacts on the local roadway system under existing, near -term, and cumulative scenarios and discusses potential impacts to the adjacent bicycle, pedestrian, and transit network. Potential transportation - related conditions with development in the Jordan Ranch area of the EDSP area were documented in the Fallon Village Project Environmental Impact Report (EIR), August 2005. At the time the 2005 EIR was prepared, a detailed site plan had not yet been developed. In 2010 and 2012, Fehr & Peers prepared transportation conditions to the results and conclusions of the EIR analysis. Generally, changes in 2010 and 2012 to the Jordan Ranch project did not change the overall conclusions of the transportation and circulation section of the EIR. This report is divided into eight chapters as described below: • Chapter 1 – Introduction discusses the purpose and organization of this report. • Chapter 2 – Existing Conditions describes the transportation system in the project vicinity, including the surrounding roadway network, peak period intersection turning movement volumes, existing bicycle, pedestrian, and transit facilities, and intersection operations. • Chapter 3 – Project Characteristics presents the project description and trip generation, distribution, and assignment. 1 C O v N N c T 7 r 1 L�J L v C A cr C N U O W J Q. c� I V� i N V1 V ' N' •O 1 71 2012 Conceptual Project Site Plan c m o- _ m u c 0i iJ ! u� / Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment Transportation Assessment ® July 2015 • Chapter 5 — Near -Term Conditions address the near -term (year 2025) conditions, both without and with the project, and discusses vehicular impacts. • Chapter 6 — Cumulative Conditions addresses the future (year 2040) conditions, both without and with the project, and discusses vehicular impacts. • Chapter 7— Alameda County Transportation Commission Metropolitan Transportation System (MTS) Roadway Analysis presents the impacts of the Project on the MTS roadway system. • Chapter 8 — School Site Access Considerations discusses site access to the elementary school site for all modes of travel. Recommendations are provided. STUDY LOCATIONS AND ANALYSIS SCENARIOS Project impacts on the study area roadway facilities were identified by measuring the effect project traffic would have on intersections in the site vicinity during the morning (7:00 to 9:00 AM), afternoon (2:00 to 4:00 PM), and evening (4:00 to 6:00 PM) peak periods when commute traffic is typically the highest and the project is expected to generate the most vehicular traffic. The study intersections were selected in consultation with City staff based on a review of the project location and the amount of traffic that could be added to the intersections in the site vicinity. These intersections are shown on Figure 1 and listed below: 1. Fallon Road /Positano Parkway 2. Lockhart Street /Central Parkway 3. Fallon Road /Central Parkway 4. Sunset View Drive /Central Parkway 5. Panorama Drive /Central Parkway Operations of the intersections above were evaluated for the following scenarios using the Transportation Research Board's (TRB) 2000 Highway Capacity Manual methodology using Synchro 8 analysis software. • Existing Conditions — Existing volumes obtained from traffic counts and the existing roadway system configuration. • Existing with Project— Existing volumes obtained from traffic counts plus traffic estimated for the project. The roadway system is the same as the Existing Conditions scenario. A 5 �y Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment Transportation Assessment July 2015 • Near -term without Project Conditions — Existing volumes plus traffic estimates for approved and pending developments, and /or traffic increases due to regional growth. This scenario reflects likely conditions in the next 10 years. Traffic forecasts for this scenario were developed using the recently updated City of Dublin travel demand model, supplemented by manual adjustments of the forecasts in the Jordan Ranch area to better reflect planned development patterns. • Near -Term with Project— Traffic volumes from the Near -term without Project Conditions scenario plus traffic estimated for the Project. • Far -Term (Cumulative) Without Project Conditions — Projected traffic volumes and the projected roadway system using the City of Dublin travel demand model, supplemented by manual adjustments of the forecasts in the Jordan Ranch area to better reflect planned development patterns. The traffic forecasts include Approved and Pending projects from the Near -Term without Project Conditions, in addition to build out of land uses consistent with the General Plan. • Far -Term (Cumulative) Project Conditions — Traffic volumes from the cumulative without project scenario plus traffic estimated for the project at build -out. The operations of roadway facilities are described with the term "level of service" (LOS). LOS is a qualitative description of traffic flow based on factors such as speed, travel time, delay, and freedom to maneuver. Six levels of service are defined ranging from LOS A (free flow conditions) to LOS F (over capacity conditions). LOS E corresponds to operations "at capacity." When volumes exceed capacity, stop - and-go conditions result and operations are designated as LOS F. The City of Dublin generally strives to maintain LOS D or better for peak hour intersection operations. However, the City may permit LOS E or F for vehicles if improvements to accommodate vehicle travel are contrary to other goals and policies of the City, such as the Complete Streets policy. Different methods are used to assess signalized and unsignalized (stop - controlled) intersections. Signalized Intersections Operations of signalized intersections were evaluated using the method from Chapter 16 of the Transportation Research Board's 2000 Highway Capacity Manual, which uses various intersection characteristics (such as traffic volumes, lane geometry, and signal phasing) to estimate the average control delay experienced by motorists traveling through an intersection. Control delay incorporates delay associated with deceleration, acceleration, stopping, and moving up in the queue. Table 1 summarizes the relationship between average delay per vehicle and LOS for signalized intersections. This method VA 6 Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment Transportation Assessment July 2015 evaluates each intersection in isolation and the effects of vehicle queue spillback are not considered in the analysis results. A TABLE 1 SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION LOS CRITERIA Progression is extremely favorable and most vehicles arrive during the green phase. Most vehicles do not stop at all. Short cycle lengths may also contribute to low delay. B Progression is good, cycle lengths are short, or both. More vehicles stop than with LOS A, causing higher levels of average delay. Higher congestion may result from fair progression, longer cycle lengths, or both. C Individual cycle failures may begin to appear at this level, though many still pass through the intersection without stopping. The influence of congestion becomes more noticeable. Longer delays may result D from some combination of unfavorable progression, long cycle lengths, or high volume to capacity (V /C) ratios. Many vehicles stop, and the proportion of vehicles not stopping declines. Individual cycle failures are noticeable. This level is considered by many agencies to be the limit of acceptable delay. These E high delay values generally indicate poor progression, long cycle lengths, and high V/C ratios. Individual cycle failures are frequent occurrences. This level is considered unacceptable with oversaturation, which is when arrival flow F rates exceed the capacity of the intersection. This level may also occur at high V/C ratios below 1.0 with many individual cycle failures. Poor progression and long cycle lengths may also be contributing factors to such delay levels. Source: 2000 Highway Capacity Manual. Unsignalized Intersections < 10.0 > 10.0 to 20.0 > 20.0 to 35.0 > 35.0 to 55.0 > 55.0 to 80.0 > 80.0 Operations at unsignalized intersections were evaluated using the method from Chapter 17 of the 2000 Highway Capacity Manual. With this method, operations are defined by the average control delay per vehicle (measured in seconds) for each movement that must yield the right -of -way. At two -way or side street - controlled intersections, the control delay (and LOS) is calculated for each controlled movement, the left -turn movement from the major street, and the entire intersection. For controlled approaches composed of a single lane, the control delay is computed as the average of all movements in that lane. The delays for the entire intersection and for the movement or approach with the highest delay are reported. Table 2 summarizes the relationship between delay and LOS for unsignalized intersections. VA 7 Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment Transportation Assessment July 2015 TABLE 2 UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTION LOS CRITERIA A Little or no delays < 10.0 B Short traffic delays > 10.0 to 15.0 C Average traffic delays > 15.0 to 25.0 D Long traffic delays > 25.0 to 35.0 E Very long traffic delays > 35.0 to 50.0 F Extreme traffic delays with > 50.0 intersection capacity exceeded Source: 2000 Highway Capacity Manual. Although the Transportation Research Board has published the 2010 Highway Capacity Manual (HCM), delay for vehicles was calculated using the 2000 Highway Capacity Manual method as implemented by the Synchro 8 software. The delay calculations for vehicles have not appreciably changed between the 2000 and 2010 HCM methods, and the City of Dublin has not yet adopted use of the 2010 methods. Additionally, some non - standard phasing types and some shared lane situations cannot be analyzed using the 2010 HCM method. All impacts were assessed using the 2000 HCM method. The determination of significance for project impacts is based on applicable policies, regulations, goals, and guidelines defined by the City of Dublin. The impacts of the project were evaluated by comparing the results of the level of service calculations under Existing with Project, Near -term with Project, and Cumulative with Project conditions to the results under Existing, Near -term without Project, and Cumulative without Project conditions, respectively. As the project is a general plan amendment and a specific site plan has not been developed for the school, the review focuses on potential impacts to local intersection operations. General guidance for the provision of transportation infrastructure to support development of the school site is also provided. Off -site intersection impacts could be considered if the Project would results in any of the following: ® 8 Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment Transportation Assessment July 2015 The project would conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system, taking into account all modes of transportation including mass transit and non - motorized travel and relevant components of the circulation system, including but not limited to intersections, streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit. A significant impact could be identified: o If a signalized intersection is projected to operate within delay ranges associated with less - than- capacity conditions (i.e., LOS D or better with an average control delay of equal to or less than 55 seconds per vehicle) without the project and the project is expected to cause the facility to operate at a LOS E or F; • If the intersection is already unacceptable operations (i.e., LOS E or LOS F) under no project conditions, the project adds 50 or more peak hour trips; • If the operations of an unsignalized study intersection is projected to decline with the addition of project traffic, and if the installation of a traffic signal based on the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) Peak Hour Signal Warrant (Warrant 3) would be warranted. o If the addition of project traffic at a study intersection would result in the 95th percentile vehicle queue exceeding the available storage or would increase 95th percentile queue by more than two vehicles where the queue already exceeds the available storage space; • The project would conflict with an applicable congestion management program, including but not limited to level of service standards and travel demand measures, or other standards established by the Alameda County Transportation Commission (Alameda CTC) and /or Tri- Valley Transportation Council (TVTC) for designated roads and highways: o Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a LOS standard established by the Alameda CTC and /or TVTC for designated roads or highways; For a roadway segment of the Alameda CTC Congestion Management Program (CMP) Network, the project would cause (a) the LOS to degrade from LOS E or better to LOS F or (b) the V/C ratio to increase 0.02 or more for a roadway segment that would operate at LOS F without the project; or o Cause congestion of regional significance on a roadway segment on the Metropolitan Transportation System (MTS) evaluated per the requirements of the Land Use Analysis Program of the CMP1. 1 The Alameda County Transportation Commission (ACTC) requires the assessment of development- driven impacts to regional roadways of projects that generate more than 100 "net new' PM peak -hour trips. 9 Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment Transportation Assessment July 2015 This chapter describes the existing transportation conditions in the study area, including the roadway network and pedestrian, bicycle, and transit facilities in the vicinity of the project area. The project area is located east of Fallon Road, south of Positano Parkway, and traversed by Central Parkway. Roadways in the study area are described below: Fallon Road is a north -south arterial roadway that connects I -580 to Tassajara Road. It currently provides two travel lanes in each direction, with the exception of the segment that provides three lanes in each direction between Central Parkway and Gleason Drive. Between I -580 and Central Parkway, this segment is ultimately planned to provide three lanes in each direction. This roadway is being upgraded as development occurs on parcels fronting the roadway, and will ultimately provide sidewalks and bicycle facilities along its length. Fallon Road is a designated route of regional significance. Central Parkway is an east -west roadway that extends from Arnold Road to east of Fallon Road. Between Arnold Road and Tassajara Drive, and east of Fallon Road, it is a designated collector roadway. Between Tassajara Road and Fallon Road, it is a designated arterial roadway. It generally provides one travel lane in each direction with a landscaped median, bicycle lanes and sidewalks along portions of the roadway that have fronting development. On- street parking is allowed on some portions of the roadway. Positano Parkway is an east -west roadway that extends from Fallon Road to Croak Road. It is a two -lane arterial with a landscaped median, sidewalks, and bike lanes. On- street parking is not allowed on this facility. Dublin Boulevard is an east -west designated arterial roadway in the City of Dublin General Plan that extends from west of San Ramon Road to its current terminus at Fallon Road. It is generally a four to six lane facility with a landscaped median. No on- street parking is permitted on this facility. Dublin Boulevard is a designated route of regional significance. Bicycle lanes and sidewalks are provided on portions of Dublin Boulevard. Lockhart Street is a north -south collector roadway that extends from Dublin Boulevard to Gleason Drive. This facility is complete with a landscaped median and bike lanes. Sidewalks are present where there is 10 Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment Transportation Assessment ® July 2015 adjacent development — sidewalk infill would occur as the adjacent lands become developed. On- street parking is not allowed on this facility. Sunset View Drive is a local residential roadway that spans north from Central Parkway inside the project area. It is a two -lane facility with on- street parking and sidewalks. Panorama Drive is a north -south local residential facility inside the project area that parallels Sunset View Drive to the east. It is also a two -lane facility with on- street parking and sidewalks. PEDESTRIAN FACILITIES Pedestrian facilities include sidewalks, pathways, crosswalks, and pedestrian signals. Sidewalks are provided along most roadways in the immediate study area, although there are portions of Central Parkway and Fallon Road where the roadway has not yet been constructed to its ultimate width and sidewalks have not yet been constructed. BICYCLE FACILITIES Bicycle facilities in Dublin include the following general types: • Class I: Shared Use Path - These facilities provide a completely separate right -of -way and are designated for the exclusive use of bicycles and pedestrians with vehicle cross -flow minimized. • Class II A: Bicycle Lane - Bicycle lanes provide a restricted right -of -way and are designated for the use of bicycles for one -way travel with a striped lane on a street or highway. Bicycle lanes are generally a minimum of five feet wide. Vehicle parking and vehicle /pedestrian cross -flow are permitted. • Class II B: Buffered Bicycle Lane - Buffered bicycle lanes are conventional bicycle lanes that provide a restricted right -of -way with an added buffer space separating the bike lane from the adjacent vehicle lane and /or parking lane. The buffered area provides greater distance between bicyclists, and parked cars and moving traffic and allows for bicyclists to pass one another within the bicycle lane without entering the vehicle lane. Buffered bicycle lanes are generally made up of a six foot wide bicycle lane and a two -foot wide buffer. The buffer is striped with two solid white lines with diagonal hatching or chevron markings within the buffer zone. • Class III A: Bicycle Route with Sharrows - These bikeways provide right -of -way designated by signs or pavement markings for shared use with motor vehicles. These include sharrows or "shared -lane markings" to highlight the presence of bicyclists. FT11 Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment Transportation Assessment July 2015 Within the study area, Class II A bicycle lanes are provided on Dublin Boulevard, Fallon Road and Central Parkway. A series of Class I paths are also provided throughout the eastern Dublin area. Transit service in the area is provided by Wheels, Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART), and Altamont Commuter Express (ACE). Wheels, which is operated by the Livermore Amador Valley Transit Authority (LAVTA), provides fixed - route and paratransit service throughout the Cities of Dublin, Pleasanton, and Livermore, and provides connections to other transit service providers. Wheels buses connect major destinations within the Cities of Dublin, Pleasanton and Livermore, including Downtown areas, employment centers and transit hubs, including BART and ACE stations. Wheels bus schedules are also coordinated with ACE and BART trains during peak commute hours. The Project Area is currently served directly by Routes 2 and 501/502. Additional service is provided at Dublin Boulevard /Fallon Road on Routes 12 and Route 30 (R). The buses used on the routes below have a seating capacity of approximately 40 passengers, with standing room available for an additional 20 passengers. Route 2 connects eastern Dublin to the East Dublin /Pleasanton BART station via Tassajara Road, Fallon Road, Positano Parkway and Central Parkway. It operates on hour headway during the morning (6:30 to 8:30 AM) and evening (3:30 to 6:30 PM) peak periods. Routes 501 and 502 provide service to area schools with stops in eastern Dublin that are timed for morning and afternoon school bell schedules. Route 12 connects the Downtown Livermore ACE station to the east Dublin /Pleasanton BART Station via Las Positas College and Dublin Boulevard, with service every 30- minutes during peak periods and hourly service at other times. It operates seven days a week. Route 30 (or R) service connects the West Dublin /Pleasanton BART Station to the East Dublin /Pleasanton BART station, as well as the Downtown Livermore Transit Center and Lawrence Livermore Labs. It has a designated stop on Dublin Boulevard at Keegan Street. Service is provided on 15 minutes headways on weekdays between 5:00 AM and 8:00 PM. No weekend service is provided on this route. It provides skip - stop (some bus stops that are served by other lines are not served by this route in order to keep up speed). 12 bpi Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment Transportation Assessment ` July 2015 Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) provides regional transportation connections to much of the Bay Area and the Dublin /Pleasanton line provides direct access to San Francisco, with several stops in Oakland where connections may be made to other lines. The closest BART station is the East Dublin /Pleasanton Station located approximately 3.5 miles west of the Project. The West Dublin /Pleasanton BART station is also located approximately 5.5miles from the Project site. BART train frequency ranges between 15 -20 minutes from approximately 5:00 AM to 12:00 AM. Based on 2013 data from BART, approximately 6,800 passengers per day enter /exit the BART system at the East Dublin /Pleasanton station, and approximately 3,200 passengers enter /exit the BART system at the West Dublin /Pleasanton BART Station. The Altamont Commuter Express (ACE) operates weekday train service between Stockton and San Jose with Tri- Valley stops in Downtown Pleasanton and Livermore. During the morning commute period westbound only service from the Central Valley to San Jose is provided, while eastbound only service is provided in the afternoon /evening commute period. There are four morning trains through Pleasanton between 5:33 AM and 8:18 AM, and four evening trains between 4:28 PM and 7:31 PM. Travel time from Stockton to Pleasanton is approximately one hour and fifteen minutes, while travel time from the Tri- Valley to San Jose is approximately one hour. Wheels provides shuttle services between the ACE stations and major employment /residential areas in Pleasanton and Livermore. ACE trains carry approximately 4,000 passengers on a typical weekday, with approximately 600 passengers boarding the ACE system at the downtown Pleasanton Station on a typical weekday. Weekday morning (7:00 to 9:00 AM), afternoon (2:00 to 4:00 PM) and evening (4:00 to 6:00 PM) peak period intersection turning movement counts were conducted at the study intersections in May 2015, including separate counts of trucks, pedestrians, and bicyclists. For the study intersections, the single hour with the highest traffic volumes during the count periods was identified. The AM peak hour in the study area is generally from 7:45 to 8:45 AM, the afternoon peak hour is generally from 3:00 to 4:00 PM, and the PM peak hour is generally from 5:00 to 6:00 PM. The peak hour volumes are presented on Figure 3 along with the existing lane configuration and traffic control. Traffic count worksheets are provided in Appendix A. FT13 0 c 0 c O V v T )n �J a) N CL O N u c O u v v C v N M C m V) I ) 7 O T V 0 P �L ~ d 2 N Q d N N Z w Q x J x V) C X 0 w V V c� H C m In C 0' C 0' V' N! C; J V N', C OI i' V c� H C 0 N L i F-1 ; L ! MA � I N_ u d It'd (L L) L£ 12 r [Er) (LH L9 a -vea o [E L] (L) zL �� f o I9z91 (969) 619 —. 077 'u I6ZI (09) Z6L y m � Z, n C m n m m S w co T EFF N N O_ I9] (4) 6 0 0 0 [O] (0) O N n [9z] (£9) z£ O O o [Ol (0) O U +�- Q:... ue�gaol 1 T� +0 ewe oua. (o) 1 �' m E' [sal (£z) ze [ol O IE91 (Oh) z L .��- -. in o m -'�: [ol (o) O o 0 0 [l4(00)tiL = :c [ol(o)0 O J S co Q_. 0O0 0 0 0 N ® a e n v N n U j' e gs u; �u a F FRET Y N 0_ rn ono IL1(0)O � "1 ~I44£1 c IL] (0) 0 (994) O8£ dawuei ,o.wnw :ire 3. ? c It' L1 (LOL) LOz y ILI (0) L 10"] (e9£) 9z9 y LL uu)): c 7 Iz91 (Oz) £Z v U) o n U1 N V � N s c 0 c O V v T )n �J a) N CL O N u c O u v v C v N M C m V) I ) 7 O T V 0 P �L ~ d 2 N Q d N N Z w Q x J x V) C X 0 w V V c� H C m In C 0' C 0' V' N! C; J V N', C OI i' V c� H C 0 N L i F-1 ; L ! MA � I Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment.Transportation Assessment July, 2015 INTERSECTION OPERATIONS Existing operations were evaluated using the method described in Chapter 1 for the weekday AM, afternoon and PM peak hours at the study intersections, based on the volumes and lane configurations shown on Figure 3. The results are summarized in Table 3. Observed peak hour factorS2 were used at all intersections for the existing analysis. Where the observed PHF was less than 0.75, a minimum value of 0.75 was used. Truck, pedestrian and bicycle activity was factored into the analysis. TABLE 3 EXISTING CONDITIONS PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION LEVELS OF SERVICE AM 8 A Existing Conditions' Intersection Control' Peak Hour 12 B AM 0 (0) Delayl,3 LOSS 5. Panorama Drive /Central Parkway SSSC AFT 0 (0) AM 15 B 1. Fallon Road /Positano Parkway Signal AFT 11 B PM 11 B AM 18 B 2. Lockhart Street /Central Parkway Signal AFT 21 C PM 38 D AM 15 B 3. Fallon Road /Central Parkway Signal AFT 18 B PM 12 B AM 8 A 4. Sunset View Drive /Central Parkway Signal AFT 9 A PM 12 B AM 0 (0) A (A) 5. Panorama Drive /Central Parkway SSSC AFT 0 (0) A (A) PM 0 (0) A (A) Notes: 1. SSSC = side - street stop controlled intersection; Signal = signalized intersection. 2. Average intersection delay calculated for signalized intersections using the 2000 HCM method. 3. For SSSC intersections, average delay or LOS is listed first followed by the delay or LOS for the worst approach in parentheses Source: Fehr & Peers, 2015. z The relationship between the peak 15- minute flow rate and the full hourly volume is given by the peak -hour factor (PHF) based on the following equation: PHF = Hourly volume /(4* volume during the peak 15 minutes of flow). The analysis of level of service is based on peak rates of flow occurring within the peak hour because substantial short-term fluctuations typically occur during an hour. 15 Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment Transportation Assessment' July 2015 As shown, study intersections operate at overall acceptable service levels in accordance with benchmarks set by the City of Dublin during the morning, afternoon and evening peak hours. Detailed intersection LOS calculation worksheets are presented in Appendix B. VEHICLE QUEUING Field observations confirmed the calculated levels of service along with the extent of existing vehicle queues, which are contained within the existing vehicle storage. Detailed intersection queuing calculation worksheets are also presented in Appendix B. 16 This chapter provides an overview of the proposed project components and addresses the proposed project trip generation, trip distribution, and trip assignment characteristics, allowing for an evaluation of project impacts on the surrounding roadway network. The amount of traffic associated with the project was estimated using a three -step process: 1. Trip Generation —The amount of vehicle traffic entering /exiting the campus was estimated. 2. Trip Distribution — The direction trips would use to approach and depart the area was projected. 3. Trip Assignment — Trips were then assigned to specific roadway segments and intersection turning movements. The proposed Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment (project) would change the land use designation of an approximately 10 -acre parcel within the Jordan Ranch development of the EDSP from parks /public recreation to parks /public recreation /school. Other site elements have also been refined from prior plans. Jordan Ranch is located in eastern Dublin, east of Fallon Road, south of Positano Parkway, and traversed by Central Parkway. Table 4 presents a comparison of the 2005 EIR Project, 2010 Approved Project, 2012 Approved Project with school site, and the current proposal. In 2012 there was a site within the Jordan Ranch development that was reserved for a school but has the dual designation of residential and school; the current entitlements allow construction of either school or residential uses. Since 2012, portions of the project have been constructed, including a 253 -unit single - family neighborhood southeast of Positano Parkway (1 home remains under construction). Portions of the site in the vicinity of the proposed school site are currently under construction, with approximately 37 completed homes. Vehicle trips generated by constructed and occupied units were captured in the data collection effort (see chapter 2), and vehicle trips generated by uses not yet constructed and occupied were estimated and added to the existing traffic volumes to evaluate transportation conditions with the land use designation changes. �r 17 19 Eastern Dublin; Specific Plan Amendment Transportation Assessment' .July 2015 TABLE 4 PROJECT DEVELOPMENT SUMMARY Land Use 2005 2010 Approved 2012 Approved Current Current Status EIR Project Project Project Proposal Approximately 289 Single Family 426 dwelling 1 homes constructed Homes units (du) 453 du 513 du 664 du & 248 units under construction Multi - Family Under 638 du 327 du 238 du 235 du Homes Construction Mixed -Use area 84,000 square 9,982 sf retail 35,000 sf retail - N/A feet (sf) Office -- 5,100 SF - -- N/A Assisting Living - - 61 du - N/A Units Elementary 10 acres 550 students 550 students' 900 Students Not Constructed School Notes: 1. A portion of the site in 2012 was designated either for residential or a school site. With a school, 513 single family units would be constructed. Without a school, up to 613 single family units would be constructed. An assumption of 550 enrolled students was made for the purposes of the 2012 analysis. Source: City of Dublin, 2011 and updated in 2015. Trip generation refers to the process of estimating the amount of activity a project might add to the local roadway network. In addition to estimates of daily traffic, estimates are also created for the peak one - hour period during the morning (7:00 to 9:00 AM) and evening (4:00 to 6:00 PM) commute hours, when traffic volumes on adjacent streets are typically at their highest. For school projects, estimates are also generated for the peak periods around bell times (7:00 to 9:00 AM and 2:00 to 4:00 PM). For this project, several sources of trip generation data were reviewed, including Fehr & Peers trip generation surveys at several elementary schools in the Tri- Valley Area. This data was compared to trip generation rates presented in the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual, (9th Edition) with the resulting trip generation estimates shown in Table S. Elementary School sites surveyed in the Tri Valley Area were typically neighborhood schools with some students observed walking /biking to school, but with the majority of students being driven to school. The v 18 itEastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment Transportation Assessment! July 2015 surveyed rates reflect about 13 percent of the student population walking to school. Given the number of housing units within the immediate vicinity of the school, the walk percentage was increased to 25 percent, or 225 students. The resulting vehicle trip rate per student, accounting for a 25 percent walk share, is higher than the maximum trip rate per student noted in the ITE Trip Generation Manual. For this assessment, Fehr & Peers used the observed trip generation rate from similar schools in the area with an additional walk adjustment, which results in a 900 - student elementary school generating approximately 940 vehicle trips during the morning peak hour, 510 vehicle trips in the afternoon peak hour and 380 vehicle trips in the typical evening commute hour. TABLE 5 900 - STUDENT ELEMENTARY SCHOOL TRIP GENERATION ESTIMATES i ✓au i a t a g "i a�a"r+a " k, `�,, + �^ +�i 1��' , �h� i r " ;g s�'F+�&a' � j P ti..w+ a ,�i �In" �� �� Gk�4t TOtat ° �Il OUt� °a��TOteI�� :III �OUt TOta� Elementary School— Tri 2,500 496 440 936 229 280 509 184 192 376 Valley Study' Elementary School—ITE 1,160 223 182 405 113 139 252 66 69 135 Average Elementary School — ITE Max 2,210 455 373 828 203 248 451 163 170 333 Rate 1. Based on data collected in November 2012 at Twin Creeks and Sycamore Valley Elementary schools as part of an evaluation for the TRAFFIX school bus program. Only AM peak period data was collected. Afternoon and PM peak hour trip generation estimated based ratio of the ITE Max rate during the morning peak hour to the observed data. Rate was reduced to account for a 25 percent walk mode share to this campus, as compared to the 13 percent observed at the data collection sites. AM Peak Hour. T = 1.04(X); Enter = 53 %; Exit = 47% 2. Based on ITE Land use 520, Elementary School, Average Rate: Daily: (T) = 1.29(X) AM Peak Hour. T = 0.45 (X); Enter = 55 %; Exit = 45% Afternoon Peak Hour: T = 0.28 (X); Enter = 45 %; Exit = 55% PM Peak Hour: T = 0.15 (X); Enter = 49 %; Exit = 51% 3. Based on ITE Land use 520, Elementary School, Maximum Rate: Daily: (T) = 2.45(X) AM Peak Hour. T = 0.92 (X); Enter = 55 %; Exit = 45% Afternoon Peak Hour: T = 0.5 (X); Enter = 45 %; Exit = 55% PM Peak Hour. T = 0.37 (X); Enter = 49 %; Exit = 51% Source: Trip Generation Manual (91' Edition), ITE, 2012; Fehr & Peers, May 2015. ® 19 Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment, Transportation Assessment July 2015 Most school trips are part of parent /guardian trip chain that typically involves dropping off a child at school on the way to work or other daily errands, and while it represents a new trip within the immediate project area, it does not represent new trips to the regional roadway system. Additionally, the level of afternoon and evening trip generation depends on the potential level of after - school activities and if before /after school care is provided on- campus. Trip generation of Jordan Ranch as currently envisioned was estimated using ITE Trip Generation rates, similar to the 2012 assessment. The results are presented in Table 6 for the non - school elements in combination with the school and compared to the total trip generation from the 2012 assessment. This comparison shows that vehicle trip generation is slightly higher for the proposed project, but mostly due to increased school enrollment. To estimate afternoon peak hour trip generation for the non - school uses, the difference between existing afternoon peak period and evening peak period travel through the study intersections was reviewed. Afternoon peak period traffic volumes were approximately 12 percent lower than the evening peak period volumes. The PM peak hour trip generation as shown in Table 6 was reduced by 10 percent to develop afternoon peak hour trip generation estimates for the project. TABLE 6 JORDAN RANCH TRIP GENERATION AM Peak Hour Project Component Size Daily In Out Total Proposed Project Single Family Homes' 664 DU 6,320 125 373 498 Medium -High Density Residentia1Z 238 DU 1,580 39 118 157 PM Peak Hour In Out Total 418 246 664 106 77 183 Elementary Sch0013 900 2,500 496 440 936 184 192 376 Students Total Trip Generation 10,400 660 931 1,591 708 515 1,223 Less constructed homes 289 units (2,750) (54) (163) (217) (182) (107) (289) Net New Project Trip Generation (A) 7,650 606 768 1,374 526 408 934 VA20 Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment Transportation Assessment: July 2015 TABLE 6 JORDAN RANCH TRIP GENERATION AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Project Component ` Size Daily In Out Total In', Out Total 2012 Project Trip Generation from 2012 Assessment 9,520 427 630 1,057 534 360 894 Less constructed homes 289 (2,750) (54) (163) (217) (182) (107) (289) units 2012 Project Net Trip Generation (8) 6,770 373 467 Net Difference between Proposed Project and 2012 Approved Project (A) 880 233 301 — (8) Notes: 1. Trip generation based on ITE rates for Single Family Home (Land Use 210): Daily Rate: T = 9.52 (D) AM Peak Hour Rate: T= 0.75 (D) (inbound = 25 %, outbound = 75 %) PM Peak Hour Rate: T = 1.00 (D) (inbound = 63 %, outbound = 37 %) Where: T = trip ends, and D = Dwelling Units 2. Trip generation based on ITE rates for Low Rise Townhouse (Land Use 231): Daily Rate: T = 6.72 AM Peak Hour Rate: T= 0.67 (D) (inbound = 25 %, outbound = 75 %) PM Peak Hour Rate T= 0.78 (D) (inbound = 58 %, outbound = 42 %) Where: T = trip ends, and D = Dwelling Units 3. From Table 2 Source: ITE Trip Generation, 9th Edition, and Fehr & Peers, 2015. 840 352 253 605 534 174 155 329 Project trip distribution refers to the directions of approach and departure that vehicles would take to access and leave the site. Estimates of regional project trip distribution were developed based on existing travel patterns in the area, a select zone analysis using the City of Dublin travel demand model, and prior analysis prepared for the site. General trip distribution estimates are presented in Table 7. As mentioned previously, many school trips are part of the parent /guardian trip chain that typically involves dropping off a child at school on the way to work or other daily errands, and while it represents a new trip within the immediate project area, it does not represent new trips to the regional roadway system. This interaction was accounted for in the assignment of trips to study area intersections. Project trips were assigned to the roadway network based on the general directions of approach and departure • 21 Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment Transportation Assessment July 2015 shown in Table 7 but the route that people take to the site could vary. Separate trip assignments are shown for existing and future conditions as the full connection of Croak Road to Dublin Boulevard would affect how vehicles arrive to /depart the area, especially the school site. The resulting project trip assignment is shown on Figure 4 for the existing condition and Figure 5 for the future conditions (near -term and cumulative). The volumes shown on Figure 5 represent the net - change from the entitled project. TABLE 7 PROJECT TRIP DISTRIBUTION Source: City of Dublin Fallon Village Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report, August 2005, Jordan Ranch Stage II Submittal — Site Development Review, April 20, 2011, and Fehr & Peers, 2015. w 22 Project Trip Assignment Roadway Residential School Fallon Road North 20% 20% Fallon Road South 60% 10% Central Parkway East 5% 10% Central Parkway West 10% 30% Positano Parkway East 5% 30% Total 100% 100% Source: City of Dublin Fallon Village Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report, August 2005, Jordan Ranch Stage II Submittal — Site Development Review, April 20, 2011, and Fehr & Peers, 2015. w 22 C C O v T FA-ffI LJ m CL 0 V) C O V N N C N N C Q1 N 111 N E 7 O j O d = .. y N Q d N N O Z y LLI 0 Y_ W X J X W }+ E W Ln Ln Q Q i V N: O: a N V m m m r. � � D_ N mo m IZLZ1 (4LZ) K NmIIN 1961(86)9 � C �1L U na wued IZ961 } c (Z9 l) ELZ I91(9)8 — m—EE LL m 0 a T m � CL m_ 1 I4Z1 (9Z) L4 t qtr U) . E JS y °c [Eel (Z6) 046 ^ `� '- J 0- �. N d E an 'C3 Fq m u 0- I6L1 (89) Be @ .n 1d61 (ZZ) 896 "O tO '— [961 (Z8) 496 r' ° IZZ1 (96) 96 c ,c r 19ZZ1 (996) 49Z \ O 7 TV N i tr p IL061 (906) 6Z6 161 (L) 04 — v m m LL ) m m vv C C O v T FA-ffI LJ m CL 0 V) C O V N N C N N C Q1 N 111 N E 7 O j O d = .. y N Q d N N O Z y LLI 0 Y_ W X J X W }+ E W Ln Ln Q Q i V N: O: a O O C C O C O C V 0 o� V 3 o 5r v E V Li C II II II II C cr C O 0 C O v C C CL 0 I C O V N N C U1 N C m In H N E 7 O c� G ~ d = T Q d N N O y_ W }_ t7 w X J X Q) +- > c: (� E E .0)` Ln V cn C\ � U N i' U: C` m t[zl(L9)6 n M o ~ IbZ -) (LZ-) ZL- Ix } C IB91 (9L) Ll l o IL l -1 (8L-) Z —. M M co N M N mj s` m^ y CL my tW(0o D. 9- 1 'r40(ZL)9z iU 1� V' Q: IS Yeabl i0 ewemued 1 co L 1 co .....E U. � .. �. m C ILIl-1 Q-) b8 L- O.p 2 cV e n ui ® e n n A W . a a =- t I££1(6£)9L `� [gel (bZ)bLL 0 °' '— ILZ1 (L£) L9 c: " v �— IZZ1(9L) 8L co -V:. I£ZZl (£4L) 64Z b 0 Y Ix o )Tr C [9Z1 (9£) 9b (61 46 mum N. I80 (L) 9Z IL C _ s v O O C C O C O C V 0 o� V 3 o 5r v E V Li C II II II II C cr C O 0 C O v C C CL 0 I C O V N N C U1 N C m In H N E 7 O c� G ~ d = T Q d N N O y_ W }_ t7 w X J X Q) +- > c: (� E E .0)` Ln V cn C\ � U N i' Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment Transportation Assessment July 2015 This chapter evaluates potential traffic impacts under Existing with Project conditions. The Project -only traffic volumes (Figure 4) were added to the existing peak hour traffic volumes (Figure 3) to estimate the Existing with Project peak hour intersection turning movement volumes, as shown on Figure 6. For this scenario it was assumed that Central Parkway would connect to Croak Road, connecting to Dublin Boulevard, in the eastbound direction only. No changes to the lane configuration or traffic control were assumed at any of the study intersections. Traffic signal timings, peak hour factors, heavy vehicle percentages, and pedestrian and bicycle activity at the study intersections were left unchanged from existing conditions for the initial analysis. Existing with Project conditions were evaluated using the same methods described in Chapter 1. The analysis results are presented in Table 8, based on the traffic volumes and lane configurations presented on Figure 6. Table 8 also includes the operations results for the Existing without Project conditions for comparison purposes. With the addition of trips related to the buildout of the remaining portions of Jordan Ranch, intersections in the study area would degrade, but would continue to operate within the City's established level of service for intersection operations over the peak hour. The addition of project traffic would result in the 95th percentile vehicle queue exceeding the available storage for the southbound left -turn movement at the Central Parkway at Fallon Road intersection, as well as for several movements at the Central Parkway at Sunset View Drive /School Access intersection. These increases are considered significant. Vehicle queues at the Central Parkway at Fallon Road intersection in the existing plus project condition can be maintained within the existing vehicle storage through signal timing adjustments as traffic patterns change in the area. Measures to consider at the Sunset View Drive /School Access intersection are discussed in Chapter 8. M ® 25 c cr r 1 c 0 u v C -o Ln m a 0 I 0 lu v c -o a, N C O1 D Ul D _7 O > D O d = tU Q d N N O Z y LE Q Y W X -1 X v 0' L O 0O V � V f6 N C •X � LU N C' O 0 V' J MA M'' 0 V N N ' L I C' L 0 M d N N N o �m py, o m —199Z] (L66 9h N m m --IZ£S](929)6Z4 c (Lt) L9 d Of ISLLIe(ESL)S9z— O I££91 (L09) Zz8-1. m o cv [6z] (09) Z6 °' n a LL vvn ri N see o� F�2 u` Y, z " y a ° CL cgi w �. [61(e) OL n. � o --o Io] (o) o [9Z] (E9) ZE `� o " o Iol (o) o IhZ] (9Z) Lt, r� [o] (o) m'. E 19L1 (U) Z9 o f UI£S] (Ob) ZL L N m m p' (o] (0) o _� m IILI (EE) t2 L `-'"m c lee] (Z6) on O cc ® N p � � d. rn L (zzL) 989L IL£E](Stt)£ZZ �IEI ) EI(9—I6E61(oSS)496 I9ZZ1(SSl99Z cu N °O ewo a c > 10 (L) L f [eeLI (Lo L) LOZ �_ W OV ET ET P [LhS] (ELO 9h9 N I9L L1[(L6) ZEL °' N LL c 7 v U) �on N •- c cr r 1 c 0 u v C -o Ln m a 0 I 0 lu v c -o a, N C O1 D Ul D _7 O > D O d = tU Q d N N O Z y LE Q Y W X -1 X v 0' L O 0O V � V f6 N C •X � LU N C' O 0 V' J MA M'' 0 V N N ' L I C' L 0 M d TABLE 8 EXISTING WITH PROJECT CONDITION PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION LEVELS OF SERVICE Notes: 1. SSSC = side - street stop controlled intersection; Signal = signalized intersection. 2. Average intersection delay calculated for signalized intersections using the 2000 HCM method. 3. For SSSC intersections, average delay or LOS is listed first followed by the delay or LOS for the worst approach in parentheses Source: Fehr & Peers, 2015. FT27 0 Peak Existing Conditions Existing with project Intersection Controh Hour DelaY2,3 LOSS DelaY2,3 LOSS 1. Fallon Road/ Positano AM 15 B 17 B Parkway Signal AFT 11 B 12 B PM 11 B 12 B 2. Lockhart Street/ Central AM 18 B 20 B Parkway Signal AFT 21 C 21 C PM 38 D 21 C AM 15 B 32 C 3. Fallon Road /Central Parkway Signal AFT 18 B 27 C PM 12 B 26 C 4. Sunset View Drive/ Central AM 8 A 17 B Parkway Signal AFT 9 A 14 B PM 12 B 12 B 5. Panorama Drive/ Central AM 0 (0) A (A) 5 (15) A (B) Parkway SSSC AFT 0 (0) A (A) 6 (14) A (B) PM 0 (0) A (A) 6 (15) A (B) Notes: 1. SSSC = side - street stop controlled intersection; Signal = signalized intersection. 2. Average intersection delay calculated for signalized intersections using the 2000 HCM method. 3. For SSSC intersections, average delay or LOS is listed first followed by the delay or LOS for the worst approach in parentheses Source: Fehr & Peers, 2015. FT27 0 Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment Transportation Assessment July 2015 A ■ �'� This chapter presents the results of the level of service calculations under near -term conditions without and with the project. Traffic volumes for Near -Term without Project conditions comprise existing volumes plus traffic generated by approved but not yet constructed and occupied developments in the area. Near -Term with Project conditions are defined as Near -Term without Project conditions plus net new traffic generated by the proposed project. Traffic volumes for the Near -Term conditions were developed through the use of the updated City of Dublin Travel demand model considering buildout of a portion of the Dublin Kaiser project, which is proposed on Dublin Boulevard at Keegan Street. The forecasts represent likely traffic conditions in the area over the next ten years. Near -Term without Project traffic volumes are shown on Figure 7. The forecasts shown on Figure 7 include the vehicle trip generation of the entitled land uses as presented previously in Table 6. The net -new trip generation associated with the project was added to the without project forecasts, with the resulting forecast presented on Figure 8. The completion of the Central Parkway connection to Croak Road, which connects to Dublin Boulevard, was assumed to be completed as a two lane, bi- directional roadway. No modifications to the study intersection lane geometries were assumed. Pedestrian and bicycle activity at the study intersections were left unchanged from existing conditions except for the with project condition where additional pedestrian activity was assumed at the intersections that provide primary access to the school site. Heavy vehicle percentages were adjusted to a uniform two percent of traffic. Traffic signal timings were optimized at some intersections to reflect shifts in travel patterns as the City of Dublin routinely adjusts traffic signal timings to ensure optimal travel flow through the City. ® 28 a (0 U +1.. C co L O J N a 0 0 )CO (06) 091 1991 (0[9)06[, 1 [OE] (08) OEd — [91 (9) 9 U 0 0 0 (old[ (061) oot co m [OV61(OBd 0 009 N (08] (06) 06 0 )CO (06) 091 1991 (0[9)06[, 1 [OE] (08) OEd — [91 (9) 9 U UT o 0 moo ovm - oo0 or N Ob �[Od](0L)OL 0 ET .- o co T E �o N � O [91 (9) 9 U UT o 0 (00 OL �100 [091 (06) N Ob �[Od](0L)OL r 1061 (09) 06 mz [OE t] (09) 0 ono 00 O N o m [00£] (09V) OLd [OLB] (086) 009 10L0 (Od1) OEZ � [OE91 (096) OL6 ET _ O O^ O o --o [01 (0) 0 o °o 4- -[91(0)01 I� [9l1(9L)OE CO [O1 (0) O m [ [91 (9) 9 U UT o 0 ao m m L6 z ® a r r s N N 0 ` m m Sic` y N Or O [0) (0) 0 [O] (0) 0 o 0 0 N . 1061 (OL) Ou C 7 o O O U) N C Cr a i C O Q, v C T 1 in C Ol Q O u O v v Cu v N C O N Ev I E O �> d = N Q d N Z ui t7 W X J X o L L o U, d1 V ca L LO C Ln fa L ' I V' CI J C V 1 : Q V Ln ^L W : C 1 L 0 ' fa i CL C Cr a i C O Q, v C T 1 in C Ol Q O u O v v Cu v N C O N Ev I E O �> d = N Q d N Z ui t7 W X J X o L L o U, d1 V ca L LO C Ln fa L ' I V' CI J C V 1 : Q V Ln ^L W : C 1 L 0 ' fa i CL o u -- rn ^ v�c°n rn `r-o 10EZ1 (L 6Z) 60 IM) (£OV O 981 �1 (081 (06) 06 .. (990 (990 LLZ— �� f 0 [££9] (Z69) zv CI--- r in o 10E] (09) OEZl c2 X00 M o t, �cnr T u -- Y D_. oo� [lll(ll)OL o`DO 101(0)0 109] (06) 06 o uNi o 16] (0) 4 �. [OZ] (00 OL 9Z] (LZ) 99 U i U 106 (09) 06 [0] (0) o f m. E Y 100 LI (OB) OLZ -� o.: [Zl (6) E- N o 0 (OE L1 (09) OLZ �, c. 161,0 (06L) L9L o .-. o (0 a N @ O O R N N® N N J N O (D n1 °mom �[EEE) (664)gee 19EI(4Z)4LL c c- .N IL681(ll0'L)l99 .V- J [EZZ] (ESl) 66Z o p` �1 a 19) (9) 9 f c IOLI] (OZ L) OEZ '� > 161 (L) 06 0 19991(9909w'1 —' —+ N (BOO46)99L N N m LL c U) M.-N S � c O v v in m N a O in u c O V N C "O N N C m N Ev N E O > O IP c"O � d t0 Q d N N D _ W } 0 W X J X v O' L : O CO a U U E H L Z ,2 L I O' U (U J W O U f6 L c O'; (U L (U L O' L.L Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment Transportation Assessment! July 2015 Levels of service calculations were conducted to evaluate intersection operations under Near -Term conditions both without and with the project. The LOS results are summarized in Table 9. The corresponding LOS and queue calculation sheets are included in Appendix B. In the Near -Term condition prior to the land uses changes associated with the project, the study intersections would operate at an acceptable service level. With the net - change in trips related to the buildout of the remaining portions of Jordan Ranch, study intersection operations would degrade, but would continue to operate within the City's established level of service for intersection operations over the peak hour. TABLE 9 NEAR -TERM CONDITION PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION LEVELS OF SERVICE 4. Sunset View Drive/ Central AM Peak Near -Term without Project Near -Term with Project Intersection Control 1 Hour Delayz�3 LOSS Delay2'3 LOS 1. Fallon Road/ Positano PM AM 15 B 16 B Parkway Signal AFT 12 B 12 B 8 (22) A (C) PM 12 B 12 B 2. Lockhart Street/ Central 6 (17) AM 27 C 29 C Parkway Signal AFT 19 B 21 C PM 19 B 21 C 3. Fallon Road /Central AM 29 C 33 C Parkway Signal AFT 26 C 31 C PM 23 C 40 D 4. Sunset View Drive/ Central AM 10 A 15 B Parkway Signal AFT 8 A 15 B PM 8 A 13 B 5. Panorama Drive/ Central AM 10 (32) A (D) 5 (16) A (C) Parkway SSSC AFT 8 (22) A (C) 6 (17) A (C) PM 7 (16) A (C) 6 (17) A (C) Notes: 1. SSSC = side - street stop controlled intersection; Signal = signalized intersection. 2. Average intersection delay calculated for signalized intersections using the 2000 HCM method. 3. For SSSC intersections, average delay or LOS is listed first followed by the delay or LOS for the worst approach in parentheses Source: Fehr & Peers, 2015. 31 Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment Transportation ,Assessment 19 1 July 2015 In the without project condition, the westbound left -turn movement queue at the Fallon Road at Central Parkway intersection could extend beyond the available storage, but the addition of project traffic would not increase the vehicle queue by more than 50 feet. The addition of project traffic would case the southbound left -turn movement queue to increase to approximately 390 feet, exceeding the available storage by approximately 150 feet. Queues would be contained within the available storage prior to the addition of project traffic. The addition of project traffic would result in the 95th percentile vehicle queue exceeding the available storage for several movements at the Central Parkway at Sunset View Drive /School Access intersection. Measures to alleviate potential queuing issues at the Fallon Road /Central Parkway and Sunset View Drive /School Access intersection are discussed in Chapter 8. M w 32 Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment Transportation Assessment July 2015 This chapter presents the results of the level of service calculations under Cumulative conditions without and with the project. Cumulative forecasts were developed using the updated City of Dublin travel demand model, representing existing traffic, plus traffic from approved and pending developments, as well as development that could occur under the current General Plan. The traffic forecasts also reflect traffic shifts that could occur with construction of new regional roadway facilities, including the El Charro Road extension from Stoneridge Drive to Stanley Boulevard and the extension of Dublin Boulevard east to North Canyons Parkway. Other regional roadway improvements include the planned widening of Stanley Boulevard to provide three lanes in each direction from east of Isabel Avenue. The resulting forecasts and intersection lane configurations are presented on Figure 9 for the without project condition, which reflects buildout of Jordan Ranch with the currently entitled uses. The net -new trip generation from the proposed project was added to the Cumulative without Project traffic volumes to estimate the Cumulative with Project traffic volumes, as shown on Figure 10. Modifications to the intersection of Central Parkway at Fallon Road were assumed in the analysis of Cumulative conditions, as shown on Figure 9 and Figure 10. Pedestrian and bicycle activity at the study intersections were left unchanged from existing conditions except for the with project condition where additional pedestrian activity was assumed at the intersections that provide primary access to the school site. Heavy vehicle percentages were adjusted to a uniform two percent of traffic. Traffic signal timings were optimized to better accommodate shifts in travel patterns as the City of Dublin routinely adjusts traffic signal timings to ensure optimal travel flow through the City. 33 O � C c 0-0 V C O T u �o 3 � v E L C �l V -o O V v N LJ c m v7 O. O O V _H U/ C T N c C 01 N 1Y N E 2 0 > T V F- a = �O Q d N N Z j LLI 0 Y W X J X Q) > O 0 E V � V V 4— f� f'— O ' L ! 0 j V! W W \0 j V L i I V N! Ln '' L• L i 0 2! ^W Li O °OV y� O Y CL (O O ,- _.a ,. —[OIZI (061) 001 .— �oo rlooz) (ozz) uz a�, + U Aj as �uej � '.0£l](06)091 .2 - (Ohl'1) 06L'L —r o 0 0 IOv) (09) o£Z r "� :.I, o ch v�v O � O O N d OHO CL o o (od (a) of o ='o lol (0) o `O IOL) (06 1) ob IS] (0) O1 �IO£](Oz)O1 '�i. �� [911(51)0£ U U. o£11(09) o£1 f I lol (o) o f m � E Y log (oz 04Z -y. [5] (S) 9 .��' o° 1061) (001) 04Z u° c°� N O C (09Z1(091) 54£ v N M N "n J o o N OL N o N M ro° T Y Z3 E3 m Y Q. O _ 'N-' •-- E CL p' ° °rn [09E) (m) OSZ ,c.- N'm° m O [Ol (0) 0 .N IM'll (W'll CB - lol (0) 0 . [S] (S) 5 f Iooz] (ooZ) OLZ --A > [0] (0) o '�' E 0 E (OZt' l) (M) 064' l —� N. [061 (OL) o£1 ° �o c LL � N e O � C c 0-0 V C O T u �o 3 � v E L C �l V -o O V v N LJ c m v7 O. O O V _H U/ C T N c C 01 N 1Y N E 2 0 > T V F- a = �O Q d N N Z j LLI 0 Y W X J X Q) > O 0 E V � V V 4— f� f'— O ' L ! 0 j V! W W \0 j V L i I V N! Ln '' L• L i 0 2! ^W Li O vc c° C 0 C My 3 � 0 � v E 3 O .. v LL .0 C O u v C -o 1, u rn V) 0 CL V) rILq 0 v v C UJ N C O V) Z N E _7 O T V a r m t0 Q a N N D _ W } Q X J X v 0: Q) 4-j O 0 V' —C V fB � L V 0' •+ � ca 0; Vi W c J W E V C 0' V Q to ! i i O 2 ca ai o V f0 IL m m N o — IOEZ)(16Z)6N N m M �'- -I99nI (Cu,Z) 969 12 'b-IOOzl(Ozz)uz Q) a O I880 (490 (ZZCO Z6L't —+ r m o m [Oh1 (08) OEz— O r Coro W � O c0 N Y a ° ° IL o o �- It z) (6Z) o o fO'o [0) (0) 0 `r° m IOL) (Ob l) 06 Ivl (0) 4 IOE) (0 Z) o m.. 1 I9Z1 (LZ) 94 .1- Q.. Yeq�ol OS O (09) os 1 I �0 awe:aued [0) (o) o f m E y:I090 (OZt) 06Z ET T ET in N m p [Z1 £� N o.,.I 06t(00006Z �`" )(b) 61t9t ln:: N � N N M is u a O f7 y r3 fu ° N IE6d (694) 49Z '. '- 1481 (4Z) VLt o:. .. _ r [ZZ1 (4 t) 81 •N f[oz't1QvL'tl tfie U: IEZz)(m)66Z C) IOOz1 (ooz) oa > : 141 (4) 4 f 161 (L) 04 9 o I9vt l) (996) 9CS'l —' —� N 80t1 (t6) 44t N N co r_ 7 "N�t r � M N .-N � C N N O vc c° C 0 C My 3 � 0 � v E 3 O .. v LL .0 C O u v C -o 1, u rn V) 0 CL V) rILq 0 v v C UJ N C O V) Z N E _7 O T V a r m t0 Q a N N D _ W } Q X J X v 0: Q) 4-j O 0 V' —C V fB � L V 0' •+ � ca 0; Vi W c J W E V C 0' V Q to ! i i O 2 ca ai Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment Transportation Assessment ® July 2015 Levels of service calculations were conducted to evaluate intersection operations under Cumulative conditions both without and with the Project. The LOS results are summarized in Table 10. The corresponding LOS and queue calculation sheets are included in Appendix B. The results of the LOS calculations indicate that with planned development in Dublin and adjacent jurisdictions in the Cumulative conditions, the intersections in the vicinity of Jordan Ranch are projected to operate at acceptable service levels in the Cumulative conditions and the net - change in vehicle trip generation from the proposed project would not degrade peak hour operations beyond the established LOS thresholds. TABLE 10 CUMULATIVE CONDITION PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION LEVELS OF SERVICE AM 10 (32) A (D) 5 (16) A (C) 5. Panorama Drive/ SSSC AFT 8 (22) A (D) 6 (17) A (C) Central Parkway PM 7 (16) A (C) 6 (17) A (C) Notes: 1. SSSC = side - street stop controlled intersection; Signal = signalized intersection. 2. Average intersection delay calculated for signalized intersections using the 2000 HCM method. 3. For SSSC intersections, average delay or LOS is listed first followed by the delay or LOS for the worst approach in parentheses. Source: Fehr & Peers, 2015. ® 36 Peak Cumulative without Project Cumulative with Project Intersection Control' Hour Delay2'3 LOS Delay2.3 LOSS 1. Fallon Road/ Positano AM 18 B 19 B Parkway Signal AFT 12 B 12 B PM 15 B 15 B 2. Lockhart Street/ AM 35 C 36 D Central Parkway Signal AFT 25 C 27 C PM 24 C 25 C 3. Fallon Road /Central AM 42 D 52 D Parkway Signal AFT 29 C 32 C PM 29 C 39 D 4. Sunset View Drive/ AM 10 A 15 B Central Parkway Signal AFT 8 A 14 B PM 9 A 13 B AM 10 (32) A (D) 5 (16) A (C) 5. Panorama Drive/ SSSC AFT 8 (22) A (D) 6 (17) A (C) Central Parkway PM 7 (16) A (C) 6 (17) A (C) Notes: 1. SSSC = side - street stop controlled intersection; Signal = signalized intersection. 2. Average intersection delay calculated for signalized intersections using the 2000 HCM method. 3. For SSSC intersections, average delay or LOS is listed first followed by the delay or LOS for the worst approach in parentheses. Source: Fehr & Peers, 2015. ® 36 Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment Transportation Assessment . July 2015 In the without project condition, the westbound left -turn movement queue at the Fallon Road at Central Parkway intersection could extend beyond the available storage, but the addition of project traffic would not increase the vehicle queue by more than 50 feet. The addition of project traffic would case the southbound left -turn movement queue to increase to approximately 400 feet, exceeding the available storage by more than 200 feet. Queues would be contained within the available storage prior to the addition of project traffic. The addition of project traffic would result in the 95th percentile vehicle queue exceeding the available storage for several movements at the Central Parkway at Sunset View Drive /School Access intersection. Measures to alleviate potential queuing issues at the Fallon Road /Central Parkway and Sunset View Drive /School Access intersection are discussed in Chapter 8. R R 37 IlaEastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment Transportation Assessment July 2015 FAWT1 NJ A separate analysis of regional roadways is required to comply with requirements of the Alameda County Transportation Commission (Alameda CTC). The Alameda CTC requires the analysis of project impacts to Metropolitan Transportation System (MTS) roadways identified in the congestion management plan (CMP) for development projects that would generate more than 100 PM peak hour trips. As shown in Table 6, the proposed Project could generate more than 100 PM peak hour trips. This chapter outlines the roadway analysis, which considers the impact of the Project on freeways, major arterials, and other major roadways as designated by Alameda CTC. Main items of discussion include the geographic scope of the Alameda CTC roadway analysis, the analysis method, and the results for 2025 and 2040. Freeway and surface street segments in Dublin were included in this analysis: • Interstate 580 (2 segments) • Dublin Boulevard (2 segments) • Fallon Road (3 segments) Fehr & Peers used the Alameda Countywide Travel Demand Model to forecast 2025 and 2040 traffic volumes on the MTS roadway system. The forecasts for the MTS system differ from the intersection forecasts previously discussed in the following aspects: • The land use data sets used for the intersection forecasts and the MTS forecasts are consistent with Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) population and employment projections but may differ from the City of Dublin model within Dublin. • Regional model may not include some minor streets through the Tri- Valley, potentially overstating traffic volumes on the roadways included in the model. 38 Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment Transportation Assessment July 2015 • The MTS roadway analysis reports the outputs of the Alameda CTC model directly on a roadway segment level and the analysis does not consider the added capacity from turn pockets at intersections. The results of the Alameda CTC model were used to forecast the No Project condition for 2025 and 2040. Project trips for at build -out were distributed to the MTS roadway segments (including both freeways and surface streets) identified above using the project trip distribution presented in Chapter 3. The distribution of project trips onto the MTS segments results in the With Project volumes for 2025 and 2040, which reflects the net change in trip generation anticipated with the project. Operations of the MTS freeway and surface street segments were assessed based on volume -to- capacity (V /C) ratios. For freeway segments, a per -lane capacity of 2,000 vehicles per hour was used. For surface streets, a per -lane capacity of 800 vehicles per hour was used. These capacities do not reflect additional capacity provided at intersections through turn pockets. Roadway segments with a V/C ratio greater than 1.0 are assigned LOS F. According to the significance criteria presented previously in Chapter 1, the addition of project traffic could cause a significant impact on an MTS roadway segment if: • The addition of project traffic causes a segment's operation to degrade to LOS F. • The addition of project trips causes the V/C ratio to increase by more than 0.02 on a segment that already operates at LOS F without the project traffic. The MTS PM Peak Hour roadway segment analysis under 2025 and 2040 conditions are provided in Table 11 for the 2025 condition and Table 12 for the 2040 condition. The analysis results show that the addition of project traffic would not result in LOS F conditions nor increase the volume -to- capacity ratio by more than 0.02 on a segment projected to operate deficiently prior to the consideration of the project. Therefore, the project impact to MTS roadway segments is considered less- than - significant. 39 a.. N V) V) N h Q c 0 0 0 a c: �r C N:. �rd C' N Q" C' 0 CL rv'r V)4 C C `pi e-1 e-1 C W J m � Co O O O O O O O O z z z z z z z z 0 o m V V V Q Q 0 o m m V V Q Q 00 m , -i rn m 00 m k.0 o0 oo V) in I� I-q 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 M O 00 N rl rY) l0 o0 OR Un u, I- QR 0 0 C) C) C) C) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ° o C) C) N N � k.0 -1 :3 cli N r- Ol -i -i CY) n N m N C CY) n N n 4 N M 00 00 V) Lr) i i 4 V) V) V) V) m m m m U U > "O a -0 o v o 0 O a v) o V) 0 O K C K C f20 C fO C fO V C w Q ii H Y LL- O 0 � w 3 N W � d O C M d N C U )0 r0 O 7 O Q) Obi y *' '^ -p O W Y O m m O N O m + V) O CO a O K N � T 'O C m C y f0 C C IL M-4 C un V N C N Q) Y N Y �l rr w rr Q �i Q G H 0 ii N - Ni, Q f O O. C Q` e" OJ . Q !Ln y N o V' W 1 W J m c O Z O Z O Z O Z O Z O Z Q Q Q Q Q m Q Q Q Q Q m lfl ,-! V -! O -! V -! 00 -i lfl m 0 0 0 0 0 0 N ,4 m -4 00 o -4 -! Il -! lfl m 6 6 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O N N -4 -4 m -4 N -4 N -4 N ON Ol m O N N -4 N N 00 m N m m N m C CL E c V W Q1 T M T fu 2. io- > m 3 m c m° a o a m° °- C D c ` C m cvi c O 00 �^ 0 V a V D V C C c O O + '4 o y N t Z D fu 7 N T 2 O a v a m v Y 'O S[ Y a� O dS 0 O N 0 d N =O m L m LL ` O O 00 LL �. 'C C O 'vf C N 0 Z V LL a V 0 vOi FISNO v H v H Q t C O a a a„ ti c_ v a, v Q c a CL U al - �4: C ; 3 �...' Ln l � v N W 1 N : H C W J m � F- z z N Z Z Z Z Z Z Q Q V V LL LL Q Q Q Q V V LL LL Q Q li W W � � � o q O O O O -1 Iq O O CY) r14 O OR W UJ l-D O -i O O O O -1 Iq O O 0 IV lo 0 0 0 0 0 O O N N -1 ri V m OD lO -1 V N r m ri O LIl �N m m OO W V V 1.0 ul 00 00 00 1. l0 N N N > 0 O v : -O m � Y O m O fo N O N co O C C o f0 C •� C (o fp V 2�2 C 0 v O 'o (L) w Q 76 L H C Y Li 7 m H 7 M 0 N d W a+ _ M C D D fo -p O fa > 01 -O > O O O d N 2 � 0 N 43) N v d K V O 7 v 7 p N =� r0 co '= O` 4! m O N m to N m O K V1 3 W K m` •O td C C �6 C o •C fO •C C � (D v �L w to w w Q U- Q o C d h Q ' C - 0 0 c- a ti C d b '! C Q_ d CL m c f; a 3 . v rN w � r`I C CO C fa. C a, C'L II� ti S��a9s, !vi � O O O O O O Z Z Z Z Z Z Q Q Q Q Q m Q Q Q Q Q m 1 o+��''+ew�n m m N N V ?oII O O O O O O o 0 0 0 o O m \ o G W Ill � � ri ri &a at I �6 ti a 1n ul V N 00 Lf1 L!1 Ln 1� r-I V N t m rn 0 Ln t\ N 00 LI'1 M IT n v v m � m N m m N m T �a o 9 0 m o a m O o c v c co N O N 7 vl V a V c c 0 0 L L O T 0 T Z > a in 3 a 3 " 3 v m o a m c c c c O c O N ' o Q) a Q) i LL V 7 0 m V Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment Transportation Assessment July 2015 This chapter discusses site access and circulation considerations for the school site. As a detailed site plan has not been developed, guidance related to the design of the Sunset View Drive at Central Parkway intersection and potential modifications that may be necessary at the Fallon Road at Central Boulevard intersection to better accommodate peak traffic flows around bell times, especially vehicle queues, is provided. Considerations for bicycle, pedestrian and transit access to the school site are also discussed. As detailed in the prior chapters, intersections that provide primary access to the school site are projected to operate acceptably with the project in all scenarios over the course of the peak hour. However, around school bell times, there may be periodic congestion as students are dropped -off or picked -up within the same time frame. Operations of the intersections of the Central Parkway with Fallon Road, Sunset View Drive /School Entry and Panorama Drive intersections were also evaluated for the peak 15- minutes around bell times for the morning and afternoon peak hours to assist in the sizing of intersections to better accommodate school traffic flows. This analysis was conducted through the use of a 0.50 peak hour factor for movements that would have a high proportion of school related traffic around bell times, including movements to /from Central Boulevard at Fallon Road and Sunset View Drive. The results presented in Table 13. Around bell times, operations of the Fallon Road /Central Parkway and Sunset View Drive /Central Parkway are projected to degrade to LOS E or F for brief periods of time. Further widening of the Fallon Road at Central Parkway intersection is not recommended, but improvements to the school access roadway are recommended to maintain traffic flow on Central Parkway, as discussed below. The 95th percentile vehicle queues for the major movements that serve the school site were calculated as presented in Table 14 for the Cumulative conditions for the morning and afternoon peak period when school traffic would be most concentrated. Vehicle queues are projected to extend beyond the available storage length for the southbound left -turn movement on Fallon Boulevard to Central Parkway with the addition of project traffic, and the vehicle queues could be excessive around bell times (1 to 3 traffic signal cycles). Appendix C provides the LOS and queuing worksheets. 44 Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment Transportation Assessment July 2015 TABLE 13 PEAK BELL TIME ASSESSMENT INTERSECTION LEVELS OF SERVICE Notes: 1. SSSC = side - street stop controlled intersection; Signal = signalized intersection. 2. Average intersection delay calculated for signalized intersections using the 2000 HCM method. 3. For SSSC intersections, average delay or LOS is listed first followed by the delay or LOS for the worst approach in parentheses Source: Fehr & Peers, 2015. TABLE 14 CUMULATIVE CONDITION VEHICLE QUEUE SUMMARY -- -- -- > 300 170 Existing with Near -Term with ` Cumulative with 200 75 65 100 Cumulative Peak Project Peak Bell Project Peak Bell Project Peak Bell Intersection Control 1 Hour Period Period Period 75 Period Delayl'3 LOSS Delayl'3 LOSS Delayl'3 LOSS 3. Fallon Road/ Central AM 87 F 83 F > 180 F Parkway Signal AFT 38 D 47 D 50 D 4. Sunset View Drive/ 25 50 AM 172 F 90 F 90 F Central Parkway Signal AFT 33 C 40 D 40 D 5. Panorama Drive/ 100 125 AM 7 (17) A (C) 4 (21) A (C) 7 (29) A (D) Central Parkway SSSC AFT 5 (14) A (B) 5 (21) A (C) 8 (35) A (D) Notes: 1. SSSC = side - street stop controlled intersection; Signal = signalized intersection. 2. Average intersection delay calculated for signalized intersections using the 2000 HCM method. 3. For SSSC intersections, average delay or LOS is listed first followed by the delay or LOS for the worst approach in parentheses Source: Fehr & Peers, 2015. TABLE 14 CUMULATIVE CONDITION VEHICLE QUEUE SUMMARY NB -- -- -- > 300 170 > 640 Cumulative with Sunset View Drive/ EB left 200 75 65 100 Cumulative Cumulative with 150 Central Parkway EB TH /RT Vehicle without Project Project Project Peak Bell Intersection Movement 150 - -- 40 60 75 Period Storage AM AFT AM AFT AM AFT SBLeft 235 210 190 440 300 > 560 300 Fallon Road/ Central NB Right 235 25 50 25 60 30 75 Parkway WB Left 225 250 150 250 150 > 300 175 WB Thru 1,000 75 70 100 90 100 125 WB Right 250 50 40 60 50 150 50 NB -- -- -- > 300 170 > 640 275 Sunset View Drive/ EB left 200 75 65 100 125 125 150 Central Parkway EB TH /RT 1,000 130 60 70 150 520 425 WB Left 150 - -- 40 60 75 75 Notes: 1. 95th percentile vehicle queue presented in feet as calculated by Synchro. Some queues may be greater than shown due to software limitations. Source: Fehr & Peers, 2015. Based on the results of the vehicle queue assessment, we offer the following recommendations: ® 45 Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment Transportation Assessment July 2015 Extend the southbound left -turn pocket on Fallon Road at Central Parkway approximately 200 - feet. Although this storage length would not accommodate the longest possible extents of vehicle queues, signal timings should be monitored and additional green -time provided for the southbound left -turn movement around bell times to minimize the potential for vehicle queue spillback to the through lane. Dual left -turn lanes are not recommended as it would require the construction of a second receiving lane on Central Parkway and if the second lane were extended to the school entrance at Sunset View Drive, there would be lane utilization imbalances that would reduce the effectiveness of the additional lane. (This recommendation is no longer warranted based on the results presented in the East Dublin Specific Plan Amendment Study - Transportation Analysis Addendum, July 29, 2015. As detailed in that memorandum, the change in the school project description from a 900 - student elementary school to a 400 - student elementary school and a 550 - student middle school reduces the overall level of trip generation and changes expected travel pattern to the school site such that southbound left -turn vehicle queues can be managed through signal timing monitoring and adjustments.) • Construct an eastbound right -turn only lane on Central Parkway at the Sunset View Drive intersection serving the school site. This would allow through traffic to the residential neighborhoods to bypass potentially queued vehicles waiting to enter the school site drop - off /pick -up loop, especially during periods when the drop -off loop is in queue. To accommodate construction of the right -turn only lane, the existing Class IIa bicycle lane on eastbound Central Parkway should be converted into a right -turn only lane in conjunction with construction of a raised curb along the length of the turn pocket, and improvements to the Class I facility along the south side of Central Parkway. Transitions between bicycle facility types would be necessary at Fallon Road and Sunset View Drive. The design should be coordinated with the City of Dublin Transportation and Operations Manager. • Monitor traffic signal operations at the Fallon Road and Sunset View Drive intersections with Central Parkway and work with City staff to establish time of day traffic signal timing plans that best accommodate peak school traffic • Create a drop -off zone on the south side of Central Parkway along the school frontage between Sunset View Drive and Panorama Drive • Reconstruct the northbound approach to Central Parkway at Sunset View Drive (school driveway) to provide a northbound left -turn lane in addition to a through -right shared lane. At least 300 feet of vehicle storage should be provided prior to an internal driveway to the school site. • Consider providing off -set bell times for different grade levels to reduce peak period traffic volumes The site plan should be reviewed as it is developed to ensure that the drop- off /pick -up zone is designed to accommodate peak activities, and that sufficient parking is provided to accommodate typical peak demand as well as occasional peak demands, such as for back to school night. FT46 Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment Transportation Assessment July 2015 Pedestrian access to the school would be provided by a network of sidewalks, signalized pedestrian crossings, and unsignalized pedestrian crossings. Sidewalks are expected to be constructed as part of the school development to provide access to the campus from Central Parkway. In anticipation of the school site to the east of Panorama Drive, some school related traffic signage and street markings were installed in the area. There may be relatively high levels of pedestrian activity crossing Central Parkway to access the school. To enhance pedestrian safety, the following pedestrian improvements are recommended: • Existing school related signage and street markings marking should be removed and new school crossings and signage should be installed within the new school zone. • To minimize pedestrian /vehicle conflicts, the final school site design should consider orienting pedestrian access away from the Sunset View Drive intersection. Pedestrian crossings should also be discouraged across the south and west legs of the Central Parkway at Sunset View Drive intersection to minimize pedestrian /vehicle conflicts. • Use of a crossing guard or installation of a traffic signal should be considered at the Panorama Drive intersection to provide better pedestrian access across Central Parkway to the campus. • Install a raised barrier (fence) along the median of Central Parkway from near the intersection of Fallon Road at Central Parkway to near the intersection of Panorama Drive at Central Parkway to discourage mid -block pedestrian crossings. The final location of the fence should be coordinated with the City of Dublin Transportation and Operations Manager based on a field visit. Class IIa bicycle lanes are provided on Central Parkway along the future frontage of the school. Although the eastbound bicycle lane between Fallon Road and Sunset View Drive would be eliminated to provide a right -turn only lane, parallel Class I bicycle facilities are provided. To enhance bicycle safety, the following bicycle improvements are recommended: • A connection from Central Parkway Class I facility to the school site should be provided to facilitate bicycle travel to the campus • Provide bicycle parking M ®, 47 lr� Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment Transportation Assessment July 2015 No transit is currently provided on Central Parkway east of Fallon Road. However, LAVTA operates routes along Fallon Road, including school - serving transit service. To accommodate transit service to the site, the following is recommended: • Coordinate with LAVTA to determine if a bus stop should be constructed on Central Parkway in front of the school site 48 Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative Declaration Project: General Plan Amendment/EDSP Amendment for Jordan Ranch Subarea 3 Wallis Ranch Lead Agency: City of Dublin August 2015 FEHRtPEERS MEMORANDUM Date: July 29, 2015 To: Jerry Haag From: Kathrin Tellez, Fehr & Peers Subject: East Dublin Specific Plan Amendment Study - Transportation Analysis Addendum WC15 -3236 Fehr & Peers prepared a transportation assessment for the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan (EDSP) Amendment dated July 2015 (July 2015 TIA) that evaluated the changed land use designation of an approximately 10 -acre parcel within the Jordan Ranch development of the EDSP from parks /public recreation to parks /public recreation /school. Since the preparation of that analysis, the school district provided updated school related information. The purpose of this addendum is to confirm that the overall analysis results and conclusions presented in the July 2015 report have not appreciably changed. The following provides a description of the proposed project changes, expected vehicle trip generation under the revised project, and results of a revised queuing assessment reflecting the changed school condition. PROJECT DESCRIPTION MODIFICAITONS The project evaluated in the July 2015 TIA assumed the construction of an elementary school with a maximum enrollment of 900 - students. The updated information indicates that a middle school would be co- located with the elementary school with an enrollment of 400 elementary school students and 550 middle school students. None of the other project elements presented in the July 2015 report would change. 100 Pringle Avenue I Suite 600 1 Walnut Creek, CA 94596 1 (925) 930 -7100 1 Fax (925) 933 -7090 www.fehrandpeers.com Jerry Haag July 29, 2015 Page 2 of 5 TRIP GENERATION Trip generation refers to the process of estimating the amount of activity a project might add to the local roadway network. In addition to estimates of daily traffic, estimates are also created for the peak one -hour period during the morning (7:00 to 9:00 AM) and evening (4:00 to 6:00 PM) commute hours, when traffic volumes on adjacent streets are typically at their highest. For school projects, estimates are also generated for the peak periods around bell times (7:00 to 9:00 AM and 2:00 to 4:00 PM). For this project, several sources of trip generation data were reviewed, including Fehr & Peers trip generation surveys at several elementary and middle schools in the Tri- Valley Area. This data was compared to trip generation rates presented in the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manua(, (9th Edition) with the resulting trip generation estimates shown in Table 1, based on the observed data at similar schools in similar areas. Additional detail regarding the elementary school trip generation rate is presented in the July 2015 TIA. For middle - schools, the observed rate was higher than the ITE average rate, but lower than the maximum ITE rate. The observed middle - school rate reflects approximately 5 percent of the student population walking to school. The observed rate was similar to other middle schools surveyed in the area by Fehr & Peers. As shown in Table 1, the changed school type and enrollment levels would result in a net decrease in peak hour vehicle trip generation for the school site portion of the project. Trip generation for all other portions of the site would remain as presented in the July 2015 TIA. Results of the intersection analysis for the project as evaluated in the July 2015 TIA show that the proposed Eastern Dublin Specific Plan (EDSP) Amendment would not result in poor peak hour levels of service the study intersections included in the analysis. The intersections closest to the school site could experience congestion around the school bell times; these conclusions do not change with the updated project description. Although the overall conclusions do not change, the reduced level of vehicle trip generation associated with the combined middle school /elementary school could change the extent of vehicle queues at the intersections that provide primary access to the school site. Therefore, a supplemental queuing assessment was conducted. Jerry Haag July 29, 2015 Page 3 of 5 TABLE 1 TRIP GENERATION ESTIMATES in In bid ;Total ¢12 Out}To a�1 In, Out r Total 400 Student Elementary 220 196 416 102 124 226 82 85 167 School 550 Student Middle 257 238 495 109 133 242 68 70 138 School' Total 478 433 911 211 257 468 150 155 305 900 Student Elementary 496 440 936 229 280 509 184 192 376 School (from July 2015 TIA) Difference (18) (7) (25) (18) (23) (41) (34) (36) (71) 1. Based on data collected in November 2012 at Stone Valley Elementary School as part of an evaluation for the TRAFFIX school bus program. Only AM peak period data was collected. Afternoon and PM peak hour trip generation estimated based ratio of the ITE Max rate during the morning peak hour to the observed data. AM Peak Hour. T = 0.90 (X); Enter = 52 %; Exit = 48% Afternoon Peak Hour T = 0.48; Enter = 45 %; Exit = 55% PM Peak Hour. T = 0.25; Enter = 49 %; Exit = 51% Source: Trip Generation Manual (9`h Edition), ITE, 2012; Fehr & Peers, July 2015. Jerry Haag July 29, 2015 Page 4 of 5 QUEUING ASSESSMENT Cumulative traffic forecasts presented in the July 2015 TIA were updated to reflect the changed school trip generation. A slightly different trip distribution pattern was used to assign middle - school related trips to the roadway network, as the middle school enrollment boundary is expected to be larger than the elementary school enrollment boundary, which would result in more vehicle trips arriving to the site from the west as opposed to the north. The morning and afternoon peak hour and peak- bell period vehicle queues at intersections that provide primary access to the school site was assessed based on the changed trip distribution patterns, as presented in Table 2. TABLE 2 CUMULATIVE CONDITION VEHICLE QUEUE SUMMARY Notes: 1. 95th percentile vehicle queue presented in feet as calculated by Synchro. Some queues may be greater than shown due to software limitations. Source: Fehr & Peers, 2015. As shown in Table 2, vehicle queues are still expected to spillback for some movements. Although the southbound left -turn movement queue at the Fallon Road /Central Parkway intersection is still expected to spillback beyond the available storage, the expected extent of the spillback is approximately 1- vehicle. This level of vehicle queue spillback can be NB - - - > 330 170 Cumulative 170 Sunset View Cumulative ' Cumulative with with Project Intersection Movement Vehicle without Project Project Peak Bell 125 Storage 125 Drive/ Central Period AM AFT AM AFT AM AFT SB Left 235 210 190 250 250 260 225 Fallon Road/ NB Right 235 25 50 50 60 0 50 WB Left 225 250 150 240 150 225 150 Central Parkway 75 WB Thru 1,000 75 70 150 110 130 110 WB Right 250 50 40 60 50 0 0 Notes: 1. 95th percentile vehicle queue presented in feet as calculated by Synchro. Some queues may be greater than shown due to software limitations. Source: Fehr & Peers, 2015. As shown in Table 2, vehicle queues are still expected to spillback for some movements. Although the southbound left -turn movement queue at the Fallon Road /Central Parkway intersection is still expected to spillback beyond the available storage, the expected extent of the spillback is approximately 1- vehicle. This level of vehicle queue spillback can be NB - - - > 330 170 > 680 170 Sunset View EB left 200 75 65 100 125 100 125 Drive/ Central EB TH /RT 1,000 130 60 120 200 525 300 Parkway WB Left 150 -- 100 60 125 75 Notes: 1. 95th percentile vehicle queue presented in feet as calculated by Synchro. Some queues may be greater than shown due to software limitations. Source: Fehr & Peers, 2015. As shown in Table 2, vehicle queues are still expected to spillback for some movements. Although the southbound left -turn movement queue at the Fallon Road /Central Parkway intersection is still expected to spillback beyond the available storage, the expected extent of the spillback is approximately 1- vehicle. This level of vehicle queue spillback can be Jerry Haag July 29, 2015 Page 5 of 5 managed through signal timing adjustments, and the recommendation to extend the southbound left -turn pocket at the Fallon Road /Central Parkway is no longer warranted. The recommendations for the Central Parkway at Sunset View Drive intersection do not change based on this assessment. CONCLUSIONS The results of this assessment indicate that the changed school assumptions would not change the overall results and conclusions of the intersection level of service analysis presented in the July 2015 TIA for the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan area. However, the extent of vehicle queues, especially at the Fallon Road at Central Parkway intersection are expected to be less than previously estimated and an extension of the southbound left -turn pocket on Fallon Road at Central Parkway is not warranted based on the changed project as vehicle queues can be managed through signal timing adjustments. This completes our review of the changed school condition within the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan area. Please call Kathrin at 925 - 930 -7100 with questions or comments. FEHR� PEERS MEMORANDUM Date: July 29, 2015 To: Jerry Haag From: Kathrin Tellez, Fehr & Peers Subject: East Dublin Specific Plan Amendment Study - Transportation Analysis Addendum WC15 -3236 Fehr & Peers prepared a transportation assessment for the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan (EDSP) Amendment dated July 2015 (July 2015 TIA) that evaluated the changed land use designation of an approximately 10 -acre parcel within the Jordan Ranch development of the EDSP from parks /public recreation to parks /public recreation /school. Since the preparation of that analysis, the school district provided updated school related information. The purpose of this addendum is to confirm that the overall analysis results and conclusions presented in the July 2015 report have not appreciably changed. The following provides a description of the proposed project changes, expected vehicle trip generation under the revised project, and results of a revised queuing assessment reflecting the changed school condition. PROJECT DESCRIPTION MODIFICAITONS The project evaluated in the July 2015 TIA assumed the construction of an elementary school with a maximum enrollment of 900 - students. The updated information indicates that a middle school would be co- located with the elementary school with an enrollment of 400 elementary school students and 550 middle school students. None of the other project elements presented in the July 2015 report would change. 100 Pringle Avenue I Suite 600 1 Walnut Creek, CA 94596 1 (925) 930 -7100 1 Fax (925) 933 -7090 www.fehrandpeers.com Jerry Haag July 29, 2015 Page 2 of 5 TRIP GENERATION Trip generation refers to the process of estimating the amount of activity a project might add to the local roadway network. In addition to estimates of daily traffic, estimates are also created for the peak one -hour period during the morning (7:00 to 9:00 AM) and evening (4:00 to 6:00 PM) commute hours, when traffic volumes on adjacent streets are typically at their highest. For school projects, estimates are also generated for the peak periods around bell times (7:00 to 9:00 AM and 2:00 to 4:00 PM). For this project, several sources of trip generation data were reviewed, including Fehr & Peers trip generation surveys at several elementary and middle schools in the Tri- Valley Area. This data was compared to trip generation rates presented in the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual, (9th Edition) with the resulting trip generation estimates shown in Table 1, based on the observed data at similar schools in similar areas. Additional detail regarding the elementary school trip generation rate is presented in the July 2015 TIA. For middle - schools, the observed rate was higher than the ITE average rate, but lower than the maximum ITE rate. The observed middle - school rate reflects approximately 5 percent of the student population walking to school. The observed rate was similar to other middle schools surveyed in the area by Fehr & Peers. As shown in Table 1, the changed school type and enrollment levels would result in a net decrease in peak hour vehicle trip generation for the school site portion of the project. Trip generation for all other portions of the site would remain as presented in the July 2015 TIA. Results of the intersection analysis for the project as evaluated in the July 2015 TIA show that the proposed Eastern Dublin Specific Plan (EDSP) Amendment would not result in poor peak hour levels of service the study intersections included in the analysis. The intersections closest to the school site could experience congestion around the school bell times; these conclusions do not change with the updated project description. Although the overall conclusions do not change, the reduced level of vehicle trip generation associated with the combined middle school /elementary school could change the extent of vehicle queues at the intersections that provide primary access to the school site. Therefore, a supplemental queuing assessment was conducted. Jerry Haag July 29, 2015 Page 3 of 5 TABLE 1 TRIP GENERATION ESTIMATES I �Outq Total ,, NF Ou 0 7 n �3Out Total p .LEii r, �%. -`.�` a_.r_:xc".:a. v�� 400 Student Elementary 220 196 416 102 124 226 82 85 167 School 550 Student Middle 257 238 495 109 133 242 68 70 138 School' Total 478 433 911 211 257 468 150 155 305 900 Student Elementary 496 440 936 229 280 509 184 192 376 School (from July 2015 TIA) Difference (18) (7) (25) (18) (23) (41) (34) (36) (71) 1. Based on data collected in November 2012 at Stone Valley Elementary School as part of an evaluation for the TRAFFIX school bus program. Only AM peak period data was collected. Afternoon and PM peak hour trip generation estimated based ratio of the ITE Max rate during the morning peak hour to the observed data. AM Peak Hour. T = 0.90 (X); Enter = 52 %; Exit = 48% Afternoon Peak Hour T = 0.48; Enter = 45 %; Exit = 55% PM Peak Hour. T = 0.25; Enter = 49 %; Exit = 51% Source: Trip Generation Manual (91" Edition), ITE, 2012; Fehr & Peers, July 2015. Jerry Haag July 29, 2015 Page 4 of 5 QUEUING ASSESSMENT Cumulative traffic forecasts presented in the July 2015 TIA were updated to reflect the changed school trip generation. A slightly different trip distribution pattern was used to assign middle - school related trips to the roadway network, as the middle school enrollment boundary is expected to be larger than the elementary school enrollment boundary, which would result in more vehicle trips arriving to the site from the west as opposed to the north. The morning and afternoon peak hour and peak- bell period vehicle queues at intersections that provide primary access to the school site was assessed based on the changed trip distribution patterns, as presented in Table 2. TABLE 2 CUMULATIVE CONDITION VEHICLE QUEUE SUMMARY Sunset View NB - - -- > 330 170 > 680 Cumulative Drive/ Central EB left 200 75 65 100 Cumulative Cumulative with with Project Intersection Movement Vehicle without Project Project; Peak Bell WB Left 150 -- Storage, 60 125 Period AM AFT AM AFT AM AFT SB Left 235 210 190 250 250 260 225 Fallon Road/ NB Right 235 25 50 50 60 0 50 Central Parkway WB Left 225 250 150 240 150 225 150 WB Thru 1,000 75 70 150 110 130 110 WB Right 250 50 40 60 50 0 0 Sunset View NB - - -- > 330 170 > 680 170 Drive/ Central EB left 200 75 65 100 125 100 125 Parkway EB TH /RT 1,000 130 60 120 200 525 300 WB Left 150 -- - 100 60 125 75 Notes: 1. 95th percentile vehicle queue presented in feet as calculated by Synchro. Some queues may be greater than shown due to software limitations. Source: Fehr & Peers, 2015. As shown in Table 2, vehicle queues are still expected to spillback for some movements. Although the southbound left -turn movement queue at the Fallon Road /Central Parkway intersection is still expected to spillback beyond the available storage, the expected extent of the spillback is approximately 1- vehicle. This level of vehicle queue spillback can be Jerry Haag July 29, 2015 Page 5 of 5 managed through signal timing adjustments, and the recommendation to extend the southbound left -turn pocket at the Fallon Road /Central Parkway is no longer warranted. The recommendations for the Central Parkway at Sunset View Drive intersection do not change based on this assessment. CONCLUSIONS The results of this assessment indicate that the changed school assumptions would not change the overall results and conclusions of the intersection level of service analysis presented in the July 2015 TIA for the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan area. However, the extent of vehicle queues, especially at the Fallon Road at Central Parkway intersection are expected to be less than previously estimated and an extension of the southbound left -turn pocket on Fallon Road at Central Parkway is not warranted based on the changed project as vehicle queues can be managed through signal timing adjustments. This completes our review of the changed school condition within the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan area. Please call Kathrin at 925 - 930 -7100 with questions or comments. City of Dublin Jordan Ranch/Dublin Ranch Subarea 3/Wallis Ranch Project Response to Environmental Comments Introduction The City of Dublin issued a Mitigated Negative Declaration for this project on August 7, 2015 to ensure California Environmental Quality Act compliance. The proposed project includes requested approval of amendments to the General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan and other associated land use approvals that would result in changes to portions of the development program for the Jordan Ranch property, Dublin Ranch Subarea 3 property and the Wallis Ranch property. These changes include: Jordan Rancli: Redesignating a portion of an existing "Park/ Public Recreation" land use designation on the south side of Central Parkway at Sunset View Drive to a "Public /Semi- Public (school)" designation for future use as a school; changing an existing "Mixed Use" land use designation on the northeast corner of Fallon Road and Central Parkway to "Medium Density Residential." Stcbarea 3: Redesignating 10.4 acres of the site from "Rural Residential/ Agricultural" to "Park/ Public Recreation." Wallis Ranch: Redesignating a 1.9 gross acre site in the south portion of this property from "Semi- Public" to a "Park/ Public Recreation" land use designation. The three Subareas are all located in the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan area, as follows. Jordan Ranch: East of Fallon Road, north and south of Central Parkway. Subarea 3: South of Central Parkway, north of Dublin Boulevard. Wallis Raiicli: West of Tassajara Road, south of City limit line and east of Camp Parks RFTA. The City of Dublin circulated an Initial Study and Negative Declaration on August 7, 2015 for a 30 -day public review period that ended on September 8, 2015. Changes and Modifications to the Mitigated Negative Declaration The following changes are made by reference into the Initial Study document dated August 2015. 1) Page 11, Table 1 is updated to reflect 2012 land use approvals for the Jordan Ranch, not an approval in 2014. The updated Table is shown as Attachment 2. 2) Page 51 item a, the size of the proposed combination Elementary and Middle school is corrected to accommodate 950 students. 3) Page 99: The text of the Initial Study is corrected as follows: "Existing with Project conditions were evaluated using the same methods described in Chapter 1 of the traffic analysis (see Attachment 1). The analysis results are presented in Table 8 of the full traffic report, based on the traffic volumes and lane configurations. Table 8 also includes the operations results for the Existing without Project conditions for comparison purposes. " 4) Page 103, Mitigation Measure TRA-1 "a" is eliminated based on more recent traffic analysis. This mitigation measure would have required an extension of a southbound left -turn pocket on Fallon Road at Central Parkway with a length of approximately 200 feet. The City's consulting traffic engineer has determined this improvement is no longer required. 5) Attachment 1 is hereby incorporated by reference into the Initial Study. Attachment 1 documents that subsequent land use applications, as noted in the Attachment, for portions of the Jordan Ranch site are consistent with the requested General Plan Amendment and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment Comments Received The following comment letters were received by the City. 2 Commenter Date Federal Agencies none State Agencies 1.1 Office of Planning and Research 9/8/15 1.2 California Department of Trans ortation (Caltrans) 9/3/15 Local Agencies 2.1 Dublin Unified School District 9/8/15 2 2.2 Alameda County Transportation Commission 9/8/15 2.3 Dublin Unified School District* 9/14/15 2.4 Alameda County Transportation Commission* 9/14/15 Interested Persons/Organizations 3.1 Amy Lee 9/3/15 3.2 Amy Lee (Petition) 9/9/15 3.3 Elizabeth & Tim Sar eant 9/3/15 3.4 Amy Lee* 9/10/15 * Note: Although these comments were received by the City after he close of the comment period, the City has chosen to provide responses. Copies of these letters follow and responses are found following the comment letters. Each letter is am-totated with individual comments and each numbered comment has responses following the letters. Page numbers of comment letters are not provided. 3 t � EDMUND G. BROWN JR. GovFRN0R STATE OF CALIFORNIA GOVERNOR'S OFFICE of PLANNING AND RESEARCH STATE CLEARINGHOUSE AND PLANNING UNIT September 4, 2015 Michael Porto City of Dublin 100 Civic Plaza Dublin, CA 94568 Letter 1.1 Subject: Eastern Dublin Properties Gear. Plan & Specific Plan Amendment SCH#: 2015052010 Dear Michael Porto: 411 ,�oF,,y��v w N • �r�T£OF Cht \49�p• KEN ALEX DIR .FcroK SEP 08 2015 DUBLIN Pit-ANIMNIG The State Clearinghouse submitted the above named Mitigated Negative Declaration to selected state agencies for review. On the enclosed Document Details Report please note that the Clearinghouse has listed the state agencies that reviewed your document. The review period closed on September 3, 2015, and the comments fi•om the responding agency (ies) is (are) enclosed. If this comment package is not in order, please notify the State Clearinghouse immediately. Please refer to the project's ten -digit State C learinghouse number in future correspondence so that we may respond promptly. Please note that Section 21104(c) of the California Public Resources Code states that: "A responsible or other public agency shall only make substantive comments regarding those activities involved in a project which are within an area of expertisc of the agency or which are required to be carried out or approved by the agency, Those comments shall be supported by specific documentation." These comments are forwarded for use hi preparing your final environmental document. Should you need more information or clarification of the enclosed comments, we recommend that you contact the commenting agency dn•ectly. This letter acknowledges that you have complied with the State Clearinghouse review requirements for draft environmental documents, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act. Please contact the State Clearinghouse at (916) 445 -0613 if you have any questions regarding the environmental review process. Sh�cecelJy,� Scott Morgan Director, State Clearinghouse Enclosures cc: Resources Agency 140010th Street P.O. Sox 3044 Sacramento, California 95812 -3044 (916) 445 -0613 FAX(916)323-3018 www.opr.ca.gov Document Details Report State Clearinghouse Data Base SCH# 2015082010 Project Title Eastern Dublin Properties Gen. Pian & Specific Plan Amendment Lead Agency Dublin, Cityof Type MND Mitigated Negative Declaration Description Consideration of a General Plan Amendment, an amendment to the Eastern Dublin Specific Pian, Planned development rezoning and Stage 1 Planned Development amendments for portions of the Jordan Ranch (re- designating an existing Community Park site to a joint School /Park site and changing an existing Mixed Use land use to Medium Density Residential); Subarea 3 (re- designating 10.75 acres from Rural Residential /Agricultural to Park/Public Recreation); and the Wallis Ranch (re- designating a 1.9 acre site in the south portion of the property from Semi- Public to Park land) properties in the Eastern Dublin Planning area. Lead Agency Contact Name Michael Porto Agency City of Dublin Phone 925 833 6610 email Address 100 Civic Plaza City Dublin Project Location County Alameda City Dublin Region Lat / Long Fax State CA Zip 94568 Cross Streets East of Parks RFTA & West of Tassajara R.; Fallon Rd at Central Parkway Parcel No. various Township Range Section ,Base Proximity to. Highways 1 -580 Airports Livermore Municipal Railways No Waterways Tassajara Creek Schools Quarry Lane Private School Land Use The three Subareas comprising the project site are vacant and planned and zoned for residential, public /semi- public and open space. Project Issues AesthetictVisual; Agricultural Land; Air Quality; Archaeologic- Historic; Biological Resources; Drainage /Absorption; Flood Plain /Flooding; Forest Land /Fire Hazard; Geologic /Seismic; Minerals; Noise; Population /Housing Balance; Public Services; Recreation /Parks; Schools /Universities; Sewer Capacity; Soil Erosion /Compaction /Grading; Solid Waste; Toxic /Hazardous; Traffic /Circulation; Vegetation; Water Quality; Water Supply; Wetland /Riparian; Wildlife; Growth Inducing; Landuse; Cumulative Effects Reviewing Resources Agency; Departmont of Fish and Wildlife, Region 3; Department of Parks and Recreation; Agencies Department of Water Resources; Office of Emergency Services, California; Caltrans, Division of Aeronautics; California Highway Patrol; Caltrans, District 4; Air Resources Board; Regional Water Quality Control Board, Region 2; Department of Toxic Substances Control; Native American Heritage Commission Date Received 08/05/2015 Start of Review 08/0512015 E'nd of Review 09/03/2015 Note: Blanks in data fields result from insufficient information provided by lead agency, Sep 03 2015 3:24PM HP LRSERJET FnX P. € DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION DISTRICT 4 P.O. BOX 23660 OAKLAND, CA 94623 -0660 PHONE (310) 286 -5523 FAX (510) 286 -5 559 TTY 711 V1W%Y.d01,ca,gav September 3, 2015 Mr. Michael Porto Planning Division City of Dublin 100 Civic Plaza Dublin, CA. 94568 RECEIVED SEP03 ?.015 STATE 'CLEARING HOUSE S 1 .Serlays Draught 111 Help save walerl Letter 1.2 ALA580887 ALA - 580 -PM 16,7 SCH# 201 5082010 pastern Dublin Properties General Plan & Specific flan Amendment -- Mitigated Ngative Declaration Dear Mr, Porto: Thank. you £or including the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) in the environmental review process for the project referenced above. Our comments sook to promote the State's smart mobility goals that support a vibrant economy and build active communities rather than sprawl. We have reviewed the Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) and have the following comments to offer, Pmjeet Understandinff The proposed project will consider a General Plan amendment, an Eastern Dublin Specific Plan amendment, Planned Development rezoning, and Stage 1 Planned Development agreements for portions of the Jordan Rauch, Subarea 3, and Wallis Ranch properties within the Eastern Dublin Planning area. The proposed re- zoning will facilitate development of a combination elementary and middle school and replace a mixed�use land designation to medium- density residential within the Jordan Ranch property area. The project will also change existing land use designations within portions of the Subarea 3 and Wallis Ranch properties to better accommodate Park/Public Recreationuses. Interstate 580 provides direct regional access from ramps at Tassajara Road and Fallon Road, which axe, located south of the project site. Mitigation ResponsfblWy As the ]cad agency, the City of Dublin (City) is responsible for all project mitigation, including any needed improvements to State highways. The project's fair share contribution, financing, scheduling, implementation responsibilities and lead agency monitoring should be fully discussed for all proposed mitigation measures. "Prpvidc a safe, vuitakabiu, integraled and of eeani fna»-morfu!!on jyvcm jo erd,ance Caltfarnla's economy and 1lvah(1101" 1.2.1 1.2.2 Sep 03 2015 3:24PM HP LASERJET FAX p.2 Mr. Michael Porto, City of Dublin September 3, 2015 Page 2 Transportation Operations Given the project's location within the Eastern Dublin. Planning area, please provide the 1.2.3 intersection and queue analysis at Interstate 580/Fallon road westbound on -and off -ramps under 2025 and 2040 Conditions for further review of the project's impact to State facilities. Please clarify the project's trip generation estimates for the combination elementary a.n.d middle 1.2.4 school, The trip goneratiozf ostir ates fox the middle school project component was "based on data collected in November 2012 at Stone Valley Elementary School as part of an evaluation for the TRAFFIX school.bus program WD, Attachment 1, Supplemental Memorandum, P&, 2)," Text within the Supplemental Memo also states that trip generation surveys were performed at various elementary and middle schools in the Tri- Valley areas. The Table 1 middle school trip generation component and.its footnote should make the conflicting sources of data collection clear. Transporlation Impact Fees Please .'identify the Transportation Impact Fees associated with this proposed project. We believe 1.2.5 this project should correspond with fhe mitigation measures included in the Eastern Dublin Environmental Trnpaet Report and Suppfernental CEQA Documents (MI<YD pgs. 95 -97)_ We are aware of the Eastern Dublin Traffic Impact Fee Program and encourage a sufficient allocation of fair share contributions toward multi -modal improvernmts and regional transportation. projects in order to better rnitigate and plan for the impact of future cumulative growth on the regional rramportatlon system, Wo support projects and measures to xoducc vchlcic miles traveled (VMT) and to increase sustainable mode shares. Vehicle Trip Reduction The Metropolitan Transportation Cotlunission (MTC)`s Regional Transportation 1.2.6 Plan/Sustainable Community Stratsgy identifies transportation system performance targets including the increase of non -auto mode share by 10 percentage points and a deorease of VMT per capita by 10 percent. Caltrans' main concern is the reduction of VMT from cars and light duty track trips on the Stata Highway System and xnhi inuizing growth per capita_ Consider Transportation Demand Management (TDM) policies to encourage usage of nearby public transit lines and reduce vehicle trips on the State Highway System. These policies could include lower parking ratios, dedicated carpool or car - sharing paxking, bicycle parking, and providing transit passes to residents, among others. We encourage participating in the 51 Lorg SchoolPool RideMatch service to promote walking, biking and carpooling to school. For information about parking ratios, see the Caltrans funded MTC report, Reforming Parking Policies to Support Smart Growth, or visit the MTC parking webpage at the following websites: hit :l! rtatc.c v 1 / arkin serninardoolbox- Handbook, odf htt : / /www.mto.ca. ov/ lannin /smart growth/ parking "Provide a .r4& 8ustdJnab14 lnfagtarsd and t�(pfal±lar mzn�sarfatlon aparaM 10 en)X0Cfr Cal far ria :r i3V0MMy and 11Wbfl fly" be p uj Cul b j; e'wm Hr LFibLKJL I 1 -HA F. e Mr. Michael Porto, City of Dublin September 3, 2015 Page 3 Should you have any questions regarding this letter or seek additional infonatian, please eontact Sherie George at (510) 296 -5535 or sherie.georgeedot.ca,ggv, Sincerely, PATRICIA MAURICE District Branch Chief Local Development - Intergovemmentel Review "Provfdt a safe, moalnabla, Igtagmfed ancle(/faianf fraasporialfan syafam to enhance caftromfa's economy and ltiabItIly All Dublin Students Will Become Lifelong Learners September 8, 2015 s Gt ;J -1 Michael Porto Leger 2. City of Dublin- Community Development Department 1 i 100 Civic Plaza Dublin, California 94568 RE. Notice of Intent to Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration for a General Plan Amendment, Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment and other actions for various properties in the Eastern Dublin Planning Area Dear Mr Porto: Thank you for giving the Dublin Unified School District the opportunity to comment on the above referenced action. The District made an attempt to understand and to respond the nine plus sources used to study the proposed action. The large number of references and the twenty plus years over which this area has been studied make the review by agencies like ours with limited technical understanding and background difficult. It would be very helpful if the action in each of these studies could be summarized as it related to the current action. It does appear that the impact of schools was part of environmental assessments at every step of the process, confirmation is requested. Below are the District's comments /questions. • Page 5, Paragraph 3. The June 2012 Addendum references a 500 student school. The planned 2.1.1 elementary capacity appears to reference original Eastern Dublin Specific Plan capacities? Beginning in 2007 elementary capacities have been significantly larger. It is unclear in this paragraph if the alternate use of residential housing for the planned elementary site was studied. Please clarify. • Page 7, Applicant Information. Conditions and mitigations are required later in the document on 2.1.2 the District. Does clarifying language need to be included to impose these conditions on an non - applicant? • Page 8, a). Is the acreage listed gross or net acreage? 2.1.3 • Page 8 a) and b). The impact studied appears to be from allowed housing units to proposed 2,1,4 housing units. Please clarify the impact related to converting from the planned school use to housing? • Page 12, Water Quality Protection. Please clarify specific requirements under this section. Is the 2.15 - District as an independent District and State Agency fall under City of Dublin jurisdiction? • Exhibit 3. Subject areas are identified on this exhibit, should the original school site in Jordon 2.1.6 Ranch be shown? • Page 35, 16.d. Subsequent mitigation appears to be tied to this item having Less Than 2.1.7 Significant Impact with Mitigation. Please clarify which hazards were identified due to design features? Please identify "Source 6 ". • Page 40, Bullet 6. The District would like to request a copy of the EDSP map of viewsheds. 2.1.8 • Page 41, a), second paragraph. Please clarify /define a public gathering place. 2.1.9 • Page 50, Bullet 2. Supplemental Impact SM -AQ -1 indicated more stringent measures be 2110 undertaken, please definelclarify. • Page 51, a) second paragraph. The paragraph discusses the impact of a 900 student campus 2.1.11 but should discuss the change from 500 students to 950. A 500 student school was previously studied. • Page 53, d,e). The paragraph appears to study air pollutants related to school construction on 2,1,12 sensitive receptors. A more detailed construction schedule should be reviewed as most of the project may be constructed before students will be present. • Page 55, Bullet 3. Please clarify preparation of individual wetland delineations. Does this 2.1.13 mitigation apply to the District? • Page 76, first paragraph. Individual developers are required to pay regional drainage fees. As 2.1,14 the District is not a developer does this mean the fees have been or will be paid by the developer? • Page 98, fifth paragraph. The traffic analysis is complex with limited expertise. Please confirm 2.1.15 that 225 students of 950 total equated to 911 a.m. peak trips? • Page 99, third paragraph. The term "Error!" appears throughout this section. Please clarify if the 2.1.16 missing referenced document is necessary to review the section? • Page 102 — 106. The mitigation measures discussed appear to be based on the traffic study 2117 analysis of 950 students or an entirely new campus. The study should be based on the change from 500 to 950 students as the impact of a 500 student campus was previously studied and mitigated. • Page 103 -106. Mitigation measures addressed by the developer should be included in the final 2.1,18 design requirements for the developer. • Page 108, c). Planning area drainage facilities appear to have been previously constructed by 2.1.19 the developer. Please confirm. • Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment Transportation Assessment. The document appears to 2.1.20 be based on the study of a new 950 student campus. The impacts of a 550 student campus were studied under the previous Jordan Ranch environmental review. Should the basis of the Assessment be on the delta between the original Jordon Ranch Project and the proposed one? Even based on the higher level of studied impact the Assessment appears to conclude no new impact, perhaps less in some cases has been identified, please confirm. • Throughout the document the original school capacity and the currently planned capacity numbers are inconsistent, Should consistent capacity numbers be used throughout the 2'1.21 document? Thank you for the opportunity to comment. Please contact me if we can provide any additional information or clarify any questions. Sincerely, Kim McNeely Director of Facilities Cc. Stephen Hanke, Ed.D., Superintendent Letter 2,2 From: Daniel Wu [mailto:dwu alamedactc.or ] Sent: Tuesday, September 08, 2015 3:18 PM To: Luke Sims Cc: Tess Lengyel Subject: Mitigated Negative Declaration for East Dublin Specific Plan Amendment - Alameda CTC Comments Ni Luke, We received your notice of intent to adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration for Past Dublin Specific Plan Amendment. Due to vacation scheduling, we have not been able to prepare our comments to the Mitigated Negative Declaration by today. Could we please ask for an extension for our comment by the end of this week (9111)? Thank you, Daniel Wu, Assislanl Transpoilaiion Plannei Alarreda Couniy Transpoilalion Commission I 1 I 1 Broadway, Suitt; 800, Oakland, CA 946©7 510.208.7453 (Direct) All Dublin Students Will Become Lifelong Leamers SUPERINTENDENT Stephen Henke, Ed. D. (925) 828 -2557 BOARD OF TRUSTEES Amy Miller President (925) 577 -5866 Dan Cunningham Vice President (925) 640.8330 Megan Rouse (925) 785 -7862 Greg Tomlinson (925) 369 -5055 September 14, 2015 Leiter 2.3 Mr. Chris Foss Dublin City Manager 100 Civic Plaza Dublin, CA 94550 Sent via email to: chris.foss @dublin.ca.gov Dear Chris: The purpose of this letter is to clarify a question that was raised in DUSD's September 8, 2015 comment letter in response to the City's mitigated negative declaration. The letter asked whether clarifying language needs to be included in order for the City to impose the mitigation measures for the joint use school site on a non - applicant. We understand that the MND may identify mitigation measures to be performed by someone other than the applicant, but that it does not thereby commit that party to perform those mitigation measures. That said, as you know, the District has been in discussions with the applicant and the City for many months concerning the impact of the relocation of the school site on the District's ability to house students and concerning appropriate mitigation measures. The District has been working with the City and applicant, and is aware of the traffic impacts and proposed traffic mitigation measures. The District has been working with the developer on an allocation of those mitigation measures and has entered into an MOU with the developer that addresses them. If you have questions or need further clarification please don't hesitate to contact me at 828.2551 ext. 8002. Sincerely, Stephen Hanke, Ed.D. Superintendent SHlsf cc: Kim McNeely, Sr. Director of Facilities Marilyn Cleveland, Dannis Woliver Kelley SALAMEDA r Cauniy Trc��7s�oiiatiacI � ConinlissiOn 1 l 1 } Broadway, $vile 804. Oakland, CA 94607 510.208.7400 www.AlamedaCTC.or9 September 14, 2015 Letter 2.4 Michael Porto Project Planner Community Development Department City of Dublin Zoo Civic Plaza Dublin, CA 98568 SUBJECT: Response to the City of Dublin's Initial Study /Mitigated Negative Declaration for Jordan Ranch /Subarea 3 /Wallis Ranch General Plan .Amendment and Specific Plan Amendment Dear Mr. Porto, Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration for Jordan Ranch /Subarea 3 /Wallis Ranch General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan Amendment. The project includes proposed land use amendments of three subareas: Jordan Ranch subarea — Two sites; o sr.r acre site on the south side of Central Parkway at Sunset View Drive currently designated as a community park. This project proposes a parr /school designation that would allow development of a combination elementary and middle school for 950 students. Assuming this project is approved, the existing eastern portion of Jordan Ranch designated for a future school would be developed consistent with its underlying General Plan land use of medium density residential (up to ire dwelling units). 0 4.6 acre site located on the northeast corner of Central Parkway and Fallon Road currently designated as mixed -use for up to 115 residential units and up to 5,000 square feet of retail. This project proposes a "medium density" residential land use designation Of up to 45 dwellings. Subarea 3: located south of Central Parkway, west of Fallon Road, and north of Dublin Boulevard. This project proposes changing land use designation from rural residential/ agriculture to parks /public recreation for 10.75 acres in this subarea. Wallis Ranch: located in northern portion of Dublin generally bounded by Alameda /Contra Costa County line to the north, Parks Reserve Forces Training Area to the west, Tassajara Road to the east, and Tassajara Creek to the South. This project proposes changing a 1.9 acre site in Wallis Ranch from "Semi Public" to parks /public recreation. We have reviewed the project and determined that it is exempt from review under the Congestion Management Program Land Use Analysis Program as it will not generate loo p.m. peak hour trips in excess of trip generation expected from the existing General Plan and Specific Plan land use designations. Michael Porto September 14, 2015 Page 2 Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this project. Please contact me at (510) 208 -7428 or Daniel Wu of my staff at (510) 208 -7453 if you have any questions. Sincerely, Tess Lengyel Deputy Director of Planning and Policy M Daniel Wu, Assistant Transportation Planner file: CMP /Environmental Review Opinions /2015 Rz�: Updated environment impact report From: Amy Lee <amylivesyoga @gmail.com> To: Michael Porto <odhill @aol.com> Subject: Re: Updated environment impact report Date: Thu, Sep 3, 2015 4:40 pm Ni Michael, Thanks for such a quick reply. Letter 3.1 Page 1 of 4 In page 93 , it mentioned about Eastern Dublin E[R mitigation Measures.... Implementation of all of the mitigation measures identified in the Eastern Dublin EIR would result in a ratio of 5.7 acres of parkland per 1000 population in Eastern Dublin. Truth is that stage 1 Jordan Ranch community now has around 300 households( suppose there are 4 person per household on average) , yet we now don't have a neighborhood park. (yes, the park was planned and we were told that the construction would start this May, yet the reply we got from the city community and park dept. is that no specific date of park construction can be expected. I don't want to bother you here with details, but truth is that we now over 1000 residents don't even have a neighborhood park to use. Think those moved here since 2012.) My doubt is about the recreation part of discussion of checklist'. It said that the project would not increase the use of existing neighborhood or regional parks. I wonder which neighborhood park the future residents can use ,since there is NO existing neighborhood park here. To me, it does not make sense that you put on more buildings but cannot provide 3•- basic public facilities for future residents. You might argue that there will be a plan for it. But we need to see this plan can be implemented. Think about current JR residents, we were told about the plan for our park here when we bought our homes here but we don't have one so far, thus we miss out valuable opportunities to know each other ,as we lack gathering place to meet neighbors and kids have no nearby park to play. We current residents are already suffering and this is meaningless to build more homes without providing people with recreational areas. In sum, I don't think it is not acceptable to build more homes here and please do consider our current situation: we paid high premium for the view of open space and were told there would be a neighborhood park, but now we had no news of the park but only informed that more homes would be here. So, for us ,keeping this land as a sustainable open space or public recreation area is the right thing to do. You have done marvelous job in helping Dublin become a green city and please continue with your efforts! Thanks again for what you have done for Dublin residents. Regards Amy littps: / /mai1.aoI.com /webmai1- std /en- us /PrintMessage 9/10/2015 Re: Updated environment impact report Page 2 of 4 On Thu, Sep 3, 2015 at 2:51 PM, Michael Porto <odhillQ- aol.com> wrote: The 1993 EIR is not on the web site. We have it on disk. We could burn a disk and leave it at the front counter for you to pick up. Please coordinate this with Debra LeClair at 925 - 8336610. If you look deeper into the document you will see that two Supplemental EIR's were done January 2002 and August 2005. In addition to that, two subsequent Addendums were also done as recent as 2012. There has been a considerable amount of more current follow up environmental work done regarding the Jordan Ranch. Mike Porto - - - -- Original Message---- - From: Amy Lee <amylivesyoga(@- gm_ail.com> To: Michael Porto <odhill(@aol.com> Sent: Thu, Sep 3, 2015 2:35 pm Subject: Re: Updated environment impact report Thanks Michael! The link you shared is of great help and now we have more details about what our surroundings had gone through and what will possibly happen here. Yet we still have doubts on certain explanations about environmental factors you offered. We noticed that Most of the environmental impact has been assessed based on 3.1.2 the previous studies that were done many years ago. The earliest one was in 1993 and the most recent addendum EIR was done in 2010 (see Page 37).Twenty years ago, there weren't this many homes in this area. Now the amount of open space has been considerably reduced which surly have caused further habitat loss. *Page 55 - Under Biological Resources, you have listed a number of mitigation 3.1.3 measures to reduce the impact to direct habitat loss to less than significant level. It seems that these mitigation measures are listed in the 1993 report (now httpsJ /mail.aol.com /webmail- std /en- its /PrintMessage 9/10/2015 Re: Updated environment impact report Page 3 of 4 22 years old). We couldn't access these documents to see what these mitigation measures were. We tried searching for them on the City of Dublin website but couldn't find it. Would you mind sharing these documents containing mitigation measures? Also in Page55, you mentioned some mitigation measures related to San 3.1.4 Joaquin kit fox. This specie is listed as Endangered by U.S Fish & Wildlife (please see the link http: / /ecos.fws.gov /tess public /reports /species - Eby- current- range- county ?figs = 06001). Again, we don't know about what exactly these mitigation measures were. Actually, some of my neighbors in our recent street meeting mentioned that they saw fox here. The last paragraph on Page 55, says the eastern Dublin EIR has addressed 3.1.5 potential impacts regarding bald eagle and many other species. we have not seen any of these species in this area now. It could be attributed to the housing development in this area including ours. The fact is that Just this week alone, we have seen many White - tailed Kites 3.1.6 hunt in this area as well as frequently rest on the tree that is adjacent to the mixed use area.With new development so close, no doubt there will be severe disturbance to these birds. My q uestion is that since it appears that the EIR are not from recent studies, we 3.1.7 need to know whether the mitigated measures mentioned in earlier studies hold true today and whether there are any other newer species in this area that could be impacted. am sorry that we cannot provide comments timely since this study contains so much information for us to digest and. yet l think there will be more comments before 918. Regards Amy https. / /mail.aol.com /webmail-std /en- us /PrintMessage 9/10/2015 Re: Updated environment impact report Page 4 of 4 On Wed, Sep 2, 2015 at 8:31 AM, Michael Porto <od hill CcD-aol.com> wrote: Good Morning: A Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared for the project. The closing date for comments is Tuesday, September 8, 2015. The Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared by the City. The Planning Commission will review the Mitigated Negative Declaration and make a recommendation to the City Council. The City Council will act on the Mitigated Negative Declaration. The following is the fink to that document. Initial Study /Mitigated Negative Declaration — Jordan Ranch, . Subarea 3 & Wallis Ranch Mike Porto - - - -- Original Message----- - From: Amy Lee <amylivesyoga _,.gmail.co_.m_> To: Michael Porto <odhill .aol.com> Sent: Wed, Sep 2, 2015 12:31 am Subject: Updated environment impact report Hi Michael, I learned that t he project is currently undergoing an updated EIR with a "negative declaration" of significant impacts. Could you please share us whether we can have comments on EIR to city of Dublin( any comment period for EIR)? We also like to know who provide /prepare the EIR and who will approve this EIR? Thanks for sharing and being always open - minded. Regards Amy https:Hmail.aol.com /webmail- std /en- us /PrintMessage 9/10/2015 Petition • City of Dublin, California. City Council Members of Dublin. Cit... H...: Stop buildings on open space in Jordan Ranch Slow ... • Change.org 919115 8:35 AM Amv Lee lXlhIln. CA 95 Supporters Request City of Dublin City Council, City of Dublin Planning Commission and City of Dublin Community Development to keep the vacant land in Jordan Ranch as a sustainable open space or public recreation area for current residents. We, Jordan Ranch residents, are writing to you because we received the notice from City of Dublin that a portion of the open space in front of Jordan Ranch Dr. is planned for residential use.The reasons all our neighbors are strongly against this plan are as follows: I.There is a lot of wildlife in this open space and putting buildings on this vacant land will definitely disturb them. As nearby residents, we frequently see various kinds of birds, rabbits, wild goats and fox in this land. Obviously, this open space is a wonderful habitat for these wildlife. The Eastern Dublin EIR and later addendum/ supplement have addressed potential impacts regarding bald eagle and many other species. But as nearby residents, we have not seen any of these species in this area now, it could be attributed to the housing development in this area including ours. 3.2.1 3.2.2 ht €ps:/ /www. change. org /plcity- of-dublin-california -city- council- me...58ec5f &utm- source = target &utm - medium = email &utm_ campaign= one_hundred Page 2 of 4 Petition - City of Dublin, California. City Council Members of Dublin. Cit... M...: Stop buildings on open space in Jordan Ranch Slow ... • Change.org 919(15 8:35 AM With so many new homes constructed in East Dublin, the amount of open space has been considerably reduced, and we do not want to be guilty for causing further habitat loss and have nothing to explain when our kids ask why they cannot see wildlife here. 2.This open space is the only green area that we have in front of us. Although right now we can only 3.2.3 see brown grass, but there is hope green will come in winter. We'd like to fight for this open space because this is the only green area we can expect. The Initial Study /Mitigated negative Declaration mentioned about Eastern Dublin EIR mitigation 3.2.4 Measures.—Implementation of all of the mitigation measures identified in the Eastern Dublin EIR would result in a ratio of 6.7 acres of parkland per 1000 population in Eastern Dublin.(P93 ) Truth is that stage t Jordan Rauch community now has around 300 households( 1000 residents in total, suppose there are 4 person per household on average), yet we now don't have a neighborhood park. 3. It does not make sense to continue building new homes if you don't have public facilities for them. 3.2.5 Think about current JR residents, we were told about the plan for our park here when we bought our homes here but we don't have one so far. Thus we miss out valuable opportunities to know each other,as we lack gathering place to meet neighbors and kids have no nearby park to play. We current residents are already suffering and this is meaningless to build more homes without being able to provide people with recreational areas. As vice mayor Abe Gupta said in Save Dublin Open space (Donlan Canyon) Campaign last year' We're always expanding and expanding. But there is literally almost no open space left," lie said. "We thought, let's pause. We're in a drought, we have transportation issues, we have a lot of young families with kids. They need some breathing room, not just a few token parks" Dublin voters take urban sprawl and open space seriously and a request for reviewing the current EIR is made by all of us. Letter to City of Dublin, California. City Council Members of Dublin. City Planning Commission Board Members. City of Dublin, California and Mission Valley Property City Council Member and Mayor: David Haubert and 7 others City Council Member and Vice Mayor:Abe Gupta City Council Member Doreen Wehrenberg City Council Member Don Biddle City Council Member Kevin Hart City planning commission Chairman City Planning Commission Board Member City Community Development Department Director Luke Sims City Community Development Department Project Planner Michael Porto Stop buildings on open space in Jordan Ranch Slow uncontrolled urban sprawl in East Dublin ht €ps: / /www.change.org/p/ city -of- dublin- caIifornia- city - council- me,,.58ec5f &utm- source - target &utm medium= email &utm_campaign = one - hundred Page 3 of 4 Letter 3.3 - - - -- Original Message---- - From: Elizabeth St.John <eliz.stjohn @icloud.com> To: odhill <odhill @aol.com> Cc: timmy sargeant <t.d.sargeant @gmail.com> Sent: Mon, Sep 7, 2015 8:21 am Subject: Re: Jordan Ranch Dr. Development Dear Mr. Michael Porto, I am writing to let you know that my husband and I are opposed to any development to be placed on the Fallon /Jordan Ranch 4 acre piece. I understand that there is currently a request to develop a 45 unit housing development to be placed on that land. We are strongly opposed to any further development on this land period. We have seen several foxes, deer, birds and hares and we, also believe that we have seen white tailed kites in the area (which I believe are an endangered species). This new development will run right up along side of a pond and trees that are heavily used and populated that are currently on the preserve. I am very concerned about their well being as there are very few ponds and water preserves in this area. I would like to suggest that there be a new environmental assessment of this area. The assessment done in 2012 was done prior to all of the additional environmental pressures that have been applied since with all of the new developments, pushing all of the wildlife into these already very small remaining open areas. We think that this land would be best maintained as a part of the preserve, left untouched. Of course there are many other reasons to maintain its current status including, additional pressure on water, schools, and increased traffic... all of which are also environmental concerns. Our community is also concerned about our housing values being depressed due to the presence of this higher density housing. I hope that our concerns and those that neighbors warrant further investigation this land. Thank you for your time. Sincerely, have been sent by our into the proper use and designation of 3.3.1 3.3.2 3.3.3 3.3.4 Elizabeth and Tim Sargeant Letter 3.4 - - - -- Original Message---- - From: Amy Lee <amylivesyoga @gmail.com> To: Michael Porto <odhill @aol.com> Sent: Thu, Sep 10, 2015 3:22 pm Subject: Why Parcel H is the part of the whole deal made between DUSDICITY and developer Hi Michael, Hope this letter finds you well. I didn't get your reply since my last email. So I wonder I can make an appointment with you to discuss more details about the Initial Study you shared earlier. Basically this paragraph perplexed me: Page 5. A second Addendum was approved by the City of Dublin in June 2012 for certain portions of the Jordan property... Finally , previous 4.5 acre open space land use designation was replaced with a Mixed -Use designation that would have contained up to 5,000 square feet of retail and .... I suppose there must be a negotiation between City and the developer and a contract or something like must follow that negotiation during that time. Should this negotiation and contract details be disclosed to public? Where can I find the record? I learned that you've been in Dublin since 1990s , so I think you are the right person who knew the whole deal very well and hope you are ready to share. Thanks for always being open - minded and look forward to your early reply. Regards Amy Responses to Comments The following are responses to each of the comment letters. 1.1) State of California Office of Planning and Research, State Clearinghouse Comment : The Lead Agency has complied with State Clearinghouse public review requirements. Response: This comment is acknowledged and no additional response is required. 1.2} State of California Department of Transportation Comment 1.2.1: The commenter notes that the project includes a General Plan Amendment, an amendment to the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan and a rezoning for portion of the Jordan Ranch, Wallis Ranch and Subarea 3. Response: This comment is accurate and no further response is needed. Comment 1.2.2: The City of Dublin, as Lead Agency, is responsible for all project mitigation including any needed improvements on State highways. The project's fair share contribution, financing, scheduling and implementation should be fully discussed for all mitigation measures. Response: As the Lead Agency, the City of Dublin identified appropriate project mitigation measures in the MND and will adopt a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program with any project approval in order to ensure implementation of the measures. Pages 95 through 97 of the Initial Study outline the wide range of traffic and transportation mitigation measures previously imposed on the affected properties and other properties in the Eastern Dublin Planning Area. All previously adopted traffic (and other) mitigation measures continue to apply to the current project, as appropriate. Therefore, the City of Dublin has fulfilled its CEQA obligation to require traffic and transportation mitigation measures to all individual projects as requested by the commenter. Comment 1.2.3: The commenter requests an intersection and queuing analysis at the on- and off - ramps of the I- 580/Fallon Road intersection under 2025 and 2040 conditions and further review of the project impacts to State facilities. Response: The commenter is directed to page 4 of the Initial Study. Page 4 includes a summary of the 2005 Fallon Village Supplemental EIR (SEIR) prepared in 2005 and certified by the Dublin City Council in 2005. The 2005 SEIR analyzed development of approximately 1132 acres of land in the Eastern Dublin Planning Area that included the Jordan Ranch project. This SEIR has been incorporated by reference into the current IS/ MND. The 2005 SEIR includes an extensive analysis of transportation impacts on local, regional and state highways, including the 1- 580 /Fallon Road on- and off - ramps. Table 4.2.7 contained in the SEIR demonstrates that future building out of the Fallon Village properties, including the Jordan Ranch, would not result in a significant impact at the 1- 580 /Fallon Road westbound ramps. In addition, the 2005 SEIR analyzed development of up to 1,064 dwellings on the Jordan Ranch site whereas the current proposed project would result in development of up to 899 dwellings ---a significant decrease in the amount of development and also peak hour trips. Therefore, the analysis requested by the applicant has already been completed and the project would not have a significant impact on the 1- 580 /Fallon Road westbound on- and off - ramps. Comment 1.2.4: Please clarify the project trip generation for the combination elementary and middle school. The IS states that trip generation for the middle school was based on data collected at the Stone Valley Elementary School in November 2012 as part of an evaluation for TRAFFIX. The IS text also states that trip generation surveys were preformed at various elementary and middle schools in the Tri- Valley area. This potential discrepancy should be made clear. Response: As noted by the commenter and as documented in the Supplemental Traffic memorandum, the transportation consultant did review trip generation from comparable elementary and middle schools in the Tri - Valley area. However, based on analysis of the collected data, the consultant and City chose trip rates included as part of the school bus program to be used as the most accurate representation of elementary and middle school trip rates. The text and footnote in the Supplemental Memorandum were intended to describe the various sources from which data was collected for consideration by the City and consultant. Therefore, any inconsistency in the information was resolved through the City and consultant review. Comment 1.25: The commenter requests transportation impact fees associated with the proposed project be identified. The commenter believes that the project should comply with the mitigation measures included in the Eastern Dublin Environmental Impact Report and Supplemental CEQA documents. The commenter encourages a fair -share contribution toward multi -modal investments and regional transportation projects to mitigate for cumulative growth on the regional transportation system. Response: The commenter is directed to pages 95 through 97 of the Initial Study. These pages summarize the wide range of traffic and transportation mitigation requirements to assist in improving the local and regional transportation network. In sum, the project applicants for this proposed project will be required to pay both Eastern Dublin Transportation Impact Fees as well as Tri -Valley Transportation Development improvement fees. In addition, the 2005 SEIR identified a 0 number of specific transportation system improvements to the regional transportation system that the proposed project will assist in funding. Therefore, the commenter's request has been fulfilled. Comment 1.2.6: The commenter requests that the City consider Transportation Demand Management (TDM) policies to encourage public transit and reduce vehicle trips on the State Highway system. Response: The City of Dublin has historically and is currently undertaking several measures to assist in reducing vehicle trips on local and State roadways. Eastern Dublin EIR Mitigation Measures 3-3/15-15.3 and 16.0 and 16.1 required coordination with local transit providers to extend transit services into the Eastern Dublin area and construct pedestrian and bicycle facilities. Supplemental Mitigation Measure SM-AD-1 contained in the 2005 SEIR requires a number of measures to reduce future vehicle trips, including but not limited to coordinating with LAVTA for extension of transit service into the Fallon Village area, providing bicycle lanes and paths connected to a community wide trail system and providing sidewalks to transit stops, local land uses and a community wide walking system. Finally, the City of Dublin just developed and approved a comprehensive update to the City -wide pedestrian and bicycle Master Plan that includes specific measures to design and implement specific improvements to promote non -auto modes of travel in the community. Therefore, the commenter's request that TDM program elements be addressed has been fulfilled. 2.1) Dublin Unified School District Comment 2.1.1: The commenter notes that previous 2012 Addendum prepared for portions of the Jordan Ranch included a 500 - student elementary school. Beginning in 2007, the District notes that schools were planned for larger capacities. It is also unclear if the alternative use of the existing Elementary School site for residential use was studied in the previous CEQA document. Response: This 2012 Initial Study did analyze a maximum 500 - student Elementary School on the eastern portion of the Jordan Ranch, now known as Neighborhood 7. It is not clear how the prior 500- student enrollment figure was derived. The City notes that the 950- student enrollment figure for the proposed combination Elementary and Middle School analyzed in the current IS /MND was developed in cooperation with the District.. 7 The City did analyze the potential development of up to 100 dwellings on the present Elementary School site on the east Jordan Ranch as part of the 2010 Initial Study /Addendum and this approval is reflected on the current City of Dublin Land Use Diagram. Comment 21.2: Conditions and mitigation measures are required in this document that may apply to the District. Does clarifying language need to be included to impose these conditions and mitigations on a non - applicant? Response: The District worked with the Applicant for many months on the traffic mitigations related to the school, which improvements the Applicant committed to install. In fact, the District and Applicant formalized their discussions when the District Board adopted the project site plan on August 25, 2015 and adopted a related Memorandum of Understanding on September 8, 2015. Comment 2.1.3: The commenter asks if the acreages noted on Page 8 of the IS are gross or net acres. Response: The City confirms that acreages cited on Page 8 of the IS are gross acres. Comment 2.1.4: The comment is somewhat unclear, but appears to be asking about the impact of converting the existing Elementary School site to residential dwellings in Neighborhood 7. Response: The current Initial Study analyzed the project described on Pages 7 through 13 of the IS document. The IS did not re- analyze conversion of the existing Elementary School site on the eastern portion of the site to future residences since this action was previously studied in the 2012 IS/ Addendum and is reflected in the City's General Plan (see Resolution 92 -12). Comment 2.1.5: PIease clarify specific requirements in the Water Quality section of the IS. Does the Dublin Unified School District as an independent District fall under the City of Dublin jurisdiction? Response: As a separate and independent governmental body, the District is likely not under the jurisdiction of the City of Dublin except for non-- educational improvements. However, the District is likely bound by state and federal water quality and clean water requirements. This is an opinion only and should be confirmed by District staff. Comment 2.1.6: The commenter asks if the original school site should be shown on Exhibit 3 of the Initial Study. E:3 Response: Exhibit 3 shows the location of the proposed land use changes. The original school site is not proposed for a GPA or SPA land use change and thus is not shown on Exhibit 3. Comment 2.1.7: On page 35, the commenter believes that subsequent mitigation for item 16 "d" of the checklist appears to be tied to having a Less -than- Significant impact with mitigation. Also, please clarify which hazards were identified due to design, and please identify "Source 6 ". Response: The commenter is directed to page 103 of the Initial Study, Transportation and Traffic, which discusses Item 16 "d" of the environmental checklist. The discussion identifies a potentially significant impact related to congestion at the school site primary intersection accesses around bell time. Mitigation measures are identified to reduce the identified impact to less than significant. Source 6 is identified on Page 37 of the Initial Study as the traffic report prepared for the project by Fehr & Peers Associates. Comment 2.1.$: The commenter requests a copy of the EDSP map of viewsheds. Response: This map is available at the City of Dublin Community Development Department during normal business hours. Comment 2.1.9: The commenter requests clarification as to the term "public gathering place." Response: The City of Dublin considers a public gathering place to be a site owned by a public entity that can be used for visitations by members of the public. This is typically a park, playground, designated scenic outlook or vista. In this instance the proposed combination Elementary School, Middle School and park is considered a public gathering place. Comment 2.1.10: Page 50, which summarized previous Mitigation Measure SM- AQ -1 notes that more stringent air quality improvement measures be undertaken. Please clarify and define what these are. Response: Supplemental Air Quality Mitigation Measure SM -AQ -1 is contained in the certified 2005 Fallon Village Supplemental EIR that included the Jordan Ranch property among others. The current Initial Study summarized this measure in the interest of space. The additional specific measures included in this supplemental mitigation measure are as follows, from page 239 of the 2005 Draft SEIR: a) Require construction contractors to water or cover stockpiles of debris, soil, sand or other materials that can be blown by the wind. E b) Require construction contractors to sweep daily (preferably with water sweepers) all paved access roads, parking areas, and staging areas at construction sites. c) Require construction contractors to install sandbags or other erosion control measures to prevent silt runoff to public roadways. Comment 2.1.11: Page 51, item "a" discusses the impact of a 900 - student campus but should discuss the change from 500 students to a 950- student campus. Response: The comment is noted. The reference to enrollment is a description of the current assumptions for the proposed school site. Please see the Corrections and Modifications section of this document to correct the 900 figure to 950. Comment 2.1.12: Page 53, items "d" and "e" discusses the potential of air pollutants related to school construction. A more detailed school construction schedule should be reviewed as the project may be constructed before students are present. Response: A school project construction schedule was not available to the City prior to completion of the Initial Study. Adherence to Supplemental Mitigation Measure SM -AQ -1 during construction would ensure this impact would be less -than- significant. Comment 2.1.13: On Page 55, bullet 3 of the Initial Study, please clarify the need to prepare a wetland delineation on individual properties. Would this requirement apply to the District? Response: This requirement would apply to the District if wetlands were identified on properties owned and developed by the District. Comment 2.1.14: On Page 76, the commenter notes that the Initial Study identifies that individual developers will be required to pay regional drainage fees. Does this also include the District. Response: Based on a recent investigation by the Dublin Public Works Department, it appears that property owners have already paid City local drainage fees for the Jordan Ranch, including the proposed school site. In terms of regional drainage fees, the District should consult with Zone 7 to determine if these fees are to be paid to Zone 7. Comment 2.1.15: The commenter asks to clarify that 225 students equate to 911 AM peak hour trips from the proposed Elementary and Middle School. Response: Please see Table 1 contained in the Attachment to the project traffic impact analysis. This table is based on observed trips from several similar sized schools. The table shows that a 400 - student elementary school and 550 - student middle school would be expected 10 to generate 911 AM peak hour trips. The 225 students referenced in the comment appears to be the walk percentage assumed for the analysis. Comment 2.1.16: The note "error" appears on Page 99 of the Initial Study. Response: This is a typographical error in the Initial Study. This is corrected in the Changes and Modification section of this document. Comment 2.1.17: Mitigation Measures contained on Pages 103 through 106 of the Initial Study seem to be based on an analysis of a 950- student school on an entirely new campus. The analysis should be based on the change from 500 to 950 students that was previously studied. Response: The City disagrees with this statement. The development of a 500 - student school was previously analyzed on another portion of the Jordan Ranch site, which is now proposed for residential development. The current traffic analysis correctly assumes that a new and larger school facility would be constructed at a different location in the Jordan Ranch. Unique impacts of school construction on nearby streets and roads were assessed and appropriate mitigation measures to reduce these impacts to a less - than - significant level identified. Comment 2.1.18: Mitigation measures addressed by the developer should be included in the final design requirements for the developer. Response: This opinion by the commenter is noted. Comment 2.1.19: Plam- ing area drainage facilities appear to have been constructed by the developer. Please confirm this. Response: Although not a comment on the environmental aspects of this project, representatives of the City have confirmed that various drainage facilities have been constructed in accordance with prior project approvals for the Jordan Ranch. Comment 2.1.20: The commenter notes that the traffic analysis contained in the Initial Study appears to be based on a 950- student campus. The impacts of a 550 - student campus were previously studied under a previous Jordan Ranch environmental review. The basis of the current analysis should therefore be the change between the original project and the proposed project. Even under the higher level of studied impact the Assessment seems to conclude no new impact, perhaps even less, please confirm this. Response: The commenter is incorrect regarding the previous 2012 Jordan Ranch CEQA document. The 2012 CEQA Addendum analyzed a 500 - student school campus --not 550 as noted by the commenter. In response to the portion of the comment that the analysis should have 11 been limited to the change between the 500- student school and the 950 - student school, please refer to the response to Comment 2.1.17, above. The City is unclear as to the comment that "the higher level of studied impact the Assessment appears to conclude no new impact, perhaps less in some instances." The Initial Study did find that many of the potential impacts of developing the Jordan Ranch had been adequately analyzed in the 1995 Eastern Dublin EIR, the 2002 EDPO SEIR, the 2005 Fallon Village SEIR and the 2010 and 2012 addenda for the Jordan Ranch property. However, as noted in the Initial Study, new potentially significant impacts were identified in the current Initial Study related to traffic safety and appropriate mitigation measures identified. Comment 2.1.21• The commenter notes that the original school capacity and proposed capacity are inconsistent. Response: The Initial Study consistently refers to the originally assumed school capacity as 500 students. The currently planned school capacity is 950, as noted in the traffic and other analyses. The page 51 reference to 900 students is corrected in the Corrections and Modifications section of this Initial Study. 2.2) Alameda County Transportation Commission Comment 2.2.1: The commenter documents that the D. Response: In a subsequent phone call with City of Dublin staff, this request has been withdrawn (L. Sims, 9/10/15). No additional response is required. 2.3) Dublin Unified School District Comment: The commenter documents that the District has been in discussions with the project developer and the City concerning the relocation of the proposed school on the Jordan Ranch property. The District confirms an awareness of proposed traffic mitigation measures and has been working with the developer on an allocation of mitigation measures. The District and project developer has entered into a Memorandum of Understanding to address implementation of mitigation measures. Response_: This comment is noted and no further response is needed. 2.4) Alameda County Transportation Commission Comment: The commenter notes that the proposed project is exempt from further review by the Alameda County Transportation Commission since it would be expected to generate 100 PM peak hour trips or fewer. 12 Rem: This comment is noted and no further response is needed. 3.1) Amy Lee (9/3/1S) Comment 3.1.1: The commenter states that it does not make sense to put more buildings but cannot provide basic facilities for future residents. The commenter believes that residents of the Jordan Ranch were told about a plan for a park when they purchased homes, but no park has been constructed. Residents therefore miss an opportunity to know neighbors, lack a gathering place to meet neighbors and kids have no place to play. In sum, the owners have paid a premium for views of open space and a future neighborhood park, but are now informed that homes would be built. The commenter urges that the site should be kept as sustainable open space or public recreation area. Response: The commenter's concerns are noted. It is unclear which portion of the Jordan Ranch the commenter is concerned about, however, as no residences are proposed on designated park or open space sites. The current proposal for the Jordan Ranch includes Medium Density residences on Parcel H, a 4.6 acre site that is currently designated and approved for Mixed Use with up to 115 units and commercial uses, and on Neighborhood 7 which already carries a General Plan underlay designation for such development. This underlay land use designation has been approved by the City since 2012 and has never been designated as a park. A second portion of the project would replace 3.7 acres of a designated Community Park on the south side of Central Parkway with a 950 - student combination Elementary and Middle School. The majority of the site would remain as a City park. Additionally, acreage on an adjacent property would be combined with this project to create a larger City park. The Initial Study did not identify any significant impacts with lack of public facilities with the project. Comment 3.1.2: The commenter notes that most of the environmental impact has been assessed based on previous studies done many years ago, including one done in 1993 and the most recent in 2010. Twenty years ago there weren't many homes in the area now the amount of open space has been considerably reduced which has caused further habitat loss. Response: The commenter is correct that some of the environmental analysis was done in 1993 to assess the impacts of approving and developing Eastern Dublin; however, the Eastern Dublin General Plan and Specific Plan were approved to plan for future development over a 20 -30 year period, with development assumed across most of the planning area. Since 1993, development has proceeded to fill in the planning area, as anticipated in the 1993 planning approvals. Changes in the 1993 planning has occurred within the originally assumed planning boundaries and has been analyzed in many 13 supplemental environmental reviews, in accordance with CEQA. Major updated analysis of a portion of the Eastern Dublin planning area was completed in 2002 (EDPO SEIR), 2005 (Fallon Village Supplemental EIR) and again in 2010, 2012 and 2015 for the Jordan Ranch property. Each succeeding CEQA document has been prepared to determine if any new or more severe significant impact has occurred with respect to any environmental resource beyond those identified in the prior documents. If found, new mitigations are adopted to ensure such impact is reduced to a less- than - significant level. With respect to loss of open space, a significant portion of the Eastern Dublin Planning area was undeveloped open space in 1993 when the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan was adopted. The Specific Plan envisions that much of the then - open space was to be converted to urban uses as the Specific Plan was built out over 20 -30 years. A number of community and neighborhood parks are included in the Specific Plan to provide open space. Much of the hillside property at higher elevations on the periphery of the Planning Area have been reserved for open spaces. Comment 3.1.3: The commenter notes that [the IS] lists a number of mitigation measures to reduce impacts to direct habitat loss to a less -than- significant Ievel. Many of these measures are listed in the 1993 EIR. The commenter could not access these documents and request a copy. Response: Copies of all previous EIRs for the Eastern Dublin area and related material are available for review at the City of Dublin Community Development Department during normal business hours. Comment 3.1.4: The commenter identifies that the San Joaquin Kit Fox is mentioned in existing mitigation measures. This species is identified as endangered by the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service. It is unclear what these mitigations might be. Neighbors of the commenter report seeing foxes on their street. Response: The 1993 Eastern Dublin EIR did include potential impacts to Kit Fox as a potentially significant impact. To ensure impacts to this endangered species is reduced to a less - than - significant level, the Eastern Dublin EIR included an extensive protection program for the Kit Fox. No actual San Joaquin Kit Fox has ever been reported sighted in the Eastern Dublin area by professional biologists doing fieldwork in this area. The comment about fox sightings is noted. As noted above, no sightings of the endangered San Joaquin Kit Fox have been reported in the Eastern Dublin Planning area by professional biologists. Comment 3.1.5: The commenter states that bald eagles may be present within the Eastern Dublin planning area. The commenter has not seen these in the area, which could be attributed to housing development 14 Response: The Eastern Dublin EIR did identify potential impacts to bald eagles from planned development in Eastern Dublin, along with appropriate mitigation. One bald eagle has been spotted in Eastern Dublin and the mitigation measure implemented to protect this eagle and associated nest. Comment 3.1.6: Many white - tailed kites have been spotted in Eastern Dublin. With new development so close, there is no doubt that there will be severe disturbance to these birds. Response: Impacts to white - tailed kite was identified as an impact in the 2005 Fallon Village Supplemental EIR. Mitigation Measures 3.7/6.0 through 3.7/17.0 was adopted to reduce this impact to a less- than -- sigidficant level. Comment 3.1.7: The commenter asks if the EIR is not from recent studies, are mitigation measures mentioned in earlier studies still valid and if there are any newer species in the area that would be impacted. Response: All Mitigation Measures set forth in previous CEQA documents remain valid and apply to the current project, as noted many times in the Iiutial Study document. Through the supplemental review process provided in CEQA section 21166, prior EIRs analyzing development on Jordan Ranch have been updated as development changes have been proposed since the 1993 Eastern Dublin EIR. For many of the more recent CEQA documents affecting the Jordan Ranch project, additional biological studies have been completed to ensure that impacts to any newly listed biological species are identified and appropriate mitigation measures adopted. Significant new biological surveys were completed on the Jordan Ranch in 2005 and 2010 for protected and endangered species. In addition, numerous plant and wildlife preconstruction surveys have been completed for the Jordan Ranch, as required by these mitigation measures, prior to issuance of grading permits. 3.2) Amy Lee & Others (petition) Comment 3.2.1: The commenters state that there is a lot of wildlife in this open space area and putting buildings on vacant land will defiiutely disturb them. This includes various kinds of birds, rabbits, foxes and wild goats. The open space is a wonderful habitat for these species of wildlife. Response: The commenters' opinions on disturbance to wildlife on current open space land is noted. It is unclear as to which open space area is being cited by the commenters. Much of the Jordan Ranch has been graded under permits granted by the City to accommodate existing and future development and no longer provides suitable wildlife habitat. The Eastern Dublin EIR, the 2002 EDPO SEIR, the 2005 Fallon Village Supplemental EIR and other CEQA documents have 15 evaluated potential development impacts to the Jordan Ranch as wildlife habitat and mitigation measures included to reduce any impacts to a less - than - significant level. As noted earlier, development occurring on Jordan Ranch and in Eastern Dublin generally was planned for implementation over a 20 -30 year period when the 1993 General Plan Amendment and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan was approved. Comment 3.2.2: The commenters note that the Eastern Dublin EIR and other CEQA documents addressed impacts to bald eagles and many other species, yet these species have not been seen by the commenters. This could be attributed to housing development, including houses of the commenters. The amount of open space has been considerably reduced and they do not want to feel guilty for further habitat loss. Response: The commenters' opinions on loss of wildlife habitat is noted. Loss of habitat over the Eastern Dublin Planning Area was considered when adopting the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan in 1993. In terms of bald eagle, a Golden eagle and associated nest were identified in Eastern Dublin approximately ten years ago. Mitigation Measures contained in the Eastern Dublin EIR were applied to protect the eagle and eagle nest. Comment 3.2.3. The open space is the only green area they have in front of us. They hope the brown vegetation will turn green during winter rains Response: This comment is noted and will be considered by the Planning Commission and City Council during their deliberations on the project. Comment 3.2.4: The commenters note that the Easter Dublin EIR identified a provision of 6.7 acres of parkland per 1,000 residents. The Jordan ranch project currently has approximately 300 homes and an estimated 1,000 residents, yet there is now no neighborhood park. Response: The commenter is directed to Table 1 contained in the Initial Study. The table shows that, at buildout, the Jordan Ranch would contain a 5.8 -acre Neighborhood Park and a 2.7 -acre Neighborhood Square. In addition, a 6.4 -acre portion of the 10.1 -acre School site on the south side of Central Parkway would be devoted to a park. Residents of Jordan Ranch can also use the facilities of the Fallon Sports Park, which has been developed on the west side of Fallon Road across from Jordan Ranch. The General Plan establishes a parks ratio of 5 acres parks per 1000 population (General Plan Open Space Element, Implementing Policy 2.4.2 B.1). The redesignations proposed for Wallis Ranch and Dublin Ranch Subarea 3 will assist in maintaining that standard. 16 Comment 3.25: The commenters state that it doesn't make sense to continue building homes if there aren't public facilities for them. The commenters were promised a park when they purchased homes, but there is not one so far. They are missing out on knowing their neighbors, a place to meet and a place for kids to play Response: The commenters' opinions on lack of park land is noted and will be considered by the decision makers when reviewing this project. The Initial Study prepared for this project did not identify any significant impacts with respect to lack of public facilities, including water, wastewater, schools and parks. 3.3) Elizabeth & Tim Sargeant Comment 3.3.1: The commenters are opposed to any development being placed on the 4 -acre portion of the Jordan Ranch. Response: The commenters' opinion is noted. The 4.6 -acre site is Parcel H, which has been previously approved for a mixed -use development that could contain up to 115 dwellings and up to 5,000 square feet of non- residential development. Comment 3.3.2: The commenters state they have observed foxes, deer, birds, hares and possibly white - tailed kites. Kites are an endangered species. Response: The commenters' opinion is noted. The 4.6 -acre site, as well as the remainder of the Jordan Ranch, have been surveyed for the potential of biological resources many times since 1993. Impacts to special - status plant and wildlife species have been documented and mitigation measures adopted to reduce any significant impacts to a less -than- significant level. Mitigation Measures for whitetail kite are included in the Eastern Dublin EIR to mitigate impacts to this species and other birds to a less - than - significant level. See the Response to Comment 3.1.6. CEQA and CEQA Guidelines do not require an analysis of wildlife species that are not listed as protected, endangered or listed as special - status species. This includes deer, hares and birds (except for protected bird species). Comment 3.3.3: The commenters request that a new environmental assessment be performed for this site. The 2012 assessment was done prior to additional development that has pushed wildlife into these small remaining open space areas. Response: The commenters' opinion is noted. The Jordan Ranch site has been the subject to biological analyses in 1993, 2002, 2005 and 2010. 17 In addition, the 4.6 -acre has been graded pursuant to previous land use approvals granted by the City and no longer provides suitable habitat for wildlife. The City does not believe that an additional biological analysis at this time would result in any different findings than have been previously reported. No additional biological analysis is therefore recommended. Comment 3.3.4: The commenters ask that the 4 -acre site be included in an open space preserve and left untouched. This could reduce the need for additional services and facilities, such as water, schools and increased traffic. There is also a concern about the addition of more high- density housing on local housing values. Response: The commenters' opinion is noted. As identified above, the 4.6 -acre site is already designated for future mixed -use development. The request to include this 4.6 -acre site into an open space preserve will be considered by the decision makers in their review of the project. 3.4) Amy Lee (9/10/15) Comment 3.4.1: The commenter requests a copy of any previous negotiation between the City and the Jordan Ranch developer. Response: This comment is acknowledged. Since this comment is not related to the environmental aspects of the proposed project, a separate response to this inquiry will be provided by City of Dublin staff. Attachment 1 CEQA Analysis of Subsequent Land. Use Applications 19 Attachment 1 City of Dublin Appendix to Mitigated Negative Declaration for Jordan Ranch /Wallis Ranch /Dublin Ranch Subarea 3 Project CEQA Analysis of Jordan Ranch Subsequent Land Use Applications Introduction The Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative Declaration analyzed the impacts of a General Plan Amendment (GPA), an Amendment to the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan (SPA), a Planned Development rezoning with a Stage 1 Development Plan (PD rezoning) and potential changes to an existing Development Agreement for the three Subareas identified in the Initial Study; one of the Subareas is the Jordan Ranch. Following the circulation of the Initial Study /Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/ MND, or MND) in early August 2015, the applicant for the Jordan Ranch, Mission Valley Properties, filed a number of subsequent land use applications with the City to allow future development on Parcel H and Neighborhood 7 of the Jordan Ranch. The applications for Parcel H are consistent with the proposed General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan and PD rezoning amendments addressed in the MND. The applications for Neighborhood 7 are consistent with existing Medium Density Residential land use designations and PD zoning for the site. The subsequent applications include: A Planned Development Rezoning with a Stage 1 and Stage 2 Development Plan for all three portions of the Jordan Ranch subarea, as identified in the MND. A Planned Development Rezoning with a Stage 1 and Stage 2 Development Plan have also been requested for the Subarea 3 and Wallis Ranch Subareas; A Site Development Review (SDR) application and a Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map for Parcel H and Neighborhood 7; On Parcel H (located on the northeast corner of Fallon Road and Central Parkway), the GPA /SPA and PD rezoning would remove the potential for development of up to 115 dwellings and up to 5,000 square feet of non- residential use and replace this with up to 45 Medium Density Residential dwellings as shown on the related PD rezoning Stage 1 Development Plan site plan. The subsequent applications for Parcel H would do the same, and provide design details of the proposed dwellings and landscaping, as well as development standards generally consistent with other existing and approved medium density residential development in Jordan Ranch. The site plan is the same as the site plan for the PD rezoning Stage 1 Development Plan (Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map 8267) and On Neighborhood 7 (located on the eastern side of the Jordan Ranch property), previously approved for 100 Medium Density dwellings is now proposed to accommodate up to 105 detached three -story townhouse dwellings (Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map 8269). PD zoning and a related Stage 1 Development Plan was adopted in 2012 along with the Medium Density Residential land use designations. This potential development was reviewed in a 2012 CEQA addendum to the prior EIRs that included Jordan Ranch (Resolution 91 -12). The 5 additional units proposed in the subsequent applications are also residential and generally within the same development area as the 2012 project. As further discussed below, the increase from 100 units to 105 units on the Neighborhood 7 site is not considered a substantial expansion or increase in the use. Similar to Parcel H, the subsequent applications for Neighborhood 7 provide design details of the proposed dwellings and landscaping, as well as development standards generally consistent with other existing and approved medium density residential development in Jordan Ranch. The purpose of this Appendix is to document that these subsequent applications for Parcel H propose development of the same use, density, development area and location as proposed in the GPA /SPA and Planned Development Stage 1 Development Plan addressed in the MND, and the subsequent applications for Neighborhood 7 propose development substantially the same as analyzed in the 2012 addendum. The discussions below review each of the MND resource topics and conclude that the subsequent applications for Parcel H and Neighborhood 7 would not result in any new or more severe significant environmental impacts than identified in the August 2015 Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) or the 2012 Addendum. As such, the subsequent applications do not constitute substantial revisions to the MND and do not require recirculation of the MND under standards set forth in CEQA Guidelines section 15073.5. CEQA Analysis of Subsequent Land Use Applications Following is a summary of any new or more severe significant that could occur with the approval of the subsequent land use applications identified above. Aesthetics: The type, location and amount of development proposed in the subsequent land use applications (45 dwellings on Parcel H and 105 dwellings in Neighborhood 7) is consistent with the maximum number of dwellings shown in the Project Description on Page 8 of the Initial Study. The type, location and density of development would be the same between that described in the MND for Parcel H and the 2012 Addendum for Neighborhood 7 and the subsequent applications for those sites. The appearance of proposed dwelling units in terms of design and architecture, use of materials, exterior colors, landscape design, fences and any signs as reviewed through Site Development Review ensure that the appearance are generally consistent with existing development on the Jordan Ranch and other nearby neighborhoods. The design details of the proposed A -2 dwellings would not result in any physical aesthetic impacts beyond the discussion in the IS/ MND for Parcel H or the 2012 Addendum for Neighborhood 7. No significant impacts to aesthetic topics were found in the 2015 IS/ MND document with respect to the approval of the GPA /SPA and PD rezoning or in the 2012 Addendum. There would be no new or more severe significant impacts with respect to aesthetics than was analyzed in the 2015 IS/ MND or 2012 Addendum; the subsequent applications are not a substantial revision that would require recirculation of the MND. Mitigation measures relating to aesthetics set forth in previous Eastern Dublin CEQA documents will continue to apply to projects included in the Subsequent applications. Agriculture & Forestry Resources: The same area of land on the Jordan Ranch would be disturbed under the proposed subsequent land use applications as described and analyzed in the 2015 IS / MND and the 2012 Addendum No new impacts to this topic was identified in the Initial Study. There would be no new or more severe significant impacts with respect to agriculture and forestry resources than analyzed in the 2015 IS/ MND for Parcel H or in the 2012 Addendum for Neighborhood 7. Thus, the subsequent applications are not a substantial revision that would require recirculation of the MND . Agricultural impact mitigation measures contained in previous Eastern Dublin CEQA documents will apply to the projects covered in the subsequent applications. Air Quality: The subsequent land use applications contain the same number of dwellings and type of development as was analyzed in the 2015 IS /MND for Parcel H. No new air quality impacts were identified in the 2015 Initial Study with respect to the GPA and SPA and PD rezoning. The 105 townhome units is not a substantial change from the 100 units assumed in the 2012 Addendum as they would not substantially increase trip generation. Therefore, no new or more severe significant impacts would result from the approval of the subsequent land use applications; the subsequent applications are not a substantial revision that would require recirculation of the MND. Mitigation measures pertaining to air quality contained in previous CEQA documents will apply to the subsequent land use applications Biological Resources: No significant impacts were identified in the 2015 IS/ MND or 2012 Addendum with respect to biological resources. The subsequent land use applications include the same location and residential type of uses, and would disturb approximately the same amount of ground surface as was analyzed in the IS /MND and 2012 Addendum. Therefore, there would be no new or more severe significant impacts with respect to biological resources than was analyzed in the 2015 IS/ MND and 2012 Addendum. As such, the subsequent applications are not a substantial revision that would require recirculation of the MND. A -3 Biological resource mitigation measures contained in previous Eastern Dublin CEQA documents continue to apply to those projects included in the subsequent land use applications. Cultural Resources: The same amount of ground disturbance would occur under the subsequent land use applications as was analyzed in the 2015 IS/ MND and 2012 Addendum. No significant cultural resource impacts were identified in the either document. Therefore, there would be no new or more severe significant impacts with respect to cultural resources than was addressed in the 2015 IS/ MND and 2012 Addendum. As such, the subsequent applications are not a substantial revision that would require recirculation of the MND . Geology & Soils: No significant geology or soils impacts were identified in the IS /MND with respect to the requested GPA and SPA and PD rezoning, or in the 2012 Addendum. The requested subsequent land use applications would include the same location, amount and type of development included in the GPA /SPA and PD rezorung for Parcel H and in the 2012 project on the Neighborhood 7 site. Therefore, no new or more severe significant impacts with respect to geology and soils would occur with the subsequent land use applicants than was analyzed in the IS/ MND and the 2012 Addendum. As such, the subsequent applications are not a substantial revision that would require recirculation of the MND. Mitigation measures contained in previous Eastern Dublin CEQA documents will apply to subsequent land use applications. Greenhouse Gas Emission: No additional analysis of greenhouse gas emissions was required for the 2015 IS /MND or the 2012 Addendum. For the reasons set forth in the IS/ MND, no additional GHG analysis of the subsequent applications is required and the subsequent applications are not a substantial revision that would require recirculation of the MND. Hazards and Hazardous Materials: No impacts to hazards or hazardous materials were identified in the 2015 IS/ MND that analyzed the impacts of approving the requested GPA /SPA and PD rezoning for Parcel H or in the 2012 Addendum for the Neighborhood 7 site. The proposed subsequent land use approvals would include the same land use type and density as was studied in the MND and 2012 Addendum. Therefore, there would be no new or more severe significant impact with respect to hazards and hazardous materials than was analyzed in the MND and 2012 Addendum. As such, the subsequent applications are not a substantial revision that would require recirculation of the MND. Hydrology & Water Quality: Hydrology and water quality issues were analyzed n the 2015 IS/ MND that examined impacts related to the approval of the requested GPA /SPA and PD rezoning on Parcel H and in the 2012 Addendum for the Neighborhood 7 site. No impacts were identified in either document. Hydrology and water duality impacts associated with the subsequent land use applications would be the same as determined for the GPA /SPA and PD rezoning actions on Parcel H and in the 2012 Addendum for Neighborhood 7 since the same density, residential land uses, and area of disturbance are A -4 proposed in the subsequent applications. Therefore no new or more severe significant hydrology and water quality impacts would occur than were previously addressed in the 2015 IS/ MND and 2012 Addendum, and the subsequent applications are not a substantial revision that would require recirculation of the MND. Hydrology and water quality mitigation measures contained in previous Eastern Dublin CEQA documents will continue to apply to subsequent land use applications. Land Use & Plate: The subsequent land use applications contain the same type, location and density of land uses as included in the GPA /SPA and PD rezoning that was analyzed in the 2015 IS/ MND for Parcel H and as included in the 2012 Addendum for Neighborhood 7. Based on the same land uses, there would be no new or more severe significant land use and planning impacts than analyzed in the 2015 IS/ MND and 2012 Addendum, and the subsequent applications are not a substantial revision that would require recirculation of the MND. Mitigation measures pertaining to land use and planning contained in previous Eastern Dublin CEQA documents will apply to subsequent land use applications. Mineral Resources: No impacts to mineral resources were identified in the 2015 IS/ MND or the 2012 Addendum and none are anticipated with respect to the subsequent land use applications. Noise: No significant noise impacts were identified in the 2015 IS/ MND that studied the proposed GPA /SPA and PD rezoning on Parcel H, or in the 2012 Addendum for the Neighborhood 7 site. Since the subsequent land use applications would be located in the same location as assumed in the MND and 2012 Addendum and would have substantially the same density, no new or more severe significant noise impacts are expected than studied in the 2015 IS/ MND and 2012 Addendum. The increase of 5 lots on Neighborhood 7 would not substantially increase potential traffic noise or potential construction noise. As such, the subsequent applications are not a substantial revision that would require recirculation of the MND. All previous noise mitigation measures contained in previous Eastern Dublin CEQA documents would apply to the subsequent applications. Population and Housing: There would be no new or more severe significant impacts related to population and housing since the GPA /SPA and PD rezoning in the MND for Parcel H and in the 2012 Addendum for the Neighborhood 7 site include the same location, type of land use and density as the subsequent land use applications. Public Services: No significant public service impacts were identified in the 2015 IS/ MND that analyzed a GPA /SPA and PD rezoning for Parcel H or in the 2012 Addendum for the Neighborhood 7 site. Land uses would be substantially the same in terms of type, amount and location of development area, and density in the subsequent land use applications as are included in the MND for the A -5 GPA /SPA and PD rezoning for Parcel H and in the 2012 Addendum for the Neighborhood 7 site. No new or more severe significant impacts would therefore occur in terms of public services with the subsequent applications, and the subsequent applications are not a substantial revision that would require recirculation of the MND. Mitigation measures contained in previous Eastern Dublin CEQA documents relating to public services continue to apply to subsequent land use applications. Recreation: Since land use types and densities in the subsequent applications are substantially the same for the GPA /SPA and PD rezoning project studied in the 2015 IS/ MND and in the 2012 Addendum for the Neighborhood 7 site, there would be no new or more severe significant impacts with the approval and construction of land uses included in the subsequent applications. The increase of 5 units in Neighborhood 7 is not a substantial increase; also, the developer would be required to pay Public Facilities Impact fees for parks based on the increased number of units. For the above reasons, the subsequent applications are not a substantial revision that would require recirculation of the MND. All Eastern Dublin mitigation measures contained in previous Eastern Dublin CEQA documents relating to recreation continue to apply to the subsequent applications. Transportation & Circulation: Potentially significant impacts to this topic were identified in the 2015 IS /MND. However, the IS /MND only found potentially significant impacts with respect to traffic safety with the construction of the proposed Elementary and Middle Schools. No significant impacts were found with respect to the proposed park or residential development portions of the project. The number, location and type of residences proposed in the subsequent land use applications are substantially the same as analyzed in the 2015 IS/ MND and 2012 Addendum. Therefore, no new or more severe significant impacts are anticipated beyond those analyzed in the 2015 IS/ MND and 2012 Addendum. As such, the subsequent applications are not a substantial revision that would require recirculation of the MND. All previous Eastern Dublin traffic and transportation mitigation measures continue to apply to residential development included in the subsequent applications. the ties Systems: The number, type, location of residences included in Utilities & Service subsequent land use applications are substantially the same as analyzed in the 2015 IS / MND for the GPA / SPA and PD rezoning on Parcel H and in the 2012 Addendum for the Neighborhood 7 site. Therefore no new or more severe significant impacts with respect to utilities or services systems are anticipated beyond that previously analyzed in the 2015 IS/ MND and 2012 Addendum, and the subsequent applications are not a substantial revision that would require recirculation of the MND. Eastern Dublin utility and service system mitigation measures contained in previous CEQA documents continue to apply to dwellings proposed as part of the subsequent land use applications. A -6 Summary Based on the above analysis, approval of the subsequent applications for development of residences on Parcel H and in Neighborhood 7 would not result in any new or more severe significant impacts than were studied in the 2015 MND and 2012 Addendum. This because the MND analyzed a GPA /SPA and PD rezoning for Parcel H that assumed the same 45 medium density attached and detached units as proposed in the subsequent applications. Similarly, the 2012 Addendum for the Neighborhood 7 site assumed substantially the same residential development as in the subsequent applications. The increase from 100 to 105 units is not a substantial increase with respect to the resource topics. Therefore, the subsequent applications are not a substantial revision that would require recirculation of the MND under the standards of CEQA Guidelines section 15073.5. A -7 Attachment 2 Revised Initial Study Table I 20 u i.w EO i a O O w r'1 v .o Cl t C m m W �1 a a m a c a� fi 4 y y m w a 0 a fi Q) CL C O � Q) Q c t � fj o -a S? Q) c 0 o t 4th oq 'D U cu b' p O 0 O ro �cz q) N m c � ro O Z CU Ctl �b o`o• r LO O o E N Lo r � w � 4 Cl qj � o U •� y C RI � O O � .o 0 U U m �� o - �4 Ts j LL (n p q U o m o ti ,b r ro � ,E m m 5 G 4 y .y Q U tn Lu -0 N Cl am°4 � y c � o N cp v1 cL ¢� o O- O O y c n ril O QQi :3 y0 aci o ` A qoc j� )3 - � � b b N° x:12 �n v � .-q Lf r�-t r�-i N 00 m O O y� N � y U LO Ln (1) z : N �, N Qj� q U G 4J 00 N et! r K LO 1 r- d{ L6 N ' 00 v � n 0 c� + w bA p -"- 4) ch LO LO a- 0, Cl) N O O LOj rl N m 14 1N ° Lr> cal ' O O m U t � bA w WZ "L N N N ?� E" C:, + O pr h LTj N z�-i Lf} N 00 L 7-4 CV U) O +, CD � M Ln a, a � Q'� N m N Lo N oo *-+ + y �0 i'� z ' 1 N S UJ CJ %) NO O O CZ LZ O O u_ a °aNOxbo O r (� cn0 Z�cncn0H .o Cl t C m m W �1 a a m a c a� fi 4 y y m w a 0 a fi Q) CL C O � Q) Q c t � fj o -a S? Q) c 0 o t 4th oq 'D U cu b' p O 0 O ro �cz q) N m c � ro O Z CU Ctl �b o`o• r LO O o E N Lo r � w � 4 Cl qj � o U •� y C RI � O O � .o 0 U U m �� o - �4 Ts j LL (n p q U o m o ti ,b r ro � ,E m m 5 G 4 y .y Q U tn Lu -0 N Cl am°4 � y c � o N cp v1 cL ¢� o O- O O y c n ril O QQi :3 y0 aci o ` A qoc j� )3 - � � b b N° x:12 City of Dublin Appendix to Mitigated Negative Declaration for Jordan Ranch/Wallis Ranch/Dublin Ranch Subarea 3 Project CEQA Analysis of Jordan Ranch Subsequent Land Use Applications Introduction The Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration analyzed the impacts of a General Plan Amendment (GPA), an Amendment to the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan (SPA), a Planned Development rezoning with a Stage 1 Development Plan (PD rezoning) and potential changes to an existing Development Agreement for the three Subareas identified in the Initial Study; one of the Subareas is the Jordan Ranch. Following the circulation of the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND, or MND) in early August 2015, the applicant for the Jordan Ranch, Mission Valley Properties, filed a number of subsequent land use applications with the City to allow future development on Parcel H and Neighborhood 7 of the Jordan Ranch. The applications for Parcel H are consistent with the proposed General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan and PD rezoning amendments addressed in the MND. The applications for Neighborhood 7 are consistent with existing Medium Density Residential land use designations and PD zoning for the site. The subsequent applications include: • A Planned Development Rezoning with a Stage 1 and Stage 2 Development Plan for all three portions of the Jordan Ranch subarea, as identified in the MND. A Planned Development Rezoning with a Stage 1 and Stage 2 Development Plan have also been requested for the Subarea 3 and Wallis Ranch Subareas; • A Site Development Review (SDR) application and a Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map for Parcel H and Neighborhood 7; • On Parcel H (located on the northeast corner of Fallon Road and Central Parkway), the GPA/SPA and PD rezoning would remove the potential for development of up to 115 dwellings and up to 5,000 square feet of non- residential use and replace this with up to 45 Medium Density Residential dwellings as shown on the related PD rezoning Stage 1 Development Plan site plan. The subsequent applications for Parcel H would do the same, and provide design details of the proposed dwellings and landscaping, as well as development standards generally consistent with other existing and approved medium density residential development in Jordan Ranch. The site plan is the same as the site plan for the PD rezoning Stage 1 Development Plan (Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map 8267) and • On Neighborhood 7 (located on the eastern side of the Jordan Ranch property), previously approved for 100 Medium Density dwellings is now proposed to accommodate up to 105 detached three-story townhouse dwellings (Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map 8269). PD zoning and a related Stage 1 Development Plan was adopted in 2012 along with the Medium Density Residential land use designations. This potential development was reviewed in a 2012 CEQA addendum to the prior EIRs that included Jordan Ranch (Resolution 91-12). The 5 additional units proposed in the subsequent applications are also residential and generally within the same development area as the 2012 project. As further discussed below, the increase from 100 units to 105 units on the Neighborhood 7 site is not considered a substantial expansion or increase in the use. Similar to Parcel H, the subsequent applications for Neighborhood 7 provide design details of the proposed dwellings and landscaping, as well as development standards generally consistent with other existing and approved medium density residential development in Jordan Ranch. The purpose of this Appendix is to document that these subsequent applications for Parcel H propose development of the same use, density, development area and location as proposed in the GPA/SPA and Planned Development Stage 1 Development Plan addressed in the MND, and the subsequent applications for Neighborhood 7 propose development substantially the same as analyzed in the 2012 addendum. The discussions below review each of the MND resource topics and conclude that the subsequent applications for Parcel H and Neighborhood 7 would not result in any new or more severe significant environmental impacts than identified in the August 2015 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) or the 2012 Addendum. As such, the subsequent applications do not constitute substantial revisions to the MND and do not require recirculation of the MND under standards set forth in CEQA Guidelines section 15073.5. CEQA Analysis of Subsequent Land Use Applications Following is a summary of any new or more severe significant that could occur with the approval of the subsequent land use applications identified above. 2 Aesthetics: The type, location and amount of development proposed in the subsequent land use applications (45 dwellings on Parcel H and 105 dwellings in Neighborhood 7) is consistent with the maximum number of dwellings shown in the Project Description on Page 8 of the Initial Study. The type, location and density of development would be the same between that described in the MND for Parcel H and the 2012 Addendum for Neighborhood 7 and the subsequent applications for those sites. The appearance of proposed dwelling units in terms of design and architecture, use of materials, exterior colors, landscape design, fences and any signs as reviewed through Site Development Review ensure that the appearance are generally consistent with existing development on the Jordan Ranch and other nearby neighborhoods. The design details of the proposed dwellings would not result in any physical aesthetic impacts beyond the discussion in the IS/MND for Parcel H or the 2012 Addendum for Neighborhood 7. No significant impacts to aesthetic topics were found in the 2015 IS/MND document with respect to the approval of the GPA/SPA and PD rezoning or in the 2012 Addendum. There would be no new or more severe significant impacts with respect to aesthetics than was analyzed in the 2015 IS/MND or 2012 Addendum; the subsequent applications are not a substantial revision that would require recirculation of the MND. Mitigation measures relating to aesthetics set forth in previous Eastern Dublin CEQA documents will continue to apply to projects included in the Subsequent applications. Agriculture & Forestry Resources: The same area of land on the Jordan Ranch would be disturbed under the proposed subsequent land use applications as described and analyzed in the 2015 IS/MND and the 2012 Addendum No new impacts to this topic was identified in the Initial Study. There would be no new or more severe significant impacts with respect to agriculture and forestry resources than analyzed in the 2015 IS/MND for Parcel H or in the 2012 Addendum for Neighborhood 7. Thus, the subsequent applications are not a substantial revision that would require recirculation of the MND. Agricultural impact mitigation measures contained in previous Eastern Dublin CEQA documents will apply to the projects covered in the subsequent applications. Air Quality: The subsequent land use applications contain the same number of dwellings and type of development as was analyzed in the 2015 IS/MND for Parcel H. No new air quality impacts were identified in the 2015 Initial Study with respect to the GPA and SPA and PD rezoning. The 105 townhome units is 3 not a substantial change from the 100 units assumed in the 2012 Addendum as they would not substantially increase trip generation. Therefore, no new or more severe significant impacts would result from the approval of the subsequent land use applications; the subsequent applications are not a substantial revision that would require recirculation of the MND. Mitigation measures pertaining to air quality contained in previous CEQA documents will apply to the subsequent land use applications Biological Resources: No significant impacts were identified in the 2015 IS/MND or 2012 Addendum with respect to biological resources. The subsequent land use applications include the same location and residential type of uses, and would disturb approximately the same amount of ground surface as was analyzed in the IS/MND and 2012 Addendum. Therefore, there would be no new or more severe significant impacts with respect to biological resources than was analyzed in the 2015 IS/MND and 2012 Addendum. As such, the subsequent applications are not a substantial revision that would require recirculation of the MND. Biological resource mitigation measures contained in previous Eastern Dublin CEQA documents continue to apply to those projects included in the subsequent land use applications. Cultural Resources: The same amount of ground disturbance would occur under the subsequent land use applications as was analyzed in the 2015 IS/MND and 2012 Addendum. No significant cultural resource impacts were identified in the either document. Therefore, there would be no new or more severe significant impacts with respect to cultural resources than was addressed in the 2015 IS/MND and 2012 Addendum. As such, the subsequent applications are not a substantial revision that would require recirculation of the MND. Geology & Soils: No significant geology or soils impacts were identified in the IS/MND with respect to the requested GPA and SPA and PD rezoning, or in the 2012 Addendum. The requested subsequent land use applications would include the same location, amount and type of development included in the GPA/SPA and PD rezoning for Parcel H and in the 2012 project on the Neighborhood 7 site. Therefore, no new or more severe significant impacts with respect to geology and soils would occur with the subsequent land use applicants than was analyzed in the IS/MND and the 2012 Addendum. As such, the subsequent applications are not a substantial revision that would require recirculation of the MND. Mitigation measures contained in previous Eastern Dublin CEQA documents will apply to subsequent land use applications. Greenhouse Gas Emission: No additional analysis of greenhouse gas emissions was required for the 2015 IS/MND or the 2012 Addendum. For the reasons set 4 forth in the IS/MND, no additional GHG analysis of the subsequent applications is required and the subsequent applications are not a substantial revision that would require recirculation of the MND. Hazards and Hazardous Materials: No impacts to hazards or hazardous materials were identified in the 2015 IS/MND that analyzed the impacts of approving the requested GPA/SPA and PD rezoning for Parcel H or in the 2012 Addendum for the Neighborhood 7 site. The proposed subsequent land use approvals would include the same land use type and density as was studied in the MND and 2012 Addendum. Therefore, there would be no new or more severe significant impact with respect to hazards and hazardous materials than was analyzed in the MND and 2012 Addendum. As such, the subsequent applications are not a substantial revision that would require recirculation of the MND. Hydrology & Water Quality: Hydrology and water quality issues were analyzed n the 2015 IS/MND that examined impacts related to the approval of the requested GPA/SPA and PD rezoning on Parcel H and in the 2012 Addendum for the Neighborhood 7 site . No impacts were identified in either document. Hydrology and water quality impacts associated with the subsequent land use applications would be the same as determined for the GPA/SPA and PD rezoning actions on Parcel H and in the 2012 Addendum for Neighborhood 7 since the same density, residential land uses, and area of disturbance are proposed in the subsequent applications. Therefore no new or more severe significant hydrology and water quality impacts would occur than were previously addressed in the 2015 IS/MND and 2012 Addendum, and the subsequent applications are not a substantial revision that would require recirculation of the MND. Hydrology and water quality mitigation measures contained in previous Eastern Dublin CEQA documents will continue to apply to subsequent land use applications. Land Use & Planning: The subsequent land use applications contain the same type, location and density of land uses as included in the GPA/SPA and PD rezoning that was analyzed in the 2015 IS/MND for Parcel H and as included in the 2012 Addendum for Neighborhood 7. Based on the same land uses, there would be no new or more severe significant land use and planning impacts than analyzed in the 2015 IS/MND and 2012 Addendum, and the subsequent applications are not a substantial revision that would require recirculation of the MND. Mitigation measures pertaining to land use and planning contained in previous Eastern Dublin CEQA documents will apply to subsequent land use applications. 5 Mineral Resources: No impacts to mineral resources were identified in the 2015 IS/MND or the 2012 Addendum and none are anticipated with respect to the subsequent land use applications. Noise: No significant noise impacts were identified in the 2015 IS/MND that studied the proposed GPA/SPA and PD rezoning on Parcel H, or in the 2012 Addendum for the Neighborhood 7 site. Since the subsequent land use applications would be located in the same location as assumed in the MND and 2012 Addendum and would have substantially the same density, no new or more severe significant noise impacts are expected than studied in the 2015 IS/MND and 2012 Addendum. The increase of 5 lots on Neighborhood 7 would not substantially increase potential traffic noise or potential construction noise. As such, the subsequent applications are not a substantial revision that would require recirculation of the MND. All previous noise mitigation measures contained in previous Eastern Dublin CEQA documents would apply to the subsequent applications. Population and Housing: There would be no new or more severe significant impacts related to population and housing since the GPA/SPA and PD rezoning in the MND for Parcel H and in the 2012 Addendum for the Neighborhood 7 site include the same location, type of land use and density as the subsequent land use applications. Public Services: No significant public service impacts were identified in the 2015 IS/MND that analyzed a GPA/SPA and PD rezoning for Parcel H or in the 2012 Addendum for the Neighborhood 7 site. Land uses would be substantially the same in terms of type, amount and location of development area, and density in the subsequent land use applications as are included in the MND for the GPA/SPA and PD rezoning for Parcel H and in the 2012 Addendum for the Neighborhood 7 site. No new or more severe significant impacts would therefore occur in terms of public services with the subsequent applications, and the subsequent applications are not a substantial revision that would require recirculation of the MND. Mitigation measures contained in previous Eastern Dublin CEQA documents relating to public services continue to apply to subsequent land use applications. Recreation: Since land use types and densities in the subsequent applications are substantially the same for the GPA/SPA and PD rezoning project studied in the 2015 IS/MND and in the 2012 Addendum for the Neighborhood 7 site, there would be no new or more severe significant impacts with the approval and construction of land uses included in the subsequent applications. The increase of 5 units in Neighborhood 7 is not a substantial increase; also, the developer 6 would be required to pay Public Facilities Impact fees for parks based on the increased number of units. For the above reasons, the subsequent applications are not a substantial revision that would require recirculation of the MND. All Eastern Dublin mitigation measures contained in previous Eastern Dublin CEQA documents relating to recreation continue to apply to the subsequent applications. Transportation & Circulation: Potentially significant impacts to this topic were identified in the 2015 IS/MND. However, the IS/MND only found potentially significant impacts with respect to traffic safety with the construction of the proposed Elementary and Middle Schools. No significant impacts were found with respect to the proposed park or residential development portions of the project. The number, location and type of residences proposed in the subsequent land use applications are substantially the same as analyzed in the 2015 IS/MND and 2012 Addendum. Therefore, no new or more severe significant impacts are anticipated beyond those analyzed in the 2015 IS/MND and 2012 Addendum. As such, the subsequent applications are not a substantial revision that would require recirculation of the MND. All previous Eastern Dublin traffic and transportation mitigation measures continue to apply to residential development included in the subsequent applications. Utilities & Service Systems: The number, type, location of residences included in the subsequent land use applications are substantially the same as analyzed in the 2015 IS/MND for the GPA/SPA and PD rezoning on Parcel H and in the 2012 Addendum for the Neighborhood 7 site. Therefore no new or more severe significant impacts with respect to utilities or services systems are anticipated beyond that previously analyzed in the 2015 IS/MND and 2012 Addendum, and the subsequent applications are not a substantial revision that would require recirculation of the MND. Eastern Dublin utility and service system mitigation measures contained in previous CEQA documents continue to apply to dwellings proposed as part of the subsequent land use applications. Summary Based on the above analysis, approval of the subsequent applications for development of residences on Parcel H and in Neighborhood 7 would not result in any new or more severe significant impacts than were studied in the 2015 MND and 2012 Addendum. This because the MND analyzed a GPA/SPA and PD rezoning for Parcel H that assumed the same 45 medium density attached and detached units as proposed in the subsequent applications. Similarly, the 2012 Addendum for the Neighborhood 7 site assumed substantially the same residential development as in the subsequent applications. The increase from 7 100 to 105 units is not a substantial increase with respect to the resource topics. Therefore, the subsequent applications are not a substantial revision that would require recirculation of the MND under the standards of CEQA Guidelines section 15073.5. 2524932.1 8 City of Dublin Jordan Ranch et. al, GPA/SPA Project Mitigated NegativeDeclaration Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program September 2015 Mitigation Measure Implementing Monitoring Monitoring Verification Responsibility Responsibility Schedule Project Developer Dublin Public Shown on Transportation/Mitigation Measure TRA-1b. Works Department subdivision Construct an eastbound right-turn only lane on improvement plans. Central Parkway at the Sunset View Drive intersection serving the school site. Project Developer Dublin Public Shown on Transportation/Mitigation Measure TRA-1c. The Works Department subdivision existing Class IIa bicycle lane shall be converted to a improvement plans. right-turn only lane in conjunction with the construction of a raised curb along the length of the turn pocket and improvements made to the Class I facility along the south side of Central Parkway. The final design shall be coordinated with the City of Dublin Transportation and Operations Manager. Dublin Public Dublin Public Prior to Transportation/Mitigation Measure TRA-1d. Works Department Works Department commencement of Traffic signal operations at the Fallon Road and school activities Sunset View Drive intersections with Central Parkway shall be monitored by the City of Dublin staff to establish time of day traffic signal timing to best accommodate peak school traffic. Dublin Unified Dublin Community Prior to Transportation/Mitigation Measure TRA-1e. A School District Development commencement of school drop-off zone shall be established on the Department school activities south side of Central Parkway along the proposed school frontage between Sunset View Drive and Mitigation Measure Implementing Monitoring Monitoring Verification Responsibility Responsibility Schedule Panorama Drive. Project Developer Dublin Public Shown on Transportation/Mitigation Measure TRA-1f. The Works Department subdivision northbound approach to Central Parkway at Sunset improvement plans. View Drive (the proposed school driveway) to provide a northbound left-turn lane in addition to a through-right shared lane. Dublin Unified Dublin Community Prior to Transportation/Mitigation Measure TRA-1g. School District Development commencement of Consider providing off-set bell times for different Department school activities grade levels to reduce peak period traffic volumes.. Dublin Unified Dublin Public As shown on final Transportation/Mitigation Measure TRA-1h. The School District Works Department school site plan final site plan for the proposed school shall be reviewed to ensure that drop-off/pick-up zone is designed to accommodate peak activities and that sufficient parking is provided to accommodate parking demands and occasional peak demands, such as back to school night. Project Developer Dublin Public Prior to Transportation/Mitigation Measure TRAF-2a. Works Department commencement of Existing school related signs and street markings school activities shall be removed and new school crossings and signs shall be installed within the new school zone. Dublin Unified Dublin Public During school Transportation/Mitigation Measure TRAF-2b. School District Works Department operations Pedestrian crossings should be discouraged across the south and west legs of the Central Parkway at Sunset View Drive intersection to further minimize Jordan Ranch et. al GPA/SPA Project Page 2 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program City of Dublin Mitigation Measure Implementing Monitoring Monitoring Verification Responsibility Responsibility Schedule pedestrian/vehicle conflicts. Pedestrian crossings should also be discouraged across the south and west legs of the Central Parkway/Sunset View Drive intersection. Dublin Unified Dublin Police & During school Transportation/Mitigation Measure TRAF-2c. A School District Public Works operations crossing guard or installation of a traffic signal shall Departments be considered at the Central Parkway/Sunset View Drive intersection to provide safe pedestrian access across Central Parkway to the campus. Project Developer Dublin Public Shown on final Transportation/Mitigation Measure TRAF-2d. A Works Department subdivision raised barrier (fence) shall be installed along the improvement plans median of Central Parkway from near the intersection of Fallon Road at Central Parkway to near the intersection of Panorama Drive at Central Parkway to discourage mid-block pedestrian crossings. The final location of the fence should be coordinated with the City of Dublin Transportation and Operations Manager based on a field visit. Dublin Unified Dublin Public Prior to Transportation/Mitigation Measure TRAF-3. The School District Works Departments commencement of final design of the proposed school on the Jordan school activities Subarea shall include the following feature a connection from Central Parkway to the school site shall be provided to facilitate bicycle travel to the campus. Bicycle parking shall also be provided on campus as determined by the Dublin Unified School District. Jordan Ranch et. al GPA/SPA Project Page 3 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program City of Dublin Mitigation Measure Implementing Monitoring Monitoring Verification Responsibility Responsibility Schedule Dublin Unified Dublin Public Prior to Transportation/Mitigation Measure TRAF-4. School District Works Departments commencement of Mitigation Measure TRAF-4 . The Dublin Unified school activities School District shall coordinate with LAVTA to determine is a bus stop should be constructed on Central Parkway in front of the proposed school. Jordan Ranch et. al GPA/SPA Project Page 4 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program City of Dublin EXHIBIT E STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS General. 1. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15093, the City Council of the City of Dublin adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations for those impacts identified in the Eastern Dublin EIR as significant and unavoidable (Resolution 53-93, May 10, 1993). The City Council carefully considered each impact in its decision to approve urbanization of Eastern Dublin through approval of the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan project. The City Council is currently considering General Plan/Eastern Dublin Specific Plan amendments, PD rezoning amendments and development applications for portions of Dublin Ranch Subarea 3, Wallis Ranch, and Jordan Ranch. The Jordan Ranch portion also includes a Development Agreement amendment. More specifically, the current project proposes the following: Dublin Ranch Subarea 3 . Change the land use designation for 10.4 acres from RR/A to Parks/Public Recreation and approve a Planned Development rezoning with related Stage 1 Development Plan. Wallis Ranch . Change the land use designation for 1.9 acres from Semi-Public to Parks/Public Recreation and approve a Planned Development rezoning with related Stage 1 Development Plan. Jordan Ranch . Parcel H: Change the land use designation for 4.6 acres from Mixed Use to Medium Density Residential; approve Planned Development rezoning with related Stage 1 and 2 Development Plan, Site Development Review, and Vesting Tentative Map. Neighborhood 7: Approve Planned Development rezoning with related Stage 1 and 2 Development Plan, Site Development Review, and Vesting Tentative Map. School site: Change the land use designation for 3.7 acres from Parks/Public Recreation to Public/Semi-Public and approve Planned Development rezoning with related Stage 1 Development Plan for future development of a school site. The Jordan Ranch proposal also requests approval of a Development Agreement amendment. All three of the areas described above are in Eastern Dublin and were addressed in the certified Eastern Dublin EIR. All three of the areas have received subsequent development approvals that were analyzed in subsequent CEQA documents, including 3 supplemental EIRs. Pursuant to CEQA section 21166, the City prepared a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) for the current project described above. The MND identified no additional significant unavoidable impacts for the current project; however, the Eastern Dublin EIR and all three supplemental EIRs identified significant unavoidable impacts, for which statements of overriding considerations were adopted for the related project approvals. Pursuant to a 2002 court decision, the City Council must again adopt overriding considerations for the previously identified unavoidable 1 impacts that apply to the current Project. 1 “ public officials must still go on the record and explain specifically why they are approving the later project despite its significant unavoidable impacts.” (emphasis original.) Communities for a Better Environment v. Page 1 of ________ 2524514.1 The City Council believes that many of the unavoidable environmental effects identified in the Eastern Dublin EIR and the Supplemental EIRs will be substantially lessened by mitigation measures adopted with the previous approvals and by the environmental protection measures included in the current project design or adopted through the project approvals, to be implemented with the development of the project on the sites described above. Even with mitigation, the City Council recognizes that the implementation of the current project on the above described sites carries with it unavoidable adverse environmental effects as identified in the Eastern Dublin EIR and the Supplemental EIRs. The City Council specifically finds that to the extent that the identified adverse or potentially adverse impacts for the project have not been mitigated to acceptable levels, there are specific economic, social, environmental, land use, or other considerations that support approval of the current project. 2. Unavoidable Significant Adverse Impacts from the Eastern Dublin EIR. The following unavoidable significant environmental impacts identified in the Eastern Dublin EIR for future development of Eastern Dublin apply to the current project. Land Use Impact 3.1F. Cumulative Loss of Agricultural and Open Space Lands; Visual Impacts 3.8/B; and, Alteration of Rural/Open Space Character Traffic and Circulation Impacts 3.3/B, 3.3/E. I-580 Freeway, Cumulative Freeway Impacts Traffic and Circulation Impacts 3.3/I, 3.3/M. Santa Rita Road/I-580 Ramps, Cumulative Dublin Boulevard Impacts. Community Services and Facilities Impact 3.4/S. Consumption of Non-Renewable Natural Resources and Sewer Water and Storm Drainage Impact 3.5/F, H, U. Increases in Energy Usage Through Increased Water Treatment, Disposal, and Operation of Water Distribution System. Soils, Geology, and Seismicity Impact 3.6/B. Earthquake Ground Shaking, Primary Effects. Air Quality Impacts 3.11/A, B, C, and E. Future development of the Project will contribute to cumulative dust deposition, construction equipment emissions, mobile and stationary source emissions. 3. Unavoidable Significant Adverse Impacts from the EDPO Supplemental EIR. The following unavoidable supplemental environmental impacts were identified in the EDPO Supplemental EIR and could apply to the current project. Supplemental Impact Traffic 6: Year 2025 cumulative buildout with project scenario, Dougherty Road/Dublin Boulevard intersection. th California Resources Agency 103 Cal. App. 4 98. ____ (2002) Page 2 of ________ 2524514.1 Supplemental Impact Traffic 7: Year 2025 cumulative buildout with project scenario, Hacienda Drive/Dublin Boulevard intersection. Supplemental Impact Traffic 8: Year 2025 cumulative buildout with project scenario, Fallon Road/Dublin Boulevard intersection. Supplemental Impact Traffic 11: Year 2025 cumulative buildout with project scenario, freeway segments on I-580 and I-680 in the EDPO project area. 4. Unavoidable Significant Adverse Impacts from the Fallon Village Supplemental EIR. The following unavoidable significant environmental impacts were identified in the Fallon Village Supplemental EIR and could apply to the current project. Supplemental Impact TRA-1: Project contribution to impact the Dublin/Dougherty intersection (DSEIR p. 64). Supplemental Impact TRA-4: Cumulative impacts to local freeways (DSEIR p. 69). Supplemental Impact TRA-5: Consistency with Alameda County Congestion Management Plan (DSEIR p. 73). Supplemental Impact CUL-2: Demolition of the Fallon Ranch House (DSEIR p. 218.) Supplemental Impacts AQ-2, AQ-3: Increase in regional emissions (DSEIR pp. 239- 240.). 5. Unavoidable Significant Adverse Impacts from the Dublin Ranch West (Wallis Ranch) Supplemental EIR. The following unavoidable significant environmental impacts identified in the 2005 Supplemental EIR and could apply to the current project. Supplemental Impacts AQ-2, AQ-3. Project emission increase that would exceed the BAAQMD significance thresholds for ozone precursors on project and cumulative levels. Even with implementation of the previously adopted mitigation measures and the additional mitigation measures in the Supplemental EIR, project and cumulative precursor emissions will exceed BAAQMD thresholds. Supplemental Impact TRA-2. Impactsto study intersections under Buildout conditions (Dublin Boulevard/Dougherty Road). Even with implementation of the previously adopted mitigation measures, including contribution to intersection improvements through the TIF program, the project will contribute to significant and unavoidable impacts at this intersection under buildout conditions. 6. Overriding Considerations. The City Council previously balanced the benefits of the Eastern Dublin project approvals against the significant and potentially significant adverse impacts identified in the Eastern Dublin EIR and the Supplemental EIRs. The City Council now balances those unavoidable impacts that apply to future development on the current project sites against its benefits, and hereby determines that such unavoidable impacts are outweighed by the benefits of the current project as further set Page 3 of ________ 2524514.1 forth below. The City declares that each one of the benefits included below, independent of any other benefits, would be sufficient to justify approval of the current project and override the current project’s significant and unavoidable impacts. The substantial evidence demonstrating the benefits of the current project are found in these findings, and in the record as a whole for the current project. The current project will further the urbanization of Eastern Dublin as planned through the comprehensive framework established in the original Eastern Dublin approvals. The current project will maintain and expand open space through the proposed parkland designations. The current project provides a much-needed school site for future construction by the Dublin Unified School District. The current project will create residential development that is compatible with residential development in the vicinity, provides housing to help satisfy the City’s housing production RHNA goals, and will help implement policies contained in the Housing Element of the General Plan. The development portions of the current project will provide local roadway improvements contributing to an efficient public roadway system. The project will provide streetscape improvements such as curb, gutter, sidewalk, and landscaping that will be an amenity to the larger community and provide safer pedestrian and bicycle access between existing neighborhoods. The project will create new revenue for the City, County, and State through the transfer and reassessment of property due to the improvement of the property and the corresponding increase in value. The project will contribute funds to construct schools, parks, and other community facilities that are a benefit City-wide. Development of the project site will provide construction employment opportunities for Dublin residents. Page 4 of ________ 2524514.1 Debra LeClair From: Sent: To: Subject: Attachments: 3 3'',r•If:4:;l,;i�l': ; \CKYAkD Danielle Diaz Monday, September 21, 2015 3:26 PM Debra LeClair FW: Time Sensitive Message for the Planning Commissioners jr_ student _gene ratio n_table_9.8.15_ - demographic _study_2014- 15_backup from Sept 22 meeting.pdf Danielle Diaz Office Assistant II - Community Development Department City of Dublin 100 Civic Plaza, Dublin, CA 94568 (925) 833 -6656 1 (925) 833 -6651 FAX Danielle.diazO.dublin.ca.gov I www.dublin.ca. ov Mission Statement; The City of Dublin promotes and supports a high quality of life, ensures a safe and secure environment, and fosters new opportunities. From: Amy Miller Sent: Monday, September 21, 2015 3:20 PM To: Danielle Diaz Subject: Time Sensitive Message for the Planning Commissioners Dear Ms, Bhuthimethee, Ms. Do, Mr. Goel, Mr. Kohli, and Mr. Mittan, I am writing to you today to express my concern about an item you will be discussing at your meeting tomorrow night. Unfortunately I am unable to attend as the school board has a regular board meeting at the same time. As you are all aware, Kevin Fryer's request to have the 150 additional homes he would like to have vested as a part of his project, will be coming to you Tuesday night. I would like to give you some perspective about why its important for this project (unlike the last 3- Trumark, Jerry Hunt (aka the Green) and the Promenade) to be approved. We at the DUSD have been working very hard with the city and the developer to come to an agreement so that we are able to build a K8 school in this development. We have spent countless hours meeting, consulting with our lawyers and planning so that this school can get built. I'm sure you're sick of hearing about how the state has failed us, but it is the reason we are in this situation. We never thought for a second we'd be having to pay for an entire new school until recently. The Governor's decision to stop funding school construction is only a couple years old. We unfortunately never new this could or would happen. Thankfully there will most likely be a ballot measure in 2016. But until then, we are working hard at finding solutions for our community. We cannot purchase the land set aside for us by Mission Valley, which by no means is their fault. We have come to an agreement with the developer and city to acquire the land on Central Pkwy for this school and have also found the means to build it. Most of Kevin Fryer's project is in fact already vested. The difference these 150 homes will make is insignificant due to the trade off of getting the school site, collecting another $1 on top of the developer's level 2 fees and the agreement of the developer to make all of the street improvements needed on the new school site. I am asking you to consider voting to give the council a chance to discuss the project's merits and the hard work and many hours that have been devoted to finding an agreement that works for everyone. I know more homes is not what the residents want. But do they also want to face the alternative? We will be forced to look at boundary changes, diverting students (hundreds from East to West) and possibly placing portables on Nielsen to house the kids that are coming due to all the vested properties that will be built regardless. Here is some info for you to digest: If these units get vested he is still building 65 less homes than what is in the original plan. He originally planned for 964, of those 749 are already vested and he is asking for 150 more (unvested), which totals 899. That is 65 less units than originally planned. And while we all know that the medium density may bring a few more kids than high density, the difference is somewhat insignificant in this case since we will have a school. Although I understand the interest in stopping all unvested properties, this is not a good idea on this particular project. MOST of his units are vested and he will build them no matter what. So, the 749 units will come and we will have NO school because the city cannot give us the land if those units are not approved. I do know that a large contingency of residents concerned about the development on Parcel H, would like to see their view preserved (by not allowing two -story or higher homes built- something I recently learned). Please, I urge you to at least agree to allow the city council to take the matter up. We will be there (my board and Dr. Hanke), to speak about the process we've been through regarding this particular project and why we support it. Thank your for taking the time to read this long email. I have attached some documents I think you might find interesting. Please don't hesitate to contact me anytime with questions or comments. Sincerely, Amy Miller Amy Miller President, Dublin Unified School District Board of Education %A r hair. Alameda County Commission on the Status of Women LA Ln N V 00 V) I Ln J ±- a, m 0 4� N aj �1 00 ® �I r- m V) V) (� o a Lt) V) 4-J C5 L ® D Ln C®I Ln r-I ® v-4 Ln Ln lzt 00 00 m 00 00 cc Ln 00 w Ln L1`1 Lr) Ln r-I () Lri Lf1 E E ® QJ W 0 Dublin Unified School District Demographic Study, 2014 -15 Elementary School No. 5 Development Project Unit Density Planned Units To Build Units Fallon Village (Croak) Low 469 469 Fallon Village (Croak) Medium 130 130 Fallon Villages (Anderson Property) Medium -High 108 108 Fallon Villages (Sranuaugh) Medium 67 67 Fallon Villages (Chen) Medium -High 100 100 Fallon Villages (Jordan Rana 2) MU Medium 115 115 Fallon Villages (Jordan Ranch 2) N5 Medium 56 56 Fallon Villages (Jordan Ranch 2) N6 Medium -High 109 109 Fallon Villages (Jordan Ranch 2), Ardmore N2 Medium 111 111 Fallon Villages (Jordan Ranch 2), Capri N3 Medium 94 94 Fallon Villages (Jordan Ranch 2), Trio N4 Medium -High 126 126 Fallon Villages (Jordan Ranch), Mariposa Low 85 0 Fallon Villages (Jordan Ranch), Windwood Low 168 55 Fallon Villages (Righettl Property) Medium 81 81 Original E5 School Site Medium 105 105 Jordon Ranch Parcel H Medium 45 45 Total, Elementary School No. 5 19 1,969 1,771 Capacity Analysis TK -5 TK -5 Enrollment (201415) p TK -5 Capacity (2014 -15) 950 Surplus / (Deficit) 950 Preliminary K -5 Buildout K -5 Remaining Medium High Medium High 218 251 218 251 49 56 49 56 20 23 20 23 25 29 25 29 19 22 19 22 43 50 43 50 21 24 21 24 21 24 21 24 42 48 42 48 35 40 35 40 24 27 24 27 40 46 0 0 78 90 26 29 30 35 30 35 39 45 39 45 17 19 17 19 721 829 629 723 6.8 Buildout 6 -8 Remaining Medium HI h Medium . Hi h E5 .323 371 282 324 K -8 Buildout K -8 Remaining Medium Hi h Medium Hi h K -8 1,,144 1,200 910 1,046 Notes; E5 aftenance boundary is preliminary the area East of Fallon Road and South of La Una Street, Preliminary Elementary School No. 6 As of 8121/2015 571IM"NUMIRIOTMIMM Demographic d, ;:r. Student Generation Rates for Now Housing Housing Housing 14-15K.12 i:. reri ika nent Project Density Units Students Low Density Housing Dublin Ranch (Area A1) Low 110 85 Dublin Ranch (Area A2 -A5) (Signal Hill Area) Low 265 240 Dublin Ranch (Area A6-A71 (Bent Tree Area) Low 187 188 Dublin Ranch (Phase1) Low 847 902 Dublin Ranch F2 Verona (Puite) Low '121 104 Positano (9fella, Cortona and Livorno) Low 238 184 Positano (Fallon Ridge) Low 56 31 Positano (Fiorano) Low 43 40 Positano (Salerno) Low 120 64 Schaefer Ranch (Ridgeline Drive) Low 105 34 Medium Density Housing Dublin Ranch Area F South (Sorrento 1 Milano) Medium 75 50 Dublin Ranch F1 Sanata M d' 119 V ium 106 Tassajara Meadows Medium 206 142 Medium -High Density Housing Dublin Ranch Area F South (Sorrento 2 Trevi) Medium -High 117 30 Dublin Ranch Area F South (Sorrento 3 Firenza) Medium -High 66 29 Dublin Ranch Area F South (Sorrento 4 Siena) Medium -High 64 27 Dublin Ranch Area F Sour (Sorrento 5 Amalfi) Medium -High 96 10 Dublin Ranch Villages (The Cottages) Medium -High 200 116 Dublin Ranch Villages (The Courtyards) Medium -High 281 77 Dublin Ranch Villages (The Terraces) Medium -High 626 121 Dublin Ranch Villages (The Villas) Medium -High 289 89 High Density Housing Archstone Emerald Park High 324 149 Amador Lakes Apartments High 555 55 Avalon at Dublin Station 2 Apartments High 253 18 Avalon at Dublin Station Apartments High 305 32 Avalon Dublin Station Apartments High 205 51 Cottonwood Apartments High 248 48 Elan at Dublin Station Apartments High 257 42 Emerald Park Apartments High 368 86 Ironhorse Trail Apartments High 177 31 Park Sierra at Ironhorse Trail Apartments High 283 60 Park Wood Apartments High 224 48 Springs Apartments High 174 44 Waterford Place Apartments High 390 36 megium u.IVU 08> Low 0,595 High 0.368 �A39':.. Medium 01320 ,0-422- ` Low 0.271 %104 '< 11'193 s 0 46D;; High 0.172 Medium 0,150 ;;D.071 " Low 0.128 '10:249, ,- �. 0.53 0134 D.092.. ife.. M. w to' MISSION VALLEY PROPERTIES CIF u m u u m H u u u J 2k S2 Lz, W2 rn z mz (,4 z Iw a m z ® z n E z ) z 0 z a 0 C 0- -n 06 X w -n 0 rn z ch T T 0 U) 0 o zo� o o o o 0 0 rn 'D z 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 W 0 m W) a m r CA m Jeff Baker From: Marlene Massetti Sent: Tuesday, September 22, 2015 4:19 PM To: Planning Commission Subject: Fw: Deny the Jordan Ranch Project Commissioners Goel, Bhuthimethee, Do, Kohli and Mittan: I understand Jordan Ranch is on the Planning Commission Agenda this evening. Unfortunately, I'm not able to attend. However, I hope there is something you can do in support of the community in your position as Planning Commissioner, As you know the community does not support any more residential housing until we have the infrastructure to support them, including schools. There are 8787 units planned for Dublin and over 5,000 of these units are vested and under developer agreement. Therefore, we are unable to make any changes, effect any change, except for those units that are non - vested, including Jordan Ranch. As a Planner you understand the number of car trips per day that will be generated by each of the residential projects planned. Thousands of trips daily will further increase the traffic congestion in Dublin; on Dublin Blvd, At build -out our population is projected to increase by 25,000 more residents bringing our total population to 75,000 with some projecting 80,000! Our city can not continue down this path, as it has, with no regard to the consequences. The residential projects proposed offer nothing in return to the community. Most fail to provide parks for children to play, have insufficient parking to support units and lack trees and open space. In short, they contribute to urban sprawl with nothing but concrete structures as far as the eye can see. We are quickly losing the quality of our lives in Dublin and hope as a Planning Commissioner you can, within the scope of your position, do something to change this course. Sincerely, Marlene Massetti (" } .m Dublin Safi Ramon 7051 Dublin Boulevard phone (925) 828 0515 Services District Dublin, CA 94568 -3018 fax (925) 829-1180 www.dsrsd.com mater, wastewater, recycled water September 15, 2015 Mike Porto, Planning Consultant City of Dublin Community Development Department 100 Civic Plaza Dublin, CA 94568 Subject: Comments on Initial Study /Mitigated Negative Declaration for General Plan Amendment/ Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment For Jordan Ranch, sub Area 3 and Wallis Ranch Dear Mr, Porto: Thank you for providing Dublin San Ramon Services District (DSRSD, District) the opportunity to review and comment on the Initial Study /Mitigated Negative Declaration for the General Plan Amendment /Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment for Jordan Ranch, Sub Area 3 and Wallis Ranch. This study analyzes the impact of anticipated small changes to the land uses planned for the projects known as Jordan Ranch, Sub Area 3 and Wallis Ranch, all in eastern Dublin. DSRSD has a significant role in the area to be developed by the Project. Our agency took note of the list of environmental issues covered by the Initial Study /Mitigated Negative Declaration. We have included our comments below on the environmental topics that bear on our agency's responsibilities in the area of the Project. Land Use and Planning Generally, DSRSD serves as the potable water, recycled water, wastewater collection and wastewater treatment utility for the area of the Project and surrounding areas. As the provider for these utilities, DSRSD is responsible for the planning and development of the infrastructure necessary for those services. Our intent is to ensure the Infrastructure is adequately planned to meet the interim as well as the ultimate build -out needs of the area. Specifically, the study analyzes relatively minor changes to the planned land uses for these three developments. The sum of the changes affecting residential land uses is the planned addition of up to 40 dwelling units. This is a relatively minor change from the land uses analyzed in previous CEQA documents including the 2005 Supplemental Environmental Impact Review. DSRSD agrees with the conclusion on page 87 of this study that there would be no new or substantially more severe significant impacts than have been analyzed in previous CEQA documents. DSRSD is the utility provider for the currently developed sections of Dublin surrounding the Project. The development of services for the Project must be done in a way that does not disrupt or eliminate the services for the active portions of the City of Dublin near the Project. Those services are to remain ongoing throughout the construction and completion of the Project. Potable Water Supply and Service Generally, the wholesale provider for the District is Zone 7 Water Agency. Zone 7 provides potable water to retailers in the Tri- Valley area including DSRSD, City of Pleasanton, City of Livermore and California Water Company (also in Livermore). Zone 7 provides wholesale water to the Tri - Valley area and regulates the withdrawal and recharge of the underlying groundwater. Zone 7 prepares a Sustainable Water Supply Report annually. The most recent Sustainable Water Supply Report should be used as part of the basis for determination of available water supply for future water demand. Specifically, DSRSD will provide potable water to the three Sub Areas of the Project. DSRSD agrees with the Dublin San Ramona Services District Water, wastewater, recycled voter 7051 Dublin Boulevard phone (925) 828 -0515 Dublin, CA 94568 -3018 fax (925) 829 -1180 www.dsrsd.coni Mike Porto September 15, 2015 Page 2 of 2 conclusions of the study on page 108 that state future development allowed on the three Sub Areas would Incrementally increase the need for potable water In eastern Dublin, and the supply of water could be limited to all users in the future during periods of water shortages. Recycled Water Supply and Service Generally, DSRSD provides recycled water service to sections of the City of Dublin around the Project. DSRSD owns and operates a facility for recovering recycled water at its wastewater treatment plant at 7399 Johnson Drive in Pleasanton. This is a potable water conservation element, An increase in the use of recycled water in the TO- Valley area has an impact on reducing the total potable water demand on Zone 7's water supply. Specifically, as a condition of potable water service, DSRSD will require the Project to plan for and build a recycled water distribution network for landscape irrigation in the Project area. DSRSD will be able to provide the recycled water supply for the three Sub Areas of the project. Wastewater Treatment and Disposal Generally, DSRSD provides wastewater collection, treatment and disposal for the area of the Project. DSRSD believes that current capacity at the wastewater treatment plant is adequate to serve the proposed Project. The Project would increase the amount of treated wastewater leaving the Tri- Valley area. Disposal of treated effluent from DSRSD's wastewater treatment plant is the responsibility of the Livermore Amador Valley Water Management Agency ( LAVWMA). LAVWMA currently exports secondary treated wastewater to the East Bay Dischargers Authority (EBDA) interceptor pipeline for ultimate discharge to the San Francisco Bay via a deepwater outfall. Water treated at DSRSD's treatment plant that is not converted to recycled water for landscape irrigation is disposed of through the LAVWMA system. Specifically, DSRSD agrees with the conclusions of the study on page 108 that state the demands of the Project will not exceed the existing wastewater treatment capacity of DSRSD, and that no new wastewater treatment and disposal facilities are required by the impact of the Project. Thank you for notifying DSRSD of the upcoming Draft Supplemental EIR. Please contact me at (925) 875 -2253 or Rhodora Biagtan at (925) 875 -2255 should you have any questions. Sincerely, STAN KQLQDZIE Associate Enginee SK /ST cc: Rhodora Biagtan, Principal Engineer Ryan Pendergraft, Junior Engineer File: Dublin CEQA /Chron H; \ENGDEPI\CEQA \DSRSD Response to CEQA DocumentsWity of Dublin \2015\Comments Initial Study and MND - GPA and East Dublin SP Jordan Rch SubArea3 Wallis Rch 9- 15.15.docx From: kerriechabot@ Sent: Tuesday, September 22, 2415 6:54 PM To: Chabot, Kerrie; Jeff Baker Cc: Planning Commission; Arun Goel Subject: Please Deny/ Post- pone the Jordan Ranch Project decision Please read into Public Comment, I , Kerrie Chabot, would like the planning commission to spend a little bit more time researching the Jordan Ranch proposed "land swap" before approving it tonight, Tuesday, September 23, Thank you for understanding. I would be there in person, but I am at the School Board meeting- Thank you, Kerrie Chabot, 16 year resident, mother of 3, Dublin Sister City Association Director, and Dublin Task Force Member RESOLUTION NO. 15-08 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN ____________________________________________________________________________ RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL NOT APPROVE THE GENERAL PLAN/EASTERN DUBLIN SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT, PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REZONE, SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW, VESTING TENTATIVE MAPS, DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR THE JORDAN RANCH/SUBAREA 3/WALLIS RANCH PROJECTS WHEREAS, the Applicants, Mission Valley Properties, Trumark Homes, Lennar Homes and the City of Dublin propose revisions to prior approvals on the Jordan Ranch, Wallis Ranch and Dublin Ranch Subarea 3 sites, respectively. The proposed revisions include General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan amendments, Planned Development rezones with amended Jordan Ranch Stage 1 Development Plans for portions of the (re-designating 3.7 acres of an Parks/Public Recreation to Public/Semi-Public for future development of a school and changing Subarea 3 an existing Mixed Use land use on 4.6 acres to Medium Density Residential); (re- designating 10.4 acres from Rural Residential/Agricultural to Parks/Public Recreation); and the Wallis Ranch (re-designating a 1.9 acre site in the south portion of the property from Semi- Public to Parks/Public Recreation). The Application for Jordan Ranch also includes Planned Development Zoning with related Stage 2 Development Plan, Site Development Review, Vesting Tentative Maps for Parcel H and Neighborhood 7, and a Development Agreement amendment, as follows. The Jordan Ranch proposal for Parcel H is to allow 45 medium density dwelling units; and Neighborhood 7 is a 9.2 acre site proposed for development of 105 dwelling units. The proposed revisions, development and related applications collectively comprise the “Project”; and WHEREASJordan Ranch , the Project sites are located as follows: : East of Fallon Subarea 3 Road, north and south of Central Parkway; : South of Central Parkway, north of Wallis Ranch Dublin Boulevard; : West of Tassajara Road, south of City limit line and east of Camp Parks RFTA; and WHEREAS , the City prepared an Initial Study dated August 2015 for the proposed Project consistent with CEQA section 21166 and CEQA Guidelines sections 15162 and 15163 and determined that a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) was required in order to analyze the potential for new or additional significant environmental impacts of the Project beyond those identified in the prior EIRs and other CEQA documents; and WHEREAS, a Staff Report, dated September 22, 2015 and incorporated herein by reference, described and analyzed the Project for the Planning Commission; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission reviewed the Staff Report at a noticed public hearing on September 22, 2015 at which time all interested parties had the opportunity to be heard; and 1 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did hear and consider the MND, all said reports, recommendations and testimony and used it independent judgement to evaluate the project; and 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 Dublin Planning Commission hereby recommends that the City Council not adopt the project approvals which include the General Plan/Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendments, Planned Development Rezone with related Stage 1 and Stage 2 Development Plan, Site Development Review, Vesting Tentative Maps, Development Agreement amendment for Jordan Ranch and the related MND. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 22nd day of September 2015. AYES: Do, Goel, Kohli NOES: Bhuthimethee, Mittan ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ______________________ Planning Commission Chair ATTEST : ____________________________________ Assistant Community Development Director 2 DRAFT DRAFT Planning Commission Minutes Tuesday, September 22, 2015 CALL TO ORDER/ROLL CALL Tuesday, September A regular meeting of the City of Dublin Planning Commission was held on 22, 2015 , in the City Council Chambers located at 100 Civic Plaza. Chair Goel called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Present: Chair Goel; Vice Chair Kohli; Commissioners Do, Bhuthimethee and Mittan; Linda Smith, Assistant City Manager; Jeff Baker, Assistant Community Development Director; Kit Faubion, City Attorney; Martha Aja, Associate 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. Do and seconded by Cm. Kohli, on a vote of 4-0-1, with Cm. Bhuthimethee being absent from the meeting, the Planning Commission approved the minutes of the July 14, 2015 meeting. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS NONE – CONSENT CALENDAR NONE – WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONSNONE – PUBLIC HEARINGS – PLPA-2015-00022 Al Mustafa Foundation 8.1 Conditional Use Permit for the operation of a Place of Worship at 6543 Regional Street, Suite A. Martha Aja, Associate Planner, presented the project as outlined in the Staff Report. Chair Goel opened the public hearing and, with no speakers, closed the public hearing. Cm. Mittan asked for an explanation of the surrounding area. Ms. Aja provided an explanation of the surrounding area and what is adjacent to the project. Chair Goel asked if there are any residential developments in the area or occupants present at night. Ms. Aja answered that the closest residential development would be Connolly Station which is close to the West Dublin BART station. Cm. Mittan asked about the zoning for the nearby warehouse and what it could be if redeveloped. Planning Commission September 22, 2015 Regular Meeting Page | 26 DRAFT DRAFT Jeff Baker, Assistant Community Development Director, answered that the warehouse is located in the Downtown Dublin Specific Plan (DDSP) which allows a variety of different uses, including commercial, office or residential uses and potentially could be any of those future uses, but it could be a future residential project. He mentioned that all activities for this project would be indoors with no outdoor activities to affect the surrounding residents or businesses. Cm. Mittan asked about a hotel that was planned for the area. Mr. Baker answered that a hotel would be an allowed use in the DDSP. He stated that BART owns the site to the south of Connolly Station and had considered a hotel for that site with no immediate plans. Cm. Do was in support of the project and felt it could invigorate the area which is mostly vacant. She stated that she can make the findings. Cm. Bhuthimethee shared Chair Goel’s concern regarding the TOD area but the tenant is a good use of the space. She asked if typical tenant improvements would include bicycle racks. Mr. Baker responded that, through the Building Code, there are requirements that address parking, including bicycle racks. He stated that the issue would be addressed during the Building Permit process. Cm. Kohli stated that he is in support of the project and can make the findings. Chair Goel asked how many attendees would occupy the space during worship services and was concerned about noise at the close of meetings after 10:30 pm. Ms. Aja answered that there is a Condition of Approval stating that there should not be more than 49 people in the building at one time and there will be placards posted stating the maximum occupancy of 49 people. She stated that the City does not regulate how late the businesses are open. Chair Goel asked if there is a sound ordinance that would ensure there is no excessive noise being generated from the business. Ms. Aja yes and stated that there are several Condition of Approval regarding noise. She stated that any complaints would be addressed. Cm. Mittan asked if there is an event room or strictly a religious facility. Ms. Aja answered that there are two worship rooms (men’s and women’s), an office, a library and a TV recording area but most of the activities will occur within the spaces of worship. On a motion by Cm. Mittan and seconded by Cm. Do, on a vote of 5-0, the Planning Commission unanimously adopted: RESOLUTION NO. 15-07 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION Planning Commission September 22, 2015 Regular Meeting Page | 27 DRAFT DRAFT OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR THE OPERATION OF A PLACE OF WORSHIP (AL MUSTAFA FOUNDATION) AT 6543 REGIONAL STREET, SUITE A 8.2 General Plan Amendment/Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment (EDSP), including land use amendments to portions of: 1) Dublin Ranch Subarea 3 (PLPA 2015-00046); 2) Wallis Ranch (PLPA 2015-00047); and 3) Jordan Ranch (PLPA 2015-00045). All General Plan and EDSP land use amendments would be accompanied by related and consistent Planned Development rezone with related Stage 1 and/or Stage 2 Development Plans. In addition, Jordan Ranch has submitted an application for: a) Site Development Review; b) Vesting Tentative Maps 8267 and 8269; and c) a Development Agreement amendment with BJ-ROF Jordan Ranch LLC Mission Valley Properties. Linda Smith: Commissioners, if you'll indulge me for a second before Mike gets started on his presentation. Some of you may know me. I'm the Assistant City Manager, Linda Smith. I'm here to provide a bit of perspective and context to the item that you're going to see tonight. So why are we here with this presentation? We're here because in November of 2014 the governor did not place a school construction bond on the ballot for the voters to vote on. And that left the Dublin Unified School District without the necessary funding to acquire land and also fund construction of schools. Further, it was determined by the school district that they're going to need that next school in Jordan Ranch by 2018-19, and that it will need to be a K-8 school to house up to 950 students, split equally among middle school students and elementary school students. So what have we done? The City and the district staff have been meeting for nearly a year to talk about options to assist the district with their land needs. The City has offered use of a portion of their 10-acre community park site that it controls in the immediate area adjacent to the original 10-acre school site for use as an alternative school site. We've assembled a package of approvals, with the primary intention to deliver a school site to the district at minimal cost to them and at no cost to the City. The approvals in front of you tonight assume that they will be evaluated as a package. Staff has sought the assistance and support of the Jordan Ranch developer on a number of fronts. First, to make modifications to its land use plan that would make the placement of the school at the community park site less impactful. Hence you will see the mixed use to medium-density discussion. They've also served as an intermediary in the location of additional park lands, provided free of charge, west of this project site, to offset the loss of the park land in the Jordan Ranch project. This has saved nearly $9 million in park replacement costs. They've also been asked to construct improvements of the Jordan Ranch neighborhood park, saving the City's public facility fee program about $2 million in expenses. They've been asked by the district to construct improvements necessary to place the Planning Commission September 22, 2015 Regular Meeting Page | 28 DRAFT DRAFT school on Central Parkway and are paying the district a school benefit fee of $1/square foot more than whatever the Level II fee is in place at the time they pull their permits. I believe that the district board has taken action on that or is planning to take action on that item tonight. These actions alone are valued at $12 million worth of benefit. Why are we doing this? There are a number of benefits to approving this package. First the District gets to construct a facility they desperately need in three years. And it alleviates the impacts on the elementary schools in the area and provides the needed relief they need for Fallon Middle School. The City, in turn, gets a neighborhood park built, constructed with minimal impact to the fee program, teeing up the next neighborhood park to be constructed next in that neighborhood. The City gets a community park facility approximately 10 years sooner than they would otherwise see. And the City gets access to all other school sites in eastern Dublin for use by the community, as well as use of the performing arts center to help support community arts in the City. I wanted to go over that context with you as Mike presents to you the technical pieces of this presentation. But I thought it would be helpful to provide you sort of the global perspective of why we're here tonight. So if you have any questions of me, that's fine. And I'll sit here during the presentation. If you have questions throughout that, I can help to answer those questions. Chair Goel: Thank you. Mike? Cm. Bhuthimethee: Do you mind if I just ask a couple of quick questions now? They're clarification questions on what you just said. You said part of the agreement was to construct improvements on parks. When I looked at this package, it wasn't really clear to me what those improvements were. Is one for Jordan and then Wallis? Chair Goel: Let me kind of interrupt. That kind of question I believe would be addressed properly by Mike. Assuming that his presentation is going to go through that. And then maybe at that point we can address staff combined. If you're okay, maybe we can entertain the presentation first. Cm. Bhuthimethee: Okay. I'll do my questions later. Mike Porto: Good evening, Chairman, and members of the commission. It's always great to have someone basically make the majority of your presentation for you, so that all you have to do is fill in all the details. So taking you through the project tonight — as Linda mentioned, there are three pieces to this puzzle that are all interwoven and interconnected. We're looking at the Jordan Ranch property. We're looking at Wallis Ranch. And we're looking at Dublin Ranch Subarea 3. The items before you tonight for consideration are a general plan amendment, an eastern Dublin specific plan amendment, and a Stage 1 development plan for the Jordan Ranch property, Dublin Ranch Subarea 3, and the Wallis Ranch. Planning Commission September 22, 2015 Regular Meeting Page | 29 DRAFT DRAFT And then this goes on, and we are looking at a Stage 2 development plan, site development review, vesting map for the Jordan property, for Parcel H, and for neighborhood 7, as well as a development agreement for Jordan Ranch itself, which is an amendment to the existing agreement from 2010. So to acquaint you with the locations of the property — Wallis Ranch is in the northern portion of the City, where Tassajara Road basically joins Fallon, near the City/county border. Jordan Ranch itself is east of Fallon Road and is comprised of this particular square in this location. And Subarea 3 is southwest of that area, located here. It's currently under construction with the Iron Gate development. So looking at the general plan amendment and Stage 1 development plan, starting with Jordan Ranch, the existing land uses in this particular area are currently mixed use, designated for 115 residential units and up to 5,000 square feet of retail commercial. An area for parks and public recreation in this particular area here. The proposed change is to change this to medium-density residential for 45 residential duets and single-family detached homes, as well as a portion of the community park site here that would be devoted to the development of the school, approximately 3.7 acres. Just a little brief history on Jordan and where it's been. The original approval for the project was in 2005. That was for the various land uses and that was covered under a supplemental EIR. At that time it was studied and approved for 1,064 residential units and up to almost 84,000 square feet of retail commercial. In 2010 a development plan was processed with CEQA addendum. And it reduced the number of units to 781, with up to 12,000 square feet of commercial. And then lastly, in 2012, another general plan amendment for land uses and a CEQA addendum was processed for residential units up to 964, and up to 5,000 square feet of retail commercial. And those would be on the mixed use site on the corner of Fallon and Central Parkway. The current proposal before you tonight, both for land use and the development plan, which has been covered with the mitigated negative declaration, allows residential uses or proposes to allow residential units to total 899, which is 165 units less than what was originally approved back in 2015 under the Jordan Ranch Fallon Village supplemental EIR. Moving on then to Dublin Ranch Subarea 3. This particular area, located west of Fallon, south of Central, and north of Dublin, and currently under construction, designated an area in the center of the site for rural residential agricultural. At one time it was anticipated that this might be used for the planting of grapes. As part of the proposal to offset the deficit in the park land that would be created when we give up the 3.7 acres for use by the school [unintelligible], this area is being proposed to be converted from rural residential agricultural to parks and public recreation. It's approximately 10.5 acres in this particular area. And then moving on to the Wallis property. The various approvals on Wallis that have come through the years ultimately designated this particular parcel here, which is across from Planning Commission September 22, 2015 Regular Meeting Page | 30 DRAFT DRAFT the Quarry Lane School, to acquaint you geographically, with a semi-public land use. The City approached the developer, Trumark, to see if they would be interested in allowing this area to be used for parks and public recreation. They were amenable to this. And that's part of the application that's before you tonight. It also is one of the applications that helps offset the deficit in park land that comes in the parks and recreation master plan. So that kind of concludes the general plan amendment aspect, the eastern Dublin specific plan amendment aspect, and the Stage 1 development plan aspect. Now moving into the Stage 2 project, which is for Jordan Ranch, we have the two individual sites — Parcel H and neighborhood seven. Parcel H basically is proposed to be downzoned from mixed use — 115 units — to 45 duet units, 40 of which would be attached on the ground floor only, five of which would be single-family. And we'll get into describing that a little bit further in the presentation. Neighborhood seven, the former school site, would be 105 units of three-story design, based on the radius of Panorama Drive. This location here. Primarily alley-loaded homes. Again, we'll get into a little bit more discussion as we move forward. Included with that are the two tentative maps. The tentative map to create this parcel, and the tentative map to create this parcel. And as we speak through the project tonight, the tentative map is a portion of all of this that's before you, both in the site development review, Stage 2 PD, and the [vested] tentative map is implied. So going back a little bit to what's required in the Stage 2 development plan. Things that are included are development standards that deal with things such as lot size, lot coverage, setbacks, and parking, as well as architectural guidelines, landscape guidelines, and standards. So starting with Parcel H and going through the various requirements, this graphic representation — which is also the overall conceptual landscape plan — shows you that the project site itself, bounded by Fallon Road on the west, Jordan Ranch Drive to the north, Central Parkway to the south, and permanent open space to the east — is comprised of those 45 duet units they speak to. However, these particular units here are actually single-family detached, and they are two-story in nature. So therefore the view to Fallon Road is of less mass than it is once you get more into the interior of the project. The site itself has two access points. One here, off Jordan Ranch Drive, and one here off Central Parkway. The units themselves access the front doors from central [paseos], similar to other projects in Dublin. And project garages are alley-loaded from behind. There is a central spine along this particular edge here, and an open space area here. The units themselves range from 2,020 square feet, to 2,196 square feet. They have four bedrooms and up to four baths. They all have two-car enclosed garages. And they utilize the architectural elevations that go back to the original Jordan Ranch PD. And they use the architectural elevations from [A and G] that was originally approved back in 2010. The units themselves are three stories for the attached product, but they are only Planning Commission September 22, 2015 Regular Meeting Page | 31 DRAFT DRAFT attached on the ground floor, and then two stories for the units are detached and located along Fallon Road. Just to give you an idea of the architecture and what the architectural elevations look like — you can see the attachment is right in this area here and in this area here. So there is light and air between all the houses. So this is not a townhouse type of development. The massing creates elements of air and light through these particular elements themselves. And then as you get over here towards the Fallon edge, it's a two-story unit. So the massing is reduced in this area and builds as the project goes easterly. Cm. Bhuthimethee: Can I ask a question here? If they're only attached at the first floor — this might be an amateur question — why attach them at all? Mike Porto: Well, I think that's probably a question to ask the developer and the architect. But for efficiency of land use, they are the parts of the units, such as the garages and the laundry rooms and those types of uses that are the non-noise-generating uses that can be hooked together. And it allows the living spaces the light and air above. So it's an efficiency type of thing. But the architect's in the audience, as well as the developer. And they might have a different take on that. Cm. Bhuthimethee: Thank you. Mike Porto: So as everyone knows, we amended the parking ordinance quite a while ago to require one guest parking stall per unit, as well as our standard two covered parking spaces for each individual unit themselves. And in this particular case, the project meets that requirement. We have 45 guest spaces and 90 garage spaces. So it hits the City's ordinance right on, and we're not asking for any kind of a variance or augment for that. Moving on into the landscaping, as we talked a little bit before, we are incorporating the existing elements of Jordan Ranch entry portal here, which is currently located here and is constructed. We have heavy landscaping along this edge. We have an array of trees and an open area here, to accentuate the corner of Fallon and Central, as well as embellished entries here and here. And this shows you basically the Jordan Ranch pilaster, the large scale, the small scale, as well as how the site tiers down in this particular area. Because this site along this edge is significantly below the grade of Jordan Ranch Drive. Moving on to neighborhood seven. Neighborhood seven proposes 105 single-family detached homes, all alley-loaded from the standpoint of their garages. All front-loaded onto streets or paseos. In this particular instance, the paseos are much more generous than they are in other areas, as well as creating a large open space along the slope bank in this particular area with a trail. We'll get into that a little bit further in the presentation. Planning Commission September 22, 2015 Regular Meeting Page | 32 DRAFT DRAFT These units range in size from 1,959 square feet, up to 2,164 square feet, three and four bedrooms, and three to four baths. Two-car enclosed garage. Elevations B, C, and G from the original architecture back from 2010, as well as all the units being three stories. So I think you can see that these two projects hang together with what the architecture was originally proposed back in that period of time. And looking at these elevations, the materials, the massing, the size is pretty similar to what you see being constructed out there now on the Capri site for Brookfield Homes. Very similar in nature. Very similar product. Very similar materials. Again we meet the parking spaces of two covered spaces per unit in the garage and 105 guest spaces. So the site meets the City's ordinance relative to parking. The landscaping in this particular site is really kind of exciting and unique. You'll remember back in the day that we had the two trails that start at Central Parkway and go all the way up to the end of Positano on each side of the open space. And from there we also have a crossing between the easterly portion of Jordan Ranch to the westerly portion of Jordan Ranch, across the open space. Where that comes up out of the open space, there was a pathway and a paseo created in this area here. And it now punctuates to this open space element that comes through here, to an open space — this homeowners' association park. And then it continues and joins an open space into neighborhood five, in this area, which was previously approved in 2012 by the Planning Commission. Additionally, when you come into the project and you look down the street, you're looking at an open space element and a paseo here. And when you come into the project this way, you're looking at an open space element here. The paseos in this particular instance are urban landscape with much large generous areas than we've seen in some of the other projects in both Iron Gate and in Sorrento. Again, a little bit more detail as to the one large open space — this one here being this location — and more of the paseo open space in some of these areas here and here. Again, little bit more embellishment of the opening to neighborhood five. This separates the two neighborhoods here and how they can come up into this area, utilize this park, go across this area here, and get to the open space that runs along the east side of the open space corridor, and then crosses to the west side and runs up along the neighborhood park that will be constructed as part of this project. Little bit more detail. One of the things that is unique to the site, we have a significant slope bank along this particular edge of the site. We have a trail that connects the paseos so that you can get from paseo to paseo. They're not dead ends. And it connects along this particular area. The slope is quite high. And the applicant is proposing two different retaining walls with a heavily landscaped edge in this particular area. I'm going to back up just one slide. Currently Panorama ends at this location. Eventually Panorama is proposed to go on to the [unintelligible] property to the east, at which point grading will occur and it's possible that Planning Commission September 22, 2015 Regular Meeting Page | 33 DRAFT DRAFT this slope bank will be brought down some, and one of the retaining walls may be eliminated. Moving on then. That was the site development review, vesting tentative map in Stage 2 PD. Moving on to the amendment to the existing Jordan Ranch development. Some of the things that Linda spoke to that are included within that — this project is proposed with this development agreement amendment to vest the rights for these two projects, as well as the two community benefits that will come from this: The money to construct the Jordan neighborhood park relieving the community facility fee fund of those fees to be used elsewhere in Dublin, as well as this developer will be purchasing affordable housing unit credits that will be used for the veterans housing project downtown. We move into the environmental review for the project. Every area considered on each of these individual projects themselves were all considered under some form of prior CEQA review. In the case of Jordan, the Fallon Village supplement EIR in 2005 considered this site for 1,064 units. The previous environmental analysis in 2012 looked at Parcel H for 115 units and 5,000 square feet of retail. We are proposing to reduce this area now to 45 units. In neighborhood seven, it looked at 100 units as one of the underlying land use units on this particular site. We're proposing 105 units tonight. An initial study was prepared. It was determined that a mitigated negative declaration was needed, due to the potential impacts for the future development of the school. The original review environmentally for this site only considered a 500-student school. We are now proposing 950 students. So there were some additional impacts that needed to be mitigated. And they are included as mitigation measures in this. And the developer has basically agreed to help the school district and make those improvements as necessary in order to accomplish the school on the site. We did receive comments from various people. We did receive 10 comment letters. We did provide responses to those. And those are in your packet tonight. We also did get today a letter from [unintelligible], which I believe is on your dais, that basically concurs with the recommendations in the mitigated ND. And they have no concerns relative to the ability to serve the site. So I'm done. Lastly, we would recommend that the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council five different items. The first would be that the mitigated negative declaration for Jordan, Subarea 3, and Wallis be approved. That the general plan and the eastern Dublin specific plan amendments for Dublin Ranch Subarea 3, Wallis, and Jordan be approved. That the plan development rezoning and related Stage 1 development plan for those portions of Jordan, Subarea 3, and Wallis be approved, as well as the related Stage 2 development plan amendment for those portions of Jordan Ranch Parcel H and neighborhood seven be approved. A site development review permit and vesting tentative maps for both Parcel H and neighborhood seven be approved for the Jordan Ranch project. And lastly, a development agreement amendment between the City and Mission Valley Properties be approved. That will conclude my presentation. The applicant and his team are in the audience, as Planning Commission September 22, 2015 Regular Meeting Page | 34 DRAFT DRAFT well as other people here from staff who can answer questions you might have. Chair Goel: Thank you, Mike. Quick question just for clarification. Although it's actions items A through E, I heard earlier this is one package. So it's essentially one action item. Is that correct? It cannot be bifurcated if needed. Ms. Faubion: The City Manager office's position, in putting together and constructing this agreement with the district and with the developer, requires that all of these things needs to be considered as a package. Certainly you can make recommendations however you desire to make recommendations. But as far as the City Council is concerned, staff would not be making a recommendation to provide this school site to the district if in fact all of these items are not adopted. Chair Goel: So it's in almost that pecking order. Pretty much it's a one-swoop catch-all. That's what I'm hearing. Because it sounds like if anything was unbundled, there are certain elements that could not be moving forward or would not be recommended to move forward to City Council. Ms. Smith: That is correct. Mr. Baker: And this might be a good opportunity to perhaps have the City Attorney walk you through the decision-making process tonight. What's before the commission for your action. There's obviously a difference between the deal and the land use that is before you. So if you would indulge, Kit can walk you through that quickly. Ms. Faubion: Thank you. Chair, members of the commission, you heard from the Assistant City Manager sort of what the big picture is. And clearly it's complicated, and a lot of people have been working very hard on that. You can tell from the staff report, there's a background that again talks about sort of the big picture issues. And then we just got a letter from Amy Miller, on behalf of the school district, from her perspective, outlining what a process it has been to kind of hold this big thing together. But when it comes down to it, that big project is accomplished through a series of land use approvals. And that's where the Planning Commission comes in. There's a series of individual land use approvals, but together they make up the impetus for and the way that this project will happen. So, at this point, what's before the Planning Commission, as you saw from Mike's presentation, is not the deal and this and the meetings and the negotiating. What's before the Planning Commission is the general plan amendments, the rezonings, the specific plan amendments, the landscaping plan. All of the land use details that make this project happen. So I hope that that helps just to kind of give some perspective about the big picture. But then the pieces of this project that come together. And parts of that are within the purview of the Planning Commission, and that's the land use approvals that will make it happen. Chair Goel: And I think Jeff had indicated you were going to give us some guidance, or was that the entirety of the guidance? Planning Commission September 22, 2015 Regular Meeting Page | 35 DRAFT DRAFT Ms. Faubion: As for taking the vote on these, that's really up to the commission. You can vote on each item separately if you feel that that is a better way to do it. Or you can simply vote on them as a package. You can discuss each one of them if you have amendments. Maybe a condition in the SDR that you want to talk about. Then you can talk about that. And it might be easier, when all is said and done, to just approve them as a package. Chair Goel: Okay. I'll let that one maybe play out. But I guess the one thing that would not be part of the package if you had this unbundling would be the mitigated negative declaration. Is that correct? Or is that part of that same bundle? Ms. Faubion: The Mitigated Negative Declaration is not a land use application. It's the CEQA review that supports the land use applications. But clearly they all require CEQA review. So just in the interests of keeping it cleaner, you could certainly include the mitigated ND in that package of approvals as well. Mr. Baker: And one point just for clarification tonight. What the commission is being asked to do is make a recommendation to the City Council. So you're not actually approving anything tonight, but you're making recommendations to the City Council and then they will take that step of actually making a decision on approving or denying the various aspects of the project that's before you. Chair Goel: All right, I want to return back to Commissioner Bhuthimethee, who I cut off earlier. Thank you for allowing me to do that. Cm. Bhuthimethee: Well, part of the question was answered. So I thought I heard that there were two parks that were going to be constructed. And one is the Jordan Ranch Park, it sounds like. And then what was the second one? Ms. Smith: The school/park site. It's a joint use facility. Cm. Bhuthimethee: And that'd be like the 4.7 acres? Ms. Smith: So the collective is a 10-acre site. We've been working with the district on the site planning for the Jordan Ranch School and have tried to ensure that we could tighten up the building area as much as we could and provide as much field area and open space for the community that fronts along that area. So it's not going to be tucked behind a school. It's going to be directly next to the school, east of the building area of the school site. And as a matter of reference, one of the reasons why staff believes the location of the school site and joint use facility is good there, south of that site is a future seven-acre community park site. So when future development of the [Chen] property comes in, there will be an additional seven acres added to that site. Which will provide some additional flexibility for future community park needs and expand the opportunities for that neighborhood. Cm. Bhuthimethee: Thank you. So when you say, "development of the school site" — so that's the park. And then would that be the school as well. We're not constructing a school. Ms. Smith: We are not constructing the school. As part of this process, and part of the reason we're moving very quickly now in this process, is the school district needs to take this plan and adopted environmental documents to the state for approval of the school site so they Planning Commission September 22, 2015 Regular Meeting Page | 36 DRAFT DRAFT can begin design and construction work on the school. Cm. Bhuthimethee: And will be keeping ownership of the site? Are we leasing it or renting it? Ms. Smith: We will. The current thinking is we will construct a ground lease agreement with the school district, so the City will be the owner of the property. And one of the reasons why is — a lot of people don't understand our park system works, but I'll give a brief summary. So when a development occurs in Dublin, and there's a park land tied in their project, they're required to dedicate that property to the City, in exchange for free credits for dedication of park land. Which was done in this instance. So the property owner, in this case Mission Valley Properties, offered to dedicate it to the City. The City will accept that property. And they've been using fee credits to pay for their park land obligations. Unlike the Dublin Crossing agreements that we've reached, this one's a lot more complicated because there are already park land requirements for this site. To undo that is to obligate the City to find park land elsewhere or repay the program. And our whole process going into this agreement was to ensure that the City was not going to be expending any dollars in the assistance, other than providing the land opportunity to the district. So this one in particular is a little bit more complicated. It's a little bit more nuanced. And it's oftentimes difficult to explain to people how it can be so challenging. Cm. Bhuthimethee: Going back to the Jordan Ranch park site, isn't that already a requirement of that site? Of the neighborhood? Ms. Smith: The neighborhood park site, I believe it's just shy of a five-acre site. Mike Porto: 5.8. Ms. Smith: 5.8? Mike Porto: I think so. Ms. Smith: Okay. So the neighborhood park, they did indeed offer to dedicate the land. But typically the way the City has worked in the past is developing our own parks. Which means that when we collect impact fees for the improvements that need to be made to those parks, they get prioritized by the City Council. At this point the prioritization has been Emerald Glen Recreation and Aquatic Complex, followed by Fallon Sports Park, then Jordan Ranch Neighborhood Park, then Sean Diamond Park. In the developer's community benefit to construct this park, which is designed and ready to build, means delivery of this park without impacting the fee program, which means that the cash flow will be freed up for that park that falls right behind it. Sean Diamond. Cm. Bhuthimethee: Thank you. Chair Goel: Any further questions? Planning Commission September 22, 2015 Regular Meeting Page | 37 DRAFT DRAFT Cm. Bhuthimethee: Not important. Cm. Kohli: I just had two really quick questions, and then we can proceed. If we can go back to these. One, if this approved tonight — just so I'm clear — there's still no guarantee a school will get built. That is still up to the school district to find the funds to construct the school. Is that correct? Ms. Smith: The superintendent did come to the City Council meeting — I believe it was on March 17th — when they approved the MOU, and stated that the cash is there to build the school. Cm. Kohli: But again, the school still has to execute, and the City is not in control of that process. Ms. Smith: I'll be clear. Part of the deal points, we are not going to provide the site to the district until they have demonstrated that they have the ability to construct that school. Cm. Kohli: Okay. The second question I have is does any of what I've heard is called a "school benefit fee" from the developer — or this benefit fee; let's drop the "school" — going towards actual construction of the school? Ms. Smith: That's the deal and arrangement between the district and the developer. And my understanding in reviewing their staff report is it can be used for any purpose. Cm. Kohli: And we might get a chance to ask questions of the developer regarding that deal? Can we do that in this forum? Ms. Smith: I don't know the relevance to this discussion. Maybe Kit can clarify. Ms. Faubion: Mr. Chair, members of the commission, the purpose of the meeting tonight is to really discuss the land use part of it, and not directly the deals. The importance of the development agreement where a lot of these negotiations pertain is the fact that the development agreement vests the land use approvals that you're going to be making a recommendation on tonight. The negotiation part of it, as you can see, there's been a lot of it, and at a different level, and with different parties than we typically deal with in the land use process. So I think that's probably not an appropriate place for us to go tonight. Focusing on the land use approvals that you're recommending on — that's where the Planning Commission is needed to provide their input. Cm. Kohli: Okay. Thank you. No further questions at this time. Chair Goel: Commissioner Mittan? Cm. Mittan: So I had a question regarding the park in Subarea 3. It appeared that it was somewhat of a horse trading maneuver for this park area. So the City is obtaining Subarea 3 for a supposed park. And what are they obtaining? Is it just park credits? What is the exchange for that? What's the specifics behind that maneuver? Ms. Smith: So the mechanics of the offsetting park land on Subarea 3 is that they will not Planning Commission September 22, 2015 Regular Meeting Page | 38 DRAFT DRAFT receive credit for the amount of acreage that we have lost on Jordan Ranch. So I think the site is somewhere around 10 acres. Mike Porto: Ten and a half. Ms. Smith: Ten and a half acres. Whatever the building area school site is in Jordan Ranch, which we currently believe is close to four acres — 3.7 to four acres — they will not get credit for that similar amount of acreage in Subarea 3, but they will for the balance. So if it's four, and it's 10.5, they'll get 6.5 acres of park land dedication credits to use. Cm. Mittan: I guess my concern with that is, from what I could tell — and I'm basing it upon what's within the document before me — is that it's a vacant lot, obviously, but it's characterized by moderate to steep slopes. So I'm not quite sure that, for the vast majority of the public, they would consider it a usable park, per se, but more of just a purchase of open hillside that is in essence a liability to the City. And that normally this would be an HOA-maintained hillside, not a City-maintained hillside. Ms. Smith: That's correct. So one of the things that the Parks Commission and the City Council adopted is an updated Parks and Recreation Master Plan. And what they did is they came up with a new category of park land for Dublin, called Community Nature Park. And the intention there is to ensure that we have a balance of active and more natural park space. For a variety of reasons. One is people like to walk on trails. They like to hike. So that is the intention of this area, is to become that. To be a place where people can either come from Fallon Sports park, or from the neighborhood square that's directly tied and adjacent to this, and use it for walking and perhaps park course use. It's not intended to be used for active sport activity that you would traditionally see in a flat area. But the council did adopt a community park called Nature Park. We're trying to meet that obligation in terms of acreage in what the plan calls for, which I believe is about 20 acres, of which this would help to get us partly there on that goal. Cm. Mittan: Well, I guess I would dispute the fact that you're providing this as a benefit to the citizens. And I've filled out many of those surveys for the parks, and I've always advocated for more just natural park space for enjoyment of just nature. But I don't know that this fulfills that, in that it's such a steep slope and that, yes, you could sit at the bottom of it and look up. But other than that, I don't know where the benefit arises. I'm trying to imagine what you're going to use this space for. Ms. Smith: So the parks commission and the council will take up that item as part subsequent approvals for the design of the park that would go there. Ms. Faubion: Mr. Chair, if I could just add a little bit to that. I think that some of the impetus for this pretty unique for Dublin feature came out of — I believe it was some of the Subarea 3 public testimony. Where actually members of the public came and said, "You know, wouldn't this be good if we could hike up and have this unique vista?" Planning Commission September 22, 2015 Regular Meeting Page | 39 DRAFT DRAFT Because so much of the Dublin plain is so flat. And there were actually a number of speakers at the Planning Commission hearing that spoke exactly to this kind of a use and acknowledged that it was fairly unique. So it definitely would be unique for Dublin. That's just an example of some of the impetus that came, I think, behind this kind of an urban park. Chair Goel: I think Mike Porto wanted to address it, but while you're getting ready to address it, part of that Subarea 3 — when that change happened for Irongate, they redid that park area. And they had laid out a sketch or a symbolic perspective of how that trail would be walking down the hill. Maybe you could kind of go through that. But then at that time, when that was done, this concept of a community native park wasn't there. But I believe it was still considered part of a community area, park area, and that was not part of an HOA. So maybe we can get some clarity, because those statements were made. Mike Porto: You are completely correct. And one of the things that occurs here in this particular area is this trail along here is a stream corridor. And this stream corridor continues up along the west side of Fallon Sports Park, to Gleason. It turns east to Gleason and goes to Fallon, and then it turns north of Fallon and goes all the way up to the lower opening entrance. I think it's Kingsmill Drive that gets you into the Pinnacles. And this is a trail. It has a 10-foot-wide paved surface adjacent to it. Comes down along here. Crosses the street. Comes down along this area to a neighborhood park. And then continues on down, as part of the project at Dublin Boulevard, to join the east/west trail in this location. Plus we've extended it back to the signal, so that you can get back into Fallon Gateway. Additionally, when the developer proposed the project, they were looking at a trail system that would basically climb to the top of the hill. Something like this that had various elements along it, such as benches and [park course] types of things that Linda expressed, as well as the potential for a connection along this particular area here, out to Fallon Road, to join the sidewalk in this particular area, to bring it in here. The parks and recreation folks have been looking at augmenting what was originally proposed in this area and creating additional facilities along that trail, up to the top for the view aspect of it, to include as part of the improvements that will ultimately be made in this area. Cm. Bhuthimethee: I might be getting my parks mixed up, but is this the one where there was the trail with the artwork? Mike Porto: No. Different project. Cm. Mittan: Regarding the Jordan Ranch properties under discussion — developments. One had, I believe, 45 visitor parking, and the other one, what was it, 105? Mike Porto: Mmm-hm. Planning Commission September 22, 2015 Regular Meeting Page | 40 DRAFT DRAFT Cm. Mittan: Okay. Is it anticipated that if, and probably will, there's overflow parking, would that flow onto Central? Or is there an area where that parking would go, just by nature? Such as with the condos at the courtyards and the terraces and all that, where it's flowing out onto the neighborhood streets. Mike Porto: Well, as I mentioned in the presentation, we recently changed our parking requirements. And they used to be a half-stall per unit, or one guest stall for two units. And we've changed it recently to one guest parking stall per unit. Since we've done that, with the projects that have been approved, we haven't really noticed any kind of a particular issue. If it was to spill over, the only area to spill out of the 45- unit project would be onto Jordan Ranch Drive. And one side of Jordan Ranch Drive is currently designated as "no parking." So it would have to go onto the north side of Jordan Ranch Drive, along the frontage of the homes that are there. That's not anticipated. Since we've increased the standard twofold, basically, that it's not going to be an issue at this particular instance. Cm. Mittan: Thank you. You have a number of units that are view units. And the fencing on those would be hard fencing or view fencing? Do you know what that would look like? Mike Porto: Generally the way these units are set up, the only units that are really view are oriented sort of down at Central Parkway and the units that front Fallon. And the way these units set up, architecturally they are front courtyards and low courtyard walls. So they'd be looking over those. And they'd be seeing out above it. So there's not the typical view fencing that you see up in Positano and some of the homes that have higher elevations with the more significant views. Cm. Mittan: That's it for now. Cm. Bhuthimethee: One more question. I just found one of my notes. So I'm seeing here it says that under — this is back to the parks again — the proposed agreements, the developer would construct and deliver parks. Then it says Jordan Ranch Neighborhood Park and Wallis Ranch Park sooner than they would be delivered. So is that right? So then it'd be three park sites, right? There'd be Jordan, Wallis, and then the school/park site. Ms. Smith: The Wallis piece is not directly related to the school package, necessarily. When you're bundling general amendments, you have to bundle them together, which is why we have Wallis as part of this. The goal with Wallis is to obtain that additional 1.9 acres of public/semi-public to add to the existing acreage of 7.6 acres of community park land, to create more park land. We will be working with the Wallis Ranch developer on an improvement agreement, in which they will go ahead and construct those improvements much sooner than they would otherwise be constructed if we waited for cash flow in the City's program. So that's coming to the council at a future date. Planning Commission September 22, 2015 Regular Meeting Page | 41 DRAFT DRAFT Chair Goel: But I think part of the answer also about the total acreage of the parks is that it's meeting the total park acreage that's supposed to be in the Eastern Specific Dublin Plan. Cm. Bhuthimethee: Yeah, I don't have any questions about all the horse trading with the parks and open space. I have no questions about that. I understand that. But I guess what I'm trying to understand is when you addressed the commission earlier, you said two park sites. And I guess when I'm looking at this, it says Jordan and Wallis, and then we talked about a school/park site. So to me that sounds like three. Chair Goel: Maybe, Mike, you can pull up that diagram that had that little blue wedge out there near the Montessori school. Mike Porto: Sure. Ms. Smith: I apologize if I was confusing in my opening statement. My opening statement pertained to the school package deal, in fact, in terms of the benefit that would be received to that Jordan Ranch area, which would include a joint use school/park site and a neighborhood park being constructed in that area. With Wallis Ranch, our intention is to work with the developer to have them do the improvements for the community park. And if the Planning Commission recommends, and the council approves, this general plan amendment to add additional park acreage, the reason why we're asking them to look at doing those improvements is because if we don't, there won't be money in the cash flow for several years with which to get this park built. So we're going to be working with them to see what we can do about getting this park built when they construct their project, as opposed to — our traditional process has been that we've collected the fees and waited until we had enough money, and then we would construct parks. So that's what we're working on right now. Which is, I think, a separate issue from the action on the general plan amendment. But that will be coming back to the council in short order as well. For a review. Cm. Bhuthimethee: Maybe this is a typo, or am I just understanding it wrong? This is on page three of 22, in the first paragraph, towards the end. And it just says, "However, under the proposed agreements, the developer would construct and deliver the Jordan Ranch Neighborhood Park and Wallis Ranch Park sooner." Chair Goel: So let me maybe try to help out. And, Mike, maybe you need to help me complete what I understand, if it's accurate or not. Inside of the whole arrangement, it's the developers providing $1.6 million towards the net total of Jordan Ranch, which they estimate I think at $1.965 million. And then essentially the City would pay the remainder of that balance, or provide credit of that. The element of construction at the Wallis Ranch location has not been discussed as far as who's paying it. Therefore it would assume — and correct me if I'm wrong — that the City is responsible for that or any other arrangements that are made subsequent. Mr. Baker: Let me try taking a stab at this. So I think your question is, how many parks are Planning Commission September 22, 2015 Regular Meeting Page | 42 DRAFT DRAFT going to be built as a result of this? And in the case of Jordan Ranch, the development proposal is that the developer would build out the neighborhood park in Jordan Ranch. Separate from that, the other park that would potentially be built out is Wallis Ranch, as a separate agreement with the Wallis Ranch developer, Trumark Homes. They would dedicate this land as park, and then build out the Wallis Ranch park as part of their agreement with the City. Cm. Bhuthimethee: So the developer is building out Wallis Ranch Park. Ms. Smith: That is the goal. Chair Goel: Trumark. Not developer of Wallis. Trumark. Mike Porto: And just to acquaint you, the little sliver that we're talking about here — this area here is park, and this area here is park. So they will be building a considerable amount of park land for Wallis. It's not just the little sliver that's here tonight. Chair Goel: Did that answer your question? Cm. Bhuthimethee: Yeah. I think I know where we're going with this. Thank you. Chair Goel: Commissioner Kohli, did you have any questions? Cm. Kohli: Not at this time. Chair Goel: I am debating whether I should ask my questions now or, in the entertainment of the public, come back to my questioning after. Is there an opinion on that? Ms. Faubion: This part of the meeting is for clarifying questions from the commission to staff. If there are factual questions or something that you feel needs to be clarified, this is an appropriate time for those. The actual deliberation and questions related to that would come after the public hearing, when we've had the benefit of both staff and the public input. Chair Goel: And fasten your seatbelts. Here we go. Cm. Mittan: I have another question. Regarding the school size, I'm just trying to get a sense of the size comparison, since it's potentially going to be a middle school, in comparison to the current middle on that side of that town, Fallon. If I'm not wrong, Fallon's about 21 acres. Do you know if that's true or not? Mike Porto: That's pretty close. Cm. Mittan: Whereas this one's approximately 11 acres? Mike Porto: You're speaking of Fallon Middle School, right? Cm. Mittan: Correct. Mike Porto: On Kohnen? Yeah, that's approximately 21 to 22 acres. Cm. Mittan: 21.3 acre. So this site, is it true that this would be 11.1 acres? Ms. Smith: That's a gross number, I believe. It nets just about 10 acres. Planning Commission September 22, 2015 Regular Meeting Page | 43 DRAFT DRAFT Mr. Baker: Yeah, it's approximately 10 acres net. Cm. Mittan: Okay. So less than half the size of Fallon Middle School's site. Would that be an accurate statement? Ms. Smith: Yes. Cm. Mittan: Well, this would be a school district question, but I guess I'm just wondering how you build a middle school on half the site. Mike Porto: This isn't a middle school. It's a K-8 school that has a smaller component of middle school students as part of it. So the size requirement isn't the same as what Fallon Middle School was. Cm. Mittan: Right, but obviously you'd have some of the sports facilities and all these kinds of facilities that you would anticipate providing to those students that are provided at Fallon that would not be provided at this school site because of the lack of acreage, i.e. a track or this kind of idea. Chair Goel: I think maybe a better way to ask the question is, I believe in 2005 or 2010, the school district came back in and they responded to the EIR and made a request, I believe, at some point about the amount of acreage for the original school site. What was that? Ms. Smith: They made a request for an additional acre to the 10-acre site. And they had a time period in which they needed to act on that one acre, which was in 2013. They did not act on that one-acre piece, per their agreement. Chair Goel: Okay, so maybe now you introduced another variable. For the original elementary school, it was 10 acres. The plus-one was removed as a result in 2013 and now the 10 acres also was removed as part of an expiration of the developer's agreement? Mr. Baker: No. So originally there was a 10-acre site identified for the school in 2010. There was an opportunity for an additional acre. There was a term in which they had to exercise that decision, and they did not. So what was left was the 10-acre parcel. Chair Goel: So is the 10 acres gone, or is that part of this transaction? Mr. Baker: That's part of this transaction. They would be moving to a different future site. Chair Goel: So part of that 10-acre was part of I think a May City Council action? Ms. Smith: So I'll clarify. I've heard this term used in the community "swap." There is no swap. Chair Goel: Well, it was a $36 million offset or something of that magnitude. Ms. Smith: Right. If the Planning Commission recommends and the City Council adopts this package, they will not have to expend any money to buy that other 10-acre school site, because they will be ground leasing from us for a dollar per year. Chair Goel: Okay, so let's come back to the 10 acres. The school district still has an option but they need to come up with the money for those 10 acres. Planning Commission September 22, 2015 Regular Meeting Page | 44 DRAFT DRAFT Ms. Smith: At this point in time they have an option. Chair Goel: And those 10 acres are being converted to what is in this plan? Mike Porto: The 10 acres has an underlying land use of medium-density residential that was analyzed as part of the 2012 project that came before the Planning Commission and then ultimately was approved by the City Council. Chair Goel: So it was rezoned? Mike Porto: It basically was rezoned. Cm. Kohli: Clarifying question. It's dual, right? Mike Porto: It's an if/then situation. If the school district doesn't move forward with the project, then it can be developed for medium-density residential uses. Chair Goel: So this package could potentially erase that option. Ms. Smith: This package will erase that option. Chair Goel: Thank you for that clarifying point. You had more? Cm. Mittan: I don't know if you've heard back from the school district whether it would be something similar to an Amador, where it would be a double-story, maximum use of the space. Mike Porto: We have an approved site plan from the district that fits onto this site with the types of buildings, and Amador is the prototype that they're utilizing here, with a few minor changes here and there. Cm. Kohli: You're talking about for the new site. Mike Porto: For the new site that you see on the board above you tonight. Cm. Kohli: Just trying to get it all sorted out here. Cm. Mittan: Lots of moving parts here. Mike Porto: Lots more parking. Better circulation. Cm. Do: There are a lot of numbers being thrown around here. Can you clarify how many plus/minus homes are being considered in this plan, so we can get some clarification? That's it. Mike Porto: That's the plan. Cm. Do: No more commercial? Mike Porto: No more commercial. Commercial is gone. If this project is approved tonight, there will be a maximum number of units developed on Jordan Ranch of 899 units, which is 165 units less than what was originally approved on this project site. Cm. Do: That's Jordan Ranch. Planning Commission September 22, 2015 Regular Meeting Page | 45 DRAFT DRAFT Mike Porto: That's Jordan Ranch. Cm. Do: Any other developments? Mike Porto: There are no other residential units existing or proposed on the other two sites, in Subarea 3 or in Wallis Ranch. Cm. Kohli: Just to clarify, if for whatever reason this were to not pass, then are we looking at the 2012 numbers? There could then be a max of 964 units with 5,000 commercial square feet and possibly a school? Or let's assume the school's coming, in the original. I just want to make sure that I'm clear. Because when you originally went through the presentation, you had sort of pointed out the 899, comparing it to the 2005 number of units. But it's actually the 2012, right? Mike Porto: At this point it's the 2012 number, correct. Cm. Kohli: Got it. Thank you. Chair Goel: Well, hold on. Is it or isn't it? Here's the reason why I'm asking that question back again. You said there's an underlying rezone. So underneath the underlying rezone, let's say the school district finds the money. Bonds gets some money, it falls out from the sky. If that underlying rezone was not there, it's really the 2010 numbers. Mike Porto: It's really the 2012 numbers, minus 100 units. Chair Goel: So 864, which is less than 899. Mike Porto: Correct. Chair Goel: Understood. Mike Porto: Remember, in 2012 the mixed use site was created on Fallon for 115 units and 5,000 square feet of retail. And we're reducing that to 45 units to offset the impacts to the school improvements on the south side of Central. Chair Goel: I guess what I'm trying to say is that “if/then” is not depicted in these numbers. Mike Porto: Well, it would be if the school district exercises the option for the existing school site, finds the money to buy it, then it would be developed as a school. Chair Goel: This is presented as the school district does not have the funding. Mike Porto: The original way this was set up back in 2012, the district did not know if they wanted or needed the E5 school site. So it was set up so that in the event that the school district didn't need the site, there was an underlying land use available there to develop the property, so that we didn't have to come back again for another general plan amendment on the project. So that's how it was originally put together. Chair Goel: So it went side by side. Mike Porto: Exactly. Planning Commission September 22, 2015 Regular Meeting Page | 46 DRAFT DRAFT Chair Goel: I got you. I'm going to go ahead and start some of my questions. And maybe if others want to chime in or have some clarifying, they can. Ms. Faubion: Are these your clarifying questions? Chair Goel: These would be my clarifying questions. That's why I asked before. Ms. Faubion: Great. Thank you. Chair Goel: And I'm now trying to go back because things went back and forth. Relative to the terms of the MOU with the Dublin School District, my understanding is they have asked for this new position or new location. Is that correct? Ms. Smith: Yes. It has come out of a series of discussions with the district. Chair Goel: So did they ever revisit their comments regarding acreage and what would be the minimum required? I guess what I'm trying to get at is, they're entertaining this K8 concept. They recently finished an Amador school. Do we know the acreage on the Amador? Ms. Smith: It's about the same amount of acreage. About a 10-acre site. Chair Goel: Ten acres. And how much is this? Ms. Smith: Ten acres. Chair Goel: I don't think it is. Mr. Baker: The new site, there will be a joint use of school and park land. So the school will be using some of the park land. Ms. Smith: During the day it will function as a school. And after school hours it will function partially as a park. Chair Goel: Okay, because I thought I heard somewhere along the way that it's around 4.6 is what's gonna be allowed for the use. Mike Porto: 3.7. Ms. Smith: That is the building area of what would be considered the school/park site. They would have utilization of that during the school day. And after school hours it would be open to the public, and on the weekends. Chair Goel: So the responsibility of developing the park land, or school grounds — it's one of those confusing. Let's say it's a running track or whatever. That's the responsibility of the school district? Inside of here it says specifically that the Planning Commission's not purview to the deal point. So I'm trying to understand it. But yet somewhere else in the package we see the deal points as an attachment, which almost makes it part of the assumption that we're approving that. Ms. Smith: There are a series of different deals going on here. So the City has a deal with Planning Commission September 22, 2015 Regular Meeting Page | 47 DRAFT DRAFT the district that's not subject to this review, which is the deal points that we've outlined and took the Council on March 17th of this year. And in this deal points we talked about the ground lease, we talked about the things that they will do for us and we will do for them. And they will build this facility and maintain this facility on the City's behalf. And the City will gain use to this as a park site. So that's what that deal is, separate from the Development Agreement deal terms, which are simply related to the community benefit for the construction of the neighborhood park and the affordable housing and the vesting for five years of these new units. The units that are being proposed tonight. Chair Goel: So now I need to understand a little bit back about the school site original 10 acres, the underlying. Inside of the original development agreement, was there any expiration or a requirement to execute or develop by, for the school district? So in other words it would be auto-revoked. So it would maintain as a school site, unless it comes back through here for — I'm not understanding how this underlying piece kicks in. Ms. Faubion: From the land use perspective — and somebody can maybe take this from here — the dual designation means it could be developed as medium-density residential, which is the underlying land use designation, but still land use designation or a school. So that's what the general plan map says. And the environmental review analyzed both of those potential uses. Chair Goel: Maybe my question is, what's the trigger? Currently it's a school site. It has an underlying rezone. What forces it to change? Is it the school district saying, "No, we don't want the land"? Or is there a timeline? Ms. Smith: There is no timeline. So if in fact the Planning Commission recommends and the Council takes into action approving this package, they will no longer have rights to that property. Because the City has the powers to zone property. They will not have a right to acquire that site following the actions that we're asking you to take. Chair Goel: So maybe I need to back up one more step to better understand it. Because I'm trying to frame this so I can make a choice. The 10 acres that the school district has access to has a fee of $30 million or what? Ms. Smith: They have to buy at fair market value. Chair Goel: Where does that money go? Ms. Smith: That money goes to the developer. It's their property. We don't own it. The school doesn't own it. Chair Goel: So that triggers that original discussion that would have worked between the City and the school district for that offset of cost, to enable potentially this to occur? Ms. Smith: So when we brought forward this proposal to the Council in March of this year, we said that providing them an alternative site, in looking at a joint use school/park site, would relieve the district of having to expend money to purchase lands. And we valued that at Planning Commission September 22, 2015 Regular Meeting Page | 48 DRAFT DRAFT approximately $30 million, or three million dollars an acre. So it was more of a testament to what it cost to buy land, and the cost associated with the district's need to buy land. And they don't have that money to buy it. Chair Goel: If I have to look at it based on what the zoning is, the school district has access to 10 acres currently. Mr. Baker: Yes. Chair Goel: And now they have access to an additional optional location that the City has graciously provided. Ms. Smith: They will no longer have access to that other school site, following these actions. Mr. Baker: It's one or the other. Chair Goel: But the agreement that happened in March, that's already done, right? Ms. Smith: No. We entered into a memorandum of understanding with the school district — the City and the school district — related to the use of the community park site as a school/park site. Once actions are taken to the affirmative to allow the developer to vest those units on that 10-acre parcel of the original school site, they will no longer have a right to purchase that site. Their option will be working with the City on the ground lease agreement, which we intend to bring back next month to the council for consideration, provided that there is an approval of this package. Chair Goel: It's really critical that we understand this, because I've been seeing a lot of messages come across. And it's just important to really understand. The 10 acres is technically still there. There is an MOU that's in place. Basically if the MOU is executed and this occurs, the 10 acres over here goes away. And then the underlying triggers in, and those parcels become vested. So this is all tied. Ms. Smith: The original school site becomes vested if the Planning Commission takes an action and the council takes an action to vest them via the development agreement. Chair Goel: So currently those are considered non-vested? Ms. Smith: That's correct. Chair Goel: Because everyone's tracking this bank account number of units. I'm just telling you that's out there. Ms. Faubion: Mr. Chair, if I can add again, we're kind of getting into a little bit of a weedy patch here. And I think for some of the public, they perhaps might be having a little difficulty following it. One thing I think, though, that might be helpful is — there's clearly been a lot of negotiation. And it may help to say that we have not had the school district objecting to this package of projects. I don't want to take us further into a no man's land. Chair Goel: I can respect your opinion on that. But I know some of the people sitting out there and others that are not here have asked these questions. Ms. Faubion: I'm just referring to the letters in the record. Planning Commission September 22, 2015 Regular Meeting Page | 49 DRAFT DRAFT Chair Goel: It's my responsibility at this point. Because this is about a total review about a land use designation. And that's underneath about our purview. Is that correct? Ms. Faubion: And the land use designation is proposed for that 10-acre — I think it's actually 9.2 acres — of neighborhood seven that's proposed for residential development. And I have not seen any letters from the district saying, "Please don't do that." And we have had letters and evidence in the record showing that the district has been participating in the package for having a school site on the 3.7 acres. That's all just what's in the record. Chair Goel: I'll table that. That's fine. Cm. Kohli: Just a quick clarifying question so I understand. So if this package does not pass tonight, and things stay as is — and you guys may have said it — Ms. Smith: Clarifying, Commissioner Kohli — it wouldn't stay as is. Your recommendation to the council would be to deny. And they would take an action. Chair Goel: I have not made a recommendation. I have not even taken a position. Ms. Smith: I'm not suggesting that, Chair. Chair Goel: I'm merely trying to understand the package in front of us so I can make a choice. Ms. Smith: Chair Goel, I'm referring to the statement that Commissioner Kohli made. Cm. Kohli: No, I get it. So I stand corrected. Ms. Smith: I just want to clarify that this wouldn't stop here. It would continue on with a denial to the City Council if no one wanted to do this. Chair Goel: It's just a recommendation. Cm. Kohli: Sorry for the confusion. So what I'm seeking clarification on — and you might have said it earlier — is there some sort of expiration on the school district for them to act on the current land that has been allocated this dual designation of semi-public and medium- density? Or there's no sort of expiration here? Do they have to act and make a decision on this land? Okay. That's all I just wanted to clarify. Thank you. Ms. Smith: I said no. Chair Goel: When I was reading page five of 22 — if you don't mind flipping over there — end of the paragraph, there's a missing portion of the sentence. It says, "Wallis Ranch is vacant but under..." Hope it's not underwater, but... Mike Porto: "Construction." The word is "construction." Chair Goel: Construction. Can you please amend that for City Council? Mike Porto: Certainly. "Construction." Just finished paving the streets yesterday. Chair Goel: Sorry, we went through a lot of questions, so it threw me all off. Going through the first amendment to the development agreement, Attachment 1, Exhibit A. Can you explain Planning Commission September 22, 2015 Regular Meeting Page | 50 DRAFT DRAFT items "G and "I" in more clarity? Because this goes back to the whole numbers stuff that I'm messed up with based on 2012 approvals. I think, Mike, you're most probably going to be best versed at this. I'm actually enjoying you sitting and getting up. Mike Porto: I haven't been here in a while, so... Mr. Baker: So to clarify, your question was in regard to the development agreement. Chair Goel: First amendment to the development agreement. Attachment 1, Exhibit A, paragraphs "G" and "I." And part of me asking this is this is a different set of numbers than those. So it could be I'm not understanding the sequence or something. I think "I" is tied to 2012. Is that correct? Is that the change from 2010 to 2012? Mike Porto: So that we all get to the right place, you're speaking to the paragraph that starts out — "I" — "the subsequent project approvals also will reduce..."? Is that the sentence you're referring to? Chair Goel: Correct. Last sentence of that. Mike Porto: "The end result of the subsequent project approvals is to reduce the approved residential units from 964 to 899." Chair Goel: That's the 2012 to 2015 numbers. Mr. Baker: Yes. "I" effectively is addressing what's before you tonight. Chair Goel: So what's "G"? Is that a predecessor? Mr. Baker: "G" is 2010. Chair Goel: It says 2012. Mr. Baker: From 2010 to 2012. As shown on the screen here, you're going from 781 up to a maximum of 964. Chair Goel: But it says, "From 780 to 864, plus a potential of up to 100 units on the school site." So that's tied to that underlying? Mr. Baker: Right. For a total of 964, which is shown on the screen as the 2012 number. So it's one off for 2010. Chair Goel: I'll give them one. Sorry, this is pretty painful getting this one on a Thursday. There were some letters in here, and specifically maybe it's good to hear it for the public. I guess it's letter 3.1 in your back section, Page 13. Mr. Baker: Chair, you're referring to the comments received on the MND? Chair Goel: Page 13. 3.1. Correct. Letters on the MND. Inside of this response, I guess basically it's addressing the same thing on the parcel in front. So that's Area H. When was Area H disclosed relative to the timeframe of Jordan Ranch being developed? Mike Porto: 2012. Planning Commission September 22, 2015 Regular Meeting Page | 51 DRAFT DRAFT Chair Goel: So the homes on Jordan Ranch Drive... Mike Porto: Were not constructed yet. Chair Goel: In 2012. Mike Porto: Correct. That was the model complex for Brookfield's Mariposa development. Chair Goel: So anything happening inside of there would have been a disclosure requirement relative to Area H would have been discoverable at that time? Mike Porto: Those sound like attorney terms. I can't answer that. Mr. Baker: I don't know that we can speak to disclosure, but it was a known item at that point. So at a minimum, the information was public knowledge. Mike Porto: And the developer was informed of what was going on, and they were notified of the action in 2012. Chair Goel: Okay. And those homes were built after 2012? Mike Porto: Correct. Chair Goel: Just trying to make sure we're addressing everything. If you turn to page 16 of the same questions and comments, comment 3.23. Can you elaborate on the response there? And I'll read the comment and response. It says the open space is the only green area they have in front of us. They hope the brown vegetation will turn green during the winter gains. And then a response: "This comment is noted and will be considered by the Planning Commission and City Council during their deliberation on the project." Is this referring that we're evaluating what's happening to that land as part of that underlying rezone? That response? Mike Porto: I'm having problems following your numbers. Chair Goel: Page 16, Comment 3.23. Ms. Faubion: Mr. Chair, while Mike is looking for that comment, I can perhaps provide just a little bit of CEQA background here. The environmental document is the green-covered mitigated negative declaration that was circulated for public review. It circulated for the public to submit comments on it if they want. The City is not required to provide answers to those comments like it is on an EIR. But in this case because of the interest in the project, the City did prepare responses. So that's the first thing is that's why there are responses that you often don't see in a mitigated ND. The second thing is that the comments that the City responds to, there are those that have to do with environment issues. Something that says, "Well, did you think about this?" or "What about this statement in the mitigated ND?" So when you see a response that says kind of a comment noted, then typically that will be for a comment that doesn't really raise an issue either related to the Planning Commission September 22, 2015 Regular Meeting Page | 52 DRAFT DRAFT environment or to the mitigated ND. Chair Goel: I guess the main reason inside of there is it says that we're going to be considering this. I mean, it says, "comment noted," and then it goes onward, through deliberations. That's why I was just kind of wondering why that got in there. Ms. Faubion: It's in the record. So the decision makers have the benefit of being able to read that comment. And there are other issues besides CEQA and environmental issues that might be of interest or consideration to them. So this just means that the comment will go forward as part of the record to the Planning Commission and City Council. Chair Goel: I'm trying to figure out — this is referring to Area H. Mike Porto: Correct. Chair Goel: It's not considered part of the open space area. That's my main point. Mike Porto: Correct. If you look on the map I just put up on the wall, Area H is in this location here. I'm sorry, Parcel H. These three lots, which comprise the model complex for Mariposa, are the only lots that are exposed to this. This site is significantly below grade. And as a medium-density development, we'll be looking at 45 units. There are already allowable 115 units on this site, which is the low end of the high-density range. So in reality what would probably be built there would be at least four- story buildings. Chair Goel: So that's a good point, and I'm glad you brought that up, because I did have that as one of my questions. Do we have any height range from base elevation to the top? Because I remember that being three stories, and then relative to the grade. Do we know anything like that? Is it impacting their view? I'm trying to understand where their comments were coming. Mike Porto: Well, at this point these are three-story units. I believe we set the development standards at approximately 40 feet. Maybe a little bit below that. And when you look at the difference in grade elevation between the street and where these units are, I believe they're down... Chair Goel: Fifteen feet? Mike Porto: Probably something along that line, fifteen feet. So you'd knock 15 off the 40, and you'd be at about 25 feet. Mr. Baker: Maybe to add to that, too, I think perhaps there's a misunderstanding with the author of that letter that this is not in fact open space, when in fact it currently is zoned to allow a mixed use project, as Mike mentioned, with potential for a four-story building there. So I think there may be a misunderstanding. Chair Goel: This wasn't the school site, was it? Mike Porto: No. Mr. Baker: This is the mixed use site. Planning Commission September 22, 2015 Regular Meeting Page | 53 DRAFT DRAFT Chair Goel: Another good point. I'm trying to understand, where was the original school site, the new school site, relative to Area H, and how would that have impacted Area H? Was Area H always going to have this medium/high density? Mr. Baker: Yes. Chair Goel: And that I think was part of the Irongate thing. Mike Porto: No. Chair Goel: No. It wasn't. Mike Porto: Area H — or Parcel H, as we refer to it — was designated a mixed use site in 2012. At that point the density range that was put onto the property was for 115 units and up to 5,000 square feet of retail, effectively a mixed use project. And that was there in 2012. Look at the map here where it says "proposed land use" or even "existing land use." The existing school site is in blue. Chair Goel: By existing you mean originally proposed? Mike Porto: Originally proposed school site is in blue. And this particular site is the mixed use site here. This is the site that's being proposed to be changed to medium-density residential. Mr. Baker: And can you orient as far as as geographically where that is? Mike Porto: Sure. This is Jordan Ranch Drive to the north, Central Parkway to the south, and Fallon Road to the west. The open space running through the development all the way up into Positano is this area here. This is all considered to be open space. Jordan Ranch Park, the one that they're talking about constructing, is located right here. And both sides of the project are joined with a trail in the middle of the project. Chair Goel: This is helping. And I can tell you it's going to answer some questions that have been asked. Area H was always a mixed use or medium-density. And the portion of the package is the area in the blue. And that's part of those hundred units? Mike Porto: That's correct. Chair Goel: Okay. And that blue on the other side — the bottom blue — is now the new proposed location for the K8. Mike Porto: Correct. Chair Goel: Thank you. I think I'm almost there. I'm going to need help from you, Mike. Attachment to revised initial study, table one. This table was used in multiple locations. I don't even know how to tell you which page number. It is Table one of that document. So what I'm trying to understand now is if you go underneath 2015 and you go "Dwellings — Non- residential" there's a 411 number with a footnote four. And then it's all tied to the medium- density residential. Can you tell me the math logic of how this number is higher but yet the total is lower? I know there's some mixing and matching. But what I'm trying to understand is density wise, overall impacts that are relative to — in some sense, it's the connotation of how many students Planning Commission September 22, 2015 Regular Meeting Page | 54 DRAFT DRAFT are generated out of a house. It's a hot topic. And people are really addressing those issues right now. I'm trying to understand that. Medium density, 411. Which is an increase from the 2012 number. Oh, this reminds me of the other one. I want to point out something. If you go into the initial mitigated negative declaration, page 11. Table one. It's actually 2010-2012, not 2014, approval. Mike Porto: Right, and that's why this is here as a fix-up. Chair Goel: That's the excerpt? Mike Porto: Yeah. I created the chart. I made a mistake. And Jerry corrected it when he brought the things forward. Chair Goel: Can you explain to me the 411? Mike Porto: Not without taking off my shoes so I have enough digits to count from. Chair Goel: I can give you a calculator. It's easier. Mike Porto: Got all night? 115 minus 45 is 70. However we have 105 units on the site. It was originally 110. I'm sorry, not 110. It was originally 105, when it was originally 100. So when you look at that number, the difference is 65. Now, when you go back to the 261, which is I think what your question is, and you look under Note 3, "the dwelling units would only be allowed if the school district designates the property" — which we call Subarea 1, which is the blue site that's up there — "as surplus." Because remember at the time in 2012, the district wasn't sure they wanted this site. That's why we went through the exercise of putting an under lying zoning. Chair Goel: School/no school. Mike Porto: Exactly. So does that make sense from the standpoint of going from 261 to 411, and the difference between — it doesn't. Chair Goel: No, because 361 and 65 is 426. Mr. Baker: So the 261 versus the 411. 261, you add 105 units on the old school site. And you had in 45 units on Parcel H. Chair Goel: Where did 45 come from? Mr. Baker: Parcel H. Mike Porto: Parcel H. Chair Goel: That's the 411. Mr. Baker: That gives you 411. Mike Porto: There's your number. Chair Goel: Gotcha. Okay. Planning Commission September 22, 2015 Regular Meeting Page | 55 DRAFT DRAFT Mike Porto: Thanks, Jeff. Chair Goel: All right. You know my favorite question. This one may call Obaid. Inside of the Mitigated Negative Declaration, page 42, table 12. It talks about a “no-project and with-project” in 2040 the PM. Mr. Baker: Page 42? There's no table on page 42. Mike Porto: In the traffic study at the back. Chair Goel: I'm trying to understand the “Level of Service F” (LOS) there and what's contributing to that. And the reason for me asking this question is we go from a school that was originally proposed at 500. We now are going up to 950, if I remember the numbers correctly. And attributable based on the way vehicles are moving, single-trip generation, is that what's triggering to go to Level of Service F in 2040? Mike Porto: Okay, I'm done. Chair Goel: Told you it was going to be Obaid. Mike Porto: You've exceeded my capabilities. Obaid Khan: So the question is no-project LOS and with-project LOS. So there is no change in the LOS. Is that what you're pointing to? Chair Goel: Right. So am I understanding — this is a level of service F. It's always going to fail. It had nothing to do with the change in status of the school and the PM traffic. Obaid Khan: That is correct. And I think that our level of service criteria is based upon the V/C. “Volume-to-Capacity ratio.” Chair Goel: Okay. And then if you come back to Exhibit E — Statement of Overriding Considerations. You go to the second page there. Bullet number three - Unavoidable Significant Adverse Impacts. What does EDPO mean? Mr. Baker: Eastern Dublin Property Owners. Chair Goel: Supplement EIR. Mr. Baker: The project area has had a number — back in the early 2000s, the original entire Fallon Village area was referred to as EDPO or East Dublin Property Owners or Fallon Village. Jordan Ranch is a subset of Fallon Village EDPO. Chair Goel: So the clarifying question here is this supplemental impact traffic — six, seven, eight, and eleven — essentially are experiencing no change as a result of this project? Obaid Khan: What page? Chair Goel: Exhibit E — Statement of Overriding Considerations, page two, spanning to page three, item three. Obaid Khan: What we are finding with the traffic study, there was no significant impact that we Planning Commission September 22, 2015 Regular Meeting Page | 56 DRAFT DRAFT found. And I think their reason was that the intensity of development has come down for the number of units. And also one of the things that we are finding is that the school trips are really related to the local circulation. So that's why we did the supplemental study that was done as part of the neg dec that you have in front of you, that we looked at the local intersection to make sure that none of those are getting impacted because of school trips. One of the things that I do want you to note that school trip generation was around 2,500 daily trips. Most of those trips are related to people coming from homes, dropping the kid, and going to work. So it's kind of a pass-by length trip, as compared to just the trips. But the analysis that you're seeing is much more conservative. And it's still not showing any impacts. Chair Goel: Part of me that's driving in here is reflecting on what happened at Kolb Elementary when it opened up, relative to the circulation, relative to the safety measures. I forgot what page it was — there were recommendations about the median divide. The idea that you came up with back then. But it's on the main spine road going in and out of that development. And you're going to add traffic there on the thruway. And one of the comments inside of here was that the queue was actually going to back up during the school timings. Obaid Khan: Let's look at what we are talking about. The school time, which is near the bell time, queue buildup, which is different than the level of service analysis criteria. Chair Goel: Understood. Obaid Khan: Okay. So the bell time impacts that are queuing related, we did the separate analysis, which is in the neg dec. It's the memorandum, July 29th, 2015. And it's on page four or five. So one of the things that we are doing here, the way that it was done was we increased the peak hour factor just for the school bell time. So as you know, the peak hour factor for level of service is usually around 0.9 or 0.92. What we did in this analysis, we reduced that level of peak hour factor to make sure that we bump up the surge of vehicles at that specific time, the bell time. So this was done just to address the queuing near the bell time. And one of the things that came out of that; we asked for creating a separate right-turn lane into the school. And that was the 680 feet that you're seeing. Number that's here — the queue length. It's near the Sunset View Drive. Chair Goel: Where is that? Obaid Khan: That's right at the school entrance. Chair Goel: Is that in the front? Obaid Khan: It's right here. So the school entrance would be somewhere in this area. And then Sunset View Drive, which is the intersection that goes into this development, is already a signal there. So the idea is that we want to build a right-turn lane into the school, which would Planning Commission September 22, 2015 Regular Meeting Page | 57 DRAFT DRAFT address the queuing buildup near the bell time. Chair Goel: I have past knowledge about this. I'm just going to make a recommendation for staff to consider right off the bat. Make sure you have some sort of valet dropping, queuing, ability for these students because it's going to be an issue. I'm just going to say it as that. Keep that off the record. Obaid Khan: And one of the things we have done is also created a drop-off zone in front of the school. And inside circulation is similar to what you're seeing at Amador School. Chair Goel: I haven't been up there. Okay, as long as we're learning from our past issues with the school district. Make sure we're guiding the school district to implement correct safety measures through these recommendations. I think that's important. With that, I think I've drained everybody out. You had something to add? Mike Porto: Well, your original question was regarding the Statement of Overriding Considerations. And the Statement of Overriding Considerations was based on the EDPO supplemental EIR. And they are just being carried forward into this document and being restated. So they are not new Statements of Overriding Consideration. They are the old Statement of Overriding Considerations. But when you are doing a CEQA analysis, you bring this information forward and you readopt those. Chair Goel: Right. And I think Obaid addressed that. He basically said that there was no change as a result of this project or these changes being brought forward. With that, if the Applicant is available, they may address the commission. Kevin Fryer: Good evening, Mr. Chairman, fellow commissioners. My name is Kevin Fryer with Mission Valley Properties. I just wanted to start by thanking the Staff, especially Mr. Porto, for significant effort, for City Manager Foss and Assistant City Manager Smith for being here tonight to help walk you through what we set out to do, which was the most complicated 150- unit project in the history of the world. This, as you can see, is the work of a significant amount of effort for those of us who have lived it daily for the last year. It's pretty simple. But obviously it's one that is stacked upon stacked upon stacked. And it's something that is a monumental unique effort that is really rooted, as Ms. Smith started by saying, the unavailability of state funds to help provide some relief to short-term significant growing pains in our schools. So this is really the brainchild of our City manager and the superintendent to look for a creative way to structure kind of a three-party agreement — and actually it's more like five when you consider Wallis and Subarea 3 owners — into a very unique plan and a very unique solution. I know it's one that creates a lot of discomfort these days with the addition of non-vested units to the plan. But in big picture what we're looking at is an 899-unit project on a site that was studied for 1,064 originally. And taking what was to be a school site purchased from the school district, and using that same method of valuation to allow us to sell that property to a homebuilder instead. So it's a use or a value that was always intended to be part of the Jordan Ranch plan, a project that started in 2008, before many of you were here on the commission. This now represents the final piece of work that we started in late 2007 and early 2008. So it's a pretty significant time and financial investment. The overall plan remains something that we're incredibly proud of. This particular interwoven, confusing mix is perhaps the coup de Planning Commission September 22, 2015 Regular Meeting Page | 58 DRAFT DRAFT grace of this rather complicated project. But it's something that we think is a great result for all of us, really; for the City, for the schools, and for our project. The district has unanimously adopted a memorandum of understanding that has the deal points of this agreement that we've cut with them. That agreement is I think next up on their agenda this evening. So we're hopeful that tonight represents a great step forward, both here at the commission and at the school district, in trying to complete this process. There have been a lot of questions. I'm going to make myself available for them. We have our team here: Ms. Bonnano with The Dahlin Group, our architect; The queen of Green, Linda Gates, with Gates and Associates is also here, and myself. I know there have been some things circling. There are some specifics that I can try to hit on for any of you. I'm happy to answer, if there are additional questions or clarification I can offer to the significant help you've gotten from staff tonight. Chair Goel: Any questions of the Applicant at this time? Cm. Mittan: Not at this time. Chair Goel: We'll go ahead and open the public hearing. I know I have something up here. You want to guide me through this? Mr. Baker: There is a letter from the school board president. And she submitted that to the Planning Commission and asked that it be read into the record. So if you would read that for the record, that would be appreciated. Chair Goel: So you're going to test my reading skills at this time of the night. I'm going to abbreviate this first portion. "Dear Commissioners, I am writing to you today to express my concern about an item you will be discussing at your meeting tomorrow night. Unfortunately I am unable to attend as the school board has a regular board meeting at the same time. "As you are all aware, Kevin Fryer's request to have the 150 additional homes he would like to have vested as a part of his project will be coming to you Tuesday night. I would like to give you some perspective about why it’s important for this project, unlike the last three — Trumark, Jerry Hunt (aka the Green) and the Promenade — to be approved. "We at the DUSD have been working very hard with the City and the developer to come to an agreement so that we are able to build a K8 school in this development. We have spent countless hours meeting, consulting with our lawyers and planning so that this school can get built. "I'm sure you're sick of hearing about how the state has failed us, but it is the reason we are in this situation. We never thought for a second we'd be having to pay for an entire new school until recently. "The governor's decision to stop funding school construction is only a couple years old. We unfortunately never knew this could or would happen. Thankfully there will most likely be a ballot measure in 2016. But until then we are working hard at finding solutions for our Planning Commission September 22, 2015 Regular Meeting Page | 59 DRAFT DRAFT community. "We cannot purchase the land set aside for us by Mission Valley, which by no means is their fault. We have come to an agreement with the developer and City to acquire the land on Central Parkway for this school and have also found the means to build it. "Most of Kevin Fryer's project is in fact already vested. The difference these 150 homes will make is insignificant due to the trade-off of getting the school site, collecting another $1 on top of the developer's Level 2 fees, and the agreement of the developer to make all of the street improvements needed on the new school site. "I am asking you to consider voting to give the council a chance to discuss the project's merits and the hard work and many hours that have been devoted to finding an agreement that works for everyone. "I know more homes is not what the residents want. But do they also want to face the alternative? We will be forced to look at boundary changes, diverting students —hundreds from the east to west — and possibly placing portables on Nielsen to house the kids that are coming due to all the vested properties that will be built regardless. "Here is some info for you to digest: If these units get vested he is still building 65 less homes than what is on the original plan. He originally planned for 964. Of those 749 are already vested, and he is asking for 150 more unvested, which totals 899. "That is 65 less units than originally planned. And while we know that the medium- density may bring a few more kids than high-density, the difference is somewhat insignificant in this case since we will have a school. "Although I understand the interest in stopping all unvested properties, this is not a good idea on this particular project. MOST of his units are vested and he will build them no matter what. So, the 749 units will come and we will have NO school because the City cannot give us the land if those units are not approved. "I do know that a large contingency of residents concerned about the development on Parcel H, would like to see their view preserved by not allowing two-story or higher homes built —something I recently learned. "Please, I urge you to at least agree to allow the City Council to take the matter up. We will be there, my board and Dr. Hanke, to speak about the process we've been through regarding this particular project and why we support it. "Thank you for taking the time to read this long email. I have attached some documents I think you might find interesting. Please don't hesitate to contact me anytime with questions or comments. Sincerely, Amy Miller, President, Dublin Unified School District Board of Education." Chair Goel opened the public hearing. The Planning Commission wants to hear all citizens' concerns. Each new speaker is asked to be brief, adding new information, and not repeat points which previous speakers have made. The Planning Commission is particularly interested in the specific reasons why the speaker is for or against an item. Applause and other demonstrations are prohibited during Planning Commission September 22, 2015 Regular Meeting Page | 60 DRAFT DRAFT public hearings. Such demonstrations tend to intimidate those in the audience who may have valid but opposing viewpoints. So at this time if any member of the public would like to address the Planning Commission, now is the time to do so. If you are doing so, you need to feel out your speaker cards. And there'll be a countdown that gives you three minutes. Any speakers? Shruti Nanji: Good evening. Chair Goel: Make sure for the record you state your name, and then afterward you can go ahead and turn that in. Shruti Nanji: Okay. My name is Shruti Nanji. I live in the Jordan Ranch community. And I am supporting slow growth. So less residential in that area. I'm concerned with the density. For Parcel H they will be doing a medium-density now and I'm concerned about that. I would have preferred a low-density area for Parcel H. Also the drought concerns me. This might not be a big concern to most people, but just wondering why construction is going forward, because we currently have a drought in California, and why this is an accelerated growth in Dublin in terms of housing. We do have a lot of supporters in our neighborhood that support slow growth and keeping that as open space. We do support schools, but of course in the interest of the residents in that area. Thank you. Chair Goel: You can just go ahead and turn in your speaker card. You can approach the podium. Elisabeth St. John: I'm Elisabeth St. John. I also am a Jordan Ranch resident. To just back up Shruti's comments, we're also in favor of slow growth. Our first comment would be, again, it's medium-density residential. Perhaps it could be considered to go to low-density residential if it is to be acquired. And what I'm hearing recently is that if, say, this development doesn't go forward, then we won't be getting the school. So perhaps there could be some sort of a concession made from a medium-density to a low-density for this region. And I was also wondering, as a question, whether or not a follow-up environmental impact report has been done since 2012, given all of the new developments that are currently all in that area. That open space has really become a lot more populated with wildlife. So I've seen everything from a higher density of birds kind of being now all pushed into this area, hares, and I've even seen foxes in that area. So I was just wondering if there has been an updated environmental report since 2012, because now there is all that development that has gone on there. And then I also have questions related to the development. If what's currently being proposed has to go forward, I'm really concerned about the traffic issues actually coming up into the Jordan Ranch road right there. I noticed they have an entrance and an exit. That exit actually goes right onto Jordan Ranch. And currently there's only a one-way entry and exit there, and then that would force all the traffic up north within all of this residential. And I find that would be too much into where the development is. I wish there was a Planning Commission September 22, 2015 Regular Meeting Page | 61 DRAFT DRAFT figure. But I have a question as to why that was actually done like that. And then the follow-up to that is, it's a really steep slope where that is, actually. And there's a big walkway that's there. And so I'd be concerned with vehicles coming up and not being able to see either way because it's a really steep grade right now. And there's a walkway right there. So that's my third concern about that. There's a really nice walkway that goes all the way along there right now. So why not just build up the edge of that hillside as well, if that's something. I'm trying to hit this from all different angles. Like, if this is worst-case scenario, and all of the downstream. So if there would be some sort of common thoughts from the community with respect to the current design. I guess those are my comments for now. So, thanks. Chair Goel: Thank you. Mr. Baker: And both speakers, if you would please fill out a speaker slip and deliver it to Debby here at the end, that would be great. Thank you. Chair Goel closed the public hearing. All right. We're going to go ahead and close the public hearing and return back to the commission for deliberation. I'll start off to my right this time. Commissioner Do? Cm. Do: No comment. Cm. Mittan: Is there a way to pull up a circulation map just to get an idea of what the speaker was speaking to regarding the inflows and outflows of the two proposed residential areas? Is there any comment from staff regarding her concerns in general? Mike Porto: Well, we did have a concern relative to this. The fact of the matter is that right now you cannot make a left turn. You can see the opening here. And it's a one way in, or a left in only. You cannot make a left out. However, these residents here would have the opportunity here to come out this driveway and get into the left-turn pocket and go south on Fallon Road. Current existing residents in this portion have to go up through the project all the way to Vinton, come out Vinton, and then onto Positano Parkway, and come down. So these people will have an advantage and will not have to go through their neighborhood. That's why this is here in this location like this. This would be primarily used for people coming home, who'd come up Fallon and make a right turn into the project as they would not be able to make a left turn because of the median in this location. So the impact of these people going into this neighborhood would be reduced. So it has been considered. Chair Goel: You can say it the other way around. Jordan Ranch can use that as an exit point. Mike Porto: That was a concern to staff, and we looked at various alternatives such as gating, speed bumps, and things like this. And we do have a concern about that and we are working towards that with the developer once the project gets into construction and through civil engineering, to find a way to help keep the cut-through traffic because these streets are not public streets. This is a private development. And so bringing public traffic to a private Planning Commission September 22, 2015 Regular Meeting Page | 62 DRAFT DRAFT development is a concern to staff. So we are working with the developer relative to that. Chair Goel: And regarding the line of sight/steepness issue? Mike Porto: Without trying to be too engineering-oriented, the only way I know to describe it is a vertical curve. And in order to get out onto the street, there would be a vertical curve such that the cars would be relatively up to the hump and would be level with and be able to see both directions before they cross the trail that's there, to get out onto the street. But again, there'd be very few going north, most of the people are considered to be going south. Commercial development is south. The freeway is south. Most everything going from this site would be south. And they would be going out this particular driveway to do it. Even if they were going to the school, they'd be going to the corner, making a U-turn, and returning back. So realistically the use of that driveway is going to be fairly limited. Chair Goel: Commissioner Do? Cm. Do: Well, on another note, I've seen people make that left, even though they're not supposed to, many times. Mike Porto: It's hard to squeeze through there, but... Cm. Do: But they've done it. I've seen so many do it, unfortunately. I'm having mixed feelings about this project. I love the idea of the school. But I also have that issue with changing mixed use to medium-density. I'd like it to be low if we were going to do more homes because we don't need more homes. And that's probably part of the reason why we have the school issue, because we are getting more homes and more residents, and not enough schools. So it's one of those things that I'm split. And so right now that's all I have. Chair Goel: Commissioner Mittan? Cm. Mittan: So as you're going along Fallon Road here from Parcel H, that's a downslope there? Mike Porto: It's a downslope in this area here. It's an upslope in this area here. And it's relatively at grade right in this location here. Cm. Mittan: Is there sound buffering or a wall? Mike Porto: No. It's open. It's very similar to Tassajara Road north of Gleason. How the units front onto there with a frontage road. It's very similar to that. And there's no sound attenuation in that particular area. It's far enough back, and the units themselves block the sound for units further inside the project. Cm. Mittan: I used to live off there. I moved because of it. Cm. Bhuthimethee: I know that we've all been very focused on the deal. But I just wanted to mention, too, we still have an SDR we're looking at, too, possibly. Chair Goel: Correct. Planning Commission September 22, 2015 Regular Meeting Page | 63 DRAFT DRAFT Cm. Bhuthimethee: And I guess when I'm looking at this, I'm looking at some of the elevations and they vary from Jordan Ranch — the duets versus the pull-apart towns. And the pull-apart towns are so much more attractive than the duets. What happened to the poor duets? Chair Goel: Would you like the applicant to come? Cm. Bhuthimethee: Is it still open? Chair Goel: Can we reopen it for the applicant to address it? Mr. Baker: At a majority vote of the commission, you could reopen the public hearing. Cm. Kohli: I'll make a motion to reopen the public hearing. Chair Goel: Kit, you might want to chime in. Ms. Faubion: That's right. You can re-open the public hearing on a successful motion. So if there's a second and the majority of the commission wishes, then you can reopen the public hearing for the purpose of answering the question. Cm. Mittan: I'll second the motion to reopen the public session. Chair Goel: All in favor? All: Aye. Chair Goel: Okay. Ms. Faubion: That was unanimous, for the record. Chair Goel: I'd like to request the applicant to come forward, please. Kevin Fryer: So the question was what happened to the duets? Cm. Bhuthimethee: The poor duets. Kevin Fryer: The poor duets. Well, I would gladly blame my architect. So I could welcome her to the microphone to try to address some specific questions about the duets. We quite like them, actually. But I assume everybody's got their own opinion. Mike Porto: Let me help a little bit. Kevin Fryer: Maybe Mike has a thought, and then Emily can come up and address them. Cm. Bhuthimethee: They just look very flat. Mike Porto: There's a lot of undulation on them, if you look at the floor plan. The patios that are on the front of the homes are quite unique and quite large compared to what we're getting on some of the others. The architecture is using the same materials that we're using throughout Jordan Ranch. And these units themselves are very similar to the units the Planning Commission has reviewed and approved as part of Wallis Ranch. They are more of a contemporary farmhouse, Planning Commission September 22, 2015 Regular Meeting Page | 64 DRAFT DRAFT rather than more of the traditional type of board-and-batten farmhouse you're used to. So it's a contemporized version of the remainder of Jordan Ranch, but utilizing the same materials. Kevin Fryer: And that was really an intentional choice. And to speak to some of the comments about low-density residential at the same time of the architecture, as an introduction into Jordan and kind of the theme of the architecture throughout the project, in what is really our most sort of urban and intense location because we're at a corner with heavily-trafficked Central and Fallon. We looked at, what, 47 different version of the site plan together on Parcel H? Mike Porto: Many. Many. Kevin Fryer: And probably at least three, maybe four, different housing types. And sort of came to a consensus over time that a less dense plan was going to impact our plan to provide some of the community benefits as part of this process. It was actually going to produce more students on a per-unit basis than more dense. And was a less appropriate land use concept, given the sort of intensity of this location, than medium-density. So it was sort of, again, a balancing act of lots of pieces. But we thought that this was a way to sort of introduce the theme from an architectural standpoint. We thought it was a nice way of introducing the theme of Jordan in kind of an intense and urbanized location with a slightly urbanized version of that architecture. Cm. Bhuthimethee: One of my concerns would be that in such a dense area — or it's not so dense, but in this denser than low-density area, there are only two elevations to choose from. You have the farmhouse and you have the rural contemporary. I just feel like in such a small area, there might be more variation. Kevin Fryer: Well, we have 45 units. So I think our sense was that that was an appropriate amount. But I guess if we wanted to look at trying to add an additional elevation type within, we could look for ways to... That's true also. So Emily was just noting that the 109 townhomes in the southeast corner of the property (Kingsmill that is being built now by LandSea there) has two elevation styles within those 109 units, with some variations on them as you move through. But if there was a specific request to try to add some variety to elevation stylings within those 45 units, I'm sure we could figure out a way to craft a condition to that effect and work with staff to try to achieve that. Cm. Bhuthimethee: Thank you. Chair Goel: Any other questions for the applicant? Cm. Mittan: So when I'm looking at the elevations, is this stone work on the face of them? Mike Porto: Where are you looking? Sheet number? Cm. Mittan: A13-01. Mike Porto: Oh, right here. The big elevation on the front. You want to tell them, Emily? Let Emily tell you. She's the architect. Chair Goel: Please state your name. Planning Commission September 22, 2015 Regular Meeting Page | 65 DRAFT DRAFT Ms. Bonnano: Sure. My name is Ms. Bonnano, The Dahlin Group Architecture Planning. And to answer your question about the stone, yes, there is stone along the low courtyard walls in the front. And it does extend up onto the supports of the balconies. Cm. Mittan: Approximately how high? Ms. Bonnano: The courtyard wall is anywhere between 36 and 42 inches high. Above the patio on the inside, it could get a little bit higher if there's grade along the paseos. The porch railing would be 14 feet high, approximately 14 to 15 feet high. Cm. Mittan: Partly what I'm getting at is would the landscaping, eventually as it matures, in essence obliterate that feature? Ms. Bonnano: There may be some in locations where the wall isn't high due to grade in the paseo. It's possible. Cm. Bhuthimethee: What's more is on the corner of Parcel H, I was thinking about that same issue. The first low wall is only two and a half feet, and the next low wall is only two feet. So if we plants in front of that we may lose some of the wall. I don't want to lose the wall. I think it's a very attractive wall. Cm. Mittan: What I prefer not to have is a wall of just plain stucco with little feature. And I know that you're putting feature. I mean, I want the landscaping, too. But then if it's being obliterated — one is being obliterated by another positive. Potentially we need to add more of the faux stone in order to have it as a feature that's more visible. Ms. Bonnano: I understand. Yeah, we could take a look at that, definitely. Chair Goel: Any other questions for the applicant? Cm. Kohli: Just so I understand, can you just go through again on what the reasons were why low-density wasn't going to work? I just want to make sure I understand, as well as the residents that came out tonight who spoke in favor of low-density. Just trying to figure out what was discussed. Why that wasn't chosen. Is there still an opportunity for some sort of compromise there? Just so we're all clear. Kevin Fryer: I guess from our perspective, going from the mixed use designation that allowed up to 115 units, down to medium-density and 45, was a pretty significant concession or reduction in the density of the project. I guess there are really two parts to that for us. It was trying to figure out a land use that staff and I could agree on and was appropriate for the location that addressed some of the political concerns and constraints about intensity of use. And then also being able to ensure that, essentially, this would all pencil. That there was enough residual land value to be able to provide the community benefits both to the district and to the City in the constructed park to make that work. So that took quite a bit of analysis. And like I said, we looked at a variety of plans to try to achieve that balance. And this was the plan that was really the most effective in serving sort of all of those masters. Planning Commission September 22, 2015 Regular Meeting Page | 66 DRAFT DRAFT So for us, while there's open space adjacent to this, this is not open space. This is vacant land that is designated as mixed use and has streets on three sides of it. Fallon being a pretty heavily traveled one. So we spent a lot of time trying to balance the proximity to Fallon, both for livability of future residents of Parcel H, as well as continuing and creating some interest from Fallon as you're driving on that street. So that's why we've got the street there and detached units and the massing that Mike showed you. So we tried to have some lower-density elements in massing and in having detached homes visible from Fallon and then increasing in intensity a little bit as we moved away. I think the duets are really cool, actually, in that they kind of are these detached units that are pretty efficient. By the way, Tara, your earlier question of "Why attach them at the garage at all?" Mike spoke well to it. Really was more efficient. And also creates some expanded garages — wider garages — that provide some additional storage within the garage space or opportunity for storage, at least. We hope that encourages more cars in garages and still room for stuff, like my garage, which is a disaster. So, again, we thought this housing type did a lot of things. It created some variety. It's something that we haven't seen, at least in a long time, in the area. It made Mike say, "Ooh, cool," which doesn’t happen very often, at least in my experience with Mike recently. So it was a blend of a lot of those things. And part of it obviously is the economics. The sort of ugly part of it. But that's necessary. Cm. Kohli: Right. I mean, it's a reality. Kevin Fryer: A reality to make all of this stuff work. Cm. Kohli: Right. And I appreciate your honesty there. When you were doing the analysis and determining what is the best plan for this particular parcel, was there a number that you came up with in terms of if you went to a low-density plan, how many units would actually be there? Kevin Fryer: What we did was some analysis of some less efficient housing types than the duets. So some lower yields. So we looked at some of the four-pack cluster homes that are along the open space, through the middle of Jordan, that Toll Brothers is now building and selling. We also looked at the pulled-apart townhomes. We looked at townhouses. So more intense stuff. And I don't know that we found an exact breaking point in some of those lower- density uses. I think that we just sort of collectively agreed and internally felt like when we looked at those less dense uses, they just didn't seem to fit as logically in this location, I think in all of our minds. And they also didn't pencil in such a way that would allow us to kind of hold together the balance of this sort of tenuous mix of things. So difficult question to answer exactly. Just more of a, we looked at these things in snapshots over time. And we thought this was the best combination of all the things we were trying to achieve. Planning Commission September 22, 2015 Regular Meeting Page | 67 DRAFT DRAFT Cm. Kohli: Last question on this topic. You mentioned one of the other factors that's being considered here — the economic impacts in terms of what this package is all about. So if you had looked at a low-density solution for this area, do you have anything that you can share, or some sort of estimate? Where is the gap there in terms of the economics? What are we looking at? Kevin Fryer: There are a lot of things that happen when you reduce density from an economic perspective. You typically increase the size of the house. You increase the price of those houses. So there are some unintended consequences when we lower densities where we're providing less diverse housing stock and we're creating less supply and larger houses that are more expensive. From a land perspective, as the seller of land, each individual lot is worth more money, as a result of the house being more expensive. But you can find kind of this middle ground where you can find something that's a little more intense from a density perspective, a little less valuable, but kind of fits into that niche that you're trying to find that balances all of these concerns. So not sure if that exactly answers your question, but... Cm. Kohli: No, it gives me an idea. Kevin Fryer: Is there a breaking point? Was that the specific question? Cm. Kohli: Yeah. I guess that's a good way to put it. Kevin Fryer: So, yes there is. What is it exactly? Hard to say. I can just tell you that we feel like we're putting a very, very strong effort into making economic sacrifices and commitment to try to pull this all together. The primarily goal for us is some certainty here, in that we don't know if and when the district will be in a position to purchase this site. Without their ability to do that, there's an economic impact on us and there's obviously a significant impact — the uncertainty there is quite a risk for the community and the impact on the schools. Cm. Kohli: Thank you. Kevin Fryer: And the last thing I'd like say, while there's an opportunity — one of the comments about this site was concern about the impact on the biological — used the term "environmental." Obviously the environmental impacts were studied as part of the MND. From a biological perspective, when we processed the agency permits with all the agencies that have jurisdiction over critters and waters, this area was assumed to be impacted from my original permitting with Fish and Wildlife, Fish and Game, Regional Board, Army Corps, back in 2010. So this has always been a site that was assumed to be impacted. In fact, in its previous days, when we first bought the site, this was the homestead site. This was gravel parking, a house, two or three barn structures. It was a fairly improved area. We've removed all of those. We've actually cleaned up the site. There was an underground storage tank there. So there's been some improvement Planning Commission September 22, 2015 Regular Meeting Page | 68 DRAFT DRAFT from an environmental perspective. The tough part about waiting is that you get the weeds coming, and birds and rabbits and such. You do have 48 acres of open space that are permanently conserved. You see that dividing line there as you're looking towards the bottom of that picture, but to the east of Parcel H That will always be open space in perpetuity. That's the area that we've conserved, improved, maintained, and put the trails up along. And there will be exclusion and biological surveys done prior to construction on this site. So there are requirements in those permits and in our conditions to ensure that the impacts on any species that happened to have populated that area in the intervening time are mitigated through those actions prior to construction. Cm. Bhuthimethee: How many units do we have per acre on these sites? Kevin Fryer: It's roughly 10. It's almost exactly 10 from a gross perspective. 4.5 gross acres, 45 units. Cm. Bhuthimethee: And medium is a range, right? Kevin Fryer: Ten is the midpoint of the medium-density range. Yeah, medium is 6.1 to 14. So we're right at the midpoint. And just over the midpoint on what we're trying to make the former school site, the neighborhood site. Chair Goel: Did you do any evaluation of just going up to two stories, instead of the third? Kevin Fryer: Yeah, so what happens when you do two stories throughout — so the two-story units — are you talking about on Parcel H specifically? Chair Goel: Parcel H. Because I think that was their other point, was low or lower. In height. Kevin Fryer: We pointed out previously that there are five that are fully detached two-story units. Mike can show you the five closest to Fallon Road there that side towards Fallon. That plan is the two-story plan. I think there are 11 or 12 of the 45 units that are two-story. To do that throughout is to significantly reduce the size of these homes and reduce bedroom counts and kind of reduce their utilities. So you get less efficient if you try to do that. You end up taking up more of the land and sort of losing density. So, again, we thought it was kind of an urban edge, and you're moving just internal to the site from this, the first housing product that you encounter as you move in is the three-story town. So this is something of a transition as you come. Two-story off the road, three stories, building towards the open space, and then internal to the project. Chair Goel: You ended up going low along Fallon. Did you evaluate maybe going low along Jordan Ranch? That to me would be the compromise of the transition piece from single-family, moving on into a more dense environment. Planning Commission September 22, 2015 Regular Meeting Page | 69 DRAFT DRAFT I'm just thinking, when you said that — it has a low curb appeal from Fallon. But once you come into Jordan Ranch, all of a sudden you see these higher structures. Kevin Fryer: When you say "low curb appeal" you mean lower — you don't mean it's ugly. Chair Goel: Sorry. Wrong choices. Un-PC words. Mike Porto: That portion of the site is roughly 12 feet lower than Jordan Ranch Drive. So that basically lops off one story. Kevin Fryer: That's right. Mike Porto: So the view to Jordan Ranch Drive is of a two-story unit because those units are in a hole. And there's a series of retaining walls here and here. Two different retaining walls, with a landscape slope in between. And then the houses are below that. The finished floor of the house is roughly 12 feet below this area here and if you account for 10-foot plate lines, so basically you have three nine- foot plate lines. Three times nine is 27, plus the pitch of the roof. You're 12 feet below the street. So roughly he height limit out there is allowable at, like, 38 feet. But lop off 12. You're down to 26 feet, which is the same elevation height of the two- story units across the units. And at the time that the project was proposed, originally 115 units, which would have been four stories, these were the model homes in this location here. Right here. This house sides onto this, and their back is out this way. And relative to what we looked at originally with the project, very concerned about a fence, a wall, a walled community, something backing onto a street, creating basically an element that can be graffitid or an element that just sets the neighborhood into feeling it's not a part of the community itself. So this is an inefficient land plan from the standpoint that this is a single-loaded street and that it really isn't efficient for the property owner. We sort of pushed him into this house, because they don't have houses on both sides. And you don't see very many single-loaded streets in town. Chair Goel: Couple of quick questions on that point. What's the setback from the back-of-curb on Jordan Ranch? Just trying to get an idea. How far is it, really? Six-foot sidewalk? It's, what, 25 feet behind? Mike Porto: Probably at a minimum. Probably even more than that. Chair Goel: Just trying to get a perspective. Because I think part of the reason they're looking for lower density and a lower roof height is feeling of claustrophobia coming down the street. Mike Porto: Something relative in the neighborhood of 40 feet in this particular area right in here. The widest spot. Chair Goel: So 26 feet visible height difference from the crown of the road and it’s 40 feet back from center line or from back-of-curb? Planning Commission September 22, 2015 Regular Meeting Page | 70 DRAFT DRAFT Mike Porto: You asked me for curb face. Chair Goel: Okay. Thank you. That's good. So that's a sizable distance back. And then relative to the single-family homes, do we have a sketch of what they're going to look like? Kevin Fryer: Which ones? Mike Porto: For these here? Chair Goel: The ones along Fallon. The five. Mike Porto: These? Chair Goel: Yeah. Do we have those? Mike Porto: Yes. Chair Goel: I'm missing. Woman: I didn't see them. Mike Porto: You want to go to A13-01. You'll see the two-story unit on the end there. Chair Goel: Oh, is that the unit three detached? Mike Porto: Yeah, that would be the unit three detached. And then if you go further into the package - A13-32. [discussion over which page] Chair Goel: So that's what those are going to look like. Mike Porto: Right. Ms. Bonnano: The right elevation is the one that's going to face Fallon Road on the bottom left-hand side. Mike Porto: Bottom left corner of the plan. Chair Goel: So just looking at consistency then, if you go left on the screen, what is that three- story going to look like, relative to this? Mike Porto: Going which way? This way? Chair Goel: You could go either way. The two sides of the single-family. Mr. Baker: Did you want to point out which ones are the two-story homes? Maybe that would help him. Chair Goel: The two-stories are the five in a line. The five straight in a line are the single- family, correct? Mike Porto: Those are the ones that are detached. Planning Commission September 22, 2015 Regular Meeting Page | 71 DRAFT DRAFT Chair Goel: So if you keep on going left and right — right there and the other side. Mike Porto: Here or here? Chair Goel: You had it correct, the first two corners. Mike Porto: These “rear” onto Jordan Ranch Drive. These “side” onto Jordan Ranch Drive. Chair Goel: As you're coming down Fallon, is it you're going three, drops down, and then going back up? Ms. Bonnano: All the homes along Fallon are all two-story. Mike Porto: This is a two-story, too, Emily, here? Ms. Bonnano: Yes. All the ones on Fallon are two-story. Chair Goel: So you have seven two-story? Kevin Fryer: I think we have 11 or 12 total in the 45 units. The five that we pointed out are detached, but actually that entire edge along Fallon are two-story. It's just that the two on the ends are attached at the garage on one side. Chair Goel: So then that would give me seven. Kevin Fryer: That would give you seven there. Chair Goel: So where are the other four? Are the other four the ones along Jordan Ranch? Ms. Bonnano: The other four are interspersed. Some are along the open space, and some are along Street D. I can give you lot numbers. Lot 12. Chair Goel: Where am I going to see lot numbers? Cm. Do: Lot 19. Chair Goel: Okay, I got it. So lot 12. That's one of the ones along Jordan Ranch. Ms. Bonnano: Lot 9. Chair Goel: Ten and eleven? Ms. Bonnano: Lot 12, lot 9, lot 8, lot 1, lot 14, 15, 24, 25, 34, 35... Mike Porto: If we go up here, we'll go through them. Here's 12. Here's 9. Ms. Bonnano: Lot 8, Lot 1. Mike Porto: And one is down here. Ms. Bonnano: 45, on the corner of Fallon and Central. Mike Porto: 45 over here. Planning Commission September 22, 2015 Regular Meeting Page | 72 DRAFT DRAFT Ms. Bonnano: And then all of the homes that front Fallon. Chair Goel: 35, 34, 25, 24, and 15. Mike Porto: And this one here. Ms. Bonnano: And lot 14 on the corner of Jordan and Fallon. Kevin Fryer: That's 11. Mike Porto: They come in both attached and detached form. Chair Goel: So maybe the impartial ask is; did you consider maybe doing 10, 11, and 13 along Jordan Ranch. Kevin Fryer: No, for the reasons that Mike explained, we didn't. Because they are less efficient, sort of buried in the site, and don't have much visual. Chair Goel: Could you swap? All I'm trying to do is by line of sight, a visual element. Ms. Bonnano: So you're saying we want — Chair Goel: It's an ask. I'm just asking right now. Kevin Fryer: What's the goal? I'm sorry. What's the goal that you're trying to achieve? Chair Goel: Basically dropping the line of sight from the homes up on Jordan Ranch. We have two stories kind of exposed. Kevin Fryer: I understand, yeah. Chair Goel: I'm not saying that that's what I'm asking for. I'm just trying to understand, is it even a possibility? Kevin Fryer: So what I think we can do is commit to look at 10 and 11, to try to look to flop where we have two- and three-story. To try to provide 10 and 11 as two-story. It may have some impact on retaining wall height. Mike Porto: It's going to. Kevin Fryer: According to the width of those units. So I have some concerns. Mike Porto: You're going to have to push that retaining wall. Kevin Fryer: That's why I'm not saying, "Yes, we'll do it." I want to make sure that there aren't some unintended consequences of that that we're not talking about tonight that you might say, "Oh, if I knew that, I wouldn't want you to do it." Chair Goel: Potentially willing to evaluate? Kevin Fryer: Absolutely. Yes. Not as easy to do, unfortunately, on 13, 14. Chair Goel: Well, 14 is already. Planning Commission September 22, 2015 Regular Meeting Page | 73 DRAFT DRAFT Kevin Fryer: Or 13, I mean, because 14 already is. But we don't have a configuration here where we have two-story and two-story together. So in that location, no. But, again, there are maybe fewer homes that are impacted from a line-of-sight perspective in that location. Chair Goel: I think where Commissioner Bhuthimethee was going was, if we did flop it, how does it look relative to the top of the house? Does it start to mess around with it too much? And that’s going to be part of your evaluation. Ms. Bonnano: You'd probably see just the second floor of the house. So the front of the home, the front door, it would be on that side of the street. But you wouldn't see it. You'd only see the second floor of that house from Jordan Ranch Drive. Most likely. Kevin Fryer: So, yes, we can agree to work with staff to evaluate it and look to try to make that change if it doesn't have consequences that staff is not comfortable with. Cm. Bhuthimethee: Can you please just confirm that any of the homes that are siding onto or backing up to any of the big roads like Fallon or Panorama have enhanced elevations? Mike Porto: I can answer that. The quality of their architecture is significantly above the quality of the architecture that we've gotten on some of the other homes. There was no need to use the enhanced elevation for units backing, siding, or rearing onto any of the streets because they carry their material all around the second floor. So they do not have enhanced elevations in their package, because they didn't really need them. Most of Jordan Ranch was set up that way so that we don't have enhanced elevations. Cm. Bhuthimethee: Right. And I just wanted to mention to the architect that the streetscape elevation really doesn’t do the homes any justice. I think the homes are [interrupted]. You can't tell from the streetscape elevation. Chair Goel: Any further questions for the applicant? Cm. Mittan: How does it work with the metal siding for Plan 3A? Where is the metal siding? A10-01 is what I'm looking at. But I'm trying to visualize as to where metal siding would be. Mike Porto: It's right here, Emily. It's on page A13-32. And you have a note that says, "Corrugated metal siding or four-inch vertical wood siding." Ms. Bonnano: That's correct. It would be either/or. It would be corrugate metal siding or it would be the board and bat, or vertical siding. In this particular streetscape it would be where the red color is on the second house in. The other homes that we use in this streetscape don’t have that siding. But it does occur I think once per house, depending on the elevation style. Cm. Mittan: I'm not super familiar with the Jordan Ranch development in general, but is that a feature that's used in other areas or Jordan Ranch, or is that unique to this development? Mike Porto: It's one of the materials that was originally approved as part of the design elements. And it gets picked up in different places and different uses. Not necessarily awnings, but bay windows. You'll find it on the Kingsmill project. We used it in different areas as kind of outcroppings and little features on the buildings themselves. So I think it occurs sporadically. Planning Commission September 22, 2015 Regular Meeting Page | 74 DRAFT DRAFT We're starting to see this a lot now in a lot of our architecture. We're using it a lot in Wallis. So it's starting to be kind of a new element that's sort of seeing its day. Cm. Mittan: What is the maintenance on those? Do they rust out? Ms. Bonnano: No. They should not rust out. Sometimes you can get siding with the [color that's integral] to it. So you don't even need to paint it onsite. Man: Kind of like powder coating. Or [dip]. Ms. Bonnano: Exactly. Cm. Mittan: Okay, thank you. Cm. Bhuthimethee: Just a couple questions. We've had some questions about water usage. And I'm seeing that if this park goes in, is that lawn? What kind of planting is that? Mike Porto: We're using recycled water now for all areas, front yards, parks, and open space areas, everything's recycled now. Just started. It's primarily used in Jordan. Jordan is sort of the guinea pig. And we're converting most of the projects out there now to reclaimed. Cm. Bhuthimethee: So they have the purple pipe going out that way? Mike Porto: They'll have the purple pipe. Cm. Bhuthimethee: And that's for the residences, too? Not just the common spaces? Mike Porto: The front yards. It's a whole new deal that just got started. Chair Goel: Is that it? Any other questions? Cm. Mittan: No. Chair Goel: Closing the public hearing. You didn't want to really do that, would you? Kevin Fryer: I kind of like it. It's weird. I don't know what's wrong with me. Chair Goel: Bringing it back to Commissioner Bhuthimethee. Cm. Bhuthimethee: I think there is a valid point about things like open space and wildlife, natural areas. There's certainly something to be said about all of that stuff. And Commissioner Mittan's point about some areas maybe not being so — they may not lend themselves so much to active parts, but maybe more passive. And it might be something unique for the community, too. But at the same time, when I hear about some comments from the audience — and not from the audience. I'll disclose that I actually got some personal emails from the community as well. And that was one of their concerns is density, loss of commercial space, and the wildlife creatures. Problem is that this Parcel H was already planned for high-density. So if we don't pass this, that's what we're getting. So at least it's some reduction of density. I know there was a comment about the EIR and has there been an updated EIR. Planning Commission September 22, 2015 Regular Meeting Page | 75 DRAFT DRAFT When they did the EIR, they did it for a certain amount of density. And since that density was reduced, that doesn't need to happen again. It's only when it's increased. Chair Goel: Maybe for that item I think it's best that legal respond to that. If you don't mind. Ms. Faubion: Sure, I'd be glad to. That's generally correct. When an EIR is prepared, it identifies a certain project, so certain uses, locations, densities, and so on. Once the EIR goes through the whole process — and as you know, it's a long and complicated process — CEQA says that if you come back again with a project that's in the same area, or a variation on the project, you don't necessarily need to go through the whole process again. You just need to update it as needed. So if there's a new impact that you didn't identify, or something's way worse than you identified. And that's what the purpose of those initial studies is. Those long checklists with discussions. And you'll see that they'll talk about the prior EIR. And they'll say, "This is the same as you saw before, so no additional impact." Or it'll say, "This site was something, but now there's potentially going to be a school on it, so we need to look at it more." So basically each succession you don't not do CEQA. But it's updating from the prior EIR. That's why that 2005 date is important because that was the last big EIR. Chair Goel: But it's fair to say that through that process, this one that was done in August is the revision that addresses any changes that are being sought. Ms. Faubion: That's right. Chair Goel: Right? And so that's part of the reason why it's essentially one of many options up there as the package. Is that correct? Ms. Faubion: As an example, just to clarify, going back to neighborhood seven — the old school site — the 2012 addendum updated 100 units on that site, the potential for 100 units. Chair Goel: Which was the underlying. Ms. Faubion: Right. So each time there's a decision, it needs to be adequate enough to meet CEQA analysis. Sometimes it's a giant EIR like it was in 2005. Sometimes an addendum needs to be done. But you can see that it's almost never small. CEQA is all about documentation. So you'll see that analysis laid out for you in the initial study and the mitigated ND. So that's the way of updating. Chair Goel: But I think it's also fair to say that this accounts for the current proposal. Ms. Faubion: Mmm-hm. Chair Goel: But it includes the reduction on Parcel H, not the current status. Ms. Faubion: Well it'll say things like on H, the same development area would be affected. There might be less units. So for certain impacts that are more aerial, then you want to know what land is being disturbed. Planning Commission September 22, 2015 Regular Meeting Page | 76 DRAFT DRAFT So for cultural resources, for biological resources, irrespective of the number of units, if the same development area is being affected, then that's what you would note in your initial study. Whatever happens above the ground, this amount of ground is going to be affected. So that's what we talked about in the 2010 addendum and the 2005 EIR. And those mitigation measures carry forward. We don't have to impose them again. They automatically do. But we say that for the record so that everybody knows that that problem that we solved in 2005, the solution still carries forward to today. Chair Goel: And that would stand true also, if I heard correctly, for the wildlife. Ms. Faubion: Exactly. So all those lists of mitigation measures, all of those continue to apply as applicable. So if there are squirrels or burrowing owls or the mythical hawks. Chair Goel: Even if something new was discovered, it would have been identified. Ms. Faubion: Right. Chair Goel: Did that answer? Cm. Bhuthimethee: Thank you. So just to continue — when I first got the notice that we were going to be seeing this GPA, and so many of them at the time, my initial reaction was; "Absolutely not. No more. I don't want to do this again. Again." But I don't know. When I read this, I see a lot of pros to the deal. I see that the City is working with the school, which doesn't happen very often, with the developer, which doesn't happen very often. The school board is actually writing a nice letter, which I don't know if that has ever happened. Maybe once. And so I guess when I think about who's opposing this and why, I guess I see people want lower density. Well, we're doing some of that. If we could do more, that'd be great. But I don't know. I guess I just feel like part of it is, where are the people? You know, we had two speakers tonight. I think part of it, too, is that when I'm looking at some of the development that's proposed, it's not offensive. It's pretty attractive. I think they did a fantastic job of connecting with the pedestrian connectivity from neighborhood to neighborhood. I wish all our neighborhoods were like that. I don't see a lot of negatives. I mean, we lose some commercial. And we all hate losing that commercial. I mean, we really want that commercial. But from what I've heard from the community as well is that we want to have less impact on our schools. So this is one way to do it. And it seems like a lot of people are happy so far. I mean, you can't make everyone happy. But it seems like it's a decent deal. Chair Goel: So you can make the findings? Cm. Bhuthimethee: I can make the findings. Planning Commission September 22, 2015 Regular Meeting Page | 77 DRAFT DRAFT Cm. Kohli: Can I still ask a couple clarifying questions? Chair Goel: Oh, no. Cm. Kohli: No, these are easy. I'm the easy question guy. I want to go back to what Ms. Smith mentioned earlier regarding the Dublin Crossing school deal that we discussed. And this is I guess more for me in terms of just trying to remember what exactly was on the table then, what we agreed to. So I just have something else to sort of compare this to. And I was wondering if there was anyone on staff that could provide just a brief summary to refresh my memory about that. Ms. Smith: In regards to the school? Cm. Kohli: Yes. Ms. Smith: So by comparison, just to provide comparative purposes, this site was existing park land. And it had already been acquired and credited as a park site. The site within Dublin Crossing that the City went back and renegotiated the development agreement with the developer at that point in time was always intended to be a school site. So we don’t have the encumbrance of this already being a park land site and having to shuffle around to identify additional park lands to offset this site. So it's a much simpler process that we will go through with that, in comparison to the complexities that I have outlined for you with this already being a dedicated piece of park. Cm. Kohli: And I apologize if this is just a very simple question, but why can't we do something similar in this situation where we're dealing with a plot of land that has already been designated? Is it because in the Dublin Crossing, that was actually designated for school? Or that was a dual designation? Ms. Smith: It wasn't a dual designation. Well, why we can't do it here is, one, we don't own it. We don't own the original school site. We own the community park site. In the case of Dublin Crossing, ownership was still with the developer. And the City will then take ownership of that site and ground lease it to the district. So we control what we own. Cm. Kohli: So in the Dublin Crossing case, the developer owned the site, but... Ms. Smith: We negotiated a transaction that it would be then deeded to the City. Cm. Kohli: So in the Jordan Ranch case, the developer, too, owns the site. So I guess I'm just trying to figure out what was discussed, or why didn't something similar happen or occur? Ms. Smith: There's no economy of scale to do that here. So you're dealing in a Dublin Crossing situation where you have 1,995 units which are part of the project — the entire thing yet to be developed. There's a lot more negotiating opportunities when you have a need and you have something to give for that need. For example, in that instance we gave up a five-acre neighborhood park as part of the arrangement. We included the creek in the park as part of the arrangement. So there were some negotiating pieces that we had. Planning Commission September 22, 2015 Regular Meeting Page | 78 DRAFT DRAFT In this instance we don't have that. We have what we own. And let's back up real quick and talk about that when that original school site was sited in Jordan Ranch, they assumed 500 students at that site. They're now assuming 950. That's an interior site that was going to have to handle twice as much traffic than what was originally proposed for that site. And what we've seen so far with Amador school being on an arterial — Positano Parkway — similar this would be on Central Parkway, it seems to flow much better, especially if you can provide the reliever right-turn lane pocket and the onsite circulation that would not exist, potentially, at the other site. So those were some of the considerations. The other consideration was, for the City, in order for it to community to be deemed and counted as park land, our parks and rec master plan says that a community park must be on an arterial or visible street. That other location would have not met that criteria for us to continue to use that as a joint use facility. On top of that, the site south of it was also a community park. So if the suggestion was there'd be some sort of swap, and we would put houses on this, which of course would not go over well with those that have already purchased homes in that area, we would land-lock ourselves from a future community park expansion. That we wouldn't be able to get, because on the south end of that there is no other access point for that future community park. It comes from this site. And the site design that the school district's put forward has taken into account that they will serve as the parking lot area for the future expansion of that community park. Cm. Kohli: Okay. Very helpful. Thank you. Just a couple other questions I have. And I don't know if staff would know the answer to this or not, if you conducted any of these. But were any surveys done of the community regarding essentially swapping out building an elementary school for a K-8 school? Because when folks bought into Jordan Ranch, they were buying into an area assuming an elementary school would be there. So I'm just curious if there were any surveys or anything conducted by the City. I know if the district did it, I know that's something that doesn't need — I guess you can't [unintelligible] Ms. Smith: I'll put two hats. From the City perspective, no. No survey was done. I'm also a member of the District Optimization Committee, which looked at this issue, as their City representative. And so that was the process that was used. They of course held a town hall to get community input. But the District Optimization Committee, which was comprised of a bunch of different folks from all over the community at all different levels — staff, community members, City representatives — the conclusion was that in order to alleviate the Fallon Middle School crunch, that this school could be what's called a flex school. Could be K-8. But as we've seen with what they've done with their other schools, Fallon Middle School started out as an elementary school and then grew up into a full-blown middle school. So I think what they're hoping for here is the flexibility. It may be a K-8 for a period of time, and it may go back down to being a functioning Planning Commission September 22, 2015 Regular Meeting Page | 79 DRAFT DRAFT elementary school in the future. So that's the concept of it being a flexible K-8. Cm. Kohli: Just a couple more points, and I'll be done with it. Currently, just so I understand, what we'd called neighborhood seven, that's dual designation, medium-density, or public/semi- public. And that's reserved for the school district to purchase the land to build a school. Parcel H is mixed use with 115 units and 5,000 square feet. And then the community park that the City owns remains as its 10+ acre community park. So in that situation we would have a total of 964 units in Jordan Ranch, compared to 899 with this plan today. So there'd be less units. But there would be more medium-density units. Okay. Understood that. Regarding the EIR, sorry, there was a lot of talk, so some of it went over my head. So I understand for the K-8 option for that school — that 950-student school — that is being proposed to be built on this new land, just to confirm, was a study done for that, in terms of the environmental study? So that's covered. We're good there. Ms. Faubion: Yes, that's correct. Cm. Kohli: Okay. That's all helpful. I'm going to stop there and pass it on to my fellow commissioners. Thank you for those explanations. Cm. Mittan: I'm just wondering when these 950 or the 500 are thrown out there, is there any range that goes into that? Because I look at Green Elementary and Kolb and Fallon now, and they're all well over what I'm sure the original approved when they were sitting here as a Planning Commission way back when and they put out 500 probably for Green, or whatever it was. And we're oftentimes nearly double these sizes. I'm wondering, when the school district comes, is that a solid number? It just seems like it's a number that is never adhered to. Ms. Smith: Is that a statement or a question? Cm. Mittan: Well, I'm just wondering, is it a solid number? Ms. Smith: I don't think that's a question for the City to answer. The school district is the one that would need to answer that question. They've provided their site locations that they needed in eastern Dublin, have made agreements to change those or move sites, shrink sites, with the development community. We don't process their schools, so we don't have much say in their school populations per site. Cm. Mittan: So for this site, and then also for the site at Dublin Crossing, in essence I would think that you would have some say, in that you're the landowner. So is there any way to put a stipulation? Because the traffic impacts and all these things are based upon a certain number. And when they blow through those numbers, it totally throws out all those traffic studies and everything. That was all fantasy land, because in essence we're 30, 40, 100% higher than what we anticipated. Planning Commission September 22, 2015 Regular Meeting Page | 80 DRAFT DRAFT So I'm just wondering, is there any way for the City to negotiate an upper limit. Whether it's, "Granted, we're not going to be at 950. Maybe we're going to be at 1,000." So that there's an upper range as to how high we can go on this. Mr. Baker: So when we do our CEQA analysis and it involves a school site, we use the best information that's known at the time. And included in that is school information, anticipated enrollment at the time. When the district actually goes to build a school, if they're deviating from that, then they are responsible for doing a CEQA analysis, which would include traffic impacts and mitigations for those impacts. So if they were to, in your words, blow through the 950, say, they would be required under CEQA to do their own analysis and identify impacts and mitigate those impacts. Cm. Mittan: But there's no additional leverage that the City has to influence it. Mr. Baker: No. Cm. Mittan: You spoke about that site being, in essence, a flex site. Would part of that flex site be to be a middle school only? Ms. Smith: As the City representative of the DOC, that was not a discussion. Chair Goel: So maybe in the interest of time, because it seems like there are mixed feelings here, is it a possibility if I can ask everyone their indicators, so then we can move toward a motion of some sort? Is that fair? Commissioner Bhuthimethee? Cm. Bhuthimethee: I can make the findings. I would add a condition to the SDR. Cm. Kohli: Yeah, it's tough. This is tough. As Commissioner Bhuthimethee stated, we've heard from all sides, community, residents, the developer, the City. I understand everyone's worked really hard to make something work and make it win/win for all parties. I just have this feeling that we may also be kind of jumping the gun and hitting a panic button and just thinking the state's going to be bankrupt for the rest of our lives. It would have been good tonight to have heard an actual number and heard that a hardcore analysis was done on low-density housing. Just to know that we had that option, what that looked like. I would have liked to have heard some hardcore numbers — tangible numbers — on where the economic gaps were and what other options we could have to make up for those gaps. I know this is probably not something we would discuss in this forum, but in terms of impact fees and school benefit fees, any inclination that those would be going directly toward the construction of the school? Because I think the one thing here is that we can make all those deals, but we still don't know if a school is going to come or not. And I think that's still the big variable. And so my worry is, are we going to rush in to make this deal, and all of a sudden a bunch of housing pops up, and we're still not quite clear if a school is there? Where right now we still have some control over the situation to maybe think through things more. Maybe money does come up in the state next year. So right now I'm just a little Planning Commission September 22, 2015 Regular Meeting Page | 81 DRAFT DRAFT concerned. I feel like we have more time to come up with other options. So short answer is I'm leaning no. Cm. Do: Not to reiterate everything, but I'm probably leaning towards no because they had the discussion of that property that was designated for the school district. And, yeah, they don't have the money now. And so what's to say if six months, a year, from now, this is going to happen — the same thing — that if we go ahead with this and nothing happens again? So we won't have a school. So I agree that we need to look at this a little bit further and not just jump to it because getting a school is a great idea. Yeah, everyone's for schools, for education. But we can't just do this willy nilly. So I'm leaning towards no, too. Ms. Smith: If I may, Chair Goel, I want to clarify a point Commissioner Kohli made and I believe Commissioner Do is confirming. If, in fact, there is bond funding coming from a school construction bond, it will go to repay Amador School. That's the next one that they need to repay. So there would not be money in the next bond to pay for Jordan Ranch School. I just wanted to make sure everybody understood that. Cm. Mittan: I'm sorry, for a potential bond? Ms. Smith: So the bond that's qualified for the November ballot... Chair Goel: The governor's ballot or the school district? Ms. Smith: There is an initiative that's received enough signatures to place a school bond measure on the 2016 ballot. Whatever money comes of that will go to repay the building of Amador School, since the district took out a bond anticipation note on the existing bond — local bond — to pay for the construction of that school. So there would not be funding in the pipeline in that next issuance to pay for the construction or the purchase of land and the construction of Jordan Ranch school. I just wanted to make sure it's clear. And the districts have made it abundantly clear to the City staff that there is no time. Time is of the essence to them. So just making sure everybody understands that. Cm. Mittan: Just clarifying. So the bond that's upcoming, if it's approved, we know to the dime what the district would receive? Ms. Smith: Right. So they're in the pipeline for reimbursement for that at the state level, and it would reimburse the Amador School project. Chair Goel: I think she's speaking about the state bond. I think DUSD has something else that they're planning. Cm. Mittan: Right. I'm sure they do. I'm somewhat surprised. So the district is aware of exactly how much money they would receive. Ms. Smith: They're in the pipeline for a $28 million reimbursement for Amador School and then whatever the next school is — Jordan Ranch school — would fall at the very bottom of the Planning Commission September 22, 2015 Regular Meeting Page | 82 DRAFT DRAFT list. And they would not receive any funding, most likely, out of that bond measure. They would be at the bottom of the list. Chair Goel: The history is because that was part of the list when it was originally yanked. Ms. Smith: That's right. Mr. Baker: So to clarify on the timing issue, they want to move forward on a school now. So by waiting, that would not enable them to have a school come online as quickly. Ms. Smith: Correct. They, again, have stated to us in no uncertain terms that they need that next school by 2018-19 to relieve the pressure off Fallon Middle School, or else those things that Board President Miller had suggested in the letter would occur. And they do not want to do that if they can at all avoid it. Cm. Mittan: Right. I would lean towards approving. Cm. Bhuthimethee: I just get this weird feeling. Can I just ask, am I missing something? Are there more cons than I know of? Chair Goel: Maybe you might want to hear what I have to say. Maybe it might shed some light. Maybe it might not. This one is a tough one for me. And I'll tell you what. I want to see a school. Okay? I'm feeling the pinch. My kids are in the schools. I'm feeling the traffic impacts. And I'm seeing the kids going to and from school. I hear a kid gets hit on a bike. Everyone knows I used to be part of the Safe Routes to School program. For the record, I'm no longer part of that. So I can now state it very affirmative. My biggest problem here is it seems like we're always chasing ourselves, trying to find a Band-Aid. Just like we're pulling together five different properties, why don't we do a land banking? If you want to get this 10 acres for 100 units, swap it with somebody else, make it 20 acres, and maybe we can get a bigger parcel school. Part one. I'm just tossing that out. That's in my mix in my head. I'm entitled to that. The other thing that I don't understand of this deal is we have an engineer's estimate that $1.96 million for a park is an upper limit. But yet we asked for 1.6, and there's a cap. So I'm not even sure. We're trying to make the deal work for everyone, but yet we're taking a potential risk on needing of funds. Ms. Smith: Can I clarify that, Chair Goel? No, there is no risk. They're going to build the park. They take all the risk. Chair Goel: No, the 365. The delta. Ms. Smith: No, they take all the risk. They build the park. Chair Goel: They get a credit. Ms. Smith: They get a credit of anything above the 1.6 that they have provided to the project. Planning Commission September 22, 2015 Regular Meeting Page | 83 DRAFT DRAFT Chair Goel: What does the credit get applied to? Ms. Smith: When they pull building permits for residential permits, they can sell those credits to the general open market for future development activity in Dublin. Chair Goel: But it's still a loss in revenue to the fund balance. Ms. Smith: No. It's not a loss in fund balance. Instead of us going in and using the public facility fee to pay for the construction of this park, or credit him the entire $2 million — I'm getting it to $2 million for the sake of saying it quickly — they will only get credit for $365,000 of that. The balance of that is a contribution that they will be making in the construction of that and free up cash flow in the public facility fee to fund other parks that are important to this community to get constructed. Chair Goel: Okay. And that's just pinned upon the additional tone that's in the community relative to failed deliveries that we have. We are looking at a deficit in 2020. And some of these parks may or may not be built. When I look at your budget, and I'm trying to balance and say, "Okay, how are we going to build the park facility?" That's why I asked the question, is the school district going to build the infrastructure of the park. So in a sense, in my understanding, Jordan Ranch is developed by the developer. They receive a potential of up to 365 credit if the construction cost goes above 1.6. The parcel over here for the school is fully developed by the school. Ms. Smith: Correct. Chair Goel: And the school has said they've got money in the bank? Ms. Smith: Correct. Chair Goel: To the magnitude of? Ms. Smith: To the magnitude of $40-some-odd million to build that school. Chair Goel: Okay. Perfect. So now we have $46-odd million in the bank to develop this facility. They potentially are having a bond in November. We've been putting Band-Aids everywhere else. I just find it hard to go to a smaller plot. I mean, in a sense we could have a nice size park, we could have a 10-acre school. Sure, we may have one area with a higher density. I understand there's a risk there. I get it. I'm just saying I think there are some negotiation points that could potentially get something better. I do recognize the fact that the developers, the City, all the parties, have come together to try to put something nice on the table. I just think there's a little ounce missing here. And I'm not sure what that ounce is. And I just don't like coming in here all the time and always finding out we've got to put Planning Commission September 22, 2015 Regular Meeting Page | 84 DRAFT DRAFT one thing to fix another hole. I mean, I truly respect what the staff's done. I truly respect what the developer's done. But I think there's something that's just not pushing it over the top. For me, I'm leaning towards can't make the finding. So with that, it's up to the commission at this point. If we want to go ahead and make a motion, we can go ahead and make a motion. Cm. Kohli: Just make a motion. I mean, it's going to council. Chair Goel: It's going to council with a recommendation of whatever. Ms. Faubion: If we can just clarify again, keeping in mind you've got the recommendation up here, that just in the last comment there were comments about the deal and a point that would take it over the top. But these are the land use decisions that are before the Planning Commission tonight. Chair Goel: It was my personal reflection on why I'm not comfortable with the package as 100% — A through E — as presented today. For me. My vote. The way I speak. Ms. Faubion: There might be some discussion here. Could I suggest that before the commission takes a vote, that we take a short break so that we can just make sure. You've got a lot of potential ways. We can do this as a single vote, or we can break it up into individual pieces. Chair Goel: I'm personally ready to move forward. It's been, like, three, four hours. Cm. Do: The last time we broke it up, it ended up the same way. So I think we should just vote as is. I mean, that's my opinion. Last time we had something like this, we broke it up piece by piece. And the vote still came out the same way. Cm. Kohli: Just so I understand the process, we're a recommending body. And this is still going forward to council. Ms. Faubion: That's correct. Cm. Kohli: With this recommendation. I have to agree with my colleagues here. We could break this up any which way. I think it's pretty clear where people are leaning. Let's make the motion. Chair Goel: Would you like to make the motion? Mr. Baker: Not to dissuade, but just so everybody's of clear mind, we're talking, of course, about Jordan Ranch, Subarea 3. And then separate from that transaction is the Wallis Ranch project. And the conversion of park land there Cm. Do: They're all connected. Chair Goel: That was the specific question that I asked. Cm. Kohli: Yeah, at the beginning of this you made it very clear not — I mean, I guess I'm just getting a little confused here. Because it really did seem that it was coming from staff that it was in the best interest to not break this up. And now I'm hearing that we should huddle to Planning Commission September 22, 2015 Regular Meeting Page | 85 DRAFT DRAFT think about breaking it up? So I'm a little confused. Chair Goel: I think that was the premise of how the whole conversation started in the beginning. Mr. Baker: Fair enough. And I think the real issue of breaking it up is the transaction. Taking out Wallis. If we could set Wallis aside for a second, the rest of the transaction is a whole. If the City Council doesn't approve one piece of it, that deal won't happen. That is a whole. Chair Goel: I mean, if we had to go to Wallis Ranch, then, similarly, Subarea 3, it's already approved. It's already getting laid out that same way. We're just changing the name. We're changing the name designation. That's all we did. On Subarea 3. That park area. We changed it to a community nature park. Ms. Smith: So I think in the beginning when I made my statements and was trying to sort of provide the global perspective as it relates to the school deal and the package, I thought I clarified that Wallis Ranch wasn't really part of that. And so I guess Subarea 3 is, in the sense that it is making up for lost park land on the Jordan Ranch site. Wallis is clumped with this specifically because we can only do a certain number of general plan amendments at one time. So you get four a year. So we took the Wallis and said, "We're going to roll it up with all this other stuff." And it's just getting tossed into this for the purposes of having one action. Chair Goel: So which one's Wallis Ranch? Cm. Kohli: It's Trumark building an additional park. Cm. Do: A and B, right? And C? A, B, and C has Wallis in it. Chair Goel: I just think staff could have done a better. Mr. Baker: It sounds like for the commission's purposes, it's probably easier to just — Chair Goel: We're only a recommendation. The City Council is most probably going to move forward in whatever direction. Cm. Kohli: Yeah, as far as I understand, the City Council can break this up. Chair Goel: I think they're just going to hear our deliberation. It'll save them three and a half hours of their time. They just get to inundate themselves on top of the 300 pages we've already read. Ms. Faubion: I think just the discussion that we've had in the last couple minutes shows that it'd be difficult to unbundle this. So if you're feeling more comfortable having this as a package, then perhaps [unintelligible] Cm. Do: Well, like he said, it's a recommendation. This is our recommendation from the commission to them. Chair Goel: And I think as far as staff goes, they could take a secondary recommendation Planning Commission September 22, 2015 Regular Meeting Page | 86 DRAFT DRAFT where it actually figures out how to take Wallis. I hear you. We're moving forward, sir. Cm. Kohli: Before we do, because we're doing all the talking for Commissioner Mittan and Commissioner Bhuthimethee. Do you guys want to unbundle this, or are you fine just keeping it bundled? Cm. Mittan: Well, it's unfortunate. I would have preferred to have it unbundled. But it appears the way it was presented is bundled. And I don't know how you put the toothpaste back in at this point. So it's somewhat of a quandary that we're in, partly the way it was presented. Yeah, if we could turn the clock back and maybe reformulate this, that would have been nice. Because I agree. I don't know the connection between Wallis Ranch. I don't know that Wallis Ranch was even a party to the whole school negotiation issue to begin with. And it added confusion. Because I was sitting here not getting — but now I'm a little more clear as to who the parties were here. But dropping this off on Thursday, and me looking through all these moving parts, and I'm including Wallis Ranch in all these moving parts, when really it should have been set aside and explained that this is not part of the whole deal. So that would have been nice. And I'm clear as to, you know, we are not purview to all the negotiations and all the what-ifs as to what could have happened and the possibilities. But at the same time, the fact is that it would have been nice. Because maybe we would have had more clarity as to, this is truly the best deal that we could have gotten. But we don't know all the other maybe A through Z possibilities that were out there. We're only being presented this one. It's somewhat concerning because I have a concern with the high school situation. I don't believe that one high school is enough. And if this is the situation to address the middle school, and all we could get was 10 acres, how the heck are we going to get a high school lot within the City of Dublin? So I'm somewhat concerned as to, if this is the path forward to address the middle school, there's no way we're ever going to get to a high school. How many moving parts are we going to need for that one? I don't know. Chair Goel: Can I get a motion? Cm. Bhuthimethee: I'm okay. I'm good bundled. Chair Goel: Who's giving me a motion? Cm. Do: Either one of them have to make the motion. Chair Goel: So it has to be a positive motion that goes the other way? Cm. Do: Yeah, it has to be a positive motion. [overlapping chatter about the motion] Chair Goel: Kit, can you guide us here? Planning Commission September 22, 2015 Regular Meeting Page | 87 DRAFT DRAFT Cm. Do: Someone has to be positive. Ms. Faubion: Just reading from the discussion, I think what it sounds like is that the Planning Commission does want to recommend approval of the five items that you have before you, correct? Cm. Do: The majority of it. I don't think the whole. Ms. Faubion: Okay. And I suggest that the motion be as simple as that. And I'm kind of helping Deb a little bit here. The motion can be that the Planning Commission recommends that the council deny the five items listed above: mitigated negative declaration, general plan amendments, plan development rezoning, site development review, and development agreement for the reasons stated in the Planning Commission discussion. It can also be "does not recommend approval," if you feel more comfortable with that. Chair Goel: Okay. Who's making the motion? Cm. Mittan: As so stated, I'll make the motion for denial or, in my case, approval of said motion. Ms. Faubion: Recommendation. This is a recommendation. Cm. Mittan: How should I state it? Cm. Do: So "all in favor" would be... Chair Goel: So you're reversing what she's saying? Cm. Mittan: Because I don't know how to state it, because I'm in favor. Cm. Do: So you would read it as is. Chair Goel: You would read it as is. Then you would need to get a second as stated for what you're putting in motion. Or as Kit said, somebody who's not in favor would make the motion and need to get a second. So you would not be a motion to what Kit said. Cm. Mittan: Well, I think it's easier if one of you guys then... Cm. Do: Or you can just read this one. Cm. Mittan: Okay. We'll go ahead and read this one all the way through, I guess. Ms. Faubion: Excuse me, I lost it here. Chair Goel: He's making a motion for. Mr. Baker: If you're making a motion recommending approval, you could move the staff recommendation, for simplicity. Ms. Faubion: And see if you get a second. Cm. Mittan made a motion, seconded by Cm. Bhuthimethee, for the Planning Commission to recommend that the City Council approve the Staff recommendation: Planning Commission September 22, 2015 Regular Meeting Page | 88 DRAFT DRAFT Chair Goel: Okay. Because I know it's going to be a little bit confusing, maybe we can take a roll call? You want to do a roll call or show of hands? Ms. Faubion: I suggest a roll call. Chair Goel: So if the clerk would do the roll call? Ms. LeClair: Lynna, what is your vote? Cm. Do: Nay. Ms. LeClair: Commissioner Mittan? Cm. Mittan: Aye. Ms. LeClair: Chair Goel? Chair Goel: Nay. Ms. LeClair: Commissioner Kohli? Cm. Kohli: Nay. Ms. LeClair: And Commissioner Bhuthimethee? Cm. Bhuthimethee: Aye. Ms. Faubion: Mr. Chair, the motion fails on a 2-3 vote. Chair Goel: 2-3. With that, we'll move on to — Ms. Faubion: Mr. Chair, the Planning Commission needs to make a recommendation. So this one fails, so I suggest that you make a recommendation to not approve the amendments, and that's your recommendation to the City Council. Chair Goel: Okay. Mr. Baker: So somebody would need to make a motion. And that motion would need to be seconded. Chair Goel: I'll make a motion to make a recommendation that City Council to deny the requests as presented on item 8.2 by staff, subsequent to the prior motion. Is that how it goes? Cm. Kohli: Second. Mr. Baker: So that was a motion by Chair Goel and a second by Vice Chair Kohli. Cm. Kohli: Should we roll call it? Ms. LeClair: Commissioner Do? Planning Commission September 22, 2015 Regular Meeting Page | 89 DRAFT DRAFT Cm. Do: Aye. Ms. LeClair: Commissioner Mittan? Cm. Mittan: Nay. Ms. LeClair: Chair Goel? Chair Goel: Aye. Ms. LeClair: Commissioner Kohli? Cm. Kohli: Aye. Ms. LeClair: Commissioner Bhuthimethee? Cm. Bhuthimethee: No. Ms. Faubion: Mr. Chair, the motion passes by a vote of 3-2. And so you have a recommendation to send to the City Council, and that recommendation will be to not approve the five items that are there before you. On a motion by Chair Goel and seconded by Cm. Kohli, on a vote of 3-2, the Planning Commission recommends that the City Council not approve the five items: RESOLUTION NO. 15-08 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN ____________________________________________________________________________ RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL NOT APPROVE THE GENERAL PLAN/EASTERN DUBLIN SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT, PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REZONE, SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW, VESTING TENTATIVE MAPS, DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR THE JORDAN RANCH/SUBAREA 3/WALLIS RANCH PROJECTS 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). ADJOURNMENT – The meeting was adjourned at 10:35:19 PM Respectfully submitted, Planning Commission September 22, 2015 Regular Meeting Page | 90 DRAFT DRAFT Planning Commission Chair ATTEST: Jeff Baker Assistant Community Development Director G:\MINUTES\2015\PLANNING COMMISSION\09.22.15 DRAFT PC MINUTES.docx Planning Commission September 22, 2015 Regular Meeting Page | 91