Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAttachmt 7 Nov 28, 2006 PC Study Session Agenda Stmt AGENDA STATEMENT PLANNING COMMISSION STUDY SESSION DATE: November 28. 2006 SUBJECT: STUDY SESSION: PA 03-060 Annexation, General Plan Amendment, Specific Plan Amendment, Stage 1 Development Plan, Supplemental Environmental Impact Report and Pre-Annexation Agreement for the Casamira Valley residential development. Report prepared by Erica Fraser, Senior Planner ~ 1) Conceptual Site Plan for previous project. 2) Letter from the Applicant dated November 15, 2006. 3) Minutes from the March 21, 2006 City Council Meeting. 4) Stage I Development Plan. 5) Casamira Valley Area Map. 6) General Plan Land Use Designations Adjacent to Casamira Valley. 7) Semi-Public Facilities Policy. A TT ACHMENTS: RECOM~l~II<)N: Receive presentation and provide comments. PROJEC~~mPTION: The proposed project is a 298 attached and detached residential development located at 6861 Tassajara Road. Casamira Valley (formerly known as Moller Ranch) is located within the City's Sphere of Influence, however the project area is outside of the City Limit Line and the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan area boundary. BACKGROUND: On August 19, 2003, the City Council adopted a Resolution approving the initiation of a Specific Plan Amendment Study for the Casamira Valley project. At the meeting, the City Council authorized Staff to study the proposed 214 unit single family project and to begin annexation proceedings (Attachment 1). Following the City Council meeting, Staff began the initial review of the proposed Casamira Valley project. During the review of the project, the Applicants, the DeSilva Group, determined that the proposed single family residential project would not be economically feasible due to existing site conditions and the cost of improvements (i.e. infrastructure, streets and habitat and creek restoration) that would be required to be made to the site (Attachment 2). On March 6, 2006, The DeSilva Group submitted a request to study an alternative site plan for the project area to allow the construction of up to 326 attached townhomes in the project area with unit sizes ranging from 2,200 to 2,450 square feet. The alternative would require a General Plan Amendment to change the land use for a portion of the property (68.9 acres) from Low Density Residential (0.00-6.0 dwelling units/acre) to 48.9 acres of Medium-Density Residential (6.1-14.0 dwelling units/acre) and 20 acres of Rural Residential (1 dwelling unit/lOO acres). On March 21, 2006, the City Council approved the request to allow The DeSilva Group to study the density change as an alternative project (Attachment 3). COPIES TO: Property Owner/Applicant File ITEM NO. l. I Page I of8 G:\PA#\2003103-060 Moller RanchlPCSS - 11.28-06IPCSR Studv Session. doc Attachment 7 On September 12, 2006, The DeSilva Group applied for a Stage 1 Rezone and submitted the Stage I Development Plan (Attachment 4). The current Development Plan includes a request to construct a total of 298 units on the site On October 30, 2006, a Notice of Availability was published and mailed to notify all interested agencies and members of the public and all property owners within 300 feet of the Casamira Valley and Tipper properties that the Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (DSEIR) was available for review and that the comments on the DSEIR would be accepted until December 13, 2006. PROJECT PERMITTING REQUIREMENTS: This project requires several permit approvals which are explained below. Annexation The project site is currently within an unincorporated portion of Alameda County. In order for the project to come under the jurisdiction of the City of Dublin, and to receive urban services from the Dublin San Ramon Services District (DSRSD), annexation of the site to the City and to DSRSD must be approved by the Alameda County Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCo), which is a State mandated local agency that oversees boundary changes to cities and special districts, the formation of new agencies including incorporation of new cities, and the consolidation of existing agencies. State law requires that a City prezone (Stage 1 Development Plan) an area proposed for annexation, and that prezoning must be consistent with the approved General Plan and Specific Plan uses for the property. Environmental Review A Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (DSEIR) has been prepared to address any environmental impacts that would occur as a result of the proposed project and the public review period has started. During this period, the public may submit comments to the City regarding the DSEIR. Comments will then be reviewed and the City will respond to the comments in the Final Supplemental Impact Report. The Supplemental Environmental Impact Report will be reviewed by the Planning Commission during a public hearing. The Planning Commission will make a recommendation to the City Council and the City Council will then review the Supplemental Environmental Impact Report during a public hearing. Stage 1 Development Plan The Stage 1 Development Plan is an Ordinance which requires a minimum of three Public Hearings. The Stage I Development Plan must include all information required by Chapter 8.32 of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance including a site plan, proposed density, maximum number of residential units and a Master Landscape Plan. The purpose of the Stage 1 Development Plan is to prezone a property with development plan information in order to annex the property into the City of Dublin. The Planning Commission must hold at least one Public Hearing and the City Council must review the project during two Public Hearings. General Plan Amendment As proposed by the Applicant, a General Plan Amendment is required in order to change a portion of the General Plan Land Use Designation for the site from Low Density Residential to a mixture of Medium Density Residential and Rural Residential to allow the construction of the proposed 298 attached and detached residential dwelling unit development as shown on the Stage 1 Development Plan (Attachment 4). Specific Plan Amendment The Casamira Valley property is located outside of the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Area. An amendment to the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan is required in order to include this property in the Specific Plan area. Page 2 of 8 Pre-Annexation Agreement The goals and policies of the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan require land that is annexed and new development to be revenue neutral. Prior to a submittal of an annexation request to LAFCo, the City requires that an annexation agreement be entered into by the developer, to pay a share of the public services deficit. The annexation agreement will guarantee that the cost of providing services to the area will not exceed the revenue received from the area and will also assure that the financing goals and policies of the General Plan and Specific Plan are met. The Pre-Annexation Agreement is currently being drafted and will be presented to the Planning Commission during a future public hearing. The Planning Commission will then make a recommendation to the City Council on whether or not to adopt the Agreement. Next Steps Once the property is annexed into the City of Dublin, the Applicants would need to apply for a Stage 2 Planned Development Rezone, Site Development Review (SDR), Development Agreement (DA) and Tentative Map (TM) for the proposed residential development. ANALYSIS The purpose of tonight's study session is to discuss the proposed unit types, density and overall layout of the Casamira Valley project and compliance with the City's Semi-Public Facilities Policy. . The project has been modified since the City Council meeting on March 6, 2006. During this meeting, the City Council reviewed a request to study an alternative project for the site with 326 attached dwelling units (Attachmentl) and a change in the land use designation from Low Density Residential to Medium Density Residential. Based on concerns from the City Council regarding the number and type of units (Attachment 3), the Applicant has revised the Stage 1 Development Plan to include both attached and detached units and has reduced the proposed number of units from 326 to 298 (a reduction of28 units). The Applicant has submitted written information on why the project must be constructed at a higher density (Medium Density) than the current density for the site (Low Density). Please refer to the Applicants letter dated November 15, 2006 included as Attachment 2. Density The project includes a request to change a portion of the General Plan Land Use Designation of the site from Low Density Residential (0.00-6.0 dwelling units/acre) to both Medium Density Residential (6.1- 14.0 dwelling units/acre) and Rural Residential (l dwelling unit/l00 acres). The change in land use designation would be required to allow the Applicants to construct a residential development with 298 attached and detached units. The existing land use (Low Density Residential) does not permit the construction of attached units (see page 19 for the existing land use designations and page 21 for the proposed land use designations in Attachment 4). The designated Rural Residential and Stream Corridor areas (see Attachment 6) would remain unchanged. The following chart shows the existing density, the proposed density, and the total number of units that would be permitted: Page 3 of8 Low Density Residential (Existing) Medium Density Residential (proposed) Acres Density (dulac) Units Acres Density (dulac) Units Low Density 68.9 0.0-6.0 0-413 -- -- Residential -- Medium Density -- -- -- 48.9 6.1-14.0 298-684 Residential Rural Residential 146.9 1 dull 00 acres 1 141.5 1 dul100 acres 1 Stream Corridor 10.5 32.6 Park 3 Total 226.3 0-414 298-685 As shown above, the proposed number of dwelling units, 298, falls between the total number of units allowed by the current Low Density Residential land use designation. As noted above, the residential acreage proposed for the alternative project is smaller than what is currently permitted by the General Plan. The proposed Stage 1 Development Plan shows that the development envelope is 48.9 acres which is 20 acres less that what is currently designated as Low Density Residential. The remaining 20 acres would be designated as Stream Corridor. The Rural Residential area has also been slightly reduced to increase the Stream Corridor area and include a park. Although the Rural Residential designation would allow the construction of one residential dwelling unit (1 unit/100 acres) the Applicants are not proposing to construct a dwelling unit in this area at this time and a conservation easement will be enacted on a majority of the rural residential designated land (page 24 of Attachment 4). The increased density and reduced development envelope will ensure that the grading on the site is minimized and the hillsides are protected. Residential density in the vicinity of this development varies (see Attachment 6). The Tipper property located to the west ofCasamira Valley has a land use designation of medium density residential (6.1-14.0 dwelling units/acre). The Vargas property, also located to the west, has land use designations of medium density and medium high density (14.1-25.0 dwelling units per acre). Wallis Ranch located adjacent to the Vargas and Tipper properties and has land use designations of single family (0.9-6.0 dwelling units/acre), medium density and medium high density. The Mission Peak development located to the south of the property has a density of single family (0.9-6.0 dwelling units per acre) and rural residential (1 dwelling unit/l 00 acres). The Silvera Ranch development is located to the south of the project site and has densities of medium density, medium high density and rural residential. This project is currently under construction. Site Layout The overall site layout for the proposed project is similar to the overall layout for the original project (see Attachments 1 and 4). The difference between the two site plans is that the previous site plan layout had fewer units and all of the units were detached. The proposed site plan (see page 20 of Attachment 4) has detached and attached units. The overall layout of where houses will be located, the park location and road layout has remained relatively unchanged. Most of the development will be obscured from view on Tassajara Road by the hills located on the north and south sides of the property (see Photos 1 and 2 on page 14 of Attachment 4). These hills range in height up to 671 feet above sea level and are located throughout the site. Additionally, the sloping topography of the site will block the most concentrated portion of the development, which is located 360 feet from Tassajara Road in the flattest portion ofthe property, from view on Tassajara Road. As shown on page 20 (of Attachment 4) several houses (33) will be located near Tassajara Road. These "pockets" of development will be a minimum of 120 feet from Tassajara Road and the closest "pocket" will have five attached units. The setback from Tassajara Road is greater than what typically occurs in this area. Page 4 of 8 The residential setbacks along Tassajara Road in the vicinity vary. Silvera Ranch located to the south of the Casamira Valley development has an average dwelling unit setback of 20 feet from Tassajara Road. The Vargas development (currently under planning review) has an average setback of 30 feet from Tassajara Road to a dwelling unit. The large setback of the houses in the Casamira Valley development will ensure that most of the development remains unseen from Tassajara Road and that the hills will be preserved. The majority of the development will be located 360 feet from Tassajara Road in a relatively flat area which is surrounded by the hillsides. Due to the proposed location of the units, topography, stream corridor improvements and landscaping along Tassajara Road, the majority of the project will not be visible from Tassajara Road. A large conservation easement on the south and east side of the property will ensure that these hills are protected from development in the future (Page 24 of Attachment 4). Additionally, a large landscaped area will be located adjacent to Tassajara Road and will extend into the development (see Page 26 of Attachment 4). The enhanced landscaping for the creek will extend into the development and will end near the flat portion of the site (where most of the homes will be constructed) and will include shrubs and trees throughout the creek area. Unit Types The Applicants propose to construct a total of 298 units on the 226 acre property (see Sheet 20 of Attachment 4). The units would be a mixture of attached and detached homes. Vehicular access to all of the dwelling units would be at the rear of the house via an alley. The main entrances to the homes would be located off of a paseo which would be attractively landscaped (see page 27 of Attachment 4). A wide variety of unit types currently exist in this area. The Wallis Ranch development, located to the west of this property, is currently under review and proposes a mixture of attached and detached units. The Mission Peak development is also currently under review and proposes detached units. Silvera Ranch, located south of this property, is currently under construction and has a mixture of attached and detached units. Architectural Design Although architectural elevations have been provided in the booklet, these are an example of what the units might look like only and have been included so that the Applicant can show the Planning Commission the type of houses they envision for the residential development. Staff will work on the proposed architecture with the Applicants and the detailed architectural drawings will be reviewed by the Planning Commission in conjunction with the Site Development Review for the development at a later date. Landscape Preliminary Landscape Plans have been included on Pages 24 and 26-28 of Attachment 4. The preliminary plans show that a large number of trees will be planted on the site. Landscaping will be planted along Tassajara Road with attractive plantings at each entrance into the site and Coast Live Oak trees will be planted along Tassajara Road (see Page 28 of Attachment 4) consistent with the City's Streetscape Master Plan. Trees will also be planted along the interior streets with additional trees and shrubs planted adjacent to the buildings, in the paseos and in the alleys (page 27 of Attachment 4). The Applicants will also be required to repair the creek which runs through the property. The natural creek habitat has been damaged in the past due to agricultural and grazing uses on the site and the Applicants will enhance the existing creek with new native trees, shrubs and groundcover. A new trail system will also be installed throughout the site which will connect to Tassajara Road and will provide a pedestrian trail along the creek and within the conservation easement area which will provide access up to the top of the peak and back down to the park, demonstration garden and community building (Page 22 of Attachment 4). Page 5 of8 There are four Heritage Trees currently located on the site. These trees are located near the first (southerly) entrance into the development (approximately 70 feet from Tassajara Road). The Heritage Trees are located outside of the proposed development area, but are located near the new roadway. These trees will be required to be preserved in accordance with Chapter 5.60, Heritage Tree Ordinance, of the Dublin Municipal Code when construction starts on the site. Detailed landscaping plans will be reviewed during the Stage 2 Rezone and Site Development Review process. Semi-Public Facilities Policy On February 3, 2004, the City Council adopted the Semi-Public Facilities Policy (Attachment 7). This policy requires an Applicant to provide public facilities when requesting an amendment to the General Plan which involves 150 or more single family density dwelling units or 250 or more medium density dwelling units. Because the Casamira Valley development involves 298 dwelling units, a total of 0.6 acres must be dedicated to a semi-public facilities use. Due to the location of the Casamira Valley development, near the border of Alameda and Contra Costa Counties, and the number of residents in the area, it is unlikely that any land designated for a semi-public facility would be developed. Additionally, any usable land would be located inside of the development and setback a large distance from Tassajara Road and would not be visible from the road. The lack of flat land in the area could make construction of a semi-public facility on the 0.6 acre site cost prohibitive. In lieu of dedicating land to a semi-public facility the Applicants have proposed three on-site amenities to meet the intent of the Semi-Public Facilities Policy. The policy does aHow ".. . other facilities that provide cultural, educational, or other community services" to be constructed on the site. The Applicants propose to construct a community building on the site (adjacent to the City park) which can be used by both the residents ofCasamira Valley and the residents of the City for parties, club meetings, children's activities and other activities (see Page 23 of Attachment 4). The community building would provide an added benefit to the City due to its location adjacent to a City Park. The community building would be maintained by the homeowner's association. The second amenity on the site would be a demonstration garden. This garden, located adjacent to the community building, would be planted with attractive deer resistant and drought tolerant plants that can serve as a resource for the City. The garden could be conditioned (at the Site Development Review stage) to require that the garden be continually maintained with deer resistant and drought tolerant plant species by the Homeowner's Association and that plant identification tags are always included so community members can select and buy a plant which is appropriate for their yard. The third amenity the Applicant is proposing is a trail system (Page 22 of Attachment 4). The trail system would begin at Tassajara Road, will meander along the stream corridor, cross over the on-site bridge and meander up to a high peak and down the back side of the peak where it will connect to a sidewalk or trail which will provide access to the City park, demonstration garden and/or community building. The trail along the creek would include an interpretive trail with educational signage and displays which highlight the history of the site and its environmental setting. The trail system would be privately maintained and would also be open to the public. The combination of these three amenities would provide unique opportunities for the public as well as residents in the vicinity who may not have any community facilities in their development. Future development on the Vargas, Fredrich and Tipper properties located across Tassajara Road will be small in size and will not be subject to this policy and will be able to use the community building as well as the trail system and demonstration garden. Additionally, the Silvera Ranch development was constructed without a community building and residents in this development could rent the community building for Page 6 of8 birthday parties and other meetings or activities. Staff is requesting that the Planning Commission review this request and provide feedback to Staff. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: A Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (DSEIR) was recently completed and was distributed for public review on October 30, 2006. The City will be accepting comments on the DSEIR until December 13, 2006. The DSEIR studied the originally proposed project of 214 units. The project the Planning Commission is reviewing this evening is included in the alternative section of the DSEIR (Section 5.2.4) which studied an attached and detached residential development with up to 326 dwelling units. The alternative project has been studied in detail and all studies have been completed which discuss environmental impacts as a result of the alternative development. Therefore, adequate environmental review has been completed for either a detached residential project of 214 units or an alternative project of attached and detached residential project of up to 326 units. CONCLUSION: The Applicant is requesting a modification to the existing land use designations. The proposed change from Low Density Residential to Medium Density and Rural Residential would permit the Applicant to construct 298 attached and detached units on the site. A variety of land use designations and development setbacks currently exist in the plan area. Due to the location of the units and the existing topography and proposed landscaping, most of the development will not be visible from Tassajara Road. Staff is asking for feedback from the Planning Commission on the following: . Is the proposed change to Medium Density appropriate for the site? . Is the proposed mix of attached and detach housing units appropriate for the site? . Is the overall site layout appropriate for the site? . Does the proposed project meet the intent of the Public Facilities Policy? RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission provide Staff and the Applicant with direction/comments on the proposed Casamira Valley development and provide feedback to staff on the questions in the above section. Page 7of8 GENERAL INFORMATION APPLICANT: Glenn Brown The DeSilva Group 11555 Dublin Boulevard Dublin, CA 94568 PROPERTY OWNER: Richey and Hunter 974 Sycamore Road Pleasanton Ca 94566 LOCATION: 6861 Tassajara Road ASSESSORS PARCEL NUMBER: 985-0001-001 GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Rural Residential, Stream Corridor and Low Density Residential (existing) Rural Residential, Stream Corridor and Medium Density Residential (proposed) . SPECIFIC PLAN AREA: None (existing) Eastern Dublin Specific Plan (proposed) EXISTING ZONING AND LAND USE: Planned Development SURROUNDING USES: Location Zoning General Plan Land Use Current Use of Property Site PD- Planned General Commercial Vacant Development and General Commercial/Campus Office North Contra Costa County N/A Vacant (remainder of property) South PD-Planned Rural and Low Density Vacant (development Development Residential proposed for Mission Peak current in planning process) East Unincorporated N/A Vacant - Conservation Alameda County Easement (remainder of ranch) W.est PD- Planned Medium Density Residential dwellings Development (one per each property, three total) Page 8 of8