Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutReso 079-96 Reorg-Schaefer Ranc RESOLUTION NO. 79 - 96 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN AUTHORIZING INITIATION OF APPLICATION FOR REORGANIZATION FOR PA 94-028 SCHAEFER RANCH WHEREAS, Schaefer Heights, Inc. (the applicants) have submitted a request for annexing 500+ acres to the City of Dublin and annexing the 500+ acres to the Dublin San Ramon Service District (DSRSD), and annexing 340+ acres to Zone 7 of the Alameda County Flood Control & Water Conservation District(Zone 7), and detaching 329+ acres from the Hayward Area Recreation and Parks District (HARD); and WHEREAS, pursuant to the Cortese-Knox Govenunent Reorganization Act of 1985 (the "Act") (Government Code Section 56000 et seq.) an affected city and affected district, as therein defined, may by resolution adopted by its legislative body make a proposal for a "reorganization", as defined in Section 56073 and request initiation of proceedings thereon; WHEREAS, the City of Dublin is an affected city, and the Dublin San Ramon Services District (DSRSD) and Zone 7 of the Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation District (Zone 7) and the Hayward Area Recreation and Park District (HARD) are affected districts for a reorganization proposal which contains territory proposed to be annexed to said city and to DSRSD and to Zone 7, and HARD territory proposed to be detached from said district. WHEREAS, the City of Dublin is an affected local agency for this reorganization proposal. WHEREAS, the reorganization proposal is made pursuant to the Act. The proposal would annex 500.28+ acres to the City of Dublin (as described in Attachment 5-A, and 500.28+ acres to the Dublin San Ramon Services District, and 339.63+ acres to Zone 7 of the Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation District (as described in Attachment 5-B); and would detach 328.68+ acres from the Hayward Area Recreation and Park District (as described in Attachment 5-C); and WHEREAS, the territory described in Attachment A is uninhabited territory within the meaning of Government Code Section 56046. WHEREAS, this reorganization is proposed at the request of landowners of the territory to be annexed. WHEREAS, an Environmental Impact Report was prepared for the Schaefer Ranch Project, including the General Plan Amendment, Planned Development Prezoning, Annexation to the City, t~'Tentative Subdivision Map, Annexation to and/or detachment from various service districts, and approval of subsequent development entitlements, in accordance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act, and WHEREAS, the City Council certified the Schaefer Ranch Project Environmental Impact Report as complete, adequate, and in compliance with CEQA and the City of Dublin's Environmental Guidelines, and approved a General Plan Amendment and Planned Development (PD) Prezoning to establish land uses, general provisions and development regulations for a development consisting of up to 474 single family homes and 11 acres of commercial office uses on approximately 500 acres, generally located on the north side of the 1-580 freeway, at Schaefer Ranch Road, in Alameda County, adjacent to Dublin's Western City limits; and WHEREAS, no new effects could occur and no new mitigation measures would be required for the reorganization that were not addressed in the Final Environmental Impact Report for the Schaefer Ranch project, and the reorganization is within the scope of the Final Environmental Impact Report, and WHEREAS, the impacts upon and need for services for the territory to be annexed is set forth in the Schaefer Ranch Final EIR, including the DSRSD's Plan of Service Investigation (Appendix C of the EIR) which addresses water and wastewater services, and WHEREAS, the proposed reorganization would be conditional upon agreement of affected service Districts for annexation of the territory to the Dublin San Ramon Services District and Zone 7 of the Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation District, and agreement of affected Districts for detachment of the territory from Zone 2 of the Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation District and the Hayward Area Recreation and Parks District, and WHEREAS, this proposal is consistent with the City of Dublin sphere of influence, and WHEREAS, if determined appropriate by the LAFCo, the City Council consents to act as the conducting authority for the proposed reorganization, and WHEREAS, Section 99 of the Revenue and Taxation code provides, among other things, that no local agency jurisdictional change can be completed without the agencies affected by such change first having agreed upon an exchange of property tax revenue between and among the affected agencies, and WHEREAS, the territory subject to the PA 94-028 Schaefer Ranch Reorganization application is within "Western Dublin" as that area is defined in the ':Agreement Between County of Alameda and City of Dublin Regarding Transfer of Property Tax Revenues Upon Annexation of property in Western Dublin "("Agreement"), dated October 26, 1992, and WHEREAS, the Agreement sets forth the agreement of the City Council of the City of Dublin and the Board of Supervisors of the County of Alameda on the method for distributing property tax revenue for annexed land including the PA 94-028 Schaefer Ranch reorganization; and WHEREAS, a notice of the City Council public hearing to consider initiating a request for reorganization to the Alameda County Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCo) was distributed to all public service providers and interested individuals; and WHEREAS, the City and the applicant have been cooperatively planning for the provision of services to the project site and have notified the service providers of the proposed annexation; and 2 WHEREAS, the City Council held a properly noticed public hearing on the Schaefer Ranch project Final EIR, General Plan Amendment, Planned Development Prezoning, and Annexation Initiation on July 9, 1996, and considered all written and oral testimony submitted at or prior to the public hearing; and WItEREAS, following the July 9, 1996 public hearing the City Council adopted resolutions certifying the EIR, adopting the General Plan Amendment, and approving the Planned Development Prezone, and adopted an Ordinance prezoning the project site. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: A. The foregoing recitals are true and correct. The City Council of the City of Dublin, as the legislative body for an affected local agency, does hereby adopt the foregoing recitals and makes a proposal for a reorganization, as described herein, pursuant to Section 56800 of the Cortese-Knox Act, and does hereby request that proceedings be taken pursuant to said Act. C. This proposal is consistent with the sphere of influence 0f the City of Dublin. The proposed annexation is appropriate because it is contiguous to the existing city limits and would provide a logical extension of development under the City' s jurisdiction to provide residential, co .rnmercial, public, and open space land uses for the community. E. This proposal is made subject to the following terms and conditions: The description and the maps in Attachments A, B, and C are preliminary and are subject to more detailed description(s) and map(s) to be prepared and submitted to the LAFCo. Adjustments to the description of the territory (Attachment A) are to be made as deemed necessary by the County Surveyor. The annexation to the City of Dublin is conditional upon agreement of affected service Districts for annexation of the territory to the Dublin San Ramon Services District (DSRSD) and Zone 7 of the Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation District, and agreement of affected Districts for detachment of the territory from Zone 2 of the Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation District and the Hayward Area Recreation and Parks District (HARD). The Community Development Director is hereby directed to acquire agreements from DSRSD, the Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation District, and HARD to participate in this reorganization. The City Manager is hereby directed to send a letter to the Alameda County Administrators officer to request certification from the County of its agreement to the terms of the preexisting tax sharing agreement. 3 The City Clerk is directed to file a certified copy of this resolution with the Executive Officer of the LAFCo. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 9th day of July, 1996, by the following vote: AYES: NOES: None ABSENT: Councilmember Howard ABSTAIN: None Councilmembers Barnes, Burton, Moffatt and Mayor Houston K2/g/7-9-96/reso-th4. doc g:\pa#\ 1994\94028Xrstf-rpts\7-9ccmtgNr-anx I Mayor 4 , . FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR SCHAEFER Rt\NCH PROJECT GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT . April 1996 (document sent under separate cover) EXHIBIT l~A e I!;; CLARIFlCA nON SHEET FINAL EIR for SCHAEFER RANCH PROJECT July I, 1996 TYPically, there are mmor wrapup items to revise or mclude m the Final EIR For thIS document, these c1anficatlOns have been included for the following reasons. 1 Late EIR comment letter and response This letter from thi) Alameda County CongestIon Management Agency was submitted to the CitY~well after the close of the comment penod on the EIR, and thus no response to this comment letter is required by CEQA. However, the letter IS included for the Council's informatIOn, as miscellaneous correspondence. Responses to the comments are attached to thiS letter. 2. Minor typograohical and printing correctIons. These corrections are provided for cross- referencing, accuracy and completeness of the Final EIR. .. These clarIfications do not affect the conclusions of the EIR, and do not add any new impacts or mitigatIon measures. EXHIBIT l~B "I . e e . . . :3 ALA:\{EDA C01J~TY CO='GES'TIO~ J\lA~AGEMENT AGE::-;-CY '(1\1\'." I ' :! : ~ ~ ' - c...o1f'I~' of AhnHIb . SL'T"1::;-.-j}'JI '.;,~Sl~dr Ci~'of..u.a.nu.d..;a . ~lll"Ol R-JI'L:\::F<:'"~''' City at AlbilD~' l.uUr,::::i:....ll:ml.ou1 L~II:I' ;\i~~l June 20, 1996 UCEIVED JUl'l 21.t 1SjS Ms. Tasha Huston City of Dublin 100 Civic Plaza Dublin, CA 94568 OU~LlN P!.ANNING Cit>...olfl.'I'.J.:o::loc-l' G'_lllll.iirnvf"nl~ Sub1ect.. !,..,u~ :\rul:llr(.l"i,~ .,J C~-cr arDubllllo C'~;ll,,:t!mc:IlAa l""'JI\1-;..u..t\ Cit;r pf~l;nille F.:c-",CJ..siI~6Im :'-..h"{.r "\';';.:D;"I'.>i,.. Comments on the Draft Ell\~ronmental Impact Report With Revisions for Schaefer Ranch Project/General PllUi Amendment dated April 1996 ill the City of Dublin Dear Ms. Huston. Ci<yCt.=:~ Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Revised Draft Enviroomental Impact 'j. ;,;:;;::;, Report for the Schaefer Ranch Project/General Plan Amendment (GPA) located in the c;~ uffu,....~ni City of Dublin. Volume 2 of this document, Response to Comments and Appendices, ~l:.VN d d b R,"'"' "'ora respon e to comments su mitted by the CMA on February 15 1996 The CMA c;~ ufL;_~~ respectfully submits the following additional comments: "C!!1mciima:rrlotf A,Y'f'\\-Ir.sl;~mp City orl"\~~ . \'1U"MIl\"(,r Sm$D)oh~OCI Ci.trw~d Cou1.n:tmtmW N,.\t<t.D>:-:}!.:ot.ytOD C~~ ",rPi.eaI:lulld " ~,-,r Cr.>.i~L~ Cii~ atP.l.ez....lii.:o#) . M'\'w.r B<:[]T.jL.':"'e:[" Citr ...tS.;a.IlLt::ti..Ddrv \icr.MlIYlII ~"'''';.3I~Er.f1 Ci~' of '(=~u.LI Cii~- }.Ur~'N" ~:i.d(j-!"t:e:I:. ~Al<T Dir'!",IOl }.~!~."I:-Lh. 'PJ"':I".r AC"IlOk~' ')irnl"_"l ':",1 "."illj-UDI- The CMA requires a Year 2000 analysis for CMP pmposes. Year 2010 traffic volumes were provided to the City of Dublin on July 7, 1995 A year 2000 model TIm was not completed because the City of Dublin does not expect the project to be occupied until 2005 This should be stated in the environmental documentation. Otherwise, a Year 2000 traffic analySIS needs to be included in the DEIR In the CMA's comments dated February 15, 1996 and consistent with the CMA's request to all other jurisdictions, it was requested that the Final EIR mclude a comparison of the results from the Tri-VaIley and the Countywlde models to show that the higher projections were used to deter:mme project impacts. This companson was not provided in the response to "omments, The response stated that "a more detailed companson of the two forecasts would not be a salient addition to the document for purposes of enVIronmental review" It IS, however, requIred for the pmposes of eMP compliance and could affect the City of Dublin's conformance status. The document needs to be revised to show the comparison of the two model results. L.-.~;;:'n:':.R"";: .. Responses to CMA's February 15, 1996 comments labeled 1\.2, K5, and K8 in Volume 2 should be modified to acl;nowledge that the enVJronmental docUIDentation !:!.i!Ji identified proposed mitigation on CMA monitored facilities. CMA monitored facilities include, in additIon to 1-580 and 1-680, San Ramon Boulevard, Foothill Boulevard, and Dublin Boulevard. Given this infoIIDation, a discussion ofproposed ~333 BROADWAY :sCITl}. 220 OARLA)"..!) CA 94612 PHOJ'.""E: (510) S3('.~~~60 FAX; (510) 836-21E~, -2 Ms. Tasha HustoD June 20, 1996 Page 2 funding sources for transportation IllItlgatlOn measures identified in the environmental documentation, adequacy of project mltigatlOD measures, and consIStency with the C:MP CapJtallmprovement Program should be included in the environmental documentation. We appreciate the opportunity to review and comment on this project. If you have an} questions, please feel free to call me or Beth Walukas at 510/836-2560 Regards, ~l~y-r Jean Hart Deputy Director cC' Beth Walukas, SenJor T;ransportatJon Planner File: CMPlEnvironmental ReVJew Opinions - Responses - 1996 b -3 . . . e e - 7 A. RESPONSE TO CONGESTION MANAGEMENT AGENCY MEMO Response to CMA followup' comment 1. Model run vear This comment IS acknowledged The record is hereby clarified to state that a year 2000 model run was not completed because the City of DublIn does not expect the project to be occupied until 2005 Resoonse to CMA followuo comment 2. comoarlson of TrI-VaI)ev and CountvWlde models, The response to Comment KI (FEIR Volume 2, page 101) states that the Tn-Valley model is more appropnate and more conservatIve than the Countywide model. Since the more conservative model IS used, the traffic analYSIS III the EIR IS adequate as far as CEQA IS concerned, If further detailed compansons are required for CMA complIance, this can be completed later In the review process, but does not need to be included in the Final ElR, Response to CMA followup comment 3. MitigatIon for CMA monitored facilities, Comment K2 IS a request to discuss funding sources, The response (FEIR Volume 2, page 101) states that the remamIng funds will be collected through TIP fees and other available sources, Comments K5 and K8 refer back to thIS earher response. B TYPOGRAPHICAL AND PRINTING CORRECTIONS FEIR Vol1!-me I Page S-Il Revise Impact 4M to read: Dublin Canyon RdlSchaefcr Ranch Rd, (cumul.) pcajeet will oor>tHI...te ts Tleed for slgTlalizall...., Previously identified m itigaIion will reduce impact to less-than- significant/eve/. Column 2. Change "5" to "L" Column 3 delete lext as follows, 4.:M.1. CeTlml"'l. fa;; share af f..tare sigoali211tiBo 5est.. Page S-18 Impact 7,3D Change to read: [Column 1] 7.30 Medical emergency responsc time impacts, A possible extension of one mmute re.ponse time to the most remote parcel, and one-half minute average in residential areas, is-Ret consideJed to be a sigmficant impact. [Column 2] Change "L" to "S" [Column 3] Add: 7.3.] (See Impact 7.3('); 738, (See Impact 7,3J) [Column 4J Add "L" [The above corrections are provided to provide consistency between the summary and the EJR text. Page S-l of the EIR summary states that If there is a quesllon of interpretation, the applicable chapter shall take precedence over the summary ] Page 5.21, Impact 8 lA. Under column for mitigatIOn measures, delete Ilem 8 1.5 and renumber remaining meaSUles in sequence [proVIdes consistency belWeent tcd and summary ] Page S~24, Jmpact llA, Under column for mitigallon measures, revise to read as follows: 11.A.l Cancral r.~IlITe"'eTlts. Apply Cil) 's Tlaise eelll1'al st....dallls. I LP.,;!" Existin2 reSidences, Arrange for residents to move off site, or phase grading. [provides consistency betwcen lext and summary ] -4 Page S-28, Impact 18.3H. Under "Jevel of significance before mitigation" add "S" Under "Level of Significance after mitigation" add "L" [correction oftypograplucal error] . Add Figure S-I (attached) following page 5-29 [Figure S-l was illcluded ill Draft EIR]. Figure 1-7 legend. Under "RetaiVOffice", delete the following: SElT\1ee Etatien, l~t fleer R-etail arul Office Allcw. " [deleted to proVIde consistency With EIR text] Page 4-15 Add the following sentence under Impacl4G: Mitigation Measure 4 G.1 would reduce this impact to a less-than-significantlevel. [This repeats and clarifies information in the FEIR summary ] Page 8-4 Revise sentence beginning on line 12 to read: Mitigation Measures 8.1.1 tbrough+-h-t- 8.18 would reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level. [Correction of typographical error] Page 8-8 Under Mitigation Measure 8.2.2, removc strikeout to restore text as follows. 8.2.2 Treated Water Discbarge. [Correction oftypogmplucal error] Page 18-7 Add the following sentence under Impact 18.3 C Mitigation Measure 18.3.5 would reduce ihis impact to a less-than-significant level. [This repeats and clarifies information in thc FEIR summary ] e Page 18-7 Add the following sentence under Impact 18.3D and change the text as follows: Police Protection. The City shall continue to uSe the budget strategy FeCfliiFe iIRjlr-e'lemElHt!i Bllll 85snss fees fer Be,. ae ,<elejlmeat to cover the costs of additional police protection for new development. Mitigation Measure 18.3.6 would reduce Ihis impact to a less-than-significant level. [This repeats and clarifies information contained in Chapter 7 and in the FEIR summary ] Page 18-7 Add the following sentence undCl ImpaclI8.3E: Mitigation Measure 18.3. 7 would reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level. [This repeats and clarifies information in the FEIR sununary ] Page 18-8. Add the following sentence under Impacl18.3G: Mitigation Measure 18.3.8 would reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level. [This repeats and clarifies information in the FEIR summary ] Page 18-9 Add the following teAi under ImpacllK.3H; The cumulative demand onfire protect/on/emergency medical response facilities in the Western Extended Planning Area is a potential significant adverse cumulative impact. Mitigation Measures 18.3.9 and 18.310 would reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level. [This repeats and clarifies information in the FEIR summary ] Page 18-9 Add the following sentence under Impact 18.3I: Mitigation Measure 18.3 11 would reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level. [Tlus repeats and clarifies information in thc FEIR sununary ] e -5 <:6 . . . q Page 18-9 Add the following sentence under Impact 18.3!. Mitigation Measure 1 R.3 11 would reduce Ihis impacl to a less-Ihan-significanllevel. [This repeats and clarifies information in the FEIR summary ] FEIR Volume 2 Pagc 138, line I Change UI6 to UI7 [corre~tion of typographical error] Page 138 Add the followmg after response to comment UIS U16. Commenl. Growth inducemenl.1fthe City .chooses 10 require that roads be slubbed out to the project boundary, a subslanlial growlh inducing impact will result. The community voted against massive developm enl in the western hills. Response 10 Comment.' See response 10 commenl Q1 [Note' this addition of a cross-reference does not affect the content of the EIR, Sroce the full text of the comment and response are included elsewheJe in the document: Vol. 2, pages 75 and 123 ] -6 '" '~ !":.;':~~~~, ~ , )./ ,,, /(1/'1 '</'/)/1 '",,- ".(,' J I '''''' )-}~ j ~---L) l " I " I . '.!~, i~ : \ ,~" <"'.41 '~/4;"/0'~,.'1"'8i,. ... '0r "" ',:,,"!.<< "/.7." - '--~"""", 0' / '"..:"4-" ' .....0.., .."., , .; &_..';::', ',..'iy ;. --k ,~-, "-t!o. _ \ ~ (4~.::,.)t:':::\ -9'1;-. " '.' l;'~,\ '...' , ~ " " " '\ ~; /\ I :<S1iT '\"=~, I~f t: {/^, l: -;;;; .'xi'-?'" -,~; (,\; ,):_:)) . - 1>-, ...: <' - G - \ Ill. ,..Jim /f; - /\. \ . ?l!j:rIlIUD~~.II1\~) ''', '1JI 1\> " "'-., DONLAN .\ - POINT '~". : ::~': ;.:;; :y~ i:.; ~.:: -:~:,L ~..;.~ -; '. ;,. . ~ ;, , " . \~ ..' "-"--. .,:,l '.~_ ~ ~~J !.O..IIX:"l 'WR\.l RovY>;;;llea1\ ~ 01::1. ~5 LEGENO ~ Slopes over 30% ~ Deep-Sealed landslides * Scanic lealures Topogrsllical Conlours [50' tncrements} ~,.,." .......'..........'. ,,'-,,'-,-, ^"'"'--"'- - 't. fIil\?. Woodland VISually Sen silive ".~. ........ / Stream cha.nnels .....-..... 7:5'; ExisHng Noise level Con tours (d B Ldn I Figure S- 1 SITE CONSTRAINTS Wetlands Fresh eme,,~enl wetla Ilds ,m <00 '>00 ''''' ..00 1100 SCHAEFER RANCH . GPA . .