Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout8.1 Hansen Hill Ranch GP Amendment AGENDA STATEMENT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: September 11, 1989 SUBJECT: PA 89-104 Hansen Hill Ranch/Bren Company General Plan Amendment Study Request REPORT PREPARED BY: Maureen O'Halloran, Senior Planner EXHIBITS ATTACHED: Attachment 1: Hansen Hill General Plan Amendment Resolution Attachment 2: Bren Company letter requesting General Plan Amendment dated received August 25, 1989 Attachment 3: Location Plan Attachment 4: City Council minutes of January 24, 1989 meeting RECOMMENDATION: !-? r\ 1) - Hear Staff presentation / ' 4 j' 2) Take comments from the Applicant and public 3) Deliberate 4) Deny study request, or authorize a study of tikOq`k a land use designation amendment rather than a policy amendment FINANCIAL STATEMENT: None DESCRIPTION: Background On February 27, 1989, the City Council adopted a General Plan Amendment for the Hansen Hill Ranch site including new general plan policies relating to open space (see Attachment 1) and land use designations for: - 57.2 acres Low Density Single-Family Residential (0.5 to 38 DU/Acre) . This designation allows between 29 single-family units and 222 single- family units within the 57.2 acres, and - 89. 8 acres as open space; stream corridor. This designation does not allow residential units. Specific General Plan Policies: 1) prohibit development within open space areas except development designed to enhance public safety and the environmental setting; 2) allows roads to pass through open space areas provided the roads are designed to minimize grading to the maximum extent possible so as not to damage the ecological or aesthetic value of the open space area and 3) requires revegetation of cut and fill areas with native trees, shrubs and grasses. The Bren Co. , the property owner for the Hansen Hill Ranch site, is requesting a General Plan Amendment to allow custom home development adjacent to the roadway within the designated open space area (see Attachment 2) . The Bren Company suggests the amendment be accomplished as a policy amendment permitting custom homes adjacent to roads which traverse open space areas provided no grading or tree removal occurs and provided the design of the units are compatible and harmonious with the open space setting. California State law limits the number of General Plan Amendments a jurisdiction may adopt to a maximum of four (4) amendments per calendar year. The City Council authorizes the number and extent of General Plan Amendments. To date, during 1989, the City Council has adopted three (3) General Plan Amendments (Hansen Hill Ranch, Civic Center and Donlan Canyon) . A fourth General Plan Amendment, the Dublin Boulevard Road Extension General Plan Amendment Study authorized by the City Council on February 8, 1988, is tentatively scheduled for the October 2, 1989 Planning Commission meeting and the October 23, 1989 City Council Meeting. P COPIES TO: Applicant/Owner ITEM NO. PA 89-104 Project Planner -1- If the Council authorizes The Bren Co. General Plan Amendment three options are available for processing the two General Plan Amendments (Dublin Boulevard Extension and the Hansen Hill Amendments) . 1. State law permits each amendment to include more than one change to the General Plan. The Council could direct Staff to process the two amendments as one amendment. Under this option, Dublin Boulevard Extension and Hansen Hill would be treated as one project for the purpose of public notice, public hearings and final action. The Dublin Boulevard Extension public hearings would probably need to be delayed to allow for the Hanesn Hill Amendment to be analyzed. 2. The Council could prioritize the amendments directing Staff to process one amendment prior to processing the second amendment (i.e. , process Dublin Boulevard Extension prior to Hansen Hill) . 3. The Council could direct Staff to continue processing the amendments separately allowing each project to proceed at its own pace, without consideration of the processing of the other project. In option 2 or 3, if separate action is taken on each amendment, only one amendment could be approved this year (1989) . Recommendation Staff recommends that the City Council not authorize The Bren Co. General Plan Amendment request. The issue to allow units within the open space area was considered by the City Council during the public hearings on the Hansen Hill Ranch General Plan Amendment acted upon by the Council 6-1/2 months ago (February 27, 1989) . At that time the Council amended the General Plan designating the area as open space. The Council further amended the General Plan to include a policy which allows roadways with minimized grading to traverse open space areas. Prior to that amendment roadways were not allowed to traverse open space areas. Additionally, the Council amended the General Plan to include a policy requiring revegetation of cut and fill areas with native trees, shrubs and grasses. The Hansen Hill Ranch EIR certified by the City Council identifies development within this area as a significant environmental impact to the oak woodlands and riparian habitat. The Council adopted a statement of overriding considerations in that the impacts associated with construction of the roadway through the open space could not be mitigated to an acceptable level. However, the EIR and Council's statement of overriding consideration anticipated the impacts to the oak woodlands and riparian vegetation would be minimized through implementation of the EIR mitigation measures requiring minimal grading for the road and requiring the area to be revegetated with native plants. The statement of overriding considerations does not address construction of units within the open space area in that the GPA does not permit residential development within the area. Finally, it should be noted that California State law requires adoption of a General Plan that is a comprehensive long term plan for the physical development of the City. With regard to the Hansen Hill site, the City's existing General Plan as amended in February 1989 is a comprehensive long-term plan in which, prior to approval of the amendment, residential development was considered within that area and prohibited (see Attachment 4) . Additionally, the existing General Plan considers the long-term effects of allowing roadway development through the open space area by requiring the graded area to be revegetated with native plants in an effort to minimize the disturbance of this environmentally sensitive area. If the Council chooses to authorize The Bren Co. General Plan Amendment Study, Staff would recommend the study consider a land use designation amendment instead of a General Plan policy amendment. A policy amendment to allow custom home development within the open space area would impact open space areas throughout the City and Extended Planning Area. The policy amendment proposed by the Applicant would involve a larger General Plan study area than a land use designation General Plan Amendment study limited to the Hansen Hill site. The roadway and adjacent lots within the open space area occupies approximately 2.73 acres. The Applicant is proposing 10 units within this area resulting in a density of 3.66 DU/Acre. -2- • RESOLUTION NO. 021 - 89 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN ADOPTING GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENTS FOR PA 87-045 HANSEN HILL RANCH WHEREAS, The Hansen Hill Development Corporation, an affiliate development company of Venture Corporation has requested a General Plan Amendment Study, Planned Development Prezdning, Tentative Subdivision Map No. 5766 and Annexation to allow a maximum of 240 dwelling units on 147+ acres in unincorporated Alameda County west of Silvergate Drive and north of Hansen Drive; and WHEREAS, on August 11, 1986 the City Council authorized a General Plan Amendment Study for the Hansen Hill Ranch property; and WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of State Planning and Zoning Law, it is the function and duty of the Planning Commission of the City of Dublin to review and recommend action on proposed amendments to the City's General Plan; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held four Public Noticed Study Sessions on the Hansen Hill Ranch planning applications on February 2, 1987, February 17, 1987, August 23, 1988 and August 24, 1988, and two noticed field trips on February 27, 1988 and August 20, 1988; and WHEREAS, notice of Planning Commission Public Hearings was published in the Herald, posted in public.buildings, and mailed to property owners within 300 feet of the project in accordance with California State Law; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held seven noticed public hearings to consider the General Plan Amendment and EIR for PA 87-045 Planning Application for Hansen Hill Ranch on February 1, 1958, February 16, 1988, July 18, 1988, August 1, 1988, September 19, 1988, October 3, 1988 and October 17, 19S8; and WHEREAS, the Staff analysis was submitted recommending amendments to the General Plan relating to General Plan Land Use Designation and Density, the Primary Planning Area, Table I and Figure 4, policy and map relating to Hansen Drive extension, alternate roadway serving Hansen Hill Ranch,'policies [CC Reso GPA 2/27/S9) iT11AC1 ~' �®•if nra on aeu B.,_ — e1.n. a°3+___ /'_ LIRA erso_ _.�i establishing an acceptable level of service (LOS) for intersections in Dublin, and policies establishing fire protection buffer zone around perimeter of residential development interfacing with open space lands; and WHEREAS, the General Plan Amendment has been reviewed in accordance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act; and WHEREAS, an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) has been prepared pursuant to CEQA; and WHEREAS, on October 17, 1988, the Planning Commission, after considering all written and oral testimony submitted at the public hearings, adopted Resolution No. 88-058 recommending City Council certification of the EIR and Resolution No. 88-059 recommending adoption of General Plan Amendments; WHEREAS, the City Council held one Public Noticed Field Trip on November 27, 1988; and WHEREAS, Notice of City Council Public Hearings was published in the Herald, posted in public buildings and mailed to property owners within 300 feet of the project in accordance with California State Law; and WHEREAS, the City Council held six Public Hearings to consider PA 87-045 Hansen Hill Ranch General Plan Amendment on November 14, 1988, November 29, 1988, December 13, 1988, January 10, 1989, January 24, 1989 and February 27, 1989 ; and WHEREAS, the General Plan Amendment has been reviewed in accordance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA); and WHEREAS, a Staff analysis of the Planning Commission recommendation, Staff recommendation and the Applicant's proposal was submitted to the City Council; and WHEREAS, the City Council considered all written and oral testimony submitted at the Public Hearings; and WHEREAS, on February 27, 198,9, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 019-89 making findings certifying the Hansen Hill Ranch EIR and Addendum as adequate and complete. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE Dublin City Council does hereby approve the following General Plan Amendments for PA 87-045 Hansen Hill Ranch as discussed by the Planning Commission and as modified by the City Council which modifications are not substantial: 1. Amend Figure 1 Dublin General Plan Primary Planning Area to: a. include the entire Hansen Hill Ranch site (APN 941-110-1-9 and APN 941-110-2) within the Primary Planning Area. [CC Reso GPA 2/27/S9] -2- b. amend the land use designations on Hansen Hill Ranch site, as noted on Attachment C-1 to include: - Open Space, Stream corridor - Low Density Single-Family Residential (0.5 - 3.8 units per acre) c. eliminate Hansen Drive extension through Valley Christian Center site. d. include alternate roadway serving Hansen Hill Ranch site from Dublin Boulevard through the Valley Christian Center and designate roadway as a collector street. 2. Amend Table 1, Development Policies for Residential Sites, page 8, and Figure 4, Sites for Housing Development, page 9, eliminating Area 5, 6 and 7 from the Table and Figure. 3. Eliminate implementing Policy 5.19, page 19, "Reserve Right-of-Way for Hansen Drive Extension to the Western Hills". 4. Amend 5.0, Land Use and Circulation Section: Circulation and Scenic Highways Element to include a policy establishing the maximum level of service acceptable for intersections within the City: "Strive to phase development and road improvements outside the Downtown Specific Plan Area so that the operating Level of Service (LOS) for major street intersections in Dublin shall not be worse than LOS D." 5. Amend 8.0 Environmental Resources Management Section: ' Seismic Safety and Safety Element 8.2.2 Fire Hazard & Fire Protection implementing policies to include a policy requiring fire protection buffer zone around perimeter of residential development which interface with open space lands: "A fire protection buffer zone shall be provided around the perimeter of residential development situated adjacent to undeveloped open space land" . 6. Amend 7.0 Environmental Resources Management Section: Conservation Element to include policies relating to open space maintenance: A. "Require open space management and maintenance programs for open space areas established through subdivisions and Planned Development districts. Programs should include standards to ensure control of potential hazards; appropriate setbacks; and management of the open space so that it produces a positive and pleasing visual image." B. "Require that land designated as open space through development approval be permanently restricted to open space use by recorded map or deed. " • [CC Reso GPA 2/27/89] -3- C. "Require revegetation of cut and fill slopes." /:///// D. "Require use of native trees, shrubs and grasses with low maintenance costs in revegetation of cut and fill slopes." E. "Access roads (including emergency access roads), arterial streets and collector streets that must pass through open space areas shall be designed to minimize grading to the maximum extent possible so as not to damage the ecological and/or aesthetic value and characteristics of the open space area." F. "Prohibit development within designated open space areas except that designed to enhance public safety and the environmental setting." G. "Promote inclusion of hiking, bicycling and/or equestrian trails within designated open space areas." BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT THE Dublin City Council does hereby direct the Staff to edit, format, and print the•.up to date Dublin General Plan with all City Council approved revisions and without any other substantive changes. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT THE Dublin City Council does hereby direct that the Applicant is responsible for all costs the City incurs in providing an up to date Dublin General Plan resulting from the adoption of Hansen Hill Ranch General Plan Amendments. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 27th day of February, 1989. AYES: Councilmembers Hegarty, Jeffery, Snyder, Vonheeder, and Mayor Moffatt NOES: None ABSENT: None • a-f..c_P7( 479/.64-- Mayor • ATTEST: City Clerk\J - [CC Rest GPA 2/27/S9] _ -4- . . .. - • . • . . ••••=mro. ., . • • , . .. 111111;;Ell 111.1.1s llAIR:11 .1 • . . , • • .- . UHNBRAL PLAN ANEW/HI:Mr . •acz....) ' • ,,,..... . . •• •' ,, ,•-;';','''',:''''',' . . • , . ' • . , . L'A U7•-•045 . .., • l•A II I) II:;I.: I)I:!:I COAT I() :::- , . .'1,-,".:L.'', • . .,.':': • . ' •• . , . • • 16)14.51) 1C1111.13(F1::! ? Filitli:11[1:r:: 1":11.11"17 17:72; 57.2 'Acres .■•-..- • • --- • .• • . . . -5 ,..--- , -. -1-s.._:_.„, • -• •,-- . • ..:::.,'':'.-7:•:,,..... , ,...-..----....._ . PrAfPZ .,.•:.•:::-...-,•.., -!.,..,„; • ...„ , -_,..„.......zz...._ • • . c CI:2:n ',---"-- ' ,'.i•-• •.::•,' '. ,-•-- - '' .!.''-‘7-•- •_._ . re 7-.."::::...:.., _. :. ,.k..:.--4. Z---,. -4;, ,..,,t":::::"' •---. • (1)jifjci.tiii Snicot,i.zuo, SLrucini (;urrJ.Jur •''' ,-- .•,-' lb- .,-.5.,..n..-:. ..- . ---:a.. ‘t,...A6--. - I • . • " . . ..- . .i...-.1k.r..,-;„;:.,.....,_•• ,-,,,,,i3,R. ,i, ,...........tfi, A___.\ ::.. ,-.:. , _, _,.-....,-•.. ,, - ...t ..„..t.,,, x• .% ..„, . ----4i.---)-1-• .. . • - ••... •,•-•\ .1.... • - .,',.= . - ,-:-. r:'111F` .- ..)-ii `is't-.• 1.••-.' • .. ' ..„..,c••■k..17:-.......t..:217),,---•.- s:-.....-;••••.......0"-V . ..,. • ..,, 1.....„- s_ ••,•hji.• I ..k., „..-%-i1O'h 4,3f1;.NA, ,.1\,-; -..... ,. • ....,---__ s-•-•.::::::-.. •-,„ ''''''‘.-- i .'s . • Gull7Ltir :...LreuL LH OpHH 5p.ocu riff:2„. ...-:--..- • , 1--- •.1.',v_,,... sx1.14,.. • ,. .i,• ,:i.k, ,,... c..-..-:-.--.....-:,-,.-,,.........„,.,......... --,.. .. .,...,,.__„.._ :..,„. .,. . : ...,44.7..-• s -- ..,\Izt. • 13,e. ::i *:1•• - It:7 F.1.-----7..(.2 .1-(4,. z.:-.'ofsk., .------.:1-... ::-K, .,4::,. .i..*:,..,-.•, .. • .:.-AN•i,., .1 y ''• .... .1',21.• •' .'s •• 'Ai. 1.1r.ro .(:).il ii:ti ,-,.11A cji A■',.• i 1 -4;•■:',.. . . . • •■•• . .'•1 :.: gi g•••.4 • , . '''''1''''''':-':'' • : 1 y.-- .--‘-a-*,„k....111.kr./111...%1$.11 1).)\,) Ss-'%-1. 11,....;)17.14... ' .1;4'S.. ...: :::''■.'01•- -rItIA.•=•.):■•••.CP.!..Isi.'.(‘4(.."..*:;■•■;:,.. .1.. •',j..-,■•,•'•••... .1 •• ) :Cr 4is.",-•'•--• .-:,..„!„ ,/, ,,,,31•12,..Z_.•\\'„,. • , %. eiv, •:•,;:,.\\\1,-.N. -,.......4-1:,,• /•01 -., f . of . I.OW 1)1iIIN I TY 5 I 11(;1•1",-4.6111 1.7 to: .. ,s 41,1 . ‘,.I.(.‘1 , k.:;„••;.•4'e .,7 v ..z.•(.,...,.(..,,.,....1,..1 u\N,...-..z....z..t.,-......7,-) .1%,t:.:l -.::.4...1- •-.. IR: z ••, !:' : ,:"..:*`."Ing4.4,7----:::-1F-1, '1)1 \P':Ii.r.s-S% .:,-" ,":-' , :i) fi.':':-..4,....)!•;f '.(. ..',.•::-;,--.:---- -:....,:-.--:--""••• .t...,..,,,,;.,,,...4.,NI.,\, .,... ...i. .......,\,....\_,...(ii...1....:_:...r.,,,,.5...1-..,‘,.:.-:-.-..„•,-;11-1) :,<.:,.....g.r es..z..-4Q. :,....,•..z*V- );..,1 ), 11,..,..:...,...„...,..,-,...e,...!/s. :....:....1,...79,1.1::::.(.,,,,,k.i.,JA.Li..:‘,1/-.,,.‘_.:1,,,,,r,r,.....jei;,\.,77.1,,,,fcz.11,____. 7..."'"/117.14.i_. (:.7.,;,0„.17..„.........,,..L.?"ii.l.iy./.';+-:'•4"•,s,',.,. 1 . , ,,,,, i i ,i , ,, ... . ..-. (ys\ '.'",..,. . .-, . .. ,, •• •• ,N..(5. ....• . :-_-.1.-:,-; . a/ . • ii . 4.\•1 t q• /4: 1 .1 //A:.,•"••c•tr• ....y•t•'1.:. . • ...IP::::--'11-:;;R:44;-• • 1;11 al.+Ci '.2.a ........ .... .. .; II. N\-f. " .-...z.f.,0. cp\# , 1 •• / ..<, 6'1 "`'fel • L, ) • '' C '1::: 'd, i 1 .„•-•,-■ \zz../....- is,,,,..•.,..s • ., • pe .7 .,. G......,.. .,..,,,,,, .„, ..... .,,,,. ..,..,:,„ . ,. .„. itu,..2-.L.r•.• •,• (a %,.... . .. .-- •.. .... L ,. .. ' •. ..'- ,,, :. 1 .:"V.Ars1,,rtiV 1. , .ft,e\-31 1. ....4 J/..,§• VA (2';V.:/,r tiZziC.,/._,-;;•:1 f3.-.fi?;)`:.-.\ti ill'.'s',;( f f/ r,,e. -‘,„1 C A. sl ' , .r. • ..1:_,I• • Q. nt• 0?.II 1, I./1/1117::1 ' 11'.).%.....q.P.d I‘:' 111) (‘ . ' ' ....WW)..\'‘4'.1'°14.'1:.;;:4 r' .;771. .• .\')1.11:{t.''S: ' . . . ...'• . . , . . .:, 411=1 S:::,......S.:.:..............: ....'...., . ...,0,/, ,, -11:11.•.1 2,,) / ..,.....1/...„, 1,,-I i ly.t,..4„..,.‘„,„•..„:„....54.; st .t1,01,s9,4,‘/,.3,, • , ..1 4/, ,./71/, .,,,,A • z,e,.:, ,.,/^. 1..147rf . , . ),•••.,/•cA.1.... , . ,.... ..,...„(.1 „f„, ‘.....I,1 . • .. . .,.•"-II. •. 11 11 ri .., ...i ; hi I,'....c...-.4. ...., „ JL_J Lei Li "'..".......'::"-'\‘‘ ‘* 3\sY":":1--..ji2Z:'•NI S INGLE FA MI LY 1::.:`Iy:.:.'y Vi:‘r.,-.1.ril ?(\ill'itiiirv:i1.11'. 's.-", ..k.....z.......s,...-,...7.,--,A../.. Tuillic .. --4...::::':-:-.*:-:...'s-ti::''2"13-.1'.:iiz"......:.:..zz-----:------="- --r-r:::.:447_,:".„1.,.......-11t-Xcr.4t7liC1,-.11:'•\-.P..-: ",i.ryl:till idiV:itille..1 .2C1.71;(4,-.1.1411...,.111(.1 .;)\S"F,1.6"5:•0111.j...)\,-(::,.),..... .,q..."'...6:4;d0. 0\--j ' . .. ..........rz.-::::..r.........-., - • •,... . 'r t s:•■• ' --)) ) ‘ (. '- "..z••7-■"'•'' ' .• .s ".1r4 :-. ' ''', ., ..„.\c.......), ... ......,..„•;.;,.::, - ......,_-. ) .0:'''1% \-‘) L••••• • : :.--. ...........■•_:-:.• r t •- .•.'1,,,:.1.4• c7<) --. ' .:...44,.-"z.--..-.:-....--_.............- ................................„, 'ti -..-------'... ,•' ,.........,, ---•''--•• - . •J • ...":... ----'•••.... • ....■•••-•••••• ..---.. •./. , s•...:"'"•-• ...... ......./ • •... • .. s lib \\..,`......,.`•--c•••••1••';•, -•:'..... ■ • .. . , . . • .• • • r...fr•-c^,,,r,-.,--,-.11•-..!1 7,..11..,VTV:T. ." ; •.• -......r,.:; ! ':.. *, '. . . . .! . • • .•• .. • . . • -. • •••-•T"'-l'''..--."."... .'''',1':.'''r'A.."•77r'"S'Z'.7Frr::11-. `-`41.1..'I'•':Er.'I.i ',. s.• ., ., ‘r'.:V.,;•L.,■:, .••,tI . ' .. Z'nrit'Z7.'7a-r:r1.,7• ;••U' Z';'.1:4,1_..0•:• -•• ■1,-;•••li:t1/4;i:%■1.:;N.1?•4;1; •-;';'.:6)-ii.'1V3.2.,A‘':I:.';1 ii"S.1.1U.),:4•11V tc.4..'..1.".......i ill-:,.:■••••1:-■,.. -''.r : '..:. . ' !.. ;'..1.•%.'.;.:..........• .• - • . ••• ...... • •• .- . 4 .s-‘k"'ts":C.--.• kt..-4.7%.•'?I'a'''14.-'1”14,14. \''4"'n\lii")s.:01;S:t'vf3',:t...;.:••:-.1:',1*-■: ...:••'4-i.V.''....'(4:1;.i':.'`:•;;V:,...,•!'•,:........ • • • • .• • ..- *; ; ;.. • .... .. , . , , ;..• 0, •..: .• .• . • • - • - • - -4.L-..,.,..\.,-h.-..1-.,..,tt s.,.t...t.ter.,-... :•,..:,,-,1‘..•.,,.,..§,..,N.i'-if,;•t!;1, ...;.:i a:Z.N.....,::..1•;;;x:,_-.,,:.-"•:11.::.'4:6%.•:.7. .1,..:.:',........;.., .'..,••.*.•'.. . • • • • . ....•.•'.7. •' . •.. :.• .. :::' • • .•;•';.•'.. : • • ., . • '. . ----‘1"\--• .1'N',.-,:-) .7.t. '-‘,:`‘--4-A 4,:tA'N'''t'2,11\::: :.,--Zt,sill';`.0,.. ...'".,1.,^1.q.•,..A.'..\-i''•I'‘\10. ...•'.:4. .-.0",.%'..•• .. •• , -. •- .',••-'''r• 11-1's-- -\'‘‘/--- .‘:-...V..4.ci.,`./.v:...'i''.;?'41\0•:;•:11C.4%;:•••; ‘'Se-:',"est'..•.:r's 1.,':'.""' '•:.• .' .... • , , • „ ,,,. .. ksZ•'. .-it,:Ali.4,;%„ -,,■1,N ';:lt‘•-;?..,1--;1,'Si.7:,Vi_ 10'' ''''%:?s'''.Z1''"'':',..J'.1"Y•11.1:1'.1....il..:-'1..••?..../. '-• '. •:•• .+ : 1 ••.'' ". " ". • .' • • •••''•' ;- . • . ' •''' ' .41.k1;‘. ''',-;;,•z_)1-,,•$•-•-k:'- ..‘,‘-\\t'.,...r-,,I■:vt-s.--)"-1•Xr. , .t',\;:1,.V.::1.k,-1.;;:ath. ..:\•':•1 i:1 .s:,.,.‘..;::.,:f•v•••:':':.,II.Nt■..:,•.••.••• ' .'•: .''., . I' ••, ••. . • • .'.••.- •:•-p V. ••• • .• ,'1' .: •, ' ,:'., •••• :.: . „ ....\&...,:--.2,-fs\:1•,i1.......,:•.., ,,S,;,,,..T.,.-,,„„..,?;.11,1, .!-„,..0.,...,.....:-:•,,,zi;;:•••:,;.1,....,!.1.:.•;:!•,,•7'4,11'1.•:,%;'.•.1"....''. '''•s•••••'•' • ' '' . , . , , • 11..r:." ..1:.-1=...:\t:• .-t.i,!i'?.:•‘■k::-., ;•::,.•, ,•,*••••,,,,;,...,:.;.,...:.:, );:.:••,..,..1.1,.. 0.,%., .,..:.,.,,. ... . ,.... 1:, ., .... , • :. , . . . . . .. , ,„.,.. ... I........ ., ,, .., .„,..,,..„, . , ... / 1-.::;s•-,;•4.n.e., ;:. -....•:.,.4.\•,,,A11.‘LI.s::. t1.;-,',....:::•••• )30,:.• ...:.:. :.'.,...'!•,••••• •-s.; 1••11.1 .;.,:,•••••••,i1:A.•'...r;::-•,•$•,•••• ...'A..••••:..:.:•1.i.:• •........... ••:I .... .• •• i •• , • .•••• ':••;,• • . .:•1.• ...; •‘ ' --- - .,-..2.,1....;.v.I.,t1i.N..‘.4%.••,•ts.,-vo .■•Vol:i.ti•E•1 z.,..,..,....::,,•:!,:•••••.•„. .W.,...?,•••,,:'.1:•„.,•.;,;•. ,•••.,.........,.!• ,; ......•... •••. . . ••.. •., ;. • .. •;.• ; ,..... . •' : ;,,•!....,. ,. , . . ' • ..,;', •..- - ,' .. .• ,••-z 1,,••:- . -. P=-r---,A--. .r.z4,...-. ,.....,.fr.........■•.-.. ......,:1,-,..%. •••,..,:•:.A.•,......:•• ••••:•• .,••••• • :••• . •• •• .• • • •• .•• . .:. • .•••: •.• •• •,.'• •• •• • • •• • • ...,7,1, z..•,...0-,...1‘.',.:::,z....:-.••...-,....,,....,, ..;•,.., ;,,t.....:.,.,,....,,...,,,,....,..,..,. .........•,. . ... ...., . '•‘..,-‘--; ',1).•-.N.-,1:,k• ;4`...s4.7.a-15.71-: .$,L.A... ,•,.-: '4%.,•,N.1.ts,•■', !IA.•‘1,4:v•e l• i.1• 1,-.1f,1!.t.., •. 1 •.•,;:.•,..; t•' • . ".. ' , - ''''ii-' .. 4..k•I'N••■•r'V•‘‘' " ''?',i''.•:.*:: 'ijk 4 A•ZZ!g%•.•e....•'S‘.•%:.'.'.. I•:'..',.....z,:.‘,,..!...j...•..... .,....... .., .. . . ".,'' .'•11?sA.,.. 4.2 .t ...%•:'1":-'I, ':.r'.‘i:S.,1'1%,:i$...'•* %T.'!'....S. . . ‘", 1 '..*:a •• :•;••••.' -I) • • • . • . -‘. :'- k' •‘,.v'..'.z.'1.‘st••••Ztl '*■-'•:Il'.••••01.`•A,I. .1'!.`-`0.1'-'.:v....'11 1 :, . .:.•% •...• . --'•za ;N-,•„,,tc-.:%4 .&1••%-•';'1.1 `;•• :'.i.%:.:.t:t•:•9■!.•.t6;:-1•.:.,•• ;•11.'0,'•/:.;:.t, :1%.,•:.... : . ' ' .• .,• - •, . -.' k-'%-, .,_‘1,,i`str,i s.,„iA q,3.1‘,...0%...l'.,Ili 47.i'..A•ft,,..':;:4'4•.;•..;:l'.." ...,.: It.•••.::i t.i. . '....v. , • • . . •. •• • • • . - -,2 It'sh:•••%$'• •;,L4'f•is..‘ ”4.%•,:•::-.;1...':•.‘I::'v.....,\•■'`,Itil. t.I';'!..111:: :.:•• ••..•,•.' ...• • ' ' ., • , , , ' 4,ki'='■-•41: oVi,',Zt`...• 'I.,.1 '',ils'ni••••(-.".• %%V.'''.•.":%+,`: ., se. s •t' •'%,•'• *.,.. • •. . , •, . , „ ... .. . . - • . .. . •tc,$'•• ....`i\--:ss•--'s••••%is•.•,‘...1.•`:*":•:' is.. •••N•s:':•I'..* ■• :"'...•••'•.•• •.•.0 •••• • • •• • . . . . . . . . . .. . - • . . . . , .. . . Bi n CompakAy: August 24, 1989 City Council City of Dublin . 6500 Dublin Blvd. , Suite D Dublin, CA 94568 Attention: Laurence L. Tong Dear Council Members: The Bren Company is requesting a General Plan Amendment (GPA) for Hansen Hill Ranch. The GPA would amend the text of the open space policy of the General Plan to allow construction of lots 181-190 as shown on the attached Exhibit A. The following suggested. amendment would generally accomplish our request: Permit custom home development only adjacent to those roadways which traverse open space areas provided that a) no grading occurs or trees are removed other than that required for streets designated on the General Plan, (with the exception of fine grading for siting the house) and b) the design of the individual custom homes must be compatible and harmonious with the open space setting subject to Site Development Review and approval. If in staff' s opinion, additional deletion or revisions should be made to the existing General Plan in order to ._accomplish our desired result, we would be willing to discuss it. My letter of August 14, is attached in order to give you the background as to why, in our opinion, lots 181-190 are a valid component of our project. It is our hope that the City Council will concur. It is important to note that the request to consider these ten lots will still keep our density well below the maximum allowable with the current General Plan. - Sincerely, 9/ n G'r RECEIVED Martha W. Buxton AUG 2 51989 Director, Land Acquisition and Forward Planning DUBLIN PLANNING MWB:lsm Attachments 4 ` i. � Northern Calif . •6601 Owens Drive, Suite 250, Pleasantor ,,,. fn,■ ._A. .1 .�_.. .a w 1 e,en kil. -.1.-: ' 0 i• briii . •), .••existing oak-bay woodland • / '' ~ 4,y..� 4,fi / • � - , , . . . -....,....„...... ,„„,,,,\., . y a -,- .---;.,..i.,.-- ____IU.i.z \ • _-� s.---7N-'•••%:,,,l• - imit of gradi'�/�{{� _-. .. / ..'1%.., ....© , �r , , I • rir • `.: �`V ;w^�1 .' * fi4 `•q?'� .: 1 �1--` rovegetated slope \ �_`. ,,.r', • - • .• :'4'.• / yry.•• . ,, ,... „, ...r • i .. ... - . 'h• l 175 1(31. 1 j. \ •'', ,; ',. TA - r-- .,Q is. . . . \\\. .. . . • . •71,) •9 • 17.3 ti .: I , �, .. �� F--p .- rte`-..Z7Z.v../....'"......w7r '••• . : ../.. .fS ....9 • ........... . \....: ', •C,:▪ •-''11`= _ ' , . _- , , ` • `% ' :I w 11-1 ' •18 9 ' ;� � ,I.L Z:".. • •^0 . ''.' j „_ ,cam, • +- C_, a�..rt�t • 1 . • ., ......1 : . fic .,•• . 0 • t • • •- .r....y... .7.... .,. , b li • • / r N(Zia '--"‘")N, , , /7-�▪•` '-• •,•' ` /. '., ter � 'r ^�:�.am�:n. ••C� I1 • '� .x�,.,•,' 1 I 188 '" ,, Y . , ■ Z\\ �`y \ •••• y s 177 .� /° \ , : � r -:-. ^-o Z� fl[ /,Gov �J `�1 W44 'p ti - ' tjLy� - • . , existing oak-bay woodland , , 0 . \\ f_ �>, ,_,. A n 1 ■/ \\' t —7/ - - ,r71,773 11 • , - r ,O~ , •• * . : lc'") . --' . . _ .. - - fp;•,,I U • ,. , , • .% I.,re n Corn to August 14 , 1989 City Council City of Dublin 6500 Dublin Blvd. Suite D Dublin, CA 94568 Attention: Laurence Tong Dear Council Members: During the review process of the Hansen Hill Ranch, application for a Tentative Subdivision Map, Planned Development Zoning and Grading Permit, staff has determined that it is also necessary for us to apply for a General Plan Amendment. The purpose of the General Plan Amendment would be to allow development along the collector street in the open space. It is the opinion of the Bren Company that we are not in conflict with the intent of the policies relating to open space maintenance in the General Plan Amendment adopted in February 1989. Specifically those policies are: "Access roads (including emergency access roads) , arterial streets and collector streets that must pass through open space areas shall be designed to minimize grading to the maximum extent possible so as not to damage the ecological and/or aesthetic value and characteristics of the open space area. " "Prohibit development within designated open space areas except that designed to enhance public safety and the environmental setting. " Perhaps, it would be;beneficial to review some of the events of the past six months in order to place this issue in its proper context. The most significant activity during this period was a tremendous accumulation of knowledge through the work of our numerous consultants. At the time of the February 1989 General • RECEIVED AUG 2 5 1989 DUBL PLANNING. Northern California Division IN City Council August 14 , 1989 Page Two Plan Amendment, much of the design was based on preliminary studies. With further, more detailed studies, it has become • apparent that significant grading must occur in order to construct the loop road and the street stubbed to eventually connect to the Neilson property. Both of these roads are located in the open space and both were requirements of the City. Both roads have been designed to minimize grading by utilizing the maximum allowable grades whenever possible. However, this still results in areas adjacent to the road that are either expansive pads suitable for production homes (lots 181 and 190) pr a combination of slope and pad suitable for custom homes (lots 182 - 189) . As the attached exhibit indicates, the limit of grading necessary to construct the, roads results in these graded pads suitable for • development. No further grading beyond that needed for road construction is proposed. The other policy pertinent to the lots in cuestion states that development may occur in the open space area if it is "designed to enhance the public safety" . In reviewing the project, the police department pointed out that development along the collector street would help to control access to the open space adjacent to lots 181-188 . A long stretch of road without development would increase the potential for "undesirable activities" in the open space area. Unlike the open space surrounding the creek, this area is not accessible for patrolling. Another major event during the past six months was revising and refining the design of the project. The decision was made to minimize the impact of development by designing a quality single family detached product on lots averaging 7,720 square feet. This results in a unit count of only 190 homes (158 production homes and 32 custom home lots) . The 190 homes is well below the 222 approved , for the site by the City Council. Without the ten lots along the collector street, our unit count would be 180, which is very close to the 175 units rejected as Alternative #2 in the EIR certi- fication because "it would not provide an adequate number of housing units and the associated increase in the property tax revenues" . It is unfortunate that this single issue is being presented to you out of the context of the development as a whole. The project is a complicated one with many issues which should. be considered simultaneously in order to achieve the best overall design. It is our belief that for the reasons stated, the policies of the current General Plan Amendment, allows you to consider lots 181-190 without an additional GPA. Li • City Council August .14, 1989 Page Three If you determine that we must apply for 'another General Plan Amendment, we would ask that the amendment be processed con- currently with the Tentative Subdivision Map, Planned Development Zoning and Grading Permit. It would be most beneficial for all parties concerned, (the City of Dublin, the Bren Company and the general public) , to review Hansen Hill Ranch as an entity and not to process one aspect of the project separately. Lots 181-190 should be reviewed as an integral part of the entire development. Thank you for your consideration and we look forward to your. determination concerning this matter. Sincerely, ,.. t Martha W. Buxton Director, Land Acquisition and Forward Planning MWB:lsm cc: Gordon Jacoby Attachments 1. Exhibit Lots 181-190, Limit of Grading Line 2. General Plan Amendment Determination Fee • • 1_ ' '%•, �� LIMIT OF GRADING LINE /-•*• ' ra).... 111 I oxistincd oak-bay woodland % h', z 1 Nig3j;11 . CI.. . . , . ..., ,..,..8.\...,\;,\,,,,,..), . • . JJ < • it0 - . . t, • / . ''."\1/4 • '‘. ' i r il 4. ` • ;..,t,'' ' ' � r � • 1 i 5 13 181. .{v7., / C • • . • • d sI . :,:.• '• � �� o © , ., �� - '.'1 ,.j i •-••••,-i' . . . . \-- ' A s.'. . . f[;IT• .sf . . r47..:S- ' , .... . .. . . 9,{:‘,... •.i. . • . • . . • . . .• . . . k ' , . ! i . .. •1:'1,,,....12/44N.. . :''''''' \ lit . ((~`lil� (-1-'" i -•- '� �' -fir•1 . t �\ . \ . • .'�I w 19 G '1 D 9 4.�t;1'�(,,„1 r).,., 1 .fit l 2 •\, ♦ `` •4 -L • ,` •(\0� '�, ,��//► -_ 1 �C,J� •• . 0 :• •,, . ...)„...-S- k . .;,•-•*"...J.• 1( (1.1:1 •' .2r14...r. trr•c . , . A:3 .co .,-: ......• . . . . • -. . ..• ,•/' , . . . .. •••••. • 1% - ::-. ' : . '..1,..•Le." \.\N__\\ ■ ,,� .� �_=- r I 188 • ' tz=1..... WZ`N-rS • . • .....• . * N\ ,• . , .. . . (s) — • 11 0. ©xisting oak-bay woodland ,\ , •N -. . ____-- A ‘1 . 1 5 , • • -' fc /• / \\ •�\ =7� 1. _ _. �-- - - ---- (�� . II . t e •;2 5., _ - / U - ' / • N f • •11 l� •4. 1~- - ,• -. i j I • �. /., • r, �, • . rnlstom lots' `r+ + CV //V/ ' r ! I ,i�_ -- _ -u: a ;^ s. , a ,, _ V I1 i i '1 4C'a�41di°J/ !1 t ;I -_ _ - I!,,,• Itid141 .1 i 1! Al IS GCCi 0 C t';ni' •L�,p,,.r • •; " • �iY ' e • :� L; � ,•,!: -yc,;,.... i.e.' s-NJ A ::e • • . ,• `;. .:. • • /c� ,1 - / � \` —I � „ -` ✓ S .,�'- I � �o / L - - II, i ' •'LY Sys- .• c. • 1. ,.';,:f i r- :-.. 4(..,40.), ..- .- 1 i'-'1.i.,, qr...ta.b:8,:cczce.c.,k,":„-:. .(70.. - 4; 10 ....�%,= t+j iris.• ei_ g.-/ - `R' • i. i •ld�� ,: �, ''(, . '� lip ' ; Via` ,... _ .i.-...,,. .. i,. ...,./.. .... ,..,/!° •;/'..a fit.'`, 1•• • ? _Zf ft . . // ii:•.:"..":,;.1,yi.Lx-,6_1,. ....",ji../... if:: acca,1 !4:9€2... .,,J)..:::•.:..,71,7; i,;;;t jiki • ;-,(.,,,,. .?6,70,91).6-Y -. - • illiiiihik. , .,,.. . ,..., ,,,(-a.: . ,-:. •• • .`? . 1 , • 'G43' t°61. . , I• .,,••• .4'thiSco3c,.•9(.9 P y;,,•' • , . .1,. "'- 1, ,ili k:<C11.?:::-6 ' AirrVII , . „ • ...„,,,, . / . // , . -.• :ii...... . ( ...t.k.., ...;• . •• ,_ . .• ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING - January 24, 1989 An adjourned regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Dublin was held on Tuesday, January 24, 1989, in, the meeting room of the Dublin . Library. The meeting was called to order at 7:08 p.m. , by Mayor Paul Moffatt. • * * * *- ROLL CALL - PRESENT: Councilmembers Jeffery, Snyder, Vonheeder and. Mayor Moffatt,. ' - - Cm. Hegarty arrived at the meeting at 7:10 p.m. . • * * * * .HANSEN RANCH GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT STUDY, EIR, PLANNED DEVELOPMENT PREZONING, TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP NO, 5766, AND ANNEXATION REQUEST Staff advised that this item was continued from the January 10, 1989 City Council meeting -at which the Council established this date and February 16th for future meeting dates to continue the discussion related to the Hansen Hill Ranch project proposal. At the January 10th meeting, the Council reviewed and unanimously voted to reaffirm General Plan policies for the entire project site related to: 3 . 1A Preserve oak woodlands, riparian vegetation, and natural creeks as open space for their natural resource value. 3. 1B Maintain slopes predominately over 30% (disregarding minor humps or hollows) as permanent open space for public health and safety. 3 . 1C Continue requiring reservation of steep slopes and ridges as open space as a condition of subdivision map approval. O'Halloran advised that additional clarification is needed for issues related to 1 ) conflict with the open space policies of the General Plan; and 2) significant environmental impacts on oak/bay woodlands and stream (riparian) corridor; concerning whether roadways will be permitted through open space areas. . At the January 10th meeting, the Council discussed the issue of impacts from mass grading and determined that the General Plan policy regarding enhancing the ridgeline could include filling the saddle between two of the existing knolls. . At that meeting, the Council began discussion on the type and number of dwelling units (land use designation and density) for developable areas; however, the item was continued to provide sufficient time for the Applicant' s presentation on the issue. In addition to the above items, resolution of other issues needed to be addressed. These include: 1 ) the ' 7 other ^.rcral PL-..r Amendment issues f A) in-- - -f1. 1-1a71_•n: Hill Ranch project within primary plannin• , .. ,,,: fi PA�nvr i 1'1*�Y F i t *� f�**�-h F�Y�F I Fi**t}}�Yik}}}�k�Y} '4"b .. � t ' "3-14i14 L 2 ► fin " r' n� ci Adjourned Regular Meeting ^ �^ n COOnc,Yf policies for residential sites, page 8, and Figure 4 sites for housing development, page 9, eliminating Areas 5, 6 and 7 _from the Table and Figure; c) amend General Plan policy and map with regard to Hansen Drive extension;- d) amend General Plan relating to alternate roadway serving project site; e) amend General Plan relating to maximum acceptable level of service (LOS) for major street intersections; f) amend General Plan relating to fire protection buffer zone; g) amend General Plan relating to open space- maintenance. 2) Other EIR issues (mitigation measures, •1 ;✓. A �{r/ �s ^ • c if ey 40,9` . ft Y S .4 � ` Y •ik «, ity Manager Ambrose advised that Staff is asking for clarification, as he action taken at the last meeting absolutely precludes any type of :. ;development in those areas, including roadways. „ tt fr 1 Cm. Jeffery stated that part of the idea in going through the General s, Plan is to interpret what was written. Roads will be necessary, and shee: not intend that the Council action would preclude roads. V ;Cm. Hegarty agreed. Cm. Vonheeder agreed. Cm. Snyder stated that this was not his intention in making the motion at; the last meeting. He felt the consensus of the Council was that there was a feeling that they didn' t want residential structures in x•'C J.0g��; t`S ' a t +",r,,+. .c ti a *. (. {' ,k?' '$,j, c -�r..,y,v . r'i. 7+;' 'La `+ +rN' tak 1`* F Std *' tvt�t }i•x a{rfi kk kc. + ,,P:k,c.+ -a • .. 4n."Sx �a cA, .r• :�.".J{„ •.� �. y>...i��tit"� ...u.-w.+ �,�J,'.�.t; "'r�°y�' Mayor Moffa s a e. a the Counci wou . consi.er •ensi ies and type and number of developable units . - Ms. O'Halloran presented the Staff Report. - Cm. Hegarty asked if we require the developer to preserve certain areas, how can this density be transferred. He questioned how a transfer of densities can be accomplished and how can they get around the cap figures. Ms. O'Halloran said the policy indicates areas designated for residential development. Once an area is set aside as open space, a density transfer from the open space cannot occur somewhere else on the site. Mayor Moffatt felt this issue would be clarified once the discussion progresses. Jeffery questioned if open space was considered, when acreage and densities were calculated. Ms . O'Halloran advised yes, open space was taken into consideration. The open space that was designated by the General Plan, however, was not counted in. The Applicant is proposing some custom homes in Area 3. If these are allowed, a new General Plan land use designation should be established. The current policy calls for open space. An open space/ custom-home designation could be adopted. No grading would occur- other- - than what is required for streets. Homes must be harmonious with the +++**+++**+++**+++**+++**+++**+++**+++**+++**+++**+++**+++**+++**+++**+++* CM-8-44 Adjourned Regular Meeting - - January 24, 1989 - open space setting. With regard to the transfer of densities, Policy' Statement 7 .3B was read, which would require preservation of the oak/bay woodlands. It does not address areas which are designated as open space. Mr. Ambrose felt that if the Council changes its original position, Area 3 and Area 1 , for the areas they thought should be open space, then this policy would apply. Area 3, for the most part, is 30% slope. Mr. Tong gave additional background, and stated that under the existing .E, . 1! General Plan, development would not be allowed anywhere other than the 3• , pockets specified in our existing General Plan. A density transfer would; - - ,- come into play if it was found through additional studies that there were some oak trees on the site. Staff is recommending a much larger develop- g - ment area, but there are significant areas that are being recommended to stay as open space. Gordon Jacoby presented some handouts and stated that their recommenda-. tion has been that the density called for in the General Plan under single family housing, which is .9 - 6 units per acre, be the one applied' to their site. They believe that they have done a plan and gone through a process over the last 2 years that was intended by the General Plan all along. There is nothing that says a density of 2.8 should be applied to their entire site. Table I of the passed out information was referenced. • Several years ago, a study was done related to the specific site - conditions. This study formed a basis for all the analysis for the L density range. Given the site conditions and given the General Plan policies, there could be somewhere between 65 and 542 units for the entire site. They used this for guidance for allowable density for single family units. A second study was done subsequent to this by them and they then did their site plan, which was submitted in March, 1987. This was studied thru the EIR process in more detail. They thought this site analysis would help set the density for the property. With regard to a transfer of densities, this has perplexed them for quite sometime, as far as how this will work. . . Mr. Jacoby advised that 96 of their 147 acres have constraints. Eleven acres are riparian areas and about 65 were areas of slope. Ninety-six acres are a combination of slope, riparian and trees. They feel their densities are at a point lower than other developments. Actually, it's like comparing apples and oranges . Other developments were built with a different set of rules, in that 65-70% of their area is open space. They did not feel that there is another area in Dublin that has this amount of open space. They feel they stack up very good from a density standpoint. Mr. Jacoby referenced the existing large lots that back onto San Ramon Road that are not particularly attractive. Ms . O'Halloran stated that Staff had not had an opportunity to review the handout showing a comparison of densities. The General Plan policy statement on Table I refers to establishing a maximum and minimum number of units, but doesn' t establish a density range. What this statement is saying is that the density range would be worked out, based on the site • conditions . • Open, space in the other development projects wasz:discussed. • , , Ninety acres of Dougherty Hills was preserved. +++**+++**+++**+++**+++**+++**+++**+++**+++**+++**+++**+++**+++**+++**+++* CM-8-45 . Adjourned Regular Meeting January 24, 1989 ' Cm. Hegarty stated that the whole 90 acres on top of the Dougherty Hills was preserved because no one wanted development up there. The County, rather than the City preserved it. He remembered during the General Plan development stage, it was determined that with regard to pocket areas, when pockets were there which could be developed, the Council would • discuss it. If we are going to preserve them, then that's fine, but he felt that those who are investing their monejr should get a fair ,shake. It comes to a situation of give and take. Residents have indicated they want the uniqueness of Dublin to remain, so if a few homes could go in in a certain area, we should be willing to give somewhere. . Mr. Ambrose clarified that Staff was not talking about whether or not this space was designated as open space, but just for the sake of comparison with other development areas. Mayor Moffatt felt that the transfer of densities issue will come up in the planned development stage, and can •be discussed in generalities only at this time. Assistant City Attorney Silver clarified that no designations can be made at this time. Cm. Vonheeder felt there was an interpretation conflict, and that Staff and the Applicant are asking the Council for clarification. Planning Director Tong stated that Staff's understanding is basically . that if an area is relatively flat and unconstrained, and if there were oak trees on the area, in that situation, except for the oak trees, the site could be developed. Staff would say an allowance could be made for a density transfer. In this case, the General Plan policy says only where development could otherwise be allowed except for oak trees, can you transfer densities. On this property, there are not only oak trees, but also streams, etc. In some of the areas, they would have to violate many General Plan policies to get to the site. Cm. Vonheeder felt that what it actually comes down to is whether the Council is going to grant a density transfer on the entire site. Mr. Jacoby stated that if this is only determined with the tentative-map - and planned development, they would have come in with homes proposed in the open space, just to get density transfers. They have gone through a very exhaustive exercise to avoid presenting a bogus plan. Mr. Tong advised that this plan is not precise at this point." In the future, when we get to a subdivision or a site development review, then it will get to the level of specificity of the tentative map and planned development stage, and we can identify exactly where trees are and where the density transfer could occur. Zev Kahn stated that he had heard 3 different interpretations with regard to densities and felt the stream issue was very confusing. Mr. Kahn quest oned •how'.=many of the- existing developments were developed••bye.be County and how many by the City. +++**+++**+++**+++**+++**+++**+++**+++**+++**+++**+++**+++**+++**+++**+++*. CM-8=46 Adjourned Regular Meeting January 24, 1989 1 - Staff discussed each development and advised whether it was developed under the County or the City. Elliott Healy requested that the Council consider the fact that when you look at the hillside, you see Hacienda and Bordeaux homes at relatively the same site. He would like to see consistency in the planning, so that the homes generally fit a consistent arrangement rather than each development being different. He felt the single family homes should be about 2.5 maximum density, which is about the same as Hacienda Heights and Bordeaux Estates . In the custom areas, it should be a lower density - of about 1 .7 or even lower. Marjorie LaBar, Preserve Area Ridgelands Committee stated she was very -• relieved to see the City Council' s concern over some of Area 3, and the possibility of much of that area being declared as open space. As much ' of this area as possible should be left alone. Even the smallest intrusion could cause great damage. Cm. Snyder felt that there seems to be more than one disparity between Staff, Applicant and the Council . Perhaps a change in philosophy is needed. A density that gives a range over the whole buildable acreage could be considered and allow. them more flexibility in the development of the acreage. One of the greatest areas of concern is noted in the medium density proposal . Staff is recommending a higher number than Venture wants to build. RECESS A short recess was called. All Councilmembers were present when the meeting reconvened. 4 r v ., , x.y ..t * w i,. 1 . F a+xa-w.-, r k z € s' R *� 5 Y �a r7y4y ,�� �'iY }`Z�t.' ff {+ r 4' rfn �.} •�;?v' Qv,,,W?- 't4ar '- ,a�— — 3 _J 3m ,,,,,,s11:,w.-, ',,. �.,a.v c 44,.- _ ^;,.� � �„ - }4 _n k rt Cm. Snyder felt that there was approximately 57.2 acres of developable 4g"g°; land and he suggested a density range of 0 .5 to 3.8 units per acre. ,-,. ilk Mr. Ambrose suggested that the Council include in their discussion, 4.A. , r,y " pet and 4 .B. which are the other General Plan Amendment issues. `F'=x Cm. Snyder indicated that as part of the 4.B. discussion, he would eliminate Areas 5, 6 and 7 . '' Cm. Snyder made a motion which was seconded by Cm. Hegarty that the type il, and number of dwelling units be set at 0.5 - 3.8 dwelling units per acre `�Y, for single family homes on the 57.2 acres This would give them maximum ' flexibility This mot'o• •ased,+v,,_.,;}sgw' tr unanimous vote sf� to -.y, �?' ;°�'`.�#'� .� `'� ik:'1Gk•. •s MOW- i �# w f' �,.- -. ^` r4 Sips; , Cm. Je fery questioned if this would violate a plan that the City has related to mixed use of housing spread throughout the City. Cm. Hegarty felt this. ;as intended to apply to a large development. He elt that the 1200 acre Rafanelli & Nahas project was a large develop- '` ` ' ;iin� :' ' Hey dd not f eel'•that •150 acres;' with-57 acres Of developa`L�re' land""' would be considered large. +++**+++**+++**+++**+++**+++**+++**+++**+++**+++**+++**+++**+++**+++**+++* CM-8-47 Adjourned Regular Meeting January 24, 1959 General consensus of the Council was that this was not considered -a large development. Ms. O'Halloran explained that 4 .C. relates to a General Plan amendment which would eliminate an extension of Hansen Drive to the extended Western planning area. The General Plan currently shows Hansen Drive extending to the extended planning area. The Applicant's proposal shows a collector street that would come up through the Valley Christian Center site, in a north/south position. This General Plan amendment would eliminate the Hansen Drive extension. Item 4.D. would provide for the new collector street. Ms. O'Halloran advised that 4.E. would be to amend the General Plan to t include a policy establishing level of service D as a maximum level of service acceptable. Staff may need to refine the wording to avoid being overly restrictive. Michelle DeRobertis from TJKM briefly explained the level of service designations . • Ms. O'Halloran 'advised that Item 4.F. would provide policies for a -fire protection buffer zone around the perimeter of residential development which interfaces with open space land. Existing General Plan policies do not specifically address this issue. Item 4.G. relates to open space maintenance. Dedication of open space would be addressed at the tentative map and PD zoning stage of the planning process. Several recommended policies were included in the Staff Report. - Gordon Jacoby stated he felt he could support all of Staff's recommenda- tions. The only inconsistency seems to be with Item 4.G.F. which states, "Prohibit development within designated open space areas except that designed to enhance: public safety and the environmental setting." Ms. O'Halloran stated that this policy applies to access roads through the open space for emergency vehicles for maintenance or something like park benches which would be designed to enhance the environmental setting. Harvey Scudder stated he felt that 4 .E. , level of service should not be less than level of service D. Ms. O'Halloran stated that the specific wording will be looked into to achieve the intent. . Marjorie LaBar encouraged the City Council to. adopt the General Plan . amendments related to open space. The General Plan, as it currently-. stands, is inadequate. This is a start that will provide something positive to the City in the future. - Zev Kahn questioned if it was possible to deal with open space on a retroactive basis . .There is open space which currently exists which -''do'esn' t' fit into - these categories. He •stated -he -would 'liike the•Cou ncil-.:.,: • to take this into consideration. +++**+++**+++**+++**+++**+++**+++**+++**+++**+++**+++**++-F**+++**+++**+++* CM-8-48 Adjourned Regular Meeting January 24, .1989 Ms. O'Halloran advised that policies are implemented as plans come in. If an existing development came back with some type of additional requests, this would be the only way to implement new policies. Mr. Ambrose advised that this would be very unlikely on an existing development. • Ms. Silver advised that when property is developed, it must beiin compliance with the General Plan at that time. -Harvey Scudder stated that the General -Plan is relevant only to -plans for . development, but if any open space comes under the management of the City, then it could be put under a. well-defined General Plan. policy. .a Mayor Moffatt advised that this would be appropriate for discussion at another time X ,,.. ,,, x :•k .k G S, `, t ‘ u'y?'.Y 4"a i tit 04:u 16.:1 „f-'�'S.y' ?— k` wt•1' �#„' 1 A; r �i�a'i ,is f�k �. '�a «rF V- !"�. f� � 'sd hr�� r v"::1, -z-: at 4,c: �. ...."4-_,A--,t �.r ,�' t.�c�,r ,�^i .'�,G � .1`� nr _.c. ..nq�ti^'I .,'P �,: ' 3 t .S ,�.5���y„r3 .� . _ r�+ t1� ;[fP,; •:. - m. Von- eeder stated the Council had not yet actually addressed Staff's ` , ,: ' wording related to custom homes and the conflict with- G.f. "Prohibit g , /-- '.,4 development within designated open space areas except that designed to ';n.�x' : enhance public safety and the environmental setting" . -P: t.,,` Cm. Jeffery asked if this would prohibit stables from being built. She k' f felt the word "development" needed to be defined. { {'' Planning Director Tong stated he did not see this as a conflict as long g g g N. as they were done in a manner sensitive to the area The open space' ;al: .- designation in the General Plan is very general. i. Discussion ensued related to agricultural zoning, Certain types of 4 development can occur and be consistent with the open space designation. 1:.?, • When the actual zoning is designated, the findings have to be made. J' 4;., .: Mr. Tong advised that the Council could approve custom homes in the area Mr. Jacoby indicated that they favor Plan .#2. Knowing that it applies to l dila Area 3, they would have to come in knowing they could achieve the 3 x required things at the time of a site development review. There should :;Vast ,: be no loss of trees or grading for the purpose of building a house. at There are a couple of areas that need to be repaired to avoid slippage. ;q. ; Slope stabilization is important, as this would be done to save some trees below. : -4,, Cm. Snyder felt this would be in direct conflict with the last motion . ? related. to the 52 acres. This will change the densities.. Cm.' Hegarty felt they should be instructed to stay out of 'this. area. -; f6 On motion of Cm. Snyder, seconded by Cm. Hegarty, and by unanimous vote, - F =^yam, the Council a• •roved items listed in Section 4. C. through G. l; t,fi ,5`r `� -,-„*��4`gor� A.A*A ',1147k..�'vvf , x .t '`1:04 =. l4, °4r4l�9 t � +'a1r,,, le*.44Y' '`x • .menQ General, Plan- policy an. map -wit -.-regar• - o ansen rave- -:-= extension. The GP currently shows Hansen Drive extending to the Western +++**+++**+++**+++**+++**+++**+++**+++**+++**+++**+++**+++**+-t-+**+++**+++* CM-8-49 '. Adjourned Regular Meeting January 24, 1989 • Extended Planning Area. . This GP 'Amendment would eliminate this extension. D. Amend GP to include alternate roadway serving Hansen Hill Ranch site (Valley Christian Center access road) and designate as collector street. E. Amend GP to include policy establishing- Level of Service D as maximum level of service acceptable. Policy wording, "Phase development and road improvements outside the Downtown Specific Plan Area so that the operating Level of Service (LOS). for major street intersections in Dublin ' shall not exceed LOS D." The specific wording will be reviewed and revised so as not to be overly restrictive. F. Amend. GP to include policies requiring fire protection buffer zone around perimeter of residential development which interface with open space lands . Policy wording, "A fire protection buffer zone shall be ,.,, provided around the perimeter of residential development situated adjacent to undeveloped open space land'' . ' G. Amend GP to include policies related to open space maintenance. The specific issue of dedication of open space would be addressed at the Tentative Subdivision Map and PD Zoning stage of the planning process. Policies which address this issue are: . a. "Require open space management and maintenance programs for open space areas established through subdivisions and Planned Development districts. Programs should include standards to ensure control of potential hazards; appropriate setbacks; and management of the open space so that it produces a positive and pleasing visual image." b. "Require that land designation as open space through development approval be permanently restricted to open space use by recorded map or deed." c. "Require revegetation of cut and fill slopes." d. "Require use of native trees, shrubs and grasses with low maintenance costs in revegetation of cut and fill of slopes." e. "Access roads ( including emergency access roads) , arterial streets and collector streets that must pass through open space areas shall be designed to minimize grading to the maximum extent possible so as not to damage the ecological and/or aesthetic value and characteristics of the open space area. " f. "Prohibit development within designated open space areas except that designed to enhance public, safety and the environmental setting." g.. "Promote inclusion of hiking, bicycling and/or equestrian trails within designated open space areas ." Sect.. n. 5, related. to.. other environmental. impact report isa es w�Y,:a;e,:;t discussed. +++**+++**+++**+++**+++**+++**+ +**+++**+++**+++**+++**+++**++-1-**+++**+++* CM-8-50 - Adjourned Regular Meeting January 24, 1989 . • �.: Scott Edmonson with EIP gave a summary of the impacts and mitigation measures and explained that certification of an EIR is not project approval. Cm. Vonheeder pointed out that the CEQA impacts and mitigations are now totally different than in the beginning. Mr. Edmonson explained that they are not really that different. CEQA has a number of modifications allowed for a project to go forward. We have a basic analysis of the basic impacts. If. this document is certified, -Staff can use it to review and identify any potential impacts of the new - . plan. - Ms. Silver stated that the EIR addressed a project which is denser than the project they -are now reviewing, or the project now calls for a lesser - density. It may be necessary to amend the addendums. Ms. O'Halloran advised that this will be amended as part of the resolutions . Marjorie LaBar felt that if a fence is put around the entire area, the . creatures can' t move. A basic chainlength fence would destroy this area. She felt that Martin Creek should be developed as a City trail. Elliott Healy stated he wasn' t sure how Hacienda Heights was allowed to develop, when you consider the visual impacts from various parts of Dublin. He referred to the stipulation that building should occur well below the ridgelines. Cm. Vonheeder stated that we actually have a definition of the areas of where you stand to make the determination. The locations are defined in the General Plan. Harvey Scudder expressed concern regarding the decreasing air quality in the Valley and felt this proposal demands overall Valley consideration. The smog situation is getting worse and he felt this should be dealt with before we have an impossible problem. Mr. Edmonson advised that this point is addressed in the EIR. On motion of Cm. Snyder, seconded by Cm. Jeffery, and by unanimous vote, the Council directed Staff to prepare the appropriate resolutions of approval for the General Plan amendments and certification of the EIR 'and Monitoring Program. * * * * Mayor Moffatt advised that the special meeting that was tentatively scheduled for February 16th is hereby cancelled. The next meeting where this topic will be discussed will be combined with the regular meeting on February 27th. •. -. .-__—LL-L. ...L 1 `.- - . • y- -.L-.L.1 . . �L.l.��L .. . 1...,,...]�r .:_t11-1. 1. L- . �L.....- _L+n .- -. .. t... .. . TTT**+TT**TTT** T4-** TTn*TTT**TTT**TT+**+++ "_��4-**TTT**TTT**T44**T4.4.* -1-++* CM-8-51 Adjourned Regular Meeting January 24, 1989 • • '" .,:‘ ,r9 ' , . 'I• •fq t% • • :" . • . • 1 Mr. Ambrose advised that the February 27th meeting would normally be held at the Library, but 'Staff will try to locate a larger meeting room. - * * * * ADJOURNMENT - - There being no further business to come before the Council, the meeting was adjourned at 10 :10 p.m. * * * * OY. i(t *b■ Mayor • ATTEST: City Cl- * * * * • • • - . .,.. - CM-8-52 Adjourned Regular Meeting January 24, 1989