HomeMy WebLinkAboutReso 019-89 HansenHillCEQA FindRESOLUTION NO. 019 - 89
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
A RESOLUTION MAKING FINDINGS PURSUANT TO CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL
QUALITY ACT (CEQA) AND CERTIFYING FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT,
WITH STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
(GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT - PA 87-045 HANSEN HILL RANCH)
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held seven Public Hearings on PA 87-045,
Hansen Hill Ranch General Plan Amendment and EIR on February 1 and 16, 1988,
July 18, 1988, August 1, 1988, September 19, 1988, October 3 and 17, 1988; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered the written and oral
testimony submitted at the public hearings; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission received and reviewed the Staff analysis
and recommendation on the environmental effects of Hansen Hill Ranch General
Plan Amendment (the "project"); and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission adopted its Resolution No. 88-058
recommending Council certification of the Final EIR; and
WHEREAS, the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), together with
the State CEQA guidelines, require that certain projects be reviewed for
environmental impact and that environmental documents be prepared; and
WHEREAS, an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) on the project has been
prepared pursuant to CEQA and the State CEQA guidelines; and
WHEREAS, the Final EIR consists of the Draft EIR dated December 1987,
Final Addendum Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR dated May 16, 1988 and
Addendum to Hansen Hill Ranch EIR dated February 7, 1988, which documents are
incorporated herein by this reference.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE Dublin City Council does hereby
find as follows:
a)
The City Council has reviewed and considered the Final EIR and hereby
finds and certifies that the Final EIR has been completed in conformance
with the California Environmental Quality Act, and the State EIR
guidelines.
b)
The City Council hereby finds that there are significant adverse impacts
which can be mitigated, avoided, or substantially lessened by changes or
alterations required in or incorporated into the project, as follows:
-1-
1)
2)
3)
4)
The General Plan Amendment would allow certain growth and land use
changes and intensification in the project area. However, changes
and intensification must be consistent with and conform with the
land use designations and policies of the City's existing General
Plan and the General Plan Amendments.
Project construction, including roadway construction through open
space areas, could impact oak/bay woodland vegetation on site.
However, mitigation measures will be incorporated into the
development phase of the project which will reduce these impacts.
Mitigation will include:
i)
Any construction activity in close proximity to mature trees
shall be done in a manner that will minimize trauma to the
root system (see details in Chapter 3.4 Vegetation of the
EIR).
ii)
Disturbed areas should be revegetated with natural tree and
bush species. Specific details of the revegetation plan
shall be worked out in consultation with the California
Department of Fish and Game, the City and the Alameda County
Flood Control District.
iii)
General Plan Amendment policy states "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."
Project construction, particularly construction of the roadway
through open space areas, would disturb riparian habitat areas.
However, impacts will be minimized in that the following mitigation
will be implemented with project development:
i) The California Department of Fish and Game shall be consulted
as required under Section 1601-03 of the Fish and Game Code.
ii) Minimize fill and cut slopes within the riparian corridor.
iii)
Revegetation of riparian habitats with native species in
disturbed areas as well as elsewhere on the site to
compensate for habitats lost in graded areas.
Project construction could impact wildlife with placement of a
large amount of fill under roadways at the confluence of two
canyons in the northwestern portion of the project site which would
isolate the tributary canyon from large mammals. However, the
following mitigation will reduce this impact:
i) Place a box culvert under the roadway rather than a 30-inch
pipe.
-2-
c)
5)
Project construction, primarily roadway construction through open
space areas, could result in loss of oak/bay woodlands and riparian
habitats in the northwestern portion of the site. Impacts will be
reduced with compliance of the General Plan Amendment policy (see
item #2, iii) requiring minimal grading for roads through open
space areas. Mitigation requiring revegetation will minimize these
impacts.
6) Project construction, primarily grading, could impact trees.
However, the following mitigation would minimize those impacts:
i)
Visually important trees and tree clusters shall be
identified and tagged in the field for protection and
preservation. Lots within tree preservation areas shall not
be developed.
7)
Project construction could result in excessive cutting and filling.
Project specific grading plans will be considered at the Tentative
Map and Planned Development level of the planning process.
Specific mitigation will be applied at that stage of development
and shall, where applicable, include the following:
i)
Develop site grading plan which avoids cut slopes of greater
than 2:1. Place cuts for building pads behind structures.
Landscape with native materials. Cut and fill volumes should
be balanced when possible or used on adjacent site if fill is
needed.
8)
Project development when combined with the cumulative impacts of
other projects have the potential for decrease in the level of
service (LOS) at Dublin Boulevard/San Ramon Road from LOS D to LOS
F. However, implementation of mitigation to widen the eastbound
intersection to have two right turn lanes, two left turn lanes and
two through lanes will minimize the potential impact.
The City Council hereby finds that there are identified insignificant
impacts, as follows:
l)
Construction and grading within the project area may impact geology
and soil conditions resulting in reactivation of landslides and
imbalanced cut and fill. However, project specific grading plan
and mitigation reviewed and implemented at the Subdivision and
Planned Development stage of review renders this potential impact
as insignificant.
2)
Construction within the project area may increase flows and
velocities of Martin Canyon Creek, and result in erosion during
construction and erosion from roof and lot drainage. However,
implementation of mitigation measures such as detention basins,
drop structures, rip-rap, erosion and sediment control plan will
minimize these impacts such that they are considered insignificant.
-3-
d)
3)
Filling of the saddle between the knolls which is not specifically
a part of this project (in that it does not involve General Plan
Amendments) is considered an insignificant impact in that filling
the saddle may be considered enhancement to the ridgeline.
4)
Development within the project site area may result in changes to
the visual quality of the site as the site changes from rural to
suburban. However, lot design and layout and building materials
which will be reviewed and mitigated at subsequent levels of review
(Subdivision, Planned Development, and Site Development Review)
render this impact insignificant.
5)
Development within the project site could impact police, fire,
recreation, telephone, gas, electric and other utilities. However,
the potential impacts are considered insignificant in that project
specific mitigation will be established and implemented at
subsequent levels of review. Additionally, costs for utilities
will be borne bythe developer and homeowner.
6)
Development in the project site would generate an increase in
demand for water and sewer services. However, the capacity of the
facilities are anticipated to be adequate to accommodate the
increased demand so as to render the potential impacts
insignificant.
7)
Development within the project site will generate an increase in
school enrollment and a corresponding increase in school operating
costs. However, the potential impact is considered insignificant
in that the student increase is considered within the facilities
capacity and State law allows school districts to impose
development impact fees.
8)
Potential noise and air quality impacts associated with
construction activity on the site are considered insignificant in
that mitigation measures will be implemented and applied to the
project at subsequent levels of project specific review and
consideration.
9)
Development of the project site will result in an insignificant
impact to historic and archaeological resources in that there are
no known historic or archaeological resources on the site.
Additionally, mitigation will be implemented during the
construction stage of development requiring construction activity
to stop and retension of a qualified archaeologist to examine the
site if archaeological material is encountered during the project
construction.
The City Council hereby finds that there would be significant adverse
impacts which are unavoidable, in that specific physical, social,
economic or other considerations make substantial mitigation or project
alternatives infeasible, as follows:
e)
1) Oak/Bay Woodlands and Riparian Corridor Impacts:
The grading for roadways through open space areas (oak/bay woodland
and riparian corridor areas) will reduce habitat value and result
in removal or potential damage of individual trees. The primary
areas in which potential habitat disturbance will occur is in the
northwestern portion of the project site, and within the
southeastern portion of the site in the vicinity of Martin Canyon
Creek. The specific impacts of roadway grading will be determined
during review of detailed grading plans which will be required for
consideration of the Subdivision Map. Impacts are anticipated to
be minimized through compliance with the General Plan Amendment
policy requiring roadways through open space areas to be designed
to minimize grading to the maximum extent possible so as not to
damage the ecological or aesthetic value and characteristics of the
open space.
The City Council hereby finds that four (4) alternatives, as more fully
set forth in the Final EIR, were considered and are found to be
infeasible, for specific economic, social or other considerations, as
follows:
Alternative #1 - No Project
The "no project" alternative assumes that the site would remain in open
space, allowing one dwelling unit on the site. The "no project"
alternative fails to provide needed housing, along with the associated
increase in property tax revenues, and is thus considered infeasible.
Alternative #2 - Neighborhood Context Alternative
This alternative assumes approximately 175 single-family detached homes
on 50 acres, or 3.5 dwelling units per acre. This alternative would
result in less housing than the project and less affordable housing than
the project. Traffic generated by this alternative would be less than
that generated by the project. This alternative is infeasible in that it
would not provide an adequate number of housing units and the associated
increase in the property tax reveues.
Alternative #3 - Mitigated Alternative
This alternative assumes approximately 202 dwelling units (179 single-
family and 24 townhouses) with a net density from approximately 2.9 units
per acre to 4.1 units per acre. This alternative would avoid development
on ridgelines, oak woodlands and would eliminate extensive cut and fill.
Traffic impacts would be essentially the same as those of alternative #2,
Neighborhood Context Alternative. This alternative would result in less
housing than the project while at the same time resulting in greater
density in some areas. This alternative is infeasible in that it would
not meet the housing needs or associated tax revenue and would not allow
for vehicle access through open space areas.
Alternative #4 - Creek-Oriented Alternative
This alternative assumes a total of 280 dwelling units with a high number
of multi-family units and a lower number of detached single-family units.
This alternative assumes a large amount of grading and greater impact to
woodland and riparian corridor areas. This alternative is infeasible in
that it would allow for destruction of environmentally significant
woodland and riparian habitat areas. The number of units and density is
infeasible in that it would not be compatible with surrounding
residential land uses.
f) The City Council further has set forth a Statement of Overriding
Considerations explaining the need to proceed with the project although
not all expected environmental effects may be mitigated or eliminated,
which Statement is marked Attachment A-1 and is attached hereto as if
fully set forth herein.
g) The City Council hereby' adopts the Statement of Overriding
Considerations, certifies that the Final EIR for the General Plan
Amendment PA 87-045 is complete, with the mitigation measures,
stipulations, corrections, and Overriding Considerations as included, and
stipulates that the mitigation measures set forth in the Final EIR be
incorporated in the implementation of the General Plan, as amended.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 27th day of February, 1989.
AYES:
Councilmembers Hegarty, Jeffcry, Snyder, Vonheeder and Mayor
Moffatt
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ATTEST:
-6-
ADDENDUM
TO PLANSEN HILL RANCH
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (EIR)
FEBEUAEY 7, 1989
INTRODUCTION
The State CEQA guidelines (California Administrative Code, Title 14,
Section 15164) require preparation of an Addendum to an EIR under the
following circumstances:
(1)
None of the conditions described in Section 15162 (subsequent
EIR) calling for preparation of a subsequent EIR have
occurred. (A subsequent EIR is typically required if there
are changes in the project which involve significant
environmental impacts not addressed in the previous EIR or if
significant new information is available);
(2)
Only .minor technical changes or additions are necessary to
make the EIR under consideration adequate under CEQA; and
(3)
The changes to the EIR made by the addendum do not raise
important new issues about the significant effects on the
environment.
CEQA Guidelines indicate that the addendumneed not be circulated for
public review but can be included in or attached to the final EIR.
Additionally, the CEQA guidelines state that the decision-making body
shall consider the addendumwith the final EIR prior to making a decision
on the project.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION (IN DEIRAND FEIR)
The Applicant revised the proposed project from the project evaluated in
the DEIR completed on December 22, 1987. The Final EIR (FEIR) response
to written comments dated May 16, 1988 includes a description of that
revised project, which was again subsequently revised (December 28,
1988). Figure 1 page 4 illustrates the revised land use designation plan
for the Hansen Hill Ranch site. Figure 2 page 5 represents the
Applicant's proposed site plan included on page 2-2 of the FEIR (revised
from the plan included in the DEIR).
The purpose of this Addendum is to amend the FEIR description of the
project.
[Addendum to EIR]
-1-
ATTACF E T
PROJECT DESCRIPTION (REVISED)
The project consists of the following General Plan amendments:
Incorporate entire Hansen Hill Ranch project within primary
planning area.
The Hansen Hill Ranch site (see Figure 1, page 4) General Plan Land
Use Designation 57.2 acres (58.5 gross acres) Low Density Single
Family Residential (0.5' to 3.8 DU/Acre); 89.8 Acres open space
stream corridor; for a total project site of 147 acres (148.3 gross
acres).
Amend Table 1, development 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.
Amend General Plan policy and map with regard to Hansen Drive
extension (delete Hansen Drive Extension).
Amend General Plan relating to alternate roadway serving project
site (add collector street north from Dublin Boulevard through
Valley Christian Center site).
Amend General Plan relating to maximum acceptable level of service
(LOS) for major street intersections (add policy establishing LOS D
as maximum).
Amend General Plan relating to fire protection buffer zone (add
policy requiring fire protection buffer zone around perimeter of
residential development adjacent to undeveloped open space land).
Amend General Plan relating to open space maintenance to include
the following policies:
"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."
"Require that land designated 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."
"Require use of native trees, shrubs and grasses with low
maintenance costs in revegetation of cut and fill slopes."
"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
[Addendum to EIR]
-2-
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."
"Promote inclusion of hiking, bicycling and/or equestrian
trails within designated open space areas."
REVISED PROJECT (COMMENTS)
The revised project eliminates residential development within oak/bay
woodland areas, riparian habitat stream corridor areas and areas of 30%
or greater slopes. However, the revised project allows roadways through
designated open space areas with minimal grading. Conceptual project
circulation is modified eliminating the need for the previously proposed
separate off-site emergency access north of the project site. The
revised project significantly reduces the impacts to the oak/bay woodland
and stream corridor riparian vegetation areas from the impacts which
would occur with the previous proposed plan. However, some impacts to
these areas will still occur with roadways traversing designated open
space areas.
The revised project reduces the density range to 0.5 3.8 DU/Acre
resulting in a reduced maximum unit yield possible for the site (222 DU
based upon gross acreage of 58.5 acres).
[Addendum to EIR]
-3-
-!
Pnge 4
FIGURE 1
Z
Z
Page 5
ATTACHMENT A-2
STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
HANSEN HILL RANCH
GENERAL PLAN AMENdMENT PA 87-045
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires that the Lead
Agency balance the benefits of a proposed project against its unavoidable
environmental risk in determining whether to recommend approval of the project.
If the benefits of a proposed project outweigh the unavoidable adverse
environmental effects, the adverse environmental effects maybe considered
"acceptable". Where ~he d~cision of the Lead Agency would allow the occurrence
of significant effects which are identified in the Final EIR but are not at
least substantially mitigated, the Lead Agency is required to state in writing
the specific reasons to support its action based on the Final EIR and/orother
information in the record. Such statement will be included in the record of
the project approval. ~
The following unavoidable environmental impacts are associated with the
proposed Hansen Hill Ranch General Plan Amendment PA 87-045 as identified in
the Final Environmental Impact Report for the project, consisting of the
document entitled Draft Environmental Impact Report dated December 1987 and
Final Addendum Responses to Comments on Draft EIR dated May 16, 1988 and
Addendum to Hansen Hill Ranch EIR dated February 7, 1989. These impacts cannot
be mitigated to acceptable levels or avoided through changes or alterations to
the basic project:
Oak/Bay Woodlands and Riparian Corridor Impacts:
The grading for roadways through open space areas (oak/bay woodland and
riparian corridor areas) will reduce habitat value and result in removal
or potential damage of individual trees. The primary areas in which
potential habitat disturbance will occur is in the northwestern portion
of the project site, and within the southeastern portion of the site in
the vicinity of Martin Canyon Creek. The specific impacts of roadway
grading will be determined during review of detailed grading plans which
will be required for consideration of the Subdivision Map. Impacts are
anticipated to be minimized through compliance with the General Plan
Amendment policy requiring roadways through open space areas to be
designed to minimize grading to the maximum'extent possible so as not to
damage the ecological or aesthetic value and characteristics of the open
space.
The City Council has considered the public record on the proposed General
Plan Amendment and does determine that the adoption and implementation of the
General Plan Amendment PA 87-045 would result in the following substantial
public benefits:
1. The adverse environmental impacts to the oak/bay woodland and
riparian habitat corridor are considered "acceptable, as the public safety and
welfare benefit of providing vehicular and emergency access on site, outweighs
~he-potential'adve~s-e' enviro~menta-1. impacts to th'e"~ak~b~y'~ood~dS'and'~ .....
riparian habitats.
[CC Reso EIR 2/27/89]
-1-
2.'.= The General Plan Amendment would provide for needed housing
consisten=lw~th'~'the~.houstng element of'the General'=Plan~~ ""' .
3. =.;The General Plan.Amendment would ~rovide economic'benefits forthe
community ~n termsof potential increased]taxrevenues.
The C~ty Council has weighed the above benefits of the proposed General
Plan Amendment against ~ts unavoidable environmental risks and adverse
environmental effects identified in the Final EIR and hereby determines that
those benefits outweigh the risks and adverse environmental effects and
therefore further determines that these risks and adverse environmental effects
are "acceptable"
[CO Reso EIR 2/27/89]
! '2-