Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 8.1 Schaefer Ranch CITY CLERK File # D8t][ZJ~-ElJ[(L] AGENDA STATEMENT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: December 21, 2004 Schaefer Ranch -Review of Proposed Lot Reconfiguration Concept for Conformance With Vesting Tentative Map and Related Approvals Report Prepared by: Mark Lander, Acting City Engineer SUBJECT: ATTACHMENTS: 2) 3) 4) BACKGROUND DOCUMENTS: I) (to be available at Council meeting) 2) 3) RECOMMENDATIO~ FINANCIAL STATEMENT: I) Developer's Proposed Lot Reconfigutation Concept (November 18, 2004) Developer's Proposed Landscaping Plan Vesting Tentative Map (as approved August II, 1998) Lot Reeonfiguration Concept and Open Space Exhibit (as proposed by Developer, November, 2004) Approved Vesting Tentative Map and Open Space Exhibit (August, 1998) Comparison of Graded Area 5) 6) 4) 5) General Plan Amendment Planned Development (PD) District Rezoning PD Rezone General Provision, Land Use and Development Plan Vesting Tentative Map and Conditions of Approval Final Environmental Impact Report for thc Schaefer Ranch Project Development Agreement for the Schaefer Ranch Project Economic Analysis 6) 7) By motion, direct Staff to continne working with the developer of Schaefer Heights to prepare a Final Map consistent with the Lot Reconfiguration Concept. An economic analysis has been completed as part of the review of the Lot Reconfiguration Concept. The analysis shows that the proposed project, as recont1gured, will result in a positive revenue flow for the City, and that the cost of municipal services required for the project will not result in a negative impact for the City's General Fund. __________W_~~__________________~__________________M__-------- COPIES TO: Rob Yohai, Schaefer Heights, Inc. 6.L ITEM NO. G: IDEVELOPISchaejà RançhlaKs/ Conformance R;vir;:R2~2~-04 ç2 m/g.doc v DESCRIPTION: Schaefer Ranch has previously been granted approval of various entitlements for development of the property. The Approvals inelude a Genera1 Plan Amendment (City Council Resolution No. 77-96), PD District Rezoning (Ordinance No. 15-96), Resolution Approving PD Rezone General Provision, Land Use and Development Plan (City Council Resolution No. 78-96), and Vesting Tentative Map (Planning Commission Resolution No. 98-38). A Final Environmental Impact Report for the project was certified by the City Council on July 9, 1996 (Resolution No. 76-96). A Development Agrecment was approved on December 1, 1998 (Ordinance No. 20-98), and expires on Dccember 31, 2006. On July 9, 1996, the City Council approved the Stage 2 development plan for Schaefer Ranch (City Council Resolution No. 78-96). The Tentative Map for Schaefer Ranch was approved on August 11, 1998 (Planning Commission Resolution No. 98-38). The project, as approved, includes 465 residential lots, of which 451 are single-family residential lots and 14 are estate residential lots. The project also inc1udcs a 5.3 aere commercial site, a parcel reserved for a day-care center, and a site reserved for a potential fire station. Access is via two streets: an extension of Dublin Boulevard from Inspiration Drive to the east and an extension of Schaefer Ranch Road from the south side of 1-580. Site anlenities include a 10.25-acrc neighborhood park located off Schaefer Ranch Road. The project inc1udes preservation of open space areas along the norther1y and easterly ends of the projects; portions of the open space areas are to be dedicated to the East Bay Regiona1 Park District (EBRPD) and mergcd into existing EBRPD land holdings to tl1e north. The open space areas included a system of trail easements and also a trail staging area to he dedicated to EBRPD. The Conditions of Approval for the Tentative Map (Exhibit B, Attachment 2, Standard Public Works Condition No. 85) and Mitigation Measures contained in the Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) (Section 6.2) require that the developer obtain permits from various environmental regulatory agencies for impacts to wetlands, wildlife habitat, and other environmentally sensitive areas within the project. These agencies include the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board, and thc State of California Department of Fish and Game. The dcveloper has obtained the needed permits. However, approval of the project by the various agencies has resulted in a proposed reconfiguration of the project as it was approved during tl1e entitlement review process. The developer has submitted a Lot Reconfifluralion Concevt dated November 18, 2004. which reflects how the developer would reeonfigure the lots as a result of imp1emcnting the Conditions of Approval and the requirements of the regulatorv agency permitting process. If affinlled, the Lot Reconfiguration Concept would be reflected on the Fina1 Map. The permits from tl1e regulatory agencies require preservation of Marshall Canyon, located along the northerly half of the project. The canyon drains to the west, providing a habitat connection to otl1er undeveloped drainages to the west and north, and was viewed by the agencies as a corridor requiring preservation. Preservation of the canyon requires that grading be limited to the perimeter of the canyon. The developer proposes to reduce the total lot yield from 465 10ts to 302 lots, and shift lots within the site to accommodate environmental and grading constraints due to the inability to fin Marshall Canyon. The southerly half of the project, including ilie extensions of Dublin Boulevard and Schaefer Ranch Road, the commercial and day care lots, and the EBRPD staging area arc generally unaffected by the permitting, with the exception of the relocation of a number of single-family lots to this area and revisions to the grading to maintain a balance of cut and fin on the site. Preparation of a Fina1 Map is time-consuming for both the developer and Staff. A1though the developer must pay for Staffs time, Staff resources could be used on other projects if the Council does not believe the reconfiguration of lots is consistent with the project approvals. Page 2 t1b \ \ Approval of a development project is normally a two-stage proeess: the entitlement process under which a project is approved subject to certain conditions, and the plan review proeess under which final design drawings, maps, and other documents are reviewed. The first step is discretionary, and the agency has broad latitude in the review of the project and in setting conditions. Approval is by the City's Planning Commission and/or City Council. The second step is not discretionary; the agency cannot deny approval ofthe project provided the developer has complied with tl1e Conditions of Approval, and provided tl1at the final design is in substantial conformance witl1 the previous1y approved project. Review is generally at the Staff level; action by the City Council includes affinnation of the City Engineer's determination that the Map is consistent with the Tentative Map, and ministerial items such as approving the Final Map and agreements or acceptance of right-of-way, as required under the Conditions of Approval. The devclopment can then move forward with construction following this process. Tn the case of Schaefer Ranch, the required regulatory agency permitting has resulted in the proposed rcconfiguration of the project that was approved by the Planning Commission and City Council. Therefore, an intermediate step is needed whereby the Lot Reeonfignration Concept is presented to the City Council to confirm that it is in substantial conformance with the approvals. As such, when performing a conformance review, comments on the Lot Reconfiguration Concept are limited to only those issues that relate to conformance with the approvals. The City Council may either find the Lot Reconfiguration Concept in conformance, allowing tl1e developer to proceed with the final design proccssing using the Lot Reeonfiguration Concept in preparing the Final Map, or find the Lot Reeonfiguration Concept not in conformance, in which case the developer could not proceed witl1 tile Final Map as reconfigured. Conformance Review Staff has reviewed the Lot Reconfiguration Concept against the approved project, including tl1e Tentative Map, Conditions of Approval, the existing FETR review, PD Rezoning, and the General Plan land use dcsignations for the project area. Staff believes that the Lot Reeonfiguration Concept con fonns to the approved project, implements City and other agency conditions, and does not necessitate any amendments to the project approvals. Detailed discussion ofthe various clements ofthe project follows. Land Use The approved Tentative Map includes 465 residential lots, consisting of 451 single-family lots and 14 estate lots. The single-family residential lots are located along the north side of the Dublin Boulevard extension. Six estate lots are locatcd off the westerly tellTlinus of Dublin Boulevard. The permitted plan also includes eight estate lots, a commercial site, a day-care site, and a site reserved for future fire station use, all south of the Dublin Boulevard extension. The plan includes a park site immediately north of 1-580, adjacent to Schaefer Ranch Road, and the EBRPD staging area on Dublin Boulevard east of Schaefer Ranch Road. Development is concentrated in the westerly two-thirds of the property; tl1e easterly third is preserved as open spaee, except for the grading necessary for the Dublin Boulevard extension. The Lot Reconfiguration Concept includes a total of 302 residential lots, consisting of 284 single-family lots, of which 260 are located north of the Dublin Boulevard extension, and 24 which are located south of the Dublin Boulevard extension. The proposed Final Map also includes 18 estate lots, of which six arc located at the westerly terminus of the Dublin Boulevard extension, and 12 are located south of Dublin Boulevard. The easterly third of the site remains undeveloped. Page 3 ~ \ \ The park site would be relocated from the southerly half offue site, adjacent to Schaefer Ranch Road as it crosses undcr 1"580, to the north side of Dublin Boulevard in the westcrly-central portion of the sitc. This site is located away from the noise impact of 1-580, and is also in the center of the project, as opposed to the edge, providing better aeccss to all residents of the project. The commercial site, day-care site, fire station site, and EBRPD staging area would remain as shown on the approvcd Tentative Map approvals. Summary: The Lot Reeonfiguration Concept Plan is in substantial conformance with fue approved land uses. Traffic / Circulation The overall circulation plan would remain unchanged, with access provided by an extcnsion of Dublin Boulevard from fue east and an extcnsion of Schaefer Ranch Road from the south. The local street system would be revised to reflect the reduced number of lots north of Dublin Boulevard. Off-site traffie improvements, specifically improvement of the Dublin Canyon Road-Schaefer Ranch Road intersection, would be completed as specified by the Conditions of Approval. Summary: The Lot Rcconfiguration Concept Plan is III substantial conformance wifu the approved traffic and circulation patterns. Grading The grading shown on fue approved Tentative Map is concentrated within the westerly two-thirds of the site, with grading in the easterly third limited to that needed for the extension of Dublin Boulevard. Under the approvals, Marshall Canyon wou1d be filled to aeeommodate development, utilizing material excavated from the ridgelines abutting the canyon. The Lot Reconfiguration Concept would revise grading on the north side of DubIin Boulevard. Marshall Canyon would be preserved as open space. Grading for the housing units outside of the canyon would confornl at the existing gradc of the canyon perimeter, leaving fue canyon undisturbed. The Tentative Map balances cut and fill on the site by utilizing Marsha11 Canyon as a disposal site for material excavated from the adjoining hillsides. Under the Lot Reconfiguration Concept, Marshall Canyon wOllld no longer be available as a disposal site; thereforc, alternate disposal sites have bccn developed in order to maintain a balance between cut and fill. Hauling the material away for off-site disposal is not practical dlle to the volume of fue material, and is not desirable due to the impacts of truck traffic on the existing street system. The Lot Reconfiguration Concept therefore incorporates the cxcess fill in three locations other than the canyon. The first is located near the northwest corner of the site, where material would be plaeed in a small canyon. The second is situated in the open space area near the northcast corner of the site; the materia1 wou1d be graded to resemble a natural hilltop and would be integrated into the adjoining ridge1ines. The hilltop will be revegetated with native grasses and trees. The third location is in the open space area near the southwesterly portion of the site, just north of 1-580 and to the west of Schaefer Ranch Road. The toe of the fi11 is located immediately above 1-580 and extends uphill a vcrtical distance of 150' -200'. The materia1 will fill two small ravines, ineluding the remova1 of two groups of trees located within these ravines. The faee of the fill would be graded to avoid a "flat" fill face and will be graded to mimic the existing ravines on the surface of the fil1. The grading Page4 ~Il would also include a small knoll near the base of the fill; the knoll, when viewed from the south, would partially block the fill slope and give the impression that the fill consists of a series of ridges. The fill wou1d be revegetated with native grasses and trees, including a heavy concentration of oak trees within ilie ravine to rescmble the vegetation found in a natural watercourse. Summary: The Lot Reconfiguration Concept Plan is in substantial conformance wiili the grading plan included with the approvals. In fact, changes have heen incorporated into the project to insure graded areas appear natural and avoid especially sensitive areas, providing extensive revcgetation to preserve a more natural appearance. Open Space / Tree Preservation Under Tentative Map approvals, preserved open space is located along the northerly and easterly boundaries of tile site. The easterly third of ilie project remained as open space, except for the grading required for the extension of Dublin Boulevard. Portions of two small ravines located to the west of Schaefer Ranch Road were preserved as open space, with estate lots located between the ravines. Under ilie Lot Reconfiguration Concept, the open space preservation along the northerly and easterly edges of the sitc would continue to be preserved. Marshall Canyon, which was to be filled under the approved plan, would now be preserved as undisturbed open spaee. Additional grading would occur within the northwest comer (canyon fill) and the northeast comer (constructed hilltop) of the project, in areas shown to be preserved as undisturbed open space on the approvals. These areas would be preserved as revegetated open spaec. Additional grading would a1so occur along the southerly edge of the site, immediately north ofI-580 and to the west of Schaefer Ranch Road, in areas shown to be preserved as undisturbed open space on the approved plan. Specifically, this grading would fill two small ravines. This area would be reeonfigured and revegetated as open spaee. The Lot Reconfiguration Concept would resu1t in a decrease in the developed areas, an increase in undisturbed open space, and an increase of area preserved as open space that would be disturbed under thc approvals. The open space preservation along the Dublin Boulevard extension would remain unchanged. Changes in grading and open space preservation are summarized as follows: Undisturhed Disturbed Area Aereage Total Open Open Spaee Preserved as Required for Space Developed Area Open Space Regulatory Area Penn.its Tentative Map Approvals 198 acres 113 acres o acres 311 acres 180 acres Lot Rcconfiguration 230 acres 123 acres 248 acres 601 acres 13 8 acres Concept Change +32 acres + 10 acres +248 acres +290 aeres -42 acres Page 5 ~\ \ The regulatory permits for the project require that the developer secure an additional 248 acres of off-site land for preservation in an open space conservation casement. The permits also require planting of approximately 1,500-1,900 new trees within the conservation easements. The site contains approximately 64 acres of tree cover. The approved Tentative Map would resu1t in the loss of 20 acres of the tree cover. Thc proposed Lot Reconfiguration Concept would result in the loss of 27 acrcs of trcc cover, primarily in the small canyon at the northwest comer of tl1e site and also the two ravines north of 1-580, for a net loss of an additional 7 acres of tree cover. The Lot Reconfiguration Concept provides 28 acres of replacement tree planting. In Staff's judgment, the existing tree loss is insignificant in terms of the overall project, and is mitigated by the net increasc in total preserved open space, the off-site replacement tree planting, and the off-sitc open space conservation easement acquisition and planting. Attachment 3 shows the location of the open space areas to be preserved under the Lot Reconfiguration Concept, and also shows the relationship of the site to existing preserved open space on adjoining properties in westcrn Dublin. AttacIunent 4 shows the location of open space areas to be preserved under the approva1s. Summary: The Lot Reconfiguration Concept Plan is in substantial conformance with the open space preservation shown on the approvals. The Lot Rcconfiguration Concept results in a net increase in open spaee preservation, and the planting of 1,500-1,900 additional trees on off-site properties reserved for open space that were incorporated as part of the proposed Lot Reconfiguration Concept. Parks / Trails The approved Tentative Map includes a 6.75-acre sports park and a 3.5-aere leisure park, in conformance with Condition of Approval No. 120. The park location is immediately north of 1-580, to the west of Schaefer Ranch Road. The Lot Reconfiguration Concept includes two sports parks totaling 6.77 acres and a 3.5-aere leisure park, located just north of the Dublin Boulevard extension. As noted earlier, the location of the park under the Lot Reeonfiguration Concept is at a more central location to thc residences within the site, and is a1so located away from the impact of noise from 1-580. The approved Tentative Map includes a trail staging area to be constructed along Dublin Boulevard cast of Schaefer Ranch Road and dedicated to EBRPD. The plan also includes a trail system to be built to EBRPD standards. The staging area and trails would be located within land dedicated to EBRPD, or within easements dedieatcd to EBRPD over land dedicated to the future homeowner's association. The trail system includes tl1e extension of a trail from the staging area along Schaefer Ranch Road south under the 1-580 undercrossing to Dublin Canyon Road for future connection to Don Castro Regional Park to the west and Pleasanton Ridge Regional Park to the southeast. The plan also includcs trail connections to the EBRPD Calaveras Ridge Regional Trail (including a gap closure), to the California Highlands development, and to thc City of Dublin's Martin Canyon Open Space. The trail system provided under the Lot Reconfiguration Concept is similar to the trail system shown on the approved plans. EBRPD has indicated its concurrence with the Lot Reeonfiguration Concept via written correspondence dated August 25, 2004. Page 6 "VI \ Summary: The Lot Reconfiguration Concept Plan is in substantial conformance with ilie parks and trails included with the approvals, and results in an improved location for the park. View~' Views of the origina1 project from various locations were analyzed as part of the Environmental Impact Report prepared for the project. Specific impacts were ilie removal of Shell Ridge (roughly along the alignment of ilie Dublin Boulevard extension), the filling of Marshall Canyon, and ilie introduction of urban landscape (houses, roads, etc.) within a natural location. Specific viewsheds of concem were the Rowell Ranch Rodeo site on the south side of 1-580, thc vicw of the Dublin extension along the 1-580 corridor, the Skyline Ridge emergcncy vehicle access trail, the removal of some portion of Marshall Cliffs, the Skyline Ridge (Calaveras Ridge) regional trail, the Shell Ridge water tank, and several water and/or sewer pump stations. Mitigation Measures involved revisions to grading and site layout, 1andscaping, and other measures to mitigate visual impact to insignificant levels. Under ilie ÙJt Reeonfiguralion Concept, open space areas along the west, north, and east sides of the project would remain as shown on the approved plan, and would continue to provide screening of the development from adjoining propcrty. Views from the north would improve based on the preservation of Marshall Canyon. The Lot Reconfiguration Concept therefore results in no negative off-site visual changes to the approved plan from these directions. Views of the project from the souili (from Rowell Ranch or 1-580) would be different than that resulting from the approved Tentative Map. The approved Tentative Map preserved portions of the wooded ravines above ilie slopes. A series of estate lots and associated roadway improvements would be located on the three ridgelines between the two ravines. The lower portion ofthe ravines would be filled to provide the park site. Under the ÙJt Reeonfiguration Concept, the two ravines would be filled, resulting in the loss oftrees. To compensate for the tree loss, the fill slope above I~580 would be graded to create a ravine, and it would be replanted with oak trees to resemble a natural ravine. In addition, the faee of the fill slope would be curved to resemble a natural hillside and to avoid the appearance of an even, flat, manmade fill. A knoll wou1d be created at the base of the slope; the knoll would provide additional relief to the lace of ilie fill slope, and when viewed from the south would partially block thc slope, giving the appearance that the slope is actually a pair of parallel ridges. Further, the park would be eliminated, and the estate lots would be moved off the ridges to the top of the fill. Lots along the top of ilie fill would be partially screened with a berm. The developed portions of the site would be several hundrcd feet further away from the southerly edge ofthe site. Summary: The Lot Reconfigllration Concept Plan results in visual changes along the south side of the site. It is Staff's judgment that the resulting visual changes, while in some ways different from that ofilie approved plan, are insignificant and are not in conflict with the analysis and Mitigation Measures included in the environmental document. CEQA Conformance An Environmental Impact Report (ElR) was prepared for ilie Schaefer Ranch project. This ElR evaluated impaets on the existing and future environment, including on-site, vicinity, and community-wide impaets. Mitigation Measures were adopted when significant or potentially significant impaets were identified. Page 7 O-b \ \ These Mitigation Measures avoid, reduce, rectify or eliminate the impact. The Final Environmental Impact Report (FElR) and the Mitigation Monitoring Program for Sehaefer Raneh were certified by the City Council on July 9, 1996 (Resolutions 76-96 and 77-96, respectively). Staff has reviewed the Lot Reeonfiguration Concept Plan for conformance with the FEIR and Mitigation Monitoring Program. Because there are no further discretionary approvals for the project, no further environmenta1 review is required. The fol1owing is a discussion of the reconfigured plan as it relates to the FElR. Visual Quality - Alteration of Site Character: The FEIR contemplated mass grading and extensive landform alteration, including ridgeline removal, fil1ing of canyons, and creation of an urban landscape. The approved plans include lowering portions of Shell Ridge by as much as 75', the filling of Marshall Canyon, and the introduction of urban landscape into the current rural setting. These landform alterations and the addition of an urban settlement pattern were identified as significant adverse impaets. Mitigation Measures 5.A.l and 5.A.2 were adopted to reduce thc impact to a 1css-than-significant level. The Mitigation Measures includc revisions to the site layout, grading to replicate a natural setting, 1andscaping with native plantings, and other measures for visually sensitive areas. The Tentative Map balances cut and fill on the site by utilizing Marshall Canyon as a disposal site for material excavated from the adjoining hillsides. Under the Lot Reconfiguration Concept, Marshall Canyon would no longer be available as a disposa1 site; thcrefore, alternate disposal sites have been developed in order to maintain a balance between cut and fill. The Conditions of Approva1 require balancing excavated material on-site. Therefore, the excess fill has been incorporated primarily in three locations other than fue canyon; this was discussed in detail in the grading portion of this report. Under the reconfigured plan, open space areas along fue north, east and west sides ofthe project will continue to provide screening of the developmcnt from adjacent property. Internal views of the project from fue north will be improved with the preservation of Marshall Canyon. The permitted plan docs not result in any additional visual impacts that were not considered in the FElR and addressed through the Mitigation Measures. Visual Quality - Rowell Ranch Rodeo Park: The approved plan includes commcrcia1 and residential development adjacent to T-580 and to the north of fue Rowell Ranch Rodeo Park. Portions of two wooded ravines would be preserved and a series of estate lots and associated roadway improvements would be located on the ridgelines betwecn these two ravines. The lower portion of thc ravines would be filled to provide a park site. Views of the project from the Rowell Ranch Rodeo Park would be different under the reconfigured plan than fue views resulting from the approved plan. Under the Lot Rcconfiguration Concept Plan, the two ravincs would be filled, resulting in the loss of fue trees. Further, the park site has been relocated to a central area adjacent to Dublin Boulevard, and the estate lots have bcen moved off the ridges to the top of the fill. Thc lots along the top of the fil1 have been partially screened with a berm. Developcd portions of the site will now be several hundred feet further away fÌom the southerly edge of the site. The faee of the fil1 slope has been curved to resemble a natural hillside and to rccreate one of the ravines. This ravine will bc planted wifu oak trees to resemble a natural setting. A knoll has also been added at the base of the slope to provide additional re1iefto the faee of the fill slope. The FEIR for Schaefer Ranch anticipated commercial and residential development adjacent to 1-580. The FElR further anticipated that fue current rural setting wou1d be modified to a view of commercial and residential development fÌamed by open space. Development in this area was identified as having a potential signifieant adverse impaet for visitors to Rowell Ranch (Impact 5B). Mitigation Measures 5.B.l through 5.B.3 are intcnded to reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level. These Mitigation Measures include revisions to the Site Plan and Grading Plan to incorporate berms and setbacks to partially conceal structures and reduce the visibility of development from the Rowell Ranch Rodco Park. Page 8 00 \ \ While the Lot Reconfiguration Concept Plan varies from the approved plan, the reeonfigured plan does not result in visual impacts that were not considered in the FElR and addressed through the project design and Mitigation Measures. Vegetation and Wildlife - Loss of Oak Woodland and Heritage Class Trees: The Schaefer Ranch project site contains approximately 64 acres of existing tree cover. The approved plan will result in the removal of20 acres ofthis tree cover. Under the Lot Reconfiguration Concept Plan, 27 aeres of tree cover would be removed. This additional tree loss is primarily from the east end of the oak woodland located to the north of Shell Ridge and also from the two ravines north ofI-580. However, the additional tree removals would be offset by the preservation of Marshall Canyon and additional off-site open space as required by the environmental agencics. Marshall Canyon contains heritage class trees that have been identified as high quality oak wood1and. These trees will be preserved under the reconfiguration plan. Tn addition, 28 acres of on-site replacement tree planting will be provided. Thc permits from the environmental agencies require the developer to secure 248 acres of off-site land for preservation. The developer is also required to record a conservation eascment and plant approximately 1,500-1,900 new trees to supplement the existing wood1and on this property. The FElR contemplated the removal of eoast live oak woodland and oak-bay riparian woodland due to the project. Tree removal was anticipated at the cast end of the oak woodland located to the north of Shell Ridge, in scattered groves of eucalyptus and oak woodland in the Schaefer Basin, oak woodland along the Dublin Boulevard extension parallel to I~580 and within Marshall Canyon. These tree removals were identified in the FElR as significant adverse impacts. Mitigation Measures 6.D.1 through 6.D.3 were adopted to reduce the impact to a less- than-significant level. Thcse Mitigation Measures include a combination of preparing a tree survey and adjusting thc lot and road designs to reduce tree removals where possible, and providing measures to protect trees that are not scheduled for removal. The Lot Configuration Concept Plan does not result in additional impacts to vegetation and wildlife beyond those identified in the FETR. Summary: The Lot Reeonfiguration Concept Plan does not result in additional impacts that were not contemplated in the FETR. Additionally, the mitigation monitoring program can still be applied to the project in order to reduce impacts to a less-than-signifieant level. Therefore, Staff finds that the lot Reconfiguration Concept Plan is in conformance with the FEIR that was prepared for the site and does not require further environmental review. General Plan Conformance The General Plan Land Use Map proposes an arrangement of land uses and a cireulation system to serve the Western Extcnded Planning area, which includes Schaefer Ranch. The General Plan Land Use Map also summarizes the proposed distribution of residential, commercial and open spaees uses. Deviation from this arrangement ofland uses is permitted if the changes are compatible with the objectives, policies, general land uses and programs established in the General Plan (Section 1.8). While the Lot Reconfiguration Concept Plan submitted by the developer proposes the same land uses in generally the same locations on-site, there are variations fi:om the approved Tentative Map and the plan as shown on thc Gcneral Plan Land Use Map. The General Plan anticipated a maximum of 474 single- family residential lots, including 11 estate lots. The Tentative Map was approved with 451 single-family residential lots and 14 cstate lots. The reeonfiguration plan submitted by the developer would create 302 sing1c-family residential lots, including 18 estate lots. Additionally, the plan shows a dcmarcation between residential lots and open space residential lots within a portion of the project area that varies Page 9 V \ \ somewhat ftom that shown on the General Plan Land Use Map. The circulation system has been modified to reflect the revised lotting pattern and the park site has been relocated, all of which has resulted in additional tree impacts. Staff has reviewed iliese variations for consistency with the General Plan. The following is an analysis of these variations. Environmental Regulatory Agency Review: As previously discussed, the Conditions of Approval required the deve10per to obtain approval from various environmental regulatory agencies for impacts to wetlands, wildlife habitat and other environmentally sensitive areas within the project. The developer proposes to reconfigure the project as a result of these approvals. The reconfiguration would result in a net increase in open space preservation despite ilie fact iliat some residential lots would be 10cated within an area previously shown as open space. The General Plan anticipates the preservation of 252 acres of open space (General Plan - Table 2.2) but the reconfiguration plan would result in the preservation of 353 aeres of open spaee (Attachment 4). (Thc approved Tentative Map shows 311 acres of open spaee). The preservation of this additional open space is consistent with the General Plan provision (Section 3.1) to explore meiliods of open spaee preservation. Parh: The General Plan policies include the dedication of park area consistent with the City's Parks and Recreation Master Plan to serve Schaefer Ranch (Section 3.3.A). The Conditions of the Vesting Tentative Map (Condition 120) allow the City to determine ilie exact location of the park land to be dedicated to ilie City. As approved, the park site for Schaefer Ranch is located adjacent to 1-580. The Lot Reeonfiguration Concept includes three park parcels in a more central location adjacent to Dublin Boulevard. Staff has reviewed this park area and detennined that it is consistent with General Plan policies and the City's Parks and Recreation Master Plan. Tree Preservation: The site contains approximately 64 acres of tree cover which includes oak woodland. The approvcd plan resulted in the loss of 20 acres of this trcc cover. The lot Reconfiguration Concept would rcsult in the loss of approximately 27 acres of this tree cover. The developer will mitigate for this loss of tree cover by planting approximately 2,600 trees on-site. Additionally, the permits from the various environmenta1 agencies further req uire the developer to secure 248 aeres of off-site land for preservation in an open space easement. These permits also require planting of approximately 1,500-1,900 new trees within the conservation easements. The General Plan plaees emphasis on preservation and mitigation for the removal of oak woodland in the area including Schaefer Ranch (Section 7.3.D & E). Thc combined mitigation plan includes planting 4,100-4,500 trees and is consistent with the intent of ilie policies and objectives of the General Plan. Summary: The General Plan includes a statement that the land use map may include "deviations in road alignments or open space configurations" which are not to be considered inconsistent with the Genera1 Plan. The reconfíguration plan deviatcs somewhat from the proposed arrangement of land uses and circulation system shown on ilie General Plan Land Use Map. However, Staffbc1ieves iliat the Lot Reconfiguration Concept Plan is compatible with the objeetives, policies, general land uses and programs established in the General P1an Planned Development Zoning Conformance On July 9, 1996, ilie City Council adopted a resolution (Resolution 78-96) approving Planned Development (PD) Prezoning and approving PD Prezoning General Provisions, and a Land Use and Development Plan for Schaefer Ranch. The PD District established a range of permitted uses, Page 10 Ot) \ \ development standards and use designations for the project sitc which allow the flexibility needed to encourage innovative development while ensuring that tl1e goals, policies and action programs of the Dublin General Plan are met. The Land Use and Development Plan established the general location of uses within the project area. The Lot Reconfiguration Concept includes the same uses as the PD Prezoning and Tentative Map. However, tl1e location of these uses has been slightly modified in order to accommodate reconfiguration. The Resolution adopting the Land Use and Deve10pment Plan (General Provisions - B) states that the land use designations shall be applied as gencrally shown on the Sehaefer Ranch Land Use and Development Plan and allows for modification to the final location of such land uses. Summary: The Lot Reconfiguration Coneept contains permitted uses in a slightly different configuration than the Land Use and Development Plan. Therefore, Staff finds that the Lot Reeonfiguration Plan is consistent with the PD Zoning and the Land Use and Development Plan. Conclusion Staff has reviewed the Lot Reconfiguration Concept against the approvals, the Conditions of Approval, tl1e approved CEQA document, the PD and the General Plan. Review shows no conflict between the Lot Reconfiguration Concept and the existing approva1s. The review shows no new significant negative impacts resulting from the Lot Reconfiguration Concept. The Lot Reconfiguration Concept has been reviewed in detail, and Staff finds no areas of design flaws or deficiencies. Based on this review, it is tl1e Staffs judgment that the Lot Reconfiguration Concept is in substantial conformance with the approvals. Recommendation Staff recommends that tl1e City Council, by motion, direct Staff to continue working with the developer of Schaefer Heights to prepare a Final Map eonsistent with thc Lot Reconfiguration Concept. Page 11 ~ \ \ .... 0 .. ..... ~ g ~ i5 c::: 1-b ~~ ¡IS- ~:::! 0 ~~I ~ ¡:õ!: ~~C") Ii! i~~ J=J ·i bC1 01 ~~~ L...... .... o : ~ ~ ~ :t: r " ~ , ¡~ " ~Cft ~n !~ ~!:: Uti ~ ~ :it n ~ I I p~ , ~~ § ~ ~ ;- .-.- j l § i . ~ ~ 0 ~ ~ ~ -< ~ ~ ~ ~ I ~ " ~ I ~ ~ ,,' -.-. ~ ~ .1 J " 1 1 ....., l " ", , " , " ..... " " 'nr¡ï" "î " H, Ei i~~ A ,~, !~ í !! ._~ "II ¡ ¡ II f 1\ (~) -- ~ ., > -- i ~ ; ni ~ I ~ ;11 I ~11 q, I ( ì ~ I~ ! " ~ ' . . -.a ~ '1/7'11-.:"1 ~~~~D "," ¡:;5 ~~, ~,- ~!>i \..1 .:i ("), ~n .' ,,¡; u-' ~ SCHAEFER HEIGHTS Al' SCHAEFER RANCH D,~bli1l, Californid, PLANNED DEVEf.O/'MENT REl(}N/NG and TENTATIVE MAP lRACT No, 6765 Taylor Woodrow Homes, Inc. l¡lrIÙ"",",""IDn<xL1u"Ifc'1''''''C~ 9<SII 'oI,WIID3IW ,I '~ "' ~, ,~,I ii' íi I !i~~i i Lt··" I ~ ..- I dl (~ H , > 9, ;r ¡ ~II I ~ ~ , ~ q' ¡ ~ ! ! ' ! Iii ! HI I ~ I ~ I ~ " m i - ~ . ~ I; r¡ SCHAEFER lI'EIGHTS Ai' SCIIAEFER RANcn f)rJ.hliJ1, Cc1lifQmÜ~ PLANNED DEVIiWPMENT REZONING and 'lENTATTVE MAP TRACT No., 6765 Taylor Woodrow Håmetlnc. ml:,\".\"irMII",'¡"n_';:~si!", r.l.92JI] s' IOO .. n....._..._.__ -----1 ! - '~ ¡ " iI'~' . " , .') ~ " ~ w" C\ ~ c~_ ~ UI . ___.___...___._.._. _._u _..._ __.. --,---- 1 "1 " ., . I f,' , , ~. ~ '1 [~d ll¡~.ä ,$ "~·l~ /1.,..·.*..·...·... U ~ !1 \:"N t .';¡./ ' I ,. . . \1111,1 ." ì:¡,\\~~lk~¢ \..~\\\\\\ \\\ .---~ -..................~ \ \\,\\ \'\ \\ --"'---... .~.- \1\\',' \ "" . ".' .1 \ \ . ... .<., '. \ \. .' -f-.';' i. 1.\' ; 1< I I_~ ',"" -.....~....----. " . il \ \ (~ ,;t, n , . . I ~ , ~ , ! . ~II ! ~'I I ~ ¡ ~ In ¡ ~I i ~ I ~ z " SCHAEFER HEIGHTS AT SCHAEFER RANCH /)uhUn, ('(~lif(¡n¡ju. PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REZONING "M TrNrA11VH MAP TRACT No. 6765 Tòylor Woodrow Homes. Inc. .1(I ]Canlr.o~"""".!an~omon.G-\ 9~~] '''P:1mM· IOO ~ x· ¡:; C~{ ~ l}i ~ ~ ~ 1 . .....-;¡$..--=' ~ 't~- \,:J. ... '. -'~,~'~~:-~-'-'~' ~--- . '~ì -'I"] I'n ~fn i /111 ./ qil (I ~ .~.~~.,. .,;, '. .')~.'...l. . :;'f,lYWii:-.JJ..L '.. ..'iJ¡'., . ..."l!{'.:",.. . - n,"--... i ¡ '. " :1 }:; ,. . "!:L.., '\ 't' ~;' v I f ." " I I,. .I~' ¡ E') ~ ¡ ~ il ml1lllll ~ ~', . ."~. ,. ....... SCHAEPER H'EIGHTS At sCHAt!FER RANCH Dublin.Ca/ifurnií¡ PlANN/iD D/iV/iLOPMENT R/iZON1NG onJ TENTATIVE MAP TRACTNq:6765 Taylor Woodrow Homes,lnc. ¡JCnComlno_ onl!.>mon,C:A~ TI! ~151J4S.JIOO ~~ci! :;¡~8 ¡;¡i~ -....~ ~ ~ ,·a U\ ()? ,.µ , :I' ! . ~ ¡ ~ -'-'--1 i n ~ ~~. [ ~"'l ~n ~ . ~ ª ~ > -î ;j <0 ¡;¡ . :;1 ! z i >! 1 § <0 ~ ~ ~ 0 "' ¡ ~ ~ .~ ~ ~ ~ , <0 . .. ., II ' '" '. I ~ ;!ò ~ ~ I , ~ I, ¡;¡ f~ 'f;c:':I .... .."." '"§ ~ \ ~ . p . ~~ t'~1 ~ 00 ~ F, ;j 11' [Ih ~ " n____ ...-.....--.........- .,......._.__.__.._......n ,', ':i~"\':. I,! [O¡¡\ ;' "I. i,'lt~kl"\\' '.! :;, )r\""'/.I'~I¡~, ~I~.i,""'" ',,":. ",~.!.. ': . " ,""1 " : ,;".~., :,:.ii~,/:,';::/\,/~:A~ì:/,;;: ,>.o""./ ¡" .;i,L.. ¡:>:^i }:,~' ,. i, :,'\F;)·'~:, '!JJ:: ,..¡, , ,.!" :""\>¡'~"! ~ ' "'.'.'·'~.".'.I':"" ~'."..'.'.' ....ir". ,~i.Vr,'," /.; J'f"~':':~ i¡j~'¡"''¡'' .',.'." ~~/,?/'!~':} , ,;¡::,:~~i,~J'i ::~,,~I i ':~' ,.1; ',I'::' ~'" i" ,; , " ~.¡~{ i!,:'I',~',',<" ~\''¡::;- ;''ï''¡ ("'""~ "J.'"ë:¡li;!"'':.,' ,·,A '.¡I"'.' '.,':;;I< '! I ,(F: ¡'."'JI.::¡')f." "~I"~ ,rl I....'. '.II"..!'j,.'.':·.'.·..'..·....·".'.:'.'.'.' ¡ -<,.. II~'''.,(" "'. I I I~ ,,"'~ ','·,':'\:1 ·I'.~ '1.1'.'..'.>.\" " ,,," . '.: I ".~.r,\ .. 'i ~". ,I ' ,:.,'.,' ., : ',.~ " ' .k:¡I.,!-~: :';::.:',:'. ,:':' ".: I', i ,.I:" '~I\j' :\r:~:'~ ':\, "~~.¡'~:i;" :::'~>:i ',\:~~~~,"W\ ',k:7 ,.~,\"~ . ¡',.1i,,~r '"\' '~',,'N<· , ;¡¡(t~I,\\:T'¡,i!t' ~\'IY.'\" ". ',::", \. ',' "', , ¡~' "I·"'<'!'(' '1)·'~'~ ~~- II (~ .'q ::;?;<::", )., ~\A'. .J .' ~"""'" ,.;....','~, I ~ I\¡'~\"::'I~~ 'i';:;'; \~'...'\, \, ~' '\, ,:I'!I'''', ~ ','~II', '" :"";, 'I ~ \··',~":::lç,~'fi.::·\ ~I".,' I , ·'I";·"II'<\I~.\" I ";: +:.':,~I:i,l,l":' C;.')M'irl, I '.I%1?"!:["lj]1i ffi ! i. ¡ <~ ¡¡; "I ! ~ ! ! SCHAEFER HEIGHTS AT SCIIAEFtR RANCII' Dublin, Califumla PUNNED DEVFWI'MENf REZONING "nd TÞ:NfATlVE MAP TRACT No, 6765 Taylor Woodrow Hom!¡s. Inc. 7Ml...."""...·""'\Jon!l.>mo"'G:AIo4"'J 1"'~~,II,\\.UII1'J . ,p ! ¿II .¡ H ¡I, ¡" ~. ( J ~ I ~ i ~ q Iß g . ...__'uo,___.,.",. _.----1L_ ¡ 8 15 é ¡" \' 1 ~ ' . '" ! '1 . ª ~ ~ F. '"'1 ~ ~ ~ ~ >! ¡ ~ ¡ R i, ~ '" G- o D·· l)1 )1":;:( ·'f' ...,...____c......~' " SCHAEFER: ¡RANCH Dublin, Califdrnia VESTING TENTATIVE MAP TRACT No 6765 /J,A1'I£: MAY 6,1'1,98 .._k!!.lSED: MAY ~~: '998 ...;-=y =.L. ~.~J . ". ~"-1,,;1 .,_00-34 \ \ I ":. \ i '-\S" I I~~ ~~. (~.. . \ I ?'~'r~"': .I\:·~y ".\ i -~;f~.. . : ,:g(>C ,'iò \ i ¡¡ '~'. J~~lF~; ~o- )'C :'~ (: ~~. \ ~. \...\ ~- 1-,-- ---- \ .¡II ~ t:r.:.s. \ '-1--- ' '"_. ~-'!~. I ~¡ (II >- \,,-' ~;;) . I (,!~ .~.-.-_~.._.~-~~t~-.:--,:---.(~ ~~~ '-.\...~ _ . -...., l... -. ØijJff7- ~,-~:-~ 1M.. _~~__ ,,,' ',00 ~~._.~"" ¡jjœ.¡;,~ ;:.. .¡;g::::'I. ___ .w_~ ,.--... . ~-~""'.----'--'.' ",-,., .---.. ~~ ~~ _~'r- ~ II:fDS,-~A!?AND Pt<A~I!J;.G DIJ ~ . , ____¡r/<AJI'U"""""'" ....~ """""'.- :".,_.- ~ ñií'-.J.'w.~ =""- ---'-"""-~~ ~¡;;¡.- -'~~~~ i!8 g ~¡¡;7~~?if~ ~ ,;! -E~~ ~..n . ~~~ ¡'¡l"..f~.! ~~.~;e~~""1:I~~ ~ ~- ~~! ~~ .~ ~ 'e..~..!!"I1A =~::-'. .........-- .;;:;::=~~~Iõ\'"~_"_..,_ ----- ,.,. '~~I./"..n.n;..~...!!II1I!iZ!ñ ~5~~.II.1iI mä~"1-~~~== ~~¿=.-~; ~~~1!~ .,-",. . ~-:::::...~ !;¡r.ãI:;¡~~~ ~~~~~~~.~..:]; ~~~..,~. ':"-;;~...;,~~~~~ '~4~""t;.~ .~~.;j.:;: .~~"",",.,¡,...':=:.::;~ : ~~~.;.:.;:,.:;:..:; [" ;;J ~......... -",' !¥~.~ ~~ '~ ~.=r- [:~ ., ,..,.........~--.i:".,. . !'!{Œb:m:~&1 : j '~+ L~,·'I Y --....... . .".- ""'-~ ----~ :r=I~-:-- ==.. --~ ~~~~ '1" '-"''''.. ·..·-·····1'"'" : . .-¡:--"....¡¡;;:j'. ¡ \ k':;~¥.. ":.^; I. . _.)..' .' ,.01Ì__. .... ñâII~Ji" . ~ ~:ÆI ~~~ ~..--....~,. _..;. ,1m ,.,.- ..1,,.,. ,-' ,.......- ."E'".-/'fM"1IIW ffi! ~ ;~ ".~- " ~ ..![jt<~- .. J _..._- 'W". r;>ir" ~~ ~~--!lIIJ.·ml'fl ~~ .- ~".........--..;;:'¡;;:;' ~~ gwr.:¡¡;¡;:;:=~ '1!\L~ ;~~. ----~~._'''''~.,.,-~ ._-- ~'1!!§r'~ -~~~I;U~ -~1!'='.'''-- .~~';'~f."-- ~...__.,_._.- -""".-. ". . :'::~ N:f-.-," ,; ,,".' , , .........- .~ -~-,,' ""1>!lißf:.iilllil!!ll!('- iï..~·· ¡....--..,..:....;t.: i I ~.. I l..1 ".... _-.:. -'~ ""'-. ~r=Jl_... - ::i ! ~ rJ I '-' , l!: \~ ..... ðÁ. OesiiJn R~!lourc~$> Inf::. '7" ~.~rl1t ¡.Ifwo'''',,*,'' I, ·J1 ~'i>ur.."""'_,Irv.d...II."'" ........fr....., <'oII""".......~... '"L/"'~'~",~ I , II ..,..... ~ ~t'" ."";' :,. ::..,;; ~"." .". I , "., 'II' -"1-1' J, ~~F ß/: ~'~M;ï:ë ,¡; -- + .~/ .~" -~" '" ~ "11, ~--.-,<r.r-¥, J" Y:~ '.'., . ;;=: -- ~-5-- ¡::L' ".-" '~--. -.¡-. '1 ';¡-" dj-n . , ~.".!UJUrCf s. Inc.. -~." Ossign Ue___.~.,...,NI¡ . ,/A .........., ,. !7"..tI ~w RI~.~,'(!<' A _.._ ...,,,., =~r't::. ~~:"-:~.":."~~ ,..,.. cÞ ') . c.~'·:.. i)) . õ.. ·"AA·\·' IL\L','., !¡ .' \y".\.."/!: '1.\:.....",.' / ,\':;::~i-:~,:. ;:". I I I , " I P I: 'j, L lu 3 , ....... ... !..> <;',1 0. Ù) ., \":, T -I- -, r'· , <'\ ,-,,'./' "-' ., " I I·· +. ,4 \1,,( , i) ê· ....... .~ fthÍ OØ5ign Resources" laG.. '7'4 ~.~"'''''_n,,_~UI"... /t> Io ~,..",_.......>...~.......",~ ......, ",..., ".",~.",.d_-" rn '~"'! '1II.,no ..' -,_.~,.,_.,-----,. " " ¡~ ., ¡~ ~fA !i1n ~;t ~:Dj; I~ ~ 'i! ~:Q I~ :~ ~:t r- 0 ""1 ~ Ro~ W 'III_II ¡mml o:!! "be;) i: 9 P II ~~ . i i ¡¡ I ¡ iiêp tl I q i ~:::! I '. ..:b ~ III šl, ¡ I ¡ 1 ~ "0 !.& 5 i I ~ ~ !i1 M1 0 " ~ . Š q '" 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~::t n ~~~ -I:. ~Qj -' ~- "tj D9 ~ --1""1 ,j " " . . ~Cft ¡¡¡() i~ ~... ~! ~... :II g ¡;J~ ì§~ I:.: ~() ~:a: ). ." ;g 0 r¡¡ !.::J ill! II Ii .Ii ¡_IIU I ~ CI) :::! ii : II II ~~ ! II i tEi ~ ! i nl ~ ~~ r~ I i Ii ;1 H!h (f¡~ d:a II n ~~~ ~~;! - f ~ ~ ¡ !~ ~ ~ ¡¡¡o::::! ~ ..1'11n=¡ - I H ~~ I ~...~ ¡J ¡¡:l'D oq ~ ä::::¡Ro ~ I~ 1 SCHAEFER RANCH CITY OF OUBLIN, CALIFORNIA COMPARISON OF GRADED AREA APPROVI;O VMTING TENTATIVE MAP & REFINED DEVELOPMENT PLAN DArE! SEP~MØ~R 30. 2004 A~ð~ 1IE~"TtN6 t!'NTAl1VE MAP ,....,.,>f·n .....""'. , .~'þ '·">~V'j'· _~~:~~~C;~·~:,?: REFIN~D DEVfïLOPME~T PLAN - ~ - ; """"'-'I"D =""'. pj4 ~~- ¡>oW "...... v.IIt, ...~ ~.... "'" ........~......r,_""'..:#-~ r 'PL r...I.."·,, ~ l. ,( ');.>....,~'".,~¡'~'IJ.''"'..~"''' .Â. <oIl> ,-._ C 11 A B [0 ¡;: R n E ] (, II T ~ :"