HomeMy WebLinkAbout6.1 HansenRnchPD Rzn
,
.
..
.
CITY OF DUBLIN
AGENDA STATEMENT
CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: May 8,1995
SUBJECT:
REPORT PREPARED BY:
EXHIBITS ATTACHED:
BACKGROUND A TT ACHMENTS
RECOMMENDATION:
if
()t'LU
PUBLIC HEARING: P A 95-007 Hansen Ranch General Plan
Amendment, Planned Development Rezoning, and Tentative Map
Amendment
Tasha Huston, Associate Planner c!,J:.:ttt-
Exhibit A:
Exhibit B:
Draft Resolution Denying General Plan Amendment
Draft Resolution Denying Planned Development
Rezoning
Draft Resolution Denying Tentative Map
Amendment
Exhibit C:
1 : Proposed project Plans: Reduced copy of General Plan Map
(with homesite relocation area highlighted), Planned
Development Rezoning Site Plan, Tentative Map, Limits of
Grading Exhibit
2: Current General Plan Map
3: Approved Tentative Map
4: Diagram showing Riparian Corridors
5: Text from EIR regarding mitigation measures
6: City Council Resolutions No. 21-89 (Adopting General Plan
Land Uses), No. 20-89 (Adopting Mitigation Monitoring
Program), and No. 19-89 (Adopting Statement of Overriding
Considerations)
7: Existing Dublin General Plan Policies affecting project
8: Memorandum from City Attorney
9: Public Comment Letters
10: Applicant's Written Statement
11: Minutes from May 1, 1995 Planning Commission Meeting and
April 17, 1995 Planning Commission Study Session
12: Planning Commission Resolutions recommending City
Council denial of P A 95-007
13: Sample Resolutions of: 1) Findings, Certifying the EIR, and
Adopting Statement of Overriding Considerations; 2) Adopting
General Plan Amendment; 3) Adopting Rezoning; and 4)
Adopting Tentative Map Amendment
1.) Open Public Hearing and hear Staff presentation.
2) Take testimony from Applicant and the public.
3) Question Staff, Applicant and the public.
4) Close public hearing and deliberate.
5) Concur with the Planning Commission's recommendation and
adopt Draft Resolutions (Exhibits A, B, & C,) relating to P A
95-007, or provide direction in the form of an informal
"straw" vote, and continue the matter to another specific City
Council meeting.
FINANCIAL STATEMENT: None
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
lTEMNO.~
COPIES TO:
CITY CLERK
FILE~
e
.
DESCRIPTION
Martha Buxton, on behalf of California Pacific Homes, Inc., has requested a General Plan Amendment,
Planned Development Rezoning, and Tentative Map Amendment for revisions to Phase II of the
approved Hansen Ranch subdivision. The amendments to the project would involve approximately 2.4
acres of land (overall) redesignated from open space to residential land use, with 16 homesites relocated
into an oaklbay woodland area, on the 147+ acre Hansen Hill Ranch project site.
BACKGROUND
Development applications for the Hansen Hill Ranch project were first approved in February of 1989
with the City Council approval of a General Plan Amendment, along with new General Plan policies, and
Environmental Impact Report for the Hansen Hill Ranch site. The land use designations approved for the
site included:
Low Density Single Family Residential (0.5 - 3.8 units per acre) - 57.2 acres
[providing for 28 to 217 dwelling units]
Open Space/Stream Corridor - 89.8 acres
The Open Space/Stream Corridor designation does not allow residential development. The Dublin
General Plan contains policies which require the City to: 1) prohibit development within open space areas
except development designed to enhance public safety and the environmental setting; 2) allow roads to
pass through open space areas provided that 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)
require revegetation of cut and fill areas with native trees, shrubs, and grasses.
Additional project approvals occurred in November, 1989 with the Prezoning of the site to a Planned
Development District, and Tentative Map for 180 single family lots. Annexation of the property into the
City of Dublin was certified in May, 1991, and the Dublin City Council adopted the Hansen Ranch
Development Agreement Ordinance in February, 1992.
After the initial tentative map approval was granted, the applicants decided to process the subdivision in
two phases. Phase 1 of the subdivision involves 72 lots, and Phase 2 involves 108 lots. The City
Council approved amendments to Phase I of the Hansen Ranch Tentative Map in February and March of
1995.
The current application (P A 95-007) involves three planning applications processed concurrently: I) a
General Plan Amendment; 2) a Planned Development (PD) Rezoning; and 3) a Tentative Map
Amendment to Phase II of the approved Tentative Map. F or purposes of City Council review and
discussion of the proposal, staff recommends the City Council consider each application component
individually, beginning with the General Plan Amendment, and take action or provide direction on one
aspect before proceeding to the next component.
The proposal was reviewed by the Planning Commission at a noticed Study Session on April 17, and a
Public Hearing on May 1, 1995. At that last meeting, the applicant and her development team disagreed
with most of the findings in the Staff Report; however, they did acknowledge several key points:
1. The proposal actually involves slightly more grading (0.96 acres more) and more removal
of oak/bay woodland (0.18 acres more) in the proposed homesite relocation area than the
approved plan;
2. The proposal is not consistent with Dublin General Plan policy 7.7.f, which reads:
"Prohibit development within designated open space areas except that designed to enhance
public safety and the environmental setting".
2
.
.
3. The area to be graded for the sewerline (shown as 6.6 acres near the Access Hiking Trail
on Limits of Grading Exhibit, Attachment 1) was not shown on the approved tentative map
because it was unknown. (Further discussion of this issue occurs below in the staff
analysis section).
After the close of the May 1 hearing, the Planning Commission adopted resolutions recommending the
City Council deny P A 95-007 - General Plan Amendment, PD Rezoning; and Tentative Map
Amendment (see Attachment 12).
ANAL YSIS
SUMMARY
Staff has analyzed the proposed project in terms of its relation to the City of Dublin General Plan,
as well as the significant environmental impacts which could result. The project's evaluation
included significant research into the history of the project and available documentation regarding
the significant issues. Several outside agencies were consulted to obtain additional expertise and
opinions. As a result of this analysis, staff recommends that the project, P A 95-007, involving a
General Plan Amendment, PD Rezoning, and Tentative Map Amendment, should be denied, for
the following reasons:
1. The proposed General Plan Amendment to redesignate 2.4 acres (overall) from Open
Space/Stream Corridor to Low Density Single Family Residential land use is inconsistent
with several policies of the Dublin General Plan that were intended to protect oak
woodlands, natural habitats, and aesthetic resources.
2. The relocation of 16 homesites into an environmentally sensitive area, which includes oak
woodlands and riparian habitat, would result in significant environmental impacts which
are greater than would occur under the previously approved plan.
3. The area where the 16 homesites are proposed was intended to be graded for a road and to
remain an open space area; it was not intended to be developed with 16 single family
houses.
Further explanation of these reasons are contained in the analysis below.
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT
The proposed General Plan Amendment would redesignate 2.4 acres (overall) from Open Space/Stream
Corridor to Residential land uses, with 16 homesites relocated to an area previously designated for open
space. The portion of the site in question is an area in Phase II of the project, along the northern project
boundary, near the Martin Canyon Creek (the area highlighted in Attachment 1).
There are two main issues regarding the proposed General Plan amendment. One involves the proposal's
significant impacts to the environment. The second is whether the land use should be changed to allow
residential units in an area designated as open space, considering the City's General Plan policies.
The main significant environmental impacts related to the proposed land use designation change would
occur in a portion of the site which is an oak woodland area, and is the junction of two canyons identified
as important riparian corridors (see Attachment 4). The issue of whether development should occur in
this portion of the site was discussed in the EIR prepared for this project, because the original application
in 1989 also proposed residential development in the relocation area. The EIR determined that
development within the oak woodlands and riparian habitat would result in significant impacts. The EIR
recommended that no development should occur in the sensitive habitat and woodland areas. When the
EIR was certified and the project approved, the City allowed only a road to traverse the open space area,
3
e
e
but no residential units were allowed in this area of the site, as recommended by the EIR. A copy of the
EIR's text addressing recommended mitigation measures for protecting vegetation resources is included
as Attachment 5.
In making the decision to allow the road through the open space, the Council gave a concession which
would result in the removal of a substantial amount of oak trees with significant habitat and visual value.
Because the roadway construction would result in significant environmental impacts, which cannot be
mitigated to an acceptable level, the Council was required to adopt a "statement of overriding
considerations". This statement included findings that the impacts associated with construction of the
roadway through the open space were acceptable because the road was necessary for the public health
and safety.
The Council's approval statement declared that the impacts to the oak woodlands and riparian vegetation
would be minimized through implementation of the EIR mitigation measures. (See Attachment 6,
Resolutions of previous City Council Approvals for this site). The primary mitigation measure was
elimination of residential development and permission to build the access road only. Another mitigation
measure required minimal grading for the road. Another required that the slopes graded for the road be
revegetated with native plants after construction. Under the approved plan, the trees replanted on graded
slopes would eventually mature to replace most of the oak woodland area destroyed by the roadway
grading.
Under the proposed plan, however, the area would not be replanted, there would be 16 lots instead of
native plants. In addition, structures must be kept clear of vegetation for at least 30 feet uphill from the
housepad and 100 feet downhill, for fire safety, increasing the area which would not be revegetated.
Even if there is a replacement of three new trees for each tree over 10 inches in diameter removed, it is
questionable whether a similar woodland and riparian habitat area could be created anywhere on the site.
Developing homesites in this area would preclude the revegetation, and would be inconsistent with the
primary mitigation identified in the EIR.
Another environmental impact identified in the EIR is discontinuous habitats. Mammals use riparian
corridors for travel between habitats. An individual habitat area will have minimallons:r-term value
unless wildlife can move from one biome to another. Under the approved plan, wildlife can cross the
road and still travel between habitat areas. The relocation of 16 homesites would act as a physical barrier
between significant open space and riparian habitat areas, creating an "island" of open space encircled by
development. The comments from the Department of Fish and Game indicate that wildlife habitats
would be severely restricted by the narrow corridors proposed in the new plan, and the Department
prefers continuous open space, such as that in the approved plan. (See Attachment 4, illustrating the
riparian habitat areas).
The proposed project's impacts upon visual resources due to grading were also addressed in the EIR.
The visual impacts from grading would be reduced under the proposed plan, where grading would be
eliminated over a 16-acre area in the southwest portion of the site. The two existing knolls in this area
would be left in their natural, ungraded condition. The grading in the woodland area where the homes
would be relocated is expected to increase slightly beyond the grading for just the roadway. At the April
17 study session, it was suggested that eliminating grading on the knolls could be a tradeoff for
constructing homes in the riparian corridor and woodland area. The Department ofFish and Game
commented on this issue in a telephone conversation with staff, pointing out that in terms of habitat
value, the grass on the knoll can recover within one growing season, while some of the oak trees to be
removed may be hundreds of years old. Thus, even if the overall balance of grading for the approved
plan versus the proposed plan were equal, the more significant issue is the increase in loss of woodlands
and habitat.
A graphic display developed by the Applicant which illustrates the differences in the grading involved for
the approved tentative map versus the grading involved for the proposed plan is included underaAttachment 1 (Limits of Grading Exhibit). However, it should be noted that this exhibit shows a 6.6 acre
area near the Access Road/Trail, in the vicinity of the homesite relocation area, which the applicant
claims would have been graded under the currently approved plan. This 6.6 acre area was never shown
4
e
e
to be graded on the approved tentative map. The planning staffhas serious concerns with the applicant's
assumption that this large area would have been graded on the approved plan. It is not consistent with
the amount of grading originally approved, and thus should not be included in a comparison of grading
for the "Approved" versus "Proposed" plans.
Below is a matrix summarizing and comparing the impacts mentioned above for the project as approved
versus the proposed amendment.
SUMMARY OF IMPACTS
Phase II Amendments
PROPOSED PROJECT
ENVIRONMENTAL
IMP ACTS
LESS
GREATER
GREATER
GREATER
GREATER
GREATER
GREATER
LESS
Grading Overall 13.98 fewer acres*
Grading in homesite relocation area 0.96 more acres *
Loss of Trees Overall 2.1 more acres *
Loss of Trees in homesite relocation area 0.18 more acres *
Loss of Riparian Habitat 1.7 more acres
Island Habitat homes are major physical barrier
Water Runoff in homesite relocation area more impervious surface
Grading of Knolls 16.28 fewer acres
* This information was obtained from the applicant's engineer on the day of the May 1st Planning Commission meeting, and
therefore differs from the grading exhibit previously submitted by the applicant.
The project as proposed would not include all of the recommended mitigations in the EIR, and these
mitigations have not been shown infeasible. Staff believes therefore that the mitigation findings required
by CEQA could not be made for the impacts to oak woodland and wildlife habitat under the project as
proposed. Similarly, the statement of overriding considerations previously adopted relies on certain
adopted mitigation. If those mitigations are not part of the project, the overriding considerations would
need to be reassessed. Staff recommends that the City Council retain the recommended mitigations in
the EIR and prohibit development of residential units in this area of the site.
The second major issue before the City is whether the change from an Open Space designation to a
Residential designation, is appropriate, given other General Plan policies. A list of General Plan policies
which need to be considered when reviewing the history of the projects and the proposed amendments to
this project are included as Attachment 7.
The specific policies which relate to the proposal for a land use change include guiding policy 3.1.a,
related to Open Space for Preservation of Natural Resources & for Public Health and Safety. This policy
requires that Oak Woodlands, riparian vegetation, and natural creeks be preserved as open space for their
natural resource value. Also, guiding policy 7.1.a requires that Riparian Vegetation be protected as a
protective buffer for stream quality and for its value as a habitat and aesthetic resource, and policy 7.3.a
requires that the City protect oak woodlands. The proposal would also affect General Plan policy 8.2.3
regarding Flooding. The guiding policy requires that development in hill areas be regulated to minimize
runoff by preserving woodlands and riparian vegetation. Overall, the proposal to amend the General Plan
and allow residential development in an oak woodland and riparian habitat area would be inconsistent
with policies 3.1.a, 7.1.a, 7.3.a., and 8.2.3, especially without adequate mitigation measures that would
address this significant impact.
5
e
e
Additionally, policy 7.7, regarding Open Space Maintenance/Management includes several guiding
policies which should be considered when reviewing this proposal. The policies specifically related to
the proposed redesign include:
b. 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
d. Require use of native trees, shrubs, and grasses with low maintenance costs in
revegetation 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
Policies 7.7.e. and Policy 7.7.f. were originally developed in response to the Hansen Ranch
development approved in 1989. The applicant has stated that the solution to their project's inconsistency
with policy 7.7.f is to change the land use designation. If the land use category in this area of the site
were changed to residential, the project would not "technically" be in conflict with these policies,
because the above policies would only apply to Open Space. However, when this policy was adopted,
under the General Plan Amendment which approved the project's land uses in 1989, it was in response to
the overall compromises and tradeoffs made in approving the project. It was intended to accommodate
the approval of ooly the road through this area of the project site, not residential lots.
Thus, staff s conclusion that the proj ect is inconsistent with the intent of several open space policies is
based upon the previous project approvals and recommendations of the EIR, which have consistently
resulted in retaining this area of the project site as open space.
Finally, California State Law requires adoption of a General Plan that is a comprehensive long term plan
for the physical development of the City. When development was considered for the Hansen Ranch site
in 1989, the City's decision makers considered all of the aspects and tradeoffs of the proposed
development, and made the decision to prohibit residential development in this oak/bay woodland and
riparian habitat area. If a land use change were approved to redesignate the area for residential
development, it would be in response to specific project circumstances, which may be contrary to the
intent of a comprehensive, long term document.
Because the proposal is inconsistent with the intentions of the General Plan overall, and inconsistent with
the policies mentioned above as interpreted by Staff, it is staff s recommendation that the City Council
deny the proposed General Plan Amendment.
PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REZONING
The proposed Planned Development (PD) Rezoning would change the designated zoning district of
approximately 2.4 acres (overall) from PD Open Space to PD Single Family Homes and revise various
PD General Provisions and subdivision configuration to allow the 16 home sites to be moved into the
previous open space area and reduce the average lot size from 7700 to 7560 square feet. State law
requires consistency between the City's General Plan and zoning. Thus, the GP A request is accompanied
by a request to amend the applicable PD zoning General Provisions. Staff recommends that the City
Council deny the proposed PD Rezoning.
TENTATIVE MAP AMENDMENT
The proposed Amendment to Tract 6308 would revise the subdivision layout for phase II including
relocation of 16 homesites. As with the rezoning, denial of the General Plan Amendment requires denial
6
:1
e
e
of the Tentative Map in that a residential subdivision is not consistent with the Open Space/Stream
Corridor General Plan designation or Open Space Zoning. Staff recommends that the City Council deny
the Tentative Map Amendment request.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
In compliance with CEQA and the Dublin Environmental Guidelines, the staff prepared an Initial Study
for the proposed project. Based upon this Initial Study, it was determined that the EIR certified by the
Dublin City Council on February 27, 1989 for a previous project (P A 87-045 Hansen Hill General Plan
Amendment) could be used as the EIR for this project. This previous EIR (dated December 1987; SCH
No. 87050527), including the revised project description addendum (dated May 1988), Statement of
Overriding Considerations and Mitigation Monitoring Program encompass the subject site and
adequately describe 1) the environmental setting, 2) the significant environmental impacts and, 3) the
alternatives and mitigation related to the significant effects of the development on this project site.
As required by CEQA, a 30-day noticed public review period was provided for this project between
March 17, 1995 and April 15, 1995. Several letters of comment were received, some concerning the use
of the previous EIR. A summary ofthe pertinent comments received appears below in the PUBLIC
COMMENTS section.
City Council denial of the General Plan Amendment, PD Rezoning, and Tentative Map Amendment does
not require action on the environmental review.
CITY ATTORNEY DIRECTION
At the April 17 study session, the Planning Commission requested input from the City Attorney
regarding whether the proposed amendments are consistent with the General Plan. A memorandum from
the City Attorney regarding this issue is included as Attachment 8.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
Public Notice of the environmental review and of Public Meetings to be held on this project were mailed
to public agencies affected by the project, property owners within 300 feet of the site, published and
posted near the project site. Letters of comment received representatives of the Dublin Unified School
District, East Bay Regional Parks District, Department ofFish & Game, the Dougherty Regional Fire
Authority, City departments, and several members of the public. Copies of these letters are included in
the Staff Report under Attachment 9.
Dublin Unified School District (DUSD)
The letter received from the DUSD addresses the use of the earlier EIR for review of this project,
although the letter was received after the close of the comment period. In this letter, the District's
attorney points out various changes which have occurred in the situation oflocal schools, mainly related
to the formation of the School District, and school capacity. The issues raised by this letter were
discussed with the City Attorney. While the letter correctly identifies changes in various aspects of local
schools, it appears that these issues are not relevant for review based upon the proposed project
amendments. If the project involved a request for additional units it would have raised issues which
would require the review of these school issues. However, the proposal does not increase project density
or number of units, and therefore does not affect issues of school capacity that were previously decided
under the earlier EIR.
7
-;
:4
e
e
Department of Fish & Game
The City received a letter from the Department o(Fish and Game, also after the close of the comment
period, which listed several concerns with the proposed development of units in a woodland and riparian
habitat area. The first concern is that the homesites in this area would essentially create a barrier which
would block a riparian corridor, creating an island of open space surrounded by development The second
comment states that if development is approved in this area of the site, a survey is needed to address
whether this site contains any Alameda whip snake, a State of California "Threatened" species. Third, the
letter states that the proposed amendments would require significantly more grading in the open
space/riparian corridor than that expected with only a roadway. These issues, combined with the loss of
woodland and riparian habitat area, are considered significant environmental impacts. Because the project
EIR did not propose mitigation for development in the riparian corridor and woodland, other than to
recommend that development be kept out of the corridor area, the significant impacts warrant additional
EIR documentation.
Overall, the Fish and Game letter recommends against approval of the proposed amendments. Their
staff also stated that if the proj ect were amended, supplemental environmental studies would need to be
conducted to determine the minimum adequate width for a wildlife corridor, and what other mitigation
measures are available to minimize the impacts to the riparian corridor.
East Bay Regional Parks District (EBRPD)
At the April 17 study session, the Planning Commission asked whether the EBRPD had commented on
the proposal. After this meeting, a representative from the District sent a letter of comment containing
recommendations. In summary, the District's letter commends the plan approved in 1989 for providing a
trail and open space corridor amenities which will provide an important link to the regional trail system.
It identifies several possible negative effects of relocating the homesites into the open space area,
including the reduced value of habitat areas when separated by physical barriers such as development.
ADDITIONAL WRITTEN STATEMENTS FROM APPLICANT
Letter from Applicant's Attorney
A letter was received from the firm of Morrison & Foerster, the applicant's attorney, shortly before the
May 1 public hearing. At the Planning Commission meeting, staff responded to two statements
contained in this letter which are misleading and warrant clarification. The first statement is made on
page 3 of that letter, and states that there would be significantly less grading in riparian areas under the
Phase II approvals than under the currently approved plan. Based upon an exhibit prepared by staff, and
not including the 6.6 acres of grading for the sewer line which was erroneously included in the
applicant's exhibit, the development would.actually cause slightly more grading in the riparian area.
Also, on the same page of this letter, the attorney states that the builder will revegetate all cut and fill
slopes within the project site whether or not the Phase II approvals are granted. This statement indicates
that the areas revegetated due to cut and fill would be the same on both plans. However, staffhas
prepared a diagram of the areas revegetated under both plans, and it appears that a much greater area
would nQ1 be revegetated under the proposed plan --- it would be covered with 16 houses. The diagram
prepared by staff will be available at the May 8 City Council meeting.
Letter from LSA Associates
The city also received a letter regarding this project from the consulting firm ofLSA, who was hired by
the applicant to respond to the concerns raised by the Department ofFish and Game. This letter also
contains a statement which is misleading. On the first page of this letter, the consultant states that the
area proposed for grading and vegetation removal along the Martin Canyon Creek riparian corridor is
essentially the same on the approved and proposed tentative maps. It does appear that the encroachment
into the Martin Canyon Creek corridor is not significantly increased under the proposed plan. However,
there are two designated riparian corridors on the project site. The point at which these two corridors
8
i
.-<
.
e
e
connect is exactly the location where the 16 lots are proposed. Based upon a diagram prepared by staff
which shows the riparian corridors in this area, it appears that the grading in the homesite relocation area
is greater than that approved under the 1989 plan. Furthermore, the area revegetated with native plants
would be significantly less in this sensitive area if the homesites were allowed..
AL TERNA TIVES/OPTIONS
1) Project as proposed
If the City Council wishes to consider approval of the General Plan Amendment, Rezoning, and
Tentative Map Amendment, as proposed, the Council would need to make the determination that the
proposal is consistent with the General Plan. Also, several findings would need to be generated which
would justify the new statement of overriding considerations required by CEQA. The findings would
need to include a statement that the proposal results in significant environmental impacts which cannot
be mitigated to an insignificant level.
Although sample draft Resolutions and Ordinances are provided for the Council's review (Attachment
13), evidence justifying the Overriding Considerations, and supporting the project's consistency with the
General Plan would need to be generated in order to approve the project as proposed. If the City Council
wishes to approve the General Plan Amendment, PD Rezoning, and Tentative Map Amendment, staff
recommends the City Council provide staff direction in the form of an informal "straw" vote concerning
the following items; and continue the item to another specific City Council meeting.
1. Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations: The Resolution finding the
previous EIR as adequate, and a Statement of Overriding Considerations for residential
development within the Open Space area would need to be refined if the Council approves
the General Plan Amendment, Rezoning, and Tentative Map.
2. Mitigation measures: To minimize impacts to this environmentally sensitive area,
mitigation measures should be developed. Staff would need to consult with the
Department of Fish and Game, who has authority over the approval of a streambed
alteration agreement for this site, as well as the tree revegetation plan. In addition, details
of the conditions of approval which would need to be applied to this development must be
resolved.
If the Council is comfortable with making the required CEQA findings, the sample Resolutions and
Ordinances could be refined and the project could be acted upon at the next City Council meeting on
May 22nd. If major changes are proposed to the Resolutions or to the project, or issues are unresolved,
the item may need to be continued for further review and Council direction.
2) Revised Project:
The main issues and concerns with the project as proposed result from the request to redesignate
approximately 2.4 acres of land (overall) from open space to allow residential land use, with 16
homesites relocated into an Oak/Bay woodland area. Several of the environmental impact concerns and
inconsistencies with General Plan policies could be addressed or lessened if there were fewer or no units
allowed in this sensitive area.
Options for revising the project would include reducing or eliminating the number of home sites proposed
in the open space area, placing them in another portion of the site which is currently designated for
residential land use. Another option would be to select a different area of open space on the which has
9
.
,..
e
e
fewer environmental constraints. Possibly, the density in that area could be increased, while maintaining
the project density overall.
A suggestion to revise the project was discussed at the April 17 Planning Commission Study Session. In
a meeting with the applicant on March 15, 1995, Staff suggested that the applicant consider revising the
project. The applicant submitted a letter explaining aspects of the development which she believes would
help lessen the environmental impacts. The applicant has not, however, responded to the suggestions for
a redesigned proposal.
It should be noted that if any number of units are to be allowed in open space areas, the findings
regarding environmental mitigation measures mentioned in option # 1 above would need to be made.
3) Denial
If the City Council concurs with the Planning Commission and staff, and determines that the project as
proposed involves significant environmental impacts for which there ~ alternatives or mitigation
measures which would substantially lessen these impacts, it cannot recommend approval of the project
unless the impacts are mitigated or avoided. The only exception to this would occur if the Council
determines that there is substantial evidence in the public record showing that it is infeasible to mitigate
or lessen the significant adverse environmental impacts.
Additionally, if the City Council determines that the project as proposed involves development which
would be inconsistent with the General Plan policies, or would create an internally inconsistent Plan, the
Council would need to deny the request for a General Plan Amendment. Because state law requires
consistency between the City's General Plan and its Zoning, denial of the GPA would require denial of
the Rezoning and Tentative Map applications, to maintain consistency. If the City Council denies the
amendments, the project would revert back to the plan approved in 1989.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons explained in the analysis, staff recommends that the City Council adopt the attached
Resolutions and Ordinance denying the General Plan Amendment, PD Rezoning, and Tentative Map
Amendment (Exhibits A, B, and C).
";
10
. ,
'j
RESOLUTION NO. 95
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
DENYING THE GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT FOR P A 95-007
HANSEN RANCH/CALIFORNIA PACIFIC HOMES
WHEREAS, California Pacific Homes has requested a General Plan Amendment Study, Planned
Development Rezoning and Tentative Map Subdivision for a 2.4:t acre portion of the Hansen Ranch site to
redesignate the open space/stream corridor General Plan land use designation to Low Density Single Family
Residential (0.5 to 3.8 DU/AC) to rezone the Planned Development Open Space Prezoning to allow single family
homes and relocate 16 single family residential lots into that area; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a properly noticed study session on April 17, 1995, and a
public hearing on May 1, 1995 to consider the General Plan Amendment, PD Rezoning, Tentative Map and
previous EIR for P A 95-007 planning application for Hansen Hill/California Pacific Homes; and
WHEREAS, the Staff analysis was submitted recommending denial of the General Plan Amendment to
redesignate the 2.4:t acre open space area to low density single family residential (0.5 to 3.8 DU/AC); and
WHEREAS, on May 1, 1995, the Planning Commission adopted three Resolutions recommending City
Council denial of the General Plan Amendment Rezoning and Tentative Map Amendment; and
WHEREAS, on May 8, 1995 the City Council held a noticed public hearing to consider the General Plan
Amendment, Planned Development Rezoning, Tentative Map Amendment and previous EIR for PA 95-007; and
WHEREAS, proper notice of said public hearing was given in all respects as required by law; and
WHEREAS, the General Plan Amendment has been reviewed in accordance with the provisions of the
California Environmental Quality Act; and
WHEREAS, the certified Hansen Ranch EIR determined that development within the proposed area
would have significant adverse impacts to the oak woodland/riparian habitat area which could not be mitigated to
an acceptable level; and
WHEREAS, said adverse impacts can be reduced with minimized roadway grading and native plant
revegetation of graded areas; and
WHEREAS, Staff and the Planning Commission recommended denial of P A 95-007 planning
application for Hansen Ranch/California Pacific Homes General Plan Amendment; and
WHEREAS, the City Council considered all reports, recommendations and written and oral testimony
submitted at the Public Hearing as herein above set forth.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE Dublin City Council does hereby find:
1. That the City of Dublin has adopted a General Plan as a long term policy document which contains
several long term goals including preservin~ oak woodlands and riparian vegetation; and
fEX.. . . ~"'i-' "'1
I ,<Urn ..
rd.]!
A
2. That the City of Dublin has determined that the area proposed for redesignation contains significant
environmental resources and is an important open space area; and
3. That the proposed development is inconsistent with the existing General Plan policies that require
preservation of oak woodlands and riparian vegetation; and
4. That the proposed General Plan Amendment undermines the existing General Plan policy that
prohibits development in open space areas; and
5. That the existing General Plan policies permit collector streets to pass through open space areas
provided the street is designed to minimize grading, so as not to damage the ecological/aesthetic value and
characteristics of the open space area; and
6. That existing General Plan policies require revegetation of graded slopes with native trees, grass, and
shrubs; and
7. That native plant revegetation of the graded area (as a result of development of the roadway) will
reduce the damage to the ecological and aesthetic value and characteristic of the open space oak
woodland/riparian area; and
8. That the proposed General Plan Amendment land use designation is not consistent with the General
Plan polices, in that the General Plan Amendment would designate the area for residential development rather
than revegetate the area with native plants consistent with the ecological characteristics of the area; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT THE Dublin City Council does hereby deny PA 95 -007,
Hansen Ranch/California Pacific Homes General Plan Amendment.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 8th day of May, 1995.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
(g :/pa# 1199510071 ccresos)
RESOLUTION NO. 95
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
DENYING THE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REZONING FOR P A 95-007
HANSEN RANCH/CALIFORNIA PACIFIC HOMES
WHEREAS, California Pacific Homes has requested a General Plan Amendment Study, Planned
Development Rezoning and Tentative Map Subdivision for a 2.4:t acre portion of the Hansen Hill site to
redesignate the open space/stream corridor General Plan land use designation to Low Density Single Family
Residential (0.5 to 3.8 DU/AC) to rezone the Planned Development Open Space Prezoning to allow single family
homes and relocate 16 single family residential lots into that area; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a properly noticed study session on April 17, 1995, and a
public hearing on May 1, 1995, to consider the General Plan Amendment, PD Rezoning, Tentative Map and
previous EIR for P A 95-007 planning application for Hansen Ranch/California Pacific Homes; and
WHEREAS, on May 1, 1995, the Planning Commission adopted three Resolutions recommending City
Council denial of the General Plan Amendment, Rezoning and Tentative Map Amendment; and
WHEREAS, on May 8, 1995, the City Council held a noticed public hearing to consider the General
Plan Amendment, Planned Development Rezoning, Tentative Map Amendment and previous EIR for PA 95-007
Hansen Ranch/California Pacific Homes; and
WHEREAS, proper notice of said public hearing was given in all respects as required by law; and
WHEREAS, the Planned Development Rezoning has been reviewed in accordance with the provisions
of the California Environmental Quality Act; and
WHEREAS, the Staff Report was submitted recommending City Council denial of the Planned
Development Rezoning; and
WHEREAS, Staff and the Planning Commission recommend denial ofPA 95-007 Hansen
Ranch/California Pacific Homes Planned Development Rezoning; and
WHEREAS, the City Council heard and considered all said reports, recommendations and written and
oral testimony submitted at the public hearing as hereinabove set forth.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE Dublin City Council does hereby find that:
1. The proposed Planned Development Rezoning is not consistent with the City General Plan and
Policies in that the site is designated open space and does not allow residential development.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT THE Dublin City Council does hereby deny P A 95-007
Hansen Ranch/California Pacific Homes Planned Development Rezoning.
EXHiBIT B
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 8th day of May, 1995.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
(g:/pa#/1995/007/ccresos)
RESOLUTION NO. 95
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
DENYING THE TENTATIVE MAP AMENDMENT
FOR PA 95-007 HANSEN RANCH/CALIFORNIA PACIFIC HOMES
WHEREAS, California Pacific Homes has requested a General Plan Amendment Study, Planned
Development Rezoning and Tentative Map Subdivision for a 2.4:t acre portion of the Hansen Ranch site to
redesignate the open space/stream corridor General Plan land use designation to Low Density Single Family
Residential (0.5 to 3.8 DU/AC) to rezone the Planned Development Open Space Prezoning to allow single family
homes and to relocate single family residential lots into this area; and
WHEREAS, the application has been reviewed in accordance with the provisions of the California
Environmental Quality Act; and
WHEREAS, the State of California Subdivision Map Act and the adopted City of Dublin Subdivision
Regulations require that no real property may be divided into two or more parcels for purpose of sale, lease or
financing unless a tentative map is acted upon, and a final map is approved consistent with the Subdivision Map
Act and City of Dublin subdivision regulations; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a properly noticed study session on April 17, 1995, and a
public hearing on May 1, 1995, to consider the General Plan Amendment, PD Rezoning, Tentative Map and
previous EIR for P A 95-007 planning application for Hansen Ranch/California Pacific Homes; and
WHEREAS, on May 1, 1995, the Planning Commission adopted three Resolutions recommending City
Council denial of the Tentative Map Amendment for PA 95-007 Hansen Ranch/California Pacific Homes
Tentative Map Amendment; and
WHEREAS, on May 8, 1995, the City Council held a noticed public hearing to consider the General
Plan Amendment, Planned Development Rezoning, Tentative Map Amendment and previous EIR for PA 95-007
Hansen Ranch/California Pacific Homes; and
WHEREAS, proper notice of said public hearing was given in all respects as required by law; and
WHEREAS, the Staff Report and Planning Commission Resolution were submitted recommending City
Council denial of the Tentative Map; and
WHEREAS, the City Council heard and considered all said reports, recommendations and written and
oral testimony submitted at the public hearing as hereinabove set forth.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE Dublin City Council does hereby find that:
1. The proposed Tentative Map is not consistent with the City's General Plan as applied to this property
in that the site is designated open space while the proposed tentative map is to allow single family residential lots
relocated into this area.
2. The proposed Tentative Map is not consistent with the zoning district in which the site is located in
that the site is zoned Planned Development ,open space while the proposed Tentative Map is for residential lots.
EXiUBii c
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT THE Dublin City Council does hereby deny the Tentative
Map for PA 95-007, Hansen Ranch/California Pacific Homes Tentative Map Amendment.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 8th day of May, 1995.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
(g:/pa#/1995/007 /ccresos)
,
!
.,
/
'. /.,
.,
,
i;'.
f I I I
;F
;:-. -----,- ~ .:.~ : -
~~:~'
I
,
,
/
\
'Ilt
\
,
,
\
,
.Ii
\
\
\
,
'l----
-
-
I' ",
\ '
\ '
\ "
I -
, '
\ ""
;"1
"
,
,
'.
"-
',,----
," "',
~. -'.'
.........,... "
, .
.~~~~~~---~~--~---
\
...~,
"
\""
.. .,--..,
1 J ,au ,.. ~
';,
\
,/
\
1. ,- \ 1 I' " : :~I ,
,,' . ~
.... ....
--
j
\
I
=
~
:J
~
.::: --V
Ct\ ""T"1::o :=
;! rn III
Z COS)n
~S-f~
>~~-
~:;
-.to
~~C
}
':. .\
.,
. I~~""'''' ~.~ \ \ " ..
"..: -
"
\"-.
~,..
\,.
I
. "
,I' . '..
/ i-"-... .....,'-.
. / '-'..z_ -'. - ..........
"'-.
,
".
~
C01
t . I I I, , ~ .. I I,.,
~
\
\
. .'--..
""'" \
'\ ,
..............
\
... \,
~
l~, I
t:"
! .
.. .
; ,-' -
"\."
'. ". ,.-
".
.1
,. .
q ~
r~
'I'
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT
SUBDIVISION 6308
TY
~.-."-O.'''::.
t:::?a
p. I.
,..,
J>
--:\
p~
J
~
-;
...
--
.'
"I"
..,11""
",
;1,,: ,..
"
~
...
.;
"
,.
"
~
"
'"
:::
;c
~
..;
'<
"
;:
"
.,
./ --.-:--;(
,<;:~3d4fl-f~?!ll/
" ' " '~:,':){>.;:./
_..' ~.(
-
c
"1>
'"
'<:
'"
':l
:...
r)
.",
" ,
" .
.'11",
i:,;- .
'~:\
:: I ~ I. ...
i I
. )
,
,
/
,
)',
~
'"
.:
Q ~
'" "
~ ~
; ~
~ t.,
~ ~
~r.,
;::
~
f
i_
I~
i""
I""
,i~
~
I~
C")
;:
"'J
C
""
....", -
";";::~ ,~..>~'"
---.-. .....7h... k;~'-" \0\
_-!.J." ~ ~.~ \ ..-'.'1
,r' .." .~.1J';. ___-=-~ '. i: . 1..
. " '~:<". ~ G'" :'--~- _;;-,,,.- \. \, 1 < ::; !
.//. ~. '''-'-/.;---' \ '. . 1/,--"
',' " .-:.-..-..~ /~.." \ -', I . 1, r/l
,.' / ..;"'~ -...--: v~ . ", \ ~I.. ~ "/'// /'
':';~~-/;.~:- ~-' ~"":""" '~~~(("'-:''''>
--~~,. I '1/ ~ \ \', - -. ': _ ....--.~ '\0:, . /.
.----: ,. . 't I \ . .' /" ,_ ____ ____ /J " A'
_- I. I ~ ~ '( ,..\ ':. /, "'%~ . / ,-( \. {" "./'
- 'li1' ~ I \ I \ I..... ~,~.. \ \ L / ~.
"K - ----- :., I, ' l, :, \ 't ~ ',' '~t;;: --:~e " /._.)0; \\' : . /A:\ :..';____.
(, " "; '.\ c,' '//~.-.'/'~F "0' ~ ",...,
/ "'" ....~~~!~1[~ "'~{f 'c<'(25~::~;~)
"i""""", ';;~~ '----; ,~O:k, .... / ':~4 '
" " ""'" ..----~....-../:' !~\ ' . ,~>:.... -
/ ...... "'i/'1.':'.,/,-~,-,'~~c-._....., ~ .--/", ,,,...-.'- ' :':_--"-~:'-:""'r:~/'~/~'<
/ .. ....i~, ~Z,',~.,':.:. !~,I.. '< 0 .Cc
" '" ; , .. . . ,;. . I
/ ~ :4;~ ,- ~.:' 1
" ;.~ ~-'==~: ~
/ :.; ~ ~ .,"
, ;- I
.r"lt,' I
, ?',~
I
,/~.'/.'
,'j <-.; I
; ,,\t"('J ..
:.<: ~-.:.
" :.....
.... ~:.~~.j~
>~ZM,\" ,
'. iJ:.:~1
~~~qL;/
I,
I '
i
.i/."
-;.-// .
. I.
''C: "/:
,
///(~
, \
,I' .
i
I ,
I~I:
, . I"~
~ il
: II"
':\ 1;'"
/ l-
I i
. ". 7' '
J'1~~~'
I j ~ .
(.
j ~
; :.
; .
\
\.,
~ '\ .
~
,;:
~
~
"
:.:
~
.,
c
"
,.
8
,.
"
i:l
t;
~
..
..
..
..
~
..
"
"
...
..
"
"
...
ADAMS . STREETER
CIVIL ENGINEERS. INC.
15 CQRPOtIATE: "Allie
_WIE CA. .:zn.t f1'W1 -4U..Z:J30
t.
I
.~.~ i ,/"
.......
X.: ,
::-j'
;.;.-
:.-1.
':.1
~\~~\~,.
~ \.. C_
"
.'
l>(,,)::O-o~
Cl)cm::oO>
O::or-O::I:
-0::00-00
mm(")oS
zZl>c.nm
-i-imCl)
Cl)rmo-i
~-<O-im
(")OZOc.n
mrn-iOJ
-Om
G>l>
Z::o
l>m
rrll>
o
~
~
<.:
.......
.......
~
<.:
J:
~
:-=::
.......
~-
~
<:
.......
.......
.......
:--
::-
:--
.......
~
s..
<:
::::
....
-
......
.......
'-,
<:
:--
.......
.......
<:
.......
'-
.......
.......
.......
-
......
::::
<:
\..t:
:-::
......::
.......
.......
-c
:::-
C':l
m
IN
c
l~
.'~
'--~\
".r'" ,
)
--
.-/
:::::::::::~'
..II~,
~k~~~;)~[
ililJill
>~
~~
~>
;~
0. L...,
[fJ
u
~ l~J
~~
0. L.....,
o~
o ~
~~
~~
~~
~~
~>
::J
OZ
~' ...
CD'!
w\J7!
,~. . ~
~C1
~=
.-".4-
--.
-..."
~
G:l
,.."
Iw
00
~ ~
rF
iU~~
Vl~
~
/'~ r---',
~, '.\ ~ ~ \
% ~\\ = :..----
I :} ij :', -~
--~\
~\
S
n
~
-<
-<
;::
)>
'0
-------
"
----.. ,
/
----~
" /
.
~ .
1-;
'-<
I~
I.Illr
'-"13::
(J_
-;z
00
z:;O
I.Il
-;
;:0
(T'\
(T'\
-;
:;
-~i-
,
i i
, ,
, ,
~ J
I
1 !
li't:~
\~~_JL-:-
/"'- .
! "
-\
-
l';2fXf~
sc...u: ;
~
;---------~~~:,~-----------~. ~-----
--~~.~....
c;
--.
u
, "
> ./
-'-- R
CD ' -
L-"1
-;-
-/
,-
--
;:;:.
,-' , -
>
q
/
,'"\. :'
/~ '...'
-<. '...
" ,
'>'
- ,
>
(.....
<
>
-.......::- '"
,'"
/,
"-c -< /" /
, , / /
. <::::---- - - ~;.//
______ _ _ ___ ~''O~ ~~..
-;
I ~
I~I'=
~I~ ~
""010
z:;o
I.Il
I ~
-;
. "
. -,
, /~./l~'
-'-;;.-'~--
..::--:/ ." v--'
/-
.>
-,
,-
'--'
~
lJ1J:" '"
rr--if-
~;'=!",
/ \ \ ~ \ -::..} --
\ 1'...-
) ;" ,
~\/
: ~\ ~ ,- . ". .:;~
~, ~ ~'{:~(1 "-'
=. ~\ \'
-,
..--":'::"-.-
--
,-
'/'
-c
/-
>
0_<
':=..
C0 ~~
..~ WJ.~S....
~
>
:;
\/
pL-__~::
.
r'!' -
! !,~ ~
.... ;' '!
....~i
-,
'..;.
.;:>.
...J
~
~
~
<
~ \:j
CI)~ ~
c:::~ ~
::0 ~
\:j~ ~
~,~ '/
~~~~
Ci;<~~
""""c ,<~
~~\::~
~~ .~
C\~ ~
~N
~O
Cle<
~
Cl
~
~
~
~
~
~
<
- --+-:;-.--"
..
;~ :; (;
~- ~
:>- ~
c,<: ~ >
..,; ;::
~~ :> :>
=/ ~
i5
g :>
g
..
c
e c
~ ;
" :: '"
;: : -<
:> :> :>
n n g
~ a
2 ~;> ~
, a~e ~
>>0 _:::t)lt g
~ :;~ ~
ii :2" Ii
: ,..~
~ ~ ~i ;
~ ~~; ;
. g Y "
g ~ ~~ ~
;; s;:;ji ~
~ oe3 8
" i~~ ~
~ ".Z7 _
~ ~~~ ~
o H~ ~
ii f
9 il
~
~ i~ i~ 00 ~ · 2
~ ~~ ~; ~; 0 ~ E
~ ~ll ~~ ~~ g ~ :
~ ~I !~ -~ B ~ I
~ :- ~.. is i ~ ~
III jE j~ ~': ; ~ ..
o~ o~ ll- !
~ ;~ iI ;t:; _
~ ~ e~. ~ ~
: g~ a~ ~:. >i
;; -~ -~ ~~ ~
! ~ ~ 02
~ a ~.
~ II ~
i ~ ~
~ : ~g !~ ~; II :~o I!
~= ~ g~ fa;
.~ B~~ I~ 2~~ ~
>i~ H .:J.
:~ ~~ll ~ lI<~' I~
::~ ~"'"'Il
n~O ~ ~. 01" >
o~ >s;~ i~ .-~g
III is :-~ o_n
>{ ~ ~ ~ >~:
g~ o ~ ::-~
n z g8111
0= II ~
2~ ~
.
.0 ~ .
~ n
~
~
II
II
g
~
;:
~ .. ;""' !"
L
, : I'
~ -
;.. ...
i ~ r
I ,
I ....---r--
\ii"L I
I ! i
I~ - --~
~
9
~
OUBUN
AMENDED TENTATIVE MAP AND PD REZ SITE PLAN
- SUBDIVISIOPN 6308 -
AlAt.AEOA COUNTY CAUF'ORNIA
PREPAREO IN THE OfFICE Of ~ tr~~MESN~IN~~~~:~~~,
" eOIIlOIIA'" "..-:
."." c:... 127'''' fJ'WI ..,~
..,.,.
~
~
<
<
~
\:j
\:j
~
/.~,
--
~
:::
~
('j
~
~
~
-----=.-:::.....~~ ot.'r_
-~
, '",
..~
5:
~.
~---~
/'
/
:,..
;3
.!
l
;'/
~~.
,J'
f:.Qo-'"
0"
,
/
/
....----.:.:: -
i
I
!
.'
,;/
'/
,,;'"
,~
/
/,' /
/ c-~
,./ /"~, ",~ /
/l:-- -;+ . ~/ .~ !;(?': /:.,.
'/. . ... <c ~
~ / ?- ,',.
,,/' ~ -
!fYI ,;; J\'~,. 0'- s
~.", ---....
..:./' /'
- ~,. /,-/ --//
- /
fl.:, ,
I"
I
"
.....
/ x,,\
/ ~,
/ ....~........
"-
"
""
......"
"-
\..
o~
'c., .
, H q,
},~~ .
,'k;~~\/
I
I
/"
""
,'.
~
~
,/
/
/
./
~---
-~
,t..-----
I --..., ...............
- --
... --
~<"
i
I
(<:\
''<Y
....\.
..;...,-
\ ,
\. /;. <"\ --.. ..
"':( \ \ --
If ,,\,
\~'\ \ \
~ \ '
:--,....---- -
,\ "--~',
J '~~?~::,~\-
.~ -
".0, 1_ ->' .~. . ____ /" /
(."...... ......:.> " /'
,:~~:. ~1.."~~' ,. _ /
. ......,: -\ ~-_# -;...-?, (
;('~;~/~:~;~?\
--- <:;-~~/
,<;~~~::r~'
- :::-- ---'----<~d
" ';;<{:: :;~C;T~
~ .#
~ ,;:
),
/
0"/'
,
J.
---
.'.:........../ ...:.~.,
':,. ,-,'
.....:..-...
':'
.~.
~.
...
'.~
.~.
:-..
- ,,~:;~
~~ .'~~ X
. ~~---.,
" . ~.J '\..
,"'::: ....::..
~.
-:- '"
..-,' ~ ",-,
'i~~"" ?/
'-:'::'-:-"~'~ ,
S~:'f _...';'(2; ,;' <~~,_ '.
..:::,; .~, ~ j....fC
'~' - ,';
'~..~T:l) :;, '
"
~-"
.::::::"
,/:::-.".
~
~'
. V'
'~
!;:'-,-" '
.::,. "
...
.l/
I ~-
.=
I
I
-"?:
, .
l -.'
"
'''-, ,
~
",
;-
":'lG\ "
c~:~/t ~ \
~ ... ~-~--\
-~"t> ~.\
\
....t1~~)
-~
cf
r-
-.-
o
--h
A
. .
...........
~ //~,'----- "" ,.....::.:.:.. ----.
;/ /~"", / ~ >.
. /:,/ ,(,">-" , "_';~. . :'" -/\ q~ ~Ul~
/1 ' /-' \ '. . . ~ ;',.' ~~
. ' .,~____... , qA .-.
M'/.\ ~/ I"~:/'d"" --<:,""-:/\ --~.,~-'"
_ ,'; , . .,):." ?, ,f,'1 .,_______7.=,'~--~---m~ - -<. ,," ",
, '. .... ""'- ~-------. ~ , ....' ~ I -"'.. ' '
, ,'. " I . .. .. ~ i .. · '. '\
" ~ ",' i V ,; II','" ," \ '. I ::.\,
, I~ .,:, I '\ i !" ~ .. I
. . ,.'" I i ,,,- , , "..' - I
, I l nH '\' ,'~'" 1\\ ,,\ ~'(C\U~@\. ~~ r:~@18.~f01~ ~ ; t;' /..'\ ~!
~JI-J_\"~."\' ~;r?\\~~~@\~~@\\,\~g~G)~::~\V'\,-:1;: -!:(~(JO\ '"@j '"~ I ~;@__.,:;;:..~\V ~i
~' I \J.c:..... \', \ . :: Wi:'o . '" \ ; , : '" \ - \ ; \ J .;:::;0; - '
/ \. _ ..-< ' _ C " '" ' " ' ,,! - ,;,:-:...; I
, \ ~..',..; _ ~ _ ,..' - ' , .,' .
~_.,,_ I \ 'y:~ '\ II' - __ · C. " " ' '. .. ..:. ---------
,-" \ .~~. ,~\ ;- . . ~ .~. ~-,- .~~
, '\ , .. -- ' '" . - ~- - ", ,~,~"--...!
~' , ,Ji, \ .. _c _ _. .,,::.. 'i - Y' ' ,,-,=-"..'--,-,,-,:
I'~ _ '\:';" .... _~._~'--o?,-'_';'~~'::f/ :/ -- - ~~
: ," - - - .,,-, '" , -::-;'-:"~ . '~. ' , ' ,...., " .,'
" ' I},.' '/ ."..--<;: :~~~'V'- . ,~.,:.---:-j ..---~ -' ~ ,~..,\ ,~'_/,
i 'f -"','- 7"--'~X '.' ,..~~-' ~""-,,,.. '
1 ,I.F ~iX ,/ ';:.> -_~ ' '~:,~-h;~/~/;--~:'C[J~--~:-:-~:> ~~G) p
/ ,. / ,,' ,',' __ ' . m__-=-"?>' /, . E' .. . ..~""';.,' ,~
'" '. .' / ,... j ,~" _~., ,___ j~' .. " 0 \' 'y' : -
" ._ ',I ",' ,c!2\' -- '.' . ,'~- .,; ,': / . ,',,<, . -'"
I ~ , '=" /' /~' : ' n, .' ," /."~ ~",.. , '\', '. ,\' /,~. .' J
/ ' . ~", / " It: . ,---- ,- '.- --- / ".... : . ,\ -
. / ~.;; '-..?' /' I j '., 'c... /.,.. r'~' _-r:'~--"" (; -:; ..-... \~.' \ = '~f- Cr
: !'... .. ".: 'I" ..' '" " . ,.. . ..' ,- - ,- - ' · ' ", ..~ " , · " -
;-a" _j ~/ 1 ., N_ .... '. \ ." ,,:~~/ ,o':v. ,- ,,- 0,,,-
',: ~_ _ ,:~.,! '~.' ::....r7' i !.... ',,', \ ;::~ ~--b/',' \ - ~ \ \"" \- ~- ;:
J:: 'J / ' .; C"\ ,.::/ /'11:, "";::\2./ !" "'. :.\: ;~~ "",--", \-;; \ '.' .~...:
,r- .. ~_ ~, '" J, ::: ~ ! j' ~ -!P / / v' =" __'..-' . ~\ \' , "J
~ . . , ':E \..y / ,!: .' l,. .' C'l..~ . ~/ /''- j :;::: . ' .,0:' '\--: -\'. \ - ?' ......:::
..... .. f " ..'" . -.. -" ~ y- , -
",' i' ~ -- 'I!;' , .. J. .. -".," ... 1 .' - . ~-, \ \ ~'= \ ,
. " l;;-:; ."'~ :/' _ ~~;c-., . './ t, =, <r~ /' I -.;e>-,~-; g:
:::: / '~_~. S,l) / ..,~,: f / ~'~ jO'f.. 1/" / /. ;~ :c::::' /' \~..., \ ~~.\.:. ' ~ ~
..... .;'. : . ,.....' .,; - ,-' I .' ' ~ " - .". ..
'" '" _ 'I, ii"" ' f' ,_ _ . ~ /' ". 'i
'" /". /" . /"F ' ,-,/ ~ \ ,. "
~" _, '=', '. ~I:, : / ....f . " " ~ g0' -",' .-
'\'.. ~{~ ': /,j · I 'j I)' /{:;'; ."----"'~ \. \;
?\: ~ ~ 'T; /'/ /~ /.,? I . / \ ' - ' /' '. H w '
,~,' _ ' . ,/ ,,00 / '8 7 1, L---~: ~
,"''' . ~ I'OJ..... i:- / " " ,.,' /. -cC.,~-;'
';'~',;"~ '_j' , ' ., n;. / ~ -b'" "-=/. \' - ,. ..
.. ....,.Cv ~.... / .' I"~ . / <0
:- '\;;~ ~-,: ,L,~,' '''' _'~' ", ' : , . , ~ \ ~",,)
. n' .- :..'~ ""'" ". .. ;' c..:.. .--- .." -
-- --," ~,"~. .-" ...j . /.
~,"'" ,'>-'~~ ,,:" ~ '. \ ,-.-' ---'- .. ,- .' //.",~.
y" ,,;;--t" .~~ -~--'--- .
< c ~'.. /.' ~, .- ~ _'.., . ,:' {> ~, t.' .,
'-'-1<:'" ~.' ~ / " .r::-. \.
i>{"':~ ~~~.." "; > L ':\t; 'I '.. ".. .. .... . '.
~/", ~ ~-7 ,,' .. P. :cP , .,.
'" i ". -' ..:;~ ..:;'-V ,;. 0'0
;- - I ,~rI>~ __,~~/'.-'~~ ",_' \_ ,/" i
~ \ ~.
.~" .-..:... . . ._, ~.. "
~~~
~"~:-~--~C--->/
'--" /~,.-.' -.
'-~
~
/
'1
,'.
,
I
:,
:\ if.'
-1----..'
II ~
f' I ... '\
I I :;.-!. .~ \
I .1:- "V \
~~LL-;.~ " > )
;-...i...; )--.....:....,,--- J
if '7: ~ -
I I I
I ' I
:/ I I
('
-
.'
/
-
--..
'"
\
)
/
@
='
'i:\
I.::'
"'/
_ ~.;..f!'-': ~':.:- .
~:-.; -
I~
'6
r.,
101
~~
1 If; 1&
ADAMS . STREETER
CIVIL ENGINEERS. IHC.
": eo.ou 1'1 ....
~,
,~
, /r--_ .
, -........
---1---
I
"-~\' .~
..g~~';~~~~'o" )
;~ ~ ... .
)
/
"- ---- //
---
.,....
//
~,_.~~....._---
'; I..." rr"-~
-;:' \,;,' _ ~'c-..'-" ,,0:, ~ .
" .~~ '.1 0'03-
\ / ~----
/ .'
. .....
.' {'.l ~: 5; i
'J~-,
/-.,'
,/
@)
/
... 'i-
~ ~ --:: ";b ."
/:.. ~
:r X <.-:.>'
~ S-~,4:" ,.," _____ '
-;: -0 -,/\
~, \~~"' <- \:'i
.....' \ '
........ \ - . .f
......;:.', ''!'
~ \. '.
; \
~ ... .
. . \-
, \""
-
\
)
/
/
;
/
/
/
/
:/
,/"
/
/
/
/
7
,
1/
/(
III
f/vO
~f'<~: '
ACC'; Wlof
, S 1/0"<) -'<cc'?fc
. ATf
v
:>
1::J
r.,
I
l~
I
A
ro
""
f"o"-:'
~5
(
j
/
'iffr ..
/
/
"\......\Jl~'
\\~
>~
~\o Q
y"
~--
, ,,:.
,<-
<;"'
.y
.'
,/
#"..,.,:
....'tG:1
~. .~.I/I
~. OjV
/
/.: ..-
....... ':.
- "/"
/
ADAMS.
CIVIL EHGIH~~EETER
. ~~f'("~ INC.
....
/,C::-.
,
----?
~~/
/ ~(.,
/
.,/
--
,,--. ,
,/'---
-~:.:~
~
/
-""'\,.",.
--
\
\
\
\
\
,
,
\__/
\
\
\
\
, \
--_'~"":-. .J
~.---
"-
\
/
\
\ -:_. i/
~ V
c~,) @ / -';>/
'-"-"" ~/ / i,'. ~
) $ .( //
) " ;:J:.l" /~--/j I
\ I 1,/ j j/
/..J / // ,'0?'''
// // ~.:/
f 1/.' /0/
'\, I /// #' ':;
" \ / .' ~. / / / \
,,~~ ,/ / ;,"'.</
(-__--. //./ ,...,7,."
. ) /'./ ~&i;~ '
\" ~/ ,,/ ./ /'/ '~'i
G: / "JI /,/' //".../. ...$"">~
Y/' . <',- )\ 14: ~~~;~: ;fr"
- 1/ / .,,'
',I' r /;. .....'
// 1 .;./'
// fi .~.'
// /! /.
. <,;,'0 ./>' //;' /;/ .
~""~ //,/ '.. ! f.:J
"" "'\" ~ / ' ;- I ~ ....
"'" ~,'-';:l' ./// , ! ,:' ;/ ,~~t.
't ~~c. '; : j}" ,,'!;1~'1
. - ,;..0 - ,..--:~~. ; t /, I
*~ ..::...-<......"<.....:("'\ I"~!: ,/
y:.'.. ,"~:~...,~':J': /, ; ii' l.
/' :.~ ...--:-....~.. .' Y I /' , c ..
/ " .~~...... v . / -/'"" ".-. r</ /
, ~/ ". "- '}:.......' ... /"...-! . /
-- ---- ,--;-- -/--&':>......... - -- -.::... ./.:.L 0'''' j
v 6: .'-/~J~0:.:. '\ /X/ --- '7tT
, '\/' .-
,,'" ..~///.
;' ',;, ~ -f~}. : ' . <~~ 'f-. j,....
g ~.p-:~\"" I . ; , ..' -../, r
/ / 13-0" --.;: ' / ./'
_~~~:; ,~':>/ ~....-/~/~./'.> ,.::,..<:..~f>
<~ i:'--;;;'> /, ~ :. :' / .,~' .,;.c;4:~';...
/"f,///..../ I r:: : / ::.:..''(' ~~
// /' \ ; ,~/- ~' ::,~
//' '/ ....".-<.0.:. " ; i /-" -'" .:,.,~o.
_ /':/ . . , ....." .,'0'" 'is' " ' '" /; .....:;r ...
~>~~.. /. ""'\ .....':.~ .~~\ . /...."'... _ c.~:~/: '/"
.:<!./ ~:'~C;b~:':Y'" ~'" r~~ /
, //' :,\.""~~~'5;.. . /'" . /'''':;:
/, -.0 ,,) , " .///
// .,,~ / ' , ifi:>
(~ /(0/r'
~,-i"":!. .
-" Q> ...<,,') ,/
o CiIQf(i .0';; I
~O~..~'~~')~~/ .1'",
~ ~."" +~ / . /
~""'o ..,. /
____... ~~.:o,,?&~...1>. ;I
C:>"..t. ~(../~'o" / .
;-;;'" \:),'....... - I
~." :; ,,-0 .: / ~..,
.4.";. .~ ,.... ,y....J
,;" / ........,~..,
I / .' q+ V
\ -/ Ii",,':;'''
\ ./ / ht)'~"'"
" ~'\4',
, -0 '"
/" 0
.~~. \
::.--- /
.:../ I
~
c: .2,:"
-","
./
",/----"
'Cf ",. \
~ ", ,
\ ./ - I
- ..... , .---........ I
./ - - --7 '------..
, .-- - .)
}
./
/
/
/
'/
/
7
/
/
.....J:~
--
\~
,~-.,
.\
J"-.......
/......;
--
~
,-
~
~
~
u,
. . .......---,
------ 'J I
L-....-- . .'-
:(;
<,:;
"".
- \
/
1"
/
I
I
/
/
.;
I
I
\ /
\ I
"'" '- I
',../
""',
@)
:5
.t
--
l~
~:
,.~
/..
:"';.
o~
~"'"
:.,
,
,so
"'"
. "" / "I
, . /; I
j, ,
......, ~,:
...... \.E"
\,,,,: .'
\ . !
'..-J'i--.....
..
~~_J~~~~;. ---;"
~ ..
3 g ...
o
;-
~{~rf
~~
;~.s'?
'?('~~
lil .
I ~
I'" ~
AMENDED TENTATIVE MAP AND PD REZ SITE PLAN
- SUBDlVISIOPN 6308 -
TY
I~
ADAMS . STREETER
CIVIL ENGINEERS, INC.
. ~Al'I "AM
A .,.~
-0
~
G:l
r.,
I
'-.1
I
$
1
I~
~"'-',
-"
~\
.~
/'.
- .
~ ;.:~
.--. - :--::...
\ -:
~-#.
~~~
~.-.
<:
L:,'
\.:
! :
--c,...~
':'". be
ft
/
.'
Ii'
k'-
I.~-
If
/~..
fI
/';
1/'
/::'1'
ff~
I
I
I
,-
..1 -,
'~Il :~
. ."
"-' ....,;..-.
\.:
J
. I
I
i
I.
l'/~.
1
:j
i
I
/
:,.:
:~"
'"
.:~
.~
m.
-<
Q
-I
-
f~
v:
~
('l
2
.~
f'
I,'
e~
~~
=>
~~
g
~~ -". ~
->
:~
.... iA~
~~
5_
>i
~_ ~l
. -
. .
I
I
{
1
j
i
'\- . .
, .
\.
r
s:
=in:!:
(j)~l>
OoZ
i1 Ti (J) ""Cl
G>~mJ:
JJ~Zl>
~z (J)
gn:rJm
Z l>
G> cl> =
m 8Z
X ~(')
:I i>:!:
en
-I
, r.
. ',,-:_:.../- ',...
-.',
',/' /'7<'
. . .
, .
I
, )l
'./f
j ~.. ::~~;
l[/"'o:;.
~ ".'
,;;
..
~
In
~
E
;
g
s
r
m
G)
m
Z
Cl
: ~
nil!
r- 1) I I .
UL..;I
'" ."
-'
,;
0> =>
a~ ~~ ~.
~ii.. ~g =
o. 011) g
~E;g a
0; P> ;
.~i ;i ~
ga go ~
a~ s~ tft
.~ ~Q
g~ ~~
5H~
Ii.. ;(11
! ~
~
:
~
~
;;
o
...
\!
;
o
a
.......;. ;
~~U,gl
.t! '
1ij'i,- II
!F-~
--
, ~!?
~~ ~I~
:~ ::l '
~ .;i ~IVl
-... ,.., ---4
~ :-1. ",:lO
~ ; ~15
~ . ~I;
'.
:>
w
.."
I~
\
o
..,.,
\~
..
~
/
/
..~
~-
Residential
, I~d
r,~
~ (jjjJjjjji]
-~-
~_>.'-"."'''~''4''''~~. ...~~.,~"'~ .--"&.t~"":,,,,.',,,~,j ~1liiliiLII"'~"'_____o6..o""'_
"~~'-"'~~~~~'~"""""""__-'''''''-.___________-'''-~_~_~I...~<hJ.,_""___,,,,,,,,____~
~
Low Density Single Family
Residential (0.5 - 3.8 units per acre)
Single Family Residential
(0.9 - 6.0 units per acre)
Medium Density Residential
(6.1 - 14.0 units per acre)
Medium-High Density Residential
(14.1 - 25.0 units per acre)
.;'%~~!~i:>.
'.\ " \'
Commercial/Indus trial
_ Retail/Office
_ Retail/Office & Automotive
~
Business Park/Industrial
Business Park/Industrial:
Outdoor Storage
Business Park/Industrial:
Low Coverage
~:.:...........:....:.
~ .. : .. ~ .. , .. . .
::.l.:';:.:.:'i:~.:':':.:.:';:.
PublicI Semi-PublicI Op en
Public/Semi-Public Facility
(~',
Park a/Recre a lion
Open Space
Stream Corridor
PROJECT SITE
~
Circulation
1fif
INTERSTATE
Bart (proposed)
Arterial and Major Streets
Collector Street
___..._.. Proposed Street
Freeway
........... Transportation Corridor
~
NOTE: See Table on opposite page for descriptions
of numbered Public/Semi-Public Facllllies
and Parks/Recreation.
DUBLIN GENERAL PLAN
Revised February 1992
Downtown Intensification Area
Dublin City Limit / Primary
Planning Area Boundary
1-7
Figure 1-1
LAND USE &
elRCULA TION
Primary Planning Area
~,,1't
1" C.O~"::""'''O'' eO
c.O,,1..... co: ....:..
.~~: ':: :ii::i::::::::::l:llllll:lll:llllllll::l;
........................,~.......... 0
.. ............... t .\....^..;..~t.......,... ,."...".
.... ......;...........~'. ,.,. ..... 1Io,,,.IIIIllIII*'-'
c...., ,.,~. :':':':':'J:'.':':' :.:.:.:.:::::::::::::' ~:.r&.t..,~
"...~::~r;: ,. :::::::::::~:~;.:..:;: ::::::::::::::::::::' ,'4"'.....
; ~:':':':':':':':':'8':""""""""'"
1:';';':':-:':':-:':' '
! <::::::::::::::::::
..;:::~~}}~
SEE BELOW .-:::::.
"
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
10
I;
APPROXIMATE INSET SCALE: ,. . ege2'
SEE
~.a 0"'" ................. lOVE
o
I
1490'
I
2980'
I
ATiAGfMENT?
ij
,...
I
.. ..
." or .... " ..
... ....
.. .... "."
.... .,."
.. .... "'.n
.. ....
.. ...
or .... ......
or .... ......
....t.
,...,
,u.'
......
5073 ... .. .... .....
.,. .. .... .....t
(-:::\
----
LM'UI5 ~
t; norm.
Clo-..",.,
~~::.::
LA'WS or NIELSEN
.".......,..
...1.
..".1.
.. .../
'19"
- ----"1
I
I
TflACT 5410
LANtiS or
BLAlLOCK
C.LEJ'.SON l.
HElOI.:n
.... ......
I
l
"-
......
.,
....
...
...
..
'.
,....~.....
..
..
..
..
..
~
---..
~.
.~
~~
....
'\.
'\.\.
~.
\
\.
..,...
LANtiS or
VALLEY CHntSllAN
CENTEn
.,....'..4.
.,
-
LLUL.' IU
-- ....
. ." LIIIl
U "" RV"II
~t" ....t
",~.w'.....rf'
L.-..c....tt II'CflA ...."',
..n...,.-r lllC:
,.,~.tl/l4l.#'fI""
....-n...'1 H~" ~'1f1'
BAEH CO"'~AHY
..01 OWUU DR. EIIIH 210
PL[AUoNTOH. CALlfOIlHIA t4'"
.
..
"."O'''Dl .".. ..........NG
ett"r.c.r.o,", ~ ......,1:......41
~.IEUl f
rJl'llAH K>>1C1AS r OU..J( f
21)0 CAMillO DV-8LA EUlI! )00
~\1T cnux. cr-ufOfV<<A .. 4'"
f.Ul '37-<<202
llUtfT III ~ I\.CL 24021 1U/3\1nl
NOTDI
" EUVATlOHS RDWH AIlf. IIASW OH.J.l.S..'
toOTC~C"'at1J\TET1' 2' "h.. ~ tt\.-n
iJCOHTOU" IHTlIIYAL 12 fEU
-
r.1 lXllTlNa UIII! I Q"AZIHQ
."""O,"OllO ZONINQ I P'LAHHED DnE
I.'LOT IIZl I ....7'0 '.fA ''''IH.I
- . :!i!?lrr.T.:'rxrD\AQ fJ .
TOT.Al lOTl.-a~I"Olt"'A"'llY l
'~An:R IUl'rLY:: DUBllN,-UN "A"~
C~PfYICn Dln-mcr.
IA""O:~TlO" 1'0 '1lIST"ICT "faU""1
,..
7.,J;EWlR DIS,"OSAl: DUBlIN,lAN "AI
'UnVICULlISrnlCT
l-AHHOJtTTOJ(~a-uiSTRICT' REaUln\!
-... -.. -
1..Ill. STRElT. 'HALL BE DEDICAUD
""to .,.UBlIC.-'
t, LANDSLIDE INFO""'ATlON WAS D[RI.__
fRO... THE orOHCHHICAl IHYUTlaAtIOH
NO. "2,02. DAT\!D U'O.,.. IY HARLAN..
MILLER. TAIT ""OeIATlI.
IiIHaLJ ........u
...,...,.......
.... .....
,..... IIUl(I
H.... 1It1ll,
II.M ....
n _ atMl
rno" .....
~~
TYPICAL MAJOR STREET SECTION
.,.
~"
I- 580
.....
J1L:.~.
..MJ If\.<
t~' ~
~ . :...~ lJ ~::
L..
-------
--
---- -- -~------ -- - - -- -- ------------
VICINITY
MAP
.1..
TYPICAL MINOn STREET SECTIOU 'l
0' .
~
to
to
.~
~~
~ ~a I
~ ~ G
~ m~
~ .~
J:;-
m
t:
i
.
I
nzu
!m:U I
D" .
A r"A:c.lkM~T 3
..:,
"
I'
i:
U
ji
~
)>-
~
~
('"')
~
3
~
-\
-I~"
""lIII
""IIrr
r'">
'">-<
'-iUlr
000
~.zo
:g ?
:....J
I
"V
.=::.
\
"
"
"
<
)0
r-
r-
m
-<
()
CA
~
)0
z
()
m
Z
~
m
:::l
':-1
'-._l
J
8l~LI
I2J ,.,
hi
0> 0 :o~.
.~ ro OJ -.
-dJ ^ "0
cern CD :u
QJ 0 QJ ::.
~- '< ~
('I " ()
~ o. 0
~ ~ ::.
-0 - C.
~ Q
CD
::J
iii'
-<
)>
CD
n
co
a.
0"
'<
5'
CD
"tl
.Q.
CD
n
J.
: ......
'ILr'
I
. .
--1-,
....
'.......
I ...:_
/,
o
:II
o
:z:
:z:
::z:
t'I
r-
'"
rn
::z:
0_
c
S
i'i
!:'
o
>
<
5
r
.~
In
OJ
..
>
." ~
S 8
~
In
!'!
In
00
>
OJ
OJ
8
~
'"
en
's
(
"T1
-
G)
C
';:0
iT1
w
I
0\
-
I
*
I
I
3.4 Vegetation
I.
~
measures for the creeks which, depending upon the methods selected, could result in
additional impacts to the riparian corridor, One method discussed to date is the use of
drop structures along Martin Canyon Creek, In general the placement of these structures
within creekbed do not require the removal of a significant amount of riparian vegetation.
However, other forms of creek stabilization such as the placement of rock rip-rap on the
banks could hinder the development of riparian vegetation in these areas.
3.4.4 MITIGATION
I,
I
The principal City policies dealing with vegetation resources are contained within the
Conservation and Open Space Elements of the City's General Plan.5 The general guiding
policy statement of the City Open Space Element is as follows: "Preserve oak woodlands,
riparian vegetation and natural creeks as open space for their natural resource value"
(Chapter 3.1a,). The General Plan then goes on to identify "riparian vegetation" and "oak
woodlands" as specific resources addressed in the Conservation Element. The policy
statement in regards to riparian vegetation is as follows: "Require open stream corridors
,of adequate width to protect all riparian vegetation, improve access, and prevent
flooding" (Chapter 7.1),
I
I
I
I
An "adequate width" is open for interpretation and may vary from site to site. Since the
riparian vegetation is poorly defined on the Hansen Hill Ranch site it is best to refer to a
minimum width requirement along the various creek drainages. To adequately preserve
the "natural resource value" of these waterways, a natural corridor of a minimum of 30
feet from the top of the creek bank should be preserved. The California Department of
Fish and Game typically requires a 100 foot buffer area from the top of the creek banks
or to the edge of the tree canopy whichever is widest. Ii The proposed buffer area varies
from approximately 30 feet along :'.1artin Canyon Creek in Neighborhood 1 to well over
100 feet along other portions of Martin Canyon Creek and the tributary drainages.
I
I
I
,
,
I
'--
I
~
The one exception to these "adequate" widths is the intersection of Hansen Hill Road and
Creekside Road, The project should be redesigned to minimize disturbances within the
IOO-foot buffer zone in this area. Building structures should not be allowed within this
natural corridor.. In addition, a box culvert or bridge over Martin Canyon Creek at
Creekside Road is preferred to the proposed 3D-inch pipe. A bridge or culvert would be
less restrictive than the 3D-inch pipe to wildlife migration through this area.
86123
3-26
ATTACHMENt 5
-
I
3.4 Vegetation
I
Paved or unpaved roads and trails may be allowed at the outside edge of these buffer
zones to control access through these areas and still allow their use as a visual and
recreational resource, Roadways other than access crossings and structures would only be
allowed outside of this natural corridor. Development guidelines that would help preserve
the integrity of the riparian zone and that should be incorporated into ~he project design
are as follows:
.
I
--
it
I
o
Structures should be separated from the natural corridor by a roadway and they
should face rather than back up to the natural corridor. This would prevent dumping
of trash by residents into the corridor, ("out-of-sight-out-of-mind"), and would
promote cleanup of any such dumping. Lots 102-110 and 95-101 should be eliminated
from the proposed development plan to conform to this guideline,
o
Temporary fencing should be provided during construction for those areas of riparian
habitat not intended to be included within the construction zone.
I
o
An erosion and siltation control plan should be provided, to be incorporated within the
grading plan for the project.
.
o
A revegetation effort on all reconstructed channel banks should be implemented as
soon as possible after construction is completed to enhance riparian habitat
consistent with proper channel maintenance for flood control. Such revegetation
plans will include the followin5-
Use of trees, shrubs and vine species native to the region.
..
I
Use of shrubs with high wildlife value on the lower channel slopes.
.
.
Use of indigenous tree species, such as valley oak, live oak, and buckeye on the
upper channel slopes above the maintenance road, together with shrubs and vines
to approximate a natural riparian community.
Trees, shrubs and vines may be established. from seeds, liner stock or small
container stock (one gallon) or hydro mulch where feasible.
.
Obtain the input of Alameda County Flood Control district for the revegetation
plan, which should be consistent with Flood Control maintenance requirements.
II.
.
II
.
.
I
The developers will provide for revegetation along the riparian corridor and will
be responsible for successful establishment of plantings. Subsequent
maintenance and management of vegetation in the stream channel will be the
applicant's responsibility for two years following completion of construction.
o Landscape materials should be of natural varieties .and should preserve the wooded
character of the area as much as possible. Invasive species such as pampas grass
should not be allowed. A list of common invasive species is provided in Appendix B.
o Fill and cut slopes should be minimized within the natural corridor and should avoid
areas beneath the tree canopy of any oak tree when possible.
86123
3-27
I
I
3.4 Vegetation
o
Any alternations within the creek or drainage swale for either development acces.s or
flood control purposes s::ould minimize disturbance of existing vegetation and avoid
as many trees as possible. Open areas within the tree canopy or areas of few trees
should be used if possible, A suitable site occurs just west of the proposed creek
crossing between lots 103 and 104 in Neighborhood 9.
I
.
I
On June 18, the project sponsor and their consultants held a meeting at the site with a
representative of the California Department of Fish and Game (DFG) to discuss the
proposed creek alterations and impacts. The DFG issued a letter summarizing its
concerns in regards to this issue. In addition, the DFG representative indicated that any
loss of oak/bay or riparian woodland should be mitigated by replacement of these
communities elsewhere on the site.7 Further consultation with DFG should take place to
determine the exact nature and extent of vegetation replacement that will be required,
.
I
I
The General Plan policy in regards to oak woodlands states that oak woodlands should be
preserved; however, individual oak trees may be removed on a case by case basis. The
General Plan also directs the Planning Department to develop a heritage tree ordinance to
aid in the decision on which trees mayor may not be removed. To date the City has not
developed a "heritage tree ordinance," The direction is clear, however, the removal of
stands of the oak woodlands on-site should not be allowed, and the largest mature trees
should be preserved to the maximum extent possible. Examples of methods to preserve
trees in an area of development are as follows:
.
.
.
I
.
o The topographic grade should not be changed at the base of the tree.
o No irrigated landscaping should be allowed within 10 feet of the base of a mature oak
tree, and no landscape planting at all within six-feet of the base of a tree.
.
.
o Do not cut more than one half of the existing root system at anyone time, and if
pruning is required, prune mainly dead wood. All pruning should be done by a
qualified arborist.
o During construction, fence off preserved trees at the canopy dripline to prevent
heavy equipment compaction of soil.
o All trenching within the dripline of a tree should be hand dug so that root cuttings are
clean and additional damages to the root system are avoided. All roots should be cut,
not broken, and the trenches should be filled as soon as possible to avoid exposing the
roots to dessication.
o Roots exposed on cut banks should be covered with a mulch to prevent them from
drying out.
86123
3-28
II
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
I-
.
I
-
I
,
I
I
3.4 Vegetation
o
Ensure positive drainage away from the tree trunks. Do not allow water to stand at
the base of the trees.
o
Provide three new trees of at least 15 gallon size within the creek tree planting plan
area to mitigate the loss of each existing tree over 10 inches in diameter. Minimum
size for coast live oaks and big leaf maple plantings should be five gallons. All plans
for additional tree planting shall be subject to review and approval by Alameda
County Flood Control District Zone 7.
o
Provide horticultural care, monitor pest population and the incidence of disease, and
apply control treatments when necessary. This measure applies to all trees with
health classified as A, a, or C and as identified by tree survey maps (Appendix C)
having a high or medium probability of being preserved. A work program for such
horticultural care shall be submitted to the city prior to commencement of grading.
o
If a house is located near a mature oak tree, pier bridge footings should be used
rather than continuous grade beam footings.
In general, any development in close proximity to mature trees should be done in a manner
that will minimize the trauma to the tree root systems. In an effort to assure that
impacts to trees are minimized the following measures should be observed:
,
o
A horticulturalist should develop a specific preservation plan for preservation of
trees identified as "preserved" and "high probability to preserve" following
development of final grading plans. During site preparation and construction, a
horticulturalist should monitor and implement the plan, and should supervise
construction activities, especially grading, as needed to implement the plan.
o
A revegetation plan for the creek should be prepared and should include the
replanting of native spec:es, The revegetation plan shall include provisions to aid
new trees during early years through irrigation, fertilization, deer protection, and
disease prevention.
The areas of extensive grading and fill in Neighborhoods 5 and 9 should be eliminated from
the proposed project and the oak/bay woodlands in these areas should be preserved. If
necessary the housing density of the propsed project should be reduced to preserve these
areas. In addition to the City's policies there are various State policies and requirements
that will have to be met before the project site may be developed. The California
Department of Fish and Game (DFG) under Section 1603 of the Fish and Game Code of
Regulations requires a Stream Alteration Agreement be secured before any proposed
alteration of natural waterways may occur. This agreement would cover any proposed
modifications to the creek within its banks including roadway crossings, flood control
improvements, etc.
86123
3 29
"~"
~
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
wtiEREAS, The Hansen Hill Development Corporation, an affiliate
development company of Venture Corporation has requested a General Plan
Amendment Study, Planned Development Prezoning, Tentative Subdivision Map No.
5766 and Annexation to allow a maximum of 240 dwelling units on l47~ acres in
unincorporated Alameda County west of Silvergate Drive and north of Hansen
Drive; and
wtiEREAS, on August 11, 1986 the City Council authorizec a General
Plan Amendment Study for the Hansen Hill Ranch property; and
wtiEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of State Planning and Zoning
Law, it is the function and cuty of the Planning Commission or t~e City or
Dublin to review and recommend action on proposed amendments to t~e 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 ~NO noticed field
trips on February 27, 1988 and August 20, 1988; and
wtiEREAS, 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
w-rlEREAS, the Planning Commission held "seven noticed public hearings
to consider the General Plan A~endment and EIR for PA 87-045 Planning
Application for Hansen Hill Ranch on February 1, 1988, February 16, 1988, July
18, 1988, August 1, 1988, September 19, 1988, October 3,1988 and October 17,
1988; and
wrlEREAS, 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
f\~;:':: I (If.' J.d.
, . _. _ .....-....-- LJ I _
[CC Reso GPA 2/27/89J
-1-
A (1 A-(,\.H"l E,N -r &;
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
wnEREAS, the General Plan Amendment has been reviewed in accordance
with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act; and
WHEREAS, an Envirop~ental Impact Report (EIR) has been prepared
pursuant to CEQA; and
WrlEREAS, 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;
WnEREAS, the City Council held one Public Noticed Field Trip on
November 27, 1988; and
wnEREAS, Notice of City Council Public Hearings was published in
the Herald, posted in public buildings and mailed to property o~~ers within 300
feet of the project in accordance with California State Law; and
wnEREAS, the City Council held six Public Hearings to cons~cer PA
87-045 Hansen Hill Ranch General Plan Amendment on November 14, 1988, November
29, 1988, December 13, 1988, Ja~uary 10, 1989, January 24, 1989 e~d Februa~v
27, 1989; and
W:~EREAS, the General Plan fu~endment has been reviewec in accordance
with the provisions or the California EnviroTh~ental Quality Act (CEQA); and
wnEREAS, a Staff analysis of the Planning Co~~ission
recommendation, Staff reco~~endation and.the Applicant's proposal was submitted
to the City Council; and
WHEREAS, the City Council considered all written anc oral testimony
submitted at the Public Hearings; and
wnEREAS, on February 27, 1989, the City Council adovted Resolution
No. 019-89 making findings certifying the Hansen Hill Ranch Ell and Addendum as
adequate and complete.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED Ta~T THE Dublin City Council does
hereby approve the following General Plan Amendments for PA 87-0~S Hansen Hill
Ranch as discussed by the Planning Commission and as modified by t~e City
Council which modifications are not substantial:
1. Amend Figure 1 Dublin General Plan Primary Planning Area t~:
a.
include the entire Hansen Hill Ranch site (APN 941-110-1-9
941-110-2) within the Primary Planning Area.
ana
A P\~
.......l..l
[CC Reso CPA 2/27/89]
-2-
"" .,,.. "\ C,,-cl)
f'i',lic. S2!_ .Ii" __~__
b. amend the land use designations on Hansen Hill Ranch site, as noted
on Attachment C-l to include:
- Open Space, Stream corridor
- Low Density Single-Family Residential (0.5 - 3.8 ~~its per ac~e)
c. eliminate Hansen Drive extension through Valley Chr:s:ian 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. ~JUend Table 1, Development Policies for Residential Sites, page 8, ana
Figure 4, Sites fo~ Housing Development, page 9, eliminating Area 5, 6 and 7
from the Table and Figure.
3. Eliminate implementing Policy 5.1G, page 19, IfReser'le Ri~:-.:-of-;;a.y fo~
Hansen Drive Extension to the \.."estern Hills".
4. Amend 5.0, Land Use and Circulation Section: Circulation a~d Scenic
Highways Element to include a policy establishing the maximum 1e';el or ser;ice
acceptable for intersections within the City:
"Strive to phase development and road improvements outsice the Downto',iTI
Specific Plan Area so that the operating Level of Serlice (~JS) for ~a~or
street intersec::ions in Dublin shall r~o~ be worse than L:S J. n
5. ~JUend 8.0 Environmental Resources Management Section: Se:s~ic Saretv
Safety Element 8.2.2 Fire Hazard & Fire Protection implementing ?clicies to
include a policy requiring fire protection buffer zone around ?er:~eter of
residential development which interface with open space lands:
__rl
c._ .......
"A fire protection Duffer zone shall be provided around t::e perimeter
residential development situated adjacent to undeveloped c?en s?ace
land".
of
6. ~JUend 7.0 Environmental Resources Management Section: Conserlation
Element to include policies relating to open space maintenance:
A. "?,equi:re open space management ar.d maintenance p:rOt;:-a~s for ope"
space a:reas established through subdivisions and Planned ~e,elopment
districts. Programs should include standards to ensure c~nt:rol of
potential hazards; appropriate setbacks; and management 0: 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 r2corded map o:r
deed. "
(ee Reso GPA 2/27/89J
-3-
c,','Z" 3 n-:;)'J.
1 .i"~-"";~ _ U, ~"_Ha.
C. "Require revegetation of cut and fill slopes. II
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.ll
G. llPromote inclusion of hiking, bicycling and/or equestrian trails
within designated open space areas."
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED TB~T 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 substa~tive cnangeso
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED Ta~T THE Dublin City Council does hereby c~rect
that the Applicant is responsible for all costs the City incurs i~ providing an
up to date Dublin General Plan resulting from the adoption of Hansen Hill Ra~c~
General Plan fu~endments.
PASSED, A?PROVED AND ADOPTED this 27th day or Februc~:r 1989.
AlES:
Councilmembers Hegar~y, Jeffery, Snyder, '..cnheede:-, c.__";'
Havor ~1offatt
NOES:
None
/~
~c,-l )6}1J)1d+
- Hayor I ( I
~..BSENT :
None
ATTEST:
'2.l
0_: ) <:_,
.( <- t-~ ( (. -::../ 1/ ,::>_--
City Clerk \)
(CC Reso GPA 2/27/89]
-4-
p,>~<:, y r,,- ~\
'i.U,,-_ Ur __c:':"
~...~ ~ [:.;;p il'~~~;/.~~~;~~ -:'1i:~1';;t;;/i~l;~)
.J.."" ..,).1.. ",/_,,'~,1'.;:f.r}~J~.:l1<G'.:r")'~.\';:' l~
.."~ .':'7......;I..~ 'j.~-::l;,~ ~:~..:,.,.~ 1,;'. /~~'!I.. ':'~
........;. ~..y.,.:I~" ....."....:>'!j7'... ;;."'~.:1{.{'1':}",t/.!.
'0:'; . :jh;"Zi P~I('.!I, d~.~';:';Jo:.JJ...",.:.....;r-:l
:; ~ .~. .J.::.f' .;;~.~ ~~'i ~Y:-:;.~~' t(.:,"~:, ~t:j::1':;~'j,.:'~j';1
J","'~';;'..'f.-..'7J ./_." '.'. 'f...."t;;.. . ~
l~2rn5;;~Wgli~f~~~
.;i~~~ti:c~y~"~~~~;o:vtJ~'~l:fA:J
, ,. '4~~' o.,;...",..:/f.(;;l::~":."'i'tk!o'/.-.r'!,;~r'J
:~..!.. ,., .~X'fi"~" _'_0;~t:...-,(.....,~4~_
~;. Rr-A,:", Ji;'F.~';;.o:;~;:(':{-:~7.:r-)~ ~~:<1
:.~ '~~,=.>:~mt:fi~~~;t;~?fj;.,~(f!i1;J~:' (,J
~ ~ <'. ..:~4't'!.~-r~ :!(:I-;';;':~" '-.4'':.<1; ."-:-c.'.'.f..~: j
. . ~.'" :'.... .
:..{: .'i.;~.~~.:~.~~:.:::.~\y-j
~; '.
..,-' '.
. .0.
:. . .'- .;....... '.
. . _ 7 ".-._'
.;
.;. ..
.... -.
. .....
'.
.' .
..
'-
-
.........
..:..... ..'
~..-: .
'. t. :
.'
...... : :.
. . '."
"
. ;:. ~".,,~ ~/:~..:..:-. ::.......
....." ~.... yo.. .....
. ..~ .. ... I
..
::
= >
=
,. _.
-: >
> :- =
c: -: ::
" :-
I >
C = :-
~
'-' > ::::
>
:...
.,..
~
::: ::: '-' ..... 1:-
~"": -.J - I~
= . . >:
::: :: N '-'
:::- :=
:: .. .. ~ I::
,. -:: r: c ;; _.
.. :: '" (: [
C -- .. ~ ~ ,...
:: :: (: '"' I=.
c"< r'
'. ..
.. ~1 '-' ~~
r- r- c: - -.
:: . ...... :: IS
-. '. '-' >:::
:: ~ -
.,
.. - c: -- '- \~
r- '" ,..
.. C .....
0: C l.': ~
.. "< ~, -
r- ,....
;; ....
;:.. r: '<:
:: ;: "\
,. .-
::: " ~
-:: ..
,. ,....
:: ;;
.. -
':" r-
;; >-
:1 -
;; ....
'"
FIGt'i::
r ~'\ So ~ ~
, "'-'7 ~ ~n~',BE~rr A -J If
i~ ~ i JiGriNf r{j ~-~
L. ~ 1) ,-"]6 ~ ltv--
p,~"r: 5 n,:a~
;nC..._Ih .--
.... :.:.'
" :'"
r.~., r
,,...
RESOLUTION NO. 020 - 89
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A RESOLUTION ADOPTING A MITIGATION MONITORING PROG~~~
(HANSEN HILL RANCH)
WHEREAS, Public Resources Code 21081.6 requires the City co adopt a
reporting or monitoring program for changes in a project or conditions imposed
to mitigate or avoid significant environmental effects in oreer to ensure
compliance during project implementation; and
WHEREAS, on February 27, 1989 the City Council adopted Resolution No.
019-89 making findings certifying the Hansen Hill Ranch ErR ane Addendum as
complete and adequate;
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE Dublin City Council eoes hereby
adopt the "Hansen Hill Ranch aitigation Monitoring Matrix" attc.c:.ed hereto c.S
Attachment B-1 as the monitoring program required by Public Resc~rces Code
21081. 6.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 27th day of February, 1959.
AYES:
Councilmembers Hegarty, Jeffery, Snyder, Vor~eeder, and Mayor
Moffatt
NOES:
None
ABSENT:
None
I
i
ATTEST:
"
~
1/ ,'- -J-
L, .L,,_QC
City
; 4
/ r11-', ..____
--'" ~
,
.;
~ ';)
~ ~ -....
L ,.'1':. (o,~ 0(.
1.......;i...__,J!_
FA 87-04j P~~~SEN HILL PJUiCH MITIGATION
110NITORI~iG PROGR.A.c'f }iATRU
FcBRU~~1 17, 1939
The Applicant shall be responsible for any and all costs incurred in
monitoring mitigation.meas~res.
For detailed info~ation on isnacts and mitigation measures ref== to
Hansen Hill Ranch E:l.'liroru7!ental Impact Report.
--.~ ';--' ~ .~. ':! ":" ~ "t:'\9 ~U ~ ',-
. ~~:..~ ~1 .~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 13
... .'0:; ..'0 o'\., ",\... !'.~ f
.. '.:.': .-::-._ ;:<<.t." j" ~I 1 ..
.. . o. :.: ~. ~"J ~, ~';:I ;::
,;.. -;.",>.. ':l~
- .:... ...: u :..:. ~~ ~ .. .1 -: "'" ~:.u. .~ !l
Mc~,~e,"~_-n.-....~ ~..._
RESOURce:
EL?ACS
HmlITORING. 'ACTIml
Vegetation
Oak/nay woodland 1.
due to roac'..;a)'"
cons t:::'uc ri.on
throug~ cpe~ S?2Ce
Prior to issuance of 1.
grading peruits, the
developer submits arborisc
horticulturalist report,
Grading permits ~ill not
be issued unless plans
reflect =eca~endction in
arborist(norticulturalists
r=~ort:
20..
Tha Develope= s~~ll
ide~tify si~~ific~~t
trees and tree clusters
on T.}!ap and grading
plans.
2b. Prior to issuance of
grading per~itt signi-
ficant trees and tree
clusters shall be ta~~ed
in the field tor
pro tec tion,
3.
?rior to issu~nce
of
~ . . ~
g:aclng pe:~lts, tne
ccvelope: shall submit
a rcvegetatio~ landscape
and irrigation plan for
cisturbed arc~s.
(Nonitor H3.tl:'ix 2/27]
-1-
'!,~;~?..IFIC.~TIO~1
Public works
Dept (pr..;"D) ....:.~:-,
Plc.nning De?:
it1put
2;:..
-' .
=_2.G:1:'::':: \.::::-~
:~;0 J..:-:pt:t
21::. ::"-0 'H"l tn
-' .
: J..ann:..ng l~?'''::
3 .
?lanning
... -...,
,......\-..
::1put fro~ p.,,,-:;
CA. Dcp t or ::'5:-:
. G .
a:1G. .a:ne a::c
o:ne:- appro-
p:-iaca c.g-=::c:~'
~.5 ne2c=c.
1'1"- 7 ,~ocD
i-'j:iC;t ........____ ()i- ~_.___.,-,.
!~
:~
.~
]
,.~
RESOURCE
II1PACTS
,
,.
.j
':'.J
t.r
.;
./
Vegetation Riparian/stream
corridor due to
road.....ay grading
construction
through open
space areas
..
I
, .~
Wildlife
Isolation of
large I:lc.w.Inals
due to road.....a:;
construction
.;
MOnITORING ACTIOlI
VE:?I?I CA II ON
1. Prior to issuance of 1. (a)
grading permits the (D)
developer shall (a)
submit verification of
Fish and Ga.'Je per::lit (c)
(b) submit grading plan
minimizing cut and fill slopes
within riparian corridor (c)
submit revegetation landscape
plan (see 3 above)
Planning
Pf..lD '....i t~
Planni~g
input
Planni:-'6
with Fis;-,
and Gar.:e
input
1. The Developer shall 1. P;";D wi tn
submit grading and Planning ir.:;'''::
improvement plans prior
issuance of grading
permit. Grading permit
will not be issued unless
the plans incorporate
mitigation measures
addressed in the ErR
requiring box cul~ert
u....,r~y
~._-...
road~ay at confl~eDce cf
t~.;o ca:1.Ycr'..s in no r-:h".....eS :=:-:1
. -.
port:!.o~:. 0: Sl~=..
----~---_..._-----------------------------------------------....-....----------------
Grading/ Excessive Cut
Topography and Fill
1. The developer sUD2its
grading plG~s inccn-
junction '...ieh T.~[a?
Planning Application
1. ?:anning D2~:
....~:tn ?~rlfU i~::'",:~
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Traffic
?ote~tial 1.
decre2.se in
level of se:r~....ice
Dublb 31'.-c./Sa"
San Ra::on H.oa.c
[Hooito!.- Hatrix 2/27]
Prior to issuance of
building or gradi~g
permits, the ce,eloper
pays to the City a
Traffic }[i~iga~ic~ F~o
as compensation for
project's fair share of
cost of improveQe~ts
required to mitigate
traffic inpac~s, or
developer co~~:ructs
iinp rovements
1. ?~D with i~p~:
::-00. City T::a.f-
fie Consul :=.,,:
-2-
;/.:: 'Z- nr ~~_.
RESOURCE
Traffic.
IMPACTS
MONITORING ACTIOn
VE?IFICATIOtT
2. City acquires
righ.t-o~-wa7 at
cost to the developer
2. P''';O
------------------------------------------------------_..._------_._------------~
Geology/
Soil
Reactivation of
landslide, soil
shrink- s'",te 11
1. Prior to grading, 1. ?~u
developer submits revised
soils report/geotechnical
report and erosion
control/maintenance plan
with improve~ent plans.
Grading permits will not
be issued unless plans
reflect recommendation of
soils report/geotechnical
report, erosion control
and maintenance plan.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hydrology
Visual
Quality
Increased flo'~'/
velocities of
~!a:rti~~ Cc..n~,"or:
Cree:.::
Site Change
rroQ rural
to subu:rban
[Monitor Matrix 2/27]
1. De'Teloper submits 1. ='ri-:l
revised drainage plans/
hydrology r=?ortJ greci~5
~e~~its ~ill ~ot be iss~ec
unless pla~s refle:t
!'ecommencatlO:: i:: rr;dro-
lc~:t r2?Or:.
1. Developer submits 2. :lann~ng De~t
Planning Application
for Planned Development,
Tentative Map, including
zoning regulations
(setbacks, buildi~g
heights, etc.), lot
cesign and la:ou~ fo=
City Cou~cil revieH and
a.pproval.
-3-
j' ,',~ 9 A- ~.~
rI~L~t _ \)f' w...,.._ ~p
....
ri ._,_' ,._ll._
.'
,....-....
RESOLUTION NO. 019 - 89
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
A RESOLUTION MAKING FINDINGS PURSUANT TO CALIFO&~IA ENVIRONMENTAL
QUALITY ACT (CEQA) AND CERTIFYING FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT,
WITH STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
(GENERAL PLAN ~~ENDMENT - 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 "proj ect"); 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, 198~~ which documents are
incorporated herein by this reference.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT TdE 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, ~nd 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-
:::""f. (0 .."cl~
. .:~..:.- """___ ;..1;' "p"~_."_.
1) 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 confo~~ with the
land use designations and policies of the City's existing General
Plan and the General Plan Amendments.
2) Project construction, including roadway construction through ope~
space areas, could impact oakfbay 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 anc
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 (includi:-.~
emergency access roads), arterial streets and collector
streets that must pass through open space areas shall be
designed to minimize grading to the maxim~~ exte~t possible
so as not to damage the ecological and/or aesthetic value and
characteristics of the open space."
3) Project construction, particularly construction of the road~ay
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.
4) Project construction could impact wildlife with place~ent of a
large amount of fill under roadways at the confluence of two
canyons in the northwestern portion of the project site which wo~ld
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-
r,'~'-ll ,...dd-
f';';~ .~~ \ ~ :
, ~ '".,- ~-~ -.,. ...
5) Project construction, primarily roadway construction through open
space areas, could result in loss of oakjbay woodlands and ripa~ian
habitats in the northwestern portion of the site. Impacts will De
reduced with compliance of the General Plan Amendment policy (see
item ~2, iii) requiring minimal grading for roads through open
space areas. Hitigation requiring revegetation will minimize ttese
impacts.
6) Project construction, primarily graa~ng, 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 ~o:
be developed.
7) Project construction could result in excessive cutting and filli~;.
Project specific grading plans will be considered at the Tentati~e
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 ~olumes s~o~~i
be balanced when possible or used on adjacent site if fil~ is
"eeded.
8) Proj ec t development: ....hen combined ',.;ith the cumulati-;e impacts 0:
other projects have the potential for decrease in t~e level or
service (LOS) at Dublin Boulevard/San Ramon Road from LOS D to :"':::3
" However, implementation of mitigation to widen the eastbound
intersection to have two right turn lanes, two lef: turn lanes and
two through lanes will minimize the potential impact.
c) The City Council hereby finds that there are identified insignificant
impacts, as follows:
1) Construction and grading '....ithin the project area may impact geolo;::
and soil conditions resulting in reactivation or la~dslides and
imbalanced cut and fill. However, project specific g~ading Dlan
and mitigation reviewed and implemented at the Subdivision and
Planned Development stage of review renders this pote~tial imnac:
as insignificant.
2) Construction within the project area may increase flows and
velocities of Nartin Canyon Creek, and result in erosion during
construction and erosion from roof and lot drainage. However,
implementation of mitigation measures such as detent:ion basins,
drop structures, rip-rap, erosion and sediment control plan will
minimize these impacts such that they are considered insignificant.
-3-
<:cy: \~ n2:?-
ii.,....;i-........-..-,.....
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. Howe'ler, lot design and layout and building materials
which will be reviewed and mitigated at subsequent levels of revie~
(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 i~pacts are considered insignificant in that projec~
specific mitigation will be established and im~lemented at
subsequent levels of review. Additionally, costs for utilities
will be borne by the developer and homeow~er.
6) Development in the proj ect site '..;ould generate an :.ncrease .l."
demand for water and sewer services. However, the capacity of t~e
facilities are anticipated to be adequate to acco~~odate the
increased demand so as to render the potential impacts
insignificant.
7) De'lelopment wi thin tne proj ect site THill generate a:1 i:-,crease ~"
school enrollment and a corresponding increase in school operatin~
costs. However, the potential impact is considered insignificant
in that the stucent 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 ~hat there are
no known historic or archaeological resources on the site.
Additionally, mitigation will be implemented during the
construction stage of development requiring cons~ructicn activity
to stop and retension of a qualified archaeologist to examine the
site if archaeological material is encountered during the project
construction.
d) 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:
-4-
,....~_ \:l... \;),
; "::.!~;~ J .r.,...~
~ '..-, __ t,;;' ~__.~__.___
1) Oak/Bay Woodlands and Riparian Corridor Impacts:
The grading for roadways through open space areas (oakfbay woodla~d
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 withi~ the
southeastern portion of the site in the vicinity of Xartin Canyo~
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 ~~endment
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.
e) The City Council hereby Ilnds that four (4) alternatives, as more I~~l~
set forth in the Final ElR, were considered and are round to be
infeasible, for specific economic, social or other considerations, as
follo'<ls:
Alternative ~l - No Prciect
The "no proj ect" alternative assumes chat the site would re:la.in in ODe:-,
space, allo~ing one d~elling unit on the site. The "no n=oiectlf
alterna.tive fails to provide needed housing, a.long with the associated
increa.se in property tax revenues, and is thus considered in:easib:e.
Alternative ~? - Neizhborhood Con~ext 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 t~an
the project. Traffic generated by this alternative would be less t~an
that generated by the project. This alternative is infeasible in t:tat it
would not provide an acequate nlli~ber or housing units and the associatsc
increase in the property tax reveues.
Alternative ~3 - Mitigated Alternative
This alternative assumes approximately 202 dwelling units (179 single-
family and 24 tow~houses) with a net density from approximately 2.9 units
per acre to 4.1 units per acre. This alternative would a':oid developr;..s~t
on ridgelines, oak woodlands and would eliminateextensi.e 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.
-5-
r: .:
l.
l~ r,:: J~
~"""---""'- .... ..._--~
Alternative #4 - Creek-Oriented Alternative
This alternative assumes a total of 280 dwelling units with a high numoer
of multi-family units and a lower number of detached single-family units.
This alternative assumes a large amount of grading and greater impact :0
woodland and riparian corridor areas. This alternative is infeasible "~
that it would allow for destruction of environmentally significant
woodland and riparian habitat areas. The number of units and density --
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 althoug~
not all expected environmental effects may be mitigated or eliminated,
which Statement is marked Attachment A-l and is attached ~ereto as if
fully set forth herein.
g)
The Citv Council hereby adoDts the Statement of Overridinz
.J . _ '" .....
Considerations, certifies that the Final EIR for the General Plan
Amendment PA 87-045 is complete, with the mitigation meas~res,
stipulations, corrections, and Overriding Considerations as included, a~c
stipulates that the mitigation measures set forth in the Final EIR be
incorporated in the implementation or the General Plan, as amended.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 27th day of February, 1989.
AYES:
Councilmemcers Hegarty, Jeffery, Snyder, Vonneecer a~c. :':2:::r
Hoffatt
NOES:
None
C1ZJ7 {)^vto-
\ Mayor
.1
. ..try;-
\
ABSENT:
None
ATTEST:
.----... "I'
\ (:-n~J;J.<r I(i"".-
City Clerk )
,c:
-6-
,'y: \5
i" i . '~: '- ..-....~...--.~,.
~
ADDENDUM
TO HANSEN HILL RANCH
ENVIRONME~TAL IMPACT REPORT (EIR)
FEBRUARY 7, 1989
INTRODUCTION
The State CEQA guidelines (California Administrative Code, Title lu,
Section 15164) require preparation of an Addendum to an EIR u~cer the
following circumstances:
(1) None of the conditions described in Section 15162 (subsequent
EIR) calling for preparation or 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 ElR or if
significant new information is available);
(2) Only minor technical changes or additions are necessary to
make the EIR under consideration adequate under C~~A; and
(3) The changes to the ElR made by the addendum do not raise
important ne'..; issues about the significant effects on the
environment.
CEQA Guidelines indicate that the addend~~ need not be circulated for
public review but can be included in or attached to the final E~R.
Additionally, the CEQA guidelines state that the decision-making body
shall consider the addendum with the final EIR prior to making a decision
on the project.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION (IN DEIR ,~iD FEIR)
The Applicant revised the proposed project from the project e7aluated in
the DEIR completed on December 22, 1987. The Final EIR (FEIR) response
to written comments dated Hay 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 or the FEIR (revised
rrom the plan included in the DEIR).
The purpose of this Addendum is to amend the FEIR description or the
proj ect.
,~~_ r;::~~..
-1-
ATTA(\HM~~ "'~ A
.. lJiviU~ I - I
'\
E IR- Adderdun (6fAqf~
(Addendum to EIR]
PROJECT DESCRIPTION (REVISED)
The project consists of the following General Plan amendments:
1. Incorporate entire Hansen Hill Ranch project within primary
planning area.
2. 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 DUjAcre); 89.8 Acres open space
stream corridor; for a total project site of 147 acres (148.3 gross
acres).
3. 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.
4. Amend General Plan policy and map with regard to Hansen Drive
extension (delete Hansen Drive Extension).
5. Amend General Plan relating to alternate roadway serving project
site (add collector street north from Dublin Boulevard through
Valley Christian Center site).
6. Amend General Plan relating to maximum acceptable level of service
(LOS) for major street intersections (add policy establishing LOS D
as max:imurn).
I . Amend General Plan relating to fire protection buffer zone (add
policy requiring fire protection buffer zone around peri2eter of
residential development adjacent to undeveloped open space land).
8. Amend General Plan relating to open space maintenance to include
the following policies:
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. "._
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
,
':
-2-
[Addendum to EIR]
".,~ \1 ,,- ~
I" r~Lt .......-_ U~' ___
maximum extent possible so as not to damage the ecological
and/or aesthetic value and characteristics of the open space
area. II
f. "Prohibit development within designated open space areas
except that designed to enhance public safety and the
en'lirorunental setting."
g. "Promote inclusion or hiking, bicycling and/or equestrian
trails within designated open space areas."
REVISED PROJECT (CO~~ENTS)
The revised project eliminates residential development within oak(Day
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 eli~inating the need for the previously proposed
separate off-site emergency access north of the project site. lne
revised project significantly reduces the impacts to the oakfbay 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 designatec open
space areas.
The revised project reduces the density range to 0.5 - 3.3 DUjAcre
resulting in a reduced maxi~lli~ unit yield possible for the site (222 DC
based upon gross acreage of 58.5 acres).
-3-
j~.:!'::- \(\
.~
[Addendum to EIR]
:
: =
; >
=
--
-: >
..
> =
c: -:
" :-
I >
C =
~
'-' ;- ;:
>
- =
~ 'Ji:.;~ ::;;- r.q.~_, ::'-,' "~r~~ ::~.y.~f::::.::~':~;, ~': .'.1
:\.."".;.. .~~..rr,,;;: "1'.~~~J~:'{f;"''''.~:~/~~r:''') ~:(
r{!~{t~l~~~i~~lj}j
,~",...<tI-.1 .~':'~~'...r,-r-!.~/~~~~-:t)'~.;-;:. Jr.,."."i
. .' ".
. "," ~ .
.... .... .~
..... .
:,
.. ::;~,;,%~\\Ei. ....-
. , .,.. - ....
."..; ; :";.~,:.::'~:~~.~;..:~;::~~,::'>' ::;~~~>.". ~
.' :.... :." "~' \ -.": '.... '. .
" ,.....,.;;:: ..'....~., ".
..." ....
". "- ....J -,: . .: .'.
..:' . ':;:?L\{~.:~H~;>:' '.: ':,::.
.: .,::.
; ::.'.:: ~~:..~.)~.; ",:.:,.:;'.:'
" ,'~. '. . - :,,:':,' "": :.".- '..
= ::: '-''''' 1:-
~-= -.J Q - l~
'. >::
= = IV '-' \=
=
.. > ... .. I=:
-:: " C =
0- = .., :'l I~
:: " r: ~ -
,. :: ... ,=
~ c:"" I~
r: ,.... I::
n .. <..- _. 1-
... ... c: ~ ~ I~
:: .., ,=
.., '. '-' >:: l~
:- ,. -
_. - ,. .- ,~ l~
... '" ,..
',' .., 0- C '-' '.
?: <:' ~ ..
'. ~1 -
... ,...
'=
-..: _. :.. " ""
:- :: '"
'" ~ .-
c ,. ,.
-:: "
'. ,...
:: :..
~~ :-
-:: r-
nG1.:~~ 1 :: ,...
n :::
:: ,...
p ~\ ~ ~ , i' \~ ;}~
... :
-,. ," -- . .,~.. .......,--..~..l. I-.J-'......'',/.'.r..,'.'',r''''-;Jit..,,........,~,.'jo~JI!,..,..,_'::;",,"" ,......,J..'1....;..:J/..._.....,...l;-if}j~.,.,:'~/.;.',
1~::.:;;;.:-l.;;;\~{I!;iJ:~~:',:;j::.:;i(:i~::~:;~f;~:I~~~JI!~~::.t"":;..""\':' .::1,tf..~~~:;;.m~J.:t.:.:.,:;.. :"::;:,:-~'~~l!:--...:,,'/if;.;{::~:, ::.:::r~.....,~.f-"t.,-..;2=? r.2:?f.t'ff;:::' :; _"~ : .(,
."-..~......'..;Z...:t'f~.,' ,..,.-JI:..I'.~''''''1Y1 .~.._..~t-~....\"....._~ f'~'-4,i'",~ ::r;'..,.-,y~.r.:J".. ,. I r,.;.', :,...'I-,....~....Lc,.'.-'..-.t
~::' .=,..ff'J:;:.':;;(;.~~~~/t);'il ~ ;:/'~,7.. ~;r:I}:~~..;'~;!~I; ~ '~-- ~"':~;~--;'VJ-~~J:t'ff,~ t~'~;J.,t"JI~:';,""'-' '.(~"':'/i':".!? '1:~./ -/~ :.y!:-l' iJ~~':1,~i;]~ r~1.t~:.:::."7:.~:: .:_ ".: .'
, <.:..:::,; .... '~~~ .. :'::J~"'""" ::j\~!'" '.~...... ~:;, ~ lAI:' (:tt:~.~ 8.. '19. 'I, 'fi11 ~!;~ -.;';.. I, ;'.,.t, ~-;~~~.... ; ::~;1\:~.;~/ -< .;;. . . ~,.' .~';{,~ ..:.;.~,;...;.:;'"':"::-.:....~~...~;i..~.: to ~: . '.
~. ".,~, ...... ;~~'::J'J""" " I,,,.' !""~,' "';-: v.-~,%.. 'fI..r-r....../..' -''''f,';r.'\-:rib'r;:..5'oI(-:':.I. :"~'~.:'1':'-~','-,-f . ._,J.;:-...-~, :',;~(''{l,/,:{"(i.?,:,,,,,.,,, .
~... ..'.'.; .,~t .."~,;.." --:", ,.'..i.;,..... f". ,.,;p~ '.::'.\'/;-'1; {;~~.r1';~ f..I'...l..*1:A1"i1~ ~. .,;:;.z:z.:,...:.... ";..";.2: .' . ":.~.,..~. ~ _: 7.. ;l':J<".:. M..C....._,.. .",._
f . :~:...:\~tE~lf~~.~.{;.7rt~rn.~fP?gf~!fJ;~:~.~f/!.~~:~:~~~.~:~:::!~~~:~t:.; :-:~.~~';~ ;:I~ ,'.:~~ ~,:: . . :::.~.1:~~:~;~. ~ '.:. ~
..... -/'-'---;'" .......,..';.t../~.~J..J..m> _..b:,....~... -I..-.....,_..~. J~' . ,..,~-..r.r0.-.,'l, h/ 'Z _<
~..,~..~,...............'~"'i?"';1..\~'::..~..':..;~ r.. ;.,.........~.>~,~.~...,.....;: 't. :,...:.,/ ~',"j:~/..1 ":;:"':y:"- ..~, 1"1' ~ (/':-"'1 '/r--t':l-r",": .
.:;::;::.:: :.;~:+~~~;;f.~:.:.;;-?:_~::~,{~.;::r:;:~l r;1 b (; ~.:~..;.';i~';2:- .~;Y/,;; : i ,:;. ".. :;.A.;.:..r.J~"'~;" ;!0:' /~.,~ ~ I: -~i ; "I. if//. ~ ~~. y~-[f Z :; ,: to
'\'" I:":' . ,.," ~~:"1. :YJ/'~::""~~':'r;::":~J:' :'.';'-....,,,11!. Z (") ';-. .): /'.-' ,::'.,',,~. . ':. r;g;' '/' """'" I;" l.... 'j <":'. "':J' .04'> ~-.,. 14 ~\ 'f} -; : 2fT. '~ ~
;-.~.~~:!"..,::':.;:~!:':i.:'~.::~;::',-~'.:'...,:.:::';.,~..:.,~.'... ;Y. ,::,'~,::.:_ .:/::/'~:'~.". I,I~,~.. =-... ~~/~'%~.,o~~_-::y:'~,./'..:..\ ". ~
....' ......,cf.-..,.....,.f','.'...:.;:"... :..I'!l?-_ ......., '.'" /1 ,... "{"~'~I''':''\;'.-::>i'~~>'"....:J '1.
~.: ", ~..;.. ::.. : .'':'~).~'r ::.; 'J...:' ."~".~':-:' ,-;.: <: :..... .~ > .-:' ;.:' ~ /'/'/" , I ',':'-' . :/:' .f/. . ~".':I -~ C:~J" ~ ~ r- '. ~").: l. - ~ r
'- ....... . '- .....".. . '"..' ... .. .1. .. , . I' ,"" .-.../1'1 :"L~"" I ~1' _/. H, I 'V,J .....
.;.:.::.._I.....:.-..~"';~-::::\'...X:~-;~;:.~:.:.:--:.. ..., ; ',/ r . '. ~ li::!"~' ~':..,://,.."../'~rJ ~~-:r~...:.~(~ ;~.~ I ,Jr:.~ tJ ~~;'--,. Itl f",.. r-
~-:,.',"e' .~,....'....:'..., m ,:.;.~I\:/.;:':'/. ;I''''!"~''V', t-:'~~:" .,..;-O-..,..,.~-:~~~ ....,:
. " .,..':'.-;','...."" ",:".::;':-" --I ;,' I,,:.. . /''-''/ .l:;r-r . .. -") "'-;F." ,.:., '-"'~.\ r
". -,~...:~.::...,,,..':~~...,..--.,,. (; r' ~ '::,, -/:.-:,: I.'~'(~'- l):' . ..... .<:), . :1.:-,'''' I, ,
,.,',../.".".... " ..;.::..:.....; ',1." -"".'~..I/I'W5'.V.-. ,;"1 Af(\..,......I,\:~'~~I.:'.. ~
' . " .,... .,....::..:..- "~.".".:. .,.. : j ~ .. //., I /'04'{. "'\ . . .. ~l ",-, ~ /"'\ ~. .e'" .,r
..' .._..J..'...,..:,:.....-,.,.. ~ ;;"\'.'. ./1' /f/:t~.;-O....'( . -.,-,).- "...I'Jr",";': L-
. ." " .' .. .. . . . -, . ,. T, "f 1 ( " .. \ If ,-. - "
.' . .,':'.". ,,- ::::.,.......,. "'/':ll':I"')G.;~...,.,',,-~, J.:,.'r: \ ;~:.,,)
. /,'~:: I, ". '. -/'.':, - ...:;7".~1 ~~..)...,'J;~....... f t.... -..._.t..:' C) ..)'.~I-:~)
. ..~.::..;'.;.:>.~t}:;:\>.~:.;. - ! /,'.1 { \ \ ''-/! !l:l~iE!.~J~(A.. ~ ! ::,,\1\1 . ;}-],:.<"/!'-....,
..:..:.'.,- .:: ~ .... " ~ '::f)~Ji "'"\"~rtt::;:.:"'!!2"'~'~~." ':}.J.~s..--..~!:1j.
.. .. /.. ". '. : . 1'.:.' Y.r:J ~ ....-~Y" .~-.!.~ .. . I:. ."': I
"':..-.;. .~. j" \ ....:., ~ .j":,._f ,..- :-o-~ I, -}, ~. p-.... ., 1, iI//;.. 't" l
\~. ", f : . :," ':f~mcJ.... r.....~1 J"",.~ ..-;. . r ~ T"'- --:. I
'., ...... ," . \ "" ......'1: . . ..j::ri--J J ..i~..,.z:;~.:'\r.::(:J.>/,J,:-;T~:....
.' :..~. ':'':. . ...:.,:" ." 'I'" '\ \ ; ~ /' .... I /i'" /~-q, :--....... :..'^t....'f~.1 rD~:/.c~.;;r..~ )/.. ~~r1"-": } !
,... ~ .', '..:..., : J: :;/ .~./"':.i:.:..::f.':Cj:..-/:r:r~:...)J...~-.:..~:;..-;...J:,....;.~ "",,":.~_--:l. ;
..'.;. .....,.......-.. I. I:, .'...,-.' ':.<i.~....-:-D;-...::J ,c....-;.-',_: _,~-""-1 ,il~ -.;.-:'{":. I
'. .':.,.... " , 1 '.",// :;..":.-:Jl!...!'-.,'\..::t'rt..~.=~_41 "t'~"'..'~r.;J"":?J:.~.
-:..:!.'.. .,.:.:::.... .- ..'. .; : t : :j;../; 1';',"":~..::;J --:-! 6~;:Vt::' C>~_~. ", i;--.,'-=-..:......c, 'it
..- ~.::.~...":.':..:.::'.,:..."'...'.... .....,... \ r i: :!J::! . ~ .::t.~/.~~:.l;;......j'......,....,.. .(...,....~~~~ ~ ;~ ..:"\'~_ ~
..'. '.' .. I" ;.. ~'/'--'lll'" ','. \1';::)/"or'~J -!l(..t..... . .,\~
," '. ..: ~,j:t!--;l:..'-.<!~/,-.,~~r:.":?!1i~;.\'--i.'t~.' (('
". .... .. I::~.j'~~; f3~-.:..!....~~:::::-~t~rJ~4~./:';.,)?.... ,,!j
~-/.-::.~' "~-'-:'J.' ,-;-.-:-. ~., ;'0;. ""'.'f. 1 " C"/"
.. :":,",' . ,,'.' '.',~..~~.,:".~.,.-~,..::..:J,..,:.....-..,.. ..,....: .. ~- ~r/,....... ,. -.... ...~~ ........ ......" : =;::' l.:.. ~ ~ ;:--"C/ v
- , l --, '~'.,/.:~-:-_ ...:,,~ -: ~ 7:.;1' ...::.;a.../'(. 1 I
'. < \ h""--"'-'f1:-,~::'-"':., "::'::r2'/:.Y..' /,u..i~. . I I
. ,... ." - :> ;.:..il /.^_:...--'Ioo.,.,;,;,............... "Yo:;-~ _~ r~' ,~, ;- J. \ ..,
r \. ',,'_ "."-'\".Al-~'",,"). .:.."...:..:././,. :(,':'" r-~..:..
r ,:,~./~,-...::.~_~~:.::::::-~;.._~... "~~: 7. :../~ :".lJ c:
... t'--~Ir~:',(~~-:;--,.::::.....J.\.:." ~,. - ,,:',~.- ,;,.. : J r...._'J r
-< r;::".".... 'r"i:.::::r.......... -::.......,.... :':.,':.J) I;~' _ ;) ~,
("; ':;-'~I.:-'.U. \::. "-~'''Jt.:/'';''~/-" . .. ' r.:
r - ->- ~ /.1 1_ '!f'V' I' "'t:.: .<.... ."J~ ,';oj .. - .....! J ~ ' 2
r,:...;.:-,,[" '': :.;'.- .. M ..........:--.~, ~ I.. _ ....
lii' ~:l'7,I.;t :.~ "'~'---0 ~.~.'. :".]
,"1 ~l.~.;.:.._\r....._ , . .:' :) lJ . /'~-'
.Ih-___;.>--=-....I\\ .' ,., I'I:...,~ ~"-.J
bl I,.. ."":'"_:-.....\,' 7, ~..... ....,..~I. t. i"!_~ ,.....0:"
, '.,=:'- ~",-"-'-':':' f-' ~. l l ...;::J : j -.... \ '-:
~ ;:,. .,. -!./ ( I;';: I /
~.:_ ---':':1. ,.~ .;,' I. -',; '--, ; /.
ffjW,~1x~. SfF-H~}?;
i-;~-' I ',,:"'':'.:).::....,~'''n;,> L-~_!-
~;;-~ G~":- ~~~t;~:( , ../:~
1.-:":' ,-;..:. :C!"~'. -~ ::; , .;-~ .:-.:'.,,=._._._.,"
~=-. ~ ..,... (" ,','., '::::----1 .--
!;"7"~J ~~.~ ~!'~~ -..~:~ :--I-'_~j _:~ . _
('-'--) ,:J ",,,-~ ~ I ~," .. t-n '0:.,
'ffJ' ~~~~~ 0~ i! ',-;..:' .,~-
I '-, -. ,: -' (>~.... ' :
: I U = '., ". t c,' . "". " " .
C;..\:~.<.:~. ~ ~ %'::. ~~; i
''::-.C:.:' ",'''':':> ~.-:', ., ~1 f J.
- . ::.. :" .;.-:\ ~ '.= '. ;--'.~ '. ;'i' v: .
\:> 'V', .f/';.. (-;-:...:~ )':~..""",:.._
...';.. l' ~..' \;:::\~....../.~ ... ~ . 1'.::' ~.. -:
C -,.............. "'.': ~.J.. ...~.. -.~
) "~C:''''':'?\.~::)-'r:-:.L~;,
<) \~,.)(':'\ .~ ~.)'-~';"; ..,;:":\ I /,.....
(/",\..'''''' !=- ..'..V .....'f.: .;-:.: '.i ":"
v.s".!"'.-,. , .-:~ _' 1..11",.... "".0
f~Vl~~ffil
~: \ :..r~:: ;....;....:..::.;,." ~ ,,-.1
ij ~~i~~~!~m
~-::;,,~.;:";\l I
_ . . :.'~- it 1
..
.,
>
::
(;
Fi';:.~~ ..,
F:lse 5
-:
c
-<
~
l:J
,
.'
- .;
: :--
- ;
= l =
~ r r\
5 ~
r, ,~:- \/\
l'.,..$.,....r::::x..v
. """,._~...----....
~~
""""-'~""'"-
ATTACHMENT A-2
STATEH~NT OF OVERP.IDING CONSIDEP~TIONS
HA..."iSEN HILL RANCH
GEN~?.AL PLAN A.'iENDHt:NT FA 87 -045
Tne Califo~nia EnviroTh~ental Quality Act (CEQA) requires t~at the Lead
Agency balance the benefits of a proposed project against its unavoidable
environmental risk in dete~~ining ~hether to recommend approval of the p~ojec:.
If the benefits of a proposed project out'..leigh the unavoidable a(berse
environmental effects, the adverse environmental effects may be considered
"acceptable". I.there the dec:.sion of the Lead Agency would all 0'...' tl1e occ......rre:-.ce
of significant effects which are identified in the Final Ell but: are not a:
least substantially mitigated, the Lead Agency is required to state in ~ri:i~~
the specific reasons to support its action based on the Final EIl and/or ot~er
infor~ation in the record. Such statement will be included in the record cf
the project approval.
Tne follorling u~avoica~le enviroThuental iwpacts are assoc~a~ec wit~ t~e
proposed Hansen Hill Ranch General Plan ~~endment PA 87-045 as identified :.n
the Final Environsental Impact Report for the project, consisting or the
docu.ment entitled. Draft Er,'.ri:,-o,,"-:ental Impact Report dated Dece80er 1987 a:-,d
Final Addend~u Responses to Co~ents on Draft Ell dated Hay 15, 19S3 and
Addenc~ to Eanse~ Eill Ra~c~ EI~ dated Februa=;- 7, 1989. ~~:se i~?ac~s c~~~c:
be mitigated to 2.cc2?~able. 1:";=15 or c.voided. t.h::ousn cha.nges c:- c..l:e::c.::"~::5 ::
the basic projec::
O ' /- .. ., .
2K nav ~~OOCla~cs
a~~ RiDa:ia~ Cor~lcor 1=D2C:S:
Tha grac:~g =o~ roac~c:s t~=o~5h open space a~aas (oak(ccY ~ccc~a~~ c~c
ri?aria~ co~ricor a~e~s) ~ill reduce habi~at value anc =esult in r:~CVe~
or potential da~age of individual trees. The primary areas in ~hic~
potential habitat dis:~rbance ~ill occur is in the nort~~estern po=~ion
of the project site, and ~ithin the southeastern portion of the si:e in
the vicinity of Hartir. Canyon Creek. The specific impac:s or road'.:a:;
grading will be dete:.-~ined du=ing review or detailed g:'-ccing plans ~~ic~
will be required for c,insiceration or the Subdivision Hap. I::?acts are
anticipated to be min:3ized through compliance ~it~ the Ge~eral ?la~
~~en~~ent policy req~:=ing r02d~ays through open space e==as to be
designed to minimize ~rading to the maxim~ extent possible so as no: :J
damage t~e ecological 0:: cas:netic value and charact=r:s~ics of t~e o~=~
space.
The City Council has consicer~d the. public record on t~e proposed G~ne~~~
Plan fu~endment and does de~e~mine that the adoption and imple~e~:~tion of t~e
General Plan ~~enc~ent PA S7-0~5 ~ould result in the followin~ substantial
public benefits:
1. The ad\-e:.-se enviror'J::ental impacts to the oak(oay ~oodland and
riparian habit",t co=:.-idor a=e considered "accep:able" as the pt:D.llC safety a;;:.
welfare benefit or providing vehicular and emergency access en site, outwei~h5
the potential adverse- environment"l imract~ tC' tht> oak/bay woodlj;;ds -and::~:;,: -, \
riparian habitats. -. ._~~-,.-
~
-1-
o' --"'.:1 .;- ';~uutMT A..'"
iA'1 ! hLi~11!iJ-~ \ ~
.- -1D\J~"'tLt't>l~V CoTl~t~~
[ce Reso ErR 2/27/S9]
~~~~~~~{~r" ·
l ::1....
1 . ,
J
~ .:
1
~
!
'. . 2.",::..' The
consistent ',.,ith
. .
General Plan ~~endment would provide for
the housing element of 'the...General Plan.'
needed hous ing .
-.:. . . '
" ..... . "
3. The General Plan ft~endment wo~ld provide economic benefits for
community in terms of potential increased tax revenues.
...-.,;::t.
1....-
1
1
~
.
~
j
,
.
l
l
,
:~
The City Council has ~eighed the above benefits of the proposed Gener~l
Plan P~endment against its unavoidable enviro~~ental risks anc adverse
environmental effects identified in the Final ErR and hereby determines that
those benefits outNeigh the risks and adverse environmental effects and
therefore further determines that these risks and adverse enviroGT.ental effects
are "acceptable".
"
~
~
:1
,
.
:1
.'
q
'.
:~
~;
"
1
.1
.\
;l
}
.l
~
~
1
~
[ec Reso EIR 2/27/89]
-2-
':1 i''7 cl~ n;; ~
J i"~'.~;". ._'V.....".-..... .}.; .-----
CITY OF DUBLIN GENERAL PLAN POLICIES
Related to PA 95-007
Hansen Ranch General Plan Amendment,
PD Rezoning, and Tentative Map Amendment
2.1.4 Extended Planning Area
a. Consider residential development proposals (including
support facilities such as neighborhood shopping centers,
schools and parks) on moderate slopes, with mUlti-family
densities typically considered on flatter land and next to
business park areas.
c. Approval of residential development in the extended planning
area will require determination that:
Proposed site grading and means of access will not
disfigure the ridgelands
3.1. Open Space For Preservation of Natural Resources & for Public
Health and Safety
a. Preserve Oak Woodlands, riparian vegetation, and natural
creeks as open space for their natural resource value.
b. Maintain slopes predominantly over 30 percent as permanent
open space for public health and safety.
c. continue requiring reservation of steep slopes and ridges as
open space as a condition of subdivision map approval.
3.3. Open Space For Outdoor Recreation
g. Restrict structures on the hillsides that appear to project
above major ridgelines.
The present undisturbed natural ridgelines as seen from the
primary planning area are an essential component of Dublin's
appearance as a freestanding city ringed by open hills.
h. Use subdivision design and site design review process to
preserve or enhance the ridgelines that form the skyline as
viewed from freeways (I-580 or I-680) or arterial and major
streets (Dublin Boulevard, Amador Valley Boulevard, San
Ramon Road, Village Parkway, Dougherty Road).
5.6 Scenic Highways
a. Incorporate previously designated scenic routes in the
General Plan and work to enhance a positive image of Dublin
as seen by through travelers.
b. Exercise design review of all projects within 500 feet of a
scenic route and visible from it.
ffr-rACHr&t e.N.-r 7
1
7.1 stream Corridors and Riparian vegetation
a. Protect Riparian Vegetation as a protective buffer for stream
quality and for its value as a habitat and aesthetic resource
b. Promote access to stream corridors for passive recreational
use and to allow stream maintenance and improvements as
necessary, while respecting the privacy of property abutting
stream corridors
7.2 Erosion and siltation Control
a. Regulate grading and development on steep slopes
b. Restrict development on slopes of over 30 percent
7.3 Oak Woodlands
a. Protect oak woodlands
b. Require preservation of oak woodlands. Where woodlands
occupy slopes that otherwise could be graded and developed,
permit allowable density to be transferred to another part
of the site. Removal of an individual oak tree may be
considered through the project review process.
c. Develop a heritage tree ordinance.
7.7 Open space maintenance/management
a. Require open space management and maintenance programs for
open space areas established through subdivisions and
Planned Development Districts...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
c. Require revegetation of cut and fill slopes
d. Require use of native trees, shrubs, and grasses with low
maintenance costs in revegetation 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
8.2.3 Flooding
a. Regulate development in hill areas to minimize runoff by
preserving woodlands and riparian vegetation. Retain creek
channels with ample right of way for maintenance and for
maximum anticipated flow.
2
APR-2S-9S rUE 17:31
P. 02/06
MICHAE~ ~. NAVe
~"fCVW R. M~Y.RS
~LIZAnF.TH H. SILVER
~ICHAEL S. K~8ACj(
~fNNETH A, WILSON
I,;LIr'fORO F. CAMP"eLL
MlCI-lAEL ~. R()('IRIl):l~:Z
KATHi.E!:N FAUBION. Ale?
WENDY A, ROBERTS
PAVID w. ::'~INNER
::iTCV,N T, MATIAS
R:CK W .JA<lVlS
VERONICA A. F. NEBS
MEYERS, NAVE, RIBACK, SILVER & WILSON
A pf\Or;;'SSIONAL lJ\W CORPORATION
~...r.a/J.. f(O~A o"Fi~
GA TEWA Y PLAZA
777 DAVIS STREET, SUITE 300
SAN LEANDRO, CALIFORNIA 94577
TELEPHONE: (5101 351-4300
FACSIMILE: (510) 351-4481
;~5 m:Orl sTREET. SUITE 230
SAI:T;' 1I0SA. CA 95401
TELC?HONE: (70n 54~'~OU:;'
FAC$:MtL!:: (7071 S4rHiC,7
OF COuNS~L
AII:ORFA .J. SALTZMAN
TO:
Planning Commission, City of Dublin
FROM:
Elizabeth H. Silvcr~ City Attorney, ~ fh~;"""""""-
.. , ~. ."....-;;
by: Kathleen Faubion ti..~''':'- '-
RE:
P A 95-007, Hansen Ranch Phase II Amendments
DATE:
April 25, 1995
On April 1 7, 1995, the Pla.nning COl'nm.ission conducted a workshop on the
proposed amendments to Phas~ TI of the Hansen Ranch project. Among me amemlmenls
is a proposal to change the general plan designation of a portion of the projeCt area front
Open Space/Stream Corridor to Residential. As requested by the Commission, this
memorandum provides direction to assist the Commission in its determination of whether
the proposed amendments are consistent 'with the general plan.
Procedural Badkground
The Planning a.nd Zoning Law requires the Planning Commission to make a
recommendation to the City Council on gen~ral plan amendments. (Gov, Code S 65354).
The re~ornmendation must be written, and any reconunendation for approval must carry
by a majority of the COn1Inission membership (not just a majority of the quomm). (Id.).
The Planning Commission also recommends action to the Council on the rezoning and
tent:lTlve map amendment proposals,
General Plan Consistency Law
General plan consistency involves two levels of analysis, internal consistency wit.hin
the general plan itself, and consiftency h~tween the general plan and zoning approvals.
ATTAC+-tMENT e
APR-25-95 TUE 17:32
P.03/06
To:
From:
Re:
Date:
. Page:
Planing Commission
Elizabeth H. Silver
PA 95-007, Hansen Ranch Phase II Amendment~
.r\pril 25, 1995
')
"'"
1. Intemal consistency_ A general pl:m consists of text and diagrams stating the
city's development policies and related objectives, prinCiples, standards. (Gov. Code 3
65302). The policies, sLandards and similar provisions address seven clements of
development, including land use, circulation, housing, conservation and so on. (fri.).
General plans are often described as "atop the hierarchy of local govenul1em law
n~gl1l:H.ing land use" emu as a "constitution for all future developments. (citations)"
(Concerned Citizensy Cnlaveras County (1985) 212 Cal. Rptr. 273, 278).
The general plan and iLS component clements and pans must bc "an integrated,
internally consistent and compatible statement of policies." (Gov. Code 9 65300.5). As
the Calavf'ras C01.ln nmed, this consistency requirement is vital if the general plan is to
"fulfill its function as a 'constitution' guiding 'an effective planning process"'. For if the
plan contains contradictions and inconsistencies, no one can tell "what ... should happen
or not happen." (f:::ll::lveras, supra). In that case, the coun found the Calaveras County
general plan internally inconsistenL because its land use element provided for considerable
f1..1turc growth "vhile its circulation element stated that area roads were inadeqttlte to
handle th~H groW! h and no improvementS were proposed to resolve the inadequ~cy,
{Calaveras 212 Cal. Rptr. at 281).
2. ConsiSTency Between the General PlaI\...aJJd Subsequent Zoning Approvals.
For general law cities such as Dublin, zoning ordinances must be consistent v.>ith
adopted gener::tl plans. (Gov. Code ~ 65860(a)). Tentative map approvals must also be
consistent with adopted general plans. (Guv. Cude ~s 66473.5, 66474). vVhilc the
Hansen Ranch amendments include proposed changes to the site's PD zoning and to the
previously ;lppmv~d t.entative map, the primary land use issues attending the project are
raised by virtue of the proposed general plan amendment to change the open space
designation to a low-density residential designation. The staff report raises no policy or
other issues for the rezoning or tent::ttive map apart from the general plan issues, therefore
neither of these applications \\ill be addressed funher in this memorandum. Instead, we
assume that the staff and Commission reeonm1endations on the rezoning and tenta.tive
map will reflect the general plan recommendation.
,
3. Planning Commission Di.~cTetion in Consistency Det.erminalion~_ Where the
APR-25-95 rUE 17:33
P. 04/06
To:
Fronl:
Re:
Date:
Page:
Planing Commission
Elizabeth H_ Silver
PA 95-007, Hansen Ranch Phase II Amendments
April 25, 1995
3
general pb.n establishes e.x11licit standards, e.g_, traffic level of service standards, a rleci~1on
to determine consistency within the plan generally v,rill require little discretion on the pan
of the Commission. or the City Council. In the traffic level-of-service example, a traffic
st.udy will show that a proposal either does or does not meet the st.andard.
While most general plans include some explicit standards, general plans tend to be
rnore of a policy document. They guide development in the fom1 of bro3d policy
directives. As such, the polides are often subject to interpretation as dedsion-makers
apply the policies La land use applications. The Planning Commission 'will be required to
interpret the general plan as it prepares its recornmendation to the City Council. The City
Coundl \vi11 be required to accept, reject or modify that interpretation as it takes final
action on an application. Both bodies exercise wide discretion in their interpretations of
the general plan. This discretion is not ,vithout limit, however. The interpretations must
be basp.d on factual infonnation to avoid being found arbitrary if later challenged.
In the present case, the Planning Commission is being asked to exercise iIs
discretion to recornmend whether it feels the land use changes proposed by the applicant
are a good idea and are consistent with the general plan, More specifically, are Lhe
proposed land use changes compatible with other policies guiding development of the
Hansen Ranch Slite. vVhatever recommendation the Planning Commission makes should
be supported by reference to the panicular circumSlances of the Hansen Ranch sile and/or
application in order to establish the evidentiary support for the recommendation,
Application of General Plan Consistency Law to Hansen Ranch Amendments
The Hansen R2.nch amendments currently hefore the Commission include a general
plan amendment to change the land use designation from open space to low densily
residential. In essence, the question before the City is whether or not it is a good idea to
change the general plan to aHow low df.nsity residential uses in an area where uses are
currently restricted to open space and an acce~s road. As noted above, in assessing lhis
question, the Planning Commission and ultimately the City Council must determine first,
whether it is a good idea to change the land use and t.hen, whether the change would ca.use
inconsistencies in the general plaIf. If the change is found consoist.ent with the general
plan, the City may approve it. If'the change is found inconsistent with the general plan,
APR-25-95 TUE 17:34
P. 05/06
To:
Fro In:
Re:
Date:
Page:
Planing Commission
Elizabeth H. Silver
PA 95-007, Hansen Ranc.h Phase n Amendments
April 25, 1995
4
the City may deny the change, or may consider revision to the project or the general plan
to achieve consistencv_
--
In its April I?, 1995 staff report, staff identified several general plan policies which
could be affected by approval of the general plan amendment. In general, the policies call
for protection of sensitive natural and environmental areas. The staff report also
summarized past project reviews and identified how the City had resolved consistency
issues raised by past general plan arnendrnent requests, The Planning Commission must
no\v use the information provided by staff, as well as infomlation provided by the
applicant and by the public, to prepare its recommendation on the current amendment
request. The Cornn.lission may consider any infonnation relevant to the proposed
amendments and current related general plan polities.
For example, Policy 3.l.a. calls for preserving oak woodlands, riparian vegetation
and natural creeks as open space for their natural resource value, On this issue, the
Conunission rnay consider information such as the quality, quantity, and biological value
of woodlands and riparian vegetation to be lost to the project '~vith the amendment, and
which would remain elsewhere in the project after the amendment.
In another e.xample, Policy 8.2.3.a. requires that development in hill areas be
regulated to minimize runoff by preserving woodlands and riparian vegetation. On this
issue, the Commission may consider information such as the differences in runoff amounts
from the current project as compared to the proposed land use. Ot.her relevant
information could be the differing means of controlling nmoff in the current project versus
the proposed land use.
Other policies can be examined in the same manner. If, after considering the
infonnatiun available to it, the Planning Cummission believes that sensitive areas
described in the applicable policies are protected as directed in the policies, the
Commission could tInd the proposed change consistent with the general plan and so
recommend to the City Council. If, OIl the otht:r hand, the: PlaIUliIl~ COIIUIlb~:;iun finds
that sensitive areas are not protected as directed in applicable policies> the Commission
may find the proposed change in~onsistent with the general plan. In such a case, the
Commission may recommend de~ial of the proposed change; or. it l11.ay recommend
APR-25-95 rUE 17:35
P. 06/06
To:
FrOln:
Re:
Dale:
Page:
Planing Commission
Elizabeth H. Silver
PA 95-007, Hansen Ranch Phase II Amendments
April 25, 1995
5
further revisions to the general plan and/or to the projecl. As nott::d above, the Planning
Commission has "vide discretion with respect to its recommendations on genera! plan
amendments so long as the end result is an internally consistent gener:l] plan.
Conclusion
The applicant has proposed to change lhe land use in a portion of the Hansen
Ranch site from open space to low density residential, n1e area proposed for the change
contains oak woodland and riparian vegetation, which features are the subject of cenain
general plan policies. 111e PlanniIlg Cummission has \vide discretion in recommending
whether the proposed land use change is acceptable and is compatible with the reSL of lhe
general plan.
cc:
Larry Tong, Plannine Director
.... G
Tasha Huslon, Associate Planner
David Gold, Greg Caligari, ~vforrison & Foerster
1:"'WI'I)l,~ m".\1KFJiA.>;SE:-':2. \\'61
3/17/7)--
115/) )1(v'!l.(GI:7iC P'L
,pv 6(../- (4 .7'1./bt;'
r/Cr.rL J (tf.-,)
/ r (J 1./1./ / 7).1 ~ 4C' A-:? /:J / .J ?1 PI'? OJ A..J r/"1"1 ~^./-;-
17-frT I /L~ TJrrr- rMC L:?~vao~O'( O/~
1)fC j.)~J~ ~CfJ ~~5G-\ ~ ~k.~
TO 111 ~ '2, r /9 c. -1./0 0 U r ur 0 ~lQ.N S~7-!4;:--
~O Gv ILD r'rv /9 t:)~//2~/J~ I G j,.fuvsc,
/h~ ~ rnc G~/7..A[J ~~O COM ;:'~-o~..-(!.5C:::3
Po ^- DfC fr? /t c6 t2~ jJ t-4V) / fo V't-- ~
/!:1 o/t-C _ ;0<<: vr::2Jf' r'.A.~/\...I'r , 6 r-:; ~~f../(c<../J (;
/J<0! b/./~CQ 0 ~IE/\...) ~o1"::)0-o ..J/G',7-CC,f:
C V&---' Gee cP ~S1. !) en... <.C(J ? J /= ~.,) f.Z j /~
/
/!/t:=:.. / r;/.J f!, CP"'l) Or: /Y14-^1.o CD TD ;,q-/C..c / ~
~ /VC v I 0 V:f ~-? ,4 ~ / /Ut..A!:CJ h'-r::> '-".J ~:s 6 u j
~t:? fPL~ 1/- /~ D~ S;44-CC
, /
WO<./LO 7'?t7.s !3 c.e- (ot'-JJ /t)C'/LrL~-o ?
vvl-f.1 Borri-OL IL4-/'/~J~G /F A~>C
4LL /J CC?r-/.JILKJL/~ A^lO nr::'r'~f/r.cJ J ~
{/& j,,/CLl)/<L~ ;;J2/1.d~J /1/to/Z'C h/~<-,_/~ ~
,,4 t~ O~n:? ~LC~C /L~::r<Ct-r r~J
It I () / { L/ LO /-; J 0 ~ /t/1/"'~o .
/ - -. ~---
----
,..- . ,- -'"
- ..
, -
f~a~
~ '"-->...ij\ ~ (':'J~...::\
. \ \ j
p , ,~:- , (":;0: \
";:':.~"--"""C'T><_~"!~
r- '-::. '/ ," '-
! ~
r
!, /_.,": -....'-
~+ / 'C:- ,~
--- --
RECEIVED
MAR 2 1 1995
"'IJBLlN PLANNINf
AT-rACHME..NT 9
~' C t-
_ (jCe A
17;
,j~~IV~D v
APR 1 71995
(;rr: ,.,~ our. 'r\.T
ctfy-; I f~, J 1'7 'S
"fy~ '. J-e.y', L-ct vS.e. ""
/ 13o.S- Roll I ~ )./: II S ))Vl v~
LJut-o!,'Y'\ ,L q'fSG S/
(5/0) ~&1- S:;?'-f~ ~
(If J 5) '1 G .;l. - '-10'6-0 l,U);- /G
De.a.v J11.t'/ov ,~ov:;,-Jc__ i .~~v:S_of It.:-. Dc.;bfn c:f'f CovY'lc,;Jf a~ ~b-.eY';.
01' ~ bUb/, '" PI q VlI1I T\.cJ ~ ISS/~ I
RECEIVED
APR 1 7 1995
t)UBtIN PlA:-J~INr
I ~ l.<_lY: t ~ I - ~ Of? cc;,.' "tc~ t- J~ PP- C; s -00 7 Hr.", VI ~ f2.q 11 J,., r ~ 11 ~VC~
piC{ V\ a ~J ~) :p I Cn.1 ~ D~ -lof~ f< .e.- to VI ''0 I Cl VI) T --e. ." T;z /iV~
fY)~ P q~J~. 5f~;i:cC<;/f) I ~ oppo~~ 10 ~ r-e. des.; rV1ctt~- v--/'
d. I t-\ Gtc.Yes uP C?~V\ SfQ~ /5fy~ coY'Y'I~or to /0 h~s,c"fes;:.,
1 V~ b-e....e.V\ cc V'ef"='/~ of- DwIoJ.'", <), ~c.a-- }'167) .;1,& f~1.:--s. i c(J 0~1,.J~
~ ~cr vRct~ q V\.~ tzO:/>I;~ ~lc;)?~. /rJj..1,.r.e../ ho~ c--. I2.c://) ~
tJ:lls DVI~~ is VY\f 3v-dL ~fj,\.\ ct.J2Jy..e.s~ ;QVlJ WCl'S l)i..~i-JQ~ I Y'
kiw "''''' bv-, I q q:l- f",- 5/ 2,4-,2 K. -rk:. 4A ~ :) &'r k. hlcy4..- ~ '" t I'Y~UIOC:S
I q vcrer I ,l Y) I ~y / P"''-rILrO Stt. t ~ 0...-. Id ..e,-j~ Dy, u'~; I pa i& C{ f.::,od :/) 0 IC
~o Y" "- '5 V1f'.A../l.a-v ~ (....v ~ n "- s ,-ed~ c-f~ ( a. v v I ~\.-<..J 0 -P 0 p'~ ..., 5,/>4: Ce. /
h a~ ks I o <-vI s, + vv)~ Uv ifuy'€..S:.
; YO (j-S I ..J2-+ c.. I fh i y~;" I ~ v~
l-v: / of I: f -e.- I v,:kc-l. ~ ~I
G
I O? P 0'5 (.It........ ~ ) s /~ VI Ks. ~ b; VCl5 i
h: II s I OC{. k TV-€-€-5 I ~ s-fy~ \
c.~ i cll.-o.J2...1! B Q h h,y q S S ~ y..Q... J
~
7fr,'s h~ wovlL c,lw"''fS hau-e- op-e..... SJ>c!C,v b~h,~~ ~-J" S~
@
Sq'/ c(rlv'.e-- uCJulc( he.- h~<.::> 0-.---- +L Y"I'c/~.tr '(..sc~-c/:f .(
Ih i j " vY\: ) t '5 'L-- :) I;YV - I Yl ~ -f-. q vY1: J t I ct V1 j : f 5 !1l:f / Y1 ~ C( 5
Cl ct~'sf (V\o-fclGc+ar/laf.-VT-y/-e.:fc,) ftI~+ PVOU(~S ~1c.Y'-'G, ;/hi huslo<r,.cL
is CL h\ C{V {~ ~: 0 I 07 f 7J~ v c~ V\-I cd UG S i3, C/ / WI csi ~,f ( c -j\ Tt.a.-
~ Q "": J 1 ~ Sq...,; 0' ,', f, ~d2. Vi' ; In OUY 12.11, '0 1/: I/s I~, 14 /e.'"
j\ ( L " -I- n -1 -/. ~) . / ,I . II
01 ~~l;>"f c:(v-€/ 1c:J C{f2S/y'VC./~.__ d\l\ct qGSft-'.;:~ c;7 o(.)r ViE..-<..J i..oo,-,{~
be,. a.... s\.A;)~ 'I. vo. t, ',,J) I aSS fl' Vl q VI c..l c( I~ '
lCi5f- f.eq v-
I Cua" t3(JJ~ bt <L 'f--C1or,&f -f'Y<r.-v--
is U''5-f,\ bL ~ to I"t.-- ty",)',,';:] "",dL
lJ€..rJe relY tj~_f i^r1j b~,-k jc;.rJ!.,
^ . L ..A-i-I
Ccn t- I r L,i.':~ I '-<--- 0 i I t...e...,
h : II Si ctv. -rh;":>
Lv-:S
VlC+ I~ ~
I ,o1.)v-cA'1.~L V""j ~,
Ii- 1.5
I', k.<.Jt tk.~ + ~~<.oC- s 0(.); If 0-,..... rl^cY Cf .e '" S P fZ Ci...- w k f ,;;.,f., {So
~v~tv S~I l.(.'c v I ~ ~av~ fbv 01 \ I . ..+,
Sq~ " 77' CA,.. I '..e.,s
I. L I (....,;b, c-) il'I }J I
VI'll,) -<-, ~<....a....- Vl '\..... ~ tl--<...V" ~ O't' l) Q7Cf.?> oT I-vce..- qlv;/-€- ~ S 02..YvCl V7 "-1 I
tv: l~ I'l~~ F c-,.tz.v~t~ I G-..., v:VC'-Vl~+...f bG.P~V\<;..v f...""J I COi..J~Li..) c::,OC:~"";"''11
..L 10 YV'-4 VI -{
.Llc" , . V" 'I e4.. vs.,
j'w, povta. V1 f '[0 V1-<-L. I C( V1L
Dq v~s . QII'A 1.J~Y"1
'I ,1 1'\ ~Cl~: fcvi ~oV'
w,d,"f-e-
.~
Lv:IJ J:P~
,1 'f' -+-.
q \II<X.- i S ~ S e.v'-'C<. , ~
a v.e.-
7 I ~ -G.-- c..ut-r &t -f ~ 0 ~i / ~ to 5 7'J>c v- i- it'<. ~
VYVV~ CJff>O~ t- ik d-€-slv,-,J~ 01
-. 1
1t.u c..<'v'\ dn..c.+~ 0: /(; fYt:ld ho:.;.>-e.s.
1l~(~
10
(J)
hcv~s L<..-', II l1C(v~ i;H-l.~}f e-J1 ,.......... ~ -e.c:..(}i'l C;'Y'\ 'f of
bv0hh I ov ~ ')VL.(...e.5S vi 1L De-v~-!of-e;/S I b0-t ~~ ({ h'i. v~ c~
/) ~j I~ '
t v~cr .<. H e..d ~
Dv0/,'.".., C It' ~ ~l't So
I: }4-, W\ 'I s ~)+ u..h 0
'. 7
I,' V ~ Ju-- -<- .-( n IL
10";-<" ~ h: lis I TL .1 6c.si ~fd"h ,( L.~{Cf~ e,v:// hClU-€-,'L
VV\ VcJ, ~ t'-<2..zt:r-- J, Vl'~ V\ '-'- 'cJ) .J2.f'P eJ I C/ VI J I..~/ II ,~-I hdr::'f T-Y>.2.- Oct k i.<-<.-e,l/ct t-lcls.
-rk~
h: lis
I~
a v..e.....- 7"0 v
bvioi,'"" I vwf ,Jus! "-' P-e....v y~c.:.<..w'-<-~s,
cdl
P n ;,.. uz....
~ 70 ~ I "h'l
Sc-r.
I...vv '-' / d.. t, .'~
~
LA.- ""--' \ \ ~~ .;..,......
~ h',IIs' u....>1L ~lf'S ePCC! I
~ .p ~ --I-k.v U;cc ty- 1o~ -<..V"
...t.. v-A2. V'\ V'v'-l y",,-
I .
Dv^,,~ i '"
, J.~
I 0/ ~ [.,u:/ (,)-<2..,...
+c }::.. ~/s \..0k C'
\...0"l (...'~
cd
,,~+&.v v t ~~ "for .
.~ ~.' I/s c-u.' 1/
L
c.f7 ~cc~ss.' b~
(.~ ~/ t,:k../:-..c fyct; / :s hOJ: If,
d'
C11,~qs)
-recta. 1 's Tv-', - l/~ jl(r J.!-~v~ [eL t14s <t Jvc-r-..1- pa~ av-i7~ ,......
f~4.~-t.~ ~\I1L.l-.VCYl ~-J.,\..L-&f:s' ~.N\2Irk ..to Pi""-e.,S€'Vv.u ~ v; Jp-/~V'.js
Tll'y ClV-<..C'L
i h
.vlL- ^0.J.1 ,{'
a...p?y.;; ;.....~ <." I 1~lr e.7 !OrTS I Q Vtd w c,Ac.-
f: /~ Dub/, h.
-6 ~ Y'~s ..<..,V'v-<- ~I'V' Yt;~ -I, ~ 't C/ :)5 c.vvll,
I V\ J oS '1s I
b 51 + -!-".-n"I!
~~..)-~ .
u~a-v i (.'V 10 ~Vlt..-J-k
J
I~
o~ s /~ c....c:-
v-e~~jG
~S> a ~ -t;; ~r\t /k
~vJ p Lc__.__ ~~Y/cl~.l
I
;
~ c1~~
Pf'P 1 g' '35 0'3: 2'31=,1'1 8FDX'1 OCII=:f'lriEL..
P.2"2
BREON, O'DON:KELL, ),tIILLER, BROWN & DANN'IS
A':"':"O;:lNl:YS AT UlW
A O':'CFE:SSIONAL CORPORATION
,,' r.... y !lll:CON
.........~OA.e:': ;: :)';'O"'''I!L'..
:' I ;:t"''!.''f~~'''4 ':~.~,:'
o",v.:;) .0 "'I..LC~
..,....t:;:~...,... ',.,=",=.
;:lA,S.C:L.:..A !!Iao""",,,,,
~AA,l ,=...:-....=.;...;:. ::..;.;..,...,':;.....i# ~,c=.
':';C:C:OlQ'" v :....NNI.:lo
!"",,l .lII u.'c"""....Q....
April 18, 1995
,,~ '~I~. .4~-..1~'!~
'.,l.~; :....:;...... , ,
~.fhC:::,T '" '"~""ACA,...,
,:,a...:z ...,=:::c, :oo""-c, ~'..,'!: r :-:;
.......,..C'f" eCt.iqNt:
;'At:'".;A!. '::"'t.,:!':;:."lA --;c:..:a7
:~~' ~~.C".:J
~:"A""" r."o.,;...s::
""4A'-"t"..,.".",..J C...t:Ve:~kO
~Au~le ~ ..ll,..tl'w<JtAof
~~~c '/:4. -;::...-::r... ,!\;, '";7 .:....
:I.&,-.::~ ....:=):::::, :"I,.j.t':)~....~ .;.=~~"'_
....:.,1l4 2.Qor
r..x 'J I =.! 3".3'~==';'
;A'-,'O ^ WOL~
.;:. ":' ~"=...o.::J::~
a:J,A,..r T ;..::!:
:.:.:;; ........::;;::;..z:!. ':"l.l'=:\~.;A
C..,AI.:C'", ~ ........Cl=l.GA...
~ANOA.... !) ......c:~r
~c-c~ w s.TtJ"'et~
l..AUQi c: i: .. !"!'olO\.'::'~
Q;I..:" A ~="''''N ~
~ANC .c ~l ~<;"C...L
:;'1-::1 E-4~". . t:l
:~_';~.. :..~:..... ~;.;r:.:....;.,
:' "'" GG;.",,=,."-:
.....,Ar1J:..t..... ~l.,;~~~ ;c'Orr
~-('C...l. -:cu'"', (~
;;;E-.... '!' ~o
SAil fRAHC:SCO
VIA FACSIMILE AND U.S. XAIL
Laurence Tong
Planning Director
City at Dublin
100 Civic Plaza
DUblin, CA 94568
Re: Hansen Ranct General Plan Amendment, Planned
Development, Rezoning, and Tentative Map Approval
Our file 5180.1.000
Dear Mr. Tong:
On behalf of the DUblin Unified School District, I an
requesting an extension :;f time to respond to the "Notice of Gse
of ErR From Earlier Praj ~ct:" received by the District March 201
1995. The District was not aware that responsas were invited,
and in fact assumed from the notice that it only had the
opportunity to =eview th~ EIR fram the earlier project.
Also, would you kindly supply me with a copy of the
Initial Study prepared as a prerequisit~ to the use of the !!R
from the earlier prcject~
I
Thank you for your assistance.
Very truly yours,
BREON, 0' DONNELL, MIL.t.E...t<,
BROWN & DANNIS
(i7.w,Cl ~
pr1~~1~ Brown
PB:kmd
\5180\ iO~G2 ,l95
-~-.,..,..._..-
APR 21' '35 11: 2(H'1 BREON ODC:~'~~!EL
P.2/4
,
BREON. O'DO)l!S'ELL. l\1ILLER. BROWN & DAN~IS
ATTORN!:YS AT I..AW
A P:ROF"::SSIONAL CORPORATION
~!:: ~- v !Ill!<j...
7' ;r;v~,...$..O'" :.~"'!t.
.,...t.t;;...."" ......~.
"'A"~,A..QC:T ~ :: :.ON....C...!...
0"''110 -;; ~l\.:'. p
':;A"C 'a.Nc:l~~C, ;:,,-..:;-CR'I',A. ~...1 ;:;~
~RIJ;CI",,~ g=C""''"'
::......~ rot. ~, ~....~."'.3e..:
;).:tc~~" J ::.....,.,,""'I~
April 2l, 1995
...1 ~I ~....3."'t' :
r::..... =- ;...fClootA=......
. 7.~Z ",c"c ~~C, ;"';11"1; "'1 ze
;:...I".'~f.~_ :""".JC'"O:;NI..... -:',)9C7
:~c.;u G.c::..:l..o.;.~.~
ell:'.)O'~ .A ~L.""A.:::iA,'"
'~A,..eT !::>\,QNt
.v.,''''''''''' "......t
~A~'\.. .,... ,; c...i:'vc....."...;1
l..At,,;A.( .. ..,lo.Jt:NC::;:n
3::~ '.,'.... ~e_.~, !t,.;ITE ~A
;I.':,,':J.3 '/C:r~~~. e",,!...'.e~N'A QO::~'"
~I'-'i. :~ ':>1 3:-:s~~~e
_..::........ ~,r;);)..
.::: 'c. 3:"':S-.e-C'!'7
0"''''0 A wo:..r-
;.:;.....t.- . __::
_:~s "~OC...':: 5.. ~,\\..,C"~~/t.u...._
c:'I..^:"'~IA =' ...v.O~-:;A'-
..: ';:1 c;..i" f 1~:3
:;ANO""...l.. 0 ...,.c~"
::Jt-t::l: w .3.u.=I!~
=.::.:....s. ...(~..... e.a.LIC'"CP""""
.':"....)~<I.~.,;t
:"At,;R ~ ~ :a "'-"oiO_::l~
-;;;';1' ...... ."..,...."...
...A"'-C : !o4lt:::;~~;..;..
SA)I FiWICISCO
4~~Y r~
........" rpoo", ~:..'CLI. '!:ce!'!'
~.(C;'....;.. eO.l".d!::.,
Laurance Tong
Planning Director
City of Dublin
100 Civic Plaza
DUblin, CA 94568
Re: Notice ot Use of EIR From Earlier Project;
Our file :5180.1.000
Dear Mr. Tong:
The Dublin Unilfied School District ("District") has
reauested that I rasooncl on its behalf to the above-mentioned
notice. Briefly stated,i the District believes that use of the
earlier ErR prepared for the Hansen.Ranch GenQral Plan Amendment,
Planned Development, Re~oning, and Tentative Map Amendment
(collectively the lIapprqvalSll) is contrary to the requirements of
CEQA. !
!
i
Public Resources Code sections 21083 and 21087
authorize the use of EI~'s prepared for earlier projects ~~der
specific circumstances. i These circumstances are set forth at
,
California Coda of Ragu~ations, Title 14, ("Guidelines").
Section 15153 of the Gu~delines states:
I
(a) . . . a l~ad agency may use an earlier EIR prepared
in connection iwith an earlier project to apply to a
later projQct,! if the ciroumstanoe. of the projects are
essentially t~e same.
i
The District's review of the EIR on the Hansen Ranch
project prepared in 198~ indicates that the circumstances of tha
project, insofar as it nelates to schools, are dramatically
I
i
APR 21' '35 11: 20Q'1 BF:E(I~l O[Il::~'I~j[L
P.:j/4
Laurence Tong
city of Dublin
April 21, 1995
Page 2
different, and not the Isame as the law requires. These
circumstances include, !but are not limited to the following:
1. The EIR iwas prepared prior to the formation of the
DUblin unified school district. The EIR discuss the availability
of space in the Murray IElementary School Di5trict and the ~~ador
Valley School District ,! neither of which exist presently. The
reorganization of the districts creates potentially different
enrollment patterns an~ district impacts.
2. The EIR'states that the enrollments in the Murrav
district have dropped, ;and that although the trend appears to b~
reversing itself, lIther,e are no indications that the school
population will increase d!."amatically over the next five years. II
In addition, it states !that. Neilsen School, the school which
would serve the development, has space for 108 'students. This is
no longer the case: A~ of 1994, Neilsen was overcrowded by 103
students. (Facil i ties Master Plan, ("Master Planll) Dublin
Unified SChool District, March 1994, p. 19.)
3. The stuqent generation rate cited in the ErR for
Murray School District :i5 110.2 per dwelling unit." The mo!."e
recent study indicates ;student generation rates of up to .84,
depending upon the typ~ at housing. It should be noted that
these figures reflect ~indergarten through eighth grade
enrollment only; kinder,garten through twelfth grade would
indicate further addit~onal impactr (Master Plan, p. 31.)
I
I .
4. There i~ no discussion of the impact on Wells
Middle School, the mid~le school which would serve the students
from the development. lprojections now arQ that due to
development in the wes~ Dublin area, Wells Middle SChool has
space available for onlY 3 additional students. (Master Plan, p.
20.) :
I
5. While th!e EIR I s fiscal analysis states "the net
fis;cal impact to the Di!stricts would be ZQro for the Murray
School District and posli ti 'Ie impact fees of approximately
$953,000 for the Amador1 Valley High School District.1I (EIR, p.
3-97) First, this is np longQr a true statement. secondly, ~~e
DUblin UnifiQQ School District leviQs a developer impact fee
which funds only a port~on of its needs. The EIR rQcognizes that
only a portion of the n~ed is funded by impact fees, requires the
developer to pay only tpe fee levied at the time by the Amador
High SChool District. ~s shown, this no longer meets the needs
of the new Dublin Unifi~d School District.
APR 21 '95 11: 21Af1 BREi)f'l OIIl:;r'lIJEL
P.4/4
Laurence Tong
City of Dublin
April 21, 1995
Page 3
6. The EIR requires no othQr mitigation of the
developer. It states only that state funding and voter approved
taxes could be use. There is no longer any state funding. In
addi tion, the law permi;cs mitigation tll.rough SQparate agreement
between schaal districts and developers.
To summarize,! critical facts have changQd trom the
preparation ot this EIR some six years ago, which relies on
District figures from n~arly nine years ago. MorQover, the
attendance areas of the: District have changed due to its
reorganization and addi~ional development of the area has
increased the n~ed for ~chools. Finally state funding is
depleted, and the law permits additional mitigation. These
factors need to be analyzed in the context of a new EIR preparad
at least to address the: irnnact on schools. Th.refore, thQ
District respectfully requ~5ts that the EIR prepared for an
earlier project not be used absent a full review of the factors
presented herein. '
Very truly yours,
BREON, O'DONNELL, MILLER,
BROWN & DANNIS
7f)~ti UA-- 1~11 by DiP
-Priscilla Brown
FB:kmd
\5180\TOIlG3.L9'
",
STATE OF CALIFORNIA - mE RESOURCES AGENCY
PETE WILSON, Governor
DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME
POST OFFICE SOX 47
YOUNlVlLLE, CALlFORtl1A it4SIX1
(707) 944-5500
@
April
26, 1995
Mr. Lawrence L_ Tong
Planning Director
City of Dublin
Post Office Box 2340
Dublin, California 94568
Dear r-Ir. Tong:
!?A ~::,-007 Eansen Ranch Phase II - GeUt::,cd.l PIa.!'l A'(llenclm.;:llt,
Planned Development/Rezone and Tentative Map Amendment
Alameda County
Department of Fi:;>!l dml GcUll~ f>c,(,solll1.;:l hav.:=: rc:vi~'''ed t!:e
proposed Hansen Ranch ameucments. The project is lecated ~est of
Silvergate Drive, north of Eansen Drive, and south of Winding Trail
Lane in the Dublin Sphere of Influence, unincorporated Alameda
County. The amendments propose to redesignate"2.4 acres frem Open
Space/Stream Corridor to Lo~ Density Single Family Residential, and
allow 16 homesites to be moved into the rezoned area. The area was
previously approved for a roadway to traverse the open space, The
Department has four concerns regarding the proposed amend~ents.
First, the rezoning of Open Space and proposal for 16
homesites to occupy the rezoned north area of the property, nearly
creates an open-space "island" at the center of the prope:::-ty. The
Department recommends that a:::-eas to be retained as open space not
be completely encircled by development as this decre~~eG the v~lue
of the area for wildlife. We also recommend open-space areas be
connected by corridors to allow wildlife passage between the areas_
An BO-foot gap on the northwest side and a 320-root gap on the
northeast side of the proposed homesite relocation severely
restricts wildlife movement. The previously approved Tentative Map
#5766 (February 27, 1989) designates the center and northwest side
or the property as continuous open space which would follcw the
Dcp~rtmcnt'a guidclincc on providing contiguouc wildlife corridcrc.
Second, in the certified Environmental Impact Report (ErR),
surveys for Alameda whip snake , a State-listed species as
threatened, were not conducted. Apparently surveys for the snake
have been conducted on other property in the area. However,
surveys on other proper~y does not obviate the need for Alameda
whipsnake surveys on the',Hansen Ranch site, especially since open
RECEIVED
APR 2 6 1995
H&t-l ENTERPR I SES
82813955
p.el
Post.it' Fax N..:k
Da'E', .- " II of ...
7671 . "-: at i ':;; pages....
Robert John Nielsen
11637 Allegre Drive
Dublin, Ca. 94568
Tel (510) 828-1322
7k TOM . -:--'~--:~--:~-, From:; 'I,,. 1-0 ., 'I
" C"D~~';'~!~'..;~'<,: I:~.~~... .,' ,
t'mne .1 --: :'.'. .'o' I' ""r... ;
--'---.. .-.,..------l.;:,-------.--
I "ax #. ,. -- .. I:: ~
~~~~._..,~-,.;-:.:~--- f- C ~.,,!.,.~: ~__!~:._'L";-":~0-
April 26, 1995
City of Dublin
Planning Commission
P.O. Box 2340
Dublin, Ca. 94568
Tel (510) 833-6610
Fax (510) 833-6628
Members of the Planning Commission,
I strongly oppose any changes in the tentative map (Hansen Property Track
6308). This map was approved several years ago. One of the conditions being
providing access the Nielsen Property. We have done studies on the Nielsen Property
based on the conditions of this map.
As you will note in the original plan no hous~s were on this street because it
was planned as access to the r\ ielsen Property.
Sincerely,
I') ...... '/
f r tikr_ t ~1! {~f.i-[._ .j
Robert John Nielsen
RECEIVED
APR 2 7 1995
RECEIVED
~PR 2 6 '995
,",USlIN ptANNIN'
. il~&~ ~d-hc;{j;;/j C1
D Y~bll~1 J Ct<) ql({& Y
A~'fl-! ~qJ Iqq)
C k-. J r /j.'
t ' 1 (. j j) 0,0 J n I '
P 10 V) II f f) q (ji;;fJ iJ1 ( j5 I (If\ "
Po g{;~ \3'10
o i\bl/n CA QL(S0?
[:1 11iL P( 4 /1fi i (\ g. U7(l mirr;; ~\ : 1/,..
A In;tlV1Y! 1"/(3 1(twd.. sej..tdi'.t dtY'vJ ht;f pt/fJ17rj- ..
Yr cZ fc oftWi {1 ~ {riA. ( f II, bit L /Lgf1 (;!7 (J / :[ rrn II!" /;;/11 J
Iu -(x.(12 5;5" 1Y"d' opJl C'5mf/r\.-b fff pr{lYtJdfttcho/lijV'cY ,
fo {/~cZ J1(,iY:~/7V K~/Ii{J f10Jev1c 1hL ~ 1- curp.;ifr;
(j'f'f/iO.ftd tf!1:' Sft1a( rptfMn &:,(Ot;&v (/'t/'/fic I{l\/
6dJi,ffr:n17& h~/i'CJi0fjb shhldJ ~!rr){pjl(l/d ~~d~
h ftfvJi a)' c/vJ M 0/,[. A0. t!:'1 <7U'qf'rd~!4 s:ht~7(J 11.rrI-}fJ-
ovr,J5f.,v:o!1 j;{ /i1CvrP;0~0 e~ f}!IJ;~ ~1t/'f/T~/-X- f
aj) L,J#,f//if;,I({j P{J-YA l;(i~, (J",.o~>> "L brfM/11~
f, O/,},lln. Wt1J! sh~ 111 Ji), ta!~1 .{;..//;/4'd~~
{'~ -tAL ;,:{-1Mn~ ,1. plMf c?'/'/icf wilcl /rfe.. ~/t6(~
~o (1 ir(d1lu.J ilJ2/'.-Ldl?rYfV' {;~ fi.L {lYlrnd
CRff'1 (NttY ,
ik<-n-vL VjJ~,--b IWi/V' [lM9~dvA') .
GWP0cPRI!Jlyv~~
f4 IN<t Y'J.. L. Httfha hl4j#
APR-27-95 THU 10:28
EBRPD GENERAL MANAGER
FAX NO, 5105691417
P. 02
REGIONAL PARKS
--~-----::-~-:-- --~~-::.:---~~- ------.<::::-----~-:>-----.
---
5AST B~.Y REGiONAL PARK DISTRICT
April 27, 1995
:;,.~-~= Of :.;I;o:~r.;7=.;:t:.:
7".;.:-..~c.;.-:-
;"'~:'.i:.~r:':'
Ms. Tasha Huston
Associate Planner
City of Dublin
100 Civic Plaza
Dublin, CA 94568
~_~;.-::: :;,T',::,~
.' ;:.:..~;_:~;~,~7::
;". ~.,':::;..;~r.:=.i
. . -= .:.~:;.:-~~;
;:-:::'-::~;
:~~..:: ,::~,'(:!:'!
...;.,:~~..~:~ .;';';~r,-::
:~"-:' "_1."~.'
:7-::' ,":',=,~-:."
.3:--:--'.=,. ~h:!';;'~':';i:r
Subject:
PA 95-007 Hansen Ranch Phase" (Las Trampas to Pleasanton Ridge)
Dear Tasha:
I understand that at their April 17th meeting, the Dublin Planning Commission asked
for input from the East Bay Regional Park District regarding the open space and trail
amendments contained in Hansen Ranch Phase II plan. In response to the
Commission's request, the District offers the following comments. These comments
are consistent with our Guidelines For Open Space Planning and Management
document, which I recently sent to you.
As approved, the trail and open space corridor along Martin Creek are integral
components and amenities of the future Hansen Ranch project, and provide an
important local trail connection to Skyline Ridge and the District's future Las Trampas
to Pleasanton Ridge Regional Trail. The approved open space plan protects a
contiguous riparian wildlife corridor; effectively creates a linear park by integrating the
local trail with the natural landscape; and provides an adequate privacy separation
important to homeowners and trail users alike.
In reviewing the exhibits of the tentative map amendments, it appears that a
proposed shift of 16 single family homes into the previously designated open space
area would impinge on the trail along Martin Creek; and effectively bisect the open
space, thereby reducing its habitat and recreational value, In summary, the previously
approved plan would appear to better address the City's original interest in providing
a valuable and usable open space, trail and habitat corridor.
If you have any further questions or comments please do not hesitate to call me at
635-0138 ext. 2623,
Sincerely,
~
Andrea Mackenzie
Park Planner
~
~ 2!J50 ?erafca Cal<,s C:ourt
P.O, f-inx 5:JS,' eJBkl.:t.-.; '-'.~
;4605 O:JB 1 tel: 510 f:J.~ 07S:.:-; TOO: 510 ,~,';.~ ';.;1.':.^' ;::....". "'~"" ;:;'~":c A'~~~
Mr. Lawrence L. Tong
April 26, ~995
Page Two
space in the previously approved plan would have a significantly
different use under the proposed amendments. Alameda whinsnake
surveys should be conducted-to determine whether or not the
proposed amendments would impact this State-listed species.
Third, Martin Canyon Creek corridor would be significantly
impacted hy ~nF. rp.l0r.n~inn nr in hom~sites. In previously approved
documents (February 27, 1989) it is stated, Haccess roads
(including emergency access roads), arterial streets and collector
streets that must pass through open space areas shall be designed
to minimize crradincr to the maximum extent possible so as noe to
damage the e~ologi~al and/or aesthetic value and characteristics of
the onen SDace area." The proDosed amendments would reou::..re
significantly more grading to occur in the Open Space/Riparian
Cu.l.":ridor th;..t.'cby !"':~"=elL.i..ll:J LhE:l potential for more impacts than what
would be expected with the approved minimal road grading.
Additionally, no mitigation is presented to address the potential
impacts to the creek and oak/bay woodland if this activity ccc:.:rs.
Fourth, overall sicrnl=lca~t site develonment amendments are
being proposed based on~an EIR prepared in D~cember 1987 and
certified on February 27, 1989. Given the elapsed time, the issues
or encircling the open s?ace, no Alameda whip snake surveys, and
additional grading in the open space and riparian corrider should
be addressed in a sunolemental EIR. The impacts to biolocrical
resources from the proposed project amendme~ts are significant and
warrant additional ErR documentation.
Based on the above concerns, the Department recommends against
approval of the proposed gene~al plan, zoning, and tentative map
amendments, The proposed site amendments are significantly
different than the project described in the certified E!R (1989)
If you have any questions, please contact, Margaret Roper,
Fishery Biologist, at (408) 8~2-8917; or Caitlin Bean,
Environmental Specialist, at (707) 944-5570,
Sincerely,
;~~.
Ken Aasen
Regional Manager
Region 3
cc: Ms. Marti Buxon
California Pacific Homes
120 Village Square, #130
Orinda, California 94563
'.
HANSEN RANCH
AMENDED PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REZONING
#4 - WRITTEN STATEMENT
Phase 2 of Hansen Ranch consists of 108 single family lots. As amended, all of the lots
will be flat, buildable pads. In the currently approved plan, there are 19 custom lots that
have very little flat area and are primarily sloped. Given the current market and the
demand for custom lots in the size range of Hansen Ranch, the 19 custom lots would be
very slow to develop. The 16 lots that are designated as custom lots on the Amended
Planned Development Rezoning map are planned to be built by California Pacific Homes
at the time Phase 2 is developed. The currently approved houses for Phase 2 were
designed in 1989. They are too big and outdated for today's market. When Phase 2 is
ready for construction, new house plans will be submitted and homes will be designed to
fit those lots currently designated as "custom". This benefits the City of Dublin in that all
the homes will be built at the same time in Phase 2. There will be no need to wait for the
sale of individual custom lots. Therefore, revenues generated by the construction and sale
of the homes will be available sooner to the City.
One ofthe~goals in amending and redesigning the subdivision is to reduce the amount of
~ra<!~i--Thi~-has been done in Phase 2 with two primary be~efits to theCrty. One, the
street grades are less severe and will be safer and more pleasant to drive. Two, Lots 160
through 180, in front of the two exiting knolls, have been shifted north, away from the
knolls. This has greatly reduced the amount of grading and eliminated the need for filling
and contouring the existing knolls and creating a manufactured hill commonly known as
"Mt. Jacoby". The knolls are highly visible on the horizon throughout the City of Dublin.
It is a benefit to the City that they will remain in their current natural state.
The design changes due to the discovery of the earthquake fault and the placement oflots
in the area previously graded for required roadways are detailed in the General Plan
Amendment written statement which is being processed simultaneously with the Amended
PD Rezoning and the Amended Tentative Map.
All of the costs that are associated with the approved Planned Development Rezoning will
remain the same.
#9i - PROJECT SUM11AR. Y
All aspects of the project summary remain the same as currently approved except for those
identified below in item #12..
PAGE-LOF 10
~CIIV~D
-e V;~,OO
. a 1 0 19 5
, .,LfN~~N~~~~~
ATTACHMeNT 10
Page Two
HANSEN RANCH
AN1ENDED PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REZONING
#10 - PRELIMINARY LANDSCAPE PLAN
The plant palette and general locations of the proposed plants remains the same. The
Amended Planned Development Rezoning site plan prepared by Gates and Associates for
this submittal depicts those locations.
#11 BUILDING ELEVATIONS
The architectural plans prepared by Shleppy Hesmalhalch Associates referenced in the
currently approved PD Prezoning , Resolution No. 129-89 remain the same. As stated
before, as the time for construction of Phase 2 nears, new house plans will be submitted
for approval.
#16 SPECIAL INFORMATION - GENERAL PROVISIONS
List of those general provisions of approved PD District which are affected by the Proposed amendment.
#1.A. Attached are five reduced copies of the preliminary landscape master plan. The
quality, quantity and general design of the preliminary landscape master plan prepared by
Gates and Associates will remain the same. Sheet 1, the overall illustrative landscape plan,
has been revised and is now designated as the Amended Planned Rezoning Phase II site
plan. Sheet 2 only shows Phase 1. Sheets 2 through 6 depict the planning concept and
plant list which will remain the same except that the lot locations will be modified as
shown on the amended site plans. Sheet 7 can be omitted as "Mt. Jacoby" will no longer
be built and therefore does not need to be reseeded to this extent. The 1995 Gates PD site
plan that is included shows the extent of reseeding in this area. Sheets 8, 9 and 10 are all
Phase 1. The design concepts of Sheets 11 through 14 will be maintained in the amended
plan. Sheets 15 and 16 depict crib wall design and locations. Crib walls have been
eliminated in the amended plan.
· #3.B References the rear yards of specific lots. The lot numbers will be modified
during the Site Development Review process.
· #7. Minimum lot size remains at 5700 square feet. The average lot size is amended
to 7560 square feet. The change from 7700 sf to 7560 sfis primarily due to the
elimination of all non-padded custom lots. The steeply sloped custom lots in the
currently approved plan tended to be deeper than is necessary for a lot with a buildable
pad. All current siting requirements will be met.
· #24 The expiration date of the approval was superseded by the Development
Agreement for Hansen Ranch.
llECEIVED
Pff ~ ~t:tn
FEB 1 Ogfu ~
~~.tAN~'N'~
All other general provisions of the planned development remain the same.
0,11;'" l 0'" 10
..,._C_ f_
HANSEN RANCH
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT
~.~TTENSTATEMENT
A Gen~~_~Lrlan ~_e..~c!m~I!tfor~~E(l~e 2 is _ ~~~_~~J?Ei~!!_~Jr ~~ ~_ r~~~lt _ of the discovery in
1992 by Berlogar Geotechnical Consultant-s that the projection 9:f~~~J?!l~FI!Jault~crosse_~
the west~_mR.~!! of the_~!t~: The Dublin fault is not considered active but Berlogar
recommends "structtires intended for human occupancy be setback a minimum of 50 feet
from the fault zone". This constraint requires a reconfiguration of the site plan.
Hansen Ranch is a difficult and expensive site to build. For the project to be financially
feasible to build, the project must maintain a yield of 180 lots, as currently approved in
the tentative map. (Note: the general plan allows up to 240 lots, 60 more lots than
requested. )
In the amended general plan, Lots 88 through 100 and 153 through 156 are placed within
the limits of grading for the construction of the required "Loop Road" and the required
"Stub Street" in the currently approved plan. The area was previously designated as
"Collector Street through the Open Space" and will now be designated as Low Density
Single Family Residential. The required "Loop Road" is still designated as "Collector
Street through the Open Space".
The site is not located on a hazardous waste and substance site
R LCJ J V E D
~ ~- j- 00,
~-:B 1 1995
- S'~
.YILIN PlANN\Nr ~
'-',,(;'": '3 U-1; /0
,\,.,/__1_
HANSEN RANCH
AMENDED TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP
SUBDIVISION 6308
#4 - WRITTEN STATEMENT
The project details, benefits and costs either remain the same as currently approved or are
amended as described in the written statements for the General Plan Amendment or the
Amended Planned Development Rezoning.
a) The inconsistency with the current General Plan is outlined in the written statement
of the General Plan Amendment and depicted on the Planned Development Rezoning
maps.
b through e) All of these findings remain the same for the Amended Tentative as they
are for the currently approved Tentative Map.
#12 - SPECIAL INFORMATION
See #12 of the Amended Planned Development Rezoning.
REcrlVEQ
.RA- ere, -CD f
II .( ~;'~t~ ~ P JI~9B, ~ L
,1 ;'!:' "t Or: ll\. '~l'N Df ?--<-{,tv\~." tv! (
;\~L_ I ~ -. '-Y-\NN'N~) v
HANSEN RANCH
PHASE"
2/8/95
Current Proposed
Plan Plan
Open Space/Stream Corridor 55.4 AC 55.5 AC
(Not includinq roads and slopes)
Open Space/Stream Corridor 60.9 AC 58.5 AC
Low Density Single Family Residential Acreage 42.4 AC 44,7 AC
(Slopes, streets, and lots)
I
Low Density Single Family Residential Density (0.5 to 3.8 DU/AC)I 2.5 DU/AC 2.3 DU/AC
(Slopes, streets, and lots)
Area that the current plan grading encroaches 27.5 AC
beyond the proposed plan grading
Area that the proposed plan grading encroaches 4,1 AC
beyond the current plan aradinq ;
Area that the current plan tree removals encroaches 6,6AC
beyond the proposed plan tree removals
Area that the proposed plan tree removals encroaches 3.5AC
bevond the current plan tree removals
RECEIVED
QA <1~-Cb1
fEB 1 0 1995. ~
~,i)vVL1
eM,;: 5 n.. to
11'''''!''''_..II_._
From r'larti BtL-.ton/Ph~: ':51OJ254-6968 PHONE rlo. 510 254 7954
Mar. 10 1'395 S:Cf;,pr'l POI
Martha W. Buxton
Real estate Development Services
120 Village Sql,lCrO #130
Orindo, Co 94563
(510) 754-696S
FAX (510) 254-7954
DATE: MARCH 10, 1995
TO:
.~c
t,~
114~ t.
HANSEN RANCH, PHASE If 'f.Jl1ll. ! 0 ~
ACREAGE FOR 16 lOTS TO BE REZONED 'Iv ,ol4
AREA SUMMARY FOR GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT IV"'IAlt"
A!> rcquc!:ted, Adame-Streeter has calucloted the following:
TASHA HOUSTON
FROM:
MARTI BUXTON
RE:
AC1(EAGIO Or- 16 LOTS IN A1(!:A CURReNTLY ZONeD OPEN SPAC(; = 2.78 ACRES
AREA S'U'MMARY
HANSm RANCH
PHASE I & PHASE II
MARCH 9t 1995
~Ht\SE I FHASE U
Lot Area 13.13 AC 18.74 AC
Street Area 5.60 AC 7.60 AC
Slope Area 11.52 AC 18.42 AC
Open Space 13.33 AC 58.50 AC
(Including Streets
and Slopes)
Total Area 43.58 AC 103.26 AC
n, '~r (, .-,c I 0
ri'it:c. _ Ur _--.",~.~
Martha W. Buxton
Real Estate Development Services
120 Village Square #130
Orinda, Co 94563
(510) 254-6968
FAX (510) 254-7954
DATE:
APRIL 6, 1995
TO:
FROM:
TASHA HOUSTON, ASSOCIATE PLANNER
MARTI BUXTON~ ~
CONSULTANT, CALIFORNIA PACIFIC HOMES
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, PHASE TWO OF HANSEN RANCH
STATEMENT OF GREATER OR EOUIVALENT MITIGATION TO REDUCE THE IMPACTS OF
THE AMENDED TENTATIVE MAP, FOR PHASE TWO OF HANSEN RANCH
RE:
Hansen Ranch was approved in 1989 as a 180 lot subdivision but has not been
economically feasible to build due to excessive construction costs both on-site and off-
site. California Pacific Homes has undertaken a redesign of Hansen Ranch in order to
enable construction of needed housing in the City of Dublin and to provide economic
benefits for the community in terms of potential increased tax revenues. Both of these
public benefits are noted in Resolution No. 19-89, Attachment A-2. This has been
accomplished primarily by significantly reducing the amount of grading and designing
all lots as production lots in Phase II.
The area of grading in Phase 2 has been reduced by 23.45 acres in the proposed plan
as compared to the 1989 approved plan. In addition to reducing costs and the physical
impacts associated with the grading operation, reduced grading has the added benefit
of mitigating the visual impact of the project from the community. A 16.28 acre area in
the southwest portion of the site with two existing knolls will remain natural and
ungraded. In the current plan the saddle between the knoll is filled creating a
manufactured hill which would be highly visible throughout the community.
The current plan includes 19 "custom" lots which have steep slopes with very little level
area. Homes are not likely to be built on these lots for many years. The proposed plan
consists solely of production lots which will be built in a timely manner producing
revenues for the City.
In order to maintain a lot count equal to that currently approved, 16 lots (lots 88 to 100 of
the proposed plan) are located in an area designated as open space with a collector
street. In the current plan this area is graded for a loop road and a stub street to serve
potential future development. The proposed lots are located within the limits of grading
of road construction in the current plan. The total acreage of the lots is 2.78 acres. The
following is offered as equal or greater mitigation to reduce the impacts of the lots in the
currently designated open space.
""i',.. -., ,-, lO
~. .';.~ t.. f" , t l;~
I"-,,;__V: _~_
Page Two
Phase Two, Mitigation
· 3.16 acres adjacent to the lots will remain open space and will be revegetated as
depicted on the attached exhibit.. Three new trees of at least 15 gallon size shall be
provided to mitigate the loss of each existing tree over 10 inches in diameter. If
coast live oaks and big leaf maple are utilized, the minimum size may be reduced to
five gallon.
· Prior to the issuance of a grading permit there will be a preliminary staking of the
limits of grading surrounding areas of the ook/bay woodlands to be removed. A
certified arborist will tag each tree over 10 inches in diameter. The Planning
Department will then determine the number of trees to be planted as described in
the above revegetation program.
· Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, significant, visually important trees and
tree clusters shall be tagged in the field for protection, A cyclone, or other
appropriate fence, shall be erected around the dripline of these marked trees to
ensure their protection throughout the grading and construction activity, subject to
review and approval of the Public Works Director and the Planning Director.
· 1.38 additional acres of open space is created in the proposed plan by shifting lots
160 through 180 slightly to the north the of the area designated as Open Space in
the southwest portion of the site as depicted on the attached exhibit.
· Wildlife corridors are maintained by having gaps between the lots (320 feet
between lots 88 and 87 and 80 feet between lots 104 and 105) which prevents large
mammals from being isolated due to the roadway/lot construction.*
*As an historical note: It was brought to my attention last month that the Mitigation
Monitoring Program adopted February 27, 1989 included a requirement for a box culvert
under the roadway at the confluence of two canyons in the northwestern portion of the
site. The current plan does not include this design nor was it made a condition of
approval. I was unaware that it had been formally adopted as a mitigation. When I
became involved with Hansen in April, 1989 I was told that Fish and Game, as
represented by Terry Palmisano, had stated that box culverts were not effective in that
the animals merely crossed the road at will and did not seek out nor use box culverts.
" . ,',.. 'V ,_" Ii,!
:i-;::C _L t..;i' __~..
~
-.--,...--"" ;
,,---,,/ ;
. ,,-,...." ' jJ
./' ~~ '
~_~ji;;2~
~-d..-~:.::::::::~:~~-="
....... ..-/ ....__ _.n.~-__. ..
........--....----
.... - ---"---'--""
~- - -::::::"~.---
r/ -'.,
",
U\
-
a
~.
~. '"
~:~ \\
(\\.\\\ \
;p..' .\
.' /
.~ '. \, \ ",-'--,-! '-..
\\.'" "" " . ._\"
\\\ :,~;7~<::--~3
. \' " " ,",' '-- -..,.. ' ,! \
\. '<""" '. ,':;-::~-'-':'''''1.J'r 'i I i
.;',..,':::',..,.,,"'--,"""..,'~ ! I i I : \ I
'. ",,', ", ' _ "u' , r., I I, l I
,,\' --,i' "I !i 1
'. \"'" '-__,'. 'I II,\, ',\ \ ~ ~ ' \ \ \. ' ~
", " '_,u_, '. ' \ .. ''. '. 'Iio' ", \. '. \ " '!:l
" " -'--- '. \ ! \., " \, \ .', \ \,. ~
"
, ' .
I' '
!
, I
\'
"
,,'.,\.:\
/'
, \
//
./
:1 !
, '
iI,
'"
~
/ .
--".-
._.~....-
,#
~
, .i'
-#'.1
!
;;'0,
"'#,
'!
#
#'
"
.j
,/
-' .
a'
US"
. :>~~(}~.\
_I"'"
. ,
~
~
~\ '.,
~ '.
i
! i
/ ;
(, . ""
Ii / ,I k,
. , i' / ,r" i
./ / /',l /\/1' .
, '. ~/ f I -,',',/,'> ,,'.,.,",".~....~ ~.y,~/~'-
.......'// , ',:\' i " c:'\'," ' ',/ :,< ."
" /, /'/' ! ,~4/ 1/ / ~-_/ ,., '.
/' ,. / / X ! . ,(fl ,f' oe=--/
__<#-~/ __ V : )/1/;:' / /;:=-:,/ ,;
( (' 1'__ /.~~~zjll'." .,-' (F;! 10 -,~:::::'~.
\. I ... , .. :;J, ' ;V1'
'. \ \' j elf'l I, : :
'\,~\~",,\ '. \ t-,~~ ~" I
..... \ \"1,~1:.' ,
. ! ',':':: I '
, ..
1
I
I
1
~ '~,"~-~ ~
-, '~r'v~~\~~ -l~--=
~ ~ >} I@ ~' -- ---_
~ )4 ~ '~cY
.: ~ ~ ~ :' !~. 1 ~ ·
1'E,;v<; ~/l !@
~X~~/j !@
~ y; ~ I@ ~ !
y~
) ~ ~ ~ I(V
IX I: I
h~~7 l@ ~ I@ 1 _ -
f )( '}I. V ' J.,t 't ii@
y ~ 1 ~
j )( '<~ "t i %. ~ -=-.." ~@
, V~ """ ~ ' I-
~ ~ 7@) ~;:? 1- ~
~~~ E. Zoo ~ ~ It ~@ )
l 'X ';('1 f 7 t:\ . r
~ X A- a~ ~ /' .. ~G) i@ 1@
~~~ 1'i' I. f 7 A · ~
'Y')<~ L iJ\!J 4 'l/i !~
~ I~, L
y< ~ I
.;<. 1
~ t@ I I
?-
~ ~~.
~~" 1@II'l'
\w:~ _
.;<
~ I!?:\" ~T.~
'><)( \9 ~ a'-
jx x - ~ ---
'>.\ ~ 1 '
t~~ i@ 4 ~I
f><70>, .. I I
N~ 11:;\ ~
j}J~' t\!l ~ J
W 1. 'f. --
~ ii@- J/... i;: l ~ ~
~ ~ 'I ~...~ ~ 1($)1:1-J 7 i ·
It( ~ ~~~ ~~ I I@!i~~;-
"'\v'~: .(2\ it I ~n~~ ., ~ I ~ 1-
, 7 _ /' ~./ i\!J lir:;\~" ~"?H, ... It =r; Li@~/
~<ID ... .J1/K i1l~.i) I .. ~ "':J... ~~ ...
... t,'d//I ~ ---!. 7_ h r ~_....~./
'..J'-' __"'"'_ ____
~
~
:=
~
~ ~
t:t'J ~
>- 1:j
~ ~
ts ~
C1
2
/
, ,-, "'- -" "--, -,.
-..
.
UI
0)
Q
o
..,
~
CO
1~
i\!J
II;
..
7...- 4'\ .-
!.: V
FAGE J1L n;~ 10
MORRISON & FOERSTER
RECEIVED
NEW YORK
WASHINGTON. D,C.
DENVER "'1/nUN PLANNIN'
LONDON
BRUSSELS
HONG KONG
TOKYO
APR 2 7 1995
SAN FRANCISCO
LOS ANGELES
SACRAMENTO
ORANGE COUNTY
PALO ALTO
SEAITLE
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
PLEASE RESPOND TO:
P. 0, BOX 8130
WALNUT CREEK. CA 94596-8130
101 YGNACIO VALLEY ROAD. SUITE 450
WALNUT CREEK. CA 94596-4095
TELEPHONE (510) 295-3300
TELEFACSIMILE (510) 946-99U
DIRECT DIAL NUMBER
(510) 295-3351
April 27, 1995
VIA MESSENGER
Chairman Zika and Dublin
Planning Commissioners
City of Dublin
Civic Center
100 Civic Plaza
Dublin, CA 94568
Re: California Pacific Homes -- General Plan
Consistency of Phase II Approvals for Hansen
Hill Ranch Project
Dear Chairman Zika and Planning Commissioners:
Weare writing on behalf of our client, California Pacific Homes
("CPH"), to discuss the consistency of the proposed general plan amendment, planned
development rezoning and revision to the tentative map for Phase II of the Hansen Hill
Ranch project (collectively, the "Phase II Approvals"), with the Dublin General Plan.
Hansen Hill Ranch is currently approved for a 180 lot residential subdivision on the
147 acre project site. The Phase II Approvals would reconfigure the 108 lots within
Phase II of the project, while keeping the total number of lots equal to that currently
approved. Under the Phase II Approvals, sixteen lots would be relocated to an area
(the "Sixteen Lot Area") currently designated as open space, although virtually all of
the Sixteen Lot Area would be graded for a collector street under the currently
approved plan. To put the Phase II Approvals in the proper context, only
approximately 2.4 net acres of the entire project site would be redesignated from open
space to low density single-family residential.
As discussed below, the Phase II Approvals are consistent with the Dublin
General Plan. Legally, there is no question that the City can amend its General Plan to
redesignate 2.4 net acres from open space to residential so long as the resulting
redesignation would not create an internal inconsistency in the General Plan. Gov't.
Code ~ 65300.5. Therefore, as stated in the April 25, 1995 memorandum proVIded to
the Planning Commission by the City Attorney (the "City Attorney Memorandum"),
the only legal question is whether the end result is an internally consistent general plan.
MORRISON & FOERSTER
April 27, 1995
Page Two
The staff report for the April 17, 1995 Planning Commission study
session (the "Staff Report") expressed the Planning Staff's concern that the Phase II
Approvals are inconsistent with certain General Plan policies, and that these policies
would therefore need to be revised or the Phase II Approvals would need to be
amended or denied. We believe that the Staff Report reflects an unduly conclusive and
rigid reading of the General Plan, and that the Phase II Approvals would not require
such revisions to General Plan policies. As stated in the City Attorney Memorandum,
the Planning Commission and City Council have wide discretion in determining
whether the Phase II Approvals are consistent with the General Plan policies. In
addition, consistency of the Phase II Approvals with the General Plan should be
determined by considering whether the Phase II Approvals would advance the
objectives and policies of the General Plan as a whole, not by strictly evaluating each
individual General Plan policy in isolation.
A. The Phase II Approvals Advance the General Plan Policies Cited by
the Staff Report,
The Staff Report refers to a number of General Plan policies that are
related to the Phase II Approvals, but specifies only four policies with which the
Phase II Approvals "would be inconsistent." See Staff Report, page 6. These four
policies are:
Policv 3 o1( a). Preserve oak woodlands, riparian vegetation, and natural
creeks as open space for their natural resource value.
Policv 7 o1( a). Protect riparian vegetation as a protective buffer for stream
quality and for its value as a habitat and aesthetic resource.
Policy 70 3( a) 0 Protect oak woodlands.
Policy 7.7 (c) 0 Require revegetation of cut and fill slopes.
1. The Phase II Approvals Would Preserve Over Three Additional
Acres of Oak Woodlands.
Policy 7.3(a) and part of Policy 3. 1 (a) call for the preservation and
protection of oak woodlands. The Phase II Approvals would advance these policies
because overall, 3.1 fewer acres of oak woodlands would be removed on the p~oject
site under the Phase II App[ovals than under the currently approved plan. See Staff
Report, Attachment 2, page 5. Even the oak woodlands within the Sixteen Lot Area
would not be preserved under the currently approved plan because virtually all of the
Sixteen Lot Area would be graded for a roadway under the current plan. Thus, the
MORRISON & FOERSTER
April 27, 1995
Page Three
Phase II Approvals are consistent with the policies that call for the preservation and
protection of oak woodlands.
2. The Phase II Approvals Would Result In Less Overall Degradation
of Riparian Vegetation.
The same is true with respect to preservation of riparian vegetation as
called for by General Plan policies 3 .l(a) and 7.l(a). The Phase II Approvals promote
these policies because overall, there would be significantly less grading in riparian
areas under the Phase II Approvals than under the currently approved plan. In
addition, to the extent that any riparian vegetation currently exists within the Sixteen
Lot Area, such vegetation would be eliminated even under the currently approved plan
due to grading for the roadway. Therefore, the Phase II Approvals would actually
cause less overall degradation of riparian vegetation than the currently approved plan.
3. CPR Will Revegetate all Cut and Fill Slopes as Required bv the
General Plan.
The Phase II Approvals are also consistent with policy 7. 7(c), which
requires the revegetation of cut and fill slopes. The fact that the Phase II Approvals
would reduce the amount of cut and fill slopes within the project site is not inconsistent
with this policy, which simply requires revegetation of such areas after cutting and
filling occurs. Policy 7. 7(c) does not preclude reduction of the amount of cut and fill
slopes in a project, it merely states that such slopes should be revegetated. As required
by this policy, CPR will revegetate all cut and fill slopes within the project site whether
or not the Phase II Approvals are granted. In sum, contrary to the implications in the
Staff Report, each of these General Plan policies would be furthered by the Phase II
Approvals.
B, The Phase II Approvals Will Promote Other General Plan Policies.
As pointed out in the Staff Report, there are a number of other General
Plan policies that are related to the Phase II Approvals. The Staff Report does not
suggest that the Phase II Approvals are inconsistent with these other policies, and we
agree. In fact, the Phase II Approvals would promote a number of other policies. For
example, policies 2.1.4(c), 3.l(c), 3.3(g) and 3.3(h) all relate to restricting
development along ridgelines. In furtherance of these policies, the Phase II Approvals
provide that a 16.28 acre area in the southwest portion of the site with two exi~ing
knolls will remain natural ap.d ungraded. In the currently approved plan, the saddle
between the knolls is filled, creating a manufactured hill that would be highly visible
throughout the community. Thus, the Phase II Approvals would serve to advance these
and other General Plan policies.
MORRISON & FOERSTER
April 27, 1995
Page Four
C. Consistency of the Phase II Approvals with the General Plan Should
Not Be Determined by Strictly Evaluating Individual General Plan
Policies, But By Considering the General Plan as a Whole.
Although the Planning Staff is concerned about the consistency of the
Phase II Approvals with specific General Plan policies, the City Attorney
Memorandum correctly points out that in evaluating whether the Phase II Approvals are
consistent with the General Plan, it should be recognized that the General Plan is a
policy level document that is necessarily flexible and subject to a certain amount of
interpretation. Frequently, a proper balancing of the numerous policies contained in a
general plan, when viewed as an integrated whole, would not warrant strict adherence
to a particular policy in light of compelling or countervailing policies. Indeed, it is
beyond doubt that no project could completely satisfy every policy stated in a general
plan, and state law does not impose such a requirement. Sequoyah Hills Homeowners
Assn. v. City of Oakland, 23 CaI.App.4th 704, 719 (1993) (subdivision map for
housing development not inconsistent with city's general plan even though it did not
conform precisely to all general plan policies) citing Greenebaum v. City of Los
Angeles, 153 Cal.App.3d 391, 406-407 (1984); 59 Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen. 129, 131
(1976).
In this case, even if there are some areas of disagreement as to whether
the Phase II Approvals precisely conform with every General Plan policy, such
disagreement would not require that the Phase II Approvals be denied or the General
Plan policies revised. The proposed General Plan amendment would require additional
revisions to General Plan only if it would result in an internal inconsistency in the
General Plan, which it does not. Gov't. Code ~ 65300,5. With respect to the other
Phase II Approvals, state law does not require an exact match between a proposed
project and the applicable general plan. Sequoyah Hills Homeowners Assn. v. City of
Oakland, 23 Cal.App.4th at 717 citing Greenebaum v. City of Los Am!eles, 153
Cal.App.3d at 406-407. A general plan must try to accommodate a wide range of
competing interests -- including those of environmentalists, developers, neighboring
homeowners, prospective homebuyers, taxpayers, and providers and recipients of all
types of city-provided services. Once a general plan is in place, it is the province of
elected city officials to examine the specifics of a proposed project to detennine
whether it would be "in harmony" with the policies stated in the plan. Id. at 719.
At times, general plans contain very specific, objective standards or
implementation measures that can be executed with precision. Such standards rpay
include FAR limitations or peight restrictions in a given area. However, where-, as is
the case with the General PI~m policies raised by the Staff Report, such exacting
standards are not at issue and more general policies are being evaluated, it is
particularly inappropriate, and unlikely that a court would require, a city to implement
MORRISON & FOERSTER
April 27, 1995
Page Five
a particular policy on an acre-by-acre basis so long as the City was generally
implementing the policy on a project-wide or city-wide basis. For example, the fact
that the Dublin General Plan contains guiding policies to protect riparian vegetation
does not mean that the City must deny every proposed project that would in some way
adversely impact riparian vegetation. Nor does it mean that in order to approve such a
project, the City would be required to amend its General Plan policies. Rather, the
project could be determined to be "consistent" with the General Plan if, considering all
its aspects, it would further the objectives and policies of the General Plan. See State
of California, Governor's Office of Planning & Research, General Plan Guidelines, at
212 (1990). Stated another way, to be "consistent", the project must be "in agreement
or harmony with" the General Plan. Sequovah Hills Homeowners Assn., 23
Cal.App.4th at 718 (1993) citing Greenebaum v. City of Los Alll!eles, 153 Cal.App.3d
at 406; 59 Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen at 131; 67 Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen. 75 (1984).
As discussed above, when considering the overall effect of the Phase II
Approvals, it is clear that they are wholly consistent with the General Plan. Thus,
from a legal standpoint, the Planning Commission and the City Council are free to
determine that the Phase II Approvals, as proposed, are consistent with the General
Plan. If you do so determine, the Phase II Approvals can be approved without revising
the General Plan policies.
Thank you for your consideration of this letter.
Very truly yours,
~U~.
Gregory B. Caligari
City Councilmembers (via messenger)
Elizabeth H. Silver, Esq. (via UPS Overnight)
City Attorney
Kathleen Faubion, Esq. (via UPS Overnight)
Assistant City Attorney
Laurence L. Tong (via messenger)
Planning Director
Tasha Huston (via messenger)
Associate Planner
Daniel C. Hedigan, Fsq. (via UPS Overnight)
Marti Buxton (via UPS Overnight)
David A. Gold, Esq.
376448 [15079/1]
cc:
/
, ..
/, r t Jl ( ; i' ,l I"
f\n!' If.dol
i.~ N (..dn'(~':.'1l'
/ c.. ( ',:/"d
~'{t':'l' (,,..;l1il(,'/"'/
R/I~cr f l.irr:>
\rt Ilo1lp"::.:/"l!t)Ol
I..ln'.~' ,,,'OlltUlI!,)
(It,:fJn.~(' A:ltni{,u
(:.iroilyn '-otIC!!
/ldIJ/,/H'"
Roi, Ih(:.l1l1l
N.ojJ ';tJ'o,u'}(dll
tt.dlU/1Il i. Spn1tti
\ " \ 1/ (. : ,I { C ,
I )c!"n',th f/,lcr- \LdJ..'c/
( (I)allC (:.u'[(.(
!\OH !)/I/J/J,T(CCJl
( ;,1 r:1' /1(/ ~
1r....'c..:.:l1I Fino'}("
I\/(["Ini II.IT/,H/n'r
.Hld}ch. I /:tdlllc~t(}!J
CluJ[ ""'l'lnn"
f.:.lrn: A."nf/.lud
!lflJSfl1t L:c
f\.linm,{ .,"lcholl)
.\1. II: "/ld/" (J'C"lIIl(,/1
AnthoNY Pc!ro)
"'I \\',1,,,,,
L\,\ .-i."'fJ(l~Hl'). 1.'1<'.
LSA
rn:::rn1:mt'l11.zi ,.t')t'hmt'lllS
fr,illJplH'Ulum t:nglllCerrng
Rc,,-,un:r .'t,zrwgement
(.lI1J:n::C'l:ty PI.r1lnm~:
Fn:':rtln!I:c1::,tf Nt.'){rH',l{lI1!l
April 27, 1995
RECEIVED
APR 2 8 1995
" '81.fN at A to ,
"-~N'N"
Me, Lawrence L Tong
Planning Director
City of Dublin
100 Civic Plaza
Dublin, CA 94568
Subject:
Phase II Approvals, Effects on Vegetation and Wlldlife
Hansen Hill Ranch, Dublin
Dear Mr, Tong:
We have been asked to evaluate the effects on vegetation and wildlife of
proposed general plan amendment, PD rezoning, and revisions to the tentative
subdivision map applicable to Phase II of California Pacific Homes' Hansen
Hill Ranch project in the City of Dublin. The City approved a general plan
amendment, prezoning, and tentative subdivision map for 180 single family
residential lots on the project site in 1989. Phase II approvals would modify
the lotting pattern in Phase II. The changes also result in a reduction in the
amount of graded area compared to the current approvals.
The Department of Fish and Game (DFG) has indicated they are concerned
about three biological issues related to the proposed changes: 1) effect on the
Martin Canyon Creek riparian corridor, 2) effect on Alameda whipsnakes, and
3) wildlife movement on and through the project site. This letter addresses
the project's effects on each of the three areas of concern.
The Department has expressed the concern that the proposed relocation of
the lots will adversely effect the ability of wildlife to move along the Martin
Canyon Creek ri pari an corridor by significantly increasing grading in this area.
The area proposed for grading and vegetation remOval along this drainage is
essentially the same on the approved and proposed tentative maps and as a
result the physical modification of habitat is essen~ny the same under both
plans. This results in both maps having similar impacts on vegetation and
wildlife use in this area.
The Hansen Hill Ranch is located within the range of the Alameda whipsnake,
a state listed threatened species. DFG has indicated that project development
~(H:\MALCO~TONG.Ln)
/5,- I'.or.,' /ll.:"l
/::. :';';":1 ) I _~ _'.;IJ-,.,'I,I_'
/', ,:':;. ::I':'I.';.i. ( .;.:'." ":.: 'I';,::
,; " -:'/::.', ';': .'. ~'" ,. ~.,
l.SA ,'1;;11(1.11<';, IlIe.
may impact this species. Alameda whipsnakes are found in Alameda and
Contra Costa counties in areas of open chaparral and coastal scrub vegetation
intermixed with rock outcrops and grassland. These are areas which generally
support high lizard populations, the snakes principal prey. Two whipsnake
surveys have been conducted In the vicinity of the project site, one for the
West Dublin Specific Plan (1989) and the second for the Wiedeman Ranch
project (1991). No whipsnakes were detected in either survey. The adjacent
Donlan Canyon property was evaluated recently (March/April 1995) for its
potential to support whipsnakes. The Donlan Canyon site supports a
vegetative cover similar to the Hansen Hill Ranch and with the exception of
the ridgetops which contain rock outcrops, is not suitable whipsnake habitat.
The Department did not require trapping surveys of that site. The vegetation
on the Hansen Hill ranch project site consists of grassland and oak-bay
woodland. These habitat types are not generally used by whipsnakes unless
found In association with areas of brush and rock outcrops. There are no
areas of brush and rock outcrops in the vicinity of the proposed change and
it does not appear that a trapping survey is necessary.
""1 -
Phase II of the original tentative map has a lotting pattern which results L~ an
approximately 950 foot separation between lots on the north side of the
project, adjacent to Martin Canyon Creek. This area connects the Martin
Canyon Creek corridor with the oak woodland which Phase 2 surrounds, The
project's loop roadway crosses this area and the road corridor would be
graded and existing vegetation cleared under the current approvals. The Phase
II approvals would relocate 16 lots to this area. Two narrower corridors
which connect to Martin Canyon Creek are created by this plan, one of
approximately 330 feet and the second approximately 100 feet in width. The
Department is concerned that wildlife movement to and from the oak
wcxxlland on the site will be restricted by this change. This change would
primarily affect terrestrial species, as birds can easily fly over or through
residential development.
The project EIR includes information on the presence of resident wildlife.
Species noted as being present which would use the oak woodland include
coyote, gray fox, raccoon and black-tailed deer. Other likely resident species
whose movement could be affected by corridor width include opossum,
striped skunk, fox squirrel, and dusky-footed woodrat. All of these species are
known to inhabit undeveloped (open-space) land adjacent to residential
development and will move through residential development, even if no
formal corridors exist, The most sensitive of these species to human activity
are gray fox and coyote. Even these two canids will travel through residential
development. The corridors provided by the Phase n approvals will provide
sufficient area for any of the species noted above to move to and from Martin
Canyon Creek and the project oalC'woodland. The use of these corridors
would be enhanced by planting. oak woodland vegetation which would
reconnect the woodland stands and provide suitable cover for wildlife
movement.
~(H:\MAlCOL~TONG.Inl)
2
l.s.'! .'\"oa.lIe;, llle.
Please let me know if you need any additional information about wildlife use
of this area,
Sincerely,
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.
tfi~~~ J' 1-~
Malcolm J. Sproul
Principal
M]Stka
cc: Tasha Huston
Marti Buxton
Greg Caligari
l
04.i2&'95(H:\MALCOL\f\.fIIl:S\TONG .LTll)
3
Regular Meeting -May 1 , 1995
mmlUW~
A regular meeting of the City of Dublin Planning Commission was held on Monday, May 1, 1995,
in the Dublin Civic Center Council Chambers. The meeting was called to order at 7:31 by
Commissioner Geist.
**********
ROLL CALL
Present: Commissioners Geist, Jennings, Johnson, and Lockhart; Laurence L. Tong; Planning
Director; Carol Cirelli, Senior Planner, Tasha Huston, Associate Planner, and Gaylene Burkett,
Recording Secretary.
Absent: Commissioner Zika
* * * * * * * * * *
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG
Cm. Geist led the Commission, Staff, and those present in the pledge of allegiance to the flag.
* * * * * * * * * *
ADDITIONS OR REVISIONS TO THE AGENDA
The minutes of the April 17, 1995, meeting were approved as submitted.
* * * * * * * * * *
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
None
* * * * * * * * * *
WRTITEN COMMUNICATIONS
None
**********
PUBLIC HEARING
8.1 P A 95-007 Hansen Ranch Phase ll-. The applicant is requesting approval
of a General Plan Amendment. Planned Development (PD) Rezoning. and
Tentative Map Amendment to the approved Tentative Map. The Ransen
Ranch Subdivision includes 180 units overall on a 147 acre site on the west
side of Silvergate Drive. north ofRansen Drive and south of Winding
Trails Lane. The proposed amendments apply to Phase IT of the
subdivision. and involve approximately 2.4 acres of land (overall)
redesignated from open space to residential land use. with 16 homesites
relocated into an Oak/Bay woodland area on the proiect site.
Cm. Geist asked for the staff report.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regular Meeting
{5-1pcmin}
39
May 1, 1995
A IT AC.tf ME-NT l \
Tasha Huston, Associate Planner, presented the staff report. She briefly outlined the project. Ms.
Huston used the overhead projector to show a Summary of Impacts that relate to the significant
environmental effects of the proposal. She showed the grading as proposed and how it was
previously approved. She indicated that Staff felt the proposed plan would be inconsistent with the
GP policies and recommended the Planning Commission recommend denial of the GP Amendment
Rezoning and Tentative Map Amendment to the City Council. Ms. Huston asked the Planning
Commissioners if they had any questions.
Cm. Lockhart ask Ms. Huston to comment on the letter they received late from LSA.
Ms. Huston responded to the LSA letter and outlined concerns raised by the Fish and Game
Department. She stated the comment in the letter about the revegetation on the proposed and
approved projects being about the same, was not correct. She referred to the overhead exhibit that
clearly shows a greater impact under the proposed lot relocation. Ms. Huston said that based on
conversations she had with the Fish and Game Department, they recommended surveys be done on
the project site for the presence of whipsnakes, even though the LSA letter stated that there were no
whipsnakes found on adjacent properties. She said the project had the minimum of 2 acres of
chaparral which would meet the Fish and Game Standards for requiring a survey.
Cm. Lockhart asked if the 2 acre area was in the area where the 16 lots would be relocated.
Ms. Huston stated it was hard to tell from the map.
Cm. Geist asked if the survey would still be required if the project were denied.
Ms. Huston stated that if the Planning Commission took the action to deny the project, and the
Applicant reverted to the old approval, then there would not be a significant enough change to
warrant the survey.
Cm. Jennings asked who requested LSA to evaluate the property and prepare the letter.
Ms. Huston indicated the Applicant.
Cm. Geist asked if the Applicant would like to address the Planning Commission.
Marti Buxton, representing California Pacific Homes, addressed the Planning Commission and
asked for Staffs Summary of Impacts to be presented on the overhead again. She responded to the
three points recommending denial made by Staff. The first was the inconsistencies with GP policy
in Attachment 5, she stated that, with the exception of Section 7.7f, the difference of what was
currently approved and what they had proposed met all the GP policies. Ms. Buxton then
presented to the Planning Commission a map showing the proposed grading. The second point
recommending denial was the Summary of Environmental Impacts. She stated that Staff had
subtracted the 6.6 acres that was graded for the sewer line that was in an area of an active slide
She stated DSRSD would not allow them to build a sewer line in the slide area. She felt the Staff
Report did not mention the visual benefits of the proposed project. Ms. Buxton stated that Staffs
third reason for denial was that the 16 homesites were intended to be a road. She stated this was
why they were asking for the GP Amendment and felt that the benefits of the project outweighed
the GP policy that would need to be changed in that area. Ms. Buxton said that the 100 foot swath
behind the proposed residential lots tpat Staff was showing, was not required. She also stated that
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regular Meeting
{5-lpcrnin}
40
May I, 1995
the Department ofFish and Game's Standards for wildlife openings between lots was 30 feet to
100 feet.
Ms. Huston clarified the statement made by Ms. Buxton, that the Fish and Game had established a
Standard of 30 feet and 100 feet wide for corridors. She referred to EIR text and stated that 30 feet
and 100 feet widths given in the EIR text relate to a buffer area from the top of the creek bank or
the edge of the tree canopy to the closest edge of development. It was intended to be a creek buffer,
not the amount of corridor needed for animals to roam from one biome to the other.
Malcolm Sproul, Principal ofLSA Associates of Natural Resources and Environmental Planning
Consulting Finn addressed Staff's points of denial. He clarified some points in his letter. He felt
the major impacts came from building the road. Mr. Sproul explained that the whipsnake habitat
is open chaparral and these habitat conditions are not present in the proposed project area. He felt
the proposed project would not require a study for the presence of whipsnakes. Although the
proposed change decreases the width of the corridor from the interior oak/woodlands to the Martin
Canyon Creek area, he felt the larger species had sufficient room to enter the 330 foot corridor.
Dave Gates, Landscape Architect, addressed the Planning Commission and asked Ms. Huston to
clarify Staff's revegetation exhibit of the approved and proposed plan. He stated that there was a
20 foot buffer zone required for fire safety, not 100 feet as Staff presented. Mr. Gates stated they
proposed to revegetate with fire retardent plant species to meet DRF A requirements.
Bob Leeward, Civil Engineer with Adam Streeter, addressed the wildlife corridor. He clarified
where the corridor would shift to under the proposed plan. He indicated that the flooding should
not change due to the density being the same. Mr. Leeward stated that with the discovery of the
new fault and the physical constraints of the site, they had researched extensively and could not
imagine finding 16 more lots elsewhere on the site. He said they shifted the site slightly to avoid
grading the 16.3 acres of knolls. He indicated that the sewer line was on the fault, and would have
to be moved with the current plan, but not with the proposed plan.
Greg Caligari, Law Finn of Morrison and Foerster, addressed the issues of the project. He gave a
brief history of the Hansen Ranch project. He felt the impacts of the proposed project only
addressed one or two acres in relation to the whole project. He felt there was a misunderstanding
in the interpretation of the law in relation to the GP policies. He stated that once you amend the
General Plan, then the project will conform with the General Plan. Mr. Caligari addressed the
revegetation GP policies. He went into great detail of how they would be affected. He stated that
the differences of the approved and proposed project were not substantial. He admitted that there
were some small differences, but felt they were not significant. He stated that the significant
impact to the riparian corridor as addressed in the 1989 EIR were to the oak/ woodlands and it
was identified that they could not avoid this significant impact.
Priscilla Brown, Attorney for the Dublin Unified School District, addressed the Planning
Commission. She stated that although they were not adding any more houses, she felt that there
would be an impact to the schools. She stated that the EIR approved 6 years ago does not address
environmental issues that exist today. She stated the EIR indicated that the impact to the schools
would be zero and that just was not true anymore. She said that the circumstances have changed
dramatically since the EIR was prepared, the schools were full or at near full capacity. She stated
the School District could not house the proposed students today. Ms. Brown stated that the
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regular Meeting
{5-1pcmin}
41
May 1, 1995
Planning Commission should deny the GP Amendment, or send the developer to them and they will
work something out.
Cm. Lockhart indicated that even if the Amendment were denied, and the developer went back to
the original plan, it would still be the same number of units.
Ms. Brown felt that since the Applicant triggered the event to amend the General Plan, the CEQA
guidelines stated that an Environmental Analysis must be done since the circumstances of the
project are not essentially the same.
Cm. Lockhart asked if Ms. Brown wanted the Planning Commission to go ahead with the project,
but with a new EIR.
Ms. Brown said it was up to the Planning Commission how the project goes, but that the Planning
Commission had a legal obligation to re-look at the adequacy of the schools.
Ms. Buxton stated the school district just wanted money for the project.
Mr. Tong stated the Assistant City Attorney would address the issues.
Doug Abbott, 8206 Rhoda Avenue, thanked Staff for a thorough presentation. He felt Mr.
Caligari's comment about only one or two acres being impacted missed the point. He felt they
were very important one or two acres from an open space and wildlife habitat standpoint. He
stated that even though the corridor would be the length of a football field, it would be in the wrong
place. The Fish and Game Department were right on target, in that these are significant impacts.
He asked where the sewer line would be relocated to in the revised plan.
Ms. Buxton answered they had two options: a maintenance access road or pumping.
MaIjorie LaBar, stated she was involved with this project since 1987. She asked the Planning
Commission to take Staff's recommendation and recommend denial of the project. In the proposed
project, there would be a moving of the corridor, which would not make quality open space. She
felt the GP policies were flexible now and we can't even get a project going in the west. She said
to listen to the School District's response. Where would they put the kids in the schools, and what
would happen with traffic. She said based on discussions from the study session, she felt the
Applicant should have prepared a redesign and we could have all gone forward, however, the
project should be denied as it stands now.
John Anderson, 11174 Brittany Lane, made comments based on review of the previous EIR. He
clarified which areas would be disturbed. He addressed the landslide areas, and indicated that
development could reactivate slides, or cause landslides in areas that have not shown any previous
signs of slide activity. He asked if wildlife would still try to follow the natural corridor. What
would happen if you asked the animals to deviate, and wouldn't you lose the natural migration of
the animals due to the deviation?
Mr. Sproul stated that in the corridor area, the animals would not be significantly affected in their
ability to move back and forth.
Ms. Buxton stated that in the approyed plan, their habitats are changed anyway.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regular Meeting
{5-lpcmin}
42
May I, 1995
Mr. Anderson stated that although that may be true, by putting homes in the way, you would
change it even more. He asked if the Applicant had plans to convert 2.4 acres elsewhere back to
open space.
Ms. Buxton stated that was why they were requesting a GP Amendment.
Bob Jib, owner of Milestone properties surrounding the project, stated that when he bought the
property in 1989 the access road was vel)' vital to him. He stated that based on the two exhibits
shown, it created an illusion that the street stopped at the end, and new homeowners in that area
might feel the road will not go through. He said the proposed project was a major concern to him.
Mr. Jib agreed with the other speakers on the major impacts these new proposals would cause. He
was willing to work with Staff and the developer to develop other alternatives.
Ms. Buxton clarified that the road would go through, and the new homeowners would sign a
statement saying they were made aware that the road would go through.
Tom Ford, Vice President of the Briarhill Homeowners Association, stated that the area does not
have a neighborhood park, but they have been paying towards one for 20-25 years through taxes.
He said the developer was required to pay $450,000 in Park and Recreation fees and felt the money
would go into a trust fund to be used elsewhere and the Briarwood area would not have a park now
or in the future. He stated that there was a trail in the area; however, the trail head parking would
overflow into the neighborhoods. There was also not a recreation area up there. He felt this was
the last chance to get some recreation area and this project could provide a solution to that
problem. He felt there could be a solution to the three problems of off-street parking, recreation
area and the relocation of the 16 homes. He offered a solution in keeping the same number of
density, and addressed the three concerns outlined above. He had talked to several people on the
organization of his alternate plan, and had received a positive response on the suggested redesign.
He suggested denial of this proposed plan, and suggested to take a look at other possibilities.
Elliott Healy, 11362 Betlen Drive, stated his main concern was the importance of protecting
Martin Canyon Creek. He was upset with the way the Applicant had treated and was arrogant to
Staff. He felt that the Planning Commission should preserve this beautiful area and deny the
proposed project.
Roxanne Nielsen, 11637 Alegre Drive, stated she felt the changes were significant and as a
neighboring property owner, her main concern was the loss of access to their property as was
planned and approved in the General Plan in 1989. She asked the Planning Commission to deny
the proposed Amendment.
Cm. Lockhart asked what difference would it make if the road were going to be there anyway, if
there were houses on either side of the road up to a certain road or not.
Ms. Neilsen answered until hearing the previous speaker, they were not even sure there would still
be an access road, but that the access was vital.
Mr. Jib commented that even though an access road was intended, there could be possible litigation
from homeowners saying they did not anticipate the road going through.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regular Meeting
{5-1pcrnin}
43
May I, 1995
Ms. Buxton clarified that there would be an access road, and they would disclose that information
to potential homeowners.
Ms. Nielsen asked if the road would be designed as a thoroughfare.
Ms. Buxton answered that it would be the same standards as current. She indicated that the cul-
de-sac on the map should be a dotted line to show that it was temporary.
Cm. Johnson asked Ms. Buxton to explain the difference in the road elevations between the
approved vs. proposed plans in the area where homesites would be relocated.
The engineer stated the road was not level and there would be a 25 foot drop.
Mr. Ford stated Mr. Zika's concern was that previously people were concerned on having
multiples in the area; however, now there were townhomes in the area that kept increasing in price,
so they must be desirable and people would be open to a multiple unit plan.
Cm. Johnson asked for an explanation of the area on the map, showing loss of trees, and whether
both proposals had the same amount of tree removal.
Ms. Huston showed on the map the area where the increased tree removal would be.
Mr. Leeward gave the actual numbers; 1.24 acres for the proposed plan and 1.06 acres for the
current plan, with a difference of .2 of an acre.
Cm. Johnson asked if the road elevation would be identical on both plans.
Mr. Leeward answered that the road would be lower in the proposed plan.
Cm. Johnson asked would that allow the wildlife to move across the open areas better than the
higher graded road.
Me. Sproul stated elevation would not make a difference to the animals.
Cm. Geist asked if the relocation of the sewer would have to be dealt with with either plan.
Me. Leeward stated that yes, once the earthquake fault was discovered, they were required to stay
out of the setback zone, and they lost 2.3 acres of developable land due to the earthquake fault.
Cm. Geist asked if the current subdivision could be built given the current earthquake fault
discovery .
Mr. Leeward answered it could not.
Me. Tong stated the Staffwas prepared to respond to some of the issues that had been raised.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regular Meeting
{5-lpcmin}
44
May 1,1995
Ms. Huston showed on the overhead where the houses were reconfigured. She indicated on the
map where the earthquake fault was discovered and where the houses were moved from on the
proposed plan, and how the road changed to the other side of the houses due to the fault, but the
number of homes in the fault area remained the same.
Cm. Lockhart asked if Staff felt that the developer was using the earthquake to redesign and get
away from some of the more expensive grading.
Mr. Tong answered that due to the discovery of the earthquake fault, the houses were relocated in
that portion of the property to stay away from the fault and it still had the same number oflots.
Cm. Jennings stated that the approved project could not be built due to the fault.
Mr. Tong answered technically that was true, because some of the lots were on the area where the
earthquake fault was located.
Ms. Buxton stated that the key to why we were all here was that this project had been approved for
six years and they want to build the project. She stated that financially, the project was not
working out and that the recession had contributed to this. Then, when the earthquake fault was
discovered, the project had to be redesigned. She stated that the financial problem was not the
Planning Commission's problem. When they redesigned the project because of the earthquake
fault, they looked at the whole project that would have the least amount of impact.. She stated that
when you start shifting lots, different areas become impacted. She felt that the developer had
given enough information to show that this was the only way this project could go forward.
Cm. Lockhart asked what California Pacific Homes would do if the project was not approved.
Ms. Buxton stated they would have to go back and discuss it and take a look at it again. She stated
they had not thought in those terms because they hoped they had shown that this was the best
project, and that the changes would result in the least amount of impact.
Cm. Lockhart asked how she felt about a new EIR for the project.
Ms. Buxton stated she did not feel that it would be necessary.
Cm. Lockhart stated that the EIR said there should not be homes in the area.
Ms. Buxton stated that the EIR said that no homes in the area should lessen the impacts.
Kit Faubion, City Attorney's Office, addressed Ms. Brown's legal question about the validity of
the EIR. She said that although Ms. Brown may be correct in stating the impact to the schools was
out of date, the specific changes proposed by this project do not effect school attendance, and
therefore, was not an issue for environmental review of the project as proposed. She stated that
Staffhad prepared an Initial Study. She explained the CEQA guidelines and how they relate to the
Initial Study. She stated that we were not looking at the entire project again or the addition of
additional lots; therefore, it does not implicate school issues.
Cm. Johnson asked if there would be a difference as far as the 16 houses were concerned in
relation to CEQA.
Regular Meeting
{5-lpcmin}
45
May I, 1995
Ms. Faubion stated that the environmental issue of school capacity related to placing homes in this
area and not other places was basically identical as identified in the original EIR. She stated that if
you put homes in the riparian corridor and the oakJwoodlands area you would have an impact, if
you put more homes there, you would have more of an impact and then it becomes a question of
how much was significant and how much mitigation could you do.
Ms. Brown addressed Ms. Faubion's issues and read a comment from the Initial Study, and said
that a new EIR was necessary to address today's school impact issues, and you could not rely on
the 1989 EIR.
Cm. Johnson asked what the School District had done to prepare for the project.
Ms. Brown stated the School District had levied the impact fees to the maximum extent allowed by
law. Although the EIR states the School District could get money from the State, the School Bond
issue was voted down and there was no money from the State. The only other option would be a
parcel tax in the City of Dublin.
Lee Thompson, Public Works Director, addressed the sewer situation and stated that in either
project or plan they would have to move the sewer over to get away from the slides, however, that
may require an easement from Bud Nielsen.
Cm. Jennings asked the City Attorney what the City's obligation was to the School District.
Ms. Faubion stated the City had no obligation, because the project density did not change.
Mr. Caligari agreed with Ms. Faubion. He stated CEQA states that if you rely on a previous EIR,
the environmental circumstances must be similar to what was analyzed in the previous EIR. He
stated issues that have changed in relation to the School District were fiscal, economic, and school
district boundary issues that are not required to be addressed by CEQA.
Ms. Brown asked Mr. Caligari to specify.
Mr. Caligari stated that the environmental impacts of the proposed project on the school was the
same as the environmental impact of the currently approved project, the differences were limited to
fiscal differences which do not need to be addressed under CEQA.
Mr. Tong addressed the trail head parking. He bad spoken with Diane Lowart, the Recreation
Director, and both felt the parking would not be a problem and the street parking would be
adequate. Additionally, the area west of San Ramon Boulevard had the highest area of
neighborhood parks in the City, which currently meet the Standards adopted in the Parks and
Recreation Master Plan.
Cm. Johnson asked if the City had plans to make the meadows in the hill area into a park.
Mr. Tong stated no, the City did not have plans to make the meadows into parks.
Mr. Ford stated that he spoke with Ms. Lowart, and although the area may have enough park area,
the closest park is .6 miles away. ~e felt long term parking problems were still an issue.
Regular Meeting
{5-lpcmin}
46
May 1,1995
Cm. Geist closed the public hearing and asked the Planning Commission to deliberate,
Motion was made by Cm. Jennings, seconded by Cm. Lockhart and with a vote of3-1-1, the
Planning Commission voted to adopt draft Resolutions recommending denial for P A 95-007
Hansen Ranch Phase II General Plan Amendment, denial of the Planned Development Rezoning
and denial for the Tentative Map Amendment. ,
I
Cm. Lockhart stated he had hoped that Staff and the developer had worked together on a plan that
would work for all parties concerned.
Cm. Johnson felt the project was well planned. He felt the road being moved was not a significant
change, because the road was already there.
Cm. Lockhart asked if the damage was already done with the road, could Staff work with the
developer to find another place for the road.
Cm. Geist had concern over the short time frame with the Planning Commission having only two
sessions to review the project.
Cm. Jennings stated that Ms. Buxton said they did not want to go back to the drawing board.
Ms. Buxton stated that was correct.
Cm. Geist stated that this was a recommendation to the City Council, and this item would be
brought before the City Council on Monday, May 8, 1995, at 7:00 p.m.
NEW OR UNFINISHED BUSINESS
Mr. Tong informed the Planning Commission that beginning in June, 1995, the City Council would
be changing their regular meeting date to the second and fourth Tuesday of each month and asked
the Planning Commission for feed back to consider the changing of the Planning Commission
meetings to the first and third Tuesday of each month~ however the Park and Community Services
Commission currently meets on the third Tuesday, and something would have to be worked out
with them.
Cm. Jennings asked if the packets would still be delivered on the same day.
Mr. Tong answered yes.
The Planning Commission's consensus was that they would appreciate the additional day to review
the packets and it would not be a problem to change the dates to the first and third Tuesday of each
month.
Mr. Tong indicated he would prepare a draft and request the change.
OTHER BUSINESS
None
Regular Meeting
{5-lpcmin}
47
May I, 1995
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 10:15 p.m.
* * * * * * * * * *
Respectfully submitted,
Planning Commission Chairperson
ATTEST:
Laurence L. Tong
Planning Director
* * * * * * * * * *
Regular Meeting
{5-lpcmin}
48
May 1,1995
Regular Meeting - April 17 , 1995
A Study Session Meeting of the City of Dublin Planning Commission was held on Monday, April 17, 1995, in the Dublin Civic
Center City Council Chambers. The meeting was called to order at 7:30 by Commissioner Zika.
**********
ROLL CALL
Present: Commissioners Zika, Geist, Jennings, Johnson, and Lockhart; Laurence L. Tong, Planning Director; Carol Cirelli, Senior
Planner; Tasha Huston, Associate Planner, and Gaylene Burkett, Recording Secretary.
**********
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG
Cm. Zika led the Commission, Staff, and those present in the pledge of allegiance to the flag.
* * * * * * * * * *
ADDITIONS OR REVISIONS TO THE AGENDA
The minutes of the March 20, 1995, meeting were approved as submitted with one typo correction.
**********
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
None
**********
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS
None
**********
PUBLIC HEARING
None
NEW OR UNFINISHED BUSINESS
9.1 P A 95-007 Hansen Ranch Phase II-Studv Session, The applicant is requesting approval of a General Plan Amendment.
Planned Development (po) Rezoning. and Tentative Map Amendment to Phase II of the approved Tentative Map, The
proiect involves approximately 2.4 acres of land (overall) redesignated from open space to residential land use. with 16
homesites relocated into an Oak/Bav woodland area. on the 147+ acre Hansen Hill Ranch proiect site, Public comment
welcome,
Commissioner Zika indicated that this was a study session and asked for the staff report.
Tasha Huston, Associate Planner, presented the staff report. She briefly outlined the proposed project. She used the overhead
projector to show the area previously designated as open space. Ms. Huston outlined various options available to the Commission. She
outlined the Planning Commission's role for the study session and asked for questions from the Commissioners.
"
Regular Meeting
{4-l7pcmin}
33
April 17, 1995
Cm. Zika asked if the Fish and Game Department and East Bay Regional Parks had been notified.
Ms, Huston answered Staff had contacted the Fish and Game Department; however, due to staffing problems they had not gotten back
to Staff yet and East Bay Regional Parks had not responded to date.
Mr. Johnson asked about the road in Phase II and would there be a lot of grading in that area and how many trees would be removed,
Ms. Huston showed on the map the approved grading area and indicated the areas where trees would be removed on the current
approved plan and the new proposed plan. Approximately 6 1/2 additional acres of trees would be saved and 3 1/2 additional acres of
trees would be destroyed, for a net savings of 3 acres of trees.
Cm. Zika asked if the Applicant wanted to speak,
Marti Buxton, representing California Pacific Homes, gave an outline of the proposed changes. She stated they needed to know what
would be approved in Phase II before they started building Phase I, because of the tremendous start up costs in order for the project to
be financially feasible, She stated one of their goals was to cut down on grading and reduce the cost. She stated the streets would not
have as steep of a grade and that they had to consider an earthquake fault that was not previously shown on the map. Ms. Buxton
stated that the current (old) plan had 19 custom lots, and now they had all production lots that would all be built at the same time,
maintaining the same number of lots. She emphasized that the grading had to take place in order to put in the road. It was a
requirement to place a loop road in for fire and police which would require grading, but they were not grading a lot over and beyond
what was required by them. They were also required to place a stub street in. She stated they shifted lots in order not to build
expensive crib walls. She referred to page 5 of 10, Attachment 2 in the staff report, showing the difference in acres and grading, She
introduced their land use attorney,
Cm. Zika asked why some of the previously approved lots were not going to be built on.
Ms, Buxton stated that when they shifted some of the lots over due to the newly discovered earthquake fault, there was not enough
room for the previously approved lots.
Greg Caligary, Law firm of Morrison and Foerster, addressed the Commission on the proposed project. He stated they felt the staff
report presented a strict interpretation of the General Plan. He felt the General Plan policies were open to interpretations and levels of
consistency, He stated the Planning Commission must balance the issues and the project must be compatible with the applicable plan,
not in exact compliance, He quoted court case verbiage on cases that supported his theory. He pointed out areas of the staff report
that could be interpreted differently,
Cm. Lockhart asked Staff for their interpretation of Mr. Caligary's explanation.
Ms. Huston stated Staffs interpretation was based on significant research into the history of this project and the previous EIR. Staff
had made General Plan Policy interpretations based on Resolution adopted by the City Council in 1989, and page 3 of the 1989 GPA
Resolution (attached to the staff report), gets into General Plan Policies that were related to the project and adopted for this project.
Mr. Tong stated that was a correct summarization of what action the City Council took in 1989.
Cm. Jennings asked Cm. Zika to recall what he thought the reason was for the roads through the open space area.
Cm. Zika stated, as far as he remembered, the road was required for public safety to provide two exits for police and fire.
Cm, Jennings asked Mr. Caligary to address the modification to the General Plan under his alternative options.
Mr. Caligary stated it was Planning Staff s interpretation that the four policies would have to be revised or amended and he did not
agree that the project, as proposed, was inconsistent with the four General Plan policies.
Cm. Lockhart asked Mr. Caligary about the previous approval that states they are to prohibit development within designated open
space areas except that designed to enhance public safety,
Mr. Caligary stated that was the reason they felt they had to process the General Plan Amendment which would redesignate the area
from open space to single family residential.
Cm. Jennings asked Staff if the old Resolution would have to be revised and readopted.
Cm. Zika asked if they would have to make finding in order to justify the change.
Ms. Huston stated yes.
Cm. Zika asked Mr, Caligary what court case he was referring to.
-----------------------------..--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------..-
Regular Meeting
{4-17pcmin}
34
April 17, 1995
Mr. Caligary outlined the court case, and stated why there were inconsistencies with a General Plan.
Cm. Zika asked Mr. Caligary if he felt an amended ErR was unnecessary.
Mr, Caligary stated they were relying on the previous EIR and would need to prepare an addendum if there were any impacts that
would result from the new proposal that were not previously addressed.
Cm. Zika asked Staff if they would have to prepare a new ErR.
Ms. Huston stated the previous EIR was certified based on the mitigations and the General Plan policies. rfthere was a change, the
policies may not apply, and new mitigations would have to be developed.
Cm. Johnson asked if there was going to be less tree removal and less grading, wouldn't it then be considered a better project.
Ms. Huston stated not necessarily, due to differences in habitat value, and we were still waiting for comments from the Fish and Game
Department.
Mr. Caligary stated that the redesignated lot area was not going to be left in its natural state as approved now, and they would be
revegetating newly graded areas except on the reconfigured lots.
Cm. Johnson asked about the original custom lots,
Ms. Buxton indicated on the map where the custom lots were going to be. She stated that 10 additional lots that were requested in the
open space area were denied by the City Council. She gave reasons why the City Council denied the previous approval for the project
before with the open space designation. She pointed out on page 20 of22 of Attachment 4, it was not the project that was previously
approved. They had approval of up to 225 units, and as the project was proposed now, it was more in keeping with the neighborhood
as it is now.
Marjorie LaBar, 11707 Juarez Lane, stated she was here in 1987 when the previous project was proposed. She stated they ended up
fighting for every tree and inch of open space, She stated that there were trade offs that took place, and that the project was
reconfigured to leave the creek alone, The riparian habitat was protected by the General Plan and should stay that way, send the
developer back to the drawing board to redesign and leave the riparian habitat alone. Island habitats do not work and the quality of
the habitat would be poor. She questioned the statement made by Ms. Buxton that grading for a street mysteriously created more
lots. She said the reason for custom lots was that each one would have to be approved and would have to come before the Planning
Commission, whereas now they had 16 factory lots. She stated they had worked hard to save the corridor.
Mr. Lockhart asked Ms. LaBar to indicated the sensitive area on the map.
Ms. LaBar indicated on the map the area she was referring to and stated that the previous EIR addressed a totally different project than
that of the proposed project now.
Doug Abbott, 8206 Rhoda Ave., stated he felt there was not enough open space in Phase 2, and felt the developer should not be able
to redesignate the open space.
Mr. Lockhart asked Mr. Abbott if he felt the trade-off of removing less tress and less grading was fair.
Mr. Abbott stated he had not seen enough evidence to indicate that.
John Anderson, Dublin resident, stated that our guidelines established a certain quality and standard of living for the residents of
Dublin. In 1987, this issue of homes in the sensitive area was ruled out, not mitigated, but ruled out by duly appointed representatives
of the City. He stated he felt there were 6 elements of change that need to be addressed; 1) what is the trade-off in tree loss; 2)the
habitat loss; 3) changes in elevation; 4) grading changes; 5) the visual impact; and 6) the amount of open space. He also spoke about
other proposals in the west, and the citizens did make their position known, and did speak their mind on how they felt.
Ed Skubic on Hansen Drive, asked if the discovery of the earthquake fault was something new.
Staff indicated yes.
Mr. Skubic asked if the earthquake would effect Phase r, and would there be any more testing for earthquakes in Phase 1.
Ms. Buxton indicated that was how they found the new fault through more soils tests.
Mr. Skubic suggested Staff contact the City of Lafayette on a landslide problem they had.
Ms. Huston pointed out on the map the area east of the road near the project's western property boundary where the fault was
discovered.
Regular Meeting
{4-I7pcmin}
35
April 17, 1995
David Buely, Brittany Lane, stated he was not here through all the past history of the project, his concern was if there were changes
to the General Plan, they work to weaken the' previous passages that were approved to protect the riparian habitat. He felt that if the
project were reviewed today, the project would have more concerns. He was impressed that there would be more trees staying, but
questioned whether that would be environmentally significant. He felt the citizens are due their say, and their concerns should be
given much weight. If people fought hard to save environmental areas, then it was incumbent on those in power to review that. If
Phase II were turned down, what would the developer do.
Cm. Zika stated in order to get higher density, there would have to be townhouses and condos, and that was discussed previously, and
people would start to come forward to protest that proposal. He remembered that people did not want to increase density.
Mr, Buely asked if the developer could still request 225 units if Phase II were not passed.
Cm. Zika indicated if denied, the developer had several options and it would be up to them to decide what course of action they would
take.
Mr. Buely asked if the project would survive without the 16 additional houses. He felt the General Plan was a guideline and the
document was meant to preserve open space and if gaining more trees was a benefit, it should require further investigation as
documentation to this fact.
Tom Ford, 7262 Tina Place, stated he did not oppose the plan; however, as Vice President of the Briarwood Homeowner Association
they had concerns over the lack of open space and not having a park in that area, except for what they support themselves. He
wondered if some of the $400,000 impact fees could be put back in to the area and to meet their requirements. He offered other
alternatives to the proposal. His concern was that the impact fees would go into the treasury and possibly be used for other projects
and the money would not be there for parks in their area. He stated if you don't have a place to put your recreation, you don't have
recreation.
Cm, Zika stated that Briarwood not having a park was the blame of the County, and it was too late in the game for Mr. Ford's
proposal.
Mr, Tong stated that this proposal does not indicate a park, but does propose a trail system which meets the Parks and Recreation
Master Plan.
At this point, several audience members asked questions from their chairs and did not address the Commission formally, therefore the
names of the audience participants are not known in every case.
Mr. Ford indicated they were adding open space in the Briarwood area, but it was not good recreation play area.
Cm. Zika suggested that Mr, Ford address the Parks and Recreation Commission and see what they could do.
Mr. Ford felt that people would not object to multiples or duets in that area.
Cm. Zika thanked him for his input.
An audience member asked where the stub roads would be.
Cm. Zika indicated on the map where the stub roads would be.
The same audience members asked the average size lot on Phase II.
Ms. Huston stated 7,700, as approved,
Ms. Buxton addressed some of the concerns of the speakers and said the park impact fees will be paid at the time Phase II was built.
She stated there was 320 feet between the houses leading to the open space. She stated that they were not and never were in the
riparian corridor. The 16 lots are not visible and in an area that would have been graded anyway. She felt the project enhances the
quality of life and would have a nice hiking trail.
Ms. Huston stated that the Applicant incorrectly stated that they would be staying out of the riparian area, and she showed a map to
the Commissions where the riparian corridor was.
A person from the audience asked what was there before, and how it affected the riparian corridor.
Mr. Buely asked if the area he had indicated would be changed no matter what and would there be a road there and if the trees would
be removed anyway.
Ms. Buxton indicated that was correct.
r,
-------------------------------------------...-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regular Meeting
{4-17pcmin}
36
April 17, 1995
Ms. LaBar suggested a redesign to Staff ana the developer to leave an easement for the road, but not build it until development is
approved on the adjacent property: rather than building the road through the riparian corridor. Eight of the 16 lots could be relocated,
Cm. Zika asked what happened if Mr, Nielsen did not get his road.
Mr. Thompson indicated that Mr. Nielsen wanted the road, and the only other way for him to get out would be through a narrow
easement.
Cm. Zika stated they could not land lock people.
Mr. Buely asked how Mr. Nielsen had access now.
Ms, Buxton stated that the stub roads were required.
Cm, Zika remembered that the roads were a non-negotiable item.
Cm, Zika asked how many feet between houses were needed for animals for a refuge.
Ms. LaBar stated that if you added 100 feet, it would be closer to the 500 foot standard Oakland uses,
Cm. Johnson stated that opening the area does not necessarily solve the issue, and that the orange area on the map was the area that
they were not going to grade, and the area they are talking about will be graded anyway.
Cm, Johnson asked what animals other than deer would get back there. He felt all the other animals were still present among the
existing hill development, except deer, and they usually get to where they want to be.
Ms. LaBar stated that if the plans are going to change, they may as well change for the better.
Cm. Zika asked what the Staff wanted from the Commissioners.
Mr. Tong stated that there were a number of issues that Staff could look into and what other items did the Commissioners want Staff
to elaborate on,
Cm. Zika stated the Commission would need to know what the Fish and Game Department had to say about the project; where the
houses were going to be and what the impact was on the corridor; how wide of a gate area was needed for the animals to have proper
access to the island habitat; was Marjorie's suggestion feasible or not; what kind of commitments were made between Mr, Nielsen
and the City; and what problems might be caused to him ifhe was only given an easement; if project was redesigned, from the City
Attorney's standpoint, would that be considered a major change to the EIR and what would happen, he would like another attorney's
opinIOn.
Cm. Jennings asked for Staff to explain \vhat findings the Commissioners would have to make in order to justify the inconsistencies
and what does it entail in order to make the findings.
Mr. Buely asked if the Commissioners have the authority to suggest modifications to the plan as submitted by the developer.
Cm. Zika stated they could make any changes they felt appropriate. The Planning Commission would then make a recommendation
to the City Council. Cm, Zika stated he would encourage everyone to come back to the May l51 meeting and then to attend the City
Council meeting on May 8th, Cm, Zika then ended the Study Session.
OTHER BUSINESS
Mr. Tong informed the Commissioners that at the next City Council meeting on April 24th, the Council will consider the 2nd reading
of the Subdivision Ordinance amendments regarding vesting Tentative Maps..
Cm. Zika mentioned two Budget trucks were parked at Circuit City.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 9:58 p,m,
**********
'..
Regular Meeting
{4-l7pcmin}
37
Aprill7,1995
Respectfully submitted,
//--~ }t ,I
',,----- - ,/~(-,' /,( Ok::'L
Planning Commission'Chairperson
.../~
ATTEST:
Due to a power shortage at the beginning of the meeting, the tapes for this meeting are on several tapes labeled accordingly.
"
Regular Meeting
{4-l7pcmin}
38
April!7,1995
RESOLUTION NO. 95 - 13
A RESOLUTION OF TIlE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF TIlE CIlY OF DUBLIN
--------------------------------------------------------------
RECOMMENDING CIlY COUNCIL DENIAL
OF THE GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT FOR P A 95-007
HANSEN RANCH/CALIFORNIA PACIFIC HOMES
WHEREAS, California Pacific Homes has requested a General Plan Amendment Study, Planned
Development Rezoning and Tentative Map Subdivision for a 2.4:t acre portion of the Hansen Ranch site to
redesignate the open space/stream corridor General Plan land use designation to Low Density Single Falnily
Residential (0.5 to 3.8 DUlAC) to rezone the Planned Development Open Space Prezoning to allow single family
homes and relocate 16 single family residential lots into that area; 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 a properly noticed study session on April 17, 1995, and a.
public hearing on May 1, 1995 to consider the General Plan Amendment, PD Rezoning, Tentative Map and
previous EIR for P A 95-007 planning application for Hansen HillJCalifornia Pacific Homes; and
WHEREAS, proper notice of said public hearing was given in all respects as required by law; and
WHEREAS, the Staff analysis was submitted recommending denial of the General Plan Amendment to
redesignate the 2.4:t acre open space area to low density single family residential (0.5 to 3.8 DUlAC); and
WHEREAS, the General Plan Amendment has been reviewed in accordance with the provisions of the
California Environmental Quality Act; and
WHEREAS, the certified Hansen Ranch EIR detennined that development within the proposed area
would have significant adverse impacts to the oak woodland/riparian habitat area which could not be mitigated to
an acceptable level; and
WHEREAS, said adverse impacts can be reduced with minimized roadway grading and native plant
revegetation of graded areas; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered all reports, recommendations and written and oral
testimony submitted at the Public Hearing as herein above set forth.
find:
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE Dublin Planning Commission does hereby
1. That the City of Dublin has adopted a General Plan as a long term policy document which contains
several long term goals including preserving oak woodlands and riparian vegetation; and
2. That the City of Dublin has detennined that the area proposed for redesignation contains significant
environmental resources and is an important open space area; and
,
A-rrAC:HMENT 12.
3. That the proposed development is inconsistent with the existing General Plan policies that require
preservation of oak woodlands and riparian vegetation; and
4. That the proposed General Plan Amendment undermines the existing General Plan policy that prohibits
development in open space areas; and
5. That the existing General Plan policies permit collector streets to pass through open space areas
provided the street is designed to minimize grading, so as not to damage the ecological/aesthetic value and
characteristics of the open space area; and
6. That existing General Plan policies require revegetation of graded slopes with native trees, grass, and
shrubs; and
7. That native plant revegetation of the graded area (as a result of development of the roadway) will reduce
the damage to the ecological and aesthetic value and characteristic of the open space oak woodland/riparian area;
and
8. That the proposed General Plan Amendment land use designation is not consistent with the General Plan
polices, in that the General Plan Amendment would designate the area for residential development rather than
revegetate the area with native plants consistent with the ecological characteristics of the area; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT THE Dublin Planning Commission does hereby recommend
City Council denial ofP A 95 -007, Hansen Ranch/California Pacific Homes General Plan Amendment.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 1st day of May, 1995.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Commissioners Geist, Jennings and Lockhart
Commissioner Johnson
Commissioner Zika
ArrEST:
Planning Commission Chairperson
Planning Director
(g:/pa#/1994/0 54/notice/pcreso2)
RESOLUTION NO. 95 -14
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF 1HE CITY OF DUBLIN
RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL DENIAL
OF THE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REZONING FOR P A 95-007
HANSEN RANCH/CALIFORNIA PACIFIC HOMES
WHEREAS, California Pacific Homes has requested a General Plan Amendment Study, Planned
Development Rezoning and Tentative Map Subdivision for a 2.4:!: acre portion of the Hansen Hill site to
redesignate the open space/stream corridor General Plan land use designation to Low Density Single Family
Residential (0.5 to 3.8 DU/AC) to rezone the Planned Development Open Space Prezoning to allow single family
homes and relocate 16 single family residential lots into that area; and
WHEREAS, the General Plan Amendment has been reviewed in accordance with the provisions of the
California Environmental Quality Act; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a properly noticed study session on April 17, 1995, and a
public hearing on May 1, 1995, to consider the General Plan Amendment, PD Rezoning, Tentative Map and
previous EIR for P A 95 -007 planning application for Hansen Ranch/California Pacific Homes; and
WHEREAS, proper notice of said public hearing was given in all respects as required by law; and
WHEREAS, The Staff Report was submitted recommending the Planning Commission recommend City
Council denial of the Planned Development rezoning; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission heard and considered all said reports, recommendations and
written and oral testimony submitted at the public hearing as hereinabove set forth.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE Dublin Planning Commission does hereby find
that:
1. The proposed Planned Development rezoning is not consistent with the City General Plan and Policies
in that the site is designated open space and does not allow residential development.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT THE Dublin Planning Commission does hereby recommend
City Council denial of P A 95 - 007, Hansen RancblCalifornia Pacific Homes General Plan Amendment.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 1st day of May, 1995.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Commissioners Geist, Jennings and Lockhart
Commissioner Johnson
Commissioner Zika
Planning Commission Chairperson
ATTEST:
Planning Director
(g:/pa#/1994/054/noticeipcreso2)
RESOLUTION NO. 95 - 15
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL DENIAL OF THE TENTATIVE MAP AMENDMENT
FOR P A 95-007 HANSEN RANCH/CALIFORNIA PACIFIC HOMES
WHEREAS, California Pacific Homes has requested a General Plan Amendment Study, Planned
Development Rezoning and Tentative Map Subdivision for a 2.4:t acre portion of the Hansen Ranch site to
redesignate the open space/stream corridor General Plan land use designation to Low Density Single Family
Residential (0.5 to 3.8 DU/AC) to rezone the Planned Development Open Space Prezoning to allow single family
homes and to relocate single family residential lots into this area; and
WHEREAS, the application has been reviewed in accordance with the provisions of the California
Environmental Quality Act; and
WHEREAS, the State of California Subdivision Map Act and the adopted City of Dublin Subdivision
Regulations require that no real property may be divided into two or more parcels for purpose of sale, lease or
financing unless a tentative map is acted upon, and a final map is approved consistent with the Subdivision Map
Act and City of Dublin subdivision regulations; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a properly noticed study session on April 17 , 1995, and a
public hearing on May 1, 1995, to consider the General Plan Amendment, PD Rezoning, Tentative Map and
previous EIR for P A 95-007 planning application for Hansen Ranch/California Pacific Homes; and
WHEREAS, proper notice of said public hearing was given in all respects as required by law; and
WHEREAS, The Staff Report was submitted recommending the Planning Commission recommend City
Council denial of the Tentative Map; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission heard and considered all said reports, recommendations and
written and oral testimony submitted at the public hearing as hereinabove set forth.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE Dublin Planning Commission does hereby find
that:
1. The proposed Tentative Map is not consistent with the City's General Plan as applied to this property in
that the site is designated open space while the proposed tentative map is to allow single family residential lots
relocated into this area.
2. The proposed Tentative Map is not consistent with the zoning district in which the site is located in that
the site is zoned Planned Development open space while the proposed Tentative Map is for residential lots.
BE IT FURTHER RESOL VED THAT THE Dublin Planning Commission does hereby recommend
City Council denial of Tentative Map for PA 95-007, Hansen Ranch/California Pacific Homes General Plan
Amendment.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 1st day of May, 1995.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Commissioners Geist, Jennings and Lockhart
Commissioner Johnson
Commissioner Zika
Planning Commission Chairperson
ATTEST:
Planning Director
(g:/pa#/1994/0 54/notice/pcreso2)
. MAY~03-95 WED 11:33
P.02/11
SAMPLE
RESOLUTION NO. _ - 95
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITI COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
ADOPTING FINDINGS PURSUANT TO THE
CALIFOR.NIA ENV1RONMENTAL QUALITY ACI, CERTIFYING
A FINAL ENVIRONlYIENTAL IMPACT REPORT AND ADOPTING
A STATEMENT OF OVERRlDING CONSIDERATIONS
WHEREAS, California Pacific Homes, Inc. C'CPHl1) owns and plans to develop
approximately 147 acres of land commonly knmvn as Hansen Hill Ranch located in ule
City of Dublin (the "Project Site") with 180 single-family homes. Land use applications for
'the Hansen Hill Ranch projea were originally approved in February of 1989 as fo11O\'15:
A. Resolution 019-89 for PA 87-045 making CEQAfindings, certifying a final
environmental impact report and adopting a statement of overriding
considerations.
B. Resolution 020-89 adopting a Mitigalion ManiLOring PrograrIl fur lhe prujecL
C, Resolution 021-89 adopting general plan amendments to allow low density,
single family residemial (0.5-3.8 units per acre) development on the Project
Site; and
WHEREAS, in November of 1989, the City adopted a mitigated neg:nive
declaration, a NHtigation MonitOring Program and appruvt:d a prezoning of the ProjecI
. Site to a Planned Development district and a tentative subdivision map for 180 single
family residential lots on the Project Site pursuant to the approved general plan
amendment; and
WHEREAS, CPH plans to develop Hansen Hill Ranch in two phases of 72 and 108
residential lots, respectively. CPH n~s requested a general plan amendment, a planned
development rezoning and a Lentative subdivision fnap that would reconfigure me
residential lots within Phase II but would not increase the total number of lots in the
project. Under this request, SL"Ctcen residential lots would be relocated to an area pre\'lously
designated as open space although virtually all of t.he area would have been gr:1ded for ~1n
access road under the previous approval. The cuuent request proposes La redesignate
approximately 2.4 net acres of the Project Site from open space to low density single-
family residential; and
WHEREAS, CPH has requested the following approvals from the City.
"
A General Plan Amendment to redesignate approximately 2.4 net acres from
Open Space/Strcam Corridor to Low Density Single Family Residential (0,5-
3.8 DU/acre) land uses. A TT A-GHM f::NI 13
MAY-03-95 WED 11:33
P.03/11
B. Planned Development Rezoning to dlange the designated zoning district for
approximately 2.4 net:. acres on the Project Site from PD Open Spaee to PD
Single: Family Homes and to revise various PD General Provisions and the
configuration of the residential lots 'within Phase II of the project. The PD
Rezoning reduces the average lot size from 7700 square feet to 7560 square
fect.
C. Tentative subdivision map amendment that reflects the reconfiguration of the
residential lots within Phase II as described above; and
WHERE.AS, the City prepared an Initial Study to determine the appropriate type
and level of environmental review for the proposed :nnendments. The Initial Study, dated
March 16, 1995, indicated that the environmental impac:t repun cenified in February of
1989 for the Hansen Hill Ranch project and the mitigated negative declaration ~dopted for
the projeCl in 1989 (collectively, the "1989 EIRfl), and the accompanying statement of
overriding considerations and iYfitigation Monitoring Program, adequately described the
general environmental setting, the significant enviromnental effects, and L1-te alIernatives
and mitigation me:lSllres rebted to each significant effect. The grounds for (his
detennillatiun were based on the fact (hat the current applications proposed development
in an area that was also proposed for development in the original 1989 project description,
although the project ultimately was not approved as proposed; and
W'HEREAS, pursuant to C:EQA Guidelines section 15153, the City prepared a
"Notice of Use of ErR From Earlier ProjectR conunenong a 30-day public review and
comment period from March 17, 1995 to April 15, 1995. The 1989 EIR was available for
review and comment by concenled citizens and public agencies during this period. Only
one cornment letter 1,vas received during the comment period, however it did not address
the issue of using the previous ErR for the current project: and
WHEREAS, on April 17, 1995, the Planning Commission held a noticed study
session LO receive oral testimuny regarding the use of the 1989 EIR for the current project
and scheduled a public hearing on May 1, 1995 to consider the proposed amendments;
and
WHEREAS. the City received two \\Tiuen comments on use of the EIR after the
close of the comment period. one from the Dublin Unified School DisLrict and one from
the Department of Fish and Game; alrhough the letters were received after the public
comment period, responses were included in the May 1, 1995 Planning Conunission staff
report; and
WHEREAS, :It. its i'Aay 1., 1995 hearing, the Planning Commission recommended
denial of the proposed amendments to the City Council for review at a noticed public
hearing of the Council on Nfay 8, 1995; and
WHEREAS, the 1989 EIR together ...'lith the March 16, 1995 Initial Study
constitute the Final EIR for the current project amendments.
"
NOvV, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE Dublin City Council finds as
fo11o'\l\'3:
MAY"703-85 WED 11: 34 P.04/11
A. The Ivfarch 16, 1995 lnitial Studv, the 1989 EIR and the "Notice of Use of
EIR from Earlier Project" all refle~ the independent judgment of the City
Council.
B. All of the impacts and mitigation me.asures identified in the 1989 fIR, as well
as related findings and mitigation monitoring programs continue in effect
excepr. for the V eget~1tion and Wildlife mitigations calling for no residential
IOls in the relocaLion area.
C. The mitigation calling for elimination of residential lots in the reloc..~Iion area
is infeasible be~1use of the following specific economic, social or other
considerations: [add facts to support].
D. Vegetation and 'wildlife impacts relating to the oak bay woodland and riparian
habitat in the relocation area have been mitigated to the extent feasible, [add
re: Fish and Game recommendations] but still cannot be avoided. These
effects are neverrheless acceptable due to the following overriding
considerations:
[Applicant Proposals: rnay be accepted, rejeCted, modified, added to; amplify based on
evidence received by Council]
1. PrQ\,ision of Housing
2. Provision or Increased Citv Revenues
3. Open Space and Visual I~pacts
4. Public Safet\' and \Velfare
"
NOVV, THEREFORE, RE IT FURTHER RESOLVED the Dublin City Council
certifies the Final EIR for Lhe proposed amendments as having been completed in
compliance with CEQA, and adopts the findings and overriding considerations outlined
herein,
PASSED, AJ>PROVED AND ADOPTED this _ day of May, 1995.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Mayor
ATTEST:
+j
City Clerk
1:\ WPO\.\iNRSvl,/\114\RESOL\R\OHA,,'lSK'vV61
MAY-03-85 WED 11:35
P.05/11
SAMPLE
RESOLUTION NO. - 95
A RESOLUTION OF THE CIlY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
APPROVING GENERAL PLAN A1vlENDMENT FOR PA 95-007
HA..NSEN RANCH/CAlIFORNIA PACIFIC HOMES
WHEREAS.. California Pacific Homes has requested a General Plan Amendment
Study, Planned Development Rezoning and Tentative Map Subdivision for a 2.4+ acre
port.ion of the Hans~n Ranch siTe to Tf.de}\1gnate the open spaceistream corridor General
Plan land use designalion to LDW Density Single Family Residential (0.5 to 3.8 DUlAC),
to rezone the Plarmed Development Open Spaee Prezoning to ~:tllow single family homes
and relocate 16 single family residential lots into that area; and
'yVHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of State Planning ami Zoning Law, it is the
function and duty of the City Council of the city of Dublin to revi.e\v and act on propu~ed
amendments to the Citv's General Plan: and
. '
WHEREAS., the Planning Commission held a properly noticed study session on
Aprill7, 1995, and scheduled a public hearing on 1vlay 1, 1995 to considen.he General
Pl311 Amendment, PD Rezoning, Tentative Nlap and pre\rious EIR for PA 95-007 planning
applicatiOn for Hansen Hill/California Padfic Homes; and
'WHEREAS, proper notice of said public hearing was given in all respects as
required by la,,,; and
WHEREAS, the Staff analysis was submiued recommending denial of the General
Plan Amendment to redesignate t.."le 2.4+ acre open space area to low density single family
residential (0.5 to 3.8 DUlAC); and
\-VHEREAS, uLe General Plan Amendment has been reviewed in accordance "\vith
Lhe provisions of the California EnviruIUI1emal Quality Aa; and
vVHEREAS, the cenified Hansen Ranch EIR detennined that development within
the proposed area would have significant adverse impaCtS to the oak woodland/riparian
habitat area and identified among Others. mitigations requiring no residential developmem
in cert3.in 3.reas for those imv3.c1:.s; and
.I.
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission on May 1,1995 adopted Resolution 95-_
recommending denial of the proposed amendments; and .
WHEREAS, the City Council considered the Planning Commission
recommendation at a duly noticed public hearing on May 8, 1995; and
MAY-03-85 WED 11:36
P.06/11
WHEREAS, the City Council considered all reports, recommendations and written
and oral testimony submiued at the Public Hearing as herein above set f011h; and
WHEREAS, the City Council on May 8, 1995 adopled Resolution 95-_ adopting
CEQA findings, certifying a final environment~ impact report and adopting a statement of
overriding considerations.
NOvV, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE Dublin City Council does
hereby find:
1. That the City of Dublin has adopted a General Plan as a long term policy
document which contains several long ternl goals including preserving oak woodlands and
riparian vegetation; and .
2. That the proposed development is consistent with the e:\istil'lg General Plan
policies that require preservation of oak woodlands and riparian vegetation; in that [add
evidence to supporr; evidence may be froill staff, applicants, public testimony]; and
3. That edsting General Plan policies require revegetation of graded slopes ,:vith
native trees, grass, and shnlbs and that the ponians of the project site to be graded \\11l be
so revegetated; and
4. That the proposed Ge~leral Plan Amendment land use designation is
consistent \vith the General Plan polides. in that [add evidence to support, evidence
may be from staff, applicant, public testimony].
TIE IT FURTHER RESOL \TED THAT THE Dublin City Council approves PA 95-
007, Hansen Rancll/Califomia Pacific Homes General Plan Amendment.
PASSED, APPROVED At"JD ADOPTED this _ day of i\1ay, 1995,
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
'to
1:\ WT'O\.\1NR$\.......ll-l\RESOL\GP M.,:\NSK W u I
MA~-03-9S WED 11:37
P,07/11
SAMPLE
RESOLUTION NO, _ . 95
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
APPROVING THE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REZONING AND GEf-.tTERAL
PROVISIONS FOR PA 95-007 HA.r..JSEN RANCH/CALIFORNIA PACIFIC HOMES
'YVHEREAS, California Pacific Homes has requested a General Plan Amendment
Study, Planned Development Rezoning and Tentative Map Subdivision for a 2.4+ acre
portion of the Hansen Hill site to redesignate the open spac:rfstream corridor General Plan
land use designation to Lo\'{ Density Single Family Residential (0.5 to 3.8 DUlAC), to
rezone the Planned Development Open Space Prezoning to allow single family homes and
relocate 16 single family residenL.ialloLS imu that area; and
WHEREAS, the General Plan Amendment has been reviewed in accordance \vir.h
the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a properly noticed study session on
April 17, 1995. and scheduled a public hearing on M~y .1, 1995 to consider the General
Plan Amendment, PD Rezoning.. Tentative 1-1ap and previous EIR for PA 95-007 planning
application for Hansen HillJC,-llifomia Pacific Homes; and
'WHEREAS, proper notice of said public hearing was given in all respects as
required by law; and
WHEREAS, the Staff Repon was submitted recommending the Planning
Commission recommend City Council denial of the applications, induding the Planned
Development Rezoning; and
vVHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered on i\-fay 1,1995 all rcpons,
recommendations and written and oral testimony submitted at the Public. Hearing ;is
herein above set faITh and adopted Resolution 95- _ recommending denial or the
applications; and
WHEREAS, the City Council considered the Planning Commission
recommendation at a duly noticed public hearing on May 87 1995; and
\VHEREAS, based on the reports, recommendations and teslimony befur~ it, the
City Council detem1ined the General Plan Amendment redesignation would be consistent
with other applicable general plan policies and obj~ctives and adopted Resolution 95-_
approving the General Plan Amendment; and
1,'.
WHEREAS, based on the reports, recommendations and testimony before it:, the
City Council considered whether the Planned Development Rezoning request was
consistent ,'lith the General Plan as amended and with the objectives of the zoning
MAY-03-95 WED 11:37
P.08/11
ordin::mce Planned Development provisions.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE Dublin City Council does
hereby find:
1. The proposed Planned Development Rezoning is consistent '^lith the City
General Plan and Policie:) in that the site would allow residential development under the
approved General Plan Amendment.
2. The proposed Planned Development Rezoning is consistent \-vith the Planned
Development. pmvision~ of the zoning ordinance and the general nature and character of
the project as approved in the original Planned Development zoning.
[add PD findings per PA 89-062 as previously amended, and as further
amended by approval of PA 95-007.]
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT THE Dublin CilY Council approves PA 95-
007, Hansen Ranch/California Pacific Homes Planned Development Rezoning subjea to
the following general provisions and development standard which constitute regulations for
the use, improvement and maintenance of the Hansen Ranch projea,
[general provisions per PA 89-062, as previously amended, and as funher an-tended by
approval of PA 95-007.J
PASSED, AJ?PROV'ID A"1D ADOPTED this _ day of May, 1995.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Iv1ayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
J:\WPD\M?-.:RS'YV\J 14\RESOL\PDR.l-l'A'lS::--:.W61
MAY-03-95 WED 11:38
P.09/11
SAMPLE
RESOLUTION NO. - 95
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
APPROVING THE TENTATIVE MAP Ai\4ENDMENT FOR PA 95-007
HAJ.~SEN RANCH/CALIFORNIA PACIFIC HOMES
WI IEREAS, California Pacific Homes has requested a General Plan Amendment
Study. Planned Development Rezoning and Tentative ~1ap Subdivision for a 2.4i.: acre
portion of the Hansen Hill site to redesignate the open space/stream corridor General Plan
land use designation to Lm\' Density Single Family Residential (0.5 to 3.8 DUlAC), to
rezone the Planned Development Open Space Prezoning to allow single family homes and
relocate 16 single family residential lots into this area; and
\^IHEREAS, the application has been reviewed in accordance \vith the provisions of
the C.alifornia Environmental Quality Act; and
WHERE.AS, t.he State of California Subdivision J\'fap Act and the adopled CilY of
Dublin Subdivision Regulations require that no real pmpfny O'1;ty be divided intO nvo or
morc parcels for purpose of sale, lease or Gnancing unless a tentadve map is acted upon,
and a final m::lp is ;'1pproved consistent with the Subdivision Map Act and City of Dublin
subdivision regulations; amI
vVHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a properly noticed study $C'-ssion on
Aprill7, 1995, and scheduled a public hearing on May 1, 1995 to consider the General
Plan Amendment, PD Rezoning. Tentative Map and previous EIR for PA 95-007 planning
application for Hansen I IilVCalifornia Pacific Hom!:s; and
WHEREAS, proper notice of .'iaid public hearing \vas given in all respects as
required by law; and
\YHERE.AS, the Staff Repon was submiued reconunending the Planning
Commission recommend City Council denial of the Tentative :Map; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission on May 1, 1995 heard and considered all
said reports. recommendations and \vTItten and oral T.estimony submitted at u1e Public
Hearing as hereinabove set forth and adopted Resolution 95- _ recoIIunending denial of
the applications: and
\VHEREAS, the City Council considered the Planning Commission
recornmendatiun at a duly nOliced public hearing on May 8, 1995; and
WHEREAS, the City Council adopted Resolutions 95- _ and 95- _ dated 7vfay 8,
1995 approving a related General Plan Amendment and Planned Development Rezoning
to permit residential development in the area proposed for relocation of the 16 single
MAY-03-9S WED 11:39
P. 10/11
family residential lots.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE Dublin City Council does
herebv find:
J
1. The proposed Tentative Map amendment is consiSlent with me CiT.Y General
Plan as applied to this propeny in that the site would allow single family residemiallots
relocated into this area under Lhe approved General Plan Alnendment.
2. The proposed Tentative Map amendment is consistent \-vith the Planned
Development zoning in ~hat the Planned Development zoning approval would permit
residential lots in the proposed relocation area.
3. The proposed Tentative Map amendment may be approved pursuant to
Government Code ~~ 66473.5, 66474 and 66474.01 in that:
A. The amendment is consistent with the approved General Plan A.rnendmenr.
and Plarmed Deyelopment Rezoning proposing residential developmem. in
the relocation area.
B. The design and improvement of the proposed Tentative Map ame11dmem is
consisIenr. \\i!h th.e recommended General Plan Amendment in that design
and imlJrovement ,vas reviewed in connection -vvith the related General Plan
,A,mendment and the Tentative Jv'lap amendment continues to comply \vith
the overall project objective of providing large amounts of open space while
restricting de\'elopment to specific areas on the site.
C. The site is physically suitable for the type and proposed density or
development as reflected in the approved General Plan AmendmenT. for
residential development in the relocation area.
D. The design of the proposed Tentative Map ...vill cause SUbStaI1Lial
environmental damages t.o O;:lk woodland and riparian corridor habitat,
however the related impacts idenLified in the original EIR and Initial Study
update have been mitigated to the extent feasible and a statement of
overriding considerations has been adopted in Resolution 95- _, dated tvlay
8, 1995.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED TIIAT THE-Dublin City Council does hereby
approve PA 95-007, Hansen Ranch/California Pacific Homes Tentative J\iIapAmendment
subject to the follovving conditions:
1. The applicam shall cumply wim all Tentative Map conditions approved in
Resolution 130-89, dated November 27, 1989 e.xcept as specifically amended
herein.
2. Developmem of the Felocation area shall substantially comply \vith the
Tentative Map aU1.endment included in PA 95-007.
3. Draft DSRSD Conditions of Approval, undated.
MAY-D3-95 WED 11:40
1. Draft Public 'Narks Department Conditions, dated Apri14, 1995.
5. Dougheny Regional Fire Authority Conditions, dated April 7, 1995.
[add other as applicable I e.g" Department of Fish and Game
Conditions/MitigationsJ
PASSED, APPROVED i\..:.'.JD ADOPTED this _ day of lvlay, 1995.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ATTEST:
Mayor
City Clerk
1:\WPO\Mt'-:RS"'^114\RESOL\T!-.\l-'_.....'.;S~.W61
I.
,
P.ll/II