HomeMy WebLinkAbout5/1/1995 PC Agenda PLANNING COMMISSION
Regular Meeting-Dublin Civic Center Monday- 7:30 p.m.
100 Civic Plaza, Council Chambers May 1, 1995
1. CALL TO ORDER
2. ROLL CALL
3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG
4. ADDITIONS OR REVISIONS TO THE AGENDA
5. MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETINGS -April 17, 1995
6. ORAL COMMUNICATION-At this time,members of the audience are permitted to
address the Planning Commission on any item(s)of interest to the public; however, no
ACTION or DISCUSSION shall take place on any item which is NOT on the Planning
Commission Agenda. The Commission may respond briefly to statements made or
questions posed, or may request Staff to report back at a future meeting concerning the
matter. Furthermore, a member of the Planning Commission may direct Staff to place a
matter of business on a future agenda. Any person may arrange with the Planning
Director(no later than 11:00 a.m., on the Tuesday preceding a regular meeting)to have an
item of concern placed on the agenda for the next regular meeting.
7. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS
8. PUBLIC HEARINGS
8.1 PA 95-007 Hansen Ranch Phase II-. The applicant is requesting approval of a
General Plan Amendment,Planned Development(PD)Rezoning, and Tentative
Map Amendment to the approved Tentative Map. The Hansen Ranch Subdivision
includes 180 units overall on a 147 acre site on the west side of Silvergate Drive,
north of Hansen Drive and south of Winding Trails Lane. The proposed
amendments apply to Phase II 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 project site.
9. NEW OR UNFINISHED BUSINESS
10. OTHER BUSINESS (Commission/Staff Informational Only Reports)
11. ADJOURNMENT
(OVER FOR SUMMARY PROCEDURES)
DRFT
KK. Tenant Frontage. The term Tenant Frontage shall mean the linear length of a
building frontage of suites occupied by a tenant.
LL. Time/Temperature Sign. The term Time/Temperature Sign, including an
Electronic Readerboard, Business Bulletin Board, or other Changeable Copy
Sign, shall mean a Business Sign on which the copy is manually or
electronically changed and which is intended primarily to promote items of
general interest to the Community such as time, temperature and/or date.
MM. Vehicular Sign. The term Vehicular Sign shall mean any sign permanently
affixed to an operable, driveable and currently registered motor vehicle which
is used in the normal course of business.
NN. Wall Sign. The term Wall Sign shall mean a Business Sign attached or erected
against the building or structure, with the exposed face of the sign in a
plane parallel to the plane of such building or structure.
00. Window Sign. The term Window Sign shall mean a sign attached to, suspended
behind, placed or painted upon, the window or glass door of a building which
is intended for viewing from the exterior of the building.
ARTICLE II. PERMITTED SIGNS - APPROVALS AND REGULATIONS
Sec. 8.08.030 SIGN APPROVALS AND PERMITTING BODY BY ZONING DISTRICT. Matrix A, 'SIGN
APPROVALS AND PERMITTING BODY' prescribes the necessary permits and the permitting
body applicable to the specified signs for each zoning district:
6
CITY OF DUBLIN
PLANNING COMMISSION
AGENDA STATEMENT/STAFF REPORT
Meeting Date: May 1, 1995
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Planning Staff IT
PREPARED BY: Tasha Huston, Associate Planner 2! fJ��
SUBJECT: PA 95-007 Hansen Ranch General Plan Amendment, Planned Development
Rezone& Tentative Map Amendment
GENET INFO' ATION:
PROJECT: The applicant is requesting approval of a General Plan Amendment, Planned
Development (PD)Rezoning, and Tentative Map Amendment to Phase II of
the approved Tentative Map. The project involves 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 147+ acre Hansen
Hill Ranch project site.
APPLICANT: California Pacific Homes, Inc.
One Civic Plaza, Suite 300
Newport Beach, CA 92660
Martha Buxton, Agent
PROPERTY OWNER: California Pacific Homes, Inc., 1 Civic Plaza, Suite 300, Newport Beach, CA
92660. Phone#:(714)721-2770
LOCATION: West of Silvergate Drive, north of Hansen Drive, south of Winding Trail Lane
ASSESSOR PARCEL: 941-110-1-9; 941-110-2
PARCEL SIZE: ±147 acres (Phases 1 and 2)
GENERAL PLAN
DESIGNATION: Low Density Single-Family Residential; Open Space, Stream Corridor
EXISTING ZONING
AND LAND USE: Planned Development District; Vacant Agricultural land with grazing use.
SURROUNDING LAND
USE AND ZONING: North: Planned Development District with residential use; Alameda
County Agricultural District with grazing use.
South: R-1-B-E District with residential use; Agricultural District with church
use; Planned Development District with grazing use.
East: Planned Development District with residential use.
West: Planned Development District with grazing use, Agricultural District
with grazing use.
COPIES TO: Applicant
Owner
ITEM NO. • I Address Filer tj
HISTORY:
PA 87-045: On February 27,1989,City Council adopted a General Plan Amendment to
allow Low Density Single Family Residential and Open Space,Stream Corridor
land use designations and General Plan policy revisions,for the Hansen Hill Ranch
project. Along with this approval,and on the same date,the City Council certified
the Final Environmental Impact Report on the project,with Findings and a
Statement of Overriding Considerations,pursuant to the California Environmental
Quality Act.
PA 89-062: On November 27, 1989,City Council approved Planned Development
Prezoning,Tentative Map,and Annexation proposal,for 180 single family units
and±96 acres of open space,for the Hansen Hill Ranch project. On May 23,
1991,LAFCO certified Annexation No.7,bringing the approximately 147 acre
Hansen Ranch property into the Dublin City limits.
PA 89-115: On May 14, 1990,City Council denied General Plan Amendment,Planned
Development Prezoning,and Tentative Map to redesignate open space for 10
single family custom lots.
PA 90-018: On March 19, 1991 the Applicant applied for Site Development Review for
Residential floorplans for the 180 lot project,then requested that the application be
withdrawn in order to facilitate the redesign of the single-family units. The
Planning Department closed the file,in response to the withdrawal request from
the Applicant.
PA 89-062: On December 2, 1991,the Planning Commission approved a time extension of the
Planned Development Prezoning,to May 27,1992,coinciding with the expiration
date of the approved Tentative Map 5766.
PA 91-096 On February 18, 1992 the Planning Commission adopted Resolutions 92-013 and
92-014 approving PA 91-096 Hansen Ranch Conditional Use Permit(approving a
minor modifications to the approved General Provisions for the Hansen Ranch
Planned Development Project),and Hansen Ranch Site Development Review
(SDR)for home designs for the First Phase of the Hansen Ranch Project.
PA 91-099 On February 24, 1992,the City Council adopted the Hansen Hill Ranch
Development Agreement Ordinance(PA 91-099),approving a Development
Agreement between the City and The Donald L.Bren Company(Hansen Ranch
property owners)for the Hansen Ranch project. The Development Agreement
was entered into by the City on March 25, 1992,and is effective for an initial term
of eight years. All previous project approvals are automatically extended for the
term of the Development Agreement. (PA 91-099).
PA 94-054 On February 27, 1995,the City Council adopted Hansen Ranch Tentative Map
Amendment for Phase I involving changes in street and lot configurations,
elevation changes for some lots,and design changes to the creek access
road/hiking trail. On March 13,1995,the City Council adopted a Development
Agreement Amendment approving the creek access road/hiking trail revisions.
2
APPLICABLE REGULATIONS:
The Dublin Zoning Ordinance,Section 8-103.3, requires that a General Plan Amendment request be
reviewed at a public hearing before the Planning Commission. After the conclusion of hearings on a
proposed amendment,the Planning Commission shall make a report of its recommendations,with
findings and reasons. The City Council then holds public hearings on the matter,considers the Planning
Commission recommendation,and has the authority to adopt amendments.
California State Law requires adoption of a General Plan that is a comprehensive long term plan for the
physical development of the City. The State General Plan Guidelines state that when reviewing proposals
for amendments to the General Plan,local officials should remember that the plan is a policy document
for the entire community and that it may only be amended in the"Public Interest".Additionally,the State
Government Code procedures require that when considering an amendment to its General Plan,a City
must provide the opportunity for public involvement,pursuant to Section 65351.
The Law limits the number of General Plan Amendments a jurisdiction may adopt to a maximum of four
(4)amendments per calendar year. The City Council authorizes the number and extent of General Plan
Amendments. The City Council has not adopted any General Plan Amendments in 1995.
The Dublin Zoning Ordinance related to Planned Development(PD)Districts Intent states,in part,that
PD districts are established to encourage the arrangement of a compatible variety of uses on suitable land
in such a manner that the resulting development will provide efficient use of the land,including
preservation of significant open areas and natural and topographic landscape features with minimum
alteration of natural land forms'.
The Dublin Municipal Code addresses the Intent of the Subdivision Ordinance. This Section states,in
summary,that the division of land must be consistent with the policies of the City of Dublingeneral plan,
including the preservation of natural resources and the prevention of environmental damage.
The California Environmental Quality Act(CEQA)also applies to this project. This law requires public
agencies to identify the significant environmental impacts resulting from a proposed project,to identify
alternatives to a project,and to indicate ways those significant effects can be mitigated or avoided. The
law states that public agencies should not approve projects as proposed if there are feasible alternatives or
mitigation measures available which would substantially lessen the significant environmental effects of
such projects3. If the project is approved despite signficant environmental impacts,the public agency
must make certain findings,such as:
1. Changes or alterations have been required in,or incorporated into,such project which mitigate or
avoid the significant environmental effects thereof as identified in the completed Environmental
Impact Report;and/or
2. Substantial evidence in the public record demonstrates that specific economic,social,or other
considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the
environmental impact report°.
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
(PA 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
1 Section 8-31.0
2 Section 9.04.030 of Chapter 9.04
3 CEQA Statutues, Section 21002
4 CEQA Statutes, Section 21082
FGE or l
3
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 of the pertinent comments received appears below in the PUBLIC
COMMENTS section.
NOTIFICATION: Public Notices of the April 17, 1995 Planning Commission Study Session,as well as
the May 1, 1995 Planning Commission Hearing and the May 8,1995 City Council Hearing,were
published in the local newspaper,posted in public buildings and at the project site,and mailed to adjacent
property owners and public agencies.
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 and Environmental Impact Report to allow
Low Density Single Family Residential(0.5-3.8 units per acre),Open Space,Stream Corridor land use
designations and General Plan policy revisions relating to Land Use,Circulation,Safety and
Conservation,for the Hansen Ranch project. 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(PA 95-007)involves three planning applications processed concurrently: 1)a
General Plan Amendment;2)a Planned Development(PD)Rezoning;and 3)a Tentative Map
Amendment to Phase II of the approved Tentative Map. The staff recommends that the Planning
Commission consider each entitlement request separately,beginning with the General Plan Amendment.
ANALYSIS:
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 signficiant issues. Several outside agencies were consulted to obtain additional
expertise and opinions. As a result of this analysis,staff recommends that the project,PA 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.
4 ( �_�
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 Low Density Single Family Residential(0.5-3.8 DU/Acre)land uses,with 16 homesites
proposed to be 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 3). The issue of whether development should occur in
this portion of the site was addressed in the project EIR,which showed custom homesites in this area.
The EIR analysis determined that development within the oak woodlands and riparian habitat would
result in significant impacts.The EIR identified various alternatives to the project,which involved a
redesigned project with no development in the sensitive habitat and woodland areas. When the EIR was
certified and the project approved,no residential units were allowed in this area of the site,as
recommended by the EIR.
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 statement of overriding considerations anticipated that the impacts to the oak woodlands and riparian
vegetation would be minimized through implementation of the EIR mitigation measures. One mitigation
measure was to require minimal grading for the road. Another requires that the slopes graded for the
road be revegetated with native plants after construction. Eventually,trees replanted on graded slopes
would 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. This would increase the area which would not be revegetated under the
proposed plan. A diagram illustrating the areas to be revegetated under the approved plan versus the
proposed redesign will be available at the May 1st meeting. Even if there is a replacement of three new
trees replanted 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. It notes that mamals use
riparian corridors for travel between habitats. An individual habitat area will have minimal long-term
value unless wildlife can move from one biome to another. 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. According to comments from the Department of Fish and Game,
wildlife habitats in areas which are surrounded by development are not as valuable as those with a link to
the regional open space. In other words,not only would the development result in the loss of woodland
and riparian habitat where the homesites are proposed,but also possibly in a loss of habitat value when
the open space is encircled by development.
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 in one area,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 beyond the grading for just the roadway in some portions,and decrease in others.
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 under
Attachment 1(Limits of Grading Exhibit).
At the April 17 study session,staff indicated that based upon an exhibit presented by the applicant,there
would be approximately 3 additional acres of woodland area saved under the proposed plan. However,it
was later discovered that the majority of the tree area which would be saved is due to the reduction in
grading due to relocation of a sewer line,and changes in the width of the creek access road/hiking trail
(from 12 feet to 8 feet wide). The reduction in graded area and tree removal identified as 6.6 acres on
the Limits of Grading exhibit is not due to the revised subdivision layout. Based upon the new
information,it appears that the area of woodland that would be impacted due to relocation of the
homesites would be greater than the area affected under the approved plan. A diagram illustrating the
woodlands within the homesite relocation area which are impacted under the approved plan versus the
proposed redesign will be available at the May 1st meeting.
Also at the 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 Fish and Game commented on this
issue in a telephone conversation,and noted that while there is value in both types of habitats,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 riparian vegetation area.
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
IMPACTS
Grading Overall 23.4 fewer acres LESS
Grading in homesite relocation area (acreage not available)* APPEAR GREATER
Loss of Trees Overall 3.1 fewer acres LESS
Loss of Trees in homesite relocation area (acreage not available)* APPEAR GREATER
Loss of Riparian Habitat 1.7 more acres GREATER
Island Habitat homes are major physical barrier GREATER
Amount of Runoff more impervious surface GREATER
Grading of Knolls 16.28 fewer acres LESS
*Staff has requested this information from the applicant's engineer. It will be available at the public hearing Monday,
along with diagrams illustrating the impacts in these areas.
6 6 1(
A copy of the EIR's text addressing recommended mitigation measures for protecting vegetation
resources is included as Attachment 4. 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 oak woodland
and wildlife habitat impacts with the project as proposed. Similarly,the statement of overriding
considerations previously adopted relies on certain acopted mitigation. If those mitigations are not part
of the project,the overriding considerations would need to be reassessed. Staff recommends that the
Planning Commission 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 5.
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.
Additionally,policy 7.7,regarding Open Space Maintenance/Management includes a few guiding policies
which should be considered when reviewing this proposal. They include:
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
The intent of policy 7.7.e,which requires minimized grading for roads through open space areas,is to
limit damage to the ecological and aesthetic value and characteristics of the open space area. If the land
use category in this area of the site were changed to residential,the project would not"technically"be in
conflict with policy 7.7.e because the above policies would only apply to Open Space. However,when
this policy was adopted,under the General Plan Amendment which approved the Hansen site's land uses
in 1989,it was intended to accommodate the approval of only the road through this area of the project
site,not residential lots. Thus,staff's conclusion that the project 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.
Also,when the roadway through the open space was approved,the long-term effects were addressed
with the requirement that the graded area be revegetated with native plants. The revegetation was
intended to minimize the disturbance of this environmentally sensitive area over time. This would also
further the City's long term General Plan goals of preserving woodlands and riparian habitat,while
providing road access for public safety.
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 Planning
Commission recommend,to the City Council,denial of 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 homesites 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 GPA request is accompanied
by a request to amend the applicable PD zoning General Provisions. Staff recommends that the Planning
Commission recommend 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
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 Planning
Commission recommend that the City Council deny the Tentative Map Amendment request.
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 6.
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.One letter of comment received from a resident near the project site prior to
the April 17, 1995 Study Session was provided in the previous staff report,and one was distributed at the
study session. Another letter objecting to the proposed land use change was received after the study
session,and is included,with the other letters of comment,under attachment 7. Additional comments
were received from representatives of the Dublin Unified School District,East Bay Regional Parks
District,Department of Fish&Game,the Dougherty Regional Fire Authority and other city departments.
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 of local 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.
Department of Fish&Game
The City received a letter from the Department of 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 whipsnake,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.
The comments from Fish and Game did not specify a minimum width needed for wildlife corridors,
rather,they state that each situation is considered on a case by case basis. The letter states that the
Department's guidelines call for areas of contiguous open space,and that corridors of even 320 feet wide
severely restrict wildlife passage. In summary,the Fish and Game letter recommends against approval of
the proposed amendments. The staff also stated that if the project 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. For example,where the road and/or development occurs directly over the riparian
corridor,a bridge structure or other solution should be used to provide a wildlife passageway and
connecting link between habitat areas. Another example of possible mitigation would be to require the
applicant to purchase and dedicate to a public agency an area of existing oak woodland off-site.
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.
ALTERNATIVES/OPTIONS
1) Project as proposed
If the Planning Commission wishes to consider approval of the General Plan Amendment,Rezoning,and
Tentative Map Amendment,as proposed,the Commission would need to determine that the proposal is
consistent with the General Plan. If the Commission believes that the project is inconsistent with any of
the General Plan policies,the project cannot be approved as proposed.
Also,regarding environmental impacts,new findings and a new statement of overriding considerations
would need to be prepared if the Council approved the applications as proposed. The findings would
include a statement that the proposal results in significant environmental impacts which cannot be
1l
mitigated to an insignificant level. A sample resolution of approval will be available for the Commission's
review at the May 1,1995 public hearing.
A resolution recommending the City Council's approval of the project would need to be adopted,and
would need to contain the findings and any modified General Plan policies as mentioned above. A
condition of approval should be incorporated into the approval to meet the requirements of the Fish&
Game Department regarding additional environmental studies and mitigation measures. If the
Commission is comfortable with the above-mentioned Resolutions(to be provided at the meeting),it
could adopt the resolutions and the project would be heard by the City Council at the May 8th regular
City Council meeting. If major changes are proposed to the Resolutions or to the project,or issues are
unresolved,the item may need to be continued to the next Planning Commission meeting.
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.
One alternative would be to redesign the proposal to reduce the number of homesites to be built in the
open space area,or eliminate units in this area and relocate them to another portion of the site which is
currently designated for residential land use. Another option would be to select another area of open
space on site for redesignation to residential which has fewer environmental constraints. Possibly, the
density in that area could be increased,while maintaining the project density overall. 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.
Also,a condition of a approval should be incorporated into the approval to meet the requirements of the
Fish&Game Department regarding additional studies to develop mitigation measures. If the applicant
wishes to propose an alternative project design,the item would need to be continued to the next Planning
Commission meeting date to allow time to analyze a revised proposal.
3) Denial
If the Planning Commission concurs with staff,and determines that the project as proposed involves
significant environmental impacts for which there are 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 Commission 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 Planning Commission 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 Commission 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 Planning
Commission recommends denial,the item will be scheduled for the City Council's review at its next
meeting on May 8th, 1995.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons explained in the analysis,staff recommends that the Commission make a recommendation
of denial of the General Plan Amendment,PD Rezoning,and Tentative Map Amendment.
io /O ll
RECOMMENDATIONS:
FORMAT: 1) Hear Staff Presentation
2) Open Public Hearing
3) Take testimony from Applicant and the public
4) Question Staff, Applicant and the public.
5) Close public hearing and deliberate.
6) Adopt Draft Resolutions (Exhibits A, B, & C) relating to PA 95-007, or give Staff
and Applicant direction and continue the matter.
ACTION: Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend the City Council deny PA 95-007
Hansen Ranch General Plan Amendment (Exhibit A), PD Rezoning (Exhibit B), and
Tentative Map Amendment (Exhibit C).
ATTACHMENTS:
Exhibit A: Draft Resolution Recommending Denial of General Plan Amendment
Exhibit B: Draft Resolution Recommending Denial of Planned Development Rezoning
Exhibit C: Draft Resolution Recommending Denial of Tentative Map Amendment
BACKGROUND ATTACHMENTS
1: 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: Location Map and Current General Plan Map
3: Diagram showing Riparian Corridors
4: Text from EIR regarding mitigation measures
5: Existing Dublin General Plan Policies
6: Memorandum from City Attorney
7: Public Comment Letters
(g:\pafl\1995\pa95007\SRPC5-1)
/
g i
11
RESOLUTION NO.95-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL DENIAL
OF THE GENERAL PLAN 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±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, 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 PA 95-007 planning application for Hansen Hill/California 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±acre open space area to low density single family residential(0.5 to 3.8 DU/AC);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, the Planning Commission 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 Planning Commission 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 preserving oak woodlands and riparian vegetation;and
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
E (f-H (T A
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 of PA 95 -007, Hansen Ranch/California Pacific Homes General Plan Amendment.
PASSED,APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 1st day of May, 1995.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Planning Commission Chairperson
ATTEST:
Planning Director
(g:/pa#/1994/054/notice/pereso2)
RESOLUTION NO.95-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
--------------
RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL DENIAL
OF THE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REZONING 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±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 Pezoning 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 PA 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 PA 95-007,Hansen Ranch/California Pacific Homes General Plan Amendment.
PASSED,APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 1st day of May,1995.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Planning Commission Chairperson
ATTEST:
Planning Director
(g:/p0/1994/054/notice/pereso2)
Ex4+H 6tT 3
RESOLUTION NO.95-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL DENIAL OF 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±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 I,1995,to consider the General Plan Amendment,PD Rezoning,Tentative Map and
previous EIR for PA 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.
EXHIBIT C
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED 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:
Planning Commission Chairperson
ATTEST:
Planning Director
(g:/pa#/1994/054/notice/pereso2)
16
'� • ,
PROPOSED TO BE
RELOCATED • AREA
•• .
HANSEN HILL RANCH - 111b[Sl, 11
G N/; Rat L PLAN i11111M)M NT
LAND USE DESICNAT'ION
I.OIY DENSITY SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL 44.7 ACRE
(0.5 to 3.8 DUTACRE)
OPEN SPACE, STREAM CORRIDOR 58.5 ACRE
�. COLLECTOR STREET IN OPEN SPACE
[t'
R E C Z I
�FE9 t
�)UBLIN PLA 4I nr
Pnrr- / &r 8
n "ANSEN HILL RANCH
Ammended Planned Development Rezoning Phase II
,
\ J 111
Martin Carryon Creek
Ile 14 :
/•-6• vilrvl c4+d Chaim link lonce \
i
IZ
`-
1 117
e• wide nack,0 ua'
or
Ile` '� iLUi�a''y ,�;'• 9e / `\� _ �t� - —� t,...oak bay� `� \\� •�• r- `,\
1 ,/ i-111 �?•' /.. / �>•1\ `��� �'%/�.«... �s]' S _.__... \ ','ice ��'
1 � -- _ � -i �I/s'���/� .. .: / I � ' - • ..ti1- ,�-'.. _ �t tirv.�Mnterf i�Cn>ii 1�.�yy`r �l t .r•-«� ... //i /� i
Yi (_ sS•� ♦a
4.
IF
\1.'�. �--__1 \ • a lax i1 / r• �., = �: \ � �, .- 11., - }9-.��.. _ s\ .— / / � / /
,.. \ � le] o ii j% , 1 �ht�' � � �...,a Ise _ .+..�.,..,1 � _� 7• / �� f
'\ `� �• - ':: \. •� \ �•\
> /
tly(Ypseed erne wW wlkifldv n� mnt Is
\- �l � Inv - —�� t`=-, � �' .. ' , �( r,• '�
i(_ — - �, •\. �\ \ \� lee mm -� _ I]v 75 Y r 3 F*bnxwy W95
11
�
\ �\ CALIFORNIA
...
\ i,_ C RNIA o ao M 160 t
. .. ... ire• .. .
\ \ \ 1 f --\. 32A4
� � F �\�\\ f'< �•o � /' iGATFS.i PACIFIC _
HOMES
�� _— --- -- -- -- -- -- -- — _ -- -- —_ PAGE _ 01- �.
A MENDED IT TA71 VE TRACT A
D
_PLA NNEI) DE VEL OPM-ENTR EZONING SITE PLAN
SUBDI VISION 6308
I
I
1
I
/
�!. q
I.i\I,(1 (W
I\III.I.`)I.I\I
uvE
..{ f
1 h
EIIL�i 0TWRP le AOa
"
1 \\ 1J
�
1 /
I j i
/
II Colo Ac, xai•
�
(
.....
61 V
w
�t
Site c �$
DUDON
1-5e0
J
VICINITY MAP �s
®/�\ v 5L 1I
T7 I1! 1E
I � 1/\ 1C� 2 ,I
I II
ll
r.
I (
I
I
1
I
II 1�
�1
I C�
1 Q7l
0 CI ( ( I
I, \
n
Q�', i A611y� I i
I
s i I'fv)/A(f* -,d I�,uu,
Y
1
-
\--
oH
OMIEA/OEVELOPER :
CALYORMA PACIFIC NOME5
5 ()MC PLAZA, SLATE 100
NEWf DEACIL CA 97660
EHCRIEER:
AD-S SPREE/ER all E» fFRS NC
15 CO TI ORAIE PARR
IRMNE, CA 57114
SOR ENGNELR;
OL NLUCAR QOTEn RRCAI. CO UA.IANr5
ss6r %Fm LASAN T(YI, CA CA 91566
NOTES:
1. TIE -DONS 910WN ARE RASED CN U.s ccot WcAl.
SUHKY 1S2S SEA Lf Vt DAN.
] COWTOUR INTERVAL : S TEST
] En St Q USE ; VACANT
1. PRCPDSED 7O 11C : PLANNED DENEIOPNENT
5. LOT WE : MOD S.F. (w») - AV FIIAGE for S2E : 7560 SP.
,0 Al. LOTS : toe 9RQE TAMILY LOTS
6. WATER SUPPLY : Do" SAM A— SCRMCES 01STRICT
(ANNEXATIn1 10 NSTRICT REWRED)
7. SEWER N9 OSAl : DURUN SAII RASIOH SERMCES NSTR,CT
(ANNE%ATIOV TO DISTRICT REOIARED)
6. ALL STREETS SEIAAL K DEDICATED TO PURl1C
q, ALL STREET UO/TS PER CITY OF DURUN STANOARDS
10, L SLIDE WE A710E1 WAS CCM\ED 1AM AE
Mow AE CCOTEC,TglM MVESRCATICN HO. 176.5,101,
DATED I/11/S7 BY KALODAR CCO"C'"CA CoN9lLl-TS
LOT "A' STItEAM COIUtDOR TO OE DEDICATED TO TTE CITY OF DUOLN
ACREAGE SUMMARY
TOTAL AREA 146.84 ACRES
PHASE T 103.28 ACRES
LOT AREA 18.74 ACRES
STREET AREA 7.60 ACRES
OE'E/I SPACE\ 56.97 ACRES
SIREAM CORRIDOR
TRACT T 25.J41
.LNG IARRr»D
T--
TYPICAL MAJOR STREET
SECTION
»1S.
TYPICAL MINOR STREET
SECTION
-S
2
0
w
Q
z
w
'EFT
O_I_
Pi1G� 3- (►i ._ g._.
CO
W
SEE SHEE7' 3 SEE SHEET 5
C8, v' y1
0- � � n�, \ � ,1 11 7.316 Imo: -� ,` JI \•` r /
r ..+u / `\i� tY ^' ' 1 6,453 4.f. 1 P-633 t 1
1 r /
ri 4�
7.516 a.f. '
,J, e11t
(17 -690 art
P_:.690 _ 6.307 a.f. _ F _ _ I , I p=646
6,546 I i" " ; , I a, I f
6,1111
6.116 !J�
=692 P-690 9 P-652 '•'�
6.410 a.f. P=652
131 k 1 \ / \�•: w+, �` ry a F /r J' 6.923 l.1. 1 -
P=739`\\'u .rJ
P=739 ,7,574 e.f..�.,` �--
�'' 7.752 f>9' 81
"24 /
\ P=739 1 ' �!\/ /� .Fr '\ �)+„ ^r �. ,yrl 6,875 a.l. i,' /„ P=657.
l a.130 a. 1.I1 � /i �` r / � 'J � \ w+4
3 7 a.L;. t 1 i//f r i ,[ i{•Y§ 154 I // o^/ y 80 '�• t \ \ .®.
6,641 a 1. � Fr.� � ebb...
/ � P=6 7 �, � P-662
a i p=7 j9 i �� / ..-_ re rie i \.fir w+! / i. w 03�,�
° / a+o r r r oa• Da•\:` / at> w5 974 a.f.
79
..1. °,�� �, 139 tia ��� ��� •e^' jar P=zoa� p-704 i r •/� �� i�
vi P�7J9 668
466 a 1. _ T� >�
1 1, �...� / �'-t•.R �. _\L w A I I
872 a./. ry r ' 1� ++. ` n L,gt�\ ` 4 r �, � 1 1 / l•.\
,
r
293..
6.144 a 1•./ k 6.869 a.l.1/14`1�' I v ' r - P /1 / .� vt �`\ /I I -._a,vr ...:!!77.274 a 1.�� Pm 7J2.5 i 1 � -,r — r , _ � `�.. � i I i��� t' nu w.1IL�
7r784 s. 1, n -� � ""-�---_____----
P-!z4 / \ .1 P-'/18
. a.• \ \ !��` -., - ar \� ,i 6,032 a I / ? 1f 7 93B s.! .A - I �'
U/ li g 7.7J4
/ 41
P37J` S 167 .L j \ ` - +�•.:- r _ J2'. / 1'714 '+� - C/Ci t `,>t •� !\ /
Sr7J4 1. 6.585 .f / •S.'� 7.321 a.l
b
ate. P-737.5 °j• �- INSP[7[ 770,N
6,207 ;,S. f.--r�r'-
6
4 °°. P 737.5 169 !v ee - - 'ee•` � � � µ`F, � / \ p.. ��.� .1, �--15 /-'
-
P=737 I70-� ♦ _ --7a' \ _ �F„ arr P=884 i
8 5 171 ���[ aa. 7.210 a. f. �•,A }� 6A89 L 1 /
5.817 a. f. LL !...
P= 737 $ 172 6 1 7J 174 \ \. i o %, 1 .�',\. -�, \' r� / ft 7
eJ. 6.405 a.f. P=7J6-Y P•�736 . o O 175 J ',� \,.\ ''• / t.."',`�.- ,.
6,277 J. S,tl12 e. 1. P=736 P-735.SU i76 ,' •'� \ `,�+ �O .J • �\\ P_644r,
6.226 aA 6,263 a I P-7J5
6'450 P=734 _ (17J , � n _/ ` _l �i'• � \'' P=665 h = v \
°.---- _ 0 5.927 a.l. �. _
! P - 732
7r216 aJ (%81 .y( /y /' f)1 ,ty a
/ / / a
-726 t17� , �0' ''� ` //0o( -6af
t_ - \_ _ 6.537
_ � 4
r
al 2 D>. h /' P-6/7P=66
r
!.. (
4n` \ \ � y.l =
6.461 a f
_ ^ya, /�'", �'` A psi �; � t�• w ;�
`6t14
P
o , o
i 66ti -, o �;•
o v
r., 1
\r
a a;• ,r I )323 P.,
i 1\/hs' OF V/11,1,RY (I.I.P110VAN '(,EN7 N?
s,.w l 1
r
SEE SWEET 4
6,15 A- 9 2
82 7��' "
.. 1. 1� , '' 0 I'\ 1 1 6.892 . f.
'd. P-- 720 x p 556
7.440 0.
45
�"o
8891 8,4
82 612
13,840
(9 5)
p 40 If) i
b.
(I If•P=560 P=504
g 7,732 ..f. V 16.33 f.
m w
89
10.221 1
13. 1130 V P-567
v, cc uj
w cc
6/
10,309 1,
6 j
'3,�N f- 10,891 1. fl
7-
P=570 U
9,6 7 1.
c, 6,710 a.f. -j5;
59 4
12'.
7,174 .,1, 10. 83 3J. 9 F034
P- 5111 g
906 P=574
9,347 J.
581
120 p 5 63 1.
P 7M
6,539 .. I,
CID,
2 �I 38 ab
•
122
a P=738 5
6,656\.(.
p`
�CALE
I - 4
P6.1 f` b
24
<
A IT 11OXIMAlt tO(,AII( 'If (A
P- 739 loo .[AN III (A I AIKI` I AW I
6.207 4.1.i. SEIDACK
LLI
t
121
�� ' ° /
P-739
Ld
coo
--7 —
121, 0
CY)
�� (� ��'�� •� ,,, .. j I�
19
<
PJ _ 57399,.f.
�_�� __�P=690 <
6.546 3.1
Ld
R
210 J. f. 148 0
692
U)
fl�. 740 -
13
q I N, - 7 4 1.
P-739
P 7 3
2 6,277 P-695
�,, 5.724 J.
P;'110
7,752 C
tj -Y, , 44 LL1
P� 139
P-7
747 5.130 'A.
11) cw�
P--/ 59
s P= 73 '--<�6 ?7 LLJ
0
- ly P=700
6.641 a.1.
L-6,
4 9 U) 4 , .1.
145
v= /39
16 z
7 279 1. ;1 P-708 4.
7.099 ..0
144 6,
6,144 L.
P -1 Iq3,
-i4
7 e. f. 4 P= 717 _ _ - \ /; ,�\ \� ,,. 6.201 aSr� � S \l�'�� �^o�'/ i c, �`�.,,c'. � _. _ / t. --.1� t4� ' ,/
4,
SEE SHEAT 2
IJIGE
� .l i
Oq
SHEET
w
va-
41,
64 ytlt
P-675
>
p 560
p 7.732 - f-
ro2
B77
ti. i titi 4 1
R&
' f()41 N \N
U.tnt s 1. �.\
w
-j
Bg
9 .
Cij
p.567 u
o
7.0 B
5�70
5
/'41
�''S. .�E•'� \ '\ \_ •'I\\ �C� fit'
r
� 1
\ ,
CRET WAIL;
ego `�� : e \\\, � / ,._.ii'--__''� � � •
11
I I � i � R. oC ( e 6g G ,,, � / __. - ._..- �\\ --.... - - J yr Si^ i� � \ ,` ,• !� A`
629
o.�\
6,43 P46
662
668
1I
w
co
z
a
W
N
N
W
a,
o�
(1
zz
¢a
a.0
¢in
CL1
z'
w
t-
Q
w
p
z
\ L1
C.acces Al
!
a Y
PHASE 11
HANSEN RANCH
CITY OF DUBLIN, CALIFORNIA
LIMITS OF GRADING EXHIBIT
7.
7-77-77tma;Zzl LEGEND
'L_ _ ->N\ - �( �rt ,( - -------- 19U9 LIMITS OF GRADING
N,
........... 1994 LIMITS OF GRADING
TRACT BOUNDARY LINE
)o AREA 1969 GRADING ENCROACHES
L---J BEYOND 1994 GRADING (27,50 ACRES)
AREA 19.4 DR...". ER�R.IIES
BEYOND 19U9 GRADING (4 ACHES)
,... IIIC^'7 an\.i�f �( t., ` � �'. 1 `- i/�.i �I � ' •\ .�'' \ !t\ -� �\�F ����\ ��°
I) —j
�V
A.,
L
)A
4
71
/�) � 1 � `�`\ ti! ` i 1 i�J �.N'. � \ R�N�
iY, MIS
%L
V
dZ—
S
V
g
z
C.
I'll IOU
rim //I s
+
. . . . ..........
LAND$ Oil VAI,I-EY CHNISTIAN CENFEII
X,
191111 GRAOINT'.'.N IS SAW g W. I1.15 ATWA
"A"", ADAMS-STREIEUR
CIVIL ENGINEERS
!-
AG L: e or.L
I �--
Residential
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
1-sm., (6.1 - 14.0 units per acre)
Medium -High Density Residential
(14.1 25.0 units per acre)
Commercial/ Indust ria I
Retail/Office
Retail/Office & Automotive
Business Park/Industrial
Business Park/Indus trial:
Outdoor Storage
Business Park/Indus trial:
Low Coverage
Public/Semi-Public/Open
Public /S e mi-Pub lic Facility
Parks/Recreation
AREA OF PROPOSED
Open Space
LAND USE CHANGE
Stream Corridor
PROJECT SITE
11111111111111112
Circulation
INTERSTATE
Arterial and Major Streets Bart (proposed)
Collector Street
.. . ......... Proposed Street ........... Downtown Intensification Area
= Freeway Dublin City Limit / Primary
........... Transportation Corridor Planning Area Boundary
...... . . . . .
V
.......................
.....................
..........
............
♦
J�
...... Or 3- l
........... .
I . .. . . . . . .... . .
ji
•
lkk
. . . . ... . SEE EIEU
%
4. Z
APPROXIMATE INSET SCALE: 1' = 8202'
J:
X!
M
IC
NOTE: See Table on opposite page for descriptions
of numbered Public/Semi-Public Facilities
and Park s/Recreation.
a
0 1490' 2980'
& I
DUBLIN GENERAL PLAIN
Revised February 1992
1-7 ATY-A)-r �2
"-A
0 = a
NIELSEN
CRONIN
...... ....
0
0
Ivs
* . .........
Lu . . . . . . .
Z.
sr ....... 1,
C) 0
10
T
el
1<
.00
000 '00" J
P, R'
v
�01
It
A
Z
Ile
BLAYLOCK$
GLEASON,
A FLETCHER
X
HAK —SEN
>--78 0—'
)i VALLEY CHRISTIAN CENTER
—711
Nzv/
740
SOURCE: DAVID LGATES & ASSOCIATES: EIP ASSOCIATES
FEET M1111114—��
0 100 200 400
Riparian Corridor
Oak/Bay Forest
Areas of
Oak/Bay Forest Potentially Affected by the Project
3.4 Vegetation
I
measures for the creeks which, depending upon the methods selected, could result in
1 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.
211
3.4.4 MITIGATION
The principal City policies dealing with vegetation resources are contained within the
Conservation and Open Space Elements of the City's General Plans The general guiding
IIpolicy 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"
I (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
Nflooding"(Chapter 7.1).
An "adequate width" is open for interpretation and may vary from site to site. Since the
liriparian 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
Ithe "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
IFish 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.6 The proposed buffer area varies
IIfrom approximately 30 feet along Martin Canyon Creek in Neighborhood 1 to well over
100 feet along other portions of Martin Canyon Creek and the tributary drainages.
IIThe 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
II100—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
biri
II Creekside Road is preferred to the proposed 30 inch pipe. A bridge or culvert would be
less restrictive than the 30-inch pipe to wildlife migration through this area.
86123 3-26 P,TTACI-lP"i ENi.T_A
3.4 Vegetation
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:
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.
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 following:
01 - Use of trees,shrubs and vine species native to the region.
- 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
Ifto approximate a natural riparian community.
- Trees, shrubs and vines may be established from seeds, liner stock or small
container stock(one gallon)or hydromulch where feasible.
- Obtain the input of Alameda County Flood Control district for the revegetation
plan, which should be consistent with Flood Control maintenance requirements.
- 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
211 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.
111 a 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 3-2;
I3.4 Vegetation
N
o Any alternations within the creek or drainage swale for either development access or
flood control purposes should 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.
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. Further consultation with DFG should take place to
determine the exact nature and extent of vegetation replacement that will be required.
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 may or 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
N should be preserved to the maximum extent possible. Examples of methods to preserve
trees in an area of development are as follows:
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
Itree,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 any one 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
I 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
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.
1 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, B, 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
111 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 species. 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.
I
86123 3 29
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.
ATTAC,+iMENT 5
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-25-95 TUE 17:31 P.02/06
MEYERS,NAVE,RIBACK,SILVER&WILSON
MICHAE.R.NAVE A PROFESSIONAL LAW CORPORATION _ANTp RpSw O.Fl4E
OTCVCN R.MOVERS
ELAARETH H.SILVER GATEWAY PLAZA SSs:o-;H;TREEt.Surf 230
KENNETH A.WILSONACK SANTA ROSA.CA 55601
KENNEn+ CAMPS777 DAVIS STREET,SUITE 300 TELEPHONE:17on FA•HOu9
MUFFCRC F.cAMPBELL SAN LEANDRO,CALIFORNIA 94577 FAcsmaC,uc71 545.0417
CYAeL�.ROC1RIn:IF2
KATHLEEN FAURION.AICP TELEPHONE:(5101 351-4300
WENOY A.ROBERTS[AVID W.SKINNER FACSIMILE:(510)351-4481
OTCVEN T.MATTAN
Rick W.IARVIS
VERONICA A.F.NERO
OF COUNSEL.
ANORFA J.SALTZMAN
TO: Planning Commission,City of Dublin
FROM: Elizabeth H.Silver,City Attorney , „���✓
by:Kathleen Faubion
RE: PA 95-007,Hansen Ranch Phase II Amendments
DATE: April 25,1995
On April 17, 1995,the Planning Commission conducted a workshop on the
proposed amendments to Phase II of the Hansen Ranch project. Among the amendments
is a proposal to change the general plan designation of a portion of the project area from
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 Background
The Planning and Zoning Law requires the Planning Commission to make a
recommendation to the City Council on general plan amendments. (Gov.Code§65354).
The recommendation must be written,and any recommendation for approval must carry
by a majority of the Commission membership(not just a majority of the quorum). (Id.).
The Planning Commission also recommends action to the Council on the rezoning and
tentative map amendment proposals.
General Plan Consistency Law
General plan consistency involves two levels of analysis,internal consistency within
the general plan itself,and consistency between the general plan and zoning approvals.
APR-25-95 TUE 17:32 P. 03/06
To: Planing Commission
From: Elizabeth H. Silver
Re: PA 95-00 7, Hansen Ranch Phase 11 Amendments
Date: April 25, 1995
Page: 2
1. Internal consistency. .A general plan consists of text and diagrams stating the
city's development policies and related objectives, principles, standards. (Gov. Code §
65302). The policies, standards and similar provisions address seven elements of
development, including land use, circulation, housing, conservation and so on. (Id.).
General plans are often described as "atop the hierarchy of local government law
regulating land use" and as a "constitution for all future developments. (citations)"
(Concerned Citizens v. Calaveras County (1985) 212 Cal. Rptr. 273, 278).
The general plan and its component elements and parts must be "an integrated,
internally consistent and compatible statement of policies." (Gov. Code § 653O0.5). As
the Calaveras court noted, 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." (Calavexas, supra). In that case, the court found the Calaveras County
general plan internally inconsistent because its land use element provided for considerable
future growth while its circulation element stated that area roads were inadequate to
handle that growth and no improvements were proposed to resolve the inadequacy.
(Calaveras 212 Cal. Rptr. at 281).
2. Consistency Between the General Plan and Su .s . bent. Zoning Ap provals.
For general law cities such as Dublin, zoning ordinances must be consistent with
adopted general plans. (Gov. Code § 65860(a)). Tentative map approvals must also be
consistent with adopted general plans. (Gov. Code §§ 66473.5, 66474). While the
Hansen Ranch amendments include proposed changes to the site's PD zoning and to the
previously approved tentative 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 tentative map apart from the general plan issues, therefore
neither of these applications will be addressed further in this memorandum. Instead, we
assume that the staff and Commission recommendations on the rezoning and tentative
map will reflect the general plan recommendation.
3. Planning Commission Discretion in Consistency Determinations. Where the
APR-25-95 TUE 17:33 P. 04/06
To: Planing Commission
From: Elizabeth. H. Silver
Re: PA 9.5-007, Hansen Ranch Phase ff Amendments
Date: April 25, 1995
Page: 3
general plan establishes explicit standards, e.g., traffic level of service standards, a decision
to determine consistency within the plan generally will require little discretion on the part
of the Commission or the City Council. In the traffic level-of-service example, a traffic
study will show that a proposal either does or does not meet the standard_
While most general plans include some explicit standards, general plans tend to be
more of a policy document. They guide development in the form of broad policy
directives. As such, the policies are often subject to interpretation as decision-makers
apply the policies to land use applications. The Planning Commission will be required to
interpret the general plan as it prepares its recommendation to the City Council_ The City
Council will 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 without limit, however. The interpretations must
he based On factual information to avoid being found arbitrary if later challenged.
In the present case, the Planning Commission is being asked to exercise its
discretion to recommend 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 the
proposed land use changes compatible with other policies guiding development of the
Hansen Ranch site. Whatever recommendation the Planning Commission makes should
be supported by reference to the particular circumstances of the Hansen Ranch site 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 Ranch amendments currently before the Commission include a general
plan amendment to change the land use designation from open space to low density.
residential. In essence, the question before the City is whether or not it is a good idea to
change the general plan to allow low density residential uses in an area where uses are
currently restricted to open space and an access road. As noted above, in assessing this
question, the Planning Commission and ultimately the City Council must determine first,
whether it is a good idea to change the land use and then, whether the change would cause
inconsistencies in the general plan. If the change is found consistent 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: Planing Commission
From: Elizabeth H.Silver
Re: PA 95-007,Hansen Ranch Phase II Amendments
Date: April 25, 1995
Page: 4
the City may deny the change,or may consider revision to the project or the general plan
to achieve consistency.
In its April 17, 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 amendment requests. The Planning Commission must
now use the information provided by staff,as well as information provided by the
applicant and by the public,to prepare its recommendation on the current amendment
request. The Commission may consider any information relevant to the proposed
amendments and current related general plan policies.
For example,Policy 3.1.a. calls for preserving oak woodlands,riparian vegetation
and natural creeks as open space for their natural resource value. On this issue,the
Commission may consider information such as the quality,quantity,and biological value
of woodlands and riparian vegetation to be lost to the project with the amendment,and
which would remain elsewhere in the project after the amendment.
In another example,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. Other relevant
information could be the differing means of controlling runoff in the current project versus
the proposed land use.
Other policies can be examined in the same manner. If,after considering the
information available to it,the Plaiuting Commission believes that sensitive areas
described in the applicable policies are protected as directed in the policies,the
Commission could find the proposed change consistent with the general plan and so
recoInlnend to the City Council. If,on the othel hand,the PlaIuting Conunission finds
that sensitive areas are not protected as directed in applicable policies,the Commission
may find the proposed change inconsistent with the general plan. In such a case,the
Commission may recommend denial of the proposed change;or,it may recommend
P. 06/06 APR-25-95 TUE 17:35
To: Planing Commission
From: Elizabeth H. Silver
Re: PA 95-007, Hansen Ranch Phase II Amendments
Date: April 25, 1995
Page: 5
further revisions to the general plan and/or to the project. As noted above, the Planning
Commission has wide discretion with respect to its recommendations on general plan
amendments so Iong as the end result is an internally consistent general plan.
Conclusion
The applicant has proposed to change the land use in a portion of the Hansen
Ranch .site from open space to low density residential. The area proposed for the change
contains oak woodland and riparian vegetation, which features are the subject of certain
general plan policies. The Planning Commission has wide discretion in recommending
whether the proposed land use change is acceptable and is compatible with the rest of the
general plan.
cc: Larry Tong, Planning Director
Tasha Huston, Associate Planner
David Gold, Greg Caligari, Morrison &Focrster
1:;wrt)ATTVNKRHANSEN2.W6t
PPR 19 '95 09:29PM EPEON ODONNEL P. c
BREON, O'DONNELL. MILLER. BROWN &DAN\IS
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
A oRCFESSIONAL CORPORATION
•t r.„ e�coN
=Mcwn•.Y,...N.:a April 18, 1995
LAVV
,JAAILTN
rvu J C- cNo
P
_. C a .cCMPr
OaArof LEE
J.Nt t ut_+[.
..w • ac put:L SAN FRANC:SCO
VIA FACSIMILE AND U.S. MAII,
Laurence Tang
Planning Director
City of Dublin
100 Civic Plaza
Dublin, CA 94568
Re: Hansen Ranch 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 am
requesting an extension of time to respond to the "Notice of Use
of EIR From Earlier Project" received by the District March 20,
1995. The District was not aware that responses were invited,
and in fact assumed from the nctice that it only had the
opportunity to review the EIR from the earlier project.
Also, would you kindly supply me with a copy of the
Initial Study prepared as a prerequisite to the use of the EIR
from the earlier project.
Thank you for your assistance.
• Very truly yours,
• BREON, O'DONNELL, MILLER,
BROWN & DANNIS
•
• Pribci7la Brown
AC7AC-
PB:kmd r-'t�lT 7
\5180\TON62.L95
APR 21 '95 11:20AM BF.ECIM ODCpNMEL P.2/4
•
BREON, O'DONNELL. MILLER. BROWN & DANNIS
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
A F:ROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
., .�_ .r:VC..sap:a�E•
wa C.Ca[I^Coons__ vrC-CC.'.._
>= a April 21, 1995 > >
• 3.0c1 •
.w.er ea�anE .aca.cm o-.a
r t.Cn C'.An> n.ti C.0C0 0.,041H n ap.:.
CLw�a.n> ..non
• a w3,1.140C3 . Cna ro
C a _»
SAN FRANC:SCO
aC hr CO
Laurence Tong
Planning Director
City of Dublin
100 Civic Plaza
Dublin, CA 94568
•
Re: Notice of Use of EIR Prom Earlier Project;
Our file ;5180.1.000
Dear Mr. Tong:
The Dublin Unified School District ("District") has
requested that I respond on its behalf to the above-mentioned
notice. Briefly stated; the District believes that use of the
earlier EIR prepared for the Hansen'Ranch General Plan Amendment,
Planned Development, Reioning, and Tentative Map Amendment
(collectively the "approvals") is contrary to the requirements of
CEQA.
Public Resources Code sections 21083 and 21087
authorize the use of EIR's prepared for earlier projects under
specific circumstances. These circumstances are set forth at
California Code of Regu]iations, Title 14, ("Guidelines").
Section 15153 of the Guidelines states:
(a) . . . a lead agency may use an earlier EIR prepared
in connection ;with an earlier project to apply to a
later project,; if the circumstances of the projects are
essentially the same.
The District'd review of the EIR on the Hansen Ranch
project prepared in 1989 indicates that the circumstances of the
project, insofar as it relates to schools, are dramatically
APR 21 '95 11:20AM BREON 006NNEL R. .4
•
•
Laurence Tong
City of Dublin
April 21, 1995
Page 2
•
•
•
different, and not theisame as the law requires. These
circumstances include, 'but are not limited to the following:
1. The EIR Ives prepared prior to the formation of the
Dublin Unified School district. The EIR discuss the availability
of space in the Murray (Elementary School District and the Amador
Valley School District,! neither of which exist presently. The
reorganization of the districts creates potentially different
enrollment patterns and district impacts.
2. The EIR states that the enrollments in the Murray
district have dropped, :and that although the trend appears to be
reversing itself, "there are no indications that the school
population will increase dramatically over the next five years."
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: AA of 1994, Neilsen was overcrowded by 103
students. (Facilities Master Plan, ("Master Plan") Dublin
Unified School District, March 1994, p. 19.)
3. The student generation rate cited in the EIR for
Murray School District ;is "0.2 per dwelling unit." The more
recent study indicates student generation rates of up to .84,
depending upon the type; of housing. It should be noted that
these figures reflect kindergarten through eighth grade
enrollment only; kindergarten through twelfth grade would
indicate further additional impact, (Master Plan, p. 31.)
4. There iA no discussion of the impact on Wells
Middle School, the middle school which would serve the students
from the development. Projections now are that due to
development in the west) Dublin area, Wells Middle School has
space available for onl 3 additional students. (Master Plan, p.
20.)
5. While the EIR's fiscal analysis states "the net
fiscal impact to the Districts would be zero for the Murray
School District and positive impact fees of approximately
$953,000 for the Amadori Valley High School District." (EIR, p.
3-97) First, this is np longer a true statement. Secondly, the
Dublin Unified School district levies a developer impact fee
which funds only a portion of its needs. The SIR recognizes that
only a portion of the need is funded by impact fees, requires the
developer to pay only t e fee levied at the time by the Amador
High School District. As shown, this no longer meets the needs
of the new Dublin Unified School District.
-- — APR 21 '95 11:21NM BREON ':D'_'PJPIEL P.4,'4
Laurence Tong
City of Dublin
April 21 , 1995
Page 3
6 . The EIR requires no other 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
addition, the law permits mitigation through separate agreement
between school district; and developers.
To summarize, : critical facts have changed from the
preparation of this Era some six years ago, which relies on
District figures from nearly nine years ago. Moreover, the
attendance areas of theDistrict have changed due to its
reorganization and additional development of the area has
increased the need for 'schools. Finally state funding is
depleted, and the law permits additional mitigation. These
factors need to be analyzed in the context of a new EIR prepared
at least to address the impact on schools. Therefore, the
District respectfully requests 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
TAG LL
-Priscilla Brown
PB:kmd
•
•
\9180\TOWG3.L95
STATE OF CALIFORNIA-THE RESOURCES AGENCY PFJE YALSON.Governor
DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME
POST OFFICE EOX d7 '
��..0.p,71 T.
YOUNNILLE.CALIFORNIA 94599
(707)9d45ECd k,1
April 26, 1995
Mr. Lawrence L. Tonc
Planning Director
City of Dublin
Post Office Box 2340
Dublin, California 94568
Dear Mr. Tong:
'A 95-007 Hansen Ranch Phase II - General Plan Amendment,
Planned Development/Rezone and Tentative Map Amendment
Alameda County
Department of ish duct Gauge pe_sc,nnel have reviewed the
proposed Hansen Ranch amendments. The project is located west of
Silvergate Drive, north of Hansen Drive, and south of Winding Trail
Lane in the Dublin Sphere of Influence, unincorporated Alameda
County. The amendments propose to redesignate'2.4 acres from Open
Space/Stream Corridor to Low 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 amendments.
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 property. The
Department recommends that areas to be retained as open space not
be completely enc+.-.1 d by development as this decreases the value
of the area for wildlife. We also recommend open-space areas be
connected by corridors to allow wildlife passage between the areas.
An 80-foot gap on the northwest side and a 320-foot 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
of the property as continuous open space which would follow the
Department'o guidclincc on providing contiguouc wildlife corridoro.
Second, in the ce- "Ned Environmental Impact Report (SIR),
surveys for Alameda whipsnake, 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 property does not obviate the need for Alameda
whipsnake surveys on the--Hansen Ranch site, especially since open
RECEIVED
•
• APR 2 6 1995
Mr. Lawrence L. Tong
April 26, 1995
Page Two
space in the previously approved plan would have a significantly
different use under the proposed amendments. Alameda whipsnake
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 by the ralncetinn of 1r, homesites. In previously approved
documents (February 27, 1989) it is stated, "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 nct to
damage the ecological and/or aesthetic value and characteristics of
the open space area." The proposed amendments would require
significantly more grading to occur in the Open Space/Riparian
Corridor thaPcby c.�eaLiny Lhe 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 occurs.
Fourth, overall significant site development amendments are
being proposed based on an SIR prepared in December 1987 and
•
• certified on February 27, 1989. Given the elapsed time, the issues
• of encircling the open space, no Alameda whipsnake surveys, and
additional grading in the open space and riparian corridor should
be addressed in a supplemental EIR. The impacts to biological
resources from the proposed project amendments are significant and
warrant additional EIR documentation.
Based on the above concerns, the Department recommends against
approval of the proposed general plan, zoning, and tentative man
amendments. The proposed site amendments are significantly
different than the project described in the certified EIR (1989) .
If you have any questions, please contact, Margaret Roper,
Fishery Biologist, at (408) 842-8917; 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
H&N ENTERPRISES 8280955 P.01
Post-it Fax N.a. 7671 Da8j. Zit
Fmr" !-1;C
Robert John Nielsen cc,..yept.i:;
11637 Allegre Drive Phone
Dublin,Ca. 94568
, -
Tel(510)828-1322 .
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 houses were on this street because it
was planned as access to the Nielsen Property.
Sincerely,
9et.ie4y
Robert John Nielsen
•
RECEIVED
APR 2 7 1995
'CM NO IX a mks...,
RECEIVED A
1995 I I lc y j�c liSG / Cf.
AIR 2 6 / ,�
DUBLIN PL,ANNI►`�` % V'� Will 1 (4 g.11/.( ' G'
AFC( (I) IGas
C (4- l 0 il, ///'
P k r, 1in Cif76/i7;CSMn
CPU ($ c 23`(0
1) Ltik/ih CA gigS6F
fo Ita, &tiviiir\6:f Ofiym‘cgm-\ :
. 14-11(44;(1:-., �,�v; �l /fit: sa,tdI J,. ot°t) n(/_t i(/r;%l
nik -to 11.- ',/lj il ..gxr- Irpf,,W7z
/rio , 1 6-r)./il 14,/r.1. /ri j
to -(x SS kr ci,1 k/i- .h tkit payoA .64/�
yeid--_,
1-0 -ot.t H4 Y. ter`- Ka/Y2(,/,_ 4 'eU t li.ae_ F CuYire��1.4 I
u
G./ /ice' :d 'cl< e‘e (c-_-2-tiaril c‹-rri 167v- a;x4./..p.tf
_ i o✓
G. . ,/✓Y,%l e l Uri^ >! �c- s/ ,,,i1% /�li,i ,ACC`? i/kd,
()441 E vdd iie. 7747/p/in 0 frz The Lii>2?/77riA47-
ailii
Litt rie/7)&Lie lo ,--,/:.)-1 b ,77= 7LN .1)fri/C.Z,,?; /i.. 1 9 le7j. ,n 1(9._L
143 Ailitilill '‘Iria se:ti,ia pbt}i1/4- . 61zb-, /:, h,/iies---
aif -/-Avxplyzie, p1(/' .ii" id/ 1,,ifid I/ . . Piseet, _
ds_.0 iitc-irz1.4/14) --/iLvzi,L, .cilarfe ' 75 .,,,1-1-(_)2-civi?"4\a. __
Ulri/in )/
-- ,L .i-rs,k___ (70\,- ; ra/iii/' ((4451/46- ,7(2--,;-) -
Iv
eit-v 7-jec//zV -- -74/4-//-1---7-4---
U i,/\/ )-(Q l, . HATt'll ('VI 144 6L/t °Lvov) 44.e., A/71 24/i ',,e,..ii,f,/77fylvi sr-h771-sir kfir-/-(4_, _
APR-27-95 THU 10:28 EBRPD GENERAL MANAGER FAX NO. 5105691417 P.02
REGi0 .] At, PA R KS
EAST BAY REGIONAL PARK DISTRICT
April 27, 1995
Ms. Tasha Huston
Associate Planner
City of Dublin
100 Civic Plaza
Dublin, CA 94568
Subject: PA 95-007 Hansen Ranch Phase II (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
2960 Perafra Oaks Court P.O.;rime 533I Oaxran. D- s•4605 036 1 le rDD:570R33^e;;?✓ram17. 9¢319