HomeMy WebLinkAbout2/6/1995 PC Agenda PLANNING COMMISSION
Regular Meeting-Dublin Civic Center Monday- 7:30 p.m.
100 Civic Plaza,Council Chambers February 6, 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- January 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.
6.1 Election of Officers(continued from 1-17-95)
7. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS
8. PUBLIC HEARINGS
8.1 PA 94-054 Hansen Ranch Tentative Map and Development Agreement
Amendment. A request for limited amendments to Phase I of the approved
Tentative Map and Tentative Map Conditions(Tract 5766)and the approved
Development Agreement for the Hansen Hill Ranch project. The limited
amendments requested involve a change in pad elevations,minor lot and street
adjustments. reduction in the width of the creek access road from 12 feet to 8
feet,providing an access road on the north side of the creek. and amendments to
various conditions of approval related to the requested changes.
9. NEW OR UNFINISHED BUSINESS
10. OTHER BUSINESS (Commission/Staff Informational Only Reports)
11. ADJOURNMENT
(Over for Procedure Summary)
CITY OF DUBLIN
PLANNING COMMISSION
AGENDA STATEMENT/STAFF REPORT
Meeting Date: February 6, 1995
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Planning Staff
PREPARED BY: Laurence L. Tong,Planning Director 4'
SUBJECT: Election of Officers
RECOMMENDATION: 1. Elect Chairperson
2. Elect Vice-Chairperson
3. Appoint Secretary
FINANCIAL STATEMENT: None
DESCRIPTION:
This item was continued from the December 19, 1994, January 3, 1995, and January 17,
1995 Planning Commission meetings. The Planning Commission Rules of Procedures provide
that officers should be elected at the first meeting of the Planning Commission in December of
each year. The new terms of office would typically run until December, 1995,unless a vacancy
in an office occurs before that time. The Planning Commission may appoint a Secretary who
may be one of its members or someone else.
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission: 1)elect a Chairperson; 2)elect a Vice-
Chairperson; and 3)appoint the Planning Director as Secretary. Since Commissioner Burnham's
and Chairperson North's terms were due to expire in December, 1994,the Planning Commission
may wish to continue this item until the Mayor and City Council have made appointments to fill
the expiring seats.
ITEM NO. 6.1 COPIES TO: Agenda File
Page 1 of 1
CITY OF DUBLIN
PLANNINA COMMISSION
AGENDA STATEMENT/STAFF REPORT
Meeting Dater; February 6, 1995
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Planning Staff
PREPARED BY: Tasha Huston, Associate Planner JF C
SUBJECT: PA 94-054 Hansen Ranch Tentative Map Amendment&Development
Agreement Amendment
GENERAL INFORMATION:
PROJECT: Request for limited amendments to Phase I of the approved Tentative Map
and Tentative Map Conditions (Tract 5766) and the approved
Development Agreement for the Hansen Hill Ranch project. The limited
amendments involve a change in pad elevations, minor lot line adjustments,
a request to reduce the width of the creek access road from 12 feet to 8
feet wide and provide a creek access road and additional staging areas on
the north side of the creek, and amendments to various conditions of
approval related to the proposed changes.
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.
COPIES TO: Applicant
ITEM NO. •' PACE 0 53 Owner
Address File
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.
ZONING 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 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 modification to the approved General Provisions for the Hansen Ranch
Planned Development Project),and Hansen Ranch Site Development Review
(SDR)for the First Phase(lots 1-72)of the 180 lot 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).
PAGE 2 OF 53
-2-
APPLICABLE REGULATIONS•
Current City procedures require that an amendment to an approved Tentative Map be processed under
the same procedure used for the original approval,or the most comparable procedure provided in the
Zoning Ordinance. This would require that an amendment be subject to Public Hearings and the review
and approval of the Planning Commission and City Council.
Section 9.4(1)of the approved Development Agreement provides for amendments to the agreement,or
minor amendments to project approvals,to be processed without a public hearing under specific terms
and when the amendments are minor. Upon analysis of the requested amendments,it has been
determined by the Planning Director that the proposed revisions to the project are not minor,and
therefore the minor amendment process of the Development Agreement cannot be used. Due to this
determination,the procedures for modification would be subject to the applicable zoning,subdivision,
and other land use ordinances,according to Section 9.4(2)of the Development Agreement.
Therefore,Section 8.12.120 of the Dublin Municipal Code would be applied to the application,which
requires that an amendment to a Development Agreement be processed through the same procedure as
used for entering into an agreement in the first instance. This process includes being subject to Public
Hearings and the review and approval of the Planning Commission and City Council,as well as an Initial
Study pursuant to CEQA,.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: An Initial Study has been conducted for the project,and a Negative
Declaration has been prepared pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act(CEQA),State
CEQA Guidelines,and the City of Dublin Environmental Guidelines. The proposed project will not have
a significant effect on the environment.
NOTIFICATION: Public Notice of the January 17, 1995 Planning Commission hearing,as well as the
February 13, 1995 City Council Hearing,was published in the local newspaper,mailed to adjacent
property owners,and posted in public buildings and at the project site. A second Notice of Public
Hearing was distributed which announced the change in meeting date from February 13th to February
27th, 1995 for the first City Council Hearing.
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 subdivisions involves 72 lots,and Phase 2 involves the
remaining 108 lots. The current request for amendments concerns items in Phase 1 of the tentative map.
These changes are being requested due to issues which were identified after additional studies were
conducted by the applicant following approval of the Tentative Map and Development Agreement.
The applicant's request for amendments to the project was reviewed by the Planning Commission
at its January 17, 1995 meeting. A staff report was presented,the applicant addressed the Commission,
and several members of the public spoke regarding various areas of concern. After lengthy discussion,
the applicant agreed to continue the discussion of this project to the next Planning Commission meeting,
in order to attempt to resolve some of the issues surrounding the project amendments. The project was
continued by the Planning Commission to the February 6, 1995 meeting.
3 PAGE 3 OF 53
n
ANALYSIS-
California Pacific Homes,Inc.,has applied for a Tentative Map Amendment and Development
Agreement Amendment to allow modifications to the approved Tentative Map and Development
Agreement for Phase 1(72 lots)of the 180 unit Hansen Ranch Subdivision. The requested amendments
apply to limited aspects of the Tentative Map and Development Agreement approvals.
TENTATIVE MAP AMENDMENT
The Tentative Map Amendment request is to allow for modification of Tentative Map 5766
involving minor revisions to the lot and street configurations,and changes in the pad elevations,most
notably concerning lots 26-40. Lot lines and street configurations within the Tentative Map have been
slightly adjusted in order to provide less steep road grades for some streets,to make less severe cuts into
the hillsides,and to generally reduce the overall area of grading for Phase 1. The Applicant's request to
modify the lot and road configurations could be considered a minor modification of the approved
Tentative Map.
The applicant is also requesting modification of Condition number 76 of the City Council
Resolution#130-89 Approving Tentative Map 5766,Concerning PA 89-062,Tentative Map Conditions
of Approval. This condition,along with a condition of approval in the Development Agreement,requires
that a 12 foot wide creek access road be constructed in the open space area along the creek. As
approved,the road's primary purpose is to provide access to the creek for maintenance and repairs,
emergency fire and police access,as well as to provide a recreational hiking path. The current request is
to change the width of this access road along the south side of the creek bank from 12 feet wide to 8 feet
wide. The applicant has indicated that the grading and retaining walls necessary for a 12 foot wide road
would be excessive,but could be substantially reduced if the road width is reduced.
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT:
The Development Agreement Amendment request is to allow modification of the approved
Development Agreement conditions involving the creek access road discussed above.The conditions of
approval affected by the requested modifications are contained in Subparagraph 5.3.2 of Exhibit B to the
Development agreement,and involve the width of the access road,the timing of development of the road,
and the extension of a creek access road off of the site. The applicant is requesting that condition(a.)of
this subparagraph be reworded to allow for an eight-foot wide road,and that the road not be required to
be constructed entirely within Phase 1 of the project. The request is also for deletion of Condition(b.)to
eliminate the requirement that an access road serving the open space area be constructed beyond the
northwest boundary of the site.
DISCUSSION
A detailed discussion and analysis of the proposed amendments is contained within the Staff
Report prepared for this project for the January 17, 1995 Planning Commission meeting,which is
attached as Background Attachment 1 for reference. The complete discussion of the proposed
amendments will not be repeated in this Staff Report. However,additional analysis of several issues
which were discussed at the public hearing will be presented in this Staff Report.
The issues which will be addressed in further detail are:
1. Visual impacts of homes on cul-de-sac near Hansen Drive and possible limitations on height of
these homes to a single story.
2. Easement for access to and maintenance of the 12 foot wide access road on the north side of the
creek,west of Martin Canyon Road,on the Nielsen property(refer to Condition"b."of
Subparagraph 5.3.2 of Exhibit B of approved Development Agreement).
PAGE ÷OF "
-4-
4 "ma,
3. Road width necessary for creek access road
4. Necessity of cul-de-sac bulb on Martin Canyon Road
5. Public comment concerns
a. Tree removal
b. Herbicide spraying
c. Slope stability behind homes on Hansen
Visual impacts
The requested amendment involves changes from the approved Tentative Map pad elevations for
homes on the cul-de-sac near Hansen Drive. At the Planning Commission public hearing,possible
limitations on height of homes were discussed to address the visual impacts of the higher pad elevations.
The Staff suggested that by limiting the homes on lots 30 through 34 to single-story homes,the impacts
upon views from existing adjacent residents would be lessened. Cross-sections showing a comparison of
the pad elevations and approximate home heights for existing homes on Hansen Drive versus proposed
homes on this cul-de-sac are attached herein as Attachment 2.
The applicant's initial response noted concerns with the appearance of five similar homes in a
row,if the requirement is to construct all single-story homes on these five lots. However,since the
January Planning Commission meeting,the applicant has indicated that it may be feasible to develop
another home design which appears from the rear of the home to be a single story,but is actually two
stories. The rear elevation of the home would have windows on only the first floor,and a hip roof on the
rear half of the second story. Second-floor windows would only be visible from the side and front
elevations. This design would address concerns with privacy,stemming from the situation where a two-
story home would be located behind or overlooking a single-story home. However,the homes would be
approximately the same height as a two-story home,and therefore would not address concerns with
impacts to the views which residents on Hansen Drive currently enjoy.
Thus,a condition of approval is recommended,which would require that the houses situated on
lots 30 through 33 be designed to minimize the impacts to existing views from residences on Hansen
Drive. On some lots,where the view impacts are the greatest,the homes should be limited to single-story
homes. This would include lots 31,32,and 33. On lot 30,where the view impact is less severe,the
developer could use a model which appears to be a single-story home from the rear elevation. The pad
elevation of lot 34 would not affect the view from homes on Hansen Drive.
Additionally,at the time of Site Development Review for these homes,several different house
elevation very different designs
ppearances for each of the homes,and avoidingel are uired,situation of five the m in opportunity rtoow which appear exactly alike. The above-mentioned condition of approval addressing the impacts to existing
views from residences on Hansen Drive.,has been incorporated into the Tentative Map Resolution as
Condition#4.
Easement
As part of the proposal to reduce the original approved creek access trail on the south side of the
creek to 8 feet wide,a 12 foot wide access road for maintenance of the creek was required and proposed
on the north side of the creek. This access road which is west of Martin Canyon Road,lies on property
owned by Nielsen. The owner of the Hansen Ranch property has been deeded a non-exclusive private
road easement on a portion of this property,which the applicant has proposed to transfer to the City for
future use and maintenance of this road over the Nielsen property. Concerns have been raised that the
easement rights may not include the right for maintenance,and that the easement may not extend far
-5- PAGE OF
L 1 �••N ^
enough along the creek to provide the necessary access. Thus,the easement which the applicant
proposes to transfer to the City for use of the road on the north side of the creek may not be useable for
the necessary purposes. A condition of approval has been incorporated into the Tentative Map
Resolution as Condition#16 to address the possibility that the easement issue may not be resolved. This
condition would require that if the applicant is unable to arrange for an easement for use and maintenance
over this road,an alternate location for a 12 foot wide access road would be provided on the project
property,or the project approval would revert back to the previous approval(with a 12 foot wide road
on the south side of the creek).
It is also noted that the wording of several conditions regarding the maintenance of access roads
have been modified from the previous wording. The modifications were addressed in the Staff
Presentation before the Commission on January 17, 1995,and relate to the City's agreement to maintain
access roads,and that the acceptable level of maintenance is to be determined by the Public Works
Department. Modifications such as these are indicated in the conditions,with strikeettt-for text which has
been deleted,and italics for text which has been added.
Creek Access Road Widths
At the Public Hearing on this project,several members of the public stated objections to the need
for an access road which is 12 feet wide. The 12 foot minimum standard is consistent with the
recommendations of agencies who have experience in maintaining both drainage culverts and creeks in
open space areas. The reasons for needing 12 feet of road width have been addressed in the previous
Staff Report. Recent discussions with the Staff at the East Bay Regional Parks District has concluded
that the 12 foot minimum standard is necessary for all of the reasons previously mentioned,as well as a
few other additional reasons. These,along with the previously discussed reasons,are presented below.
Heavy Equipment will be needed to maintain creek improvements and to keep the creek area clear
of flooding hazards. Standard Caterpillar equipment such as backhoes and tractors are at least 8 feet
wide for the smaller models. Standard maintenance trucks for trash pickup are approximately 6 feet
wide.
Emergency Vehicles are approximately 6 feet wide for a patrol vehicle,and wider for trucks and
engines. Although a 12 foot wide road would be provided on the north side of the creek,this would not
provide direct access for larger emergency vehicles to situations on the trail on the south side of the
creek. The 8 foot wide trail could accommodate the smaller patrol vehicles,but larger brush trucks and
engines will be unable to drive along the trail on the south side of the creek. This could be a concern if an
emergency situation occurred a significant distance down the trail,and the only access wide enough for
the proper vehicle is from the north side of the creek. In fact,EBRPD standards would require a 12 foot
wide minimum for the access trail along the creek,to accommodate maintenance and emergency vehicles.
In summary,the EBRPD recommendation would be to design the access trail on the SOUTH side
of the creek to a minimum width of 12 feet wide to accommodate all potential users. The District warns
that with an 8 foot-wide trail,emergency and maintenance vehicles would need to access the area from
the north,crossing the creek. Their suggestion would be to design the trail to a 12 foot minimum to
provide the most direct access for emergency response,including wildland fire response,and trail and
creek maintenance. They also recommend that the multi-use road/trail be designed and constructed to
avoid significant specimens or stands of oak trees,and other significant natural features.
The City Council Resolution adopting the General Plan Amendment for Hansen Hill Ranch
addressed the impacts of a creek access road through the open space area. A condition of approval for
the project required that access roads,including emergency access roads,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 aesthetic value and characteristics of the open space area. A condition of approval of
this proposed Tentative Map Amendment has been incorporated as Condition#23,to remind the
developer of this requirement.
PAGE., f .o;.53
-6-
Thus,the current options to address the creek access road issues are as follows:
1. Approve applicant's proposal for 8 foot wide trail on south side,and 12 foot wide trail on north.
Attach recommended conditions of approval which require that if road on north side of creek
cannot be arranged,project approval reverts back to previous approval with 12 foot wide access
road on south side of creek.
2. Deny applicant's proposal for 8 foot wide trail on south side,and retain 12 foot wide access road
on south side,as per previous project approval.
If the Commission recommends granting the applicant's request to reduce the trail on the south
side of the creek to 8 feet wide,the project will necessarily result in the development of two roads
through the creek and open space area,one for emergency access and maintenance of the creek,and one
primarily for recreation. This option would provide creek maintenance access closer to the creek bed,but
having two roads may cause more disturbance to the creek area.
If the Commission recommends denying the applicant's request,it would result in only one access
trail through the open space area,which would provide for multiple uses,as with the existing approval.
In either case,the above noted condition of approval should be added which will require that the
access trail and roads shall be designed to minimize grading and tree removal to the maximum extent
possible,so as to minimize damage to the ecological and aesthetic value and characteristics of the open
space area.
Cul-de-sac bulb on Martin Canyon Road
This item was discussed in the previous Staff Report,as well as at the Planning Commission
meeting on January 17, 1995. The staff has explained several reasons why a cul-de-sac bulb at the end of
this stub street is needed,and should be constructed with the improvements of this project. An excerpt
from the Staff Report from the January 17 meeting is repeated here for reference:
"The primary access to the creek for maintenance,repair,and emergency vehicles will be provided with the access
road on the north side of the creek via Martin Canyon Road. In its current configuration,Martin Canyon Road
ends with a blunt dead-end,which creates a nuisance for street maintenance with trash collecting in the street
corners. Staff is recommending that improvements be made to the stub street where it currently stops near the
project's north property line,involving a cul-de-sac bulb at the end of the street. This will bring the street into
compliance with City street standards,enable more efficient maintenance to avoid trash buildup,and provide an
improved turnaround for large emergency vehicles and maintenance equipment".
The applicant has consistently objected to this requirement,and is still in disagreement with this
condition of approval. Condition#13 of the Tentative Map has been modified slightly,to allow for the
cul-de-sac bulb to be a modified configuration rather than the"standard"City cul-de-sac bulb.
Public comment concerns
Tree removal
A tree survey was conducted in 1987 which identified the trees on the property which would and
which may be affected by development. According to this survey,in the area along the project's northern
property line,east of Martin Canyon Road,there is only one tree within 20 feet of the property boundary
line. This tree has previously been identified as being possibly impacted by the development. The next
closest trees are 25 feet away from the property line,according to the survey,and have also been
identified as maybe affected by the development. It appears feasible that the construction of the access
road in this area can be done without causing removal of the trees,if the closest tree is 16 feet from the
property line. However,it is possible that the trees may also be affected by the work which will be
necessary to reinforce the creek.
PAGE OF.5J
-7-
% )
The specific impacts of the grading and improvements,including creek reinforcements,will be
ascertained in more detail when grading and improvement plans are prepared for the project. However,it
should be noted that the previous Tentative Map approval required that prior to the issuance of a grading
permit,visually important trees shall be tagged in the field for protection and preservation,and
appropriately fenced,subject to the review and approval of the Public Works Director. In addition,a
condition of approval has been added under this project amendment which would encourage further
protection of trees along the creek. The new condition,number 12 of the Tentative Map Resolution,
would allow the creek access road on the north side of the creek,east of Martin Canyon Road,to be less
than 12 feet wide in limited areas where necessary for tree preservation.
Herbicide spraying
The maintenance of common areas,including ornamental landscaping,graded slopes,and open
space areas,is to be the responsibility of the Homeowner's Association. A plan for Open
Space/Landscape Management Specifications for the project has been submitted to the City for review.
This plan indicates that a weed control program may be necessary,subject to the approval of the
Homeowners Association,and that the contractor would be responsible for any damage resulting from
the use of herbicides. However,the plan also states that routine spraying of plants is to be avoided,but
that a regularly scheduled detailed inspection of plants should be conducted to identify and diagnose
problems. It further states that only pest or disease infestation which threaten the survival of the open
space plant species shall be treated in the open space area.This treatment would need to be done under
the supervision of a qualified environmental consultant.
The landscape plans for the project,which were approved along with the approval of the Planned
Development rezoning,indicate that there is no landscaping to be installed along the creek access trail.
Some planting will be installed along the fences behind homes adjacent to open space. This area is
indicated on the landscape plans as a fire buffer zone,and planting includes low,fire-resistant
groundcover at least fifteen feet wide. A narrow maintenance path would separate this groundcover from
the native vegetation. There does not appear to be any introduced landscaping proposed along the
project's northern property line.
The City's maintenance of the creek access roads and trail would include occasional spot spraying
for weed control. The City currently has contracts with outside firms for similar types of maintenance
and spraying in other areas of the City. Herbicide spraying is required by law to be conducted under
proper conditions,and the contractor doing the work is responsible to ensure that the proper conditions
are met. The City would also require that when these targeted applications are made,the contractor uses
the necessary precautions and safeguards,so as to avoid potential problems with herbicide application to
the greatest extent possible.
Slope stability
A detailed Geotechnical Investigation has been prepared for the Hansen Ranch project,identifying
unstable soils and recommending extensive measures to be taken to stabilize the land for development.
The previous conditions of approval for the Tentative Map require that the recommendations of the
previous preliminary geotechnical report prepared by Harlan Miller Tait be incorporated into the
improvement plans for the project. Staff recommends that conditions of approval be added to this
approval,which modify the wording of two previous conditions of approval,to make reference to the
recent detailed Geotechnical Investigation prepared by Berlogar Geotechnical Consultants. This would
be handled with Conditions#9 and#10 of the Tentative Map Resolution.
Additionally,it should be noted that a previous Tentative Map condition of approval required that
prior to issuance of grading permits,the City shall contract for a third party soil's engineer to review and
make recommendations on the applicant's submitted Geotechnical Investigation Report as related to
landslide repair. The applicant or developer is required to pay for the cost of this third party review.
PAGE OF53
8
^ it
Several graphic displays which illustrate various aspects of the proposed amendments were
available for review at the Public Hearing on January 17, 1995. These displays will also be available at
the Planning Commission meeting on February 6, 1995.
SUMMARY
The issues raised at the Public Hearing on January 17, 1995 have been addressed, and the above
recommended conditions of approval have been included in the Tentative Map and Development
Agreement Resolutions, along with the previous suggested conditions. As mentioned earlier, changes in
the conditions of project approval from the previous Staff Report have been indicated with strikeout for
text which has been deleted, and italics for text which has been added. The application has been
reviewed by the applicable City departments and agencies, and their comments have been incorporated
into the Conditions of Approval. Staff recommends approval of the Negative Declaration(Exhibit B) and
the Applicant's request for a Tentative Map Amendment and Development Agreement Amendment,
subject to the conditions listed in the draft resolutions attached (Exhibit C &D), respectively, including
adoption of the findings required by Section 8.12.080 of the Dublin Municipal Code.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
FORMAT: 1) Open public hearing and hear Staff presentation.
2) Take testimony from Applicant and the public.
3) Question Staff, Applicant and the public.
4) Close public hearing and deliberate.
5) Adopt Draft Resolutions (Exhibits B, C, & D) relating to PA 94-054, or give Staff
and Applicant direction and continue the matter.
ACTION: Staff recommends the Planning Commission adopt the following Resolutions:
1. Draft Resolution approving the Negative Declaration (Exhibit B),
2. Draft Resolution recommending City Council approval of the Tentative Map
Amendment (Exhibit C),
3. Draft Resolution recommending City Council approval of the Development
Agreement Amendment (Exhibit D)
TTA
Exhibit A: Project Plans: Reduced copy of Tentative Map, limits of Grading Exhibit, Creek Access
Road Exhibit, and Staff Study
Exhibit B Draft Resolution Approving Negative Declaration
Exhibit C: Draft Resolution Recommending Approval of Tentative Map Amendment
Exhibit D: Draft Resolution Recommending Approval of Development Agreement Amendment
BACKGROUND ATTACHMENTS
1: Staff Report from January 17, 1995 Planning Commission Meeting, with exhibits only
2: Cross Sections of pad elevation changes for lots on cul-de-sac near Hansen Drive
c:\planning\tasha\hnsen\94054sr
53
-9-
PW
PEA E e IV E D
DEC 9 19b4
si ks1 ao'-u ow-
NUBLIN LANNINO
n l0'09'05"W
AMENDED TENTATIVE MAP
SUBDIVISION 5766
OWNER/DEVELOPER :
CALIFORNIA PACIFIC HOPES
5 CIVIC PLAZA, SUITE lU0
NEWPORT BEACH. CA 9'.660
ADAMS STREETER CIVIL ENGINEERS INC.
15 CORPORATE PARK
IRVINE, CA 92714
NOTES:
1. ELEVATIONS SHOWN ARE BASED ON U.S. GEOLOGICAL
SURVEY 1929 SEA LEVEL DATUM
2, CONTOUR INTERVAL : 2 FEET
3. EXISTING USE : VAC;',NT
4. PROPOSED ZONING : PLANNED DEVELOPMENT
5. LOT SIZE : 5,700 S.;-. (MIN)
TOTAL LOTS : 72 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS
6. WATER SUPPLY : DU3LIN SAN RAMON SERVICES DISTRICT
(ANNEXATION TO DISTRICT REQUIRED)
7. SEWER DISPOSAL : C'UBLIN SAN RAMON SERVICES DISTRICT
(ANNEXATION TO DISTRICT REQUIRED)
8. ALL STREETS SHALL BE DEDICATED TO 'PUBLIC
ACREAGE SUAIAIARY
TOTAL AFEA 146.84 ACRES
PHASE 1 43.58 ACRES
CO
cD
LOT AREA 13.13 ACRES
r
STREET AREA 5.91 ACRES
= 11.26'26'
= 500.00
OPEN SP,,CE 24.54 ACRES
Z=
O U
= 159.74'
Z
Nl
LL
N74'29'12"E
Q F
e'DOJ
:D
(n=U
S
Z 0
awQ
QU)J
CZQ
Q
L1J _
I7-
Q
Z
LJ
F—
PAGE L OF
iEIVEq
C 19 c
St �).
IBLIN NNINO
I
1I x
its
10
AMENDED TENTATIVE MAP
rx432.1 SUBDIVISION 5766
4
25
425 - wc''ss weu
x Rn x , /z5.e x t
%- -ice — �
�/ 2
121,422
60' A10
O
5 f _ _ z
0 _
fJ,5 x O 41J'�46 BQ.ft1
az
- z7 P=424 5,747 sq-
ass° f x423,5 '0' 8,445 sq.ft. 5,793 sq.ft eDnnas C
460412
Xg
1 - - 490 3Y _•,{1, f=424 a y1 o' e
e
i s lv
e
- 8 2 .tt. 63 e
- t 8' WIDE AGGREGATE � q m I * �
ass Kil . - s'-- .� - BASE ACCESS TRAIL `� u, �� a9 41i4
70
x B7• _ "�' . x yc- vx 9 1 .5 8 f
II 18 1i ® � P=422
19 16 P=424 4 5.792 sq.ft
+ \
P=491 � - 1-, (`' x 6 1 5 sq.ft.
9,105 s.f� "sq s.f. �'� N � /'�v _ ry 19,6- B- SO$
" $ P=500 a P-v86 s` yf \o, 6, x41o.!
' 2Q 9 _ e:f. _ : - ✓= 7,91i1 is 15 4t L' 2' RET. WALL
776s1
5 T`.., , 6.
Y -
x F 5 `� ,-1--- -- -f
r R _
..P 7504 : - ' z L-sr - P 482 x a--QiB� s.f.s.f. 60
L2i 4 / .yy�s P=475
L " Pt510 ��zo° W 3eY , / 7,347216 40s.t
,13
e. f. o
i _ L - sa• 1
0 22 y P=4¢8 c 12 -
7r?59 a.f a - - 410
P-7,Q85 s.f / l.Q�. er a R=462 11 _V 5_ 407o
.5
O$ IR
11 T
11,5D5 P s.
*'R? x 8,782 s.f. c '4r
l i I ,. f � y\5 {'o.. k 7.633 s.f• v1. i
24 1-
1 'Ar P-524 ol
7.458 s.f. \ v to R
25 4 x26.7
o —
- 7.731 gsE, `'- P=520
28
9,521 s.f. to 30 \
O � �
1 `
P=s 460SZi 9 8 s.f.
- 9,622 s.f. 2 k 6
-- ` atip. ,d \� $ •� : ' 47d -�— ab qo I xazo48.
i
9,654 s.f
So' .P=526 _ e _
1�..f. P=520 i - a7x a6il a455
a16.3 ..0
"1 766 s
P3 28 � �R{�USE.
---� m. 7,517 s.f. N 1,yt 32
v7 x
��+P=522 .,ji/ as Ix aezo
4
t-sr -�,478 a.f. 5
39 .I P 7
6.8o s.t. 36 O a O=szs l"
qp f P=542 sq 35 34 N 7,949 s.f.
F 9.601 a.f. P=426 -52 8.
6.932 g 8,20� s.t o 6,933 a 7.50z0'S-s.f.- -5nz.a
6,932 af.
569, 4' RW. 99' 1S•-
v,
550 1 540 -----�
\ ' i 524X7 SCALE
,5,, sao� 5319
x 1, _ 40,
au
-----
---------------------------
PAGE 0$-
561.2 •
nr
a
a
sa;
S
SHEET
OF 5
OF
RECEI
ODE C 1 9
BLIN PLhNNINr.
OF59
REe IVE
1P�R�g 045(
gl
s;��'� PLANz
wi•
U
0
O
ti
OU
I 718.2 X
719.5 x {1. _ �Q
1 ]20.3 x i/ 864ma 'A.4 1 M _J
/ I ka
x l 1 13'. ° ' 1 - - \ ALL GRADING FOR INSPIRATION DR.
1, '1x �. X7m.6 PER PPROVED IMPROVEMENT PLANS
x 720.4 /
719.7 I x ,' 709 s S -^.. / - - \ \, SUBDIIVISION-5768r66e9.3
'z0 / 7zo:4
W Q
x
3 I l
I X ' x710.1 a4.s ' 6 / •� i_ '/ Z
7os f
(exnesr. I'.1 f rIa L.. - - ill 1 Q
1\ 719.4 + ` j, f F -7m.1 -i/ �.. AYE`
x709�}
1{J P \ f 720.6 719.7 I t�'1^ 705
_.675'
I
\� 1 X706 719.5 \ \ I .5 1
`\ q. - -1
j7 e134
1 \ xt x705.s
1� 720.3 1 _ x
702.7
Rr. •,A, �] 11 _ / �{( III
i ! , y; � � J 85 '� •1_ -680 'l� _ fi'IS 1 % /b`� ) J I
n9.7 \ I / by� X
7148 ^ },1 703.E .% / ,1 1rr �. I '
720.2 d / - _ _ _ 0, l ( I I � 1
- ` 1 x706. low�',}. I/
552
706.6 O0
74
00705.8
_ '''x7 /._..
x 0<9 _ T�1 1'r 680-/� i'-_ _675
o
-,�7ofi.z , 0, 3
706 7 ^ ..X]04. QS \ •7048 70J.1 ..i ` 9yy0, n ) r' /% s 6391
• 03.2
kj
X 705.a %704.7 X
6
685 - - -- - i. ` )n5 i -I - -'�, o - ; �/ ,::.:� 0 /�
_ Ji
65 / I ' 1 ~`,' SHEET A
h 64 1 9,0?2 ,c)l f 1 c �'� -- --- -
_ P=6e0 ti 3 i I I
>> > 8,118 a. (.' 65
> s > >s0 i s s \ ro P=677 ~ 1^ i>-- " e+a
> � 's ss + P=671 P�665 B.Bo83 if. c] ` ..
>9 >•R]Bs >>°>ss ° _ >�s 7.593 e.f. ', .115 a.lfg f,813 e.°? _r; �l `I 'e s�G s - � 4. � sfio
1
r I
e4' I 570
010
i
I I x
585
595 I _
I'Z - 6m -
799
115
765
7E
+fiu S\ 1694.6
755 x
\ s
711.4°
� 893.2 689... �
- - Aso x7<z6 I °J THE OPOSED IMPROVEMENTS WITHIN THIS ARETS $ s s° I
R %
ARE TH SAME AS THE PROPOSED IMPROVEMEN 683
J45 1•, I/ 1 X TI VE 7 AP
AS SHOWN ON TENTH TRACT M 5766.
- . % i. III X689.2\ � 1
]22.3 \ 1
iR P. - 135 X g I%698.3 %694.3 1 \\
7242
_ 730 - _ - X 723.1 '� N a
-725-- I AND$ OF VALLEY 'GFIRI7`IAN CENTER '. X68,6 x 6 7
_ - -720 - L l'.I'1 } a
883.4 \ `,
RECEIVE �qYQqC 994
)IJBLIN-PLANNI NIM
SEE SHEET 4
lal.1 X,
70-, -705
1 709.3
V
J
�2
7X6
7119.7
7195
x
X706.5
x - ----------csa -
720.3 X 705.5 6134
x
x
% 702.7
--- --------
6swo
93
71.X
i.
x I /.' 7W.6
X 670 1
720.2 4.
'-� n r�:'I„/-.+' X706.4 41
1: X-
05. X C /A5 2
685 702 5
706.6 4
703.3
"o
6ft
�05
X704 9
X704.5• 703.2 680 75
670
0 X 7 2
690 X7058 x AJ;
X X704 7 703.1
706 7 i 704�8 Ci .123
685 X 705,5
�60 7053
x
60 •6585
X 706.2
JJ
------- 7075
x
707.5 X
- 705
700
W- -690
..........
645
680 .4 X I
x
'30 690.1 670
699.2 THE PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS WITHIN THIS AREA
x ARE THE SAME AS THE PPOPOSED IMPROVEMENTS
At SHOWN ON TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 5766. x
% L r'CH RRSTYAX CEINTER
$06
535
%
62 629.3
575 - -----
x
--- - -------
z
z5--
620-
lo_
x
-------------
sc590
�LE-
ADIN'G FOR INSPIRATION D
PE PIRO ENY PLANMY —585
�%7.�%PROVM
--575-
J, 570
lob
5 0-
x
.5496 rI
571.5 b
545
530
0
Q 550 ------
s4s.—
N — 55"�V
DUBLN BLv',.
a —
ri" L
--5
LEGEND :
1989 LWATS W GRAIMiG
............ 1904 L"TS OF GRAD
TRACT BOUNEAW Lw;E
AREA 19s9 GRAD#4G
ENCROACFE E;EV tg" GRAONG (2.65 ACRES)
AREA 1994 GRA[MG
EWCROACHES EiEV 19B9 GRADM (0.92 ACRES)
htt
W,
Mr•
J
wwll�
4
,� � .. „ � 4'� .. , ����ti e\�\\ \ \\ , � - - �. , , � ! ,d I i 1 \ \ C� _1 `�11i71F_ XJ'�!}��1� s � ��ry'"' c�
PHASE I
HANSEN RANCH
CITY OF DUBLIN, CA.
LIMITS OF GRADING EXHIBIT
SCALE: V= 80'
SCALE: T* = W
ADAms - STREETER
CIVIL ENGINEERS INC,
- - --- ------
4�z
v
III
M
�hl jrUitt PHA E I
HIK R � I I -�EXIT E!-
ACCESS,
HANSEN RANCH
DUBLIN, CALIFORNIA
r 130'
ADAMS - STRTETFR
CIVIL EWANIERSIW.
..... . .........
JI
w 0 <
0 A
.. ...... . ... 69
C-S
OD
I �01
-J L'zl oit,
2L
7
nJ `...' o � ��.�.;� � r 1 -�.yi Mi e � �';t .c. g /, '/ ( ,.c /'�vT � �- i b' ~ / J
cl) riv
,� E'� 1
'5V
&
(,\D\ 14
N
IS
0 r7
tA
S r' .' �
IS
A\
kil
0'
S2L, � N � � 2` J
VIN
V] /�}' 1' n1 LL
4 91
to
-An
(ice i / _�f r/ l �_
\� / // '( //tea IN, -77-777'77 2 %� :� j �/ I
7,
.� / / �' _� � � � //i y ;,/' i i, � J � �:• It%; f)-- fin' ' � � \
On,
I
RESOLUTION NO.95-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF A NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR
PA 94-054 HANSEN RANCH TENTATIVE MAP AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
AMENDMENTS
WHEREAS,California Pacific Homes,Inc.,has filed an application requesting Tentative Map&
Development Agreement Amendments for the Hansen Ranch project;and
WHEREAS,the California Environmental Quality Act(CEQA),together with the State CEQA
Guidelines and City of Dublin Environmental Guidelines require that certain projects be reviewed for
environmental impact and that environmental documents be prepared;and
WHEREAS,an Initial Study was conducted finding that the project,as proposed,would not
have a significant effect on the environment;and
WHEREAS,a Negative Declaration has been prepared for this application;and
WHEREAS,the Planning Commission did review and consider the Negative Declaration at
public hearings on January 17,and February 6, 1995;and
WHEREAS,proper notice of said public hearings was given in all respects as required by law.
NOW,THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE Dublin Planning Commission does
hereby find that:
1. The Hansen Ranch Tentative Map&Development Agreement Amendments will not have
a significant effect on the environment.
2. The Negative Declaration has been prepared and processed in accordance with State and
local environmental laws and guideline regulations.
3. The Negative Declaration is complete and adequate.
PASSED,APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 6th day of February, 1995.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Planning Commission Chairperson
ATTEST:
Planning Director
c:\planning\tasha\hansen\94054ND2.doc Exhibit 15
°AGE 1% 0 INY�IiI
RESOLUTION NO.95-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION APPROVING
PA 94-054 HANSEN RANCH TENTATIVE MAP AMENDMENT REQUEST FOR A
MODIFICATION TO THE APPROVED TENTATIVE MAP 5766 AND CONDITIONS OF
APPROVAL FOR THE TENTATIVE MAP
WHEREAS,California Pacific Homes,Inc.,requests approval of a Tentative Map Amendment
to Phase 1 of Tentative Map 5766,and to modify Condition No.76 of City Council Resolution No.
130-89,which approves Tentative Map 5766 concerning PA 89-062 Hansen Hill Ranch project,
modifications which will permit a reduction in the required width of the creek access road referenced
therein,as well as other various minor changes to the subdivision configuration. A request for approval
of a Development Agreement Amendment to modify Conditions No.(a.)and(b.)of Subparagraph 5.3.2.
of Exhibit"B"of City of Dublin Development Agreement for the Hansen Hill Ranch project is also being
requested,a modification which will permit the reduction in width of the Creek Access Road from 12 feet
to 8 feet,and allow for the phased construction of the road;and
WHEREAS,the Planning Commission held public hearings on said application on January 17,
and February 6, 1995;and
WHEREAS,proper notice of said public hearing was given in all respects as required by law;and
WHEREAS,the application has been reviewed in accordance with the provisions of the
California Environmental Quality Act(CEQA)and a Negative Declaration has been prepared pursuant to
the State CEQA Guidelines,and the City of Dublin Environmental Guidelines. The proposed project will
not have a significant effect on the environment;and
WHEREAS,the Staff Report was submitted recommending that the application be conditionally
approved;and
WHEREAS,the Planning Commission did hear and consider all said reports,recommendations
and testimony hereinabove set forth.
NOW,THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE Dublin Planning Commission does
hereby find that:
A. Tentative Map 5766 Amendment is consistent with the intent of applicable subdivision regulations
and City Zoning and related ordinances.
B. Tentative Map 5766 Amendment is consistent with the City's General Plan as it applies to the
subject property.
C. Tentative Map 5766 Amendment will not result in the creation of significant environmental
impacts.
D. Tentative Map 5766 Amendment will not have substantial adverse effects on health or safety or be
substantially detrimental to the public welfare,or be injurious to property or public improvements.
E. The site is physically suitable for the proposed development in that the site is indicated to be
geologically satisfactory for the type of development proposed in locations as shown,provided
the geological consultant's recommendations are followed;and the site is in a good location
regarding public services and facilities.
1 PAGE OF
eoN
F. The request is appropriate for the subject property in terms of being compatible to existing land
uses in the area,will not overburden public services,and will facilitate the provision of housing of
a type and cost that is desired,in the City of Dublin.
G. General site considerations,including unit layout,open space,topography,orientation and the
location of future buildings,vehicular access,circulation and parking,setbacks and similar
elements have been designated to provide a desirable environment for the development.
H. This project will not cause serious public health problems in that all necessary utilities are,or will
be,required to be available and Zoning,Building and Subdivision Ordinances control the type of
development and the operation of the uses to prevent health problems after development.
I. The amendments will not materially change the provisions of the approved Tentative Map.
J. The approval of the Tentative Map Amendment will be consistent with the Dublin General Plan.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT THE Dublin Planning Commission does hereby
recommend City Council approval of Resolution approving PA 94-054 Hansen Ranch Tentative Map
Amendment application as generally depicted by materials labeled Exhibit A,stamped approved and on
file with the Dublin Planning Department,subject to the approval of the related Development Agreement
Amendment,and to the following conditions:
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL:
Unless stated otherwise,all Conditions of Approval shall be complied with prior to the issuance of
building permits or establishment of use,and shall be subject to Planning Department review and
approval. The following codes represent those departments/agencies responsible for monitoring
compliance of the conditions of approval. [PL]Planning,[B]Building,[PO]Police.[WP]Public Works
.ADM]Administration/City Attorney,[FIN]Finance,[F]Dougherty Regional Fire Authority.[DSR]
Dublin San Ramon Services District,[CO]Alameda County Department of Environmental Health.
GENERAL PROVISIONS
1. This approval is for limited amendments to the Tentative Map 5766 concerning changes in pad
elevations,minor revisions to lot and street configurations,and modification to Condition No.76
of City Council Resolution No. 130-89,which establishes Conditions of Approval for PA 89-062
Hansen Hill Ranch Tentative Map. The approved modification to Condition No.76 will permit
the Creek Access Road to be reduced in width from 12 feet wide to 8 feet wide. The
amendments will permit the plans attached as Exhibit A to overlay and replace certain aspects of
the approved Tentative Map 5766,for the first phase(72 units)of the 180 unit Hansen Ranch
Subdivision. The items which are amended on the Tentative Map itself involve minor street and
lot reconfigurations and changes in pad elevations.[PL]
2. Except as specifically modified elsewhere in these conditions,development shall conform to the
Conditions of Approval established by: City Council Resolution Nos.20-89 and 21-89,approved
on February 27, 1989,pertaining to PA 87-045 Hansen Hill Ranch General Plan Amendment and
Mitigation Monitoring Program for EIR;and City Council Resolution Nos. 128-89,129-89 and
130-89,approved on November 27,1989,pertaining to PA 89-062 Hansen Hill Ranch Tentative
Map,Prezoning,Annexation and Mitigation Monitoring Program for the Mitigated Negative
Declaration. [PL]
3. Approval of this Tentative Map amendment is subject to the applicant securing approval from the
jCouncil of the proposed Development Agreement Amendment associated with this request.
2 PAGE ZO OF3
4. Houses developed on lots 30 through 33,on the dul-de-sac adjacent to Hansen Drive,shall be
designed to minimize the impacts to existing views from residences on Hansen Drive. Lots 31,
32,and 33 shall be limited to single-story homes,no higher than a maximum of 17 feet tall. A
two-story home design which appears to be single-story from the rear elevation may be used for
lot 30,subject to approval of the City through the Site Development Review process.
STREETS
5. Maximum street grades,centerline curve radii and site distances at intersections shall not exceed
those approved on the previous improvement plans,except as specifically approved by the City
Engineer.[PW]
6. The collector road shall be 40 feet curb-to-curb.[PW]
7. A temporary paved turnaround shall be constructed at the end of the stub collector street into
Phase II,located on Page 3 of Exhibit A.[PW,PL]
GRADING&DRAINAGE
8. The cut-and-fill slopes shall not be steeper than 2 horizontal to 1 vertical(with benches),except
as may be reinforced with retaining walls or reinforced earth as designed and approved by the
developer's soils consultant.[PW]
9. Landslides and erosive areas as outlined in the Geotechnical Investigation Report for Hansen
Hill Ranch project prepared by Berlogar Geotechnical Consultants dated January 1992,shall be
shown on the Grading and Improvement Plans. Proposed repairs shall be outlined on these
same plans.[PW]
10. Prior to approval of grading plans,the Applicant shall conform to the recommendations
outlined in the Geotechnical Investigation Report for the Hansen Hill Ranch project prepared by
Berlogar Geotechnical Consultants dated January 1992,as a minimum. Stricter controls,
particularly on landslide repairs,retaining structures,subdrains,and surface drainage,may be
imposed by the Public Works Director.[PWj
CREEK ACCESS
11. The trail head at the collector street near Silvergate shall be 8 feet wide extending to the street
and designed to allow maintenance vehicles to access the trail from the street.[PW,PL]
12. The proposed-6-feet aggregate-base access road along the north side of the creek and east of
Martin Canyon Road shall be 12 feet wide,and shall be dedicated to the City with the creek
improvements,to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director,and subject to the approval of
the Department of Fish and Game,and the Army Corps of Engineers. This creek access road
may be less than 12 feet wide in limited areas where necessary for tree preservation. [PW,PL]
13. The developer shall construct a standard cul-de-sac bulb on the end of Martin Canyon Road and
shall fence around the end of the bulb with 6-foot black clad chain link fence with a lockable gate
to the maintenance roadway to the east,to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director. The
bulb can be all one-sided(to the west).[PW,PL]
14. There shall be turn around improvements made at the ultimate west ends of the access road and
access trail,which shall be aggregate base for maintenance vehicles and police patrol purposes.
Temporary turnarounds shall be constructed if needed at the ends of these roads in Phase I,
subject to the determination of the Public Works Director.[PW,PL]
'AGE 2 061
3
n
15. The developer shall obtain,in the name of the City,an access easement to use the proposed
access road on the north side of the creek prior to recording of final map for Phase 1. The
applicant shall obtain the permission of the property owner on which the road exists to make
improvements to the access road,and shall ensure that the road is 12 feet wide at a minimum and
has an aggregate base satisfactory to the Public Works and Planning Department,prior to
dedication of the creek area to the City.[PW,PL,F,PO]
16. If the applicant is unable to arrange for an easement for use and maintenance over the road
discussed in condition#15,an alternate location for a 12 foot wide access road shall be
provided on the project property,subject to the approval of all applicable City Departments. If
this condition or any other condition of approval related to the creek access trail or roads
cannot be fulfilled by the developer,the portion of this project approval related to the creek
access trail/road shall revert back to the previous approval for PA 89-062 and PA 91-099(with
a 12 foot wide creek access trail/road on the south side of the creek).
17. Lockable,removable bollards,or some other acceptable type of vehicle security measures,shall be
installed at each vehicular access to the trail to prevent unauthorized vehicles from using the trail,
while enabling access to the trail the event of an emergency. The Dougherty Regional Fire
Authority may require during the site review process or during construction process access to
gates and behind houses for emergency purposes.[PW,PL,F,PO]
18. The access across the creek shall be over a properly designed pipe or culvert that will pass the
design storm flow and support fire and maintenance vehicle traffic loadings. The access road over
this pipe and creek area shall be paved with 2 inches of asphalt over 6 inches of aggregate base
rock(as a minimum). The inlet and outfall of the pipe shall be protected from erosion.[PW]
19. The developer shall provide a ten-foot wide flat rocked access area between the lots off the
Silvergate cul-de-sac and the top of the creek bank,as shown in"Staff Study"attached to Exhibt
A. This is to provide access to the culvert headwall area upstream of Silvergate Drive.[PW]
20. Those portions of the access road and access trail adjacent to and associated with Phase 1 shall be
improved and dedicated to the City prior to occupancy of any units in phase 1.[PL,PO]
21. The Phase 1 access road and access trail improvements shall extend to and include the proposed
creek culvert crossing so that a drive-through maintenance loop can be made without having to
back up or turn around.[PW,PL]
22. When the creek area is dedicated to the city for maintenance of the public open space,the City
will accept,and be responsible for maintaining,only the improved access road and access trail en
the-pfejeet-pr-epefty,and the open space and creek areas on t e=prejectpronefty,which are
accessed from these roads. The City shall determine the acceptable level of maintenance to be
provided by the City.[PW,PL]
23. Every effort shall be made to locate,design,and construct the creek access trail and access
roads so that grading and tree removal impacts are reduced to the maximum extent possible,so
as to minimize damage to the ecological and aesthetic value and characteristics of the open
space area,while providing the necessary service functions.
FIRE
24. Fire Hydrants shall be spaced every 400 linear feet in residential areas comprised primarily of well
spaced,average single family dwellings.*[F]
25. The maximum grades for fire apparatus roadways shall not exceed:*
4 PAGE AI OF 25
a)15%for all weather driving surfaces.
b)15%to 20%for grooved concrete or rough asphalt for short stretches not to exceed 50
feet.[F]
26. The minimum number of fire access roads shall be as follows:*
a)1-25 units One public access road
b)26-74 units One public access road and one emergency access road
c)75+units Two public access roads[F]
27. The maximum length of a single access road shall be no greater than 1000 feet.*[F]
28. Dimensions. Fire apparatus access roads shall have an unobstructed width of not less than 20 feet
and an unobstructed vertical clearance of not less than 13 feet 6 inches.*[F]
29. Surface. Fire apparatus access roads shall be designed and maintained to support the imposed
loads of fire apparatus and shall be provided with a surface so as to provide all weather driving
capabilities.*[F]
30. Future site plans of the proposed project should be submitted to the Dougherty Regional Fire
Authority for review.[F]
*This is not inclusive of the creek access road and access trail.
POLICE
31. Fire access between residences shall be controlled by fences and adequate gates to prevent
unauthorized pedestrian traffic. [F,PO]
32. Applicant shall submit a projected timeline for project completion to the Dublin Police Services
Department,to allow estimation of staffing requirements.[PO]
OPEN SPACE/COMMON AREAS/LANDSCAPING
33. Open space area-Provide for weed abatement before,during and after construction with the
following guidelines:
a)Clear all weeds within 100 feet downhill from the property line
b)Clear all weeds within 30 feet uphill from the property line
c)provide an environmental thinning plan for the area between 30 and 100 feet of this
development.[F]
34. Provide a landscape plan for wild land open space areas. Supply vegetation fuel modifications
and/or buffer zones,and possible use of fire resistive or drought tolerant varieties of plant life.[F]
35. The developer shall post a sign at the entrance to the creek access road on the north side of the
creek from Martin Canyon Road,stating that the road is private,and is to be used for private use,
creek maintenance,and emergency access only.[F]
on either side of the fence.[PL}
DUBLIN SAN RAMON SERVICES DISTRICT(DSRSD)
36. Prior to issuance of any building permit,complete improvement plans shall be submitted to
DSRSD that conform to the requirements of the DSRSD Code,the DSRSD"Standard
5
n
Procedures,Specifications and Drawings for Design and Installation of Water and Wastewater
Facilities",all applicable DSRSD Master Plans and all DSRSD policies.[DSR]
37. All mains shall be sized to provide sufficient capacity to accommodate future flow demands in
addition to each development project's demand. Layout and sizing of mains shall be in
conformance with DSRSD utility master planning.[DSR]
38. Sewers shall be designed to operate by gravity flow to DSRSD's existing sanitary sewer system.
Pumping of sewage is discouraged and may only be allowed under extreme circumstances
following a case by case review with DSRSD staff. Any pumping station will require specific
review and approval by DSRSD of preliminary design reports,design criteria,and final plans and
specifications. The DSRSD reserves the right to require payment of present worth 20 year
maintenance costs as well as other conditions within a separate agreement with the Applicant for
any project that requires a pumping station.[DSR]
39. Domestic and fire protection waterline systems for Tracts or Commercial Developments shall be
designed to be looped or interconnected to avoid dead end sections in accordance with
requirements of the DSRSD Standard Specifications and sound engineering practice.[DSR]
40. DSRSD policy requires public water and sewer lines to be located in public streets rather than in
off-street locations to the fullest extent possible. If unavoidable,then public sewer or water
easements must be established over the alignment of each public sewer or water line in an off-
street or private street location to provide access for future maintenance and/or replacement.
[DSR]
41. Prior to approval by the City of a grading permit or a site development permit,the locations and
widths of all proposed easement dedications for water and sewer lines shall be submitted to and
approved by DSRSD. [DSR]
42. All easement dedications for DSRSD facilities shall be by separate instrument irrevocably offered
to DSRSD or by offer of dedication on the Final Map. [DSR]
43. Prior to approval by the City for Recordation,the Final Map shall be submitted to and approved
by DSRSD for easement locations,widths,and restrictions.[DSR]
44. Prior to issuance by the City of any Building Permit,all utility connection fees,plan checking fees,
inspection fees,permit fees and fees associated with a wastewater discharge permit shall be paid
to DSRSD in accordance with the rates and schedules established in the DSRSD Code. [DSR]
45. Prior to issuance by the City of any Building Permit,all improvement plans for DSRSD facilities
shall be signed by the District Engineer. Each drawing of improvement plans shall contain a
signature block for the District Engineer indicating approval of the sanitary sewer or water
facilities shown. Prior to approval by the District Engineer,the Applicant shall pay all required
DSRSD fees,and provide an engineer's estimate of construction costs for the sewer and water
systems,a performance bond,a one-year maintenance bond,and a comprehensive general liability
insurance policy in the amounts and forms that are acceptable to DSRSD. The Applicant shall
allow at least 15 working days for final improvement drawing review by DSRSD before signature
by the District Engineer. [DSR]
46. No sewerline or water line construction shall be permitted unless the proper utility construction
permit has been issued by DSRSD. A construction permit will only be issued after all of the items
in condition 27 44 have been satisfied. [DSR]
47. The Applicant shall hold DSRSD,its Board of Directors,commissions,employees,and agents of
DSRSD harmless and indemnify the same from any litigation,claims,or fines resulting from
completion of the project. [DSR]
6 PAGE 44 0ta
48. A water line connection to Water Zones 2 and 3 is required which will connect to lines at the west
end of Hansen Drive. An easement has already been dedicated across property in Tract 4988 to
accommodate this connection. A 20 foot wide easement shall be dedicated to the District on the
Final Map or by separate instrument satisfactory to the District, to align with the existing
easement, allowing the necessary water line connection to Bay Laurel Street (new street).[DSR]
49. A water line and connection to Water Zone 3 is required which will connect the project to Zone 3
lines in Rolling Hills Drive. A 15 foot wide easement shall be dedicated to the District on the
Final Map or by separate instrument satisfactory to the District, to align with the existing Zone 3
connection on the north boundary of the project. A portion of this required water line may
alternately follow the existing access road along the north side of Martin Canyon Creek.[DSR]
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 6th day of February, 1995.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Planning Commission Chairperson
ATTEST:
Planning Director
c:\planning\tasha\hansen\94054TM2.doc
PAGE ?O.
7
RESOLUTION NO.95-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF ORDINANCE APPROVING
PA 94-054 HANSEN RANCH DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT AMENDMENT
FOR PA 91-099 HANSEN RANCH PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
WHEREAS,California Pacific Homes,Inc.,requests approval of a Development Agreement
Amendment to modify Conditions No.(a.)and(b.)of Subparagraph 5.3.2.of Exhibit"B"of City of
Dublin Development Agreement for the Hansen Hill Ranch project. The proposed modification will
permit the reduction in width of the Creek Access Road from 12 feet to 8 feet,and allow for the phased
construction of the road. Amendments to the approved Tentative Map 5766 are also requested for the
first phase(72 lots)of the 180 unit Hansen Ranch Subdivision;and
WHEREAS,the Planning Commission did hold public hearings on said application on January
17,and February 6, 1995;and
WHEREAS,proper notice of said public hearings was given in all respects as required by law;
and
WHEREAS,the application has been reviewed in accordance with the provisions of the
California Environmental Quality Act(CEQA)and a Negative Declaration has been prepared pursuant to
the State CEQA Guidelines,and the City of Dublin Environmental Guidelines. The proposed project will
not have a significant effect on the environment;and
WHEREAS,the Staff Report was submitted recommending that the Planning Commission
recommend City Council approval of said Development Agreement;and
WHEREAS,the Planning Commission did hear and consider all said reports,recommendations
and testimony hereinabove set forth.
NOW,THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE Dublin Planning Commission does
hereby find that:
1. Said Agreement is consistent with the objectives,policies,general land uses and programs
specified in the General Plan in that a)the project approvals of said Agreement include a General
Plan Amendment adopted specifically for the Hansen Hill Ranch project,and b)said Agreement
furthers the affordable housing,parks,and open space policies of the General Plan;
2. Said Agreement is compatible with the uses authorized in,and the regulations prescribed for the
land use district in which the real property is located in that the project approvals include a
Planned Development Rezoning adopted specifically for the Hansen Hill Ranch Project;
3. Said Agreement is in conformity with public convenience,general welfare and good land use
practice in that said Agreement will provide public access to property that was previously private
and not accessible,will provide funds for affordable housing which will improve general welfare,
and will provide land use and access that are consistent and compatible with adjacent land use;
4. Said Agreement will not be detrimental to the health,safety and general welfare in that the
development will proceed in accordance with the project's environmental impact report and
mitigation measures;and
• �1/l
PAGE OF
n
5. Said Agreement will not adversely affect the orderly development of property or the preservation
of property values in that the development will be consistent with the General Plan.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT THE Dublin Planning Commission does hereby
recommend City Council approval of an Ordinance approving PA 94-054 Hansen Ranch Development
Agreement Amendments as shown on Exhibit A,stamped approved and on file with the Dublin Planning
Department and subject to the approval of the related Tentative Map Amendment and to the following
conditions:
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL:
1. This approval is for limited amendments to the Development Agreement approved by City
Council Ordinance 5-92,concerning a reduction in the width of the Creek Access Road from 12
feet wide to 8 feet wide,and will provide for a creek maintenance,repair,and emergency vehicle
access road along the north side of the creek,and will allow for phased construction of the creek
access road,and also concerning a requirement for grading and rocking an area in which a creek
access road was previously proposed to extend beyond the project boundary. The amendments
will affect Condition(a.)and(b.)of Subparagraph 5.3.2 of Exhibit B of the Hansen Hill Ranch
Development Agreement entered into on March 25,1992.
2. Except as specifically modified elsewhere in these conditions,development shall conform to the
Conditions of Approval established by: City Council Resolution Nos.20-89 and 21-89,approved
February 27, 1989,pertaining to PA 87-045 Hansen Hill Ranch General Plan Amendment and
Mitigation Monitoring Program for EIR;and City Council Resolution Nos. 128-89, 129-89&
130-89,approved November 27, 1989,pertaining to PA 89-062 Hansen Hill Ranch Tentative
Map,Prezoning,Annexation and Mitigation Monitoring Program for the Mitigated Negative
Declaration.
3. Approval of this Development Agreement amendment is subject to the applicant securing
approval from the City Council of the proposed Tentative Map Amendment
request for PA 94-054.
4. Condition(a.)of Subparagraph 5.3.2 of Exhibit B of the Hansen Hill Ranch Development
Agreement,entered into on March 25, 1992,is hereby modified to read as follows:
DEVELOPER shall construct an 8-foot wide access trail(the"Access Trail")over the Property
along Martin Canyon Creek as described in Condition No.76 to the CITY's approval of the
Tentative Map for PA 89-062("Condition 76"),and as modified in conditions Nos. 11, gym
4-7 14,20,21,and 23 of the City's approval of Tentative Map Amendment for PA 94-054. The
Access Trail,together with that portion of the Property lying between the fence to be constructed
by Developer pursuant to Condition 76 and the northern boundary of the Property,shall be
dedicated to the CITY for public access and maintenance purposes.The construction and
dedication required by this subparagraph may occur in phases which are concurrent with the
Tentative Map phases of project development. Upon dedication,DEVELOPER shall be released
from all liability for the maintenance of the property so dedicated."
5. Condition(b.)of Subparagraph 5.3.2 of Exhibit B of the Hansen Hill Ranch Development
Agreement,entered into March 25,1992,is hereby replaced by the following condition,to read as
follows:
"The DEVELOPER shall construct a 12-foot wide aggregate base access road(the"Access
Road")along the north side of the creek and east of Martin Canyon Road,as shown on
Attachment—I-Exhibit"A"of PA 94-054,attached hereto.DEVELOPER shall obtain,in the
name of the City,an access easement to use and maintain the 12 foot wide access road on the
north side of the creek,and west of Martin Canyon Road,on the adjacent property.The
DEVELOPER shall obtain the permission of the property owner on which the road exists to make
PAGE 0F5
-2-
improvements to the access road, and shall ensure that the road is 12 feet wide at a minimum and
has an aggregate base satisfactory to the Public Works and Planning Department, prior to
dedication of the creek area to the City, as per conditions of approval of Tentative Map 5766.
When the creek area is dedicated to the City for maintenance of the public open space, the City
will accept, and be responsible for maintaining, only the improved access roads on the project
property and the open space and creek areas roads-en property which are accessed from these
roads. The City shall determine the acceptable level of maintenance to be provided by the City.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 6th day of February, 1995.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Planning Commission Chairperson
ATTEST:
Planning Director
c:\planning\tasha\hansen\94054DAR.doc
PAGE Zt () _.
-3-
CITY OF DUBLIN
PLANNING COMMISSION
AGENDA STATEMENT/STAFF REPORT
Meeting Date: January 17, 1995
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Planning Staff
PREPARED BY: Tasha Huston, Associate Planner
SUBJECT: PA 94-054 Hansen Ranch Tentative Map Amendment & Development
Agreement Amendment
GENERAL INFORMATION:
PROJECT: Request for limited amendments to Phase I of the approved Tentative Map
and Tentative Map Conditions (Tract 5766) and the approved
Development Agreement for the Hansen Hill Ranch project. The limited
amendments involve a change in pad elevations, minor lot line adjustments,
a request to reduce the width of the creek access road from 12 feet to 8
feet wide and provide a creek access road and additional staging areas on
the north side of the creek, and amendments to various conditions of
approval related to the proposed changes.
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.
COPIES TO: Applicant
Owner
ITEM NO. Address File
ATTACHIBT
PAG
E A_OF��
n
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.
ZONING 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 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 modification to the approved General Provisions for the Hansen Ranch
Planned Development Project),and Hansen Ranch Site Development Review
(SDR)for the First Phase(lots 1-72)of the 180 lot 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).
PAGE 10F53
-2-
APPLICABLE REGULATIONS:
Current City procedures require that an amendment to an approved Tentative Map be processed under
the same procedure used for the original approval, or the most comparable procedure provided in the
Zoning Ordinance. This would require that an amendment be subject to Public Hearings and the review
and approval of the Planning Commission and City Council.
Section 9.4 (1) of the approved Development Agreement provides for amendments to the agreement, or
minor amendments to project approvals, to be processed without a public hearing under specific terms
and when the amendments are minor. Upon analysis of the requested amendments, it has been
determined by the Planning Director that the proposed revisions to the project are not minor, and
therefore the minor amendment process of the Development Agreement cannot be used. Due to this
determination, the procedures for modification would be subject to the applicable zoning, subdivision,
and other land use ordinances, according to Section 9.4 (2) of the Development Agreement.
Therefore, Section 8.12.120 of the Dublin Municipal Code would be applied to the application, which
requires that an amendment to a Development Agreement be processed through the same procedure as
used for entering into an agreement in the first instance. This process includes being subject to Public
Hearings and the review and approval of the Planning Commission and City Council, as well as an Initial
Study pursuant to CEQA, .
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: An Initial Study has been conducted for the project, and a Negative
Declaration has been prepared pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), State
CEQA Guidelines, and the City of Dublin Environmental Guidelines. The proposed project will not have
a significant effect on the environment.
NOTIFICATION: Public Notice of the January 17, 1995 Planning Commission hearing, as well as the
February 13, 1995 City Council Hearing, was published in the local newspaper, mailed to adjacent
property owners, and posted in public buildings and at the project site.
BA KTR IND•
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 subdivisions involves 72 lots, and Phase 2 involves the
remaining 108 lots. The current request for amendments concerns items in Phase 1 of the tentative map.
These changes are being requested due to issues which were identified after additional studies were
conducted by the applicant following approval of the Tentative Map and Development agreement. It is
anticipated that the applicant will also be requesting amendments to various aspects of Phase 2 of the
Tentative Map in the near future.
ANALYSIS:
Martha Buxton, representing California Pacific Homes, Inc., has applied for a Tentative Map
Amendment and Development Agreement Amendment to allow modifications to the approved Tentative
Map and Development Agreement for Phase 1 (72 lots) of the 180 unit Hansen Ranch Subdivision. The
requested amendments apply to limited aspects of the Tentative Map and Development Agreement
approvals.
PAGEL OF 5.3.
-3-
r1 r1
TENTATIVE MAP AMENDMENT
The Tentative Map Amendment request is to allow for modification of Tentative Map 5766
involving minor revisions to the lot and street configurations,and changes in the pad elevations,most
notably concerning lots 26-40. Lot lines and street configurations within the Tentative Map have been
slightly adjusted in order to provide less steep road grades for some streets,to make less severe cuts into
the hillsides,and to generally reduce the overall area of grading for Phase 1. The Applicant's request to
modify the lot and road configurations could be considered a minor modification of the approved
Tentative Map.
Pad elevations have changed on several lots,mainly resulting in higher pad elevations for the
units. The most notable area of pad elevation changes occurs on proposed lots 26 through 40,on the
cul-de-sac adjacent to Hansen Drive. Lots on this cul-de-sac as shown on the approved Tentative Map
were previously labeled as lots 24 through 39. The changes were requested in order to make less severe
cuts into the hills for pad grading,and avoid potential problems with slope stability affecting the homes
on Hansen Drive. In this area,pad elevation changes range from 2 to 21 feet. The most noticeable
aspect of the elevation changes would be the visual impacts from higher house pads,especially as they
relate to the homes on Hansen Drive. The elevations of house pads on the proposed plan for the five lots
near Hansen Drive with the greatest increase are:
Lot 30- 21 feet higher,
Lot 31- 21 feet higher,
Lot 32- 19 feet higher,
Lot 33- 14 feet higher,and
Lot 34- 11 feet higher.
A graphic display developed by the applicant which illustrates the differences in the approved pad
elevations versus the proposed elevations will be available for review at the Public Hearing before the
Planning Commission on Tuesday,January 17, 1995. Through analysis of photographs and research of
the visual impacts addressed in the EIR for the project,the visual impact which could potentially result
from the modifications to pad elevations has been determined to not be significant. However,the
increases may be noticeable to the adjacent residents. An option available to address concerns with the
impacts of higher elevations is to limit the height of homes on lots 30 through 34 to a single story.
The applicant is also requesting modification of Condition number 76 of the City Council
Resolution#130-89 Approving Tentative Map 5766,Concerning PA 89-062,Tentative Map Conditions
of Approval. This condition,along with a condition of approval in the Development Agreement,requires
that a 12 foot wide creek access road be constructed in the open space area along the creek. As
approved,the road's primary purpose is to provide access to the creek for maintenance and repairs,
emergency fire and police access,as well as to provide a recreational hiking path. The current request is
to change the width of this access road along the south side of the creek bank from 12 feet wide to 8 feet
wide. The applicant has indicated that the grading and retaining walls necessary for a 12 foot wide road
would be excessive,but could be substantially reduced if the road width is reduced.
During initial discussions with staff,the applicant proposed reducing the road to four feet wide.
However,it was noted that a four foot wide road would not allow any standard vehicles to use the
roadway,which could pose problems for maintenance or in emergency situations. Therefore,an 8 foot
wide road was determined to be the minimum allowable for maintenance and emergency purposes. The
subsequent proposal to reduce the width of the road to 8 feet wide was reviewed by the applicable City
Departments and other agencies,and several additional concerns were raised.
The needs of the Public Works Department for maintenance and repair work to the creek includes
access for large equipment such as tractors and backhoes. The minimum road width for such equipment
to maneuver would be 12 feet wide. Staff is recommending that if the eight-foot wide road on the south
side of the creek is accepted,a 12 foot wide access road will be needed along the north side of the creek.
This would include use of an existing road along the creek west of Martin Canyon Road,on the adjacent
property north of the project site,which would be a private road,used by the City only for maintenance
-4- PAGE 065
of,and emergency access to,the creek area. Also,the proposed 6-foot wide aggregate base access road
along the north side of the creek east of Martin Canyon Road would need to be 12 foot wide,and fenced
off and used only for maintenance and emergency access. An additional requirement recommended to be
added as a condition is to provide an area for access to the creek between the lots off of the Silvergate
cul-de-sac(Lots 6,7,and 8)and the creek bank. This area is illustrated by a"Staff Study"which is
included as a part of Exhibit A. A condition of approval has been added to address this requirement.
The above requirements will provide the City with a creek access trail,culvert access,and a road
along the north side of the creek of adequate width to enable emergency and maintenance vehicles access
and maneuverability. Because the path on the south side of the creek would now mainly be used as a
public hiking trail,it will be referred to in the conditions of approval as the access trail. The 12-foot wide
road on the north side of the creek will be referred to as the access road. The applicant has concurred
with the above recommendations and requirements.
Another staff concern has been raised which is related to providing access to the creek area from
the north. The primary access to the creek for maintenance,repair,and emergency vehicles will be
provided with the access road on the north side of the creek via Martin Canyon Road. In its current
configuration,Martin Canyon Road ends with a blunt dead-end,which creates a nuisance for street
maintenance with trash collecting in the street corners. Staff is recommending that improvements be
made to the stub street where it currently stops near the project's north property line,involving a cul-de-
sac bulb at the end of the street. This will bring the street into compliance with City street standards,
enable more efficient maintenance to avoid trash buildup,and provide an improved turnaround for large
emergency vehicles and maintenance equipment. However,the applicant does not concur with this
condition.
Conditions of approval have been included in the resolution which would address issues with
street grades,curve radii,and other aspects of the requested revisions to the lot and street configurations.
Additional conditions of approval have been incorporated into the resolution to address accessibility
concerns with the request to reduce the road width on the south side of the creek. With these conditions
of approval,staff recommends approval of the Tentative Map Amendment.
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT:
The Development Agreement Amendment request is to allow modification of the approved
Development Agreement conditions involving the creek access road discussed above.The conditions of
approval affected by the requested modifications are contained in Subparagraph 5.3.2 of Exhibit B to the
Development agreement,and involve the width of the access road,the timing of development of the road,
and the extension of a creek access road off of the site. The applicant is requesting that condition(a.)of
this subparagraph be reworded to allow for an eight-foot wide road,and that the road not be required to
be constructed entirely within Phase 1 of the project. The request is also for deletion of Condition(b.)to
eliminate the requirement that an access road serving the open space area be constructed beyond the
northwest boundary of the site.
Regarding the request to reduce the width of the road on the south side of the creek,concerns
with this issue have been discussed in the Tentative Map section above. If the request is granted,
conditions of approval would be recommended to address concerns with the reduced road width.
Regarding the phased construction of access roads,conditions of approval would also be
recommended to address concerns of maintenance and access. Staff recommends requiring temporary
cul-de-sacs at the end of the access road and access trail as built in Phase 1,to provide turnarounds for
emergency and maintenance vehicles. When the roads are extended in Phase 2,turnarounds would be
needed at the ultimate ends of the roads. Also,the recommended conditions state that when the creek
area is dedicated to the city for maintenance of the public open space,the City would accept,and be
responsible for maintaining,only the improved access road and access trail on the project property,and
the open space and creek areas which are accessed from these roads. Additionally,the creek access road
and access trail should be provided in improved form for that phase of the project which they serve,prior
to occupancy of any unit in that phase. This would address concerns with residents using a road or trail
-5- PAGE!0
n
that is under construction,unimproved or inaccessible in open space or creek areas,as well as providing
emergency access to this area.
Finally,the applicant has requested that the requirement of Condition(b.)of Subparagraph 5.3.2
of Exhibit B of the Development Agreement be deleted. The condition refers to a requirement for
grading and rocking an area in which a creek access road was previously proposed to extend beyond the
project boundary. With the new proposal,an eight-foot wide access trail is proposed to extend to the
west end of the property south of the creek and within the project boundary. This eight foot wide access
trail would be adequate for access to and maintenance of the open space area,and would eliminate the
need to provide the previously proposed access road off the project site for creek maintenance. Staff
recommends deletion of Condition(b.).
PUBLIC CONCERNS
Public Notice of the Negative Declaration and of Public Hearings to be held on this project was
mailed to property owners within 300 feet of the site,and was published and posted in public buildings
and at the project site. Several nearby residents have inquired about the project,and the City received
letters of comment from several residents. The main issues raised in the letters include the following:
1. Additional traffic in the neighborhood,especially on Silvergate Drive
2. Dirt from construction work
3. School impacts
4. Annexation and development of this property
A brief discussion of these issues in response to the letters of comment would be appropriate.
In general,the issues which are being raised relate to issues surrounding the development project as a
whole. It is important to note that the various Hansen Hill Ranch project applications have been
approved by the city in various stages beginning in 1989. The current application before the City is a
request for minor amendments to the Tentative Map and Development agreement,concerning only
limited aspects of the approvals. The question of whether development should occur on this site at all,
and what impacts will result,has been discussed and analyzed in the EIR and during previous approvals.
The current requested amendments do not affect the basic project annexation,land uses,number of units,
or type of residential development.
One of the letters received questions how this project was annexed to the City for development,
considering the voter opinions in the last election. It also questions whether Phase 2 of the project has
been approved,and what notices were mailed to surrounding home owners. The Hansen Hill project
General Plan Amendment and EIR were adopted by the Dublin City Council on February 27,1989. The
Hansen Ranch annexation was approved by the City Council on November 27, 1989,along with a
Planned Development Prezoning,and a Tentative Map,as noted earlier in this staff report. Public
notices of the project applications involving public hearings are required to be made by various
procedures,such as publication,posting,and direct mailing,according to state and local laws and
ordinances.
Regarding the issue of additional traffic,the Environmental Impact Report on the Hansen Hill
Ranch Project (the"EIR")was prepared in December of 1987,and certified by the City on February 27,
1989. This EIR was prepared in compliance with CEQA,and addressed issues and environmental
impacts identified as potentially significant in the City of Dublin's Initial Study of the proposed project.
Traffic impacts were discussed in the EIR on pages 3-101 through 3-110. Impacts from the
buildout of 282 dwelling units were analyzed at various intersections,and along several roadway
segments,including Silvergate Drive. The analysis of impacts to traffic volumes on roadway segments
included analyzing not only the existing situation plus anticipated traffic from the project itself,but also
the cumulative impacts considering build-out of other residential projects west of San Ramon Road,and
north and west of Silvergate Drive,as well as the build-out of downtown Dublin.
6_ PAGE 344 U 53
The EIR discussion of traffic impacts includes analyzing both the physical capacity of roadways,
as well as the"Environmental Capacity". Environmental capacity is a term used to express the volume of
traffic on a roadway which will cause residents to express concern about issues such as difficulty in
backing out of driveways into the street,safety of children playing in front yards or on sidewalks,noise,
speed of traffic,air pollutants,etc. As stated in the EIR on page 3-105,the"perception of tolerable
traffic levels is very subjective and varies"among neighborhoods and individuals. In the opinion of the
consultant preparing the EIR,based upon experience with responding to residential concerns about traffic
volumes,a reasonable standard for environmental capacity of a roadway would be 40%of the physical
capacity of the roadway.
The projected existing-plus-project traffic volumes were determined to be within not only the
physical capacity of the roadways,but also within the"environmental capacity limits". The projected
cumulative impacts of the project,considering build-out of other residential projects in the area,would
result in traffic volumes within the environmental capacity of Silvergate Drive at all locations except
between Peppertree Road and Creekside Drive. On this segment,volumes would exceed the
environmental capacity of 6,000 vehicles per day by 15 percent. As stated in the EIR on page 3-109,
"while no operational or safety problems would result from the future traffic increase on Silvergate Drive,
residents along this section of Silvergate Drive may notice an increase in noise and inconvenience in
backing out of their driveways."
Suggested mitigation measures to address the impact of exceeding the environmental capacity for
that segment of Silvergate Drive between Peppertree Road and Creekside Drive included reducing the
project size,reducing the cumulative effects of other projects,providing sole access to Hansen Ranch
from Dublin Boulevard,or encouraging the use of the Dublin Boulevard access. During the project
review process,the Hansen Ranch development was reduced in size to include 180 units. In the City
Council Resolution No.019-89 Making Findings pursuant to CEQA,Certifying the EIR,and including a
Statement of Overriding Considerations,the traffic volume impact of exceeding the environmental
capacity of the portion of Silvergate Drive between Peppertree Road and Creekside Drive were not
considered significant.
Regarding the issue of impacts to residents from dirt or dust from construction work,Air Quality,
including dust and temporary construction related impacts,was discussed in the EIR on pages 3-116
through 3-127. Condition of Approval number 82 for Tentative Map 5766 requires that areas
undergoing grading and all other construction activities shall be watered or other dust-palliative measures
used to prevent dust,as conditions warrant. This requirement is based upon the suggested mitigation
measures of the EIR for this impact,on page 3-125 of the EIR.
Regarding the issue of school impacts,this item was discussed in the ER on pages 3-78 through
3-81. The analysis of impacts to school capacities determined that the school capacities had adequate
surplus capacity to accommodate the students projected to be generated from this project. This analysis
assumed that the projected number of students to be generated by the project would be 56,based upon
the Murray School District's average generation rate of 0.2 students per dwelling unit and a total of 282
dwelling units for the project.
The cumulative impacts resulting from development of other residential projects north of the
Hansen Ranch project were also addressed in the EIR. The total number of students projected to need
placement in schools from cumulative projects would exceed the capacity at Nielsen School by 68.
However,the school was utilizing portable classrooms and had room on the grounds at the time the EIR
was prepared for more portable classrooms to accommodate the 68 person surplus. As stated in the EIR
on page 3-79,"The District does not anticipate significant adverse impacts from the proposed project
given the existing surplus capacity and space for portable classrooms at the Nielsen School,as well as the
two unused schools", (which had been closed due to decreasing enrollments).
Other issues addressed in the EIR related to School impacts include the cumulative development
impacts of busing and safety programs. The implementation measures recommended that the School
District implement an impact fee to be applied to new housing to mitigate development impacts. The
-7- PAGE35 Or 1 C
School District currently charges an impact fee of$1.72 per square foot for each new residential dwelling
unit built in the city. This fee must be paid prior to issuance of a building permit for the unit.
SUMMARY
The application has been reviewed by the applicable City departments and agencies, and their
comments have been incorporated into the Conditions of Approval. The applicant has indicated
agreement with all conditions of approval, with the exception of the improvements to the cul-de-sac bulb
at the stub of Martin Canyon Road. Staff recommends approval of the Negative Declaration (Exhibit B)
and the Applicant's request for a Tentative Map Amendment and Development Agreement Amendment,
subject to the conditions listed in the draft resolutions attached (Exhibit C & D), respectively, including
adoption of the findings required by Section 8.12.080 of the Dublin Municipal Code.
RECOMMENDATION:
FORMAT: 1) Open public hearing and hear Staff presentation.
2) Take testimony from Applicant and the public.
3) Question Staff, Applicant and the public.
4) Close public hearing and deliberate.
5) Adopt Draft Resolutions (Exhibits B, C, &D) relating to PA 94-054, or give Staff
and Applicant direction and continue the matter.
ACTION: Staff recommends the Planning Commission adopt the following Resolutions:
1. Draft Resolution approving the Negative Declaration (Exhibit B),
2. Draft Resolution recommending City Council approval of the Tentative Map
Amendment (Exhibit C),
3. Draft Resolution recommending City Council approval of the Development
Agreement Amendment (Exhibit D)
ATTACHMENTS:
Exhibit A: Project Plans: Reduced copy of Tentative Map, limits of Grading Exhibit, Creek Access
Road Exhibit, and Staff Study
Exhibit B Draft Resolution Approving Negative Declaration
Exhibit C: Draft Resolution Recommending Approval of Tentative Map Amendment
Exhibit D: Draft Resolution Recommending Approval of Development Agreement Amendment
Background Attachments:
Attachment 1: Location/Zoning Map
Attachment 2: Applicant's Written Statement
Attachment 3: Approved Tentative Map 5766
Attachment 4: City Council Resolution No. 130-89 for PA 89-062 Hansen Hill Ranch Tentative Map
Attachment 5: Development Agreement for Hansen Hill Ranch project
TKH b*laming\tasha\hansen\94054SR3.doc
-8- PAGE! 05,.
n
SE-E_ PIA-k)S S7A1"7 P6i�
y,1-4II3I f A
F(R rEgguadz ( LQ, (995
S -rA F REPoizT
PAGE! OF5
EX - 1 3tr A
RESOLUTION NO. 95 -
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
ADOPTING A NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR PA 94-054 HANSEN RANCH TENTATIVE MAP
AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT AMENDMENTS
WHEREAS, California Pacific Homes, Inc., has filed an application requesting Tentative Map &
Development Agreement Amendments for the Hansen Ranch project; and
WHEREAS, the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), together with the State CEQA
Guidelines and City of Dublin Environmental Guidelines require that certain projects be reviewed for
environmental impact and that environmental documents be prepared; and
WHEREAS, an Initial Study was conducted finding that the project, as proposed, would not
have a significant effect on the environment; and
WHEREAS, a Negative Declaration has been prepared for this application; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did review and consider the Negative Declaration at a
public hearing on January 17, 1995; and
WHEREAS, proper notice of said public hearing was given in all respects as required by law.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE Dublin Planning Commission does
hereby find that:
1. The Hansen Ranch Tentative Map & Development Agreement Amendments will not have
a significant effect on the environment.
2. The Negative Declaration has been prepared and processed in accordance with State and
local environmental laws and guideline regulations.
3. The Negative Declaration is complete and adequate.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 17th day of January, 1995.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Planning Commission Chairperson
ATTEST:
Planning Director
TKH c:\planning\tasha\hansen\94054ND.doc
PAGE A OF��
EXHIBIT B
STREETS
4. Maximum street grades,centerline curve radii and site distances at intersections shall not exceed
those approved on the previous improvement plans,except as specifically approved by the City
Engineer.[PW]
5. The collector road shall be 40 feet curb-to-curb.[PW]
6. A temporary paved turnaround shall be constructed at the end of the stub collector street into
Phase II.[PW,PL]
GRADING&DRAINAGE
7. The cut-and-fill slopes shall not be steeper than 2 horizontal to 1 vertical(with benches),except
as may be reinforced with retaining walls or reinforced earth as designed and approved by the
developer's soils consultant.[PW]
CREEK ACCESS
8. The trail head at the collector street near Silvergate shall be 8 feet wide extending to the street
and designed to allow maintenance vehicles to access the trail from the street.[PW,PL]
9. The proposed 6-foot aggregate base access road along the north side of the creek and east of
Martin Canyon Road shall be 12 feet wide,and shall be dedicated to the City with the creek
improvements.[PW,PL]
10. The developer shall construct a standard cul-de-sac bulb on the end of Martin Canyon Road and
shall fence around the end of the bulb with 6-foot black clad chain link fence with a lockable gate
to the maintenance roadway to the east. The bulb can be all one-sided(to the west).[PW,PL]
11. There shall be turn around improvements made at the ultimate west ends of the access road and
access trail,which shall be aggregate base for maintenance vehicles and police patrol purposes.
Temporary turnarounds shall be constructed if needed at the ends of these roads in Phase I,
subject to the determination of the Public Works Director.[PW,PL]
12. The developer shall obtain,in the name of the City,an access easement to use the proposed
access road on the north side of the creek prior to recording of final map for Phase 1. The
applicant shall obtain the permission of the property owner on which the road exists to make
improvements to the access road,and shall ensure that the road is 12 feet wide at a minimum and
has an aggregate base satisfactory to the Public Works and Planning Department,prior to
dedication of the creek area to the City.[PW,PL,F,PO]
13. Lockable,removable bollards,or some other acceptable type of vehicle security measures,shall be
installed at each vehicular access to the trail to prevent unauthorized vehicles from using the trail,
while enabling access to the trail the event of an emergency. The Dougherty Regional Fire
Authority may require during the site review process or during construction process access to
gates and behind houses for emergency purposes.[PW,PL,F,PO]
14. The access across the creek shall be over a properly designed pipe or culvert that will pass the
design storm flow and support fire and maintenance vehicle traffic loadings. The access road over
this pipe and creek area shall be paved with 2 inches of asphalt over 6 inches of aggregate base
rock(as a minimum). The inlet and outfall of the pipe shall be protected from erosion.[PW]
15. The developer shall provide a ten-foot wide flat rocked access area between the lots off the
Silvergate cul-de-sac and the top of the creek bank,as shown in"Staff Study"attached to Exhibt
A. This is to provide access to the culvert headwall area upstream of Silvergate Drive.[PW]
3 PAGE V OFD
16. Those portions of the access road and access trail adjacent to and associated with Phase 1 shall be
improved and dedicated to the City prior to occupancy of any units in phase 1.[PL,PO]
17. The Phase 1 access road and access trail improvements shall extend to and include the proposed
creek culvert crossing so that a drive-through maintenance loop can be made without having to
back up or turn around.[PW,PL]
18. When the creek area is dedicated to the city for maintenance of the public open space,the City
will accept,and be responsible for maintaining,only the improved access road and access trail on
the project property,and the open space and creek areas on the project property,which are
accessed from these roads. [PW,PL]
FIRE
19. Fire Hydrants shall be spaced every 400 linear feet in residential areas comprised primarily of well
spaced,average single family dwellings.*[F]
20. The maximum grades for fire apparatus roadways shall not exceed:*
a)15%for all weather driving surfaces.
b)15%to 20%for grooved concrete or rough asphalt for short stretches not to exceed 50
feet.[F]
21. The minimum number of fire access roads shall be as follows:*
a)1-25 units One public access road
b)26-74 units One public access road and one emergency access road
c)75+units Two public access roads[F]
22. The maximum length of a single access road shall be no greater than 1000 feet.*[F]
23. Dimensions. Fire apparatus access roads shall have an unobstructed width of not less than 20 feet
and an unobstructed vertical clearance of not less than 13 feet 6 inches.*[F]
24. Surface. Fire apparatus access roads shall be designed and maintained to support the imposed
loads of fire apparatus and shall be provided with a surface so as to provide all weather driving
capabilities.*[F]
25. Future site plans of the proposed project should be submitted to the Dougherty Regional Fire
Authority for review.[F]
*This is not inclusive of the creek access road and access trail.
POLICE
26. Fire access between residences shall be controlled by fences and adequate gates to prevent
unauthorized pedestrian traffic. [F,PO]
27. Applicant shall submit a projected timeline for project completion to the Dublin Police Services
Department,to allow estimation of staffing requirements.[P0]
4 PAGE�Z 0163
OPEN SPACE/COMMON AREAS/LANDSCAPING
28. Open space area-Provide for weed abatement before,during and after construction with the
following guidelines:
a)Clear all weeds within 100 feet downhill from the property line
b)Clear all weeds within 30 feet uphill from the property line
c)provide an environmental thinning plan for the area between 30 and 100 feet of this
development.[F]
29. Provide a landscape plan for wild land open space areas. Supply vegetation fuel modifications
and/or buffer zones,and possible use of fire resistive or drought tolerant varieties of plant life.[F]
30. The developer shall post a sign at the entrance to the creek access road on the north side of the
creek from Martin Canyon Road,stating that the road is private,and is to be used for private use,
creek maintenance,and emergency access only.[F]
31. Fences for single-family residences shall be placed at the top of slopes with one foot of level area
on either side of the fence.[PL]
DUBLIN SAN RAMON SERVICES DISTRICT(DSRSD'
32. Prior to issuance of any building permit,complete improvement plans shall be submitted to
DSRSD that conform to the requirements of the DSRSD Code,the DSRSD"Standard
Procedures,Specifications and Drawings for Design and Installation of Water and Wastewater
Facilities",all applicable DSRSD Master Plans and all DSRSD policies.[DSR]
33. All mains shall be sized to provide sufficient capacity to accommodate future flow demands in
/'• addition to each development project's demand. Layout and sizing of mains shall be in
conformance with DSRSD utility master planning.[DSR]
34. Sewers shall be designed to operate by gravity flow to DSRSD's existing sanitary sewer system.
Pumping of sewage is discouraged and may only be allowed under extreme circumstances
following a case by case review with DSRSD staff. Any pumping station will require specific
revie:_,-td approval by DSRSD of preliminary design reports,design criteria,and final plans and
specifications. The DSRSD reserves the right to require payment of present worth 20 year
maintenance costs as well as other conditions within a separate agreement with the Applicant for
any project that requires a pumping station.[DSR]
35. Domestic and fire protection waterline systems for Tracts or Commercial Developments shall be
designed to be looped or interconnected to avoid dead end sections in accordance with
requirements of the DSRSD Standard Specifications and sound engineering practice.[DSR]
36. DSRSD policy requires public water and sewer lines to be located in public streets rather than in
off-street locations to the fullest extent possible. If unavoidable,then public sewer or water
easements must be established over the alignment of each public sewer or water line in an off-
street or private street location to provide access for future maintenance and/or replacement.
[DSR]
37. Prior to approval by the City of a grading permit or a site development permit,the locations and
widths of all proposed easement dedications for water and sewer lines shall be submitted to and
approved by DSRSD. [DSR]
38. All easement dedications for DSRSD facilities shall be by separate instrument irrevocably offered
to DSRSD or by offer of dedication on the Final Map. [DSR]
yj
5
39. Prior to approval by the City for Recordation,the Final Map shall be submitted to and approved
by DSRSD for easement locations,widths,and restrictions.[DSR]
40. Prior to issuance by the City of any Building Permit,all utility connection fees,plan checking fees,
inspection fees,permit fees and fees associated with a wastewater discharge permit shall be paid
to DSRSD in accordance with the rates and schedules established in the DSRSD Code. [DSR]
41. Prior to issuance by the City of any Building Permit,all improvement plans for DSRSD facilities
shall be signed by the District Engineer. Each drawing of improvement plans shall contain a
signature block for the District Engineer indicating approval of the sanitary sewer or water
facilities shown. Prior to approval by the District Engineer,the Applicant shall pay all required
DSRSD fees,and provide an engineer's estimate of construction costs for the sewer and water
systems,a performance bond,a one-year maintenance bond,and a comprehensive general liability
insurance policy in the amounts and forms that are acceptable to DSRSD. The Applicant shall
allow at least 15 working days for final improvement drawing review by DSRSD before signature
by the District Engineer. [DSR]
42. No sewerline or water line construction shall be permitted unless the proper utility construction
permit has been issued by DSRSD. A construction permit will only be issued after all of the items
in condition 27 have been satisfied. [DSR]
43. The Applicant shall hold DSRSD,its Board of Directors,commissions,employees,and agents of
DSRSD harmless and indemnify the same from any litigation,claims,or fines resulting from
completion of the project. [DSR]
44. A water line connection to Water Zones 2 and 3 is required which will connect to lines at the west
end of Hansen Drive. An easement has already been dedicated across property in Tract 4988 to
accommodate this connection. A 20 foot wide easement shall be dedicated to the District on the
Final Map or by separate instrument satisfactory to the District,to align with the existing
easement,allowing the necessary water line connection to Bay Laurel Street(new street).[DSR]
45. A water line and connection to Water Zone 3 is required which will connect the project to Zone 3
lines in Rolling Hills Drive. A 15 foot wide easement shall be dedicated to the District on the
Final Map or by separate instrument satisfactory to the District,to align with the existing Zone 3
connection on the north boundary of the project. A portion of this required water line may
alternately follow the existing access road along the north side of Martin Canyon Creek.[DSR]
PASSED,APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 17th day of January,1995.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Planning Commission Chairperson
ATTEST:
Planning Director
tTh TKH c:Planning\tasha\hansen\94054TMR.doc
6 PAGE.or
•
RESOLUTION NO.95-
/' A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF rHE CITY OF DUBLIN
RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF ORDINANCE APPROVING
PA 94-054 HANSEN RANCH DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT AMENDMENT
FOR PA 91-099 HANSEN RANCH PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
WHEREAS,California Pacific Homes,Inc.,requests approval of a Development Agreement
Amendment to modify Conditions No.(a.)and(b.)of Subparagraph 5.3.2.of Exhibit"B"of City of
Dublin Development Agreement for the Hansen Hill Ranch project. The proposed modification will
permit the reduction in width of the Creek Access Road from 12 feet to 8 feet,and allow for the phased
construction of the road. Amendments to the approved Tentative Map 5766 are also requested for the
first phase(72 lots)of the 180 unit Hansen Ranch Subdivision;and
WHEREAS,the Planning Commission did hold a public hearing on said application on January
17, 1995;and
WHEREAS,proper notice of said public hearing was given in all respects as required by law;and
WHEREAS,the application has been reviewed in accordance with the provisions of the
California Environmental Quality Act(CEQA)and a Negative Declaration has been prepared pursuant to
the State CEQA Guidelines,and the City of Dublin Environmental Guidelines. The proposed project will
not have a significant effect on the environment;and
WHEREAS,the Staff Report was submitted recommending that the Planning Commission
recommend City Council approval of said Development Agreement;and
WHEREAS,the Planning Commission did hear and consider all said reports,recommendations
and testimony hereinabove set forth.
NOW,THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE Dublin Planning Commission does
hereby find that:
1. Said Agreement is consistent with the objectives,policies,general land uses and programs
specified in the General Plan in that a)the project approvals of said Agreement include a General
Plan Amendment adopted specifically for the Hansen Hill Ranch project,and b)said Agreement
furthers the affordable housing,parks,and open space policies of the General Plan;
2. Said Agreement is compatible with the uses authorized in,and the regulations prescribed for the
land use district in which the real property is located in that the project approvals include a
Planned Development Rezoning adopted specifically for the Hansen Hill Ranch Project;
3. Said Agreement is in conformity with public convenience,general welfare and good land use
practice in that said Agreement will provide public access to property that was previously private
and not accessible,will provide funds for affordable housing which will improve general welfare,
and will provide land use and access that are consistent and compatible with adjacent land use;
4. Said Agreement will not be detrimental to the health,safety and general welfare in that the
development will proceed in accordance with the project's environmental impact report and
mitigation measures;and
5. Said Agreement will not adversely affect the orderly development of property or the preservation
of property values in that the development will be consistent with the General Plan.
W ai`
PAG[ A OF,E0
• 5
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT THE Dublin Planning Commission does hereby
/'\ recommend City Council approval of an Ordinance approving PA 94-054 Hansen Ranch Development
Agreement Amendments as shown on Exhibit A,stamped approved and on file with the Dublin Planning
Department and subject to the approval of the related Tentative Map Amendment and to the following
conditions:
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL:
1. This approval is for limited amendments to the Development Agreement approved by City
Council Ordinance 5-92,concerning a reduction in the width of the Creek Access Road from 12
feet wide to 8 feet wide,and will provide for a creek maintenance,repair,and emergency vehicle
access road along the north side of the creek,and will allow for phased construction of the creek
access road,and also concerning a requirement for grading and rocking an area in which a creek
access road was previously proposed to extend beyond the project boundary. The amendments
will affect Condition(a.)and(b.)of Subparagraph 5.3.2 of Exhibit B of the Hansen Hill Ranch
Development Agreement entered into on March 25,1992.
2. Except as specifically modified elsewhere in these conditions,development shall conform to the
Conditions of Approval established by: City Council Resolution Nos.20-89 and 21-89,approved
on February 27, 1989,pertaining to PA 87-045 Hansen Hill Ranch General Plan Amendment and
Mitigation Monitoring Program for EIR;and City Council Resolution Nos. 128-89,129-89 and
130-89,approved on November 27,1989,pertaining to PA 89-062 Hansen Hill Ranch Tentative
Map,Prezoning,Annexation and Mitigation Monitoring Program for the Mitigated Negative
Declaration.
3. Approval of this Development Agreement amendment is subject to the applicant securing
approval from the City Council of the proposed Tentative Map Amendment associated with this
request.
4. Condition(a.)of Subparagraph 5.3.2 of Exhibit B of the Hansen Hill Ranch Development
Agreement,entered into on March 25,1992,is hereby modified to read as follows:
"DEVELOPER shall construct an 8-foot wide access trail(the"Access Trail")over the Property
along Martin Canyon Creek as described in Condition No.76 to the CITY's approval of the
Tentative Map for PA 89-062("Condition 76"),and as modified in conditions Nos.11,16,and
17 of the City's approval of Tentative Map Amendment for PA 94-054. The Access Trail,
together with that portion of the Property lying between the fence to be constructed by Developer
pursuant to Condition 76 and the northern boundary of the Property,shall be dedicated to the
CITY for public access and maintenance purposes.The construction and dedication required by
this subparagraph may occur in phases which are concurrent with the Tentative Map phases of
project development. Upon dedication,DEVELOPER shall be released from all liability for the
maintenance of the property so dedicated."
5. Condition(b.)of Subparagraph 5.3.2 of Exhibit B of the Hansen Hill Ranch Development
Agreement,entered into on March 25,1992,is hereby replaced by the following condition,to
read as follows:
"The DEVELOPER shall construct a 12-foot wide aggregate base access road(the"Access
Road")along the north side of the creek and east of Martin Canyon Road,as shown on
Attachment 1 hereto.DEVELOPER shall obtain,in the name of the City,an access easement to
use the 12 foot wide access road on the north side of the creek,and west of Martin Canyon Road,
on the adjacent property.The DEVELOPER shall obtain the permission of the property owner on
which the road exists to make improvements to the access road,and shall ensure that the road is
12 feet wide at a minimum and has an aggregate base satisfactory to the Public Works and
Planning Department,prior to dedication of the creek area to the City,as per conditions of
approval of Tentative Map 5766. When the creek area is dedicated to the City for maintenance
-2- PAGE 416 0
of the public open space, the City will accept, and be responsible for maintaining, only the
improved access roads on the project property and the open space and creek areas on the
property which are accessed from these roads.
6. Conditions (e.) through (i.) of Subparagraph 5.3.2 of Exhibit B of the Hansen Hill Ranch
Development Agreement, entered into on March 25, 1992, are hereby added to read as follows:
e. The developer shall construct a standard cul-de-sac bulb on the end of Martin Canyon
Road and shall fence around the end of the bulb with 6-foot black clad chain link fence
with a lockable gate to the maintenance roadway to the east. The bulb can be all one-
sided (to the west).
f. The developer shall provide a ten-foot wide flat rocked access area between the lots off
the Silvergate cul-de-sac and the top of the creek bank, as shown on"Staff Study" as part
of Exhibit A. This is to provide access to the culvert headwall area upstream of Silvergate
Drive.
g. The trail head at the collector street near Silvergate shall be 8 feet wide extending to the
street and designed to allow maintenance vehicles to access the trail from the street.
h. Lockable, removable bollards, or some other acceptable type of vehicle security measures,
shall be installed at each vehicular access to the trail to prevent unauthorized vehicles from
using the trail, yet allow access to the trail in the event of an emergency. In addition,
during the site review process or during construction, the Dougherty Regional Fire
Authority may require access to gates and behind houses for emergency purposes.
i. Those portions of the Access Road and Access Trail which are adjacent to and associated
with Phase 1 of the Tentative Map shall be improved and dedicated to the City prior to
occupancy of any units in Phase 1. Phase 1 access trail, and access road improvements
shall extend to and include the proposed creek crossing, as discussed, and to the design
specifications required, in the conditions of approval of the associated Tentative Map
Amendment.
j. There shall be turnaround improvements made at the ultimate west ends of the Access
Road and Access Trail for maintenance vehicles and police and emergency patrol.
Temoporary turnarounds shall be constructed if needed at the ends of these roads in Phase
1, subject to the determination of the Public Works Director.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 17th day of January, 1995.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Planning Commission Chairperson
ATTEST:
Planning Director
TKH _ c:\planning\tasha\hansen\94054DAR.doc
,AG:
r'i I ri I I I
ii
I
.. i �I :� \ • :
II o, � %�� � / O' \
y by 1 l G / j. \ Y0)4 /. P
a
A/ / �-1 ' '
25 / _- _. ,.2.,, / \ �' \\, `
5067
7c _ ,/ _ ,' \ \ \\\\ , \\sue\\ \Fes\
t t� z / .. P gZ3 \ 520 1\ ,. -b\\ L
P 20
_ 1. , I/, =yam ` iii, ` / _/�� J /%- �/
- Ck
•.• - •
\ 09 . . , \ laa • - , --='
_ ® 523 �. � 2i
P 7 o s�s ' P--z� - q
14
,:,:' \
.. . --.....-.....„---, -\ \--
14
ii-
�`� �'' - __ �_ _- _ -- 9— it ��}'�
G 'b
SECx/
•-7 sE a r.r4
7s 7/ 7469 7¢6S 74(0/
HANSEN RANCH
CITY OF DUBLIN , CA.
•
CROSS SECTION
AnAc 1r , ,
PAGE LI OF 'i
HORIZONTAL - I" = 20'
VERTICAL - I" = 20'
LEGEND
CURRENTGROUND
NEW DMGN
OLD DESIGN
6A0
CVRMWMOWW
SECTION #2
a�
ffo
�J
NEWDESM
OLD DESIGN --\
rot �rl I K�Jlvp
I
I
SECTION #4
7461 ffitNSEN DRIVE I
win
SECTION #3
74G5H,,tVSENDRIVE
El
91
tz&"
CURRENTaROUND -
NEWMIllaN
1 00 so
ME
mmoss
00
540
mo
520
510
500
&V
—SO
— mo
— 670
mo
mo
NEW DF—WGIv
llvrnnr�� —.—
I
— 550
— 540
mo
mo
510
500
7445HANSEIVDRIVE
mo
520
510
500
OLD DESIGN
I
I lEl-Uqx.;,.9al It Ulf &.9 V —
- 510
- wo
rit
—I! xi CITY OF DUBLIN
1� P.O. Box 2340, Dublin, California 94568 • City Offices, 100 Civic Plaza, Dublin, California 94568
`1LIFON
CITY OF DUBLIN
MEMORANDUM
TO: Commissioner Rafanelli
Commissioner Zika
FROM: Larry Tong, Planning Director k-
SUBJECT: PA 94-054 Hansen Ranch Amendments
DATE: February 3, 1995
The attached copies are being delivered as a supplement to your Planning Commissioner
Packet which was distributed on Thursday, February 2, 1995. This item was submitted
Thursday afternoon by Dan Morris, and was addressed to three Planning Commissioners.
These copies are provided to you so that consistent information is distributed to all
Commissioners.
Please feel free to contact myself, or Tasha Huston, the project planner, if you have any
questions regarding this information or the Staff Report for this project.
Administration (510) 833-6650•City Council (510) 833-6605• Finance(510) 833-6640• Building Inspection (510) 833-6620
Code Enforcement(510)833-6620 • Engineering (510) 833-6630 • Planning (510) 833-6610
Police(510) 833-6670 • Public Works(510) 833-6630 • Recreation (510) 833-6645
a
From Daniel L Morris
7439 Hansen Dr.
Dublin,Ca.94568 gate February 1,1995
Home(510)828-6062
Work(415)765-7462
aassctcation For the Record
To Members of the Planning Subject Ammendment to Pad
Board and Department Bevations,Hansen
Ranch Project
PURPOSE
Please find enclosed,materials I have developed and gathered in the hope that I can get your
support in a matter that deeply concerns me. Pacific California Homes has requested an ammendment
to the tentative map that would all but destroy the quiet enjoyment of my home and severely impact the
resale value of my property.I implore you to review the evidences,the exhibits, and evaluate my
comments in this matter.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
In the matter of Pad Elevation changes adjoining the Hansen Drive properties,I have been
investigating avenues of relief.I have had the help of several attorneys,a civil engineer,and a geologist.
None of these are,or have been employed by me,yet.The full conduct of my investigations has been
borne by myself,and no explicit or implied conclusions or opinions have come from anyone other than
myself.
In the course of this investigation,I have covered,the development planning and approval
process, the Environmental Impact Study, the Tentative Map,the Geotechnical Investigation, City
Resolutions,Meeting Minutes,and the Contract with the Developer.
To facilitate and develop focus for my investigation,I concentrated on 1)the Initial Study of
the Visual Impact and 2)the geotechnical reasons for the ammendment.
FINDINGS
It is my conclusion that the Initial Study for Visual Impact could have benefitted from additional
visual information,such as the views I have provided in the accompanying enclosure.I cannot accept
the conclusion of the Planning Department that a 27 foot structure placed at an altitude 10 feet above
my home pad and 100 feet(7 car legnths)from by back wall,is hardly noticeable.
It is my conclusion that specious geological arguments are being used to perpetrate a radical
redesign of the development for what appears to be an effort to lower construction costs and provide
more attractive housing to new buyers at the expense of current residents.It also appears that this
endeavor may put at least two residences at risk by placing a 20 foot and a 30 foot wall of dirt on top
of landslide debris.
CLOSING STATEMENTS
I would much prefer to go back to my peaceful way of life than continue this acerbic affair,but
I will continue it,if I have too.I am not going to live with people peering into my privates.
If you could talk with the people who know me they would describe me as kind and caring,not
the obsessed person I have become.I cannot endure the changes Pacific California Homes wishes to
make.
(Page 2)
The remediations they have offered don't come close to restoring the quiet enjoyment of my
home. I have had no real opportunity to meet with the Developer and conduct serious discussions since
I have been fully occupied conducting this investigation and preparing my statement to you.
If I may be so presumptuous. I would like to request an official Continuance of two weeks to
allow us to meet and air out our grievances.It would have been unfair to myself to settle on a resolution
prior to knowing at least a few of the facts. I feel that I am now in a postion to discuss my issues
intelligently.
I thank you for your kind consideration in this matter. And, though it may seem antipodal at
this point, I have gained a great appreciation for the character and skills of those who would serve the
public in this enterprise. I would especially like to thank Tasha Hustin, Gaylene, Maria. and Michelle
who performed thier civic duties respectfully and professionally. I wish to praise the process that has
allowed me to access the public record, and gives me the right to express my opinions.
incerely Yours,
La-dt--t-d /Ori//1-
Daniel L. Morris
"
s5. � 0 h ... ar
Svc .... !k - 't t- ''
w,gk
7
,, .' .� sin �„3
.4,,,,
.4.,,_ -
--u-. , ,..,,.....,,.,;,-,
.t , l!9 Jj
,*,,...„-.A.,-,*--14-,,,,'i,d-..., -.'''i'
111;w' ),'. ': :ff: ...,,, a.- ._. Yr'itZsA,..Y:::•. .2 A's s:
� :" . *
i Jam- -.�,,,_t.-,
A Ráacityfor a achy
..,
In the beginning when Bren brought forth this project to the citzens of
Dublin, and especially the neighbors of its lands, it presented such a beautiful
gift to the community that no one could rail against it, save for the cost of a
traffic light (see Planning Bd. minutes Nov. 6,20, 1989 and Resolution 127-89).
And except for an age old debate about a service road, not many issues came
to the publics attention.
But on December 13, 1994 all that changed ! Even as the bulldozers started
to crank thier engines for the final assault on cow trod pasture, and residents
began to install headphones on thier TVs so that they could blank out the
plunder, a strange little sound interrupted the residents on Hansen Drive.
A dramatic change had to be made in the PROMISED LAND. For some there would
be no more sun, no more sky and clouds to fill your window, and you would have
to hide yourself away lest you reveal your nakedness.
At the PLanning Board Public Hearing, January 17, 1995, the EXPERT was
brought in tell us why. It was not the Developers fault that the PROMISED LAND
would not be ours, it was NATURE, it was LANDSLIDE.
SO THE DEVELOPER CAME UP WITH A PLAN
OLD PLAN
my home
ONE STORY
IOPee down 21 '
NEW PLAN A
TWO MR
274A6\ SrP,
my lime
IOPPeflip
WE SAID WE DID NOT LIKE THE NEW PLAN
my home
Aikh.
ONE STORY
IOee down 21
SHE FIXED IT
1111 TWO sTIR
Aft
my home
P ei-
The following are statements extracted from Dublin Public Resolutions that
I interpret as an intention to promote, affirm, and clarify the position of our
City of Dublin where it concerns the rights of individuals.
RESOLUTION NO. 89-057
A .RESOLUTION OF TEE PLANNING COfr1NISSION
OF TEE CITY OF DUBLIN
Nei+, T RE CRE, BE IT RESOLVED TEAT TEE Planning Cor,•^d Y�iss_on
Ices hereby __.._.
•
7.`; Genera1 site considerations, including unit layout,
omen space, _ _ achy, orientation and the location of
it t_ _re buildings, vehicular access, circulation and
marking, setbacks and similar elements have been JJ
designated to provide a desirable environment :or tie
deveio pert.
Taken from Resolution 127-89
visual impact �'_�'- -i- measures, was prepared for the
prcrosed .reject. Notice of --a^'-'-'^n of the Mitigated
Negative Declaration was duly -riven prior to the Planning
Commission hearing on November 8, 1999.
12. The Planning Commission
held hearings on the proposed -
prcject on November 5, 1983and November 20, 1989, at which time
the PlanningCcm.'*_' took testimony from interested persons
regarding h` ..e _- _..sed Project and recommended approval of the
project to the City Cc::..__- subject to specified conditions.
13 Notice of ^-"- .`.ear_- on the Mitigated Negative
Declaration was duly gi•:er. -.. --^''- hearing was held before
the City Council on November 27, 1383.
14. Notice that the City
Ccun:l --roses to adopt the Mitigated
Ned --ve Dec''-' an an ^ -_ty fort•.:blic review was
y
pr: _ded the =- •� post_-_ i•: -•"oc il:uildin gs, the notice
was mailed
v
_ adjac_nt Property owners and published in the local
newspaper at _east ten (-2) days 'before the public hearing, in
agar--"nee with Section :S072 of the State C_icA Guidelines.
NOW, THE EFCRE, BE R.£CL E THAT THE City Council of the
City of Lublin does hereby resolve as follows:
A. :he foregoing =eci`''= are true and correct and are Lade a
part hereof.
E. The City Council finds on the basis of the record before it
and the foregoing Sec"-.1_, (1) that feasible mitigation
measures, Pimp - without limitation the traffic
mitigation yeas =. _ the :'_ > 'mpact mitigation
measures, have been .. ^ -'-e; 'nto the Project to
env:--rental effects identified in
_ above: (2)^that st-. mitigation measures will
eliminate or -_ _ -_ 'a _evel�of insignificance the
s' ^' en•. - .-e^___ a f' _s identified in paragraph 8;
and••(3) that uniformly 'n-"=-- -'evelcpm en: policies or
wi: t - -e the significant environmental
ef` -_ 'dent fie_ -n par'^ 9 above.
j'l.. .,e City Co ..__i heard and considered all said
- __ .:1enda r._^..._ , n- . ---.. and oral testfraoni sur•mitte,4 at
z..e L^._- .._rv' e ✓etfcnth•
NOW, T..�..�17"7, RESOLVED THAT THE City Council do
he-a
:.! - will not have subs Lanti_l adv er e e
_ - _ or be Subs i".ant__i i v
r'rid_ c n ya- me -
• Page 3-69 of the Visual Quality Section of the Environmental
Review contains language regarding the LAND USE ELEMENT:
IMPLEMENTING POLICY 2.1.3(B) states : "Site plans must respect
the privacy and scale of nearby residential development.
Pursuant to CEQA guidelines, the City of Dublin undertook an
Initial Study to determine whether the developers ammendments
constituted a SIGNIFICANT visual impact. (note the map below,
highlights the area of High Visual Impact that is adjacent to my
property and the subject of my disagreement with the Planning
Department and the Developer) . I also disagree with the methods
that were use to assess the visual impact.
3.7.2 IMPACTS
Project Description
J-
During environmental assessment studies,visually sensitive site areas were determined.
Figure 3-11 illustrates areas with high,moderate and low visual sensitivity.
Proposed siting of the units has incorporated concerns of unit visibility, site visibility,
engineered contour visibility and unnatural plant massing. The approach of the landscape
architect has been to create gentle bowls,utilize berms,site highest density development
at the base of slopes,retain a sense of the existing knolls and tree clusters,step lot pads,
86123 3-36
TIS UAL SENSITIVITY • FIGURE 3-1.1
\ n :t a axi.swa. [►. ,ss
4 V.-2.7-.1---:----- t-------:-„,.." ''''
----.. "t:., r______/?...4iy -- ' 11101
kirl..,,,,. .., '1)..1 Jim 4 1 I--k')I \al "". a".' ,'. .‘..".. ....' ..
:,:.;>/?•:_.',.../.___X---j- .211..... .......17‘._,........ (...\.j.V)\ . _i5—..`-`-•'::1-3
/'fir `` ,� r� °�, � \ o.. ,.,1 /��t��+�'m° ����h�1!1�i��.
•
---.� -, .
Comments on the method used for -the VISUAL IMPACT
study by the PLANNING Department
4- t .11111
W
The picture at right shows
the current view. The 'crosses' 's \`
have been penned in to show the �"` ; �•! +
tops of PVC �'
p poles that I erected F� .u't='ie;; . •'�� ,
at 100 feet from the back of our y` .•s
house where the developer plans ` ! ��, �-
to put thier house. These poles �c-.tom ' y.`` 'l.
were 20,27, and 20 feet respective - r,... r• b k-;+ ' •r- • , •r nn.,r,;;
ly,and represent the height of their ; 'It.t ■ •• ` ` d ..� .q i x t.41
developer s two story house plan. " 4» ", '. I' •• 4
Both the pole legnths and 100 ft 7 '�� 11Y`�Y"'�` * ".• 5. � � a ',,
.fie I
set-back were used to make photos ;4 V' 1.., 1; 1 t, f
that give a R E A L view of the ' + - '1 •.-
visual impact. NO trick photgraph •r + �j • rQ. - ' ?' � +`
...
was used! The original photos are r -- • ' - -" - '
: ., t, .
available for examination. - _ s
The Architectural Experts
provided the accurate to scale
drawing seen on the right, to show
that the VISUAL IMPACT was nominal.
Marti Buxton provided a picture
much like the one at top right to •
show that the Hills would not be
obscured! Of course, no attempt iSTING SCREEN TO BREAK VIEWS OF NEW HOMES
was made to plot, or superimpose 1
the new house on the view, so that raomosmiocsioN I —se
a fair appraisel could be made { ERISTINGVEGETATION
in the INITIAL STUDY for Environ- --�_" -� u —sec
mental Impact. This is the evidence -• a j rt 1:1 ,A '
the PLANNING department based --- s.r d : :\ 4 4414L4. � "nl pl�j —s�
thier judgement on I . 7'
—.30'.FIR U _
500
To hell with the hills! My wife complains that this picture�is�not�SECTION #8 —
Where did my sunshine and good! It does not really show how big 7439 HANSEN DRIVE
this privacy go? Where are the this house is, and she is correct! This picture was
clouds? The picure at right taken with a wide angle lens. That Lens works by making •
has the new 2 story house on objects look further away and smaller. So the real
its elevated pad drawn in by ' effect is somewhat more omniprescent. The wide
me. I have rendered in the angle shot was the only way to show the impact
house as it would be situated across just 3/4 s of our backyard.
within the points marked by
the poles I layed out in the
field.
The development plan, up f
until DEC. 13th 1994, when an ' �j�
ammendment was requested, would �a� I 1
have retained the view in the + '—'� 's�/ ` . ---- r r'
picture shown in the upper right ter- s�'!.' � 't '► ,,
corner! "`'-`'�' i
` c i iMc it fir: h^r ✓ •
IT , cu ■ LI! t1 an als �, 1 s,
. ,. ,.,- . .,7..„,,, ihrjr;...„,.... 4..,.., . 1-„ --.: ..., ,,
, . , , ,.. ,: :...„. . . „.....• . ,... , . \r, ci. il 4 0 s t 1.44, .
'Y y.404.5. • s : e ~ y'
pV ' fff �',
it-'•:•.t:'
175;114‘
'.-• '.‘..-Ntite,.. 'tl."* Ii4..,..A. 14'''''.kl.,.. .:,1.,,, iv,....V 1 3-i ' .it to Jr.,
404114re
Y� Vim. - _ •
•
The following pictures were photocopied then colored by hand.It rained the day we took the pictures.
t a�rs.
r
a I h ' / Fl1 -t .;t w� f F� j/tJ� y .±` \ 3��'' , (( •; ,{' '' te. }'1 -IV'- ` f�' �,...,,c.
. ••t "'
This is the view from our Dining Room.You see more of the Hills because the dining room floor is elevated.
tII,I, Sr k ';,5rrk rv,
y • aA `. • < r z8 YiSr
I
6r t•F r 4 ,-,. _ 1.
4w �
xt
This is a view from the edge of our back porch.We are standing on the deck.
The Picture below shows a panaroma of how we planted the poles in the field.
t
.
I
i
O i
' i art' -. s y"""" .. -,
,. --�.;. -4^''' ,.~Na �"a .:4.-:,,�.� i t r Y t „..A,. y
:. - ••'y`+'2 ,,.12 —N ' * .+r,•- c- may s ,r, ,; :4.
,# • *• .t...-•�-_ _s711 • •+ ti�
Imagine yourself lying in your _. * fit K:
bed. . . then helplessly careening down � a• =_> •ti ��t -r,V ;i ,,.JY. 2 • ,!
the slopes on a million ton carpet of _ 'N> q rN r .4 i'•�!� r' '�
clay. What was once quietgarden . --_,N +.. .r..
your #• ;x , , i.,
starts taking on a terrifying life as ' •zv
it oozes and folds. It becomes a liquid •'i' `,, L. =`� =< .��
monster waking after a long sleep. It r "� 'p —"
knows your name. It's tentacles creep ti • L� •• '. ,A 'F,1�i . ' L t ., ir+ •
up and remove the pale windows that ''-r` ` .: 'rye-` - • :r ir. . �. .. ,�::
'D.4a ..,4,J'• ti
once separated you from it. Like waves •from a stormy beach, the viscous slime _ t'F ' ? : r F + $ 3'�
enfolds your legs. . . and you are its ' '- r _.; '`s soh +
prisoner, held fast and true. In another :,� 34 ' ay Family Roo:
moment, it carries out its execution e~ —.• _ sty Living Room ,�
order, Bury Alive. . . K M
1•f Bedroom
This is what can happen when the M' y ;, i � �
forces of nature act out. This is what - x..• y `?` "'y Dining Room '�-z.
can happen in a LANDSLIDE: �.•;,�•�+Gt ::1 � =,. - . _ ._ �;,
T7iS L' tJS"e view to our-house if someone were looking out
the first story window of the new house. The 'dreaded cut'
was to be made here!
My NO(,SL
I
LANDSLIDE
At the January 17th 1995 Public Hearing we al I Ofi31215
heard Mr. Berlogar give his EXPERT testimony
regarding the dangers of making cuts on theil'Aa
Hansen Drive Pads. He explained that these
cuts could expose a vein of LANDSLIDE Debris. OPP
The pads could then easily slip downhill
Fo_o_,_ sA/2,%
riding on the frictionless debris as if it
were a greased skid. The diagram at left, gives
us laypersons a simple illustration of the process. 0
The I DreaePed
0 &Ir'
b
6-1 Because of this terrifying
problem, The developer formally �'
requested on December 13th 1994 r' R E C E Inv E D R E C=!v E D
an amendment to the TENTATIVE MAP. N .� R E G E Ffv E D ��' �acs .� Iu. ;�
Because of the recommendation of ut ' ��' DEC '`-' D'EC i �aeL
1. UEC.I , i6T. ,5iVG�C w 4�5 1
the Soils Engineer, it is necessary cI., • ' �Jel.IM: ...vNINc' .•,1G�r � ,41 r
to raise the Pad Elevations by 20 :AlIN:'..'vNINr-'
feet. A W RTITEN STATEMENT
Despite the frightening lecture
on LANDSLIDE, which I could understand j he crimary difference between the approved Tentative Map and the amended Tentative
very well, I was bothered by a gnawing I Map for 7'lots in Phase I is that the grading has been reduced. The revised plan does
uncertainty. According to the testimony act cut into to the existine grade as much as the approved plan resulting in less steep
cutting down from the level of my pad grades on some streets. It also results in a higher elevation of the lots on the cul d'sac z might expose this LANDSLIDE debris in adiacent to homes on Hansen Drive. The sous engineer has recommended that we do no .
the manner shown in the middle figure cut into the hillside as much as previously shown in order to avoid potential problems wit 1
and with the consequences I conjured he stability of:he existing yards of the Hansen Drive homes. The elevation change is
up in my mind from the words of Mr.
--=roximately_0 feet higher than approved plan as the revised plan only cuts into the
Berlogar's testimony. But how could
I slip down the hill if the developer :uisice approximately 10 feet as opposed to the:0 feet ci the current plan.
just levelled the ground behind my
house? If the ground is level, I don't +t
have a hill to slide down: -�
+ _.. . _" l
I felt quite the fool when I - • 1
mentioned this from the podium. Not only _ '- .- ,t
was I questioning the integrity of the --. T' s
Expert, but, there was a GEOTECHNICAL REVIEW s�=�
that painstakingly documents the findings '
I was questioning.
Just when you think you're stumped! Another thing started bothering me:
Why was the Expert sitting silently on the sidelines???
•
•
s n LI
/ ..toR 1'�C•
a.
l.2 I GEoncNd ccn-L j --
!. TN U E5Tr6ATroH:w! _ - -F i .„,;•
The Geotechnical Review if'''
\ „� p0 LANDSLIDE =r"•4
could not find any LANDSLIDE \ ` � au►tDER 39 - 1f f : ;;'
• F,-r.
,3tto fr
debris under my property or r!*
any of the properties extending t �\ .•;� �' • •f''r,
up the hill from me! Berlogar ` Iiy�c l- ;, 4.'r� !t I
bored a 30ft hole (B-14) less • - `r;'!I�i iI;i' .Pf�'���3
than 20ft directly behind my ) '�'•� . I • ' � ; 1. , ;-(house and found NOTHING ! The --+'► '•�'� i4' {I ` NEKE'SNO '; `II � r - "f:,P- •
(^ ip
LANDSLIDE FREE zone I ` i LNJDS�f pE �
correlates with developers lots : 1111 l=HIND31 to 39. !' f . HIS FfOUS 11�1� lib:\ l 'cr
' ` 111 f
In California Pacific's tt 1 ' If I' . t .1
WRITTEN STATEMENT for the i i ) ' �
I ,.� f 1 r , { ,y. •..Ifi / - { ,f , I,,,,
ammendment request (Dec. 13, 1995), a ,j I r
they give as sole justification I L ', tPO4�R ✓�� �t 1.
'r
I for these changes, and write, 1 ' , cizg .+ �,: <<!
"The soils engineer has recommended f BE
that we do cut into the hillside ' , I ' `` •- • /, ,�
as much as previously shown in order ''"• ; ; 'II ;\ "7
to avoid potential problems with thei ( .. j �;c" i ! ' i J.
stability of the existing yards of ' _ - fit)►� '�
the Hansen Drive homes". Berlogar r '
gave testimony at the Jan 17, 1995 '�- !.` s. .' ;' or ar
Public Hearing of the planning com - _ ,_ "' �,
mission that LANDSLIDE debris may be p--
exposed.. The ' '''` � .p problem of LANDSLIDE on the Hansen Drive properties pales- in comparison to the
LANDSLIDE problvs of NEW HOUSE lots 30,29,28 and 27. According to the Geotechnical Aerial Map there is onlyllansen Drive property that is adjacent to a Landslide. It appears from the
topographicaicross section map for B-B', that the landslide surfaces behind the property at 7433
Hansen drivers a little over 1 foot thin at that point, indicating that this is the very thinned
out top of a former landslide. Since this exposure of Landslide debris is actually more than 5
feet below the planned grade of the old plan, it seems that it has to be filled up and the
'remedial methods of Berlogar do not apply here. Berlogar shows this section clearly in his drawing
and indicates no remediation! But very nearby in this same cross section, B-B',away from the
Hansen Drive properties, HE indicates a
major remediation on this same slide. OH GcODIZ
He recommends a terraced excavation FOUND A tANDSUDE
that extends 160 feet long by 60 - ,RRy,1IIS OWE
feet deep! The remediation extends ppESNTCeQAITl aCGOaDING
from the northease corner of lot 30 t=-, -7X"- To THE L NE HER
_
all the way down to the public road ` Int Sttk llls tEV4�- OFF HER
Here's what Mr. Berlogar wrot p� " `max.
g JOB: ybd WtOMISED isi _i ,� •
in the Geotechnical Investigation : , x �```.�
9 LF1T5 Of(omLs D
it is our opinion that the artific �. av� ots um
et 'AR
_
fill should not settle after the �I \ h -\- AK 9� ' i � .� •
r osed 2 d p p cut is made However, pro-: ' i ��� �s0id }ht '.I"I I
posed cut slopes in the artificial f - � i areas should be rebuilt as buttress �' ~li;Age, Y - r14( r I qfill slopes because of stabilit ic1 : ' rimm t A. ' � I
concerns.". "the cut slopes south side `s ` ) � � �� . r
of lots 30 through 34 should be re- ��' �� �
worked as butress fills.". Mr. Berlogar '' i I ' ! I'Ir M' "
implies that the adverse effects of i ,-' ``��
LANDSLIDE debris and Artificial Fi1J� (; #,;, _ _ ,A
make the remediation more complex. Not i' • (� I f' ';
Only is there NO LANDSLIDE to deal with'. it f "
in these areas, there-NO, or very little i '' l� ORE r + r . '
rC
at most Artificial Fill to deal with. . �' ' ;i �'"h '
�) • � ' ' '
I cannot accept the developer's lsrttre �' #1 ''I a ` t
a�s .I a based upon what I have seen. i P '!'?4' rr• ,i..� N ' it'--
QINAttncQ hf{ d, -face 1 I. 1'i / 'I 1,1y,�11� ',) ;E'4{Y� �
,i .(it,
i ' C.. .. 016,Aiii.. Alf vie/ i
•
•
It's a good thing that science has been so popularized these days. It offers
one an opportunity to learn things that were once tightly guarded secrets of Academecia
and the professionals who made more money because they spoke of esoteric things.
Over the years I have availed myself of certain knowledge and skills. I have learned
how to demystify the arcane. The official Geotechnical Investigation is hardly a
challenge. In fact it is a nicely written document, explaining in almost laymans' word
the geography and substance of the lands in Hansen Ranch.
The Geotechnology Investigation is based on several previous studies of the area and
three types of Intrusive probes into the subsurface. The most superficial probes are the
trench and the test pit. These are dug with a backhoe, and extend to several feet thick
in some places. The most revealing probe is the BORE HOLE. Some of the BORE HOLES in
this study were over 90 feet deep. Eight of the BORE HOLEs were drilled in the area of
the 'CUT' slope.
The Geotechnology Investigation does a fine job of identify the position,the age, and
even the direction of landslides. The Geotechnology Investigation shows precision Topographical
cross sections for for key areas on the map laid out by a surveyor and indicated on the map
with leterred straight lines ie A-A', B-B' etc.
The section of map shown below is a copy from the Jan. 14 1992 Geothechnical Investigation
j performed by Berlogar. I have filled in the landslide areas in yellow, delineated the house lots
in red, and shown the new streets in green, so that we can easily orientate ourselves.
The markings Qaf, Qc, Tps, and Qls enhance the maps presentation by identify the primary
material that the ground underneath is made of. Or where there is a LANDSLIDE, the Qls label seems
to have been used rather than any other substrata that may accompany it. The LANDSLIDE issue being
the more important concern. For the reader, Qaf stands for artificial fill. This is unengineered
dirt that was thrown on the site when the adjoining developments ie Briar Hill, or Valley
Christian center were built. Unenginnered is a fancy way of saying no one paid any attention to
how this soil could be treated in a fututre development. Berlogar had a Lab study the shape that
this soil is in, so that he could figure out whether it was stable enough to build on. By and
large the report from the lab is that it is acceptable.
The other Markings, Qc,Tmss, and Tps represent natural materials. Qc is Colluvium deposits
generated by the erosion of rock rendering residual soils who naturally move downslope. This
process goes on where any moutain or mountains are eroding. Tmss is Miocene Sandstone. It strength
varies from weak to strong. A well cemetented sandstone appears to run along the Hansen Hill
Ridge. Tps is pliocene sedimentary rock. Rock in general is good.
St
41,111$1P r
"'.... ;:ar ,:b., ::- N'4-ol - .s: - ' ---.,::::... A. - - 0 i , - 1
` Ir3 �� TP t� ! 'a 1 • 2
��,�.��� II 4 i
ii ��/! k rem'r� 1.•rl • �i.; 3, Tps' I '1:— •i• ' ' - `.I51'r -- .. .
itI�•'/,'v-: - e-- P gyp, '•,. /, o NT, Lit TA q' `Vj ` •". �V '.• : HT,,, =� A1� - 06i.
'
,7 �1'� _ r...
I ����-�. -ds' • , ,'• l 1-4 + • • '.. tit ,• - T%y • '- ' ..
:•,rx8 fe?'may"`r \29
/].1 �! •• • �. :.- -l.�.lf+��•••,. .} •.":if* '"! .-. .a w tV `- DS`
ti�a C. ^� `� t .rY • ; ;�dt > ` +t;.8�7•.. •t.'., at13 �
, vs,:.: .:\
,` !A..., �� `•j° _ �� ; :I• '� • .ptai .••. J�7 '�'.'a "` TP 2 �.TP=7�
,r,•. i • .. p w. .Sod ' 1:44 ]
.�. -�, , �. ='. i'l pls SAN ANDREAS a60144-
� , ( ]TrP-53•, f; ;.�=:, •
1 Qaf, • • •0• •:-.C
' .,,a1 HAYWQ'RD 7/u�r—
` •�1t , �►r'�-�A •47 -= 01 _ CAt�YARAS /500\�`t�;5
' —i�� ----_ "Z'=4;. T,•I QC r 4,: `3 / 4 ` •� Lpik)Ds--LIP
Al pi . k,sv.: A PI 11 P _
1 . . !• " ( a
W.f-ttE I tf° -..,= j: S
.
J
s C
A COMPARISON OF TYPICAL Un31 _- r
REMEDIATION METHODS SHOWN 4"C' --
BY BERLOGAR ON THE TOPO- .5116
GRAPHICAL MAP (Jan 14,1992) m :. . i'«OXil e
I have rated the various I '
remediations based on a two qp .-SRO
dimensional toss section. �p a,1 {i?JS -Y5
Essentially I have turned theme=,,. __o•� -..-%j' P-5{?.S 5m
odd shapes into a �� ;.s— gm
parallelogram. Then by -- �1°""w
multiplying length by r _ y'n� m� a r�$
width, to give a product that . -� •Y .1 e '/
is used as the rating. In general r
this has a tendency to understate ••• •.• .x ON N. No .• -••
the larger remediations. LOT,[ ---- _
Remediation#7 is the one
behind my house. I rated 01 . 1 m
as second to the smallest. _ _
j It is 1.4 times the smallest, I IYY
08.Remediation #1 is 15 �� i '_
times greater then #7. D.4.1 1 ai1 IN4
It appears that �� ----- ---� -
remediation #1 is ����Gal
--- �- ,
absolutely essential" --
to prevent the PADS �� o,I [[,c.•r
for new houses 30-23.• a� N'•w".
from running down T •
the Hillside. On top Th. - 11 X/0 Yooi
of everything else, 414
A.
Remedy #1 has to 7;71 &!
mitigate a LANDSLIDE" -
debris field where ( s'O)
Remedy #7 does In t1 l
C ��vlei�t�4iz
7q33 ii .; •
co Hilo
EPP
xt ,�
ii� a,l ,_ •+Z� ass !
t
am
UNMAN 1......-••1 I.--
ILL.e ' O LOT- [I)
V�1 j -3a i s°2416
... __
,76540,1 \
.-.›ftw .-e• t11,..•.I TP• �,
... 1-�
IK..O.C„[•.TN W
Ty, .,LW..T.YCTYI[
.WWF
TOT
0
This picture shows the home (7433 Hansen Drive) that is adjacent to my
house and is down slope. The Pad Of this house is currently 502.4. Landslide
debris was identified behind the property line of this home. This home has no
planned cutslope since it is at the level desired in the the original plan.
The ammended plan however would like to place 20 feet of dirt on tap of
the landslide to raise the pad level of thier new house on PAD 30. This means the
owner of this house faces a steeply graded 20 feet of dirt which could easily
pour into his yard.
The point of this discussion was to show that the only house that was
connected with LANDSLIDE debris was not to have a cut slope. By Piling 20 feet
of dirt on the adjoining LANDSLIDE, the developer wishes to create a dangerous
situation involving a LANDSLIDE :I:
And if that is not enough to convince this audience of the foolishness of
this action, the resident below 7433 Hansen Drive is even more concerned! And he
should be. From his Pad at 492 feet, He will face a 30 foot wall of dirt::!!
H.V.I.Q6 — �®.i? :i
nJ— IIIIIIIMIII
' KO- s•• — �Ell` „�� �f Ro POSED
4?a s _ ®M ----- CfMµtd Dt0
-! � � S2e
a SEC Tie 14 p q c,,,...„,-«_
.9--LOT 30-i.
lel r 9g33 4 J j Pe. 9------._ LOT 12
-too /tt—
•
I ,I
m
j
N
Ott— �_ Oaf k 14 tIa Oaf =
J igelSZ, i
`k�_.j y, - fit. ti � '.;y.Y-- _ __ __ __ __
—�20 W ��0— �7 i �.;FiA; ' .. tea „y Qaf
Tp a .,.: ?
a11aD11AIN I•
f-ia FRET—l_
2110111112a1
,1
—22a too— Tpa
---340 spa .
i12 0 i0 i i I I —
t0 120 1t0 209 240 i
2t0 320 Jt0
L2MOTH MI FUT
4
Here is my house. I have managed to get the scales of both the topographical map
and the developers elevation drawings to the same scale, and, superimposed my house and
the developers proposed house on the topographical map.
The point I would like to show here, is the Berlogar Remediation for the cut-slope.
Remember this is a reproduction of his scaled map. A map which consistently shows special
remediation methods such as the one on a previous page where he includes a reinforced
earth of retaining wall in section D-D'. Where serious remediation was required Berlogar
points it out.
The remediation behind my house is run of the mill. A 20 foot keyway is cut. Then
a perorated PVC pipe, overlayed with gravel forms a subdrain system in the buttress to run
off excess water. That provides an extra measure of safety that normal areas of ground don't
have. Then a bulldozer replaces the previosly excavated dirt, or engineered soil if needed.
This is the big deal that the developer claims , can't be done !!!
-----"4"".""7-77----------------ei',, __,,4 t.,,,,,,': ..,.. . .,.1.
i& 4 LOT 31 —_..____ +.r,
...ISO
p� _ ' I
S
RfE !B N TO EAK vEWs Of NEW HOA�s -
10
7\ 1 aPROPOSDOESIGN —is
-•, :. ,. - EX51NG N[ VCTAI1Y
_i.0_
E. a
Oaf pQo//D_�<c'pI'ArO1ENDEi� Cat �' Srs 3;® —s" --c2
�. . �_ mom. ...
{T�plM� —� �/1�4 ` .' T �If
�f —!10 wr'"70
DIM"
--- --4-.,, Oaf -. -- ; !. 7U9TIANSENDRTVE
-yf .+ i
EXPLANATION I ` The -110
EXISTING &MOUND SLIPFAGE ! I
i I . Riff &K"t'FAI P E P ,
— PROPOSED &RADaffO AS ittOwry oM GAADtff& tRocS£Cr(6PJS
.u►Ma a Sato e2 (meQs&-P ON _,to
■ATAN XANGAS POULX, DATED JANUAIIT - NAT, 1110
"r4F G.go-r£cf/,V(c4L
v Es-r 4-4- roh1 ccoS-
wFQF M40 To /ha4Tt7t
I I I
140 400 410 140 720 740 100 040 1 Ill
•SO 920
.
N}4.p( r .,licit 3 '. x.,., '''x -%` V % ,` c
i, 1 + f \
.„ :Z 1
��'' \'' /tit ,2'. ;r._.- ~•. r �u4a. / ,"'.\' , \ `
4 yZa a i J i e+ 2, \ \
kf. SL r \..\\ /
\\ ,> PLAdzs ' I .r 4a'� ' x,`0_11.
-b 4np �� � r ��le W ��` •Ni
• - — :. , 1 �a ��. �`U.R E L-. 6°Li -,-----re itlirl$2g r `
47-im 1�
ti,,$„:30t
«.�
jos
e F' . ` `�ANDSuDZ
--' i,a+ P:gp2,4 mom
p
San v..`' 564T0
5
.sx .., ,... p,533.9 P152seal7Y
P:5-0,2 secYroN W6 VigoI]e t1axk la 4s le 1-" J
PLAN 1A alrzdy aptrnre{
Section#6, 7451 Hansen Drive is two houses up from me (section#8,7439). I
The old plan called for the Deveoper's PAD 33 to be approximately 17 feet ill fed t°I;�%4�i�_
lower than the pad (P=533.9) of #7451. Now they want to reduce that distahce •-'-'''''r'�"-�-
to 10 feet. I need slightly less than 9 feet! How is it possible that oily.
70.56 feet away they can make this cut in the same soil conditions?. What iS �I, ,w� .l'1_
the answer this one?; these soil cuts and remedies pale by comparison to wh. e
developer needs to do to shore up the properties thay are building new housee'I6iN4L PLAN Ci}LL FM'
on. These cuts require a bulldozer, a piece of perforated PVC, and a little ORE STORY ROUSE
gravel. The cuts behind lots 35,34,33,and 32 have plenty of 6ENOO My, (40USE
room to make them! I EXISTING VEGETATION
SOFTEN VIEWS OF HOMES The gentle open
field slopes 1
houses these houses = LAN DSL1 DE
CURRENT GROUND--, afford .��
� the perfect place ���,
to make them ::1
_Y. ,,. __ 'Ali
II—550
---''' —= _,,, —____.—___ _. gi
PROPOSED DESIGN ...' —540
I
r
(� O
LII 30'FIRE BUFFER I —530
i :ii:
i
—520
SECTION #6
—5,0
7451 HANSEN DRIVE
RECEIVEDVAS WIS.% 14 U4S
'
FEB - 6 1995 11430 Winding Trail Lane
Dublin, Ca. 94568
' JSL W PLANNJNr Feb. 6, 1995
Dublin Planning Commission
Dublin, Ca. 94568
Re. : Project PA 94-054 Hansen Ranch
As a homeowner at the above address we would like to
express our concern about the proposed changes along the Martin
Canyon Creek running right below the deck of our home.
As concerned residents of Dublin for 14 years we have
seen a number of new projects being developed over these years.
We took a great interest in the Kaufman & Broad project known as
California Vista and attended most meetings by the Planning
Commision as well as the City Council. At those hearings a great
amount of time was spent discussing the necessary grading as well
as the retention of natural areas. We recall very vividly the
commitment to retain a green belt which was to be left untouched
for the enjoyment of all residents. The creek area adjacent to
the development which is now under review deserves preservation
as a natural drain for the hills as well as a refuge for the
abundant wildlife.
It is for that reason that the builder charged lot
premiums at that time for the homes backing up to the creek along
Winding Trail Lane and we paid an additional $ 10,000 to enjoy
this little bit of nature that was to remain.
We think you can understand our concern to have a 12
feet wide access road at our doorstep which may require the
removal of a few beautiful, mature trees and minor adjustments to
the creek itself. We always understood that future development
would occur on the south side of the creek. We cannot understand
why the developer could not create a 12 feet wide access road as
part of the new development, thus leaving the northern part of
the creek undisturbed.
We feel it would be very unfortunate to sacrifice a
small natural area enjoyed by many residents in exchange for
accomodating the new development. We are sure an alternate
solution can be found accomodating the needs of everyone.
We appreciate your consideration.
Sincerely,
Hans Heydo n KKa�¢n A. He orn
QklcOb4
pusit-itss
6rs
Martha W. Buxton
Real Estate Development Services
120 Village Square #130 (510)254-6968
Orinda,Ca 94563 FAX(510)254-7954
February 6,1995
Larry Tong
Director,Planning
City of Dublin
100 Civic Plaza
Dublin,CA 94568
Dear Larry,
I would like to express my dismay at the last minute insertion of Tentative Map Condition
#4. I was first told of the condition after business hours on Thursday,February 2 when
the report had gone to print. I received my copy of the staff report at noon on Friday,at
which time I was also first made aware of any correspondence from Mr.Morris.
Prior to receiving the staff report for the January 17 Planning Commission meeting I
asked staff if there would be any conditions regarding houses on the cul de sac. I was
told that staff did not think it was necessary. There have been no changes to the design
of the cul de sac since that staff report was written.
After the January 17 meeting I told Tasha Houston that California Pacific Homes did not
want Mr.and Mrs.Morris to be unhappy and showed her a plan that would be built on
lot 32 behind their house. The plan has a one story element across the back of the
house and the two story front of the house has a low hip roof which will have no rear
windows.(See attached drawings.) She said she did not need a copy of the plan but
would put in the staff report that a one story home or two story home with a single story
rear element could be offered as a solution. That is very different from a requirement
that a single story home limited to 17 feet in height be built on lots 31,32 and 33 plus a
design restriction on lot 30.
I have told staff on numerous occasions that California Pacific Homes does not intend to
have a one story plan at Hansen Ranch. The currently approved 1992 homes are 3
years old which is ancient history in the home building industry. Just as the homes
approved in 1989(2800sf to 3600sf)were too big for the market in 1992,the 1992 plans
(2097sf to 2856sf)do not reflect today's market. The new plans will be 2300sf to 3100sf
and will reflect the style and innovation of 1995.
The approved one story plan in 1992 is 21 feet high. A limitation of 17 feet in height will
result in a low,squatty house that will not emulate the quality of development that
California Pacific Homes intends to build at Hansen Ranch.
RECEIVED
FEB - 6 1995
't 3LIN PLANNINr
I have tried on numerous occasions to set up a meeting with Mr.and Mrs.Morris to
show them our proposed house design,offering to meet on evenings or weekends at
their convenience. As Mr.Morris states in his lengthy document of February 1 he was
too busy doing research to meet with me. I will have exhibits and testimony at this
evenings Planning Commission meeting to reflect what the actual impact upon his home
will be if the design we propose is built.
It is apparent that California Pacific Homes does not agree at all with condition#4. Lots
30 and 31 turn a side elevation to the existing homes and would have the closest part of
the house,respectively,210 feet and 120 feet away. Lot 33 backs up to a non-occupant
home owner who has been invited to meet with us but has not responded. California
Pacific Homes intends to build the home shown on the attached plans to address the
concerns of the Morris'.
Sincerely,
Tk4g ,t i31UQ. 1
Marti Buxton
Consultant for California Pacific Homes
cc: Mr.and Mrs.Morris w/enclosure
Planning Commissioners w/enclosures
Jeff Slavin
5
G.I. GUTTEI
DOWNSPOU
1
ROOF PL�4N
SCALE: I/8 - I'-O•
EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS
1 . ROOFING MATERIAL. REFER TO ROOF PLAN.
2. 4X8 RAFTER TAILS.
3. 2X8 BARGE.
4. TYPICAL EXTERIOR SIDING OVER ONE LAYER IR FELT.
._6. STUCCO OVER PAPER BACKED WIRE MESH.
6. EXTERNM GRADE PLYWOOD SOFFIT OVER ONE LAYER ISS FELT
1. 2X CORNER TRIM.
8. IX CORNER TRIM.
1. 2X TRIM.
0. IX TRIM.
I . 2X2 TRIM AT ROOF TO WALL.
12. IN
TRIM-CUT TO FIT.
13. 2X TRIM -CUT TO FIT.
14. IX4 LET -IN BRACE (TYPICAL).
15. GARAGE DOOR: 2X2 TRIM AS SHOWN OVER
3/8' PLYWOOD OVER 2X3 FRAME
I ,. SECTIONAL GARAGE DOOR.
IT, MANUFACTURED COLUMN.
I STUCCO OVER WOOD TRIM.
I1 SHAPED WOOD CORBEL W/STUCCO OVER.
20. N'XV GJ. SCREENED GARAGE VENT
21. EXPOSED BEAM WITH SHAPED ENDS.
22. 'BALLOON' FRAMED WALLS.
23. GJ. CONTINUOUS STUCCO SCREED. SEE DETAIL.
24. WOOD FRAMED POTSHELF WITH STUCCO OVER
25. WOOD FRAMED POTSHELF.
21,. WOOD FRAMED COLUMN,
21. SHAPED WOOD CORBELS.
28, FIXED SHUTTERS.
24. WROUGHT IRON OR WOOD RAIL(SEE DETAIL)
30. GL FLASHING ROOF TO WALL.
31. Ill FLASHING W SADDLE / CRICKET.
32, GJ. SCREENED I LOWERED ATTIC VENT.
33. DECORATIVE VENT,
34. MASONRY VENEER
35. MASONRY COLUMN,
U. MASONRY POTSHELF.
31. STUCCO SOFFIT OVER METAL LATH.
38, STORE VENEER.
31. TEMPERED GLASS.
40. SKYLIGHT.
41. APPROVED TERMINATION CAP W/ SPARK ARRESTER
BY FIREPLACE MFR.
42. GJ. DIVERTS
43. G.I. GUTTER W/DOWNSPOUT.
44, PRECAST COMPONENT.
45. LINE OF CEILING.
41. H' X ISM G1 SCREENED I LOUVRED COMBUSTION AIR VENT.
41. 'DORMER' ROOF VENT.
48. iXI2 WOOD OUTLOOKER
b 41. BACKLIT ADDRESS LIGHT
ROOF NOTES
INDICATES EXTENT OF
SECOND FLOOR
INDICATES "CALIFORNIA
FRAMED" ROOF AREA
INDICATES 5 1/2:12 SLOPE
UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE
ON PLAN.
ROOF SHEATHING TO BE 1/2" PLYWOOD
SHEATHING WITH I x SOLID SHEATHING AT
ALL OVERHANGS.
TYPICAL ROOFING TO BE CONC. "S" TILE
TYPICAL ROOF OVERHANG AT RAKE CONDITION
TO BE 12" UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE ON
PLAN,
TYPICAL ROOF OVERHANG AT EAVE CONDITION
TO BE 18" UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE ON
PLAN.
SECOND FLOOR ADDENDUM
SCALE. I/4 1 O
ao
0
TOI
FIt
s
o Es
PROVIDE DUAL GLAZED SKYLIGHT
W/SOLARBRONZE TOP, CLEAR
BOTTOM.
BOTTOM. AND MED. BRONZE FRAME ./
/ ever �ii�e i nxr eeneri a nnOMCD VCIJTS T
FRONT ELEVATION GALE
i
I
I
I
I
STUCCO SOFFIT I
• 8'-8" FROM
ENTRY F.F.
i
I�
k_
Ib 15024 AL PG " I
4 FG BOW TOP ��1 FG
TOP ASV. `�OP
ABV_ ABV.
SOFF
. 101 6'O FROM IT
ENTRY F.F.
I
ARCHED STUCCO I
SOFFIT TOP • 92_,)
FROM ENTRY F.F. JJJT
51M.
GARAGE
0
+_ rr Orr r_8x
29'-4"
REPER TO BASIC PLAN FOR
NOTES, DIMENSIONS, AND
INFORMATION NOT SHONN
FIRST FLOOR ADDENDUM
SCALE. I/4 Y O
%I
I
I
I
I
I
(
I
I
I _
I
I
I
7
PLT.
c
W
0
5
a
`P
Q
r�F
Zw
QIt_
Jo
CLW
z
w
00
c Z=
U
S
W
O
z
O
A
REAR
EXTERIOR ELEVATION
I . ROOFING MATERIAL, REFER TO ROOF PLAN.
2. 4X3 RAFTER TAILS.
3. 2Xfl BARGE.
4. TYPICAL EXTERIOR SIDING OVER ONE LAYER I" FELT.
6. STUCCO OVER PAPER BACKED WIRE MESH.
L EXTERIOR GRADE PLYWOOD SOFFIT OVER ONE LAYER 6t FELT.
,. 2X CORNER TRR1.
S. IX CORNER TRIM.
4. 2X TRIM.
O. IX TRIM.
I I . 2X2 TRIM AT ROOF TO WALL.
12. IX TRIM -CUT TO MT.
13. 2X TRIM -CUT TO PIT.
14. IX4 LET411 BRACE (TYPICAL).
15. GARAGE DOOR: 2X2 TRM AS SHOWN OVER
3//• PLYWOOD OVER 2X3 FRAME.
I4. SECTIONAL GARAGE DOOR.
Il, MANUFACTURED COLUMN.
I/. STUCCO OVER WOOD TRIM.
11, SHAPED HOOD CORBEL W/STUCCO OVER
20' 14X6" G.L 9CREENED GARAGE VENT
21. EXPOSED BEAM WITH SHAPED ENDS.
22. BALLOON• FRAMED WALLS.
33. G.I. CONTINUOUS STUCCO SCREED. SEE DETAIL
24, WOOD FRAMED POTSHELF WITH STUCCO OVER.
26. WOOD FRAMED POTSHELF.
21. WOOD FRAMED COLUMN.
21 SHAPED ROOD CORBELS.
28. FIXED SHUTTERS.
24. WROUGHT ICON OR WOOD RAILISEE DETAIL)
30. G.I. FLASHING ROOF TO WALL
31 . G.I. FLASHING / SADDLE / CRICKET.
32, G.L SCREENED t LOUVERED ATTIC VENT.
33. DECORAIN2 VENT.
34. MASONRY VENEER.
36. MASONRY COLUMN.
3{,. MASONRY POTSHELF.
3T. STUCCO SOFFIT OVER METAL LATH.
10
. STONE VENEER.
39. TEMPERED GLASS.
40. SKYLIGHT.
41. APPROVED TERMINATION CAP W/ SPARK ARRESTER
BY FIREPLACE MFR.
42. GJ. DIVERTER.
4f. G). GUTTER W/DOWNSPOUT.
44. PRECAST COMPONENT.
46, LINE OF CEILING.
46. N° % W.
G.I. SCREENED 1 LOUVRED COMBUSTION AIR VENT.
4T. "DORMER• ROOF VENT.
4I. 6X12 m. OUTLOOKER
6 ' 44. BACKLIT ADDRESS LIGHT.
A�l
TOP PLT_
ri El Jett M M
\(6) 12" SO.
jl GLASS BLOCKS
6
FIN.. FLR.
LEFT
O
PROVIDE DUAL GLAZED SKYLIGHT
W/SOLAR BRONZE TOP, CLEAR
BOTTOM. AND MED. BRONZE FRAME.
PROVIDE LOW PROFILE DORMER VENTS.
ALL WOOD TRIM SHALL BE RESAWN.
- -r
4
S
r
46
ELECTRIC
METER
� CABINET
i 3
RIGHT
31 _
B % 48
I
/ 4T I RAD.-6" ITYPJ
-----_-_-� TBONOP PLT.
- -`
F-��==_-s=-=_X - US
k----- - - - - -
�
2
\ 3 13
i.
I � '
FIN. PLR.
l h s1i �. II .c. f.o. ) a TOP PLT.,,
2X(" (TYP) O K
D 0
I a D
\ u u uAr P� u u
TYP.
D 5
m
TOP OF
CURB
TOP PLT,
43
2
6
W
FIN_FLR
NZ
a
H
S
Q cr.
cn ^y w
z
N U m
O