HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Reso 88-058 PA 87-045 CC certification of Env. Impact Report and finding of overriding consideration- Hansen Hill RESOLUTION NO. 88 - 058
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL CERTIFICATION OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT AND
MAKING FINDINGS AND A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATION REGARDING
ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS OF PA 87-045 HANSEN HILL RANCH GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held seven Public Hearings on
PA 87-045, Hansen Hill Ranch General Plan Amendment and EIR on February 1 and
16, 1988, July 18, 1988, August 1, 1988, September 19, 1988, October 3 and 17,
1988; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered the written and oral
testimony submitted at the public hearings; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission received and reviewed the staff
analysis and recommendation on the environmental effects of the Hansen Hill
Ranch General Plan Amendment; and
WHEREAS, the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), together
with the State guidelines and City environmental regulations, require that
certain projects be reviewed for environmental impact and that environmental
documents be prepared; and
WHEREAS, an Environmental Impact Report (EIR), has been prepared
pursuant to CEQA; and
WHEREAS, the final EIR consists of the Draft EIR, and Final
Addendum Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE Dublin Planning Commission
recommends the City Council adopt the Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR;
and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT THE Dublin Planning Commission
recommends the City Council find as follows:
1. CEQA Compliance: That the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) is adequate
and complete and has been prepared in compliance with the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) the State CEQA Guidelines, and that the
Commission has considered and reviewed the information contained in the EIR.
2. Significant Adverse Environmental Impacts: That the significant Adverse
Environmental Impacts identified in the EIR (See summary Page 1-2 through 1-11)
will be mitigated to a less than significant level by application of the
mitigation measures identified in the EIR summary and incorporated by reference
as Attachment A-1.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT THE Dublin Planning Commission
recommends the City Council adopt the following findings and statement of
overriding considerations regarding significant environmental effects of the
Hansen Hill Ranch General Plan Amendment PA 87-045:
1. Extensive Grading: Development of the project will result in extensive
grading on the site. The extensive grading will result in an unavoidable
adverse impact to a significant ravine and woodland area as the ravine is
proposed for fill of 50 ft. depths.
Findings: The adverse environmental impacts associated with the extensive
grading (cut & fill) is considered "acceptable" as the benefit of balancing cut
and fill on site (eliminating export of fill) outweigh the unavoidable adverse
environmental impact of filling significant ravine and woodland area.
2. Oak/Bay Forest and Riparian Corridor Impact: Placement of fill material
and cutting of slopes within and under the tree canopy will reduce habitat
value and result in removal or potential damage to individual trees. The
largest area of oak/bay woodland removal occurs within an approximate 6 acre
area containing oak/bay woodland and drainage swale/ravine. The most extensive
riparian corridor area on site disturbed by the project occurs in the area at
which the riparian corridors of Martin Canyon Creek and the largest tributary
on site meet.
Findings: The adverse environmental impacts to the oak/bay woodland and
riparian habitat corridor is considered "acceptable" as the benefit of
balancing cut and fill on site, outweighs the unavoidable adverse environmental
impacts of eliminating a significant ravine and woodland area through the
placement of fill material, and the benefit of providing vehicular and
emergency access on site, outweighs the adverse environmental impacts to the
oak/bay woodlands.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 17th day of October, 1988.
AYES: Commissioners Barnes, Burnham, Mack & Zika
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
Plann ng ommi sion a person
ATTEST:�j�,(p
difliff
-11.::11)1(‘-o
Planning Directo
-2-
i , ,4 a` i ,,e,y. r './' y.1 .3 H r 4'Y�l;°+#ys "if4,,ZIF )k• IwJ Ltic--I.'
, J1r�, ,.gle' _
r s. K'r. s )0, ,+� J J
.rc., '' r ✓�' r wry'iat !. r�� tz�.r r y ;'
S • 1. Summary
11
1-1 1.3 SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATIONS
IResource Impact Mitigation
;-') Geology I . Reactivation of occurrence 1. (Repair slides in areas of
i-4 of new landslides. construction. Establish a
L3 slope maintenance schedule
and assign responsibility for
i maintenance and future
-'1 repairs.
t.t 1_, Mass-grading resulting in Z,I Reduce grading or establish
I imbalanced cut and fill. agreement for export with
adjacent land owners.
Soils 3. Soils with high shrink-swell 3•ITreat, cover or remove
potential. those soils.
- Hydrology Li. Increased flows and flow t},I Construct detention basins
velocities in Martin Canyon and drop structures to
Creek resulting in potential reduce contribution to peak
localized erosion and flows.
_j flooding.
(4,2. Rip-rap stress points in
channel
4.3 Establish a drainage
structure and channel
maintenance schedule and
assign responsibility for
— — — --— --- - - ___ _____--ma int_ena.nce repairs.
. 5• Erosion during site 5.1 Restrict construction to the
construction. dry season and stabilize
unprotected areas in _
• - accordance with erosion and
sediment control plan.
(a , Erosion from roof drainage G.I Direct roof drainage toward
and lot drainage. specific structures. Design
"' lot grades to prevent runoff
across lot lines where lots
-f are split.
I
._,
L ATTACHMENTAI86123 l-9
, . .
•
t Ni a.,'S' •1' ~ '^'- . 1 ,r• \l 't' ti\ . ...V,!'\t.;\,kb -#, ,t•„,NI.3•) Vs r.y '\ .' \ - �. \ i.‘ y
t .' � � \� \,tty \•t ` � .,�. � ! \t�:\'�'a'� fir_ a ".3 tit 5� a7..�."�'` i�:.�\'�� �`i P\. .u,� i
•
}t^:i�Ae y J.lij'+':R,V. i�.S^f .t* , ..atrt?tYti.,°` :�h`Jlt..i Ii. '.'i Stt3a.V� -. t ,.b. ., kl-.. ti�3~-7,:.:^�.A1, »�i�9t =i ...
.>*.'.♦ ,r
(71 1. S ummary
Resource Impact Mitigation
!:; Vegetation
1 • Project construction could 1, I Any construction activity in
remove 36% (22 acres) of close proximity to mature
the total area (61 acres) of trees should be done in a
c...1-;
oak/bay forest vegetation manner that will minimize
on the site. trauma to the root system
(see details in Chapter 3.4
,4 Vegetation).
::� -I, 2 Disturbed areas should be
revegetated with natural
tree and bush species.
;.) Specific details of the
revegetation plan should be
t=) worked out in consultation
I with the California Depart-
ment of Fish and Game, the
r"p City and the Alameda
I. County Flood Control
District.
"1.3 Areas of extensive grading
f and fill in Neighborhoods 5
and 9 should be eliminated
and the oak/bay woodland in
1-, these areas preseved.
. Project construction would g, i The California Department
disturb approximately two of Fish and Game should be
=:: acres of riparian habitat in consulted as required under
__ _ -- 1 lk�o 2 2 e G ` Ha.nse.n_Hil S tjnn t fi.91-0--3 of thP_F.5± . . . _
Road/Creekside Road and Game Code.
intersection. g ZMinimize fill and cut slopes
within the riparian corridor,
especially in the area of the
''a Hansen Hill Road and
Creekside Road inter-
section. Redesign the
i ► intersection of Hansen Hill
' : Road and Creekside Road to
reduce the amount of fill
placed in the riparian
corridor.
• 8.3 Revegetation of riparian
habitats with native species
' in disturbed areas as well as
`" elsewhere on the site to
compensate for habitats lost
in graded areas.
L-+
' t 1
i
861'3 1-3 -
IL
'` 1 - ••t ♦ .!'.' av i +.\. v •w•, 1 �••��` t r'�J \ !c"�\�l*•l, tT��2 �ly.y •b • ,
t�... ,?•�^ ,j' �'�• •...\ ... 4 i••`A�<•!r' a. .. .\ .,\'..`i iy , ,..k ,.:?':: `•t, . :_• �tigk� • . 1*�`l�'.f;ox4�14N•�,.•�`
•
1. Summary
. .s
Resource Impact Mitigation
ii
Vegetation S.4 Remove lots 102-110 and
(continued) 95-107 which back up to the
riparian corridor along
Martin Canyon Creek.
5 Relocate Creekside Road to
r . g• the west in the area
between lots 103 and 104 in
Neighborhood 9.
Wildlife 5, The placement of a large °I.I Place a box culvert under
amount of fill under Hansen the roadway rather than a
Hill Road at the confluence 30-inch pipe.
of two canyons would
'! isolate the tributary canyon
from large mammals.
10, If fish are found there, (o• Final design of flood control
improperly designed drop structures and measures
structures within the creeks within the creeks must be
would prevent native fish approved by DFG.
from migrating upstream.
I l. Loss of oak/bay woodland It. I Redesign the project to
and riparian habitats at two avoid these areas as much
critical areas -- as possible. If unavoidable
Neighborhoods 5 and 9. then compensation
elsewhere on or offsite. All
pensat5rrtr eHorts=tnutt
be approved by DFG.
Land Use 12. . Placement of project IZ, 1 The project site plan should
clusters implies the 79.6 be modified to provide clear
acres retained for open public access to the
space would serve only designated open space on
private project users. the site.
12.Z Provide a pedestrian
corridor along the
streambank and extending
• through the site.
13 City's Subdivision Ordinance 13,IIn-lieu park fees and/or land
provides for land dedications should be
requirement of .011 acres required as part of the
per unit for single-family subdivision review process.
units and .009 per multi-
family unit.
86123 1-4
� r. � � � «. .� Irf ,tJ s •rf1 y $ ifs jO ..'.i ✓`+S yAf fi�e � , r �-+! a,. +y� i1.44
y �°.':ti
1 • t Y y � w Jar I>> s rVL r;�1rf3 ..rt ""k 'r j
•
.. I•4��'` n,S r r-�-,...�Jk�°4rt�:rr.. / \�:a
•
•
• "' 1. Summary
r
l '
Resource Impact Mitigation
' - Land Use /',Access to site from Iq.; Installation and
(continued) neighboring parcels, both maintenance of a project-
cattle and trespassers size perimeter fence should
be required.
/cf,2 Project Home Owners'
Association should maintain
• a list of plant materials
acceptable for landscaping.
Visual Quality is. Grading would remove 15.ISite ridgelands overlooking
• • prominent knolls and would I-580 should be preserved
alter existing ridgeline. and not altered by grading.
A significant number of V .1 Visually important trees and
trees would or might be tree clusters should be
affected by grading and identified and tagged in the
development. field for protection and
preservation. Lots within
tree preservation areas
should not be developed.
1. Visual character of the site I-I./Develop design guidelines
would change from rural to which establish building
suburban. colors, materials and
finishes which are
compatible with the
road widths and gutters.
Perimeter site fencing
• should be compatible with
the rural character of
surrounding lands.
18. Night lighting and glare t$.l Reflective finishes should
might increase. not be used on site
structures; excessive
exterior lighting should be
• avoided.
19. Views from designated Iq. Homes should be sited well
scenic roadways would be below ridgelines and away
further impacted. from slopes overlooking I-
580.
r 86123 1-5 •
•
i'vY•c�_.<Y a1. � � � �E ",Cs'tlla:� }� Ytie� .Y ` ��E~ +. �? • N. _ • •, •
"r "",
•
///
•
44-r •
•
•
' " ..�:�f^.`rw l/rimer:I r....t.:.M/JwY:r%tr I�!.•W.r.+..- .a .. •....in+a.w.iriwwv �w.r...�.-.-.
•
•
1. Summary
�-r
Resource Impact Mitigation
2.0. Siting of homes along ridge- Development should not
lines and slopes which are occur on ridges or slopes
visible from I-580 would overlooking I-580. Density
conflict with City of Dublin could be increased on sites
policies. lower down and with less
constrained slopes.
•
Topography a1.1 Extensive grading, excessive 21.1 Develop site grading plan
cutting and filling. Approx- which avoids cut slopes of
imately 496,000 cubic yards greater than 2:1. Place cuts
of excess excavated ma- for building pads behind
terial would require off-site structures. Landscape with
disposal. • native materials. Cut and
•
fill volumes should be bal-
anced when possible or used
on adjacent site if fill is
needed.
Fire 22 DSRSD Fire Department 22•I- Automatic fire exting-
would serve project. Proj- uishing system on all units
ect poses some potential built beyond 5 minute
fire service impacts. response time.
:422- Non-combustible roofs for
f c all units.
• 22,3 - Redesign of plan to in-
clude fire breaks between
homes and undeveloped
land and fire trails, based
1—_______________ U11 efik.ei"id is a_5'-'by '
the Dublin, San Ramon
Service District (DSRSD).
22.ti- Ensure adequate water
supply and pressure.
2.3. Some roads exceed a 12% 23.1- Redesign road so grades
grade. do not exceed 12%, unless
approved by Dublin Police
& DSRSD Fire
Departments.
2 Possible blockage of fire 24,1- Redesign entrance to
protection access to homes property at Valley Christ-
, at project's west end. ian Center to eliminate
• possible blockage, or
provide alternate emerg-
ency access per Fire Mar-
• shall.
•
•
I
i
' - 86123 1-6
, •
•
•
i • _ 1. Summary
r,
Resource Impact Mitigation
12 ,25. Bridge at main entrance of 25.1- Redesign bridge to unob-
project is too low. structed height of 13 feet
6 inches for emergency
• vehicle access.
Police 2(a, Upon annexation, Dublin 2!.1 Access to townhouses should
Police Department would be protected by a fence
require one additional off- along all sides.
icer.
2'1. Residences at east end of 27,1 Trails to riparian and picnic
project can be easily areas should be eight feet
accessed by burglers along wide (excluding the should-
creek bottom. er) to allow access by emer-
gency vehicles.
28. There is no acceptable em-
ergency access to riparian
►..; and picnic areas on the site.
Schools 2i. Proposed project would Ai Project sponsor would corn-
;_ generate approximately 56 ply with Amador Valley
k-8 grade students and 89 9- District's impact fee.
12 grade students. Students
could be served within facil-
.. ity capacity of the Murray
School District (k-8) and the
• Amador Valley Joint Union
_ - High School District.
y u 30. Cumulative Impact of new .( Add required capacity. (See
students with other area Fiscal Section).
projects would be an excess
• • area capacity in the Nielson
(K-8) School of 68.
1:'
3(, Transportation (busing) and St. t Institute such programs.
• student safety (crossing (See Fiscal Section).
guards) could also arise.
i Solid Waste 32 . Proposed project would 32.1 None would be required or
generate 562 tons per year, recommended.
for Oakland Scavenger
Company's collection within
the San Ramon Area and an
increase of 0.04% in waste
to the Altamont Landfill.
86123 1 7 .
1
r.c1: V:.."tatttE 1*.r._tit`.k'_�,_ .N1: i i e41 , aY._ , ... _ . :t `
1.Summary
Resource Impact Mitigation
Water 33• The proposed project would 33.1 Payment of hookup charges
demand about 131,500 gpd, and fees by project sponsor.
1..1 and the DSRSD does not Payment of user charges by
anticipate any supply prob- the homeowners.
lems.
3q.
Infrastructure for comple- 34.1 Project sponsor would pay
tion of Zone III and con- direct capital costs.
struction of Zone IV would
be required.
Wastewater 35, Proposed project would 35•(Project sponsor would pay
generate approximately hookup fees and the cost of
112,000 gpd, 1.13%•of on-site improvements and
DSRSD's existing treatment any required extension to
capacity and 7%of the existing sewer lines.
increased capacity.
Gas,Electricity, 3�, PG&E,Pacific Bell and Via-3G.(Project sponsor would pay
Communication corn have indicated the any relocation and/or exten-
capacity to serve the pro- sions of PG&E facilities.
posed project.
36.zHomeowners would pay for
underground conduit and any
other facilities required by
Pacific Telephone.
Parks 3'1, Proposed project would 37.1 Project sponsor would pay
- --- -_ .c r:erate_the_et for an _Site,in-ieu-fee. Some of the
additional 2.73 acres of increased property tax rev-
• parkland: acquisition,de- enues could be used to off-
velopment, maintenance" set the increased mainten-
ance costs.
37.2Compliance with City's
parkland dedication/in-lieu
fee ordinance.
City of Dublin 38. A positive net annual fiscal 31.!None required.
impact of about$26,600.
: L.
Dublin San Ramon 31, Net capital fiscal impact of 39,)Payment of water and sewer
• I Services District zero;net annual fiscal im- hookup fees and capital
pact of a positive$166,000. expenses not covered by the
•- hookup fees.
86123 I
t. '8
;
•
Vp ,; �a , {.
• f..� �,�.•. �j i yam{ rr[ ,F .,f. ,r+.'i,.f•r!� trtir,}+�' �rY ;,,rr. .� ,
Vr y.2 •
,"i' fMu f
•
•
1. Summary
1i.
1,3
Resource Impact Mitigation
Schools 40. Net capital fiscal impact to 4C.ICompliance with Amador
the Amador Valley Joint Valley District's impact fee.
[ ; Union High School District
of a positive $953,000 upon
compliance with District's
impact fee.
41. No net capital fiscal im- qi,(Institute a Development
pacts to Murray (element- Impact Fee as authorized
ary) School District from under recent legislation
proposed project. Net capi- (AB 2926).
tal fiscal impacts from
cumulative development
would be negative. • •
Traffic 42 Potential for decrease in 42.1 Widen eastbound approach
' the Level of Service at of the intersection to have
Dublin Boulevard/San Ra- two right-turn lanes, one
mon Road from Level of left-turn only lane, one
Service (LOS) D to LOS F shared through and left, and
when combining project one through only lane.
effects with the cumulative
impacts of other projects. 42.2 Widen westbound approach
• to have three left-turn
lanes.
ef3 Cumulative increase in daily 43. 1. Reduce project size or
traffic on Sivergate Drive 43,2. Encourage the use of
-- —— -- - —be'w eg* eP tree=Rssas;= i ouv 4 by-
�j and Creekside Drive beyond 43.2.a. Choosing Alterna-
the environmental capacity. tive 1 as second
access road
43.2.b. designing access
road as major col-
, . lector with few
intersecting drive-
ways
43.2-c- make access road
as direct as possi-
ble to Dublin
Boulevard.
86123 1 -9
� 1. .1. .. ` ..
�':L ::.�_4'.: .c .:• � ?rr,v r{�rt��,.1.��..�.�:•�4.�,_e\M.�vft.�• i�l�t �... �.�ti ti� c . _4 - . . . ... :�
•
•
• 1. Summary
lyi
Resource Impact Mitigation
Noise `1`i- High noise levels would be 49.1 Limit construction to day-
experienced during project light hours, muffle equip-
r , construction. ment where possible.
I •
kk5 Proposed homes would be 45.1 Install insulation adequate
r} located in an area exposed to shield residents from
to noise from I-580. noise and/or eliminate or
i; relocate homes in direct
line of sight of I-580.
::; Air Quality 4Ce Particulate matter would be116.1 Sprinkle exposed earth with
generated during project water continuously during
construction. grading, then as needed
• during other operations,
-�= cover stockpiles and haul
trucks, pave and landscape
as soon as possible.
(FT Construction equipment ic1,1 None required.
r ; exhaust contains air pollut-
ants.
Lig Hydrocarbons generated by tt6,1 None required.
project vehicles would im-
pact regional ozone levels.
49, Project related vehicles yq. i Implement measures sug-
would increase local con- gested for traffic impacts.
St) High CO episodes could 56. 1 City of Dublin should
. become common as develop- institute a CO "hotspot"
meat continues in the Tri- monitoring program under
Valley area. the guidance of the
BAAQMD and paid for by
developers.
• Historic 5( No known historic resources 51.1 None required.
Resources within the project site.
Archaeological 52 The project area contains 52. 1 Should any archaeological
Resources environmental features materials be encountered
which are considered to be during project construction,
archaeologically sensitive. all activity within a 50
meter radius of the find
should be stopped and a
qualified archaeologist re-
tained to examine the find
and recommend appropriate
mitigation.
861?3
I •I 0
•
•
r
:A..��5 A t�1 JT�� `y''.-w 1/ L'i � ,.;•%, l��w tI ^'f / r !,F 93
1.
rr: X > w.,.•� r. > +�,rr ate o s, �,
1. Summary
Resource Impact Mitigation
•
Historic Resources 53, No known historic resources 53,1Should any archaeological
within the project site. materials be encountered
during project construction,
1: all activity within a 50
meter radius of the find
I,• should be stopped and a
qualified archaeologist
retained to examine the find
and recommend appropriate
mitigation.
•
Archaeology Resources 54. No known historic resources
t-_= within the project site. The
project area contains
environmental features
which are considered to be
archaeologically sensitive.
v
r.
•
•
•
•
•
• ,.
86123 1-11 •
-
� -r
t
♦ k Zt x� r�,; , 7ry++i+ � - ` -a4, ,p�j* ,2:
• s fRres
i�. c GR aka' _.. r ; � � ? c�t� �0�* �
.At