Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout6.4 Hansen Ranch GP Amendment CITY OF DUBLIN AGENDA STATEMENT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: November 14, 1988 SUBJECT PA 87-045 Hansen Ranch General Plan Amendment Study, EIR, Planned Development Prezoning, Tentative Subdivision Map No. 5766, and Annexation request for 245 dwelling units on 147 acres, west of Silvergate Drive and north Hansen Drive SUMMARY: .The proposed Hansen Hill Ranch General Plan Amendment involves the following major issues: 1. CONFLICT WITH OPEN SPACE POLICIES OF THE GENERAL PLAN The General Plan Open Space policies are: - 3.1A Preserve oak woodlands, riparian vegetation, and natural creeks as open space for their natural resource value. - 3.1B Maintain slopes predominately over 30 percent (disregarding minor humps or hollows) as permanent open space for public health and safety. - 3.1C Continue requiring reservation of steep slopes and ridges as open space as a condition of subdivision map approval. The project proposes to fill the heavily wooded ravine and develop the area with single family houses. Certain areas with slopes over 30 percent would be graded to allow residential development. Should the General Plan policies be changed to allow residential development on areas that would otherwise be maintained as open space? 2. TYPE AND NUMBER OF DWELLING UNITS (LAND USE DESIGNATION AND DENSITY) FOR THE DEVELOPABLE AREAS The Applicant's proposal, the Planning Commission's recommendation and the Staff's recommendation regarding the type and number of dwelling units (the Land Use Designation and Density) are substantially different: Type of Applicant' s Planning Commission Staff's Dwelling Unit Proposal Recommendation Recommendation Single Family (0.9-6.0 DU/Acre) (0.9-6.0 DU/Acre) (0.5-2.8 DU/Acre) 174 maximum 129 maximum Patio (zero (0.9-6.0 DU/Acre) (0.9-6.0 DU/Acre) -0- lot line) 37 maximum Medium Density (6.1-8.0 DU/Acre) (6.1-8.0 DU/Acre) (6.1-8.0 DU/Acre) (townhouses) 34 maximum A 50 maximum TOTAL 245 maximum 235 maximum 179 maximum What is the appropriate type and number of dwelling units (Land Use Designation and Density) for the developable areas? ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ITEM N0. ,� ' � COPIES TO: Applicant Property Owner PA File 87-045 Project Planner -1- 3. SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS ON OAK/BAY WOODLANDS AND STREAM (RIPARIAN) CORRIDOR The project as revised would result in the loss of over 600 major trees (trees over 3 feet in circumference 2 feet above ground) primarily in the ravine area and along Martin Canyon Creek. The project as revised would also disturb the stream (riparian) corridor along Martin Canyon Creek. Should the project avoid impacting the oak/bay woodlands and stream corridor, or are these impacts acceptable based on specific overriding benefits? 4. SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS FROM MASS GRADING The project as revised would involve approximately 930,000 cubic yards of soil to be moved and a 50 foot fill in the ravine. The Applicant has indicated that a substantial amount of the "cut" on site would enhance the views from existing houses along Hansen Drive. The project would have balanced amounts of on-site cut and fill to eliminate off haul impacts on residential streets. Staff recommends that the ravine be maintained instead of filled and that the mass grading be substantially reduced or eliminated through a combination of in place recompaction and off haul using the proposed Valley Christian Center road connecting to Dublin Boulevard. Should the project avoid mass grading, or are the associated impacts acceptable based on specific overriding benefits? EXHIBITS ATTACHED Attachment l: Planning Commission Resolution recommending City Council Certification of EIR Attachment 2: Planning Commission Resolution recommending City Council approval of General Plan Amendment Attachment 3: Summary of Impact and Mitigation Attachment 4: General Plan Primary Planning Area Map Attachment 5: General Plan Policies Attachment 6: Applicant's Proposed Land Use Designation Map Attachment 7: Staff Study, Areas in Conflict, July 1988 Attachment 8: Staff Study, General Plan Land Use Designation, July 1988 Attachment 9: Table 1, General Plan Development Policies Attachment 10: General Plan Figure 4, Sites for Housing Development Attachment 11: General Plan Extended Planning Areas Attachment 12: Memorandum from Department of Fish & Game dated received August 2, 1988 , Attachment 13: DEIR Figure 4-1 Mitigated Alternative Attachment 14: DEIR Table 3-8 Intersection Levels of Service Attachment 15: TJKM memo dated received July 26, 1988 Attachment 16: Page 4 General Plan Density Measurements Attachment 17: Density Comparison submitted by Applicant -2- Attachment 18: Schenone & Peck Letter, July 5, 1988 Attachment 19: Reduced Copy of Tentative Map 5766, 9 sheets Attachment 20: Reduced Copy of Preliminary Landscape Plan Attachment 21: Reduced Copy of Preliminary Landscape Plan, Townhouses, Landscape Concepts and Prototypes Planning, 5 sheets Attachment 22: Example of Existing Development .5 - 2.8 DU/Acre Attachment 23: Example of Existing Development 3.0 DU/Acre Attachment 24: Planning Commission Minutes, February 1, 1988 Attachment 25: Planning Commission Minutes, February 16, 1988 Attachment 26: Planning Commission Minutes, July 18, 1988 Attachment 27: Planning Commission Minutes, August 1, 1988 Attachment 28: Planning Commission Minutes, August 23, 1988 Attachment 29: Planning Commission Minutes, August 24, 1988 Attachment 30: Planning Commission Minutes, September 19, 1988 Attachment 31: Planning Commission Minutes, October 3, 1988 Attachment 32: Planning Commission Minutes, October 17, 1988 Attachment 33: Hansen Hill Ranch Draft EIR (under separate cover) Attachment 34: Hansen Hill Ranch EIR Final Addendum (under separate cover) Attachment 35: Hansen Hill Ranch Environmental Assessment Study dated December 1986 (under separate cover) Attachment 36: Applicant' s Revised Plan (full size under separate cover) Attachment 37: R. Smerz' Letter dated received August 8, 1988 Attachment 38: Applicant's Submittal Map, Trees Not Affected by Revised General Plan Proposal Attachment 39: Applicant' s Submittal, List of Trees not Affected Attachment 40: Applicant' s Letter dated received October 27, 1988 OTHER ITEMS HELPFUL IN REVIEW OF PROJECT: General Plan RECOMMENDATION 1. Open Public Hearing and hear Staff presentation. 2. Take testimony from Applicant and the public. 3. Question Staff, Applicant and the public. u 4. Deliberate 5. Give Staff direction, schedule a field trip to the site and continue the matter to a subsequent City Council meeting FINANCIAL STATEMENT None -3- DESCRIPTION PROJECT: A General Plan Amendment Study, Environmental Impact Report, Planned Development, Prezoning, Tentative Subdivision Map No. 5766, and Annexation request to allow 245 dwelling units including 34 townhomes, 174 single-family (including 36 custom homes) , and 37 patio homes on 147 acres in unincorporated Alameda County, West of Silvergate Drive and North of Hansen Drive. APPLICANT/REPRESENTATIVE: Gordon D. Jacoby, Vice President Venture Corporation P.O. Box 847 Mill Valley, CA 94942 PROPERTY OWNERS: George K. Hansen, Alicia Hansen, Eleanor O'Neill & Ruth Reilly 547 Brookfield Drive Livermore, CA 94550 William H. Gale, Jr. , Esq. 62 West Neal Plesanton, CA 94566 LOCATION: West of Silvergate Drive, north of Hansen Drive, and south of Rolling Hills Drive ASSESSOR PARCEL NUMBERS: 941-110-1-9 and 941-110-2 PARCEL SIZE: 147+ acres GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Part of the site is within the Primary Planning Area; part is within the Extended Planning Area. Two portions of the site are currently designated single family residential, with density range to be determined based on site conditions; one portion of the site is designated medium density, 8+ dwelling units per acre. Adjusted unit range is 42 to 109 dwelling units. EXISTING ZONING AND LAND USE: A, Agricultural (Alameda County) , vacant property used for limited cattle grazing. Alameda County Zoning permits one (1) dwelling unit per 100 acres within the A District. Based upon acreage, the existing zoning would permit a maximum of one unit -on the Hansen Hill Ranch site. SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: North: Single family and multi-family, zoned PD; grazing land, zoned A South: Single family, zoned R-1; church, zoned A; grazing land, zoned A East: Multi-family and single family, zoned PD West: Grazing land, Zoned A ZONING HISTORY: February 18, 1956, Alameda County zoned the site A, Agricultural. BACKGROUND: On August 4, 1986, the Hansen Hill Development Corporation filed a formal request for a General Plan Amendment Study to consider residential development on a 147+ acre site adjacent to, but outside of, the City limits. The site is within the City' s General Plan Planning Area. -4- On August 11, 1986, the City Council authorized the General Plan Amendment Study. The City hired the consultant firm of EIP to assist in processing the General Plan Amendment Study and Environmental Impact Report. Prior to completion and release of the Draft EIR, the Planning Commission held two Study Sessions and a Field Trip to the site in February 1987 to identify issues to be addressed in the General Plan Amendment Study. The public review period for the Draft EIR ran from December 23, 1987 to February 5, 1988 and was extended to include comments received at the February 1, 1988 and February 16, 1988 Planning Commission meetings. The Planning Commission held four public study sessions, three public field trips, and seven public hearings on the Hansen Hill Ranch project. At the October 17, 1988 Planning Commission Meeting, the Commission adopted Resolution No. 88-058 recommending certification of the EIR with a statement of overriding considerations and adopted Resolution No. 88-059 recommending adoption of several General Plan Amendments including, but not limited to, establishing a density range with a maximum unit yield of 235 units and designating the location of development (see Attachments 1 and 2 - Planning Commission Resolutions of Recommendation) . The Hansen Hill Ranch Project Application involves consideration of five planning items on which action must be taken. The five items include. 1. Certification of the Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) . 2. Adoption of General Plan Amendments relating to land use designation and guiding policies affecting potential development on the site. The General Plan Amendments include: A. Land use designation establishing appropriate location for appropriate development and residential density ranges for the site. B. Incorporation of the entire Hansen Hill Ranch project site within the primary planning area. Currently, approximately one-half (1/2) of the project site is located within the primary planning area while the other half is located within the extended planning area. C. Delete Areas 5, 6 and 7 from Table I and Figure 4 of the General Plan. D. Delete General Plan policy and map notation regards Hansen Drive extension. E. Include alternate roadway serving Hansen Hill Ranch site (Valley Christian Center access road) and designate as a collector street. F. Include policy establishing Level of Service D as maximum level of service acceptable. G. Include policies requiring fire protection buffer zone around perimeter of residential development which interface with open space lands. H. Include policies related to open space maintenance. 3. Approval of a PlannedlDevelopment (PD) Prezoning establishing the zoning for the project site. California State Law requires consistency between the City's Zoning and General Plan. The Planned Development Prezoning will establish the appropriate number of units for the site, establish minimum setbacks, maximum building heights and other development standards. 4. Approval of a Tentative Subdivision Map. The subdivision map will establish division of land, including precise property dimensions, establishment of easements and dedication of land for public right- of-ways and open space. -5- 5. Initiation of Annexation proceedings with LAFCO to expand the City limits to incorporate the project site within the City limits. The Planning Commission took the approach of considering and providing the City Council with recommendations on the EIR and General Plan Amendment concurrently. Once the Council takes action on these two items, the Planning Commission would then consider and provide recommendations on the Planned Development Prezoning, Tentative Map, and Annexation requests concurrently. Resolution of the General Plan Amendment issues will establish the parameters essential to guiding development of the site. The General Plan Amendments will identify areas on the site appropriate for development, through land use designations (i.e. , residential density ranges and open space areas) and through General Plan policies. The General Plan land use designations and policies the City Council ultimately adopt for the Hansen Hill Ranch site will directly affect the PD Prezoning and Tentative Map for the site as the General Plan establishes the general framework in which development can occur. ANALYSIS: Environmental Impact Report The Final EIR for the Hansen Hill Ranch is comprised of the Draft EIR published December 22, 1987 and the Addendum to the Draft EIR .published May 16, 1988, prepared by EIP. The Addendum includes a description of the project revised to 250 units, copies of written comments received during the public review period on the Draft EIR, copies of the minutes from the February 1, 1988 and February 16, 1988 Planning Commission Meeting and responses to all public hearing and written comments received. Five copies of the Draft EIR and Final EIR were made available to the public through the Dublin Library and for review at the City Offices during the required public review period. In September, Staff was notified that the Library inadvertently disposed of the Draft and Final EIR. Staff had additional copies made and distributed to the Library on October 25, 1988. The Draft EIR addresses issues identified in the project's Initial Study as being potentially significant. The analysis of issues discussed in the Draft EIR is based on the Applicant's proposed project of 282 units (248 single family and 34 townhouses) on 147 acres. The proposal included mass grading (1.1 million cubic yards) , grading and development on significant knolls and filling and development of a significant ravine area. The Applicant subsequently revised the proposal to 250 units and ultimately revised the proposal to 245 units. The Draft EIR identifies the impacts anticipated with the proposed 282 unit project and contains mitigation measures to minimize the significant effects of the proposed project (see Attachment 3 - Summary of Impacts and Mitigation) . The most significant impacts identified to the Draft EIR relate to. 1. Grading - mass grading is proposed. The EIR identifies 1.1 million cubic yards and filling of a significant ravine area. 2. Vegetation - removal of oak/bay woodlands, wildlife and riparian habitats within the ravine area, and northwestern portion of the site. 3. Visual impacts of grading and removal of significant vegetation within ravine and development on prominent knolls. 4. Impacts'on public seriices/facilities - police, fire and schools. 5. Traffic - traffic impacts to Dublin Boulevard/San Ramon Road intersection and to Silvergate Drive between Peppertree Road and Creekside Drive. The Applicant's revised proposal (245 units) eliminates development on the two knolls, proposes an estimated reduction in the amount of fill in the ravine and an estimated reduction in the grading on site to 930,000 cubic yards. However, the Applicant's revised proposal will result in significant environmental effects which will not be mitigated. -6- Approval of the Applicant' s proposal for areas of development will require the inclusion of a statement of overriding consideration in the resolution of certification for the EIR. In addition to identification of significant environmental impacts and inclusion of mitigation measures, the Draft EIR identifies four alternatives to the proposed project: 1. No project alternative. 2. Neighborhood context alternative (assumes development similar to surrounding single family residential development) . 3. Mitigated alternative (addressed signficiant impacts by avoiding development on ridgeline and oak woodland areas, reduces overall density from 4.1 to 2.9 units per developable acre) . 4. Creek-oriented alternative (retains high number of units shifting unit mix toward greater number of multi-family units) . General Plan Amendment The City's existing General Plan establishes the framework for development decisions within the City' s primary and extended planning areas. The existing General Plan includes land use designations (General Plan Map) and policies designed to guide future development. The proposed Hansen Hill Ranch project involves several General Plan Amendments to both the Map and to existing policies. The two primary amendments include the General Plan land use designations for the project site (where to develop) and the General Plan density designations for the site (how much to develop) . Land Use Designations The City's existing General Plan establishes three land use designations for that portion of the Hansen Hill Ranch site which is located within the City' s primary planning area (See Attachment 4 - General Plan Primary Planning Area Map) : Single Family Residential (0.9 to 6.0 DU/Gross Acre)* Medium Density Residential (6.1 to 14.0 DU/Gross Acre)* Open Space/Stream Corridor *Note: The above land use designations are further clarified in the General Plan. See Land Use Density discussion below. The City' s General Plan does not include land use designations for the extended planning area. In addition to the actual land use designations on the General Plan Map, the General Plan contains several policies which affect development on the site (See Attachment 5 - General Plan Policies) . These policies provide guidance for development as related to grading, steep slopes (over 30% slopes) , protection .of ridgelines and preservation of oak woodlands, riparian vegetation and natural creeks as permanent open space. The Applicant's proposal includes approximately 62.2 acres of open space/stream corridor and approximately 84.8 acres of residential developable land. The Planning Commission's recommendation for designation of developable areas on the Hansen Hill Ranch project site concurs with the Applicant's proposal for developable areas (See Attachment 6 - Applicant's Proposal) . However, two (2) areas on the plan are in direct conflict with existing General Plan policies (see Attachment 7 - Staff Study Areas In Conflict) . In particular, the Applicant's proposal and Planning Commission's recommendation is in conflict with the following three General Plan policies: 3.1A - Preserve oak woodlands, riparian vegetation, and natural creeks as open space for their natural resource value. -7- 3. 1B - Maintain slopes predominately over 30 percent (disregarding minor humps or hollows) as permanent open space for public health and safety. 3.1C - Continue requiring reservation of steep slopes and ridges as open space as a condition of subdivision map approval. Areas 2 and 3 on Attachment 7 denotes the areas on the project site in conflict with the City' s existing General Plan. Area 2 located in the central portion of the site consists of a significant ravine/swale area of approximately 6 acres. This ravine area contains 30% slopes and oak and riparian woodlands. The Applicant proposes to fill this ravine to 50 foot depths and develop the area with single family residential units. This fill area constitutes one of the largest changes to the existing topography on site as the Applicant proposed to eliminate the ravine and destroy the existing woodland areas the ravine contains. Allowing development in this area is in conflict with General Plan polices 3.1A, 3.1B and 3.1C relating to open space and slopes. The Applicant proposes filling the ravine area in order to eliminate off-site hauling of the fill. A significant portion of the fill material will be taken from an area in the southeast portion of the site. Area 3 is located in the northwest portion of the site. This area contains 30% slopes, oak woodland and riparian habitat vegetation. The Applicant proposes single family units and custom lots, a road and grading within this area. Development within this area is in 'conflict with General Plan policies relating to open space preservation and 30% slopes. Staff is recommending that the City Council designate Areas 2 and 3 as open space in compliance with Policies 3.1A, 3.1B and 3.1C. To allow development within the ravine area would eliminate the ravine and destroy significant oak woodland areas. Such development would be a major deviation from the established General Plan policies calling for the protection and preservation of these areas. Staff's recommendation excluding Areas 2 and 3 from the developable portion of the site includes approximately 96 acres of open space and approximately 51 acres of residential land (See Attachment 8 - Staff Study General Plan Land Use Designation) If the Council wishes to approve development within the oak woodland, riparian habitat and 30% slope areas of Area 2 and 3, the existing General Plan policies would need to be changed in order to maintain consistency between the General Plan and subsequent zoning. Land Use Density The Applicant is proposing a total of 245 dwelling units with the following land use density: Applicant's Proposal Maximum Number Acres Use Density Ranze of Dwelling Units 76.7 acres Single-Family Residential .9 - 6.0 Du/Acre 174 Single Family 37 Patio Homes 8.1 acres Medium Density Resid&ntia•l/ 6.1 - 8.0 DU/Acre 34 Townhouses TOTAL 245 The Planning Commission' s recommendation concurs with the Applicant's density proposal, however, the Commission recommends a 235 unit cap on the maximum number of units permitted on the site without specifying the number of single family dwelling units and medium density dwelling units. Staff recommends approval of a lower density range for single-family residential land use than that proposed by the Applicant and recommended by the Commission: -s- n Staff Recommendation Maximum Number Acres Use Density Range of Dwelling Units 46 acres Single-Family Residential .5 - 2.8 DU/Acre 129 Single Family 5 acres* Medium Low Density Residential 6.1 - 8 DU/Acre 50 Multiple Family TOTAL 179 Total *(6.3 gross acres) Staff' s recommendation would provide for a maximum unit yield between 61 to 179 units based on gross acreage. The City's existing General Plan establishes development policies for residential development in particular areas within the City' s primary planning area (see Attachment 9 and 10 Table 1 General Plan and Figure 4 General Plan) . The development policies (Attachment 9 - Table 1 General Plan) for residential development in the primary planning area identify three areas for residential development on the Project Site Areas 5, 6 and 7 (see Attachment 10 - Figure 4 General Plan) . These policies identify the following residential designations and unit yield range. General Plan Density Site No. No. of Acres Min-Max Units Designation Range Du/AC 5 4 24 to 32 Medium Density (8+ per 6 - 8 acre to match Nielsen tentative map multi-family density) 6 7 7 to 20 Single Family (allowable 1 - 2.9 Density within single family range to be determined based on site conditions) 7 6 6 to 20 Single Family (allowable 1 - 3.3 density within single- family range to be determined based on site conditions) TOTAL 17 37 to 72 The acreage contained in the General Plan are general calculations of areas for potential residential development. EIP recalculated the acreage within the project site in conjunction with the preparation of the EIR, eliminating acreage in riparian corridor areas, oak woodland areas, and areas with 30% or greater slopes. This recalculation resulted in a decrease in acreage for Area 5 and an increase in acreage for Areas 6 and 7. Density Site No. EIP Calculated Acreage Adjusted Unit Range Range DU/Acre 5 2 12 -16 6 - 8 6 12.7 13 - 36 1 - 2.8 7 17.3 17 - 57 1 - 3.3 TOTAL 32 42 - 109 The three sites and associated acreage figures do not include portions of the project site which are located in the extended planning area. Staff recommends expanding these General Plan policies to include the portion of the Hansen Hill Ranch site located within the extended planning area. Staff' s recommended density ranges are consistent with the density ranges identified in the General Plan for sites 5 and 6. Additionally, Staff's density recommendation is consistent with the density range of existing developments within the surrounding area. -9- Existing Development Project Name Net Developable Duelling Minimum/Average (Location) Acres Units Density Zone Lot Size (sq. ft) Estate Homes (Tr 4930) 35.5 72 2 DU/Acre R-1-B-E 10,000 Minimum (Fenwick/Bloomington) Bordeaux Estates 70 175 2.5 DU/Acre PD 13,000 Average (West of Creekside Dr) Silvergate Highlands 17 83 4.9 DU/Acre PD 7,000 Average (Rolling Hills Drive) California Vistas 14.4 129 9.0 DU/Acre PD N/A (Silvergate) Hacienda Heights 8.9 25 2.8 DU/Acre R-1-B-E 10,000 Minimum (Betlen Drive) Inclined Place 4.7 8 1.7 DU/Acre R-1-B-E 20,000 Average Village 6 36.3 145 4.0 DU/Acre PD 4,500 Minimum (Shady Creek) Vista Green 22 88 4 DU/Acre PD 8,500 Average (Padre Way) Beck Homes 51 150 2.9 DU/Acre PD 6,500 Minimum (Stagecoach) Hansen Drive 8.7 30 3.4 DU/Acre R-1-B-E 9,750 Minimum (West of Silvergate) 10,440 Average In addition to the General Plan Amendments relating to land use designation and density, the following General Plan Amendments are recommended by the Staff and the Planning Commission: 1. Amend General Plan to incorporate entire Hansen Hill Ranch project within the primary planning area. 2. Amend General Plan to delete Areas 5, 6 and 7 from Table I and Figure 4 of the General Plan. Inclusion of the entire Hansen Hill Ranch project site within the primary planning area and adoption of land use density and designation eliminates need for Areas 5, 6 and 7 on Table I and Figure 4. 3. Amend General Plan policy and map with regard to Hansen Drive extension. The General Plan currently shows Hansen Drive extending to the Western Extended Planning Area. 4. Amend General Plan to include alternate roadway serving Hansen Hill Ranch site (Valley Christian Center access road) and designate as a collector street. 5. Amend General Plan to include policy establishing Level of Service D as maximum level of service acceptable. The City's General Plan currently does not contain policies addressing acceptable level of service. 6. Amend General Plan to include policies requiring fire protection buffer zone around perimeter of residential development which interface with open space lands. 7. Amend General Plan to include policies related to open space maintenance. Staff recommends the City Council discuss the EIR and the General Plan amendments in particular the land use designations (where to develop) and the land use density (how much to develop) as proposed by the Applicant and the recommendations of the Planning Commission and Staff. -10- After the City Council has addressed all the issues, the Council should direct Staff to prepare a resolution for certification of the EIR and resolution of approval for the General Plan Amendments. The Council may want to consider a field trip to the site to better understand the proposal, Staff's recommendation and the Planning Commission's recommendation. Staff recommends the Council schedule a field trip and continue PA 87-045 Hansen Hill Ranch application to the next available City Council meeting following the scheduled field trip. F. -11- tr 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, Aeff 87-045 Hansen PC Reso recommends CC approval of Elf 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 Planning Commission Chairperson ATTEST: Planning Directo -2- v ♦ ��,�/ i,1 t J S i! �•l l .!1•�y " } ��♦/♦ ,� �� ✓ I� Ate/ '• t� ,�,:.:�"�!C►( 7!�4w.: �4. rep / �.1 . .y �, ! '/d/ ,,I//i/ '1 �i ��i♦/♦yPr+M,/ .�: °i'I' t / ! r ♦•w'7 ... •r•:/;r'i:r' �/. ��W .f!♦t'.✓r Yri`/♦/ x� f/i,6tJj� ',' i, ,...••y/.. �. - ..;♦,• ., ... ♦r ♦+(wii•,..♦L llr.r�..:✓LI���,a.w♦.✓'.•w71n+:w:G�..:.-:�.n..,:�.' .� .. .— 1. Summary :.� 1.3 SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATIONS Resource Imoact Mitigation Geology 1. Reactivation of occurrence f.(Repair slides in areas of of new landslides. construction. Establish a 13 slope maintenance schedule and assign responsibility for fi maintenance and future repairs. Mass-grading resulting in Z,IReduce grading or establish f.a 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. r:; - Hydrology �{, Increased flows and flow t{, Construct detention basins . velocities in Martin Canyon and drop structures to Creek resulting in potential reduce contribution to peak localized erosion and flows. flooding. y.Z Rip-rap stress points in channel :J 4.3 Establish a drainage structure and channel maintenance schedule and assign responsibility for tp-nallC and upairs.__ 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 6•lDirect roo:drainage toward and lot drainage. specific structures. Design lot grades to prevent runoff across lot lines where lots T are split. alfTACHMENTA- 8612") � _ 1 • . ,, ;;, ,w, t�'�•i.� ��,.' :ice v,. `' •�Al 1� '•1�� , . ,•1' ...`, �,� .. ,, iC`�•; tip, �',�:. ♦ ♦...�� i M`l„ `L;`.-,� :. �. • .,���I! ',. _., .+q'�'Mt'w 6 jyiye'.. �.. ray,,.;al Wi•.. -.,r;r.r�r tr!.�,a.• tr, .t5 �..p., sn«r� r irk!Y;% X4 51. �ti rJt/ \iu•a',J .».... a � •��,�,A•��_�* S J'�,•�/`',�'�f��r° ����• �i jA(r6 ,.° Y f�,/�III) . �j..�H � . �Ilwfr�1If'.'a' ' '�.� - �2/y 5 �' •,-Jr J �••ff"t,jiI I "r "J 1. Summary i� Resource lmoar_t 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 oak/bay forest vegetation manner that will minimize on the site. trauma to the root system (see details in Chapter 3.4 Vegetation). '1,2 Disturbed areas should be revegetated with natural :-� tree and bush species. 1Y Specific details of the revegetation plan should be s worked out in consultation with the California Depart- ment of Fish and Game, the City and the Alameda County Flood Control District. Areas of extensive grading and fill in Neighborhoods 5 and 9 should be eliminated and the oak/bay woodland in <- these areas preseved. $. Project construction would $,(The California Department disturb aporoximately two of Fish and Game should be acres of riparian habitat in consulted as required under �ootinn 1 f11-fl'i� tha Fib -- - Road/Creekside Road and Game Code. intersection. $.-ZMinimize fill and cut slopes within the riparian corridor, especially in the area of the Hansen Hill Read and -; Creekside Road inter- section. Redesign the intersection of Hansen Hill ti Road and Creekside Road to - reduce the amount of fill placed in the riparian corridor. 8,3 Revegetation of riparian habitats with native species I in disturbed areas as well as `- elsewhere on the site to compensate for habitats lost in graded areas. l ; :i 1-3 86123 iy�;l f.'/�7�.Y�r +r ' +��yfa9♦'^vr,ri �, J �f1+i4. +v ��n���„4�f• , ;"A,I�►.-."'.�J7 y�i.♦w,�?1 /��� ��,r � /' � i/',"i�fr.'isJj� r a. • '1 J .n'i .. 1' b y, •//r�L� �/rY i/rJf Ilr�i A' //r,£f r*". ? ' •r. ,Jri/ r'?"7 ��„+ri r� !rr/ � /r:/arbN Jl / !.�%�4,�'� r r, ,! :!•rye / ~ �;'b +';.T r/r . i 1. Summary Resource Imoaet Mitigation si Vegetation Sq Remove lots 102-110 and (continued) 95-107 which back up to the ,.; riparian corridor along '•i Martin Canyon Creek. g 5 Relocate Creekside Road to r= the west in the area between lots 103 and 104 in Neighborhood 9. Wildlife �j• The placement of a large CIA 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, to•1 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. 1 1. Loss of oak/bay woodland It.1 Redesign the project to and riparian habitats at two avoid these areas as much critical areas — as possible. If unavoidable Neig'iborhoods 5 and 9. then compensation elsewhere on or offsite. All be approved by DFG. Land Use 12.. Placement of project 12, 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. 12.2 Provide a pedestrian corridor along the streambank and extending through the site. 13• City's Subdivision Ordinance 13,1In-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 . ll:'{YJ •L�a. (r } ,tT••�y INUIwf i.r rfi f� �� s� �mfiy J/„/;/•1L f I �� /I 1 � y�«y rlNf�N/y+" i �' ,w�7f /f1 LII f"�gJ• ��� x°�PMJf' fN4��. F ./ ,. 4 :. •d•'� t `/ .,t/i�r,Y/ i`./ /rp// p //1 ft e:' •I/ { ., r ' 1. Summary r- Resource Impact N itization Land Use j`f.Access to site from Installation and (continued) neighboring parcels, both maintenance of a project- r: cattle and trespassers size perimeter fence should be required. r 1q,2 Project Home Owners' Association should maintain a list of plant materials acceptable for landscaping. r-. Visual Quality 15. Grading would remove 15.(Site ridgelands overlooking prominent knolls and would I-580 should be preserved alter existing ridgeline. and not altered by grading. 1( A significant number of 1( -J Visually important trees and • trees would or might be tree clusters should be affected by grading and identified and tag;ed in the development. field for protection and 7 preservation. Lots within tree preservation areas °- should not be developed. tZ. Visual character of the site 11,1 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 ssr r ounding lards. 18. Night lighting, and glare 18.1 Reflective finishes should might increase. not be used on site structures; excessive exterior lighting should be avoided. 1S, Views from designated 15,�Homes should be sited well scenic roadways would be below ridgelines and away � further impacted. from slopes overlooking I- 550. 56123 1-5 ' f.,,:'. r se• 1 �w r�.�<. ,�±� t,.� �Ii A/1 d7ro I iii / x f7%}�• N•L �� 4Y 1 � 1 t ./y1'i�..ly�e.ry�•S!�•j• r��/i,I r // .A/•J}r.M 4v ��.e%// y�Jj i f ., I�.,H. 4 Nr�1`J•ir, �•Iy.MA,f N .q //I 1 �y� .r�fil,li l•�� 47/�f.�/ C. �•s'.; �I/,�f"./,Rt� . � 3/'.��4 /."'►'/: .7�.I./. 'i.,',W • „r/ A' < Yf/ �f'A,///.r•1 d r! 1�.. ��I'!iU �/ •ri+A . _,'Al Summary 7 ' Resource Imoact Mitigation 's 2.o. Siting of homes along ridge- 'Development should not lines and slopes which are occur on ridges or slopes .-. visible from I-580 would overlooking 1-580. Density conflict with City of Dublin could be increased on sites . policies. lower down and with less constrained slopes. r: .. • • Topography $1.1 Extersive grading, excessive zt.1 Develoo 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 =.I- Automatic fire exting- would serve project. Proj- uishingsystem on all units ect poses some potential bull', begond 5 minute fire service impacts. resporse time. ,`[�•Z-'Non-combustible roofs for i all units. ! ` Redesign of plan to in- 223" elude fire breaks between homes and undeveloped land and fire trails, based UIL la LO be SE, • the Dublin, San Ramon ' Service District (DSRSD). 22.4- Ensure adecuate water supply and pressure. 23 Some roads exceed a 12% z'l- Redesign road so glades grace. do not exceed 125, unless approved by Dublin Police d: DSRSD Fire Departments. Possible blockage of fire f4.1- 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-, encv access per Fire Mar- shall. 1 } 56123 t . . , • ,. � ...... ... ... .. . ..., ,.. .�...•. ,:•...`••.. ,_ `\�. \'��. b\.fit':.`...h^,.... .'�.... •�`' . A01 1. Vt_ A. Summary Resource Impact Mitigation 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 Upon annexation, Dublin I Access to townhouses should Police Department would be protected by a fence require one additional off- along all sides. icer. Residences at east end of 27,1 Trails to riparian and picnic project can be easily areas should be eight feel., accessed by burglers•along wide (excluding the should- ;:: creek bottom. er) to allow access by emer- gency vehicles. ,_S. There is no acceptable em- ergency access to riparian and picni c areas on the site. Schools Proposed project would Project sponsor would com, generate approximately 56 ply with imador 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 Amado, Valley Joint Union High School District. Cumulative Impact of new 50.1 Add required capacity. -(See students with other area Fiscal Section). projects would be an excess area capacity in the Nielson (K-S) School Of 68. Transportation (busing) and 31.1 Institute such pro;arns. student sarety (crossing (See Fiscal Section). guards) could also arise. Solid Waste 52 . 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. 861'33 1 i . ;C, �, � fff . .�„ �yf :.�!•.�tsi".ry�e;..yp%�i%i(�'y.:"Mf;>% .t6'�.^1..���„,�. r•.�P ON, ✓ d"t N . .jf�/ . Lrfp� fr r; �'/.+rJ(`71t �� / '1 r'►,!J� 7/ .. �� Sri 1. Summar; Resource Imoact Mitization Water 33. The proposed project would 33.) Payment of hookup charges demand about 131,500 gpd, and fees by project sponsor. and the DSRSD does not -Payment of user charges by anticipate any supply prob- the homeowners. lems. r 3�, Infrastructure for comple- 3q.1 Project sponsor would pay tion of Zone III and con- direct capital costs. struction of Zone IV would be required. •.t •J Wastewaters Proposed project would 35• Project sponsor would par generate approximately hookup fees and the cost of 11 2,000 gad, 1.13%* f 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-'3(,.(Project sponsor would pay Communication com have indicated the any relocation and/or exten- capacity to serve the pro- sions of PG&E facilities. posed project. 3G,ZHomeowners would pay for underground conduit and any ' other facilities required by Pacific Telephone. Parks 37. Proposed project would 31.1 Project sponsor would pay era_te_thP,nezd for an Ahth: ieu fee. Some of the additional 2.73 acres of increased property tax rev- parkland: acquisition, de- enues could be used to off- velooment, maintenance. set the increased mainten- ance costs. {_ 77'ZCompliance with City's parkland dedication/in-lieu fee ordinance. `J City of Dublin 3g• A positive net annual fiscal 3S•INone required. impact of about $26,600. Dublin San Ramon 3�1, Net capital fiscal impact of 39,iPayment of hater and sewer Services District zero; net annual fiscal gym- hookup fees and capital pact of a positive $166,000. expenses not covered by the hookup fees. 86123 1 s 1 �/1tr.,�,;�,,��y�• �,,srski, � '��' . ! err'++ f�.�.,� �}%i jy � tit jrl -W;r.r�'��V�1 4 �Y � :%%rti,!y�'•I,/./��1w�, ,Y,il-~w// `'���i�J a,%Lj rr��l � �7��..:j j �::r � ' ! 1. Summary Resource Impact Mitigation Schools 40, Net capital fiscal impact to gDACompliance with Amador the Amador Valley Joint Valley District's impact fee. Union High School District r of a positive 3963,000 upon 1 compliance with District's impact_ fee., r- i No net capital fiscal im- 41,1Institute 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 Potential for decrease in C4-2.1 Widen eastbound approach 42, the Level of Service at of the intersection to have J 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 ore through only lane. effects with the cumulative impacts of other projects. 421 Widen westbound aooroach { to have three left-turn lanes. t cf3. Cumulative increase in daily 43.1• Reduce project size or traffic on Sivergate Drive %-3.2. Encourage the use of • and Creekside Drive beyond 43.Z.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. 561'_'3 1-9 n/�j+►,�jfr ��ti���,��•, "l"I%'" ..���'3^�'•lp,.M�6?"",tJ�✓'� �i 0 , I���f,. r'^` .� ��i'7, � �/Y'�•`+ f �S•r �/ r, f,:`r "J T}Jf /.H'• •�J'���r 1•M/�!Y. .11y� %t`u r: • /1.tit / R xp`,• .• `'r a. , ✓ ;7' ..J..•[ ��.fi f. r• y✓r�'•J�dfrfr�. �I fir' ! 'iI♦ .��i.. r .i.. .. %•,;Ylri; ' 1. Summary oo Resource Impact Mitigation qq, High noise levels would be 44.1 Limit construction to day- Noise experienced during project light hours, muffle equip- . construction. ment where possible. (� K5 Proposed homes would be X5.1Install insulation adequate located in an area exposed to shield residents from rj to noise from I-580. noise and/or eliminate or relocate homes in direct line of sight of I-580. .•y .,.� Air Quality 4� Particulate matter would be'}6.1 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 r; as soon as possible. Construction equipment Ln.1 None required. yZ exhaust contains air pollut- ants. e{8 Hydrocarbons generated by tMI None required. r` project vehicles would im- pact regional ozone levels. tkq Project related vehicles 41.1 Implement measures sug- would increase local con- gested for traffic impacts. 56 High CO episodes could 56.t City of Dublin should -- become common as develop- institute a CO "hotspot" ment continues in the Tri- monitoring program under Vallev a_res. 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 Jr2 The project area contains 5Z. ( 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 t mitigation. � c 1,10 861?3 r--:...,��l.f i•,�fi�rY.%i'•J�-✓.r`ry MjM' ���•�f��J'Ll/i'��y,I�I /i A%t l,i.i~1��RNA, ` y a ,I .J (l�i�kr."T��f�y i^l 1 r//'!.�,j,.�'•l�i,�./T yM l.:i✓.Jy./j',."/{:?�'.Irr!(,�,�•Y�1r�/r7�//}�N C�;�iI+�_J;,,"�.!i ,r+' ,� ,/�•'.�/'f/: .r M,;: l%�iui /;' 1. Summary Resource Imoact Mitigation i,�.; Historic Resources 53. No known historic resources 53.1 Should any archaeological within the project site. materials be encountered during project construction, all activity within a 50 �= meter radius of the find should be stopped and a cualified archaeologist !�3 retained to examine the find and recommend appropriate �,. mitigation. Archaeology Resources 54. No known his'toric resources t. within the project site. The project area contains environmental features which are considered to be archaeologically sensitive. R '"1 ..J r - 86123 1-11 1 L, RESOLUTION NO. 88 - 059 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL ADOPTION OF GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENTS FOR PA 87-045 HANSEN HILL RANCH WHEREAS, The Hansen Hill Development Corporation, an affiliate development company of Venture Corporation has requested a General Plan Amendment Study, Planned Development Prezoning, Tentative Subdivision Map No. 5766 and Annexation to allow a maximum of 245 dwelling units on 147+ acres in unincorporated Alameda County west of Silvergate Drive and north of Hansen Drive; and WHEREAS, on August 11, 1986 the City Council authorized a General Plan Amendment Study for the Hansen Hill 'Ranch property; and WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of State Planning and Zoning Law, it is the function and duty of the Planning Commission of the City of Dublin to review and recommend action on proposed amendments to the City's General Plan; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held four Public Noticed Study Sessions on the Hansen Hill Ranch planning applications on February 2, 1987, February 17, 1987, August 23, 1988 and August 24, 1988; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held two Public Noticed field trips to the Hansen Hill Ranch site on February 27, 1988 and August 20, 1988; and WHEREAS, notice of Public Hearing was published in the Herald, posted in public buildings, and mailed to property owners within 300 feet of the project in accordance with California State Law; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held noticed public hearings to consider the Planning Application for Hansen Hill Ranch on February 1, 1988, February 16, 1988, July 18, 1988, August 1, 1988, September 17, 1988, October 3, 1988 and October 17, 1988; and WHEREAS, at the July 18, 1988 Planning Commission Meeting the Commission unanimously voted to review the Planning Applications separately, to review and recommend action on the General Plan Amendment and EIR prior to consideration of the PD Prezoning, Tentative clap and Annexation requests; and WHEREAS, the Staff analysis was submitted recommending amendments to the General Plan relating to the Primary Planning Area, Table I and Figure 4, policy and map relating to Hansen Drive extension, alternate roadway serving Hansen Hill Ranch, policies establishing an acceptable level of service (LOS) for intersections in Dublin, and policies establishing fire protection buffer zone around perimeter of residential development interfacing with open space lands; and 17-045 Hanser PC Reso recon mending CC approval of rpA WHEREAS, the General Plan Amendment has been reviewed in accordance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act; and WHEREAS, an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) has been prepared pursuant to CEQA; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered all written and oral testimony submitted at the public hearings; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE Dublin Planning Commission does hereby recommend City Council approval of the following General Plan Amendment PA 87-045 Hansen Hill Ranch: 1. Amend Figure 1 Dublin General Plan Primary Planning Area to: a. include the entire Hansen Hill Ranch site (941-110-1-9 and 941- 110-2) within the Primary Planning Area. b. amend the land use designations on Hansen Hill Ranch site, as noted on Attachment C-1 to include: - open space, stream corridor - single-family residential (:9 - 6.0 units per acre) - medium density residential '(6.1 - 8 units per acre) C. eliminate Hansen Drive extension through Valley Christian Center site. d. include alternate roadway serving Hansen Hill Ranch site from Dublin Boulevard through the Valley Christian Center and designate roadway as a collector street. 2. Amend Table 1, Development Policies for Residential Sites, *page 8, and Figure 4, Sites for Housing Development, page 9, eliminating Area 5, 6 and 7 from the Table and Figure. Designate developable area of Hansen Hill Ranch site as Area 5 on Figure 4, and include description of Area 5 on Table 1 establishing a 235 maximum unit yield for the site. 3. Eliminate implementing Policy 5.1G, page 19, "Reserve Right-of-Way for Hansen Drive Extension to the Western Hills". 4. Amend 5.0, Land Use and Circulation Section: Circulation and Scenic Highways Element to include a policy establishing the maximum level of service acceptable for intersections within the City: "Phase development and road improvements outside the Downtown Specific Plan Area so that the operating Level of Service (LOS) for major street intersections in Dublin shall not exceed LOS D." 5. Amend 8.0 Environmental Resources Management Section: Seismic Safety and Safety Element 8.2.2 Fire Hazard & Fire Protection implementing policies to include a policy requiring fire protection buffer zone around perimeter of residential development which interface with open space lands. "A fire protection buffer zone shall be provided around the perimeter of residential development situated adjacent to undeveloped open space land" . 6. Amend 7.0 Environmental Resources Management Section: Conservation Element to include policies relating to open space maintenance: A. "Require open space management and maintenance programs for open space areas established through subdivisions and Planned Development districts. Programs should include standards to ensure control of potential hazards; appropriate setbacks; and management of the open space so that it produces a positive and pleasing visual image." -2- t KEY MAP ,< .•HE 0.•101 b11 Told 40 bl) � S'• ; r, ; tt NSITY 61fJn18 FAMILY 11ESIDENTIAL LOW DC r/•Q ►' � ...• ��•`t, '„'.�'f` C�1:� •fin• _ _ � ' � � \V , •J � ::w J•„ tp R C. DIJ in - ./• 'V'. �_ ��'; •j i ::'.' ✓�,� •`��ti.l it tiJ,l�./•�•{ �, .� , .\�..,• � Za,J • 4. • • • �r'vti�'.. _ r -�(Jl�' t / r • ' ,I L« 1, •}� 1 y,• \' �.�;;•�• /�yi /a'!, r •• 177• / ) /..' � , \ V .,, \ _ (� `, •�, f:IOPEN Sf ACE• �r �► =��'� r n' r '� "�� .�'fir` '"*.�• y MEDIUM DENSITY 11ESIDENTIAL ,f SICENTIAL N ..•- � � ,�• TV , J� -�. _ 1 ell .•tip r �.._...>.�.. .-. •� T� ./•;•(: .��,/�:�;�,��. � , _.��•��, .i( �, {Y •/•,_y'. �� •�d�� � ••ts•� 1•—rs�.� s'v •.,��1:Lr��s� � �'""'•1 1�• s Y_1- y'�..�.. / "�'�•_ J G:z' t �j/"jr r l •s• / 7 F — W "� I !' �'-) t !� ��••••1/p� !. .! ors ,;�J. �I 3 �::i� �.,- 1%�; ' 1ti' .:r:� Lsk" •G„'j•• tr~ ,~-`r•1,� - .: i f •` '�` l• •rl�'�' �f••) , � •' r.' " .f n ��.' •� .i'�l 'f �t� � •`\ � 1 `i r� cr ± '�.� .;'�. �':;>• �7':Y /1 ��_' �r•'.1� y(J,�../�•�• ,'A �• +• ..�ti..�i/l•' •, ����/'��.{Qr.M�1 ��(/.�•• ("� J, �"�.: •I ' ..T • •i `_.. °a'�� c' ■ 'I �=L-,.. ..r•frJ�fVw. f�•s.�JCi/Y/- �' .o - ��" '�1 u� T' ' �r' :ii i�;,�•.',.. 'l.' \'IyJQtt rI�'•rru''Jp Iy`i•N '�• ���, ' 1` -. .•``-e'` ?•, •�.- -. \/�•'• / � --� 1 .` I/ -•� ,• b l.il .lJ'•�. ���`�,,� •7 i1",J((T(�' If•1�'�" ,••i•l ��� � \ , ,� �• k?."1i +• ., �, �: .i� 0 \. •u •..,,( b, w /l./'+ i.,1,rLy.f l•. .w�'RIG:.�'1• 4� V ..�}f�,�'!�)�I �� ,�„�,.,�J I ,� ? a �•y • ( p , �` r• ,•�.• + r* G� /" �\` ,�:• / T' 1. •5�,��+[�,� , 7/�, i' �� •� /`i • •�\mot � lllt ,.,�Wr, '� •� •••• � 'r• \.� / � 1. 4 � :Y �,•M 11��/.. �\•• �"'�� 7 Y- ,.•' ' �/7'� )I•'A�" 1 ,'yCy'�r �. U Q'� ��• • - ^t.?� adz, i ~• •,•'•• •• Ar. �• •^. •/.`•„ /' \. YAW= quo j •r `� ` '*' < ;� n/ •.r �.__ �S�tF��', t7!4 r ���'i�` `�r/,r:T•� is•,,,� \�r��c v� ,. ;,� � 3: .� •t` r ;�, i r / c /fc' r•r•t �!° n r, ,Y�,'/��� �' V117 CG�? ��;�••� r •;••'1 �•, •�'� ... .•nl... 1 1' '•� / I1�!Y�1J,,,�,,f..•.��". •I�vfJ•I�I.'N:11 •- '�:J'�,_'�11►�� V.' •�� C`" "�=J ..••!� a�l._la_Jp � /'('� �. 0 100 400 CGNf:MI. PLAN ncCOMMGNnATION cV ` n t'rI A B. "Require that land designation as open space through development approval be permanently restricted to open space use by recorded map or deed. " C. "Require revegetation of cut and fill slopes. " D. "Require use of native trees, shrubs and grasses with low maintenance costs in revegetation of cut and fill slopes. " E. "Access roads (including emergency access roads) , arterial streets and collector streets that must pass through open space areas shall be designed to minimize grading to the maximum extent possible so as not to damage the ecological and/or aesthetic value and characteristics of the open space area. " F. "Prohibit development within designated open space areas except that designed to enhance public safety and the environmental setting. " G. "Promote inclusion of hiking, bicycling and/or equestrian trails within designated open space areas. " 7. A-mend 3.0 Land Use & Circulation Section: "Parks and Open Space Element to include a policy providing an exception to Policies 3.1A, 3AB and 3.1C. "3.1.D After site specific analysis or evaluation policies 3.1A, 3AB and 3AC may be negated,* provided the finding is made that the development will meet other overriding General Plan policies". PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 17th day of October, 1988. AYES: Commissioners Barnes, Burnham, Mack & Zika NOES: None ABSENT: None Planning Commission Chairperson ATTEST: Planning Directo -3- 1.. ^•i E a' $i s 1 'fy a g „r'a -.�. r'::L7� q"`� ?JP1>t�,jlJ•i°7'ef,J rdt'rjsiv R + 4e Cn 7': R r. t 1.,-!t SZ % J ,., •nt'�k�J.Ft .,C� Ji,<�F:,.aN�rJ1'y'{� C ': 1,fV_ � 4�'y "l�k.' � `�., $ ;��f p.. -t, f d rf y r ;y ..'� ` i h. tr' +t r.%� �' er 7-yt t; ry ti.4 rv, M` tY•, ,r.� r r �'r �t. i J: J�f,.k .If h '' �.;�-1 ♦!r'!r.� 'S f�ti t.lj ha 5 t Sw,� a<t.�rN Tar}'f. rR r-7.'r��.F'}! .5t_. t s''x �.J 1'.' r �r r.,;. r`r Y r Sc.. � r y5r 1 ...4� t 1r'A Y �Y.g i�� t r� ���' � t�-�'i.y fa'*i � � t a :}.,ra� j� 7!,:Xaw 7 r•% y r7 t v �� l t + i t� �!�r � 5 �.'J"-- l,� e i� r 5�.g;�_'i4it;It F7�YS�a�a'u�fy�i �'f7'�' r t ",b✓t 4`^ �t:y et _ f�,} t ., f f � •..r � rs + r ( -� J' x�x�ld�f S���aP ii '�" Yl�.�y 1 ,'„ri r S a 3 1", d ee t y ✓!� 4 t Jt .f 11 y^4 �h{ 7+., k••( �1`IJ.,it yrri �P? y J + !r 3 �,a 4 c� }I r :�°J i51,. �d. ,,� ti.•'. 9f -f.a(g t ... 45.J A,s tw{5,§J'F t wti, J:S.+•,,,a *:; R r.. � fi 'f" t '5 .4' >. ;Tyr_:. 'J•# t, a c x. •. r - F :r « G t #r .i's,a,{y+xr ra*! s [ s -{ "".•t. ..., ,• 5 s a z k Q ,, AU.H .fi L h 7 s, ?r+5 _._..._.,`7r....<. ....YLie...L,,..:L:.•. :tW=:c ?:. .�`. 1_a.r1....d,:i.#'iki I. Summary • �-�>. • rya 1.3 SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATIONS Resource Impact Mitigation Geology Reactivation of occurrence Repair slides in are of new landslides. as of construction. Establish a slope maintenance schedule and assign responsibility for maintenance and future I _ repairs. Klass-grading resulting in Reduce grading or establish imbalanced cut and fill. agreement for export-with adjacent land owners. Soils Soils with high shrink-swell Treat, cover or remove _ potential. those soils. Hydrology Increased flows and flow Construct detention basins velocities in Martin Canyon and drop structures to Creek resulting in potential reduce contribution to peak localized erosion and flows. flooding. Rip-rap stress points in channel Establish a drainage structure and channel maintenance schedule and assign responsibility for maintenance and repairs. Erosion during site Restrict construction to the construction. dry season and stabilize unprotected areas in accordance with erosion and sediment control plan. Erosion from-roof drainage Direct root drainage toward and lot drainage. specific structures. Design lot grades to prevent runoff across lot lines where lots are split. 87-045 Hansen 86123 Summary of ACNEIV Impact and ` mitigation °r 4 + 'S +,+. �� 5 wt x , .. J i 5 y15d�la [t` + sJ +..0 k C# y xa.r tt` t its 4+�-rti1•'. x; 'x..�i.�'1L. G tl•J, � ! �4+i71 nl� ,� . ` �L..\.1:�{ 5 � { `.1 y r.�J Jh .F. �iS � ?,.,y iay lY t Sa'{i a � ,. � 111 1�6Y t.t, 1�-.. 1 F�r r r� }.. \ t S L C .tNl � �. � t-� `t i 4P^ t V�'S��•�15 'iti. ti{.'1 L :!., -,.. ,, a....a. rt.r..as b.t...Lw.:+,J tfa,...._ ,.:•,ti ..c.\;- � �- .,..�.._.+,......... .. 1._.. _. 3ti e.C' .. .... _ _. c yt?i F t 'a :„:+ ✓ p { �r ,4,,.g S2a3F �j�. :a;+ . t ..4� iy .�, r % A r 3 a t,a�'! 9” M Aa.t �t1• rq �ei,,iarc c, a 4 M w'�!; J x,"n to �. d ri!t ]. 3 'n..t`.. hr�]r -try ) d .a.9r N71-E'�'1,�y I"•`r 9:. 0. 1 ." 8 t a I #W �3, �asn P� "12�-t'�+r^ �$ t� >{.rt i 3� :r.� r �'��� t� ,� ,✓ t,"�3 ��e'�t� I. 1 >aM��r .re t� d. +Y'Y t'.�'��'7' ,`b Y +5:�!`".+ A t '{� +fi�� 1 :r'' v •;a r'. J..Di Sir ly,r 1 e, 1 ,#+7. r d'SY + .'rtu "`fi«7•.� +ISir d`..arc " r,...*. `ifee Sv:tw ',rkd F �' Ji iJ �yr +Nln.( 1, f d y rl±!'� LJC.✓ h l✓ '.r y f �2 317 ji. Y JSrc tom. 4� pp lF ✓t 2'3+1h„ t '+ t'; �,..w A:. �, 1 f '3 12y YY T t"' 5,{`?/it 1 5' a` r. J f}'f .'� + ,f of yt13:1 t 7r �y «.y.� r,.tYry r'�a.+ ... . .th /a3C i�Nlj t r ;r r ,1� 5 'r� �'xr S.d ^ar r Ixet'�;y w �t�✓' y.}J, f .y ..1 + 5 2f✓ Da k "` .4•a S- YS3h �{t'r " � N f C xt ! � F7 if>` � �' � �5 3f 4.Y A 5 r' 4 «F'4+ a.' 4 It �,.. r � Jr ,. } y s_ y¢,,c r, �*y.r �E,.��`,}r '" ,{�.f f'`, `•r ?j u.: .e• >a.r r' t t _;g n�. f 3 y"' Sr r.' F Y.�. F ' t J -5!.ti r } Y'^n p�,x"'d"�✓tom .1 +''t'F Y z s - '" Id , S 1! J '+,ry ?1tF'♦f y f ' " fgF+! 3t ):^rY L :Y ' ' r�G ':r{.'�.�-5 } �..SR � ', 3 ......_�...z '.' zlav"P`•:a_ ��' "e t ..,. _..�.....?.•��.,.k . =M ,,D r F s s `'��{a���`_"r � ���.A? Ys ,J �, s! ,t .-_.. _`• J- r .... d,-! .:1-t�aS.'C i.ti_.�_ r. F...,.!.y.a... v�....-;..t;,v"siu�.. ...J:'SS.;;:t.>t....ta.�,=,.`,�:t'.3'`..w-.�,,.., s�":.� A,..•. •2 '1. Summary Resource Imoact Mitigation Vegetation Project construction could 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 oak/bay forest vegetation manner that will minimize on the site. trauma to the root system (see details in Chapter 3.4 Vegetation). Disturbed areas should be revegetated with natural tree and bush species. Specific details of the f revegetation plan should be worked out in consultation - with the California Depart- ment of Fish and Game, the City and the Alameda County Flood Control District. - i - Areas of extensive grading and fill in Neighborhoods 5 and 9 should be eliminated and the oak/bay woodland'in these areas preseved. Project construction would The California Department disturb approximately two of Fish and Game should be acres of riparian habitat in consulted as required under the area of the Hansen Hill Section 1601-03 of the Fish Road/Creekside Road and Game Code. intersection. Minimize fill and cut slopes within the riparian corridor, especially in the area of the Hansen Hill Road and Creekside Road inter- section. RedesAgn the intersection of Hansen Hill Road and Creekside Road to reduce the amount of fill placed in the riparian corridor. IRevegetation 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 86133 1-3 1 l •P I � ` S o o l k ! t' y 4l i " l i -!. Y y ^ ` K y to+y \I X ,•" i '.?r:`t�,t }° y d �_ d 5 _.,�,•?! Dw,, .'at3lt� tL�Ryt +k r� =n�nL `�, fi .r+ ��..�..`A t k r, t"; ✓t x..: f3 hP;;'#iW`S' iJ42„ lfc"`+ c£`y¢'C >'rjl$Sy 'a J,�" ,r j ,r a^' r y rf.:f f r , ••.t �:1 y r•n •I .r t"',} • a .v a t ,•n ,,r.y �aw9 3:"��r;;f 6 1 7 ,tr �r';r ry'i�f{s r k t r n• y "' I•FfYJi.�jR.. ,�7J a �" �`•'� J�k•. T i 9*� a +2 day} !y .lY�t � 7f' it p,, ,f ✓fn r i n ar".P � 1 flF,fc�,1� ,q "'•t 4+ r �" ,� t r- iJ��<at�'-,r�F�iy.�'���t/sr''�>.Y ''��'.'�� {r.i a�`'• �a JET sd,Jt s.y� r ��•.- � t � 1 }. . i x` IN'.;��F rrr yv"JI4ke�.urrLw`e.y.L J rA Y z f ja t i 1 v L.-*' .. ! r X-G,-�ffiVs�4'` ��r..��NI r'` �i-r .bf i. rr>• +t�t. ��., �" � . ; ., } t Jya Jw a.rt MzF r ,k°rrf r yi,yf 1�y7q t r.y 1 i `- � u �4 �ry ;�"� yr�fi 7tt r�, �x�+�'fe �+.trx,�7jin a i '+ c'� r f ftiy`�'� i •� � y ,y-ri+�^P ,y. • Y Sf:�5 "1•r - ��:._?A,�v.L��:.; V; 1.'Summary Resource Impact Mitigation Vegetation Remove lots 102-110 and (continued) 95-107 which back up to the riparian corridor along Martin Canyon Creek. Relocate Creekside Road to the west in the area between lots 103 and 104 in Neighborhood 9. Wildlife The placement of a large 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. If fish are found there, 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. Loss of oak/bay woodland 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 ' compensation efforts must be'approved by DFG. Land Use Placement of project The project site plan should 1 clusters implies the 79.6 be modified to provide clear acres retained for open public access to the I space would serve only . designated open space on private project users. the site. Provide a pedestrian corridor along the I streambank and extending through the site. City's Subdivision Ordinance In-lieu park fees and/or land provides for land dedications should be _I 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 ytt ..3. } Y; Y � t 5 '' `� ' iir�er{1+ s a•w r f L {. 7`w 4 r C.'` r ti. J;... ?.... ..., ..': + tip• t Zh ,..:r-.s. ...,. a.. ,, ._....,1 ._. ,..,.F.. ...� .l__ ..Y. .. i. r , .,r f 4.ryr � (i . 1 r £f t+p�'"" y �}'?'p" r�;q'.Y,��`a5�..r � ;1.y:M;x�•,y��'r 't�l �°},'Ii r� .r c'!fi.w ..i7xtP.'1 F rar j.;Yt y �y.,,.t'isr,�'��. 7 r s ff t a' . o -'a� y� •� ';7��,�'7� +. nf�� r 'TT 4r'?..a tt �oi•F a�c ,� a{ru„ s+t t '��'Y yJ@•., i sr�n, 'at H , £{ a � P :£'.. t..;� °' £a d,:t r t r,T i £ "� a Jf ' ,.r 1� , YJ"r�r`i 'r� . tl"£{ t;u,•C: n+� are✓r.x� ta �1f"t,.t �cKk`�'` Ir%r£ fibs i� r .,*'";r. mY.a,�•'r �. .". r',;t' iJ .- ,.,aN7 rl.;:�-kr„ tt}.. .;`,,,,tli r,r.�F..,r.'i: R1,.;? r ,� 17 £7 ..7, u ,TY •1 } t 5 £ - P 1e4 ,rt{ t { 1•J. .�t/� 7 . > ,rf ifw ✓ r I t r f� r•S �7)j _ T y♦t j cr1 l: { t ",�.t .:'r' tl''r r ..t crr E"f.rSFt! t:.. i3 < 4 e'ir r -t 1 x t �, tf r} Ecru t F ! r ✓3•rJ 1,.' siF; 1 -, I'P 1 br•i S. I - ..„„::- 4 r 1 r. ♦ is 4r L t t .r �� c2 ti M r r t r t ,t.. x ,�i a•a f + F r i dr;},'s tr tt�, a a r �.Y�i�t r>•.F� I F } t. W, r � r._a'.. _f}-_ ..�.. . ,. ....�:k;�.,11 7 I' <., {r•'ud:..:. ,-ry<r . w..r}. :%.? ..,,_.. ' 9 1. Summary Resource Imoaet Mitigation Land Use Access to site from Installation and (continued) neighboring parcels, both maintenance of a project- cattle and trespassers size perimeter fence should be required. Project Home Owners' Association should maintain a list of plant materials ' acceptable for landscaping. Visual Quality Grading would remove Site ridgelands overlooking prominent knolls and would . I-580 should be preserved _ alter existing ridgeline. and not altered by grading. A significant number of 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 I should not be developed. Visual character of-the site Develop design guidelines i would change from rural to which establish building suburban. colors, materials and finishes which are compatible with the Isurrounding area. Decrease road widths and gutters. Perimeter site fencing should be compatible with the rural character of surrounding lands. I Night lighting and glare Reflective finishes should might increase. not be used on site structures; excessive 1 exterior lighting should be avoided. 'I Views from designated Homes should be sited well scenic roadways would be_ below ridgelines and away further impacted. from slopes overlooking I- .I 580. 86123 1-5 J r � 1 -\ l \ l 41 \ '. �,\l t l t\ 1 l 1 1 '. �.!• Yti,tlat \1 �� �' y '\'' � X�'-f t - <„ 1 . ♦ z .,, Ysl 1 '4. � tr !� ? tt k \ ¢. �: -..,.4,'*t aht`a t a\\'i\Fr r .,,e` .`1. \. i 'nt"\a '1,J�,�-� `; C L : � •?t' _ �� R .. \f \ l Z 6 .y ,"! r l.`.p 4't'r5i\ L.,�' y.{' \ h. 1,7 ':y'�a Y ;--' ' •;. .. �.1. ,, ,, s'a 1:d''t ? •�' a-t.... ` ....���..2r. ��\._23.} x ..7.n_.... ,2.. ..c_�•n'a .._;��s�;X' .b�s`f����t'c_ ;'.�`'i.Cii .c�P,S<\,.\. t"- °s• NIZ t .ata �• J � �i H Z y..jYKiw Ja Ci r r `" t t: t r lF f ,c t r $ ON _ t-J�t ti`.. i n f•M� it x, �`y y lF4i"c. t i J+.^f ,£ d y^+ JC N''r �, j `( 1` ' P f r:i�'+ a tr u�� }r�taUr `e(!`r xq� •ry �[ r t r n y +� '� + a#y �k} �t r�Lt�i• r , f -�'•7 f C., Q, '✓ P F y,!_ t t i Y szk k' y +i S i • ! ,-I r/. "l1yi i( rY� t F}1 ry .vr 1. ,�"9 t j 5 _ � ..-I- (t 4_` C y •'I aP h Y,1N f. '� ;,5 Y f ,( - v'•-+' r ' ,, its .y �a at ,yq r" t "`" '+ t .r ` t n t ' J ,i 1 tff• T r � }, � # t r u ?� s i • r � ,�t� ar}..}t .. ,.t ! y rry 715 P��1!r-..J ,fit i F�trf,• t 45 r` t,n t.�h � ..j � t( rA:}t rat( 4 `f�ri*.'td.. 1 j t ' ! 1. Summary i Resource Impact Mitigation Siting of homes along ridge Development should not Jlines and slopes which are occur on ridges or slopes visible from 1-580 would overlooking 1-580. Density conflict with City of Dublin could be increased on sites ' policies. lower down and with less constrained slopes. Topography Extensive grading, excessive 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- 1 anced when possible or used on adjacent site if fill is needed. Fire DSRSD Fire Department - 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. - Non-combustible roofs for t all units. - Redesign of plan to in- clude fire breaks between homes and undeveloped land and fire trails, based on criteria to be set by the Dublin, San Ramon Service District (DSRSD). - Ensure adecuate water supply and pressure. �- Some roads exceed a 12% - Redesign road so grades grade. do not exceed 12%, unless approved by Dublin Police do DSRSD Fire Departments. Possible blockage of fire - 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. 86123 1-6 s. Y .. ,`s7„!' 1 j.i.-?.S+Jt` y.,._1i s� ..U}'�`,..'?l:i.,r .. *.�,(.;z'S-.�,`�.'j \, t(•;y+,t,i. J. _� �. t. ..�. _ � -:.? —�i: ._s. s. d ., f.'� ( .,F 5 Lrr .� r.3 9j.9, 't' *q7t C9t .f3 t k a+ly. {i.:,• r -'',•f 5•: 7 r f k z'iYr+7 , i-Ma Y•, t" �. i.. c b is..f'"y t •.'t r, ..+Y !if=, r ' Y .s a rcp `'�i.,t,,, �r rr � .i.t`%` r7 . �.tit✓'-''F I s :'. t ) e •,} + t+.•''' c'n drtt . ) ) .ti •„. y r .+w f)S �✓ 'r+, r.t, P r,a � ,. t 3:�, 6bt'N+✓Q 4Ig fv,. tr-A, Ir .t Y F �•�. t 5•' t t��iF ' 3T"N c s Y#ft �Gf. ,S 1✓fir' kl s'�' iO � v fa�>+• f}� r t °� -$ r e f ti 41A a. 7. a f! " '• a ' s l 4 t N f za I .�J �$d +•iJ+ lsG ��'�w �a{ f d#�'t ty Z F ii r 1. Summary If. Resource Imoact MitiZation Bridge at main entrance of - Redesign bridge to unob- project is too low. structed height of 13 feet 6 inches for emergency vehicle access. Police Upon annexation, Dublin Access to townhouses should Police Department would be protected by a fence require one additional off- along all sides. icer. Residences at east end of 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. There is no acceptable em- ergency access to riparian and picnic areas on the site. Schools Proposed project would Project sponsor would com- 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. Cumulative Impact of new Add required capacity. (See students with other area Fiscal Section). t ' projects would be an excess area capacity in the Nielson ( (K-8) School of 68. i Transportation (busing) and Institute such programs. student safety (crossing (See Fiscal Section). guards)-could also arise. Solid Waste Proposed project would None would be required or generate 502 tons per year, recommended. for Oakland Scavenger Company's collection within the San Ramon Area and an increase of 0.01% in waste to the Altamont Landfill. 86123 1 .+ � i ♦' y tit t t 1F a` t t _ Yt > ..1 rs -. � j{f• ! .•. S.S d i..�r r v,;,.., rr r F}r f i{„�,:(•t.yr a7 33.H. t.r:1'-9.. t tx S}s`If.M•!;,(.f'.'.Y,r`v'I v d ijj syS^.-'-✓a:'h^r!1_:�1 ka s ila "d y`r�s e t.✓'/"''t•Z•s sd.::J+1„.1Jr4 ?t-! tq�aEs r ,w H ir Rt r k€:-iy'.;d �',�r t.y`:-,:`{t'e 1 N rsyr i,J�4 rY f"a s r E�,'.7 C'a t•rt, Yr+y n�i'Slrti'.,..o L i�94i;r r rf f - tv.Y r k. s >'� t i y 4 J x },✓fir. "• 'Inl . y4 :;�'k;E f� I�:+F�`� r�i X,�<� ,yL�"Nt J.�� � �rt e3 4 .a n,� 7.� !r�^ f < rd G,t's fr , _ ,r,._,+ Nl r ! "y a r � t ,� �,. t i u � °j ""� Y4 � ? ax YY d $x +p�' y7�n '�:r i 4Jt''�y �n•?1� y, r, r.'3,If t^r a¢i!'6 �' ' .t tai i r''e't,.•{r t r,r �-:k-r.i+rf -+„ _ k�fFTF t � Er�� ,tt't/:fy z •..r '.' j a. a.,-.ea 7S :��ct '�.` rY• r st7 " � Ef�. �' +i t i J f x r.L. k 1 .� ,.r . . r ` ri r y .� ,y'n t-'�;p •- x : r P r.�" � r y- .�-t x ,4 .tt,Fy .rr d .3r a F� t7. y t1 : . i F 4', r 1 t i'Y r 5 � r F ;t�.r: r s tt by w-�'warpt •J t r }li r F y IS,�r✓ r t�• d �✓F!r� gr t. Fy 1u k{r�t' 'f q - 1u(.. J•., i-:�_L,i t^ ir'r �y;,�'?" *.,[fr4,1F 1 .'"'rlrf L�f .,��fY.MC _ $,_r 1w 'i/ •3 ` F,+1i1 t`( 'iS+fY+l . ., .. �. l,rt. { • kc��a.Yhs Hl t+ - r^e lyd'Gy%'4 Acr+��,r ��,}* i+..r�l `fi d. � �rsL•yy.,t.� �r�tv�4 NS'dC tY�,.. .. ^ r � ...<......�.•2:;`.w.�,r..�u....tit}.�..,���r�_ . �.,,s. -!'�..r _Y s�$rI z s �c� } „�• 9 _ 111 i Resource Impact Mitigation Water The proposed project would Payment of hookup charges demand about 131,500 gpd, and fees by project sponsor. and the DSRSD does not Payment of user charges by anticipate any supply prob- the homeowners. a I lems. Infrastructure for comple- Project sponsor would pay tion of Zone III and con- direct capital costs. struction of Zone IV would be required. Wastewater Proposed project would Project sponsor would pay generate approximately hookup fees and the cost of 112,000 gpd, 1.1396•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, PG&E, Pacific Bell and Via- Project sponsor would pay Communication com have indicated the any relocation and/or exten- capacity to serve the pro- sions of PG&E facilities. posed project. Homeowners would pay for underground conduit and any other facilities required by Pacific Telephone. Parks Proposed project would Project sponsor would pay generate the need for an the in-lieu 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. Compliance with City's parkland dedication/in-lieu fee ordinance. City of Dublin A positive net annual fiscal None required. impact of about $26,600. Dublin San Ramon Net capital fiscal impact of Payment of water and sewer Services District zero; net annual fiscal im- hookup fees and capital pact of a positive $166,000. expenses not covered by-the hookup fees. 86123 1 .8 .� ;^t :�a�y �s.. � ;` �.� r �. ^fi�,y 5 .. r���u_"��FS-.�y a .. ,,�• t �'" *•" . • J: M :a C.L t , q '+ i + sit i �' ' • t t rr Z Ysrc''Ztit ua"r1's t1r FSrI t r d ti^ c v ♦ Zl,,s eEy iNyY s F S t �+ l sL >< r'' . � �� •` ° � ri = L r��l^t1'G'{-r 1 `- � �$.�� ^y t S. 11t a is r < ti• r .,y ` •t r s-.ts �``' . a 1 ti^+ 0 1 tyF n ,,• �?,,. Ftm kl, �a 'k L L d ,. i» �1r�4 ti i v L r , r 'ti r nw _..r., ✓... ta,-y3!,wt:, 'EL s�'�K{-S�y`" -'n"r r fr..,>< ;�w. 3.�, %:r r Ix •± r+. t 1r.e tv t,z t°s f r _ c _ .•i '. } f'r`f e:1 "+.'a'r n"r•Y! Y 5 4r r! -,i t L t.. rr F a t1,n{, ^,y j N 4�•y M 'k '` 1' "y 1':L r '�ry ais f .`Y r ky a +.< �/r7 ru-t a Y •' .h >-,-w 0 Vy 1.. r • '}Ad e t�'o' SL I'�� k L �,i 4��t t+r"' i t y � s..Yf v .r `1 x .+ •s r 3z ^ � t� � ,} ✓1 r.r f 1n/' 7 7 .+r r 4 .. ' d^r t� U� ,t�,�� '' •?¢ fa if,�ti 's'4 r F ' M' r t t r xf •`tft mkt s� 7 � ���tir. ku cfr ..r rl . f..r r �.. r _ 1. Summary Resource Imoact Mitigation Schools Net capital fiscal impact to Compliance with Amador 1 the Amador Valley Joint Valley District's impact fee. Union High School District of a positive 5953,000 upon compliance with District's impact fee. No net capital fiscal im- Institute a Development Ipacts 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. j Traffic Potential for decrease in 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. Widen westbound approach to have three left-turn lanes. Cumulative increase in daily 1. Reduce project size or traffic on Sivergate Drive 2. Encourage the use of between Peppertree Road Dublin Boulevard by and Creekside Drive beyond a. Choosing Alterna- the environmental capacity. tive 1 as second access road b. designing access road as major col- lector with few intersecting drive- ways C. make access road as direct as possi- ble to Dublin Boulevard. 8619-3 1 -9 - t 1,7 f f u r.. � ca.....^ ' . � r�!r�' t?. y✓ � f :s 1/"�,-.r fi utst"�Fri. -,! .+ r ' 'b r: f,t' ,tat, 9f:_S•rti A 5• r � ! r i � i �,� y.• A S��7. r. ,�. �s y. � -A.s i - r''d' to F ttb . J ' h is J,{.i'. ."7�4...s1 {E l+ftc� irvryt.y7,y.�_'�(" ^f 4 c�! y r + 7 e�r r fi'�C. •,. -_ ;. . fit."1 tJ H L3 Ott't A i p �' t..+}!✓"t n 1"n,'7 vy " r t r r t t � I:�t t r +, 5 ;y-,1.., t1•r; '` C w`) ry ..� r ' r.J... < � {a -r �s 4r a .ri/ � :7 \ ais#.,y f� � a t�•Y, t t . .. .. ..». ...,.4 C.., ...... ,•11 ..,,. ..,,_1. ....... .........s. .r'''n:_. .T'.;...e3�• Fi..?,.vu.i.r` _. 1 + a - 1. Summary Resource Impact _ Mitigation Noise High noise levels would be Limit construction to day- :' experienced during project light hours, muffle equip- `' construction. ment where possible. ' Proposed homes would be Install insulation adequate located in an area exposed to shield residents from to noise from I-580. noise and/or eliminate or 1 relocate homes in direct 1 line of sight of I-580. Air Quality Particulate matter would be Sprinkle exposed earth with generated during project water continuously during construction. grading, then as needed during other operations, cover stockpiles and haul _70 trucks, pave and landscape as soon as possible. -� Construction equipment None required. exhaust contains air pollut- ants. Hydrocarbons generated by None required. project vehicles would im- pact regional ozone levels. 1 Project related vehicles Implement measures sug- J would increase local con- gested for traffic impacts. centrations of CO. High CO episodes could City of Dublin should become common as develop- institute a CO "hotspot" ment continues in the Tri- monitoring program under, Valley area. the guidance of the BAAQ-MD and paid for by developers. Historic No known historic resources None required. Resources within the project site. Archaeological The project area contains 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. 86123 1 .10 t i f • j t •r , S !� fdr r t e 4 'a x x- J xr tf,��1 1i2�: i'y� F » 1. .: « j hty `�h {I Sy,.. kiot�� al•7 .fi. .A. xt...y rF a ,j��»r ul.- i -'. • i:, c s.trnr•, xrr •�,5 A ds r wr''.ris T<4 .,e -t t'• b'J f�.�' a Rf le' �'�7f ~*}�•'•a P ir�'str uP) �.Jr�q}�'+�- Y ..7"y {t rY��'r ?+ .4 t �f r - J � �� r �j- Y r �, a � �f'+.'i,+..-�yr't�'Y✓�`i�•Y' .+ y�`c c 7.; '.� {'` a° t tt� �t I r� r v ,,,a i f. $v t 4"a cj•,r .. .. ._ r :'. rr l i- ^,L-!'�r ra ra .� J•t t�+r �.:.§ Y f�'���✓ 5 �� a d a ' ,.ry - rsx y .✓� r ff y '. r J y � t yr r r' tµy.. Y � �; %a i�• • ' ... __ •- '.'irt.._ ......:± ,r,.ry...,.,.. tr _ .•d: ., ..,J.,.�.._.rZ �'rr rr._;,�sr �, :) �,. F;/ s r t 1. Summary `? Resource Impact !Vlitization _ .•1 Historic Resources No known historic resources Should any archaeological within the project site. materials be encountered during project construction, all activity within a 50 meter radius of the find should be stopped and a qualified archaeologist retained to examine the find and recommend appropriate mitigation. Archaeology Resources No known historic resources within the project site. The project area contains environmental features ..t which are considered to be ,Y archaeologically sensitive. 1 1 CL� 86123 1-11 r `t' � 2 / e r },4•". ��[ i vµr zt Y t i i.•. ro Land Use and Circulation: c: :tc C >, r Dublin :-General Plan ��, ,: :r��}(; Fles{dential = ro cr �W ,' C )• Singlo-Family Residential E C� Primary Planning Area `� ; ; r Mc,urn Drury Flosidontial O tl C odurn-Kgh Donsity Res:donlia! co L3 a M y Revised to Inefuda City.CouneU 11 Sul 3l, 1911 ` �^ '• / i 3 changealhroull Y 1 ,. •• " !. Commorcldi/lndualrtal �' � " �;• ��f :��.,•�,.,\:. ... � I•.} 1 •• ,C ,;'{I '1. I Ro1mUp16ce GAtAarn01rvo a.•..t ,111• �1, �' .tr:'.•�. }••.• r1 t:.•.:,•,•., irw PaAt/Induslrtal `r• t. � '_ •ulwr'' 1 S:Tjf� ci 3 E3U5 r5 •��tr) JC' /n( �I •. r.�• .�:�I�;.2f. 1' Ld G ,•' Dust Park $ :. ::•s;i .l T/ `�� '1r `• ;,'C; :`:t �' t� Ir. .•IIIJL `►'; '•,�;>; 1.•.�, ."l�'l� OutdoorS►«89e ` a 4. 31' Y t••`•l .tiv.,f!: (� �•t( l r 1 :?\• 11J�,1 t. 1.1.1'' ll':�•,�r. •!': o....r,N.s.a... ''t •;F¢ JI 1' 1 s �,■ ,. ��:. \ �?� C t�l :Gr+�cl ! �ll�C '/•.!1'Il = �•�!.� +' �F r}'j j Public/Semi PubildOpon _1. 4ti ef 'h a� Puvwsomi•Put.GcFadrrt/ e p �,�. ti',.\ ,\ t ,• \/ .r.r��'y-.Ya i:1. I�t. Ill I('r !��.•%i. •` 1it t'�• :,1�.% Parks/RCtreafion ^tJ�� N 1:A'•. .•! � t. • .,�� {�`/`,`\}7`/�}i\�l•' f •) J� � ; ,.,.lic�l'- ;3:.I- � 11-CCf •7�� if♦ 'C.� ••o• ': `,.,- dr' I Y: ,�`ti♦•:�. 'ti �• 5. '''Jl '., 1�j '�I. ) :t•��C �a u a•' fr L r. 1'Open S pace i SUea/n Cotlid0r •' %b+. Circulation.\`• L: � •1: s....� ;l`♦ + I ArlerlalSUOISI t n• a 1 3 t r •.J' �: d •r u i i� 1 r t i .f '.i. e•e1 s `' J� _ .��.�.\•,1 .\.l •J �� :1 `' •r '�• �/�' 'I' I\1��•I' t.�•v i• •1•.\�' • w!� WUG�.•(X { ;it::. F; .r E " t d. 'T Y;J 7. �.. �,` a., ♦..t .lyy :G; .i: \ 1. n 1 ::,: :1;, �r � �C• .•try (;�!'• r'1"►�• .(itt1. \`. •t )4�.Jf✓� 'a'• y ,t•I..J/ ,1 !:• � E3ART If ( �/ r?,; 1•t l r: ,, tr✓' Ott �: r�q ,:•.• ♦.•♦:;•: :•�:ti, ti : 1 /tljt4l�►� t L._.... ❑, `�� '� `q� )�J ry � fransp0 l I •�r� '�'>x.• " ;'r:�I r�� / v • t llatiOn COrrfdOr { Iff / ;��T' 1 tiE �: �'�' ^� /lG_ "�."Wr !, i}�J :•i.�;�:•fir::•• \ 1 i t' i 0 t.flll,iL- b r �� T t"'. .t tly-- k •�, fl �. ��. , r!/ �'?' �.;;` jS1�LtTL' t rT t 1 1 �14. 1,1. ��.<�' v ,/I•,frri Iti()'�''� 'i:�y: � j fa '� 1 Il. � � i t` 1,$Ct"')� / t 11 .� •r'1.15'.'i` •':'`/Y''K' �'!''�:!'''��• • ~ f —J �_ "`1 LI. , \ 1,� ••-%� �� G (.,fit C•4 a♦ ,(/['}f t t ,::•?::�:•�.;;; 5: 1: j `t .• •.. ' ` 4� 1 j// j ` '://,�:..' '] :''.jt�. tlia?::'•'%'!�'� j�//i ( i'\�`C^♦'`it's �'��w\ INI lNllAtl ..• t .:; 1 • ! � at,trltlY•OTCI;t/,lW.NA N[04v<NN14Xl s Existing General "Plan Policies regarding Hansen: Ranch General Plan Amendment Study The following list contains the existing policies that could have a significiant effect on the residential development proposal and overall amendment study. _ Residential Compatibility 2 . 1.3A Avoid abrupt transitions between single-family development and higher density development on adjoining sites. 2 . 1.3B Require all site plans to respect the privacy and scale of residential development nearby. 2.1.3C Require a planned development zoning process for all development proposals over 6.0 units per gross residential acre. [pg. 11] Open Space: Natural Resources, Public Health and Safety 3 .1A Preserve oak woodlands, riparian vegetation, and natural creeks as open space. for their natural resource value. 3 .1B Maintain slopes predominately over 30 percent (disregarding ,minor surface humps or hollows) as permanent open space for public health and safety. 3 . 1C Continue requiring reservation of steep slopes and ridges as open space as a condition of subdivision map approval. [pg. 15] Open Space: Agricultural 3 .2A Maintain lands currently in the Williamson Act agricultural, preserve as rangeland, provided that specific proposals for conversion to urban use consistent with the General Plan may be considered not sooner than two years prior to contract expiration. 3 .2B Approval of development of agricultural land not under contract shall require findings that the land is suitable for the intended use and will have adequate urban services and that conversion to urban use will not have significant adverse effects on adjoining lands remaining under contract. Open Space: Outdoor Recreation, Appearance 3 .3A Expand park area to serve new development. 3 .3E Restrict structures on the hillsides that appear to project above major ridgelines. 3 .3F Use subdivision design and site design review process to preserve or enhance the ridgelines that form the skyline as viewed from freeways (I-580 or I-680) or major arterial streets (Dublin Blvd. , Amador Valley Blvd. , San Ramon Road, Village Parkway, Dougherty Road) . [pg. 16] Trafficways 5. 1D Reserve right of way and construct improvements necessary to allow arterial and collector streets to accomodate projected traffic with the least friction. ARACHMEff.. 87-045 Hansen General Plan Policies s y 5.1G Reserve right of way for Hansen Drive extension to the western hills. [pg. 19] Scenic Highways 5. 6A Incorporate previously designated scenic routes in the General Plan and work to enhance a positive image of Dublin as seen by through travelers. [Pg• 23] Riparian Vegetation 7. 1A Protect riparian vegetation as a protective buffer for stream quality and for its value as a habitat and aesthetic resource. 7. 1B Promote access to stream corridors for passive recreational use and to allow stream maintenance and improvements as necessary, while respecting the privacy of owners of property abutting stream corridors. 7 . 1D Require open stream corridors of adequate width to protect all riparian vegetation, improve access, and prevent flooding caused by blockage of streams. 7. 1E Require revegetation of creek banks with species . characteristic of local riparian vegetation, where construction requires creekbank alteration. [pg. 28-29] Erosion/Siltation Control 7 .2A Maintain natural hydrologic system. 7.2B Regulate grading and development on steep slopes. 7 .2E Review development proposals to insure site design that minimizes soil erosion and volume and velocity of surface runoff. 7 .2F Restrict development on slopes of over 30 percent. (P5 29 . ) Oak Woodlands 7 .3A Protect oak woodlands. 7. 3B Require preservation of oak woodlands. Where woodlands occupy slopes that otherwise could be graded and developed, permit allowable density to be transferred to another part of the site. Removal of an individual oak tree may be considered through the project review process. [Pg• 29] Geotechnical Analyses 8 . 1. 2A A preliminary geologic hazards report must be prepared for all subdivisions. Any other facility that could create a geologic hazard, such as a road or a building on hillside terrain, must also have such a study. Each of the hazards described in the Seismic Safety and Safety Element must be evaluated. This hazard analysis shall be prepared by a registered engineering geologist. [pg. 33] Fire Protection 8.2 . 2A Require special precautions against fire as a condition of development approval in the western hills outside the primary planning area. A 8. 2 .2B Enact a high hazard ordinance specifying: - Fire retardant roof materials, spark arrestors, water storage, and vegetation clearance around structures. - Sprinklers for all habitable structures beyond five minutes response time from a station. [pg. 34] Flooding 8 .2 .3A Regulate development in hill areas to minimize runoff by preserving woodlands and riparian vegetation. Retain creek channels with ample right of way for maintenance and for maximum anticipated flow. 8 .2 .3B Require dedication of broad stream corridors as a condition of subdivision approval. 8.2 .3C Protect riparian vegetation and prohibit removal of woodlands. Removal of an individual oak tree may be considered through the project review process. 8.2 .3D Require drainage studies of entire small watersheds and assurance that appropriate mitigation measures will be completed as needed prior to approval of development in the extended planning area. [pg. 35] - _ - - KEY MAP x\_ IL4. ,�,� 'O � � h �,���/� � _.ca •-� `• LOW DENSITY SINGLE FAMILY RESIDE7JTi_AL, Lu � q�'" ��< -!// ;.r/:•'''ten•:-"^xC�`y��' - � �� -�'�,vim```-,- \ \ •� - �, J,7 J—. a • rt ';i'' ��,`` .OPEN SPACE�� n �` / y G ,`\ \___- G� 'may.,,•�- _ MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL •RESIDENTIAL: •S �� ���`r (M ••7 ,�; / .�,�X• ,�W. - -�-��� CS"�:• e-,- � / _ - �r-�`yq7;� ' � `r• ��..�•,,y't�/f� � rov.n+oXGE,wFa-,.�+mer�r.no Lu ��'J;1 r:lpi(iA :IL � �® - ,� � 5 "�/ _ J3 tl_ .,j 1 1'1• i�. _ :I.r — - �i� -'} f7�� � } ' �G £.--;.,, i = �ds� -7. d 1 II �• V , -_�,::f .'.L �-- •C� , ie:l`vfi rt ��yt- �{ `yr '/•'\\• c��r e�.n _..i Y- r 1 __`Ham\ �' F% �" -1 iii I e`'•.: 7;1�. { (� \ Z � i 1O J°• •` `p- \\J i/ .. U< ` ; - i _ - ./�-- - \...` .4:. i\/`'�i�- ti• f 'III^'-_, .'I*rl�` i I .G- rr}� CO - _ LPL.. 1 IL O LIJ \ - - - - - ,•.•_. _ 87-045 Hansen non a — - Land Use De si ATTACH Em flap scant s Proposed ------------ _ - - 1 ' C 4- • OPEN SPACE, STREAM CORRIDOR w ' ♦a\ S +J C 1 Ln t - • -w ' `,'• SINGLE—FAMILY LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL •- .S 28 DU/ACRE) • . i ID (n Q f �M;,;; MEDIUM LOW DENSITY ` .'` •'.;• �. ••:•��.» � "jI� IM �I .'• ��.,,� °�••�'�,.� - r�,�r.r RESIDENTIAL • io q 'l' ,1; (6.1 8 DU/ACRE) f` ; •� 'j/•pa .••. a' :(�• 7L.r �e/A •• \�1 �' ���,� • f .a • .. ��'.�s..... ..i �`';!' .• •1� + •,+• 1 a♦;' ' T �l 0-.. _ •.�,t .� ``• a17� 1/ • . ` J '•'1', � , •.•.Idr''•e•.{.f}�.T...;'}•.. tj k \#`�`'''o-r� R.� �\1'1.•^ d<-� r.`i, . .� 1��1y1•r�`, �`'.� ^`-�Sa.1�T rr' ,`'i•'tia \..:�., •��. 7 . r .• i+/ Y."OL '•71 �j� , ♦. .[��/j:'�'�Iti '•-`��I—• _�•• / ' '7 •:'•17 •t�'••=•�� ,• 1 ,; .i ri, •w v ( i r Q /' ,� �'L /+.~ '' l � .V• ' • �•;(•.•('•vtr 7..s�'•'ia.•�1 t ` oe •�. ' ,. 17f +� (•'�1 �r1..•41�}r �/ ' r�`J r• ♦• - '1,� I l"7 y _ 7 `' `a� �� ♦ \,a ♦: , , '/�'��.� \♦. '� '} �:1 :::•::•'•ice••a }' ' �/r :C `r'°' �,• ' I / r 1r \`l�1 � • : ♦ a♦ • r1- ���'f \�♦jt ya. •.�.a 7. .rti'S•<: .� •!• �4 Oyf•' / :�l'�.iw�j-�•►�/••,•/i4 t• 1Y' _ :41;2�7'�••• '♦�•\�� 1'` r ti�y�. �. ♦ .,.�. r •♦�\`� •'\;��•1��;:t:,�:>„•,•' '"� >-at !w` / '•fi /r1C/is� r, �J\r �� 7��... �(✓ ( \ •\l '♦ `: .,,s. _ F-_`'• �,� ,rl• •. '�/' !^�i w'/�('�....v r�++�--• y",,7J_'�u{• �/ f /��. 1` .�.♦'Y.•--••1 Ir•r r , � :7'4' l♦ 1::�•Y Sai�:��� 3 �`-,1 .i�'• _ ref �r' '♦ / • . \ J • ' aY '. (�n .:, zti� ��• .rte �•--•r•� ` V e� r� ^L�..t� t, � ,•;n,. 'a:� • t 1 '+IIt. • i, t�- /1 I\/�• A � • �. � � l �,.r_` ♦♦\ / •�. es..�y �• � n I'7 1t I• L..� // � w 1��; t . � ,•r.a.^'�'J•• fF.��a'•. •-iT�i �. r.r !.. � •♦ 1. J "'� • ' f 1 ,�/ i. 1, /�•+�,.�t,r• .,,C,.`•/�` / • ,t•7 � .1 ,Jr • �y"' .�.', a .3:: .;= "ti \ :1 .1 a�.r= .r1.r.: f ( `:\IA' i J• = �l / 'r. /' •�f� ♦• a�te• ;1••!•a`'� '�\t\••�•� ' }4 �� :y•', 'p,.•�:•��.�. •`�Qt`. • ; 1` 1+;Q ,�1 �•af� i.' Q)'�N• \bl V/�+ s � v '' -! •�+ C�/ S}' •/ I�� /!�•/ r•••i•.•1� 'yu��7.�.}•�\ �� `• `'1�7�..•\ ��//4(lTY-" . TIC jif , 7 � � �� . iLv or r� ,_'• ',t•a,��:� r ��. / ' l ,.: ' ���� ��yy 1• 4 '`:.�x':�:} -s''.•• 1 •� `L eL`l/b. '/ �meat L/•1% 'ff 4.• / 'O' "� ry�r•"�.:'� ' 4. .1;1% \' e!': � '.1' ~(�• • • i i .. /� � 'p� `\ ` � �'/• 'M�s y, :1'�•�)C)n /� b -��•� \ `f; I.a -do� ) i 1 \ RD `• �'\!„t ' �i ♦.`• r \ `f�� \/ \� �•qr � ,.` •\ `• :1/� �/I L�Ji •/ / =. iJ1�� LI�^•••�P•.., 0o y _..... (}, '^' •� p77`•`.,I{,'♦ pv N �+.�•''a ?y¢'' _ `�`\ �`/�������7` r`_ ,•� ti� \ ` \C � Q mil• � 1��1�1,,� .�1 .+ - �°-^1'^ ti� G �~/�+• � �.'• •�• w •� -r -,�� _'`� ���•�;�J �:�s(�' �-�rj�•-.._��:7��-':``,�`�::.� .��.♦. rno710C� _ ;l �`t ,�, CYS'(f •/';,, 1 ,![` l �f��+��.�r�1 .'°'.'^��� � \ ����iC♦���rT�„ `�••� ~`•..��•� X11,. 'Q os 7 •� , ra• `D L!J El p'� z a, ,1\` � ��` �` �, �,� �\ �...a,l T rrr-�• L`�.. ♦ ^ , 1 / •1! 1.1 r^ aT �J to i \ . \ AJ ' -�. .\. - ?`: ti � t \/ �• ♦ r/ ��.. �, ,� \1 i tt� '. �'(��K1�lL l ! "I° r(� } •l:♦try^ +�1`}�c�mss:i t` a� ;' r �� ` � , J )� � � ,r/ �,...-. '11�'� h•'• - 7' V ;f1 1 ,° \ O •'��'�q�.�'.♦l,�ati;r,..•- a :`C� ' f2i'..`'+ 1�:/�w����ti •• /! /j / i7, -.r.:�, t•:rj' ..:..r+• ��-. M+... :,. •. '1 '1'/ ' ^ 'T j• �t.G.fr.-~ •S�tfyC�� l :L� '�• kS ,.p J'�,` ��`1 �1/ �%/ •• ��/i�`a`\ �V ,\�'�• • .. ' ,, '/ r'.1• 1 �.,Ll'�±��•r l \�• .�'•�•-l• 4�1�• y♦a �•, •• .. •',nL:: ;. .•:,�. •.� r ��i:t iI fit% r�r-\tip / • a• • • / :i" • rs�•�4fe� \� • a a t%� '�LS,r 9- •�� �- .' •♦ � r���/ i � ,. � ` ��''�-�• • , • • r' •i V:J Yr• ice• (j•'Yi�. � -�' �• i s It. L •"•- `•.• • �.�'� �/ 1•�I•tir`- r�,t\r....�� • . ',, :1 i , ''a<<`���v 1'= •�.,.�,i•'i•• • '4�;t � ••' • ., `./ 1 rte- a • f •7. .' .. ..: ..`-y•"•-•:.••^^� '• , . ''-:.. • • - . •,may .,y��rrr�Ir /I•. L rrr •., . • ,• 1 • ' � • \ ���,' •ems••.•• ,•i`.• •?' •• . O F % �e t�°(1 GfL NRG A S 1� :.::: pro• era �_: • ��� ku��ee'_f��""Ct1�S' �'ccamntc...�c,�(im� u t"Ft },�a� Il'l.�r••-r•- 1f•.��, �/ ••�.r�`^ i I\TMI.P AAI'fl., ��^a•e•r / ... rl X-1 TA OPEN SPACE, STREAM CORRIDOR .1 i }�..i.q►rI.'t:•.1�1 tell: • — :'. ` �•.. �-- i I i SINGLE—FAMILT 'LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIA ..;'��S}tar o o •3�'r" ;K: a�r ���: ,� 1 .. •� i I (.5 — 2.8 DU/ACRE) • �.l'' ,I•",`•°� _ * = Q �l•GY'Y'O'•.���•�t\\�(�,��•�71/,�� � .�••`r� �'• .Z` L�•tr�f"'-.ti��,.,.• 1 ,! � r +•? � j�•�p1A r «fi J.��(�• `'Rl1( f, 1�G{01u` lr�`11'�r;. `• i\�� ��+! •, • I ;� 1' "� ail ••' ��`� •r��" ° 'MEDIUM LOW DENSITY 1 gy�pp°�, �-.(� .� j '. , • RESIDENTIAL ' '• ' .. d' I _ •' J ``+:c _�'-; `•.i�,c.; ' t�ti��`�`�"I , . ," (6.1 — 8 DU/ACRE) ( ' t '� • • \ I d o• yr. • ,( t; .i 1j\ ' t� .� Q♦ .n t 1 ( ``♦ c Mr. vI '♦�--2vl• l�'1\=!• ./wr'"� \� YY -i • , .•I.1�� •. ,����• \ '7 ` r! C '�' •�',`•'�; ✓ /ft' •': ..�n•`J •1 � �Stl�'� -L': r < I .�, .\IN-��•V'•�'�I.r:'}1J . ': 't '. '`[+. •j' S�,�r-J�I i i' ��,••. fa...�.�a'��n:Q:�t:� 1• \• �I •c=-•••�r•:_-i . r �:: i I�+, . K ,. :��Std'•;;: ,;�:I i�{,�'s���_ctr-GAg.•�_�^{ ,.. '�'�' .�, ':_' � ,,� 1?. tr, •may �Y\, :�.`;• , t: :L t'�v'�r f-...%:-:�.:sf'°�1•� �i�jd::�}�'� �->—�•�F��• � In 1� �r4 L�: X11 1 � /1�� �r.,.�,`'�.``t� `,' f '� _.,..,. i�' �� '., �•t M./�t•r._..�—/ .. ((' )•+yr.L �(([}jf�\. ,. ,1 ��. r , . �. Rpywi�♦I.t a♦I.- ! . .� -./ "'/ %. i7•/ _ 1 � �I ..-��,•.'�.�• �.�i� .►r.,, � . .r �.. lei �� ��:�i�ter- ~��•� ''�W���j�4-=.�� �r �`(� ^�'•• 1,��\' �'��/ �Ji�:[. 1 +.• _��.�•-`i's.r',, •'t;:;+rtit���,`'' ��`�r•' L ` ( -a,: —_ -^' .ia ;,w wl:��Z��'•��. '' Qj tlt \'l\ RoZ I•'V •� •�� 4 t15/ �ir/ 1J •��✓�•✓• ,� �.-�1 '��t"1./\•' �. r /�� T� r +; I• • c�, ;;. .z,� , ., • � ,�.r_ - I�„ ;�k . r � :� ail .� y; ��. " •��i� i.1� - •1 .� =� s�,-• ,�• �� '✓ Mme.+ `� '• , I �• '�,^•�Q :(1 •{�p�1• "r• r• • "' i ,r• •r. �� ,`:/{"• ,t•w�•''•• •C � O. � r2.: ` `�, �' Z %� (fir�� ,T/ ��I `r ., ���,',' � ••1 't:'l a��`it7w�1{�4��•1•- /•��• , ♦ �'�y• I..-.�• �1��/ , + i•� � ` •pl/ � i ` +. (] �,' � t'r♦•,�1.•+ '`��..' \ •,'� Lr>,/ tt: 't•• t• � '(1' V�t�'. .(�S' � •j•Gl� jr/!�J i ♦/ ��'t� � � •�\ � � 7.' i 14 / t F,'1 C r.:1�a .• i JXYY((1 �/C -i1=,: /'/ ' �` .. o o /' \\ '=1 J j fir �2;;����,, ♦\� / �`v �•a.. .. ti `• . J 1 iJ/ >• � %-rr •1-'y � r►.m• Al O fl �,J � ♦' ✓'�,r•Y • •jt]. w� w• (� ` y V - J �� ��� �'' �' `' -..��'��`=� ` " , 61 ��— -al Zt• LtS r�•1I. ` • ', " } ( �+•� • c' ••` \ '�` 1�` \♦�. `` /,. ' ~` ��='� `��': ' ,1 �' ' ' •r. n' r w .>i w ' w .�.�J���• I' " _r •.'l.��. ` .''J�.r � ' `� • y11'.)I t 1 •� '�, �T_• �•_,;;�•••CG �(,• .• I V ., 1 .• •'�` 1 .� , S•.1 '• C-4 G7 Cn W !f". :��� '1r' ��♦ i1_ ! ( .�. ` �--� F.,...... \ I O`� �►:••f •� % �\.�` ♦ \� ���`:/� /• •I /,.//✓ I• .�\� /\ �\ ••Ir,t /; 1...';41'�j. :,{'•��,1\�••.. ~ • ' , • L •r ��•� `• _ .f..� w .�•.••�t,�.. CD 07 ch S `+t �"`� .r's•!�Fi.� �� �1�.t -,__ ter— r� �_L_.��. 1 '? ' ,'• , ' • I :. CD Ln Lo En � — ' ..'` ` / /• �••�...... ••. �•� �.. ` C 100 �♦7 - _ to s l r�(,-..,r!..::` .. _ -�',. .. w•-� 1♦I v� V� �1 f�r' I. rrij,,...ter•°,•,C.�91J. •st: •(., '; • i� �.�� - '�r�'',1,i.. %.,'•• ,. Lhn D.,.�"•", D•_..`,�- '•'• • ,. ... t `. r r WT%)1t4 %391 8 , ri LE I x A.DEVELOPMENT POLICIES MI RESIDENTIAL SITES v c (A C - [ r a Sitesl Min.-Max. ri a Site Map No. Acres Units General Plan Residential Designations �7 o ,-I a East of Dougherty Hills 1 79 482 to Medium Density with required mixed dwelling types CO H ca 1,105 including single family detached and permitting up to 25 units per acre on portions of the site Pleasanton Housing Authority, 2 3+ 18 to 42 Medium Density Q southwest portion of site South of Alcosta Blvd. , east of I-680 3 2 12 to 26 Medium Density South side Betlen Dr. , west of Prow wy. 4 9 9 to 54 Single gamily Abutting approved Nielsen tentative 5 4 24 to 32 Medium Density (8+ per acre to match Nielsen map multi-family north of Hansen Rd, tentative map multi-family density) Southwest of approved Nielsen tentative 6 7 7 to 20 Single family (allowable density within single-family m,�p, north of Valley Christian Center range to be determined based on site conditions) Abutting north property line of 7 G G to 20 Single family (allowable density within single-family Valley Christian Center range to be determined based on site conditions) Jest of Dougherty Road, south of 8 4 56100 Medium-High Density, retail/office, or mired Amador Valley Blvd, Fallon School Site 9 8 8 to 48 Single Family Dolan Site, Murray School District 10 22 22 to 88 Single Family at 4 units/acre maximum Valley Christian Center 11 15+ na Public/Semi-Public facilities Downtown Intensification Area 12 na (200) Estimate of units is tentative and could increase significantly if mid-rise, mixed-use buildings achieve market acceptance TOTAL, 159 1,7 35 1 Sites Map Numbers correspond to numbered areas on Figure 4 Sites for Housing Development. 8 I/�•�/'�i /r," •' -I,yy.� 1�'f�i� 'yf�j i':.�. i!J';;"�% ,;./i7��:��I•Yl ,'11�7(• r�H *l.er- �'f•,i9�71�Lr, f >'�2i%y�•��r.. 63rr: J,r f.•"„ ., .,.:�'•'r' .-.. .. ,�.. ,f.f' �.! LL /�� ., I~X r :rr' :�l f f f!f+'7!.7'/ �'. .J,.,,, . .,. „•,✓, ,' 'y.t;�+�' //%'J y�,. a,�"•j..iry•. �� I..�4•yr:3if�f 'M1d'Ry,,r Y`'J/H r.�... -'✓•:-• xa•/ �,ic N//if Jy1,. ,�` �� '1 a J ,raj, 1r,.. / J ,� i �/f,r`�1r r�1,�f/� l s .;;�/,•„ /'~r�,(y>! ,:Jl�iV' � � � ',�,�''rl�w J � �/d,/: � .1.i�. �:. / // J'�1:fin.GSL.ir, 1 �`,.F•"� ,!. .t�>il �(�,r/• .ri•"r��J�,F' iJ✓iv �. .,r� r it ..,/," r 7 ti, _ ,,, ....✓ mac'.,,. .ir ,, .i..♦ , �:j..'...'.'r.,'�„y ,:%: -+�` ;l:r��•ii.i�Jli:+4,. •..a.� .i ... �� •ter,..•,;/.;, ::�,•i:i� f,. ,.�.... ;r�"Y".�.� `A, •y,'„f:1•f.Yi,-,.,,�j.. -.rrl�'a�' ...'i,:: :s� .. .. ...- X. V O V142 ARM All EVEN �� f A i C loll kk cn a x ,. � o' a r MW 87-045 Hansen Hill Geeneral Plan ATTACH / () Figure 4, Sites for 1 •ri C i': x •a a) t~ ca cc a. Z= Cz Cr o ai W R Plan I Dublin General Co X GUIDING POLICY Consider residential dovolopmant proposals(including Support des) with multi-lot!•lam ! �tn p ; ,�;:•'•,1 on moderato slopes, lly ` y rp '•'•'•'•' ' •�r:• densities rypicallyconsldorod on flatter c, � � �`` � ,r„ .;•ir�;�;�:•;•:�:•:;:;. fond and next to business perk arses. Tnssalare Crock t IMPLEMENTATION POLICY :,,� •:• '• Ro lanai Pork O Thu location,extent and density �,t''•'• g :�t ofrosldontioldevolopmontwillbe Parks Ras©rve; �,a'.' •,•,•,•,� •,•;•,•••,.•• : determined when municipal services . '�.+_�- Q can be provided and through General -:-Forces Training.r :.:•`�-:•i _ ,A • Area• . . . . . .. Planrolinementsfudies. t t. GUIDING POLICY v' ''w;'•.'.•.•,•,•,•.•.•,•••.•:'� cn z , .. . . .:: . . .. •,•;,, Santa Rila. .,:,:.7 <r Consider residential development a O;•;•;•:•:•:•:•:•:•:•:•:, • . proposals(including suppunfacilities) `� �}• • Rehabilitation Center � i�,� •, ' Or moderate slopes,with mulU•famfty densits Qpcafly considered on flatter : . . _ land. / / i. t' Q S JP�' c7. •:f oo i IMPLEMENTATION POLICY O. The location extent and density �" Mp,O P O ' of residential development will be P o determined when municipal services can be provided and through General — FREEWAY 580 Planre(inementstudies. "—'�-'' ILIA FREEWAY O�, STONERIDGE OR' a Extended Planning Area 0 1 mile ? Residontial/Open Space(see note) tt i ! ® Business Park/Industrial:Low Coverage 114 , i Business Park/Industrial 1 :••.:••,;••.:••.;•••:�•,:' Public lands x f: L?.+ .t +fiS tFsx'k t�r„.'�r�r4�3• �s" F j ,;:�t�! rr.'g �',H .'{�,��i���;;.1r� '�G' '��r'�� L1r^,*��r x✓�"!�- =.� l 1 t'.'. '�' ;'Jt•'.`t �0 ors"' ^h'o+. fr F 't3�..t• p'f;"' ' t S V_�.' t +'rt'r x '"T t t ir x z � 7.r'; t si�.;t >:'tv,.f r* ;7e"ri'Nr x r-t......t f } kyf...`•.}7,t x t�xf•,tr .�0,1�Y 4r.4 xi.)+��jD;r�''ikH 4 f,S r•✓.i.F gS Ae�.4 J1 fbY'�a.,.y�y'F 7+`t� 'p•6riie�'}.',i�,,.v+'c.._,. y !'`t r�+rC,n°,7'Sw.t�'y. r n IViti+ ir4 j C F " Y ri j ,rj: p �tr 14 ,r r• .: 3° t rnl t�,A:.^ t ri1.,; S} y.t� .� 'kfAtt +�; j�•q Sri'. a., ; �,i :.'4 faa l}' 'i + �:,5 i.. }`t�t^r- t x 3' k: + c .f >r�• i y %P i a r flr5 i + trr a " t e-a5 ;t y r! t L J. g e � } ,f¢ ,� 7 i.C" 1 '•rSi '� v c>t ! t t }a t '` L r 5"4 t f r : v 7 ft - f er f♦ ! 3 +h,Nr' { f F a q 7 f - 3 ^`d: t -�.,x r;,�y �i n .5 t_:� rt :f'r` a rj Cr j -S ''4 f s � b y ! Y 2 �f t �F !� � .•y c f r r ♦ r a.+ r-a .r'•tto R� r'v t �.. �>tr i1 y4 1 "c d e �, x S�. rt`! : f. 1 "7 x .r 9..r�!u..-.:m �a..S v f`�t 4x?r�J,.rrt .l.:LyS�f,„,:'.e 3;:. ,C.�!.�.�o-.>w -.....:wS}au°uaaY'.£.r.2`:'_.b'.,z s+w. « ,.w,..c. •..s..tli'w...,..• .,ta: Aa' '13G+.,., i:?.I�.:ta....�1.... .; _. .........,111.. - Ths Rotourco,Agency. Memo \randum ' = C 70 ' 1. projects Coordinator Dole , Resources Agency Fobruary 3, 1988 2 • Mr, Kevin Gailay City of Dublin, Planning Department R E C Y. E D. 6500 IUD" Dublin Boulevard Dublin, CA 94563 21S$$ From i Deportment of Fish and Gamq , DUBS P1� G subject: Draft Environmental Impact Review DEIR . Ranch Project, Dublin, Alameda Count ) for the Hansen 27 Hill Y, 'SC�=a 87050327 - Department of Fish and Game (Department . ) Personnel have reviewed the DEIR for the Hansen Fill Ranch Project and have previously been onsite with the project applicant, construct. 282 residential u This project proposes to nits on 247.3 acres of land. we have the following comments: The document states that the project could adversely acres (36 percent) of the oak-bay woodland onsit . affect it is important and should be preserved, as it This habitat and cover for a wide variety of wildlife. The Conserva�ionOOd Element of the Dublin General Plan cortT;,c a Guiding pcjlcy 4c protect oak woodlands. The Implementing Policy is to "require preservation of oak woodlands. " The project, as proposed, is contrary to the General Plan. -Replacement of this vegetative community elsewhere onsite as mitigation may be possible. However, the value of the habitat will hot be regained until the planted saplings mature in 30 to 40 Years. Also, other habitats would have to be changed in order to create the acreage needed for mitigation. The document states that 11 acres of oak/bav woodland and a drainage swale will be removed by portions o: Neighborhoods g and 9 . ;litigation suggested in the DEIR is that the areas of extensive grading and fill in these two neighborhoods be eliminated fron the project and the oak/bay woodlands preserved. Because of the value c-Lf this habitat, the Department agrees with the mitigation suggested and reco-,wmends that the project be redesigned in the areas Mentioned. The proposed project also will impact 0.5 to 3.5 acres of creekside vegetation, depending on whether a 30 or 100-foot buffer is established along the creek, .The document states that the Department recommends a 100-foot buffer. This is to protect the vegetation along the creek and to provide an undisturbed travel corridor for wildlife. A 30-foot butter is being recommended An the DEIR for the area behind Neighborhood 1. While this area has been disturbed, it is our opinion that a 3o- foot buffer is not adequate. 87-045 Hansen Hill Memorandum from Dept. of Fish & Game dated received August 2, 1988 . 2 .. Y I.• t t' u J 5 . � e 1 h• td ; x `v..fa t„1`l ` s •r• "Rft x� Yiyt .e� �+ je. j �t r}'+�Y'C,1{FiYY..,,;<�'* t� y S j� .rut .1t t r. � i _ .,��. .e. Ah.... .r... .new• . ..... ... ..__ .. r .. �... r. .h} ....... .. .., xi .. <x..,y1p.2 y.. .-.. .,,..,! F .-r.,r•.�.f .... G.', .1 i ..... ... + n, wRa id +„A . .i u ';$y x r. x ,a "'s Fc �.:�x> hz..at,c ;�, 8n s, y r�4 s ;tr «w•,=_• _ t A,`�x;W�'4� ..;,� ^,�fi''f:t. ..�y r Ya y,S 1< t ,,,.. a,.k1, i<.Pr»JIL -,^'`:;a,xct 4.4!�... 1 �K-�sKs.' .•,:; %��`"±,.��!_::;5 ,/^h,r; �.'`:"• " 'i"+rf f4? f k .�`R+J Z 7 1.�f ,N. 3r r v ....r.Is + % + ✓y .il v.,y ,zc, rr i'Y ty ,fy;,4..�ee f.:ir,;f„4”' ..e G"`'� i �t'•1 r ':r'"x� r i i.S'yp `�?, 9r _ S 4 I. .+.c>b �.. i p }f':/,r.#'.�• tx r,: S: �i '�s ��rT;N'ti; t ;r xt,>,,;SS-���(. ,Str;I s-r'*!yr 3F a'• y*' Pw'Yr I'}"':` � f 'S�z^� AI'4.a� .� .•„1 i.+ ..rr -f,r �.2 ! i :r K J,wd + �t i� { Y r , r+ ,,, i �• 'h )+a j -"Y":t<^ ,. 4 7•:. 4�•Y'°1 }`, ;i l { a r :J'ar -. � f•r'a ''is•�rar „� f ,'. -I '"f y" ♦✓�.Z 7 P •`1' D',.<F �' fit` j 3Nf p1.:f4�J� Y!, ;� � �.0 Y. �P�a h�J r ✓�ri Y'n,i�� `a�—.. 4 r+ l » 4 7 ri 2 t 1 "[ _,{ r /-' .•r 2 :r I' ' .�. �., r!r I J_ r., '{6� 3 ry. {.fir �t .i y lr { f..,d N S 1 f r e ervJ y i' r S 2 :1• r �.; `• FAY -Tr °-,3 'tLta; rr lY`.d did. 2V d✓p I•• v!'r't x `:r,- � �- � k f t t r i I a t�,a�,• t i1' t ��., A �, •` t, S� t s ,•� 'c, r j+' j�}, ±rl¢ .S 1 �. fr F�.g..S .� .tr�1�vi fie � -t`k',L:� { .}�"ft z r5 r r } I r'!y p �i 1 _.,jr t x 4j a r. i. t" ' .r1'3r rt•i' >sdd rd n'i �" Ys •{ r ° - 'r. •3 r f. N r r x Js: w! ­ e { Y, e{ •r :} .9 y of q" t ♦ - rr Y 'x t �. }: 1 t Jf:e_;�hY -. F`�t .,Lr_.-;..��,._,,,...w,.,..,.3.•......_ .......tt,n__r-....,.,.,P. ..- _-.. .s,4v.._........:.......'a:rrwv:Y.e., ..1..,....E....r._...+..-1 e.d.Y._.ir.�.� �Tl.c_r.S:1.r" _....��..—L;,.�'t�C'A.,$".d.R-:.s.,Xn�+a eb6•.L, ,,.i...kr.,..�.;,.. .... , ,I I , I 1. Projects Coordinator -2- February 3; 1988 Resources Agency ' 2 . ' Mr. Kevin Gailey City of Dublin ' We concur with the recommendations set forth in the DEIR to ' preserve and protect the creekside vegetation. These recommendations include: not allowing the building bf structures within the buffer; eliminating lots 102-110 and -95-101 -so that structures do not back up to the corridor; relocating Creekside z Road to the west; and mitigating for trees removed -on a 3:1 basis . The elimination of lots 95-110 also would p reserve additional oak/bay woodland. { The document states that suitable habitat for the rare Alameda striped racer occurs onsite and that the species may exist there. The snake was not observed during the one day field survey which was conducted. This type of survey is not adeauate to determine the presence or absence of this species. The snake is a secretive animal and rarely is seen, even in ardas where it is known to exist in some numbers. chaparral near riparian areas, such as exists onsite, appears to •be preferred habitat for this species . • One of the prime factors a±fectirg sensitive species is loss of habitat. The DEIR does not address the impacts to this habitat or to the snake, nor does• it offer mitigation, i The Creekside Road crossing would link the project to an emergency access road paralleling the north side of the creek. The document states that this is a preferred access routed___ terms of reducing impacts to the riparian corridor, rather than a second emergency access road on the south side of the creek. we ' agree that this is a -preferred alternative. A,-:y such road on the south side of the creek would result in increased impacts tc oak/bay and creekside vegetation and the need for increased mitigation. A mitigation measure presented in the Land use Section of the document recommends that a "pedestrian corridor along the streambank" be created. In order to protect the habitat and prevent hunan intrusion, we recommend that the pedestrian corridor be placed along the outside edge of the buffer zone.- The document also suggests that "installation and maintenance of a project-size perimeter fence should be required" in order to keep cattle off the site and discourage trespassers. We discourage the construction of such a fence as it would irpede the movement of wildlife. If a fence is required, we reeon-mend that it be of a type that will permit the passage of all wildlife species . Some designs which would be acceptable include barbed wire, smooth wire, or wooden rail. q. 1 l t \ + + Z r t.i\'4 Y ��..+�+ FMS,,,�,:Yr}yl t ♦ i} t ?, ' .. , r c 7 '+' r r\ \ \ q S ` n•. S S. t Z a �,� �{ M� 'Seto a Y t }, dyt 10 G •�' r" r '� '"i r be_°'.."' rre}b r? f fain 'h I J1 c FP's, tf 'tom 4 /..'iY>1' t.f?P•. `F f •J 4 �. t Y Y �'�-S .y ,I�a Tr 9® J OY.. d" _K t• �.7,"ifi kr,{'d"f 'a, .•' r, r: tp } .'fin rr'}a��'�,5 F r LL E� nrti /y AIM♦... t _ �'n e^.° r Y �• i e r sA 7 tt a... ! t f•+ 3j r ./ � i.f 3 P i ��i•4'� ���'y r � , .• .f S `V. rM�sY"' °, Yi Hr. t , M. ,S ,,..jr + : r .y,'i'b 2 liti A .'_ -•r t/ F 7a}.r r��tro- , S.r r st h r r.t.f y _ W i i i'r atJ i'�'yh"p�kt rr-0yi. 1 F a Ftr�.d•F•' ; d r.r nY ?' r���r�+• � }4. e�+� $}r ` ' e'.'n•1"� tJ YyY,�b/;�txrrlri a��r !ei�'s a {. � r,: ar t �� �'.ir#+��h�srro wr<yf,E �+fr�-e u •y ,r t H fe.r_rit J r!°h ri ��11{ ?x� 4s 7t�} V� a r ±•' r +w ir. ;�l t r .�.SY� a ''s'i .,. ,r �✓znr /�r : � ��V, .iK(� nr r y a;,��y1 t v :. t, r .✓ �gys r ,� y,�d ,� } r i ." e ii h,. r r r;rrrY� f r F e i J '` .L- ,fart Cr„ s rr 1 a r.. _......., ...�....,... ..cd r .._.[e....•�_.:...a:�.r.r�.L'<:.:..._.,..[:::n is__.... ._.._ ..s:_y__-. 1.. .,.., i-r;e. _ .�.. -._. .._•,..C.. ._c..wr ..,.,.y,.w.:t .... .. . 1. Projects Coordinator -3-- February 3, 1988 Resources Agency j 2 . Mr. Kevin Gailey City of Dublin t The document correctly states that a Streamoed Alteration Agreement with this Department will be necesary for any work done in the creek. The U.S . Army corps of Engineers (Corps) also has jurisdiction over creeks under Section 404 of the clean Water i Act. If the applicant has not done so; we recommend that the Corps be contacted in order to determine if they wish to exercise their jurisdiction over Martin Creek• and require a permit. Footnotes 6 on page 3-30 and 3 on page 3-36 should be changed to reflect the correct name of the wildlife biologist that was contacted for this project. . She is listed as a contact person below. ' The Mitigated Alternative appears to alter the proposed project based on the mitigations suggested in the text. This alternative would avoid development on the ridgeline along the southwest corner and the oak woodland areas in the central area and northwest corner where extensive cut and fill was proposed. Mitigation in the Vegetation section calls 'for the elimination of lots 95-101. According to Figure 4-1, this suggestion has rot been included in the Mitigated Alternative. If this mitigation, as well as the others included in the DEIR, is incorporated in the design, we would consider the document to be adequate for compliance with California Environnental Quality Act. •D•epartment personnel are available to address our concerns in more detail , To arrange a meeting, please contact Terry Palmisano, Wildlife Biologist, at (415) 484-2586 ; or Theodore Wooster, Environmental Services supervisor, at (707) 944.-5500 . Pete Bontadalli i Director j ?almisano/Rollins: ar/sa ll'R C3► R3—Falmisnno , ESD, Chron r t r;a r ♦ \'t Cr'a e,y t � $y .n '�r \ i. s u -.,t, � .,i ,x `. 4i"r 3..,,1. a tt JC' -. •f�C/.�..4rr�(fi��� - "i/.J..wi:.:7-1Nro•. _.%rrr/aW1JJN ._.......••.r -. ....,,r ..._... (SrLA�tn.A-�rY'1�� I rrrM�...,o.ri�./.J.:rar.�•+.+..._M.r � r4.1:• a 000 A. -j rri n 4 nr 1 r r t� i/ / ,•�i• f I o m n DUBLIN CIT IT 'i l '•!• -•-'• / ' _ S h -t Shoot Y l-ter_•_! '? q _� .�.•"+ '` :mac —r— —Try ��� Iti.:.� "-- .• � '� ��,�,,� --� s NX Al .x ��'' ' • 141 m m m 7 0 C �C 1I _Ica }� L �EyTE SJO�/ ..-... . t �.. w't.1 i l '.1 i �:.;%':;�::o;, ':.. '` '�:a: :-�:•,�L..}..,r: '�:. 87-045 Hansen Hill DEIK Figure 4-1 Mitigated Alternative x 00 a ai r) a o a a� •H ror-q � x .n u Ln E� m - o x a� TABLE 3-8 r w CO A H INTERSECTION LEVELS OF SERVICE Existing + Existing + Existing + Project + Cumulative Existing Project Cumulative No Project A.M. 11.M. A.M. 13.M. A.M. P.M. A.M. 13.M. Intersection V/C 1,0S V/C I,OS V/C I,OS V/C I,OS V/C I,OS V/C 1,0S V/C I,OS V/C 1,0S I Silvergate Dr./ 0.44 A 0.44 A 0.46 A 0.45 A 0.66 B 0.61 B 0.65 B 0.60 A San Ramon Rd. 2 Pappertree Rd./ 0.20 A 0.26 A 0.24 A 0.30 A 0.32 A 0.38 A 0.28 A 0.34 A Silvergate Dr. 3 Silvergate Dr./ 0. 16 A 0.16 A 0.18 A 0.20 A 0.25 A 0.27 A 0.22 A 0.24 A Rolling Bills Rd. 4 Silvergate Dr./ 0. 14 . A 0.13 A 0.24* A 0.24 A 0.27 A 0.26 ' A 0. 18 A 0.16 A Hansen Ilills Rd. 5 Silvergate Dr./ 0'. 15 A 0.15 A 0. 19 A 0. 19 A 0.23 A 0.22 A 0. 19 A 0. 18 A Hanson Dr. 6 Silvergate Dr./ 0. 19 A 0.19 A 0.23 A 0.22 A 0.28 A 0.26 A 0.24 A 0.23 A Betlen Dr. 7 Silvergate Dr./ 0.26 A 0.17 A 0.31 A 0.21 A 0.36 A 0.27 A 0.31 A 0.21 A Dublin Blvd. 8 IIansen Dr./ 0.35 A 0.31 A 0.38 A 0.38 A 0.51 A 0.51 A 0.45 A 0.44 A Dublin Blvd. 9 Donlon Wy./ 0.41 A 0.50 A 0.43 A 0.51 A 0.52 A 0.61 B 0.50 A 0.59 A l Dublin Blvd. 10 San Ramon Rd./ 0.62 B 0.84 D 0.63 B 0.86 D 0.78 C 1.03 r 0.77 C 1 .00 E. Dublin Blvd. 0 t'�i u,vv? b +y J Fry,1•?'. �r�x '7 , i kr i iy +B zl ., � F,•:... .i,f` i{ 3 ? ,f1r6" + r ° "' JY' zxF'',a r t, >� '• k t t <, � 3 `�• Mx .4 r'i t iii- { �rf r r. 4' f� ... •3.s' �, �.y4 r+,t ,j� °d, t l ty n!t: :`t/ }✓,,,�k r t i� hr-;yd�- I!r �°!s 1 .[E�+`9'¢�X xa(�r+,+(hr�-<^ rY �,.! 4ir�''•i r a p'' .S 51 r 2 r [ '•!t• .'i !�'. �. '+.Y r`'rlj l+ f.[., f Sfr"`...�ra 7f .nF ft � iJ!.crr+�il�k�!-N�',S'�� �+"i �+rr�".eyiM t<17...:51 t�1z��i hvy,T t... ...) �N-�'� �4�7f a,�� '1p i!d"r v+ y t � , •'i 7 � r. t rn ' •' ,>y �y, a,t. n ht �• a�r„� r.,iF a •t . * ,r 4 ul ' /' i { {� t,. , ✓,,r, Y ,k fir..}t ,rhr����i t i+��.41jr t¢' t r ° • .'S i t ly:` t..,t 7 °A r '' ' h�iR k`�[1'i< n�f r " F .✓? .�i�it Y :�" i l, 4637 Chabot Drive,Suite 214 _ Pleasanton Ca. 94566 (415)463.0611 .1 MEMORANDUM DATE: July 27, 1988 RI a TO: Maureen O'Halloran, Senior Planner JUL ' FROM: Chris Kinzel DUSUN P SUBJECT: Hansen Hill Ranch Volume-to-Capacity Ratio Calculations IA�VN>NG. Summary: The volume-to-capacity ratio (V/C) calculations on Table 3-8 are correct. The mitigation measures attached to your letter dated July 21st are still applicable for mitigation to Level of Service D. A Explanation: Brian's telephone comments about lost yellow time are an incorrect explanation for the discrepancy for the difference in V/C calculations between :! Table 3-8 and the V/C sheets in the addendum. The correct explanation is as follows: after the V/C calculation sheets were prepared, but before Table 3-8 was finalized, construction work at the San Ramon Road/Dublin Boulevard intersection resulted in additional intersection capacity. This is reflected by V/C ratios on the table that are lower than those on the V/C calculation sheets. 1 The mitigation measures are still applicable. You should also be aware that additional mitigation measures have been developed subsequent to preparation of the environmental impact report (EIR) that will further improve the future San Ramon Road/Dublin Boulevard level of service. One final note: the mitigation measures in the EIR are appropriate for the project size specified in the EIR. If the density in the Hansen Hills project decreases during the hearings process, fewer mitigation measures at the San Ramon Road/Dublin Boulevard intersection may be appropriate. rhm 157-001 87-045 Hansen Hill ARACIEff/ KTJK l memo dated received July 26, 1988 PL: \.{ 1 ` 1 , e , , , 4+.,4 1l \,t 1 {`may a 1 Y h L `'•' � 7�' UXII. 4 ,VA &T! 1. Summary Resource Impact MitiZation Schools Net capital fiscal impact to Compliance with Amador the Amador Valley Joint Valley District's impact fee. Union High School District of a positive 5953,000 upon compliance with District's impact fee. No net capital fiscal im- Institute a Development pacts to Hurray (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 Potential for dec'rease.in 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 Livel 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. Widen westbound approach to have three left-turn lanes. Cumulative increase in daily 1. Reduce project size or traffic on Sivergate'Drive 2. Encourac e the use of between'Peppertree Road Dublin Boulevard by and Creekside Drive beyond a. Choosing Alterna- the environmental capacity. tive I as second access road b. designing access road as major col- lector with few intersecting drive- ways c. make access road as direct as possi- ble to Dublin Boulevard. 86123 1 -9 nw.r• 1.aN:/y•'r:fl'It'l A.�:t r.+r „r r'. •.r L.n.:...:{':v r!e rA.r.....r......✓...... .. ...... .......... .. ........� .�.... __... . l 1.8 GEIO AL PLAN MAP The General Plan Map for the Primary Planning Area proposes an arrangement of land uses and a circulation system to serve those uses at full development - expected to occur within 10 years. Because so little land remains uncommitted, boundaries between uses are exact. However, deviations in road alignments or open space configurations, and request for approval of churches or other semi-public facilities typically appropriate to the adjoining uses are not to be considered inconsistent with the General Plan. Both the crap and the text should be consulted to determine consistency or inconsistency; the text shall govern. 1.8.1 Land Use Classification The following descriptions are intended to aid interpretations of the C_neral Plan map legends. Density Measurements Density measurements for general plan purposes are based upon gross residential acreage and is calculated as follows: Gross residential acreage (GRA) shall be determined by calculating the area of the site and by adding one-half of the area of abutting streets, provided that the street width used for calculation shall not be less than 25 feet or more than 50 feet. Public or private streets within the boundaries of the site, as well as streets _. abutting the site, are calculated within the gross acreage total. Gross acreage, rather than net acreage, is used as a General Plan density measurement- in order to account for situations in which larger multiple family and Planned Development residential projects include much vehicular circulation area that is not public right-of-way: In such cases, the project site area would be lacer than on smaller, conventional sites that rely mainly on dedicated streets for access. If allowable densities were calculated on the site area or net acreage basis, the larger projects would have higher "effective" densities than the smaller sites. Example: Ponderosa Village General Plan designation single-family residential (0.9 to 6.0 units per gross residential acre) . 69 dwelling units (DU) 12.20 net acres (average lot size = 5,970 s care feet) 3.13 street acres (20% of gross residential area) 15.33 gross residential acres (GRA) Project density = 5.8 DU/GRA Primary Planning Area Residential Residential: Single-family (0.9 to 6.0 units per grass residential acre). Detached and zero lot line (no side yard) units are within this density range. assumed household size is 3.2 persons per unit. Examples are recent subdivisions in Dublin" western foothills at about 2.0 units per acre and Ponderosa Village at 5.8 units per acre. 4 87-045 Hansen Hill ARACKWff / Page 4, General Plan Density K.t"ear�.�:.:f�?1.u•'i;+.•r:.:.!,�..,.,i.�=,.:v..,:/,.:63/L�w>u.,:irJVS:ar..•. ,,nrscty.e�ia.:.�u;.....,;,,./...;:;r.:r�+ •.,... ,.,.. x.. .. RECEIYED DUBLIN PLANNI G ,Skj-6p�AAcA�c IpPr��.�.-� PROJECT DENS Z Z'Y / ACREAGE COIVIPARZ SONS wE Sr S I DE AREAS SHOWN I N DUBLIN GENERAL PLAN - SINGLE FAMILY ( .9 to 6 units per gross acre) TOTAL QUAN., OF GROSS OPEN PROJECT ACRES HOMES DENSITY SPACE ESTATE HOMES 98 . 3 282 2.87/AC 0 AC. BORDEAUX ESTATES 88 . 8 175 1.97/AC 20 AC. KAUFMAN & BROAD 33 .7 83 -2.46/AC 2 .2 AC. DONLAN SCHOOL 27 88 3.26/AC 5 AC. HANSEN HILL RANCH 140 . 5 214 1 .5/AC (dedicated) AC biED I UM DENS I TY ( 6 . 1 to 14 units per gross acre) TOTAL QU_4N. OF GROSS OPEN PROJECT ACRES HOMES DENSITY SPACE IiAUFNLAN & BROAD 15 . 1 129 8 . 54/AC ? HANSEN HILL RANCH 6 . 5 34 4.85/AC 4 . 5 AC. 87-045 Hansen Hill Density Comparison irY submitted by Applicant r LAW OFFICES OF OF COUNSEL" BART J.SCHENONE SCHENONE & PECK JOSEPH A.SCHENONE RONALD G.PECY 1290 B.Strut,Suite 218 . . - Hayward,California 94341 (415)381-6611. July..5, 1988 - V Mr. Larry Tong, .Planning Director: Pla'nning ._Department ,. ' ' JUL 1 ,Cj . City of Dublin P. O. :Box -2 3 4 0 DtNHiletl, Dublin, CA 94568 - RE: Hansen Hill Ranch / PA 84- )45 / Draft EIR . Dear .Mr.r..Tongr.:... , ..,.As you are aware I. represent Robert J. Nielsen and .Harold T. Nielsen and. . I have appeared before. the Planning Commission on their behalf on February 16, 1988, with respect to the draft .EIR. At that time I stated for the Nielsens that . they were in favor of the project and that they believed it was an asset" to the ' community, .but indicated,' however, that -one aspect- of the plan caused-concern to them; namely, the proposed fire .access road along Martin Canyon on the Nielsen property over an access road which has historically been used by the Nielsens and other owners. . .. = : I would like to restate the Nielsens endorsement of the proposed Hansen Hill Ranch Development as well as indicate that the developer has proposed a solution, which with modification, should serve to protect the interests of the Nielsens as well as those of the City of Dublin. It is the Nielsens' understanding that the access road from the present termination of Rolling Hills Drive to where it crosses the creek to the proposed development. will be paved with an all-weather surface approximately equivalent to asphalt. It is understood that the road will be paved wide enough to accommodate fire vehicle and, if it is not already indicated, it I is suggested that the width be no less than twenty (20) feet. The Nielsens ' concern has been that the access road will increase access by members of the general public to their property and cattle business. At the present time, even with a locked gate, certain members of the public have trespassed and vandalized the property. It is obvious than an uncontrolled access road will only invite such activity which will increase to the detriment of the Nielsens. 1 Mr. Jacoby has proposed that a security gate, operated by PA6to-Sanitor, be installed at the beginning of the access road ;1 57-045 Hansen Hill �' '�' » t �• Schenone & Peck Lett ' mNT .a. '.� • � tt +�c,, . M di8 p ���•'a lam\, i^.i,M � 1 July 5, 198 ,,��vw\4` X�a,..i\'• .( ;�r,(� f�i"i.•y\�Yl���,i;�,::�` 7 � , � ('S _��Vl,v1=t' ii�r:.�a\1�Ea��:�\•.v`�tw�'�:* :�a ..a...:`:�•eY�: :��� , �' ; ff'"r�«�• '. .-,P ;, t% f �� y "*stir (the termination of Rolling Hills Drivel . The Nielsens, the other users of the access road, the police department and the fire department would be the only ones having a radio monitor with the frequency, controlling the gate. The Nielsens agree that the security gate will mitigate the potential harm, but also must state that another such security gate must be placed at the point where the access road enters the proposed development; otherwise, members of the public may enter the Nielsen property by passing through the proposed development. Therefore, adequate mitigation includes both security gates which will be controlled by radio monitor. It is also the Nielsens' suggestion that the maintenance for the security gates and the access road used by the City be the City's responsibility. The cost' of each security gate is $10- - 15, 000 and it is likely that in the course of time the security gates will have to be repaired or replaced as the gates will not , be immune from those who wish to commit vandalism. It would also seem to be an unfair expense to be borne by any homeowner's association in total and it is an item which directly relates to the City of Dublin's ability to discharge its duties. Even without the proposed development, this road is becoming a necessity when one considers the fire danger to the community as a whole which occurs by reason of the City's growth in the past twenty years. Hopefully, the requirement of security gates will be a temporary one. In reviewing the future of the Nielsen property and others it is reasonable to foresee their development during the next several years. At such time the access road should be considered as a location of a public street serving these properties , together with the 'street from the proposed development and other access. Please present this letter to the Planning Con•nission so that they may be apprised of the mitigation which will cure the impacts caused to the Nielsens and so that they may also be apprised of the Nielsens continuing support of this project and the Hansen family. Respectfully, SCHENCNE & PECK, by BART J. S ENONE cc: Robert J. Nielsen Harold T. Nielsen Gordon Jacoby PAGE -2- r � ..i ...,.,,;;i �� • ��oa®.atlt)....tat,a...v a•alnt.�aa++•• - ii r_ V0 S. j.\ ;• � � u. .ta1 fTam O•� am• � _�� amt tans....�...Mfat y'•• IaUI Pl-Lao• 4• •. b aa-ur rnaaa•trn tusIDV) � MWI �1 • \ i • / Ya I lI)I GI.aI.root"fR)[100 • _.,`_ _ 1 '• •— ---_ assaty a team.a.c.t_rml taa.1lltn•s •7, s....aa, r •tr a+ tatsa, usna t.,--- L)a[.. aaauntia ' o. ,.4♦y`�. � ran•om f.t I • �`.` .. rvasta sttnanmrr — ti•c• u)").c. ®ILIID to sta nat: ' •.M• �� � �M�•+� /�ivyir�iniw rt.t ' • .. � •��,t. I aaL .= / /•bid/arVa ryy It/ 1 la •• - ,. I Ltla•'pr J • ; ][1Meyw�Y IusrK t.ul� C/ICN m V•u YI♦ I1 •5 a re a..at twit 3 � r , _ !.� ► , - / x w 1r- ( I •fat�� •; '• \ ,A Il. - 4.` i.\t.M• "!//TM O[RM N T fa Y L. ~' sr...•. C n. v Vl C 4 C. C O � 0 U v = .;- V /� _ •O i L u cc ID ' y Q. •• • O 11 fbw�i- - W K El,1, aa.•Q.rr s.r.vwf .,a.,. ) I • --�-- •- /• V Y'ari•'L.�.M 'M w'y [NlLR Or C-41S.ON —_- ® at• r•Ya.b.b. � fw--- 1 b•rbb _� l� -may_ a...r.r.K aws ae+ '•\ r• � •...tl r a•b.n r.r r...r/wa. l.! ((�fft�'�,�7%. )(` ^"�•y� I•Wtw'aof.W.�LfaY•�r �,• Y' T�r!) � YtGf/.C'�.+� •.•t ar_T _W f/•�r rw M R I ♦I�7.Y}'■:-I.e. �'r^ A A• Ey.,_9i—&1 1 �f - •i+ a� t+ry C•rraeearwT •.va�w��.t •a'�r I _. ,I / ! T T ) 6l/:Ci7•i�"ll • —�OT—l..or)aar ry+a.ar•c><r.w.aar � ,.— - _ ' ' _ ..--- tY s w w r IYlabb R • TYPICAL STREET SECTIQNS ( . bra t.l O• ' 1 _ °aatl RECEIVE - d...m.._. •loo w..• too X00 000 �^�'� �' ♦��=...�+=��.•�,.. JUL 13 1300 WILSEY L MAY Hansen Hill Ranch DUBLIN PLANK G 1 • � �- • ) '5E ATIVE MAP—v TRACT,5766 •1 .0' HANSEN HILL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION � r •• r fst+l� - tl�lsa'iaD*TY• •T11ot6u ..- _ . _ _ ._ .�r•.•,.a�•...nw..=. ,rt•aa�;a ,•. .vL :,r'�-_•r".^'T_," ..�_.' _�.,. __. -i^;:: ::" ""_'--�T--�-..•:,... _ - .-- .-�w.n': %•,. jSrS�I%;"'�'_�,i'+N i 1: l \ � \mow J r•� \ IN \ ii \ AN, kvm�, ILL.&px 1 •� � 1 NHC II A.t.000 r _ J JL �, 7I - \•.\\ \ W WILSE7 • MAY r'O Usuw PLAN IP:G Hansen Hill Ranch ��.: "� �,n, TENTATIVE MAP.• TRACT•5766 _ o NANSEN HILL DEVELOPATtT CORPORATION •^ "' ° — _ t At •t 7 1 n.• ounl. ALAIFDA cou°t♦ uuro..0 x��,�4t l I ) "Z � � � ter-`,,i - �'--d'r— -,�� ,i•:��.�/� / // _%/I--��-�"-•—= _ /�� HM IO i `� �\� ' _ 1,� �\` �� - - �`- s '/��;° � —�%_%_%����� --\.� 111', ''�•i'. 1!!! I' lll!!I� �;� �� �_- � ���� \ \`� �\. \ � ���� �!� -� �• `, �� r;gib nl, �'.' � �' �`-�-_ � \`�\�\� �\�\y, ,�_� ��->;- ���-. � 11-1 I_'�_ �• � �� R F C' C' I �� .` w• \ `�\�c��.;•\, \ i - al \ Hansen Hill Ranch ��. ,�.. _ _ wIf BE1 i HAM """ """ r VEMAP -'TRACT-5766 111NSEN HILL [?[VELOFAILNT corarorInlloN TENTATI 0 IR r *^' •� •r•r -- -- - . — - - ---- r - -- - - - -;t '— _ ' . r i� i e • ! `-��� ` \\ ,`. ` � � \ •u \ .\j � ...yam r 1.= i t �� \ ' '�• ",�„ . Yom` \\ \\ / � i � y- •� � MT V. 1 117, R E C E `NYC f. N�I 7 I Y E 1 r JIJ i �� ,�i { � / ,� I E • ' .11 �.� ',kl��, �ht�gt . 1 I � ��-- `'�` '�/rJ� i 1. L WILSEY A MAY \' I Hansen Hill Ranch DUBLI« F NNING : """""• ' •' TENTATIVE AP TRACT 5766 HANSEN -HILL DEVELOPASENT CORPORATION o ' - , J.- ..c b w^ „ Mun. •urro•COr•.r t•tu O••• u r ' !�-•�1�1" _ �\ �� \�\ \ III �//lll N,l // '.Al {/��:j?� ��.-.��s�p�\�. .__.�: ./�. \�. �v+��- _ — \ j/l I 'I• r �!I '' ) 17 1 r i' //I) i l/6 1�I j-�6'//,��� - �� � �. .tio„� .} �'.':\'� �L.`• t t�' �� �.,•_ . ILI Ul r .�����''-'Q i,�J•'/ .;.1�� ., ;;, ',. �r� f I. ' ����I� /ice% � �� ', � - � - � '► � y • '"v�'Y��.�' �, /�irfc , /� ,ter 'a..y l ,� !I ' I I�I�i � I I �/�/���/ �• / �� '/nf�j ,,` �%1 �' .y (� ���•/'rs'!.i 1•nl�� i, �' •�; � .' v a / �I I I (I /��// j ,n�fe 1 f �// Y! / lY , '� ' .��'��' / I r..y % i” /. �-`.q�� 'i. ✓" / � � /I/+ ��--J/ �j// "�l ���`\•l\ � t. 11 I�1� �I� }/ � �• f J •!nw . ..rrr+-. �I' 1�{ ( �/ (// ' ( '� t�.�;\�`�'/. ( \ �1��—~�_ �/ _;GL "`�`� •,�. \\• Z�\' �\�, �''` ..4.�`.\t`1}, f+� �•� � �•rj �ii;rrr (� <` -- ` I � ` ��,x\\710��\\;\ \\ � •\\\ ��:=cam.+! /�� \ \ , � .\\ �7\ ` \ Lt \ �• ar�, tI ��l/ Ji 1 \� \' /\ . �y � � � � :I `-����— ' / --r./ `'°`L- ';�r ` \+ia\^%q`t \. '/\ •• �,y,. ,�\.\tr •t, 1 � ��i. � 1�1� - . �, +. , , \• � \ �• � ,�- � � N' a 1 �l. , � ;'� �a;�� �\ ,�I .�, :�,;I:�it � � �,• ; ��; ; a. / j :.r .�rl �I i• III I � II 'I�� /✓ .ili f: .� , t 14 1 � V I �R ' /��• Y. �� \ \\ \� / Y \ � _ �•� � �� _ i.'�-ill '�•s• _ �/ ` / A. �. �,��� ���\,- \\ \�\ � \ \ F � 11• •� .\ � , rp �' (ct � - ��- �1��, \ � \�. ,/� f �+ ter,�-yT # \\� .\ � \ \ L,.aY \ ;�,�, + .rr Ter_� . - •r+,• \ y /.;{/ `�_ ! ��\\ \�•4:\�\\��\\ `\\`���\. \ \ \ a __— -- _-- �—_ ____ '._- —' . . .'`� .� I ,\ 1-.r,+l I r� I - / .�' Z •4s`y r��/ q "Ilr. - }; •i� \\� \\.. -�' \ � \\�\ +' I X11 ;I( J J��. i � '\%f/ i ' —_ _ I 1 \. 1 °vim, �\�\ •.\ Y: C �e��.<-� � j � •l�t�. ,'t'.+. � �°\'�'\\\ � I \ �. \ w tml E O --_ - ---— _ rt. >. w I L a E r •`HAY Hansen Hill Ranch _ ' - ���', = - wt,�M.An_.,�p�. . .�. n �°'. . '�qq''?; ",y" TENTATIVE MAP .TRACT"5766 D;IRtr; �; IIANSEN HILL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION -•- '� v/ f \ \\�\\\\\\�iX\\ �'� � ._ .�f�rrr -':y — — � \ '�� �• z- — 'I' it � �a.. —����:,.�.•' :...•.�\- + IMA ' y D.: wiser • MAY ,. ` # )UL 1 1� ; 'I� .� °- o TENTATIVE MAP • TRACT 5766 _ o Hanse anch �.. I UMW PLANN 'C I{ANSEN HILL DEVELOPMENT. CORPORATION • - . � � _ _ . :.......';.�..._ _ gn •a�,�.�w _ NONA N N, �`' c �-�'�_' arm. iva all mg . -- d ;►, . I • •• ...•. . •�I. i • ' SEE sl-�r s . ;;� Imo\ ��.��: \ '\ ,r 1 ' \T ��. ��� �. -1 + ! ' _ • �•Z _.�•_.r` —may;/% ;/ , , •I l� 7 �1• 1� �d �� \� •�`�' /�s '\\. `.\ ` �'� \ �-^ 1 \\\ ;f:'•'1 1,_—��/'/:' r•, �/ it '1 .F �• I".••c (/r� •• _ p..` •� / i � '_ ,� �\�\• `\\\.t\\` \ �'11 _�����''�\\ NZ t;-z �`� /1\':Ir. �it11`,, III , J � / � � oo,i� .� -• t•...\ \�`` `�`i\a �1 `\ � �� \ ,\ RE'.?• � f•-�_:._1��• ... '111 ; 'JJ ,///� •o� -C : �' \ .. \aa• \l\;\•�I �,\l`\\ \— ; ,;/ /�--�•.. 1 '� •/ !1' ,� ', •/', `a / to\�\ \. ~ \It�l'-\ •� ��/ - v:,1 �.�'��j� .... ,_• .... .../.,"—:.� i1, ' i>� / �'• 'I/ iurwl•. w,�•••f � 1� '.\` a le 1� \ �``..1}•t!1 �+ '+ `, F Y WILSEY • MAM JUL W. Hansen Hill Ranch . °W�•u.•«°•-°•�•.'•.�: O HANSEN HILL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION TENTATIVE MAP •'TRACT 5766 0 n.n —�•+=.� '�7J,,1r� eun,. u•�ro•c°v+r• uur°.w,• •e i ` ��•III I i � I ;i,. ) /� �/, _ .�: ti( I TYPICAL SECTION r - __ �• 40 0 40 So 12-0 A :1 - - �iO1 ' Sao ` ZR 'r C E IVI - -T- -r- -% -a- - vlv VIE . WILSEY • MAY R roroo•.r.r>I. aT of .A1.� • r O � V p Hansen Hill Ranch ° °���°�°•�°..N> ��� __ r, TENTATIVE MAP • TRACT-5766 9 `aYIVWG HANSEN HILL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION r r�� •�•• w a' .•• • ou• .—go.c...n.. o_c..:._.�.,... <..„...- .—v r+r—!+c:.�a>r*r:s:.. :ate-�r^..r*>—cam'....+ '^.'^^•=.i:. = '._.. i` .':^1:::..'. _: b x U-4 c o ro ' v � KE) m a >, • �- C O $. ;o®- ro u ro \ vl N E ri O O r-1 c \ I b v ro 00 N i. 92W 06 r; 'moo o ,• `;-� �I .�,` R6 `: a. Lu �rll 9 �.� - t;';}�'i••i'\\.t�l..-- � * l_. `nom\`.� \ � ♦� `` •• �- .Z Lu co Al LO / e;�i-'w���.:.� �;�-r- •-Jam. O _ r' ' Q \\�\ �,- ����\`. \" \, 7 J . � `• \• \� ,-=^e=- .,"� ,� ! _ \, ..)..�•'`';'I /i ,,+1-I rtpvn�CtaEµES moo.� '� '; `�_ �� � \ •(/�•� � - __- - ,'+ ,I I \ 1-.,. J�l�'Y1��•.,\ , RAC � - - -`; __—, _-- _},�\`_ _ o 100 200 W JUL 1 L3 1°°3 p__ ®_ !� co Dui PLANNNa REVISED PLAN F =z ! .. ____ ._ ..._ F,..•'•- �7r� , � .tip'>>�� ,h= ,�� � _�fi, - 'I - , i .....weNaue ,�4���s�' '` S �y'sc"' ',.rte -�• ' • ,I ' I '+r HAN-$EN MLL•ROAOJ,•', / \` �•"""'"' '/r. _ '� I _ i�` ' � .. •� I '�{ � 7 �•� •�,, 'V V V Y- •VY 4 V �r1 •\ t�, ,� \ ;'1 ,' � .� i-�„ , `y;=`�rL i mow-:-^'! � j '� r � �7�'� 1 � ir ijq 3 - Q t, `• `•�;;,/ j l�\�V , i .ir.u.;,fit: _ .Y f , �'C.•� ,,\ � l �` 'y "/ ,l•� •�,4 M1. �` -�'• , y M ` - `4`�1.. — ..�� /d.11�)`rr 1;� __ 1 t i 1 LEGEND f� 1 ; .Y (! ENTRY TREE \ 'j _ L.� '' ,A) A '•• 'af 1 Runus ado d- 'Akmono'Ak.bnw Cnerty .\ --� r tl c r� LIt.J Ly ,h +t '� l S y -7 �C L•'V L.�_j._ r 1�aV1 THEE ' 1 CpYo^mn b xedxls Eulen Remud k..OmTil Eveprn POW O ,,\ I. eo _. ..__....• --`'+;�iY ^ , L.i t�! F .� `- - +,• , { _� • - ® RIPNiIAN CORRIDOR TREE. t.ndlen Nder= y Nnus cads Shcs DeDylmc.Wasplrp WiibN `I a wtaNG LOT TREE \ - ��_ - �`•' 4:;'.i.ri,>•i. �;_t.lylif�.• �- f r cdlaryw'Nlslocrsl'N41xrd Pser S HLLSIDE NATIVE TREES Weras toDat■vdby oat • \ -+� • ` �':' _�' ,'•, Wxas eprndi.Coast LNe Oak . EVERGREEN SCREEN TREE •. .3�y - /J — �A ' w \.__ <<, 'tT' . / n ' \ ' Ligu3mm kxkJUM Glassy Rhei @ _ 1(�l ,�7 -- .•� /�,.•-. r_'� - 'per. I-.S STREET TREE kn is ir'T-x �,�-�.st;;f•.. b' - s S �� � Lam •` } �► a. n,t.s.asyce<P+ Reyrvoaa R.y.ood � acalld4'YVwood'Yerwood Planelree .jr%'•- Inn PROJECT SCREEN TREES JUL 1 3 1.t.U © 9 aufa dba MTIt.etrcn - Ac.ci.kv ll=& River W.ttle •:7-._ ' 87-045 Hansen DUMM PLANNING a I � Reduced Copy o - - q Preliminary La Plan, Townhous 5 sheets ail :I, -dam 4, Gi1i Sell.ek ' A-HANSEN HILL ROAD STREETSCAPE-NTS_A ..- -''- y ... eal.ry-tree �. f2 Trand,lien Inndec '+Me _ �'..1�•'N , W rh '•(fit.. ySs7 — fJS Yul t*.� IL+fI �- - _ ,I.ti' •J J' 1RJ&_ �uY�I Hwrslo W LrrsKciJc.niI � Stroh CluwXl Qr BISECTION THRU BRIDGE.AT,TOWNHOUSES-1/8':1-0'. Ga•n•n•n Ara, I Buffer N,tne / _�y' j� ,,�/�� �• kryAled G+,rdec 2.ee Z.ce VyoTdi«.z•ne � `�Is� � - ��` `— �1..�O B TYPICAL TRANSITION.PLANTI14G-;'1/8':1'-0:_II $L e• to Min: •w' u;n,c.rvr Bu Ind' n.rc G.�,non Arm ! `y — — a - ' zene. w:,.te z one Ye9.z nc , cV 1 =L }• tl G:..efb.IS�,.. , (1% ry pn'.a K-4 Am, /yuA `(wrJ£p.ee Z a W o i J $ 4'leral 4 L-- , > `t'n3 fi" Pyse mom-d. ardd ky +kw pui—4 E Iv V I� i J g d �I;r: 1 � I 4 slr.m.d,...el pa,r„y,yae,.L�1�.�'"•'m:a�';"'°,, "i � +[ j O E t 's '�' I�� -�' ,nJ (� to JUL 13 11188 ? nra W w w J Fd"9 Iin li of p,d Z , ry��� sr•r 1e vagc14b4 gerdm end a(-a'fence = • w'�l\ p A�fsv� huh—.. r . SECTION THRU COMMON AREA-1/8',:1'40' ('SINGLE FAMILY HOME -.RECOMMENDED LANDSCAPE TREATMENT-1/16':1'-0' E I i • 1 2 3 a i I :s f. �r .-.. . . 1 I�Ly�• y4 ty '` I\ o I I I :.. ' li� �l f • •,1,1 • p,.p1.TNU..m.E ` � �Nuo.c�...em. nao r,,..rm • • - >Y.1>rrtm e4lffeJe fwA A MEDIAN_SECTIONSI'-8 _ 16'-0' - - - _ ,' 1 lam• I 111 ' � _ p�FIRETRUCKACCESS.ALLEY_=1-16-0*, (� _.. all --- C� . . 6,aaHn�vEYr/ �. 'REPRESENTATIVE SI-FiUB'UST. W, - aeg vNC.'raa�/cr - !PROPOSED TREES (n ' � - III%�»... LI.N•H.,♦IN•. >.•«. >l. • >•-N .'Y, N:n L . is 1 - a .. ...._... ,tm)>us .• N.•. � • u:w:N•_.._.b»IN 1•)Y..u� 1 I .� ri 9•L'd1-SG1LB 'CI{L-06-&14 MEWia »,a♦.NII r:., •••N•i:•Y. NN�» ii' i,•-,.• ..—y)y^ . flor.'ERW0.7YtE6S '' - 1 ...u.::su• u...w.YM — — ♦ :w+mom m. •r.. . rY... '-... r..:::. .... I B CUL;DE-SAC MEDIAN y1_16'-0'I"� CO ' Mu:rdA:' nlu 11 r.L; Jl«I >I• ' u� - rul'd1 »" '! V . •• o)tl>„u L.. » u Nub.•.but • •rwl:i:::'» .ul YN• iiv ��. �y�.�p: N::�'::t:r::•.Ib' uu• .».Il •Z � ,) :::,�' �"1.»:i:'.p.w..�.1.«, ..• ll' ii•`i):' :i:::::...:. •w.'...«ir. '•'�W_ e....:• MI: i:: •_ _ �• PO ' -rLOU.tac . .. ...... :.N. W :w..... «».b ......».. L W -» w Y•..0:..,1..» r.uunLb•r, )��«. Y>I. l), 1,,"" NIN•N. v 41M.• � Q '.»r cn 'HYDROSEED AREAS « �� •N�. �'° 9'7 B y JUL i ! C MAN PARK-i-15-0' •- - .'4 I �'� lT.a.cW WTI • I 1 / � �l/J�1w6� ! ' 01F6T�prwla '' ' y� 1�.I •' � � 1 �' .. �N� y L Nw� �: 1 a••• I I 'tea: • F __„frnuwn� Cal -- •-- Q, i... CUL- UM FRO DE SAC MINIM FRONTAGE A CUSTOM LOT-1-15-0'j I cnt>o 24FFSIQ zoHE �' ---— co w ' �'.. -• 44 G•r w•ybI 6L L/•ItynA _— I.' H/,N4EH"LL I.I.uw i ww(•1 I tiFe PA.- I sv��1 VlW6 " w r-F.•.w. I.aI s 3 t (dam It: - _' {{'n. Rlnklan{•plwuls, •w4yi. I 1��� _. .-fn4➢V' B O SECTION-T-15-0 CS ' S —_--'---_ :' act i M������ /V•�•� � b O y I _. •d.OrGtL ` O z � y I •,2 slat-c ..L i i ►u I ' A e W I i i i I I p• 3 r ! / I�71� � cam- /� _• I 1 I � I 3 � L.r►iH /v//1 R c c jco uj .4.., �+ w 1 / N JUL 13 l°83 i �IAAhrwe • � - 1 1 — • C:SINGE FAMILY: MW MUM FRONTAGE PAT10 HOME-1•-15-0' __ _ ESPECIAL CONDITION LOT 59-f-16'-0 L I I _ {rc - .c- _7'ono-r•n�,r.Trr�1t�/•,-on uu.nt.n . ry.,r,l ca(Iwr_N Ar1f N.ur.YnAG 1'411 M/PCVnJD YI••NLL ` � - �UT.�1[+NGl1V\f(.A ffN_ �a 11��TJ I�JI�•2 • w-0, •, vnu_d+ca.crv•crra w nM�:_ _ - 7e71, r TIC N/oRT ,aMla�..-1; - rfYK YMD omu•.r =f. •1 •O e•WU. elTe°T P�� fl/w7n.,41t+.YF7tN' •mn=or.roR(c.woc vl.fa4TY i Fw ITWO IMi1tTAUkD 1 _ - _ ----_ _ _ _— Z - er Alortrsl•I�uc - .. . ._. ..— E�SPEgALAEARYAAD CONDCTION.UPMLL�WffHRETAtNNG C SP WALL ECIAL REAR YARD CCNDjmyN: DOWNFIILL.WITH DECK --- A:CORNER LOT: BACKYARD TO BACKYARD-1'-16'-0',: I .. 4Y0 lbvr O, �S,^•- A-M�r fry,-�iev�„ti W. F`RETAINNG WALL ! , •� `!q•, /L(hll7 op�p 1: /' '. M/ °" - �COI.GR•._. AY4 o O ui _souo wnu o la kart`etisJ•aTa J f1.A++i,.lo'.1•Ue1TA.,an - _, •—,�• � ��6 ..... __- \ � -_ - - L. p _ J .. ♦ b• G.uF0 ._ se.-o, o �1/. _ \ 4X•4 ibi1•IIRC. 4X4 MOT l.41 H r' t` vl x 1 CI Z R F C B CORNER LOT: BACKYARD-0 SIDE YARD_.1'-1G-U: u. y._• JUL DUaz4V I L - TRANSPARENT WALL 5 _''`�1f SPECIAL CONDITION: FLAG OT-1'-18-0' H r r.�. 63it.,v' ! � � / ,�'c,I �r'�/��i�"%.'�• ..' s.o-�, i.y"k,��x'�%k�A��j "�%.�'�•?�b <�J�._. ,f�'y'�^;. ''�'�� k . ! I' NI i.r•' !f �� 'l'�� �17r•'r: � � ���"i�;��A ••'�j a/��•Ji•1:_�'� fi!. K•�i n ��/�^'- ��.�a.�i ��, �•.. � 4 +•✓> .,r/ f i ! t � •/.f/,/ f -i / y 4d�./ 'j.(.tre^ aM.s'ia f+'s./� 6 ,. Y{' ffJf f 1,: r r f l"`� fr ..�.• ` i i .� ;�y, r 1...,� "i'� .f� .'; cPp �� S J i �4T� r4li� w•+./• fir.. � ,•�� 1•f-ry•f� � � rI' ' .. �. �•. / •� fir::.:..•� i�r'J F,y" •^4.:.•— , o >> , it IR 3�.1•. V V Oy O �Tyn' •�i �i �{f "..~ 42 ;'- '... .. .22;�OT �- 30 thy: �•��3/ �'�, ���'�`'- Misr :?;_� ��u-.• ._ •3�r' °. - ` //:Jffi 40 ;�„ }.�:',.:..�Y:�'.;`; '-=:!..` 9 u, '^z:...•. �{d 'T'" `• �O•,` � 'tip •.� =ipso _ .41 353 . 7/3 H Aco- i e n da 3 ► � e t A N 101000 Atm. sT�TF y ' 87-045 Hansen Hill Example of Existing Development S .5 2.8 DU/Acre y N✓A�;wr..:.:•.C.l�.:.','�i?LiGwiPls.Ala,:vr,rM.rrtw�zv&:m..r.: «��: . . . ........ .... . ..T r. .N w. ...... .....«.. min. rearyard setback , s th it:'`minimum a la£ nd useable) " ? A, I � I i I �'I• r. -.._..•,3;. this is7.' t. . � 6 I ,� I N \ $112 If •Z G.F. •.r�• •4• 8 ft, minim (with � side?ard S ft. -minimum flat-arid . R.. `v PALMAS C 0� T LEGENID = P• E. PAD ELEVATION NOTE: F.F. FINISH FLOOR ELEVATION 9A/1- 'S SHALL BE TIED /,VT'O UNDEFGROUD P/PES AND G.F. GARAGE FLOOR ELEVATION D/RECI'ED TD SIDEW,4 R i3L ar 39 ROUSE FLAN RIGHT OR LEFT OARAGE DRAINS. 's I I BISSELL & KARN, INC. I CIVIL ENGINEERS SCALE .� �`✓ DUBLIN CALIFORNIA I#'s2O �� f AU'mH'&lEN N71 •i!� •irk 61 62 /9 /8 .63J \ 64 /6 6S . '•r r�e�bs,�I r:sl ��a sf�� PA 9SroC7 /S ,� ' PIP JA�1 JADE . - o/ . CO �S rtic Wit 14 C/,q ' :cD ' 2/ °8008 a°o CD ca 34 eoo7 It 2768 � ir7f0 ; iJJ.77 l k _ 95 t Ow CO 33 9 r"4 a° 23 e 7�76 aO o 7978 $m co 32 79, _ // M } ' A A " 7932 y^m 24 79x2 $ m 3/ ti r v - 1 1 76. p Z _ 01 25 �3j 1 m 3O ` 7936 U W RZ V ,1029 O � � • N ,ti �Z1/ mii 4 o) 27i V � V m rsi- r � A,A. � JADE OP it L C�f T JrJJ Xit �9 87-045 Hansen Mill Example of Existing q ; .; ja, ;:` irtil Development ® � 3.0 DU/Acre n 1 _ 90 1\s 1 � - 1 C> f; Go70 4 �J 712 r-d 3,�S i I 6Orr. �O / FF 401.0 1 _ roe �^ 1 Ff= 1 V� .075% DWV f- C A L f�I 'S Curb 3 l�n c- 6D focc 0' ;A s� aTA C Kk, I L of IS All Cuf. i JOB N0. 851104 H"0 mENv Mr. Barger also stated with approval of the planned development rezoning, all future development on this site shall be reviewed throught the City's Site Development Review procedure. The balance of the site shall continue to be controlled by the land uses listed in the 1464th Zoning Unit. In response to an inquiry by Cm. Burnham, for clarification as to whether this, approval would allow uses equal to those approved for the larger parcel, Mr. Barger stated that cocktail lounges/taverns would be conditional uses. There being no further comments, from the audience or Rich Enea, who was present, Cm. Barnes closed the public hearing. On motion by Cm. Burnham, seconded by Cm. Zika, and by a unanimous vote, a Resolution was adopted approving a negative declaration of environmental significance concerning PA 87-178, Enea Plaza (southern portion) planned development rezoning. _ RESOLUTION NO. 88 - 005 RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT A NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL SIGNIFICANCE CONCERNING PA 87-178, ENEA PLAZA (SOUTHERN PORTION) PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REZONING APPLICATION On motion by Cm. Mack, seconded by Cm. Tempel, and by a unanimous vote, a Resolution was adopted recommending the City Council establish findings and general provisions for a planned development rezoning concerning PA 87-178. RESOLUTION NO. 88 - 006 RECOMMENDING THE CITY COUNCIL ESTABLISH FINDINGS AND GENERAL PROVISIONS FOR A PD, PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REZONING CONCERNING PA 87-178, ENEA PLAZA PD, PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REZONING APPLICATION SUBJECT: PA 87-045 Hansen Ranch General Plan Amendment Study, Planned Development Prezoning, Tentative Subdivision Map No. 5766, and Annexation request for 282 dwelling —..its on 147 acres, west of Silvergate Drive and north Hansen Drive. Cm. Barnes opened the public hearing and called for the Staff Report. Mr. Tong advised the Commissioners on the backgound information on this application. The Hansen Hill Development Corporation requested a General Plan Amendment Study for residential development on a 148 acre site adjacent to, but outside of, the City limits. The site is within the City's General Plan Planning Area. 87-045 Hansen Hill ^= �, Planning Commission Regular Meeting ; :• ,� # Minutes, February 1, 1988 -J ti�i. ;,r> + {. n ; t,• .:: .r ,�. v..< , r' .fx: 4.:t �,. '.p'*'7,' F ?r, ,'.e€PSt'.,•,:;,f ,� %, +';� .�; .µ: . .:1•,t 4 i;': ,xr,' v' ...r.r �. . '�Nhx? ,j.St! %r'S,,..t1r'r• f�r,.J,, .•`,J,v.r..:.,•r+ �,ea77.. tlrh.f, a "3 p ...r^ r t'x -Y•t ,:,a`M t 4t3 •f: , •la... ir.. t ff �. w Yt'""t"� L}t' :) :. L4 J'% `bt:.-�fnt'. .i ,.s'•r.2•+ 7✓:'4s ,7`.yF.y,��'"' Oi•.�Y'• Tq e�,Jf.. > "il• ;l',.. 1"4. t :,Ft tf.l , Y*''r:f^t raga, ° yJ`.w}�'•1 't% u>;. `N f ,rY.. _ + y?, !`�, 't;'` « t,lti'4 f,_ '�,%a?r• w •s"'�'x;:i�.t/fir s:r-,t�ryy!•. ar2iS t �,Je3 t3`t FY + '�t'j.. r:""Fr7•fy4}yy'.8'r""�Y''"'• 5. 1F "'N u•1 fP zA{,Jr t ' �3 P�r<;;�C ; ',1� ¢ t- �'r " {!t r.' .�.,.a •%rs tY cr'`'%i ,.,w. . ' .�!r;.k i L:y •rrd _ jJ.°9i ,i,p{h };*/n a'Y.;74"S' ..'!D 'd, [TM 1 s tr- 3:f xF :.'Y,r � .:-Y t'Wyfij?•�1t "ay `i {.:. 1� 'y I -.-.rx * '+ rG •. r -�: s{..v� >ajrru. S` .}i�'p y "a rc,.P 't tt"� '`. �'I *� � °' �1�t r .] ,t .:14 , .:k a bra F N -� rte��t�7 a•=' '*y.°. t'`�'u. 4 X z„u(.�� 9a.t'Fxt''t . ¢.�2r�"` '.err 1 €;,.✓,f Y�, ,s- � „r"1� 1 O r 51 Y /" ^••�I ,7a l ae.f.� ,,:r sk �ySHr tKYti"�,a�:•E a�m� .s,xi 3'� :: �akr ty. ,.� v - i J J6.. ljf4F -.t n Y s tr.. �� r •J4 F,iTt up t/ dray c o1 dd�t3` '?•.:: �. 1t ty .x r,.s- -arr J°•:-v 1t ry wrr4 J}i �� ✓r WtT•vf`1- y a, ",1„�b7 dJ�,x'�ry9 4��:'Ir FZ! d.y.�'s 4+ ,Jr•_ p' d.} r ,; rf$ aG+r * •J i •r ..: 4 ; ...,.. 3. i ,u s t u r' } ', vjix. f " � n',-.8r 1� rr rM 6 t)'• r r,7 x�'r �"��'�.. t '" 5 J '. w " �` r�l a SJzt P 4' � t. -' '.. r; f F n .�+ r r�ti�`� *' ttD! ' z�.„ s J u4 t,a�j'^.t �•x�ai �yr5y fit„, 1^+r,�+y'` F t� a}} t �� s r� •. • . ... „ .. . .. ... .:..... :>r_.,?,'.�i,. _+�;_°..,.�r'�?`:.�a r,.r�.�..�fzJ _.f«_,t...��.;.;��hti.:F:,titi`m_ ..s. 1;:tfl`.;...dr..;•G:.pt.�.fw: .r ar>. ,.. t, w,. .J+,h, A..� .._.... . , The City Council authorized the General Plan Amendment Study on August 11, 1986, and hired the consulting firm of EIP to assist in processing the General Plan Amendment Study and Environmental Impact Report. The Planning Commission held two study sessions on February 2, and February 17, 1987, to provide Staff and the Applicant with a list of issues to be addressed in the study. The Planning Commission held a field trip to the site on February 28, 1987. The Applicant filed an amended application on March 16, 1987, to include a General Plan Amendment, Planned Development Prezoning, and Tentative Subdivision Map No. 5766. An annexation request was filed with the understanding that the annexation could not occur until after the City acted on the General Plan Amendment and Planned Development Prezoning. After the Applicant submitted the complete application materials, the Draft Environmental Impact Report was prepared and released on December 22, 1987 for public review and comment. Mr. Tong stated that at this time it would be appropriate for the Planning Commission to hear the applicant, Gordon Jacoby, Vice President, Hansen Hill Development Corporation present comments regarding the proposed project and the Draft Environmental Impact Report. Mr. Jacoby passed a hand-out to the Planning Commission and Staff entitled "Hansen Hill Chronology". He mentioned what an important step toward development the draft EIR was and reiterated items that were included in the EIR document. Mr. Jacoby stated that there had been a revision to retain the knoll when it was discovered that approximately' 36,000 truckloads of dirt would have to be removed from the site. He stated that this would be unacceptable. He also stated that by revising the neighborhood layout they hoped to lessen the impact on homes at the entrance to the project. Mr. Jacoby stated that a meeting had been scheduled for February 9, 1988, at Murray School to present revisions to the plan to interested community members. David Gates, of David Gates & Associates, presented slides of the proposed site showing a view of the upper portion of the site from the center of the property. He also showed the oak bay woodland above and below, grazing land, vegetation along Martin Canyon Creek and swales closer to the creek. He mentioned they hoped to keep the grading away from the creek and utilize the swales. Scott Edmondson of EIP spoke on the adequacy of the draft EIR, and that comments will be responded to in the final EIR. James Cuellar, 7385 Hansen Drive, who is opposed to the project expressed his concern with the amount of grading on top and into the hill. He stated that there is a significant amount of weeping and potential erosion due to springs on the hill. He mentioned that there could be a financial impact if there were a slide as lending agencies tend not to finance a property with a history Regular Meeting PCM-8-19 February 1, 1988 t„ r � z � sa +.i � p s 1«* • '.,r v fit Y.• y,.c r v `i.4s•'7'L . , Y '� "t1 �rytkI t� v t,iy 2 � k0 L: t5 r ,�4 �• t y� as is Ft�„�,i r a, •,c '.r :j ,. u - r 4u tr W. yt- '„ :,4>4.� L•ya �t • t ,.y`. t4 i ` ,i s \` ) z�x r Z+eu ; � -�}t .,r �t.Ct�aF�'ck�txr w, i,� ,Ott t _ R ins S r •'rl t t i.t •4 1 l J F, r r 1Rli�' .�` � t Li �, „1 •,,w t� s:tL-�y$SL`�_sir ilsrF.L �a.,� {Sr't �. t V �,q, �o...s .1t a� �; �v„ R.r� � ;•�a t t,-. � +'.1•f nt �� ro,..,�^” .. r<tM % r..r„ �,t,�>._•^F '��n"�., � 'a Via.+ yJ`-� ; 3'+'d „' ` t .ay a _ .., ✓V .t_. A f r i ;/� '•.Y'' 4 J rV"af N 7 w U 1 K 1 r-r t! P 1f�w y.J J as"�/�, o r .r�'t7 r ,ypt ` s�! !x r� •,ry r:- �7; vt w-h!s 3� ?!j!1 tl w f, 4�K y� t}'4viy�,3 4 se�{Yp �'��,,' �xf i � ?'..`` k '''" its !r 'r y'.rtr,e c -t i '}. r V (: 5 r ..:} f + � K L ? � •ri+� '^fiJ.lk 2 n•�t J"i L�" (r•c f !' t �h r t R t ? !fn h r •♦ S +. fjF>r' �.,f t.6' a � e fi{' {' t + t i> t .i.• to . - X - r cvtr t ti k 4.f fr,c. i ti"'l ytiS �� '..r 7 r.a + .r. °. is 5 r..t k -. b•5 �.k.! ,+ J r,,-. :r 44 of landslides. He mentioned traffic and noise as additional concerns and also _ commented that he was in favor of limiting the number of homes in this development. Marjorie La Bar, 11707 Juarez Lane, a member of Preserve Area Ridgelands Committee, expressed she was opposed to the project. She also mentioned that she did not feel that there had been enough time to review the EIR and also felt it was inconsistant with the General Plan with reference to open space. She requested that additional copies of the EIR be made available. i A. Schuitemaker, 7397 Hansen Drive, stated he was opposed to the project and was concerned with landslides; mass grading; artificial fill; maintenance of slopes; polution of water supplies, and the fact that approximately 1,024, or 52% of the trees on site would be affected. He was concerned with the visual quality since one third of the hillside vegetation would be removed. He also expressed concern with the impact of traffic on Dublin Boulevard and San Ramon Road. Harvey Scudder, 7409 Hansen Drive, who is opposed to the project was concerned with the lack of EIR copies available for the public to review. He also mentioned the ecology damage to the hills in'that no new oak trees have been planted. The mention by the developer of homeowner maintenance of open space was also a concern. 7 Debra Vasquez, 7669 Martin Canyon Road, who is opposed to the project stated 1 she would be greatly affected if 'there were a slide as her house sits next to the creek. She was also concerned with a fire access road or emergency access road if her street were to be used. She was also concerned with the projection of impacts on schools. i Mel Gutleben, 11397 Rolling Hills Drive, who is opposed to the project was concerned about what would happen to the rare species of wildlife with creek area development on steep grades. He stated that when he purchased his home there was no mention of hillside development. He would like to know the details of the revised layout. Glen Hummensky, 11304 Rolling Hills Drive, who is opposed to the project was ` concerned with what this project can do for the City of Dublin at the expense of our environment, such as sewage and water supply. He was concerned with the population of foxes. Bill Walker, 7469 Hansen Drive, who stated that he was not opposed to the project but thought the EIR was not adequate. He felt that children, environment, etc, were all important. He also stated that your home is a major investment and that landslides can create a resale problem. He wanted to know where the two entrances to the project were going to be located. The following residents returned a "speaker slip" which indicated that they did not wish to speak: Mr. & Mrs. R. L. Varndell, 7403 Hansen Drive, opposed to the project. Mrs. G. Alexander-Jones, 7349 Hanen Drive, opposed to the project. Michael & Zi Tsirlis, 7297 Hansen Drive, opposed to the project. James Paul Clark, 7270 Prow Way, in favor of the project. Neville & Linda Howse, 7464 Hansen Drive, opposed to the project, Regular Meeting PCM-8-20 February 1, 1988 t s + a n \ .n t\'{s �Y'2• J +S .'� ; ` F" d }, \t+y;��y \y � � 1 . t{ \+ t. s. •r. + r'JJy'�"`@ G uSY i.� �,�i :\ ,t \f F' d� 'Mt- Vy'rr i1� !` '� .. l Susan Clark, 7270 Prow Way, in favor of the project. M. Lockhart, 7270 Prow Way, in favor of the project. Mathew & Elaine Lopez, 7433 Hansen Drive, opposed to the project. Mention by a member of the audience was made to move the next meeting to a larger facility. Having more copies of the EIR available for public review and copies of the EIR summary was also mentioned. A Dublin resident asked what the process after tonight would be. Mr. Tong stated the following: - Planning Commission to continue Public Hearing to February 16, 1988, for Draft Environmental Impact Report. - After comments received - Staff & consultant will provide Final Environmental Impact Report. - Final Environmental Impact Report - subsequent meeting. - Planning Commission will review Final EIR - send recommendation to City Council. - City Council will adopt final EIR. - Details and other project related issues will be discussed at next Planning Commission meeting. - EIR must be approved in order to go ahead with project. On motion by Cm. Mack and seconded by Cm. Burnham and.by unanimous vote it was moved that the Public Hearing be continued to February 16, 1988. A short recess was called. Cm. Barnes called the meeting back to order at 9:00 p.m. NEW BUSINESS OR UNFINISHED BUSINESS None. OTHER BUSINESS Mr, Tong advised that the Goodguys Sign Variance will be heard at the City Council Meeting of February 8, 1988. Mr. Tong stated that he had received confirmation for all of the Commissioner's except one to attend the Planning Commission Institute. PLANNING COMMISSIONERS' CONCERNS Cm. Tempel inquired about the traffic light at Lewis Avenue and Village Parkway and when it would be installed. Mr. Tong stated he believed it was due sometime in 1988. Regular Meeting PC11-1-8-21 February 1, 1988 .. r x P it i ti f •r J trf=. ,Y r#r•t'i�. h .•� r,*,i 'f„'dr x c _ s;? -y: f tb..J r J rt>Fr , r t, �u••r '+f�+ 1,P`+ ,.3'7y,rl;?a c �1,tyfi '.l:r'2Gh r '� v '"'.r. / .:� s 5 �.\.. iq'�`�.�1*�.•3� +: �r. 1, 'x'`u�-�f 7• �lr �".x 't r.� 5+ �#-•f. .r3 5, _ ,r J tit..p• 'T, r , ag r c- d t'" J a/ �S!,�3/ 6 s '.' t'�t :- � Xr.., € +. rr f'hJ 'F': l�j t r ,,.. b t '"� �t* �'t r 1 '?a-f t P f.i;^ � i��Yr• +r id�� ' ': "IN.,4" 4 ,a'.:y a t t i. J..,, X r i.. m r7 ,�{r 'k is ,,tt�rE n ��..d :k, -�•'•7?3d u �, ,p.tu ,�, , a 1 �.�S i�'`��a:.rr?.�!�...-3-5 3 �- ,f t,+cr } t.r it""'r i�,,�' �r._. 's£'� tf y-h r„S 1..b ;, yc *Cr t't Y,� rF•a * _ ,s..- �• r.F:J 4t �a t` ,t r s'�?1L=:. "r j '"L...+r 3 uvi' t lr :( 4 ? a„r'"',,r„,5 ax" '4471 '• \s'a91 Y r t 3 ii \r t) .j F ) L t ,. �a ��-4w''° t sl'.h ri�i'•''-'`'4 f�f � r , k 'f4', `7s+( { {` e r t 1/X f• 4 r y. C'r t 3�F ''y�.t•.rt2'.t� r�tr�ly �v; `{u;,ytit ?'#s ' �'t`R` ' r`�°'tr �'+ - z . .y t T., y/ - ? r�r{ y t ,x C.4' r air � , }tf^ 0o 3i a't r.{ C•}+c .y k� �k t'" � +rJ 7. .S .l x �..it��. 16,l.(Yt SJ /j.�tJ 1 r{Y t ir' tl' 'Y 1�'TtJ. aary{� =iR�Ki a �✓.lr�p3j Carr ' at• x,'S7 'f'P, t' C - ' 7 V t'. r `.{aSPr a `t •r aF r.' l °F i�ly AKE e++'yry 1 r r1 J yi 11 �f\,v. 4., f aINV C7 xy k {s rin h1' 2 .;i J 7 x. -Ey{ 3 �a '' r ..a �i ✓ r L��a bzl t c3 ;�t S Y. .P�\ * • i'. J !Z },�t d 1 3. }d :7Ir_ }r-p J.• �, jw..,{� ti 1 Y y � 5, 't { r } � r y a r...� t .•t \ v: 1 x � ]r•�+C°e{ k.Jp r t e w �- >J j '"�. 1 t j t J F r � r ' # t :, t _ J t4 � i �OY•t rt{rN.5 � y�y%gyr ,�Lr r •ty a v�.t•t�P Fr - {+ �c •y. ,;" l v'b, t �`.�t -t' {. .0 e 1 '£'." r rj,b"ri� i; tom. x .� ... ... -. ..._....... ,..s,......:s•.�-++.;—.di,._..&��.,1 u..1:.f,cl..,+�.«.::... - ..aa,..._n`.Y Cm. Burnham stated he was concerned with the competition between these two stations for larger signage, that if each station were going to try and outdo each other with signage there would be no limit to the requests for variances, Mr. Theobold stated that if at some future date Shell Oil Company were to get out of the leaded gas business they would only have three products and therefore would not need the larger signs. He mentioned that 62% of the diesel fuel sold was for automobile use and not trucks use. Cm. Tempel questioned how this stations signage compared to the Shell Station located on Dublin Boulevard at San Ramon Road. Mr. Theobold stated that that station also has four products. There being no further comments, Cm. Barnes closed the public hearing. On motion by Cm. Zika, seconded by Cm. Burnham, and by a.vote of 4-1 (Cm. Tempel - No vote) a Resolution was adopted recommending the Planning Commission uphold the Zoning Administrator's action to deny PA 87-138, Shell Service Station variance request to exceed the maximum permitted sign area for two service station price signs. RESOLUTION NO. 007 - 88 UPHOLDING THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR'S ACTION DENYING PA 87-138 SHELL SERVICE STATION VARIANCE REQUEST TO EXCEED THE MAXIMUM PERMITTED SIGN AREA FOR TWO SERVICE STATION PRICE SIGNS AT THE SHELL SERVICE STATION ON ALCOSTA BOULEVARD AND SAN RAISON ROAD 8999 SAN RAMON ROAD SUBJECT: PA 87-045 Hansen Hill Ranch Project - General Plan Amendment Study and Planned Development Prezoning, Tentative Subdivision Mao No. 5766, and Annexation requests for 282 dwelling units on 147+ acres, west of Silvergate Drive and north of Hansen Drive, Cm. Barnes opened the public hearing which had been continued from the Planning Commission meeting of February 1, 1988, and called for the Staff Report. Ms. O'Halloran stated that at the February 1, 1988, Planning Commission meeting the Commission held a Public Hearing to receive public comments on the Draft EIR and continued the public hearing to February 16, 1988 meetinj to receive additional comments. 87-045 Hansen Hill Planning Commission Regular Meeting ` �' Minutes, February 16, 1988 t i 4 1 %�\ '�:1 a;.\ «j i h •t r yu k �'av a w %\ f i y t t � ,* t: > ,. h,+, 1 ;•�H 41j .r}.t ..v:aJ...\x� � \}.•: •. .. tS, tins { t pFSA.:. 5 ft '�. -r v M. x ^�1 t i � ,tixrx rt y,,� ,, }t, Sr'$? _kV 's a} tW ,,?!•.d'P }} r ti r t fy,�: ) ,1'' =�'+4i R=(a�l`fr'.t,'` t dj '^ !*? y s t J + s" a.;' x ,a ,.t•J a`. s+y+' ' vq.F "sa"d 9 v�,..�ti r Sty?I.t.:s,rt*ab'',r.i1'f` ryr/[t r, y 8.rt`yl,..:,•,' 1,x1 Rare, ti+rrt, ::�^ 5-t 9•a,y}t(;Exti, `r+ y74. y ✓,'Y: :,( rI +^h �y..i 1�. i�rdL, ..�,v rj�^�.te'T t Cr'.dp.. j'nt,"` ��.�•�ii�.'yur '�y� �. �.... ri_ 'fit r y � ; t N' �. � t�7 x".' J• 4 :.•ry x 'y..�f.t +r(t Y. rurl f"4 1.;r r YM'L. .� k t��s*,�w y ,�1' ��¢xy t r!A.,t � � r'' p�FY,F dWte r i•4 ` .;r� r .. .�. r, r r .., x., ;- rr :Sy r�`lrS' r* r 41, ��a��rr t f �- e"�' 4� •$�>xa+� � b .`. f.1 ts�'c of F.�ro,Ix . .rtr;r lv.. ,.. r p:.- C t r yl' 4 L �F'-,s SS =J Yr r S7Y� i' •xJ "R•t T b + •r t. d 7 y F r tf w ^�i �. -i fr fi:,y ✓ n'1. 77`r x i 'a`.,r'r f u..�, ir"}t'c�`•t1s c�'b'{,. Fu `• - y i� J C l;r 4, t It1 I s r? rt n Le rtt. r"�,r a 1, l ,}1,3 s + -{Y �j - r.• t '' r t! rfrt Y ,�c.h •AV'A.ao':fr` � t ar'"yv.+ �`,{ �,..{� (. y5 ,a id�{ , � } 3 it ti7 l 4 �l ' n E�t � ° iyxe �ariILr n y ; .? a rats5c 4ra2d0 "5 1 �,tt {'�: Srr z 1 ♦ r1 _ P{r; F' ,...y, Y C- } '4.i'1`t( '�;; .xf gL.J"Gx Ir c' Ski'-'! .'t`., J :+h ft^,i.ys lr. '�.� ,� a r ;7�x 4x' .rsh ry+f r" t ra x:�•r.Via' ' °•,. `c �.�E+y''�.f'''�,`xxo x < , The purpose of the February 16, 1988, hearing is to discuss significant impacts and mitigation measures identified in the Draft EIR and major issues related to the proposed General Plan Amendment, Planned Development Prezoning and Tentative Subdivision Map application. The submitted proposal requests approval of 248 single-family dwelling units and 34 townhomes (totaling 282 dwelling units) . It was indicated, by the Applicant, at the February 1, 1988, Planning Commission meeting that the proposed plan would be revised. On February 9, 1988, the applicant held a community meeting at which time a revised plan was presented to the public noting a reduction in dwelling units to 250 units that would not be developed on the visually prominent knolls. At the time this Staff report was being prepared, the applicant notified Staff that the revised plans would be presented to the Planning Commission at the February 16, 1988, Public Hearing. Mark Trembley, EIP, spoke regarding the responsibilities involved with evaluating and accessing impacts on the site with regards to the following: - landslides, repair and replacement of materials - concern with grading, run off into Martin Canyon Creek - need of construction along creek beds to preserve creek banks - vegetation, 61 acres of oak/bay trees; 22 acres - 36% impacted negatively - animal life, do roadway cutoff natural migration paths - land use, 79 acres of open space not available for general public - fire service, western edge outside 5 minute response time - annexation, need for 1 additional Police Officer and intrusion protection. - school impact, 56, K to 8th grade students; 89, 9-12 grade students - water, Zone 4 for western edge; wastewater would have no significant impact - noise, +70 dba along I-580 edge Cm. Zika asked if the net out cash flow of $26,000 was directed at the need for an additional police officer; emergency access and how steep grades are. Mr. Trembley stated that the $26,000 would be for a police officer; the need for an emergency access road if the road was blocked at the Valley Christian site; and that according to the Grade Map there was a 15% maximum grade. Cm. Barnes questioned the information regarding schools noting she understood Wells School was now at maximum capacity, per data from school district. Mr. Tong stated that data from school district is based on pre-unification of school district. Cm. Zika was concerned with pads with 20-30 feet of fill, drainage, and on site engineering. Cm. Mack was concerned with the visual character of the site with regard to the size of perimeter fencing. Cm. Burnham had some concerns with the amount of unengineered fill being dumped on the site from surrounding construction jobs. Regular Meeting PCM-8-27 February 16, 1988 • 3 r �� y 4 . 'a '•,wu �Y' h `RrSt1+ sv 4 t i tai. r ,# 1.x r t n E r a e� ^rlE 3 s 2E tl c• axe;ti'� } r >.' t>•t ;r a. } ,.. ..._ ., .. �.k-.. .f.•,r.a.. .. xM, Y."[Lu�S1., t.,`4: .c.,�r¢r, .:x x'x.. .. q.y,._ ,.._ ... ,. Gordon Brandt, 7402 Hansen Drive was concerned with the statistics quoted of 145 total school children for this particular development and was concerned with what the impacts would be on the schools from other future housing developments. He was also concerned with the impact of traffic on Hansen Drive, construction of another water tank, eyesore, and with rushing with unresolved issues. Bob Walker, East Bay Area Trails Council, 545 Clayton Street, San Francisco, was concerned with the major cut and fill, and suggested reducing the mass grading. It may be possible to provide access along Martin Creek, or look to major dedication for public access, possibly owner dedication like Blaylock/Gleason/Fletcher property. Marjorie LaBar, Preserve Area Ridgelands Committee, 11707 Juarez Lane, Dublin, was concerned with the following items: wildlife, heritage tree preservation, inconsistency with General Plan as far as keeping ridgelines in tact, school district impacts, traffic impacts, reduce size of project so Silvergate residents will not be impacted against (possibly removing of approximately 90-100 dwellings) fence around property would impede animal migration, vegetation replacement program (transplant "bunch" grass) save dead trees for "woodpeckers" , preserve deer trails and closer survey regarding archaeology features. Bart J. Schenone, 1290 "B" Street, Suite 218, Hayward, (Attorney for Neilsen access road) spoke regarding the emergency access road in predominately cattle grazing-agricultural use that is not compatable with urbanization. Cm. Barnes question who now owns the access road. Mr. Schenone stated that the Nielsens own the road on their property with easements for other owners for access. A. Schuitemaker, 7397 Hansen Drive, mentioned at the community meeting of February 9, 1988, there was a statement made regarding the fill in of a Swale area, according to EIR it was recommended that filling in of swales be avoided. Mr. Schuitemaker also asked if density was based on the total acres or total buildable acres, and he felt there was no need for more multi-family dwellings in this area. R. Chinn, 7336 Hansen Drive, stated she felt the hillsides should be left alone, that more parks were needed for children and was very concerned with the amount of traffic on Silvergate Drive. She stated there is a problem with all the construction vehicles not observing school stop signs. She was also concerned with the number of children being bussed that would normally be attending Nielsen school. Teresa Kalashian, 11777 Murietta Court, returned a "Speaker Slip" stating she was opposed to the project, but did not wish to speak. Michael Gleason, P.O. Box 62, Port Costa, stated he will be submitting plans in March for Donlan Canyon Ranch, 197 acre parcel which encompases the two ridgelines behind the proposed Hansen Ranch project. He is proposing a 20 acre development out of the total 197 acres and stated the need for another access road to his project. Regular Meeting PCM-8-28 February 16, 198S Jim Lopez, 7433 Hansen Drive, stated he felt the school impact information in EIR is incorrect. Overcrowding of Nielsen school is seen and traffic is a real concern. The following residents returned a "speaker slip" that indicated they did not wish to speak: James P. Clark, 7270 Prow Way, in favor of the project. Sue Clark, 7270 Prow Way, in favor of the project. Jonathan & Patricia Smiga, 11517 Silvergate Drive, opposed to the project. Cm. Barnes stated that information provided for EIR is information given by the school district and it is hard to project. Mr. Trembley stated the school district uses a ratio and we assume that the figures given are correct. Cm. Burnham stated that information provided in Draft EIR is information that was given and that it is tough to project with the figures given. Mr. Trembley stated that the school district uses a certain ratio and we assume that those figures given at the time are correct. He also stated that he will re-contact the school district and see if they want to change their information. A short recess was called. Cm. Barnes called the meeting back to order at 8:40 p.m. Gordon Jacoby presented the revised plans which include a reduction from 282 dwelling units to 250 dwelling units: 34 townhomes; 36 patio homes; 130 single family and 50 custom lots. He stated that the preliminary difference was to stay off of the knoll areas to keep from having the mass grading and to relocate soil on site and not off site. By reducing the number of dwelling units would eliminate the need for a new water tank site. Mr. Jacoby stated they are working out access road problems; working with Gleason regarding access; north access to adjoining parcels; loop road and possible Valley Christian Center access. Mr. Jacoby stated there is no note in EIR of new trees to be planted, but will present at a later meeting. Chris Craiker, Architect, presented slides and drawings showing a variety of construction types anticipated to be built in the development. This included up hill, downhill, and side to side including terracing envelopes. Included was a covered bridge at the entrance into development. Cm. Mack asked what type of siding would be on the exterior of the dwellings. Mr. Craiker stated horizonal and vertical wood siding, stucco, stone and brick would be used on the exteriors. Regular Meeting PCM-8-29 February 16, 198S Mr. Burnham asked what size the custom lots would be. Mr. Jacoby stated the patio home lot size is approximately 3,300 - 7,500 square feet, the remainder 9,000, 10,000 and 11,000 square feet. Cm. Zika inquired about design guidelines for custom houses. Mr. Jacoby stated that the CC&R's would addres the custom houses. Cm. Barnes asked for any additional speaker slips. Debbie Vasquez, 7669 Martin Canyon Road, was concerned if there was going to be a new access road for emergency use and where it would be located. She was also concerned with the trashing along Martin Canyon Creek. Cm. Barnes continued the public hearing to a future meeting. Mike Gleason suggested the Planning Commission schedule an extra hour and see both properties. On motion by Cm. Mack Saturday, February 27, 1988, 9:00 a.m. to 12:00 noon is scheduled for a field trip, open to the public, to view the Hansen and Gleason properties. NEW BUSINESS OR UNFINISHED BUSINESS Cm. Zika asked when Peppertree, between Shannon and Vomac, was scheduled for paving or slurry seal. Mr. Tong stated he would follow-up on the request. OTHER BUSINESS Mr. Tong advised that the Enea Planned Development Rezone and Goodwill Conditional Use Permit Appeal will be heard at 'the City Council Meeting of February 22, 1988. PLANNING COMMISSIONERS' CONCERNS Cm. Tempel was concerned with standing behind zoning application for one Shell Station as to what will happen with other stations; will zoning enforcement be followed. Cm. Burnham advised if permits obtained, it would have been noted they were illegal at that time or oversized. Regular Meeting PCM-8-30 February 16, 19SS jyy-y. '�,+�if {�''a K['`.r ,,) .r? .t¢ •M. �'xU q.•„�t^t g'�''yr i�xlj..iiy;:f >` {.,...t ).. Y9 19 tp'w` /v .d.ta r}fie r. t ' r .<• `lic,,l^,air r.,„.�,t�r e ,vf l�%fi,ny ,i1:r V�'r 7"'{r,'T, k� �� dn, i'�J� ?� !S tg'>�^9 'r; ;� E�•, l,r^ 24r > 3 i,.a h � . 1�,'�lc;.y ,�'Y.,'F"C:(,�15 r'r.�:!'" ',rair5'.ia �*itr.c��: ,x� `;'•M1�+' � Stri�� g Wd.�yY' ffi�; 'it ArF° ;~ Y C � ••'`;� r l �1 yJ, rir K,h f _' 9 F •F h,.-:�r�� ^`�� S 5. � J r t 1 r .r L.. *r r { �'','+Lr JJJ f.t �y,,E3w� r A to ,QI��- trd7�r f t a t a i.[•,.,rt y {s •y J, t > v e i a n nfi 'ai 4v +r Av rvr t >t cw, d n. §.�w�-a 3 4"i+�, r ,r tom' � C' •;•t , < r , { ,* ,� , s LLsf d 'f`fi,xyr'� � x� ��*t�h�ai.•k^ � ;6}ri ` }}tc{i•�* .trx} 1 r 1I+.. `{.< .ytS ti.,r a ,`f z �.h .s 3 t r�7rt'zyyYiw r., �txyr i e�•�'�44k,.�` •{�^#'..�' `�� -;�J'A��✓"�.�raf�,��. tai � t4 _s, k�-j. r:: � #. ! r' 1 G:•'a 'r r �r i '`i};3"rr 9'•"+yi`1'3i-r...X, ,f 5r .(' t,•t y .� :.y.r t /. 9„t t � p , ti ,( fivq..', - 1`p•Y t.Y. 4i /' ! Ir AI�r., ( rie•.td L,J f�f)t�, , 1kx 1r F.!'�+ , ',t t ;. Y ._1 1. M^ 1 N tS�.�,t! r�.�(LAP iL✓pn��h:y fj#,1*.. ,f7' N.ii# r �t J i 4.(s�•', r ... !, e l ,my+t i✓d.,.r r -'r•"r=3t S� rr � � •r 7. r t�',R, o !. r , •. .. r .t. h r -f: f`ry; "t�wl"'p ?ueM��K °f°.1 't ^r r�.lr Jr'�'4”? it�,�,,°.r� �$rA'`�('r t-:tI ,r ✓ ' rR `' r 51'ir c"' de+LrNxi:. ,�4 f r Gr Aa {.: '.� '' S nuf�,t 3�ari.• ftr¢,r'"}f� � Yt 7r r. F .1 d " t "+ ✓ ,c I ,+-rfy-r.r j>• .f, k. 'i f. / rs' r i dry r* 4 .� t ,,t t .. �•o Y, '�✓'r, {.�f.yi dr �i;nLS+r�'�P3�',r�'aa��Y.v���r��J'��S?tiu�� 4#•t e.'F��•Y�•M��!,r 4�"!� ✓'S�+x�'ri� *ga-'9..r;c, t .:t.__r. _..r,,r�.... uu„,.c.2.:L:,...:kYJy'.':t:.�r..y kta u._:rtxil; 6..Grss„�i..aN..GSw.-..:,':.csrd.; t!'•.. ..dri.rc "ror.:bC'.:..'..t�'h. .'r..:-s"'a"w.'ra'do:•tj Cm. Barnes closed the Public Hearing. On motion from Cm. Zika, with deletion of Condition #3, seconded by Cm. Burnham, with a vote of 5-0, the Planning Commission approved APPROVING PA 88-041 CAL-GAS CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REQUEST FOR THE CONTINUED USE OF TWO 495 GALLON PROPANE GAS STORAGE AND DISPENSING TANKS LOCATED IN THE STORAGE YARD AT 6457 DUBLIN COURT SUBJECT: PA 87-045 Hansen Hill Ranch Project - General Plan Amendment Study, Planned Development Prezoning, Tentative Subdivision Map No. 5766, and Request for Initiation of Annexation Application for 248 dwelling units on 147 acres west of Sllvergate Drive and north of Hansen Drive,. Cm. Barnes opened the Public Hearing and asked for the Staff Report. Ms. O'Halloran indicated that this application was a request for a General Plan Study, Planned Development, Prezoning, Tentative Subdivision and Annexation to allow 248 dwelling units, including 141 .single famliiy, 37 patio homes, 36 custom homes and 34 townhomes, on 147 acres. Ms. O'Halloran indicated that the City Council had authorized the General Plan Amendment Study on August 11, 1986 and the City had hired the consultant firm of EIP to assist in processing the General Plan Amendment Study and EIR. Ms. O'Halloran indicated that the Planning Commission had held two study sessions on February 2 and 17, 1987. Ms. O'Halloran indicated that after the Applicant had submitted the completed application, the Draft EIR was prepared. She indicated that the public review period for the Draft EIR ran from December 23, 1987 to February 5, 1988 and ' was extended to include comments received at the February 1 and 16, 1988 Planning Commission Meetings. Ms. O'Halloran indicated that the Planning Commission held a Study Session field trip to the Hansen Hill Ranch property on February 27, 1988. Ms. O'Halloran indicated that the Planning Commission needed to considered five separate items involved with the application. She indicated that the Final EIR needed to be certified; the General Plan :amendment relating to land use and guiding polices needed to be adopted; the Planning Development Prezoning and Tentative Subdivision Map needed to be approved; and Annexation needed to be initiated. Ms. O'Halloran indicated that there were a number of approaches the Planning Commission could take when considering this application. She indicated that the Commission could consider all five items concurrently, as requested by the 87-045 Hansen Hill Regular fleeting � � 5.s„ Planning Commission .T 4 ,I �1•y� (1. tYVI 1u Minutes, July 18, 198S �'.�•�`J.�;;sx��;sir .:9 f'" 4 a 4 ^n rM i,Y r +.,�� ,\ e r'' k�. t i * •, 4 a c �.., ; a`4ti rr { '4 t }J' ,,. s a[r'S i �...:. 2 �,°� '. e.. `•.., ., r Jt r r i� i -t 4� rr 1' � y 3\'•!•:. Ai�"��x'?�3 _ �L:' i4 t.+� ✓Yr i4.�t. 1' >>s� ...1�:'• `.K,�,.,.„t. ., ....; .....�.. ...,.,��4.o-.�.a_.ti•`'ei�v7€�. t... ��r°,z..'-_ ,.. ...�.,__ .,..,.;�1?t .. �"_.z ,., .- .,`cY`.t.._e. ... .. �c� -. ... _.,.. is Applicant, consider each item separately with recommendation to the City Council or consider and provide recommendations to the City Council on the EIR and General Plan Amendment concurrently prior to proceeding with the Planned Development Prezoning, Tentative 24ap and Annexation requests. Ms. O'Halloran indicated that Staff recommends the Planning Commission choose the latter approach. She indicated that if the Planning Commission chooses to consider and provide recommendations on all five items concurrently, then the Commmision should continue this application so Staff would be able to prepare a Staff Report addressing all five items concurrently. Staff recommended a reduction to a General Plan land use range of 53 to 169 dwelling units. Mr. Jacoby, The Venture Corporation, indicated that he would like the Planning Commission to consider all five items of the application at one time. He indicated that this application has been pending for two years while being heard every 3-4 months. Mr. Jacoby passed out pamphlets showing the outline of the application's progress. He wanted to determine the number of dwelling units that could be built. He indicated he spent over $500,000 on various studies. Mr. Jacoby express his concerns on Staff's recommendation of reviewing the EIR and General Plan Amendment items separately and indicated that this would cause time delays. He indicated his March 1988 discussion with Staff regarding processing only the General Plan Amendment to get policy direction, but he decided to request all the permits. Mr. Jacoby indicated that Staff had requested detailed studies of the application as a whole and he was under the impression that the application was moving in the right direction and therefore was shocked with the recommends the Staff was making. Mr. Jacoby indicated that the time delays were getting critical and he was not clear on the Staff's change in the course of action. Mr. Jacoby indicated that he believed the Commission could deal with all sides of the application at once, which would give the Commission a better grasp of the project. Mr. Jacoby indicated that he believed that it was unfair to chap;e the course of action and asked that the Staff be requested to create conditions of approval so that the Planning Commission could deal with all aspects of the application. Cm. Tempel asked the Applicant how much time delay would be involved if the Planning Commission considered each item separately. Mr. Jacoby indicated that it would add 3-6 months on the interim process and reiterated that two years have already gone by since the application was firs considered. Regular Meeting PC;I-14-4 July 1S, 19S8 Cm'. Tempel indicated that the City Council has not provided a density range. + Mr. Jacoby indicated that the City Council would be provided with all the details. He indicated that these issues could be part of the Conditions of Approval. Cm. Tempel asked the Staff how much time would be added. Mr. Tong indicated that they would need to address the land use policies and that is critical for the final design. He indicated that the Planning Commission needs to take a look at the General Plan policy and at the same time deal with a lot of information plus the land use design. Mr. Tong indicated that the two year time period had not been anticipated. He indicated there had been Staff changes within the City and The Venture Corporation plus changes in the proposal. He indicated that all these factors added to the length of processing the application. Cm. Tempel asked if the Planning Commission could process each phase alternately; as such, the City Council would define the land use policy and then the Planning Commission would continue to the next phase. Mr. Tong indicated that this process would be simpler. He indicated that each phase: General Plan Amendment Study; Planned Development and Tentative Map; and Annexation, would go to the City Council separately for their direction. Fred Edsel, legal counsel for The Venture Corporation, indicated that he saw no problems going ahead with the application as a whole. He indicated the the information was all there and should not be overwhelming. He indicated that the land use issue was already defined and there was no need for the City Council to further define the land use. He indicated that the Planning Commission could make a better decision on the application as a whole because every aspect would be presented at one time. Jim Lopez, 7463 Hansen Drive, indicated that he had seen poor planning in other cities where he had lived and would hope that the City of Dublin would consider the proposal carefully. Marjorie LaBar, Preserve Area Ridgelands Committee, indicated that she was opposed to the EIR as it was presented and that there seemed to be a radical difference in opinion between the City and the Applicant and requested the Planning Commission consider the EIR and General Plan Amendment at this time. Ms. O'Halloran asked the Planning Commission if they wished to proceed on Staff's recommendation. Cm. Burnham asked how the Planning Commission could address all five issues and make good recommendations. He indicated that there seemed to be some flaws in the EIR and these flaws could change the whole report. Regular Meeting PCM-14-5 July 18, 1988 Cm. Zika indicated that if the Planning Commission approves the application as a whole and then the City Council rejects it, then the process will start all over again. Mr. Jacoby indicated that he was willing to take the risk and he had confidence in his project because steps were taken slowly. Cm. Zika indicated that he preferred to send the recommendations on to City Council one at a time and if we considered all items at once that the application may not go to the City Council until September of 1989. Mr. Jacoby indicated that he would prefer the Planning Commission take their time and make sure its all integrated. Cm. Mack indicated her preference to consider one item at a time; the EIR and General Plan Amendment concurrently, then proceed with the other items. Cm. Barnes indicated her perference to consider one item at a time. Cm. Tempel indicated his preference to consider one item at a time. He indicated that he believed, in the long run, less time would be wasted and the items would be easier to understand with less errors made. Ms. O'Halloran continued the presentation of the Staff Report. Ms. O'Halloran indicated that the EIR consists of the DEIR plus the addendum of May 1988 with written and oral comments incorporated into the report. She indicated that Scott Edmonton of EIP was present to identify significant impacts identified in the EIR and to discuss the mitigation measure options available. Scott Edmonton discussed the certification process of the EIR and summarized the review and findings of the EIR. He indicated that the assessment of the EIR was required to adequately fulfill its purpose under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) . He indicated that the EIR recommends mitigation measures to reduce any significant levels of impact of the project to the environment. He indicated that the EIR fulfills the requirement of public review. Mr. Edmonton indicated that the EIR is not equivalent to a project approval nor does the EIR constrain conditions for project approval. He indicated, however, that the EIR sets certain conditional standards for project approval. Mr. Edmonton indicated that the DEIR showed 54 individual impact findings plus 67 proposals of significant mitigation measures. He indicated that the DEIR showed 4 options to reduce certain environmental impacts. He indicated that there were some unavoidable standard impacts for this type of project. Regular Meeting PCM-14-6 July 18, 1988 Cm. Zika asked about the geology in regards to the large amount of grading. Cm. Tempel asked about the traffic concerns and mitigation measures. Ms. O'Halloran indicated that the Planning Commission needed to make a recommendation on acceptable levels of service. She indicated that the mitigation measures proposed level of service D. Mr. Tong discussed the traffic distribution and impacts shown in the EIR. Mr. Jacoby indicated that traffic levels would not change considerably with or without his proposed project. Cm. Burnham questioned the level of service of traffic. Ms. O'Halloran indicated that the traffic chart shows the impact on the level of service with the project being approved. Mr. Jacoby indicated that his project would not be to blame for traffic impacts and that the traffic problems already exist on Dublin Boulevard. Mr. Edmonton indicated that the Staff Report, Attachment No. 5, shows level of service in three categories. Mr. Tong further explained the chart showing level of service. Cm. Zika asked if the level of service E meant 100% capacity and asked about projects that were already approved for construction. Mr. Jacoby indicated that the Staff's information was not consistent with the EIR. Cm. Zika asked Mr. Jacoby why his project would not change the traffic conditions. Mr. Jacoby indicated that the traffic chart shows no sign of impact on traffic. Mr. Tong indicated that he would talk with the traffic consultants (TJYM) in regards to the traffic comparison inconsistencies. Cm. Barnes asked for a five minute break. Cm. Barnes continued the EIR discussions. Mr. Jacoby indicated that at the last EIR hearing there was a desire for dedication of open space and that he has provided for certain parts of his project be dedicated to open Space. Regular Meeting PCM-14-7 July 1S, 1988 Marjorie Labar commented on the adequacy of the EIR. She indicated there was a recommendation for the area to be surveyed for archeology purposes. She indicated that there were no approvals from the Fish & Game Department. She indicated that the EIR was inconsistent and incomplete and should not be certified as is. Cm. Burnham asked Mr. Edmonton if his company was obligated to research the information that the schools have provided in the EIR. Mr. Edmonton indicated that it was standard practice to take the information by way of phone calls to the agencies and that is what is shown in the EIR. Cm. Burnham asked about the figures shown in regards to enrollment capacity. He indicated that there seemed to be some discrepancies in the enrollment statistics. He indicated that he had heard there were families in the Neilson School area that could not get their children enrolled because the school was full. Mr. Edmonton indicated that this issue had come up before and that if the school capacity issue had a significant impact on the project, then more research was in order. Cm. Burnham stressed his concern on having the busing issue arise out of this project being constructed. Mr. Edmonton indicated that the EIR was to show standard conditions. He indicated that he could not set school district policies. Cm. Burnham asked if there was a way the figures shoran in the EIR could be checked. Ms. O'Halloran indicated that she had called the school district that afternoon in regards to the Nielson School. She indicated that the 707 enrollment figure was correct and current enrollment was estimated to be 582 with the school having grades K-5. Cm. Burnham asked if the school district foresaw any enrollment problems. Ms. O'Halloran indicated negative and that the school was showing a surplus. Cm. Burnham expressed his concerns on using the number statistics. Cm. Burnham questioned where the response to ilr. Babbitt's letter was in regards to the land. Cm. Barnes indicated that the response was on pine 3-37. Cm. Burnham asked if this was not an adequate response. Mr. Edmonton indicated that he did not believe there was a significant impact, that it was more on a level of a Site Development Review problem with an engineering solution. Regular Meeting PCM-14-8 July 1S, 19S8 i ? r. n.. t.>•�nyV '-J.�j .rll �t tt. w K�� y J t..v}�4"`�F A1'6 3�1 , ,7 Ys 3iY� Y a n uy" F 1,of A4 Z', r a t r � r., !Jf .A ,.; 1 j:; ••i+ r ,��. r �r.W� 5' - fus�'�'„x;.. ti �4;Nt�f$�'" ' .. J�yk �^r F" r'rty litr✓r %sf w ," "�{MA'6i� i ¢..rf {� + ✓ 1 r✓ s� a b A A r - o- a` 'rn rk,jz^i♦" �¢yyr t�ty i NRI �tf"X 1MStiL Z" { 7f. i'a l4 ..r. Jai 1 %p 4la 1 x.. f c ' •'r '•i ,(, {t y + Sri aT + r FPr the i " }t:�� jd�r`fn tt"a d ssf L � f r3�rr k�r s4 �1 a4 Y Mr. Edmonton indicated that Marjorie Labar's previous comments could be made within the Conditions of Approval. Jim Lopez, Hansen Drive, addressed the comments in regards to the school enrollment. He indicated that the figures were not accurate in regards to the mix, i.e. , kindergarten versus the higher grades. He questioned the future problems in regards to population growth. He indicated that these problems should be addressed at this time. Mr. Edmonton indicated that the school district does not see a future growth problem. He reiterated that the EIR was not setting policies. Mr. Lopez indicated that he was not questioning the EIR, however, he was questioning where the statistic were coming from. Ms. O'Halloran discussed the General Plan Amendment in relation to the EIR plus the land use designation. She indicated that portion of the site is in the primary planning area and other portions were in the extended planning area. She indicated that if this land was annexed, then this site should be incorporated into the City's primary planning area. Ms. O'Halloran indicated that there were three specific land uses, i.e. , single family, multi-family and open space areas. She discussed the established density ranges and the adjusted density ranges. Ms. O'Halloran indicated that the Planning Commission and City Council would want to consider policies that are in the General Plan in regards to grading, vegetation, open space issues and the establishment of density range and land use designation. She indicated that Staff recommends the current policies that are in the General Plan with the project's impacts. Ms. O'Halloran showed designated areas on the map posted on the wall in addition to areas with significant grading. She indicated that the Ij Applicant's proposal was not consistent with the General Plan policy and would j require revisions. She indicated that the Planning Commission may want to discuss this area of the Staff Report. ' Cm. Burnham indicated that he had some difficulties in the maps and asked which engineer was right. Ms. O'Halloran indicated that the issue was whether the General Plan polices were adequate to address this project and if the City wants to extend these planning areas. Mr. Jacoby questioned what area of the Staff Report they were discussing and indicated he would comment after the Staff Report had been addressed as a whole. Ms. O'Halloran continued to discuss the vegetation, woodland and riparian areas. She indicated that General Plan polices are adequate to preserve these areas and that the Applicant's project would remove these areas and would no Regular Meeting PCM-14-9 July 18, 1988 r ! \ J 1 `A Y + 1' l4 � t � �1 a♦ �'1 t +♦ L 'c., . 1�,,� S .s " {' J♦ t: ;, '� Z 5 � � � � `�, t ,WA{k� � A i , 'r ♦ Via: „ � 1 t a �f.Yr"��,Y r t> » a 5 r 1 1. !, r ro � � 5 �.! �i `' -t t • r• �• ..•y k1;n\L 1 a<\\ )t to `•4 6t --a•\ h �,w ..�� ;tl{i }ror �1 .a'� k 4^ "� ♦1 1 7 :� f r , �,; a r �. ; S ' s 7r tilt o ♦ '. F.�'it�'r�� r,r C., b �k Zx is }-.} '^ 7 i t x , !t +'1� `fir\:JtS y 'ti v a � y i ♦ +•tt� w\"•-fa t longer be considered open space area. She discussed the areas of significant grading, the open space areas, significant visual impacts and General Plan policies in regards to the development of the hillside areas. Mr. Jacoby indicated there were inaccuracies in the interpretation of the General Plan Amendment. He indicated that he had planning background. He indicated that there was a difference between the gross versus net density range calculations. He indicated that the Staff Report showed 96 acres of unbuildable areas, however his report shows 61 acres. He indicated that the Tentative Map showed 82 acres of open space. He indicated there was a buffer of 11 acres of open space behind the homes being built. Mr. Jacoby indicated that the Hansen Hill project had the lowest gross density compared to other projects that were being built and his project was consistent with the General Plan. Mr. Jacoby discussed the road improvements in regards to Valley Christian and Church Road. Mr. Jacoby reiterated that the density range was miscalculated, that he was dedicating a large amount of property and that the project was consistent with the General Plan. Cm. Barnes discussed the procedures in regards to continuing the Planning Commission meeting to another date. Cm. Zika indicated that the Staff and the Developer should get together to discuss their differences. He mentioned that you could not compare other projects if they did not have similar topography. Mr. Tong indicated that he would be happy to sit do.r. with the Applicant and review the project. Cm. Barnes agreed that Staff should meet with the Applicant. Cm. Barnes indicated that there may be a quorum problem for the nett scheduled meeting. Mr. Tong indicated that a study session could be set up; however, the newspaper may need to notice the hearing. Mr. Tong indicated 'that they needed to clarify the interpretation of density ranges. Mr. Tong indicated that there was typically a 10-day notice period. He indicated that the Brown Act sho.:s 72 hours. Cm. Barnesd requested Staff to seek legal advice. Mr. Ton; asked if July 26th was a `ood date for the study session, if legally possible. Regular Meeting PCM-14-10 July 1S, 198S Cm. Barnes stated that this was okay. As part of the public hearing, Robert Patterson submitted a Speaker Slip indicating opposition to the item, and Joyce Graham, representing the Silvergate Townhouse Homeowner' s Association indicated they were in fa-,or of the Staff recommendation. Cm. Barnes kept the Public Hearing open and continued PA 87-045 until the next meeting, or, if no quorum, to the August 15 meeting. SUBJECT: PA 88-055 Zoning Ordinance Amendment - Sign Ordinance - Second Freestanding Sign (continued from July 5, 1988) PA 88-056 Zoning Ordinance Amendment - Sign Ordinance - Service Station Price Signs (continued from July 5, 1988) Cm. Barnes opened the Public Hearing and asked for the Staff Report. Ms. O'Halloran indicated that this application for a sign ordinance amendment had been continued from the meeting of July 5, 1988 in order for the Staff to prepare the necessary resolutions approving the Neg-ative Declaration and recommending adoption of the sign ordinance amerdment, incorporating proposed changes discussed at the previous meeting. Ms. O'Halloran indicated that the Draft Ordinance would include amendments to the sign ordinance involving service station price signs and second freestanding signs, as discussed in the July 5, 198S Planning Commission Meeting. Ms. O'Halloran indicated that the draft resolutions recommending City Council approval, which approval was subject to the City Attorney's review, were attached. Ms. O'Halloran indicated that the Negative Declaration was attached as Exhibit B and the Draft Ordinance was attached as Exhibit C. Cm. Barnes closed the Public Hearing. On motion from Cm. Mack, seconded by Cm. Tempel, .,ith a vote of 5-0, the Planning Commission approved RECOM;fENDING ADOPTION OF A NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR THE SIGN ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS FOR PA 88-055 AND PA SS-056 Regular fleeting PCM-14-11 Jul}- 1S, 1988 i.14 eA S ��S�f� 4 ,�+ ✓ Ir � i Y?' '.t 1r'�°'"�?{ r t..., r" '•c''� r -i�..tY.:L k �( � P0, A .�,..�,Yku,2�'srf.. �.•r(y t-�i.(=�`� n,. r_r..r. �a�{'�y s! r�.�dv 1 f- � �F f: Y •.. .'� 3 $ ',; 4J f .• r 1 "�i• ! J f1uF'�1f•YkY '�"x✓.�7 P."11K+4-..�4`i�� _ fm:T f K .' 1�r n 1 f 4":, � fi f�•14,�arl ktxf ✓ _ N , 3 i f *, r. r r..., n'7j .1T a .A < N fy:1 7� Y, J� r.- ,5�., �5_ ti 1 L � ,..- - •t t � r r ,, j zx r :�, ,,j f��' ✓QSk. sz S.'Y ° f+�?11 f o .4 -+ PUBLIC HEARINGS 7 i SUBJECT: PA 87-045 Hansen Ranch General Plan { Amendment Study, Planned Development 5 Prez'oning, Tentative Subdivision Map No. 5766, and Annexation request for 248 dwelling units on 147 acres, west of J Silvergate Drive and north of Hansen Drive ' (continued from July 18, 1988 meeting) Cm. Barnes opened the public hearing and called for the Staff Report. t Mr. Tong indicated that this item had been continued from the July 18th Planning Commission meeting and at that time the Planning Commission decided to provide recommendations on the General Plan Amendment and Environmental { Impact Report issues. Mr. Tong indicated that the Planning Commission had requested that Staff meet with the Applicant to discuss the density and traffic issues as presented in the EIR. He indicated that Staff had met with the Applicant on July 20th and 25th and these meetings had resulted in the recommendation of having a workshop format set up for further discussions. i a Mr. Tong indicated that Staff was recommending that the Planning Commission start by addressing at least two issues; where to develop and how much to i develop. jMr. Tong indicated that the workshop format would enable issues to be clarified and would give the Planning Commission an opportunity for informal 's discussions plus hear additional public comments. He indicated that the Planning Commission would need to reconvene to a regular public hearing format and make decisions and recommendations on this project at that time. 7 Mr. Tong indicated that potential dates available for the non-decision making ' format would be August 16, 17, 23, and 24, 1988. He indicated that the Planning Commission may also want to have a field trip to the site. Mr. Tong indicated that once all issues were clarified then the Planning Commission would need to request Staff to prepare appropriate resolutions to incorporate the decisions made. The Planning Commission recommended that they recess to a workshop format. They indicated that future workshops would be help on August 23 and 24, 1988. They indicated that they would like to have a field trip on August 20th starting at 9:00 a.m. Mr. Tong indicated that it would be appropriate at this time to discuss the key issues in regards to where the develop was to occur and how much potential develop would occur. Regular Meeting 87-045 Hansen Hill ` r� Planning Commission ., , � Minutes, August 1, 1988 �. td 'ad ii •:nom i ,u:, - t •{p4i a ''. i �.>� a x f r, 1 >> r r•`i•t ,a ri ix, i F ,nom tieewEaY1ir� � ., 4 . tw<i�s �' a'ey � j>i � , .. Zti ', r.. ., i .• r . .1...,�h ,.1. _.. f; ,t: _ .•..... .,!..,i;a,L 7 ' £5U f :'-rT ?..1 :ta?• ,� Mr. Tong discussed the net versus gross density range and the potential traffic level of service at Dublin Boulevard and San Ramon Road. He indicated that the density range figures presented by the Staff at the previous meeting were the correct figures. Cm. Zika asked Mr. Tong to clarify the figures in regards to density range shown in the July 18th meeting. Mr. Tong indicated that when Staff was talking about gross density that meant exclusion of non-buildable areas. Mr. Tong indicated that Staff had reviewed the level of service issues with Chris Kinzel of TJKM and has found that the LOS for the Dublin Boulevard and San Ramon Road intersection shown in the EIR as LOS F is correct. Cm. Zika asked if the mitigation measures shown in the EIR were incorporated, and the potential project was developed, what would the LOS be. Mr. Kinzel indicated that the LOS would be "D" during peak hours. Cm. Zika asked if building the road at the Valley Christian Center would help the traffic situation on Silvergate. Mr. Kinzel indicated that TJKM had considered the effects of the project and based on all factors involved, these figures were correct. He indicated that they had a better handle on intersection traffic versus residential so these figures were subjective. Mr. Tong reiterated the land use designation as discussed in the July 18, 1988 Staff Report, Attachment 6. He showed the land use designations which were outlined on the wall map. He indicated that there were three differences shown on Attachment 3 of the Staff Report and indicated these areas on the wall map. Mr. Tong marked the cut and fill areas proposed for the development on the wall map as well as the areas that were in question. He outlined the proposed project site on the aerial map as well. David Gates discussed the three areas designated on the wall. map that were in question in the Staff Report. He discussed the buildable road areas and why these areas could be built as designed for their development. J Mr. Gates indicated, that the area of development would be treated as gently as possible. He showed the projected roads to be developed. He discussed traffic accessibility, the best locations for cuts, discreet neighborhoods, protection of swales and grading issues. Mr. Jacoby indicated that Hansen Drive's view would not be destroyed. Cm. Zika indicated that he was concerned with the heavy grading because of possible slippage problems due to rainfall. Regular Meeting PCIM-6-3 August 1, 1988 Sid Cerate, Wilsey & Ham, indicated that if the engineering was done correctly there would not be any slippage problems. Cm. Zika asked if the developer could guarantee that there would not be any landslide problems occuring in the next 20 years. Mr. Jacoby indicated that the development would have the best techniques and all plans would be reviewed and approved by the City. He indicated that professional engineers as well as himself would still be around at that time. Mr. Tong indicated that Mark Trembley of EIP prepared the Environmental Assessment. Mark Trembley indicated that there were critical constraints shown in the DEIR on page 4-7 as well as in the City's Staff Report shown on Attachment 6. Mr. Gates discussed Area 2 in regards to land capacity and landslide areas. He indicated that this area would be re-built with or without development on this area. He indicated that this area was a non-riparian area. Mr. Gates indicated that Area 3 was a fragile zone and showed before and after pictures to the Planning Commission of the area to be developed. The Planning Commission took a break. Cm. Barnes indicated that she would like the public to fill out the speaker slips that were provided for their use. Mr. Jacoby discussed Area 3 in regards to the needed roads for emergency access. He indicated that there would be an all-weather road for emergency access only which would have electronic security gates. Cm. Tempel asked what would happen if there was an accident at the "Y" intersection. Mr. Jacoby indicated that there were many ways for emergency vehicles to access that area. Mr. Gates discussed the area where custom home lots would be built. Mr. Jacoby indicated that the planned development was a typical lot design which minimizes grading and was single loaded - houses on only one side of the street. Cm. Zika asked if the housing units in Area 3 were to be built below the road. Mr. Gates indicated that yes, they would be. Regular Meeting PC;i-6-4 August 1, 1988 •I_ _ ,�a �ZV s. • 4 f � �t �' SY .nr s..ry i /J� r y }s Tr,"J - r h� r t rye y 5 n s a r J t U i1 Ale, + s r s- r � � � ♦- r. 'Y,.s� t/ << 'i �, ,r ti't`',yy v.F,f � �4 t 7 r�/1.t� �� �r�eM •'#t � ) / .. `•.t . '+ a r, � r u r / + n d firF vs j' :! ��b'rf S� 3 t +' � ( • •± T +.� -r7 .. ( r •�' - rj�. .. +�" ! xt t.J tr iY't r r: �`�7c�:� �* Y�'Cy+}•s�'r�,�r j T{ '� r f+ rl P r�, fiY� it er f,�l;C �',}. 1 t e.� yT iX ��,� T'`�r Mr v.����C �^�1',+•n •A r � . . ._ v..a.�. .._. _...s�_.........r.:'_.:..r.1»._.,.'�'.�.�'���4�'.:s..-......c...+:.r::S;'•rr...,,..f..�'�.s,...t_ais_'...,.sx«��.c' 'e�'4..r,...,::=�_.s.. ..'.' ..: _ , 'a Mr. Ton indicated that Staff feels g part of this area is at 30%, Cm. Zika asked if Area 3 was buildable at all. Mr. Tong indicated that more than one access road is required and that the engineering for the site was feasible. Cm. Zika asked if there were no other choice. Mr. Tong indicated that the length of the cul-de-sacs would be limited. Mr. Gates indicated he thought that the development was pretty consistent with City policies. Mr. Jacoby indicated that he was willing to have the map reduced to 11x17 for the upcoming field trip. Gloria Kasdon, 11418 Winding Trails Lane; indicated that she was concerned _ about flood control in the area. si Marjorie LaBar, Preserve Area Ridgelands Committee, 11707 Juarez Lane, indicated that there was a response missing from the Fish & Game Department and that she could provide Staff with a copy.' She indicated that EIP did not 'i adequately respond to the archeology issues. She indicated that the area proposed for development was a natural place for archaeology finds and that ;A this was a major concern of hers. Cm. Zika asked if anything had been found on the Hansen property. Ms. LaBar indicated that the Hansen property had not been fully surveyed. Cm. Zika asked who would pay for the archaeology survey. Ms. LaBar indicated that it would be up to the City or Developer and that it would cost the City more money later down the road. - Cm. Zika asked about the Fish & Game response. Ms. LaBar indicated that the response was in the general area of Area 1 and 2 and their concerns were in line with the City Staff's concerns. Ms. LaBar indicated that she was concerned with endangered species. Ms. LaBar commended Staff's procedures on this project and distributed a hard copy of her comments to the Planning Commission and Staff. Ms. Labar commented on the revegetation process and how it would take a considerable amount of time for re-growth. Daniel & Jane Erwin, 11408 Winding Trails Lane, were opposed to the development. Regular Meeting PCM-6-5 August 1, 1988 t-1 � ,, d�k �t * ley , �'P i♦ '`e� 7y��i. F 5 �"� �l k } r � � .. ' ,, � - '4. tT Yy �� "i�T.r Sn Y�C�r ��.'°iy�°t te.+: t �w• - +• .. ,� ., ... .- ... .-� � .. .... .SCt,L�.. !! ,_�.�Js-'I�r;�7tT .v,:s�t.i'�s�r �rya��, 9..R.A:8�1. �'. �. .. ? • Russell Smerz, 7530 Rolling Hills Circle, Silvergate Highlands Homeowner's Association, was opposed to the development and was concerned about the impact of noise and pollution levels. Carol Rutherfall, 11416 Winding Trail, was opposed to the Hansen Hill development. She made comment that John & Karen Terrozia, 11414 Winding Trail, also had concerns regarding this development. L. Stafford Johnson, 7546 Rolling Hills Circle, was concerned about endangered animals and plants as well as traffic safety around children in the area. He asked if a survey had been conducted in the spring in regard to the endangered species. Mr. Graham was opposed to the development and had concerns about noise and pollution levels, roads being torn up by heavy machinery and where the road entrance was being built. He asked if the City was prepared to pay for new roads in the area. He indicated that when he bought his home he was not told that there would be a road coming through his backyard. He asked what legal recourse was available. Mr. Smerz indicated that the Christian Valley Road access was not feasible for Dublin Boulevard/San Ramon Road commuters. Mr. Johnson asked if the City building codes required the pilings to go down to undisturbed area. Mr. Tong indicated that there were standard engineering and building code requirements that would apply. Mr. Johnson was concerned about possible landslides. There were questions raised from the audience concerning traffic impacts on San Ramon Road. Mr. Tong indicated that the City was working on widening a portion of San Ramon Road this year and plans were in the making for widening the remaining portion of the road. A member of the audience indicated that there was a concern on the blind spot over the hill and that this may necessitate a stop sign or stop light. Mr. Smerz asked about the procedures for requesting a stop sign. Mr. Toni indicated this would have to go to the City Council and a submittal request would have to be directed to the Public Works Director. Mr. and i1rs. Mark Allen, 7507 Roiling Hills Circle, were opposed to the item. Ms. Nancy Briest, 7503 Rolling Hills Circle, was opposed to the item. Mr. Don Briest, 7503 Rolling Hills Circle, was opposed to this item in regards to current development profile outlook. He indicated that the City had gone far enough up the hills with homes. Regular Meeting PCM-6-6 August 1, 19SS " is Ms. Evelyn Freeman, 11400 Winding Trail Lane, was opposed to the item in regards to the possible litter problems. Ms. Joyce Graham, Board of Directors, Silvergate Townhouse Homeowners Association, 11426 Winding Trail Lane, was opposed to the item as presented by Applicant. She commended Staff for doing a good job and was concerned about the road being built because of the close proximity to existing townhouses. Cm. Barnes requested a larger facility for all future study sessions. Cm. Barnes kept the public hearing open and continued this item to August 23 and 24, 1988. NEW BUSINESS OR UNFINISHED BUSINESS Cm. Zika asked about the status of his request for the City to obtain information regarding 90-gallon garbage cans. Mr. Tong advised that the idea to use 90-gallon garbage cans may not be economical for a city the size of Dublin. He indicated that San Ramon and Pleasanton use a different garbage company service than Dublin. Cm. Zika and Barnes asked if it was possible for the Planning Commission to ask the City Council to investigate the feasibility of 90-gallon garbage cans servicing the Dublin area. Mr. Tong advised that yes, the Planning Commission could make a request, however, it may be more appropriate to make the request as individuals or residence of Dublin, instead of as the Planning Commission. OTHER BUSINESS Cm. Tempel asked about the traffic signal status on Lewis Avenue. Mr. Tong said that he would check. Cm. Barnes asked about the status of the mailboxes being moved. Mr. Tong indicated that there was no response from the postmaster as of yet. Cm. Barnes indicated that there may be a need for requests from the general public. Regular Meeting PCM-6-7 August 1, 19SS STUDY SESSION: SUBJECT: PA 87-045 Hansen Ranch General Plan Amendment Study, Planned Development Prezoning, Tentative Subdivision Map No. 5766, and Annexation request for 248 dwelling units on 147 acres, west of Silvergate Drive and north of Hansen Drive Cm. Barnes called for the Staff Report. Ms. O'Halloran indicated that this item had been continued from the August 1, 1988 Public Hearing Meeting and there had been a field trip to the site on August 20, 1988. She indicated that this study session was being held for the purpose of reviewing and gathering information regarding this project and for the Planning Commission to provide Staff and Applicant with additional direction. Ms. O'Halloran indicated that there were two key issues that needed to be discussed; where to develop and how much to develop. She indicated that in addition to these two issues the Planning Commission needed to address various Environmental Impact Report and General Plan Amendment issues. Ms. O'Halloran indicated that after all the issues had' been addressed, the Planning Commission should direct Staff to prepare the appropriate resolutions and recommendations. She indicated that the Planning Commission would need to reconvene and proceed in a regular meeting format. Ms. O'Halloran indicated that the Planning Commission may want to discuss the field trip or may have engineering questions that can be addressed to Lee Thompson, Public Works Director. Cm. Barnes indicated that she would like to hear public comments first before continuing. Cm. Burnham asked Lee Thompson the procedure on grading and dirt being moved from place to place. Lee Thompson indicated that there was a grading permit needed. He indicated that a soil's engineer was needed to supervise project and certify compaction and that water trucks would be used. Cm. Burnham indicated his concern about run-off. Mr. Thompson indicated that there would be storm drains and energy dissipators. He indicated that erosion control measures would be put in place and that hay bales would also be used. Gordon Brandt, 7402 Hansen, asked how much earth was actually being moved on- site and off-site. Regular Meeting 87-045 Hansen Hill Planning Commission �} aY Minutes, August 23, 1988 Sid Cerates, Wilsey & Ham, indicated that 1.1 million yards was being moved with some of it being moved to the Valley Christian Center area. Mr. Jacoby indicated that the dirt was not being moved through town. Mr. Brandt indicated that the hay bales at Pulte were not effective and asked if there was any guarantees from the City or developer. Mr. Thompson indicated that there would be a City inspector on the Hansen site once a day. Gloria Kasdan, 11418 Winding Trail Lane, indicated that there was a potential flood hazard due to obstructions and debris in creek bed. Mr. Thompson indicated that the channel is wide enough; however a power pole had fallen at the time of the flood. He indicated that there have not been any problems since then. He indicated that storm patrols would look into the problem and make sure the creek was maintained. Cm. Burnham asked what part of the creek was the responsibility of the property owners. Mr. Thompson said the property owners would be responsible for the creek on their own property. Mr. Jacoby indicated that hydrologic study had been done for a 100 year flood zone and recommendations were taken from the worst storm. He indicated that precautionary measures would be taken. Mr. Thompson indicated that the channel is designed to take water and that debris is causing problems. He indicated that the developer would take care of the clean-up and a homeowner's association would be set up as a requirement before building started. Harvey Scudder indicated his concern that homeowner's associations fail to do y their duties; fees often go up and debris and garbage is around property. He indicated that someone should take responsibility of the open space, i.e, the City, Developer, East Bay Regional Park District, etc. Mr. Jacoby indicated that this situation is being looked into. He indicated that a letter had been submitted to the park district in regards to dedication. He indicated the willingness to dedicate 4 areas of the creek, keep it in a homeowner's association, have a landscape maintenance district, and that the City would have to decide. Mr. Brandt asked if the East Bay Regional Park District had taken any interest in the proposals. Mr. Jacoby indicated that the impression was that they were interested in the ridge area. Regular Meeting PC,i-7-147 August 23, 1988 Mr. Tong indicated that the City Staff has had informal discussions with the Park District Staff; however no formal discussions have occurred with the City Council. John Trazio, 11414 Winding Trails, indicated his concern with allergic reactions caused by moving large amounts of dirt and carbon dioxide caused by traffic congestion. Bob Hansen was concerned with the meadow and location of the road at the rear of the townhouses. Dave Gates discussed where the road would be and showed the area on the wall maps. He indicated that the trees and landscaping would be a minimum of 15 feet wide for privacy. Karen Rutherfall asked if the creek bed and oak trees would be affected. Mr. Gates indicated that the oak trees would stay. He indicated that the new trees were quick growing and would be 20 feet in 4-5 years. A man in the audience indicated that in order to prevent noise problems, a soundwall would be needed instead of the trees. Mr. Jacoby indicated that the road was 25 feet from the property line. Audience indicated their concern over cutting down trees around creek. Mr. Gates indicated that trees were not being cut down except for where the road crosses the creek. Mr. Tong clarified the area of concern on the wall maps. Cm. Barnes indicated that she has been to the area in question three times and had numerous pictures. A person in the audience asked if Hansen Drive would become 2 or 4 lanes and if there would be a stop sign put in. ' Mr. Cerates indicated that there would be 2 lanes - single lane in each direction. Rene Graham, 11412 Winding Trails, indicated her concern on traffic congestion as there would be at least 1,000 trips x 2 cars per family which would equal 2,000 trips. A person in the audience asked who was going to pay for the damage on Silvergate Drive when the roads would be torn up by the heavy equipment. Mr. Thompson indicated that repairs would be borne by the developer and it would be required that the road through the Valley Christian Center be used. Mr. Jacoby indicated that they rarely tear up major streets and the developer would be responsible for repairs. Regular Meeting PCM-7-148 August 23, 1988 Cm. Burnham indicated that there is always that saying "who gets there first". If the Hansen project had been developed first, then there would be concerned citizens regarding the Kaufman & Broad project. He indicated that a developer could not guarantee a view. Mr. Grandt indicated that he had been misinformed in regards to the view. He indicated that he was not dead set against the development; he was more against the scope and intensity of the project, and the saturation of development. Mr. Trazio indicated his concern on carbon dioxide problems and the road development. Ms. Cleo Davidson indicated that no matter what, there would be development and change was inevitable. She would like to see everyone work together, protect the environment, iron out problems and save the trees. She indicated that once the development is started there would be no turning back. Cm. Burnham asked about the financial liability concerns regarding the creek area. Mr. Tong indicated that there would be some maintenance and police concerns and City liabilities would increase, not decrease. Cm. Burnham indicated that he does not want to see fences surrounding the creek area. He indicated that if Zone 7 takes over, there would be no access to creek. Mr. Jacoby indicated that the creek would have to be dedicated/accepted by the City to enable the creek to be used by the public. An individual in the audience asked if there would be flood gates and other improvements such as concrete bricks. Mr. Jacoby clarified that there would be drop structures, not flood gates for flood control. He indicated that the creek would be kept as natural as possible and there would be trails in creek area. Robert Patterson, 11552 Rolling Hills Drive, indicated that there would eventually be more development on the hills and this creek would become a canal. - He indicated his preference of having lower density housing on the west side of Highway 680. Mr. Brandt asked what would happen if the City does not accept the creek and how would the creek be controlled. Mr. Jacoby indicated that there were different ways of controlling this area. He indicated that a homeowner's association could be developed, or East Bay Regional Park District could be in control of it. Regular Meeting PCM-7-149 August 23, 1988 t Mr. Jacoby discussed the toanhome area, the proposed cut and fill areas, buffer areas, access roads for emergencies, loop road, grading, custom lots, etc. He indicated that he would like to see the meadow on knolls and swales preserved as much as possible, and to improve the Valley Christian Center road access. A person in the audience asked about the density on the buildable lot areas. Mr. Jacoby indicated that there were 53 acres of buildable acreage, which included the custom lots and 34 townhomes. A person in the audience indicated that he believed there should be a lower density ratio. Mr. Jacoby indicated that the density of the townhomes was consistent with the General Plan policies of the City. Mr. Trazio asked if the fire department has been involved. Mr. Jacoby indicated that he had talked with the fire department. At this time Mr. Jacoby handed out documents showing EIR comments and mitigation measures. Ms. Davidson indicated that she was happy to see residents speaking out and this will cause changes to be made. Mr. Tong indicated that the Staff, Applicant and agencies have had discussions; however, he cannot confirm the findings in Mr. Jacoby's handout. Cm. Burnham asked about the fire department's access. Mr. Jacoby indicated that there would be gates to restrict access and that there would be an all-weather road. Cm. Burnham asked about the road on the other side of the creek. Mr. Jacoby indicated that the bridge across the creek was designed to meet emergency access needs. A person in the audience asked what the construction hours would be and that they were concerned about the noise. Mr. Tong indicated that the standard working hours would be from 7:30 a.m, to 5:30 p.m. on weekdays and a permit would have to be issued from the City Engineer for weekend work. The Planning Commission asked what a "CO hot spot" was. Mr. Jacoby indicated that hot spots were monitored in the Valley for potential areas exceeding pollution limitations. Regular Meeting PCM-7-150 August 23, 19SS Mr. Trazio indicated that the grading could cause health problems. Mr. Jacoby indicated that the construction would not exceed health standards. Mr. Tong indicated that with previous developments in the area there were requests from nearby neighborhoods for air quality to be monitored. He stated that the area had been monitored and there would be enough dust to irritate; however no violations occurred. He indicated that there will be some complaints and the Applicant could be cited for any violations occuring. Ms. LaBar, 11707 Jaurez Lane, indicated that that the dust could be controlled. Ms. Davidson indicated her concern about removing the trees and this would cause dust and pollution problems. Cm. Burnham asked about the 36% of trees being removed and how many would be put back. Mr. Jacoby indicated that there was a 2-1�ratio in slope areas and there was a 2-1 replacement range for homes and street trees. He indicated that there was a list of species of trees available. Cm. Barnes indicated that the Planning Commission would like to move on to "how much" to develop. Mr. Jacoby indicated that he was in the process of preparing slides and was hoping that he could discuss this part of the property at tomorrow's meeting. Renee Graham, 11420 Winding Trail Lane, was concerned about some contradictions within the Fish & Game document. Mr. Jacoby indicated he disagreed with some of the issues presented in the Fish & Game letter. Ms. Davidson asked what the red strips on the trees were for. ' Mr. Gates indicated that the red strips' were survey markers and that most of the big trees were being saved. Mr. Jacoby indicated that there was a tree count done. A person from the audience requested a copy of the air quality study and was. concerned about the way the study had been done. He asked if the study was done at ground levels, above automobiles or in light of the access road going in. Mr. Jacoby indicated that he did not do the study and he believed the study was done as the road is now. Mr. Tong indicated that the Draft EIR and Final EIR were available for the public; either at the Planning Department or they could be checked out at the Library. Regular Meeting PCM-7-151 August 23, 1988 r ' A person in the audience indicated that equipment should be put on the back decks of the homes where the road would be and that he would like insurance that there would be no exhaust fumes. Cm. Burnham asked the Applicant his feeling on the buffer setbacks. Mr. Jacoby indicated that there was a 30 foot setback and the creek setback would vary. Cm. Burnham stated that the letter from Fish & Game recommended 100 feet; however the EIR recommends 30 feet. Mr. Gates stated that the figures in the letter were unusual. Mr. Tong indicated that he had received the letter from Ms. LaBar and that the letter had not gone through the State Clearing House as was usual procedure. Mr. Tong indicated that the Planning Commission needed to look at the issues presented and give the Staff direction on how to proceed. He indicated that if the Planning Commission was not ready, 'that we can continue discussion at the next scheduled meeting. Cm. Burnham asked what the engineering department felt about the fill-in areas. Mr. Tong indicated that this was feasible to do from an engineering standpoint; however, it goes against City policy. Cm. Burnham asked the Applicant if he agreed with the engineering feasibility. Mr. Jacoby stated yes, it was possible and that a soils engineering could be on the job. Cm. Barnes indicated that there could be a conflict with tomorrow's meeting and that Staff needed to check with Cm. Tempel regarding his schedule. She indicated that if there was not a quorum for tomorrow's meeting that this item could be continued to the September 6th meeting. A person in the audience asked if there was any anticipated start date for the project. Mr. Jacoby indicated that he was hoping he could start construction nett year. NEW BUSINESS OR UNFINISHED BUSINESS None Regular Meeting PCIM-7-152 August 23, 198E +r s a; t ' '!' r :j K sa(<'',t'cr o 1�try_— w7•,' Y �YU :,5: -s'�iti 4:.a;; u - .o , yy:G :7••sy :�r� 4 y .n;s .wy Y.�#i'�,1 A�' y''S� .t�^•' f •id sa,d iu ;, r e r„iyi,r .'9 vF r r + •{�r:�-.a� �w : > °•V#�ky,'�fr�.w .Y�'.r..yy iS.•rA}�';i„P '/4`.� ..} 4;' w�tc:+ 'eC±'.$''��z� y'K�.+�'b-1 �;f�•,p1�j'�gh�'t�%.: �trvi S:rr.+� sF. 'Y.FV'� S?`.�� r�{i�•T`[ Sr` `-S� t+� 4, 4t /' :4V�)yE{ri J. s ba $t -..,.p.11 tr-ti4�:/,'^•h+ ;IE N S'4k ', y+ r'4 �,� �'qr•y i N,}`fy'+2'�1 karcy3.'Y'w3�CL�. r?:`�.�N -J�✓✓t::\V ,�9 I' yy �y T' S'jr Y•: r 1�fr'w �r `k y-,, r'[`�!5'.?9 tkyJ rt5 1 i5 y�fT� kS', 'Re` 3 }Kt_ s.� t 4' 7:. \cryM- i 4' 'Yyp 'L `+r ' , ' + R n r.yr "tty kaRr$, ':ry e z t ,. t 7 k r 4 ��•r' �,. • 7 1 xi.+tY Af -" '+'�{ �S ZSR{ � 'FK. S i`"'v'c�t�-�y�ff rY` ��n ;.*i V •J ! 7r rrr &}t`y.'. CR �� � 1 "`; r- '� M�cg Via. t s t 4 \ V. `j rM xT 7t r r l• V. y zf, af. 3 11 .1 y q' .d'r..+..ter•' ° 'k i.r:. r �'a: 3'' y"�4'rn a+��^r Y rrP^I.;,.. ✓ "Y. �3il 4 r' a ^> ',Sr[.r., '4" .c1/F y •i3 3rt, ,.,.{xi ,r:✓, h ,r vt'. .:.h*�sr' f � ,^`1�r Y s 'S� "t F�� ✓ t a. r,F h �'i v i d y c• {ne.:r � r . e � z r� xt j�\ °-ci Y,r�'rtt'a sys m �3; 4 .s y rj , •wtrt"f i r5 2 r . 11 , x a tom'+ � � •y� r. yJ x , 5 ar w FX�".;fi Yxv 1✓t��r a i ky/� ti�Lr��t V .tar t� s 5 i sy �fret fit:.P C�y`+ •r $ ' t t .'-r i^ rF tG': fir�y� 1f'l T i`F• t jl�[ '4{ Ti Y S'fi' A Y^ A 1 7 \ Y s 5 Irw r y"^� �n c•'.� �' J <�i�rny4'' ;t�-k n\ ' r yt-,�i t ^R �''' a' •� � ai' .S.G+`. ��'Ti1,;_"'!ii�� '� 5?*erY ._..a.........>:...,7_`��a:a.......�._va_.&:.�%..._...r-..,.,.v.�:a.Ir,z'-�.n.r._.•.'r..,c:.w.r�r,a...a.>x.-ua:.i:s. STUDY SESSION: SUBJECT: PA 87-045 Hansen Ranch General Plan Amendment Study, Planned Development Prezoning, Tentative Subdivision Map No. 5766, and Annexation request for 248 dwelling units on 147 acres, west of Silvergate Drive and north of Hansen Drive (continued from August 23, 1988) Cm. Barnes called for the Staff Report. - Ms. O'Halloran indicated that-'there were two key issues involved with this application; how much to develop and where to develop. She indicated that the Planning Commission needed to consider existing General Plan policies regarding oak woodlands, riparian habits, protection of ridgelines and the 30% slopes. Ms. O'Halloran indicated on the wall maps :the areas of concern in regards to vegetation, 30% slopes and what trees would be affected by the development. She also indicated that the Planning Commission needed to consider the density policies. Mr. Gates commented on the landslide areas. He indicated that these areas would eventually have to be re-built anyway. Ms. O'Halloran stated that the slides would only need to be corrected where development occurs. Mr. Gates disagreed with this point of view. Mr. Jacoby stated that the slide area was moving towards the creek and this area needed to be rebuilt or eventually there would be damage to the creek area. Cm. Burnham asked what would happen with a 10-year slide. Mr. Cerate stated that there would be a 15% slope road. Mr. Gates indicated that this was a question for a soil's engineer. Mr. Jacoby indicated that some grading would be needed for slide areas and that he was trying to meet the General Plan policies as much as possible. Ms. Labar indicated her concern of grading in Area 2 and questioned the consistency with the General Plan policies. She asked why not use Area 3 as a police/fire road access and avoid building all together. Ms. O'Halloran stated that a portion of the buildable area is in the extended planning area and portions are in the primary planning area. Staff had reviewed plans as related to the General Plan policies and there are three areas of inconsistency between Staff and Applicant. Regular Meeting ,� ,�._; a = y 87-045 Hansen Hill Planning Commission Minutes, August 24, 1988 2 + ��s,fjt� � y{�R,�`.�'��3 si'Y'S t i- r r•,�rt.a.v.y+�'�7^�- j tr -'N6i+'L`�'.'rrc.��T�� >i r"'t "'J". 'r• .. t .� ,44tit is -['- �, rt. `\n{YZa s. •wappryt-sst. `� in S. i t4+ ••� t t e 1t�r..\..;•�r.;, t ',a i ff♦�L.t c t `r?/ ?y�.9it,`Y�L` r s�S tSitrlt 7 J "R x a�.��a t1 j � ar'�.. t.'i1.i+�>Y\.Yr�? , -^i -=) ; + h r '.r .. �.. rrrt t i a7 �� t�b,� ra� •n'ri�e"tt�.y.hy�+kr-4��S'r'q`�..�.,\ c,�� 4. ,t -6 f i y .�°l'tFA i� ^r( 'F -z?:' 4t J0. .t: r kF .ei a ,{ u ! t r 1U a., w �y. w• w�.a ts�t 4prk4 :: .4 rtti i alt -.c; 1 \�. iN. �..�., t r Jr:w't4•^ ,V4 is ?7L,rt�f:.�,r'NL\ 1, ti .y \\ 1: C.. ','. t y��+3'rt t ^� t \ !w f r+-. 7 >•r t t sk �. yi` L.`r_ c,` 4 , r ^d. \T+,-ti \. �, }y},Y 'wa t�k`�l aLx > .L'. '�l''Y;?11,+.cr Yti^s s,: �5"�Y•,N,wysrrN�"� E >` 5, ?;o.{'ti.\ta i>J'c \ 'k t4,� r \ u. ,✓.�r+.A rx, l wPfpc ."'a. S ?F} \ r.�+. .R..x::- � .r r,�., ...,. ., �::�: r."t ./t t.. t n, .,. ., • .�i Ms. O'Halloran discussed the possibility of the Planning Commission approving patio homes which would be 6.1 dwelling units per acre. She discussed possible grading reductions as well as revisions in poliices if the Planning Commission approved development in Area 3. She indicated that crib walls would reduce grading. Mr. Tong discussed the primary planning areas and polices regarding Site #5, 6 and 7. He indicated that per site there would be 37-72 dwelling units per General Plan polices however, EIP Associates calculate 42-109 dwelling units, which is shown in the July 18, 1988 Staff Report. He indicated that Staff was comfortable in supporting these figures. He indicated that Staff was concerned with the three areas of development in regards to additional grading needed, effective alignment of roadway and grading on Valley Christian Center site. Mr. Bob Anderson, indicated his concerns regarding the proximity of the main road to the rear of his home and stated that he was unaware that it would be that close. He was also concerned about !how many houses were being built per acre. Ms. Gloria Kasdan was concerned about noise level from the road to her house. Mr. Robert Patterson asked about future development higher up on the hillside. Ms. O'Halloran indicated that there was a new road proposed for the Blaylock- Fletcher property, however, this property was not in the city limits. She indicated that a traffic study was also being done. Mr. Patterson indicated that he would like to see future traffic problems addressed. Cm. Burnham asked Staff if it was feasible to develop higher on the hillside beyond the Hansen Hill site wihtin the Western Planning Area. Mr. Tong stated that basically, yes it was feasible, and that the property owners were taking a further look at the area. He indicated that the Staff has spoken with the property owners, however no development has been proposed at this time. Ms. Rene Graham stated that she had measured the distance between her house and the potential road development and there was approximately 18-35 feet between the two. She was concerned about pollution/exhaust problems with the traffic that would be stopped on the road near her house. Mr. Jacoby and Mr. Gates introduced Fred Edsel, legal counsel for their corporation, who specializes in development applications. Mr. Jacoby passed out a handout in regards to buildable areas meeting General Plan policies. They discussed the 7/18 Staff Report's figures in regards to non-buildable and buildable areas as well as EIP's figures. They indicated that they had relied on this information for policies. Regular Meeting PCM-7-156 August 24, 198S Mr. Jacoby referenced General Policy item 7.3 whereby approximately 80 homes can be moved to another part of the site. He compared the density range in other surrounding developments versus the density range in the proposed development. He indicated that the proposed development was a good design with beautiful homes and he would like to have fair treatment with his proposed project. He discussed the four different lot sizes and designs. Cm. Burnham asked what was meant by the "0" lot line houses. Mr. Jacoby indicated that these homes have common areas/shared areas, were more compressed and more affordable. He indicated that these houses were in a different market with smaller lawns and had 10 feet separations between them. Mr. Jacoby discussed the setbacks of 20-30 feet from road. The public questioned the figures on density. Ms. LaBar stated that the first development would set precedence for future developments and that everything should be considered on this project. Ms. O'Halloran indicated that General Plan policy Mr. Jacoby was referring to for density transfer applied to 30% slopes with woodlands. Mr. Jacoby 65 acres were 30% riparian woodlands. Ms. O'Halloran referred to the August 1, 1988 Staff Report, Attachment 17 which identifies area. She highlighted areas of concern on the wall map and indicated that the interpretation of General Plan polices shows the knolls to be restricted. Mr. Gates indicated his understanding of the public's concern with the proposed main entry road and showed the design of the townhouses. Cm. Burnham asked which way the townhouses are situated on the lot. Mr. Gates indicated that the garage is located on the north side of the lot. The public voiced that there was a need for a road compromise. Cm. Burnham asked if the road could be built between the creek and houses. Mr. Gates indicated that this would not be environmentally feasible. Mr. Cerate indicated that an access road could be developed along side of the Kaufman & Broad development. Mr. Gates showed the typical design of a patio home and showed slides. The slides gave comparisons on what the development would and would not be building. Ms. Cleo Davidson indicated her concern in regards to Homeowner's Associations. Regular Meeting PCM-7-157 August 24, 1988 Mr. Fred Edsel stated that homeowner's had a right to enforce the "CC&R'S" and indicated that the City and the Homeowner's Association should be able to work together. Ms. Davidson stated her concern in regards to amount of common areas. Ms. LaBar indicated that a park dedication could solve the problem. Cm. Tempel asked if the landslide problem in Area 3 could be stabilized. Mr. Gates indicated that Area 3 was a sensitive area, however the project has been designed for this purpose. Ms. Davidson asked what the procedures were for dedicated open space. Mr. Jacoby indicated there were many ways to approach the dedication; 1) creek dedication to East Bay Regional Park District and have a landscape maintenance district assessment; however there were City cost concerns and liabilities involved; 2) Homeowner's Association; or 3) lot to owner and have open space fenced in. Cm. Burnham indicated his concern regarding the custom home lots and would like to see the landscape area taken care of and questioned the 36% of oaks/bay woodlands. Mr. Gates stated that 1/3 were in that lot area and there were more in Area 2 and 3. Cm. Barnes indicated that she would like to work with the road concerns and asked who was responsible for the blue truck. She indicated that she would like to see the meadow areas and deers preserved. Mr. Tong indicated that the property owner was responsible for the abandoned vehicle. Cm. Burnham asked who was responsible for dumping debris/cement in the creek. Mr. Jacoby indicated that he would check into this. Cm. Burnham asked if it was feasible to turn the to--rehouses around, parallel to the creek and change road location. Mr. Gates indicated that it was not feasible to move the road. Ms. LaBar asked if it was feasible to move the main entry area of road several feet from where it is now proposed. Mr. Gates indicated that yes, this was feasible. Cm. Barnes indicated that the Planning Commission does not feel they are ready to give direction and they have a lot of information to take in and review. Regular Meeting PCM-7-158 August 24, 198S Mr. Tong asked that the Planning Commission establish the next meeting to be held, either a Study Session or a Public Hearing. Cm. Barnes indicated that the library was too small and would not be fair to the public. Mr. Tong indicated that the September 6th meeting had already been noticed. The Planning Commission decided to continued into a Public Hearing format on September 19th and the meeting will be held at the Shannon Center at 7:00 p.m. in the East Room. Ms. O'Halloran indicated that the Planning Commission may want to advise Staff of any additional information they may need so that Staff could prepare for the public hearing. NEW BUSINESS OR UNFINISHED BUSINESS None OTHER BUSINESS None PLANNING COMMISSIONERS' CONCERNS None ' ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 9:50 p.m. Respe.�tfully submitted, Planning Commission Ch 'rperson Laurence L. Tong Planning Director Regular Meeting PCM-7-159 August 24, 1988 .J .�.+�. G .y �';r S -i- - .r x• J.. f / o.v\ T7'iY aa'i'•� 'y .. y,7'a .� �q, t ; krvt 4';: •rf t!u• ti .v l 1 a `F 7^ '�.:1=t�v�' ;�s1c c> #',pJ'R, .e.:��4 r° �f�a ,�.5r'�`+'f✓ {��"rckr`,[t z.�r'�. .G�r jgy.c ,u '.} ;'i T�,'[r iA�'err�'r7�e, 1. c "71.,�• t( ;��"�tey'�.r,}T' � t ''f, .;';:g " y+a Y F b. � Y•' .rt�t f�f 'S '4. :� ./,t •.� � 1 Y. t Lr. y .d .x�'tRY`._ q( -r r v"! Gql�: ). . n}1. - l ✓ t': r 7 -1 /1 -�Y i`' ,++y t 0.F y,Y i, rl NMt �' #� 'rix''ar>X?2.5dt na/ 7,r t ,4'r �s• v r '.r r , a,• f � ry'. ,�" rr 'rr [ 'r �_. - t �, 'e f7 tty7�, �.. �y+��rs�.•� t 7ri, s,°�. f ••� ,ai a �t7 �v „.,r .:-+.. � V a 7 ';s 1 ,1 [ c. s? dr a>r� 1 t, ti �' �'•�l hrtrr n,J u e y 't ✓ � 1 �r + t ' f l ��'o r°t �t .J >'. y 4ylJ [r f a•.d �},'t.lC�. r 3tf �„�ax���7yt,(7sr9w !;1'J,a*e rlfi rR�1'?�F � +'�"'^�.r''s. y'�r {'f u,.� y - � r i� 4 .r [ i� [ .a✓ , •{ 'J�ti iYJ x y� Y�,Y• 5�4�P t f r'.+y,wj'r. v vt }.;t r -r !`� 9{.' �i'Y ), ry>?�✓r. '4 ,�. d. . �,at ,�' � +. r'x 1 t: y 4 •. 4 2+J > '+ '., .�ak *"rTj a�y�t t F.[ r K+.1„�`Y" + S k n.{ < ,Z .!, t; s,, - t 7 f ; �2,'°vi � � y✓'5Y["eyb 1�2�'3,.�'k}.4��f rrti. r�M.y d.> < J- ,C ,.-.$'-"r Y- t f�,�.�. I w..,;ik e,r 1.,V�i{ Matir f.K '*' [I +�!j„a• �i 3,.:,f R4Yr,�,"r Yt reY� ..�d�u.. �r'. 'a!+°�,” '"'re'1r5kA YF�F'F+a <R1irtix < ,rrl ii: f 'e ,. .3.tJ. r 1 _,"'(3 1F". ...[,,r a.,,' -"rc. .rti. • yy ;2';,`. 1p S .? 5; '">z�i`` lyd .0 ..:+c� .�'zl� L '{� ,� '�'r ?.t... r ,%.Y l9fv >,.'�y { y.y r 5 a �� _.U?, ,r � a, "i.. {�.}. {. �t�-fi p',4,a, ti 7, x �4s�.t��{., ��c,t yr .c+F' ,.w[�,2•ti.t p�,i rx , f r t t .-r t t>Y I•�;.ysrs r Y, 't�a i� 'r i�, .r. i.r;2;F: f° t .'�,K'h����," r�u^��>r•'ci � .1'�,(° s 4 'C•�f�.�u/w*` *5': _ 1 ; {f r N {..' r. v v i iv v t ` i fy +h's•rjv'1'"�! ,?rJ,. '^ v ���:x..^*t..a.,.G,r W4 r s { N ..,rv',<[};r. Cm. Zika asked if there were any complaints from the residence. Ms. Hoffineister indicated that the igloos have not been in the shopping center very long; however, the intention is to have them placed as far away from the residential area as possible. I Cm. Burnham indicated that additional screening was not necessarsy, I Cm. Mack indicated that she would like to remove Condition A. { Cm. Burnham indicated his agreement to remove Condition A. On motion from Cm. Zika, with deletion of Condition #4, seconded by Cm. Burnham, and with a vote of 4-0-1, the Planning Commission approved PA 88-779 20/20 RECYCLE CENTER CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO OPERATE A REDEMPTION CENTER IN THE PARKING LOT AREA OF THE SAN RAMON VILLAGE SHOPPING CENTER SUBJECT: PA 88-080 20/20 Recycle Center Conditional Use Permit, located at Albertsons, 7333 Regional Street (continued from September 6, 1988 meeting) Ms. Hoffineister indicated that this application was for the same uses. She indicated that Staff recommends the location be moved to the adjacent planter area and this would not hinder traffic. Staff recommends approval of the draft Resolution. Cm. Burnham asked about the newspaper bin already located on the parking lot and asked if two operations would be allowed on the same location. Mr. Tong indicated that neither one is mandatory and that decision would be up to the property owner. On motion from Cm. Burnham, with the deletion of Condition #4, seconded by Cm. Zika, and with a vote of 4-0-1, the Planning Commission approved PA 88-080 20/20 RECYCLE CENTERS CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO OPERATE A REDEMPTION CENTER IN THE PARKING LOT AREA OF THE DUBLIN PLAZA SHOPPING CENTER NEAR ALBERTSONS SUBJECT: PA 87-045 Hansen Hill Ranch Project - General Plan Amendment Study, EIR, Planned Development Prezoning, Tentative Subdivision Map No. 5766, and Request for Initiation of Annexation Application for 248 dwelling units on 147 acres, west of Silvergate Drive and north of Hansen Drive. 87-045 Hansen Hill Planning Commission >Minutes September 19 19, Regular Meeting > • \. S ti y v �c:1. _ t�. / 1t r 1 yx k.yrA �� � , Y ' k } ? ° v J r • - -, `�' �� 2 'Y 1'k � tS, 'J � � r"'. ny\ t 1a"[ �,>r t Iy4.aa�'' tv� a. t` - '`tr. t ..a 3 �7 -` � � �\. (. -\ � ro t` � i; Y< S�'.t. ri,.y` 1?•r w � 4` t- : \ tf r ro , A �r, '�: j u� �> y� 1 2.,r � �._.? � r .: v✓4�.••�� �: ; a t S d,,,� z .� i ��. �t.t : l t . .' r «si,�s r ; � ,dty'+7rt i^A. .rr .fir f � F� Jr''t nY ay i,j:f f rT,-;7};' Ju a u i ,n � _ € "'`i a,t� 'G.r• P'.�, 1. F S;1;.(f ".i; 3 if 1,�{r; r i �. 7r r� {�•, ; z� t.,:G �,t� ' r,{ i" .'n / t'y i. Y a; ? r - w j '�t�.:} � �' �J;�.l�T{'� {'} x1'"b �t � S•�r.f�{'.� _k^ 4J �J�r1 rte'... � r r.w`i� 1' 1 W 4 •j,�a' . ��.(• tf"'n�t 5 �r n«�.t_ 7 t,C�1 t.t Yrr� l M.y7 7 r 't'a�� , ;., 1�, {fist_ f.5� `, w.aE �.' h 'hr y 7;', 1` r"r'.. k�.r>!5r-�, h �,.)y .%L'°y rfo �.3a'C.t,>.t••�«-. s i'�'Xf r r i• t^•a r n !( .t, t J 'r.!t � t'jT `d 'Mi k.r 3 'r.4d.Y�/ 7F f+�+ a+y"n�,,r�=: t MJ ei�����`�-'�tMU rrt,'i:)r.#���`Ekfu w{Y Lh qz .f rr4"f•M,rP r +7'a t �M. a`FJ .f ,. tl-l'xf x, �,r9z �j'•^.v � a nf. �1 , a tr 'Lrr y, . fr-. y,. :,�' r rx, t v r ,)rr r f .ax,r C t 7 t 7Crt}.,r YrrGrw v�. � "V ��4('.y5.�.�}t i i �.t�C� j'P.rf uJ`J'T t t•r Sf f .t ♦ v i * •.., r tx nw S<t d c jr f� rcr y ..z 4 , ti rT •ffx. 'x t r. .« ^t ✓ 7. +'�, �a r y , 7 �r r h � 1 $�' ". ;:-1 C t �re- r fj ✓,r {. ctr J x u ,Rf.� s. n './r t f p1� f r,F M"✓r .� .*.,. ) ` '} ! y -•F S11 d� tti-r :L,•1y7�?j 4„ ! w Y -: v t-Y ti fa err {1 r�try,r sr-rW xf -«,yr.'�L'"xz h '�.n t' 4y�> ss r .!•- s d s -• t 1. r i. '< -.,� ,r �tr "'1 rt or + a�i,f ysr of n„�•{�r'tif3.J r x `' � , tn. ,� •, }J.. r•' r Sn. a f�, 7 f .. F tyth Lfjrr�5ii 4 .rt frx.f l"W7 4 f I .. .,,.;'3• yr } i'�r�t- y+v?:, xt?^y.a•,v'ry•k- rf"p%nf q7•.1,.}� !SSA r3 C'?.y ,ra..+AY Fi,'r` .A. p i.{-' w �,-t 5 ,t :e 14: ' 'p ♦ k 4 y x yi+ f r(r � �•t LAAryf...).t jf a 2.tg ET /nc r't�^' � J f.7>d.� ..F f 3K k' `;� t f �i�.t .t r �"4 r '. y >r �,.G �� >k �t M 4.a'r�%rt fAk jD"2` }j�k'� e��` "kt �fCt/8i •t�X': 4Y q.�7' t' -k 4_ S✓'.. y. 1 , r > _. rt .c. t.�! ., z 1Y'h 4 Sr ;k'Y"'Cf:i �,; {} >�,1-".. J ` }" t:rr�. ' ?" ,n ,fj;a z•°- r s... , � v /Ms. :O'.Halloran. Barnes opened the public hearing and asked for the Staff Report. indicated that this item had been continued from the August 24, 1988 Study Session. Ms. O'Halloran indicated that on July 18, 1988 the Planning Commission limited their review and discussion to the EIR, and General Plan Amendment rather than the entire application. She indicated the Commission held the Study Sessions on August 23rd and 24th and that they were a non-decision making format in which the Commission discussed project issues and accepted comments from Staff, Applicant and the public. Ms. O'Halloran indicated that the main topics were on where to develop and how much to develop. She indicated that the Study Sessions focused on the location of the main entry roadway, removal of oak trees, dust problems, traffic, air pollution, maintenance of open space areas and density and size . of the development. Ms. O'Halloran indicated that at the September 6, 1988 Planning Commission meeting the Commission requested additional information on soil conditions in Area 3, insurance for protection against landslide damages, and location of the roadway accessed off Silvergate. Ms. O'Halloran indicated that a report prepared by Harding Lawson Associates indicated a landslide zone within Area 3. She indicated the report did not specifically address the Commissions concerns whether the slides.would need to be corrected if no development occurred within the area. She indicated that the Public Works Director indicated that if development does not occur within the immediate vicinity either above or below the landslide area, it is not necessary to correct the landslide and that landslides typically remain indefinitely if not corrected. Ms. O'Halloran indicated that in regards to the insurance protection issue, The City Attorney's office indicates the subdivision could be conditioned if such a policy was commercially available. She noted insurance companies were contacted; however a policy is not available to cover landslides. Ms. O'Halloran indicated that in regards to the access roadway issue, the specific development of the roadway would be established at the Tentative Map and Planned Development stage of the review process and that the Applicant_ had expressed an interest in working with the residents on this issue, Ms. O'Halloran indicated that in regards to the density issue, the density measurements are based upon gross residential acreage which include residential land use designation, roadways within the land use and one half the width of abutting roadways to the land use and that open space acreage is not included in these calculations. She stated the Staff has provided an updated table, which was contained on page 9 of the July 18, 1988 Staff Report, showing location, zoning district, and minimum/average lot size of existing residential development. Ms. O'Halloran stated that the Applicant's proposal indicated single-family residential with 3.2 dwelling units per acre; townhomes with 5.4 dwelling units per acre and patio homes with 6.1 dwelling units per acre. She Regular Meeting PCM-7-173 September 19, 1988 t , •` DES t - r r t i` tku ...... .. ..•t. ^a..,x T..u•nr ...<...•. _x.,... r.•x....,n46�-. .. ., F...,P ,. u.? , ..,e. •e�":v ,...:x: ,., ,.. , .,. .. ._ . .avr ,..,.."'3 .. ... . -A w. A, tit V�;i wq- V 617g�1�� %AVA' t'? V4 0 71 Y �411 It- � tA m4i, el, M, C 40 indicated that Staff recommends 2 land use designations instead of 3 as shown on the Applicant's proposal; medium density at 6.1 to 8 dwelling units per acre and low density at .5 to 2.8 dwelling units per acre. Ms. O'Halloran indicated that this would give a total of 61-179 dwelling units. Ms. O'Halloran indicated that Staff's recommendations did not include density ranges for the proposed patio homes which would result in a total of 95-210 dwelling units. Ms. O'Halloran indicated that the transfer of density issue was discussed in the July 18th and August 1st Staff Reports and this issue does not apply to land designated as open space. She indicated that the implementation of this policy would occur during the review and approval of the Planned Development and Tentative Map phase. She indicated that the Applicant had some legal concerns with this policy and Staff recommended that thesie concerns be submitted in writing to the Planning Department for review with the City Attorney. Ms. O'Halloran indicated that the Hansen Hill Ranch at present was zoned A (Agricultural) under Alameda County Zoning and that under this existing zoning, the proposed project would be permitted one residential unit. Ms. O'Halloran indicated that discussions of the EIR, General Plan polices, development constraints and differences between the Staff recommendations and the Applicant's proposal were contained in previous staff reports. Ms. O'Halloran indicated that Staff recommends the Planning Commission continue the Hansen Hill Project and direct Staff to prepare resolutions incorporating recommendations from the Planning Commission in regards to: adequacy and completeness of the Final EIR; Land Use Designations; amendment to the General Plan to incorporate the project within the primary planning area; amendment to General Plan to delete Areas 5, 6 and 7 from Table I and Figure 4; amendment to General Plan with regard to the Hansen Drive extension; amendment to General Plan to include policies for traffic - level of services acceptable; and amendments to include fire protection buffer zones. Gordon Jacoby, Applicant, indicated that he appreciated everyone coming to the meeting and introduced David Gates, Jim Joyce from Harding Lawson; Sid Cerate from Wiley & Ham; and Bob Saunders from Bren Company. Mr. Jacoby passed out documents and a map for the Planning Commission and Staff to refer to. He indicated that items la-f on the handout were in support with the Planning Staff. He indicated that he had discussions with Mr. Tong and the City Engineer in regards to modifications to the plans and was in agreement with some areas. Mr. Gates discussed the Applicant's revised plans displayed on the wall, swales, fill, and Areas 1, 2, and 3 shown on wall map. He indicated that the dark brown areas would be areas that the project could retreat from. Regular Meeting PCM-7-174 September 19, 1988 Vq wg ��rwy,y it�,.r r ..;.,v :r.a�t"•:r:.v•• ,y�i t r�I et Mr. Gates discussed the two main concerns; protecting swales and trees and coming up with a design likable to the community. He indicated that he was looking •into solutions for the neighborhood, loop road for police and fire protection and landslide repair. He indicated that Jim Joyce is knowledgeable in regards to landslides. Jim Joyce, Harding Lawson, indicated that the landslide area has not moved in recent years and recommended repair of the landslide area. He indicated that the landslide could move irratically; as in once a year or only once in 50 years; it is difficult to predict. He indicated that slide material could be taken away by erosion and there could be a disruption of trees with some trees already showing deterioration. Cm. Zika asked if Mr. Joyce agreed with avoiding construction. Mr. Joyce indicated that avoidance is okay. The landslide would have to be avoided completely. He discussed a project in Vallejo that had a jogging path and bridge. He indicated that after 10 years there were problems occuring at that project. Cm. Zika asked what assurances do the homeowner's have. Mr. Joyce indicated that past grading practices have caused problems today. He indicated that he was confident that grading practice standards used today, such as additional regulations, recommendations from soils engineers and geologist; excavation practices, subdrainage and surface usage, compacted fill requirements, etc, should not cause any future problems to occur with the landslide areas. Mr. Jacoby stated that the density is within EIR ranges and would like to see high quality homes. He indicated that the EIR shows traffic problems on Dublin Boulevard; however an assessment district could be established in order to pay fees for correcting the levels of service. Mr. Jacoby recommended using the three land use categories as shown in item ;2 on the handout. Mr. Jacoby indicated that the level of service issues should only be considered for the Hansen project at this point. Mr. Jacoby indicated that he had looked into the alignment of the main entry road and the new proposed road would be 40-50 feet away from existing homes. The Planning Commission took a 10 minute break. Cm. Barnes requested that the public use the speaker slips provided. Cm. Barnes asked the Applicant how many trees could be saved within his project. Mr. Gates stated that he had not done the calculations; however many trees would be saved in the swale areas. Regular Meeting PCM-7-175 September 19, 1988 1.2 i �`3 yry.� Dip 5 rrb, t ; �. -{j rfw ' H� �'ysA":t o °.`G 0!" ,� y3r'^,., ' +:M y'4� ;y. )h r7✓ rf �-. 7. :'r. ,.rr j�'�x. � rtx� r '��-y� t a..lTi.�� S Ya ����J dDr�k�+�w,r art�b tp S•��1+•p+�a,.l�- ear � .r %yr�+�f.fr L 3 9 + frt yv ? „!• r •i{ ttx lG r}ry Skr"!5 ..r7 "pt ¢wr a° +r kyd1' Wh1pw+ . a „rra v-)^ '+.,,). ri N jy ;71 •'.n r. yt � � � 1 is ae r. ""* � r a v xt !�`�i '`'c•. .,..+. :. ...........f...ir r�.,c»rf_J�.;.,'"rs.Dt....�.r,.. ...:. :........ .. :. Y-r:i.. :• r _,. .,`''t;,..o-t lL..fia�•a^'i+'+.4.fls,.!:w�.+b .+ea{,i."'�Y#.��f�.. �4u Ya.�'.=.u�w.J..1k1.-c'�...t.�-w..�..4 Mr. Jacoby indicated that the "brown" areas shown on the wall map were ungraded and some trees would be saved in Area 3 and some houses developed there. Ms. LaBar had concerns over needed archealogical studies. She was concerned over recent findings in the San Ramon hills and that the Hansen project could have similar findings. She indicated that it would be very expensive for the developer and laws were put in place by the State to avoid problems occurring later on. Ms. LaBar was concerned over the amount of grading and asked if the amount of grading was consistent with City policies. Ms. LaBar complimented the Applicant on the new proposed road location. Cm. Barnes asked Ms. LaBar what was found in San Ramon. Ms. LaBar stated that it was unknown what !was found, that this was a private matter; however, there were approximately six sites. Mr. Zev Kahn was concerned over the large number of underground streams and what would happen to the fill and slide areas. He asked what the City's views were in regards to density/yield. He was concerned over traffic gridlocks and would like the City to put a moratorium on growth so that the highway expansion could catch up. He stated that the hillside/ridgeline grading would end up being a dump yard for fill. Mr. Anderson indicated that the existing townhomes would be the most affected by this project and was concerned with how close the road was being developed to his home. He stated that he would not have bought the house if he would have known about the road. Mr. Ray Alsdorf, 11422 Winding Trail Lane, was concerned about the road being built so close to his home, the lack of school and daycare facilities, preservation of the open space and traffic flow. He indicated that the open space should be dedicated as a park. Mr. Harvey Scudder, 7409 Hansen Drive, was concerned over open space maintenance issues as well as any future open space areas. He indicated that Homeowner's Associations were inefficient. Cm. Burnham asked the Applicant where he stood on the open space issues. Mr. Jacoby indicated that these issues were still on the table - no decisions have been made as of yet. Mr. Michael Gleason indicated that a liaison committee was needed and that the East Bay Regional Park District has appointed two members and were waiting for the Mayor to appoint members for the City. Ms. LaBar indicated that the East Bay Regional Park District was not in the best position to maintain all of the open space and to serve the residents; the City should take on the responsibility of maintaining the open space area, Regular Meeting PCM-7-176 September 19, 1988 ! rt..' vy,t r)r rt r \ \•.t' p k ,t�' r,t Melt .�`i.tom L� '�'r �. lM� *.ry��'�r yt. H n,t t F` ♦ri` U ;. r l 4 , Er? �5. y fi t ? t Yd 7 t Aft ttr N. e r t .. � .. •.` y m: 5 f.. 1. fry" f r t Cf �F_ fit,'\ r „t � _ pa a�4`� ,Y..-t c. r�"rrr t ;�� .�•�, t t: it�t'Ni V ., ! . b.; ? •h rlp ,taf. ] 'ty ;�.``.' Y'C ti lyl J »•:h S'F"•r 13.1..4 �'`t i' ��L\ Oz f..,,i.. .v NT`. r '- .:.�: ♦ r:;f"§ .p>S�?; wFC,vt yyt' '".. r r ...i,��.'!. �,,,tk?r i:ya.+.,3t.."i,t V'!i'1 3 p!ti.r'd`f r..?tt.r,c�,,.i..�r'''r 4a'.�fy r''a.r r w1 t�'.SN:r,.,t l��.y...j�,n..�:•',k.s w�4Y,��t,1,"q:s fi,.a's r.!.l c r`:�r srrErr[rrr'kf.�'r r^'L:n,5 r#r ice§�'S rr.,ri 9 t.u^'.�':[r'.'.7 K=.t.���;.':a�aat�.Yr t.t''j.�X'i D +:.:+Y2X,T�.,DF1.N,k�°#"r^�+�'y>x�s:��.,.t,,�.I�:.•.,�..f:''�,wt«.i.r AJ W�L�,.c r+�r r£.�`r k:.."rS e,••,.'t r.Ltrr c.7r•Ti i,�a l yf�ti'f"Q,s')c,,�.:,:1,;�:':r`.."*�,+�i+;.,dfy�V}r!,r k k tr5tt}k�rrt��'?,.r,S`p;•.i'k't b?s*s--°2 y3 y...z,.1`v.i�y,'y''�}�*.�,9 rcr�t,''c„„r�,'.i'�'T s"�..r:.,��..,:..:.t+zzt'5{d,�%�P'•`v'Z'`.,,..f��c'+•'::.+7.r y a3'-i,5xF.r?�.rp.:.fi1:.ri..r,T aHi'4 y"t�r},�?:�^li:';f,.r:n�'r,.5,i,,_s.r'.x r r?n3}'y1'"��y>r i a�j'w 3,^.>y^.`.%:1�o-+r.�a".�.''t'�Yi's�x.a,a�C...l'C r�r?'y.s�U1,v•Yi a��;k<a�p`}'i��"++^�°..'; v1, 4 fMi7�>i it '.: rt:.0 s .. p C.lfrl� r r ?•d'k fti�Ji �eir'S T'e'a{a�}�Jt�N�ts�`�...,w.f tC Yv9`�i� - �'ff+�< �.'t� xs - § it y,�g�.7t r r k tr lri tnrjL '1 r r: Jr r +2 .��_ a• „ S Zr y ; d.' '.I�, � � L fi �. Z+c� 'f ,.,3e r SS.r 7 r "•J'p kN`rd f t ��,• r- r '.,Y '-f ?.yes r y .r' v, N- ' tr t �} r ,,.p }c ...� - f d..,^^�� w i^"r�.,r.fl nto+ 7 .J r•LiY��7r��,s' .�}T k y,-p �r,,x cli r P f r .rrr�.. x P, A ' rr. r � �/ 7�f,yv; ,.j.' f ;}•.r^, � � ;:p "93y.L a yra ,�,rt�� C/f, m �e � r��'ei"�,rL--iix��.l�t��#�" '' ..:.t f i w��;r�.r v n'y 1��Y�! . Y` M�.� ,' -. f;1'4T;r '�7 a,/ �,li„ I- •:`� r � r 5 � :A^ N -' [ M s +Si°V' /S-t,.[T�:y ..l':wf tr��;y. ,x,� f. e�: .�.,, `'� tW '7 y. ✓C �:3::.r'45�,. "'hruldy. •+` nr y � r�{•��c'✓r r A4 3jlt�,!� _ Y. •�a aa1�c 7 :r/"�e a'` x`'' i�rw ":' 1 �?., ,w,,. ;..r. ;:i rl i r y � ' [t. - :1ir�r::7 ! S.'r t:J.i'ar +y>1•r ,.^"-th ily `wt� t:. 'f(+'..m;.} +',1lJ 'il.•�n+ -.frr�� 'll'r•1ki :� - �r i y ,r�x ai? N ra y Sf, �F; T!i C s A` :rr , a• k i 1 Mr. Kahn requested his questions needed to be addressed. Mr. Joyce indicated that in regards to the underground streams, they were caused by porous zones in the rock materials that conduct water. On the project site, there were deposits around the creek but they were not extreme and should not create any problems. He indicated that the seepage at the landslide areas would be corrected. Subdrains would address seepage in the fill areas. Mr. Schuitemaker indicated that there were springs on Hansen Drive. Mr. Kahn indicated that constant running water would erode dirt. Mr. Joyce indicated that a soils engineer would continually be on the site and measures would be taken to correct any problems. A man in the audience asked about the tree landscaping surrounding the proposed road. Mr. Cates indicated that the trees would be evergreen with a maximum height of 25-30 feet, however this would not elleviate the acoustics. He indicated that there would be 3 to 4 levels of trees and 2 levels of trees down the road approximately 12-18 feet tall. He said he will provide a cross section at the next meeting. A man in the audience asked how many vehicles would be going through the roads. Mr. Tong referred to the EIR, page 3-104 in regards to traffic impacts and stated that the EIR shows 3,000 trip ends per day. For comparison, the existing traffic on Silvergate Drive was 1400/1500 vehicles per day north of Hansen; 3700 west of Peppertree, and 4,000 west of San Ramon Road. Mr. Tong indicated that Staff was seeing the Applicant's revised materials for the first time and Staff could not evaluate the Applicant's handout at that time, Ms. LaBar asked if traffic studies were done for Dublin Boulevard and Valley Christian Center road. Mr. Jacoby indicated that the EIR suggested the Valley Christian Valley road be developed. Mr. Tong indicated that at the August 1, 1988 Planning Commission Meeting, Chris Kinzel talked about the Valley Christian Center road development and the reduction of traffic on Silvergate Drive, Cm. Barnes questioned the "trips per day" traffic statistic. Mr. Tong indicated that these statistics are based on an "average" traffic analysis and are commonly used. Regular Meeting PCM-7-177 September 19, 1988 ...... _.. ,.., ,.,..-.._ _..... ....,. t•...0 ws" p-y?5ti/ x+>C?t w 'C- r yC_Ff �.c'7 �.in •s.ts�^� ' _ .. .. a .t. :.F c t.`^- -'• J r t �r � \. 1\ i� W.ice. x •i-C. ` , 5 i r• 5 , i ., y., 4 � \C F E i' � ♦ ` 5A r •i � ,r �'�� t� i - r a+ ky { t ` n t y t , q tri u !..- ep� It y C 1. : �• -t r tih '7� 1�, y. x,q1 L ,.§ Ci- t\ > -i A r X ..1- ? 'ti �•. 'r. •` t. -L !- 'l.. iav�S °'e'' S?: 4�b V.t�:.i„ } 5• �'yW L- .ht 7 ." F r � , t ti! Yj •;� a \ n c, A arc'+ r t�t�",a 2.u� f'$ r ! \ t +• ' - S- t �s4,`44,,. v�`. �:>\ \.t§*.:\.��,Ta KR� r„'l�r 4 'WSJ^`\4 i 4 1� R T t "Y' .. !'. 4�C.`,F:,' ... .•:.. ..,. '. � F.l .: ,... .,"t.- 41 { ..tt' S ♦y�:'y '^+1���F��.47t�+n, 5•'' ..,. ;�?.,"h,' .,.6< F���` �F.:i"w.v._ � { .t.:..:L ' . - .+.. n 1.-x� .t ..h.. .\ .."?. I .'t.. k„ Z.r-•.v...-. Yn n ...._. ., i.. /Mr. Jacoby indicated that the effect on nearby streets would not exceed level of service recommendations and that the Dublin Boulevard would be the area of concern. Cm. Barnes closed the public hearing. Mr. Tong indicated that Staff was seeking direction from the Planning Commission in regards to General Plan policies, i.e. , what areas can be developed and what density ranges will be, level of service and access road, mitigation measures to be incorporated, etc. He indicated that Staff would like to draft resolutions for the next meeting incorporating the Commissions' recommendations and the Planning Commission would adopt these recommendations to forward on to the City Council for public hearing. Cm. Zika asked Staff to check with San Ramon on archaelogy and CEQA requirements. Mr. Zika asked if the EIR can be approved as is without a more detailed archaeology study. Cm. Burnham asked Staff when they had received feedback from Dublin Unified School District. Ms. O'Halloran indicated that information was updated as part of the Addendum, around July of 1988. Mr. Tong indicated that Staff would like the Planning Commission to identify areas to develop, open space areas, as well as density recommendations. Cm. Zika indicated that he was not prepared to make recommendations because of the new proposed plan. Cm. Barnes indicated that the new proposed plan looked better. She indicated she would like to see the landslide fixed now to protect the creek area. She would like to save as many trees as possible, but to have a nice project, some trees would be lost. Cm. Mack indicated that the open space proposals need to be addressed and would like to see the open space open to the public. She indicated that there seems to be issues related to the dedication of open space, either to the City or East Bay Regional Park District. Cm. Barnes questioned the various bath tubs, beer cans, trucks, etc. that have been left on the property. Mr. Jacoby indicated that he would prefer to see the creek lot areas dedicated to the City and create a landscape maintenance assessment district. Cm. Zika was concerned about the potential liability. Cm. Barnes discussed policies on level of service and fire buffer zones. Mr. Tong indicated that Staff will have analysis of Applicant's proposal for the next scheduled meeting. Regular Meeting PCM-7-178 September 19, 1988 Cm. Barnes suggested to set up the outside portion of the library to accommodate everyone. Cm. Mack asked what the required setbacks from a street would be. Mr. Tong indicated that the setbacks would be the typical single-family 20' minimum front and rear setback, and referenced the Beck Homes project for homes that back to a street. NEW BUSINESS OR UNFINISHED BUSINESS None OTHER BUSINESS Mr. Tong indicated that the City Council had continued the "New Parallel Road. PLANNING COMMISSIONERS' CONCERNS None ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 10:30 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Planning Commissio4na�i rp e"e -on Laurence L. Tong Planning Director Regular Meeting PCM-7-179 September 19, 198S i s C d xh L , t y. 5 l'Y v .Y r/f. f'`�,+r• ;i.F :?`":.'^r�t'or:. +!•` .ti,r< ..✓p r. :r .t't .f S'. i rc:4 n .�`zr;a..yyv{ d7a::..'.Nf. ,d "#;'�d "r,-� s ''<a.;T.d :•„ `✓ k ;,:";n• ^.•rt,sy_..,A,j.y 5,ty2,�Mr ,� �� r:. SrC r <..}, �'1 r.t't;f} y,. .r�o t' W f •;X.ry�i n[•,y;` r..c.^F;{... �,?1':.r - .s...p +.G. r s- r r Y M r x s s. � ., � .M� »„s, ,�`.� ss �”,�;, .f.• �' . .xt ,.y rx �^�,.�?}�r 5 ��s �r . � wt •J r y o' y '4 / & `•t'�. 'F f-0Ya NT}`s •f�,7 a t '+'n'"r , � !a- r x.. v,p. :lz 1�} f r ,n .R S• Y^.t>`�,dw.il+f 'y � •c� ��'� Ift�:, It :'.9 a �.,.. � 3 ,:� l . �arS�rA'aa a;; � �7t;fjs of p..r�4? ''1..�4 .i=v• {. U7. •Y r rti F':r z r i .3..- 4 :! f (f,� x,xT!',* f N.FytFa•f �'.� "d5�..a �. d ! 1 ``..\, �tl 3 ;'+'fr � �• � a"'f� ( ��ft r Sj.;i'r• trz^/ v• 4t � t 1-F. t -f, i .r � >;. "n ,.. T r'� wt t �^i ,t,, n f,w^ys°.fitlr*'4+vx j t i��'..r"qS'^•fi;, .�,�r^ r�•��",q? ri•(y?..,'�`•1 'S.�:i ✓ wr c Y ry_r...i- 5f - •Y 5. .•.t r ` Yy v 1 2Cf "� n qt d - ..• t ,' y�' r ��,� y,a,'/ x� t s r�•rr< ,r 4r .J,n t '�,Fj{"14' yes - r f , t fr. rf, , _r < r,,, ry sj •'r� r ! :d }t �? 1 .j1 h jx rs` :f yt a r' �' �:Ysa"'s .t } c , rla r � � k, , ,n. t{t, cs> �S < .er, {a a 'trrxrts3'}'r , 'rrr•.1t -�Y ' e�„��� r !�� { T�>� s r5r � ,. r eat 5 y'} ll�� yi 3`r rN r r ��4r: Yt � •r.r ' t M s 5 +v..` � { r � :3'�Mie r Yy7'�r�a aY r-ti��JFt�� 'S>v`4 "5 ��. �o r 4r+; frlY 3 r r a^ v {� 4 r, c r s , 3 � ,• a k r. r, tMr f,s 3 r �..� ":s> raysr x J N � tr t v<rf.�a r S ,.Y� .a. ka„rs r a „� rt ! :.•� 2 Y-!-• 1 rX 44-�'Ssa 1(a'J” .e xS"P'` Nl~ t r .l i �,�+' x '.��.a'-.,..+� /.�3'7 f f�rs �i.,,kx�$r..��,a r r f,sa:'..0 J��Jr'� (s�„�.%a• �'r s.fi'�j p4 .,i! � �fii,yt„r t c.. n:,:. ,��� ./`;+..kJ;i {�� A,r,. L'} t:F!Fri �vf r+,1 ,� cr-}'^'r -sr� 9rc4=: �•^ .r �., r, ri7, .?. c� LL, 'i•�. r'� �•1 �� x' ,r yy y ♦ r i:. S- j.r at��.; G�.y F 4•l.a^';irrf�, '-'N 19'y'. +�*4✓NS ;i• rR, �yl t�#4 i�;;rt..�-0�.,�:s7r1t1�r1f. ,r•�y h�,.ir�,•: �, ..r(£'t�,�'li�S,t# �•$�,f^r�i,�z (�i '�7kre, 1:.•s'7rf ! ''.7 Y,S�•r.�•'. ,,• "4.�X S�',,� Nxaj.vy,l�5+ .trr•'.I ^�rF:�rti'9��fz-cr� .h r� Z�:�+,t+r.'i. ?.y �K' "?. _ :4.a�:'^ -,11i'�' r Nik ?,?.�`L:•. 't'� •xc- ...3tv ? v: n's ,:Y.r' t; r. - :.in./cn_.,:....J�s�<.C-�erW.a.d...°, ,.x ,...,..✓.�,`r .:'� •< r r.G•.,J <. .,l"J.,.. .. .::,:.; '.'^, !�'T .1•:,k,:-, 3.5..-..r.._.._. x,K .y. Mr. Ragle`.indicated that there was a landscape plan and tree schedule which would install 135 :trees in common areas. Cm. Mack indicated that she would like to visit the site. Cm. Burnham asked if the front setback requirement was 20' and was concerned that this was too close and would cause a problem with opening the garage door when a car was in the driveway. Mr. 'Ragle indicated that there was a minimum of 20' and most lots had more than 20' . He indicated that the houses were made with roll-up garage doors so there would not be any problems with length. Cm. Barnes asked about the field trip to the site and if there were any special requirements. Mr. Tong indicated that Staff would make. arrangements with the property owner. The Planning Commission continued the public hearing to the November 7th Planning Commission Meeting with a field trip to the site on Saturday, October 22, 1988 at 10:00 a.m. The Planning Commission took a break, Ms. Schmidt from the audience was granted time for an "oral communication". She indicated that she was happy to announce that Measure A was -on the ballot which was for a $3.5 million bond. She passed out bumper stickers in support of Measure A to the Planning Commission and Staff. SUBJECT: PA 87-045 Hansen Ranch General Plan Amendment Study, EIR, Planned Development Prezoning, Tentative Subdivision Map No 5766, and Annexation request for 248 dwelling units on 147 acres, west of Silvergate Drive and north Hansen Drive (cotinued from the September 19, 1988 meeting) Ms. O'Halloran indicated that this item had been continued from September 19, 1988 Planning Commission Meeting and that the Planning Commission had been studying the GPA and EIR issues at that time. She indicated that other issues that had been discussed were on-site landslides, grading, open space maintenance, density, archaeological finds and roadway location. Ms. O'Halloran indicated that the Planning Commission had requested additional information regarding San Ramon archaeological finds, open space/landscape maintenance district and the Applicant's revised proposal, Ms. O'Halloran indicated that the Planning Commission also had requested information on similar projects with lots with rear yards facing streets. She indicated that Arbor Creek was similar as the distance from the rear lot line to the street range from 32' -65' off of San Ramon Road and 43' off of Silvergate, - r;r 87-045 Hansen Hill Regular Meeti � n� Planning Commission L +'? Minutes, October 3, 1988 Valy l 1e- , t°•t v ;c,; i _3"� t, a y l yr\ C, 3 �'�� ; -e t J� 'y. 3� ,- _ y yN,rtr y,r�,,r ii•S tfh tlyt ry"'or:r 1 rS�ic Vak�iv� kk yrr h tilt 23 , km t x { 1 Yt�.�z j`SaEwa-, da}3'1�~•t 1 ,Lv t , f .!•. txi �i \ ;$3yc' c i H.r f• .k i,\ .t ,. rt „t 3 W a r r ot< . ,� �'� .11�'R1r rri 'Y'^Yi ���� des r t'•v. `ri Y�a`�l t�1 �.4"w'i` i .�� f F3'i�\t fr � �V�,�.b�`�r."x.55 �, rr \LA} 3 ,, A tv,t'2{!r yyE.y� �Ft�'lT ♦. , >•S l� t:1�,f r. r+S �lr t ��s\ l. rir ' t .,..• a.� N.�n..C�Y...11...t1. .'�-m R.�S iS..'�. at i t..'i _,Y i`:�"� ,.\.,.. x't� .�'Y' `e•3 ..... y.s. , r S r y;;.,r, >'•7 .l.- C. ,.2 "+ Yt.,r x;..g4,},4,, " yr, ,....pK.�} 'j'y. �i'�GkEr �,E,�Y !,�•.r'sA >i}><�•F`,"1'r .'t�rit 7 -.Y`•"'1.,w eiG � '¢xit fi'L'F'e!„�? ,�.. +t�..l.,r,L; ' a (h-NO'3�., „,...'Y; �• 4t nr.. ,Ffi y,1 ,y�k/`i`1''nl..;-Y a;.t� "'`.,y' ,•,,y!' q+ jp4�'ytar.'i A'•.it�y. {f'� `'" rz'{�y,Y. ,f »,.d.. ,y r,.1�.yh ,,: h ..dt.,... vY". '. }� M1 i ` l : .}l.rp•�H.t fp,��t ry,.lC,�},a G'c�F_'. ..r r:..?•% "'• �,r...:,;ti• r i�u .?A�'Ftxx.fY,C'•'Y/`tl'"'1;' �, _.'.•,xr� r'y:��.t�!'u r�ir.>nal,.� bk ..if _1406, fi a•. s.B7 y�fAxY+m SQL {1J,1 Pyf °r7 G`'.l Jxdy?'.,w� s 5u',r{ t ti Y f.ri tT. Y .'yava i''r r kr"1 NI 6:x01 f r'+`i•ns..t en+.#x% 't Y /f Y} TV';T'!�5 f vi-y.r. �3',_'. .� 't £a'r'r'�-k 'l• .n� � y 3i. Aa.. 1" n! ""1 1?r `'k'rx.]-0{�S.¢,J• 'J N+•..1.L.rl S �„ e�� S�„••,$"�3,1 f�",rA L�rXG r�.r :7 �e� .�e 1�r�' ° 1 ��� -4 3... f ! r.yoa•. f .x r`t• ,,J K�Ir ;i*;5' �., t Y �n, r'F,. f -1 ,.•.£ S »'! -�< �t '�'. F '4,YZ i'xuk,� +7" a S {t�`S,Y�fyYt ' 1 y '�r1 'Z d" rr,Yr : ! ` j' Y rte'.. t,rrl,• �d �. r.! J-3-n.? >-L''-,}s't'. of .rk` Iv ,r,�✓,.,-,.a14P :'14 t �;..r.' J„ jK<r .+ +-. 4 �. P +!a tti> ✓ 1 { >r?f'��T",t,,r y,-4��3• .f� `ro-t!+ aw;Ft x yrr `,( � ;�Cf'� Yt,r�`+'��^,�rz..rJ' r ,� ",,y +'� _ i ..,t i.. c rt � s ! a �ti :(-yJ rr } yt .�'3; te'i ���i!..� �,k.Z§`Y s �.�. art;. 1�'.tf i 1 ; ..r' 'f'.i t"pl'tltdp• nk,� ,• 7.f'� 1'.t..8 .tt' + rN i �..Y a 1 ��}.,t 4 ,r aFYa ��f �`��'F S w i�t 4 vw F. y F•3. � '^ 7 ,+ f M1:5 .M;r ,jay 4 1..;R2 f�zJ i/t 'frv''� h � t .s ��,., � �x'.j..t'l 4 "' 'YY"�€ •S,� �`r ^k�'�47 i 1 1' �J.,:t •t 4 �`:YY.,.;. rk•. I r�, up r :.�,rix r ' �F t +t',.w,,V �f,vry�H �6����`�#�3„,s it �d��x�.r�Err '+_'� i r1,1.,.�a Icrf fg4 F r.M��.is+ {.-•'.f�� r r i � r .. 7' tI urr .;� a„�+� (a jJw H,+7 w rat+-G c a1 �.,F�! r fry t .nz s-° a`�dt '� �(✓ , iJ v, F - C r 4 2 .c'r3 cs 1 .g, f�,.�, SII!'✓:v N, Y r e v 'J”1}x,� y Y t-;�, a � :.y.. 4 7 p r `'n ,.....,` '" .:�.. x n.*`r 4 '.?',rx !a`�t S - :� r z F$t�,.t• q�.;q'uxFr/i p:✓:,�,,�,�7 :`.'Af": -: !� ''��Mr�i���t.�� ;r�'ji;t„ $ K�. 4w��'�T'�i 7 i .,c,x,+.;^n�.i r ':'• ..i lty. ,' r�.sue.: + - ,a;�• t,A �l�.sYJ a•;y • : .,:crwi 4t 4':y 1 `� 1 .. $'{1�4 e�e'�34�J���r Y�x•Yi._ \, �_�, .ie `y r, ,.,x"'d W}J�> f'''�`"�re r .�'t.-1- Y z ..'� r r. 7r"- iJ.{' 1 P d s C Yt ,. A d V`,!•.m �.:a fi h � � .. .r q d.,�',VdIyY 51^'.`iY � t,fi k r }'a h'{ h"'-?� r •'r:. t/a-. �.T_w...��..��;Y�r r+ � sf�„11 .kr$� 7 �.yf: 9pst�.Stt+(x ti• '� ?•• 'y✓�,. ; _,f�i'� wTi'".'.,"'�4�+rk.y�T. sA.�.�(:'r.✓s1=1...�:,�_r•,S>� ??;i+�i•� n _t�,•ra. x..Yr�r_�tl S. ,:r 7 L`�rY°¢ ? y. J:} ''ar 4f&-'i. J. Jkq.S: r t Y: f'+-G- Y'i•1�.�.41 t+:,}.1 ��tySt. ,n r + ..�^Y. dg.y.'"��$.,t`,;,h'J'"r.�rti:1rd :i.i[ ! s:t.,,f•ii, -.1 } i w 'i � K r .z ':,a.�n:s ,rtln nu d } t ,$cf � ur 7 d�, '”;sr au,t!�r- x '� : ,"i{ :;t �' ,rl,� r ��• �1 r,i �t ,, ! t ;�*,`" •• ... i1fa1"J—•-tAali,aNOfYiM.f llY�1H/T�'" .YS .:L..�_. _.l Z•. Ms. O'Halloran discussed the archaeological findings in the City of San Ramon. She indicated that the Sonoma State University, California Archaeological Inventory noted one prehistoric site which promoted a field investigation finding four midden sites. She indicated that the Hansen Hill Ranch EIR shows mitigation measures in case of any archaeological finds. Ms. O'Halloran discussed the open space/landscape maintenance options. She indicated that an all-weather surface access easement must be provided along the north side of the creek and the south side of the creek would also need a minimum of 10 feet all-weather surface to provide emergency access between the creek and the residential area regardless of which maintenance option was in place. Ms. O'Halloran indicated that there were four possible options for maintaining fthe areas in question. I 1. A Homeowner's Association could be set up and access' to the open space would be limited to homeowners within the project and emergency vehicles. t 5 ' 2. East Bay Regional Parks could be responsible, however, due to the size of t the open space area it would be unlikely that the EBRP would improve the open space to provide access to the general public and the City would be ` responsible for maintaining the area. 3. The City of Dublin would be responsible for maintenance and improvements, however, duel trail systems for emergency vehicles and public pedestrian access would have to be considered as well as the City's liability. 4. An Assessment District could be developed whereas the property owners would be assessed for maintenance and the City would be responsible for the maintenance and administration of the maintenance district. Ms. O'Halloran indicated that the Planning Commission may wish to consider addressing maintenance of the open space through an amendment to the City's General Plan. She indicated that Attachment 28 showed an excerpt from the San Ramon General Plan relating to maintenance of open space. Ms. O'Halloran indicated that the Applicant's revised plan was shown as having reduced grading and that the previous proposal of 70 foot fill would be reduced to 50 feet of fill. She indicated that the revised plan would not modify the land use designations or the location of the land uses (with the exception of 3 to 4 units in Area 1) that had been proposed by the Applicant. Ms. O'Halloran indicated that using the Applicant's revised plans, the estimated acreage would be; open space - 70+ acres, with single-family at 71.5+ acres and Medium Density at 5.5 acres. This would have a unit yield of 64 to 429 for the single-family and 33 to 44 for the medium density, with a total unit yield of 97 to 443. Ms. O'Halloran stated that allowing residential development within the three areas shown on Attachment 15 would conflict with the General Plan polices in relation to 308 slope areas, oak woodland and riparian vegetation areas. She indicated that if the Planning Commission wishes to recommend residential x Regular Meeting PCM-7-187 October 3, 1988 �tY ,y'A¢ x 4 i + w as'L�^j 3?'.?\siS''? 3�, xL+t{fix "s'�..i�»�v �14�5tt+,•• {C 1 j•: v 1 5 ,C t S >• .: Y ...,.t .. - , .•'. �-»ti'.. .. ...-.�'?: n. ..,...?. x- .s,. .``.';7-. �d;rsy;d �rl.+,.'�. ,:h.51..�i 3t. .. � ♦+:+,' . development in these areas, the Commission may want to make recommendations to amend polices relating to oak woodlands, riparian vegetation and 30% slope areas. Ms. O'Halloran indicated that the Planning Commission needed to make recommendations on "where to develop and how much to develop". She indicated that Staff would like the Planning Commission to discuss the Applicant's revised plan, continue the Hansen Hill project to the October 17, 1988 meeting, and direct Staff to prepare resolutions on the following items: adequacy and completeness of the Final EIR; land use designations; and amendments to the General Plan policies. Mr. Jacoby handed out his recommendations to the Planning Commission and Staff. He indicated that most of his recommendations were in conformance with the Staff's recommendations with the exception of the density issues. He stated that there would be a total of 248 units and discussed the revised plans to the Commission. Mr. Jacoby indicated that there were some remaining issues: 1) location - (indicated difference of "brown" areas on wall map); 2) density - (indicated EIR stated no impacts) ; 3) traffic - (indicated mitigation measures would be taken and a fee charged for improvements) ; 4) traffic on Silvergate - (indicated Church Road would be developed and this should alleviate the problem) ; 5) size of project - (discussed units per acre, open space, and buffer zones) ; and 6) Homeowner's Association issues as well as maintenance of trails, open space. Ms. Debbie Vasquez, 7669 Martin Canyon Road, indicated that the General Plan was adopted to protect the City. She asked if the Valley Christian Church road had been approved by the Church. Mr. Jacoby indicated that a vote had been taken by the Church Board and the road had been approved. Ms. Vasquez asked if Mr. Jacoby was the sole owner of the property and why were their drilling rigs already on the property doing work. Mr. Jacoby indicated that the machines were working on geotechnical surveys and soils work. Ms. Vasquez asked who was responsible for the fences and that there were cows . going through the fence. Mr. Jacoby indicated that he would notify the property owner. Ms. O'Halloran indicated that there were three areas discussed in previous meetings as well as short-term/long-term impacts. She indicated that General fPlan polices would need to be addressed on grading and slope areas. Ms. LaBar indicated that the Planning Commission needed to consider a corridor in Area B for wildlife access and referenced Bishop Ranch and Danville- Sycamore areas. Regular Meeting PCM-7-188 October 3, 1988 1 Mr. Harvey Scudder, indicated his preference for a landscape maintenance district and hoped that the Planning Commission would decide on the development and open space at the same time. Mr. Bob Anderson reiterated his concerns regarding the proximity of the road that was being proposed near his residence. Cm. Burnham asked Mr. Jacoby what his plans were in regards to the road. Mr. Jacoby indicated on the wall map what had been proposed; however the final details on the road had not been finalized. Ms. Vasquez asked why the proposed Church Road could not be used all together without building a second road off of Silvergate. Mr. Jacoby indicated that it was necessary to have 2 access roads, especially in case of emergencies and the fire and police department would need to have access to the development. Mr. Anderson asked if Mr. Jacoby had considered the reduction of units being developed. Mr. Jacoby indicated that they would look into reduction of medium-family units. Cm. Barnes closed the public hearing. Ms. O'Halloran indicated that the Planning Commission needed to give recommendations to the Staff. Cm. Barnes asked what was needed at this point from the Planning Commission. Mr. Tong indicated that the Planning Commission could give the Staff their preferances regarding the items listed on Page 5 on a one-by-one basis. Cm. Burnham indicated that he was concerned on school and traffic studies ' (item #1) and would like to see figures for all proposed development in the area. Cm. Barnes and Cm. Mack indicated that they preferred the Applicant's revised plan (item #2) . Cm. Burnham agreed with Staff's recommendations regarding lower density (unit yield) and agreed with the Applicant's proposal for development areas such as filling in Area 2. All Commissioners agreed with Staff's recommendations for items 3 through 8 on page 5 and 6 of the Staff Report. They also indicated their concern over open space maintenance and that this issue should also be incorporated into the resolutions. The Planning Commission continued this application and public hearing to the October 17, 1988 meeting which will be located at the Shannon Center, West Room. Regular Meeting PCM-7-189 October 3, 1988 ra,�. .. ,r�1. r .1'. / t{,`'rC..:,t aAyati ': t�vyt''-,•}yl�� h ✓ L ,"r.'..i r J r.,,7 t. '<...'7r'.''x"r'>#r�4 t)f :wr. t:ar� $P I'r,x,,.,b,r2"j�,>'.%+.'�r_,g,,Xia�G6�d�au�rf 4�'r{`U+'.{;ky Y;,+µ`.:�7'sj'4g,,+FF l�,..3.P?'Pk 4 rrr�s�•j�*.„k�$x s-ffur 'err{ F'r}VW V 19;Wt A , A.,lb. . Y !, r � j,4, i k�ru `* �(+�':ib r` � F h��.a�R3pp``ea{ C" FF�y.r:'r�3' rrl���n - ti{✓ F xf, s �S'.. ar AA,M t � q �y .,-4 &� r 'i .� ♦ ./, ..<, '•�� T'sft �`4 � .�'' '}JW�yw..Sd>?�fi'tYi'�'�al� �i 71� } u i''.Y �sJ'.. r.,.- y"UFy, Y� ,��� r fj,1 ,. ,rt 't i r 4 C ; 7"`- k t tf &x fi 'F i r s'+ r +.r r,t s. '„/ .•7 {_, 1 L `� r'' tt l.. l.i.jr r rs.. f r• J s?'°; rd x k ",<.. Fs �t.�?`�t4�.iri,,�'•n/,L �y "ir A�gv�3i'ar .;k �'�."'t� �#r�+..,r � ': .xY.,i'a f f ,4.;t.,Ftd i..� ;SS s.:,fyr b 1ttS� t �� r�''� 2 x .� r �r , ��• f �.rtdr'i<f t-'atr r.S ' 1.". ♦ c ?t a. 4 rti¢ Q„Y� #j��7 J�t i," <�, 7 ✓ rr�s ,} -:;fr'or�vt. r, �x f 'a _rl,. s �ar"sx,,i'�'!txh�ir*:, r+' Fr r �; ''.ss r { Jr i _ Y t. ,— ,n l 'S !4� �. d�'�y,><.�<s >+s✓� �T7 G{.:7 s L l � �s J _ � s }, >, � t r ✓r' f 1,,, .r ,�. :";hr y 1`r,.�-,tiA���#���� R:a��+'r i i�C`,Y u1 i7'�y.'7.�� r,*. ,k; � µ"? hr r+.�r, X..v-� r•i^�..r,, �+� 3 r +,.+tx_•z .. ......:1.. :,a..,....,_..,.3r...`. F` � "�' j. r :. � .,,.,, r.l'.y "�,:.,-.m r4 tT;�' �; N? � � �,.,..� .. i I i i PUBLIC HEARINGS i SUBJECT: PA 88-054 Dublin Security Storage Conditional Use Permit for a 35-foot freestanding sign at 6005 Scarlett Court Cm. Barnes opened the public hearing and called for the Staff Report. During review of this application Staff discovered that one of the Applicant's current site uses (Ryder truck rental) had been established without obtaining a City approved use permit and the previous use permit (PA 86-060) which allowed for rented space of outdoor storage for private vehicle storage and expansion of the mini-storage operation lapsed in August 1988. Staff recommends that this item be continued to allow Staff an opportunity to work with the Applicant and property owners in submitting additional permit applications for consideration concurrently with this application. Staff has reviewed this matter with the Applicant who is in agreement with the continuance. Upon submittal of the additional information Staff will reschedule and renotice the application for a future public hearing. There being no comments from the public or the Commission, Cm. Barnes continued the item indefinitely. SUBJECT: PA 87-045 Hansen Ranch General Plan Amendment Study, EIR, Planned Development Prezoni.ng, Tentative Subdivision Map No 5766 and Annexation request for 245 dwelling units on 147 acres, west of Silvergate Drive and north of Hansen Drive (continued from the October 3 1988 Meeting. Cm. Barnes opened the public hearing and called for the Staff Report. Ms. O'Halloran stated that this item had been continued from the October 3, 1988, Planning Commission meeting at which time the Commission received comments from the Applicant, Public and Staff. At that meeting Staff was directed to prepare resolutions for Planning Commission consideration at the October 17, 1988 Commission Meeting. Staff was directed by the three Planning Commissioners present at the October 3, 1988 Commission meeting to prepare a resolution with favorable recommendations concerning the following: 1) Adequacy and completeness of the Final EIR; 2) Amend General Plan to incorporate entire Hansen Hill Ranch project within the primary planning area; 3) Amend General Plan to delete Areas 5, 6 and 7 from Table 1 and Figure 4 of the General Plan; 4) Amend General Plan policy and map with regard to Hansen Drive extension; 5) Amend General Plan to include alternate roadway serving Hansen Hill Ranch site; 6) Amend General Plan to include policy establishing level of service D as 87-045 Hansen Hill Regular Meetin, Planned Commission Minutes, October 17 1988 iA p c r . ' t si1�a rF'i� k ! l � ♦ i i 4 \ \ ♦ l ry s h h t 7 \ � � 7 't 2' . ` i \ t\y #{t ♦,�lsi ��r�}4� js pA rila h as,i' `{, �ti � 'E": 1 t A— d' v ' ,, it- 55 i�H r,i, 1 �'� Vii• t�'� \ r .r i st tki a. �;.,G , ja ,+., 1 -Y r .. 'Jr l a�,.:.', ,t hai. `Mft S 'x4 of tr y,a r'S•sa S ty�.. Y .. o wNr {,° rr 1" a y ♦ 1 ? Y5)"� i1 uPv 7° .,. , ,, „ �.t i ,, t:.z' •;.; yard„ /!? Y ay .l7s � 'r,vk 1° $ �'l FJI'^ �',. , } � -#J�`�' _. ��''�. r >••: S Y t,a J L K r'b a .1 �• J F. � /" 3• 1 f' {ri: r' j r w'k 6� F f t ,• ri �'1 � t:." }� 'ra � r?s's /rt.. �r 1� ,•#ls r rr 1.S �+.kc�.}� c tnN � �' i r � jf .V � � .wr .ay�.�i Y,yt R �}`h f'-y'' r�C' ���( � ���r � t { {'7 7'r-yii,�w.r.tf o Y'.'!'R��b'�i.�l.,1F �i ..r 1 �y� � y:+y� •tom,a r .x 5. � '•" Z ivy t 1. rs7 � y�Ji:♦ Fr ,+� r t �. r ,1 tp' r " •7' �'�s , sa �'�4 r t. � �C ? t j �1} �335d2 t.:t ft }S �y cL^r `�fF.A L't �`�vX r •'v s �.ta f,f t i f r r i c z 7 s °. �t f. a y k # kf 7�t s to a h .7t ,,AA t 1L t t t f r t/ 7, 7 �. #' .• `',. 7rq ata J'7 ✓ifi't! � :#c:# i�' « up t. .rr f ._C ! °r•i + 'fir a�-v" 4H k _ h •n rib s � ¢"..{ ,/�t'G i.,'� tt Z{' r � r al. 9 +r y S� 5 _,>_�.. r.v>...tf.---t,.a.. ..w,. ..:.+..... .,..._... ......... .. ....._.-....-.._, .<..s.F_.._tr..,�•,.,k:..si-J..7��d...o. -....=ri.sL....X:GM�.v.i..1_f. -4 ,;i:.... ...1.{' maximum level of service acceptable; 7) Amend General Plan to include policies requiring fire protection buffer zone around perimeter of residential development which interface with open space lands, and 8) Amend General Plan to include policies related to open space maintenance. Ms. O'Halloran continued by stating two Planning Commissioners indicated they were in favor of the Applicant's proposal for density and location of development which was: Single Family Residential (A - 6.0 DU/Acre) and Medium Density Residential (6.1 - 8 DU/Acre) Ms. O'Halloran stated that one Planning Commissioner expressed a preference for Staff's recommendation on maximum unit yield and a preference for the Applicant's proposal on location of development. Staff recommendation for total unit Yield is 66 to 179 units. The Applicant's current proposal reduces grading and residential development within Area 1 and a portion of Area 3. A significant amount of fill is still proposed within Area 2. Ms. O'Halloran stated Staff recommendation on density was for a total unit yield range of 61 to 179 dwelling units. Consistent with existing General Plan policies elimination of residential development within oak/bay woodland area, 30% slope areas and riparian habitat areas and recommends open space designation for these areas. The proposed General Plan Amendment requesting residential land use designation within Areas 2 and 3 is inconsistent with existing General Plan policies relating to open space preservation, in particular: 3.1A) preserve oak woodlands, riparian vegetation, and natural creeks as open space; 3.1B) maintain slopes predominately over 30% as permanent open space for public health and safety; and 3.1C) continue requiring reservation of steep slopes and ridges as open space as a condition of subdivision map approval. Ms. O'Halloran stated that approval of the Applicant's proposal"to allow 66 dwelling units in areas which General Plan policies would not allow development will necessitate a policy amendment to allow an exception to • policies 3.1A, 3.1B, and 3.lC if the finding is made that the development will meet other overriding General Plan policies such as Policy 2.1.1A, "Encourage housing of varied types, sizes and prices to meet current and future needs of all Dublin residents." Ms. O'Halloran indicated that Staff recommended certification of the EIR, adoption of General Plan Amendment that Staff had recommended. She indicated that if the Commission chooses to recommend approval of the Applicant's proposal, a Draft Resolution is attached to the Staff Report. Ms. O'Halloran noted that if the Commission chooses to recommend a density or area of development different from either the Staff recommendation or the Applicant's proposal this could be done by modifying the Draft Resolutions. Regular Meeting PCM-7-193 October 17, 1988 , 4 M ♦ v -1 + t t r, Tv i Al ` s i. \ ,,Y-Y�,y ,♦a i ,ti t x4.•lS W� ~ -ca �p c \r t♦ s-t�rj - `° { . :.t + t,t :fArti�tti � �. i >> ,} s l 7 yt{ a \ -} N ) :•. r'..t ` 1. r ti ' o � i * t +,L t.{ st� ' fiFl•N wT ��72rye, t � `�+;\. -r N. � � t�^{ {i ♦ Y ♦ Mr. Gordon Jacoby stated that he was not proposing 479 dwelling units but a total amount of 245 and possibly less by pulling the road location over away from the townhouses. Cm. Barnes asked for comments from the public. Marjorie Labar, Preserve Area Ridgelands Committee, stated the Committee was opposed to the location of the projects development, however, complimented Staff and stated she would like to see the addition to Item 6 of Resolution B policy relating to the protection of wildlife habitat. Mr. Bob Anderson, Winding Trails, opposed to the item, thanked Mr. Jacoby with regard to keeping density considerations and road location in mind. Jordan Myers, Winding Trail, in favor of the item, expressed he hoped that the Planning Commission and City Council would follow Staff's recommendations of limiting the density of units built in all areas and preserving our natural open space areas. Cm. Barnes asked for elaboration on open space with regard to the General Plan. Mr. Tong explained that areas in which development is proposed including grading were not considered for open space designation. He illustrated on the easel the General Plan open space concept and the Applicant's landscape easement. Cm. Zika asked what the County Assessor considers as open space vs. not open space for tax purposes. Does assessment stop at fence line? Mr. Tong indicated that tax assessment related to property lines. Cm. Mack was concerned with policies 3.1A, 3.1B and 3.1C, stating that those policies did not apply to all oak woodland, riparian vegetation, or 30% slope areas. Mr. Tong stated that certain areas on the project site would qualify as falling within policies 3.1A, 3.1B and 3.1C as the areas contain oak woodland, riparian vegetation and 30% slopes which the policies require to maintain or preserve as open space. Mr. Tong, responding to Cm. Burnham, clarified the General' Plan single family residential density range of 0.9 - 6.0 dwelling units per acre. Cm. Barnes closed the public hearing. Cm. Zika stated with regard to the eight General Plan amendments outlined in the Staff Report, that he felt the Commission had agreed with all items except the issue of density, however, the Applicant's buildable acreage would be acceptable. On motion from Cm. Mack, seconded by Cm. Zika and with a vote of 4-0, the Planning Commission approved Regular Meeting PCM-7-194 October 17, 198S RESOLUTION NO. 88-058 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 Cm. Zika inquired as to the number of housing units involved. Staff indicated the Applicant is proposing 245 units including 34 To.anhomes and 37 Patio Homes. However, the density range proposed by the Applicant could yield a maximum of 479 units. Mr. Tong stated there is agreement on the number of multi-family (townhouses) of 34 units. Staff has recommended less development with a maximum yield of 179 units with a single family low density range of 0.5 to 2.8 DU/Acre and medium low density range of 6.1 to 8 DU/Acre. Staff noted that the Staff recommendation does not include a separate density range for the patio homes. The Patio home density proposed would not be permitted under Staff's recommendation as the density is proposed at 6.2 DU/Acre. Staff's recommendation does not''permit development in the ravine area, oak woodlands and riparian vegetation areas. Cm. Zika questioned the size of the fill area. Ms. O'Halloran stated approximately 6 acres. She indicated that Item #2 of the Draft Resolution could be amended to place a cap on the maximum number of units permitted on the site. Cm. Burnham questioned if the plan could be changed at a later date. Staff indicated that the density range would be established by the General Plan, but the Site Plan would be subject to future review and approval. Cm. Zika asked Staff to calculate density for the project with 214 unit limit. Cm. Mack asked Staff to calculate density for the project with 235 maximum number of units. The Commission discussed the density range and unit yield of two scenarios: 1) spliting' the recommendation and 2) reducing the Applicant's proposal by 10 units. Mr. Tong noted on the easel the following calculations for density and unit type: Scenario 1: 214 Maximum Unit Yield Unit Type Acres Density Range Max. Unit Yield Townhouse 6.3 (6.1 to 8.0) 34 Patio Home 6.0 (0.9 to 6.0) 36 Single Family 65.5 (0.5 to 2.2) 144 TOTAL 214 Units Regular Meeting PCM-7-195 October 17, 1988 Scenario 2: 235 Maximum Unit Yield Unit Type Acres Density Range Max. Unit Yield Townhouse 6.3 (6.1 to 8.0) 34 Patio Home 6.0 (0.9 to 6.0) 36 Single Family 65.5 (0.5 to 2.5) 165 TOTAL 235 Units After a short recess the meeting was called back to order at 9:00 p.m. Gordon Jacoby stated that the townhouses had to comply with what the regulations required. On motion from Cm. Mack, seconded by Cm. Barnes and with a vote of 4-0, the Planning Commission approved Exhibit "C" with an amendment to Item 2 to indicate an overall maximum of 235 units, without a breakdown by unit type. RESOLUTION NO. 88-059 RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL ADOPTION OF GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENTS FOR PA 87-045 HANSEN HILL RANCH NEW BUSINESS OR UNFINISHED BUSINESS Mr. Tong stated there will be a field trip of the Ahmanson property on Saturday, October 22, 1988, at 10:00 a.m. OTHER BUSINESS The City Council will hear a report of LAFCO Sphere of Influence Study involving the East Dublin Area and Livermore at the October 24, 1988 City Council meeting. PLANNING COMMISSIONERS' CONCERNS Cm. Zika stated the banner advertising Pulte Homes had been removed. Cm. Burnham commented to the audience that when residential property is purchased which is located on a dead-end street, or located near open space, that it might be worth while to check to see if there is a possibility for development in the area in question before purchasing the property. Cm. Barnes asked when the questionaire regarding the application process for the consultants should be turned in as it was received late. Mr. Tong indicated it should be returned to the City Offices as soon as possible. Regular Meeting PCM-7-196 October 17, 198S DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT ON THE HANSEN HILL RANCH PROJECT (SCH 87050527) December, 1987 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page 1. SUMMARY 1-1 1.1 Introduction 1-1 1.2 Description of the Hansen Ranch Project 1-1 1.3 Summary of Impacts and Mitigations 1-2 2. PROJECT DESCRIPTION 2-1 2.1 Location 2-1 2.2 Project Characteristics 2-2 2.3 Regulatory and Permit Process 2-9 3. SETTING, IMPACT AND MITIGATION 3-1 3.1 Geology 3-1 3.2 Soils 3-9 3.3 Hydrology 3-12 3.4 Vegetation 3-17 3.5 Wildlife 3-31 3.6 Land Use 3-37 3.7 Visual Quality/Topography 3-54 3.8 Public Services 3-75 3.9 Fiscal Analysis 3-91 3.10 Traffic and Circulation 3-101 3.11 Noise 3-111 3.12 Air Quality 3-116 3.13 Archaeology 3-128 4. ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT 4-1 4.1 No Project Alternative 4-1 4.2 Neighborhood Context Alternative 4-3 4.3 Mitigated Alternative 4-6 4.4 Creek-Oriented Alternative 4-10 5. CUMULATIVE IMPACTS 5-1 6. GROWTH INDUCING IMPACTS 6-1 7. UNAVOIDABLE SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS 7-1 8. REPORT PREPARATION 8-1 9. APPENDICES A. Initial Study B. List of Invasive Plant Studies C. Tree Survey Tentative Maps Tally Sheets 86123 LIST OF FIGURES Page 2-1 Regional Location 2-3 2-2 Site Vicinity 2-4 2-3 Site Plan and Neighborhood Units 2-8 3-1 Slope Stability 3-3 3-2 Development/Slope Map 3-5 3-3 Soil Types 3-10 3-4 Watershed Map 3-13 3-5 Vegetation Map 3-18 3-6 Project Impacts to Oak/Bay Forest 3-24 3-7 Extended Planning Area 3-39 3-8 Dublin General Plan Designation 3-43 3-9 Visual Features 3-55 3-10A Site Photos 3-57 3-10B Site Photos 3-57 3-10C Site Photos 3-58 3-10D Site Photos 3-58 3-11 Visual Sensitivity 3-59 3-12 Areas of Cut and Fill 3-62 3-13 Site Sections A-A and B-B 3-63 3-14 Site Sections C-C and F-F 3 7-64 3-15 Site Sections D-D and E-E 3-65 3-16A Site Photo 3-66 3-16B Site Photo 3-66 3-17A Photomontage 3-68 3-17B Photomontage 3-68 3-18 Water Zones/Supply Map 3-82 3-19 Hansen Ranch Impact Study 3-102 3-20 Access and Internal Circulation 3-106 4-1 Mitigated Alternative 4-7 LIST OF TABLES 2-1 Proposed Home Types for HRP 2-6 2-2 Summary of Neighborhoods 2-7 3-1 Rare, Endangered or Threatened Plant Species 3-21 3-2 High School Capacity and Enrollments 3-80 3-3 Current Enrollment and Capacity 3-80 3-4 Distribution of Hansen Site's Current Property Tax Revenue 3-92 3-5 Estimated Development Value 3-94 3-6 Distribution of Increased Property Tax Revenue 3-94 3-7 Annual Fiscal Impacts 3-98 3-8 Intersection Levels of Service 3-103 3-9 Land Use Compatibility for Community Noise Environments 3-113 3-10 Typical Construction Noise Levels 3-114 3-11 Typical Construction Equipment Noise 3-115 3-12 Ambient Air Quality Standards 3-118 3-13 Livermore Air Pollutant Summary 1981-1985 3-120 3-14 Emissions from Project Generated Traffic 3-125 3-15 Worst Case Curbside Carbon Monoxide Concentrations 3-126 86123 1 SUMMARY 1.1 INTRODUCTION This report is an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) prepared in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The report addresses those issues identified as potentially significant in the City of Dublin's Initial Study of the proposed project (Appendix A). 1.2 DESCRIPTION OF THE HANSEN RANCH PROJECT The project site, a 147.3 acre parcel contiguous with the City of Dublin's western boundary, is proposed to be developed as a residential project consisting of 282 residential units. Single-family detached homes would amount to 248 dwelling units, and 34 units would be duplex townhomes. Approximately 54% of the site would remain open space, while 67.7 acres would be developed. The arrangement of the dwelling units is configured into 11 residential neighborhoods. In addition to the proposed project, this document examines the impacts of four alternatives as described in Section 4. 86123 1. Summary 1.3 SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATIONS Resource Impact Mitigation Geology Reactivation of occurrence Repair slides in areas of of new landslides. construction. Establish a slope maintenance schedule and assign responsibility for maintenance and future repairs. Mass-grading resulting in Reduce grading or establish imbalanced cut and fill. agreement for export with adjacent land owners. Soils Soils with high shrink-swell Treat, cover or remove potential. those soils. Hydrology Increased flows and flow Construct detention basins velocities in Martin Canyon and drop structures to Creek resulting in potential reduce contribution to peak localized erosion and flows. flooding. Rip-rap stress points in channel Establish a drainage structure and channel maintenance schedule and assign responsibility for maintenance and repairs. Erosion during site Restrict construction to the construction. dry season and stabilize unprotected areas in accordance with erosion and sediment control plan. Erosion from roof drainage Direct roof drainage toward and lot drainage. specific structures. Design lot grades to prevent runoff across lot lines where lots are split. 86123 1-2 1. Summary Resource Impact Mitigation Vegetation Project construction could 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 oak/bay forest vegetation manner that will minimize on the site. trauma to the root system (see details in Chapter 3.4 Vegetation). Disturbed areas should be revegetated with natural tree and bush species. Specific details of the revegetation plan should be worked out in consultation with the California Depart- ment of Fish and Game, the City and the Alameda County Flood Control District. Areas of extensive grading and fill in Neighborhoods 5 and 9 should be eliminated and the oak/bay woodland in these areas preseved. Project construction would The California Department disturb approximately two of Fish and Game should be acres of riparian habitat in consulted as required under the area of the Hansen Hill Section 1601-03 of the Fish Road/Creekside Road and Game Code. intersection. Minimize fill and cut slopes within the riparian corridor, especially in the area of the Hansen Hill Road and Creekside Road inter- section. Redesign the intersection of Hansen Hill Road and Creekside Road to reduce the amount of fill placed in the riparian corridor. 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. 86123 1-3 1. Summary Resource Impact Mitigation Vegetation Remove lots 102-110 and (continued) 95-107 which back up to the riparian corridor along Martin Canyon Creek. Relocate Creekside Road to the west in the area between lots 103 and 104 in Neighborhood 9. Wildlife The placement of a large 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. If fish are found there, 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. Loss of oak/bay woodland 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 compensation efforts must be approved by DFG. Land Use Placement of project 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. Provide a pedestrian corridor along the streambank and extending through the site. City's Subdivision Ordinance In-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 t- 4 1. Summary Resource Impact Mitigation Land Use Access to site from Installation and (continued) neighboring parcels, both maintenance of a project- cattle and trespassers size perimeter fence should be required. Project Home Owners' Association should maintain a list of plant materials acceptable for landscaping. Visual Quality Grading would remove Site ridgelands overlooking prominent knolls and would I-580 should be preserved alter existing ridgeline. and not altered by grading. A significant number of 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. Visual character of the site Develop design guidelines would change from rural to which establish building suburban. colors, materials and finishes which are compatible with the surrounding area. Decrease road widths and gutters. Perimeter site fencing should be compatible with the rural character of surrounding lands. Night lighting and glare Reflective finishes should might increase. not be used on site structures; excessive exterior lighting should be avoided. Views from designated Homes should be sited well scenic roadways would be below ridgelines and away further impacted. from slopes overlooking I- 580. 86123 i -� 1. Summary Resource Impact Mitigation 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 Extensive grading, excessive 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 DSRSD Fire Department - 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. - Non-combustible roofs for all units. - Redesign of plan to in- clude fire breaks between homes and undeveloped land and fire trails, based on criteria to be set by the Dublin, San Ramon Service District (DSRSD). - Ensure adequate water supply and pressure. Some roads exceed a 12% - Redesign road so grades grade. do not exceed 12%, unless approved by Dublin Police & DSRSD Fire Departments. Possible blockage of fire - 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. 86123 1-6 1. Summary Resource Impact Mitigation Bridge at main entrance of - Redesign bridge to unob- project is too low. structed height of 13 feet 6 inches for emergency vehicle access. Police Upon annexation, Dublin Access to townhouses should Police Department would be protected by a fence require one additional off- along all sides. icer. Residences at east end of 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. There is no acceptable em- ergency access to riparian and picnic areas on the site. Schools Proposed project would Project sponsor would com- 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. 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. Transportation (busing) and Institute such programs. student safety (crossing (See Fiscal Section). guards) could also arise. Solid Waste Proposed project would 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 1. Summary Resource Impact Mitigation Water The proposed project would Payment of hookup charges demand about 131,500 gpd, and fees by project sponsor. and the DSRSD does not Payment of user charges by anticipate any supply prob- the homeowners. lems. Infrastructure for comple- Project sponsor would pay tion of Zone III and con- direct capital costs. struction of Zone IV would be required. Wastewater Proposed project would 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, PG&E, Pacific Bell and Via- Project sponsor would pay Communication com have indicated the any relocation and/or exten- capacity to serve the pro- sions of PG&E facilities. posed project. Homeowners would pay for underground conduit and any other facilities required by Pacific Telephone. Parks Proposed project would Project sponsor would pay generate the need for an the in-lieu 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. Compliance with City's parkland dedication/in-lieu fee ordinance. City of Dublin A positive net annual fiscal None required. impact of about $26,600. Dublin San Ramon Net capital fiscal impact of Payment of water and sewer 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 R 1. Summary Resource Impact Mitigation Schools Net capital fiscal impact to Compliance 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. No net capital fiscal im- 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 Potential for decrease in 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. Widen westbound approach to have three left-turn lanes. Cumulative increase in daily 1. Reduce project size or traffic on Sivergate Drive 2. Encourage the use of between Peppertree Road Dublin Boulevard by and Creekside Drive beyond a. Choosing Alterna- the environmental capacity. tive 1 as second access road b. designing access road as major col- lector with few intersecting drive- ways C. make access road as direct as possi- ble to Dublin Boulevard. 86123 1 -9 1. Summary Resource Impact Mitigation Noise High noise levels would be Limit construction to day- experienced during project light hours, muffle equip- construction. ment where possible. Proposed homes would be Install insulation adequate located in an area exposed to shield residents from to noise from 1-580. noise and/or eliminate or relocate homes in direct line of sight of I-580. Air Quality Particulate matter would be 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. Construction equipment None required. exhaust contains air pollut- ants. Hydrocarbons generated by None required. project vehicles would im- pact regional ozone levels. Project related vehicles Implement measures sug- would increase local con- gested for traffic impacts. centrations of CO. High CO episodes could City of Dublin should become common as develop- institute a CO "hotspot" ment continues in the Tri- monitoring program under Valley area. the guidance of the BAAQMD and paid for by developers. Historic No known historic resources None required. Resources within the project site. Archaeological The project area contains 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. 86123 1 10 1. Summary Resource Impact Mitigation Historic Resources No known historic resources Should any archaeological within the project site. materials be encountered during project construction, all activity within a 50 meter radius of the find should be stopped and a qualified archaeologist retained to examine the find and recommend appropriate mitigation. Archaeology Resources No known historic resources within the project site. The project area contains environmental features which are considered to be archaeologically sensitive. 86123 1 11 2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION 2.1 PROJECT LOCATION The project site covers 147.3 acres in the unincorporated portion of Alameda County. The site is contiguous with the western boundary of the City of Dublin and lies entirely within the adopted sphere of influence for the City of Dublin. Current access to the property is from Silvergate Drive and Martin Canyon Drive immediately off of Rolling Hills Drive. The site is currently vacant and is used for cattle grazing. It is characterized by a parallel series of swales and knolls comprising part of the western foothills of the City of Dublin. About one-half of the western portion of the property lies within the City of Dublin's Primary Planning area, while the eastern half is within the City of Dublin's Extended Planning Area. Martin Creek is the primary drainage feature of the site, flanked by riparian and oak woodland vegetation. The project site is located within the Martin Canyon Creek watershed. The Martin Canyon Creek watershed drains about 890 acres of land and the 147+ acre project site is located at the lower reaches of the watershed. The terrain of Hansen Hills Ranch includes five distinct knolls situated in two rows which are nearly equally spaced from east to west. Northernmost knolls are separated by deep ravines; knolls overlooking Interstate 580 are separated by a saddle of land. Each knoll is covered on top by grassland, while the lowest slopes of the three northern knolls are surrounded by oak woodland vegetation. The two knolls overlooking I-580 are integral to the ridge which is visually dominant and forms the northern skyline, as viewed from I-580. This same ridgeline is visually distinct as one layer of the Dublin Hills when viewed from the east and north. From Interstate 680 (near Amador Valley Boulevard) the rolling form of the ridgeline is evident, appearing below and in front of Donlan Point and its 86123 1 2. Project Description accompanying dominant ridgeline. Elevations range from 470 feet at the property's northeast boundary (near Silvergate Drive) to over 860 feet along the western border. Nearly one-half of the site lies on slope with a gradient of more than 30%. Maps shown on Figures 2-1 and 2-2 indicate the regional and local setting of the project site, about one mile northwest of the intersection of Interstates 580 and 680. The Hansen Hills Ranch site is located west of Silvergate Drive in Dublin. Silvergate Drive runs along the east side of the site and is a two-lane plus a dual left-turn lane road. San Ramon Road which runs parallel to Silvergate Drive to the east provides the primary access for west Dublin residents to Interstate 580 to the south and to the City of San Ramon to the north. San Ramon Road also provides access to Interstate 680. Dublin Boulevard runs south of the project site parallel to I-580 and provides access to downtown Dublin and major shopping centers near San Ramon Road to the east. Dublin Road ends near the Blaylock, Fletcher & Gleason property directly south of the Hansen Ranch site. Adjacent land uses to the north of the site include the existing Kaufman and Broad- Silvergate Highlands and Hatfield-Investec-Bordeau single-family projects, the Kaufman and Broad California Vistas townhouse project, and the undeveloped remainder of the Nielsen Ranch property, currently under Agricultural Preserve. To the south is the single- family residential Briar Hill area and the Valley Christian Center Church and School complex. East of the site are additional single-family lots and the southern portion of the California Vistas Townhouse Project. To the west lies the Blaylock, Fletcher and Gleason property, which is currently zoned for agricultural use and is currently used for cattle grazing. The latter property is currently being reviewed under a general plan amendment study to consider proposed medium-density and single-family residential development. 2.2 PROJECT CHARACTERISTICS The project applicants, Hansen Hill Development Corporation, propose development of the Hansen property as a residential community. The proposed project would include the following elements prior to development: o General Plan Amendment including: incorporation of the entire site into the primary planning area of the General Plan; deletion of the implementing policy in the Land Use and Circulation Section of the General Plan that calls for reservation of right of way for Hansen Drive extension to the Western Hills; addition to the General Plan Map of the new alternative roadway serving the Hansen Hill Ranch Property; and 86123 2-2 REGIONAL LOCATION MAP FIGURE 2-1 s3 3is n �. SAN RAFAEL 4 $ Y: CONCORD M • OAKLAND PROJECT SITE F SAN FRANCISCO' • DUBLIN X. ALAMEDA ` HAYWARD COUNTY , Y 5 SAN MATEO SITE VICINITY MAP 1 k� SAN JOSE SOURCE:EIP ASSOCIATES \� MILES t i SAN a`y0 \ N RAMON a o zo ao 9 \;\f. N 'co I�COVHt 1 U GONSp' r Z DUBLIN �o � r � 0 z ; Z b� \ PROJECT SITE Ac I SIIV ERGA TE A OP I ° M,q Trs, OR. 13 0 C AMARILLO RD. D �lo" �\ Z 91LVEROATE 9 a�Z ,�GJaO I _ DR. O ff �Gf 01.. PLEASANTON g1O��N SOURCE:DUBLIN GENERAL PLAN n N FEET 0 1000 2000 4000 2-3 SITE VICINITY MAP 2 FIGURE 2-2 SOURCE: DAVID GATES&ASSOCIATES t,�/� .FEET L u •.�l ���\�� `�-�\� �\\\ � �i{L-�\ \ � '0 600 1200 1800 lam° I VL • A =� ��Ji( /i r-J _)S ® Agricultural Preserve Lands ry Property Line 1 - N A J/ _ F AR ,NYINSE�+ SCAN EFER \\ \\.. `(r -� 1,t� ul DUBLW \ S PROJECT SITE.�'�'' �` �l �—��-!'O�-\��i(/lll,rf==..�,Il U'�'�,11vi.�'�i?i�l•�?�-��;�J�S�i ii,� �J\��=��j--,(c'-\'J��1�J\ I N �O 2. Project Description definition and deletion of the land use designations for the areas approved for medium density residential and single-family residential uses. o Planned development prezoning application would have to be approved by the City of Dublin. o The City of Dublin would also have to approve a tentative map application. o Annexation of the project property to the City would require an application and approval of both the City of Dublin and the Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO). o Application for annexation to the Dublin San Ramon Services District (DSRSD) would follow the property's annexation to the City of Dublin. In sum, 248 single-family detached homes and 34 duplex-type townhomes are being proposed. Of the 147 acres on the Hansen Ranch property, the proposed homes are clustered on 67.7 acres of the site, with 79.6 acres, or 54% remaining as open space. The proposed residential dwellings are arranged in a clustered configuration comprising eleven neighborhood units. Tables 2-1 and 2-2 show the number and type of home by neighborhood. For the total site, the gross overall density is proposed as 1.9 dwelling units per acre. Net density is 4.1 dwelling units per acre. Figure 2-3 displays the location of the proposed neighborhood units, lot layout and the internal road system. The proposed homes would reflect a variety of architectural styles including Victorian, French, Normandy, Craftsman's and traditional suburban California ranch themes. The developer has indicated an .intent to provide housing that would be consistent and compatible with existing residential areas on both the northern and southern sides of the site. Roadway access connections between the site and the existing road network are proposed at the following locations. One project entrance/egress would be from Silvergate Drive, which adjoins the eastern boundary of the site. A covered bridge is proposed along the access at the point at which it would cross Martin Canyon Creek (just north of the proposed townhouses). 86123 5 2. Project Description TABLE 2-1 PROPOSED HOME TYPES FOR THE HANSEN RANCH PROJECT AND RELATED CHARACTERISTICS Square Feet Estimated Home Type Number Per Unit Bedrooms Price Range Townhouses 34 1,250-1,450 2-3 $ 145-165 K (duplex) Patio Homes 36 1,450-1,950 2-3 $ 185-225 K (detached) Single-Family 183 2,000-2,800 3-4 $ 250-350 K (detached) Custom Homes 29 2,500-3,500 3-5 $ 300-450 K Total 282 Source: Hansen Hill Development Corporation, March, 1987. 86123 2-6 2. Project Description TABLE 2-2 SUMMARY OF NEIGHBORHOODS Neighborhood Approx. Lot Sizes in No. of Estimated Square Area Acreage Square Feet Homes Home Type Feet of Homes 1 -- -- 34 Townhome 1,250-1,450 2 9.1 8,960-17,900 28 Single-Family 2,000-2,800 (Av. - 149100) 3 5.0 3,330-7,500 36 Patio Home 19350-1,750 (Av. - 6,050) 4 5.8 7,840-18,560 23 Single-Family 29000-2,800 (Av. - 11,050) 5 7.4 79680-10,720 40 Single-Family 2,000-2,800 (Av. - 8,050) 6 9.7 8,000-17,120 41 Single-Family 2,000-2,800 (Av. - 10,270) 7 6.2 9,760-53,440 13 Single-Family 2,000-2,800 (Av. - 209750) 8 8.2 89820-32,300 20 Single-Family 2,000-2,800 (Av. - 179950) 9 8.3 13,000-31,040 19 Custom Home 2,500-3,500 (Av. - 19,000) 10 2.5 8,820-13,440 10 Single-Family 2,000-2,800 (Av. - 10,960) 11 4.7 6,850-16,340 18 Single-Family 2,000-3,500 (Av. - 11,360) and Custom Home Total 66.9 282 Source: Hansen Hill Development Corporation, March 1987. 86123 2-7 ILLUSTRATIVE SITE PLAN AND NEIGHBORHOOD UNITS FIGURE 2-3 C RO N I N SOURCE: DAVID L.GATES 8 ASSOCIATES Q FEET j-6IIIIIIIIIIIIIIII 0 100 200 �t 1. Y ' •••o® �-� 4. Neighborhood Units F CPIS ea6 aka. a !� NIELSEN PROPERTY :� - �°- , fir' _....J �`^+i' • :_, "-� �s o� a A OT a r6 r GQ l� q . d� '•iJ Quo oo act°. -- .r .ter-Cs} I ..__ - yi ^ r '� �. v- a_ a��. �, •�e•ti� I}v ks, a;, J�°eP.,C lE'� Q•P`mQ r• ` .� m :,`�'�1���,L':/I� (.��y� ''I� 1. _ � '�, 6'. li L'"'<�46 Rni+.E 6 Wf,i{�.� �"�.'✓ ��.: fnQ �00���% � ' p� 1 + - l r •�'° _ ' e° �' 115 L I-� VALLEY CHRISTIAN CENTER BLAYLOCK, GLEASON,& FLETCHER 2. Project Description A second entrance/egress is proposed through the valley Christian Center property, providing the site indirect access to Dublin Boulevard. This access connection would be along the alignment of the current driveway with modifications proposed to meet public road standards for a collector street. Two additional options were considered for the Dublin Boulevard access connection. One option involved access extending from the Valley Christian Center driveway at Dublin Boulevard along the shared boundary between the Valley Christian Center and the adjoining Blaylock, Fletcher & Gleason property to the southwest corner of the subject property. The second option considered was an access from the Western terminus of Dublin Boulevard up the west side of Donlon Canyon to the west side of the subject property. Preliminary grading plans have been developed only for the first option. The alignment ultimately chosen for site access from Dublin Boulevard should reflect the best fit between roadway development environmental impacts and mitigations to project traffic. The third proposed connection to the existing roadway network would be for an emergency vehicle access. This access would be extended from the southern terminus of Martin Canyon Road and is proposed as an all-weather road along the north side of Martin Canyon Creek (along an existing farm road) to the northwest corner of the site where a bridge crossing over Martin Canyon Creek is proposed. The connection between the internal roadway system and this emergency access road (i.e., the Martin Canyon Creek Road Crossing) could serve as a possible connection to future developments north and northwest of the site. For internal circulation, neighborhood collector roads would be 42 feet wide curb-to-curb in a 58-foot right of way. Cul-de-sacs would be 34 feet wide in a 46 foot right-of-way. Where minor roads are not providing lot access, they would be reduced to 24 feet, curb- to-curb, in order to reduce site grading. Maximum road grades do not currently exceed 15% gradient. All roadways, except townhouse access driveways, would be public roads maintained by the City of Dublin. Besides roadways, .other improvements to the site would consist of the following: (a) permanent fencing along all project boundaries; (b) pedestrian trail system; (c) extension of public utilities including sewer, storm drainage, water, gas, electricity, telephone and cable television; and (d) flood control improvements. 86123 2-9 2. Project Description 2.3 REGULATORY AND PERMIT PROCESS The project site is within the unincorporated area of Alameda County. As such, the site is currently subject to the provisions of the Alameda County Planning and Zoning Ordinance and the Alameda County General Plan. The site is entirely located within the adopted sphere of influence (reflecting the ultimate anticipated urban sphere boundary) for the City of Dublin. Development of the site for residential purposes will require Alameda County Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) approval for annexation into the City of Dublin and subsequent annexation into the Dublin San Ramon Service District (providers of fire, water, and sewer service). Prior to initiating the application process for the site's annexation into the City, the City must process and act on the subject General Plan amendments study (to address the site's existing and proposed land use designation and to consider amendments and/or elaboration to existing development guidelines within the text of the current general plan), and process and act on the concurrently requested prezoning application (to make the site's zoning designations consistent with the site's underlying general plan land use designations). Concurrent with the city's action on the General Plan amendment study and prezoning application, the tentative map application would be considered. The subject EIR covers the full spectrum of the project applications. The EIR process will require EIR certification pursuant to the requirements of CEQA. The Draft EIR will be publically circulated for a period of 45 days. Following this public review period, all written comments and all comments made at the public hearing on the project will be responded to in writing in an addendum to the Draft EIR known as the Comments and Responses Document. Together, the Draft EIR and the Comments and Responses Documents comprise the Final EIR. The Dublin Planning Commission, if it deems the Final EIR to be adequate and complete, will certify the Final EIR. A streambed alteration agreement (Section 1601-1603) with the California Department of Fish and Game would be required for work involving construction around Martin's Creek. 86123 2- 10 3 SETTING, IMPACT AND MITIGATION 3.1 GEOLOGY 3.1.1 SETTING The project site is located within a geologically complex area, where extensive faulting and folding of the geologic material has occurred in the past. The Dublin area geology has been mapped by a number of geologists in the past, including Wagner,1 Dibblee,2 and Nielsen.3 In addition, a preliminary geotechnical investigation has been performed on the site by Harding Lawson Associates.4 Information from these authors form the basis for the discussion below. The site is located in the Central Coast Range Mountains of California. The rocks underlying the site are sedimentary in nature, and were deposited in a non-marine environment in Miocene time. The rocks are characterized as consisting of pebble conglomerates, sandstones, and greenish to greenish-grey mudstone, with locally thin marl beds. These rocks have been assigned to the Briones Formation, part of the San Pablo Group. About two million years ago, during the Mt. Diablan mountain building period, the sediments of the Briones Formation underwent structural deformation in the form of faulting and folding. The site is located along the southern limb of a north-northwest/south-southeast trending syncline; the axis of the syncline corresponds to the channel of the Martin Canyon Creek, along the northern boundary of the site. The beds of the Briones Formation are reportedly dipping steeply to the northeast.5 Since the mountain building event associated with the Mt. Diablo uplift, the site has been subject to erosion. The erosion has resulted in the rounded hilltops and the steep gullying on the north-facing slopes of the site. In addition, extensive landsliding has taken place 86123 3 3.1 Geology on the site. Landslides located within the boundaries of the site were mapped by Nielsen3 in 1973 from aerial photographs. Topographical features that indicated landsliding were mapped by Nielsen. The activity of the slide features was not determined by Nielsen.3 The Dublin General Plan identifies the major portion of the site (excluding only a minor eastern portion of the site) as an area requiring detailed geologic investigations prior to development due to landslide hazards.6 During site-specific preliminary geotechnical investigation, areas identified in the literature as being landslide prone or containing landslides were investigated by soil borings and through the use of geophysical methods to verify the actual presence of landslides on the site.4 Landslides recognized by Harding Lawson Associates are shown on Figure 3-1 and differentiated as landslide deposits and earthflows. The majority of the landslides on the site are believed to be shallow,4 i.e., less than 10 feet in depth, while two slides have been estimated to be more than 10 feet in depth. The slides identified as containing slide material in excess of 10 feet in thickness are located in the northeastern corner of the site and in the northcentral portion of the site, abutting Martin Canyon Creek. The slide in the northeastern corner of the site may involve slippage of bedrock material. Artificial fill was identified on the site near the mouth of Martin Canyon Creek by Silvergate Drive. A soil boring was completed within the fill; the thickness of the fill is at least 15 feet. From the soil boring data, it does not appear that the fill material was engineered at the time of emplacement. Some or all of the artificial fill may require replacement with engineered fill. The active Calaveras Fault has been mapped more than 1,000 feet east of the site. The site is not within an Alquist-Priolo Study Zone. Extensive fault investigations were completed by Engeo, Inc.5 on the adjacent Bordeaux Estates prior to site development to identify active or potentially active traces of the Calaveras Fault, but none were identified. The Calaveras Fault is located less than 1/2 mile from the site. The fault is considered active7 and capable of producing earthquakes of magnitude 6 on the Richter scale. 86123 3 2 ,��,� lam'e;•.._ � � ���♦ � "ZIA LIR 3.1 Geology 3.1.2 IMPACTS The geologic impacts associated with development of the project site relate to existing on-site slope instability; surface soil erosion; and groundshaking as a result of potential activity along the Calaveras Fault, which could result in structural damage and seismically-induced landsliding. Landsliding has been endemic to the site in the past as evidenced by the landslide deposits identified on the site during detailed field mapping and subsurface exploration. The proposed project would result in the construction of roadways and buildings in areas with identified landslide deposits, including the two landslides containing in excess of 10 feet of slide material. Construction activities in areas of known landslide materials could result in reactivation of slides with ensuing structural damage, unless properly mitigated. While the mass grading on portions of the site would include repair of existing landslides landsliding could reoccur on the site in the future. Future landsliding might occur in areas that have not shown any previous signs of slide activity. Nielsen3 has mapped the site as being susceptible to landslides; the susceptibility to landsliding is a function of numerous parameters, including steepness of slopes, (Figure 3-2) soil characteristics, and moisture content. The preliminary geotechnical report indicates that slopes on the site should be graded to no less than 2:1. The report also includes the recommendation that flatter slopes may be used in certain areas to reduce future slope maintenance efforts. However, since landslides identified on the site occur on the relatively steeper slopes, any slope of a grade greater than 2:1 may still experience future slope instability problems unless properly maintained. Implementation of the proposed project, in accordance with the tentative map for the site, would result in major mass grading. The grading scheme would result in a flattening of the topographical relief on portions of the site by the cutting of hill tops and filling-in of valleys. The proposed grading scheme would result in the generation of excess material. It is estimated by the civil engineers for the site that about 1.6 million cubic yards of soil would be cut on the site, and that about 1.1 million cubic yards of fill would be needed, with a net imbalance of about 0.5 million cubic yards. The project site grading 86123 ; t i SLOPE ANALYSIS AND ASPECT , FIGURE 3-2 SOURCE: EIP ASSOCWES � 1/.iii_::'''/.: -- • ,_ •�\' l`�jam,, ,`\ ��, ; ,c-� ��a�\ , • .//, � -... _ � 04 nor. � bl/ . 1 �\ \ \ �•b '''° 1 1 \ 'DUO.Cky'4 it CHRIS- GEM1E9 D o- 10% Slope 20 - 30% Slope E-N-] North Facing Slope FS-1 South Facing Slope ® 10-20% Slope ® Over 30% Slope M East Facing Slope 0 West Facing Slope m 3-5 3.1 Geology is proposed as being phased; the e\cess soil from grading is estimated to be generated in the later phase of development.8 The disposition of the excess soil is undetermined. Construction is proposed in the eastern portion of the site, which is underlain by artificial fill of questionable quality and structural support capability. Structures created in this area could be subject to structural damage from fill settlement. The site and any future improvements could be subject to groundshaking from nearby active faults, including the Calaveras Fault. The results of groundshaking on the site could include activiation or reactiviation of unstable slopes or failure of structures placed on improperly engineered fill. 3.1.3 MITIGATION The changes in topographical relief on the site from project implementation would not impact the geologic environment. However, the visual impression of the site would change over existing conditions; this issue is discussed in the visual section of this report. The disposal of the imbalanced cut and fill grading is not known. However, the civil engineers for the project indicate that development on adjacent properties, including the church property of the Blaylock property, may require additional fill material for project implementation. If the extra material cannot be exported from the site, the grading scheme would need to be modified; this may result in a change in site plans of unknown magnitude. The excess 500,000 cubic yards of material would result in about 25,000 truck loads of material which would be transported from the site. The transportation of this material off-site would have impacts on nearby residential streets, air quality in the area and noise. The preliminary geotechnical investigation indicates that identified landslides on the site would be repaired during grading activities. The exact repair schemes for the landslides have not been developed in detail. While repair of landslides would mitigate the immediate landslide hazard on the site, slope instability may occur in the future as a result of specific site conditions. Cut slopes should be kept as low and as flat as is practical and should not be steeper than the bedding planes of the formation. The engineering geologist for the project should 86123 3_6 3.1 Geology examine all proposed cuts prior to issuance of construction permits. A letter, with appropriate drawings and logs, should be submitted along with the geologist's recommendations to the grading engineer prior to issuance of grading or building permits. On-site maintenance of slopes and drainage features and water management for irrigation would minimize the potential for future slope instability. Regular maintenance schedules should be established for slope maintenance purposes; the responsibility of a slope maintenance program should be established prior to project construction. In addition, the project sponsor and the Homeowners' Association should enter into a written agreement holding harmless Alameda County from any injury and damages as a result of naturally- occurring earth movement and/or storm-related damage to the subject project. The written agreement should also require the homeowners to carry appropriate commercially-available insurance most nearly covering such risks if such insurance can be obtained at a reasonable cost relative to the costs of the homes. This policy should name the above-identified parties as additional insureds. The proposed Homeowners' Association should be the responsible vehicle for insuring against these risks on behalf of persons owning real property interest on the subject site. Membership in the Homeowners' Association and contributions to such insurance should be declared as part of the CC&R's for the project. All improvements on the site should be designed in accordance with the requirements of Uniform Building code for Seismic Zone 4 to minimize the effects of groundshaking from seismic events along any of the regional active faults. 1Wagner, Jesse Ross, 1978, Late Cenozoic History of the Coast Ranges East of San Francisco Bay, Ph.D. Thess U.C.B. 2Dibblee, T.W., 1980, Preliminary Geologic Map of the Dublin Quadrangle, Alameda and Contra Costa Counties, California. U.S. Geologic Survey Open File Report 80-537. 3Nielsen, Tor H., 1975, Preliminary Photo-Interpretation Map of Landslide and Other Surficial Deposits of the Dublin 7-1/2 min. Quadrangle, Alameda and Contra Costa Counties, California; U.S. Geologic Survey Open File Map 75-277-15. 4Harding Lawson Associates, 1987, Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation, Hansen Hill Ranch, Alameda County, California; March. 86123 3 3.1 Geology 5Engeo, Inc., 1986, Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation, Bordeaux Estates, Dublin, California. 6City of Dublin, 1985, Dublin General Plan, Figure 8, Geologic Hazards and Constraints. 7Jennings, C.W., 1975, Fault Map of California; California Division of Mines and Geology, California Geology Map Series, Map No. 1. 8Cerates, Sidney, 1987, office manager at Wilsey and Ham. Personal communication 25 June. 86123 3 8 3.2 Soils 3.2 SOILS 3.2.1 SETTING The Soil Conservation Service has mapped the site as being underlain primarily by Diablo Clay;1 portions of the northwestern site are underlain by soils of the Los Gatos-Los Osos complex, consisting of silty to clayey loams. Figure 3-3 shows the extent of individual soil groups identified on the site. The Diablo Clays are found on rolling to very steep mountainous relief. The parent material of the soils is soft interbedded shale and fine- grained sandstone subject to local landslips. The soils are characterized by having the capability of high post-construction settlement, and high deformability. All Diablo Clays have a high shrink-swell potential. In the preliminary geotechnical investigation performed for the site, the expansive nature of the site soils was confirmed.2 On the site, the eastern portion consists of Diablo Clay on 7% to 15% slope. These soils are rated as belonging to capability class IIIe-3; this capability class indicates that dry- farmed grains and grain-hay are well-suited for cultivation on Diablo Clays on 7% to 15% slopes. The remaining portion of the site is underlain by Diablo Clays on 15% to 30% slopes and Diablo Clays on 30% to 45% slopes, with a capability rating of IVe-5; this capability rating indicates that the soils are best suited for dry-farmed grain, grain hay, and grazing. The soils are not associated with prime agricultural lands. In the southwestern portion of the site, the natural soils are overlain by artificial fill. 3.2.2 IMPACTS The high shrink-swell potential of the soils on the site could affect the integrity of structures (foundations or slabs) and other improvements (e.g., pavements) placed on the site; soils with shrink-swell potential can damage foundations, roadways and utilities by cracking and heaving. 3.2.3 MITIGATION Those areas containing soils with high shrink-swell potential would require either special treatment, such as amendments, cover, or removal to eliminate the potential for 86123 3-9 SOIL TYPES N, FIGURE 3-3 % SOURCE:SCS 1966 FEET wmmr--kmw� 0 200 400 600 CD V, Do L Y C I T C E Diablo Clay,30-45%Slope Los OsOs Silty Clay Loam Q Clear Lake Clay Approximate Boundary of Artificial Fill IM Los Gatos-Los Osos Complex IM Diablo Clay 15-30%' Slope Diablo Cl a-y,7-15%Slope 3.2 Soils structural damage to on-site improvements. The specific measures to be employed would depend on further geotechnical evaluations, but could include blanketing building areas with several feet of non-expansive fill, or construction of drilled piers and grade beams for foundation support. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service, 1966. Soil Survey, Alameda County, California. 2Harding Lawson Associates, Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation, Hansen Hill Ranch, Alameda County, California, March, 1987. 86123 3-11 3.3 Hydrology 3.3 HYDROLOGY 3.3.1 SETTING The project site is located within the Martin Canyon Creek watershed. The Martin Canyon Creek drains about 890 acres of land; the 147+ acre project site is located at the lower reaches of the watershed (Figure 3-4). Martin Canyon Creek is a tributary to South San Ramon Creek, flowing north-south east of Dublin. In the lower reaches of Martin Canyon Creek, on the west side of Highway 680, water backs up behind the freeway during 100-year storm events, as mapped by the Federal Emergency Management Agency.1 No flooding has been identified to occur on the project site as a result of 100-year storm events. The Martin Canyon Creek is located along the northern project site boundary. The creek meanders along the site boundary along a deeply incised channel and extensively eroded creek banks; erosion of creek banks and channel incision is also evident up-stream from the project site. The slope of the creek is approximately 90 feet in 4,800 feet or about 2% with steeper slopes in the upper watershed, and more gentle slopes at the mouth of the creek. The creek receives runoff from the project site, where flows are concentrated in gullies, acting as small tributaries to the creek. The gullies are also deeply incised and the banks are sparsely vegetated; as a result, runoff moves at high velocities down toward Martin Creek channel, contributing to the channel erosion. At the eastern site boundary, the channel flows are conveyed through a six-by seven-foot box culvert under Silvergate Drive. The box culvert was installed in 1986 and designed to accommodate the 15-year design storm; the culvert was designed assuming full development of the watershed. 3.3.2 IMPACTS The Martin Canyon Creek is not within the jurisdiction of the Alameda County Flood Control District. However, the District would make recommendations regarding improvements along the Martin Creek channel. The County standards require that a channel must be capable of containing the 15-year design storm plus a one foot freeboard or the 100-year storm. The District also requires that access to the channel be provided. 86123 3-12 MARTIN CANYON CREEK WATERSHED FIGURE 3-4 SOURCE:CREEGAN 8 WANGELO +A 28 FEET 0 1000 2000 4000 t I MARTIN CANYON CREEK g' ,v`�„I\ 'J' /I�� �� R `\� < (�—�\✓ F =S a (11 ) \ J 11 DRAINAGE BASIN �� /A,, l(;rr..i ;(:'�' I -. .. �I�r I .I � � � j `�,`v': .�a.'. �) /�� � � a \• ��/I r � -- - -- - =� -:• ��� _ ,I• 'e�`' _—ABM 4? r .S�+an 14motiu re- ..... )� I ti 1, t` � �r� '°o /• � °o'r^ •. � �...Z,as�t �i �� lol I � � IN G '9 I I , `\i `_ , I� j/ •1. , Sc �111<h sow w /i (-,,o;� __.�1 „t• ,r` � ' �r,a I fJ � � "S z I a' ag - 1 Y - F PROJECT SITE ! . 1 .\: _ ' r-„,;% ` —. _ _ bWt— •�• 0 o-in, GRA Donlan p m r 3 \ ' —�\ —Tn ZEr"•`%. - 1 _ , • i /. I e / o0o (i r a 600 - __ 1 • Ilubtir f'_y �'r1 x'I� —__I ,�q� i1'--I \,\//!, 'r ,�' , ', � - ir'- •BM 2/ •� :v.1 �_.! / ' � p �1 T-7 °OO I W '_ �' '� '•\ tea' - '0­ U-­ CD m_ m 3.3 Hydrology Usually, access to a channel is provided by an all-weather access road along both sides of a channel.2 The width of the access easement should be 20 feet, if the channel banks have a slope less than 2:1; if the channel banks are steeper than 2:1, then the easement must be a distance of 2:1 from the toe of the bank plus 20 feet. Since the slopes along Martin Canyon Creek in most places are steeper than 2:1, and have a height, in certain places, in excess of 10 feet, the channel setbacks required would be on the order of 40 to 50 feet from the toe of the channel. The tentative map for the site indicates that development would not occur within approximately 100 feet of the creek channel. Construction of an access road along the channel could result in erosion and sediment transport into the creek both during the actual construction of the road and after completion, resulting in a decrease in water quality and potential siltation of drainage structures. In addition, run-off from paved surfaces would contain urba-type pollutants (metals, oil and grease, petroleum hydrocarbons, and pesticides) which could affect the water quality of receiving waters (for discussion of riparian corridor impacts, see Section 3.4, pp. 25-28). In addition to creek set-backs, Alameda County Flood Control District would be recommending creek bank stabilization at channel stress points. Stress points in the creek channel are those areas where the creek meanders. Those areas are most prone to erosion during peak flows, especially if the velocity of the water is high; generally, flows in excess of 6 feet per second are considered to be erosive. It should be noted that construction in the stream channel will require review by the California Department of Fish and Game as discussed in the Wildlife Section of this report. A drainage study has been prepared for the project site, to estimate the volume and velocity of creek flows prior to and after development of the site and the Martin Creek watershed.1 The study assumed that all areas within the Martin Canyon Creek watershed above the Silvergate Drive culvert would be developed (except those areas with slopes in excess of 30%; of the 890 acres in the watershed, about 380 acres have slopes of less than 30%). The resulting flows at the Silvergate Drive culvert would increase 50% for the 15- year storm and about 33% for the 100-year storm. 86123 3-14 3.3 Hydrology Flow velocities were also estimated in the drainage study for the site.) The existing flows for the 15-year storm range from 2 to 8.5 feet per second (fps), and the flows following development of the watershed were estimated to range from 2.5 to 9 fps, with an average flow exceeding 6 fps. The Silvergate Drive culvert would be capable of handling flows of the estimated volume and velocity for the 15-year storm. The estimated average flow velocity in excess of 6 fps would likely result in continued, and possibly accelerated, erosion of the creek channel. No flow velocities were estimated for the 100-year storm; however, it was estimated that the 100-year flows would result in back-up of flows at the Silvergate Drive culvert. Back-up of flows at the culvert could result in flooding of the roadway near the culvert. During construction activities, surface water runoff could result in erosion of unprotected surfaces resulting in transport of sediments into the creek channel. Sediment transport into the channel could cause siltation of drainage facilities (including retention basins and creek drop structures); siltation of these facilities increases the probability of localized flooding, unless they are maintained on a regular basis. Erosion may also occur after project construction in areas where there are elevation differences between individual lots or where roof drainage is uncontrolled. 3.3.3 MITIGATION In order to minimize erosion in the creek channel, flow velocities in the creek would need to be kept low; this would mean ensuring that average flow velocities remain below 6 feet per second. Decreasing the flow velocity can be accomplished by installation of drop structures along the channel and the installation of retention basins on-site to detain peak flows prior to entering the creek. Data concerning design, location and number of drop structures has, as yet, not been supplied by the applicant. Impacts of their installation cannot be assessed at this time based upon information available. Any construction in the stream channel will require review of plans by the California Department of Fish and Game under Section 1601-03 of the Fish and Game Code. At stress points along the channel, the channel banks should be treated, e.g., with rip-rapping and vegetation to minimize erosion at those points. Revegetation plans, the design and location of drop structures, and grading plans should be submitted to the California Department of Fish and Game for review. 86123 3-15 3.3 Hydrology Prior to construction activities, a detailed hydrology study should be submitted to the City of Dublin and Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation District (ACFC and WCD), Zone 7 delineating specific proposed channel treatment and the design of access roads for channel maintenance. The ACFC and WCD will require fees in the amount of $500 per dwelling unit for single family residences and $330 per dwelling unit for multi-family units at the time of issuance of a building permit. A storm drainage easement should be offered to the City of Dublin for emergency access. One of the major causes of localized flooding along channels is lack of maintenance. The hydrology study, mentioned above, should include a recommendation for creek channel and drainage facilities and access requirements for maintenance and responsibility. A definitive maintenance schedule should be established and responsibility assigned to, e.g., a home owners association, for corrective measures to be implemented for drainage facilities and channel repair work. Construction activities should be limited to the dry season (April 15 through October 15). Prior to the rainy season, unprotected disturbed areas should be stabilized in accordance with an erosion and sediment control plan to be submitted to the City at the time of grading permit application. The erosion and sediment control should be prepared in accordance with the standards contained in the ABAG Manual of Erosion and Sedimentation Control Measures.3 The drainage design for the project would prevent surface drainage from flowing across lot lines, where the lot lines are at different elevations. Roof drainage should be controlled such that all drainage flows within gutters, downspounts, and underground drain lines to the street or suitable V-ditch. 1Creegan and D'Angelo, March, 1987, Martin Canyon Creek Drainage Study. 2Mr. Vince Wong, Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation District; personal communication, November, 1986. 3Association of Bay Area Governments, 1981, Manual of Standards for Erosion and Sedimentation Control Measures. 86123 3-16 3.4 Vegetation 3.4 VEGETATION 3.4.1 INTRODUCTION The objectives of this section are to describe the existing vegetative resources on the project site, summarize those City and State policies which apply to the vegetation resources existing on the site, and identify development impacts to the resources and how the most significant impacts may be mitigated. The data for this section was developed in consultation with representatives of the Dublin Planning Department, the California Department of Fish and Game and a review of the vegetation inventory submitted to the City by David Gates and Associates, Landscape Architects. An on-site field survey was conducted on November 10, 1986 during which the entire site was walked in a random pattern. All plant species encountered during the field survey were identified with the aid of various standard field manuals.1 Prior to conducting the field work, a literature review was conducted to gather and evaluate information on the rare plant species and sensitive habitat types with known occurrences in the region. The basic working list for the rare plant survey was the list of all rare and endangered plants of California with occurrences in the project vicinity.2 The working list was refined using geographic distribution and habitat information provided in standard floristic manuals to develop a list of rare plant species potentially occurring on the site, location data printouts from the California Natural Diversity Data Base (CNDDB) and unpublished rare plant status reports prepared for the CNPS by various authors. 3.4.2 SETTING The predominant plant communities occurring on the site are: annual or non-native grasslands on the ridge tops, upper slopes and flat areas, chaparral brush areas in some localities next to the forested areas and a coast live oak/California bay forest mix on the lower, steeper slopes and canyon bottoms as shown in Figure 3-5. The annual grasslands on the site are composed of non-native grass and forb species including fescue (Festuca sp.), brome (Bromus sp.) and wild oat (Avena sp.) grasses. The livestock grazing favors these annual grasses over the native perennial species. There are some small areas of native bunchgrasses located at the head of the tributary drainages. 86123 � , VEGETATION MAP FIGURE 3-5 SOURCE EIP ASSOCIATES SOURCE:OAVIO L GATES 8 ASSOCIATES FEET MONC �I!!1�� � � r,,r I I�/ . •/ \... a bu^GT ` ��\ <`���,�. ��^ice.` \ecL\_ Yr •`s./ .'<3'i•� w 9UbAn / \ 4 Mature Trees Coast.Live Oak/ Native Perennial® ® Riparian Corridor O Acer macrophyllum O Quercus agrifolia California Bay Forest Bunchgrass Bigleaf Maple Coast Live Oak Chaparral 0 Annual Grassland q Aescufus californica o� Quercus lobata l O' California Buckeye Valley Oak OPlatanus racemosa Umbrellularia californica California Sycamore O California Bay 3-18 3.4 Vegetation Native bunchgrass communities are considered a rare native plant community in California. This once extensive native community has been limited in its extent primarily due to cattle grazing and conversion to non-native annual grasslands. Although rare plant communities do not have legal standing as do some rare plant and animal species, they are being recognized as vanishing elements of our natural resource heritage. The stands on- site are rather small, making their preservation as isolated communities rather useless. A better and more effective way of preserving the wildlife habitat values of these areas would be as part of a larger, natural open space area extending down the slope. In other areas of the grasslands, the grazing pressure has been so heavy that invasive weedy species such as the star thistle (Centaurea sp.) have become established. These heavily grazed areas are most common along the ridgelines, upper slopes and flat areas in the canyon bottom. The chaparral community is limited to spot locations along the edges of the forested areas. These brush stands occur in areas where past disturbances and/or soil characteristics favor the brushy species. A common species in these brushy areas is the chaparral broom (Baccharis ilularis), a species which is commonly associated with erosion sites, burned areas and/or areas of shallow soils. The coast live oak/California bay forest areas are typified by dense to open stands of evergreen trees. The coast live oak ( uercus agrifoli a) and California bay (Umbellularia californica) are the dominate trees in these areas. Other tree species also occur within these forests including the valley oak ( uercus lobata), bigleaf maple (Acer macrophyllum), California sycamore (Platanus racemosa) primarily along the drainage courses and creek, and California buckeye (Aesculus californica) on the margins of the forests where more direct sunlight is available. An understory of poison oak (Toxicodendron diversiloba) occurs to a limited extent under the dense tree canopy due in part to lack of sunlight and cattle grazing and trampling. Martin Canyon Creek runs along the northern boundary of the site. Four tributary swales run down the north facing slopes of the site into Martin Canyon Creek. Vegetation along and immediately adjacent to these waterways are defined as riparian communities, a native community commonly associated with intermittent or permanent streams. The bigleaf maple and California sycamore are indicator species for this community. Much of 86123 3_, g 3.4 Vegetation the riparian community on the Hansen Ranch site is poorly defined by these indicator species, with most of the creekside vegetation dominated by bays and oaks. The best defined riparian communities on-site occur along Martin Canyon Creek and along the third tributary swale from the east end of the site (see Figure 3-5). A list of rare, endangered or threatened plant species that are known to occur in the project region and for which suitable habitat occurs on-site is provided in Table 3-1. Of those sensitive plants listed, the appropriate vegetation communities for three occur on- site; the Santa Cruz tarweed and Diablo rock rose in annual grasslands, the Mt. Diablo buckwheat in the chaparral and the western leatherwood in the woodlands. None of these nor any other rare plant species was located on-site during the field survey. It is highly unlikely that two of these four rare plants (specifically the Diablo rock rose and Santa Cruz tarweed) occur on the site. The Diablo rock rose and Santa Cruz tarweed favor grassland habitats which for the most part are heavily grazed on this site. Although the site survey was conducted at the tail end of the blooming season for the Santa Cruz tarweed, if a significant colony were to survive on-site it is likely that a few plants would have been in bloom and identifiable. The site is also east of the suspected range of this plant which favors the cooler west facing slopes of the Oakland hills.3 This plant is known to occur in the Pinole area, and was last seen in the hills east of San Lorenzo in 1915. The Diablo rock rose is known to occur in the Pine Canyon area of Mt. Diablo approximately 10 miles north of this site. Although the field survey was conducted after this plant had bloomed, nothing resembling the vegetative features of this perennial plant was observed on-site. The Mt. Diablo buckwheat is an annual plant that blooms from April to June. Consequently the field survey was conducted when positive identification of this plant was not possible. It was last sighted in the Alamo Creek area approximately five miles northeast of the site in 1933. Its preferred habitat is along the edge of chaparral vegetation which is limited in extent on the site. The site is also just below the elevational range of this species. The presence of the Mt. Diablo buckwheat is therefore unlikely. The western leatherwood may occur within the oak/bay woodland. This rare, deciduous tree is most easily located when it is in bloom from February - March. Its yellow flowers 86123 3-30 3.4 Vegetation TABLE 3-1 RARE, ENDANGERED OR THREATENED PLANT SPECIES KNOWN TO OCCUR IN THE PROJECT REGION Common Name (Scientific Name) Status l Potential for Occurrence On-Site 2 Mt. Diablo Manzanita (Archtostaphylos auriculata) /C3c/List1B Suitable habitat is chaparral on dry slopes of sandstone at 500-2,000 foot elevations. Sandstone chapar- ral does not occur on-site. Santa Cruz Tarweed E/Cl/List 1B This annual herb typically occurs as (Holocarpha macradenia) colonies in heavy clay soils on Bras- sy flats. Limited habitat occurs in grassy flats next to Martin Canyon Creek. Colonies of this rare plant were not located on the site. Mt. Diablo Jewel Flower /C2/List 1B This rare annual occurs on talus or (Streptanthus his idus) rocky outcrops at 2,000-4,000 foot elevations. Appropriate habitat does not occur on-site, and the site is below the elevational range of the plant. Mt. Diablo Buckwheat (Eriogonum truncatum) /C2/List 1B This annual occurs on the edge of chaparral on dry slopes between 1,000-1,500 foot elevations. The site is below the plant's elevation range. However, its habitat does occur on-site to a limited extent. Diablo Rock Rose Diablo castanea) /C2/List 1B This perennial herb occurs on grassy hillsides at 500-4,000 foot elevations in the San Francisco Bay region. Habitat does occur on-site, but no vegetative features of the plant were observed on-site. Western Leatherwood (Dirca Occidentalis) / /List 4 This tree typically occurs in oak/bay forests below 1,500 feet. It is known to occur in Sonoma, Marin, Contra Costa, Alameda and San Mateo counties. It is often hard to see within the dense forest except when it blooms in January - March. 86123 3 2i 3.4 Vegetation TABLE 3-1 continued 1State/Federal/California Native Plant Society designations as follows: State Rare (R), Threatened (T), Endangered (E): California Endangered Species Act of 1971. Federal Endangered (E), Threatened (T), Candidate (C1-Taxa for which the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service has information to support listing; C2-Taxa for which the Service requires further study before listing; C3c-Taxa which was previously considered for candidacy but now excluded because it is too widespread or not threatened at this time): Federal Endangered Species Act of 1973. California Native Plant Society, Inventory of Rare and Endangered Vascular Plants of California, 1984: List 1B - Plants rare and endangered in California and elsewhere. List 3 - Plants about which more information is needed. List 4 - Plants of limited distribution (a watch list). 2Habitat and elevational data source is Munz and Keck, 1968. appear before the leaves and is easily seen from a distance. After the plant has bloomed and leafed out it is much harder to see. This plant was not observed on the site during the field and tree survey in November and June. It is unlikely this plant occurs on the site or would be impacted by the project. 3.4.3 IMPACTS The proposed project would result in a number of potential impacts to the vegetation resources on the project site. These impacts would range from direct removal of vegetation during construction filling and cutting to indirect impacts resulting from the conversion of the site to an urban setting from a native open space setting. The most significant of these impacts would be upon the oak/bay forest and the riparian corridor. The placement of fill material and the cutting of slopes within and under the tree canopy would reduce the habitat values of these areas and most likely result in the direct removal or potential damage to individual trees. A survey of all trees with trunks greater than three feet in circumference at two feet above the ground in the immediate vicinity of the proposed project construction areas and 86123 3 22 3.4 Vegetation along Martin Canyon Creek concluded that 1,024 trees could be affected by the project.4 The survey maps and summary data sheets are provided in Appendix C. Of the 1,024 trees surveyed, 804 would have to be removed as part of the project construction. An additional 220 trees may be affected because their trunks would be within 25 feet of the limit of grading. The roots of these 220 trees may be damaged, which would thin and weaken and eventually result in their death. With proper care, the loss of these trees may be avoided. Of the 1,024 trees that would or may be affected by construction, 483 (47%) were rated as having average to better than average health and visual form, and 117 (11%) are large trees with trunks of greater than or equal to ten feet in circumference or approximately three feet in diameter. It is estimated that there may be something on the order of 1,931 trees within the oak/bay woodland on the site, assuming two-thirds of oak/bay woodland area was surveyed. The 1,024 trees that could be affected by the proposed development represent approximately 52% of the total trees on the site. Project construction could adversely affect approximately 22 acres of the oak/bay forest vegetation or approximately 36% of the total area of this community (see Figure 3-6). Nineteen acres or 31% of the total oak/bay woodland area would be affected by the project and approximately 3 acres (5%) may be affected. Thirty-nine acres, or 64% of the total oak/bay woodland area would not be affected. If approximately 52% of the total number of trees on the site may be affected but only one-third of woodland area may be affected, this indicates that the areas of highest tree density are being affected by the project. The largest areas of oak/bay woodland removal would occur at the west end of the site in Neighborhoods 5 and 9. Approximately six acres of oak/bay woodland and a drainage swale would be eliminated by portions of Neighborhood 5, and approximately five acres of oak/bay woodland by Neighborhood 9. The proposed grading would avoid most of the riparian corridors onsite. However in four areas the grading for roadways and/or lots would disturb a total of approximately .50-3.5 acres of riparian vegetation assuming a 30-foot and 100-foot buffer zone (see Figure 3-4). 86123 3-23 i PROJECT I�+M�PACTS TO OAK/BAY FOREST FIGURE 3-6 SOURCE:DAVID LoATf53ASSOCINTES:EIPASSOCIATES NIELSEN - FEET CROXIN \\ \� a too 20D - boo Riparian Corridor It Oak/Bay Forest ••';�,F:.: ::,.:::;:. \ �\�_�` —� v�� ,/.�� Areas of 1 AN`.�.'�'.�.';:,:._.; OaWBayForest Potentially Affected by the Project gA 1 .. 1111 ' •�'��` o m `\�, `J ' / (�, . It 40:x, Ff II ��df i���f`,•JP Cr..,•r.�:.:\l`.. :. 1 )a ''<? � :_::SSE, •�a+:'" •' -'� �6 . BLAYLOCK. '' ^ Cl - •\\ O •/ " \ i A FLETCHER 1 $e .�� \ \ - /�l�IL I — �HANSEE �• ♦mot\ /�� / 11 �_ ` �. 1� �\�� / ��• R��. ♦♦�� I'll i >.-7ao� VALLEY CHRISTIAN CENTER bra 1 `�♦\ r' II .--780 z: O_--740' 1 - 3-24 3.4 Vegetation The most extensive area (approximately two acres) of the riparian corridors on site that would be disturbed by the project would be at the point where Hansen Hill Road and Creekside Road intersect. This is also the point at which the riparian corridors of Martin Canyon Creek and the largest tributary on the site meet, an important linkage point of these two riparian corridors. An additional acre of riparian corridor habitat (assuming a 100 foot buffer area) would be disturbed at the west end of the site in Neighborhood 1. this is not considered to be a significant impact because much of this area has been disturbed. A 30-foot buffer area would be more appropriate along this stretch of the creek. The Creekside Road crossing would connect to an existing emergency access road that parallels the creek on the Nielsen property immediately north of the project site. This is a preferred alternative access route in terms of reduced impacts to the riparian corridor than a second emergency access road on the south side of the creek which would pass directly through the riparian and oak/bay vegetation. The conversion of the site from an open space area to an urban setting could result in additional indirect impacts including the introduction and spread of non-native weedy plant species, increased creekbank erosion and loss of riparian vegetation due to increased " storm water runoff. A specific landscape plan for the public open spaces has not been developed to date, however a preliminary landscape plan has been developed with a conceptual plant list. The plant list of the open space zones is dominated by native tree and brush species. The only exceptions to this are African daisy (Osteospermum fructicosum) and dwarf rosemary (Rosemarinus officinalis) as ground cover in the buffer zone, and flowering maple (Abutilon sp.) and Boston ivy (Paethenocissus tricuspidata) in the open space zone. Use of these plant species should be minimized, especially the ground cover species, because they are not native and may be. invasive in certain situations. The added impermeable surfaces of asphalt roadways and walkways and building structures will result in added surface stormwater runoff. As these flows are diverted directly to the various creeks and drainages there is the added potential of bank erosion and urban pollutants. The creeks and drainages are currently deeply incised with very little vegetation protecting the soils. The project would require some erosion control 86123 3 41; 3.4 Vegetation measures for the creeks which, depending upon the methods selected, could result in additional impacts to the riparian corridor. One method discussed to date is the use of drop structures along Martin Canyon Creek. In general the placement of these structures within creekbed do not require the removal of a significant amount of riparian vegetation. However, other forms of creek stabilization such as the placement of rock rip-rap on the banks could hinder the development of riparian vegetation in these areas. 3.4.4 MITIGATION The principal City policies dealing with vegetation resources are contained within the Conservation and Open Space Elements of the City's General Plan.5 The general guiding policy statement of the City Open Space Element is as follows: "Preserve oak woodlands, riparian vegetation and natural creeks as open space for their natural resource value" (Chapter 3.1a.). The General Plan then goes on to identify "riparian vegetation" and "oak woodlands" as specific resources addressed in the Conservation Element. The policy statement in regards to riparian vegetation is as follows: "Require open stream corridors of adequate width to protect all riparian vegetation, improve access, and prevent flooding" (Chapter 7.1). An "adequate width" is open for interpretation and may vary from site to site. Since the riparian vegetation is poorly defined on the Hansen Hill Ranch site it is best to refer to a minimum width requirement along the various creek drainages. To adequately preserve the "natural resource value" of these waterways, a natural corridor of a minimum of 30 feet from the top of the creek bank should be preserved. The California Department of Fish and Game typically requires a 100 foot buffer area from the top of the creek banks or to the edge of the tree canopy whichever is widest.6 The proposed buffer area varies from approximately 30 feet along Martin Canyon Creek in Neighborhood 1 to well over 100 feet along other portions of Martin Canyon Creek and the tributary drainages. The one exception to these "adequate" widths is the intersection of Hansen Hill Road and Creekside Road. The project should be redesigned to minimize disturbances within the 100-foot buffer zone in this area. Building structures should not be allowed within this natural corridor. In addition, a box culvert or bridge over Martin Canyon Creek at Creekside Road is preferred to the proposed 30-inch pipe. A bridge or culvert would be less restrictive than the 30-inch pipe to wildlife migration through this area. 86123 3-26 3.4 Vegetation Paved or unpaved roads and trails may be allowed at the outside edge of these buffer zones to control access through these areas and still allow their use as a visual and recreational resource. Roadways other than access crossings and structures would only be allowed outside of this natural corridor. Development guidelines that would help preserve the integrity of the riparian zone and that should be incorporated into the project design are as follows: o Structures should be separated from the natural corridor by a roadway and they should face rather than back up to the natural corridor. This would prevent dumping of trash by residents into the corridor, ("out-of-sight-out-of-mind"), and would promote cleanup of any such dumping. Lots 102-110 and 95-101 should be eliminated from the proposed development plan to conform to this guideline. o Temporary fencing should be provided during construction for those areas of riparian habitat not intended to be included within the construction zone. o An erosion and siltation control plan should be provided, to be incorporated within the grading plan for the project. o A revegetation effort on all reconstructed channel banks should be implemented as soon as possible after construction is completed to enhance riparian habitat consistent with proper channel maintenance for flood control. Such revegetation plans will include the following: - Use of trees, shrubs and vine species native to the region. - Use of shrubs with high wildlife value on the lower channel slopes. - Use of indigenous tree species, such as valley oak, live oak, and buckeye on the upper channel slopes above the maintenance road, together with shrubs and vines to approximate a natural riparian community. - Trees, shrubs and vines may be established from seeds, liner stock or small container stock (one gallon) or hydromulch where feasible. - Obtain the input of Alameda County Flood Control district for the revegetation plan, which should be consistent with Flood Control maintenance requirements. - The developers will provide for revegetation along the riparian corridor and will be responsible for successful establishment of plantings. Subsequent maintenance and management of vegetation in the stream channel will be the applicant's responsibility for two years following completion of construction. o Landscape materials should be of natural varieties and should preserve the wooded character of the area as much as possible. Invasive species such as pampas grass should not be allowed. A list of common invasive species is provided in Appendix B. o Fill and cut slopes should be minimized within the natural corridor and should avoid areas beneath the tree canopy of any oak tree when possible. 86123 3-2' 3.4 Vegetation o Any alternations within the creek or drainage swale for either development access or flood control purposes should minimize disturbance of existing vegetation and avoid as many trees as possible. Open areas within the tree canopy or areas of few trees should be used if possible. A suitable site occurs just west of the proposed creek crossing between lots 103 and 104 in Neighborhood 9. On June 18, the project sponsor and their consultants held a meeting at the site with a representative of the California Department of Fish and Game (DFG) to discuss the proposed creek alterations and impacts. The DFG issued a letter summarizing its concerns in regards to this issue. In addition, the DFG representative indicated that any loss of oak/bay or riparian woodland should be mitigated by replacement of these communities elsewhere on the site.7 Further consultation with DFG should take place to determine the exact nature and extent of vegetation replacement that will be required. The General Plan policy in regards to oak woodlands states that oak woodlands should be preserved; however, individual oak trees may be removed on a case by case basis. The General Plan also directs the Planning Department to develop a heritage tree ordinance to aid in the decision on which trees may or may not be removed. To date the City has not developed a "heritage tree ordinance." The direction is clear, however, the removal of stands of the oak woodlands on-site should not be allowed, and the largest mature trees should be preserved to the maximum extent possible. Examples of methods to preserve trees in an area of development are as follows: o The topographic grade should not be changed at the base of the tree. o No irrigated landscaping should be allowed within 10 feet of the base of a mature oak tree, and no landscape planting at all within six feet of the base of a tree. o Do not cut more than one half of the existing root system at any one time, and if pruning is required, prune mainly dead wood. All pruning should be done by a qualified arborist. o During construction, fence off preserved trees at the canopy dripline to prevent heavy equipment compaction of soil. o All trenching within the dripline of a tree should be hand dug so that root cuttings are clean and additional damages to the root system are avoided. All roots should be cut, not broken, and the trenches should be filled as soon as possible to avoid exposing the roots to dessication. o Roots exposed on cut banks should be covered with a mulch to prevent them from drying out. 86123 3-28 3.4 Vegetation o Ensure positive drainage away from the tree trunks. Do not allow water to stand at the base of the trees. o Provide three new trees of at least 15 gallon size within the creek tree planting plan area to mitigate the loss of each existing tree over 10 inches in diameter. Minimum size for coast live oaks and big leaf maple plantings should be five gallons. All plans for additional tree planting shall be subject to review and approval by Alameda County Flood Control District Zone 7. o Provide horticultural care, monitor pest population and the incidence of disease, and apply control treatments when necessary. This measure applies to all trees with health classified as A, B, or C and as identified by tree survey maps (Appendix C) having a high or medium probability of being preserved. A work program for such horticultural care shall be submitted to the city prior to commencement of grading. o If a house is located near a mature oak tree, pier bridge footings should be used rather than continuous grade beam footings. In general, any development in close proximity to mature trees should be done in a manner that will minimize the trauma to the tree root systems. In an effort to assure that impacts to trees are minimized the following measures should be observed: o A horticulturalist should develop a specific preservation plan for preservation of trees identified as "preserved" and "high probability to preserve" following development of final grading plans. During site preparation and construction, a horticulturalist should monitor and implement the plan, and should supervise construction activities, especially grading, as needed to implement the plan. o A revegetation plan for the creek should be prepared and should include the replanting of native species. The revegetation plan shall include provisions to aid new trees during early years through irrigation, fertilization, deer protection, and disease prevention. The areas of extensive grading and fill in Neighborhoods 5 and 9 should be eliminated from the proposed project and the oak/bay woodlands in these areas should be preserved. If necessary the housing density of the propsed project should be reduced to preserve these areas. In addition to the City's policies there are various State policies and requirements that will have to be met before the project site may be developed. The California Department of Fish and Game (DFG) under Section 1603 of the Fish and Game Code of Regulations requires a Stream Alteration Agreement be secured before any proposed alteration of natural waterways may occur. This agreement would cover any proposed modifications to the creek within its banks including roadway crossings, flood control improvements, etc. 86123 3 29 3.4 Vegetation Conditions of the 1603 agreement shall be followed to minimize erosion during construction in the creek channel. 1Munz, P.A. and D.D. Keck, A California Flora and Supplement, University of California Press, Berkeley and Los Angeles, 1968. 2Cheatham, N.H. and J.R. Haller, An Annotated List of California Habitat Types, Unpublished manuscript prepared for the University of California Natural Land and Water Reserves System, 1975. McMinn, H.E. and E. Maino, Pacific Coast Trees. University of California Press, 1937. Smith, J.P., Jr. and R. York (eds.), Inventory of Rare and Endangered Vascular Plants of California, 3rd. ed. Special Publication No. 1, California Native Plant Society, Berkeley, 1984. California Department of Fish and Game, Natural Diversity Data Base (CNDDB), Unpublished, 1985. IN 3Havlick, Neil, Botanist, East Bay Regional Parks District, personal communication, May 1987. 4David Gates and Associates, Tree Survey. June 1987. 5City of Dublin, General Plan, Vol. 1 Plan Policies, February 11, 1985. 6Lisa Palesimo, California Department of Fish & Game, Phone conversation June 22, 1987. 7California Department of Fish and Game, Letter dated June 12. 8612.: 3-30 3.5 Wildlife 3.5 WILDLIFE 3.5.1 INTRODUCTION The objectives.of this section are to describe the existing wildlife resources on the project site, summarize those City and State policies which apply to wildlife resources existing on the sites and identify development impacts and mitigation measures to minimize these impacts. The data for this section was developed in consultation with representatives of the Dublin Planning Department, the California Department of Fish and Game and included a review of the data submitted to the City by David Gates and Associates, Landscape Architects. An on-site field survey was conducted on November 10, 1986 during which the entire site was walked in a random pattern. All animal species encountered during the field survey were identified with the aid of binoculars (7 x 35) and various standard field manuals.1 Publications and documents on the wildlife of the Hansen Ranch area were assembled and reviewed prior to fieldwork. Literature on the wildlife of the region, including their status and habitat-relationships, was collected from various sources including the California Department of Fish and Game, Robbins et. al. (1966), and Brown and Lawrence (1965).2 3.5.2 SETTING The wildlife species observed and expected to occur on the site are typical of the vegetation communities and habitats the site supports. The grasslands provide nesting, denning and feeding habitat for small mammals and birds. Larger mammals and birds of prey utilize these areas as hunting grounds feeding on the smaller mammals, birds and reptiles. Common species in grasslands would include the following: meadow mice, jackrabbits,* meadow larks, black shouldered kite,* red-tailed hawk,* turkey vultures,* coyote,* grey fox.* The tree forested and brush covered areas provide greater cover and nesting habitat for a greater variety of wildlife than does the open grasslands. The water of the creek and its small impoundments attract wildlife to these areas to quench a thirst, or hunt for other wildlife drawn to the water. A variety of native bird species utilize the tree and brush canopy to nest and feed in. The acorns of the oak trees provide a food source to a wide * Species that were observed or whose tracks or scat were observed on-site. 86123 3-31 3.5 Wildlife variety of bird and mammal species. Common and typical species observed and/or expected to occur in these habitats include: grey fox,* raccoon,* deer,* scrub jays,* common flickers, various woodpeckers and grey squirrels. Martin Canyon Creek is believed to support a warm water fishery.3 Common fish species that are expected to occur within this creek are California roach, mosquito fish, sculpins and sticklebacks. Cold water fish such as trout and salmon are not believed to occur in this creek, although they may have spawned in this creek in times past.3 Two rare animal species are known to occur in the project region; the state and federal endangered San Joaquin kit fox, and the State rare Alameda striped racer. The San Joaquin kit fix (Vu les macrotis mutica) is listed as endangered by both the State Department of Fish and Game (DFG) and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services. This nocturnal ;•, fox has been sighted in the Livermore Valley region west of Collier Canyon Road in 1975.4 The range of this fox would appear to be extending west into the Livermore Valley region due to the loss of habitat in the San Joaquin Valley. The project site is located just west of the known distribution of this endangered animal. The kit fox resides in underground burrows and creates an opening that is characteristic of this species. The fox prefers to build dens in areas of low to moderate relief (190-220) at or below mid-slope. No kit fox denning sites were located on the site. It is believed the San Joaquin kit fox is not actively denning on this site at this time; however, it may on occasion move through the site during its hunting or migration movements. The Alameda striped racer (Masticophis lateralis euryxanthus) is listed as a State rare species. This snake is limited to the valleys, foothills and low mountains of the Coast Ranges east of the San Francisco Bay and west of the Central Valley in Contra Costa and Alameda counties. The Alameda striped racer has been sighted in the Mt. Diablo area approximately ten miles north and east of the site.5 It is usually associated with chaparral, but may occur in grasslands, open woods and rocky slopes. Suitable habitat for this rare snake does occur on the site and it is possible that the snake may occur on the site; however, the snake was not observed during the field survey. 86123 3-32 3.5 Wildlife 3.5.3 IMPACTS Impacts to the wildlife resources on the site would be directly related to the loss of vegetation and habitat areas, and the conversion of an open native area to a more urban setting. The proposed project would preserve approximately 54% of the site in open space, much of which is wooded habitat. Although the proposed project effectively avoids most of the riparian corridor on the site, there are areas where development encroachment into these valuable wildlife habitats would result in some significant impacts. The required fill at the intersection of Hansen Hill Road and Creekside Road and the placement of a 30-inch pipe under Hansen Hill Road would effectively separate and isolate the riparian corridor along the tributary from Martin Canyon Creek for large mammal use as travel corridors. Deer and fox would have to cross Hansen Hill Road in order to move from one corridor to the next. This would increase the risk of these animals being struck by cars on this relatively busy road. The project sponsor has suggested the use of 18-inch drop structures in the creekbeds to reduce flow rates. To date, specific plans identifying the location and the types of drop structures that would be used has not been completed. Certain types of drop structures (i.e., concrete blocks and bed) block the movement of fish up a creek at low-flows. This is especially true of resident warm water species that cannot jump drop structures. Eventually the upper reaches of the creek would not support a fish community as the high flows would move the fish downstream and the drop structures would block their passage back up stream. Although the proposed project would preserve approximately 54% of the site in open space, approximately one third of the oak/bay woodland on site would be adversely affected by the proposed grading on the site. This loss of woodland habitat is most significant at the northwest corner of the site (Neighborhood 9) and within Neighborhood 5 where approximately six acres of woodland habitat would be .removed and a tributary creek channel would be filled. The area of Neighborhood 9 is significant in that it is the westernmost development site and would abut the open space lands to the east and north. Development in this area would also constrict the open space corridor along Martin Canyon Creek. Further construction of this open space corridor can be expected when the 86123 3-33 3.5 Wildlife Nielsen property is proposed for development. A development scenario that may develop in this area would be housing tracks within a few feet of the north side of Martin Canyon Creek much like the Bordeaux Estates. By restricting development along the upper reaches of the creek on the Hansen Hill Ranch site, this would set a development precedent to concentrate development on the lower reaches of the drainage and create a more natural transition from the urban setting along Silvergate Drive to the rural open spaces in the west hills. This more gradual development transition would also improve the wildlife habitat values of the preserved open spaces on the site. All the proposed lots along the northern border of the site in Neighborhood 9 should be eliminated and Hansen Hill Road realigned to avoid this area. The proposed development in Neighborhood 5 would degrade or remove approximately six acres of woodland habitat. The proposed project has made every effort to minimize development within the oak/bay forest and creek areas throughout the site except in this area. The woodland habitat within this area is just as valuable as the woodland habitats of the other tributary drainages. 3.5.4 MITIGATION MEASURES Mitigation for the proposed project's _impacts to wildlife values may take two forms, redesign to avoid and/or further minimize impacts, or compensation for unavoidable impacts. It is beyond the scope of this EIR to redesign the proposed project, however, if the following criteria are followed in the redesign efforts the most significant impacts may be avoided or at least minimized. o Neighborhood 5 should be redesigned to avoid filling of the drainage swale and minimize encroachment to the margins of the oak/bay woodland. o A three- to four-foot box culvert should be placed under Hansen Hill Road to allow the passage of large mammals to pass under the road between the two riparian corridors. o The development plan should be redesigned to avoid or at least minimize the amount of development and grading at the northwest corner of the site. A more sensitive design would be to concentrate development at the east end of the site and leave the west end of the site in as much open space as possible. o All creek stabilization and flood control efforts should be designed to preserve and protect the. fish habitat in Martin Canyon Creek. Final designs of flood and erosion control structures, road crossings, bridges and culverts should be reviewed and 86123 3-34 3.5 Wildlife approved by the California Department of Fish and Game as required under Section 1601-03 of the Fish and Game code. To assure that all redesign efforts adequately minimize impacts, the final plans should be reviewed and approved by the California Department of Fish and Game. In the event that a project redesign cannot adequately avoid or minimize impacts then these impacts may be mitigated through compensation of lost habitat values. There are a number of ways lost habitat may be compensated for but the preferred criteria are that: • The compensation site be on or very near the impacted site. • Compensation should be of equivalent or greater habitat values. The project may compensate for the disturbance of riparian and oak/bay vegetation by revegetating disturbed open spaces with native species and/or enhancing existing degraded habitats. The conceptual landscaping plan indicates that disturbed native open space areas would be revegetated with native species many of which occur on the site. Prior to final project approvals, a final habitat compensation plan should be developed by the project sponsor and approved by the California Department of Fish and Game. In a revegetation effort a list of the native plant materials that are to be used should be included as well as the following: o A planting plan with densities and sizes of individual species. o A maintenance and monitoring program to assure a successful revegetation effort. o An irrigation plan if necessary. o Favorable deer browse native plant species should be used to improve the deer habitat. The plant list for the preliminary landscape plan does include a number of good browse species. Consideration should also be given towards enhancing the riparian corridor with revegetation of the creek banks as an erosion control method, and/or enhancing the fish habitat values of the creek. 1Robbins, C.S. et al., Birds of North America. Golden Press, 1966. 86123 3-35 3.5 Wildlife Brown, V. and G. Lawrence, The California Wildlife Region, Naturegraph Publishers, 1965. 2California Department of Fish and Game, Natural Diversity Data Base (CNDDB), unpublished, 1985. 3Lisa Palesimo, California Department of Fish and Game, Phone conversation June 22, 1987. 4U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, San Joaquin Kit Fox Recovery Plan, 1983. 5California Department of Fish and Game, op. cit. 6Project sponsors, Communication on June 24, 1987. 86123 3-36 3.6 Land Use 3.6 LAND USE 3.6.1 SETTING The project site is located on the western edge of the City of Dublin, and is a part of the larger Tri-Valley area generally comprised of the communities of Dublin, San Ramon, Pleasanton, and Livermore. Prior to the 1850s, the Tri-Valley area was populated by Native Americans, who relied upon hunting and gathering activities to sustain their culture for many years. The Dublin area was first settled by non-natives in the 1850s, and by the 1870s was part of a larger homesteading settlement near the transcontinental railroad. From roughly that period to the 1950s, the Dublin area was a productive agricultural center. At the beginning of this agricultural period, the Hansen family purchased the project site, and used it for agricultural purposes. From the 1950s to roughly 1980, the area gradually became a community exporting labor to jobs outside the Tri-Valley area. Since 1980, the Dublin area has grown to form part of an emerging regional employment center. Consistent with the Dublin area's historical role as an agricultural area, agricultural activity, in this case in the form of cattle grazing, has been a predominant activity on the project site for several years, although there is evidence on the eastern portion of the project site that orchard crops were cultivated at some point in the past. Prior to that time, and assuming no dramatic change in landscape characteristics, the site may have served as hunting grounds for local Native Americans due to the presence of substantial habitat cover on the site. A small, now dilapidated house is located on the extreme north- central portion of the site. The present effort to convert the site from agricultural to urban uses is the first such effort to alter historical uses on the site. The project site itself is an irregularly shaped parcel adjacent to, but not within the City of Dublin. In general, the eastern half of the property is adjacent to residental neighborhoods within Dublin, and the western half is surrounded by vacant agricultural land in Alameda County. Current access to the property is from Silvergate Drive and Martin Canyon Drive immediately off Rolling Hills Drive. Surrounding properties include the Hatfield/Investec single-family homes to the north; Kaufman and Broad single-family homes and townhouses to the northeast; the Valley Christian Center to the south; existing residential neighborhoods on Silvergate and Hansen Drives to the east and southeast; and 86123 3-37 3.6 Land Use the vacant agricultural properties of Nielsen, Cronin and Blaylock, Fletcher, Gleason to the north and west. - Zoning in areas surrounding the project site includes medium-density and single-family residential and agricultural preserve on the north, single-family and quasi-public use on the south, single-family and medium-density residential on the east, and agricultural use on the west. Overview of the Dublin General Plan, and Planned Growth The City of Dublin, incorporated in 1982, is approximately 8.4 square miles in area. The City's 1985 General Plan is the main planning policy document in the City, while the City's Zoning Ordinance is the key land use regulatory mechanism. The General Plan identifies a Primary Planning Area (PPA) which includes the 3.8 square mile area that formed the original incorporated area of the City, as well as a 0.3 square mile area of previously unincorporated land near the western hills. The PPA forms the principal focus of General Plan policies. The City has also identified a 15.6 square mile Extended Planning Area (EPA) that "bears relation to its planning" pursuant to Government Code Section 65300. The EPA is largely undeveloped, and is generally characterized by steep slopes and oak woodlands to the west of the City, and level to gently sloping grasslands east of the City. The western segment of the EPA, which contains a portion of the project site, is approximately 5.3 square miles in area, and is shown in.Figure 3-7. The PPA and EPA together comprise approximately 16 square miles, and also comprise the City's entire Sphere of Influence (SOI) area. The SOI contained an estimated population of approximately 17,600 people in 1985, according to the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG).1 The Dublin area is projected by ABAG to increase to 40,500 people by the end of the century, a 130% increase. ABAG estimates that the number of households in the SOI will increase from 4,800 in 1985 to 12,250 by the year 2000, an increase of 7,450 households, or 155%. In terms of comparison, Alameda County is projected to experience a 15% increase in population, and a 20% increase in household growth over the same time period. Development activity has been strong since the Housing Element was completed in 1985. At least 997 residential units are under construction, have been issued building permits, or 86123 3-38 EXTENDED PLANNING AREA POLICIES FIGURE 3-7 SOURCE:CITY OF DUBLIN GENERAL PLAN 1985-2005 �O 9 T 9��9 �* 4001� Ilk f GUIDING POLICY N leo Consider residential development 2 a proposals(including support facilities) co- on moderate slopes,with multi-family W densities typically considered on Batter � land. EPA GF z s IMPLEMENTATION POLICY ` °� - > JP� The location,extent and density M� m Oa of residential development will be determined when municipal services can be provided and through General FREEWAY 580 Plan refinement studies. T O y STON O p0 MILES 0 /: i 2 EXTENDED PLANNING AREA POLICIES Project Site EllPrimary Planning Area (PPA) Boundary Sphere of Influence Area a 3-39 3.6 Land Use have been approved (no permits issued) on 227 acres of land within Dublin. Only three residential sites are still available. These sites have a potential capacity of about 475 units. One of these sites is the redevelopment area in Downtown Dublin where 200 of these 475 units could be placed.2 Inherent in the growth projections is the assumption that future development will occur on remaining undeveloped parcels in the PPA, on redeveloped parcels in the PPA, and in the EPA. The project site is divided by the PPA-EPA boundary line, and is one of only two parcels in the western portion of the City that is so divided, with the other parcel being the partially developed Nielsen property to the northwest of the project site. As part of the subject General Plan Amendment Study, consideration should be given to alignment of the PPA-EPA boundary line to be coterminous with property lines in the project vicinity, as is typically done as part of planning and zoning studies, to avoid the splitting of parcels into multiple categories. This could be achieved as part of a project sponsor response to a major City policy providing that residential development in the EPA be based on an assessment of location, extent, and density, predicated on the availability of public services and General Plan refinement studies. The western portion of the site in the EPA is approximately 70-75 acres, or about one-half of the project site.3 Further, the EPA portion of the site comprises about 2% of the City's western EPA, which extends approximately 3.25 miles west of the PPA boundary line. As shown at page 10 of the City's General Plan, up to 70% of the EPA's western portion has limited development potential, with slopes of 30% or greater. The remainder is identified as "open land with development potential,"4 which appears to mean low-density residential and residential support uses on moderate slopes, with multi-family density housing considered on "flatter" land.5 A comparison of project sponsor information on slopes in the EPA portion of the project site and General Plan documents suggest that the amount of land with slopes of 30% or greater on that portion of the site is substantially greater than documented in the General Plan.6 Assuming that other portions of the EPA currently designated as having slopes of less than 30% would also be similarly compared, the actual growth potential in the 5.3 square mile western EPA area could be substantially less than that shown in the General Plan. 86123 3-40 3.6 Land Use The guiding policies and the implementing policy from the Parks and Open Space Element of the City's General Plan (page 15) recognizes the health and safety value of open space in policies calling for the preservation of oak woodlands, riparian vegetation, and natural creeks as open spaces for resource value, as well as maintenance of slopes predominantly over 30% as permanent open space. In conjunction with this orientation, City policy, as stated in the Environmental Resources Management Section, Seismic Safety and Safety Element of the City's General Plan (page 35) regulates development in hill areas to minimize runoff by preserving woodlands and riparian vegetation. Further, creek channels are to be retained with right-of-ways for maintenance and for maximum water flow. Implementing policies include required dedications of broad stream corridors, protection of riparian vegetation, prohibition of woodlands removal and required preparation of drainage studies. Approximately 55% of the project site, or about 81 acres, is either riparian corridor, oak woodland, or sloped greater than 30%. The General Plan does provide some flexibility in developing areas with environmental constraints. An Implementing Policy from the Environmental Resources Management Section, Conservation Element of the General Plan (page 29) requires preservation of oak woodlands and permits allowable densities to be transferred to another part of the site where woodlands occupy slopes that otherwise could be graded and developed. The project site is currently used for cattle grazing. The County of Alameda General Plan Land Use Designation for the site is Agricultural. . The County's Zoning Ordinance identifies the land for exclusive agricultural activity, allowing one dwelling unit per 100 acres, or a maximum of one unit on the project site.7 The Cronin property, northwest of the project site, is currently in Williamson Act agricultural land contract status. The Blaylock property to the west is not. One parcel on the north, the Nielsen property is under Williamson Act contract. The Williamson Act contract status provides tax savings to contract holders in exchange for guarantees to retain land in agricultural production for a period of ten years. Renewal is automatic on an annual basis unless the contract holder elects to serve notice that the contract will not be renewed. Non-renewal will result in contract termination after a ten-year period. The only known parcel in the project vicinity that is in non-renewal status is the Nielsen parcel, adjacent to the project on the north, which is in the first year of the termination period.8 86123 3-41 3.6 Land Use PPA Buildout Potential General Plan designations for the PPA portion of the project site are shown schematically in Figure 1 of the Dublin General Plan and reproduced in this document in Figure 3-8. Project site Land Use Designations include Open Space/Stream Corridor, Single-Family Residential (0.9 to 6.0 units per gross acre), and Medium Density Residential (6.1 to 14.0 units per gross acre). The majority of surrounding areas to the northeast, east and southwest are designated Single-Family Residential, with the area adjacent to the site's northeast corner designated as Medium-Density Residential. Table 1 and Figure 4 of the General Plan (pages 8 and 9, respectively) identify development policies for residential sites in the PPA, including three sites within the eastern portion of the subject property. The three areas are generally described as follows, using site numbers from the General Plan (see Figure 3-8): No. of Site No. Acres Unit Range Location 5 4 24-32 Extreme northeast corner of site. 6 7 7-20 East of Christian Center, abutting southern property line. 7 6 6-20 Abutting property line north of Christian Center. The suggested range of dwelling units given for each of the three specific areas lies within the range of units allowed under their respective General Plan designations. If the dwelling unit densities specified for various land use designations in Figure 1 were used rather than the specific unit ranges under Development Policies for residential sites (page 8 of the General Plan), a greater range of dwelling units would result. Because three specific residential areas on the project site were called out in the General Plan, those densities were assumed to supercede the generic single-family and medium-density residential categories. Recalculation of the acreage involved with these three site areas was conducted by EIP Associates as part of the previously prepared environmental study for this site.9 Acreage not in riparian corridors, not in oak woodland areas and not in areas with slopes of 30% or greater resulted in the following acreages for the three sites and the range of units adjusted for the recalculated acreage. 86123 3..42 DUBLIN GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATIONS FIGURE 3-8 sGUPCE: DUBLIN GENERAL PLAN.JULY 1984 i aI X. `\�\.\ ,. �';a,.. .., _�_.�".:-+,rte`'• a`�.; IMTERSTATE 3n0 FEET �10002000 0 500 DUBLIN GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATIONS Project Site Business Park/ Industrial J ❑ Single-Family Residential (0.9-6.0 Units per Acre) Medium-Density Residential (6.1-14.0 Units per Acre) n Open Space: Stream Corridor OResidential Sites Recommended in Dublin General Plan N W aD 3-43 3.6 Land Use General Plan Adjusted Site No Acreage EIP Acreage Unit Range 5 4 2.0 12-16 6 7 12.7 13-36 7 6 17.3 17-57 Totals 17 32.0 42-109 Based on existing General Plan recommendations for the site, development potential on the PPA portion of the project site could be 42-109 units (resulting in a potential density range of 1.3-3.4 units per gross acre). The wide range in the number of dwelling units that could be built on developable acreage (acreage without the three aforementioned constraints) does not provide any insight with respect to other constraints such as major ridgeline retention, grading and geologic considerations. These and other factors can reasonably be assumed as collectively serving to reduce the development potential from the upper range of the theoretical density range cited above. EPA Buildout Potential A wide range of dwelling units could be located in the EPA, pursuant to Plan policies. The guiding policy in the EPA, mentioned earlier, is consideration of medium-density housing on "flatter" land, and consideration of low-density housing on moderate slopes. For the purposes of this analysis, it is assumed that "flatter" land means land with less than 20% slopes, and "moderate" slopes means land that is between 20% to 30% slope. Applying the major constraint criteria to the EPA portion of the project site (slopes over 30%, riparian corridors and oak woodlands) results in approximately 33.6 acres of land that could be used for residential development. Of this total, 16.6 acres have slopes less than 20%, and 17 acres have slopes of between 20% - 30%. Assuming that identified acreage in the EPA was incorporated into the Primary Planning Area and designated with the same low-density housing classifications as found in the Primary Planning Area (0.9-6.0 units per acre), the number of dwelling units that could be built on the 17 acres of 20%-30% slopes in the EPA could be 15-102 units. Identification of approximately 16.6 acres of land as "flatter" land that can be considered for multiple-family densities, and application of a range of housing densities (6.1-14 units per acre), results in 101 to 232 possible housing units. 86123 3-44 3.6 Land Use Combining buildout potential on both "flatter" and "moderate" sloped lands in the EPA could result in the potential for as many as 116-334 units on 33.6 acres of land (resulting in a potential density of 3.5-9.9 units per acre on identified acreage). Again, this wide range in the number of dwelling units that could be built on developable acreage does not provide any insight with respect to other constraints such as ridgeline retention, grading and geologic considerations. Overall development potential on the 65.6 acres of land which would remain unaffected by any of the three identified major development constraints would be 158-443 units, for a density of 2.4-6.8 units per gross acre. 3.6.2 IMPACTS The proposed development on the Hansen Hill site consists of 282 single-family homes and townhouses that are clustered in 11 neighborhood units. Access would primarily be from Silvergate. Drive with a secondary access proposed to connect to the Nielsen property to the north. Thirty-four townhouses would be located in the first cluster on the easternmost portion of the property adjacent to Silvergate Drive. The remainder of the proposed units, 248 units, would be single-family detached and custom-built homes. The overall density of the project would be 1.9 units per acre. Extracting the 79.6 acres of open space that would be preserved around the housing clusters would increase the practical density to 4.2 units per acre for useable portions of the site. About 50% of the project site is located in the Primary Planning Area and 50% in the Extended Planning Area. The Dublin General Plan is not specific about unit densities in these planning areas outside of the City boundaries, but as calculated above, the overall development potential of lands unaffected by any of the three identified development constraints would be between 158 and 443 possible units. This development potential translates to a range of about 42 to 109 units in the PPA portion of the project, and 116 to 334 units in the EPA. The proposed project has concentrated the bulk of its units in the PPA area of.the site (157 units in the PPA versus 125' in the EPA). From a planning perspective this emphasis on density closer to Silvergate Drive would appear to be desirable, rather than placing the bulk of the project on the sensitive western portions of the site where slope, biological, and visual issues are critical. 86123 3-45 3.6 Land Use The single family nature of the project would be consistent with existing residential areas on both the northeastern and southeastern sides of the site. One exception would be the proposed townhouses at the entrance to the project site. There may be some perception on the part of nearby residents that these proposed townhouses would not be in keeping with the prevailing residential character of existing neighborhoods. They would, however, be bordered on the north and east by 129 townhouse units now under construction by Kaufman & Broad. The Dublin General Plan specifically designates the northeast corner of the Hansen site as a location for medium density residential development. The Land Use Element of the City's General Plan (Section 2.1.3, Residential Compatibility, page 12) provides policies regarding residential compatibility. The Guiding Policy is aimed at avoiding abrupt transitions between single-family development and higher density development on adjoining sites. The Implementing Policies require that all site plans respect the privacy and scale of residential development nearby, and require a planned development zoning process for all proposals over 6.0 units per gross residential acre. The City of Dublin and the DSRSD provide park and recreation services in neighborhoods near the site. The nearest existing park is May Park on Plata Way adjacent to Nielson School (a DSRSD-owned and maintained facility). A five-acre City Park is planned on Padre Way. In addition, Shannon Park and Community Center is situated about three quarters of a mile from the Hansen Ranch property (a DSRSD facility). Two guiding recreation policies are found in the Parks and Open Space Element of the General Plan (page 16). One of these policies calls for expansion of parkland to serve new development. Implementing Policies of this Element do not identify the project site for acquisition for recreation purposes. In-lieu park fees and land dedications are required as part of subdivision review. The City's Subdivision Ordinance provides for a land requirement of .011 acres per unit for single-family units, and .009 acres per multi-family unit. If fees are paid, the appraised value of calculated park dedication acreage, assuming that a project is approved, is used as the basis for determining the in-lieu fee amount. The project would be subject to either land dedication or fee payment. 86123 3-46 3.6 Land Use The proposed project retains 79.6 acres of land as open space. This land is oak woodland and riparian area concentrated along the site's northern boundary. It would not be practical as active open space or recreation area. Though public access is possible to the open space between the housing clusters, placement of the clusters implies that it would serve as private and passive open space for the benefit of the project residents. Public access could be facilitated and encouraged by ensuring that the stream corridor is visible from Silvergate Drive and that development in proposed Neighborhood 9 is far enough from the north property line that pedestrian access can be maintained from Silvergate through the property along the streambank. The project sponsors are requesting a General Plan Amendment (GPA) and annexation of the Hansen Hill property into the City of Dublin. The general plan clarifications and changes being sought include: o Consideration of the entire site as one planning area. o Initiation of annexation proceedings with LAFCO to have the Dublin City Limit boundary modified to include the Hansen Hill Ranch property. o Amendment of the Implementing Policies of the Land Use and Circulation Section and Land Use Map to eliminate reference to the future extension of Hansen Drive to serve lands to the west. o Amendment of the Implementing Policies of the Land Use and Circulation Section and Land Use Map of the General Plan Map to show a roadway connecting the Hansen Hill Ranch property to Dublin Boulevard and the collector roadway network stubs planned to serve future developments north and west of this site. o Deletion of the medium density designation currently shown as an allowable use in the Extended Planning Area of the project. o Permission for specific land use designations as specified in the project description and as located on the proposed site plan. These designations include medium density residential use in neighborhood 1, single-family residential use in Neighborhoods 2 through 12, and the remainder of the project site as open space/stream corridor. The project site is not under contract pursuant to the California Land Conservation Act (Williamson Act Agricultural contract). The Blaylock, Fletcher, Gleason property, which lies to the west, is also not under California Land Conservation Act Contract. The Cronin property on the northwest is under contract. The Nielson property, to the north, is under contract, although a notice of non-renewal has been filed. Conversion of this parcel to other uses may occur after a minimum of nine years. 86123 3-47 3.6 Land Use The City's policy regarding agricultural lands (Land Use and Circulation Section; Parks and Open Space Element, page 15) is to maintain Land Conservation Act contract lands as rangeland. Specific proposals for conversion to urban use consistant with the General Plan may be considered no sooner than two years prior to contract expiration. Another policy states, "Prevent premature urbanization of agricultural lands" (Environmental Resources Management Section; Conservation Element, page 30). The City's key Implementing Policy on conversion of agricultural land appears within the Land Use and Circulation Section, Parks and Open Space Element (page 15) and is as follows: "Approval of development of agricultural land not under contract shall require findings that the land is suitable for the intended use and will have adequate urban services and that conversion to urban use will not have significant adverse effects on adjoining lands under contract." The three land uses designated in the Plan, single-family residential, medium-density residential, and open space/stream corridor are retained on the project site. Because of the schematic nature of the General Plan the project proponents have been given flexibility in their site layout. They have used this flexibility to retain some of the existing riparian corridor and oak woodland. The Hansen site is generally well located in terms of providing contiguous residential development to existing residential neighborhoods within the City. The site is adjacent to existing residential use on 35-40% of its exterior boundary. Development of the site would represent a logical progression of growth from the City boundary into unincorporated areas of the Primary Planning Area. The proposed project would be less compatible with adjacent agricultural preserve contract lands than with residential properties as it would represent an intensification of use in proximity to relatively sensitive environments. Provision of public services to the site is discussed in the public services section of this EIR. Extension of urban services, including roads, onto the project site, could result in impacts on adjacent land to the west. Development of the Hansen property would increase the probability of eventual development of the Blaylock, Fletcher & Gleason parcel on the west and the Nielson parcel on the north. The Blaylock, Fletcher & Gleason 86123 3-48 3.6 Land Use property is not under California Land Conservation Act contract, and the Nielson's contract is in non-renewal status. The proposed project would introduce urban services and roads adjacent to these properties which could serve to accelerate this process. The project would not require the development of these properties; no roads or other infrastructure would cross undeveloped parcels. The project's proposed road system allows for connections to both the Blaylock, Fletcher & Gleason and the Nielson parcels, anticipating and perhaps encouraging conversion of those parcels to urban uses. For this reason the project can be considered to have a growth inducing impact. Development of these properties may be seen as an adverse impact, though their eventual development and annexation to the City can be predicted. The City's Sphere of Influence (SOI) is composed of the Primary Planning Area and its Extended Planning Area. As shown on Figure 3-7, the Extended Planning Area and Sphere of Influence extend beyond the Hansen property and properties adjacent to it. It is clearly the intent of the City to exercise planning influence over this area with the ultimate intention of annexing land within the SOI into the City at some future time. This intention is recognized by the Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) in approving Dublin's SOI. The issue is whether the timing and nature of the proposed development is in conformance with the City's General Plan, and whether the intensity of development is sensitive to the environmental constraints present on the project site. Annexation and development of the site would not have significant land use impacts. CITY AND REGIONAL HOUSING GOALS The City of Dublin General Plan Housing Element, adopted in January 1985, is the leading housing policy document in the City. The Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) is mandated by State law to identify and allocate regional housing needs, though local governments are not bound by law to attain housing allocation levels. ABAG has identified 1,956 dwelling units as the portion of overall regional need for the City, of which 665 units are to be affordable to households with very low (less than 50% of median annual household income) or low (50-80% of median income).10 Dublin General Plan policies will result in the creation of more housing units at higher densities than would be expected if zoning based on the Alameda County General Plan at the time of incorporation were to continue. Housing construction in Dublin will exceed 86123 3 -49 3.6 Land Use "projected need" as included in Bay Area Regional Housing Needs Determination by over 80%. However, needs by income category as determined by ABAG and accepted by the City will likely not be met. The major constraint on production of below-market rate units is the lack of public funds devoted to that purpose.11 Dublin's 1983 housing stock was composed of approximately 4,040 single-family units in 1983, or 91% of the City's stock. Recent development has resulted in a shift away from single-family homes, but the stock will still remain at least 75% single-family for the foreseeable future. Increasingly, households are having difficulty in purchasing housing, as housing prices continue to increase relative to incomes. The target for units available to low and very low income households will prove unrealistic unless federal subsidy programs for new construction are revived and sites for construction of affordable housing are made available. Housing prices in the Dublin area can be expected to increase rapidly as new residents to the Tri-Valley area seek housing near to work. In response to increasing needs for housing, the City's Housing Element contains (page 25) four goals that are intended to: promote housing of different size, location and price to meet current and future housing needs; preserve existing housing stock; ensure that housing will be served by adequate public services; and provide equal housing opportunity and access for all. Key policies include the designation of suitable sites for housing; the three areas identified for housing development on the project site are an example of this policy (see 11.3 above for detailed discussion of these sites). Another key policy to provide below-market rate housing is City encouragement of developers to cooperate with non-profit providers to develop below-market rate units. Site 5, in the extreme northeast portion of the project site, is planned for medium density housing, with a capacity of 24-32 units. Construction on this site would result in increasing the supply of a small yet growing number of multi-family units in the City. Consideration should be given through the General Plan Amendment study process to identifying Site 5 for below-market rate housing, as it could be easily developed due to flatness and size, would be buffered from adjacent lower density housing areas by riparian corridors and other barriers, and would be compatible with contiguous multi-family 86123 3-50 3.6 Land Use housing sites to the north and northeast. Consistent with City policy, consideration should be given to developer cooperation with non-profit housing providers to enhance the potential for construction of high quality below-market rate housing. Other typical land use impacts caused by development are disturbances by domestic cats and dogs, increased threat of trespassers, and the introduction of invasive plants into the environment. MITIGATIONS The project site plan should be modified to provide clear public access to the designated open space on the project site with a pedestrain corridor along the streambank and extending through the site. In-lieu park fees and/or land dedications should be required through the subdivision review process. With the exception of visual, ridgeline, and some biological issues, which are discussed in those sections of the report, the proposed project is in general conformance with land use policies of the Dublin General Plan. Annexation and development of the property would not have significant land use impacts. Installation and maintenance of a project-size perimeter fence should be required. This would keep cattle off the project site and discourage trespassers. Project Home Owners' Association should maintain a list of plant materials acceptable for landscaping. DATA SOURCES The following data sources were used in the preparation of this section. In addition, persons were contacted for various reasons in the course of section preparation. The names, titles, and affiliations of these individuals appear in the footnotes at the end of this section. 86123 3-51 3.6 Land Use Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG), Housing Needs Determination, San_ Francisco Bay Region, July 1983, p. 44. , Projections 185, August 1985. City of Dublin, General Plan, February 1985. , Housing Element, Vol. 2, Technical Supplement, January 1985. , Zoning Ordinance, 1985.. , City Council Agenda Statement, August 11, 1986. ,General Plan Draft EIR, February 1984. Responses to Comments on Supplement to Environmental Impact Report, February 1985. County of Alameda, General Plan. , Zoning Ordinance. David Gates and Associates, Hansen Hill Ranch Environmental Planning Study, 1986. 1Association of Bay Area Governments, Projections 185, July 1985. 2Kevin Gailey, Dublin Planning Department. 3Calculations of various acreages on and off the site are derived from maps at various scales and levels of accuracy. Therefore, all such calculations should be viewed as both preliminary and approximate. 4City of Dublin General Plan, February 1985, p. 10. 5Ibid.9 p. ii. 6A comparison of the Slope Analysis map at page 22 of the Hansen Hill Ranch Environmental Planning Study, prepared by David Gates & Associates (project sponsor consultant), with Figure 8 at page 32 of the City of Dublin General Plan reveals that slopes over 30% comprise a greater percentage of the EPA portion of the project site than shown in the Plan. The discrepancy may be due to the scale of analysis used in the Gates analysis, which would facilitate more detailed analysis than that used in the Plan. 7Darryl Gray, Associate Planner, County of Alameda Planning Department, telephone conversation, November 13, 1986. 86123 3-52 3.6 Land Use 8John DeHorn, Consulting Engineer, Hansen Hill Development Corporation, discussion, November 14, 1986. 9Hansen Hill Ranch, Environmental Assessment Study, EIP Associates, December, 1987. lOAssociation of Bay Area Governments, Housing Needs Determinations -- San Francisco_ Bay Region, July, 1983. 11 City of Dublin, City of Dublin General Plan, Housing Element -- Technical Supplement, Section 3.5.1, January, 1985. 86123 3-53 3.7 Visual Quality 3.7 VISUAL QUALITY/TOPOGRAPHY 3.7.1 SETTING Existing Conditions The project site is located on the western edge of the City of Dublin within hills which define the western edge of the San Ramon Valley and which provide a "gateway" to the City. Hansen Hill Ranch is made up of rolling hills, knolls, deeply cut valleys and prominent ridgelines as mapped in Figure 3-9, Visual Features. Elevations range from 470 feet at the property's northeast boundary (near Silvergate Drive) to over 860 feet along the western border. Slopes on the property are steep; slopes ranging from 20% to 30% make up 23% of the site while slopes in excess of 30% are found on 44% of the site. A total of 67% of the site is made up of slopes which are 20% or greater. Figure 3-2, Slope Analysis and Aspect, within Chapter 3.1 Geology, shows the location and distribution of site slopes. Site vegetation is representative of California's inland hills and consists of large areas of grassland and dense tree clusters typical of oak/woodland landscapes. This variety of elevation, landform, drainage pattern and vegetation contribute to the inherent visual quality of the site. Figure 3-10a illustrates the typical visual character found on the site. The terrain of Hansen Hills Ranch includes five distinct knolls situated in two rows which are nearly equally spaced from east to west. Northernmost knolls are separated by deep ravines; knolls overlooking Interstate 580 are separated by a saddle of land. Each knoll is covered on top by grassland, while the lowest slopes of the three northern knolls are surrounded by oak woodland vegetation. The two knolls overlooking I-580 are integral to a visually dominant ridge which forms the northern skyline for views from I-580. This same ridgeline forms one layer of the Dublin Hills and is visually distinct when viewed from the east and north. From Interstate 680 (near Amador Valley Boulevard) the rolling form of the ridgeline is evident, appearing below and in front of Donlan Point and its accompanying dominant ridgeline. Slopes on the project site generally face north and east,. with the exception of the south facing slope overlooking I-580. Upper slopes which face north and east are highly visible from many off-site locations. Figure 3-2 illustrates the aspect or direction of exposure of site slopes. Views available from the site include the San Ramon Valley, the cities of Dublin, San Ramon and Pleasanton, distant hills to the east, and the Dublin Hills which border the site on 3 sides. 86123 3-54 VISUAL FEATURES FIGURE 3-9 SOURCE: EIP ASSOCIATES ��, .��• �� rte` �� ..�-_--,� FEET i\, ;��C - `•\� \ •.. ,�'s, r -- 0 200 400 800 North ul �/i!/ U4bn City kml Prominent Knoll Valley El Grassland ®,Minor Ridge © Tree Masses 3.7 Visual Quality Hansen Hill Ranch is viewed as foreground from sections of I-580, Hansen Drive, Dublin Boulevard and adjacent residential neighborhoods to the south; from Silvergate Drive and residential development to the east; and from local roads and residences to the north.1 .The site is perceived as middleground from portions of I-580 and Dublin Boulevard to the south; from portions of San Ramon Road, Amador Valley Boulevard, Dublin Boulevard, local access roads and developed areas to the east; and from local access roads and neighborhoods to the north.2 Background views of the site are generally not accessible from south of I-580; however, the site is visible as background from portions of Shannon Park, I-680, I-580, Amador Valley Boulevard, Dublin Boulevard, local streets and neighborhoods, and from sections of the City of Pleasanton.3 Figures 3-10A through 3-11D show typical character of the site and illustrate views of the property from off-site locations. 3.7.2 IMPACTS Project Description During environmental assessment studies, visually sensitive site areas were determined. Figure 3-11 illustrates areas with high, moderate and low visual sensitivity. The proposed project would develop 46% of the site with 282 housing units in 11 neighborhoods. The introduction of this level of development on the property would require extensive grading, removal of more than one-third of Oak/Bay woodland vegetation, and the installation of site infrastructure and landscaping. Development would occur within areas of high visual sensitivity. Proposed residential dwelling units include 212 single-family and custom homes, 36 patio homes and 34 townhomes. Dwelling units would be of a common architectural theme with exterior articulation and a wide variety of exterior materials to emphasize individuality. Homes would generally be one to two stories in height.4 Proposed materials and finishes indicate the use of siding and stucco in earth and sky-tone exterior colors. 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 3-56 Qq v\ v v Alms, . ms'� , x�'��,:. N JJ �1 1 dip "`�`� �• \ ., \\\aC�\\�`\� SITE PHOTOS FIGURE 3-101 SOURCE: EIP ASSOCAITES /j� l�•�` �pF'p:. `���. ) .+?4 �wc__. � 3 i j�. ..k?i �ce w^J'Tl�j}+�w . �'�� �``..+�'��6��0Y`F ,� �� '""� yy,4na£ •�+a.�+l.. `V°�kr � °� .�a�y�r� b M�`�� :" „}:wrc.S^�..._..'_. .. :�..w�%`u....'S'+�awA..... .: ��. 'Jlr�.'v'+�i °.'.°.�i��!►'°'�A�......_..la... `wr"../�.� w�:.._•AY�rwq`a'+i���t` © Hansen Ranch site as viewed from Silvergate Drive looking west. r ?tom 1 ., .:.� .. i � J HANSEN HILL RANCH '°m KO�. •Y�"a °..,�a•,' «, „.,•,;,^!'T`^?,w�` � r `a. m.a "ac`sz-- ;F .d� '.` �iGk�:'a�,i.-:.c'r�"..a "� '4"—ipr..a.,.e�w•"u�w°..�r.... r,. --"�,,•. -2°"x`.."i' �.*w•-s„&�1, . .•d�fw.xw'°.,";u:'.v.,."�,, a.u.. "_, .-^;.rs.,.: ---'" �+.1+.�.:.:o:w.° A�.,.�. w ...;,j4 ...- .,aw�!a..�:lrs:�e,w.n...__'.,µ!:�..".ws�..i.•....u;S,.�:ac.^`w,�:aa'.+.,..c; ,>. QD View of site and surrounding lands as seen from Rolling Hills Drive. N m 3-58 1' MN FIRM NOWN M ME ��.''�-.� '� ,;:_ mss. � -• �. �''�����A��/���. Q,��, i � Off► ® D 3.7 Visual Quality and to introduce irregular rhythm of street trees in most visible areas.5 Landscaping would be suburban in character, consisting of tree-lined streets, ornamental residential landscaping, common lawn and viewing areas, and undisturbed oak woodland clusters. In considering City of Dublin policy, the project sponsor maintains that the Hansen Hill knolls do not constitute a major ridgeline regardless of where one views them from. Furthermore, the project sponsor maintains that the proposed Hansen Hill Ranch development will not alter, nor will it project above, the ridgeline that forms the skyline. The project sponsor has interpreted City policies broadly, such that Hansen Hill Ranch site knolls and ridges do not constitute major ridgelines. This report, however, evaluates the proposed project against a more stringent interpretation of City policies. City of Dublin policy does not attempt to define major ridgelines; however, City policies state that: o Grading should not disfigure the ridgelines (Implementing Policy contained within the Land Use Element, page 11); o structures which project above major ridgelines are restricted (Guiding Policy contained within the Parks and Open Space Element, page 16); o ridgelines that form the skyline as viewed from freeways should be preserved or enhanced (Implementing Policy contained within the Parks and Open Space Element, page 16); o quality of views from scenic highways should be protected (Circulation and Scenic Highways Element, page 22). Impacts and mitigations described in this chapter will be evaluated based on a conservative interpretation of these and other City policies. In addition, action taken in 1984 for the adjacent Valley Christian Center property will be discussed, as similar visual quality concerns were addressed by the City of Dublin at that time. Impacts On Site Topography Proposed grading for development on the site would require excavation of hills and knolls and filling of valleys. Natural landforms which typify the site would be altered significantly from existing conditions. Estimates of proposed grading show excava- tion/cutting to be 1.6 million cubic yards, and embankment/filling to be 1.1 million cubic 86123 3-60 3.7 Visual Quality yards.6 Excess excavated material which would not be used for fill on the site amounts to nearly one-half million cubic yards. Excess material. which would be hauled off-site for disposal would require trucks which could only accommodate roads of up to 15% grade resulting in limited carrying capacity. Disposing of this amount of fill would require about 38,000 trips as the trucks used would have a capacity of approximately 13 cubic yards. Project grading maps designate the removal or alteration of prominent topographic features. Knolls would be severely altered or removed, drainage swales and ravines would be filled, natural rounded terrain would be terraced and stepped to accommodate roads and building pads. Areas of cut and fill are indicated in Figure 3-12; Figures 3-13, 3-14 and 3-15 show selected profiles of site terrain both before and after proposed grading. Visual Impacts The proposed project would change foreground, middleground, and background views of the site as seen from surrounding areas. Existing dominant and distinctive landforms would be significantly altered to make way for residential development. The project would result in the removal of site vegetation, and the introduction of new plant materials. Visual complexity of the site would increase due to grading, and the presence of new forms and colors on the landscape. Night lighting and glare would potentially increase over existing conditions. Figures 16A&B shows the dominant ridge made up of knolls on the Hansen Ranch property and the adjacent Blaylock, Fletcher and Gleason property. This ridge provides an initial impression or parting view of Dublin's west entrance for the approximately 86,000 vehicles which travel the I-580 corridor each day.7 The proposed project would significantly alter this ridgeline; grading would remove one of the Hansen Knolls, interrupting the natural flow of the curving landform. The new ridge would be visually unnatural in character. Some single-family homes greater than one- story in height and located within neighborhoods 4.6 and 8, may visually punctuate the . ridgeline; rooflines and chimneys may be visible from I-580. Berming and introduced landscaping along the ridge would partially screen views from I-580 but would not be typical of existing natural landform and vegetative conditions. 86123 3-61 yu� d �� -iii?�'fl•l� psi, „fit<• .� �.: D•. i MA ff � � 4 �iM:_�� -�:':.•a�:_•-may;`:�:^� �?�.7`7p,D. „�'. SITE SECTIONS A-A' AND B-B' FIGURE 3-13 SOURCE:WILSEY 8 HAM.EIP ASSOCIATES -- Existing Ground Elevation Proposed Ground Elevation Fill Slope �•••' ..�'' •'•••�•'•. Cut Slope W Q P/L U N Q ••r.800-- -.-S!!!�..,�•..��...- �___ 700 X700 600 600 w 500 1000 1500 2000 O1 A A' HORIZONTAL SCALE W J U 750 750 J 650 �"-- .� 650 a U 550 '` ''.• ,;•....."•..-••:,,,..5,,. 550 cc > 450 450 0 500 1000 1500 2000 B B' N tD HORIZONTAL SCALE SITE SECTIONS C-C'AND F-F FIGURE 3-14 .SOURCE:MLSEY 6 HAM ENGINEERS:EIP ASSOMTES -- Existing Ground Elevation Proposed Ground Elevation Fill Slope . Cut Slope 830 830 ..,.,..:--.;.-,..,� 780 w 780 U.730 `` 730 J.680 x�€ 680 U,630 �:�-, Hf �� 630 j 580 580 530 - 530 .0 500 1000 1500 2000 F, F HORIZONTAL SCALE; 800 800 w a 700 _ ..: .., 700 U) —j 600 600 500 I 500 IM .w r > 400 400 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 I C C' HORIZONTALSCALE . 3-64 SITE SECTIONS D-D' AND E'-E FIGURE 3-15 SOURCE:WILSEY 8 HAM:EIP ASSOCIATES -- Existing Ground Elevation Proposed Ground Elevation Fill Slope Cut Slope a900 P/L 900 N800 .r.r;.:;�,:.:�?�::`�'• ��� 800 U 700 ''•'::':'''•''��'•�''• 700 cc: 600 P/L / -- 600 Uj 500 \ / 500 0 100. 500 1000 D D' HORIZONTAL SCALE w Q 870 870 cn a 820 / ::; ::�'•?::,,,. 820 C�J-c , 770 �"•''••"•,,.,,►r- �:,w 770 Uj > 720 i 720 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 N E HORIZONTAL SCALE E m SITE PHOTOS FIGURE 3.16 SOURCE: EIP ASSOICATES @View of site knolls and prominent ridge as seen from "Dublin Boulevard and 1-580 looking north. F �.n .s u. r<: f ' .�'tt3 F'•bsl f. s'F F-F sarc�^` a Kp..,. k° Pz .P"i i��.... f45 �� a s5 3 �" � `' s to 9h r 4r: . ` z 5K gays a�� � � N�, <�-. a �� ; r '�'t .3 '�";$r �y,� cY,a ti � �• �� �+ y�i 3 i < ; i Z F Z 1 'Y s£ 'o z Y 4:k8 �'dux,.YS• r ,�a� �' t � �.i £ MS�s �u x� �c -ID�EP �. �i..r �r � v,a xc ;�,� "s" s' �Y�"c�. ?�s� '€" • HANSEN HILL RANCH > ¢ F 5 S € >nx 4 arm IARN 4 vY L a a z. :. ,...<x K ,�"•'`�s�+��`�PS'�" a .,.w4e>e..��azPxea.�: �s� ,4r4a 4a+� ;�gwa>�ss a x X^ *m> a-+erg Z .♦ °4 .RSU-�.re.^.w,�.,:.,..en�r.u...,..., .G.0 r Y.,,e'.aw. ...w>. .%.... ©Prominent ridge of Hansen and Blaylock sites as viewed from 1-580 looking north. m N 3-66 3.7 Visual Quality Figures 3-17A and 3-17B show views of the Hansen property from I-580 and the I-580 frontage road. The shaded area superimposed on Figure 3-17B indicates alteration of the ridge as a result of project grading. Alteration of this ridge would also affect off-site views of the Dublin Hills. Currently, from the east, the ridge is viewed as a rolling form which is distinctive, although secondary in importance to Donlan Ridge. The impact of grading on the ridge would result in a change in the existing character of the landform, and the increased complexity of the view due to the introduction of new colors, forms and textures. The project would affect up to 52% of the trees on the site. Clusters of existing Maple, Bay, Oak, Buckeye and Sycamore trees would be removed and replaced by buildings, roads and landscaping. The inherent visual quality of the Dublin Hills would be significantly impacted by the project due to the removal of trees and grassland. A variety of residential dwelling units with a common architectural theme are proposed for the site. Most would be two stories in height with attached garages. Earth-tone and sky-tone colors are proposed for the residential units. The earthtone colors would be similar to existing site color. The introduction of 282 residential units and associated street and security lighting would produce additional light within the Dublin Hills. In addition, glazing used for the residential structures may potentially produce glare which would be visible from off-site locations. The proposed project would create an additional visual impact on an adjacent property due to the siting requirements of a water tank which would serve the project. The Dublin San Ramon Service District would require that the tank be at a minimum elevation of 1,015 feet. The preferred location is on the prominent ridgeline shared by the Blaylock, Fletcher, Gleason property and Hansen Ranch. This ridgeline is highly visible from I-580, and the addition of a water tank and service drive would be a significant visual impact unless mitigations were employed. Since the impact would occur on an adjacent property it will be studied in more detail in the EIR for that property. 86123 3-67 PHOTOMONTAGE FIGURE 3-17 SOURCE: EIP ASSOICATES OR ON ,t F O r �gq AIM WAM 5 Or Z W>... ivy : $ ... w A. Existing view of the prominent site ridge from 1-580 Frontage Road. CO I fT 7 y Y t 3 ; C f a a B. Simulated view of ridgeline after grading. (Shaded area would be cut by grading. This view represents grading section AW, see Figure 3-13) 3.7 Visual Quality Applicable Policies and Actions Policies of the City of Dublin's General Plan, and actions taken by the Planning Commission and City Council which relate to visual quality and the alteration of ridgelines are discussed below. After each policy a determination has been made as to the consistency of the policy with the proposed development. Land Use Element, Guiding Policy 2.1.3 (A). Abrupt transitions between single-family development and higher density development on adjoining sites should be avoided. The proposed project would provide buffer zones between single-family and higher density development which would occur on-site as well as on adjacent parcels. As proposed, the project would be consistent with Guiding Policy 2.1.3 (A). Land Use Element, Implementing Policy 2.1.3 (B). Site plans must respect the privacy and scale of nearby residential development. As proposed, the project would be consistent with Implementing Policy 2.1.3 (B). Land Use Element, Policy 2.1.4 (C). for the Extended Planning Area. Proposed site grading and means of access for residential proposals shall not disfigure the ridgelands. Extensive grading proposed for the project would alter and disfigure existing prominent site landforms and ridgelands, particularly the knolls which overlook I-580 and which are also viewed from roads and neighborhoods east of the project. As proposed, the project would not be consistent with Policy 2.1.4 (C). Parks and Open Space Element, Policy 3.3 (E). Structures on the hillsides that appear to project above major ridgelines are restricted. The undisturbed natural ridgelines seen from the primary planning area are an essential component of Dublin's appearance as a freestanding city ringed by open hills. Rooflines and/or chimneys of two-story homes may project above major ridgelines of the site, particularly above the ridgeline overlooking I-580. While site planning would attempt 86123 3-69 3.7 Visual Quality to avoid visibility of housing from I-580, it would do so by altering and disfiguring the ridgeline. The project as proposed may be inconsistent with Policy 2.3 (E). Parks and Open Space Element, Implementing Policy 3.3 (F). Ridgelines that form the skyline as viewed from freeways or major arterial streets should be preserved or enhanced through the subdivision design and site design review process. Grading proposed for the project would not preserve or enhance the ridgeline which forms the skyline as viewed from I-580. Circulation and Scenic Highways Element, Policy 5.6. The quality of views seen from scenic highways should be protected, as these are routes from which people traveling through Dublin .gain their impression of the city. Policy 5.6 (B) calls for design review of all projects visible from designated scenic routes. Scenic Highways include I-580, I-680 and San Ramon Road. Views of the site from I-580, I-680 and San Ramon Road would be adversely affected by proposed grading and development of the property. This project would require review by the City for consistency determination. Conservation Element, Policy 7.1 (A, E). Conserve riparian vegetation as a protective buffer for stream quality and as a habitat and aesthetic resource. Require revegetation of creek banks with species characteristic of local riparian vegetation, where construction requires creekbank alteration. The project as proposed would protect and revegetate creekbanks, therefore it would be consistent with Policy 7.1. Conservation Element, Policy 7.3 (A, B). Protect oak woodlands. Where oak woodlands occupy slopes that otherwise could be graded and developed, allowable densities should be permitted to be transferred to other parts of the site. .Removal of individual oak trees, may be considered through the project review process. Development of the project would affect about one-third of the trees in the oak/bay woodland community. As proposed, the project is inconsistent with Policy 7.3 86123 3-70 3.7 Visual Quality In November 1984, Dublin City Council reviewed a Conditional Use Permit Application for a proposed structure on the Valley Christian Center property which would impact the ridge overlooking I-580. The issue of the ridgeline visual effect was discussed and whether or not this particular ridgeline was considered to be major. The hearing included discussion by council members as to whether or not the City's policies which protect the ridgelines were being adhered to. Concerns were expressed over new development compounding existing hillside development, and resulting in a significant impact on ridgeline views. Further, it was stated that ridgelines should be maintained as natural and flowing, and the horizon should be void of any buildings; ridgelines should be maintained and buildings should not go over the ridgelines.9 The Agenda Statement prepared for the City Council public hearing states that the intent of City.policies is to keep the natural ridgelines surrounding Dublin undisturbed. This will help maintain the appearance of a City with open hills which buffer it from other communities, as opposed to a City with development coming or going over the hill tops.10 The Dublin City Council denied the application for the Conditional Use Permit finding the project inconsistent with City policies which regulate development on the ridgelands. Proposed development on the Hansen Hill Ranch site would impact a portion of the same ridgeline discussed in the above action. The City of Dublin set precedent by denying the Valley Christian Center Conditional Use Permit application. It is anticipated that the City would take similar action to prevent development or alteration of the ridgeline on the Hansen property. 3.7.3 MITIGATION The following mitigations are intended to diminish the visual and topographic impacts of the project on the site and the surrounding area. Prominent site ridgelands overlooking I-580 should be preserved rather than graded to accommodate residential development. Site grading should avoid alteration or disfigurement of prominent and distinct visual features on the site. By avoiding alteration of these knolls, less excavated material would have to be disposed of off-site. 86123 1. ;1 3.7 Visual Quality Residential housing units and roadways should not interfere with site ridgelines; rooflines and chimneys should be sited well below ridgelines. No residential units should be visible from I-580 near Donlan Canyon, south of the site. Residential units proposed for portions of Neighborhoods 4, 6 and 8 should be removed and sited elsewhere as feasible, diminishing the impact on important site features. Site landscaping should strive for compatibility between preserved clusters of trees and areas of grassland. Indigenous species should be used and planted to blend in with existing species. Clusters of trees could be used as a backdrop to development, to diminish the visual impact. Visually important trees and clusters should be identified and tagged in the field for preservation. Lots slated for development in these tree preservation areas should not be developed. The existing tree survey would aid in identifying visually significant trees which should be avoided during grading. A site grading plan should be developed which determines maximum cut slopes based on geotechnical evaluation of soils and slope stability. All graded slopes should be rounded and feathered into the existing terrain to avoid an artificially contoured appearance. Cuts for building pads should be placed behind structures, where feasible and the graded areas should be planted with native grasses, shrubs or groundcoverers to blend in with the adjacent landscape and to prevent erosion. The size of cut slopes should be minimized through the use of retaining walls up to three feet in height. The removal of identified specimen trees or significant tree clusters should be avoided. Design guidelines should be developed which determine appropriate building height, mass and design for various portions of the site. Design guidelines should be enforced through Homeowners' Association bylaws or CCSRs for development. For example, building height should not exceed the height of surrounding vegetation in oak woodland areas; that is, structures should not exceed 20-25 feet in height above finished grade. Guidelines should establish building colors, materials and finishes which are compatible with the surrounding landscape. These design guidelines should limit exterior colors and 86123 3- 72 3.7 Visual Quality materials to earth tones, such as grays, browns, and reddish browns. Natural finishes such as stucco, wood trim, and wood siding should be used. Styling of homes should reflect topographic considerations using terracing, split levels, and roof pitches matching natural slopes. Perimeter fencing around the site should be compatible with the rural character of the adjoining agricultural lands. Design standards should apply to accessory buildings and site features, such as proposed entrance gates, bridges and signs. Obtrusive signs should be avoided. The use of reflective finishes should not be allowed on site structures; only non-reflective glass should be used for east-facing windows. Exterior lighting or roads, common open space and view areas should be permitted for safety, however, excessive lighting should be avoided. Road widths should be decreased where possible to diminish the impact of excavation and fill on the site; to preserve vegetation; and to encourage slower road speed. All road cuts should be revegetated. Where cut slopes are too steep for vegetation, special structures should be provided to minimize grading scars, prevent erosion, and allow limited revegetation. Curbs and gutters should be rolled to maintain a rural quality. The proposed water tank should be sited as far west as possible along the prominent ridge without intruding upon the Donlan Ridge line. In addition, the tank should be sited below rather than on top of the ridgeline; grading should provide that the tank sits into the affected hillside. The proposed service road should be blended into the existing slope with grading techniques and the use of construction materials which are compatible with the existing terrain. For this report, "foreground" views are defined as those views in which detail can be perceived by the observer. The distance which comprises foreground will be considered to be from 0 to 1/4 mile from the observer. 2For this report, "middleground" views are defined as those views in which form, rather than detail, is perceived by the observer. Middleground views have been determined to be from 1/4 mile to 1/2 mile distance from the observer. 86123 ; ;3 3.7 Visual Quality 3For this report, "background" views are those characterized by texture and pattern resulting from groups of forms. Background views extend from 1/2 mile to infinity. 4Letter from Chris Craiker, Architect, to Kay Wilson; June 11, 1987. 5Communication between David Gates, Landscape Architect, and Mark Trembley, EIP, June 10, 1987. 6Letter to Kevin Gailey, City of Dublin, from Wilsey and Ham Engineering and Planning Services; June 11, 1987. 7Source: 1985 Traffic Volumes. Figures indicate average annual ADT between San Ramon Road and Palomares/Eden Canyon Road Interchange. BCity of Dublin General Plan 1985-2005. Volume I: Plan Policies; Adopted February 1985. 9Minutes of the Dublin City Council Regular Meeting, November 26, 1984. 10 Agenda Statement, City of Dublin City Council Meeting, November 26, 1984. 86123 3 -4 3.8 Public Services 3.8 PUBLIC SERVICES 3.8.1 FIRE1 Setting Fire protection is provided by the Dublin San Ramon Service District (DSRSD) Fire Department. The Department has 48 sworn dedicated staff and 12 volunteer fire fighters. The• nearest fire station is at 7494 Donahue Drive, near the corner of Amador Valley Boulevard which is approximately 0.9 miles driving distance from the site. There is some question concerning the future of the station located at 7494 Donahue Drive since it has sustained serious earthquake damage. Currently, the City of Dublin is in the process of contracting for a fire service study. The results of the study would affect fire station locations.2 The houses north of Hansen Ranch define the upper boundary of adequate response time (5 minutes) from the fire station on Donahue Drive. These homes are approximately 1.5 miles from the station. Impacts The Department would not require additional resources to provide service to the site, although a number of design mitigations would be required to reduce fire hazards to an acceptable level. Houses that would be located within 800 feet of the western boundary of the site are beyond adequate response time of the closest station. The site itself possesses a higher risk of fire than a subdivision located within more developed surroundings due to the fact that it borders on undeveloped, heavily vegetated land. At present an adequate water supply and pressure for fire fighting purposes is being studied by the DSRSD to address this issue. The Department also expressed three other concerns: some project roads exceed 12% grades; the bridge at the main entrance may be too low; the design of the entrance from Valley Christian Center might block emergency vehicle access to homes at the project's west end. '.Mitigations 1. All houses built beyond the acceptable five minute response time must be protected with an approved automatic fire extinguishing system. 86123 ;l 75 3.8 Public Services 2. Homes shall be constructed with non-combustible roofs due to the heavy vegetation in the area. 3. A permanent fuel break of 15 feet is under review for construction and maintainance behind every home which borders on undeveloped land, including homes which border on California State Department of Forestry (CDF) responsibility areas. This fuel break will be sprayed annually to prevent growth and shall be constructed to accommodate a grass fire fighting vehicle. The fuel break's grade should not exceed a maximum 20% grade and a maximum 12% grade on road sides. The break shall not have any dead ends, but shall start on a public street and end on a public street. 4. A fire trail, with a minimum width of 8 feet, shall be constructed and maintained. Proposed walking trails may be widened and jointly utilized for this purpose. 5. A study of the methods proposed to insure an adequate amount of water for firefighting operations should be submitted to and discussed with the Fire Marshall. 6. To the greatest extent possible, project roads should be redesigned so that maximum grade does not exceed 12% (in no instance shall grade exceed 15%). The length of grade, degree of horizontal curve and design of roadway directly preceding or following such grade shall be subject to police, fire and City engineer's review and approval. 7. The entrance to the property from Valley Christian Center must be redesigned to insure fire protection access to homes at the project's west end. 8. The bridge planned for the development's main entrance must have an unobstructed height of 13' 611. 3.8.2 POLICE Settin The Alameda County Sheriff's Department provides police protection to the vicinity of the proposed project and to all other unincorporated areas of the County. The site is presently undeveloped and exerts a minimal demand on Sheriff Department resources. 86123 3 "n 3.8 Public Services Impact Upon annexation, the Dublin Police Department would serve the proposed project, and the Department does anticipate needing additional resources to do so. On the basis of one officer per 1,000 residents, one additional officer would be needed.4 The present site plans raise some public safety issues with the Police Department. These issues revolve around design features of the project that create high risk to the safety of person and property and create difficulties in responding to an emergency. Residences at the east end of the proposed project can be easily accessed by burglars who could approach undetected along the creek bottom. The lack of fencing around these residences also poses a problem. There is also no acceptable emergency access to the riparian and picnic areas of the site and it is anticipated that these areas would receive high usage. :However, an emergency access road is being considered along the north side of Martin Canyon Creek. The Department would like to see the project redesigned to reduce these design related risks and response problems as outlined in the mitigation section below. Mitigation Section 3.9.3 Fiscal covers the cost impacts/units of the additional officer. The Police Department requests the redesign of the proposed project's site plan to reduce design related public safety risks and emergency response difficulties as follows: 1. The access to the townhouses located at the east end of the development should be protected by a fence that covers all sides. Access along the creek that flows through this area should also be restricted by a fence or similar device. 2. The trails to the riparian and picnic area should be eight feet wide (excluding the shoulder) to allow access by emergency vehicles. Access to the trail system should be controlled to minimize unauthorized use. Access points should not be via narrow lanes between houses. An all weather road at or near the creek bottom would be needed to patrol and effect a rescue in the area. The road should be connected to the top of the paved loop road, and a realignment of the intersection at the base of the looproad is suggested. 86123 3-77 3.8 Public Services 3.8.3 SCHOOLS Setting The proposed project site would be served by the Murray School District for both elementary school and junior high school and by the Amador Valley Joint Union High School District (subsequently referenced as the Amador Valley District). The District operates five elementary schools (k-6) and one intermediate school (7-8). The Neilson School located on Amarillo street is the closest to the site. The District has closed three other elementary schools due to decreasing enrollments. One of these, the Dublin School, is adjacent to the I-680 freeway and is leased to a private school. The District has no plans to open any of the closed schools in the foreseeable future. There is one junior high school in the District, Wells Intermediate School. All children from Neilson graduate to Wells and then to Dublin High School in the Amador Valley School District. Table 3-3 summarizes the District's current enrollments and capacities. Neilsen School has a capacity of 707 (647 in permanent facilities and 60 additional students in portable classrooms). The portable classrooms are currently being used for remedial reading and computer classes. The current enrollment, as of June 23, 1987, is 599 students or 108 short of capacity.6 Space is available at Neilsen School for additional portable classrooms. Murray School District has experienced a falling enrollment during the past five years and a gradual decline in the school age population. The District has recently seen this decline stop and begin to reverse itself. There are no indications that the school population will increase dramatically over the next five years. The District does not have a development impact fee. The Amador Valley District operates three high schools.7'8 Table 3-3 below summarizes current enrollments and capacities. High School enrollments are presently 80% of capacity district-wide, exceeding capacity at Amador High School, nearing capacity at Foothill High School, and amounting to 47% of capacity at Dublin High School. Enrollments are expected to increase over the next twenty years. Residential and commercial impact fees of $1.50 per square foot of residential space and $0.25 per square foot of commercial space as authorized under recent State legislation (AB 2926) are scheduled to take effect within the District on August 3, 1987.9 These fees (approximately $950,000) are due and payable prior to issuance of building permits. 86123 3-78 3.8 Public Services Impacts The Murray School District's average K-8 student generation rate is 0.2 students per dwelling unit. At this rate, the District can accommodate children from an additional 500 homes. The proposed Hansen Ranch project would consist of 248 single-family dwellings and 34 duplexes for a total of 282 dwellings. These dwellings would generate a total of 56 students. Nielsen School currently has an excess capacity of 108 students. Absorption of the 56 new students would leave Nielsen School with a surplus of 52 places. North of the proposed Hansen Ranch project approximately 600 homes (297 single family residences and 303 multi-family dwellings) have the necessary entitlements for immediate construction, but have not been occupied to date. The total number of students that would need school placements from those 600 dwelling units would be 120 (68 more than the Nielsen School's capacity after absorption of the 56 new students from the Hansen Ranch project).10 The Nielsen School is currently utilizing portable classrooms with a capacity of 60 persons and has room on the grounds for more portable classrooms to handle the 68 person surplus. The District does not anticipate significant adverse impacts from the proposed project given the existing surplus capacity and space for portable classrooms at the Neilsen School, as well as the two unused schools. Transportation (busing) and student safety difficulties could arise. The severity of the problems and their solutions depend on the total number of students from the Hansen Ranch project and the 600 homes north of the Hansen property needing places in the Nielsen School.11 The Amador Valley Joint Union High School District would serve the proposed project's students at the grade 9-12 level. Students would attend Dublin High School. The proposed project would generate approximately 89 students at this level.12 These additional students would represent an increase of 11% over current enrollments at Dublin High School and utilize 9% of its present surplus capacity. According to a recent study prepared for the District, residential fees would only cover on average between a quarter to a third of the projected costs of facilities required to serve projected enrollments from cumulative development over the next twenty years. Additional revenue collected from commercial development would not change the situation, as projected total revenues are only 6% of projected revenues from residential development.13 86123 3-79 3.8 Public Services TABLE 3-2 HIGH SCHOOL CAPACITY AND ENROLLMENTS AMADOR VALLEY JOINT UNION HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT Surplus School Capacity Enrollments) Capacity Dublin High School 1,800 843 957 Foothill High School 1,477 1,366 111 Amador High School 1,980 2,003 -23 Total 5,257 4,212 1,045 1Average enrollments, 1986-87. Source: EIP Associates, Amador Valley Joint Union High School District. Beverly Lazare, Administrative Assistant, Superintendent's Office, Amador Valley Joint Union High School District, telephone conversation, July 1, 1987. TABLE 3-3 CURRENT ENROLLMENT AND CAPACITY MURRAY SCHOOL DISTRICT Surplus School Enrollments Capacityl Capacity Donlon 653 1,052 399 Fredrickson 535 . 693 158 Lydicsen 421 844 423 Murray 404 647 243 Neilson 599 707 108 Wells Intermediate 793 750 -43 Total 3,405 4,693 1,288 1Capacities are permanent facilities plus 60 spots from portable facilities for the Neilson School and 120 portable spots for the Wells Intermediate School. Source: EIP Associates, Murray School District. 86123 3 x0 3.8 Public Services Mitigations Project students would be served by existing capacity of the Dublin High School, and no further mitigation other than payment of the District's development fee would be required by law for the Amador Valley District. Cumulative impacts on the Murray School District would require additional facilities, transportation (busing), and safety programs. The District could implement an impact fee and this would be the extent of mitigation required by law. See Section 3.9.3, Schools, for a further discussion of the fiscal aspects of school impacts. 3.8.4 SOLID WASTE 14 Setting Solid waste collection in Dublin is provided under exclusive contract by the Oakland Scavenger Company. They collect approximately 18,000 tons per year within the City of Dublin.15 Collected waste is delivered to the Altamont Landfill located east of Livermore for disposal. The landfill received 1,531,000 tons of solid waste in calendar year 1986 (260-day year e.g., 5 days per week). This landfill is estimated to have a remaining capacity of 29 to 34 years.16 Impact The proposed project would generate approximately 562 tons of solid waste per year.17 This would be a 3% increase in solid waste collected within Dublin and a 0.04% increase in the solid waste stream to the Altamont Landfill.'The Oakland Scavenger Company has indicated that it has the capacity to provide service to the proposed project. Mitigation None would be required. 3.8.5 WATER 18 Settin Water service in the vicinity of the proposed project is provided by the Dublin San Ramon Service District (DSRSD). To obtain the water service, the Hansen parcel would need to 86123 3-3! WATER ZONES / SUPPLY MAP FIGURE 3-18 -� �•�, ��.-�-��� �� — 1 SOURCE: DAVID GATES&ASSOCIATES (l \� .•�- �C'�`+� '�- ����, �\�J _` 'y� 0 600. 1200 1800 )111 �J NO Service Area Zone 4 Strata Water Pressour Zone < Minimum Elevation Suitable for Zone 4 Tank _ 11 Id i* 11 Iii 1.• ,i l��,".' - �I-)�'l� fJ�\�'j, �.` `l 14 (Elevation 1015 ft.) p � _ � �.\,•.� --� r � _ . �`' �. � � ,ty ® 0% to 30% Slope with Zone 4 Strata -" 'i%�";71r,�r--�J �^^�.. � \l �(.�j�,,�� � \\\''sue_' '��• \ e �`7 Preferred Zone 4 Tank Site I //11'i ^;\\� \� / I�Cr�\i''Uf���`. �_�� �, r�l�� \' Lo 80 JI f C_ ,\. 'J l�« I I; 1 '' � i\ Possible Alternate Zone 4 X1`\\\ �� - j, J !' \ Tank Sites I 1 \.� \ 1 1 \ -- cn1 %aa Ridge Line MAKIN C� �Z l�-C ��.)•\r ( 1 „\ 'UDbIgI III ' • �' '/ `�L ll _._ r �,l- `� �^YO7ri l n �_� \-`\-\_ �wrJ Y \�1\ -�•r\`- � l to cam_ (I \ '�•,-�•''!�Ij�i�i �\1'l`.:.r%=�L✓— iL�^% ,;�IU�%r Jill=` . - �-\,' ,- �J 1(/ dlii':1.�=-✓'ill 11' •,.1V/�.-.:_-f�.1(��� � _ -- ? , � , /��.. - - o N m 3.8 Public Services be annexed to the district. The district is in the process of completing a Water Master Plan which includes the Hansen parcel in its projections of future aevelopment and demand. The District has a number of service zones due to variation in elevation within the District. Prior to the development of Silvergate, Bordeaux Estates, and the Estate Homes project at the county line, Valley Christian Center began the Zone III strata by installing a temporary Redwood tank and a temporary pumping station with which to raise water from Zone III into Valley Christian Center's tank. A four-party agreement including the above mentioned but not including the Hansen Ranch property was reached with the DSRSD. The agreement required that a bonafide permanent Zone III reservoir, pumping stations, and pipeline network be constructed to provide a proper level of water service to the Zone III strata, and that the Center's temporary facilities be dismantled. At the present there is a 12 inch transmission pipe across the Hansen property. Impacts The development of the proposed project would generate a demand for 131,570 gallons per day of water.19 The District does not anticipate problems meeting the daily water demands of the proposed project. Approximately 115 acres of the Hansen parcel are within the Zone III strata and thus can be served from the present system. In addition, approximately 33 acres lie above the Zone III strata requiring Zone IV infrastructure be constructed before water can be moved to serve the area. Most of the Zone IV acreage lies in the southwestern part of the Hansen Ranch property. The Zone IV strata requires a totally new infrastructure consisting of reservoirs, pumping stations and delivery systems, which would be located on the Blaylock property directly west of the Hansen Ranch. The development of needed facilities must be arranged between the project sponsors and the DSRSD. The project sponsor would be required to connect water facilities to the DSRSD system and to install these facilities at his expense in accordance with District specifications. In addition, the project sponsor would be responsible for some portion of the District's system improvements to Zone III and Zone IV if these are not included in the system hookup fee (see Section 3.7, page 3-67 for further discussion of water tank placement). 86123 3-83 3.8 Public Services Mitigations Mitigation would involve the payments outlined in the previous paragraph. 3.8.6 WASTEWATER 20 Setting The DSRSD maintains a sewer system which, as of August 26, 1987, had 500 sewer permits available. The Livermore-Amador Valley Water Management Agency (LAVMA) is currently engaged in plant improvements which would increase plant capacity from 9.5 million gallons per day (MGD) to 11.5 MGD. Plant expansion should be completed in the middle of 1988. At the completion of expansion, 5,500 more single-family equivalents (DUE) would become available to the District. Of the 5,500 DUE's, 1,136 will be repaid to Livermore and 1,000 DUE's would be made available to the Santa Rosa Rehabilitation Center, while the remaining 3,364 DUE's would be available for developers.21 Hansen Ranch project would have to be annexed to the DSRSD to receive services. Sewer allotment in the District is on a first-come first-served basis determined by the order in which projects file final maps. If the District issues all permits available, any future development would wait for the next LAVMA expansion.22 Impacts The Hansen Ranch project will generate approximately 112,000 gallons of wastewater.23 This would be an increase of approximately 1.13% of the existing treatment capacity and would utilize 7% of the increased capacity. The closest hook-up is on Martin Canyon Street, a cul-de-sac. The line would run downhill to the Martin Canyon Creek and run along the creek to Silvergate Drive where the sewer line would hook into the main system. Another possibility for connection with the main system would involve running a line from the upper part of the parcel downhill to the creek, along the creek and connecting with the main system at Short Road. For middle level collection the line would run along the project's main road (Hansen Hill Road) down along the creek to Silvergate Drive. There is a possibility that approximately 12 acres in the southwest section of the proposed site could not easily be sewered by gravity because they slope away from Martin Canyon Creek. This area would require pumps to elevate sewage over the hill and into the Martin Canyon Creek line. 86123 3-84 3.8 Public Services Associated with service provision are hook-up costs to the DSRSD. These costs would need to be determined for both Zone III and Zone IV. Additionally, the project sponsor would be responsible for the cost of all on- and off-site improvements that are not planned by the District. Mitigations The cost of sanitary sewers necessary to provide service would accrue to the project sponsor. All material and workmanship for the sewers and appurtenances must conform to all requirements of the officially adopted sewerage code of the District and would be subject to field inspection by the District. Any necessary relocation of existing public utilities would be accomplished at no expense to Dublin San Ramon Service District.24 Mitigation would also involve payment of District hook-up fees and financial responsibility for on- and off-site improvements above and beyond planned District improvement. 3.8.7 GAS, ELECTRICITY, COMMUNICATIONS Setting Pacific Gas and Electric currently services the Dublin area_ with gas and electricity, and Pacific Bell is a large provider of service in the area. Cable television is available through Viacom Cablevision. Impacts Pacific Gas and Electricity would provide gas and electricity to the project through the extension of existing facilities. These would be made under the rules on file with the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) and any relocation of these facilities would be done at the developer's expense.25 Pacific Bell expects to be in a position to provide telephone service to applicants in the Hansen Ranch project. These services would be provided in accordance with requirements of and at rates and charges specified in tariffs on file with the CPUC. This project would be served with underground distribution facilities. As part of this service the customer on his/her property will be responsible for: 1) furnishing, installing and maintaining conduit for the service connection wire or cable if Pacific Bell requires it; and 2) providing or 86123 3-85 3.8 Public Services paying the cost of the underground supporting structure (usually it is a trench) if Pacific Bell determines buried wire or cable is to be used for the service connection.26 Viacom Cablevision has stated that they can adequately furnish television cable service to the residents of the Hansen Ranch project.27 Mitigations The project sponsor would pay for any expenses incurred through relocation of PG&E facilities for the proposed project. The homeowner would pay for underground conduit and any other facilities deemed necessary by Pacific Telephone for providing service to the dwelling units. 3.8.8 PARKS 28 Settin The City of Dublin currently has a total of about 39 acres of parkland, and is in the process of adding approximately 11 more acres by August of 1988. The existing 39 acres are Shannon Park and Community Center (10.0 acres), Mape Park (3 acres), Dublin Sports Center (23 acres), and Volley Community Swim Center (3 acres). These sites are all maintained by the Dublin San Ramon Services District (DSRSD). The City of Dublin currently provides recreational activities at the parks in Dublin that are maintained by DSRSD. Dublin is also developing three parks: Stage Coach Park, approximately .75 acre to be on line by January, 1988; Kilb Park consisting of approximately 5 acres with a completion date of March, 1988; and Dolan Park, another 5-acre park to be completed in two phases, Phase 1 in March, 1988 and Phase II by August, 1988. The parks being developed by Dublin will be maintained by Dublin. In addition, the City of Dublin and the DSRSD are negotiating the transfer of all park maintenance in Dublin to the City of Dublin. Additionally, the City of Dublin has about 98 acres of undeveloped open space, 90 in Dougherty Hills Open Space and 8 in East Dougherty Hills Park.29 The nearest park to the proposed project is Mape Park on Plata Way adjacent to the Neilsen School. The General Plan does not contain provisions for additional parks in this part of town and does not state any service standards. The City has a parkland 86123 3 86 3.8 Public Services dedication/in-lieu fee payment requirement as part of its subdivision ordinance that applies to residential developments. The parkland dedication is 0.011 acres per unit on units with lot size 5,000 square feet or larger and 0.009 acres per unit on units with lots smaller than 5,000 square feet.30 The in-lieu fee is calculated as the market value of the required acreage at the time of final map filing. Impacts The City's Subdivision Ordinance would require approximately three acres of parkland dedication or equivalent in-lieu fee payment from the proposed project.31 Funds from the- in-lieu fee payment can be used for acquisition or development purposes. Mitigation The project sponsor would need to comply with the park dedication requirement of the City's Subdivision Ordinance. Increased property tax revenues could be used to partially offset the annual costs. 1Chief Phillip Phillips, Dublin San Ramon Service District, telephone conversation, June 23, 1987; Tom Hathcox, Fire Marshall, Dublin San Ramon Service District, letter dated June 2, 1987. 2Chief Harold Ritter, Dublin San Ramon Service District, telephone conversation, September 19, 1987. 3Sergeant DeFranco, Crime Prevention, Dublin Police Department, telephone conversation, June 22, 1987. 4Phillip S. Molina, Fiscal Officer, City of Dublin, memorandum dated 8/13/87. 5Heinz Gewing, Assistant Superintendent, Murray School District, telephone conversation, June 22 & 23, 1987. 6Ibid. 7Pleasanton Joint School District/Amador Valley Joint Union High School District, Long Range Facilities Planning - Part 1, prepared by Land Planning Consultants, May 22, 1987. 86123 3-87 3.8 Public Services BBeverly Lazare, Administrative Assistant, Assistant Superintendent's Office, Amador Valley Joint Union High School District, telephone conversation, July 1, 1987. 9Amador Valley Joint Union High School District, AB 2926 Development Fee Implementation Study, prepared by Urbanplan, March 1987. 10 Information from Kevin Gailey, remarks on preliminary administrative draft (date). Approximately 600 new dwelling units (297 single-family and 303 multiple family) have the necessary entitlements for immediate construction, but have not been occupied to date. The following tracts are contiguous to the proposed Hansen Ranch project and will potentially impact the Nielsen School: o Tracts 5072, 5073 and 5074 (Bordeaux Estates) have only 12+ of 175 single family residence (SFR) units occupied. o Tract 5777 (Pulte Homes) has approval for 25 SFR units, but no permits to date. o Tract 5410 (Silvergate Highlands) has 129 multi-family residences (MFR) units under construction. These units are condominiums. o Tract 5388 (Kildara) has been issued building permits for 174 MFR units. These units are condominiums. o Tract 4929 has 5 or 6 of 8 SFR units unoccupied to date. o Tract 5402 (Vista Green) has none of the 88 SFR units occupied prior to 7/15/87. o Tract 4930 (Estate homes) still has 15+ units as yet unoccupied. 11 Richard C. Ambrose, City Manager, City of Dublin, meeting, 9/8/87. 1234 townhomes at a medium density SGF (student generation factor) of .25; 36 patio single-family units at a low medium density SGF of .26; 183 regular single-family units at a very low density SGF of .33; and 29 custom homes at an estate density SGF of .34. SGFs from: Amador Valley Joint Union High School District, AB 2926 Development Fee Implementation Study, prepared by UrbanPlan, March 1987, p. 5, Table B. 13 Op. Cit. 14 Paul Rankin, Office of Dublin City Manager, telephone communication, April 2, 1987. 15 Mike Crissetti, Land Fill Division Manager, Oakland , Scavenger Company, telephone communication, July 7, 1987. 16 Preliminary Draft, Solid Waste Management Plan, Alameda County, California, April 24, 1987. 86123 3.68 3.8 Public Services 17Solid waste total figured on basis of 212 small lots * 10#/du/day, 36 estate lots 20#/du/day, and 34 duplexes * 7#/du/day, For a total of 1,123,470 pounds/year or 562 tons/year. 18 Barbara Darlington, Engineering Division, Dublin San Ramon Service District, telephone conversation June 22 -= 23, 1987; letter of May 20, 1987 from Barbara Darlington; letter of June 8, 1987 from Emil Kattan, Assistant Civil Engineer, Dublin San Ramon Service District. 19 Factors used were developed from Water Master Plan Studies authored by EIP Associates. They are 552 gpd/du for the 29 custom homes and 183 single family homes, 252 gpd/du on the 36 patio single family units, and 161 gpd/du on the 34 townhomes. 20 Emil Kattan, Assistant Civil Engineer, Dublin San Ramon Service District, letter of.June 8, 1987 and telephone conversation of June 22, 1987; also telephone conversation with Wilsey Haur, Project Engineer, June 22, 1987. 21The villages of Alamo Creek, File No. 85-041.1 and 041.2, Expanded Initial Study, pg. 53, 1986. 22 Barbara Darlington, Office Engineer, Dublin San Ramon Service District, telephone communication, August 26, 1987. 23 Average dry weather wastewater flow estimated at 85% of total water demand. Emil Kattan, Assistant Chief Engineer, Dublin San Ramon Services District, telephone communication, June 22, 1987. 24Ibid. 25Richard Fetro, Acting Pleasanton Manager, PG&E, letter of March 12, 1987 to Mr. Sid Ceratas. 26 Dario Lorenzana, Engineer, Pacific Bell, letter of May 4, 1987 to Wilssy and Ham. 27 Bud Hartwig, Engineering Supervisor, Viacom Cablevision, letter of March 10, 1987. 28 Diane Lowart, Recreation Director, City of Dublin, telephone communication, June 21, 1987 and August 26, 1987. 29 Howard Yamamoto, Park Maintenance Superintendent, Dublin San Ramon Service District, telephone conservation, August 8, 1987, and Diane Lowart, Recreation Director, City of Dublin, Memorandum, September 1, 1987 to Larry Tong, Planning Director, City of Dublin. 86123 3-89 3.8 Public Services 30248 SFR units x 0.011 acre/unit - 34 MFR units x 0.009 acres/unit = 3.034 acres. 31 City of Dublin, General Plan 1985 - 2005, Vol 1, Plan Policies adopted February 11, 1985. 86123 3 90 3.9 Fiscal Analysis 3.9 FISCAL ANALYSIS 3.9.1 INTRODUCTION This section analyzes the proposed project's net fiscal impact to the City of Dublin, Murray School District, and Amador Valley High School District. Capital and operating revenues and costs are estimated and a cost/revenue balance is calculated. Marginal costs, the incremental costs of additional resources, are used when available; otherwise, average costs are used. Dollar amounts are calculated in current (1987) dollars. All projections of project revenue and costs are based upon full occupancy at buildout. Currently, the project site is located in Alameda County, but would be annexed by the City of Dublin. 3.9.2 SETTING The proposed project consists of two parcels, assessor parcel 941-0110-01-09 currently assessed at $242,402 and assessor parcel 941-0110-02 currently assessed at $918. The two parcels have a total assessed value of $243,320. The 1% property tax generated by the site in fiscal year 1986-1987 is $2,433. The distribution of the one percent property tax depends upon the Tax Code Areas in which the parcels are located. The parcels are in tax rate area 72009 and 72001 respectively. The distribution of the current 1% property:tax revenue is presented below in Table 3-4. Alameda County General Fund receives 44.76% of the 1% property tax which amounts to approximately $1,090 while the Murray School District for the k-8 grades receives 24.26% or approximately $590 per year from the proposed site. 3.9.3 IMPACTS The primary services provided to the site by the City of Dublin are police protection, recreation programs and street maintenance. The DSRSD provides water, sewer, park maintenance, and fire protection services. Revenue One Time Revenues. The proposed project would generate revenues from building, plan check, utility hookup, and other fees paid by the developer prior to obtaining the required building permits. These fees are structured to offset the costs of providing the respective services. The Dublin San Ramon Service District charges a one-time annexation fee of 86123 3- 91 3.9 Fiscal Analysis TABLE 3-4 DISTRIBUTION OF HANSEN SITE'S CURRENT PROPERTY TAX REVENUE (1986-87) Share Agency (%)1 Revenue Alameda County General Fund 44.76 $ 11089 Educational Agencies2 39.49 960 County Library .46 11 Flood Control 2.97 72 BAAQCB .27 7 County Mosquito Abatement .17 4 BART .79 19 East Bay Regional Park 3*,77 92 Valley Community Services 7.19 175 Alameda County Resource Center .03 1 Total 99.99 $ 2,433 1Share factors round from eight digits so do not add to 100%. 2The Murray School District receives 12.80% and Amador Valley Joint Union High School District receives 11.45%. Source: EIP Associates, Alameda County Auditor/Controller's Office. $1,000. Other one time fees charged by the DSRSD are a hook-up cost of $3,000 per dwelling unit (du), a fire fee of $600 per du, a water fee (meter) of $256 per du, an $830 per du and a $200 per du for the District. This one time fee total $4,486 per du or $1,265,052 for the proposed project would be paid the DSRSD. These fees are based on Zone I and II costs and still need to be determined for Zone III and IV. The Murray School District and the Amador Valley Joint Union High School District do not charge an impact fee at this time; but an impact fee of $1.50 per square foot on residential space and $0.25 per square foot on commercial space will be levied on new development beginning August 3, 1987 in the Amador Valley District. The impact fee for the Amador Valley District would amount to approximately $950,000 (see Section- 3.8.3, Schools). 86123 3-92 3.9 Fiscal Analysis Property Tax. Development of the proposed project will increase the property tax base on the site. The total worth of the project at buildout would be $78,425,000 and the one percent property tax on that amount would be approximately $784,250. See Table 3-5 below for buildout value by type of house. Of the $784,250 the Alameda County General Fund collects 44.76% and the Murray School District collects 24.26% or $334,917 and $190,260 respectively. The increase in property tax revenues for various service agencies will change with annexation from the current distribution (see Section 3.1, Setting). This is because the City will assume responsibility for certain services and will therefore receive a portion of the tax from the site that it does not now receive. The allocation to other agencies will be adjusted accordingly. In order to estimate the future tax distribution, data from a tax code area in the City of Dublin adjacent to the proposed site has been obtained. The distribution is shown in Table 3-6. As shown in Table 3-2, the City of Dublin would receive about 6.94% ($54,300) of the 1% property tax. Since the tax area used in Table 3-2 is one of several in the City of Dublin, a more conservative estimate would be achieved using a city-wide average property tax rate of 6.29% ($49,329) of the property's assessed value. DSRSD would receive 21.33% ($166,000). Educational agencies would receive a total of 29.04% ($227,000) of which the Murray School District would be allocated about $100,000 and the Amador Valley Joint Union High School District would be allocated approximately $89,000. Sales Tax. The City of Dublin receives sales tax at the rate of 1% of taxable sales. Assuming that 100% of all City income was spent within the City, 49% of the sales in Dublin occurred from City residents. The estimates of sales tax from the proposed project are based upon an average sales tax revenue factor of $111.80 per resident population.2 At buildout, the proposed project would generate approximately $100,620 in sales tax revenue. 86123 3-93 3.9 Fiscal Analysis TABLE 3-5 ESTIMATED DEVELOPMENT VALUE Dwelling Unit Type Number DU Median Price Total Value Patio Homes 36 $ 205,000 $ 7,380,000 Single-Family Detached 183 300,000 54,900,000 Custom Homes 29 375,000 10,875,000 Town Houses 34 155,000 5,270,000 Total $78,425,000 TABLE 3-6 DISTRIBUTION OF INCREASED PROPERTY TAX REVENUE Share Agency (%), Revenue Alameda County 31.04 $242,700 Dublin San Ramon Services District 21.23 166,000 City of Dublin 6.94 54,000 Educational Agencies 29.04 227,100 County Library 5.00 39,100 Flood Control 2.52 19,700 Air Pollution Control District 0.23 1,800 Mosquito Abatement 0. 15 1,200 BART 0.67 5,200 East Bay Regional Park District 3.20 25,000 Alameda County Resource Conservation 0.03 235 Total 100.00% $782,000 lUses City Tax Code Area 26001 as proxy for distribution after annexation. 21% of total development value from Table 3-2, less current assessed value from Table 3- 1. May not sum to total due to rounding. Source: EIP Associates; Alameda County Auditor's Office. 86123 3-34 3.9 Fiscal Analysis State Subventions. The City would also receive subventions from the state based on the increase in population on the site. Revenue estimates for the Hansen Ranch project would be $29,880 for the motor vehicle in-lieu fee and $4,923 for the cigarette tax for a total of $34,803 collectively.3 The other major revenue source applicable to Hansen Ranch is the utility franchise tax charged to electric, gas, garbage and cable television franchisers. This tax is charged to households and would be approximately $11,300 for the Hansen Ranch proposed project.4 Costs City of Dublin. Costs would be incurred for providing police, parkland development and maintenance, recreation, street maintenance, and general government services. The Police Department generally identifies its staffing standards as requiring one officer per 1,000 residents within the City. The addition of 900 new residents would incur costs at the rate of .9 times the cost of one police officer. The mean cost per officer is $62,555, yielding total police costs associated with the project of $56,000.5 The City's Parks and Recreation Department would incur capital costs for the acquisition and development of the three acres of parkland already identified in the public services section. Operation and maintenance costs would be incurred on an annual basis when the three acres were developed. Maintenance costs would amount to $37,848 per year for the 3 acres.6 The average costs of providing recreation programs is $20.83 per resident based upon 1985-86 general fund expenditures, and this factor yields annual recreation costs to the City of $19,100. The project would also generate street maintenance costs for the city of Dublin. These average $5,200 per road mile including both engineering and street maintenance costs.? The proposed project would build approximately 2.25 miles of new roads and this would represent an increased annual street maintenance cost of $11,740. These estimates are based on flat roads and could increase on the Hilly Roads of the proposed project. The City would also incur street light maintenance costs. The proposed project would require 40 new street lights (2.25 miles with one light every 300 feet). Maintenance for each light would cost $14.00, or a total of $6,653 per year. The cost per household on the basis of the 1986-87 budget was $19.00/household. With 282 new units, the Hansen Ranch proposed project would yield revenues of $5,358, less the'per year costs of $6,653, leaving a deficit of $1,295, which would be spread over the rest of the district. The difference is approximately 1% of total cost or about a 14% increase per year per family for the street lamps.8 86123 3.95 3.9 Fiscal Analysis The City could also incur an increase in general government costs. These include those of financial and personnel administration, the executive and legislative bodies and their staffs, electronic data processing, city or county clerk and attorney, courts, and maintenance of public buildings. Frequently, all costs for pensions and insurance will be allocated to the general government budget as well. General government costs are not typically sensitive to small changes in population. The proposed project would add approximately 900 residents to the City's population, an increase of 4.2%. Providing general government services to these additional residents would not be expected to require additional resources. Thus, it would be expected that the marginal general government costs, that is, the increase in general government costs associated with the proposed project, would be zero. However, an estimate of an increase can be made using average costs. General government costs amounted to $928,127 in the City's 1986-87 budget. A 4.2% increase in the City's population could then be expected to increase general government costs by $38,893 annually on average.9 Dublin San Ramon Service District. The DSRSD Fire Department expects to provide services to the proposed project without requiring additional equipment (see Section 8.0, Public Services). Thus, the marginal cost of fire protection for the proposed project would be zero. Water and sewer service would require new facilities. Thus, capital expenditures as well as annual operation and maintenance costs would be incurred. Additional park maintenance cost would not be incurred because any new parks required due to the proposed project would be maintained by the City of Dublin, not the DSRSD.10 Schools. Neither school district would incur capital costs to serve the proposed project. Increased enrollments would increase annual costs. Cumulative impacts would require increased capital expenditures for facilities in the Murray School District. Cost/Revenue Balance City of Dublin. The City would incur capital costs for police services, street maintenance and general government. The capital costs of increased' parkland would be offset by the project sponsor's dedication or in lieu fee payment. However, park maintenance costs could be incurred. 86123 3-96 3.9 Fiscal Analysis Table 3-7 summarizes the net fiscal impact to the City of Dublin anticipated from the proposed project. The cost/revenue balance expected from the proposed project would be approximately $28,879 of revenues exceeding costs. Dublin San Ramon Service District. The Fire Department can provide service with existing capacity. The direct capital costs for water and sewer service would be paid by the project sponsor. Indirect capital costs would be recovered through hookup charges to other new development. Annual water and sewer costs would be covered through annual user charges. The net fiscal impact to the DSRSD would be an increase of approximately $166,000 in property tax revenue. Dublin and the DSRSD are presently negotiating the possible transfer of park maintenance responsibilities and costs from the DSRSD to Dublin. Schools. The net capital fiscal impact to the Districts would be zero for the Murray School District and positive impact fees of approximately $953,000 for the Amador Valley Joint Union High School District. The increase in property tax revenues allocated to both Districts would first go to the State to be redistributed for annual costs based on average daily attendance records. However, the impact fees projected for collection from cumulative development would fund only one-quarter to one-third of projected facility costs. Therefore, sources of financing should be pursued for the balance. State funding is available through the Office of Local Assistance. Sources of local funding in addition to development impact fees are general obligation bonds or parcel taxes, both assessed on local property, or a Mello-Roos Community Facilities District. Given the general opposition to increased property taxes and the two-thirds voter approval district-wide that is .required for general obligation bonds or parcel taxes, the Mello-Roos Community Facilities District would appear to be the most promising. It requires two-thirds voter approval, but can be formed for a specific subarea of the District. 3.9.4 MITIGATION The project sponsor would be required to pay the residential development impact fee of the Amador Valley Joint Union High School and comply with the City of Dublin's Park Dedication Ordinance. Due to the large positive net balance, further mitigation would not be recommended. The Amador Valley Joint Union High School District would need to arrange the balance of local financing for its facility needs arising from cumulative impacts over the next twenty years if State funds are not practically available. 86123 3-97 3.9 Fiscal Analysis TABLE 3-7 ANNUAL FISCAL IMPACTS TO THE CITY OF DUBLIN FROM THE HANSEN RANCH PROJECT REVENUE Property Taxes $ 49,329 Sales Taxes 100,618 Subventions 34,803 Franchise Tax 11,272 Streetlight Maintenance 5,358 Total $ 201,380 COSTS Police $ 60,819 Parks 37,848 Recreation 19,100 Street Maintenance 11,470 General Government 38,893 Streetlight Maintenance 6,653 Total $ 174,783 COST/REVENUE BALANCE $ 26,597 Source: EIP Associates. Note: Data for footnotes 1-6 comes from a memorandum from Phillip S. Molina, dated August 13, 1987. 1 W have used a tax area with a tax rate for the City of Dublin near the proposed site of 6.94% while Mr. Molina has used a citywide average tax rate of 6.24%. This average more accurately defines the tax rate. 2Sales tax was figured on the following basis. Assuming that 100% of all City income was spent within the City would mean that 49% of the sales in Dublin occurred from City residents. This equals $111.80 per resident assuming the total population to be 21,477. Total expected increase in sales tax revenue can be determined by using the population 86123 3-98 3.9 Fiscal Analysis figures for Hansen Ranch (900) times sales tax revenue per person ($111.80). This equals $100,618. Per memo from Phillip 'Molina dated November 16, 1987. 3,Based on a 187-188 league of California Cities report and the State Controller's office estimates, per capita factors of $33.20 for the motor vehicle in-lieu fee and $5.47 for the cigarette tax were established. 4Franchise tax revenue is figured on the following: 1986-87 taxes for gas of $29,003; electric of $114,820; garbage totalling $57,157; and CATV equalling $68,010. The total taxes equalled $268,990, divided by resident population of 21,477, generating a tax of $12.52 per person. This capita tax ($12.52) times 900 new residents yields $11,272. 5Cost of $62,555 includes secretarial coverage, rent, utilities, equipment, salary, benefits, etc. Total proposed project cost .9 x 62,555 = $56,000. 6The Dublin San Ramon Services District currently has a budget for parks of approximately $690,000. The DSRSD is responsible for maintaining about 31 acres of park in Dublin and about 32 acres of park in San Ramon or about 63 acres total. The average per acre cost for park maintenance is $690,000 : 63 = $10,952/acre. The City of Dublin Budget for 1986-87 requests $31,800 in maintenance fees for 10 acres of park for three months. This yields a per acre average over one year's time of $127,200 : 10 acres _ $12,720/acre/year. The City of Dublin is negotiating with the DSRSD for transfer of DSRSD's Dublin Park maintenance responsibilities to the City of Dublin. It is estimated by Hughes, Heiss., and Associates that park maintenance, after transfer,.would cost the City $391,100. Total park acreage involved in the transfer equals 31 acres. Cost per acre in this case would be $391,000 : 31 acres = $12,616/acres/year. For the purposes of this EIR we have used the $12,616 acre figure. Telephone conservation with Howard Yamamoto, DSRSD, Park Maintenance Superintendant, August 28, 1987. 7Steven Loweree, Maintenance Superintendant, City of Dublin, telephone communication, October 19, 1987. The lack of comparable engineering and expenditure data on road maintenance costs forecloses the possibility of accurately estimating the higher road maintenance costs that could be associated with roads traversing hillsides as in the case of the proposed project. An examination of one anecdotal case, the Town of Los Altos Hills, revealed average street maintenance costs of $2,540/mile, 50% lower than Dublin's average for its flat roads. One standard method of conservatively estimating higher maintenance costs for hill roads would be to pick a factor to use for increasing the estimate for flat roads. A range can be developed in this manner if one factor is used to approximate a "most likely" case, and another is used to approximate a level of costs which in all likelihood would not be exceeded by .the new hill roads. The increment of higher cost can then be compared to the annual cost/revenue balance. If a factor of 0.5 is used to estimate the "most likely" case, and a factor of 1 is used to estimate the highest case, the increment of additional street maintenance costs to account for the hilly terrain would be an additional $3,600 to $5,200 per mile or an additional $5,850 - $11,740 annually for the proposed project. This represents 22% to 44% of the annual cost/revenue balance calculated for the proposed project in Table 3-7. 86123 3 99 3.9 Fiscal Analysis BLee Thompson, City Engineer, City of Dublin, telephone communication, October 19, 1987. 9Total population of Dublin is 21,477. Projected project population of 900. 10 Op. Cit. 86123 3 100 3.10 Traffic and Circulation 3.10 TRAFFIC AND CIRCULATION 3.10.1 SETTING The Hansen Hills Ranch site is located west of Silvergate Drive in Dublin. The major roadways in the vicinity are: Silvergate Drive has one travel lane in each direction plus a dual left-turn lane between Peppertree Lane and Betlen Drive. East of Peppertree Road and south of Betlen Drive, Silvergate Drive is a four-lane divided road. Silvergate Drive passes through a residential neighborhood of primarily single-family homes. Many single-family homes front directly onto Silvergate Drive (primarily east of Castilian Drive or south of Hansen Drive) or are oriented toward the side streets so that their sides or backs are adjacent to Silvergate Drive. San Ramon Road is currently being improved to have four travel lanes between 150 feet north of Silvergate Drive and north of Amador Valley Boulevard. South of this point, San Ramon Road will widen to six lanes. San Ramon Road provides the primary access for west Dublin residents to Interstate 580 to the south and to the City of San Ramon to the north. San Ramon Road also provides access to Interstate 680, either via the I-580/I-680 interchange or via the I-680/Alcosta Boulevard interchange in San Ramon (see Figure 3-19). Dublin Boulevard has two travel lanes west of San Ramon Road and four travel lanes east of San Ramon Road. Dublin Boulevard provides access to downtown Dublin and the major shopping areas between San Ramon Road and Dougherty Road and on Village Parkway. The existing operation at ten intersections was analyzed during the a.m. and p.m. peak hours. The results are presented in Table 3-8. The capacity calculations assumed the improved configuration for San Ramon Road described above since the improvements are currently in progress. The level of service is currently A at all intersections except San _ Ramon Road at Dublin Boulevard which is operating at LOS B during the a.m. peak hour and LOS D during the p.m. peak hour. The existing average daily traffic volume on Silvergate Drive ranges from 1,464 vehicles per day (vpd) north of Hansen Drive to 3,716 vpd west of Peppertree Drive to 3,988 vpd 86123 3- ;0 HANSEN RANCH TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY FIGURE 3-19 SOURCE: TJKM TRANSPORTATION CONSULATANTS 7'7777� � K / U tot- OD or 0 D Sil�ergote Or. �o oy o� �a PepOartrae Rd. Sa^ Ramon Rd 0 c a m o a 69b Z" 3 0 d 0 L ey B� °a N m 3-102 TABLE 3-8 INTERSECTION LEVELS OF SERVICE Existing + Existing + Existing + Project + Cumulative Existing Project Cumulative No Project A.M. P.M. A.M. P.M. A.M. P.M. A.M. P.M. Intersection V/C LOS V/C LOS V/C LOS V/C LOS V/C LOS V/C LOS V/C LOS V/C LOS 1 Silvergate Dr./ 0.44 A 0.44 A 0.46 A 0.45 A 0.66 B 0.61 B 0.65 B 0.60 A San Ramon Rd. 2 Peppertree Rd./ 0.20 A 0.26 A 0.24 A 0.30 A 0.32 A 0.38 A 0.28 A 0.34 A Silvergate Dr. 3 Silvergate Dr./ 0.16 A 0.16 A 0.18 A 0.20 A 0.25 A 0.27 A 0.22 A 0.24 A Rolling Hills Rd. 4 Silvergate Dr./ 0.14 A 0.43 A 0.24 A 0.24 A 0.27 A 0.26 A 0.18 A 0.16 A Hansen Hills Rd. 5 Silvergate Dr./ 0.15 A 0.15 A 0.19 A 0.19 A 0.23 A 0.22 A 0.19 A 0.18 A Hansen Dr. 6 Silvergate Dr./ 0.19 A 0.19 A 0.23 A 0.22 A 0.28 A 0.26 A 0.24 A 0.23 A Betlen Dr. 7 Silvergate Dr./ 0.26 A 0.17 A 0.31 A 0.21 A 0.36 A . 0.27 A 0.31 A 0.21 A Dublin Blvd. 8 Hansen Dr./ 0.35 A 0.31 A 0.38 A 0.38 A 0.51 A 0.51 A 0.45 A 0.44 A Dublin Blvd. 9 Donlon Wy./ 0.41 A 0.50 A 0.43 A 0.51 A 0.52 A 0.61 B 0.50 A 0.59 A Dublin Blvd. 10 San Ramon Rd./ 0.62 B 0.84 D 0.63 B 0.86 D 0.78 C 1 .03 F 0.77 C 1 .00 E Dublin Blvd. w 0 w 3.10 Traffic and Circulation west of San Ramon Road. These volumes are typical of and acceptable for a residential neighborhood collector. The first block of Silvergate Drive west of San Ramon Road, which has the highest traffic volumes, also has commercial and multi-family frontage which is not as sensitive to higher traffic volumes. 3.10.2 IMPACTS The impact of the build-out of the 282 dwelling unit (d.u.) Hansen Ranch project was analyzed at the ten study intersections. A trip generation rate of 11 vehicle trip ends (vte) per single-family dwelling unit and 8 vte per townhouse dwelling unit was used. The total project would generate 3,000 vte per day. Approximately 240 of these trips would take place during the a.m. peak hour and 300 would take place during the p.m. peak hour. These trips were assigned to the roadway network in order to assess their impact on existing streets and intersections. The distribution assumed that there would be two access roads to the Hansen Ranch site - Hansen Hills Ranch Road which would intersect Silvergate Drive and a second road which would intersect Dublin Boulevard west of Silvergate Drive. The location of the second access road is discussed under the section Internal Access and Circulation. The resulting volume-to-capacity (V/C) ratios and levels of service (LOS) for existing plus project conditions at the ten study intersections are presented in Table 3-8. The level of service would remain the same as existing conditions at all intersections, (LOS B during the a.m. peak and LOS D during.the p.m. peak at San Ramon Road and Dublin Boulevard, and LOS A at the remaining nine intersections). Silvergate Drive is the most sensitive existing street that would be impacted by the development of the project and other approved or potential projects in the western planning area. The addition of project traffic would increase the average daily traffic volume on Silvergate Drive to 2,394 vpd north of Hansen Drive, to 3,896 vpd west of Peppertree Road and to 5,068 vpd west of San Ramon Road. The capacity of a section of roadway is determined primarily by the width of the street or the number of lanes, the types of uses or number of driveways along the street and the number of intersections. In general, a two-lane road can physically accommodate approximately 10,000 vpd, a two-lane road with left-turn lanes (three-lane road) can 86123 3-104 3.10 Traffic and Circulation physically accommodate approximately 15,000 vpd, a four-lane undivided road can physically accommodate 20,000 vpd and a four-lane divided road can physically accommodate approximately 25,000 vpd. These numbers generally equate to Level of Service C conditions. However, if the roadway in question has single family residential frontage, the "tolerable" or "environmental" capacity is substantially less than the physical capacity of the roadway. The environmental capacity is that volume of traffic which causes the residents to express concerns about such issues as the difficulty of backing out of driveways into the street, safety of children playing in front yards or on sidewalks, noise, speed of traffic, air pollutants, etc. The perception of tolerable traffic levels is very subjective and varies from neighborhood to neighborhood and from individual to individual. Our opinion, based on experience in responding to residential concerns about traffic volumes, is that 40 percent of the physical capacity of the roadway is a reasonable standard for the environmental capacity of the roadway. This equates to a capacity limit of approximately 6,000 vpd on the three-lane section of Silvergate Drive between Peppertree Road and Betlen Drive and approximately 10,000 vpd on the four-lane divided section of Silvergate Drive (south of Betlen Drive and east of Peppertree Road). It should be noted, however, that the three lane portion of Silvergate Drive was originally designed and built to accommodate four lanes without turn lanes. It was striped with only three lanes because of low traffic demands and the improved safety resulting from a continuous center two-way left-turn lane. The projected existing plus project traffic volumes would be within these environmental capacity limits. Internal Access and Circulation The proposed project would have two access points. The first would be via Hansen Hill Road which would intersect Silvergate Drive just north of Hansen Drive. The second would be onto Dublin Boulevard on one of three possible alignments. The three possible alignments are depicted conceptually in Figure 3-20. One important feature that all alignments must adhere to is the Fire Department's requirement that the maximum grade of.all project roads should meet local standards. 86123 3-105 ACCESS AND INTERNAL CIRCULATION FIGURE 20 �•\... ...2, .......... � _...n � /! sit ��,,. � .���-•- ' __LEGEND ..•1 ••\ 1• ... , .'!.... .... _•1 '�,^ •-� , ,...r. I• — �� CD L ..v.. M•.. ^ w.,♦.."n.er_r�.. =\ r --.—_._-__.-.-.--_ __�- ._.—_- - • . .T ... 'mot ,rim.-_T(w®r-'-1�� + �M�� lei Ij _______ - .. - __________ .ne�ez>•uas.rA+.e,+.-- ..,.,...rL__nr....,w�..�.� _TYPICAL STREET SECTIONS~ aoo 00 o roo 00 •oo ,••�••-�-- �� •� N V) cD 3.10 Traffic and Circulation Alternative 1 would access the Hansen Ranch property via the existing Valley Christian Center (VCC). The VCC's existing access road would be upgraded to City standards and would be extended. to Hansen Hill Road in approximately the center of the proposed project. Alternative 2 would be a new road intersecting Dublin Boulevard just west of the VCC property line. This new road would intersect the Hansen Ranch site at its southwest corner. Alternative 3, also a new road, would provide access to Dublin Boulevard via Donlon Canyon and would intersect the project site from its western edge. Although Alternative 3 would function well as an emergency access for the Hansen Ranch project, it would be the least effective in attracting Hansen Ranch traffic to Dublin Boulevard. Consequently, virtually all Hansen Ranch traffic would use the Silvergate. Drive access if Alternative 3 were the only other access point. Alternative 3 would also be the most difficult and most expensive connection to construct. The grade would be 12% for most of its length even after reducing the height of the ridge separating Donlon Canyon from the project site by at least 50 feet. Like Alternative 3, Alternative 2 would function well as an emergency access road. It too would have grades of 12% for most of its length, and would attract little traffic from the Silvergate Drive access on a daily basis. Therefore, access via Alternative 2 would not significantly reduce the project's impacts on Silvergate Drive. Alternative 1 would be the most effective location in splitting the Hansen Ranch project traffic between Silvergate Drive and Dublin Boulevard. The proposed road through VCC would be situated so that approximately 61% of the dwelling units would be west of the intersection of Alternative 1 and Hansen Hill Road. Thus, most of the trips generated west of this point would be likely to use the VCC road to access Dublin Boulevard to, travel to the east or south. Thus this connection would mitigate the impact of the project on Silvergate Drive. Since both parties involved are in favor of access through the VCC property, and the applicant has submitted plans depicting such a connection, Alternative 1 was assumed in performing the trip assignment and distribution for the Hansen Ranch project. Alternative 1 does not provide emergency access to the western part of the project site. However, the dwelling units west of the VCC road would only be stranded if there were a 86123 3-10; 3.10 Traffic and Circulation blockage of Hansen Hill Road in between VCC road and the point to the west where Hansen Hill Road diverges to the north as a loop road. At any other point, no single event or blockage would render any portion of the site inaccessible. The proposed emergency access-only road north of Martin Canyon Creek, would however, eliminate this problem and provide emergency access to the western part of the site. Related to the issue of access to the Hansen Ranch site is the issue of access to the remainder of.the western hills. For instance, development of the Blaylock, Fletcher, Gleason property could result in an emergency connection to the western portion of the Hansen Ranch site. (Anything other than an emergency connection would not be sufficiently utilized to justify its cost.) The possible western extension of Dublin Boulevard to serve the western portion of the project site should be studied further when the access to the Blavlock property is being analyzed. Also, Hansen Hill Road could be extended into the western hills to carry traffic from adjacent properties. Right-of-way for this extension should be reserved. Cumulative Impacts The study intersections were analyzed assuming the build-out of approved projects both in downtown Dublin and west of San Ramon Road. The future traffic generated by projects in downtown Dublin were obtained from traffic studies for the Downtown Dublin Improvement Project for the City of Dublin. This includes approximately 650,000 additional square feet of commercial and office space. The traffic generation for projects west of San Ramon Road was based on 553 dwelling units, 150,700 square feet of office, 17,000 square feet of commercial, and one restaurant. The future V/C ratios and levels of service with existing plus project plus cumulative are presented in Table I. The build-out of the project and other residential projects west of San Ramon Road as well as the build-out of downtown Dublin would result in LOS B conditions at Silvergate Drive and San Ramon Road during both the a.m. and p.m. peak hours. At the intersection of San Ramon Road and Dublin Boulevard, the level of service would decrease to LOS C during the a.m. peak hour and LOS F during the p.m. peak hour. At the intersection of Dublin Boulevard and Donlon Way, the level of service would decrease from LOS A to LOS B during the p.m. peak hour. 86123 3- 108 3.10 Traffic and Circulation The build-out of approved residential projects north and west of Silvergate Drive would -add approximately 868 daily trips to Silvergate Drive north of Hansen Drive, 1,230 vpd south of Betlen Drive and 2,118 vpd to Silvergate Drive west of Peppertree Road. The addition of this cumulative traffic would increase the daily traffic volume to 3,262 vpd north of Hansen Drive, to 4,410 vpd south of Betlen Drive, to 6,914 vpd of Peppertree Road, and to 7,186 vpd west of San Ramon Road. The future volumes would be within the environmental capacity of Silvergate Drive at all locations except between approximately Peppertree Road and Creekside Drive where the future volumes would exceed the environmental capacity of 6,000 vpd by 15 percent. Therefore, 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. 3.10.3 MITIGATION ~ No mitigation measures are necessary to mitigate existing plus projects impacts. However, existing plus project plus cumulative traffic volumes would cause LOS F conditions during the p.m. peak hour at the intersection of San Ramon Road and Dublin Boulevard. To mitigate this negative impact, major geometric improvements would be needed. On the eastbound approach, the increased right-turn volume would warrant a double right-turn lane. This improvement would involve acquiring right-of-way from the existing Shell service station in order to widen Dublin Boulevard. This improvement coupled- with an exclusive left-turn lane, a shared through and left-turn lane and a through-only lane would improve the p.m. peak hour V/C ratio from 1.03 (LOS F) to 0.98 (LOS E). In order to further improve the level of service at this intersection, triple left-turn lanes would be needed at the westbound approach of Dublin Boulevard. The triple left-turn lanes would also allow for providing a sixth approach lane at the eastbound approach resulting in two exclusive left-turn lanes and two exclusive through lanes. These two changes would improve the conditions at this intersection to LOS D, with a V/C ratio of 0.88. Level of Service D conditions are generally considered acceptable during the peak hour. A preliminary analysis by TJKM of triple left-turn lanes at the intersection of San Ramon Road and Dublin Boulevard indicates that such a design and operation are feasible. The triple left-turn lane design will be analyzed in more detail in a study currently underway by TJKM. 86123 3-109 3.10 Traffic and Circulation The intersection of San Ramon Road at Dublin Boulevard would also be impacted by additional development in the western hills. The ultimate mitigation described above would result in some reserve capacity which would allow for additional development within a Level of Service D threshold. (It should be noted that the City of Dublin does not have a traffic policy on acceptable peak hour levels of service or V/C ratios for major intersections. If triple left-turn lanes are not implemented, the future level of service would be E during the p.m. peak hour.) Existing plus project plus cumulative traffic would exceed the environmental capacity on Silvergate Drive between Peppertree Road and Creekside Drive by 15%. In order to mitigate this impact, the project size would need to be reduced, (or the cumulative effects of other projects) the Hansen Ranch project would have to have sole access from Dublin Boulevard, or the use of the Dublin Boulevard access would need to be encouraged. The best way to encourage the use of the Dublin Boulevard access would be to locate it as far east as possible, to make it as direct as possible to Dublin Boulevard, and to design it as a collector road with few, if any, intersecting driveways. 86123 3 1 � O 3.11 Noise 3.11 NOISE 3.11.1 SETTING Environmental noise is measured in decibels. The dBA, or A-weighted decibel, refers to a scale of noise measurement which approximates the range of sensitivity of the human ear to sounds of different frequencies. On this scale, the normal range of human hearing extends from about 3 dBA to about 140 dBA. A 10 dBA increase in the level of a continuous noise represents a perceived doubling of loudness; a 2 dBA increase is barely noticeable to most people. Human response to noise is subjective, and varies considerably from individual to individual. Effects of noise at various levels can range from interference with sleep, concentration, and communication, to physiological and psychological stress, and hearing loss. The sound level of speech is typically about 60 to 65 dBA. Sleep disturbance occurs when interior noise levels exceed 40 to 50 dBA. Environmental noise fluctuates in intensity over time and several commonly used descriptors of time-average noise levels are in use. The City of Dublin uses CNEL, the community noise equivalent level, as the measure of noise acceptability. CNEL is the 24- hour average of the noise intensity, with a 5 dBA "penalty" added for evening noise (7:00 pm to 10:00 pm) and a 10 dBA "penalty" added for nighttime noise (10:00 pm to 7:00 am) to account for the greater sensitivity to noise during these periods. Traffic is the primary source of continuous noise in Dublin and its environs. In 1983, Charles M. Salter and Associates, acoustic consultants under contract to the City of Dublin, mapped CNEL contours for existing and future (year 2005) traffic noise; these maps were later incorporated into Dublin's General Plan. Comparison of the map of existing CNEL contours with a map of the project site shows that the CNEL in a strip of land (ranging in width from 0 to 400 feet) at the southern boundary of the site is exposed to a CNEL greater than 60 dBA. The remainder of the site has a CNEL less than 60 dBA. It should be noted, however, that the CNEL contours do not account for noise attenuation caused by hills intervening between noise sources and receptors or for noise amplification due to the reverberation of sound through canyons. 86123 3-111 3.11 Noise It is the policy of the City of Dublin to employ a Land Use Compatibility Table from the General Plan Noise Element (see Table 3-9 below) as a guide for making decisions on prospective land uses in relation to noise sources and to determine noise mitigation needs. Table 3-9 shows that when the CNEL is greater than 60 dBA, residential uses on that site become "conditionally acceptable", that is acoustic analyses and installation of noise insulation become mandatory before construction can be authorized. At present, the use of the project site for the construction of single-family homes would be "normally acceptable" under the City of Dublin's land use compatibility guidelines, except for the southern-most portion of the property (a strip varying in width from 0 to 400 feet) which would be "conditionally acceptable" for residential use. Title 25 of the California Administrative Code establishes standards that apply to all new multi-family residential construction in California. These standards require that buildings to be located in areas with existing CNEL of more than 60 dBA be required to limit interior noise levels to 45 dBA in any inhabitable room. 3.11.2 IMPACTS Construction activities would temporarily generate high noise levels on and adjacent to the site, intermittently over the entire period of project construction. Table 3-10 shows outdoor noise levels likely to be experienced during construction phases. This construc- tion noise would affect the occupants of any existing residential units near the site. Construction noise effects would include disturbance of sleep, concentration, and com- munication. Traffic on major local highways and arterials will continue to be the major source of ambient noise. Because the project will generate only about 3,000 vehicle trips per day, its effect on the noise environment of the surrounding area will be minor, but it will be impacted by noise generated by cumulative traffic using local roadways. By the year 2005, the strip of land indicated to be "conditionally acceptable" for residential use along the southern portion of the project site will have grown in width to between 600 and 800 feet, due to the increase in traffic expected on I-580 and San Ramon Road. 86123 3-112 3.11 Noise TABLE 3-9 LAND USE COMPATIBILITY FOR COMMUNITY NOISE ENVIRONMENTS Community Noise Exposure CNEL (dBA) Land Use Category 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 Residential a a b b c d d Motels and Hotels a a b b c c d Schools, Churches a a b b c c d Nursing Homes Neighborhood Parks a a b c d d d Offices: Retail a a a a b c d Commercial Industrial a a a a b c c KEY: a No Acceptable - land use is satisfactory, buildings need no special noise insulation. b Conditionally Acceptable - new construction should be undertaken only after acoustic analysis and installation of noise insulation. c Normally Unacceptable - new construction should be discouraged. If construction does proceed, acoustic analysis and insulation required. d Clearly Unacceptable - new construction should not be undertaken. Source: Dublin General Plan 86123 1 13 3.11 Noise TABLE 3-10 TYPICAL CONSTRUCTION NOISE LEVELS AT 50 FEET (dBA)l Housing Construction Construction Phase Average Noise Level Groundclearing 84 Excavation 88 Foundations 81 Erection 82 Finishing 88 1Taken from Noise from Construction Equipment and Operations, Building Equipment, and Home Appliances, prepared by Bolt, Beranek, and Newman for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, December 31, 1971, p. 20 Both construction noise impacts on existing residential units and traffic noise impacts on the proposed units could be strongly influenced by topography. Hills intervening between source and receptor could reduce noise levels at the receptor by 20 dBA or more, while receptors located at the end of a canyon could experience increased noise due to the amplification of sound by the canyon. 3.11.3 MITIGATIONS Construction work should be limited to daylight hours, and all equipment and operations with a high noise potential should be muffled or controlled, as feasible. The degree to which it is possible to reduce noise generated by construction equipment without undue expense, is shown in Table 3-11. In planning for project construction, provision should be made for the acoustic analysis of the project structures and the installation of any additional noise insulation required, especially to the homes located in the 600-800 foot strip of the project site closest to I-580 to meet Title 25 requirements. 86123 3-li4 3.11 Noise TABLE 3-11 TYPICAL CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT NOISE (dBA)1 Without With Feasible Construction Phase Noise Control Noise Control2 Earthmoving: Front Loaders 79 ?5 Backhoes 85 75 Dozers 80 75 Tractors 80 75 Scrapers 88 80 Graders 85 75 Trucks 91 75 Pavers 89 80 Materials Handling: Concrete Mixers 85 75 Concrete Pumps 82 75 Cranes 83 75 Derricks 88 75 Stationary: Pumps 76 75 Generators 78 75 Compressors 81 75 Impact: Pile Drivers 101 95 Jack Hammers 88 75 Rock Drills 98 80 Pneumatic Tools 86 80 Other: Saws 78 75 Vibrators 76 75 1Taken from Noise from Construction Equipment and Operations, Building Equipment, and Home Appliances, prepared by Bolt, Beranek, and Newman for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, December 31, 1971. 2Estimated levels obtainable by selecting quieter procedures or machines and implementing noise control features requiring no major redesign or extreme cost. 86123 3-115 3.12 Air Quality 3.12 AIR QUALITY 3.12.1 SETTING Meteorological Influences on Air Quality A major factor determining ambient air pollutant levels is the atmosphere's ability to transport and dilute the pollutants. The major determinants of transport and dilution are wind speed and direction, atmospheric stability, the influence of terrain on air movement, and, for pollutants that are photochemically active, the amount of sunshine. Data from the Livermore Airport show that the prevailing winds blow from the west and , southwest, reflecting the location of the Hayward and Niles Canyon gaps in the East Bay Hills. Winds are generally highest in the afternoon and lowest at dawn. Calm conditions occur about 23% of the time. The occurrence of episodes of high atmospheric stability, known as inversion conditions, severely limits the ability of the atmosphere to disperse pollutants vertically: Atmospheric stability in the Bay Area is measured twice daily by radiosondes (balloons equipped with meteorological instruments) released from the Oakland Airport. In winter, inversions, caused by cooling of air close to the ground, can form in the evening and early morning hours but frequently dissipate during the day. During the summer, the inversion layer is thicker but is present about 90% of the time in both morning and afternoon. The project .would be located in the Tri-Valley area, a sheltered, inland valley, ringed by hills which are higher than 1,000 feet above sea level in places. Access to the Tri-Valley area is accomplished through a few narrow gaps in the hills. This limits the ability of the atmosphere to disperse pollutants horizontally. The combined effects of frequent light winds or calm conditions, frequent inversions that restrict vertical dispersion, and terrain that restricts horizontal dispersion give the Tri- Valley area a high potential for air quality problems. 86123 s , 3.12 Air Quality Air Pollutant Problems and Trends The 1970 Clean Air Act Amendments established Federal ambient air quality standards (AAQS) for several pollutants. The Act outlined primary standards designed to protect public health and secondary standards to protect public welfare from effects such as visibility reduction, soiling, nuisance, and other forms of damage. The AAQS were designed to protect those people most susceptible to respiratory distress, such as asthmatics, the elderly, very young children, people already weakened by illness, and persons engaged in strenuous work or exercise (all termed "sensitive receptors"). AAQS were established in California starting in 1969 pursuant to the Mulford-Carrell Act. The State and Federal AAQS given in Table 3-12 provide acceptable durations for specific contaminant levels. Federal standards are supposed to be attained by 1987 and maintained thereafter; the state standards do not have a specific attainment date. The Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) operates a regional air quality monitoring network in order to gauge the Bay Area's progress toward attainment of Federal and State ambient air quality standards. At monitoring stations throughout this network, readings are taken regularly of five major "criteria" air pollutants:1 photochemical oxidants (ozone), carbon monoxide (CO), suspended particulate matter (TSP), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), and sulfur dioxide (SO2). On the basis this monitoring data, the California Air Resources Board (CARB) has designated the Bay Area a non-attainment area with respect to the national ozone and CO standards. High concentrations of ozone produce eye irritation and respiratory impairment. High concentrations of CO can impair . oxygen transport in the bloodstream, aggravate cardiovascular disease, impair central nervous system functioning and cause fatigue, headache, dizziness, and confusion. Long exposure to high TSP concentrations can interfere with respiratory function and, in combination with atmospheric SO2, produce acute illness A five-year summary of the data collected at the Livermore station is shown in Table 3-13 along with the corresponding Federal or State AAQS. The Livermore station is the only monitor in the Tri-Valley area. The data in Table 3-13 indicate that air quality in the Tri-Valley area is not in compliance with federal and state ozone standards. Air quality does comply with standards for CO, NO2, SO2, and TSP. Because elevated ozone levels are a regional problem, concentrations measured at the Livermore station are likely 86123 3 : 17 TABLE 3-12 AMBIENT AIR QUALITY STANDARDS California Standardsl National Standards Pollutant Averaging Time Concentration Method Primary 3,5 Secondary3'6 Method? Oxidant 10 1 hour 0.10 ppm Ultraviolet (200 ug/m3 Photometry Ozone 1 hour — -- 0.12 ppm3 Same as Primary Ethylene 9235 ug/m ) Standard Chemiluminescence Non-Dispersive 3 Non-Dispersive 9.0 ppm Infrared 10 mg/m Same as Primary Infrared Carbon Monoxide 8 hour (10 mg/m ) Spectroscopy (9 ppm) Standards Spectroscopy (NDIR) (NDIR) 1 hour 20 ppm 3 40 mg/m3 (23 mg/m ) (35 ppm) Nitrogen Dioxide Annual Average — Gas phase 100 ug/m3 Gas Phase Chemilumi- (0.05 ppm) Same as Primary Chemiluminescence 1 hour 0.25 ppm nescence Standard (470 ug/m3) _ Sulfur Dioxide Annual Average — 80 ug/m3 w (0.03 ppm) — 24 hour 0.05 ppm Ultraviolet 3 3 9 365 ug/m 3 hour — Pararosaniline (131 ug/m ) Fluorescence (0.14 ppm) — — 1300 ug/m3 (0.5 ppm) 1 hour 0.5 ppm — — (1310 ug/m3) Particulates Annual Geometric 3 11 Mean 30 ug/m PM High Volume 75 ug/m3 60 ug/m3 High Volume 24 hour 50 ug/m3 PM 11 Sampling 260 ug/m3 150 ug/m3 Sampling Sulfates 24 hour 25 ug/m3 Turbidimetric — — — Barium Sulfate Lead 30 day Average 1.5 ug/m3 Atomic Absorption _ Calendar 1.5 ug/m3 Same as Primary Atomic Quarter — Standard Absorption Hydrogen 1 hour 0.03 ppm Cadmium Hydroxide- Sulfide (42 ug/m3) STRactan — — — Vinyl Chloride 24 hour 0.010 ppm Tedlar Bag (Chloroethene) (26 ug/m3 Collection, Gas — — — Chromatography Visibility 1 observation In sufficient amount to Reducing reduce the prevailing visibility8 Particles to less than 10 miles when the TABLE 3-.12 (continued) California Standards) National Standards Pollutant Averaging Time Concentration Method Primary Secondary Secondary3'g Method? APPLICABLE ONLY IN THE LAKE TAHOE AIR BASIN: Carbon Monoxide 8 hour 6 ppm NDIR (7 mg/m 3) Visibility 1 observation In sufficient amount to reduce Reducing the prevailing visibility to less$ Particles than 30 miles when the relative humidity is less than 70% 1California standards,other than carbon monoxide,are values that are not to be equaled or exceeded. The carbon monoxide standards are not to be exceeded. 2National standards, other than ozone and those based on annual averages or annual geometric means,are not to be exceeded more than once a year. The ozone standard is attained when the expected number of days a calendar year with a maximum hourly average-concentration above the standard is equal to or less than one. w 3Concentration expressed first in units in which it was promulgated. Equivalent units given in parentheses are based upon a reference temperature of 250C and a �o reference pressure of 760 mm of mercury. All measurements of air quality are to be corrected to a reference temperature of 25 C and a reference pressure of 760 mm of Hg(1,013.2 millibar);ppm in this table refers to parts per million by volume,or micromoles of pollutant per mole of gas. 4Any equivalent procedure that can be shown to the satisfaction of the Air Resource Board to give equivalent results at or near the level of the air quality standard may be used. 5National Primary Standards: The levels of air quality necessary, with an adequate margin of safety, to protect the public health. Each state must attain the primary standards no later than three years after that state's implementation plan is approved by the Environmental Protection Agency(EPA). 6National Secondary Standards: The levels of air quality necessary to protect the public welfare from any known or anticipated adverse effects of a pollutant. Each state must attain the secondary standards within a "reasonable time"after the implementation plan is approved by the EPA. 7Reference method as described by the EPA. An "equivalent method"of measurement may be used but must have a "consistent relationship to the reference method"and must be approved by the EPA. $Prevailing visibility is defined as the greatest visibility that is attained or surpassed around at least half of the horizon circle,but not necessarily in continuous sectors. 9 A locations where the state's standards for oxidant and/or suspended particulate matter are violated. National standards apply elsewhere. 10 Measured as ozone. 11 PM refers to particulate matter of 10 microns or less in size. 3.12 Air Quality TABLE 3-13 LIVERMORE AIR POLLUTANT SUMMARY 1981 - 1985 Pollutant Standard 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 OZONE (ppm)1 Highest 1-hour average 0. 12 0.14 0.14 0. 16 0.15 0. 15 Days > Fed. std. (0.12) 2 1 8 7 4 CARBON MONOXIDE (ppm)I Highest 8-hour average 9.00 3.8 4.8 4.4 4.3 5.3 Days > Fed./State std. 0 0 0 0 0 NITROGEN DIOXIDE (ppm)I Highest 1-hour average 0.25 0. 14 0.10 0.15 0.09 0. 10 Days > State standard 0 0 0 0 0 SULFUR DIOXIDE (ppm)I Highest 24-hour average 0.05 0.002 0.001 0.003 0.003 0.006 Days > State standard 0 0 0 0 0 SUSPENDED PARTICULATES (ug/m3)2 Annual geometric mean 60 45 42 43 55 53 ippm: parts per million 2 ug/m3: micrograms per cubic meter Source: BAAQMD, Air Currents, March issues, 1982-1986. 86123 3 120 3.12 Air Quality to be representative of conditions on the project site. In contrast, levels of pollutants such as CO and TSP are more sensitive to nearby sources; the Livermore data, therefore, may not adequately represent conditions on the project site. Comparisons of the data in Table 3-13 with readings taken at BAAQMD monitoring stations located in other parts of the Bay Area reveal that air quality in the Tri-Valley area does suffer significant degradation because of its location downwind of the many pollutant sources in the north and west Bay Area. Regionally, the most severe and complex air quality problem is the relatively high level of ambient ozone experienced during warm, meteorologically stable periods in the summer and autumn. Ozone is not emitted directly from pollutant sources but forms in the atmosphere through a complex series of photochemical reactions involving reactive .organic compounds (ROG) and nitrogen oxides (NOx). No single source category accounts for a majority of the ROG and NOx emissions, and the many sources are spread throughout the Bay Area air basin. Although the Bay Area's highest ozone levels can fluctuate from year to year, standards are exceeded most often in the Santa Clara, Livermore, and Diablo valleys. The problem is most severe in Santa Clara County, where ozone levels occasionally have approached the first-stage Health Advisory Level (0.2 parts per million). Both the federal and state ozone standards have been exceeded at Livermore, over the past five years. Table 3-13 shows the frequency of violation of the Federal ozone standard during this period. In contrast to ozone, CO is a sub-regional problem in the Bay Area. CO is a non-reactive pollutant with one major source, motor vehicles. Ambient CO distributions closely follow the spatial and temporal distributions of vehicular traffic, and are strongly influenced by meteorological factors such as wind speed and atmospheric stability. The one-hour and eight-hour CO standards are occasionally exceeded in those parts of the Bay Area subject to a combination of high traffic volumes and frequent atmospheric inversions during the winter months (i.e., northern Santa Clara, western Alameda, and southwestern Solano Counties). Levels of TSP in the Bay Area typically show a pattern of low values near the coast. They increase with distance inland and reach their highest levels in dry, sheltered valleys, such as the Santa Clara, Diablo, and Livermore Valleys. The Federal standard is occasionally 86123 3-121 3.12 Air Quality exceeded in many Bay Area communities. The most important particulate sources in the Bay Area are demolition and construction activity, and motor vehicle travel over paved and unpaved roads. The major sources of NOx, compounds which have an important role in the formation of ozone, are vehicular, residential, and commercial fuel combustion. Concentrations of NO2, the most abundant form of ambient NOx, are highest in the South Bay (where the standard was last exceeded in 1980 at the San Jose monitoring station), although a secondary peak is centered on the Livermore valley. The NO2 standard has not been exceeded anywhere in the Bay Area since 1980. The burning of high sulfur fuels for activities such as electricity generation, petroleum refining, and shipping are the major sources of ambient SO2. The highest levels of SO2 are recorded by monitoring stations located in a relatively narrow crescent centered on the bayshore of northern Contra Costa County, where the major sources are located. Bay Area seasonal maximums, however, rarely exceed 50% of the standard and SO2 levels at most Bay Area monitoring stations are less than 10% of the standard. The SO2 standard is currently being met throughout the Bay Area. As a result of the violations of CO and ozone standards in the region, the BAAQMD, the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG), and the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) authored the 1982 Bay Area Air Quality Maintenance Plan (AQMP). The AQMP called for the imposition of additional controls on stationary and mobile sources of ROG and CO, and set forth a schedule for adopting and implementing these controls. The AQMP projected attainment of national ambient standards for CO and ozone by 1987 and their maintenance below the standards through the year 2000. The key CO and ozone strategies in the AQMP include a motor vehicle inspection/maintenance (I&M) program. In 1984 the State of California adopted a mandatory I&M program that is expected to reduce CO in the Bay Area by 16%. No additional control measures were recommended for TSP control. This problem is difficult to control with currently available methods, and the BAAQMD only recommended further research on the problem. 86123 3 122 3.12 Air Quality Occasional violations of the Federal ozone and eight-hour CO standards are still being measured in the Bay Area and it seems likely that the BAAQMD will not be able to guarantee regional attainment by the end of 1987. If this proves to be the case, the BAAQMD will have to propose and implement additional emission control strategies and estimate a new attainment date in order to satisfy the EPA. Otherwise, the Federal government could impose a funding moratorium on the construction of highway improvements and major stationary sources of air pollutants. 3.12.2 IMPACTS Project air quality impacts comprise two categories: temporary impacts due to project construction and long-term impacts due to project operation. Construction activities would raise dust, and thereby increase TSP concentrations, near the project site. Equipment and vehicles generate dust during clearing, excavation, grading, and travel over unpaved surfaces. Wind blowing over exposed earth surfaces would also contribute. The Federal 24-hour average particulate standard could be violated in the vicinity of construction. It is not possible to estimate accurately the particulate concentrations that would occur at or adjacent to the construction sites because of the complexity of local meteorology and topography and variations in soil silt and moisture content. However, measurements taken during apartment and shopping center construction in the southwestern United States provide a rough indication of construction impacts on local particulate emissions; these figures indicate that-approximately 1.2 tons of dust are emitted per acre per month of construction activity.3 Much of this dust is comprised of large particles which settle out rapidly on nearby horizontal surfaces. Most of the remaining fraction of unsettled large particles are easily filtered by human breathing passages. To reflect this understanding, the State of California has recently changed its standard for particulate matter to include only respirable particles less than 10 microns in diameter. Dust generated by construction is, therefore, of concern more as a soiling nuisance rather than for its unhealthful impacts. Construction vehicles and equipment and worker commute vehicles would emit exhaust at the construction sites, which would contribute to local and regional pollutant 86123 3- 123 3.12 Air Quality concentrations, but the amount of the increase would not be significant and would not cause violations of any air quality standards. Once the project is complete, emissions from vehicles associated with project operation would contribute to the regional air pollution burden. According to the transportation analysis, there would be an average of 2,999 daily vehicle trips generated by the project. The traffic-related air quality impacts would be as shown in Table 3-14. The BAAQMD has established emission levels (called Best Available Control Technology, or BACT, thresholds) above which air pollutant impacts for any project are considered significant. The expected project ROG and NOx emissions of 0.057 and 0.027 tons per day, respectively, would not exceed the BACT threshold of 0.075 ton/day.3 Project emissions of CO, SO2, and TSP would be below BACT thresholds as well. The project would effect air quality on the local scale, especially CO levels near heavily traveled roadways. Future CO concentrations were obtained by separately estimating the expected changes in background and local CO components. Both components were calculated by following procedures outlined in BAAQMD's Air Quality and Urban Development. The components were then added to obtain the total CO concentration. Table 3-15 shows the worst-case curbside CO concentrations at four intersections where project traffic is expected to have the greatest impact. Calculations show existing violations of the one-hour and eight-hour CO standards (20 ppm .and 9 ppm,-respect ively) at the San Ramon Road/Dublin Boulevard intersection, and of the eight-hour CO standard alone at the Silvergate Drive/San Ramon Road intersection. Even if the project is not built as planned, CO concentrations at the above-mentioned intersections would increase relative to the 1987 levels, because CO emissions from traffic volume increases resulting from cumulative development in the Tri-Valley area are rising faster than they can be reduced by the vehicular emission controls and the I&M program. If the project does proceed, CO levels at the four intersections would increase slightly (i.e., maximum increase due to project-related traffic would be 0.3 ppm) but the pattern of standard violations at the four intersections. would remain unchanged. The standard violations would be caused primarily by the large volumes of non-project traffic at those intersections. 86123 3- 124 3.12 Air Quality TABLE 3-14 EMISSIONS FROM PROJECT GENERATED TRAFFIC (tons per day) Bay Area Air Basin Pollutant Project 1 Tota12 Carbon Monoxide (CO) 0.500 2,190 Reactive Organics (ROG) 0.057 511 Nitrogen Oxides (NOx) 0.027 456 Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) 0.004 155 Particulates (TSP) 0.047 654 1Project emissions were calculated by using the California Air Resources Board URBEMIS#1 model. 2The regional totals given here are BAAQMD estimates for the year 1990. 3.12.3 MITIGATIONS Dust emissions related to construction can be reduced approximately 50% by watering exposed earth surfaces during excavation, grading and construction activities. All construction.contracts should require watering in late morning and at the end of the day; the frequency of watering should increase if wind speeds exceed 15 mph. Conditions of approval should also require daily cleanup of mud and dust carried onto street surfaces by construction vehicles. Throughout excavation activity, haul trucks should use tarpaulins or other effective covers. Upon completion of construction, contractors should take measures to reduce wind erosion. Replanting and repaving should be completed as soon as possible. 86123 3-125 3.12 Air Quality TABLE 3-15 WORST CASE CURBSIDE CARBON MONOXIDE CONCENTRATIONS AT SELECTED LOCATIONS IN THE PROJECT VICINITY (in ppm)l Without With Averaging Existing Project Project Location Time 1987 1990 1990 Silvergate Drive/ 1-hr. 12.6 13.3 13.5 San Ramon Road 8-hr. 9.3 9.8 9.9 San Ramon Road/ 1-hr. 20.2 20.9 21 .2 Dublin Boulevard 8-hr. 14.7 15. 1 15.3 Silvergate Drive/ 1-hr. 5.5 5.4 5.7 Dublin Boulevard 8-hr. 4.3 4.3 4.4 Donlon Way/ 1-hr. 7.6 7.4 7.7 Dublin Boulevard 8-hr. 5.8 5.7 5.8 Background 1-hr. 5.0 4.9 4.9 8-hr. 4.0 3.9 3.9 The tabulated concentrations are the sums of a background component which includes the cumulative effects.of all CO sources in the project vicinity, and a local component, which reflects the effects of vehicular traffic on roadways. Background and local components were obtained by using procedures outlined in Air Quality and Urban Development, BAAQMD, November 1985. Traffic data was provided by TJKM Associates. 86123 3 126 3.12 Air Quality Because of the high potential for air quality problems and the fast pace of development in the Tri-Valley area, the City of Dublin should institute a CO "hotspot" monitoring program under the guidance of the BAAQMD. Such a program would confirm the accuracy of available CO models under meteorological conditions characteristic of the area. The program should be financed by mandatory contributions from local property developers. Suggested mitigation measures to facilitate traffic movement on local streets would in most cases reduce air pollutant emissions. lAcceptable concentration levels for some pollutants are chosen after careful review of available data on health effects. Pollutants subject to Federal ambient standards are sometimes referred to as criteria pollutants because the EPA publishes criteria documents to justify the choice of standards. 2U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors, AP-42, Third Edition, October 1980. 3BAAQMD, Air Quality and Urban Development, November 1985, Table VIII-A-1, p. VIII-2. 4Air Quality and Urban Development, BAAQMD, November 1985, p. IX-29. 86123 3-1 27 3.13 Archaeology and Cultural Resources 3.13 ARCHAEOLOGY AND CULTURAL RESOURCES 3.13.1 SETTING The project area is located within lands once occupied by the Ohlone Indians, a hunting and gathering people who lived a semi-sedentary life. Archival research revealed no recorded prehistoric or historic archaeological sites within the proposed Hansen Hill Ranch site. However, several nearby prehistoric archaeological sites have been identified along low ridges and in valleys near water courses and vegetation zones. The project area contains these environmental features and there is a possibility of prehistoric resources. Dublin is "one of the most historic towns of Alameda County" and there are numerous historic resources within one mile of the project area. The project site contains no cultural resources in the National Register of Historic Places nor in the California Inventory of Historic Resources. 3.13.2 IMPACTS No known historic or archaeological resources would be impacted by implementation of the project. 3.13.3 MITIGATION In the event that unanticipated cultural resources are encountered within the project site during the course of construction, it is recommended that all earthmoving activity in the area of impact cease until the project sponsor retains the services of a qualified archaeological consultant, who shall examine the findings, assess their significance and offer recommendations for any procedures deemed appropriate to further investigate and/or mitigate adverse impactrs to those cultural resources which have been encountered. 86123 128 4 ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROJECT 4.1 NO-PROJECT ALTERNATIVE Under this alternative the 147-acre property would remain in open space and cattle grazing. If the property remained under the Alameda County jurisdiction, the current agricultural zoning would limit development to one dwelling unit per 100 acres. Minimum ..lot .size, (one dwelling unit for the existing site) open space and grazing uses would continue. GEOLOGY/HYDROLOGY Active landsliding on the site would continue to occur as part of natural processes. The existing downcutting of the Martin Canyon Creek channel would continue. These activities might result in increased movement of sediment loads downstream during times of debris movement into the channel. VEGETATION AND WILDLIFE This alternative could allow one dwelling unit to be developed on the site. This sharp reduction in development would result in fewer impacts to the biotic resources on the site than would the proposed project. The locations of the single dwelling unit and of any access roadways might be under constraints similar to those identified for the proposed project, i.e., protection of the riparian corridors, minimization of removal of or damage to the native trees, and avoidance of non-native weedy species in the landscaping plan. LAND USE The project site would remain in agricultural use for cattle grazing and a maximum of one unit could be developed. Growth-inducing impacts on adjacent properties would not occur. 86123 4 4. Alternatives to the Project No new housing units would be added to Dublin's housing supply — the property would remain within Alameda County's jursidiction. Land use impacts from the No-Project alternative would be insignificant. VISUAL QUALITY/TOPOGRAPHY The no-project alternative is most preferred from a visual quality/topography standpoint. The inherent visual character of the Dublin Hills would be preserved as grading and development associated with one dwelling unit would be minimal, provided that the one dwelling unit is sited below the site's prominent ridgelands and knolls. PUBLIC SERVICES Minimal demand for public services would occur. Public service impacts of the proposed project would be avoided until such time as development occurred under the auspices of the City of Dublin. FISCAL The site would continue generating approximately $2,500 per year in property tax revenues. Upon annexation and development, the City of Dublin would begin receiving increased property tax revenues, as would the DSRSD and the schools. The degree to which property tax revenues would differ from the proposed project would depend upon the different market value of the development. One could expect that they would probably be less given the lower level of overall development. Other population based revenues (sales tax, state subventions, utility franchise tax) would be expected to decrease proportionately with the reduction in development. Costs for public service provision would be reduced, although the capital costs for water and sewer services might not be decreased proportionately. TRAFFIC AND CIRCULATION The traffic impacts at the ten study intersections were analyzed assuming only existing plus cumulative traffic, i.e. assuming that there would be no development on the project site. The resulting volume/capacity (V/C) ratios are presented in Table 3-8. The Level of Service (LOS) would remain A at eight of the ten study intersections. At the intersection of .San Ramon Road with Silvergate Drive, the level of service would decrease from 86123 4 4. Alternatives to the Project LOS A under existing conditions to LOS B during the a.m. peak hour. During the p.m. peak hour, the level of service would remain A (although with existing plus project plus cumulative conditions, the level of service would be B). At the intersection of San Ramon Road with Dublin Boulevard, the level of service would worsen to C during the a.m. peak hour and to LOS E (V/C ratio = 1.00) during the p.m. peak hour. Improvements would be required at the intersection of San Ramon Road with Dublin Boulevard with or without the project to maintain the existing LOS D during the p.m. peak hour. The same mitigation as previously described would be required in the no-project scenario to mitigate to Level of Service D conditions. The V/C ratio with these improvements would be 0.87 (LOS D) during the p.m. peak hour. On Silvergate Drive, the future average daily traffic volumes would increase from 1,464 vpd to 2,332 vpd north of Hansen Drive, from 2,250 vpd to 3,480 vpd north of Dublin Boulevard, from 3,716 vpd to 5,834 vpd west of Peppertree Road, and from 3,988 vpd to 6,106 vpd west of San Ramon Road. These volumes are within the environmental capacity of Silvergate Drive. A unit located in a canyon could be subject to high noise levels caused by amplification and transmission of vehicular noise. An acoustic study of the proposed site before construction is allowed would eliminate the possibility of locating the unit on an unfavorable site. ARCHAEOLOGY There would be no impact to actual resources if the site were to remain in open space and cattle grazing with selection of the no-project alternative. 4.2 NEIGHBORHOOD CONTEXT ALTERNATIVE Under this alternative the Hansen property is assumed to be developed in a manner comparable to the development along Hansen Drive to the south (Tract 2534) with 136 lots averaging 11,165 square feet each. Another example would be the Bordeaux Estates project (Tracts 5072, 5073, 5074), a development to the north and northeast, with 171 lots averaging 14,340 square feet each. This scenario assumes the construction of single- family detached homes on average lot sizes of 12,500 square feet. Housing sites and roads would 86123 4-3 4. Alternatives to the Project avoid areas of riparian and woodland vegetation, areas in excess of 30% slope, as well as ridgelines and fill areas in ravines. Net buildable area would be reduced by 25% to about 50 acres, potentially yielding about 175+ dwelling units at 3.5 dwelling units per net acre, or approximately 100 fewer housing units than in the proposed project. GEOLOGY/HYDROLOGY The impacts associated with the implementation of this project would be similar to those of the proposed project. Home siting would need to consider the location of landslides and repair schemes would be required. VEGETATION/WILDLIFE This alternative could significantly reduce the impacts to the biotic resources associated with the proposed project. The buildable area would be limited to 50 acres and would avoid the riparian corridors and woodland areas. Development would be concentrated in the grassland habitat at the south and east ends of the site, out of the wooded canyon areas. This would have far less impact to the biotic resources on the site than would the proposed project. LAND USE The land use impacts of this alternative would be considerably less than those of the proposed project. The deletion of 100 units from the project would spare the most environmentally-sensitive areas of the project site, which could be retained as open space. All dwelling units would be single-family detached homes, eliminating any question of compatibility with adjacent neighborhoods. The number of units would be well within the number allowed under Dublin's General Plan and zoning designation. A General Plan Amendment and annexation would be required. This alternative is consistent with Dublin's General Plan. It would not provide any mix of housing or multi-family units. The affordability of the project for the average consumer would probably decrease as the number of units decreases and the average cost for each increases. VISUAL QUALITY Siting of the, proposed 175 dwelling units and associated property development would be crucial in preserving the visual quality of the area. If development avoided important 36123 4 4 4. Alternatives to the Project visual features of the site and if clustering was employed, this alternative would be preferred over the proposed project. From the alternative description, it appears that less grading would take place than would be the case with the proposed-project. At the least, less fill would be applied to the site, resulting in the preservation of the site's deeply cut valleys. Development impacts would occur with this alternative; with mitigations the visual and topography impacts could be diminished possibly to a low level of impact. PUBLIC SERVICES Public services would be reduced about 40% on average in line with the 40% reduction in dwelling units. Zone IV water service would not be required for the proposed project. The infrastructure construction, including the water tank and access roads, would not be required for Zone IV water service. FISCAL ANALYSIS The net fiscal impacts to the City of Dublin, the DSRSD and the schools would be reduced by approximately 40%. The City of Dublin would receive approximately $33,580 in net revenue while the Amador Valley School District would receive about $570,000. TRAFFIC AND CIRCULATION The neighborhood context alternative would have 174 single-family dwelling units on 50 acres. The .resulting trip generation would be 1,914 vehicles per day, or 64% of that generated by the proposed project. The V/C ratios with existing plus project traffic and with existing plus project plus cumulative traffic would be slightly lower than with the proposed number of units at all intersections. However, the future levels of service would be the same at all intersections except at the intersections of San Ramon Road at Silvergate Drive and Dublin Boulevard at Donlon Way, where the levels of service would remain A during the p.m. peak hour with existing plus project plus cumulative traffic. The future daily traffic volumes on Silvergate Drive with existing plus project plus cumulative traffic would range from 2,927 vpd north of.Hansen Drive to 4,075 vpd south of Betlen Drive to 6,525 vpd west of Peppertree Road to 6,797 vpd west of San Ramon Road. The:;e volumes are between 335 and 390 vpd less than those under the proposed 282 d.u. alternative. The traffic on Silvergate Drive between Peppertree Road and Creekside Drive would exceed the environmental capacity by 9%. 86123 4-5 4. Alternatives to the Project AIR QUALITY This alternative would reduce the emissions of air pollutants proportionately to the reduction in the number of dwelling units. ARCHAEOLOGY Selection of this alternative would avoid construction of housing sites within areas of potentially higher archaeological sensitivity, such as riparian vegetation areas and ridgelines. 4.3 MITIGATED ALTERNATIVE The Mitigated alternative addresses the significant impacts generated by the proposed project by avoiding development on the ridgeline along the southwest corner of the Hansen property (portions of proposed neighborhoods 4, 6, 8) and Oak Woodland areas in the central and northwest corner of the property where extensive cut and fill is proposed (portions of proposed neighborhoods 5, 9, 10). Figure 4-1 indicates where dwelling units would be deleted from the proposed plan, to conform to the mitigated alternatives concept. If the same ratio of single-family and townhouses were retained, the total dwelling unit count would be reduced by 75 to 80 dwelling units, for a total of between 202 to 207 residential units. By increasing the number of townhouse units in the project through incorporating townhouse units in proposed neighborhoods 2, 3 and parts of neighborhoods 4, 5 and 11 some dwelling units could potentially be regained. GEOLOGY/HYDROLOGY Development of the site with the geologic hazards in mind would minimize environmental impacts on future land uses. The major hazards on the site consist of slope instability; any construction in areas susceptible to slope instability would need to incorporate maintenance and repair schemes for unstable slopes. The mitigation measures suggested for the proposed project would be applicable to this alternative. VEGETATION/WILDLIFE This alternative could minimize the impacts to those biotic resources of greatest significance on the site. It would leave a greater portion of the west end of the site in 86123 4-6 MITIGATED ALTERNATIVE FIGURE 4-1 �\ SOURCE:WASSOMTES FEET OMNI I CRONIN 1 1 �•n �., ,-1 �- � NIELSEN Development Excluded 1-• -"^*�~ _ •�.o �\��� \ `,� from Areas of High 1 � '�\, , �• , Biological and Visual \♦♦ �i •`\��' s� i Constraints i lb v-e I L' L BLAYLOCK, i — GLEASON, ' •FLETCHER ..-�..ti.'t,. '✓ l \ •'' l \� ' _ Al I l- - �r 1 VALLEY CHRISTIAN CENTER 1- -160/ i I Nha 1�. f J i Lr_ ♦♦ __ __.O 740 4-7 4. Alternatives to the Project open space and thus be more effective as an urban to native open space transition. It would create a precedent for further development on the Nielsen property to protect the riparian corridor of Martin Canyon Creek. It would also minimize the removal of woodland habitat on the site by avoiding areas where extensive cut and fill would be required. LAND USE The mitigated alternative would reduce the overall net density of the project from approximately 4.1 units per acre to approximately 2.9 units per acre. The development density would be reduced on the western portion of the property where biological, visual and grading impacts are the greatest. Proposed densities would be retained on the eastern portion of the site where existing residential neighborhoods and existing infrastructure would flank the project. The mitigated alternative assumes a reduction of 90 to 100 dwelling units if the same ratio of single-family homes to townhouses were retained. If the ratio were shifted in favor of a greater concentration of townhouses or common wall homes, it would be possible to accommodate a greater number of units on the eastern portion of the site than currently proposed. Neighborhoods 1, 3, 4 and possibly 5 would be logical sites for increased number of units. Neighborhood 1 is proposed for multi-family development. Some additional units may be added there. Neighborhood 2 should not accept additional density in order to remain compatible with existing single-family homes along Hansen Drive. Neighborhoods 3 and 4 are not adjacent to any residential development, therefore they could absorb additional units. It may also be possible to place some additional units in Neighborhood 5 because it is buffered from development on the site's eastern half by open space and oak woodland. The mitigated alternative would represent a shift in density from the western to the eastern portion of the site. Though the shift from single-family to townhouse and common wall units may not allow the replacement of all the units eliminated under the mitigated alternatives, it would allow densities to be retained on the portions of the site that would accommodate development with the fewest environmental impacts. 86123 4-8 4. Alternatives to the Project VISUAL QUALITY The mitigated alternative would diminish or eliminate the most significant visual and topographic impacts of the proposed project; that is, development along and on top of the site's most visually-sensitive ridgelands. Visual and topographic impacts would occur with this level of development, but could be diminished, and in some cases eliminated, with certain mitigations. Design guidelines which set forth standards regulating height, mass, materials, finishes, landscaping and grading would be most successful as mitigations. Selective development of the site under this alternative would also most likely preserve the existing vegetation which adds to the site's visual character. PUBLIC SERVICES Public services impacts of the proposed project would be proportionately reduced in line with the reduction in dwelling units. The relocation of dwelling units would in all probability eliminate the need to construct Zone IV water service improvements. FISCAL ANALYSIS The net fiscal impacts to the City of Dublin, the DSRSD and the schools would be proportionately reduced in line with the dwelling unit reduction. As the net impacts were positive, this alternative would mean a reduction in net new revenue. TRAFFIC AND CIRCULATION Depending on the number of townhomes included in this alternative, the traffic generation would be between 99% and 110% of the traffic generated by the neighborhood context alternative. Therefore, the traffic impacts of the mitigated alternative would be essentially the same as those of the neighborhood context alternative. NOISE By restricting development of the ridgeline on the southwest portion of the site, this alternative would avoid placing dwelling units in an area exposed to the highest traffic noise. Units situated in canyons may be subject to high noise levels caused by the amplification of traffic noise. Acoustic studies prior to final site selections should eliminate the possibility of locating any of the units on unfavorable sites. 86123 4 9 4. Alternatives to the Project AIR QUALITY The alternative would reduce the emission of air pollutants proportionately to the reduction of dwelling units. ARCHAEOLOGY Dwelling sites would be eliminated or reduced in riparian areas, low ridges and valley areas to avoid construction in potentially archaeologically-sensitive areas. Should construction be necessary in these areas, a qualified archaeologist could monitor earth moving activities. 4.4 CREEK-ORIENTED ALTERNATIVE This alternative is based on a modified development plan layout that would be served by a collector road extending from Silvergate Drive, turning parallel with the south side of Martin Creek. Minor cul-de-sac streets would feed off the spine collector road to access residential units on or below the project knolls. Some selective siting of residential units would occur near the Oak-Woodland canopy in the Martin Creek Valley. This development alternative assumes a total dwelling unit count of about 280 units, although the project would contain a higher number of multi-family units than the proposed project and a higher net density. Most townhouses or multi-family units would be allowed along the lower elevations, while larger lot single-family structures would be located on the knolls and upper grasslands. Site planning would focus on smaller clusters of homes with higher net densities per neighborhood than those of the proposed project. Units precluded from visually prominent knolls would be transferred to Oak-Woodland areas of less than 20% slope, where some tree removal would be allowed, assuming that less than 10% of existing oak-woodland trees (with a diameter of 5 inches or greater) would remain unaffected by development. GEOLOGY/HYDROLOGY This alternative includes siting of homes in areas of known slope instability and adjacent to Martin Canyon Creek. Mitigation measures suggested for the proposed project are equally relevant for this alternative. 86123 4 10 4. Alternatives to the Project VEGETARIAN/WILDLIFE Although this alternative could reduce the impacts to the number of large trees on the site, it still has greater potential to impact more woodland area than the proposed project. It could also encroach upon the buffer area of the riparian corridor. It may be possible to site these smaller clusters of homes to minimize impacts, however not at the same number of units. These scattered dense pockets of urban development would most likely compromise the natural integrity of the entire woodland habitat on site and the connecting roadways would most likely isolate portions of the woodland habitat. This would be the least preferable alternative related to biotic impacts. LAND USE This alternative would allow retention of a high number of residential units with a minimum of land use impacts. The number of units in this alternative would remain essentially the same as the proposed project. The effective unit density would increase in the area along the creek and decrease on the upper knolls in relation to the proposed project. This would preserve a greater portion of the site as usable open space. The overall project density would remain the same. This alternative could establish a precedent for future development in Dublin. The clustered multi-family unit configuration would be a departure from the predominately single-family detached house common to the surrounding neighborhoods. Shifting the mix of single-family multi-family mix toward a greater number of multi-family dwellings, however, would conform more favorably with the City's housing element and its policies regarding a mixture of housing types and affordability. Construction of multi-family clustered units could represent a cost savings to the project sponsor with a possible passing on of savings to the eventual buyer. VISUAL QUALITY This alternative would be preferred over the proposed project as housing would be clustered away from the site's most prominent ridgelands. It would, however, result in alteration of the site's topography through grading. It is anticipated that a great deal of grading would be necessary to accommodate proposed densities. A grading plan, siting plan and design guidelines should be employed to diminish visual impacts of this alternative. 86123 -I- 1 1 4. Alternatives to the Project PUBLIC SERVICES This alternative would have basically the same public service impacts as the proposed project. FISCAL This alternative would have basically the same net fiscal impacts as the proposed project. TRAFFIC/CIRCULATION The traffic generation of the creek-oriented alternative would be the same as that of the proposed alternative. The most significant potential impact of the creek-oriented alternative would involve access to the site. If a second access to Dublin Boulevard through the Valley Christian Center, or some other equally convenient location, were made available, the traffic impacts on Silvergate Drive and at the ten study intersections would be essentially the same as those under the proposed 282 dwelling units alternative. NOISE Single-family units located near the ridgelines on the southern portion of the site may be exposed to CNEL greater than 60 dBA. Acoustic insulation or relocation to allow shielding of the units from sources of vehicular noise would reduce noise impacts. Units situated in canyons may be subject to high noise levels caused by the amplification of traffic noise. Acoustic studies prior to final site selection should eliminate the possibility of locating any of the units on unfavorable sites. AIR QUALITY Total emission of air pollutants would be about the same as those for the proposed project. ARCHAEOLOGY This alternative would allow construction activity in the potentially archaeologically- sensitive areas of Martin Creek. 86123 4- 12 5 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS The Hansen Hill project would add 282 homes to west Dublin on land that is currently used for agriculture. It would also require annexation to the City of Dublin. The Blaylock, Fletcher, and Gleason property to the project's west is not in agricultural contract. A General Plan Amendment Study is under consideration for that property. Together the Hansen and Blaylock projects would introduce a number of residential units on land that is currently used for grazing. The projects would cumulatively increase the population of Dublin. Urban intrastructure and public services would be extended to the area. Cumulative development would change the nature of land use from rural agriculture to suburban residential. Both projects are within Dublin's Extended Planning Area. The projects would contribute to the loss of open space in the west Dublin area, as the hills that are now open would be developed. Traffic from the proposed project would not in itself create a significant impact, but it would cumulatively add to existing traffic in the City of Dublin and along regional roadways and freeways. 86123 1 6 GROWTH INDUCING IMPACTS Development of the Hansen site would represent a logical progression of growth from the City boundary into unincorporated areas of the Primary Planning Area. However, extension of urban services, particularly roads, onto the project site could result in impacts on adjacent land to the west. Development of the Hansen property would forward the probability of development of the Blaylock parcel on the west which is not under agricultural contract and the Nielsen parcel on the north which is in a non-renewable status. The development of these properties would then put development pressure on property further west which is now in agricultural preserve. The proposed project would introduce urban services and roads close to these properties. The project would not require the development of these properties. No roads or infrastructures would cross undeveloped parcels, but the project's proposed road system allows for connection to both the Blaylock and Nielson sites anticipating their urban development. For this reason the project may be seen as growth inducing. 86123 6-1 7 UNAVOIDABLE SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS PROJECT The project would seriously affect two areas with unavoidable significant impacts. The project would develop 46% of the site with 282 housing units in 11 neighborhoods. The introduction of this level of development on the site would require extensive grading, particularly on the dominant ridgeline formed by two knolls on Hansen Ranch and additional knolls on the adjacent Blaylock property. The ridge is visible to motorists travelling east and west on I-580; it is part of Dublin's hills and is viewed as one enters or leaves the City along I-580. Initial impressions or parting glances of Dublin are formed along the I-580 corridor. The proposed project would significantly alter the ridgeline by completely removing one of the knolls and siting single family homes in an area that the ridge once occupied. Any rooflines over one story in height would be visible, regardless of landscaping and berming, in neighborhoods 4, 6, and 8. The project would also significantly impact the oak/bay forest and the riparian corridor. The placement of fill material and the cutting of slopes within and under the tree canopy would reduce the habitat value of these areas and most likely result in the direct removal or potential damage to individual trees. The largest areas of oak/bay woodland removal would occur at the west end of the site in Neighborhoods 5 and 9. Approximately six acres of oak/bay woodland and a drainage swale would be' disturbed by portions of Neighborhood 5, and approximately five acres of oak/bay woodland by Neighborhood 9. The most extensive area (approximately two acres) of the riparian corridors on site that would be disturbed by the project would be at the point where Hansen Hill Road and Creekside Road intersect. This is also the point at which the riparian corridors of Martin Canyon Creek and the largest tributary on the site meet, an important linkage point of these two riparian corridors. 86123 7 1 7. Unavoidable Significant Impacts MITIGATED ALTERNATIVE Both the visual impact and oak/bay forest and riparian corridors impacts would be significantly ameliorated under the mitigated alternative. The mitigated alternative would protect site ridgelands and oak woodlands, resulting in a reduction of 90 to 100 dwelling units. Although grading, siting of development, and landscaping would still visually impact the site, the impacts would be reduced to moderate or low/minor, and the most significant visual impacts (e.g., views from I-580) would be mitigated with this alternative. Impacts on the biotic resources of greatest significance would be minimized under the mitigated alternative. This alternative would minimize the removal of woodland habitat on the site and protect the riparian corridor along Martin Canyon Creek. Additionally, this alternative would leave the west end of the site in open space which would, in turn, be more effective as an urban to native transition. 86123 7 2 8 REPORT PREPARATION 8.1 REPORT PREPARERS EIP Associates 319 Eleventh Street San Francisco, California 94103 415/864-2311 Project Team Linda Pierce, Principal-in-Charge Mark Trembley, Project Manager, Project Description Don Dean, Land Use Jennifer Toth, Visual Quality/Topography Ric Villasenor, Vegetation and Wildlife Scott Edmundson, Fiscal Factors/Public Services Ed Minister, Fiscal Factors/Public Services Kristie Postel, Archaeology 8.2 PERSONS CONSULTED TJKM, Traffic Consultants Mitchell de Roberts, Traffic/Circulation Yane Nordhav - Baseline, Geology, Soils, and Hydrology Geoffrey Hornek, Noise/Air Quality Mr. Vince Wong, Alameda County Flood Control District. Mr. Lee Thompsen, City of Dublin Department of Public Works. 86123 8-1 APPENDIX A INITIAL STUDY •+ CITY OF Vu13LIr4 PA No. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM , fN7�2tM (Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21000 et sec.) Based on the project information submitted in Section 1 General Data, the Planning Staff will use Section 3, Initial Study, to determine whether a Negative Declaration or an Environmental Impact Report is required. SECTION 3. INITIAL STUDY - - - to be completed by the PLANNING STAFF Project: Hansen Hill Ranch Name of Project or Applicant: Applicant: Hansen Hill Development Corporation A._ ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING - Description of project site before the project, including information on: topography; soil stability; plants and animals; historical, cultural, and scenic aspects; existing structures; and use of structures See Attached Appendix "A" , Section 13.0 Description of surrounding properties, including information on: plants and animals; historical, cultural, and scenic aspects; type and intensity of land use; and scale or development. See Attached Appendix "A", •Section 13,0 B. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS - Factual explanations of all answers except "no" are re- . quired on attached sheets. Oc'"IP<CX3r NT IrIPACI'S SC= OF DIPACT NO QJALIFLID YES UISCi"CW, NO Gt t� tE Ozlt0to gl� l � l5 1.0 WATER ( t I 1.1 Hydrologic Balance Will construction of the project alter the h dro- X I I I logic balance? 1.2 Ground Water Will the project offcct the quality or quantity of X ground water supplies? 1.3 Depth to Water Table Will the rate of water withdrawal change the depth X I ( I or grodient of the water table? 1.4 Drainage end Channel Form Will construction impede the natural droinoge pattern I or cause alteration of stream channel form? X. 1.5 sedimentation Will construction in on area result in major sediment X influx into adjacent water bodies? 1.6 Flooding Will there be risk of lou of life or property due to floodin ? X A-S gampa T .IMPACTS SCAM OF IMPACT NO QUALIF= YES UMQvOWN NO 10 x1 IF 0 01 1.7 Water Quality Does drinking voter supply foil to meet state oral federal standards? r Will sewage be inalel-.otoly occommc�jatcd and X I t treated? Will receiving waters foil to meat (o_sl, st-•c a sd X federal standards? Will ground water suffer contamination by v:rfu:e ' I seepo3:, intrusion of salt or polluted water from I ' odjocent water bodies or from another ront,T.imted • o rifer? • • 2.0 Alit •--- ' ' � 2.1 Air Pollution , Will there be generation and dispersfor•of pillutonts by project related activities or in proxir it,to t':e project which will cr:ecd scale n:rtitna o:r ' quolity standards? ' 2.2 Wind Alteration Will structure and terrn:n•impede prc.cilire vrin•f I 1 flow causing channeling along certain rorri:l•s or X obstruction of wind movements? 3.0 EARTH 3.1 Slope Stability Are there patentiol dcng-rs related to step:rail•ires? X 3.2 Foundation Support Will there be risk to life or p•operry of excessive daformotion of materials? 3,3 Consolidation Will there be risk to life or property becatr;e of excessive conso:idotion of foundati-)r rvstr•iols? !� 3.4 Subsidence Is there risk of major ground subside:n.:n rssrsc iotcd X with the project? 3.5 Seismic Activity Is there risk of domage or loss revolting frrm earth- t X I qw'<c activity? 3.6 Liquefaction Will the project causn or be exposed :n liquefaction X j of soils in slcpes or undrr foundwirns? 1 3.7 Eton, ;Iity Will there be substontiol loss of snit e..-n!a crn- struction practices? 3.8 Permeability Will the permeability of sails ossorot�j wish the y project present edver:a conditions telat've to de- velopment of wells? 3.9 Ussigve Features Will any unique geological features be damaged i x ' I or destroyed by project nctivitir"s? 3.10 Mineral Resources Are there geologic deposits of porentinl r.7cs•-ercinl value close to the prn;ecr? 4.0 PLANTS AND ANIMALS 4.1 Plant and Animol Species Are there rare or endangered species present? Arc there species preset which ore po-t:c-s(nrly X I I susceptible to irr.pact from hvman activity? Is there vegetation pr-s^nt; the!as;of v.�irh will X deny food or habitat to important wildlife!?ccic.7 Are there nuisance;nccies of plant or nnin:a:s Fne which conditions will be improved by&a project? 4.2 Vegetative Community Types Are there any unusual populations of pinnts t!vst may be OF scientific interest? /1 Are there vegetative community"I which ore Forticulorly susceptible to impact Frrm l vmon ectivity? /s Are Ih:rc major Irces or maim vegetntir.-i that will v ( 1 ' be cd•.-crs-ly nfFar.ta�l by th- x proi-ct? _ Arr, theta v^-3::a:ivr. rnmmunity tyn-;r ^'r. I►e Ir•;s of which Will deny F—A or ho4i1a,tr.i-•. »act species, rr too:us;rantial nu.m!s o`i' y.1,en:nl;': _ 4.3 Diversity Is there w1soon.iol diversity in th;•n--t--.-l. roc Trn:'y as reflected in the ns.mhrr and type of;)!�,r ::nr.iT^.I V species present or the thrcr-dimznsinrr.l err-- ^r..^n: A of plant ;pecics present? A-6 CpN)PCNEVT DIPACTS SCALE OF IMPACT NO QLW-J ID YES tJWaqN NO ' • al� lclF ollolo 5.0 FACILITIES AND SERVICES I 5.1 Educational Facilities Will projected enrollments adversely affect the ex- isting or proposed facilities in terms of spacing for all activities, Including classrooms, recreational 1 1 areas, and staffing needs? Will the project impact the pupil/teocher ratio so X 1 as to impedo the learning process? I I I Is the school located such thot it presents a hardship for o portion of the enrollment in terms of travel time, I X distance, or safety hazards? 5.2 Commercial Facilities Will there be on inadequate supply of and access to X 1 commercial facilities for tho project? I 5.3 Liquid Waste Disposal Are provisions for sewo3e capacity inodeguato rot I I the needs of the project without exceeding quality X 1 standards? Will the project be exposed to nuisances and odor I 1 associated with wastewater treatment plants? X 5.4 Solid Waste Disposal Is there inadequate provision for disposal of solid X wastes generated by the project?' 5.5 Water Supply Is there inadequate quantity or quality of water y 1 supply to meet the needs of the project? 5.6 Storm Water Droinoge Will storm water droinoge be inodeguate to prevent I I I downstream flooding and to meet Federal State and X 1 local standards? 5.7 Police Will the project's additional population, facilities, I 1 or other FNtvres generate an increase in police service X ( I or create o police hazard? 7- 5.8 Fire Will the project's additional population, facilities, or other features generate on increase in fire services X I I or create o firs hazard? I I I '— 5.9 Recreation Will the project have inadequate facilities to meet the recreational needs of the residents? X I I_ 5.10 Cultural Facilities Will cultural facilities be unavailable to the project residents? X I 1 1 6.0 TRANSPORTATICN 6.1 Transportation Facilities Are the traffic demands on adjacent roads currently I 1 at or above rapacity? If not, will the traffic gen= erased by the project cause the adjacent roads to 1 1 reach or exceed capacity? X I I I Are the other transportation facilities which serve the I I I ' project inadequate to accommodcte the project's X I I travel demands? 6.2 Circulation Conflicts Will design of the pruject or conditions in the surround_ I I I ing area increase accidents due to circulation conflicts. X 6.3 Rood Safety and Design Will project residents and users be exposed to increased accident risks dun to roadway and street design or lock X of troffir.controls? 7.0 HEALTH ( ( 1 1 ( 7.1 Odors Will the project be exposed to or generate any intense X ( ( 1 odors? 7.2 Crowding and Density Will the residents and users be exposed to crowding or X ( 1 high.denifty in their physicol livin3 environment? 7.3 Nuisances Will the project be exposed to or generate factors that I I may be considered as nuisances? X 7.4 Structural Safety Will design and proposed construction techniques foil to meet state and local building codes? X I I 1 8.0—NOISE 8.1 Noise Levels Will the project be cxpos.-d to er penerote adverse X 1 I I noise Icvrls? I I I 8.2 Vibrations Will the pr-)jcci bo exposers to vinratinns nnnaying to " humans? x I 1 I 1 1 1 A-7 COMPONENT IMPACTS SCALE OF IMPACT NO QUALIFIED YES UNKNa rNZ NO IWW I Izp 01101 X IQ 1210 5 9.0 COMMUNITY CHARACTER 9.1 Community Organization Will the project disrupt on existing set of X a gonizntions or groups wilhin Ilse corrimvnity? 9.2 Hornogenelty and Diversity Will the project choose the•characler of the ( I I community in tens of distribution or concentration X of income, ethnic, housing, or age group? 9.3 Community Stability and Will Ike project be exposed to or generate an Physical Conditions area of poor stability anJ ph)rsicol comlitfons? I X I I 10.0 VISUAL QUALITY a 10.1 Views Will residents of the surrounding area be adversely X offected by view;of or from the project? I I Wits the project residents be adversely affected by views of or from the wrrounding area? ' X 10.2 Shadows Will the project be exposed to or generate excessive X shadows? ' 11.0 HISTORIC AND CULTL". L + RESOLF:CES 11.1 Historic and Cultural Will the project involve the destruction or alter- X Resources otion of a historic resovrc4? Will the project result in 401wioa of a historic 1 resource from its surrounding environment? Will the project introduce physicol, visual, audible 1 I or wrno:pheric elements dust ore not in clsorecter with ( I o historic resource or its selti:sg? X 11.2 Archaeological Siles Will the project involve the destruction or alteration X I I I and Structures of on orchoeolo:.icol resourco? Will the project res:slt in is-)lotion of cn archaeological X' I 1 I resource? Wili the project fntrod-rcc physical, visual, audible I or atmospheric elements that ore not in character with X an archaeological resource or its setting? 12.0 ENERGY 12.1 Energy Requirements Are there potential problems with the supply of energy required for tine project? X I 1 Will the toncrgy requiremenls exceed the capacity X I I I of the service utility company? �\ Will Inert be a net increase in energy used for the X I 1 I project compircd to the no project alterrsative? 12.2 Conservation Meosures Does the proiccr planning oar{Aosign fn;; to include I I avoilab!c energy con:crvntion meo•,ure;? X I I 13.0 LAND USE 13.1 Site hazards Do conditlons of the site, proposed site development, I or surrounding area create potentially hazardous situ- X I 1 1 Orions? 13.2 Physical Threat. Will the project or the wrroundiny area create o recurwi I ( 1 of insecurity and physical threat aman�the residents X and users? ( I 1 13.3 Sonitcry Landfill Will tkc project b!.xposerf to srrvetvrol damnse, X I I noise, air, or virface and C�ound w,ter pollution I or other nvivincr,associate)with o sanitary landfill 13.4 A':aterwoys Wi:1 11so project offect an existing v ctcrway through 1 filling, dredgino, druinirro, culv:rtin?, vo:tc dis- I 1 chorgcs, loss of viswl quality or oils.-r loud v:c X I I practi:e;? I I I 1 I I I I 1 I A-8 . Compote= Z,MPACTS SCAM OF IMPACT NO QUALI= YES UNMXXv1J NO xr I 1 H a1 01010 I4- 1 15 Other Environmental eomponenfr C. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE QMLI= NO 140 YES UNHIV MN (�) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish cr wildlife species, cause a X ' fish or wildlife population to drop below self- susiaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range Of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important exa:•nples of the major periods or California history cr prehistory? (2) Does the project hove the potential to achieve short- term, to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental X goals? (3) Does the project have impacts which are individually limited but cumulateively considerable? (A project may impact on two or more separate resources where X the impact on each resource is relatively small, but where the effect o; the total of those impacts on the environment is significant.) (4) Does the project.have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human X beings, either directly or indirectly? A-9 D. MITIGATION MEASURES - Discussion of the ways to mitiga•e the significant effects identified, if any: See Appendix "B"; "Mitigation Measures E. DETERMINATION - On the basis of this initial evaluation: Q The City of Dublih finds that there will not be any•significant effect. The par- ticular characteristics of this project and the. mitigation measures incorporated into the design of the project pro•Aid-s !ha F:3ctual basis for the finding. . A NEGATIVE DECLARATION IS REQUIRED. F1 The City of 'PLIH 41, finds that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment. AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT IS REQUIRED" Signature and date: Name and title: _ **NOTE: Where a project is revised in response to on Initial Study so !hay adverse effects c;e .mitigated to a point where no significtlnt environm-ntal effects would occur, a revised Initial Study will be prepared and a Negative Declaration will be required iw-ead of an EIR. APPENDIX A 1.0 WATER Settin The project site is located within the Martin Canyon Creek watershed. Martin Canyon Creek is a tributary to South San Ramon Creek flowing southeast of Dublin. The Creek is located along the northern project site boundary. The creek meanders along the site boundary along a deeply incised channel and extensively eroded banks. The slope of the Creek is about 2% and receives runoff from the project site where flows are concentrated in gullies acting as small tributaries to the Creek. These gullies also are deeply incised and the banks are sparsely vegetated. Runoff moves at high velocities down towards Martin Creek channel, contributing to channel, erosion during winter storm periods. At the eastern end of the site channel flows are conveyed through a 6' x ?' culvert under Silvergate Drive. The box culvert was installed approximately a year ago and is designed to accommodate the fifteen year design storm. The culvert was designed assuming full development of the watershed. 1.4 DRAINAGE AND CHANNEL FORM As reflected in the project site plans and tentative tract map, storm water from the site would flow into Martin Canyon Creek on the northern boundary of the project. The storm water runoff would be collected by open ditches on the upper fringes and slopes of the project and would travel through underground conduits within the developed portions of the project. These conduits. would empty into the tributary soils of Martin Canyon Creek. The Creek would receive flows and transmit them to a flood control channel just south of San Ramon Road. The storm drainage facilities will be offered to the City of Dublin for maintenance purposes. 86,123 1 Related issues that should be addressed are runoff flow velocity that may contribute to further channel erosion, and the need to regulate development to minimize runoff by preserving woodland and riparian vegetation. There would be a need for creek stabilization at certain sections along the creek and the need to reduce flow velocities to less than six feet per second. In addition, there needs to be additional attention to a drainage study relating to the entire watershed to provide assurance that appropriate mitigation measures will be completed as needed prior to any approval for development. 1.5 SEDIMENTATION Runoff from areas that would be paved or which would support structures may increase substantially and would be impervious surfaces that would result in the introduction of some urban pollutants into storm runoff. During project construction there is some potential for erosion during both stream channel alterations and residential development. Some of this erosion may result both in the generation of significant quantities of silt and other sediments that could be transported to Martin Creek and hence downstream and off- site. 1.6 FLOODING In the lower reaches of Martin Canyon Creek, on the west side of Highway 680, water backs up behind the freeway during 100 year storm events, as mapped by the Federal Emergency Management Agency. No flooding has been identified to occur on the project site as a result of 100 year storm events. Although the Martin Canyon Creek is not within the jurisdiction of the Alameda Flood Control District, it is likely that the District may make recommendations regarding improvements along the channel. County standards require that a channel must be able to coc}tain the 15 year design storm plus one foot free board or the 100 year storm. The District may also require access to the Channel for maintenance purposes. 2.0 AIR QUALITY A. Settin The site and the vicinity is part of the Livermore-Amador Valley Basin which suffers severe air quality problems. Major pollutants are ambiant ozone and oxidants due to auto 86.123 2 1 travel in the basin. A regional plan to improve air quality required by the Environmental Protection Agency has been developed through the provision of air quality improvement by identifying a variety of sources including industrial emission control, automobile emission controls and encouraging transit and carpools. 2.1 AIR POLLUTION The project would entail approximately 3,000 vehicle trips per day and as a result the vehicle miles generated by the project would have some adverse affect on air quality. Moreover, construction activity for the project would generate pollutants intermittently in the vicinity of the project until buildout is complete. Dust emissions would be noticeable at adjacent land uses, particularly during working hours and on windy periods. Emissions from gasoline and construction equipment would increase local pollutant concentrations slightly but would result most likely in insignificant levels and frequency of ambiant air quality violations. There may be some noticeable odors due to the laying of hot asphalt for proposed road improvements. 3.0 EARTH A. Setting A preliminary Geological Hazards Report prepared by Harding Lawson do Associates was submitted as part of the tentative map application. Preceding this report a geotechnical study was conducted by EIP Associates as a part of an Environmental Site Assessment. The project site is within a geologically complex area with extensive folding of geologic material. The rocks underlying the site are sedimentary in nature and were deposited in a non-marine environment during Miocene time. Rocks are characterized as pebble conglomerates, sandstones in greenish' to greenish-grey mudstone within thin marl beds. Most rocks are assigned to the Briones formation as a part of the San Pablo group. The site is located along a southern limb of a north-northwest/south-southeast trending syncline. Since the mountain building event associated with the Diablo uplift,.the site has been subject to erosion. The erosion has resulted in rounded hilltops and the steep gullying of a north facing slope at the site. In addition, some landsliding, predominantly of a shallow nature, has taken place on about one third of the site. The geotechnical 86123 3 studies reveal that many features on the site are the result in a large part from variable resistance to erosion of underlying strata and the generally steep dips present in the area, and that landsliding has occurred on a limited extent of the property. 3.1 SITE STABILITY Historic landslides and mudflows on the site have been mapped by Nielsen in 1973 from aerial photography. Topographical features have indicated that landsliding were also mapped by this same source. The activity of the slide features was not determined. For the limited areas where landsliding have occurred, the report submitted by Harding Lawson recommends repair of slide areas. This geologic report also addresses the presence of past existing fills poised on the sites, debris flows, expansive soils, slopes stability and erosion protection and makes specific recommendations to be included in the project design. Parts of the site are currently experiencing downslope movement. Much of the shallow.slide activity is associated with the steep gullies located on the site and on the over-steepened slopes. Development of the proposed project would require grading to provide roadways, building pads and creek alignment and/or modification. The project would involve mass grading with some cuts to exceed 60 feet in elevation. Mass grading, involving both cutting and filling slopes, would change the basic topography of the site south of the Creek and along some of the knolls. These cut and fill areas would occupy a significant percentage of the site. 3.2 FOUNDATION SUPPORTS Preliminary field investigation. has identified surficial soils that may contain native material generally consisting of highly expansive clays. The existence of expansive soils, although not precluding development of the site, would require special consideration to mitigate the effects that expansive soils may have on foundations and roadways. 3.4 SUBSIDENCE Some soil materials are prone to high post construction settlement, high deformity and high shrink slope potential which may impact foundations, roadways and utilities. These potential impacts would dictate soils to be amended and/or removed. In addition, there is the issue of some loss of soil suited for grazing purposes. 86123 4 3.5 SEISMIC ACTIVITY The work of EIP Associates and Harding Lawson did not identify any active faults. The active Calaveras Fault has been mapped at more than 1,000 feet east of the site. The site is not within an Alquist Priolo study zone. Although no active faults cross the site, it is likely that the site would be subject to a significant degree of ground shaking from earthquakes generated on the Calaveras, San Andreas, Hayward or other regional faults. This ground shaking may affect slope stability and foundation design. The extent of these effects will depend on the distance of the site to the earthquake epicenter, the magnitude of the shock and the soil/rock response characteristics. 3.7 ERODABILITY Due to the extensive amounts of site grading for the provision of roadways and housing pads, there is the potential to increase surface runoff aggravating the presence of steep gullying and erosion on the north facing slopes. 3.9 UNIQUE FEATURES Several prominent knolls made up sandstone, bedrock and outcroppings emerge along portions of the southern edge of the project site. These knolls are visually prominent features and constitute a minor ridge line silhouette. According to tentative tract map and the grading plan, it appears that these knolls would be subject to considerable grading which may alter their appearance significantly. A Draft Report has been prepared addressing the project's potential impacts on topographic conditions. This report, Hansen Hill Environmental Assessment Study, by EIP Associates of December 1986 provides information regarding potential visual impacts as summarized in 10.1. 4.1 RARE AND ENDANGERED PLANTS AND ANIMALS A list of rare, endangered or threatened plant species that are known to occur in the project region and for which suitable habitat occurs on-site is provided by the EIP report. Of sensitive plants listed the appropriate habitat for three occur on-site: Santa Cruz Tarweed, Mt. Diablo Buckwheat and Diablo Rock Rose. Neither these nor any other rare plant species was located on-site during field surveys. It is highly unlikely that two of 86123 5 these three plants occur on the site. Two rare animal species are known to occur in the project region: the State and Federal Endangered San Joaquin Kit Fox and the State Rare Alameda Striped Racer. The San Joaquin Kit Fox is listed as endangered by both the State Department of Fish and Game and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The Fox prefers to build dens in low to moderate relief at or below mid-slope. It is unlikely, according to EIP Surveys, that the San Joaquin Kit Fox is actively denning on this site. However, it may move through the site. The Alameda Striped Racer is listed as a State rare species. The Racer has been sited in the Mt. Diablo area approximately ten miles north and east of the site. Suitable habitat for this rare snake does occur on the site and it is possible that the snake occurs on the site. However, the snake was not observed during any field survey. 4.2 VEGETATIVE COMMUNITY TYPES The predominant plant communities occurring on the site are annual or non-native grasslands on the ridge tops, upper slopes, flat areas, chaparral brush areas in some localities next to the forested areas, and the Coast Live Oak/California Bay Forest mix on the lower, steeper slopes and canyon bottoms. The EIP report recommends that the riparian corridor be maintained through either no construction activity or through the establishment of setbacks from the Creek edge. Both the California Live Oak/California Bay Forest and the Native Bunch Grass stands are considered to be of a high constraint, rating in terms of construction. 4.3 DIVERSITY Martin Canyon runs along the northern boundary of the site. Four tributary swales run down the slopes to the site and to Martin Canyon Creek. Vegetation along and immediately adjacent to these waterways are considered as riparian communities, a native community colony associated with intermittent and permanent strains. The Bigleaf Maple, the California Sycamore are indicator species of this community. The riparian community of Hansen Ranch is partly defined by indicator species. In some areas of Martin Canyon Creek and along most of the tributary swales, the creekside vegetation is dominated by bays and oaks without any riparian indicator species. The best defined 86123 6 riparian communities on-site occur along the Martin Canyon Creek and along the third tributary swale from the east end of the site. Issues related to maintaining species diversity with respect to vegetation are policy directions to preserve oaklands, riparian vegetation and natural creeks as open space for their natural resource value as part of the City of Dublin's General Plan. The report also recommends requiring maintenance of open stream corridors of adequate width to protect all riparian vegetation and to improve access to streams and prevent flooding. There will likely be the need to secure from the Department of Fish and Game a Streambed Alteration Permit. 5.0 FACILITIES AND SERVICES 5.1 EDUCATIONAL FACILITIES The site is within the Murray School District which has the Nielsen Elementary School nearby the site on Amarillo Street. The District has three schcols closed at the present time due to falling enrollments, one of which, the Dublin school, adjacent to the I-680 Freeway, is leased to a private school. No plans exist currently to return Dublin School to the Public School System, but it has not been determined yet whether the Nielsen school can continue to accommodate all the children in Dublin west of I-680. With more than 575 homes currently approved for construction, school capacity is anticipated to surge to 115% of capacity. Therefore, an additional 282 units in the Hansen Hill Ranch may contribute to school overload. An independent school impact analysis and specific mitigation measures such as the use of additional portable units would be appropriate supplemental study. 5.3 LIQUID WASTE DISPOSAL The existing sanitary sewer system provides adequate capacity at relatively convenient service connection points in Silvergate Drive and along the eastern 900 feet of the northern boundary to service most of the parcel. Annexation to the Dublin/San Ramon Service District for Sewer Service would be required. There are approximately 12 acres in the southwest portion which cannot be conveniently sewered by gravity to existing connection points as they slope away from the Martin Canyon Basin. One mitigation measure that could be considered in the EIR is the use of a lift station to convey sewerage 86123 7 for this area to the rest of the system. Another mitigation approach would be to arrange to extend the existing sewer in the Valley Christian Center, if agreeable. 5.5 WATER SUPPLY The site would be required to be annexed to the Dublin/San Ramon Service District for water service. Approximately 150 acres of the Hansen Parcel are within the Zone 3 Strata and thus can be served from the present system. A four party agreement would be required for a permanent Zone 3 reservoir pumping stations and pipeline network to be constructed to provide the proper level of water service to Zone 3 Strata and at the Valley Christian Center's temporary facility would be dismantled. At the present time there remains to be completed a 12 inch water main connection from Zone 2 tank near the end of Belten Drive across the Hansen Parcel to an existing 12 inch stub on the north bank of Martin Creek and a pumping station at the Belten Drive tank. There are approximately 33 acres which lie above Zone 3 requiring a Zone 4 facility to be constructed before water can be moved to serve the area. Several alternatives exist for the Zone 4 facilities. Further discussions with the DSRSD will be required to determine a final water zone for proposal. Additional input from DSRSD as to direction for new water zone in terms of elevation, range to be served, tank location and sizing would be necessary. 5.6 STORM WATER DRAINAGE As part of the Tentative Map Application, a Drainage Study entitled Martin Canyon Creek Drainage Study was prepared by Creegan & D'Angelo has been submitted. This study addresses the drainage capacity of Martin Canyon Creek to accommodate varying storm flows, the need for creek stabilization in sections along the Creek and cumulative drainage impact on, other portions of the watershed. The report makes specific recommendations regarding drainage measures that will be incorporated into the project design. All work presented in this study should be reviewed and additional mitigation measures suggested, if necessary. 86123 8 5.7 POLICE The City of Dublin provides police protection service through a contract with the Alameda County Sheriff's Department. The City is patrolled as a single beat and the newly constructed units north of Hansen Ranch are patrolled under the City's existing agreement with the County Sheriff's Department. The City Police Department would review all project proposals and would provide guidance on ways to maximize security in residential design. The Department concerns would focus on lighting, the orientation of windows, the design and placement of walks, etc. It will be necessary to solicit the input from the Police Department for inclusion of their concerns. 5.8 FIRE Fire protection would be provided by the Dublin/San Ramon Service District Fire Department. Development of homes on the upper boundary of the site is anticipated to be beyond a five minute response time for the fire equipment. Special precautions against fire (sprinkler, fire retardant roof materials, spark arresters, water storage, vegetation clearance) should be considered. The gradient of interior road networks should satisfy fire district requirements with respect to turning radii, sizing and location of turnaround areas, as well as the presence of a looped circulation system. There is a need for a Fire Service Study to determine whether any fire stations or modified location for an existing station is necessary to provide adequate fire protection in the western extended planning area. 5.9 RECREATION The City of Dublin provides park and recreation services in the neighborhoods near the site. The nearest'park is May Park on Plata Way adjacent to Nielsen School. A five acre park is planned on Padre Way as part of a new subdivision. In addition, the City has Shannon Park and Community Center about three quarters of a mile from Hansen Ranch. The issue of an additional neighborhood park required within the western unplanned portions of the primary planning area and should be discussed and the need to promote access to stream corridors for recreation use, while respecting the privacy of owners of property abutting stream corridors. The landscape plans submitted with the project's 86123 9 application indicate preservation of extensive amounts of open space on the site, with its primary function being preservation of passive open space recreation. An evaluation of additional recreational opportunities are appropriate, given the site's character and intended uses. 6.0 TRANSPORTATION 6.1 TRANSPORTATION FACILITIES Traffic impacts on the site and in the vicinity of the site are recognized to be an important community issue affecting not only the western planning area but other sections of Dublin and the downtown area. A preliminary traffic study has been conducted by the firm of TJKM for the City of Dublin. This report indicates that the western planning area can tolerate a wide range of dwelling units without significant adverse traffic impact on local streets and intersections at the density proposed by the Hansen Ranch applicant. TJKM is currently updating and expanding on the traffic study, and the results should bear additional scrutiny. 6.2 CIRCULATION CONFLICTS As indicated on the applicant's application materials and site plans, access to and from the project is planned at three locations. The main project entrance will be from Silvergate Drive on the east boundary of the project. A secondary access is proposed to be located at the southwestern boundary of the project which would connect. to the western extremity of Dublin Boulevard. Three options are being considered for this entrance: the first is a route through the Valley Christian Church following the present driveway with modifications to meet public road standards. The second option is an access through`the Blaylock/Fletcher property from the southwest boundary directly south to Dublin Boulevard. The third option is from the western boundary of the project through the Blaylock/Fletcher property following near Dolan Canyon to Dublin Boulevard. The EIR should analyze and discuss each of these alternatives and recommend suitable mitigation measures. 86123 10 The following traffic issues need to be addressed: o The reservation of rights-of-way and construction of improvements necessary to allow arterial and collector streets to accommodate projected traffic in accordance with the General Plan. o Reservation of right-of-way for Hansen Drive extension to the western hills. o Direction or recommendations to prevent misuse of neighborhood collector streets through traffic. o The need to mitigate impacts to Dublin Boulevard/San Ramon Road intersection resulting from additional trips generated from the development in the western extended planning area. o The need to mitigate impacts to Silvergate Drive resulting from additional trips generated from the proposed development and the western planning area. o The need for the City to formulate traffic policy in terms of volume/capacity ratios for major intersections. o The need to identify and examine all feasible and physical mitigation measures to Dublin Boulevard/San Ramon intersection to improve capacity. o The need to examine possible routes for extension of Dublin Boulevard to serve the western portion of the site. 7.0 HEALTH 7.3 NUISANCES The presence of the deeply eroded channel for Martin Creek presents an existing and ongoing attractive nuisance. Further study should examine these attractions for potential impacts on site recreational uses. 8.0 NOISE 8.1 NOISE LEVELS Traffic is the primary source of continuous noise in Dublin and its environs. In 1983 Charles Salter & Associates, acoustic consultants under contract with the City of Dublin, mapped CNEL contours for existing and future (2005) traffic noise. These maps were incorporated into Dublin's General Plan. Comparison of the map of existing CNEL 86123 11 contours with a map of the project site and proposed development shows that the CNEL in a strip of land ranging in width from 0 to 400 feet at the southern boundary of the site is exposed to CNEL greater than 60 dba. The remainder of the site has a CNEL of less than 60. At present the proposed use of the project site for the construction of single family homes would be "normally acceptable" under the City of Dublin's Land Use Compatibility Guidelines except for the southern portion of the property which would be "conditionally acceptable" for residential use. Planning for future project construction, a report should address provisions that could be made for additional acoustical analysis of project structures and discuss the installation of any additional noise insulation requirements. 9.0 COMMUNITY CHARACTER 9.2 HOMOGENEITY AND DIVERSITY The proposed residential development on the Hansen Hill site consists of the siting of 282 single family homes and some town homes that are configured in a clustered arrangement entailing 12 neighborhood units. The proposed architectural style of the project would combine California and classical themes that would include Californian, Victorian, French . Normandy, Craftsman's style and a traditional suburban style. The quality and type of homes would be consistent with existing residential areas on both the northern and southern sides of the site. Any future population on the project area would be similar, in income and age group, to adjacent residential areas. One exception would be the proposed town homes at the entrance of the project site immediately adjacent to Silvergate Drive. There may be some perception ,on the part of residents nearby that these proposed town homes would not be in keeping with the prevailing character of the current residential construction in the immediate vicinity. There should be examined the issue of, the potential of sharp transitions between existing single family homes and higher proposed density residential developments. Furthermore, the site plans of the applicant should be reviewed and analyzed with respect to the privacy and scale of nearby residential development. Another issue with respect to the prevailing character of the area would be to examine the impacts of premature urbanization on adjacent agricultural lands, particularly those under the Williamson Act contracts that may be impacted from the extension of urban services, as for example a road network up Dolan Canyon. 86123 12 10.0 VISUAL QUALITY Settin Hansen Hill Ranch is made up of rolling hills and deeply cut valleys with elevation ranging from 470 feet at the northwest boundary near Silvergate Drive to over 860 feet along the west border. The variety of elevation, land form, drainage pattern and vegetation contribute to a visually distinct site. The property includes four distinct knolls situated in two rows nearly equally spaced from east to west. The two northern knolls are separated by deep valleys while the two nearest the site's northwest boundary are separated by a saddle of land. Generally the knolls are exposed grassland, although the northern two are surrounded on three sides along the slopes by oak woodland. The two southernmost knolls are part of the minor ridge which is dominant in terms of the site and minor in regard to the regional setting. This ridge intercepts views to the site from I-580. 10.1 VIEWS The project's proposed tentative tract map, site plans and supporting materials suggest that a thorough examination would be required with respect to visual quality on the following points: o The preservation and/or enhancement of site characteristics with aesthetic value (knolls with panoramic views, landforms such as significant ridge lines, water features and site vegetation). o The examination and review of grading policy in terms of cut and fill areas and means of access for the siting of residential structures in a way that they would not disfigure minor ridge lines. o The preservation of both woodlands, riparian vegetation and open space. o Review of the steeper slopes and ridges as areas of preservation as a condition of subdivision map approval. o Review of placement of structures on the hillsides from protection above major ridge lines. o The review of the site plan documents to assure preservation or enhancement of ridge lines that form the skyline as viewed from freeways, scenic highways or other major arterial streets. 86123 20 11.0 HISTORIC AND CULTURAL RESOURCES 11.1 HISTORIC AND CULTURAL RESOURCES The California Archaeological Inventory has reviewed its files for information regarding cultural resources within and around the project area. According to these files the project site contains no cultural resources in the National Register of Historic Places nor in the California Inventory of Historic Resources. There are no recorded prehistoric or historic archaeological sites listed with the California Archaeological Inventory. 11.2 ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES AND STRUCTURES According to the Archaeological Inventory several nearby prehistoric archaeological sites have been identified along low ridges and in valleys near water courses and vegetation zones. The project area contains these environmental features and there is a possibility of prehistoric resources. Dublin is 'one of the most historic towns of Alameda County" and there are numerous historic resources within one half of the project area. Because there is the possibility of prehistoric and historic cultural resources, additional archival and field study of the project area may be required to identify these resources which should not be adversely affected. 12.0 ENERGY 12.1 ENERGY REQUIREMENTS Currently the site neither uses nor generates any significant amount of energy as it is used primarily for grazing. Project related energy use would greatly increase if the project is carried out with energy inputs required for construction, operation of the future domes and transportation for future residents. The project would foster a significant dependence on the automobile for transportation to employment centers or shopping areas. 13.0 LAND USE Settin The 140 acre site is located in Alameda.County adjacent to the western boundary of the City of Dublin. Current access to the property is from Silvergate Drive and Martin Canyon Drive immediately off of Rolling Hills Drive. Surrounding properties include the 86123 21 Hatfield/Investec single family homes to the north; Kaufman and Broad single family homes and town houses to the north; existing residential neighborhoods on Silvergate and Hansen Drives; and the vacant properties of Nielsen, Cronin and Blaylock, Fletcher, Gleason to the north and west; and the Valley Christian Center to the south. Of the 147 acres on the Hansen Ranch property, the proposed homes are clustered on 67.7 acres with 79.6 acres remaining as permanent open space. The predominant plant communities occurring on the site are annual non-native grasslands on the ridge tops, upper slopes and flat areas, chaparral and brush areas in localities next to the forested areas and a Coast Live Oak/California Bay mix on the lower, steeper slopes and canyon bottoms, including the riparian community along Martin Creek. Nearly one-half of the site is made up of slopes which are greater than 30 percent. Development of these slopes would require additional construction considerations. Cattle raising is the predominant activity on the project site and has been for several years. There is a small, dilapidated house located on the extreme north-central portion of the site. 13.1 SITE HAZARDS Because much of the site is on steep slopes there is some consideration that some portions of these slopes are inherently unstable and would require considerable cut and fill and mass grading to stabilize slopes, building pads and road alignments. Furthermore, some of these slide areas on the site may be more than surficial mudflows and would require special engineering treatment. 13.4 WATERWAYS Martin Creek is the principal water course on the site with riparian vegetation delineating its banks. The waterway may be impacted by the proposed fire access road, adjacent to the creek as well as recreation uses, and clearing for trails. Increased run-off due to site development appears to be the most significant threat to Martin Creek requiring engineering responses, such as drop-structures. 86123 22 APPENDIX B LIST OF INVASIVE PLANT SPECIES I THE CALIFORNIA NATIVE PLANT SOCIETY DEDICATED TO THE PRESERVATION OF CALIFORNIA NATIVE FLORA List of weedy species compiled for CNPS 'by Dr. Elizabeth McClintock covering the State of California. Those which are a serious threat in S. F. are shown as ** 1. Ailanthus altissima . Tree-of-heaven. 2. Ammo-ohila arenaria. European beach grass . 3 Car-Dobrotus edulis . Hottentot fig. *** 4. Chrysanthemum coronarium . Garland chrysanthemum . 5 . Cortederia jubata . Andean pampas grass . �. C,,-nodon dactylcn. Bermuda grass . 7. 9ytisus mons-gessulanus . Mediterranean broom or French broom . *� 8 . gytisus sconarius . Scotch broom. 9 . EucalyDtus camaldulensis . River gum. 10 . E'ucalymtus globulus . Blue gum . ** 11. Oxalis pes-cabrae . Bermuda buttercup. 12. Senecio mikanoides . German ivy-. * . 13. Tamarix ramosissima. Tamarisk or salt cedar. 14. Ulex euro-oaeus . Gorse or whin. 15 . Vinca ma'ior. Periwinkle or myrtle . ** This list is by no means the last Word. Members wishing to add others please feel free to do so. 16 Erechtites prenanthoides. Australian fireweed , ** APPENDIX C TREE SURVEY - TENTATIVE MAPS TREE SURVEY - TALLY SHEETS fa•--• •�•4• _v � TMtT SIII or 60 —••• lOT Q 1 \••] •• - fir/ ' � ,-- 1 ,0 •u-yu rnrsst2����v a fi •_•!•■ a•a n.Yat 1•e•2Y•`'• � • 1° --t lt9K•�: of v as, •• lea oi• r' T_ \ a ,• ' •w �� ��ie�'—a•a a �LQ' ft �_�a e_ _ / a�i�_�,i •;/�r� • Q•-' .•1 y%•- .7__ �v - �� ys u• 7T n 11na •a— ~�.as A t .�• - A my\"i / la• f•� f• SI- _trl 1•ts rs • '�-- +_----""�- '° s to - fF^ •f //� •i--J.•. 1• t•YZo �' sf• �_ I �,�! i.s. s\ � et.� II 1 �_ 17ov nw`-='� »a'. •.iii a .. �� ! I j ��•Jc ��/ - 7 L - JT� - f / 1 `\ / ✓wl n.., 'w.r__ __-�-.^._. _._ .. __ � - non a .. „ i. 1 rl .0.0.' 70•• aa0 -- /S!O•.'�Rd• ,f rye 'ti• �./•• 1:�, z L ..•f • n..,o• \� ZP� -r.� � ti �, �.-• Zs na aw..., t! Z7 nsa , a5ra .r Zs� '.1\ .fu t,.. \\ •1\ �� ..t /, ' LEGEND Jim TREE WILL BE AFFECTED BY DEVELOPMENT --- O TREE MAY BE AFFECTED _L r wo,x O TREE NOT AFFECTED °•np � � .,' ( ..N to QD [ -�•,l[ --t,.o,• x 227 TREE WITH TRUNK CIRCUMFERENCE 7'-O• 40 7a o to SEE SHEET T-7 FOR TREE TYPE&SIZE OR GREATER •ar wlLSer a NAM tu TENTATIVE MAP TRACT 5766 Hansen Hill Ranch HANSEN HILL DEVELOPIN7 CORPORATION "• " �-t = • - : < _�• TREE SURVEY _ G \ •]• 1 T•• __ � _ ._. aft -♦ i.•a• ..✓/. , . i • \ '•]• 1 • __ -� TI'rl cTZ rt' jtsrra4L Zoo ii�S• -.t• •o{ �'.���n'.s L.�. Do .i•• >/.• • t•.. e. o ]u .r /• l]IBT,NO UNOIB-W.Taa[.Ai{ iA •O-�� �fl •�` � Sri 9 � 00•]0a--a D. r ° •, 1].{1°t• lily \�.L--na• r -••vuu "✓u I,••o '. - .•l.l .•M. x ={\ 'r '@i• �.J �I • ;� � c,narec•,arr( ( • .a \' a•��/ .• - ar,�\r�Iw; ,m ; r•...rry '• ,]a• , � l\ 1 "araa ,aa �l• .a NN °se , I r „a .•�a'r^ l a{•• )y �a tea{ \} '✓�1 O 32. i� st \d �],aaa i• s •I\ \\ \ . la r•i \\`se ` i• r+•• e Tt•X ` •�a Fir 9 `•,rT )`•at: \ � \ ` a]nT.IO U° GTIJDMD Tllle NABS!• a\•{�a isto \;wtl, / a•�m P -N 1 �� •• i. LEGEND `\ ,i*, \� ///'! /•"�`.t+-.. \�•1 ] O. TREE WILL BE AFFECTED BY DEVELOPMENT '� .. I - B• O TREE -Al BE AFFECTED . ..\���\\: / Y'•' e '4 �``.j; I •• '•1 �' a (/\/�^"�]� \, -_ / - •- -+•• Y O TREE NOT AFFECTED .>; .,.�)/• 1+' 'nsz / `� KH \. -��.� SEE SHEET T-7 8 T-8 Sat TREE WITH TRLOW CIRCUMFERENCE 7'-0' - .rN FOR TREE TYPE&SIZE OR GREATER Hansen Hill Ranch -== �� _ �'\ _ •• w1LsEr HAY HANSEN HILL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION ■ : esT��3 - "'' TENTATIVE MAP • TRACT 6766 � � OeTREE SURVEY—e.G°•.=. ltirV+J \\ �+ \ '•. tar .� •. �' i' •••• ts•s. iri / "`�t.r \ ra ra.-.x. < •aTw•I�oI•au••o T•tl rAU af�.� ••. •T +a� \'.rf 'V '�tr4 B �\ t.r•\ .•.� \ �a a� , ~' \`� .' ' �� �I ,t � i �r Ad +r \ Ea11TING U—STU••ao TREE r••• Is Al ..o%, -\ •`t �'\ B7 rip % /, � \� x.�/� �\. .I'.v.��� .j`` f — `=`-/r,r/ � /il �� \,) Y' i;: � I •�V .%'� \ a°r. .��� may\ ")/ i •cam 1 �.,r !`' of � 1 of T.I ; ,I/ � �� � I/ / ��„ .':, �\ '1� I ��\, ' .1\ C� I•'I ar. � \ �`�' rti \•iii ,,NI•a«•,r re,.�a�EA iiI = __.. ._ -. .•� � )� /'I �� ./'•. _ IT .« �- '~) .. p 'b . Y.•` �A•O•••• •N •Yll�! O A u` ` ar'ys 1 ~/ y'� ��' / �, • — _— of-- 1' ,* i�r Y•.•••. /. 'S V I ,.,. � � / " ra ':,-„i 4,/..r / I nn �� +.rrl);!S �' • ti•r -� � � ••a\y\ ,....+.a..N r. /� '.+a - - viK - I r �. I II 't r'� gal °.� to I_I,�� .0 i i•� "' •c` i f. uo •r II gl / / i a ,I f it•.. rJ —' a 31 _—-. �✓ • r{ of H II j 1 Iz L �Y1' •a•. M Jtr J'y \I._'�\ 9� � �70Q ••a>I ui=. •t• 4 to�,i�n♦ •, /�/ - 1 \\ �\ �' _ ` I I nv am nro 'wI(.I nw�au ��� ♦..� I I I_i• a /� �,1 ;�a K � � __ �,•� � II,A ill' �.� I� •.:•I;� I iii Il..ox �� ��lrr i' '__ LEGEND ///''''''111 o - TREE WILL BE AFFECTED BY DE VEL 6PMEN1'' _ - f G TREE MAY BE AFFECTED '� t • ) TREE NOT AFFECTED - a 7�J SEE SHEET T-7 FOR TREE TYPE d SIZE l Ear TREE WITH TRUNK CIRCUhVERENCE J'-O' .o x o Io •o -r xo '� y`a'r -. OR GREATER ; I �" Hansen Hill Ranch o r, '-_—_ .•r.„m„..�.° ”' ` ' , .w'�. .. •••••• aau r•o ouw,wILSE7 • Y >, HANSEN HILL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION ■a w_ 1 _''' ! ,v4 nor TENTATIVE MAP • TRACT 57i6 - TREE SURVEY "" 0 � o 0 ;t � tort � \• `� .\ ,...�_+(„ � owl;r-F QVS 01 \ 4� \) 4 IV? 119 1.1 i a= • f!a ttsa ;i''at.if•�'- `�+� ` ,A• �L - �•1.aiw•• ua 11,3 " .. � 1Qt � ,b. ';a•�---Na,�,N,A•)� �l�a� •t. It it ,.,. a• Ito � ,� I ` � ,r.a�f` .' �\ w� 1\. �•�' ��_iiaMf' _ � / \/ not _ ;` ,X60 .QIS :'�' +taa•���L toad� \y ~�roc\• +fC� .,11i�l is ~a •/ � r ton r'"�..,�toa , r\ t r' t ;._ .l..•' Oat Oaa 1-0 `t • ' "\ jr \ \_ 1010-. 10f ,t 1 ,(9 ria I !Il ,G' t0•]l ,aTt \ `r� i �1 / . /[`. m 1 ,fir'', I i _-, I //l a � �p i1' �. / � t• / . 4 ` rota =•� I ,o j. .v,` � toia 1 Iw 1 • +�l - 3 �l'�`LL :r„`/ _r SEE SHEET T-7 c, I_ ' " !� -M. I I 10•P- , u` I t+E FOR TREE TYPE 8 SI N .t•�•+• •� o• J :• •� ^\f .,.rte/ � [``J) ./. LEGS D O. TREE WILL BE Afi ECTED BV O V LO M 1 I '� I •�r, ail ,o I ^^ \\ �' '�,�, •A •,\-�\aa �e t O i I ~.n Ha '•iar TREE MAY BE A ECTED m ! n r O TREE NOT AFFE D , �•".' ' o"a'' � 40 so Aro- tar TREE WITH TRUNIt / \\,_ / �N, i - --�w.,, ---- F '�•• WILSEY • NAY Hansen Hill Ranch q. HANSEN HILL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION C=i-=-} �' TENTATIVE MAP • TRACT 5766 I- -- `" Y - TREE SURVEY SEE SHEET T-7 FOR TREE TYPE d SIZE LEGEND \h-r• / /7/ Yw ' .I TREE WILL BE AFFECTED BY DEVELOPMENT \` i TREE MAY BE AFFECTED \ � •�'-Q/1� ( )• TREE NOT AFFECTED Tu /m ; . a•r TREE WITH TRUNK CLRCUMFERE R GREATER r••. , R D iii '^ mac.¢ i _ �, • is ..:J:[ `. •�. i I �!•! ,'� _ •yam__ • - .V- _ •ri N. •. `may' - -•I• ••• °�Bj`[r: let.. i "� ��a. • •`�I N .... ••• [al•TUw YMpar°11u0 Tala r.as !�•a-( - � ,����� u �[• •N - Na•! • N _•• •—•N , 1)� - f'f••, i�wr\V(r 1\ -� spa q a•NS 110 — '�—... f' +as�i•. ..a"/•.. rra io,+LSu•.N•• r• N rr • al.'t s - ' �, . 1N)• x,00! N!` )•a •�, N•• so Y's es sa• a • •4� 819, )11'r H •1•a. IsN.�. )a-. \ • `_s,{ 40 10 O m eon .10 �_ soo ••. "• rp y-fre t �-=1-..-.�- - .--__� 1�,N, No, �l` = rlr.iii N bt ..�1•.\ ' `�.i ��, sa as •a. \.V 1 ns �. .�t� �\ , osw �5 • IH \\N oaf •aa, _ ,` lair• !of .�.r,! t0,\•.\jf�a.�, \ •A 1\ ,•. 'a•,.�-� '.u..,.� /Tt'"�"� 5 lo:. F \roam." ru�,J' \�\ •N , •�• ,!.• Nr••U . .Na •'Z,i:..- a• 2°S i '1 a/}" w. • }. ,{/�,' \l. I `� ` ` y�•�b�Ca 6!✓ ' ,G•��aM u• Z� a,n Zd '�<iir!/' IQr• rN soo �',`I�\ •n. - 1; r' ;r. 'D1 ^•o, as \ zr.l �. - �: f -"'�<' ' {i� �. �t• 7oa w v 1'',/ • ` .Sf S/ •y �� za-v .64K wr Z/z \\ \\ - i' z�'S1a i / \ ` \ •,\: '!N •\, .N. \\ �f!—�,,u\\. •s ^.., At � \.�/ �\ -- �_ '•u I .- ! \ •1 !r• ors \ yV aw ✓ �, \,�/ of \i,ar �,.� ` \ -. ^� `\ ,I([. _ _ •.•�j \ \ _mot \-/ +• �Via. JJ \1 -� WILSEY • NAY o.r.t �°•a., Hansen Hill Ranch _== ��_...r.:.-' _:-_ _ � '. 4 - •• HANSEN HILL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION '-i ;emu . TENTATIVE MAP TRACT 5766 TREE SURVEY t'• ! TREE SURVEY HANSEN HILL .RANCH \\J� o °��o� • � .�°tom o Q� \o \ �G� Go�G� t`�`oO�� ��� G� Go �� oo Boa G'�o �G �5 ��. �ea �� \ \mot .\� co co C Gt \Ga 5G��0� . ���0` ��G�C-) . GAG; �G\�\�°t G� J� \\� \�p� G��` N; Number C) ��cG 0� Q��� 5�0 S��\ �`�� °� Remarks 21 6.8 19 B 22 w 9.7 53 A+ 23 12.0 31 A+ 24 8.0 15 B- `5 9.2 15 B 26 _ 3.3 16 B- 27 6.3 35 B 28 5.2 23 C 29 30 7.7 16 B 5.8 15 B- 32 ` 3.4 20 B 32 9.0 7 B- 33 4.0 5 B- 0 34 3.0 7 B- 35 0 5.0 10 C 36 3.0 15 D 37 Sprawling, ugly 0 3.9 10 C. 38 � 7.8 35 A 39 Near bridge - save - 40 TREE SURVEY HANSEN HILL :RANCH t``Ga 0 O t `CzA\O \` Goo CO� �`�° `ate ,�� C) �O� QG� Number Q,G o •mot`p� G`��' �O Q, �Q, ��� Q'G GG �t °� 41 Remarks 42 �9.0 23 B+� 43 3.3 12 B- 44 5.4 16 . B- 45 3.3 9 B- 0 6 . � _ • 4.3 10 -C . Willow 4 48 4.3 7 D 49 3.2 10 D Willow 50 7.5 14 D Willow 4.8 21 B 51 3.0 12 C 52 3.2 17 B 53 54- 6.3 21 B 55 OL 5.0 27 B- 56 10 8.6 29 B 57 0 4.8 29 A- 58 3.8 21 C 59 5.8 18 C 60- =378 15 B- 5.2 TREE: SURVEY HANSEN HILL RANCF - a �a P Oa � aC ° a C' a . J G° °CO a 5\Oaf \a 'tea °�° to `��`° : a``�` C) °a GJ pt 4,4-,° `N u m b e r p 14 CO 61 C O° a � Remarks 62 6-.9 4.7 15 B- 63 6.0 15 B- 64 = .0 6.2 20 B 65 Woodpecker nest 66 5.4 20 B 0 67 0 3.4 15 C 0 68 4.1 18 B- 0 • 15 B- 70 : 3 10 C 70 0 Crowding nearby tree 71 3.5 12 B 5.7 26 A- 72 73 9.5 18 B- 74 5.3 18 C Unhealthy 75 3.7 15 B- Yellow leaves 76 4.7 18 A- 4 77. 5.0 12 A- 78 7.3 14 D 7.5 16 C 79 4,7 15 D 80 3.2 18 B _ TREE SURVEY HA'.NSEN HILL RANCH r& N Q�- -,, eo r6- r& 0 � ° •mac, �G��a 2 �\-NO ��\ �� �CQ'�: tea �� z G'�e'a .. g \ Number P°�`� Q,°G� Q\`��`� QJ�o� d���\ J�G�\ ��'� ��� �t �� �Q° ��\ ��� �°� - - Remarks 81 B- 82 S 6.1 20 A- 83 4.8 17 C 84 3.8 12 B- • 0 4.4 14 B 86 � 4 4. 10 B �� • Going deciduous 87 4.8 17 B- 88 3.7 15 C- 89 4.5 .18 B+ 90 _ - - 91 3.1 15 C 5.8 16 B 92 5.8 22 B 93 94 10.0 30 A- 95 8.0 20 A- 7.3 12 B+ 96 9.3 20 A 98 6.8 20 B 4.3 20 C 99 5.4 15 D 100 Dying 7.8 20 A- TREE SURVEY HANSEN HILL RANCF- "b- o mac, o� Q Q� o�OJ aG 5� eO 1o0 ° �J to G'` oG a 0 ro - b- -- r. ��:° N° �+ �> �O c tea CO qOj Number o� Remarks — 101 0 4.8 15 B- - _102 _ _ -- — — ---� -- ---- 3. 1 10 D — -- - 1_03 - � ----- — -- -4.1 10 C • Dy�g - - B • ---- _ 6 Going deciduous 105 - - 8 106 5.8 20 B - 107 —_ 5.8 40 B- #106-#111 Mltple Trunk TrE -- 108- --- -- ----- - --- - --- -- - --- - - -- - 7:2 40 A- Dripline for mass = 40 4.4 40 --- -- 109 --- 5.6 40 B ----- ---- 110 -— --- 3.8 40 A- 111 — - - ------ --- 4.6 40 C 112 — —._-------------------- — - -- — 113 - - - -- — --- - — - - --- - -..._.. -- - ----- - ------ --- -- - - — ---- .---- __5.5 20- B _ 114 —- 7.8 30 A- 0 115 116 0 3.5 15 B- 0 _ 117 -- � 3.3 15 B- 0 — -- � 4.7 15 B 118 � - - 4,7 15 --b— Dying --119 -- ---- • --- 3.5 15 B- 120 7.T 18 A- I —� — TREE SURVEY HANSEN HILL RANCH Qr�Q' \`�J0 G0 G� eO�� ,�'`� /G��� Q, J5 20 \off \od CO cc) 110 Number G �� o a \a o �\ �`� tG P � P Remarks 121 _ 6.3 18 B+ �: _ 122 — - --- - -- --- -- _ - - _ --- --- 6.2 12 B+ - 123 - ----- --- ---- - _ 0- 4.3 _1_8 C_ — 124 S _- _5,1 _18_ __B- - -— 125 5.3 18 B- 126.------ .-- - 4.4 12 B- 127 B- - -- -4,5 15 --- -------- -- - -- _ __ 5.0 20_ A- 130 -- — - -- —- 3.4 12 B --- _� _ 6.8 12 B- — 131 4.0 10 B- 132 - - _.. --- ---- - _ ... --133 -_.. _.. --- ---- -- --------- - ---- . . 5.3 15 - -- - - -.. - -- - - -- ---- - - ------ - ---- 3..0 10 C- ..Understory dead_ _ --- --- .. .---- -- - ---- -- - 135 - -- ________ _ __ 3.3 20 _B �- _#I34-#139/Mltple Trunk Tre( 136 _- 0 - 3.0 20 C Dripline for mass = 20 20 B+ 137 4.8 Keep #13 creek protection -- _ ----- --- --- 20 B+ --- 138 _ ___ 3.4 C _ Could be removed 139 - --- ----- -20-3. 20 C _ Could be removed 140 -- 10.8 ---30 A ---- --- S ecimen tree TREE SURVEY HANSEN HILL RANCF OHO OQr \Q' \\ J�' GQ' �G <`�O�� `�'�� G a� GZ \J5 Q,O �Q'a G�Oa ,Q c, 5 t � GJ O� ` 011 GJ Q QeO Z g \ t O O" �` Number O "0 lb `� C` Q, 0 RE!marks 142 - - - *- - --- 6.3 12 B • _. 143 •_.-- 3.4 20 B- _ • - #142-# 445/Mltple Trunk Tr - •: 5.0 20 A- • Dripline for mass = 20 _ 144 - --- 145 • 3.4 20 A- #143 leaning over creek _ --146 • - • _ 147 --- _ 3.3 8 A -- --- ----- --- - 3.3 10 A 148 -- - - - --- -- -- - --- -- - - - - -4.2 --- 8 149 - A - -- - - -- ---- ---- ----- -- - 150 --- ---- - ----- - 3.0 - -8_ _B- 151 - • 3.0 10 A- • - -- • -� Rot in places 152 - ------ ---. 4.5 15 T_B- --- --- -- --- - . 3,6 -15 153 - __.. 5.2 15 ----------------- ---154 ---- -- ----- - -- -- ---�-- - -3.8 8 A 155 - —-------- - --- ---- -5.0 12 B 156 - • 157 - --- - - - - - 3.5 8 A- • 158 - -- --- -• _ 3.8 8 A- - - - • 6.8 - A- 159 _ •. - -- =8 • -------- ---- -- --16 -- -- -- --- 6.1 8 B • 160 -�------ ----- ---- TREE SURVEY HANSEN HILL RANCI- \G Z fie' °Q Q`o G�`�JG �G G `\ O� G� Go \J� °o Boa G'`°� co rb- ��� 5 �\0 CO \���\�p °�o� �aa �1 � ��oG ���G Boa Qia GJ °� �` °- GJ G \o Number G o °O Remarks 162 • 3.0 6 B • _ • 7.3 10 B+ • — 163 - --- -- Dead_ Unders-tory 164 4.5 _ 10 _B • Cvrd w/P. Oak/Not TaQ�ed — 165 _ • 5.8 10 B • — --- - 166 • : 12.0 20 B+ • Specimen Tree _-- 167 --_ — • — 9.0 20 B+ • 168 —----- • __ __6_0 _ 10 C- • . Hangs Over Creek __169 - -- 5.6 - 4 -D - _ - Dying 170 • ! __ 5.8 18 B+ • - 6.6 14 B- 171 •` 6.0 12 C _ 172 - __ • -- -- -- ---- — ---- _- _ 6.0 10 C- _ • - 173 174 --- -- 4.5 10- B- • --- —fir - 175 - — 6.8 16 B- • • 4.6 16 B- • 176 __- • 6.3 15 B- 177 ---• - - • 178 5.5 17 C- • Dead Understory 179 • _ 7.0 15 _ B- • — • #178-#179/Mtple Trunk Tree 180 _—_ 5.3 12 B- 7.2 17 C • --- - TREE SURVEY HANSEN HILL RANCH C� •��' Z � p pi �p N Q \G �\\�JGG �G� �\ p �� (7-, spa G�pa p Q G 5 G G Z $apt �G��'� �GJ °N�pK� �° ��° Number P P ..° Remarks 181 _ 3.0 17 C_ • #180-#184/Mtple Trunk Tree 182 _ • line = 183 -- 43 27- C Dri for mass 17-- - -- - - - -- -- - - - —p- ---- - --- • 5_2 17 B+ • -- 184 - • -- -5.8 17 • - 185 -- --�-- --- -4.5 17 --B-- • -- - --18_6 . -- ---- - - _ •_ _ 3.8 _17_ C _• -- 187 _-- • 11 .0 15_ B- 1-88 • Multiple Tnk/Bee Hive-Bewa B - - ---_ .-- - ---- -- ------ - ------- -- -- - 4.6 12 - • 189 -- - _----- --- - - - - -4.3 12 C- - - 190 - - - ----- --- - - • Leaning Heavily 191 • 7.3 25 A • - - 192 - ---- -- ------ --- -- 8.5 20 B- • --- -- -- -- ---- --- - - - ---- -- ------- ------ - B- 7.5 10 -B- • 194 - - - 195 3.4 10 C --- - • -- - -- -- -- -- ----- - --- - 21 .6 40 A 196 - - • Multiple Trunk/Specimen - ---_.-_--- • 3.8 17 C- • 197 - - ------ -- --4.0 17 C - - - 198 _- 7.5 40 A- • 199 ---- - ---- _ _•_ -8_.0 _20... C ____ • _ _ 200 • _ 4.3 8 B • Going Deciduous I � r TREE SURVEY HANSEN HILL RANCH a / • G a 2 � 0'- NN p��Z� Ocb C, N\a N\� a Qr a�.��G� G°�Ga `\�pOa� a'`a G�� Go \�Co oo ��a Goo �o aQ G a 5 o o, •tea �� ° o a IC, 5 -tea. � �a � �J a q; . a �O to �� J5 CO �. co O O O� rp a G oa GJ pc pt GJ ,� GJ �� p< < Ge' � o`' �•� aa�•� Q,� a( 2� �� `QO - rz GJ Number P P Ga Q� Ga C3J G° C�JJ`� J�Ga O'` G�� 0��� Qa� 5�0 ��` a� ..°- Remarks 201 • 4.3 16 B- 202 -- • --- _ • 203 11.0 25 A- • -- -6.8 18 B —- 204 - ---- 4.5 14 B_ • 10.7 8 C • --_206 -- _ _-- • . 32.0 18 B__ • Multiple Trunk _-207 -- _ • ----- 6.0 22 B • �— - ---- ----- -4.5 12 C— _• - 209 • 3.1 10 C • 210 • - - — --- 4.7 14 B- • — 211 - 5.5 18 B • 212 - -- -- ------ ------- 4.2 14 C • 4 2 -12 -C+ -- - ----- 214 3.3 5 D • - — 215 --- - -- - - _ Dying • _ 5.2 16 C • 216_ _ 6.0 10 C • 217 — _ • -- -- _4.5 6 D -- Dying/Taken over by P. Oak -- 218 • _-- 23_ B • Going eciduous 220 -- -- — -- - • 7.0 10 B- • g • -- 7.0 28 A � ----- — r I l TREE SURVEY HANSEN HILL RANCH CO co N Number P Q� P G� Q� G� (}J G° � �° Remarks 221 8.0 16 A- _222 — --- - 3.0 _ 8 A __ 223 -- � -- -- -5.0 11 _ B _ • - -- ---2 24 �_ _ --_- 4.0 12 B 225 4.4 20 A 228 226- — - q_ __5.3 20 _ A 227 7.4 20 A -- ---- — _ 3.0 10 A 229 __ 5.0 10 B- Multi-stem 23 _ _ 6.4 14 B 0 231 1 232 3.3 6 D Dying --- - - --- - 3.0 6 B ----233 -- -- -------- ------ ------ --- � 4.5 12 B- --- 234 - ---� -- --- -5.5 16- B- 235 — -- -4.3 14 B 236 — 9.5 24 B- 237 — — - Going Deciduous • _ 3.6 12 C � 238 4.0 16 C 239 — �__ __ 7.0 9 A • 240 • 8.3 _16 B+ t r TREE SURVEY HANSEN HILL RANCH Glb- 2 ° N" r � G� �° � a G�� o G � J Oa a �� oo Boa Goo � CO C o" ���dot �G��,� `G� ° �o�� �� `moo \�� G`� �o ° Number PG��O Q.°Gay Q��G�� aJ Goy 4��,��� J�� ��` , ,�'�° .`tGJ ���� �'� �° C O G O Q� 5 �` Remarks 241 3.0 12 C • - 242 — — - - ��- --- 7.3 10 B _. - _ • Thick with Branches -- 243-- - - •_--- ----- ------ -- 3.2 _ 7_ D - -�, Dying -- -- 244 --- •. --- - 7.0 14 14 C — - 245 �— --- 4.8 12 B- • _ 246 -- 247 ----- -- • 5.3 12 B- • --- _--_ _ —_ • 248-— --- •--- — - - - - -6.5 20 A -- • — _249 - - — ---- -- -- ---- - _ •_ _ 3.0 _8_ B 250 _ - • 10.5 18 C • Leaning 251 -_ — _ 4.3 12 B- • 5 - ' • 6.3 12 B- 253 • -- 10 B- • Crowding Oak 254 - - ----- - - • 5.2 20 A - -- - 255 ---- 256 3.8 17 B • - - _• 3.5 12 C • 257 — -- - -- --- 8.5 -40 A • 258 -- —� _ _ _ 4.0 20 C • Leaning 259 _ 3.0 10 D — --- ----- - - - • _.-- Dying 260 • _ 5.0 17 B- • Taken over by Bay TREE SURVEY HANSEN HILL RANCH Qj 01- Qr �o ��� JG oo �G r& �'`� �' �� oo \J5 00 Boa o'`o o�� CO N C7 o Q 4 G Number 4 � � o� � Remarks 261 . � 8.3 7 B- _ _- • 262 -- — - • - -- 3.5 10 _B_ • - -- 263 ----- 6.3 8 C • 264 • --_ -4.2 8 B- • 265 • 3. 1 10 D 266 • Din — • 5.5 10 C- • 267 •_ _ 6.3 12 C- • 268 • 5.0 8 C- • 269 • -- 8.0 _8 C- • 270 3.0 10 B- • 271 • 5.5 12 B- • 272 -- 11.0 19 A SQecimen Tree -- 273 3.5- --- - - 3.5 10 B —— - • 274 - • --- 4.3 10 B • 275 — --- • _ 3.3 7 C • 276 • 4.0 12 C • 277 - • 4.7 8 D • Dying 278 _ • _ 3.7 8 C • 279 • _ 3.8 15 C • 280 • _ 4.0 12 B • TREE SURVEY HANSEN HILL RANCH r& / G� i �0 Q\° C) �J �G 5� ���O Opp �� �`�� AGO a�J ,�tO G'�O °G O °qj t 2� 6J O� , O- G� '� GJ Q,\\ O� t Gei ��\ Qi� \�� a'��\�� Q'� ?jam Q'� \\Q' `COQ' G� ��\ \\`O Number P P G� Q\ G� OJG° 4JJ� J�G� ;7�` G�� O� Q�� 5� �� �a �° RE!marks 281 • _ 5.8 12 B- • _ 282 - _ - • - -- - —------ - 4.3_ _10_ B- -- 283 -- --- • ---- -- 4.4 ---- - 284 — -• -- --- 11 .4 17-- A- - - -- _ • Specimen Tree 285 • 5.3 12 C- • — 286 -- --- • -- 4.3 12 C- • --- • 5.5 3 B- • --288 - -- - ---- -- • 3.5 10 B- _ • 289 ------- -�-- --------- --- -4.5 10 -C- - •. - 290 • --- 5.3 12 B • — 291 __ _ • 3.2 10 B- __ • 292 — -- _— ---• - - - 4.0 14 B+ --- — 293 -- - ---- -- ------ -- -- --- - - --- 3.5 10 B • 294 4.7 14 B • -- - 295 ------ - - - 6.0 11 B- • 296 - - — - - • 6.6 14 B • 297 - ---• - -- -6.0 12 C • 298 • -- 4.0 12 C 299 - --_ _ _ 5.0 18_ A _ _ • 300 • - 4.6 12 B- • Going Deciduous TREE SURVEY HANSEN HILL RANCF IC �� �� �'��\° \��`JG�° Z� G0 ��°\ �a� '``� Gam\ ° 5 Za °a ° G�� �G 5� 0 r G �J Qi '� G o .\ t� J ��` JZ \. JZ 0 \J �� Z Z r `� G S ° 0- ZtG� Z�G\Z� �Z\\�°� \�O� Number PG��� P Ga Q\`�G� QJ Go aJ��\ J�G�\ ©r G�tG O��Q '� � �t\ a� °X. Remarks —301- _ • 4.0 10 B - 302 — - ----- • 303 4.8_ 12 _ B+ • - 0 10 — - • -- -- 4. B - - _ 304 -- 12 • 305 • —_ 8.0 C • -- - 306 • 6.0 15 A • 3.0 12 B • -307 `- 4.5 14 B • 308 -- - -- -- - — _• _ -- -4.0 14 B- 7.0 16 • 309 • • 310 -- --- -- - A 311 4.0 12 B • • 312 4.5 12 B • - ------------- • - - ---- 5.5 15 B _ 313 ------- ---- ----- - ----- - - -- ----- __---�------- ---- ---- _ 314 ------- ------------ --.._.. 3.5 12 1 C • ---- • 4.8 10 C- ---- • 315 - --- ---- - — - -�— -- 3.4 8 B- - -- 3167 - - __ 3.5 12 B • 318 - - __ _ 3.0 12 _B- • 319 -- --- _3.0 12 B •. ---3 2 0 -- -- --- •_ - --_ 43.2 10 B+ TREE SURVEY HANSEN HILL RANCH �Q\° G��J �G 5� ���°O p'�•� �a Qi�� �G° a�J fit° Gam° °G a ��� co lb- J��\,� �\� \O� \mot \� °�° °� � ° rb. 0 t t J J \`� t` G Z GG�\Ap0 ��G�° �'��\i<° GAG�c� G� \\Q'� `O� °�`C\Q'� �'\Q\�� �� 0C'`� \`O�' �G r& Number Q� � P G� Q\ G� . RE!marks 321 _ _ • 35 3 C - 322 _--- - • -_ 4.0 10_ B • . 323 • 3.3 10 C 324 • -- 8.0 14 - B 325 •_ 4.3 10 B :• 326 • 9.5 22 A • 327 _ _ •___ 3.8 15 C • 328 • 4,5 12 Going Deciduous 329 • ' _ 7.0 16 B- • Going Deciduous 330 7.0 10 A 331 • 4.0 10 A • - 332 --6.5 15 A -- 333 -- - -- - - •-- - - -6.0 15 B _- — 334 • 3.0 10 B- • Going Deciduous 335 • 3.2 13 B 336 - _ _ _ • - 8.0 14 B+ • 337 • 6.0 18 A 338 - • - _ - 5.8 12 B • — 340 0 4. - - • 3._5 12_ B+ _• 3 - - �--- -- 7.0 15 B- --- • TREE SURVEY HANSEN HILL RANCH a / ° �G o °< <� �N ��Q,� 0 ��° Qr �J0 o°�G� 0�� �a'`� Gam\ o �� oo N r& �� �G \o ff J r�t'`r e��� o . o o Number ° � \ d, eG�� RErmarks 341 • _6.0 _14 B- • 342_— —.- -— -- 3.5 14 B • — 343 - -- _ - --- - -• - 4.0 10 B 344 - - _ Willow/Unreachable 6.5 14 _B • 345 • __ 6.0_ 16 A- • Not Reachable 346 —_--- - • 14.0 12 B- • — 347 — - — • - -- 9.0 12 B- 16.0 ---18 • ---- -- ----- -- —- 12 --- 348 - ----- - _ - ----349 - -- ----- • B • . --- - - - - __ _ __ __ 3.3 8 B- • 35 • _ 11 .0 16 B • . Multi-stem 351 1 _ • _ 5.0 6 D • Dying:: _ 352 — - - -- _ 353 --- - 20.0 35 A- 10.0 13 C ------- ---- - - ---- - - • Willow 354 -- ---- _ ____ _ __ _ • --3.3 12 B -- • - - 355 • 10.5 11 C • 356 �_ 4.0 15 A- • 4.5 15 A- 359 • - 7.5 16 B- • 360 --- • — 4.5 12 C+ • • 3.5 1W TREE SURVEY HANSEN HILL RANCF o / 0 t°Pr No Grb- 'S �G 5 G eo� 'Q� `�G�� Go `J� too G'`oa Goo �� � \JS �. J� �\� Jo o�O�� \2�•\�� o�o� ��a �� ��o � o Goa J t` G `� t o� G °t ���o� �GJS'� �GJ o\N o4, \moo d, �� o ej Number \ oo q& �����` Jo o� Jo P p P G Q G 4 G Remarks 361 • 7.0 17 A 362 ---- -- - • Take- out Bay Shoot • 3.7 14 B - _• 363 - -- - - .. --- .5 17 B --- - • 364 _ • ____ _ 3.0 12 A-. • Going Deciduous 365 • 90 22 A+ • Specimen Tree 366 - • 367 ---5.0 12_ B • •- 5.5 _ 12 B • 368 — --- -� ------ - 3.7 12 B- • Deciduous 370 369-- - — - --- -6.8 _16_ B+ • - • -- 10.0 10 B- • 371 - Multi-trunk 372 -- --- -- • 3.3 10 C _ • Willow • 4.5 12 B- ---- - ---- -- ---- - -. .-. -------- - -3-- - - --- - --- - --- --- --� ----------- -- - ._ ._3_.0 --8- --c --- • 375 ---- ---. -- ----- — — -- 3.0 14 - .. B- • 376 - - • 6.5 8 C • 377 - _.-. — _ _ ------ 7.4 15 A- - 378_ 379_ 5.0 16 B- - 380 • --- -- 5.5 11 B • Goi _ ng Deciduous • - 8.5 23 -A --- --i- TREE SURVEY HANSEN HILL RANCH 0 �o c� •mac, o � of o�� Qr No ����JG� oo �G� t`�o4a� a o��� oo �� oo Boa o�oa �G��aQ 5 a� t• ram ��'�o �o�� ��� o� aa` �� oG �`�o Boa o� � �G\o� ` o� o�G��,� o`G\ �o�� o�� \\moo \�� Number Po��� PoG� Q��Oa a�Go a�J�N J�O�� O�'� G�tG Ot�Q Q��� 5Qo ��\ a� .0 Remarks 381 • 4.3 19 A- • 382 • __ 3.0 8 C • - 383 • _ 24.0 12 B- • lti-trunk/Half Dead 384 • Mu_ 12.0 10 _B- • Multi-trunk 385 • 10.0 16 B • 386 • _ 3.2 10 B- • •_ __ 9.5 40 A+ • Specimen Tree 388_ _ • __ _ 9.0 40 A+_ • Specimen Tree 389 _ • 10.5 40 A+ • Specimen Tree 390 — -—---- -- - - — 391 • 8.0 14 C • 92 12.0 18 D _— - Dying± 3 -- 3 -------- 3.4 12 B -- - ' • Unable to Flag --------- --�-...--- _._ — -- — -- --- 7.4 20 B- 395 - --- -- — 394 �--- -- 4.8 15 B • — -- —--- 396 • 4.4 15 B • __ • 6.5 20 C • 397 • _ _ 14.0 24 B- 398 Multi-Trunk 398 • 15.0_ 16 B- • Multi-Trunk 399 _ • - 18.0 21 B+ • 400 — --- — --�.6—14 -�_ TREE SURVEY HANSEN HILL RANCF- � G� � P O � � G Number Q. �� Q. G� Q\ G� pJ C;& '� \�G c`Q �'` O� Remarks 401 • 402 5.0 8 B - -- - -- -- - � --- - - • -- _.. 403 - - ------- --- 4.0 _ 10 B - 404 _ 4.3 15 _B _ ; • Tagged Nearby - 405 16.0 18 B Multi-Trunk - 406-- � 7.0 20 B 40_7 _--- -- --- - -�--- - _9.5 20 A- - 408 -- -- - -- - • --- ----- --- - -- - 409 3.2 15 --B- -- ----- ----- ----_ -- -- - --- 7.0 20 A 410 ---� - ' S.3 15 B- 411 Leaning± 412 - ---- ---- 6.3 20 A -------- - • 4.6 12 0 -- • -- --- -- 41-4..-- ------ -- - - - -- --- .. .-4.2 14 _B_ 41 • 4.4 16 B- 415 ----- -- ---- - 6.8 16 B- 416 _� 7.2 18 A 417 --- - 3.8 15 A- 418 - - 419 5.3 20 A- 420 -5.4 16 B 3.0 14 B - --- -- TREE SURVEY HANSEN HILL RANCH 0� \o 0 J0'\ G� �aJ�Qo o� ` o ,G � C7 t t o�\ � � � � �O O� C5 \ X�\ 4, a`�b oo BG 000 a� �C', eta'\O� `00 .`�O Ot J�` Number .°Ga r&� Remarks 422 • 3.0 14 B- • • 6.7 18 B 423 • - _- 4.1 14 B- -• - - - - 424 -- - - •- 4.0 16 C - 425 -- -� - - --- -- ---- ---- -=�= -- _ 7.3 18 A • - - 426_-- • 7.8 12 C • - 427 -- - • 4.5 12 B- 428 --------- ----- -------- ---- -- -- - -- - -- -- 3.5 12 B- • - 430 -- ------ • _ -- -3.7 10 A- 431 - • _ 6.0 12 C+ • - •432 7.0 12 B • _ • - - ---- 4.33 -- ------- -- -. 4.0 10 A --- • 14.0 18 B- - _M_u- - ------- - -- - • Multi-Trunk 434 _ -- - ------ 12.0 18 B+ _• Multi-Trunk 435 --- ----� --- ---- ------- ---- 4.0 12 A 437 6 ------------ - _ - __ 3.0 16 A- ! • 438 —�- _ - 9.20 _16 C • Crowded Out 440 ---- -- - • -5.3 12 B- • • 5.9 14 B- -___-. • -_-_ - TREE SURVEY HANSEN HILL RANCH 17,1- o eb. pip � G� C o J o p oB`�a���o oc• (;). �'. N Pco �p 0 pt p- G ` G �oa d Q aGa � JG � G� 0 �Number o C�0 Remarks 441 442 - _• 5.5 12 B _• 12 B • - 443 • --- 19.0 12 B- 444 9.5 18 B+ — 445 • 3.3 14 B- _446 _ • - • Going Deciduous — _ 6.5 16 B- 447 • 5.0 12 C • 448 4.7 14 C- • -- 449 --- - 12.0 22 A- • 45 • _ _ 25.0 0 451 1 -2 B Multi-Trunk 452 8.6 18 A • -- -- ------ - ---- 3 453 • - - - __. .._l.. -14 B= ------ �— 455 --- ------ -- --— -- 15.3 -14 - A -- • 7.7 12 B • 456_ --_— _• _ _ 7.0 10 C • 457 - -- -- 458 — — _• - 3.6 10 C _ • 7.8 10 C 459 • - 8.0 12 B • 460 - - — --- 3 2 10 C- —_—. • _-- TREE SURVEY HANSEN HILL RANCH e •o o to CO �°�Q\° ��JGt°G � G �G � AG ��\°� o� `D �a� O a�J� too o�oa ezj ? °� J N? 0 O� \e' ro\``` '`�\```° ��G��'t �t�'\Q,� ,OPT\.\�C)� �t J� ��� \�O� G�� �P� Number Po��� Q.oGa Q\�G� a��o aJ Jam\ J�G�\ �'� cl�° Ot�� ��'� �Qo ��\ �`� �° Remarks 462 - • --- 5.3 12 C • - 463 — • —_ 9.4 16 B- • Two drunks — — • 4.4 16 B • __ _ 7.2 __12 A — 465 • 4.4 15 A 466 • —_467 __-- _• -. — —_ 5.5 _l8 A • --- -- • 4.0 —:Co—..- C- • ----.468----- --- —�—---- ---- --- 4.5 14 B 469— — — - —�— --- -- —. . —4.8 12 C — 470 • • _ 6.0 20 • 471 • A 472 4,8 18 B -- -- — -- — . -- 6.7 14 B --- _ 7_3 — - - ------- - -------�..--- --- --- -------- -- ---- ------ _ _ _ ___ _ 15_._0 14 B — -- 474 ------ ----- -- ----- ---..__. .. -. _ Multi-Trunk 475 • — _ 9.5 12_ C - — 476 • 15.0 14 B- • Multi-Trunk 477 ----- • -- 3.0 8 B- • 478 -� 16.0 16 B • •_ • _ 479 6.4 16 A — � — -10,0 B- 480 12- • - _ _ Multi-Trunk_ • 5.0 10 B T TREE SURVEY HANSEN HILL RAN o GO �`f- `�G � �t 0 G O Q O 0 O'�`F- bpd G,�2 Z d \ 4� , rjj �ei G `p�0 G`� \��° ra'��\��° GAG�5 0� \\Q'� `O�'\�`�°�`C`Q'� GJ�'��\\� ��� pG` \`P � '�� Number Q� P G� Q\ G� 4J G° C3�J� J�G� :7'` �`� p� Q-� 5Q �� �a �° RE!marks 481 • 5.5 10 C • 482 — -� ----- — -- 7.5 16 C • 483 --- --- 12.0 20 --K-- -- ------ -- ---484 --- • - -- ---- _ 4.0 12 B • 485 - -- 10.0 -18 B - =•--486--.--- •. 11.3 18 A • Specimen Tree —_487 - - --- 5.2 12 B 488 - -- — -- ----- --- -- - --- • — - ---------- -- -- 6.8 _14__ B �- 489 - - -- - - ----- -- 8.0 15 B- • 490 —.i _ -- 7.31 18_ B- • 491 - - --------- 4.4 14 B- • 492 - --- --- -- - - ----- -- - ------ -- -- --- ---- --- - --- 8.5 22 B+ • 93 - --- -._. •.- ------- ----- - - 19.0 22 A- • _.....494 _ --.- .. - -------- • - - 6.0 - 16.. - - — -� - - ---- - 495 • 6.7 12 B- • - 496 • 8.3 18 B • 497 - - - - --- 0. 12 18 B _ _ • Multi-Trunk 498 • 13.0 18_ C Multi-Trunk - 499 • _ --- -- 4.5 _l2 C 500 • -- --- 4.0 14 1 C • --- TREE SURVEY HANSEN HILL RANCF / AGO / . G O��O °t O N\� OQr ��`�JG� G G� ���°��� ��a C) GO \�5 OQ' '�06 GAO/ C7 0 GOt �2 OcC)- �,`�. o Fib \\�U Number Q- �` P G� Q� G� C�J G° C3JJ� J�G� �'`r �G p��� ��� c�Q° �J`` ��� °� R Et m a r k s 521 • 3.0 14 B- --�— - -- - _ 5.0 -12 C - 523 524 10 D • Dying -- • _ _ 4.8 525 526 • 8.0 15 B- 527 -�- — - • —- B- 528 -- - ---- - —- -3.0-- 1 1 0- -- • - • 4.3 5 B- - • — 529 - — 7.0 12 B- 16-- — 530 • _ _ 9.0 B- 531 • 4.2 14 B- 3.2 10 B • --532 _ • 533 3.2 12 C -- -- ------- ---- - - - -- --� -- _ -- --- -._...-534 ------ --- ---- _------ ---... • - 535 -- - • — 32.0 41 B_ • Multi-Trunk • _ 3.9 5 B • 536 5.4 10 B- 537 --- 20-.-(Y lb A- Two Masses 538 _ 7.0 10 D • _ Din 540 — 3.2 15 B- • Deciduous - - -TS- De ci—'duous TREE SURVEY HANSEN HILL RANCH O p OQ �Q' a J GZ e orb �` �J��`\�. J`' � 5�\J SNO� �2> `� GAO to J Q, 0 G. O� O- GJ GJ �� Number G� Q� C�� �}J ° 4JJ� Qt�Q '` �Q° Remarks 541 ----- _ __ • Deciduous 542 -- - 5.0 _16 A --- 543 --- -- 3.0 14 B - 544 • 5.0 14 B- - 545 - -- - --- 4.5 10 A- -- 546 — -- 4.8 15 B- -- 547- - ---- - �---- - -- 5.4 16 B � -- 548 � --- -- -- - --- --- --- --- ------- - 5.2 _3. B- + - 549 - --- - -- -- -- -- --- --- 3.0 12 C 550 3.2 10 B- - - 551 • 14.0 20 B Multi-Trunk 552 --- ---- ---553 --- --- - - - 8.5 16 _ B - - 555 - .._. - ----- _ 554 - - --- - - -.. _.. --- - ----- - - --- 6.0 16 B 556 - 9.0 12 B 557 _ -- � -- 8.0 14 B 558 - -- - - 5.2 16 B 559 -- 560 3.2 12 B- -- • 3.5 11+ B ---- - TREE SURVEY HANSEN HILL RANCH Z G�OQ Q` G��J �G �� �� 0 0.0 O a 1'�` �Jco��` GJco N Jam' O \\J\���� s�e'� �G �Q'� �� Q'• o` 5 G Q G Q 0 G Q J e \ 0 Number Z p't Remarks 561 •-- - _5.5 12 _C _ • -_562 • - - - - 3.5 _1 _ _B- _• 563 - - 8.0 16 B+ • 564 7.0 14 B •_. 565 .• 5.2 18 A • -- 566 10.0 10.0 15 B • - 567 _ _ • 8.0 14 B- 5.0 14 B- 569 -- --------- - • _ 10.0 14_ B- • 570 • 10.0 18 A+ Specimen Tree 571 _ -— _ • 12,8 16 C •_ Multi-Trunk 572 -- - - --- • 3.5 20 A 573 574 _ _ • 4.0 12 C • 575 • 4.5 10 C • 576 _ _ • _ 3.0 _12 B+ • 577 _ - - • - 7,0 14 B • 578 • - - _5,0 14_ B _ 579 ---- -- - 580 ------- - �--- ------ ---- -3.4 _-1�- - C - --- • ------ • 3.3 12 B • TREE SURVEY HANSEN HILL RANCH G 0 \ o,Q No t`\ JG G°�G t`�°�� ��a G� c,° �Jco °° Q G 5 G��� J5�`� 5 `Qi ��Orb- Number Q.G��d' Q'oG� Q�`�G� a� J�G�� Go ` 581 R Er m a r k s � _ __ 3.0 8 B- �• 582 � _ _____5.4 18 A — 583 • __ 6.0 16 B+ • 584 _16 B+ 585 • _ • _ 5.7 16 B- 586_ • _ 587 -- • —IT- • 588 • 3.8 _ 10 C — • — --5-8 9 • 3.8 B+ — 10 590 - -- • —- 5.5 12 B • • —14-- B- • 591 • _ 4.0 12 C- 592 - ------ ---- -- —.�.:-- - _7.5 9.0_ 14 �----- _• - --594 --- --- -- - - 3.5 - 10 - -C - - • — 595 — -- - 5.2 16 B- 5976 • - 5.5 16 B- • 598 -8.0 18 B- 599 -- 3.0 14 B 600 - • - _ 7.0 10 C • 3.0 .12 TREE SURVEY HANSEN HILL RANCF /C) e' Qr ����JG� GZ�G� ���°O`�� e'r`a G� � GQ' \J`7 �° G 5 G O`O �`t J\ �Q` J ��` J� \. J5 O \\J `� a O BOG t Z G. O O G '� G O t �� �� Z `p Number P P G� Q\ G`a aJG° C3JJ� \��G� O'` � Q� Q,� 5Q �` � �° Remarks 601 _•____ ___ 4.0 12 B- • 602 - • 7.0 20 _B- • Deciduous 8.-0 -18- _C- 6_04 5 --- - —- — • 5.0 12 B- — 60 • 4.5 12 B- - 606 --- -- • _ - 7.0 18 B+ • 607 10.0 14 B- - ------608 ----- ---------- __ _ 11 .0 14 B- 609 •—_ --- --- ---- --- 5.4 _14_ B — — 610 • 5.3 14 C • — 611 • - _ 3.3 14 C 612 — --- _ • _ • 6.5 14 C - 613 ---------- --- 3 12 B- • _ 614 • 4.0 16 B- • — 615 ---- - - • - 3.5 18 B+ • 616 — • 4.0 12 B - 617 --- ---- - • - - 9.5 618 12 B - — --- • • _— 8.0 14 C • 619 - - - - —.-�20 - — --- • _ 7.0 _12 B • 1�.� 1� B- Multi- run TREE SURVEY HANSEN HILL RANCH lb- o �o 0 0 Qr \o �\\�JG� oo �G� �\�0O�� �'`� o��� o� J� �r. 4' �rb. lb, �� t �� of o� o� of '� of \N of t C�` �� � Number Go'�d'` o����� `ate��`� Joy 0 Jot���o �� �`� pro \�GJ t`�\ �'�`� Quo P P G Q G Q G a J J C;7,1,* O G O Q� 5 �` Remarks 621 • 6.5 25 B- • 622 —� -- 3.2 _15 B _ — 623 ---• ---_—_- 3.2 15 B — 624 _ • __ 3.2 14 C • — 625 • 3.0 14 B • 2 5.0 16 B- • — 627 --- --- • 6.0 10 _B- • —628 -_— — - -------- -- • - --- 10.5 15 B-- --� Multi-Trunk 629 _ —-- • —_-- 6.0 12 D • Dying 631 • 6.5 10 B • 631 • 7.0 10 B 632 --- - - - -- -- - -- — -- -- -4.5-10- B- — • 634 • 4.5 15 C+ • 635 • __ 8.5 10 C OEE 636 •_ _ 4.0 21 C • 637 • 638 — P 25.0 15 A- • Specimen Tree — - - �__ _ _ _ 8.0_ 15 C • 639 • 4,0 15 B- 640 — -- - - - - 5.5 15 B- --- --- — TREE SURVEY HANSEN HILL RANCI- �G G oQr \o �`�J0 GP' �c) eo af �,`� G��� o CO o° Gt aQ G �� 5 Z O� �� �G a� �� G GG a �?N CO t t J ON 01,��` O Pco Q,5�`� �'t��`�° Q,tG��� pt���z �.p *1� re N\ 't`�� Q,�'\�t�V Number Remarks 641 4.3 15 B- 642 _ ---- �------ - 6.4 15 B- • 643 ----- � meaning 5.0 10 B 644 _ 5.5 15 B 645 4.3 10 B- • 646 - 647 3.2 15 C _ 648 - _ 3.3 12 —B- 0 649 7.0 15 B 0 6.5 15 B 650 9.0 18 B- 651 0 4.2 15 B 0 - 652 - _ 0 5.5 20 B+ 0 ---653 -- -- - -- - - - — -- - --6.0 15 B- 654 ------- - -- -- -- --- -- 0 - • _ 4.3 10 B 0 - 655 0 8.0 15 B 656 0 • 3.5 15 B 0 657 0 5.2 15 B 658 659 0 3.5 15 B 0 oing eci uous 660 0 --- --- _—__ '0 0 Guing Deciduous TREE SURVEY HANSEN HILL RANCH IZ). / • G \G�p \ Q (7, ; p G eb, ' a Co no � G z G�O � , o A pa Goa G o Z� �� 5G� °` *v� ptG p�G> .�\\ 0" ?�� J�� \`gyp G`� �p Number Q,G�`°' P°G� Q\�G� 4J Gp 4JJ�a\ J�G�\ 0�'� G��G Ot�� Q��� 5Qo S��\ �� °� Remarks 661 • 10.5 20 B+ • 662 • - - 4.0 _15_ B-_ • 663 •_ 6.0 10 B 664 • _ 5.0 16 B — 665 • 5.5 15 B± • 666 -_ _ _ 4.5 15 B - -667 ------- • 7.5 20 B • - ---- 66_8 ----- ---- -�- -- ---- -10.0 20 - - B � -- — 669 • 15.0 16 B Multi-Trunk 670 — - • -- 14.0 16 B- 671 • Multi-Trunk • 4.0 14 B • 672 -- -+- - - - ----- -- — 472 14 --- 673 ----- -- --- --------- -- -- ------- - - - ----- • - .0 10 B _ 674 • 12.0 25 A+ • Specimen Tree 675 — • _ 6.0 20 A • 676 _ _ _ • _ 5.0 14 B • 677 _ • 5.0 16 A- 678 • __ 8.0 12 B • - 680 - -- —�---- - --- -- _ �4_ A- _ • -- • 9.0 16 B- • - TREE SURVEY HANSEN HILL RANCH S\Q G � G � � ' o a G 011Q 5 G a 0 �� o a �a \a a � � GG�J o � � � 0 aG Q G J ° Q I G . \5 0 ° a ° �Number P ° Remarks 681 • 11.0 12 B- • 682 • - - -- --- 5.0 _12 B • - 683 — -_ 5.5 12 A- _• - 684 - • - _ 3.2 10 B- • Going Deciduous _ 68_5 3.5 3.5 12 B • _- 686 - - • _ 11.5 18 B _ _• ____ 687 - - --_ _ • 5.5 -14 -C- • 688 -- --- ---- -- - 8.0 20 -B- -- — - 689 - - - ----• - - --- -- _3__._2, _1__4___ 3.2 l4 __C_ -- • 690 • 3.2 12 B- • 691 • 3.3 10 __B- 6_927-- _ • --- --- - -- - --- -- - - -�-—- - 6.5 10 B- - -----693----- ------ --- - ---------- - ---- --- .-... .----- ---- --- - - - --4.2 -l�- --�+ ----- • -- --- --- - 694- - - --- ---- - --- • 3.0 - 1-2 C- - - - - 695 f- 24.0 20 B- • Multi-Trunk 696 • 7.3 12 B-. • 697 - — ----- - --6.5 10 C- -- - — _ 6.5 18 B- 4.7 • - .5 10 �g=- -= • 700 ----- - ----- -- TREE SURVEY HANSEN HILL RANCH a \Ga / \\ a N\ 0 G \ G a a ako aa Ga� `G e� a `mo •�o� 0 �G o a s����0 0 0 41 a O` a O Z\ 6.N 41 \Ja `b. l< \GJ a o o 0- C) G o \mo Number G \ G G \\ 'O`Qa'a Remarks ec 701 _ __ 12.5 20 A Specimen Tree 702 703 -_-�--_ 5.2 18 A± P 4.4 14. B 705 _ 5.0 14 B 706 8.3 20 A- 707 10 C 708 __ 6.2 10 B Going Deciduous 709 9.0 18 A 71 5.0 66 B- 711 1 3.4 12 B 713 — - — --- --- 5.7 16 A-- -- • -- --- 714 - --- -- 3.5 14 .. B 715 � 10.0 25 A 716 _ 3.0 10 B 717 -- 5.-5- 1 —9--- 718 • ��.�_ 719 -- -- ---- --- 3.5- -1I-- ---720 ---- --- TREE SURVEY HANSEN HILL RANCH o �G �C o 1, t� o rc) � �\ Pr O�� \ \a� G�G� `tea �� C Pco o 5 C�� r o4 \0- o�G��,� \\ °tom °� J�`� \\moo \�� �o o Number PG�`� Q.°��a Q\aG� ��Go aJ�a\ J�G�\ 0 r G�tG Ot�� ��'` 5Qo ��\ �� .0 Remarks 721 4.5 18 B 722 -- ---- - _ • 4.0 10 B • - 723 - --- 8.0 10 _ B+ • 724 • 12.0 25 B+ - 725 • 4.5 10 B- • - 726 -- -• 3.3 10 C • - 727 ---- • - - 4.5 15 B- - 728 - --- • --- -------- -- .3 - -� -- --- - - - ----- _ _ _ __ 3 _12 B- • 729 _ _ • 4,5 10 B 730 • 3.2 12 B- - 731 • • 3.0 10 C+ • 732 - - 4.3 16 B- - --- ----- - - 733 --- - - • 10.0 _14_ B- --- --- -- 734 --- -- - - -3.3 12 B- 735 - - 736 • _-_ 5.5 12 B • • 10.0 16 B • 737 3.3 14 B 738 - • • 739 - • ---- - '_3- • 740 - - -- - - - 3.5 12 B+ - • - 3.7 8 B - • ------ - TREE SURVEY HANSEN HILL RANCH O� °tom ,§0 5 orb �`b �J \ `b 2 • te' t`b Z �bPJO J �` 0 O Number P Q� P G� Q\ G� 4�G° J O� � Q� Q�`a 5Q �� �r6. �° Remarks 741 • _ 9.0 16 B+ • 742 4.2_ 10 B _ • ,0 743 �— --- -- -§76- 18 B+ • — 744 • --_ 8.0 14 A- • — 745 • 6.0 12 B- • o 746 ...-- ---- - - _ - 4 5 747 - 4.4 12B-750 8.5 12B• 3.2 10 B- • — 751 • 4,3 16 B- .-------752- •_ 9.0 16 B- 753 --- 4.5 18 B- -------------------- — ------- -------------- — -- ------------ ----- ---- --- --- 754 • _ 5,5 18 B- • 755 • _ 7.5 14 B- • Going Deciduous 756 5.0 12 B • 757 — — - - 758 — • _ - 5.5 18 B- • 3.0 12 C- - 760 ---- -6.0 6 B- _ • -- 4--.5 12 B- • - --- — TREE SURVEY HANSEN HILL RANCH G� `° Ce4�s - (Z� °Q Q\° G�,� �G c�� fit`° °.o �\� ��� °�G �a�� .fit° °G� ��°G °a co G� \Z �G.�� ,`�'�� GC CO Q,t \Q' `OG��� / GJ Q\ '� PSG Number Q,G�`°' Q,°G�\ Q\�G�\ a�G°� aJJ�\ J�G� p'�r G�� �t� Q.� c�Q �J` �� �° Remarks 761 • 7.0 14 B- • 762 3.3 10 D Dying 763 • 4.0 12 B • _ 764 • 4.2 12 B 765 • 3.3 14 B- • _ 766 • 5.5 12 B- • 767 • 4.9 17 A • 768 • - - - 6.7 17 B - — 769 • - --- ------ - 4.3 16 B- • _ 770 • --- 7.0 16 B 771 • 8.0 8 B • 772 B — — -- -- ----773 - --------: --------- ----- ----�--- - �- -3.5 12 C : - M�p �-- 774 ------- ----� --- ------ 9.2 16 A. • 775 • - 3.0 12 B • 776 • 5.1 15 B+ 777 - - —�- --- 15 A • 778 • _ A;5 _12 _C • 779 _ 0-- 4.0 18 B_±;j=j------- — 780 - • 5.0 15 B- TREE SURVEY HANSEN HILL RANCH / Cp a to ��� • G ` o a O O °� �0 a aa� �a G � 0 CO 0 oa Boa Q �2 a J GQ' �� O a a� G ��? Z X. G �° aQ G Q� a 5 o o��- �.`a p Z� �t oG �o oa a. a a J a a a t to '�� a� G� �a �� �� �� �� 5 �.� 5 O �> �� �o 0 o a o Q, G. P� . ° t \ ,- `O Number Go ` ooa�� �a�� Jo Oa �o c��° O� � RE�marks 781 •' 9.5 18 B • 782 — _ --- 7.0 18 B • - 783 • 4.5 10 B- • 784 • 6.0 12 C •. 785 • -- _ 3.4 12 C 78_6 -_ - _3.1 15 B- 787 • 78_8 -- --- --3.3. 16 B ---- - • — __-- _---- 4.0 _8_ _ D • Dyin 789 - — -- • - 7.3 15 B- • 790 _ 4.0 14 B- — 791 —— • 4.0 15 B- • 792 5.5 18 B+ • ---793 - -- -- - ------=- ------... -- ------- - -- --6-.-0---- ---- ---- --- --- ---- -- 794 — --- --- 9.0 20- B - • 795 � - -- • 3.5 14 B- 79 5 • !— 4.9 18 B- • 797 7.0 20 B- 798 • 4.0 12 C 799 -- • 6.6 20 B- 800 - -- 4,0 10 B- � -- TREE SURVEY HANSEN HILL RANCH Ga ', ec) G°Q QG •p t ` � G ° EG G 5 - a N a Ga a� c,���.� GJ�O ��J° o)� � .�G ��G . G J G `O a G Number GG GG a\\ \ate a`\ a`` °� Remarks P P G Q G 4 G C3 marks 801 _ 5.0 18 B+_ 802 -_ — _---_ 5.5_ 16 B- • - - 803 _ _- __ 3.5 15 C_ • 804 • _8.0 14 B__ _ 805 — - —-- 3.2 12 B- • 806 • 3.2 12 B- 807 ---— - - --9.5 20 A- -- 808 -- -- - ---- —�— —-- --- --- -3.3 16- B- - ---�_ Leaning --809 -.. - �---- ---- ---- -8.0 20 A- � --- 810 - 811 • 4.0 18 B- • 812 — - - -�--— ---- --- 10.0 -20 -- A- --7--.--0-- - 16 --C+- ---- 814------ --- - -------- --- • 7.6 20 A- • 815 — * 4.3 12 C- 816_ • 5.5 16 B- • 817 - - ----------- --- --�— - 3.2 4 _ B- • _ 818 — •_ -- -- --__-_ 5.8 20 B- 819 _ _ _ 4.3 _10 B- 820 • 12.0 1 25 A- Some Rot TREE SURVEY HANSEN HILL RANCH '�G G 0 o �oQ Q\o G��J �G g� �t� (2) C) �G a CO co 0 J 4"Q` GAG G\o� ��\ o� GAG��'t p`G\ �p\ � \�pG� JS \\� `�p� Number • � G o p�. Remarks 821 4.5 17 c 822__ _ 10.0 20 A - - 823 --- --__ 9.5 22 A 824 _ __ 7.5 10 B- 825 --— - 3.5 14 B — 827 - --- - - --— - ----- --� --_ ..5.5 14 828 B- � 4.0 16 A- � 829 — ----11.0 18 B+ 830 � 7.3 17 A- — 831 _ • 5.5 17 B - 833 — -- - 6.4 14 B - --- 834 6.0 14 B- 835 4.5 13 B- 836 _-�_ 7.0 12 B 837 _ � 4.0 10 B 838 • 12.0 22 A Specimen Tree 839 � A- 840 5.5 12 B TREE SURVEY HANSEN HILL RANCH Ga / G \\J� p��\G�G pG �p ��� \`gyp a a \J C` Jc' C` co c� O J\ �� �G 2 Z G G c �� G apt ���pt tGJ�'� tQ � qj .�p< �� J� ��� �� -4� ,pz `o �`���z 'Q Number Q, Q� G Q �, (} G Q J G O G O Q- 5Q �` Remarks 841 • 4.0 12 B 842 • _ 4-. 8 D • 843 _ • 3.0 10 B • -8-4-4 — -- 6.5 16 B • — — 845 • 3.2 10 B • 846 — • 7.0 20 B- iugh nest in tree 3.2 10 B ---848 ----- --—--- - -- ------- —----- -- ------- ----�..- ----.._ ....--- ------ ---- ------� -- - - -- — — —�— 8.8 20 B • 849 — - 6.S 20_ B- • 850 • _ -- 6.0 16 B- 851 6.0 • _ _ 12 B 852 • 9.5 10 B- 853 — • 1.0 20 A • peciman tree 854 — — _—_ -- �—_--- 2.0 12 B+ • - 855 • 1 .0 12 B- • 856 _ _ _ 2.0 25 A+ 857 — • 7.0 18 A- Speciman tree 858 • -IT— A- 859 5.5 A — - — - - --- 5.3 18 A- 18 860 — --- — TREE SURVEY HANSEN HILL RANCH / Gb 15� \\ X Q \ J G O � G �J Q, '� G o o�� ��`� o� �a g • � �D J \ � \���\ Jam \'\ �?� O \\�\���� �Gt �Q'� �� 2 GG \Number r&� o� RE!mar.ks 861 3.3 16 A • 862 3.3_ 16 A- • --_ 9.0 _17 A- 864 _ 3.6 15 B • 865 • 7.0 22 A • 866 _ 10.0 18 B+ • — 867 • 4,0 17 B • 868 — — • — 4.5 12 B- 869 4.5 10 B • 870 • 5.0 14 D 871 • 4.5 16 B- • 872 • _ - 15.0 18 - B • 873 _ 13.0 18 B • -- 874 •_ 7.514 B+ • 875 • _ 4.0 12 A- • 876 • 8.5 16 B-877 • _ - _8.0 14 B- • 878 • 13.0 15 B+ • 879 _ _ • —_ _- 6.0 12 B- • 880 • 3.0 16 B- --- TREE SURVEY HANSEN HILL RANCH Gr& o 0 0 � d OP , ��\�JG� G 5 G ���°O� �o`��� a Ga oo `J� �o° G%' oG�o a �J�(�` J���` J5 O � ,- �� s`0 Z 2 Z EGG Ge' moo,\ Q, c��` �� � Je' o� JG ��� � a�` ,`r tG �.Q �'�` Q, t\ a� o'- Number Q- P Remarks 879 • 6.0 12 B- • 880 --- - 6.0 16 B- • ---881 -- — .-- —--- - --- 5.0 18 0 • - _ 882 • 3.2 14 B+ 883 - - 10.0 16 B • - 884_ _- -_ • 8.0 10 _ B • 885 - - - • - - 5.0 10 B • 886 ---_ • — - -7.5 20_ B • — 887 - • -- -4.0 12 B+ • _ 888 • 6.0 15 B- • 889 • 4.5 20 B • 890 • 18.0 15 B- — 891 4.0 16 B - ---- - ----- - -- -- --- - - _ • 892 • - - - -3.3 12 B- O 893 • - - 5.0 12 B- • 894 • _ 4.3 17 B- 895 _ 5.5 16 B • 896 • 8.3 12 B 897 • 4.0 LLD 4 B- 898 • -- 4.0 4 B- - TREE SURVEY HANSEN HILL RANCH Qj o o o t°� Q\o G�\�JG �G S�G `o O�O�a� r NIP 4J p', C Jl GJ \\J U<� ���' G d, `c�G G .00 Number G �� o a\ \`� �� Jo o� Jo a\ �\ r \�G ��Q Qo a� o� P O P G Q G 4 G Q J J G O G O Q� 5 �` RE�marks 899 • _ 4.0 14 B- _ _ 900 • 5.81 14 A- • _ 9_01 -i _ 7.0 18 _A- • _ _ 902 _ _ • 14.5 12 B+ • 903 • _ 5.3 12 B • 904_ • 7.0 16 A- _ —_ 905 -----_—--- - • —-- - 7.4 16 B+ • --- 906 - ------- —�-- -- 4.0 -14_ - - B - - — • — _ 907 • _ 6.0 16-- B+ • __ 908 • 9.0 12 B • 909 • _ 7.5 16 B- • __ 910 • 12.0 20 B- • _ 911_ • 8.5 16 A- • 912 --_ —�--- — _ - 3.3 16 B- • _ 913 • 8.0 18 A+ • 914 _ • _ 4.5 16 B- 915 • _ 5.0 14 B- • 916 _ _ • _ _5.5 14 B • 917 1_4.0 18 A- • 918 - ---- - 3.0 14 B • ---- — TREE SURVEY HANSEN HILL RANCH C� O O \�O OP \p \��JG� G G ���°�� `0��� G, Gp �J �OF� . G�Oa Q,G�p a G���Q b ���� \° �� mot` �� ��\ a �I� co t F, G.s P ���° 4,G g� tG Q,� Q, .�° Z� J� �� �� G� .0 `O Number �P Remarks 919 • 3.4 _14 B _ _920 - - ---- 7.0 16 _ B • - 921 - - - -_-_3.2 12 B- • _ _ 922 __ •_ _ 9.5_ 16 B- 923 • 5.5 22 A_ • _ 924 -_ _ 12.0 30 A+ • - 925 _ - - • 11.0 30 A+ • __926 - - - - --- -� - --- - 4.3 _ 15 _ B _ _ • - -_ 927 _ �— --- - 5.3 20_ B • _ 928 • _ 4.5 16_ B+ • 929 • 5.7 18 B • 930 7.0 20 A- 931 _ - --- - ---- -- ---- --- --�---- - 5.0 16 B+ _ _• -- 932 _ - -- • -- --- - _ 8.0 18_ A- • 933 • _ 4.5 18 B-934 �- 18.0 20 _ A- • 935 --_- 5.3 18 A- 936 • 6.5 18 A • 937 -- - • - - 7,5 18 B+ • 938 ---- --- �--- - --- 5.5 20 1 A • ----- - TREE SURVEY HANSEN HILL RANCH �G�O � O�G O��\ \\J ot�G� 0 0 Z r G 0,9 � t` O C\ G a a o \ fit` J �� J J \J ��` P� o t Fib GO ���O tG g', tG 2� 2\.�O Ot J� ��� \(�O� G�� ,pP� p �� o \ � 0 Number G RErmarks 939 • 4.5 16 B+ 9_40 . • -------- - -- -3.2 _17 _ _A_ _ • _ — 941 - • -- - - ----- ---------- ---- 3.2 _18 B- '• -_ 942 —• — - —_ - 5.5 16 C • — 943 • _ 3.3 18 B • _944 --_ _ • 8.0 20 A • 945 • 4.3 18 B- • _9_46 • _5.0_ 18_ C • — 947 =_— --- - —�-- ------ ----- 3.0 14 - B - -- • 948 — - _• --- 3.3 16 B • 949 • 6.3 18 B • 950 - • 3.0 16 B • _951 - ---�- - - 3.1 17_ B- 952 - -- --- ---� ----- 3.1 17 B- _953 -- -- --- 5.3 18 B- • 954 • 4.5 18 B 955 ___— - 9.0 18 B- • 956 • _ 4.5 20_ B • 957 • 5.0 _20 B 958 • • - - - 3.� 70_ A—-- • ---- -- TREE SURVEY HANSEN HILL RANCH ok 0 2G a G a t \ a J� ` 5 �� 5 Q J\U `� �G� 2 Q'�` yG\ o� � \�pl,r \\�Q� Q 0 GQ ` Number o � �?p Remarks 959 _ _ 5.5 20 B • 960 __ 3.3 14 B • 961 _ 5.5 20 A- 962 - • - - •_ _ 4.5 16 B 963 4.0 20 B+ - 964 - 4.0 20 B- --965 - - ---- • - - 4.0 20 _B • _ _ 966 — _ -- --- --- • -- ----- --- -4.0 B+ • 967 • -- -- 3.0 16_ B _ -968 --- _ • 4.5 16 B 969 • 3.3 16 B • --- -- - - ---- ------ ----- ------.... ---- ---- - --- 3.5 16 B • 971 - - ----- - - - - - -- ------ - -- -- - _ . 3.5 18 B • - -- - --- 972 • 6.0 _17 D • Deciduous 973 __• 3.5 10- B - --- 974- - - • - _ 1__1..0 _20 _ D _ � Deciduous 975 _ 8.5 20 B • 976 •- _ 7.5 16 B- 977 • _-- 4.5 978 - - --- - 6.b-L_18 A+ - ---- - TREE SURVEY HANSEN HILL RANCH �G <`, 0 r a ��` J \� �5 \J fit` G ��\O Q,�G��° ��'�\ ° Q'�G r& Q'� \\Q'� `00\�`�° `C`e'p GJ�'�Q\`� '`\�� OG� \\.�Q' Number Q, P �� Q\ G`a O�G° 4JJ� J�G� Q� G`t O� Q�� 5Q �� r �° Remarks 979 5.0 5.0 16 A- _ • — 980 • 3.4 16 B- 981 • — _--- 5.0 15 C- • - —_982 _ • _ 10.0 20 _A_ • 983 3.51 16 B • — 984 • _ 6.0 17 B 985 • — _ 4.5 10 D+ • Some growth 986 — • --. .- 7.0_ - D • 987 • 6.0 20 B _ Nest 989 • 3.5 16 B 990 • 10.0 20 B • 991 - • 9-.0 - 20-- A- 992 -- -- — --- -- - --3.3 16 B--- - -- -- - 993 • 11 .5 16_ B • 994 — �--- ----- --- - --6.0 20 A- 995 • __ 6.5 20 A- • 996 ---- - --- — �- 7.5 18-. A • 997 — • _ —— _ 8.0 18 A 9_98 —_ • 4.5 _ 14 B+ 999 — -- - �-- -------3.3 10 B+ --- ---- — TREE SURVEY HANSEN HILL RANCH G, `° `�� � ° o op eo 0 C2 Qj NN Number P°�`� Q,°�� Q\�G� �}�C,° p�J� J�Ga p'` �`� p� Q.� c�Q �` �r a° Remarks 1000 _ • 6.5 14 B+ 1001 • 9.0 18 B+ • _ 1002 _ • _ 11.0 25 A+ • Standard 1003 _ • _ _ 4.5 16_ A- 1004 11.5 20 A- Standard 1005 _ • 3.5 17 B- --1006 - - • _ — _ 8.0 _20- B=- - _•_ - _ 1007 • 11.5 18 A+ • Standard — 1008 _ • - - 7.5 20 _ A- _ 1009 • _ 12.5 20 A • 1010 • 6.0 20 A- • ----1011 --- - - - -- ---�--- ----- - - - -6..0 20 -- — - One dead stum 1012 • 7.0 20 A- • �,paning _ 1013 • 3.3 18 B • _1014 - — --- - - -- - — --- 3.3 16 B- - 1015 _ _ _ _• _ _ 4.2 12 A 1016 2_3.0 25 A • 3 trees 1017 • 10.0 20 B • Some rot 1018 ----- 9.0 20 B • 1019 — ---- -----�-- --- 3.5 --15- -B -- ------ — TREE SURVEY HANSEN HILL RANCH Qj °tom o� �.�� �� a OQr �Q' �\\�JG� G 5 G �\�°0� •p��a G� GO `�� X00 G'`Ga OG�O a co 0 G� �� �'� `� Goo G ?,�G .°`� ��°- Q'�G��� Q'� `00`���°�`C`e'p GJ�'�Q\\� '� OG` t�O '� Number Q, �` P �� Q� �`� �}�G° 4�J� J�G� t7'` G`� O� Q�� 5� �� � �° Remarks 1020 • 12.6 16 A- Two trunks 1021 • _ 21.0 25 A- • -Four big nest _ 1022 6.0 18 A • _ 1023 _ • _ 10.0 16 B 1024 • _ 5.5 18 B- • _ 1025 _ • _ _5.5 16 B — 1026 • 5.5 16 A 1027 _ • — - - 3.5 12 B • 1028 • —_-_ 8.0 18 B- • 1029 • 4.3 12 B • 1030 _ 4.0 14 B • 1031 • 5.0 20 B 1032 • 5.0 14 B • 1033 _ _ _ 7.0 14 B • 1034 12.0 23 A- • 1035 _ • 5.5 15 B • 1036 _ 12.0 18 A • 1037 •_ _ _ _ 7.0 20 A • 1038 • _ 8.5 20 A • _ _ 1039 • 11.0 16_ B+ TREE SURVEY HANSEN HILL RANCH ok 01. Q`C��Q, O`ZT� �'�� / to �Q �a �G a�J o °� °G a a � � mo moo 0. ° o< J t G oG \ Number P P G� Q� G� C}�G° 4�J`� J�C�� O` �`� O� Q�� 5Q �� �`� �° RE-marks 104 • __ _ —7 .0- -17 �.--_ • 1041 1 -A _• __ 15_. _ • 1042 • 3.0 1043 5.5 20 A- -5-,0 • -- • — _ 20 - • 1044 • _ 9.0 18 A- ----1045 _ • 5.4 16 A- • _ 1046 • _ 6.0 18_ -A- I C�4 7- J—--- -- �— ---—---- --�_.� -20— - -----�- — —1048 _ 5.5 18 A- • 1049 • 7.0 20 A- 1051 1 • 105 • 12.0 18 A- • - - — -- ---- - --- - -- _—__—_ _ 3_.3 _18 B± • 1053 -_-- •--- -- 4.0 18 B+ • _NaGr 1054 ——• - -- ------- - 3.0 12 B+ • 1055 • _ 3.0 14 B • 1056 — • _ _ _ 3.6 14 B _ • 1057 • _ 8.0 20 A • 1058 — • _5_5 18-- B+ _ • 1059 —�-- --- 5.0 14 B+ • -- TREE SURVEY HANSEN HILL RANCH lb- 0 O OQr �O G�`\�JG� G G� eo� `0��� G� GO `J5 COZ . G'`Oa QiG�O a `aG��aQ ��� 5\ � � Qi `tea O�� � r& \O� P�GJ X 0�� J�O C`� �' mo5o, G ONumber Remarks 1060 • 6.0 12 A- • 1061 -- • 6.0 15 A- •_ -- 1062 - -- - ---- 7.0 16 A- • - 1063 • _ _ 8.2 20 A • - 1064 • 8.5 20 A • 1065 • _ 4.0 20 B __ • Leaning - 1066 - -_ _-_- _ - -• 5.0 -15. B • Willow leaning -_1067 • 5.5 18- B- 1068 _ • -5_5 20 B- 1069 -- 8.5 18_ B • - - 1070 • 3.0 16 B • 1071 -_1072 - -- ---- -�- - _ 6.0 20 A- • - 1073 - - - - - - -• - --- 4.5 18 B • 1074 - -- -- - -� -�- - 3.3 12 B- 1075 - - ----_ • _ _4.5 15 B- - 1076 - • 6.5 20 B+ -� Leaning 1077 _ • 20.0 20 A- • 4 trunks -- 1078 --- -- -- --- - - - ---- 13.5 _20 A- • -- 1079 TREE SURVEY HANSEN HILL RANCH 01, 0 0� N\ Qr N0 c,0 `\�00�� �'`� G� 00 �Jco 00 �0a 0�0 J 0� 0- 0J '� 0J - ��J o�� t �� \<\ `�0 0 \0 Number Po��� P0Oa� QN12 4J G0� aJ��� J�G�� O r G`�0 O��Q Q�� 5�0 S��` �a� �0� Remarks 1080 • _ 3.0 15 B • 1081 • _ 3.0 15 B • _ 1082 3.3 16 B- • - 1083 • __ 6.0 12 B • - 1084 _ 4.0 15 B • _- 1085 _ _� 4.0 14 B • -1 - _086 - -- �_ - - -_ -9.0 18 B -- -� - - - _ 10_87 -- —•--- --- --- - -6.5 1_8- A- - -- --�- -- 1088 • —_ 3.5 12 --- - B 1089 • 11.5 14 B • 1090 • 5.5 14 B • 1091 - - • - -- - 14 B ----- — - --- - ---------- -- - ------- .0 _ • 4.0 12 B- • Leaning 1093 � 4.0 14 B --- • 1094 • - - -_ - 25.0 12 B • 1095 - • 1096 11.5 18 B • - - -�- - 1097 _ •__ _ 3.1_ 12 B • 1098 • _ 4.0 14 B • 1099 - -4.3 �_s. - — • --- TREE SURVEY HANSEN HILL RANCH / Ga • G r�\\J � °G�o�o�0 �o\� G�\\ 0 C-1 OQ Q\o G`�p� �G 5� �� O �o� p�� �G a�J .�c o G'` oG a , J5 g c, 0 \ � °���G�C)`�tG\ �o\\ °�� o� J�� �o �' G` 'oo �o \Z C), Number Q, Q� G Q V Q G Q J C�` p Q 5Q �` a RE�marks _1100 _ _ 3.5 15 A _ • _ _1101 • _ 3.3 15 _ B • _ —1102 • 7.0 _20 __A- • - 1103 _ — _ _ — 4.5 15_ B__ _• — - 1104 • 3.3 15 B • _1105 _• 3.3 12 B+ • _1106 • 7.0 -14_ 1107 - - � __ -- - -7.5 20 B • Leaning 1108 • 3.3 15_ B • _ 1109 • 7.0 20 A+ . •' 1110 •_ 5.0 20 B 16 A=— --- • 1112 - -- ---- 1113 • 7.0 . 20 _ __ •_ _ 4.5 15 B • 1114 • 5.5 15 B • 1115 _ • 4.5 15 B _• 1116 • _ 7.5 12 C- • 1117 • _ 5.5 20 A- 1118 • __ 4.520 B+ • _ 1119 • 5.5 15 B • TREE SURVEY HANSEN HILL RANCH , G t0 O O \\J 0� Zj O� � �\`a Qr Vie' �.\�J0 G0�G� ec)�� \� G�� G0 CO 00 to a� G p o o� �� CO . eb.0, \?� 0G.��0 ,`�.\�O tG C� tG\0� 0 .�O Zt J� � \�� G` .0 `O a� Number G �� 0 �\ \� �\ JO O� J0 �\ �`0 a\` �`C` \�G ��� �'� ?� �\ r& 0 P p P G Q G �} G Q J \� g� Remarks 1120 - _ • 8.0 15 B • _1121 _ _ ___ 5.7 14 B_ __•_ -1122 - • _ 5.5 24 A- _ • Three trunks 1123 _ _ • __ 0.5 _20_ _B__ • _ 1124 • 5.5 16 B • 1125 • -- 9.0 24_ _A- Added ---1126---- • - - 4.5 20 B _ • 1127 - -- -• - --.._ 3.0 15 B- - - -- -- 1128 - - 7,5 23 B- • 1129 - _ -- 7.0 16 B- • 113 _ • 3.5 16 B- • Willow 1131 1 - -- --- 7.5 20 B • _ -------- ----- - 1132 -- ----- -- -- _....- - 7.5 20 _ _B_ • 1133 _•______-------- --- - -0.0 20 A - - 1134 • 6.0 18 B- 1 lY5 _ _ _ • 9,0 24 _B 1136 - - - • - 6.0 20 B - 1137 _ • _ 3.3 15 B- • - 1138_-_- _ - --�------ 5.3 18 B- • 1139 • -- - -- -- .0 20 - A- --- • --- -- TREE SURVEY HANSEN HILL RANCH G� G� `(2) 5�° ° ° G� Z� G "'° r& '�� G� Q� 5 Q, �a ,`P, el a t ° ry r& t t GC's Number Q- Q�` P G`� Q� G� 4�G° 4�J`� J�C�� O'` G`t O� Q'�� 5Q �` �`� �° Remarks _1140 + 5.3 16 B+ _1141 • 4.0 16 B • _1142 • — -- 6.0 16 B- • 1143 3.3 _ 12 B 1144 • 4.0 17 A • _1145 _ _ • 7.0 20 A- • 1146 _ — — • 3.3 10 C+ • 1147 _ _ _ - - —� --- -2.0 20 B- • _.1148 • 3.3 15 B • 1149 5.5 20 B • 1150 4.5 4.5 15 B • 11.5-1------ --- 2S_ 2.0 R _ - —_ 115 2 ----- --- ------- --- �- --- ---- -- -- — _- 3.3 14 B- • -- -- _1153 • -- -5.5 Z_ • 1154 • 5.0 16 A • Not to able 1155 _ • 4.0 16 B • 1156 • 1.5 18 A- • Two trunks _- 1157 • _ 4.5 18 C- 11 C)p_-- -- • — -15_ - • 1159 •-- 9.5 18 B --- iEE SURVEY HANSEN HILL RANCH �.G p �0 d 0 Q,� pG N, �• Qr �0 a���JG� GO �c, eo�� `�'`a G� GO C t00 . G`Oa P,0 a O Q G 5 O� `O 0 �� 5 41. � r& JO NO 0� �t a �0 �� �� �� G) C ,`aC� p �G co �G`0� ,�0 .`�O Z� J� �� ,`�C� 00 O ZP lumber � �` � Remarks 1160 -5.5 -_ 15 B- • 1161 --- -�..-_.. - -------- -4.6_- ._ 15 _ _ • 1162 21.0 16 A- • Four trunks 1163 - - •- - - -- - -6-.-Q .-_1$ -B 1164 • 4.0 16 A- • Unta able --1165--- ------ - - • -3.3 12. • 1166 • 4.0 12 B+ -- - ---- 1167 ---- _ -. ....._.. _... .- -- -- 4.0 16, -- _ • 1169 • 5.0- 12 1170 • 4.8 16 B- 50 18 B • - ------- ----- --- - ---- ----- -- ----- - — _ - . _ __ • _ 1171 �---- ------- - - 1173 • 5.0 18 B- • _ 1174 • 3.0 20 B- • 1175 _ • 4.0 14 B • 1176 • 3.3 12 B • 1177 • 6.0 12 B • - 178 • 6.5 20 De id. • 1179 40 6.0 10 B- TREE SURVEY HANSEN HILL RANCH Ga oQr \� �a\�OJG� 5 Ga ���p�a �oa�a a Ga �� ��� t�� . G Z��� �aQ ��a � �\paw J\a�\.a0 � �aa � �`0 �G\�p� � p41G�C,t p`; �p\`\�p�� p� G � dj �G�� Number Q.G���' Q'�Ga Q\aGa ��Go QJ�a J�Ga Or G\� Ot�Q �a �� �� �a� �p Remarks 1180 • _ 7.0 18 B • Decid. 1181 • _ _ D • Oak dead 1182 • 4.0 14 C • _ 1183 • _ 6.5 16 B • 1184 • 16.0 '20 B Decid. _ 1185 • _ 3.3 .12 C- • _. 118 _-- —__---. • 4.515 B- 1187 _ —�- ----- ------ ---- --3.3 15 _ B --- • —--1.1-88__— _ • _ — —8.0 _18_ B • _ 1189 • 6.0 17 B- 1190 • 3.0 15 B • - .... 1.191 ---- --- — - • 4.0 18 B _ --- 1192 --— -- -----_ 1 _ _ 5.0 14 B • 1193 _ _ • _ _ 4.0 14 B- • Leaning 1194 • 5.5 12 B • 1195 _ _ • 3.3 12 B • 1196 _• 3.3 10 B 1197 _ _ • _ 5.5 12_ B- • —_1.198-- — —� 3.0 12 B 1199 • -- -- ---—�- — 7 0 15 --- • ----- TREE SURVEY HANSEN HILL RANCH OQr� �\\�JG� G 5 G �\�°0� �� G� GG G p �J� G�p a G O�°� Q,�G� �����°� Q,�G��� Q'� ° �°<`C\Q' GJ�'�Q`\� o �.p Number Q� O` P G� Q� G� C3JG° C�JJ� J�G� �'` G`� O� Q�� 5Q �� �`� a° RE!marks 1200 _ • _ 6.5 14 B • 1201 • _ 10.5 15 B- •_ 1202 • _ 3.2 12 B- • 1203 • _-A -Q 12_ - • 1204 • 10.0 12 B • _ 1205 5.0 15 B 1206 • _ _ 3.5 _14 B- • - 1207 _ _ • 9.0 16 B •_ Decid. 1208 — — _• --- --- ----- _- 3.5 15 _ B • _ 1209 • 4.0 12 B • 1210 • 6.5 10 B • Decid. ----1211 ~ - --� -- --4'-5 -15 -B-- • _.-. .1212 -- --- --- - - -5.0 15 _ B± --- 1213 _ _ _ •_ 4.0 15_ B- • 1214 • _ 5.0 15 B+ • 1215 _ •_ _ _3.5 15_ B • L 1216 • _ _ 5.5 _10 A- Nest 1217 -- — — �_. 8.5 20 A- • 1218 • 8.5 _ 16 B • 1219 6.5 15 D • Dead like buck-eve TREE SURVEY HANSEN HILL RANCH G� o t t Qr NQ, eb.�`�JG� GO�G °O� �'t� G� GO ��?� F'Q' '`Oa G'Lei GO� OG \ �'� \ Q' `�G � ` ' � \ `0�0 � °G \J o � o ` J \ ° G � C) ,G \ 04, GJ�'�Q\\� Number P �� P G� Q\ G� 4J G° aJJ� \��G� O'` C�`t O� Q�� 5� �� �`r& �° Remarks _1220 _ _ 3.0 _14 B- • 1221 _ • _ 4.5 _12 B- • _ 1222 • 4.0 12 B • 1223 _• 5.5 12_ B • 1224 • 7.5 18 C- O 5/6 dead -__1225 __ • _ 3.5 10 B- -__1226 _ _� _4.5 15_ B- 1227 • 4.0 15 B — _- 1228 - —� - 5.5 15 B 1229 • 6.5 15 B- • 1230 _ _ O 7.5 15 B • ---1231 --- — — -- - -- - -O --.- -3.5_ _15 B • -- -- 123 2 --- -- ---- - O _ 3.5 15 _B • -- 1233 _• - - — - -6.5 18 _ B+ • 1234 • 5.0 18 B+ 235 _• _ 5.0 15 B+ • 123 • _ 5.5 15 B 1237 • _ 6.5 15 B- • 1238 15.5 15 A- • 123 • --- 7.5 15 + -- — TREE SURVEY HANSEN HILL RANCH ` ° � 0 0 o .16 0 Oar \O c,eb. 'SGT G 5 G ���°�� `O�\� G� GO `` �P'G . G�G� co ( •�� •�� .\J "P 0 Number PG�`� Q�°G� Q\�G� C3J G° Remarks 1240 7.5 15 B- • 1241 • • - 1242 ——_- 5.0 15 B- • _ 1243 • _ - 7.5 1244 • _ 7.5 15 B- • 1245 • _ 6.5 15 - _ • 1246 • 5.5 15 B- • _ 1247 • _-_ _7,0_ 15 B+ • — 1248 • — _ -12.-0-.-20 B+ IThrep trunks 1249 • _ 3.0 15 B 1250 • 4.5 14 B • 1251 -- ----- - . . -- �--- ----- -3..5 -12-- -B 1252 1253 • --- -- -- -- -- - � 9 20 L • Decic1 1254 • 3.3 15 B • 1255 _ --- ---- -• _ 4.3 15 _ B • 1256 _- ' 4.3 10 B • 1257 _ • _ 3.0 12-- B • 1258 — _ 3.3 12 B • 1259 • - - 3.3 12 B -- - — TREE SURVEY HANSEN HILL RANCH / • Ga `G O�Z J 5 0 Q� rj��J �� 5� t Boa �� �`� �� a�J .�t� �'` �0 a J 5 g o t` r& G � GO QQ, 5 e Number Remarks 1260 • 0.0 22 B+ • 1261 10 B • _1262 •_ 8.8 10 B- Willow _1263 • 8.0 12 B- • 1264 3.4 12 B- • Multi-. _ —1265 • 3.0 15 B _• 1266 _• _ _3.0 15 B • _ 1267 0.4 15 B- • Multi-trunk 1268 5.0 15 B • 1269 3.3 1 15 B- • Multi-trunk 1270 3.3 15 B • _ 1271 ---- 5.0 20 B+ _ 1272. __--_ - - -- _• _ 8.4 _ 25 B+ _ • _ Multi-trunk 1273 - • 4.0 10 C • Multi-trunk 1274 • 7.4 10 C • Half dead 1275 _ • 6.0 10 B • 1276 • 4.0 15 B • 1277 • _ 9.4 45 A+ • Many trunks classic 1278 • 4.0 _20 B _ • 1279 • 3.3 15 1 B- ---- — TREE SURVEY HANSEN HILL RANCH G r� ° ��`� G� G� G� ��°O�� �'�� ci G° J� °° Boa GAG ,G JC' �� 5 `� 5 `J 5 O� N4� � ,� J�ot� �J ot� GJ ,��' GJ °tom .��° o, ��o t G G•� 5 Z Z ?, J ��` G `O Number G° `�' CO��� ��� ��� JQ' °`� JP' �N� �'0 a�� '`.� \�G Q° 0 P P G Q G 4 G Q J J G O G O Q� 5 �` Remarks 1280 • 3.0 10 B- •_. 1281 • _ 3.3 20 B • 1282 •_ 3.8 15 B ' • _ 1283 • 5.5 20 B+ I • 1284 • 7.5 25 B+ �• _ 1285 5.0 15 B+ • _1286 • ; 4.5 15 B+ • 1287 !•. 3.3 15 B HANSEN HILL RANCH PROJECT Environmental Impact Report Final Addendum SCH NO. 87050527 Response to Written Comments May 16, 1988 Prepared for The City of Dublin Planning Department Prepared by EIP Associates 150 Spear Street Suite 1500 San Francisco, CA. 94105 86123 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page 1. INTRODUCTION 1-1 2. STAFF INITIATED TEXT CHANGES 2-1 2.1 Revised Project Description 3. COMMENTS AND RESPONSES 3-1 3.1 Written Comments and Responses PUBLIC AGENCIES Letter A Gary F. Adams, California Department of Transportation Letter B Gary Binger, Association of Bay Area Governments Letter C Barbara Darlington, Dublin San Ramon Service District Letter D Jeannie Hamilton, City of San Ramon Letter E Milton Feldstein, Bay Area Air Quality Management District Letter F Christian Gerike, California Archaeological Inventory Letter G Roderick A. Chisholm, II, Department of the Army PRIVATE CITIZENS Letter H Teresa M. Kalashian Letter I Donald L. Babbitt Letter J R.H. Smyth Letter K Gordon D. Jacoby, Venture Corporation Letter L Jan Blaidel Letter M Kenneth L. Blaedel Letter N James R. and Alex Jones Letter O Ruth Chin Letter P Marjorie R. La Bar, Preserve Area Ridgelands Committee Letter Q Ward M. Tanneberg, Valley Christian Center 3.2 Public Hearing Comments and Responses 3.2.1 Minutes of the Public Hearings 3.2.2 Responses to Public Hearing Comments 4. TEXT REVISIONS OF DEIR FOR FEIR 4-1 86123 i Table of Contents, continued APPENDICES Appendix A Data Used as Input to the BAAQMD's Simplified Version of CALINE4 Appendix B CALINE4 Input Data and Assumptions Appendix C TJKM Intersection Capacity Analysis Appendix D Figure 3-1, Photomontages 'S i 86123 ii 1. INTRODUCTION The Draft Environmental Impact Review (DEIR) on the Hansen Hill Ranch Project was published on December 22, 1987 and was circulated for public review from December 23, 1987 to February 5, 1988. This addendum to the DEIR contains the minutes of the February 1, 1988 Planning Commission Meeting and a draft of the Minutes from the February 16th, 1988 Planning Commission Meeting, written comments from the February 1st and February 16th Planning Commission meetings, written comments received during the review period, and responses to all hearing and written comments received. Together with the Draft EIR, this addendum constitutes the Final EIR on the project. This addendum was prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines, Section 15146. This addendum is organized into sections containing staff initiated text changes, comments made at the public hearings on February 1st and 16th, and written comments. In the public hearing section, all responses are printed immediately following the comment. In the section for written comments, letters are identified as Letter A, Letter B, Letter C, etc. Responses to written comments are placed directly behind the comment letter. Comments within each letter are coded in the letter's margin to refer to a specific response. Where oral comments duplicate written comments by the same author, the written comments are presented. The response Comment noted appears in some responses. In these cases the "comments" are statements of position either for or against specific parts of the project or the project as a whole. Since the views expressed are the opinions of the writer or speakers, rather than questions directed to the environmental review process, it is appropriate that they be considered by the Planning Commission and City Council when decisions regarding the project are made. These comments are, therefore, noted and referred to those decision- making bodies. 86123 1-1 1. Introduction Additional facts presented by commentors, which do not require a response, are also acknowledged by a comment noted. Copies of the Final EIR and the City's project files are kept at the following address: Dublin Planning Department 6500 D Dublin Boulevard Dublin, California 94568 86123 1-2 2. STAFF-INITIATED TEXT CHANGES 2.1 REVISED PROJECT DESCRIPTION The Hansen Hill Development Corporation requested a General Plan Amendment Study to consider residential development on a 147-acre site adjacent to, but outside the City limits. The site is within the City's General Plan Planning Area. The City Council authorized the General Plan Amendment and engaged EIP to assist in processing the General Plan Amendment Study. The applicant, on March 16, 1987, filed an amended application to include a General Plan Amendment, Planned Development Prezoning, and Tentative Subdivision Map No. 5766. A Site Assessment was completed by EIP which led to an Environmental Impact Study which was completed on December 22, 1987. The proposed project has been revised from the project illustrated in the Draft EIR. The major changes in the revised project are detailed below and a revised site plan is presented in Figure 2-1 on page 2-2. o The proposed project consists of 250 residential units on 147 acres. o The revised project would still require a General Plan Amendment including: incorporation of the entire site into the primary planning area of the General Plan; deletion of the implementing policy in the Land Use and Circulation Element of the General Plan that calls for reservation of right of way for Hansen Drive extension to the Western Hills; addition to the General Plan Map of the new alternative roadway serving the Hansen Hill Ranch Property; and definition and deletion of the land use designations for the areas approved for medium density residential and single-family residential uses. o There will be a new grading plan which will be a balance between cut and fill. Specifically, there will be about 1.1 million cubic yards of cut and the same amount of fill. The balance of cut and fill reflects that there is no longer a proposal to build or grade on the knoll shown on neighborhood units 4, 7, and 8 on Figure 2-1. 86123 2-1 REVISED.PLAN FIGURE 2-1 SOURCE: DAVID L.GATES 8 ASSOCIATES Q CRONIN FEET jLMIiIIIIiIiII 0 loo 200 ?Md 40 `rr�" e Nlz. Ne ighborhood Units - i y T" NIELSEN PROPERTY r �o /' •� rt �,.t, .rszrssrr..gip.: - ` __.— �......, . 1; R . ,� .b' M �1(F '� , rYr'� �� ,�'•h••• ! w-'.�.�--�y f:k77�Tti�.: w�b `,•ir�`�? -- ` \`�/. 1 bbblll,/�`,,- — `__�..-+yam :�'`f-'llflf-� .\..�' Q�fl (�- :,�t{��j •�:ti����-'�` _ •"�, L�"' /F� ��J lllV���o" V `�` e o Yo� fl ��� �� ���•��fi_.�..,, __ L.' J?'"- •�s='�_t.�.-\ ;��'nwr�t��"�fi� � J rr'�lp `/� .�� r� -:��p f ll��i �^ .�: e.o,o� f: T ,•R��... -�oi�ci-� �•. o ��.N J� p ..'f� D .04� m. i�'6 '`� a •, —•-- T:vr-� d'n� " zr-' ,! (!• CIS' tv.- �II • ' `�� \,.2L�.�1 LV Tan�Y � Ry ��'�a�lyv�. � � !•1 %� I E J, L �S�11^ �rj ., ��` . ►�� ��4 ] •t:,rs. tt aE•ac�-mow=�L 1�n oS- '� ►� .1 kt`7'��t �'(�j �i 'ate `�"o '' e�4 �.� ( �l.1r,�[r1 ' ------------ 41"r _ VALLEY CHRISTIAN CENTER BLAYLOCK, ' GLEASON,& FLETCHER •\_, - i ILLUSTRATIVE SITE PLAN AND NEIGHBORHOOD UNITS FIGURE 2-2 CRONIN SOURCE: DAVID L.GATES 8 ASSOCIATES FEET f-16m= 0 100 200 4 �_7 Neighborhood Units "'' •a°O° ""� NIELSEN PROPERTY GP is - EJ 1. ��r--------------- — -.. pia• - .-_........ _ rto _ • f f. ' �.:,lt .�-}^tee•`�'�Q� J _ �\Q�y' } ��>� `vAC�e o � `�r°°rc�J I' .a"` ? �, • A_ P. 6•�' 6 �'�eE'`^e^ \y .l Y,F: J f, r coo J ``� •`j ��''C= '1 -- _ 6 6. - e� (,� `@� �� � w` i a.(.n.o.•- -I?, -ttt =11 7(} ,a.-/.p:�. (�s�vo Q �� 1�. . �: c� g. t�.J C.nl'\M1���� � � _ �� `e 1 �� �'•E.(1�f.•�y rk�'f�i+f f+in 6F{F `'� l-!eB' - ��Od®D"0 � I o do �</ --... f� ( .J t�, fil -� �•e ` tee° rJ1t �� �-y�1 i VALLEY CHRISTIAN CENTER Q GLEASON,& FLETCHER 2. Staff-Initiated Text Changes o Figures 2-1 and 2-2 on pages 2-2 and 2-3 show the revised site plan and the original site plan. As can be seen the houses have been eliminated from the knoll area (Neighborhoods 4, 6, 7 and 8) and Neighborhoods 5 and 6 have been totally redesigned. These changes have eliminated 32 dwelling units. There are a total of 50 custom lots on the site, principally in Neighborhoods 9 and 11. There are no changes in circulation. o There will be 28 more trees lost through the revised plan as through the original design. However the new landscape plan recommends a reforesting of the site with 1,926 trees including a mixture of 5 gallon and 15 gallon open space trees. Additionally, individual homeowners would be landscaping their own yards and the custom lots would be (the number having been increased) designed to take advantage of the existing vegetation. o The revised site plan does not propose changes, from the previous plan, for the Martin Canyon Creek. The conclusion from the project's civil engineer was that the Creekside Road must intersect the main road at a place where the profile grade of the main road is at 6% or less for traffic safety reasons. Due to natural topography constraints, the Creekside Road is located at the only possible point where the 6% profile can be achieved on the main road. To relocate the road to the DEIR suggested point would have caused too much grading near the creek. o Because of the revision and deletion of dwelling units from the knoll areas, the new Zone 4 water tank located on the Blaylock property would no longer be necessary to serve the project. o The precise alignment of the emergency access road on the Nielsen property has not been determined, but is in the process of negotiation between the project applicant and the Nielson property owners. 86123 2-4 3. COMMENTS AND RESPONSES 3.1 WRITTEN COMMENTS AND RESPONSES PUBLIC AGENCIES A Gary F. Adams, California Department of Transportation B Gary Binger, Association of Bay Area Governments C Barbara Darlington, Dublin San Ramon Service District D Jeannie Hamilton, City of San Ramon E Milton Feldstein, Bay Area Air Quality Management District F Christian Gerike, California Archaeological Inventory G Roderick A. Chisholm, II, Department of the Army PRIVATE CITIZENS AND GROUPS H Teresa M. Kalashian I Donald L. Babbitt J R. H. Smyth K Gordon D. Jacoby, Venture Corporation L Jan Blaidel M Kenneth L. Blaedel N James R. and Alex Jones O Ruth Chin P Marjorie R. La Bar, Preserve Area Ridgelands Q Ward M. Tanneberg, Valley Christian Center 86123 3-1 State ofCalifornia ..... ,._...... .. ...... ..' ....° ..a .. Aemor and um Loreen McMahon Date : January 26 , 1988 State Clearinghouse 1400 Tenth St . , Rm. 121 Fie No.: ALA-580-PM-R21 . 43 Sacramento, CA 95814 SCH#87050527 ALA580151 From DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION (Cal t r an s ) -4 yubjed: DEIR FOR THE HANSEN HILL RANCH PROJECT The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans ) has reviewed the above-referenced document and forwards the following continents : 1 . This document does not provide any information on the impacts of project-generated and cumulative growth traffic on State highway facilities . No trip distribution or assignment is provided ; therefore , we are unable to make any conclusions concerning the probability that such impacts will occur . This project is estimated to develop 240-300 peak hour trips . This , plus the added growth (not quantified in the report ) from other projects suggests that there is at least the potential A-1 that project-generated and cumulative traffic growth could have an impact on State highways . 2 . Cumulative traffic impacts on the I-580/Foothill-San Ramon Road interchange should be studied as well as the new interchange the City of Dublin proposes at I-680/downtown Dublin. The City A-2 of Dublin should consider making approval contingent upon the developer participating in a future assessment district for State highway improvements that will be needed to mitigate the cumulative impacts of development in the area. 3 . Additional comments concerning trip distribution and cumulative impacts are contained in the attachment . A-3 Should you have any questions regarding these comments , please contact Rick Clennan. of my staff at (415 ) S44­ 298 . Y F. ADAMS District CEQA Coordinator Attachment cc : Jeff Georgevich - MTC 3-3 ATTACHMENT Subject: Hansen Hill Ranch DEIR. Dublin The following is in response to your request of 12/28/87 for review of and comments to the subject document. Focused on Demand Traffic Projections, the comments are for your consideration in conjunction with input by other functional units, as applicable. 1. As. pointed out under items 2b and 2c of this- District's response of June 2, 1987 to the Notice of Preparation, the impacts bf project-generated and cumulatively added traffic A-3A on the ramps and foot-of-ramp intersections of the I-580/San Ramon Road and the I-680/AIcosta Blvd. interchanges should have been - but were not - addressed. 2. The expected distribution of the generated trips was not • shown. That component is needed for the estimation of the volumes as they would impact the ramps of the two above A-3E mentioned interchanges. P_s a minimum, distribution by cardinal directions - and assignment to local network path - should be referred to. 3 . Table 3-8 snows that directional traffic volumes were calculated. The peak hour percentages implied on page 3-104 A-3C (4% All, 10% Pm) should also be shown by direction. `r i0o \9;* 4 Sgt 3-4 3. Comments and Responses PUBLIC AGENCIES RESPONSES TO LETTER A A-1 The expected trip distribution and assignment is as follows: To and from the north to: San Ramon Road via Silvergate Drive 14% San Ramon Road via VCC access route 14% To and from the east to: Dublin Blvd. via Silvergate Drive 6% Dublin Blvd. via VCC access route 6% I-580 via Silvergate Drive 5% I-580 via VCC access route 5% Dublin Canyon Rd. via Silvergate Drive 1% Dublin Canyon Rd. via VCC access road 2% Amador Valley Blvd. via Silvergate Drive 5% Amador Valley Blvd. via VCC access road 5% To and from the west to: I-580 via Silvergate Drive 13% I-580 via VCC access road 12% To and from the south to: Foothill Road via Silvergate Drive 6% Foothill Road via VCC access road 6% TOTAL 100% Note: VCC = Valley Christian Center A-2 Comment noted. A-3 Two recent studies provide cumulative impact analysis at these location, and both include traffic generated by the proposed Hansen Hills Ranch project. The Alternative Analysis Report--Phase2--Alcosta Mall Area Study Master Plan (Wurster, Bernardi and Emmons, Inc., DKS Associated, Keyser Marston Associates, Inc., February 11, 1988) includes a cumulative impact analysis that "includes large residential developments in Dougherty Valley, as well as cumulative development in the City of Dublin which would affect the project area 86123 3-5 3. Comments and Responses intersections." The cumulative development within Dublin includes the proposed Hansen Hills Ranch project. The Alternatives Analysis Report provides mitigation measures for cumulative impacts that would result in Level of Service D (indicating tolerable delay) or better operations. These improvements include: additional turning and through lanes at the intersection of San Ramon Road and Alcosta Boulevard; additional turning lanes at the I-680 on/off ramps at Alcosta Boulevard Intersection; widening of the Alcosta Boulevard overpass; and relocation of the southbound Alcosta Boulevard off-ramp to a button-hook ramp just north of the San Ramon Valley Boulevard/Alcosta Boulevard intersection. The North Pleasanton Improvement District Freeway Improvements Traffic Study (TJKM Transportation Consultants, January, 1988) provides a cumulative analysis of the San Ramon Road/I-580 WB off-ramp and the Foothill Road/I-580 EB off- ramp after construction of improvements funded by the North Pleasanton Improvements District. The 2010 (cumulative) land use scenario includes development of the proposed Hansen Hills Ranch project. During the a.m and p.m. peak hours, the foot-of ramp intersections referenced above (with one exception) are expected to operate at or better than Level of Service B (indicating slight delay). The exception is the Foothill Road/I-580 EB off- amp, which is expected to operate at Level of Service F (indicating jammed conditions) during the p.m. peak hour. This level of service, however, could be improved by constructing a two-land off-ramp with a 1,500 foot-long auxiliary lane in advance of the Foothill Road exit. 86123 3-6 OABAG ASSOCIATION OF BAY AREA GOVERNMENTS FILE COPY Mailing Address:■ P.O. Box 2050■Oakland,CA 94604-2050 RECEIVED January 27, 1988 JAN � ��?� DUBLIN PLANNING Mr. Laurence L. Tong Planning Director City of Dublin P.O. Box 2340 Dublin, CA 94568 Subject: DEIR, Hansen Hill Ranch - Annexation, General Plan Amendment Dear Mr. Tong: The Hansen Hill Ranch project sponsor requests approval to annex its site to the City and to build 282 new dwelling units on half of the 147+-acre very hilly property, with about 54% of the site remaining in open space and with an anticipated net gain in population of 900 (an increase of 4.2% over the current City population) . This letter conveys ABAG staff comments on the Draft EIR. In our routine check of the use of ABAG projections in the Draft EIR, we note that the ABAG Projections 85 (July 1985) are used in analyzing growth in the Sphere of Influence on page 3-38, and listed in the Data B-1 Source information on page 3-52 at the end of the Land Use Chapter. The Projections 87 have been available since last July and should be used and cited here. Every new residential project offers an opportunity to produce affordable housing. Such an opportunity, if grasped, can affect commuter traffic congestion, and thus can help sustain job growth. In the discussion of regional housing goals (pages 3-49,50) , the EIR states that the City lacks the public funds necessary to underwrite below-market- rate housing and meet its goal of 665 units. A suitable location for a few BMR units within the project is indicated in the discussion of the Creek- Oriented Alternative. On page 4-11, the description of that alternative states, "Shifting the mix of single-family multi-family mix (sic) toward a greater number of multi-family dwellings. . .would conform more favorably with the City's housing element and its policies regarding a mixture of p-2 housing types and affordability. Construction of multi-family clustered units could represent a cost savings to the project sponsor with a possible passing on of savings to the eventual buyer." Many varied ideas are being developed by Bay Area cities and counties in pursuit of more affordable housing. Some of the techniques used elsewhere are presented in a new ABAG publication, which we are enclosing. David v. Goliath - How Local Decision-makers are Confronting Bav Area Planning Challenges might suggest possibilities for your city. 3-7 FILE COPY Representing City and County Governments of the San Francisco Bay Area Metro Center■ Eighth & Oak Streets■ Oakland■ (415) 464-7900 Mr. Laurence L. Tong January 27, 1988 Page 2 Using Projections 87 figures for Dublin's employed residents and its number of households, in 1990 the average household in Dublin will contain 1.72 employed residents. Assuming 282 new dwelling units in the project, there would be approximately 485 employed residents, many of whom would travel to work, perhaps daily, from the project site. Because of the high income level required to purchase most of these new homes, residents would most likely commute to a job outside the City, using either I-580 or I-680. Consequently, as noted in Table 3-8, the Level of Service (LOS) for the evening peak hour traffic at the San Ramon Road/Dublin Boulevard intersection would drop from E to F. The EIR discusses how this congested intersection might be improved. What are the time schedule and financial 6-3 sources, or other assurances that these improvements will be made? How will the widening of I-680 influence these changes? Thank you for giving us an opportunity to comment on the Hansen Hill Ranch EIR. S'nc ely rs, Gary Bing Planning Director Enclosure 3-8 3. Comments and Responses RESPONSES TO LETTER B B-1 The Association of Bay Area Governments is correct in pointing out the use of Projections 185 rather than Projections 187, both in the text and in the source information. The figures on page 3-38 are changed in the FEIR to correspond to Projections '87. The major impact of this change is to decrease the Dublin population percentage from 130% to 121% increase by the year 2000 and a reduction in households from 155% to 145%. Alameda County is projected to experience a 23% increase in population rather than the 15% reported in the DEIR, and a 26% increase in household growth over the same time period rather than the 20% in the DEIR. B-2 Comment noted. B-3 The City of Dublin is currently adopting a plan line to implement the Dublin Boulevard/San Ramon Road intersection improvements recommended in the DEIR. The City is requiring that each potential beneficiary of the recommended improvements contribute a proportionate share of the total cost. The widening of I-680 is assumed in the DEIR analysis. An overflow of traffic from I-680 onto San Ramon Road is not anticipated after the widening is complete. Impacts of freeway interchanges are discussed in a response below. 86123 3-9 DUBLIN SAN RAMON SERVICES DISTR Cm Offices: 7051 Dublin Boulevard • Dublin, California 94568 • (415) 828-0515 February 2, 1988 R :CEr .Y. ED FEB 04 13- C-1 DUBLIN PLANNING Mr. Lawrence L. Tong , Planning Director City of Dublin P. 0 . Box 2340 Dublin, CA 94568 Re : Draft Environmental Impact Report - Hansen Hill Ranch Dear Larry: This agency has the following comments on the draft EIR: WATER 1 . On Page 3-67, paragraph 61 under "Visual Quality , a statement is made that DSRSD would require a new Zone 4 water tank at a minimum elevation of 1 ,015 feet . The updated water C-1 master plan anticipates that the new Pressure Zone 4 will serve elevations higher than the upper limit of the Hansen Hills project and will require a new zone 4 reservoir at an elevation of 1100 feet (base) . 2. On page 3-83 , paragraph 1 , under "Wafter" , a statement is made that there presently exists a 12-in6h transmission line C-2 across the Hansen property which is not true . Such a pipe- line is required to complete the Zone 3 distribution system and will have to be provided as a part of this project . 3 . On page 3-83 , paragraph 3 , under "Water" , subsection " Impacts" , the first sentence states that property within the Zone 3 strata can be served from the existing system. This C-3 should be clarified . An existing Zone 3 reservoir is not required to serve this project , but the new transmission line across the property and additional Zone 3 pumping capacity are required to serve this project. 4. The majority of the District 's Water Master Plan work for the west side of Dublin has been completed, and the following data is tentatively indicated for Zone 4 : Reservoir Base Elevation = 1 , 100 feet C-4 Reservoir Size = 750 ,000 gallons Zone Range = 740 feet to 1000 feet Minimum Pressure = 50 psi An attached map shows the Zone 4 proposed reservoir site . 3-11 A POLI':GAL SL)K^AV S:CN 0`THE ST.%" OF CAL.CCRNIA • P'30\1DEc;%!,'N'CI.AL'.PE SERVICES T: _ENS OF L VE;YOZE A\D SAN RAMON VALLE'.S ALAMECA AN^CCU,'-A,:.­,TA CC',!N;IEc Draft Environmental Impact Report - Hansen Hill Ranch, Page 2. WASTEWATER 1 . On page 3-84 under "Wastewater" , subsection "setting" , the 2nd sentence should read: "DSRSD 's recently completed plant improvements increased plant capacity to 11.5 MGD. The 5th sentence under the same section should read "Of the 5 ,500 C-5 DUEs , 1136 have been repaid to the Cities of Pleasanton and Livermore , and approximately 1 ,000 DUEs will be made avail- able to the Santa Rita Rehabilitation Center . . " The last sentence in this section which reads " If the District issues all permits available , any future development would wait for the next LAVWMA expansion . " should be revised or deleted , as the intended meaning is not clear. 2. Page 3-85 , 1st paragraph, 2nd sentence , states that costs C need to be determined for Zones 3 and 4. There are no pressure zones associated with sewage flow. 3. On page 3-84 under " Impacts" , paragraph 20 the Draft EIR states that 12 acres may require sewage to be pumped. The District strongly discourages the use of sewage pump stations . The developer should plan to route the sewage flow south through the Blaylock property . A pump station may be C_7 considered temporarily prior to development of the Blaylock property . 4. All sewer manhole locations should b,e accessible to District maintenance vehicles . C_,; GENERAL 1. The applicant for this project must contact the District directly regarding plan review , required permits , payment of C_ fees and all other applicable items. 2. The District may require offsite improvements to the C_1 water and wastewater systems if a need is indicated by the proposed improvement plans . Very truly yours, rrbara Darling on BD: ns Office Engineer 3-12 ' to .1 f3l 1 0,01 Is Cos Cmint Chi 29 -C try C111, er de 4. Uj t Alin 14 1 is 4 It if V1 ff in If 7 WbIert o 60 ;Loco 3. Comments and Responses RESPONSES TO LETTER C C-1 Comment acknowledged. The Dublin San Ramon Services District (DSRSD) Water Master Plan -has been updated since the Hansen Hill Ranch Draft EIR was completed. The Water Master Plan now indicates that the new Zone 4 reservoir will require siting at an elevation of 1100 feet (base), consequently it would not be sited on the Blaylock property. A map provided by DSRSD shows the proposed tank location to the west of the Hansen and Blaylock properties, on the Donlan ridgeline. The previously described impacts would still result from the proposed siting of the Zone 4 tank. C-2 On page 3-83, paragraph 1, the statement concerning an existing 12 inch transmission line, the statement should read "A 12-inch transmission pipe across the Hansen property would be required as part of the project." C-3 On page 3-83, paragraph 3, the statement is made concerning Zone 3 strata service. After the 1st sentence in the paragraph should be added: "An existing Zone 3 reservoir is not required to serve this project, but the new 12-inch transmission line across the Hansen property and additional Zone 3 pumping capacity would be required to serve the property." C-4 Comment noted. C-5 On page 3-84 under "Wastewater-Setting," 1st paragraph, the sentence beginning "The Liver more-Amador Valley. . ." should be deleted and replaced with the following sentence "The Dublin San Ramon Sewer District has completed plant improvements increasing plant capacity from 9.5 million gallons per day (MGD) to 11.5 MGD." On the same page (3-84), paragraph 1, change the sentence beginning "Of the 5,500 . it to read "Of the 5,500 DUES, 1,136 have been repaid to the Cities of Pleasanton and Livermore, and approximately 1,000 DUES will be made available to the Santa Rita Rehabilitation Center, while the remaining 3,364 DUEs would be available for developers." I 86123 3-14 3. Comments and Responses Page 3-84, lst paragraph, the sentence beginning "If the District . . ." should be changed to read "If the District issues all current permits available, any future development would have to wait for the next LAVMA plant expansion for new DU Es." C-6 On page 3-85, paragraph 1, change second sentence to read "These costs would have to be determined for the project." C-7 The new revised project eliminates all dwelling units in the southeast 12 acre part of the site. Consequently, all dwelling units are located sloping toward Martin Canyon Creek and can be sewered by gravity. C-8 Add to Mitigations section on page 3-85 the following: All sewer manhole locations would be accessible to Dublin San Ramon Service District maintenance vehicles. C-9 Add to Mitigations section on page 3-85 the following: The applicant for the Hansen Hill ranch project would contact the DSRSD regarding plan review, required permits, payment of fees and all other applicable items. C-10 Comment noted. 86123 3-15 City of San Ramon 2222 Camino Ramon San Ramon, California 94583-1350 (415) 866-1400 February 5, 1988 R t -C 1 .V. E D. Mr. Laurence Tong, Planning Director FEB 05 1NI City of Dublin Planning Department P.O. Box 2340 DOWN P, MNWG Dublin, California 94568 Regarding: Hansen Hill Ranch, Dublin DEIR - General Plan Amendment Dear Mr. Tong: Thank you for forwarding a copy of the above referenced DEIR for review and comment. Staff has had the opportunity to review the report and develop comments around those areas that should be considered further in the preparation of a Final EIR. Although there is some distance between the physical boundary of the City of San Ramon and the project site, there are some potential impacts that are of concern to the city. What follows is a discussion of those aspects of the projects that present potential impacts to the city and how the analysis should be expanded to include these concerns. The first area of concern relates to the traffic and circulation section of the subject report. On page 3-101, ,the report setting D-1 indicates San Ramon Road provides access for west Dublin residents to I-680 via the Alcosta Boulevard interchange in San Ramon, yet the report analysis completely ignores any possible impact from the project at any Alcosta Boulevard intersection. Any travel from the project destined to/from the north via I-680 will likely use the Alcosta Boulevard I-680 interchange. Since the proposed new Dublin interchange on I-680 in the vicinity of Dublin Boulevard is not approved nor funded, and the present I-680/I-580 freeway interchange is severely congested at peak periods, it is likely that all trips to the north via I-680 will be utilizing the Alcosta Boulevard interchange for quite some time. As a consequence, the traffic analysis is incomplete in the assessment of possible impacts at key intersections. The City of San Ramon recommends additional level-of-service analysis be performed at the following intersections: 1. Alcosta Blvd./San Ramon Road 2 . Alcosta Blvd./I-680 NB onramp and offramp D-2 3 . Alcosta Blvd./I-680 SB onramp and offramp The analysis should include both A.M. and P.M. peak hour periods for existing development, existing + project development, and cumulative development projections. 3-17 A second area of concern to the City is the potential impact the proposed project has on the visual quality of the hillside. As stated in the DEIR the proposal would develop 46% of the site and require extensive grading, removal of more than 1/2 of the Oak/Bay Woodland vegetation and the installation of site infrastructure and landscaping. This development would occur within areas of high visual sensitivity. As you may be aware the City of San Ramon values the hillsides as visual resources as evidenced through the guiding policies found in the conservation element of the General Plan. It appears that Dublin holds the same values as evidenced in their own policies to keep natural ridgelines surrounding Dublin undisturbed. Although the visual D-3 quality section of the DEIR addresses the impacts on adjacent views more, effort should be spent detailing the impacts as viewed from various travel corridors within San Ramon looking south towards the project site (i.e. , I-680, Alcosta Blvd. , Old Ranch Road, San Ramon Valley Blvd. ) . This concludes our comments on the DEIR for the Hansen Hill Ranch proposal . If you have any questions regarding the above comments feel free to contact me at 866-1411. Again, thank you for your consideration in forwarding the DEIR to our office and I look forward to reviewing the Final EIR. Sincerely, 1 Jeannie Hamilton Assistant Planner /jmh planng/C480 cc: Richard T. Bottarini, Planning Director Don Orr, Senior Planner 3-18 3. Comments and Responses RESPONSES TO LETTER D D-1 Comment noted, please refer to response to comment A-1. D-2 Comment noted, please refer to response to comment A-3. D-3 Comment noted, please refer to responses to comments K-1 and P-2. 86123 3-19 - BAY AREA AID Q' JA­ ' 'r ,Y J MANAGEMENT DISTRICT ALAMEDA COUNTY Edward R. Campbell Shirley J. Campbell February 8, 1988 Chuck Corica Frank H. Ogawa CONTRA COSTA COUNTY Paul L. Cooper Sunne Wright McPeak City of Dublin `AARIN COUNTY At Aramburu Planning Department R E :C E i Y E D. (Chairperson) P.O. Box 2340 NAPA COUNTY Dublin, CA 94568 � � a lo�A Harold I.Moskow to SAN FRANCISCO COUNTYAttention: Laurence L. Tong Harry G. Brit; Planning Director BUBUN PLANNING Jim Gonzalez SAN MATEO COUNTY Gus J. N colopu!os Dear Mr. Tong: Anna Eshoo SANTA CLARA COUNTY We have reviewed the Draft EIR for the proposed Hansen Hill Ranch RoC Diridon Ralph P. Doetsch, Sr. General Plan Amendment/Prezoning. The proposed project consists of 248 single- vice-Chairperson) family detached residential units and 34 duplex townhome residential units. The Roberta cn 1^Jils Hugnan Susanne 147.3 acre project is located west of Silvergate Drive and north of Hansen Drive. (Secre:ary) , SOLANO COUNTY We have the following comments on the DEIR's air quality impact analysis. Oscy Davis SONot:tA COUNTY Table 3-15 predicts that cumulative traffic from this and other developments Heien B. Rutlee will result in violations of the 1-hour and 8-hour carbon monoxide (CO) standards at the San Ramon Road/Dublin Boulevard intersection and of the 8-hour standard at the Silvergate Drive/San Ramon Road intersection. It is quite unusual, though not impossible, that local traffic would produce such high one-hour and eight-hour CO E-1 values, even from cumulative impacts as were properly included here. The local component in the model results seems to be between two and three times as high as the background values. It may be useful to review all inputs to the model and the calculations. If the results are still above ambient air quality standards, it may be useful to run the more complex CALINE 4 Air Quality Model (from which the BAAQMD simplified model in the GUIDELINES was derived). The volumes of traffic involved may warrant such a modeling exercise at any rate, if the total traffic at any of the most congested points exceeds the volume of 10,000 trips per day (see page VII-2 and Table IX-B-3 of the BAAQMD GUIDELINES). Specific informa- tion on input assumptions and calculations should be forwarded to us, perhaps as an appendix to the Final EIR. If recalculation still indicates that CO standards will be exceeded, strong mitigation measures are warranted. While the proposed mitigation measure of (developer financed) CO hotspot monitoring would increase our knowledge of the accuracy of CO models, it would not by itself reduce CO concentrations. We suggest that additional mitigation measures be included in the project or, if there are no feasible mitigation measures, that violations of CO standards be included E among "Unavoidable Significant Impacts". Page 3-127 states that measures to improve traffic conditions "would in most cases reduce air pollutant emissions". NVe recommend that the effectiveness of these measures be quantified in Tables 3-14 and 3-15. 3-21 939 ELLIS STREE-r - SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94109 - (415) 771-6000 City of Dublin February 8, 1988 Page Two Page 3-110 states that in order to reduce traffic on Silvergate Drive, access to the project may have to be limited to Dublin Boulevard. We are concerned that this E- could increase congestion at the already congested Dublin Boulevard/San Ramon Road intersection. We recommend that the Final EIR discuss the traffic and air quality implications of limiting project access to Dublin Boulevard. Page 3-124 correctly describes one of the tests we use to evaluate the signifi- cance of a project's air quality impacts, i.e. comparing project-generated emissions with Best Available Control Technology (BAC'F) thresholds. Another significance test involves comparing project emissions with county-wide totals. A project is con- sidered to have a significant impact if emissions of any pollutant equal or exceed 1% of county-wide totals. We believe the latter test is more readily understood by the public and policymakers than is the BACT test. We suggest that the Final EIR compare project-generated emissions with county-wide totals. The discussion on page 3-122 of the Bay Area Air Quality Plan (BAAQP) fails to mention the important point that the BAAQP's air quality projections, are based on ABAG projections, (projections '79) of population and employment growth. The BAAQMD considers a project to be inconsistent with the Plan if it E- would cause an area to exceed ABAG projections. We consider this to be particu- larly important in rapidly growing areas such as the Tri-Valley. We suggest that the Final EIR discuss the project's consistency with ABAG projections and the BAAQP. We agree with the point made in ABAG's letter;of January 27 regarding the Hansen Hill Ranch project that "every new residential project offers an opportunity E-6 to produce affordable housing." By providing housing appropriate to local employ- ment, long-distance commuting can be reduced, thus reducing traffic congestion, vehicle miles travelled, and emissions that contribute to air quality problems. Because the questions relate to city-wide--even subregion-wide--development and the traffic it generates, we take this opportunity to again urge the City of Dublin E-7 to formulate and adopt an air quality element in its General Plan (BAAQMD Resolution #1666, 21 May 1986). Such an element would have to be related to the circulation, land use, and housing elements of the City's Generai Plan, and should be related to the subregional context in which Dublin is a key component. If you have any questions, please contact Irwin Mussen,The Senior Planner in our office. Sincerely, Ac��,za� Milton Feldstein Air Pollution Control Officer MF:HH:mt 3-22 3. Comments and Responses RESPONSES TO LETTER E E-1 In its letter of February 8, 1988, The BAAQMD noted that the CO concentrations projected for San Ramon Road/Dublin Boulevard and Silvergate Drive/San Ramon Road seemed unusually high. The BAAQMD suggested that the input data used in the simplified CO model contained in Air Quality and Urban Development be examined and, if this did not uncover an error, that the more complex CALINE4 be used to model CO levels at the two intersections. Given below are Table 3-14 from the DEIR, showing the results of the simplified CO model, and Appendix A, showing the input data used with the simplified CO model. Traffic volumes and street widths, provided by TJKM Associates, emission factors, taken from Air Quality and Urban Development, and calculations have been checked. The concentrations given in Table 3-14 result from correct calculations using verified input data. The tabulated concentrations, in parts per million, are the sums of a background component, which includes the cumulative effects of all CO sources in the project vicinity, and a local component, which reflects the effects of vehicular traffic on roadways. Background and local components were obtained by using procedures outlined in Air Quality and Urban Development, BAAQMD, November 1985. Traffic data was provided by TJKM Associates. Using the same TJKM and BAAQMD input data, CALINE4 was employed to model CO concentrations at the SAN Ramon Road/Dublin Boulevard and Silvergate Drive/San Ramon Road intersections. The CALINE4 results are given in Table 3- 14A while the CALINE4 input is summarized in Appendix B. Comparison of Tables 3-14 and 3-14A reveals that the CALINE4 results are significantly lower than those of the simplified model. No standard violations are predicted by CALINE4. However, both models are in accord in predicting very low project contributions to the total CO concentrations. The preceding discussion of this apparent inconsistency in modeling methodologies together with the accompanying Tables and Appendices will be included in the FEIR with the hope that BAAQMD review will resolve the inconsistency. 86123 3-23 3. Comments and Responses TABLE 3-14 WORST CASE CURBSIDE CARBON MONOXIDE CONCENTRATIONS AT SELECTED LOCATIONS IN THE PROJECT VICINITY Without With Averaging Existing Project Project Location Time 1987 1990 1990 Silvergate Drive/ 1-hr. 12.6 13.3 13.5 San Ramon Road 8-hr. 9.3 9.8 9.9 San Ramon Road/ 1-hr. 20.2 20.9 21.2 Dublin Boulevard 8-hr. 14.7 15.1 15.3 Silvergate Drive/ 1-hr. 5.5 5.4 5.7 Dublin Boulevard 8-hr. 4.3 4.3 4.4 Donlon Way/ 1-hr. 7.6 7.4 7.7 Dublin Boulevard 8-hr. 5.8 5.7 5.8 Background 1-hr. 5.0 4.9 4.9 8-hr. 4.0 3.9 3.9 The tabulated concentrations, in parts per million, are the sums of a background component, which includes the cumulative effects of all CO sources in the project vicinity, and a local component, which reflects the effects of vehicular traffic on raodways. Background and local components were obtained by using procedures outlined in Air Quality and Urban Development, BAAQMD, November, 1985. Traffic data was provided by TJKM Associates. 86123 3-24 3. Comments and Responses TABLE 3-14A WORST CASE CURBSIDE CARBON MONOXIDE CONCENTRATIONS AT SELECTED LOCATIONS IN THE PROJECT VICINITY Without With Averaging Existing Project Project Location Time 1987 1990 1990 Silvergate Drive/ 1-hr. 7.4 8.0 8.1 San Ramon Road 8-hr. 5.7 6.1 6.1 San Ramon Road/ 1-hr. 12.1 11.3 11.4 Dublin Boulevard 8-hr. 9.0 8.4 8.5 Background 1-hr. 5.0 4.9 4.9 8-hr. 4.0 3.9 3.9 The tabulated concentrations, in parts per million, are the sums of a background component, which includes the cumulative effects of all CO sources in the project vicinity, and a local component, which reflects the effects of vehicular traffic on raodways. Background and local components were obtained by using procedures outlined in Air Quality and Urban Development, BAAQMD, November; 1985. Local components were calculated by using the CALINE4 model. Input parameters for CALINE4 are summarized in Appendix B. 86123 3-25 3. Comments and Responses The tabulated concentrations, given in parts per million, are the sums of a background component, which includes the cumulative effects of all CO sources in the project vicinity, and a local component, which reflects the effects of vehicular traffic on adjacent roadways. Background components were obtained from Air Quality and Urban Development, BAAQMD, November 1985. Local components were calculated by using the CALINE4 model. Input parameters for CALINE4 are summarized in Appendix B. E-2 See Tables 3-14 and 3-14A. E-3 Comment noted. E-4 Comment noted. The BAAQMD also noted that project emissions should be compared with countywide motor vehicle emissions. Table 3-13, taken from the DEIR, shows the air pollutant emissions from project traffic. Project emissions would be considered significant if they exceeded 1% of the countywide vehicular emissions as shown in Table 3-13. Since project emissions are much less than 1% of the county totals, project emissions would not be considered significant. E-5 The comment is well taken. The DEIR should have mentioned that the Bay Area Air Quality Plan (BAAQP) projections are based on ABAG projections, of population and employment. E-6 Comment noted. E-7 Comment noted. 86123 3-26 3. Comments and Responses TABLE 3-13 EMISSIONS FROM PROJECT GENERATED TRAFFIC (tons per day) Countywide BayArea Vehicular AirBasin Pollutant Projectl Emissions2 Tota13 Carbon Monoxide (CO) 0.500 534.3 2,190 Reactive Organics (ROG) 0.057 70.3 511 Nitrogen Oxides (NOx) 0.027 67.5 456 Sulfur Dioxide (S02) 0.004 4.5 155 Particulates (TSP) 0.047 8.6 654 1Project emissions were calculated by using the California Air Resources Board URBEMIS#1 model. 2Countywide vehicular emissions were taken from Base Yeat 1983 Emission Inventory Summary Report, BAAQMD, August, 1987. 3The regional totals given here are BAAQMD estimates for the year 1990. 86123 3-27 ALAMEDA Northwest Information Center „''.•i COLUSA MARIN California ! ,'= C.ONTRA COSTA MENDOCINO SAN MATEO Department of Anthropology DEL NORTE MONTEREY SANTA CLAM Sonoma State University ArchaeolMical <. HUMBOLDT NAPA SANTA CRUZ `n ' LAKE SAN BENITO souNO Rohnert Park,California 94928 Inventory `' "r't�r. SAN FRANCISCO SONOMA (707)884.2494 •:��'�- �o=+v'F;;':! YOLO W nn" HU R 12 January 1988 RECEIVED File No: 87-AL-102E Laurence L. Tong JAN i , City of Dublin Development Services DUBUN PLANNING P.O. Box 2340 Dublin, CA 94568 re: Draft EIR, Hansen Hill Ranch - General Plan Amendment, Prezoning Dear Mr. Tong: Records at this office of the California Archaeological Inventory were reviewed to determine if this project could adversely affect prehistoric or historic cultural resources: /The proposed project area contains, or has the possibility of F-1 containing, cultural resources. A study is recommended. A cultural resource study ( ) identified one or more cultural resources. The recommendations from the report are attached. The project area contains, or has the possibility containing, cultural cultural resources. Due to the nature of the project, an adverse effect on cultural resources is not anticipated. Further study is not recommended at this time. A cultural resource study ( ) identified no cultural resources. Further study is not recommended. _ There is a low probability of cultural resources. Further study is not recommended. In all cases, if cultural resources are encountered during the project , work in the immediate vicinity of the find(s) should be halted until a cultural resource specialist has evaluated the situation. If you have any questions, please give us a call (707) 664-2494. Sincerely, ck"�� , Christian Gerike Assistant Coordinator cc: applicant el FILE COPY J -" 10/87 3-29 3. Comments and Responses RESPONSES TO LETTER F F-1 The DEIR does state the possibility that cultural resources could exist on the project site, particularly since similar environmental conditions have yielded sites on property close to the proposed site. The California Archaeological Inventory did recommend archival and field study of the project area to identify cultural resources which should not be adversely affected in its letter of 4 December 1986 to EIP and should have been included in the DEIR. The DEIR did recommend that if cultural or historical resources were encountered within the project site during construction that all activity in the area of impact cease until a qualified archaeological consultant evaluate the find. 86123 3-30 a DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY SAN FRANCISCO DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS 211 MAIN STREET SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94105 - 1905 Environmental Branch February 1, 1988 R E C E I V E D FCd Qf 10^ DUBLIN PLANNING To: Mr. Laurence L. Tong Planning Director, City of Dublin Development Services P.O. Box 2348 Dublin, California 94568 Subject: Hansen Hill Ranch Prezoning DEIR Your request for comments from this office was received on 29 December 1987 by your letter dated 21 December 1937. The proposed activity is an administrative action and therefore will not require Department of the Army authorization. However, any construction resulting from this action may require Department of the Army authorization. For additional information please contact our Regulatory Functions Branch at 415-974-0418. Any impacts on wetlands, threatened or endangered species, other valuable fish and wildlife resources, or on cultural resources are among the important environmental considerations for all Corps permit applicants. Other areas of C,-1 environmental concern specific to this project are: Flooding impacts related to the 100-year flood event. Questions concerning our AB 884 review can be referred to the undersigned at 415-974-0443. Thank you for including us in your review process. Roderick A. Chisholm, II Chief, Environmental Branch Planning/Engineering Division 3-31 . 3. Comments and Responses RESPONSES TO LETTER G G-1 This comment is noted and recognized that a Section 404 permit may be required for the proposed filling of the creeks and drainages on the site. Prior to any construction .the project applicant and/or the City must apply for a Section 404 permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 86123 3-32 11777 Murietta Court Dublin, California January 4, 1988 R .E .0 F I Y. E a JAN 7 Larry Tong, Director Planning D Department DUgUt4 pL t IiVG City 6500 Dublin Boulevard Dublin, California Dear Mr. Tong: My husband and I chose west Dublin as the place to raise our family. The small town charm of Dublin is very appealing. This charm is rapidly being replaced with conjeation, noise, and crowds. The westward expansion has already destroyed the once beautiful hills and brought overcrowding to western Dublin's school and streets. We have just survived the visual and audio attack from the current building sites in our backyards. The neighborhood streets are getting back to normal after all of the construction traffic. You can only imagine my shock and disgust when I read the December 23rd article in The Valley Times regarding the Hansen Hill Ranch project. Haven't the current residents of Dublin been put through enough inconvenelnce in the name of city development? This current project will further destroy the hilly charm of Dublin as well as burden the already overtaxed streets and schools. Just the thought of 38,000 truckloads of H-1 dirt passing through our neighborhoods is enough to make me shutter. Dublin is a fine little town. Why can't we let it remain as such for a while? Dublin's growth seems out of control; why can't we get used to what we have before we add to it? I strongly oppose the west side development and the Hansen Hill Ranch project. Those of us that live in Dublin should not have to have our lives further disrupted by outside developers who want only to make a profit. They won't have to live with the overcrowded and overtaxed facilities that they have fostered. Thank you for taking the time to read my concerns. Sincerely, Jll� Y/f 3-33 ti 3. Comments and Responses PRIVATE CITIZENS AND GROUPS RESPONSES TO LETTER H H-1 The revised project is to be balanced cut and fill. This means there would be no dirt hauling through neighborhoods. All dirt would be retained on site and would be moved from place to place within the site boundaries. 86123 3-34 Plummer gECE1VED �0 U 1I-AZI F; a r, b c t pUBUN PV�NING n:ineFnng. Inc. February 1, 1988 City of Dublin Planning Department 6500 Dublin Blvd. Dublin, California 94568 Attention: Larry Tons REFERENCE: Draft Environmental Impact Report Hansen Hill Ranch Project Dublin, California Dear Mr. Tong: After review of the DEIR and the Harding Lawson Associates Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation for the Hansen Bill Ranch, I am concerned that there is no mention of the possibility of bedrock such as was encountered on Bordeaux Estates and Silvergate Highlands to the north. Bordeaux Estates encountered such extensive bedrock that a D-10 could not move I-1 the boulders and low level blasting was used to reduce the rocks to manageable size. The cost over runs in the grading operations for Bordeaux Estates due to the bedrock problems forced the project into almost financial ruin and the original developer and investor are no longer involved with the project. I talked to James Joyce, Geologist with Harding Lawson Associates, about their preliminary geological report and the fact that there was no mention of non-rippable bedrock such as Bordeaux Estates. Mr. Joyce pulled out a USGS geologic map and informed me since Hansen Ranch was on the other side of Martin Canyon south of Bordeaux Estates, that it was shown in a different geologic fold where this project should not encounter bedrock problems. If this is true, then why did Valley Christian Center have bedrock problems when they are located south of Hansen Ranch. Valley Christian Center used low level blasting to reduce bedrock (boulders) to manageable size and the rock was hauled off for three weeks solid to South San Francisco to be used for rock rip-rap on channels. If you are interested, Valley Christian Center has pictures of boulders lined up on their site and still have a couple of the boulders on site for decoration. 052-00000-479 3-35 The developer should be required to perform seismic refraction analysis throughout the site to map the extent of non-rippable bedrock. Potential bedrock problems coupled With the dirt excess proposed to be off-hauled and landslide repair costs seems very costly for a 288 lot, plus of minus, project to absorb. I hope the developer is aware of these potential problems and because of What Bordeaux Estates, Valley Christian Center and Silvergate Highlands experienced, some mention should be made in the DEIR. If y have /any questions, please call. Si cer 1 , Donald L. Bab itt, P.E. cc: Lee Thompson, City of Dublin DLB:ks 052-00000-479 3-36 3. Comments and Responses RESPONSES TO LETTER I I-1 Geotechnical investigations at Bordeaux Estates included seismic refraction studies to ascertain the rippability of the underlying materials; however, the studies were inconclusive as to the potential rippability of the bedrock (boulders); estimates by the geotechnical consultant were that the material was rippable to marginally rippable (Brian Flaherty, ENGEO, personal communication). If boulders similar to those encountered on the Bordeaux Estates property were present on the project site, special engineering solutions would be required; this may result in increased costs for site development; however, the economic feasibility of site development is not part of the scope for the environmental evaluation. 86123 3-37 lk rr E D. AJ 17 .� .•u�.9-S �, .� D ciQ 3-39 , X / A G- s �So 4,PR 7 00, Z-4- S 1� _ §j - v oy 69 F 3-40 7 ew . . -• � .. . . : c�l- /mac � �',Q,Q o v � 1 ' s �7LJ 3 Poe r � 3-41 3. Comments and Responses RESPONSES TO LETTER J J-1 Comment noted. The reader is asked to refer to the previous letter from Ms. Teresa M. Kalashian, refer to response to comment H-1. J-2 The revised project would avoid putting dwelling units on the knolls. There are a number of mitigation measures contained in the Visual Quality Section of the DEIR (pages 3-71 to 3-74) which are designed to preserve the existing natural beauty and the environment as much as possible, while permitting desired and necessary development in the area. 86123 3-42 �\ K .E .0 1 E FEB 0 .V, Q VENTURE Puff w eLgNN/ty� CORPORATION February 5, 1988 Mr. Larry Tong, Planning Director City of Dublin 6500 Dublin Blvd. P.O. Box 2340 Dublin, CA 94568 Subject: Draft Environmental Impact Report on the Hansen Hill Ranch Project Dear Larry: This letter constitutes our comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) on the Hansen Hill Ranch Project. These comments are intended to cover only the adequacy and accuracy of the DEIR. They should not be con- strued as Hansen Hill Development Corporation's agreement or disagreement with suggested mitigation, listed in the DEIR, that may later be considered as conditions of approval required for the project. We understand that con- siderations of such conditions will take place during project review. We found the DEIR to be a generally accurate and adequate assessment of the impacts of the project. Most of the report was prepared using well-tested and technically sound analytic techniques. The one section of the report we have a major disagreement with is that concerning visual qual- ity The visual quality analysis traditionally depends more on subjective K-1 rather than scientific analysis. We, through the work of our design team, obviously came to different conclusions on the visual quality of the project than those expressed in the DEIR. We are particularly referring to com- ments concerning the visual impacts of homes on the knolls. In such in- stances, judgements as to whether the impacts are significant or not are less clear cut and are often better determined by expressions of community interests and values via policies and diagrams in your General Plan. From our perspective, it may have been better for the City to have adopted a clearly stated policy concerning which knolls or ridgelines should preserved. In that manner, land owners and prospective developers could better under- stand where development would be permitted. There are a number of items on which we disagree with the findings or conclusions of the DEIR. There is one comment that applies to all sections of the DEIR. Our application and its accompanying technical reports and diagrams listed a number of development actions we would take to minimize any negative effects on the environment. Many of the items are listed as mitiga- tions in the DEIR with no mention that they had been proposed in our applica- IS7 E.BLITHEDALE AVE. 3-43 )MAILING ADDRESS: PO.BOX S47 MILL VALLEI,CALIFORNIA Q-I9a'_ (413081-1600 potential concerns. It would have been helpful to the DEIR reader to indi- cate which mitigations were proposed by the developer, which are standard City of Dublin requirements of all developments, and which are suggested by the DEIR. The items on which we disagree with the DEIR findings are listed below: Geolo Page 3-4 indicates that landsliding has been endemic to the site. En- demic is defined as: restricted to, or peculiar to, a locality. Examination of Tor Nielsen's landslide map (Reference #3) reveals that is far from the actual case. Compared to the surrounding region of hilly terrain, this site does not contain an unusual number of landslides, and landslides are by no means restricted to it. The mitigations actions proposed in our geology would report would preclude the reoccurrence of those landslides. Page 3-6 indicates that construction in the eastern portion of the site would be on artificial fill. The DEIR does not indicate that the grading K-3 plans call for substantial removal of those fills. Any questionable quality fills remaining in building areas would be removed and replaced with com- pacted fills. Hydrology Page 3-14 lists the problems that would occur with building an access road. The entire paragraph seems extremely pessimistic. First, the road al- ready exists along the north side of the creek. Therefore, its construction cannot be said to cause erosion and sediment transport as a result of this K-4 project. A proper design and reconstruction of the road would more likely reduce the magnitude of any such hazards. Such work would be done using ero- sion controls as required by the Streambed Protection Ordinance recently passed by the City of Dublin. Work would be done in the dry months, using temporary barriers to prevent spilling of soil. Vegetation Our major criticism of this entire section is that it fails to ad- equately discuss the project. There is little discussion on the proposed landscaping program. It fails to indicate the proposed plant list and why such plants were selected. It fails to indicate the height and canopy of new K-5 trees and the visual and riparian benefit of such trees and other plants. The plants were selected to be drought resistant. The landscape plan in- cluded consideration of fire protection. The Plan calls for substantial revegetation in disturbed areas with native species. The plan already calls for narrowed roads and revegetated road cuts, items that are listed as mitigation measures. The DEIR does not indicate how the proposed landscape plan will result in a blending the new houses into the landscape. We have reviewed other DEIRs prepared by EIP, the DEIR consultant, where they have prepared drawings K-6 of housing areas after the landscape plan has been completed. We will pre- 3-44 pare such drawings so they can be included in the Final EIR. Using information provided by our consultant, David Gates and Associates, the DER concludes that 52% of the trees could be affected by the proposed development. Why technically correct, the report does not clearly indicate that the tree inventory included three categories: 1) not affected, K-7 2) affected, and 3) potentially affected. The 52% represents an estimate of both the affected and potentially affected category. We anticipate that the percentage may be lower in that some of the trees in the "potentially af- fected" category may not be removed. We disagree with the conclusion that Lots 102-110 and 95-101 should be eliminated from the proposed development because of the likelihood of residents dumping trash into the natural corridor. Where is there evidence K-8 that residents of expensive homes dump trash behind their property? This recommendation also overlooks the fact that there will be maintenance of the entire open space areas and should such unlikely dumping take place, it would be picked up by maintenance crews and the guilty home owner would have to pay the bill. The C,C & R's provide such protection. We disagree with the recommendation that the access road should be moved to Lots 103 and 104. To avoid steep grades and more grading, we have located K-9 the road at a place where the profile grade is 6% or less. Due to the con- straints imposed by the natural topography, we have selected the only pos- sible proximity for a access road to intersect with the main road. Thank you for the opportunity to submit our comments. Sine y, Go . .,'Jacoby e President/of Dev opment Hansen Hill Developm nt Corporation � l 3-45 3. Comments and Responses RESPONSES TO LETTER K K-1 Policies of the City of Dublin's General Plan are subject to different interpretation. The Draft EIR looks to historic decisions by the City in guiding its interpretation of the policies. Most notably, was the precedent established in 1984 by the City's denial of a conditional use permit application for the_Valley Christian Center, a property which is adjacent to the proposed project site. As with the original Hansen Hill Ranch proposal, Valley Christian Center proposed to construct a structure along the ridge overlooking I-580. By denying the Valley Christian application the City reinforced its position that ridgelines should be maintained as natural and flowing and the horizon should be void of any buildings. The Hansen Hill proposal has been modified such that proposed project development would not involve the construction of structures on the ridgeline overlooking I-580. K-2 The clarification regarding the word "endemic" is appreciated. Landsliding is indeed a phenomenon observed to occur throughout the site and its vicinity. As indicated in the Mitigation section of the Draft EIR, landslide repairs are recommended for the site; this has also been recommended by the geotechnical engineers for the proposed development. It should still be noted that while existing known landslides have been proposed for repair, future slope instability may occur on the site as a result of specific site conditions (depending on the nature and effectiveness of irrigation, drainage improvements. and various erosion control measures). K-3 The purpose of an EIR is to identify the potential impacts that may result from the implementation of a project and to identify areas of concern. The unknown structural integrity of the existing fill material in the eastern portion of the site is such a concern. Removal of all the fill of questionable quality certainly would mitigate potential impacts. The decision as to which fill material may be of questionable quality should be made by the geotechnical engineers for the project. K-4 Comments noted. 86123 3-46 3. Comments and Responses K-5 As noted on page 3-25 of the DEIR, a specific landscaping plan was not available at the time the DEIR was prepared. The report does state on the same page, "The (conceptual) plant list of the open space zones is dominated by native tree and bush species." It goes on to suggest that the use of some of the proposed non-native plant species included in the list should be minimized. In a recent letter from the project sponsor, dated April 15, 1988, a revised tree planting list included a majority of non-native taxa. This list should be revised to include more native tree species in the landscaping plan. The use of non-native species should be justified. Without a specific planting plan indicating the sizes of the plant containers it is not possible to "indicate the height and canopy of the new trees" as requested in this comment. It is very likely that if anything the canopy cover and tree heights will be far less than what currently occur on the site and it will take years before the planted trees approach the stature of many of the existing trees they will be replacing. As far as the visual benefits of these plantings please refer to the Visual Quality Section of the DEIR. K-6 It is recognized that landscaping helps to "blend" urban developments into natural settings, however it cannot change the fact that this development would result in the conversion of a rural natural site into an urban site. The "blending" the comment refers to is more of a visual and aesthetic compensation than for the native biotic resources. K-7 Comment noted. Concerns regarding the use of "potentially affected" trees are addressed on page 3-23 of the DEIR. K-8 Comment noted with agreement. K-9 If the plan calls for the revegetation of road cuts then the project has this particular mitigation built into it. 86123 3-47 // 2201 EAST 78TH STREET BLOOMINGTON. MN 55420.1695 TELEPHONE. (612) 854.3411 STA-- ADJACENT TO THE MINNEAPOLIS:ST PAUL INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT LCIT Se-ol �u.1o�ih �� ��,vtn�h Cov�,wt 1.Ssrah l.�cblC�4 9ysG � R .E .0EIVED in( Co Soo i�u,b �ih i31�d - - aOs FED Oa 1 y S( g DUBLIN PLANNING —DO A/07- c.c.o W T--t4 L !- ILI- 5 of D U 13 c. A) Td 3 E ESTi20 y I� . &Y\ fL-A- o/L 1 J z b - l �y , O . C 3-49 FOR TOLL FREE RESERVATIONS I U.S. CALL 1-800-528-1234 3. Comments and Responses RESPONSES TO LETTER L L-1 Comments noted. The City's General Plan contains the City's long range plans regarding land use, housing, etc. The land use plan is used to guide growth and development in the Dublin area. An overview of the Dublin General Plan and planned growth is included in the DEIR on pages 3-38 thru 3-45 in the Land Use Section. 86123 3-50 Rfi ��- chi 40, On� y4e Dublin Planning Department �NA 6500 Dublin Blvd. '14'j Dublin, CA 94568 NQ Gentlemen, I am concerned about so many houses proposed to be built near Briarhill . My concern stems from what I consider such rapid growth in the area. We need some time to grow and to adjust to the growth. A manifestation of the current growth is the o' 1 increase in traffic through our neighborhood and the resultant congestion. It takes time to gear up for so much more traffic. I maintain that the development of the area above Briarhill (specifically the Hansen Hill Ranch) should proceed as a slow progressive effort, not as a series of radical increments . Kenneth L . Blaedel 7335 Hansen Dr. Dublin, CA 94568 3-51 3. Comments and Responses RESPONSES TO LETTER M M-1 Comment noted, please refer to responses to comments, Letter A. 86123 3-52 RECEIY, ED FED 1 ^ IN"I K February 10, 1988 DUBLIN P1,ANNING Mr. Larry Tong Dublin Planning Dept. 6500 Dublin Blvd. Dublin, Co. Dear Mr. Tong, We would like to go on record with the Dublin Planning Commission as opposed to the proposed Hansen Hill Ranch development for the following reasons. The November 1987 school district unification has created the need for the data pertaining to school issues in the EIR for Hansen Hill Ranch to be reevaluated. The Dublin Unified School District must have the opportunity to assess the impact of 250 new households on the western edge of the city. There also needs to be time allowed for the new district to put in place any developers fees deemed appropriate. As parents of preschool age children, we cannot accept the prior districts' (Murray and Amador Valley High ) assumptions for the next 5- 10 years in Dublin. A check of all the older neighborhoods would, we feel, reveal a demographic shift from families with older children moving through the district, to younger families with growing families not yet registered in the schools. The other disquieting aspects of the EIR are unresolved traffic volumes, landslide prone geology on the Hansen property due to the number of underground springs that exist, and the high density of homes N-2 marching up the main ridge. Venture Corp. says that the number of homes per acre is less than that of the existing Briarhill development, but in fact, that is a skewed statistic based on acreage that is unbuildable within existing code. In summary, we feel that the planning department should rule the school assessment data invalid and require a reevaluation of that impact. We al so f eel that the trof f i c i ssue has been summori I brushed aside in considering this project, and that until a solution exists , there should be no development. Services must be in place before need arises, not after the fact. Sincerely, J �mes and Alex ones 7349 Hansen Dr. Dublin, Co. 94568 3-53 3. Comments and Responses RESPONSES TO LETTER N N-1 The following is a reevaluation of the data presented in the DEIR concerning schools in the Dublin area. At the time of the DEIR, Dublin had not yet unified its school district. The district is now unified and unification goes into effect on July 1, 1988. The unified district will operate three elementary schools (K-5), one intermediate school (6-8) and one high school (9-12). Nielson School is the closest elementary school to the site. The District has another elementary school (Dublin) which is currently being rented as a private school. It is located adjacent to the I-680 freeway. All children progress from the elementary schools to Wells Intermediate School to Dublin High School. The table below summarizes the unified district's schools, capacities, enrollments, and projections for next year. Enrollment Surplus School Capacity Current Project Current Project Fredrickson 693 535 693 158 . 0 Murray 647 404 330 243 317 Nielson 7071 599 600 108 107 Totals 2,047 1,538 1,623 +509 +424 Wells Intermediate 793 793 660 0 133 Dublin High School 1,800 800 800 11000 11000 Totals2 4,640 3,131 3,083 1,509 1,557 1Includes three portable classrooms holding 60 persons. 2Totals do not include 60 persons in continuation school, which has yet to be housed. There are some differences in the figures but the total result is similar to the earlier analysis. The largest surplus capacity is in the high school while the most crowded conditions are in the elementary school. The Nielson School does have room for another portable classroom which would increase its capacity by another 20 persons. There is also the option of re-opening Dublin School in the project site vicinity. 86123 3-54 3. Comments and Responses The Dublin School District uses 0.2 student per dwelling unit as a student generation factor. Using this factor the project would generate an additional 50 students or six less than the previous analysis (the number is lower due to the elimination of 32 houses in the revised plan). The Dublin Unified School District could charge a development fee which would be used to help offset costs of facilities. The district has chosen not to charge a fee because they feel they have enough space for the foreseeable future and the fee would be unnecessary. All information was gathered in a personal communication with Mr. Vincent Anaclerio of the Dublin Unified School District on April 29,1988. N-2 Comment noted. 86123 3-55 RECEIVED FEB 1 1d M11 Mr. Larry Tong February 10,1988 DUBLIN PLANNING Dublin Planning Dept. Dublin, Co. Dear Mr. Tong, As a resident of Dublin, I would like it recorded that I am greatly opposed to the projected Hansen Hill Ranch development. I feel that some statistics used in the EIR for the project are inaccurate and need to be reevaluated before any approval is given to proceed. The reasons are as follows: There is now a Dublin Unified School District. I feel the figures used in the EIR are dated (maybe the 1980 census??) and current figures should be 0-1 gathered. Dublin has had tremendous growth in the past few years which I feel the EIR statistics do not represent this. The Neilsen Elementary School is overcrowded with average class size in the lower grades being 32 per class-unacceptable! This year the kindergarten class had children bussed to other schools. We do not want 0-2 our children bussed and the use of portable classrooms as an alternative is unacceptable.' Our family moved to Dublin because of our tine neighborhood schools and we want them to be able to keep the highest possible standards of curriculum, class size, and building safety and maintenance. Adding 250 more homes without making the necessary upgrades in our public services is asking for trouble. Another concern is the lack of developer fees in the new unified school district. This is presently under consideration by the school board, and 1 0-3 feel it is the Planning Commission's responsibility to give them time to consider this important element for our city's growth. In conclusion, I request that further progress on the Hansen Hill Ranch project be postponed until the statistics from the school district are updated and the issues of fire and police safety, traffic on Dublin Blvd. and Silvergate Dr. are carefully reevaluated. Dublin needs to serve and take care of the people already living here before new growth is given carte blanche. Mrs. Ruth Chinn L�. 3-57 3. Comments and Responses RESPONSE TO LETTER O 0-1 Comment noted. See response to comment N-1. 0-2 Comment noted. See response to comment N-1. 0-3 Comment noted. See response to comment N-1. .. I 86123 3-58 PARC PRESERVE AREA RIDGELANDS COMMITTEE 1262 Madison Ave. City o f Dublin Livermore, CA 94550 Planning Commission 6500 Dublin Blvd . Suite 205 Dublin, CA 94568 Board of Directors Presidents February 16 , 1988 Margaret Tracy Livermore 447-0115 To the members of the Dublin Planning Commission : Vice-Pres. & Secretaryi Marjorie La Bar The Draft EIR for the Hansen Hill Ranch project Dublin 829-6096 is not adequate concerning impacts to wildlife, vegeta- P-1 tion , geology, archaeology and infrastructure . This Treasurers project is also inconsistent with elements of the Dublin Susan Coburn- Yaiom General Plan . Livermore 447-0270 1 . DUBLIN GENERAL PLAN David Eller Livermore 447-5501 The Hansen Hill Ranch development as currently Stuart Cuedon designed is inconsistent with the land use and con- Fremont servation elements of the Dublin General Plan . This 6.57-6125 project is also not consistent with the General Plan Dublin Scudder directive- to preserve heritage trees : The General P-2 e28-4995 Plan direc.ts thePlanning Department to develop a Bob halter heritage tree preservation ordinance which has as yet San.Francisco not been done . This proposed development demonstrates 626-1386 how urgently such an ordinance is needed . The development as currently proposed is inconsis- tent with the Land Use Element ( 2 . 1 . 4 .C) of the Dublin General plan which states that new development shall not disfigure natural ridgelands . The massive grading needed for the project is clearly inconsistent with this policy. This development as currently designed is incon- sistent with Land Use Element 2 . 3(E) and the Parks and Open Space Element , 3 . 3 (F) in that significant portions of the project would be visible from Highway I-580 and areas east of the project . The Dublin General Plan also calls for the preservation of oak/bay woodlands in the Conservation Element , 7 . 1 (A,E) and 7. 3 (A,B) . A project which destroys over 50% of trees on a site rich in oak/ bay woodland is not consistent with policy 7. 1 and 7 . 3 . The Dublin City council stated its intent to keep the ridges intact in the area under consideration in November 1984 , when it denied a conditional use permit to Valley Christian Center . That action should be viewed as precedent when considering this project . 3-59 2 . SCHOOLS The data used to anticipate the school population need to be re-examined in light of the creation of the Dublin Unified School District and the specific impacts upon Nielson School . The statistics concerning the number of K-12 students likely to generated by the project rely too heavily on the decrease in enrollment seen by many school districts during the late 1970 ' s . According to recent statements by the California Department of Education , that trend has been replaced by growing enrollments stemming at least partially from the young children of couples who delayed starting their families . The enrollment projections should be re-examined with this sociological factor in mind . The DEIR also failed to take into consideration the strong community sentiment against the use of portable classrooms to relieve overcrowding at Nielson School . Given the recent state efforts to upgrade primary education the neighborhood parents are rightly concerned about the quality of education possible with overcrowded classrooms or the lack of permanent facilities . 3 . TRAFFIC The DEIR fails to examine what the cumulative effect of valley growth projections will be on the major intersection of Dublin Blvd . and San Ramon Road . If traffic impacts con- tinue to be viewed in the current piecemeal fashion no accurate planning for traffic circulation will be possible . The impact to residents living along Silvergate Drive heeds further inves- tigation . Every effort should be made to size the project to protect the current residents from, traffic , exhaust , and noise P_A., hazards . If the residents living along Silvergate Drive cannot be assured that they will be able to back out of their drive- ways without undue delay, the number of cars traveling the street will have restricted by allowing less development . It is also unclear what financial resources are available for the mitigation measures at the intersection of Dublin Blvd . and San Ramon Road . The DEIR also fails to investigate the the number of commuters to be added to freeway I-580 and I-680 . 4 . VEGETATION The DEIR fails to specify the ratio of native trees to be replanted to replace the over 1 , 000 trees likely to to be affected by this project . Of particular importance are the oak species which provide food for many types of wildlife. No mention is made of any plan to re-establish the native bunch grasses which will be destroyed by the development . Native grasses are becoming a rare plant p- community due the intrusion of man and his cattle. Every effort should be made to replant these grass species in open areas including transplanting from the few remaining bunch grass areas which have survived cattle grazing . Some effort is also needed to preserve a small number of dead trees as these trees are critical habitat for woodpeckers 3-6-3 and roosting places for large predatory birds . Any revege- tation plan must include native species which will rapidly provide food and cover for wildlife disturbed by grading in or near critical habitat . 5 . WILDLIFE The DEIR does not detail the means by which animals may safely move between the open areas to be left on the site. Of particular importance are safe crossing areas for large mammals . Any collision between auto and deer is likely to result in a dead deer and a severely damaged auto. The fence proposed around the entire site has similar problems . Any perimeter P-6 fence around the property must allow for the passage of wildlife especially near Martin Creek and its tributaries . If animals do not have a safe means of moving in and out of the of the site , the remaining habitat becomes an island not suited for the long term survival of many species . No mention is made of how the developer plans to restore those portions of Martin Creek which must be altered to compensate for the larger amount of run off from the developed portion of the property. The DEIR also fails to explore the impact that the pets of new residents are likely to have on wildlife . 6 . ARCHAEOLOGY The DEIR does not adequately address the possibility of significant archaeological sites in portion of property to be developed . A more in depth survey of the type recently P-] suggested by California Archaeological Iventory should be done before the DEIR is certified . The Amador Valley has a rich history human endeavors from early Native American tribes to the present . The area is also very near the site of one of the first cattle ranches in the valley. The oak/bay woodlands were also a major source of food and hunting oppor- tunities for the early native inhabitants . 7 . GEOLOGY AND LAND FORMS The massive grading needed for this project requires the removal of thousands of truck loads of material . The DEIR makes no mention of where such a large of material could disposed of in an environmentally sound manner . The mas- sive amount of grading will also destroy the natural contours of three knolls and may cause further sliding due to the steep nature of some grades . The landslides on the property have P-8 been inadequately explored . No decision on the placement of houses near the slide areas should be made until more is known about the extent of the slides as the City of Dublin could possibly face some liability for later land sliding . No building should be allowed on the knolls where massive grading is needed to prepare the site. Building should also be avoided on the upper portion of the designated as neighborhood 9 due the steep angle and possible instability of the terrain. 3-61 The Mitigated Alternative provides a starting point for the design of project more suited to the terrain and visual and infrastructure constraints . The alternative does not require ,the site for a water tank and is more suited to the terrain. Much of the massive grading on visible knolls would be unneeded . The removal of 90-100 homes would also decrease the traffic flow on Silvergate Drive . However , the many other issues we raised , particularly those concern- ing wildlife , vegetation, and archaeology would still require greater scrutiny than is provided in the DEIR. Preserve Area Ridgelands Committee is opposed to develop- ment which demonstrates little concern for the natural terrain or the infrastructure constraints of the community. The Hansen Hill Ranch is just such a development . The DEIR treats the Martin Creek area not planned for homes as private open space. The preserved portion of Martin Creek should be a community resource available to all Dublin residents . Steps should be taken to place the remaining creek area in public ownership in trust for the entire community present and future . Sincerely, Marj rie R. La Bar + Vice President /Secretary ' Preserve Area Ridgelands Committee 3-62 3. Comments and Responses RESPONSE TO LETTER P P-1 Comment noted. Please refer to response to comment L-1. P-2 Following publication of the Draft EIR for the project, a revised site plan was completed. As a result of proposed project modifications, the prominent site ridgeline above I-580 would be retained intact, in fact, grading and construction of structures would be confined to areas which are much less visually prominent. The proposed project, in its current configuration, would be consistent with City Land Use Policy 2.1.4.C, as ridgelands would not be disfigured. The project would also be consistent with Policies 2.3 E and F, as structures would not appear to project above major ridgelines. Figure 3 illustrates views of the project from locations north of the project site. The resulting scene with the project would be more visually complex than the current condition due to the addition of buildings with a variety of heights, architectural detailing and the use of finishes. Consistency of the project with city policies which protect oak/bay woodlands would require a determination by the City. The project sponsor has revised project plans such that an additional 40 trees would be removed. Impacts of the revised plan on trees are addressed in a letter from Gordon Jacoby, Vice President of the Hansen Hill Development Corporation, to the City of Dublin; that letter, in part, states: "We estimate that the Revised Plan will result in the loss of 40 additional trees....Our landscape plan, by itself, will result in more trees being added to the area than are being removed. Additionally, the areas that will be landscaped by the new homeowners will result in another substantial increase in the number of trees in the project area. The trees to be planted by the homeowners and ourselves will be those listed on our plant list. Many of these trees are 'natural species', as suggested in the DEIR. We have increased the number of custom lots as a further method of preserving existing trees. Homes of these lots would be designed in such a manner to take advantage of the existing vegetation."' 1Letter from Gordon Jacoby, Hansen Hills Development Corporation to Maureen O'Halloran, City of Dublin; March 11,1988. 86123 3-63 3. Comments and Responses P-3 Comment noted. Please refer to response to comment N-1 P-4 Comment noted, please refer to response to comment B-3. The DEIR includes a cumulative impact analysis of this location. There are three different cross-sections along Silvergate Drive. Along some portions, homes back up onto Silvergate Drive. These residents would not experience difficulty leaving driveways. Along other portions, where homes have driveways onto Silvergate Drive, a two-way left-turn lane and wide parking area is provided. These residents will have minimal difficulty entering or exiting driveways due to the two-way left-turn refuge area and the wide lanes. Along other portions of Silvergate Drive where homes have driveways onto Silvergate Drive, a raised median has been installed. It will be more difficult to exit onto Silvergate Drive at these locations than it would be on a typical residential street, due to the higher volumes of traffic. However, the presence of the median reduces the conflict for those backing into the street by eliminating one direction of traffic. P-5 As noted on page 3-25 of the DEIR, at the time the DEIR was prepared a specific landscape plan with total number of planted trees had not been developed, therefore it was not possible to determine the ratio of native trees to be replanted relative to the total number removed from the site. Subsequently, the project sponsor provided this information in a letter to the EIR consultant dated April 15, 1988. In this letter the project sponsor indicated that a revised proposed project would eliminate an additional 28 trees and thus the total number of native trees to be removed would be 1,052 (1,024 from original project plus 28 equals 1,052). The letter goes on to point out that the revised landscape plan proposes to plant 1,926 trees in 5 and 15 gallon containers. Thus the proposed project landscaping would result in a total tree ratio of approximately 2:1. However, of the 18 different tree taxa proposed to be planted only 4 of them are native to this region. Less that 40% of the proposed plantings would be native trees. This would result in a native 86123 3-64 3. Comments and Responses tree replacement ratio of 1:3, or one native tree for every three native trees removed. The project sponsor goes on to argue that individual homeowners will likely landscape their yards with 3-5 trees per home and thus raise the ratio to 2.5:1, however this is speculative and not controllable and thus not considered a viable argument relative to the project impacts. Re-establishment of the native bunch grasses is not considered necessary because with the removal of the grazing livestock, these grasses may re-populate portions of the site. The loss of these small stands of bunch grasses are not considered a significant impact. Dead trees or snags should be preserved to whatever extent is feasible because of their recognized wildlife values as suggested. Any re-vegetation or landscaping should primarily include native species as suggested on pages 3-27 and 3-39 of the DEIR. P-6 On page 3-26 of the DEIR it states ". . . a box culvert or bridge over Martin Canyon Creek at Creekside Road is preferred to the proposed 30-inch pipe. A bridge or culvert would be less restrictive than the 30-inch pipe to wildlife migration through this area." In addition to this suggested mitigation measure, roadways located between open spaces should be signed as deer crossing, to warn motorists of the potential risks. There is no proposal for a fence "around the entire site" as suggested by the comment. If such a fence were to be built however, it should be designed to allow animal passage as suggested in the comment. At the time the DEIR was written the project sponsor had not developed any specific plans indicating what portions of Martin Canyon Creek would be modified to handle the added runoff. Therefore it was not possible to identify how these areas would be restored. The DEIR does however, state on page 3-29 "The 86123 3-65 3. Comments and Responses California Department of Fish and Game (DFG) under Section 1603 of the Fish and Game Code of Regulations requires a Streambed Alteration Agreement be secured before any proposed alteration of natural waterways may occur. This agreement would cover any proposed modifications to the creek within its banks including roadway crossings, flood control improvements etc." It is expected that any required creek restoration measure will be addressed in the 1601-03 agreement. Household pets may have a significant effect upon the native wildlife in the area if they are not leashed or kept in fenced yards. Leash laws help minimize these impacts if they are enforced. P-7 Comment noted. Please see response to comment F-1. P-8 In response to this and other similar comments, the project has been refined since the publication of the DEIR. Grading has been proposed as balanced cut and fill (a total of approximately 1.1 million cubic yards of grading); thus no export from the site would occur. The 'site has been investigated for slope instability (Harding Lawson Associates, 1987) and it has been recognized that repairs of known landslides would be required for site development; the specific extent of repair would be determined in the field during grading operations. 86123 3-66 P.O.Box 2699 11883 Dublin Blvd Suite A-140 Dublin,CA 94568 (415)828-4549 VALLEY C STM II��1111111111�II March 11 , 1988 Mr. Gordon Jacoby VENTURE HOMES P.O. Box 847 CENTER 187 East Blithedale Avenue Mill Valley, CA 94942 Dear Mr. Jacoby : I am happy to relate to you that on Thursday, March 10, 1988, the Valley Christian Center Board approved in concept the possible dedication of a right of way for a street through our property from the southern point connecting with Dublin Boulevard to the northern point connecting the Hansen property. The approval was predicated on working out, in detail, the matters you included in your letter of March 10 . We look forward to working with your engineer and the City ' s consulting engineer, Mr . Chris Kinzel , as the time of the project grows near. It is my understanding that you need to convey the willing- ness of Valley Christian Center to participate in the road project to the City Planning Department and/or Commission. Please accept this as our authorization to do so. Sincerely, (Dictated by Rev. Tanneberg Z and signed in his absence. ) Ward M. Tanneber g Corporate President and Senior Pastor WMT/dg RECEIVED DUBW4 PLANNING 3-67 3. Comments and Responses 3.2 PUBLIC HEARING COMMENTS AND RESPONSES The following is the text of the portion of the joint public hearing of the City Council and the Planning Commission held February 1 and February 16, 1988 that considered the adequacy of the Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) on the Hansen Hills Ranch project. 86123 3-69 C. Mr. Barger also stated with approval of the planned development rezoning, all future development on this site shall be reviewed throught the City's Site Development Review procedure. The balance of the site shall continue to be controlled by the land uses listed in the 1464th Zoning Unit. In response to an inquiry by Cm. Burnham, for clarification as to whether this approval would allow uses equal to those approved for the larger parcel, Mr. Barger stated that cocktail lounges/taverns would be conditional uses. There being no further comments, from the audience or Rich Enea, who was present, Cm. Barnes closed the public hearing. On motion by Cm. Burnham, seconded by Cm. Zika, and by a unanimous vote, a Resolution was adopted approving a negative declaration of environmental significance concerning PA 87-178, Enea Plaza (southern portion) planned development rezoning. RESOLUTION NO. 88 - 005 RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT A NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL SIGNIFICANCE CONCERNING PA 87-178, ENEA PLAZA (SOUTHERN PORTION) PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REZONING APPLICATION On motion by Cm. Mack, seconded by Cm. Tempel, and by a unanimous vote, a Resolution was adopted recommending the City Council establish findings and general provisions for a planned development rezoning concerning PA 87-178. RESOLUTION NO. 88 - 006 RECOMMENDING THE CITY COUNCIL ESTABLISH FINDINGS AND GENERAL PROVISIONS FOR A PD, PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REZONING CONCERNING PA 87-178, ENEA PLAZA PD, PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REZONING APPLICATION SUBJECT: PA 87-045 Hansen Ranch General Plan Amendment Study, Planned Development'' Prezoning, Tentative Subdivision ?SaplNo.4� 5766, and Annexation request for 282 dwelling units on 147 acres, west of Silvergate Drive and north Hansen Drive Cm. Barnes opened the public hearing and called for the Staff Report. Mr. Tong advised the Commissioners on the backgound information on this application. The Hansen Hill Development Corporation requested a General Plan Amendment Study for residential development on a 148 acre site adjacent to, but outside of, the City limits. The site is within the City's General Plan Planning Area. Regular Meeting PCM-8-18 February 1, 1988 3-70 The City Council authorized the General P1an.Amendment Study on August 11, 1986, and hired the consulting firm of EIP to assist in processing the General Plan Amendment Study and Environmental Impact Report. The Planning Commission held two study sessions on February 2, and February 17, 1987, to provide Staff and the Applicant with a list of issues to be addressed in the study. The Planning Commission held a field trip to the site on February 28, 1987. The Applicant filed an amended application on March 16, 1987, to include a General Plan Amendment, Planned Development Prezoning, and Tentative Subdivision Map No. 5766. An annexation request was filed with the understanding that the annexation could not occur until after the City acted on the General Plan Amendment and Planned Development Prezoning. After the Applicant submitted the complete application materials; the Draft Environmental Impact Report was prepared and released on December 22, 1987 for public review and comment. Mr. Tong stated that at this time it would be appropriate for the Planning Commission to hear the applicant, Gordon Jacoby, Vice President, Hansen Hill Development Corporation present comments regarding the proposed project and the Draft Environmental Impact Report. Mr. Jacoby passed a hand-out to the Planning Commission and Staff entitled "Hansen Hill Chronology" . He mentioned what an important step toward development the draft EIR was and reiterated items that were included in the EIR document. Mr. Jacoby stated that there had been a revision to retain the knoll when it was discovered that approximately 36,000 truckloads of dirt would have to be removed from the site. He stated that this would be unacceptable. He also stated that by revising the neighborhood layout they hoped to lessen the impact on homes at the entrance to the project. Mr. Jacoby stated that a meeting had been scheduled for February 9, 1988, at Murray School to present revisions to the plan to interested community members. David Gates, of David Gates & Associates, presented slides of the proposed site showing a view of the upper portion of the site from the center of the property. He also showed the oak bay woodland above and below, grazing land, vegetation along Martin Canyon Creek and swales closer to the creek. He mentioned they hoped to keep the grading away from the creek and utilize the swales. Scott Edmondson of EIP spoke on the adequacy of the draft EIR, and that comments will be responded to in the final EIR. James Cuellar, 7385 Hansen Drive, who is opposed to the project expressed his concern with the amount of grading on top and into the hill. He stated that there is a significant amount of weeping and potential erosion due to springs j on the hill. He mentioned that there could be a financial impact if there were a slide as lending agencies tend not to finance a property with a history Regular Meeting PCM-8-19 February 1, 1988 3-71 of landslides. He mentioned traffic and noise as additional concerns and also commented that he was in favor of limiting the number of homes in this development. Marjorie La Bar, 11707 Juarez Lane, a member of Preserve Area Ridgelands Committee, expressed she was opposed to the project. She also mentioned that she did not feel that there had been enough time to review the EIR and also 2 felt it was inconsistant with the General Plan with reference to open space. She requested that additional copies of the EIR be made available. A. Schuitemaker, 7397 Hansen Drive, stated he was opposed to the project and was concerned with landslides; mass grading; artificial fill; maintenance of slopes; polution of water supplies, and the fact that approximately 1,024, or 3 52% of the trees on site would be affected. He was concerned with the visual quality since one third of the hillside vegetation would be removed. He also expressed concern with the impact of traffic on Dublin Boulevard and San Ramon Road. Harvey Scudder, 7409 Hansen Drive, who is opposed to the project was concerned with the lack of EIR copies available for the public to review. He also mentioned the ecology damage to the hills in that no new oak trees have been 4 planted. The mention by the developer of homeowner maintenance of open space was also a concern. Debra Vasquez, 7669 Martin Canyon Road, who is opposed to the project stated she would be greatly affected if there were a slide as her house sits next to the creek. She was also concerned with a fire access road or emergency access road if her street were to be used. She was also concerned with the projection of impacts on schools. r Mel Gutleben, 11397 Rolling Hills Drive, who is opposed to the project was concerned about what would happen to the rare species of wildlife with creek 6 area development on steep grades. He stated that when he purchased his home there was no mention of hillside development. He would like to know the details of the revised layout. Glen Hummensky, 11304 Rolling Hills Drive, who is opposed to the project was concerned with what this project can do for the City of Dublin at the expense 7 of our environment, such as sewage and water supply. He was concerned with the population of foxes. Bill Walker, 7469 Hansen Drive, who stated that he was not opposed to the project but thought the EIR was not adequate. He felt that children, 8 environment, etc. were all important. He also stated that your home is a major investment and that landslides can create a resale problem. He wanted to know where the two entrances to the project were going to be located. The following residents returned a "speaker slip" which indicated that they did not wish to speak: Mr. & Mrs. R. L. Varndell, 7403 Hansen Drive, opposed to the project. Mrs. G. Alexander-Jones , 7349 Hanen Drive, opposed to the project. Michael & Zi Tsirlis, 7297 Hansen Drive, opposed to the project. James Paul Clark, 7270 Prow Way, in favor of the project. Neville & Linda Howse, 7464 Hansen Drive, opposed to the project. Regular Meeting P,CM-8-20 February 1, 1988 3-72 Susan Clark, 7270 Prow Way, in favor of the project. M. Lockhart, 7270 Prow Way, in favor of the project. Mathew & Elaine Lopez, 7433 Hansen Drive, opposed to the project. Mention by a member of the audience was made to move the next meeting to a larger facility. Having more copies of the EIR available for public review and copies of the EIR summary was also mentioned. A Dublin resident asked what the process after tonight would be. Mr. Tong stated the following: - Planning Commission to continue Public Hearing to February 16, 1988, for Draft Environmental Impact Report. - After comments received - Staff & consultant will provide Final Environmental Impact Report. - Final Environmental Impact Report - subsequent meeting. - Planning Commission will review Final EIR - send recommendation to City Council. - City Council will adopt final EIR. - Details and other project related issues will be discussed at next Planning Commission meeting. - EIR must be approved in order to go ahead with project. On motion by Cm. Mack and seconded by Cm. Burnham and by unanimous vote it was moved that the Public Hearing be continued to February 16, 1988. A short recess was called. Cm. Barnes called the meeting back to order at 9:00 p.b. NEW BUSINESS OR UNFINISHED BUSINESS , None. OTHER BUSINESS Mr, Tong advised that the Goodguys Sign Variance will be heard at the City Council Meeting of February 8, 1988. Mr. Tong stated that he had received confirmation for all of the Commissioner's except one to attend the Planning Commission Institute. PLANNING COMMISSIONERS' CONCERNS Cm. Tempel inquired about the traffic light at Lewis Avenue and Village Parkway and when it would be installed. Mr. Tong stated he believed it was due sometime in 1988. Regular Meeting PCM-8-21 February 1, 1988 3-73 Cm. Burnham stated he was concerned with the competition between these two stations for larger signage, that if each station were going to try and outdo each other with signage there would be no limit to the requests for variances. Mr. Theobold stated that if at some future date Shell Oil Company were to get out of the leaded gas business they would only have three products and therefore would not need the larger signs. He mentioned that 62% of the diesel fuel sold was for automobile use and not trucks use. Cm. Tempel questioned how this stations signage compared to the Shell Station located on Dublin Boulevard at San Ramon Road. Mr. Theobold stated that that station also has four products. There being no further comments, Cm. Barnes closed the public hearing. On motion by Cm. Zika, seconded by Cm. Burnham, and by a vote of 4-1 (Cm. Temple - No vote) a Resolution was adopted recommending the Planning Commission uphold the Zoning Administrator's action to deny PA 87-138, Shell Service Station variance request to exceed the maximum permitted sign area for two service station price signs. RESOLUTION NO. 007 - 88 UPHOLDING THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR'S ACTION DENYING PA 87-138 SHELL SERVICE STATION VARIANCE REQUEST TO EXCEED THE MAXIMUM PERMITTED SIGN AREA FOR TWO SERVICE STATION PRICE SIGNS AT THE SHELL SERVICE STATION ON ALCOSTA BOULEVARD AND SAN RAMON ROAD 8999 SAN RAMON ROAD SUBJECT: PA 87-045 Hansen Hill Ranch Project - General Plan Amendment Study and Planned Development Prezoning, Tentative Subdivision Map No. 5766, and Annexation requests for 282 dwelling units on 147+ acres, west of Silvergate Drive and north of Hansen Drive. Cm. Barnes opened the public hearing which had been continued from the Planning Commission meeting of February 1, 1988, and called for the Staff Report. Ms. O'Halloran stated that at the February 1, 1988, Planning Commission meeting the Commission held a Public Hearing to receive public comments on the Draft EIR and continued the public hearing to February 16, 1988 meeting to receive additional comments. Regular Meeting PCM-8-26 February 16, 1988 3-74 The purpose of the February 16, 1988, hearing is to discuss significant impacts and mitigation measures. identified in the Draft EIR and major issues related to the proposed General Plan Amendment, Planned Development Prezoning and Tentative Subdivision Map application. The submitted proposal requests approval of 248 single-family dwelling units and 34 townhomes (totaling 282 dwelling units) . It was indicated, by the Applicant, at the February 1, 1988, Planning Commission meeting that the proposed plan would be revised. On February 9, 1988, the applicant held a community meeting at which time a revised plan was presented to the public noting a reduction in dwelling units to 250 units that would not be developed on the visually prominent knolls. At the time this Staff report was being prepared, the applicant notified Staff that the revised plans would be presented to the Planning Commission at the February 16, 1988, Public Hearing. Mark Trembley, EIP, spoke regarding the responsibilities involved with evaluating and accessing impacts on the site with regards to the following: - landslides, repair and replacement of materials - concern with grading, run off into Martin Canyon Creek - need of construction along creek beds to preserve creek banks - vegetation, 61 acres of oak/bay trees; 22 acres - 368 impacted negatively - animal life, do roadway cutoff natural migration paths - land use, 79 acres of open space not available for general public - fire service, western edge outside 5 minute response time - annexation, need for 1 additional Police Officer and intrusion protection. - school impact, 56, K to 8th grade students; 89, 9-12 grade students - water, Zone 4 for western edge; wastewater would have no significant impact - noise, +70 dba along I-580 edge Cm. Zika asked if the net out cash flow of $26,000 was directed at the need for an additional police officer; emergency access and how steep grades are. Mr. Trembley stated that the $26,000 would be for a police officer; the need for an emergency access road if the road was blocked at the Valley Christian site; and that according to the Grade Map there was a 158 maximum grade. Cm. Barnes questioned the information regarding schools noting she understood Wells School was now at maximum capacity, per data from school district. Mr. Tong stated that data from school district is based on pre-unification of school district. Cm. Zika was concerned with pads with 20-30 feet of fill, drainage, and on site engineering. Cm. Mack was concerned with the visual character of the site with regard to the size of perimeter fencing. Cm. Burnham had some concerns with the amount of unengineered fill being dumped on the site from surrounding construction jobs. Regular Meeting PCM-8-27 February 16, 1988 3-75 Gordon Brandt, 7402 Hansen Drive was concerned with the statistics quoted of 145 total school children for this particular development and.was concerned with what the impacts would be on the schools from other future housing developments. He was also concerned with the impact of traffic on Hansen Drive, construction of another water tank, eyesore, and with rushing with unresolved issues. Bob Walker, East Bay Area Trails Council, 545 Clayton Street, San Francisco, 1C was concerned with the major cut and fill, and suggested reducing the mass grading. It may be possible to provide access along Martin Creek, or look to major dedication for public access, possibly owner dedication like Blaylock/Gleason/Fletcher property. Marjorie LaBar, Preserve Area Ridgelands Committee, 11707 Juarez Lane, Dublin, was concerned with the following items: wildlife, heritage tree preservation, inconsistency with General Plan as far as keeping ridgelines in tact, school 11 district impacts, traffic impacts, reduce size of project so Silvergate residents will not be impacted against (possibly removing of approximately 90-100 dwellings) fence around property would impede animal migration, vegetation replacement program (transplant "bunch" grass) save dead trees for "woodpeckers" , preserve deer trails and closer survey regarding archaeology features. Bart J. Schenone, 1290 "B" Street, Suite 218, Hayward, (Attorney for Neilsen access road) spoke regarding the emergency access road in predominately cattle grazing-agricultural use that is not compatable with urbanization. Cm. Barnes question who now owns the access road. Mr. Schenone stated that the Nielsens own the road on�their property with easements for other owners for access. A. . Schuitemaker, 7397 Hansen Drive, mentioned at the community meeting of February 9, 1988, there was a statement made regarding the fill in of a swale area, according to EIR it was recommended that filling in of swales be 13 avoided. Mr. Schuitemaker also asked if density was based on the total acres or total buildable acres, and he felt there was no need for more multi-family dwellings in this area. R. Chinn, 7336 Hansen Drive, stated she felt the hillsides should be left alone, that more parks were needed for children and was very concerned with the amount of traffic on Silvergate Drive. She stated there is a problem with 1[ all the construction vehicles not observing school stop signs. She was also concerned with the number of children being bussed that would normally be attending Nielsen school. Teresa Kalashian, 11777 Murietta Court, returned a "Speaker Slip" stating she was opposed to the project, but did not wish to speak. Michael Gleason, P.O. Box 62, Port Costa, stated he will be submitting plans in March for Donlan Canyon Ranch, 197 acre parcel which encompases the two ridgelines behind the proposed Hansen Ranch project. He is proposing a 20 acre development out of the total 197 acres and stated the need for another access road to his project. Regular Meeting PCM-8-28 February 16, 1988 3-76 Jim Lopez, 7433 Hansen Drive, stated he felt the school impact information in EIR is incorrect. Overcrowding of Nielsen school is seen and. traffic is a real concern. The following residents returned a "speaker slip" that indicated they did not wish to speak: James P. Clark, 7270 Prow Way, in favor of the project. Sue Clark, 7270 Prow Way, in favor of the project. Jonathan & Patricia Smiga, 11517 Silvergate Drive, opposed to the project. Cm. Barnes stated that information provided for EIR is information given by the school district and it is hard to project. Mr. Trembley stated the school district uses a ratio and we assume that the figures given are correct. Cm. Burnham stated that information provided in Draft EIR is information that was given and that it is tough to project with the figures given. Mr. Trembley stated that the school district uses a certain ratio and we assume that those figures given at the time are correct. He also stated that he will re-contact the school district and see if they want to change their information. A short recess was called. Cm. Barnes called the meeting back to order at 8:40 p.m. Gordon Jacoby presented the revised plans which include a reduction from 282 dwelling units to 250 dwelling units: 34 townhomes; 36 patio homes; 130 single family and 50 custom lots. He stated that the preliminary difference was to stay off of the knoll areas to keep from having the mass grading and to relocate soil on site and not off site. By reducing the number of dwelling units would eliminate the need for a new water tank site. Mr. Jacoby stated they are working out access road problems; working with Gleason regarding access; north access to adjoining parcels; loop road and possible Valley Christian Center access. Mr. Jacoby stated there is no note in EIR of new trees to be planted, but will present at a later meeting. Chris Craiker, Architect, presented slides and drawings showing a variety of construction types anticipated to be built in the development. This included up hill, downhill, and side to side including terracing envelopes. Included was a covered bridge at the entrance into development. Cm. Mack asked what type of siding would be on the exterior of the dwellings. Mr. Craiker stated horizonal and vertical wood siding, stucco, stone and brick would be used on the exteriors. Regular Meeting PCM-8-29 February 16, 1988 3-77 , r Mr. Burnham asked what size the custom lots would be. Mr. Jacoby stated the patio home lot size is approximately 3,300 - 7,500 square feet, the remainder 9,000, 10,000 and 11,000 square feet. Cm. Zika inquired about design guidelines for custom houses. Mr. Jacoby stated that the CC&R's would addres the custom houses. Cm. Barnes asked for any additional speaker slips. Debbie Vasquez, 7669 Martin Canyon Road, was concerned if there was going to be a new access road for emergency use and where it would be located. She was 15 also concerned with the trashing along Martin Canyon Creek. Cm. Barnes continued the public hearing to a future meeting. Mike Gleason suggested the Planning Commission schedule an extra hour and see both properties. On motion by Cm. Mack Saturday, February 27, 1988, 9:00 a.m. to 12:00 noon is scheduled for a field trip, open to the public,- to view the Hansen and Gleason properties. NEW BUSINESS OR UNFINISHED BUSINESS Cm. Zika asked when Peppertree, between Shannon and Vomac, was scheduled for paving or slurry seal. Mr: Tong stated he would follow-up on the request. OTHER BUSINESS _ Mr. Tong advised that the Enea Planned Development Rezone and Goodwill Conditional Use Permit Appeal will be heard at the City Council Meeting of February 22, 1988. PLANNING COMMISSIONERS' CONCERNS Cm. Tempel was concerned with standing behind zoning application for one Shell Station as to what will happen with other stations; will zoning enforcement be followed. Cm. Burnham advised if permits obtained, it would have been noted they were illegal at that time or oversized. Regular Meeting PCM-8-30 February 16, 1988 3-78 Cm. Tempel has concerns with Hansen Ranch and if it follows General Plan. Mr. Tong advised that the next hearing should address the General Plan issues and that the request is for a General Plan Amendment, that the project is not consistant with the General Plan and therefore the request for the General Plan Amendment. Cm. Burnham felt the problem with the Hansen project was the separate EIR's; how do these projects interconnect? Mr. Tong stated that the Hansen/Blaylock developers are looking at an overall outlet to the west anticipating this will answer some of the questions, but not all, including the possibility of another on ramp to Dublin off I-580 (Schaefer Ranch/Eden Canyon) . Cm. Barnes questioned the departure time from the airport for the Planning Commission Institute. Mr. Tong stated a memo would be sent stating the time to be 6:30 to 6:45 a.m. Cm. Barnes reminded the Commission that February 23, 1988, at 6:30 p.m. is the Goals & Objectives meeting for the City. Saturday, February 27, 1988, 9-12 noon, Hansen Hill Ranch and Blaylock, Fletcher, Gleason property Field Trip. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 9:40 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Planning Commission Chairperson Laurence L. Tong Planning Director Regular Meeting PCM-8-31 February 16, 1988 3-79 3. Comments and Responses 3.2.2 RESPONSES TO PUBLIC HEARING COMMENTS 1. Comment noted. Please refer to response to comments H-1, I-1, K-2, and the revised plan contained in this document. 2. Comment noted. 3. Comment noted. Please refer to response to comments I-1, K-2, and comments contained in Letter A. 4. Comment noted. Please refer to response to comment K-5 in this volume for a discussion of tree replacement and homeowner maintenance. 5. Comments noted. Please refer to response to comments K-1 and K-2. The revised plan is contained in the section titled Staff Initiated Text Changes in this document. 6. Comment noted. Please see response to comment G-1 for clarification of creek construction of steep grades. The plans for the revised project are contained in the section titled Staff Initiated Text Changes. 7. Comment noted. Sections 3.8.5 and 3.8.6 of the DEIR does discuss both water and wastewater impacts on the City of Dublin. All information contained in these sections was gathered from public officials in the Dublin San Ramon Service District. The revised plan in this volume discusses that there is no longer a need for a new water tank per the Water Master Plan of the Dublin San Ramon Service District. Further discussion of the water tank is contained in the response to comments C-1, K-1 and P-2. 8. Comment noted. Please see response to comment K-2, I-1, and the site plan contained in the revised plan. 9 . Comment noted. The response to comment N-1 is a further discussion of the school situation from data gathered recently from the unified school district. The 86123 3-80 3. Comments and Responses revised plan in the beginning of this volume and the responses to comments, C-1, K-1 and P-2 respond to the water tank issue. Traffic comments are contained in comments A-1, A-2, and A-3. 10. Comment noted. Please see revised plan in this document. 11. Comment noted. Please see response to comments contained from Preserve Area Ridgelands under comments P-1 thru P-8. These issues were raised and responded to in that letter. 12. Comment noted. The emergency access road is still in the process of negotiation. 13. Comments noted. The new revised plan does eliminates the necessity for filling in any swales. There are two figures given for density in the DEIR, the smaller of these is total acreage density, the larger figure is the density for acres upon which the project intends to build. 14. Comments noted. 15. Comment noted. Please see site plans in revised plan section, this volume. 86123 3-81 APPENDICES 86123 APPENDIX A INPUT DATA FOR BAAQMD'S SIMPLIFIED VERSION OF CALINE4 86123 ------------------------------------------------------- -------------------- APPENDIX A: DATA USED AS INPUT TO THE BAAQMD' S SIMPLIFIED VERSION OF CALINE4 --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Without With Existing Project Project Intersection 1987 1990 1990 Silvergate Drive/ Primary Road: San Ramon Road Volume 1749 2512 2560 Emission Factor 35 27 27 Number of Lanes 4 4 4 Secondary Road: Volume 243 338 387 Emission Factor 35 27 27 Number of Lanes 2 2 2 San Ramon Road/ Primary Road : Dublin Blvd. Volume 3839 5142 5213 Emission Factor 35 27 27 Number of Lanes 6 6 6 Secondary Road : Volume 2150 3159 3262 Emission Factor 35 27 27 Number of Lanes 4 4 4 Silvergate Drive/ Primary Road : Dublin Blvd . Volume 185 240 372 Emission Factor 17 13 13 Number of Lanes 4 4 4 Secondary Road : Volume 165 275 359 Emission Factor 35 27 27 Number of Lanes 2 2 2 Donlon Way/ Primary Road: Dublin Blvd. Volume 1115 1428 1602 Emission Factor 17 13 13 Number of Lanes 4 4 4 Secondary Road: Volume 248 300 300 Emission Factor 35 27 27 Number of Lanes 2 2 2 ---------------------------------------------------------- ----------------- A-1 APPENDIX B CALINE4 INPUT DATA AND ASSUMPTIONS 86123 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ APPENDIX B: CALINE4 INPUT DATA AND ASSUMPTIONS ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Meteorology Wind Speed 1 meter per second Wind Angle CALINE4 finds worst case Stability Pasquill-Turner class F Mixing Height 1000 meters Averaging Time 1 hour Surface Roughness 108 centimeters Temperature 50 degrees F Ambient Concentration one-hour: 1988 - 5 . 0 ppm; 1990 - 4 . 9 ppm eight-hour: 1988 - 4 . 0 ppm; 1990 - 3 . 9 ppm Traffic Traffic volumes and other data taken from the traffic analysis by TJKM Associates . Turning movement diagrams provided by TJKM are attached below. CALINE4 ' s Intersection Link option was used to account for excess emission by vehicle delays at stop signs and traffic signals . Emission Factors Emission factors were generated by the BAAQMD' s EMFAC8D computer program. At 10 mph, the assumed average cruise speed in the vicinity of signalized and stop sign controlled intersections , the emission factors were 32. 2 grams/mile and 27 . 2 grams/mile in 1988 and 1990 , respectively . Idle emission factors were 2 . 3 grams/minute and 2 . 1 grams/minute in 1988 and 1990 , respectively. B-1 APPENDIX C RESULTS OF THE INTERSECTION CAPACITY ANALYSIS 86123 TJKM INTERSECTION CAPACITY ANALYSIS 6/24/87 PAGE 1 INTERSECTION 1 SILVERGATE DR and SAN RAMON RD. DUBLIN COUNT DATE/TIME: 10/22/86 4 : 00-6: 00 PM PEAK HOUR: 4 : 45- 5: 45PM CONDITION PM PEAK EXISTING FILE 157-035 RIGHT THRU LEFT 74 562 0 I I I I I I I " NORTH I <--- V ---> I LEFT 38 --- 1.0 1.9 2 . 0 0. 0 0.0 --- 0 RIGHT STREET NAME: THRU 0 ---> 0.0 (NO. OF LANES) 0. 0<--- 0 THRU SAN RAMON RD. RIGHT 143 --- 1. 0 1. 0 2 . 0 0.0 0.0 --- 0 LEFT SPLIT PHASE? I <--- A > I N V I I I V I I I 231 944 0 LEFT THRU RIGHT STREET NAME: SILVERGATE DR SPLIT PHASE? N ORIGINAL ADJUSTED V/C CRITICAL MOVEMENT VOLUME VOLUME* CAPACITY RATIO V/C ------------------------------------------------------------------------ NB THRU (T) 944 944 3450 0. 2736 LEFT (L) 231 231 1650 0. 1400 0. 1400 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ SB RIGHT (R) 74 74 1725 0. 0429 THRU (T) 562 562 3450 0'. 1629 0. 1629 ------------------------------------------------'1----------------------- EB RIGHT (R) 143 63 * 1650 0. 0382 0. 0382 LEFT (L) 38 38 1650 0. 0230 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ ------------ VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY RATIO FOR THE INTERSECTION: 0. 34 ADJUSTMENT FOR LOST YELLOW TIME: 0. 10 ----------------------------------------------------------------------- TOTAL VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY RATIO: 0. 44 INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE: A * ADJUSTED FOR RIGHT TURN ON RED Developed by TJKM Transportation Consultants, Pleasanton, CA, 1987 C-1 i TJKM INTERSECTION CAPACITY ANALYSIS 6/24/87 PAGE 10 INTERSECTION 10 SAN RAMON RD.. and DUBLIN BLVD. DUBLIN COUNT DATE/TIME: 11/17/86 4: 00-6:00 PM PEAK HOUR: 4: 30- 5: 30PM CONDITION PM PEAK EXISTING FILE 157-035 RIGHT THRU LEFT 171 953 160 I I I I I I I NORTH I <--- v ---> I LEFT 182 --- 1. 0 1. 0 3. 0 2 . 0 1.0 --- 120 RIGHT STREET NAME: THRU 145 ---> 2 .0 (NO. OF LANES) 1.0<--- 216 THRU DUBLIN BLVD. RIGHT 556 --- 1.9 2 .0 3. 1 2 . 6 2 .0 --- 1045 LEFT SPLIT PHASE? I <--- A > I Y v I I I v I I I 311 1093 1032 LEFT THRU RIGHT STREET NAME: SAN RAMON RD. SPLIT PHASE? N ORIGINAL ADJUSTED V/C CRITICAL MOVEMENT VOLUME VOLUME* CAPACITY RATIO V/C ------------------------------------------------------------------------ NB RIGHT (R) 1032 451 * 2970 0. 1519 THRU (T) 1093 1093 5100 0.2143 LEFT (L) 311 311 2970 0. 1047 T + R 1544 6420 0. 2405 0. 2405 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ SB RIGHT (R) 171 91 * 1650 0:0552 THRU (T) 953 953 5175 0.1842 LEFT (L) 160 '160 2970 0. 0539 0. 0539 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ EB RIGHT (R) 556 556 1725 0. 3223 THRU (T) 145 145 3450 0. 0420 LEFT (L) 182 182 1650 0. 1103 0. 1103 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ WB RIGHT (R) 120 40 * 1650 0. 0242 THRU (T) 216 216 1725 0. 1252 LEFT (L) 1045 1045 2970 0. 3519 0. 3519 ---------------------------------------------------- VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY RATIO FOR THE INTERSECTION: 0.76 ADJUSTMENT FOR LOST YELLOW TIME: 0. 09 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ TOTAL VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY RATIO: 0. 85 INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE: D * ADJUSTED FOR RIGHT TURN ON RED Developed by TJKM Transportation Consultants, Pleasanton, CA, 1987 (7-2 TJKM INTERSECTION CAPACITY ANALYSIS 6/24/87 PAGE 31 INTERSECTION 1 SILVERGATE DR and SAN RAMON RD. DUBLIN COUNT DATE/TIME: PEAK HOUR: CONDITION PM EXISTING + CUMULATIVE - NO PROJECT FILE 157-035 ' RIGHT THRU LEFT 110 814 0 ^ I I I I I ^ I I I - ^ NORTH I <--- v -> I LEFT 56 --- 1.0 1.9 2.0 0. 0 0.0 --- 0 RIGHT STREET THRU 0 ---> 0.0 (NO. OF LANES) 0. 0<--- 0 THRU SANE NAME: RAMON RD. RIGHT 187 --- 1. 0 1. 0 2.0 0. 0 0. 0 --- 0 LEFT SPLIT PHASE? I <--- A > I N V I I I v I I I I 323 1360 0 LEFT THRU RIGHT STREET NAME: SILVERGATE DR SPLIT PHASE? N ORIGINAL ADJUSTED V/C CRITICAL MOVEMENT VOLUME VOLUME* CAPACITY RATIO V/C ------------------------------------------------------------------------ NB THRU (T) 1360 1360 3450 0. 3942 LEFT (L) 323 323 1650 0. 1958 0. 1958 ------------------------------------------------- ---------------------- SB RIGHT (R) 110 110 1725 0. 0638 THRU (T) 814 814 3450 0. 2359 0. 2359 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ EB RIGHT (R) 187 107 * 1650 '0. 0648 0. 0648 LEFT (L) 56 56 1650 0. 0.339 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ I =------------------------------------------------------------ =====__ VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY RATIO FOR THE INTERSECTION: 0. 50 ADJUSTMENT FOR LOST YELLOW TIME: 0. 10 ------------------------------------------------------------- ------- TOTAL VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY RATIO: 0. 60 INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE: A I * ADJUSTED FOR RIGHT TURN ON RED Developed by TJKM Transportation Consultants, Pleasanton, CA, 1987 C-3 TJKM INTERSECTION CAPACITY ANALYSIS 6/24/87 PAGE 40 INTERSECTION 10 SAN RAMON RD. and DUBLIN BLVD. DUBLIN COUNT DATE/TIME: PEAK HOUR: CONDITION PM EXISTING + CUMULATIVE - NO PROJECT FILE 157-035 . RIGHT THRU LEFT 210 1233 304 ^ I I I I ^ I I I ^ NORTH I <--- v ---> I LEFT 274 --- 1.0 1.0 3 . 0 2.0 1.0 --- 438 RIGHT STREET NAME: THRU 265 ---> 2. 0 (NO. OF LANES) 1.0<--- 372 THRU DUBLIN BLVD. RIGHT 704 --- 1.9 2. 0 3. 1 2.6 2.0 --- 1377 LEFT SPLIT PHASE? I <--- A > I Y v I I I v 395 1387 1342 LEFT THRU RIGHT STREET NAME: SAN RAMON RD. SPLIT PHASE? N ORIGINAL ADJUSTED V/C CRITICAL MOVEMENT VOLUME VOLUME* CAPACITY RATIO V/C ------------------------------------------------------------------------ NB RIGHT (R) 1342 577 * 2970 0. 1943 THRU (T) 1387 1387 5100 0.2720 LEFT (L) 395 395 2970 0. 1330 T + R 1964 6420 0. 3059 0. 3059 ------------------------------------------------r----------------------- SB RIGHT (R) 210 130 * 1650 0. 0788 THRU (T) 1233 1233 5175 0. 2383 LEFT (L) 304 304 2970 0. 1024 0. 1024 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ EB RIGHT (R) 704 704 1725 0. 4081 THRU (T) 265 265 3450 0. 0768 LEFT (L) 274 274 1650 0. 1661 0. 1661 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ WB RIGHT (R) 438 358 * 1650 0.2170 THRU (T) 372 372 1725 0.2157 LEFT (L) 1377 1377 2970 0. 4636 0.4636 VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY RATIO FOR THE INTERSECTION: 1. 04 ADJUSTMENT FOR LOST YELLOW TIME: 0. 00 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ TOTAL VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY RATIO: 1.04 INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE: F * ADJUSTED FOR RIGHT TURN ON RED Developed by TJKM Transportation Consultants, Pleasanton, CA, 1987 C-4 I TJKM INTERSECTION CAPACITY ANALYSIS 6/24/87 PAGE 21 INTERSECTION 1 SILVERGATE DR and SAN RAMON RD. DUBLIN COUNT DATE/TIME: PEAK HOUR: 4:45- 5:45PM CONDITION PM EXISTING + PROJECT + CUMULATIVE FILE 157-035 ssa az=sss=ss==cs=ca c=a==a=____=aa==s=ass - s=assess=assssssssss=s= RIGHT THRU LEFT 2 161 814 0 " I " NORTH I <--- v ---> I LEFT 81 --- 1.0 1.9 2.0 0.0 0.0 --- 0 RIGHT 7 STREET NAME: THRU 0 ---> 0. 0 (NO. OF LANES) 0. 0<--- 0 THRU SAN RAMON RD. RIGHT 194 --- 1. 0 1.0 2. 0 0.0 0. 0 --- 0 LEFT SPLIT PHASE? I <--- A > I N 337 1360 0 LEFT THRU RIGHT 2�oj STREET NAME: SILVERGATE DR SPLIT PHASE? N ORIGINAL ADJUSTED V/C CRITICAL MOVEMENT VOLUME VOLUME* CAPACITY RATIO V/C ------- NB THRU (T) 1360 1360 3450 0. 3942 ----LEFT (L) 337--------337-------1650- 0.2042 0.2042 ' --------------- ---------------------------- SB RIGHT (R) 161 161 1725 0. 0933 THRU (T) 814 814 3450 0. 2359 0.2359 ' ------------------------------------------------r----------------------- EB RIGHT (R) 194 114 * 1650 0. 0691 0. 0691 LEFT (L) 81 81 1650 0. 0491 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ ________________________________________________________________________ VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY RATIO FOR THE INTERSECTION: 0. 51 ADJUSTMENT FOR LAST YELLOW TIME: 0. 10 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ TOTAL VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY RATIO: 0. 61 INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE: B * ADJUSTED FOR RIGHT TURN ON RED Developed by TJKM Transportation Consultants, Pleasanton, CA, 1987 C-5 TJKM INTERSECTION CAPACITY ANALYSIS 6/24/87 PAGE 30 INTERSECTION 10 SAN RAMON RD. and DUBLIN BLVD. DUBLIN COUNT DATE/TIME: PEAK HOUR: 4 : 30- 5: 30PM CONDITION PM EXISTING + PROJECT + CUMULATIVE FILE 157-035 RIGHT THRU LEFT 214 1233 304 I I I NORTH I <--- v ---> I LEFT 276 --- 1. 0 1. 0 3.0 2.0 1.0 --- 438 RIGHT q STREET NAME: Z3 THRU 275 ---> 2. 0 (NO. OF LANES) 1.0<--- 394 THRU DUBLIN BLVD. RIGHT 748 --- 1.9 2 . 0 3 . 1 2. 6 2. 0 --- 1377 LEFT SPLIT PHASE? I <--- ^ ---> v I l I v Y y �� 0 487 1387 1342 LEFT THRU RIGHT STREET NAME: SAN RAMON RD. SPLIT PHASE? N ORIGINAL ADJUSTED V/C CRITICAL MOVEMENT VOLUME VOLUME* CAPACITY RATIO V/C ---------------------------------------------------- NB RIGHT (R) 1342 577 * 2970 0. 1943 THRU (T) 1387 1387 5100 0. 2720 LEFT (L) 487 487 2970 0. 1640 R 1964 6420 0. 3059 0. 3059 -------- -------------------------------------------------------- ----- SB RIGHT (R) 214 134 * 1650 0: 0812 THRU (T) 1233 1233 5175 0: 2383 LEFT (L) 304 304 2970 0. 1024 0. 1024 ---------------------------------------------------- EB RIGHT (R) 748 748 1725 0. 4336 THRU (T) 275 275 . 3450 0. 0797 LEFT (L) 276 276 1650 0. 1673 0. 1673 ----------------------------- ------- --------------------------------- WB RIGHT (R) 438 358 * 1650 0. 2170 THRU (T) 394 394 1725 0.2284 LEFT (L) 1377 1377 2970 0. 4636 0.4636 --------------------------------------------------------- VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY RATIO FOR THE INTERSECTION: 1. 04 ADJUSTMENT FOR LOST YELLOW TIME: 0. 00 --------------------------------------- TOTAL VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY RATIO: 1. 04 INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE: F * ADJUSTED FOR RIGHT TURN ON RED Developed by TJKM Transportation Consultants, Pleasanton, CA, 1987 C-6 APPENDIX D PHOTOMONTAGES y 86123 PHOTOMONTAGES FIGURE 3-1 iSOURCE:VENTURE CORPORATION r M`Xn._�� �'R+-` '!�" ^h,�4j��'° ia �-��°•-."'vx+�rzr`Y,3.". '��G'F"'3 -AM :w n� t ' - _ �z_ a fi—F ✓ sy *� N View looking south toward Hansen Hill Ranch from near Brittany Drive/Rolling Hills Drive, north of the project site. *�„rea; K Simulated view of the completed project from the same location. I IS • I :'T'7rwi'..��I.I �`ar�l. '�+,i;.�f.'r•'s�,t'('�"i�!� ...A,�t%�'xr.�'�•_-•r,.nu��•.��!!�t.� `:;�ye%5� •�.,.`,'r"�"k�,• :•• r""-r �i'•car':s�i:�s... �.:.,.�y:s�.:;:r y'�„ �'+�;no^!��" r.•,�;•t�% �•aF;. �.ir. (��'.'.. ..,p+�i►s.:s:.w;.... ...• ,.•.• rr,,.�,�,' �:� _�;•.r'*:.�..•.•a.•�!•�,�,•,.•. ._rtiif�. :,�,�,�,e��.��w�'n':� L.+:i-+g'.•+:.•��•46">:�.pw•••��=�cJ,�,::a.��t.:: .�•r!'!.y�=-,,s:-�• ."�.��..'-•! .�.1.,•�� W�Y `i Y. � `''i'tii,.:.wYy �,^ -Y'r^.•?..r• a�r` •' •a4'-: - „t..sr :..•C� .�yT'Rt..•aY�. ��...�,rG�y,,,�,� +.rr.�'^.. w t7 L..••.+.:.-=:•r:s..-„1,-�”. �i"'(��', ���-- , ' t.7r•.Oa w.0 Til.Tr ,;'<r�C.� 'r i1W'!?wu. k �ti.�.�•�'�'"•',� � ''. +}.,•'..�• t, -y_ . a�>+�'!-=.�.•2 A .�r::rS.;�� ✓.�•i.4•. r�^'•r�t�'r�.t,.�''.'r...,¢�o„".�i�':::i•�= .,.:>�>' '�'�/:�`�%!.5�`"�t',/. :i•k is =E`•: "r'-._r4:"r'•- ...--•«.;,,,,- a> .r; �� e' �:yiiw•i:.t.Y c �l+e. '"tea Pr^Y>�:..-r' -.s w,-<<^i-;�.':.. .•lx.^�;:s..�'�i'•�•-"-��� -. 'J"sCf.Y+-'..�,.yi.I•c ti► � .�. -1.. rr.o% *�eX�.V�� <"t � .aJt ..,;,., .i_�s( !C.v - .�: 1<�,�Y�•�_, -w: -, �'; µ•!i�K:� �'r"r. t, �i +'�,,,vt--f,; •,;1 r��'J:' "�' it _•.....,•:�''i.: `.,. ,-+'-7 e� �• r. r .L:7''-s,..,' "y.•:^ - ✓.�:7_"ar",".:>.'E /'x•Yt -��ic:.zs •�:•�:;.�SS��� .�7�•.�!'�.s•^`-�+tw-�� K. •_ j.'rp..t��f..•r^..�•- r� .r,,•,+.rt::.,'i. ...«�,.. i«s .. _..,�_�...4���w:--^t'�•G1F di�!%+`^*►KNIc •q�e,"^':7.7••' �"!'r 4�+"7•!- .i1'.s1itiC::w*'3'•i:-��"1=.fO�:J..' _ -•�. -��'.. ti Vx' _� �.:•I:%n+y � J• .�•i.C•:.y'„•,. Z, �+Ln� �C,•. c:1.-.Y _�•� ,•.� i:=;i��1�-ti,gaa��r `.r. •.1 '..a' 4'..A�T. �"-f„'_".�.. _ s... �I•• ..•�-sL�: Y.• tai:,:'�r.�. �„_ �`•f�. �„'.•"`'.�T':�+--t ^••A,,.'h"t'�' -y t' '=-x?"y'�.•"t 'ty.`Arr!b✓ •-•;: �,�.� �..•.•, "a-•:.�:• !� faP' T; '� 'x -=t„%��•:��' ;rte=r•F�_ sir���•`:,:s. :=•.��.". a:...�,'•_•-- -�:....:..,:'1.�.�^*.a�^t '1'v�X<'�.Y 4 ,fir :J�' �.�.4i.�.,e" !^�••"�.. ��':•:.. •-Vii••,.-�.'.�...• !:'�i� ..r�.�• r•*•^�.�:45 '�_+'S^•' � 727�a.����.`,ti-.k-�q•__yvn..r�M J.`:i_' .�- •:._.'<-.':i'�'.�i„^�? _n.: �`s•.q•►r c.., !t�� ~��' y'+•r�..�Y"+.• ='�`_�r' it•''.�>^',•"?• '•..;.cam� a� '`�fir'�� �-�•iE. ,.1� 'R�.�...e!.arM.� "•••i'C"'.'�'••�•1�r .er^ia�rY,L.' ..;�`R: •.._�I -:'-, tii•< 'ti•!<�.C..:.w"� � y;�1y l�'1�'t.e' «� _}�•••J�:a�i�'vr�:'.``.`•f:�:-•.F.'..-'•.� 1....-;_f.,•� 7[..,.1;�-v,1_ n-'��1. �,.�^' ..-• �vi„�•_-�,r,C�s4`-fit�".. _ .f-:""�._''.- „�„'•%..�:-' ;?;<>'�1:''�:,�"I's-, .sue—� itY �'.'�`�+•` � '�,ai� l y✓-�:. �"r_�!X�E•��.:a^yr'r.�4r.aT.'.'..�a.��_•'1•-•TS-.ya1:r '+•-.�•-.r>."'"M�•��1J :+-+i+ i""Y-:�� ,^:�:�•rc'-��•T� .'•'•....• !a T"'-:''_..�_ _-�4�.• :F�'�ii��ar.� ";°:'�- =--.w�.(,,, ..v'. .?�_ "1'9�:;,�.,._.se� �;,;j`>+f:�'^'_ :- ��_ -'--•_i''-yam-lr►:y„°:���-�'f�: ^',M a Jr ••-�:;�.;.:. .0^ti%... Ssj�--.fie•.?�.:. .�•,�,•�, ''". _ �^,�mot. •="?' 3. •�..— .•:✓:. _ +_.-�^- - � mss .- j` •��a•i!'ys':/c r._��_-_=_.4 ''aa+'- --ti:---'".,...Ji.�'�:.- ,•..,F -? "�"`3' e:-• •nom•� -Y- - -� �''':� '.o-f.�-v'-- sm Al- JUT NSW �• �•�'�•��__;'iy_•.- -:•'�. _- _•ti 1;7.5.��,�A�ii.. .. - ,'w-_ r- .:_°_:♦ ►.. .t `I f�!'.�►t:�� � .�''�„a':"'rr'.i;=:�`'' s-a'�.�'-•tir .� :.••i..''- _ -i ,-�i.,�- �'T°'^�' �s`�iil�•yt�:y�..(t�•��� `� _\�'•t��. •,�-:.+T, C'+'_•"'�'<?• }••'!'��l��lf�..,j ••�:. 3..1.:�f:: 'r'�.{tt_ -•ate l..i..•_���t�:�` :�tc"�<.f.•• .Y�- 4n..'t��. '•tom'' �uf. :� +l•+ r, :'e':- ':'�i..'ii��j�`"5 �” S;. AD _ i. ^.. t*•ice.^ •.f`T� ti•\►..V �� :.rei"•. �r+p - ��-,�:�w.�.'- Y �iY•:��.fei� ,• ,';���t,`�T•�•'_.s �:..!%y+�'•.t: ��;��� - � ,;;�`�•"",v`(.`•..c •_ -r_.i•.��Ii-ice;"^- ,..•,•'�`R•.'-:�,a it .�' Est•' ' j�. .• g,' '+-,;�._ a•.+r a�Y �•' �_,,,,.:, - ,x� !;.;.� � �c• ,��c .•�••.- .:•' �•- Y:. -. �• e"` ,y X56,.• '� '•:•1vTS-l.C'�• t?.fy1i�. �.a.,C.-c •'� ti..�•t�,.4%, L;.'- f ".: ^�F•. ��i1�`� '�', r '_•yam'•` �v"�" ''=:�_: dp op do DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT STUDY FOR THE HANSEN HILL RANCH by EIP Associates 319 Eleventh Street San Francisco, CA 94103 for The City of Dublin December 1986 TABLE OF CONTENTS HANSEN HILL RANCH SITE ASSESSMENT REPORT 1. INTRODUCTION Pale 1-1 1.1 Purpose and Objectives of the Site Assessment Study 1-1 1.2 Description and Location of.Study Area 1-1 1.3 Site Assessment Procedure 1-2 2. GEOTECHNICAL STUDIES 2-1 2.1 Cite C-ec4,�„>. 0b;--t::roc °.^.d Methods .... _„b,. 2-1 2.1.1 Existing Conditions 2-1 2.1.2 Policy Review 2-1 2.1.3 Development Constraints and Opportunities (Constraints Rating) 2-2 2.1.4 Data Sources 2-3 2.2 Soils: Objectives and Methods 2-4 2.2.1 Existing Conditions 2-4 2.2.2 Policy Review 2-4 2.2.3 Development Constraints and Opportunities (Constraints Rating) 2-4 2.2.4 Data Sources 2-5 2.3 Hydrology: Objectives and Methods 2-5 2.3.1 Existing Conditions 2-5 2.3.2 Policy Review 2-5 `. 2.3.3 Development Constraints and Opportunities (Constraints Rating) 2-6 2.3.4 Data Sources 2-7 3. VEGETATION AND WILDLIFE 3-1 3.1 Vegetation: Objectives and Methods 3-1 3.1.1 Existing Conditions 3-1 3.1.2 Policy Review 3-3 3.1.3 Development Constraints and Opportunities (Constraints Rating) 3-6 3.1.4 Data Sources 3-10 3.2 Wildlife: Objectives and Methods 3-7 3.2.1 Existing Conditions 3-8 3.2.2 Policy Review 3-9 3.2.3 Development Constraints and Opportunities (Constraints Rating) 3-9 3.2.4 Data Sources 3-10 4. VISUAL QUALITY 4-1 4.1 Objectives and Methods 4-1 4.2 Existing Conditions 4-4 4.3 Policy Review 4-4 4.4 Development Opportunities and Constraints 4-9 4.5 Data Sources 4-9 5. SLOPE ANALYSIS 5-1 5:1 Objectives and Methods 5-1 5.2 Existing Conditions ! 5-2 86123 i TABLE OF CONTENTS continued 5.3 Slope Analysis and Visual Quality 5-3 5.4' Policy Review 5-3 5.5 Development Opportunities and Constraints 5-4 5.6 Data Sources 5-6 6. NOISE 6-1 6.1 Objectives and Methods 6-1 6.2 Existing Conditions 6-2 6.3 /Policy Review / 6-2 E_�.vrllATtlllll+lAC yT.i vVIlO+TyIII+J �I yT�+Y.yi�t� Rat!n-' rr .__- ..... .._. .... �.. .. .. .o. 6-2 6.5 Data Sources 6-2 7. ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES 7-1 8. PUBLIC SERVICES 8-1 8.1 Objectives and Methods 8-1 8.2 Existing Capacity and Proximity 8-2 - Fire Protection 8-2 - Police 8-3 - Schools 8-3 - Solid Waste 8-4 - Parks 8-4 8.3 Development Opportunities and Constraints (Constraints Rating) 8-4 8.4 Data Sources 8-5 9. FISCAL ANALYSIS 9-1 9.1 Objectives and Methods 9-1 9.2 Cost Estimates for City Services 9-1 9.3 Revenue Thresholds 9-2 9.4 Possible Transfer of Open Space to EBRPS 9-4 9.5 Review of LAFCO Requirements 9-6 9.6 Opportunities and Constraints 9-6 9.7 Data Sources 9-7 10. LAND USE 10-1 10.1 Objectives and Methods 10-1 10.2 Site History 10.3 Current Apolicable Ordinances, Policies in the Pri,—,,a,y 10-2 and Extended Planning Areas 10.4 Impacts of a Potential Road System 10-11 10.5 Policy Review 10-13 - Residential Compatibility 10-13 - Public Health and Safety 10-14 - Agricultural 10-15 - Recreation 10-15 86123 ii TABLE OF CONTENTS continued - Scenic Highways 10-16 - City and Regional Housing Goals 10-16 10.6 Development Opportunities and Constraints (Constraints Rating) 10-18 10.7 Data Sources 10-19 11. CONCLUSIONS 11-1 11.1 Composite Constraints Summary 11-1 11.2 Analysis of Preliminary Site Concepts 11-2 11.a fnw Ttoxrnlnnmenf 11_1 .. .. ._ _.r. - 12. REPORT PREPARERS 12-1 i 86123 iii I INTRODUCTION 1.1 PURPOSE AND OBJECTIVES OF THE SITE ASSESSMENT The Hansen Hill Development Corporation seeks the City of Dublin's approval for residential development on the Hansen Hill Ranch site. This property of approximately 147 acres, is on the western boundary of the City and is wholly within Alameda County. In response to the applicant's request for a General Plan Amendment study, the City Council has authorized the Planning Department and EIP Associates to proceed with a two-phase study program with respect to the Hansen property. The first phase, as expressed in this report, is a site inventory and assessment of the area, involving such environmental and planning factors as geotechnical conditions, vegetation and wildlife, visual quality, slope, public services and land use, and current agency policies and regulations. This phase will establish the background conditions and the analysis of the constraints and opportunities bearing on potential site development. Moreover, this report will serve as a general guide for subsequent site planning and design work and will establish baseline conditions for any required environmental impact report on a proposed project for the property. The Site Assessment will provide some insight into the second phase of the program, or the General Plan Amendment Study. A review of relevant City General Plan policies at this initial phase, against the background of a detailed site analysis, will facilitate recommendations regarding possible revision of these polcies as a part of the General Plan Amendment Study. 1.2 DESCRIPTION AND LOCATION OF THE STUDY AREA The Hansen Hill site in the gently rolling foothills adjacent to the City of Dublin's western boundary, is characterized by a 'series of parallel shales and knolls covered with 86123 1-1 1. Introduction grasslands and oak woodland. Flatter sections of the knolls offer views over the valley below and a open space quality that the applicant desires to incorporate into the residential development of the site. The site is located less than three miles from the intersection of Interstates 580 and 680 as shown in the following Site Location Map. The 147-acre property has local access from Hansen Drive, Silvergate Drive, and Martin Canyon Drive, just off of Rolling Hills Drive. Adjacent land uses include the Hatfield and Kaufman and Broad residential developments to the north, existing single-family residences on Silverage and Hansen Drive, and vacant properties of the Nielsen and Cronen families to the north and west. The Valley Christian Center is located on the south boundary of the property. 1.3 SITE ASSESSMENT PROCEDURE The primary objectives of the assessment procedure are to (1) provide detailed information to the Hansen Hill Development Corporation on the environmental characteristics.of the site, (2) to provide information to the City of Dublin staff for use in reviewing a site development plan prepared by the applicant, and (3) to provide the envir 4mnta1 setting basis for the General Plan Amendment and the EIR for the development plan. Development of the Hansen Hill Ranch will be dependent upon the environmental constraints and suitabilities of the site's natural features to accept construction. The environmental and planning factors used in assessing constraints and suitabilities to site development and construction include: o Geology, Soils and Hydrology o . Vegetation and Wildlife • Visual Quality • Slope Analysis • Noise • Archaeological and Historical Resources o Public Services • Fiscal Analysis • Land Use Environmental data are portrayed on individual factor maps contained in the plastic envelopes of this report. The data flare assigned constraint ratings reflecting degree of 86123 1-2 SITE LOCATIOi . MAP FIGURE 1-1 Opp y,' � SAN RAFAELi CONCORD •OAKLAND PROJECT SITE SAN FRANCISCO • ��.� DUBLIN x HA ARD �: . SAN MATED ' Yy'�+�C'.S•tiT��11....t�{ti ? _ .r r, h • SAN JOSE SCURCE'•ESP ASSOCIATES SAN RAMON °`"0 a ,o 20 40 \SO �o =' Scr \Oa cOi CO~SA_CO CQ�NtY ����♦ DUBLIN \ PROJECT SITE �* • lAS 3&VERDATE ♦wAillo/ ! 4}OV AD. / ^BI VO i Is 9 •� 3tVEROATE +V L__A DR. `. O O PLEASANTON SCUAC._ CUSUN GENERAL PLAN _ • eip _ FEET 0 1 CCU :000 M 00 1. Introduction sensitivity to alteration due to the building of structures, roadways, parking areas and associated earth grading. The overall objective is to minimize the potential for adverse environmental impacts during project construction and operation. For this assessment, constraint ratings as defined in each section of the report are expressed as a range from "None" to "No-Build." Each rating category is defined as follows: None Constitutes no identified constraint to construction or alteration of existing environmental conditions. Low Minor constraint to construction or long- or short-term alterations of existing conditions. Moderate Constitutes moderate constraint to construction or apparent long- or short-term alteration of existing environmental conditions. High Constitutes high constraint to construction or apparent long- or short-term alteration of existing environmental conditions. No Build Areas that are not suitable for construction; best left in existing condition, or may be used for open space buffer opportunities. In the conclusion (Chapter 12) section of this report, a Summary Composite Constraints Map is provided summarizing the constraint data presented in each chanter. The Composite Constraints Map shows the agp,egation of all high constraints ratings, labeled "Construction Constrained," while all of the no-build ratings are assembled under "Construction Unsuitable." The first category shows where overlapping constraints occur and where resulting impact mitigation techniques for locating structures and other features would be more difficult. The Composite Constraints Map together with the individual factor maps, contributes to Phase II work elements of site planning and design by showing areas most suitable for development, areas best suited for open space and areas suitable for varying degrees of land development. 86123 1-4 2 GEOTECHNICAL STUDIES 2.1 SITE GEOLOGY: OBJECTIVES AND METHODS 2.1.1 EXISTING CONDITIONS The project site is located within a geologically complex area, where extensive faulting and folding of the geologic material has occurred in the past. This condition is typical of many areas within the Coast Ranges of northern California. The Dublin area geology has been mapped by a number of geologists in the past, including Wagner,1 Dibblee,2 and Nielsen.3 Information from these authors form the basis for the discussion below. The site is located in the Central Coast Range Mountains of California. The rocks underlying the site are sedimentary in nature, and were deposited in a non-marine environment in' Miocene time (10 to 25 million years ago). The rocks are characterized as consisting of pebble conglomerates, sandstones, and greenish to greenish-g-ey mudstone, with locally thin marl beds. These rocks have been assigned to the Briones Formation, part of the San Pablo Group. About two million years ago, during the Mt. Diablan mountain building period, the sediments of the Briones Formation underwent structural deformation in the form of faulting and folding. The site is located along the southern limb of a north-northwest/south-sout:`,east trending syncline; the axis of the syncline corresponds to the channel of the Martin Canyon Creek, along, the northern boundary of the site. The beds of the Briones Formation is reportedly dieping steeply to the northeast. Since the mountain building event associated with the Mt. Diablo uplift, the site has been subject to erosion. The erosion has resulted in the rounded hill tops and the steep gullying on the north-facing slope of the site. In addition, landsliding has taken place on about one-third of the site. Landslides on the site were mapped by Nielsen, in 1973, from aerial photography. Topographical features that indicated landsliding also were mapped by l Nielsen. The activity of the slide fgatures was not determined. The Geology I Map shows 86123 2-1 2. Geotechnieal Studies the slides mapped on the site by Nielsen. The Geology Map also shows those slides and soil slippage areas that were observed during field reconnaissance for the preparation of this report. As can be seen from the map, about one-third of the site has been subject to sliding in the past, and parts of the site are currently experiencing downslope movement. Most of the slide activity is associated with the steep gullies located on the site and the oversteepened slopes. No active faults have been mapped on the project site by Dibblee or Wagner. The active Calaveras Fault has been mapped more than 1,000 feet east of the site. The site is not within an Alquist-Priolo Study Zone. Extensive fault investigations occurred on the adjacent Bordeaux Estates prior to site development by Engeo, Inc. to identify active or potentially active traces of the Calaveras Fault; but none were identified.4 2.1.2 POLICY REVIEW The Dublin General Plan identifies all but the eastern 506 of the site as an area requiring detailed geologic investigations prior to development due to the potential for landslide hazards. The zone of investigation is shown on the following map. The site is not located within an Alcuist-Priolo Special Study Zone, and the requirements for fault investigations are therefore not applicable. 2.1.3 DEVELOPMENT CONSTRAINTS AND OPPORTUNITIES The major development constraint from a geologic point of view is the wide spread slope instability on the site. About one-third of the site has been identified as containing landslides, but the slides are not concentrated in a single area; they are spread over about. 95% of the site. Some of these slides are currently active, while the activity of other slides is unknown. However, grading activities, landscaping, and other such changes of existing conditions could result in renewed sliding activity. Two approaches can be used for development of a site with the known landsliding constraints; either avoidance of the slide areas, or repair of the slides as part of the project grading scheme. For the s,;ialle; currently active slides observed during the field reconnaissance, which are not part of larger slide masses. repair may be the most feasible 86123 2-2 c 2. Geotechnical Studies ( 'T 1 ' method of addressing the slope instability problem. For the larger slide masses shown throughout the site, avoidance may be the most effective remedial action. An alternative approach would be to determine whether the slide masses mapped by Nielsen are deep slides, shallow slides, active slides, in-active slides, or some other topographic features unrelated to slides. After the type, depth and activity of each slide mass is identified by on-site engineering analysis, a decision can be made whether the slides need to be reconstructed, avoided or if no action is necessary. If the large slide masses are active and cannot be reconstructed, the areas downslope from the slide, as well as the area on the slide, would be unsafe for housing. The necessary slide studies should be commenced as soon as possible and the subsequent information incorporated in the development plan. Constraints Rating Feature Rating Landslides Large Slides No build or further study on each slide mass being considered for development Small Slides Moderate Soil Slippage Moderate Landslide Hazard Area Moderate 2.1.3 DATA SOURCES (1) Wagner, Jesse Ross, Late Cenozoic History of the Coast Ranges East of San Francisco Bav, Ph.D. Thesis U.C.B., 1978. (2) Dibblee, T.W., Preliminary Geologic Map of the Dublin Quadrangle, Alameda and Contra Costa Counties, California. U.S. Geologic Surrey Open File Report 80-537, 1980. (3) Nielsen, Tor H., Preliminary Photo-Interpretation Map of Landslide and Other Surficial Deposits of the Dublin 7-1/2 min. Quadrangle, Alameda and Contra Costa Counties, California; U.S. Geologic Survey Open File Map 75-277-15, 1975. (4) Engeo, Inc., Report to Harold and Robert Nelson on Geologic Exploration of Nelson Ranch, Dublin, CA. Job n NT-0756-B6, 1981. 86123 2-3 2. Geotechnical Studies 2.2 SOILS: OBJECTIVES AND METHODS 2.2.1 EXISTING CONDITIONS The Soil Conservation Service has mapped the site as being underlain by Diablo Clay. The Diablo Clays are found on rolling to very steep mountainous relief.1 The parent material of the soils is soft interbedded shale and fine-grained sandstone subject to local landslips. The soils are characterized by having the capability of high post-construction settlement, and hibh `iofnwm ability. All Diablo Clays have 8 high shxi.^.I:-s:,ell potential. Soils on the site have been classified for their agricultural capability by the U.S. Soil Conservation Service. The eastern portion of the site consists of Diablo Clay on 7% to 15% slope. These soils are rated as Capability Class IIIe-3. . This Capability Class indicates that dry-farmed grains and grain-hay are well-suited for cultivation on Diablo Clays on 7% to 15% slopes. The remaining portion of the site is underlain by Diablo Clays on 15% to 30% slopes and Diablo Clays on 30% to 45% slopes, with a capability rating of IVe-5. This Capability Class rating indicates that the soils are best suited for dry-farmed grain, grain hay, and grazing. - 2.2.2 POLICY REVIEW The project site is underlain by soils that would not be classified as prime agricultural land. There are no institutional constraints associated with development and construction of sites underlain by these soils. 2.2.3 DEVELOPi LENT CONSTRAINTS AND OPPORTUNITIES The main soils constraint on the site relates to the presence of clays with high shrink- swell potential. This would affect structures and other improvements placed on the site; soils with shrink-swell potential can damage foundaticns, roadways, and utilities by cracking and heaving. The soils would need to be either amended or removed to avoid future structural damage. Constraints Rating Feature Rating Shrink-Swell Poderate 86123 2-4 2. Geotechnical Studies 2.2.4 DATA SOURCES (1) U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service, Soil Survey, Alameda County, California, 1966. 2.3 HYDROLOGY: OBJECTIVES AND METHODS 2.3.1 EXISTING CONDITIONS The nwninnt cito lc located within the MI-artir Caryon Creek watershed. Marti- ronirnn Creek is a tributary to South San Ramon Creek, flowing north-south east of Dublin. In the lower reaches of Martin Canyon Creek, on the west side of Highway 680, water backs up behind the freeway during 100-year storm events, as mapped by the Federal Emergency Management Agency.I No flooding has been identified to occur on the project site as a result of 100-year storm events. The Martin Canyon Creek is located along the northern project site boundary. The creek meanders along the site boundary along a deeply incised channel and extensively eroded creek banks. The slope of the creek is approximately 90 feet in 4800 feet or about 2%. The creek receives runoff from the project site, where flows are concentrated in gullies, acting as small tributaries to the creek. The gullies are also deeply incised and the banks are sparsely vegetated; as a result, runoff moves at high velocities down toward Martin Creek channel, contributing to the channel erosion. At the eastern site boundary, the channel flows are conveyed through a six-by seven-foot box culvert under Silvergate Drive. The box culvert was installed last year and designed to accommodate the 16 7year design storm; the culvert was designed assuming full development of the watershed. 2.3.2 POLICY REVIEW The Martin Canyon Creek is not within the jurisdiction of the Alameda County Flood Control District. However, the District would mace recommendations regarding improvements along the channel. The County standards require that a channel must be able to contain the 15-year design storm plus a one foot freeboard or the 100-year storm. The District also requires access to the Ehannel for maintenance purposes. 86123 2-5 2. Geotechnical Studies Usually access to a channel is provided by a road built in an easement along each side of the channel. If the channel banks have a slope less than 2:1, the width of the access easement should be 20 feet from the top of the bank. If the channel banks are steeper than 2:1, an additional width of easement must be provided equivalent to the width that would be occupied by a 2:1 slope. •For example, a 12-foot high channel bank, steeper than 2:1 would need a setback of 24 feet (equivalent to a 2:1 slope 12 feet high) plus the standard 20 foot access easement for a total of 44 feet. The slope setback would be measured horizontally from the base of the channel slope. Because the slopes along Martin Canyon Creek in most places are steeper than 2:1, and have a height in excess of 10 feet in certain places, the channel setback would be on the order of 40 to 50 feet from the toe of the channel. An alternative to continuous channel access would be to provide discrete access points at regular intervals along the creek. This would not mean that setbacks from the channel should not be provided. Because the creek is currently eroding, it would be prudent to allow for at least a 20-foot creek setback for improvements. This setback also would apply to the tributary gullies. In addition to creek setbacks, the Alameda County Flood Control District would be recommending creek bank stabilization at channel stress points. Stabilization could be accomplished by rip-rapping at strateg c points along the channel. In order to minimize erosion, flow velocities in the creek would need to be kept low; this would mean ensuring that flow velocities remain below 6 feet per second. Decreasing the flow velocity can be accomplished by installation of drop structures along the channel and within the watershed. 2.3.3 DEVELOPMENT CONSTRAINTS AND OPPORTUNIT IES The hydrological constraints on the sire evolve around tie ramifications of development placed adjacent to a creek with existing erosional problems. To prevent damage to structures from creek erosion, the sZ7"Uctures must be placed away from the eroding channels, and the existing channel stress points must be stabilized. In addition, causes of erosion must be reduced to a reduced to a minimum. The maior erosive force is high flow velocity, therefore, flow velocities mus:'be reduced. Because residential developments generally result in higher runoff velocities, due to paved surfaces, the suggested measures to reduce flow velocities should be inecr- orsted in the proiect design. 86123 2-6 2. Geotechnical Studies Constraints Rating Feature Rating Creek Erosion No build 2.3.4 DATA SOURCES (1) Mr. Vince Wong, Alameda County Flood Control District, personal communication, November 19, 1986. (2) Mr. Lee Thompson, City of Dublin Department of Public Works, personal communication, November 16, 1986. 86123 2-7 3 VEGETATION AND WILDLIFE 3.1 VEGETATION: OBJECTIVES AND METHODS The objectives of this section are to describe the existing vegetative resources on the project site, summarize those City policies which apply to the vegetation resources in the Dublin area, and identify development constraints and opportunities on the site. The data for this section was developed in consultation with representatives of the Dublin Planning' Department, the California Department of Fish and Game and a review of the vegetation inventory submitted to the City by David Gates and Associates, Landscape Architects. An on-site field survey was conducted on November 10, 1986 during which the entire site was walked in a random pattern. All plant species encountered during the field survey j were identified with the aid of various standard field manuals (see Section 3.1.4, Data Sources). 3.1.1 EXISTING CONDITIONS The predominant plant communities occurring on the site are: annual or non-native grasslands on the ridge tops, upper slopes and flat areas, chaparral brush areas in some localities next to the forested areas and a coast live oak/California bay forest mil on the lower, steeper slopes and canyon bottoms as shown on the following Vegetation Mao. The annual grasslands on the site are composed of non-native grass and forb species including fescue (Festuca so.), brome (Bromus so.) and wild oat (Avena so.) grasses. The livestock grazing favors these annual grasses over the native perennial species. There are some small areas of native bunchgrasses located at the head of the tributa_.v drainages (see enclosed Vegetation Map). These remnant stands of bunchgrasses occur in areas where the grazing pressure is reduced due to the steepness of the slopes. Native bunchgrass communities are considered a rare native plant community in California. This once extensive native community has been limited in its extent primarily due to cattle 86123 3-1 3. Vegetation & Wildlife _ grazing and conversion to non-native annual grasslands. Although rare plant communities do not have legal standing as do some rare plant and animal species, they are being recognized as vanishing elements of our natural resource heritage. The stands on-site are rather small, making their preservation as isolated communities rather useless. A better and more effective way of preserving the wildlife habitat values of these areas would be as part of a larger natural open space area extending down the slope. In other areas of the grasslands, the grazing pressure has been so heavy that invasive weedy species (i.e., star thistle (Centaurea so.) have become established. These heavily grazed areas are most common along the ridgelines, upper slopes and flat areas in the canyon bottom. The chaparral community is limited to spot locations along the edges of the forested areas. These brush stands occur in areas where past disturbances and/or soil characteristics favor the brushy species. A common species in these brushy areas is the chaparral broom (Baccharis ilup laris), a species which is commonly associated with erosion sites, burned areas and/or areas of shallow soils. The coast live oak/California bay forest areas are typified by dense to open stands of evergreen trees. The coast live oak (9uercus agrifoli a) and California bay (Umbellularia californica) are the dominate trees in these areas. Other tree species also occur within these forests including the valley oak ( uercus lobata), bigleaf maple (Acer macrootevllom), California sycamore (Platanus racemosa) primarily along the drainage courses and creek, and California buckeye (Aesculus californica) on the margins of the forests where more direct sunlight is available. An understory of poison oak (Toxicodendron diversiloba) is very limited in extent due to the dense tree canopy and lack of sunlight and cattle grazing and trampling. Martin Canyon Creek runs along the northern boundary of the site. Four tributary swales run down the slopes of the site into Martin Canyon Creek. Vegetation along and immediately adjacent to these waterways are considered as riparian communities, a native community commonly associated with intermittent or permanent streams. The bigleaf maple and California sycamore are indicator species for this community. The riparian community on the Hansen Rangh site is poorly defined by indicator species. In some areas of Martin Canyon Creek and along most of the tr:butary swales the creekside vegetation is dominated by bays and 6aks without any riparian indicator species. The best 86123 3-2 3. Vegetation Lc Wildlife defined riparian communities on-site occur along Martin Canyon Creek and along the third tributary swale from the east end of the site. A list of rare, endangered or threatened plant species that are known to occur in the project region. and for which-suitable habitat occurs on-site is provided in Table 3-1. Of those sensitive plants listed, the appropriate habitat for three occurs on-site; Santa Cruz tarweed, Mt. Diablo buckwheat and Diablo rock rose. None of these nor any other rare plant species was located on-site during the field survey. It is highly unlikely that two of these three rare plants (specifically the Diablo rock rose and Santa Cruz tarweed) occur on the site. The Diablo rock rose and Santa Cruz tarweed favor grassland habitats which for the most part are heavily grazed on this site. Although the site survey was conducted at the tail end of the blooming season for the Santa Cruz tarweed, if a significant colony were to survive on-site it is likely that a few plants would have been in bloom and identifiable. This plant is known to occur in the Pinole area, and was last seer in the hills east of San Lorenzo in 1915. The Diablo rock rose is known to occur in the Pine Canyon area of Mt. Diablo approximately 10 miles north of this site. 'Although the field survey was conducted after this plant had bloomed, nothing resembling the vegetative features of this plant was observed on-site. The Mt. Diablo buckwheat blooms from April-June. Consequently the fie'd survey was conducted when positive identification of this plant was not possible. It was last sighted in the Alamo Creek area approximately five miles northeast of the site in 1933. Its habitat, edge of chaparral, is limited in extent on the site, and the site is just below the elevational range of this species. The presence of the Mt. Diablo buckwheat is therefore unlikely, however, it cannot be ruled out without a springtir e survey. 3.1.2 POLICY REVIEW The principal City policies dealing with vegetation resources are contained within the Conservation and Open Space Elements of the General Plan. The general guiding policy statement of the City Open Space Element is as follows: "Preserve oak woodlands, riparian vegetation and natural creeks as open space for their natural resource value" (Chapter 3.1a.). The General Plan then goes on to identify "riparian vegetation" and "oak woodlands" as specific resources addressed in the Conservation Element. The policy statement in regards to riparian vegetation is as follows: "Require open strewn corridors 86123 3-3 . Vegetation do Wildlife TABLE 3-1 RARE, ENDANGERED OR THREATENED PLANT SPECIES KNOWN TO OCCUR IN THE PROJECT REGION Common Name 1 (Scientific Name) Status Potential for Occurrence On-Site 2 Mt. Diablo Manzanita (Archtostaphylos auriculata) /--__._____ slopes of sandstone at 500-2,000 foot elevations. Sandstone chapar- ral does not occur on-site. Santa Cruz Ta E/C1/List 1B This annual herb typically occurs as (Holocarpha macrad cradenia) colonies in heavy clay soils on gras- sy flats. Limited habitat occurs in grassy flats next to Martin Canyon Creek. Colonies of this rare plant _ were not located on the site. Mt. Diablo Jewel Flower /C2/List 1B This rare -annual occurs on talus or (Streptanthus hisoidus) rocky outcrops at 2,000-4,000 foot elevations. Appropriate habitat does not occur on-site, and the site is below the elevational range of the plant. Mt. Diablo Buckwheat /C2/List 1B This annual occurs on the edge of (Eriogonum truncatum) chaparral on dry slopes between 1,000-1,500 foot elevations. The site is below the plant's elevation range. However, its habitat does occur on- site to a limited extent. Diablo Rock Rose /C2/List 1B This perennial herb occurs on grass (Helianthella castanea) hillsides at 500-4,000 foot elevations in the San Francisco Bay region. Habitat does occur on-site, but no vegetative features of the plant were observed on-site. 1State/Federal/California Native Plant Society designations as follows: State Rare (R), Threatened (T), Endangered (E): California Endangered Species Act of 1971. Federal Endangered (E), Threatened (T), Candidate (C1-Taxa for which the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service has information to support listing, C2-Taxa for which the Service 86123 3-4 3. Vegetation & Wildlife _ TABLE 3-1 continued requires further study before listing; C3c-Taxa which was previously considered for candidacy but now excluded because it is too widespread or not threatened at this time): FederafEndangered Species Act of 1973. California Native Plant Society, Inventory of Rare and Endangered Vascular Plants of California, 1984: List 1B - Plants rare and endangered in California and elsewhere. List 3 - Plants about which more information is needed. List 4 - Plants of limited distribution (a watch list). 2Habitat and elevational data source is Munz and Beck, 1968. of adequate width to protect all riparian vegetation, improve access, and prevent flooding" (Chapter 7.1). An "adequate width" is open for interpretation and may vary from site to site. Since the riparian vegetation is poorly defined on the Hansen Hill Ranch site it is best to refer,to a minimum width requirement along Martin Canyon Creek and the third tributary swale from the east. To adequately preserve the "natural resource value" of these waterways, a natural corridor of a minimum of 30 feet from the top of the creek bank should be preserved. Structures, paved roads or any other development feature should not be allowed within this natural corridor. Unpaved trails may be allowed to control access through this area and to allow its use as a visual and recreational resource. The corridor may have to be wider in some areas to "prevent flooding" and/or "protect riparian vegetation" where it is easily identifiable. Roadways other than access ' crossings and structures would only be allowed outside of this natural corridor. Development designs that would help preserve the integ-ity of the riparian zone would be as follows: • Structures should be separated from the natural corridor by a roadway and they should face rather than back up to the natural corridor. This prevents dumping of trash by residents into the corridor, ("out-of-si;h,-out-of-mind"), and promotes cleanup of any such dumping. • Multi-story glass structures should not be allowed to face the corridor. Birds utilizing the wooded areas are likely to become confused by the reflections in the glass resulting in collisions. • Landscape materials should be,,of natural varieties and should preserve the wooded character of the ares as much as possible. Invasive species such as pampas grass should not be allowed. 86123 3-5 3. Vegetation & Wildlife o Fill and cut slopes should not be allowed within the natural corridor and certainly not beneath the tree canopy of any oak tree in the corridor. o Landscape lawns and irrigation systems should not be allowed beneath any oak tree that is to be preserved without some protective measures to prevent root rot and eventual loss of the tree. o Any alternations within the creek or drainage swale for either development access or flood control purposes should minimize disturbance of existing vegetation and avoid as many trees as possible. The General Plan policy in regards to oak woodlands states that oak woodlands should be preserved; however, individual oak trees may be removed on a case by case basis. The General Plan also directs the Planning Department to develop a heritage tree ordinance to aid in the decision on which trees may or may not be removed. To date the City has not developed a "heritage tree ordinance." The direction is clear, however, the removal of stands of the oak woodlands on-site should not be allowed, and the largest mature trees should be preserved to the maximum extent possible. i In addition to the City's policies there are various state policies and recuirements that will have to be met before the project site may be developed. The California Department of Fish and Game (DFG) under Section. 1603 of the Fish and Game Code of Regulations requires a Stream Alteration Agreement be secured before any proposed alteration of natural waterways may occur. This agreement would cover any proposed modifications to the creek within its banks including roadway crossings, flood control improvements, etc. 3.1.3 DEVELOPMENT CONSTRAINTS AND OPPORTUNITIES The development constraints on the site are indicated on the Vegetation Mao. The riparian corridor is the area that no development would be allowed except for access crossings and limited flood control improvements it necessary. Development within the coast live oak/California bay forest would be limited to those areas where a minimum of trees would be removed. Areas with existing openings in the tree canopy and where housing units may be placed without requiring the removal of numbers of mature trees should be favored. The native bunch;ass areas should be preserved in a contiguous natural open space area with the farested areas and the riparian corridor.. Other grassland and chaparral areas have no develgpment constraints in relation to their vegetation resources. The following table summarizes the development constraints and opportunities in relation to vegetation resources on the site. 86123 3-6 Vegetation & Wildlife Resource Constraint Rating Riparian Corridor No Build Coast Live Oak/California Bay Forest High Native Bunchgrass stands High Annual Grasslands and Chaparral Low-No Constraint 3.1.4 DATA SOURCES Prior to conducting the field work, a literature review was conducted to gather and evaluate information on the rare plant species and sensitive habitat types with known occurrences in the region. The basic working list for the rare plant survey was the list of all rare and endangered plants of California with occurrences in the project vicinity (California Natural Diversity Data Base 1985). To develop a list of rare plant species potentially occurring on the site, the working list was refined using geographic distribution and habitat information provided in standard floristic manuals (Munz and Keck (1968), McMinn and Maino (1937), Cheatham and Haller (1975)), location data i. printouts from the California Natural Diversity Data Base (CNDDB) and unpublished rare plant status reports prepared for the CLAPS (various authors). 3.2 WILDLIFE: OBJECTIVES AND METHODS The objectives of this section are to describe the existing wildlife resources on the project site, summarize those City policies which apply to wildlife resources in the Dublin area and identify development_ constraints and opportunities on the site. The data for this section was developed in consultation with representatives of the Dublin Planning Department, the California Department of Fish and Game and included a review of the data submitted to the City by David Gates and Associates, Landscape Architects. An on- site field survey was conducted on NoVember 10, 1986 during which the entire site was walked in a random pattern. All animal species encountered during the field survey were identified with the aid of binoculars (7 x 35) and various standard field manuals (see Section 3.2.4 Data Sources). _f 86123 3-7 3. Vegetation & Wildlife 3.2.1 EXISTING CONDITIONS Wildlife observed and expected to occur on the site is typical of the vegetation communities and habitats the site supports. The grasslands provide nesting, denning and feeding habitat for small mammals and birds. Larger mammals and birds of prey utilize these areas as hunting grounds feeding on the smaller mammals, birds and reptiles. Common species in grasslands would include the following. meadow mice, jackrabbits,* meadow larks, black shouldered kite,* red-tailed hawk,* turkey vultures,* coyote,* red fox.* The forested and brush areas provide greater cover and nesting habitat for a greater variety of wildlife than does the open grasslands. The water of the creek and its small impoundments attract wildlife to these areas to quench a thirst, or hunt for other wildlife drawn to the water. A variety of native bird species utilize the tree and brush canopy to nest and feed in, including the acorns of the oak trees provide a food source to a wide variety of bird and mammal species. Common and typical species expected to occur in these habitats include: red fox, raccoon,* deer,* scrub jays,* common flickers, various woodpeckers and grey squirrels. Two rare animal species are known to occur in the project region; the state and federal endangered San Joaquin kit fox, and the State rare Alameda striped racer. The San Joaquin kit fix (VUD1es macrotis mutica) is listed as endangered by both the State Department of Fish and Game (DFG) and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services. This nocturnal fox has been sighted in the Livermore Valley region west of Collier Canyon Road in 1975 (U.S. F.W.S. 1983). T;,e fox would appear to be moving into the Livermore Valle* region due to the loss of habitat in its historic range in the San Joaquin Valley. The project site is located just west of the known distribution of the endangered animal. The kit fox resides in underground burrows with characteristic openings. No kit fox denning sites were located on the site. The fox prefers to build dens in areas of low to moderate relief (190-220) at or below mid-slope. It is unlikely the San Joaquin kit fox is actively denning on this site; however, it may on occasion move through the site. The Alameda striped racer (Masticoo his lateralis eurvxsnt :us) is listed as a State rare species. This snake is limited to the valleys, foothills and low mountains of the Coast 86123 3-S 3. Vegetation be Wildlife Ranges east of the San Francisco Bay and west of the Central Valley in Contra Costa and Alameda counties. The Alameda striped racer has been sighted in the Mt. Diablo area approximately ten miles north and east of the site. It is usually associated with chaparral, but may occur in grasslands, open woods and rocky slopes. Suitable habitat for this rare snake does occur on the site and it is possible that the snake occurs on the site; however, the snake was not observed during the field survey. 3.2.2 POLICY REVIEW The City and State policies do not specifically address wildlife resources. However, the policies that address the riparian and oak woodland communities would also apply to the most important wildlife habitat resources. 3.2.3 DEVELOPMENT CONSTRAINTS AND OPPORTliNITIES The same constraints addressed in the vegetation section apply to wildlife. One additional constraint would be to maximize wildlife habitat values of designated open spaces, they i should be contiguous and with sufficient buffer areas to minimize impacts associated with urban encroachment. As an example, Martin Canyon Creek should be maintained as a wildlife movement corridor with the greatest buffer areas at the west end of the site where adjacent developments do not occur. The third tributary and associated woodlands should also be preserved as a wildlife area connecting with Martin Canyon Creek. Development should avoid these waterway areas as much as possible and strive not to constrict connection between the two with housing units and/or roadways. An example of the most efficient and effective wildlife open space corridor is provided in the vegetation map. Wildlife constraints are indicated below: Resource Constraint Rating Riparian Corridor No Build Coast Live Oak/California Bav Forest HI -Moderate Annual Grasslands and Chapa:ral Low-No Conttr lint 86123 3-9 3. Vegetation & Wildlife 3.2.4 DATA SOURCES Publications and documents on the wildlife of the Hansen Ranch area were assembled and reviewed prior to fieldwork. Literature on the wildlife of the region, including their status and habitat-relationships, was collected from various sources: California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG 1980), Robbins et. al. (1966), and Brown and Lawrence (1965). Species that were observed or which tracks or scat was observed on-site. References Munz, P.A. and D.D. Keck. A California flora and supplement. University of California Press, Berkeley and Los Angeles, 1968. Smith, J.P., Jr. and R. York (eds.). Inventory of Rare and Endanzered Vascular Plants of California, 3rd. ed. Special Publication No. 1, California Native Plant Society; Berkeley, 1984. California Department of Fish and Game. At the Crossroads, 1980. Natural Diversity Data Base. Unpublished, 1985. List of designated endangered or rare plants, pursuant to Section 1904, Fish and Game Code (Native Plant Protection Act), effective 5 Feb. 1982. Unpublished Nis., 1984. Cheatham, N.H. and J.R. Haller. An annotated list of California habitat types. Unpublished manuscript prepared for the University of California Natural Land and Water Reserves System, 1975. McMinn, H.E. and E. Maino. Pacific Coast Trees. Unive:sity of California Press, 1937. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. San Joaquin Kit Fos Recovery Plan, 1983. Robbins, C.S. et. al. Birds of North America. Golden Press, 1 266. Brown, V. and G. Lawrence. The California Wildlife Region, Nature;raph Publishers, 1965. i 86123 3-10 4 VISUAL ANALYSIS 4.1 OBJECTIVES AND METHODS Assessment of visual resources provides for the identification of site characteristics with aesthetic value which should be preserved or enhanced. Such site,features might include knolls which afford panoramic views, land forms such as significant ridgelines that are viewed from off-site and contribute to the regional setting, water features, and site vegetation such as tree groupings and grassland. Visual quality is a professional judgment which measures the visual sensitivity of a site to development based on a number of key variables. These factors include observer position, viewing distance, duration of view, number of viewers, slope aspect, landform, prominent site features, vegetation and coloration. Visual change to a site due to construction is considered an impact; it is also a measure of the degree to which the observer is aware of development within the landscape, and includes the compatibility or conflict of visual change with the surrounding environment. ~ Visual impacts of the developed site relate to physical layout of development with respect to slopes; siting and density of buildings; design and architectural characteristics of the structures with regard to size, materials and finishes; site grading and landscaping. In order to retain the visual quality of a site and protect tl:e existing regional setting, adverse visual impacts associated with development/censt:uction should be avoided or mitigated. To accomplish this, existing site features must be identified and their importance established with regard to ti-,e regional setting. The Visual Features i<iap identifies the following visual site fea ores: 86123 4-1 4. Visual Analysis - Knoll: The top of a hill, or the flatland portion of the terrain surrounded by downward sloping land. Generally, an area with spectacular, panoramic views of the surrounding area. Minor ridgeline: The ridge of a hill or group of hills that is distinguishable from off-site view locations. Ridges often form one of the layers of the regional background. Valley: A natural, deep depression in the landscape, formed as the site drains from higher elevations and seep slopes. Vegetation community: Natural groupings of vegetation which contribute to the site's visual character. Oak woodland and grassland are the two vegetative groupings which give Hansen Hill Ranch visual character. The distance from which the site and its visual features is observed is critical in determination of the visual impacts of construction. For the purposes of this assessment, views have been classified as foreground, middleground and background. Foreground Views which occur within a distance from the observer where details can be perceived; for example, individual boughs of trees form texture. The distance which comprises foreground views is generally limited to the areas within 0 to 1/4 mile of the observer. Middleground Views which extend from the fore;ound zone to a distance where form rather than detail is perceived by the observer; the observer would perceive tree form rather than individual boughs. For this site's visual assessment, middleground views have been determined to be from 1/4 mile to 1/2 mile distance from the observer. Background Background views are characterized by texture and pattern created by groups of forms; for example, groups of trees establish texture in the background. Views extend from the outer limit of middleground (1/2 mile) to infinity. The Visual Sensitivity Map, following, indicates the visual sensitivity of Hansen Hill Ranch and the ability of the site to absorb corstruction/development. These determinations 56123 4-2 4. Visual Analysis were made through site reconnaissance and the use of aerial photos, site photos, and topographic maps. A visual sensitivity rating is assigned to each area based on: location in the foreground, middleground, or background; ability of site slopes and vegetation to absorb development; orientation of slope (aspect); number of observers; type of visual experience, and duration of view. Visual sensitivity ratings of extremely high, medium and low are assigned to the site and are defined below: Extremely High: No screening, no backdrop, no ability for area to absorb development. Development would conflict with site, would be visible from surrounding residential areas and would be obtrusive. High: Little or no screening or backdrop; slopes are generally exposed grassland. Site has little ability to absorb development which is prominent in relation to the landscape. Areas are highly visible from adjacent residential areas or scenic highways; development would be obt:,-,sive to obvious. Sensitive siting, design and mitigation would be necessary for a harmonious balance of site development with the landscape. Moderate: Limited to moderate screening and/or backdrop; slopes are mixed grassland and oak woodland. Site has some ability to absorb development. Areas are visible from adjacent residential areas and scenic highways; development would be apparent in relation to the landscape. Sensitive siting, design and mitigation would be necessary for a harmonious balance of site develoment with the landscape. Low: Moderate to heave screening and/or backdrop; slopes are oak woodland. Site has the ability* to absorb development. Areas are visble from adjacent residential areas, but development would not be aocirent in relation to the landscape. Sensitive siting, design and mitigation would be necessary to preserve the 86123 4-3 4. Visual Analysis important visual characteristics of the oak woodland. Development would be harmonious with the landscape. 4.2 EXISTING CONDITIONS Hansen Hill Ranch is made up of rolling hills and deeply cut valleys, with elevations ranging from 470 feet at the northeast boundary (Silvergate Drive) to over 860 feet along the west border. Variety of elevation, landform, drainage pattern and vegetation contribute to the visual quality of the site. Figure 4-1 shows views of the site from Hansen Drive looking north and from Rolling Hills Drive looking south. The property includes four distinct knolls situated in two rows, nearly equally spaced from east to west. The two northern knolls are-separated by deep valleys, while the two nearest the site's southwest boundary are separated by a saddle of land. Generally, the knolls are exposed grassland, however, the northern two are surrounded on three sides, along their lowest slopes, by oak woodland. Slopes of the northern knolls have north and east orientation (aspect), and are viewed from many off-site residential locations. The two southernmost knolls are part of a ridge which is dominant in terms of the site, while minor with regard to the regional setting. This ridge intercepts views to the site from I- 580 (see Figure 4-2). Views from the site are of the site itself and the surrounding area, extending to the ridges and hills in the north, to the San Ramon Valley and hills beyond in the east, to I-580 and the hills beyond in the south and to the rolling hills in the west. 4.3 POLICY REVIEW The City of Dublin's General Plan policies which relate to visual quality are listed below: Policies 2.1.4, 3.1 and 3.3 address visual quality concerns for the Extended Planning Area. Policy 2.1.4(C), states that proposed site grading and means of access, for the siting of residential proposals, will not disfigure the ridgelands. Policy 3.1(A) calls for the preservation of oak woodlands, riparian vegetation and open space. Policy 3.1(C) requires that seep slopes and ridges be reserved as a condition of 86123 4-4 SITE PHOTOS FIGURE 4.1 RIF`, SMAM- EJP A=:ATES y..y-�i ..;.; •.r<f!' "y�.-qj S�' ::{r,:,Rl:::.•;;tiu�'J`r...,.•r;:'T;•. v!%:.:%.;�.,..• .11�!�/;w.;,,,f'S�,?r _.. Y,�..`'' Vii.. ..�y,;t�, ti+G..�Y,. ,+ „�a'� ,s '..:_.t'X -y ..['« .racy •+._. .'%�"%a• 4�~ 7Yr"','jn':.Fj !,� '� �� ri...-fsJ _.t i h+'r'?'''�i rJ�:ri.7rl;.,��r!' 'i .�.'y rr.'•''.. ,� •r.,'�. µ}e�F:.���;^;.�:r� �';,.Y-, � , .: '•'x .,� a. t,� ,.z ' u r,� { _s....,r.•y"rtz�-7• � v:.tij.: •.,. a,yy - .wrr s: �' z '•i !c.-M.-.S`r ./,• � X'R�' �i. x�� '?-:liy < r „wF:R Y',Hw+ -r 1 a ,<, // l _ r'"�r :.Y.l'� Jr ,•__+[ 'a~ .�s f� ��y, y'�.� . ?r •� ��r bJ."�y..y�✓:"�'}.F ,N,•<c /) w sas•�r �,M_ �,,, i„•e+Lr• pi/:r �Jj�X „••••K'a"� f-✓�/(TrM�•. x�.�y �r ,�H» f � i✓{ L'y`. a t� rlT'JS�".y�^�_^f ���•s�r ' 1 .y+a"r- -';�r�S�.fl;-p �i'��2.,� i s„ �,,,. r l ,�.s�,=r�?'� ..� tir / _•h»��:•,tat�.,a''�`: ,���{'�1 >;t.:.:5%...7��f-it: sr ,1, +�:t. ,j, !' [ . . .z"a �'fr %S',r. v� r. •'�"'` �.,��"rf.�� .- ��� ��, �M.,Y�: ..._z✓. Hii 'n^4♦ .�,�r),�:<<..hy l s �.ff••. � .'� �.•r�' ��,.._ :M."�•4F+_:.i .•�-.--F��l.'.�Y��� � ��•r�/R-I ,�..f(.' � �� Y s-: s. sr�R' 'r rTr.L � .'Y^yane7,�•�S_�- t .e+� "'�•�'�..,-J..�i'�r� 'J'•..!.-ro "�'�•"� �!'v::_ ' r,`: 'Yl�"°"`I�,�r"� �:'��•e.-.•r•r" r.•. � ter{- -a 1;.. � �,.•.,f.}X'^_•_. „�• :Y +../•. /, - r f .� jr It ss--r�.__t� yr. .k•..';•::,,r' 4.� +Yi(ti..f ^Yids „ r H r�/n"�__ .�..�x?i :?�%%YS yam' r � J�l`;.fwy i• ,,'j � �,� ^t�C�rf d� fl?i,�r�d"r4 t ✓ (?:' �� ,n '"Jr•LC+^?yr n Tr'$ Y-� �+'IA ��:� o ti. s,-a.�.� s�"'?� '-••rt r r"' �' :•'i'~.i�=r,•,_ 1y�4. _y� e �'t�.,`�-a,�'„j�,,'('vr,"• ?ti�+SLCie�.: ��.�. 1�1 �..>s» J'aY";If-1J�• r'N�'��1. �ZS i.'Wi✓.._.�.� ,�• :�1� y} .E:"T +�. ,N Site View looking Southwest from Rolling Hills Drive. ,'• f, i-_.+F�.7St.nYa�.Y•�.z =s. -,�)_�-_c �.:.•„�..+s�.=w< _` t'^"'s.�_•r�`-'3:.•c..a''r�,r'¢`•`�.a ti �� .ii_� 1� mo.'s' :3!. .� �'- a r>.I�H •°=ss�}" •tx '�6a+. ^.� =`"r��-".t_tii�•r .3r r�+i'���.. tasf �St I+- +,.�.d.?� `c.�+ `_.• �� ♦�`_"_,f. y-"- iw'sp _�y�.s,�--`5.t�'� s..�.,2' �i y 1. -•.�`�+-•4�.17•�n,�.�•3�<.�. vr'�.��7•it''..r:�-i^3^ll_ 4 •Yaw r"' !�S�-!+F�a ��� J ♦ �'4 � ••�e• �:a �t•'�y� C:,ta 4��.t�s;r+.�-��........_ - -•J���..�•~r.• °'"�sa v-"S.�r n ��s r-�=- �ti'YL"`'_ .•..:C.•:��..-.�-aa s►�-.x1�7K �,�s: t �T'',• Y .Z ""Pty i �'-�L.• Yrt f ca -Y sS.r � • -.^�..;j.`'y`C• +ti!-:�.r,r-�a._. �" •..L"'ziyY"i .-}'�, : .X1 a..ew-.... +R oh...4N �s._� •+Ir+�'.1.'YM .e.�-t y. Est �,�%�A.-fit ''. _ �-�n-�.. --..1 ^ i�'^-�r .+rev n.'+O 3� �.._-Y;�:'rr'• �-sS+.}.•1... �s � '` :. �'- -^sat 4 �t „i .bra.._`.M ` 4� 'w+..""'•i.s..a�.-�°T '^r*�+G+:,_�>•`3h4 °•esf ,.�.4 r rv.r.y,-a��'`.L':�i is f.1 � t.3• �`����,"r�fyj' 4 ne'1�"S������-+ti -..Y-�.c zr►1+•:y,"�r.�i�'�•+{'c �'..e`;`••'yM;.�a``'u��� `���' L ti: 5,,�_, '�.ss'.r� �!. r-�S� .n ""rF. mss* ,.1-':�'- a.saY ' ir• .�-:.. - ' rc.� •a: ��-f%•+-'X .S'�V-TC:.t y�y''c�•7,`.'Y�+,f'�c�• •, a�`"�7rLpr"".XdF�.�•s" a. i':c" ^'f.::ra��t'•Sfa'T`tea a �e•wNC...-�.. v+'i'`.'!'ZSl+.al'`i+ �••e".:,.�zi y+.`,-,,�7 C.'.F`'R "c'�• - t.c .t_-�'�: f _ c L-_"; r� w.-„z-<.� ,4-ti� <Ra'� M3•` `=�.^ "`t"a+•.4.3 `..a�``s.i>�-e � -y"c• i�`.,�tx;++~_.`! �"`�z"�'7�a'fo-��`� �+s t�'r,`+��� -�, �..��-, '`..s•L�,?ci'S.... ar-+� �?�,n�'�'�,�,'+ .•..tea� F+ -. -as- r �:a t.•. '.�1,-:�;, i ,Y ,d!'. a..�j•.��y w'� � - .`�c•.<��.iY.•�y`'„� ,ryi- �kr�-_._s±�: --"�"-�:•. ?' .. �;;s�?•w-:;:�R,,-> -^-fir= S i to 2...- �•�� ... .z �.y.._:T--a ,,_.�-:� .mot_�..'.=„ � `�•:'�”` -�. :• ::_ I View looking North from homes along Hansen Drive. I. SITE PHOTOS FIGURE 4-2 s ct;Pca. _I a.,__.,...,. as f `�.Y-•:l3.': '��'..- _ - _. r f .�" �i:T fir•" "�>r '.i;.s�.-'�� '>•:%L�' - ���~•Yi• .1�-s': i/.: '••J.'.s rl..�" .7'.'1(�'r�••�sY%_ •-I.-cs:-_ tae.f. .,r.�._ .-.y �w... _- _ _ �f\.�•v^"�~:7:�3'�V '1�w T a.. _ _�='�'��>.v'•'�.-..- �.'_.� �_ ~.NaY.•� ;�/`.:�1 :'Y��y 1��i7.�t"�'"''- - _ -•-'•i j"•�- ri_"",�"2:"X:a.ti -.:ar�. _ r._ v':' •f.,,- iL f �• t ' _ -_w.>r..�r�: _ v .,�,^�"`:. _ h_►.:��....erl'' •� .':;":�i�7��:a,�.. L:.`u:J:�S.FI/ - ' r' � _ '�✓ate_^_ � _ _ - :'i b - '_ .rte` - .`y�Y/1�,[�J _��•a��� :s....i... ':..C� > a.-••• r `x .r rtr-� l � ..i � �.t C K � G �'—_'�• —' =.i.. _ r - Site - rr' _. tceit:�ls�S - f�t}=>�ti::����•.•'--�•��,.yy-4w^ >�� I -tt + tom' .__-- �•_.� Y':- •+�.-C �- •mot - �^6=�: -:k Lq ej�wa��s ---- • View Iccking North to site fro... • I i t I - i I el - 4. Visual Analysis subdivsion map approval. Policy 3.3(E) restricts structures on the hillsides that appear to project above major ridgelines. The undisturbed natural ridgelines as seen from the primary planning area are an essential component of Dublin's appearance as a freestanding city ringed by open hills. Implementing Policy 3.3(F) uses subdivision design and site design review process to preserve or enhance the ridgelines that form the skyline as viewed from freeways or major arterial streets. (For this project, freeways include I-580, I-680; arterials include Dublin Blvd., Amador Valley Blvd., and San Ramon Road.) Policies 2.1 and 5.6 apply to the Primary Planning area. Guiding Policy 2.1.3(A) states that abrupt transitions should be avoided between single-family development and higher density development on adjoining sites. Implementing Policy 2.1.3(B) requires that site plans respect the privacy and scale of nearby residential development. Policy 5.6 relates to scenic highways as designated by Alameda County in 1966; these include I-580, I-680 and San Ramon Road in the Primary Planning Area. Scenic Highways are routes from which people traveling through Dublin gain their impression of the city; Policy 5.6 states that it is important to protect the quality of views from these roads. Policy 5.6(B) calls for design review of all projects visible from designated scenic routes. Policies which relate to Environmental Resources Management (Section 7) apply to the entire planning area. Riparian vegetation as an aesthetic resource is protected by Policy 7.1 which requires revegetation of creek banks where construction requires creekbank alteration. Policy 7.3 protects oak woodlands. This policy states that where woodlands occupy slopes that could otherwise be graded and developed, allowable densities should be permitted to be transferred to other parts of the site. Removal of individual oak trees, however, may be considered through the project review process. City policies which relate to visual considerations are restrictive as to the location of new development. Views from scenic roads are protected, and views to the surrounding ridgelines from the City are protected. ' ,t 86123 4-7 4. Visual Analysis 4.4 DEVELOPMENT OPPORTUNITIES AND CONSTRAINTS The site contains strong vegetative patterns and a variety of landforms that, when combined, give the site its visual character. The degree to which areas of the site are visually sensitive depends on prominence and visibility of the area from off-site locations. Prominence and visibility are determined by a number of factors including: slope, aspect, vegetative screening, and location in the foreground, middleground or background. Visually sensitive areas are those which are most visible; are seen by the greatest number of people for the greatest duration of time. Areas viewed from residential communities would be more sensitive than those areas seen by freeway drivers moving at high speeds. If, however, the site was within a motorist's cone of vision, a visual impression of the region could be formed based on the view of the area. As previously mentioned in this chapter, the site has been studied and evaluated to determine the degree of visual sensitivity. The Visual Sensitivity Map following page 4-2 shows visual sensitivity ratings which are applied to the site as follows: ' Sensitivity Absorotion Constraint Rating Extremely High None No-Build High Low High Moderate Moderate Moderate Low High Low High constant ratings signal the need for sensitive site planning and design considerations ' to mitigate adverse impacts and to allow development, to exist harmoniously with the landscape. Siting, design and mitigation measures which might apply to slopes with moderate and high visual constraints include: • Siting buildings below ridgelines, so that building form does not interfere with views of natural landforms. • Limiting height of structures. • Establishing standards for building materials, color and finishes which insure compatibility with the surroundings. • Grouping or clustering develo�meift to mimic natural tree groupings. • Establishing landscaping standards which utilize native vegetation. 86123 4-8 4. Visual Analysis - o Establishing grading requirements so that excessive cut and fill is avoided. o Utilizing a multi-level design approach; that is, parking on one level, house on another, decks used in place of flat, open lawns. o Preserving prominent knolls as open space/viewing areas. o Constructing narrow roads to minimize cut and fill. o Retaining oak woodland and riparian vegetation. " o Stabilizing and replanting soil disturbed by construction. o Requiring off-street parking to minimize road width. i With sensitive planning and design, many highly constrained areas are developable. Hillsides define areas of low and high visual access, depending on the observer's position. Hillsides may actually screen or conceal views and because of their visual prominence, i may provide for the physical integration of building with the landscape. Areas with a high degree of background or screening also absorb development as compared to areas with little or no background/screening. Steep slopes direct vision upward to hilltops from many t locations on and off the site. Ridgelines and hilltops are seen against the sky, and cloud formations then become part of the setting. Existing tree masses may be used to screen development, and to relate the height, bulk, *and mass of single structures to the landscape. Open space may be used to retain the most sensitive areas, to separate groupings of structures, and to replicate the inherent structure of the site. 4.5 DATA SOURCES 1. David Gates and Associates, Hansen Hill Ranch Environmental Planning Study, October 1986. 2. Hardesty Associates, Oak Woodland Preservation and Land Planninz. Portola Vallev Ranch, 2nd Edition, March 1984. 3. Kevin Lynch, Site Planning, 2nd Edition, MIT Press, 1971. 4. Citv of Dublin General Plan, Adopted February 1985. 5. EIP Associates, Fountain Grove Ranch Environmental Assessment, 1980. 6. California Region 5 Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Visual Resource Management Guides--Visual Quality Standard Determination & Application, March 1973. 86123 4-9 4 5 SLOPE ANALYSIS 5.1 OBJECTIVES AND METHODS Slope analysis identifies areas that are suitable for the construction of buildings, roads, parking lots and those areas which should remain in open space. Steep slopes constitute a major constraint to development, as alteration for construction is costly and may lead to adverse impacts which are damaging to the environment unless properly mitigated. Grading on steep slopes may increase siltation, damage wildlife and plant habitat, affect water quality, alter drainage patterns or create undesirable views. ( The following Slope and Aspect Map shows aspect and slope for-the Hansen Hill Ranch site. Aspect is the orientation of ground surface or the direction a slope faces. Most of the slopes on this site are north facing and east facing. Slope on the property is categorized accordingly: 096 to 10%, 1096 to 20%, 20% to 30%, and those slopes in excess of 30%. These determinations were made using 1:200 scale maps and a tick-strip measuring system, which identifies slopes based on distance between contour intervals. Acreages of each slope category were arrived upon by measuring with a planimeter and calculating the area based on the appropriate conversion for a 1:200 map scale. SLOPE CATEGORIES 0 - 10% Range Flat to ten feet of rise per 100 feet of horizontal distance. Such sites are composed of flat to gently rolling land forms and, where other constraints to development are not identified, are good for intensive development activity such as building sites, parking F. areas and roadways. Minor excavation for development would be necessary at localized points on slopes of from 5% to 10:0. 86123 5-1 5. Slope Analysis 10% - 20% Range Ten to twenty feet of rise per 100 feet of horizontal distance and are characterized by rolling terrrain. These sites would be fair for building sites, roadways and parking lots, as moderate excavation for development is necessary, requiring cut and fill at localized points. 20% - 30% Range Twenty to thirty feet of rise per 100 feet of horizontal distance. Slopes of this category are generally more rugged, with steeply rising terrain. Construction of buildings, roadways, parking lots and other development is more restricted on slopes in this category; considerable grading for buildings and surface paving are usually required. Over 3096 �. . Range Over 30 feet of rise per 100 feet of horizontal distance. Slopes greater than 3095 are more difficult to build on and normally require higher construction costs for specialized construction procedures, such as cantilevered sections supported by pier or post foundations. Where grading for construction is required, cut and fill quantities are apt to be high. 5.2 EXISTING CONDITIONS Hansen Hill Ranch is made up of a variety of land forms including rolling hills, ridges, knolls, and deep valleys. The valleys generally run in a northeast to southwest direction, resulting in slopes which are exposed to the north and east (see Slope and Aspect Mao following page 5-1). Slopes on the project site range from isolated areas that are Mat to slopes which exceed 50%. Visual examination of the slope. map shows the largest slope area to be in excess of 30%. The breakdown for slope categories of the project site are as follows: 86123 5-2 5. Slope Analysis Slope 1 Acreage Percent 0 - 10% 6 Acres 4% 10 - 20% 43 Acres 29% 20 - 30% 34 Acres 23% Over 30% 65 Acres 44% Total 148 Acres 100% 1David Gates be Associates, Hansen Hill Ranch Environmental Planning Study, October 1986. 5.3 SLOPE be VISUAL QUALITY The visual character of Hansen Hill Ranch is determined by its vegetative cover and slope. The site's steep slopes which face north and. east are apparent from off-site locations, particularily developed areas north of the site and east of Silvergate Road. Areas with steep slopes tend to "absorb" development. Structures placed in areas with steep slopes assume less visual import ance in verticality and mass due to the strong land form backdrop. That is, if the building is sited below the ridgeline or knoll, it will not give the appearance of being on a pedestal. Siting structures below high points or ridgelines retains the prominence of the landform and avoids silhouetting buildings against the sky. (For a complete discussion of visual quality, see Chapter 4, Visual Analysis.) 5.4 POLICY REVIEW Policies of the City of Dublin's General Plan which relate to development on slopes generally apply to the Extended Planning area, and are described below: Guiding Policy 2.1.4(A) allows for the consideration of residential development and related support facilities on moderate slopes. Implementing Policy 2.1.4(C) states that approval of residential development in the Extended Planning Area will require that proposed site grading and means of acdess will not disfigure the ridgelands. A 86123 5-3 5. Slope Analysis Policy 3.1(B) of the City's General Plan, states that slopes predominantly over 30% will be maintained as permanent open space for public health and safety. The implementing policy, 3.1(C), requires the continuation of reserving steep slopes and ridges as open space as a condition of subdivision map approval. City policy 3.3(E) restricts structures on the hillsides that appear to project above major ridgelines. The City values undisturbed natural ridgelines as seen from the primary planning area as an essential component of Dublin's appearances as a freestanding city ringed by open space. Policy 3.3(F) implements this policy by using the subdivision and site design review process to preserve or enhance the ridgelines that form the skyline as viewed from freeways (I-580, I-680) or major arterial streets (including Dublin Blvd., Amador Valley Blvd. and San Ramon Road). Policy 7.2(B) regulates grading and development on steep slopes; Implementing Policy 7.2(F) restricts development on slopes of over 30%. l Generally the City's Plan restricts development on hillsides in excess of 305, however, development is not prohibited by the policies. Slopes viewed from designated scenic roadways are restricted by City policies, such that the undisturbed natural cha_acter must be retained. 5.5 DEVELOPMENT OPPORTUNITIES AND CONSTRAINTS Nearly one of the site is made up of slopes which are greater than 305. Development on these slopes would require special construction considerations. Slone analysis identifies areas subject to adverse impacts, and siznals a need for aaoroDriate .mitigation. Slope analysis also recognizes areas that are most suitable for develoomment. Steep slopes are inherently more expensive to develop, requiring -constructon practices such as: o The construction of retaining walls to reduce areas of graded surface o Earth controuring to achieve lesser slope gradients o Removal and recompaction of areas prone to sliding o Use of grade beams and piles in lieu of conventional foundations 86123 5-4 5. Slope Analysis o Altering of natural drainage patterns o Construction of water runoff collection facilities o Provision of soil binders o Installation of special utility sytems to service development. Construction constraints for the four previously identified slope categories are applied to the site as follows: Slone Constraint 0 - 10% None - Low 11 - 20% Low - Moderate 21 - 30% Moderate Over 30% High While slopes of over 30% are considered to be highly constrained, they a-re capable of supporting limited development, provided special construction techniques are utilized and detailed grading and drainage studies are completed. Figure 5-1 shows that the steepest slopes on the site are in a fan-like configuration which surround prominent knolls on three sides. The less constrained slopes g=enerally occur on top of knolls and along the site's south boundary. Steep slopes on this site a,e also the most vegetated, while the less-steep slopes are grassland. Therefore, development on less constrained slopes would be visually prominent (see Chapter 4, Visual Analysis). Development opportunities on the Hansen Hill Ranch site occur primarily on the flat to rolling portions of the site, or those areas with slopes ranging from 10% to 20%. Areas with slopes from 20% to 30% could accommodate development if special construction techniques were employed. Steep slopes (greater than 30:x) may be used to visually screen buildings from critical viewpoints. Large areas of steeply sloping terrain would be most suitable for land uses which do not require extensive construction, t;erebv reducing potential impacts. Such land uses include: common open space, hiking areas, vegetative buffers, wildlife habitat, preservation of natural drainage, a:�d viewpoints. Grouping of buildings should be considered in ar eas which are made up of minor slopes surrounded by steep slopes. f 86123 5-5 5. Slope Analysis { 5.6 DATA SOURCES The following books, reports and documents were utilized during preparation of this section of the report: 1. EIP Associates, Fountain Grove Ranch Environmental Assessment, March 1980. 2. David Gates be Associates, Hansen Hill Ranch Environmental Planning Study, October 1986. 3. City of Dublin, General Plan 1985 - 2005, Adopted February 1985. 4. Kevin Lynch, Site Plannin>;, MIT Press, Second Edition, 1971. 86123 5-6 6 NOISE 6.1 OBJECTIVES AND METHODS Environmental noise is measured in decibels. The dBA, or A-weighted decibel, refers to a scale of noise measurement which approximates the range of sensitivity of the human ear to sounds of different frequencies. On this scale, the normal range of human hearing extends from about 3 dBA to about 140 dBA. A 10 dBA increase in the level of a continuous noise represents a perceived doubling of loudness; a 2 dBA increase is barely noticeable to most people. Human response to noise is subjective, and varies considerably from individual to individual. Effects of noise, at various levels, can range from interference with sleep, concentration, and communication, to physiological and psychological stress, and hearing loss. The sound level of speech is typically about 60 to 65 dBA. Sleep disturbance occurs when interior noise levels exceed 40 to 50 dBA. Environmental noise fluctuates in intensity over time and several commonly used descriptors of time-averaged noise levels are in use. The City of Dublin uses CNEL, the community noise equivalent level, as the measure of noise acceptability. CNEL is the 24- hour average of the noise intensity, with a 5 dBA "penalty" added for evening noise (7:00 pm to 10:00 pm) and a 10 dBA "penalty" added for nighttir:e noise (10:00 pm to 7:00 am) to account for the greater sensitivity to noise during these periods. Existing studies were examined for information which would characterize the noise environment of the project site and policies of the City- of Dublin as they affect land use in various noise environments. 86123 6-1 6. Noise 6.2 EXISTING CONDITIONS Traffic is the primary source of continuous noise in Dublin and its environs. In 1983, Charles M. Salter and Associates, acoustic consultants under contract to the City of Dublin, mapped CNEL contours for existing and future (year 2005) traffic noise; these maps were later incorporated into Dublin's General Plan (see Figures 10 and 11, pages 38 and 39, respectively, of that document and Figures 6-1 and 6-2 of this document). Comparison of the map of existing CNEL contours with a map of the project site shows that the CNEL in a strip of land (ranging in width from 0 to 400 feet) at the southern boundary of the site is exposed to a CNEL greater than 60 dBA. The remainder of the site has a CNEL less than 60 dBA. 6.3 POLICY REVIEW It is the policy of the City of Dublin to employ a Land Use Compatibility Table (see Table 6-1 below) as a guide for making decisions on prospective land uses in relation to noise sources and to determine noise mitigation needs. Table 6-1 shows that when the CNEL is greater than 60 dBA, residential uses on that site become "conditionally acceptable", that is acoustic analyses and installation of noise insulation become mandatory before construction can be authorized. 6.4 OPPORTUNITIES AND CONSTRAINTS At present, the use of the project site for the construction of single family homes would be "normally acceptable" under the City of Dublin's land use compatibility guidelines, except for the southern-most portion, of the property (a strip varying in width from 0 to 400 feet) which would be "conditionally acceptable" for residential use. By the year 2005, the strip of conditional acceptability will have grown in width to between 600 and 800 feet, due to the increase in traffic expected on I-580 and San Ramon Road. In planning for project construction, provision should be made for the acoustic analysis of the project structures and the installation of any additional noise insulation required. 6.5 DATA SOURCES The Dublin General Plan was consulted for all information contained herein, regarding existing and future noise levels on the project site, and the Citv's land use compatibility guidelines. 86123 6-2 1983 NOISE EXPOSURE CONTOURS FIGURE 6-1 SOURCE: CITY OF OUBLIN GENERAL PLAN ..••FEET 0 1000 2000 4000 • ��� '• \\\\•�r ••r 11':11 I�,Q \ • / Do � I \ ~ ro n •�� I / \ \ as • 111 ` 1 ♦ p•, � ' r•�� PROJECT SITE '` '' \ '!••as 'mil`/ '', •'\ ~ �"1V'w:,1,�nNJy. s 'rr •'�.. ''. I:�•,. ; •�••-•;. w� ....,,_Ott.t:a.::::a�•��.1:prT.=,J'Y,TIt,Y,-_L•L'L:'„ :.....,.�.... s' ;.1 ✓!.... ,Jr..::.......�.�«�H.�..�,..i :tin. T +a^, •: sa«'�.•�• •'1 as .:f I:'t: ..%�� •i• \ t'N. �- , —..iT„?; ear.i:. � ...._ ......_..... '^��+.�. t •; .� may, .. ,_ ro \` fir'/�' n' �:5:•'•'.•i:�"•;+,•�a!'� 1`�..,�i•• \.\•• '�" i op 2005 PROJECTED NOISE EXPOSURE CONTOURS FIGURE 6-2 SOURCE: CITY OF DUBLIN GENERAL PLAN -.FEET 0 1000 2000 4000 • •r J I • M j' ,r j� eO ro I \ 60 \ ,' 0 go •1 ,A,-PR0JEGT SITE IN Is ��` \\\\\.'\\`\�\\\`� ,1 ,�;..•'•'I..1' v1 •1.�r ,. \.5'yr:f.l• M ...M.........•1 •I...• �,\\ \� •\ \. �.�'�\" t.. •, 1 \�J 1, .•.. rr t :�........ n t ':� tlp •• „ .r't r. �\. eta .�.��.,...�. _'M��...,� ���:�..re+�•�.� t It t-,y. 1 ,1.' p• mr �__ _ -_ -.rte-.r...`........ �......._ %F 1••�•� 1 . 11.1-11:•;I!•II�SfJ�•'•�- rnrt . " :, /" p ei >r 6. Noise TABLE 6-1 LAND USE COMPATIBILITY FOR COMMUNITY NOISE ENVIRONMENTS Community Noise Exposure CNEL (dBA) Land UEe Cotegcry 55 69 E 75 Residential a a b b c d d Motels and Hotels a a b b c c d Schools, Churches, a a b b c c d Nursing Homes Neighborhood Parks a a b c d d d Offices: Retail/Commercial a a a a b c d Industrial a a a a b c c a. Normally Acceptable land use is satisfactory, buildings need no special noise insulation. b. Conditionally Acceptable - new construction should be undertaken only after acoustic analysis and installation of noise insulation. c. Normally Unacceptable - new construction should be discouraged. If construction does proceed, acoustic analysis and insulation required. d. Clearly Unacceptable - new construction should not be undertaken. Source: Dublin General Plan. 86123 6-5 IT 7 ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES Foothill areas in proximity to the proposed project site have yielded archaeological sites. The California Archaeological Inventory has been contacted and asked to conduct a literature survey of the project area. A review of the records will determine the archaeological sensitivity of the site and if any prehistoric or historic resources have been recorded within or adjacent to the Hansen Hill Ranch site. 8 61"3 7-1 8 PUBLIC SERVICES 8.1 OBJECTIVES AND METHODS The objective of this section of the document is to report on the availability and capacity of existing services that could be extended to the site and to residents of the project. To the extent applicable, site planning constraints related to services are identified as inputs for Phase 2 of this study, which will include submittal of a specific site plan by the applicant. In other cases, the information is more pertinent to Phase 3, when the EIR on the project will be prepared. ( EIP has contacted the service providers to obtain information about current ser•✓ice levels, but the analysis of project impacts cannot be completed until Phase 3 when,the specific number of units proposed for the site has been determined. EIP has not developed new information at this stage regarding water and sewer services. The project engineer, Wilsey Ham Associates, has prepared preliminary information on existing utility systems which is described in the Environmental Planning Study on file with the Citv. The Dublin San Ramon Services District (DSRSD) is currently reviewing the sewer and water service requirements for the property. The following information is excerpted from the Wilsey Harn study. Water service to the Hansen parcel would be provided by Dublin San Ramon Service District (DSRSD) as an expansion of its pre-sent system. To obtain the water service, the Hansen parcel would need to be annexed into the district. DSRSD has indicated that a sufficient supply of water is available to allow development of the Hansen parcel. Approximately 115 acres of the Hansen parcel are within the Zone III strata and thus can be served from the present system. Be'ore the development of Silverage Highlands, 86123 S'1 8. Pubiic Services ' Bordeaux Estates, and the Estate homes project at the county line Valle y Christian Center began the Zone III strata by installing a temporary Redwood tank and a temporary pumping station with which to raise the water from Zone III into the Valley Christian Center's tank. Subsequently, all the above mentioned development became subject to an agreement with DSRSD. The 4-party a;:eement as it is known (which did not include the Hansen property) requires that a bonafide, permanent Zone III reservoir, pumping stations, and pipeline network be constructed to provide a proper.level of water service to the Zone III strata, and that the Center's temporary facilities would be dismantled. At the present time, there remains to be completed a 12-inch main connection from the Zone II tank near the end of Betlen Drive, across the Hansen parcel to an existing 12-inch stub on the north bank of Martin Canyon Creek, and a pumping station at the Betlen Drive tank. The location of this main on the Hansen property has'not been determined. There are, however, approximately 33 acres which lie above Zone III, requiring Zone IV facilities to be constructed before water can be moved to serve that area. Several alternatives exist for the Zone IV facilities. Further discussions with DSRSD will `- be needed to determine a final water Zone IV proposal. Regarding sanitary sewer, the existing sanitary sewer system provides adequate capacity at relatively convenient service connection points in Silvergate Drive a7-id along the eastern 900 feet of the northern boundary to service most of the parcel. However, there are about 12 acres in the southwest portion which cannot be conveniently severed by gravity to those connection points. because they slope away from the tilnrtin Canyon basin. One possibility is 'to use a lift station to convey this area into the rest of the system. A second possibility would be to arrange to extend the existing sewer in Valley Christian Center, if agreeable. Fu,t`:er evaluation of sanitary sewer requirements will occur as the study progresses. (Source: Nlisey, & Ham) 8.2 EXISTING CAPACITY AND PROXIMITY 8.2.1 FIRE PROTECTION Fire protection is provided by the DSRSD Fire Department. The Department has 3S sworn staff and 12 volunteer fire fighte°s,and responded to about 1,250 calls the past 8. Public Services year. The nearest fire station is at 7494 Donahue, near the corner of Amador Valley Blvd, which is approximately 0.9 miles driving distance from the site. The houses currently under construction north of Hansen Hill Ranch define the upper boundary of adequate response time from the fire station on Donahue. These homes are approximately 1.5 miles from the station. To maintain a similar distance at Hansen Ranch, homes could be located about 400 feet into the City's extended planning area, or 800 feet short of the property's western boundary. Chief Phillips has suggested that any homes located further up the hill should be equipped with internal sprinkler systems. Chief Phillips further indicates that project roads should not have greater than a 15% slope and should be of standard width as provided in the City's zoning code to permit turn- around space for trucks. 8.2.2 POLICE The City of Dublin provides police protection service through a contract with the Alameda County Sheriff Department. The City is patrolled as a single beat.and the newly constructed units north of Hansen Ranch are patrolled under the City's existing arrangement with the Sheriff. The City Police Department reviews all project proposals and provides guidance on ways to maximize security in residential design. The Department's concerns focus on lighting, the orientation of windows, the design and placement of locks and the like. However, the design considerations are not codified, so it will be necessary to submit the preliminary design to the Department at the end of Phase 2 to obtain nonce input. 8.2.3 SCHOOLS The site is within the Murray School District, which has t:e Neilsen Elementary School nearby the site on Amarillo Street. The district has three schools closed at the present time due to falling enrollments; one of which, the Dublin School adjacent to the I-680 freeway, is leased to a private school. No plans exist currently to return Dublin School to the public school system, but it,.is rot c?ear whether Neilsen School can continue to accommodate all the children in Dublin west of I-680. S6123 S-3 8. Public Services Neilsen has a capacity of 647 students in its permanent facilities and ar. additional 60 students in portable classrooms. Current enrollment is 610 students, leaving capacity for approximately 100 additional children. At the district's average student generation rate of 0.2 students per dwelling unit, Neilsen can accommodate children from an additional 500 homes. Approximately 400 homes are under construction north of Hansen Ranch which will likely fill about 80% of this remaining capacity. However, space is available at Neilsen School for additional portable classrooms if necessary; therefore, elementary school capacity should not be a constraint for development at Hansen Ranch. 8.2.4 SOLID WASTE Solid waste disposal in Dublin is provided under exclusive contract by the Oakland Scavenger Company. The waste is delivered to the Altamont Landfill, located east of Livermore. This landfill is estimated to have a remaining capacity of 34 years, and does not pose a constraint to development in Dublin. Other than providing adequate access for the garbage trucks, no design requirements exist for solid waste disposal service. 8.2.5 PARKS The City of Dublin provides park and recreation services in the neighborhoods near the site. The nearest park is May Park on Plata Way adjacent to Neilsen School. A new five acre park is planned on Padre Way as part of a new subdivision. In addition, the City has Shannon Park and community center approximately three-quarters of a mile from Hansen Ranch. The City operates a wide variety of recreation pro;ams out of the community • center and also at Neilsen School. The General Plan does not designate any additional parks for this part of town, and does not provide any standards for the amount of Dark acreage needed per unit of population. The City does have other provisions, however, for the applicant to dedicate park land or to pay park fees in Iieu of park dedication (see also Section 10, Fiscal Analysis for more discussion of park dedication alternatives). 8.3 DEVELOPMENT OPPORTUNITIES AND CONSTRAINTS Based on preliminary analysis no major public service constraints exist for the property. Considerably more engineering analysis is needed to determine the water and sewer utility systems to design for. Any such'�equ'ire ments will need to be addressed in P ,ase 2 as the proiect is designed. However, the above analysis of oche, services suggests several considerations for the site design. 86123 S 4 8. Public Services r - To facilitate adequate fire protection and emergency access, the internal roads should have less than 15% slope and should be of standard width as provided in the City's building code. If a separated road design is adopted, adequate turning locations should be provided to ensure that fire trucks have sufficient mobility once on the site. Further, at least one . secondary access should be provided to streets adjacent to the site to ensure that emergency vehicles are not prevented access to all parts of the site due to blockage of the main collector street. Homes located in the western 800 feet of the site may need to be outfitted with inside sprinkler systems due to the distance from the fire station. Given the general nature of these recommendations and the various design options available to achieve them, the public service issues should be considered a low constraint to development on the site. 8.4 DATA SOURCES Fire Protection: Phillip Phillips, Fire Chief, DSRSD, telephone conversation, November 11, 1986. ( Police Protection: Sergeant Difranco, City of Dublin Crime Prevention Officer, telephone conversation, November 17, 1986. Schools: Heinz Gewing, Assistant Superintendent, Murray School District, telephone conversation, November 19, 1986 Solid Waste Disposal: Paul Rankin, Dublin City Manager's Office, telephone conversation, November 17, 1986. Woodward-Clyde Consultants, Review of Altamont Landfill Desig-n Capacities, December 17, 1935 Parks: Diane Lord, City of Dublin Recreation Director, telephone conversation, November 17, 1986. 8612,3 5-° 9 FISCAL ANALYSIS 9.1 OBJECTIVES AND METHODS The purpose of this section is to introduce some key concepts regarding the kinds of cost/revenue considerations that must be addressed in the final evaluation of the Hansen Ranch project. The service costs and public revenues discussed below are based solely on current average costs for the City of Dublin and the Dublin San Ramon Services District (DSRSD) and will need to be revised when a specific project design has been developed. The discussion also presents planning considerations related to involvement of the East Bay Regional Park District (EBRPD) in the project and the_overall requirements for LAFCo review of the annexation proposal. 9.2 COST ESTIMATES FOR CITY SERVICES At this preliminary stage in the project design process, it is not possible to project accurately the costs that may be incurred by the City of Dublin and by DSRSD. It is necessary to know the number of dwelling units, the type of units, and the site configuration to obtain service cost estimates from the agencies. However, for the purposes of illustration, average cost factors have been calculated which indicate the level of services provided to the average house in Dublin. The primary services provided to the site by the City of Dublin are police protection, recreation programs and street maintenance. The Community Development Department also provides planning, design review, and project approval processing services, but the public cost for these services is offset by plan check fees, building permit fees and other fees charged to the private developer. The current average costs for providing police and recreation services per resident in Dublin are $88.88 and S20.32, respectively. Average street maintenance costs have 15een' estimated at S6,424 per road mile. Based on preliminary discussions with agency representatives, it does not appear that a project at 86123 9-1 i 9. Fiscal Analysis Hansen Hill Ranch would require an above average level of service. Therefore, until more specific service needs assessments can be done, the average costs appear to be reasonably conservative estimates of public costs. DSRSD provides water, sewer, and fire protection services. Costs for the first two have not been estimated pending further development of the design for the utility system. It should be noted, however, that DSRSD generally requires that private developers pay the bulk of the costs for installing new infrastructure. Operating costs are recouped through charges to the users. The average annual cost of fire protection in Dublin is about $480 per household. It is likely that the costs of extending service to Hansen Hill Ranch will be substantially less, because an existing fire station and equipment will respond to calls from project. However, the need for additional manpower or equipment cannot be determined until the project design has proceeded further. 9.3 REVENUE THRESHOLDS Development of the project will increase the property tax base on the site. The increase l in property tax revenues for various service agencies will change with annexation from the current distribution. This is because the City will assume responsibility for certain services and will therefore receive a portion of the tax from-the site that it does not now get. The allocation to other agencies will also be adjusted accordingly. In order to estimate the future tax distribution, data from an adjacent tax code area in the City of Dublin has been obtained. The distribution is shown in Table 9-1. The principal agencies _ who receive revenues are the County of Alameda with 31.04% of the total, various education agencies, including the Murray School District, with a total of 29.0495, DSRSD with 21.23% and the City of Dublin with 6.94%. If this distribution is similar to that actually established for Hansen when it is annexed, a $100,000 dollar home would generate, for example, $69 per year for the City of Dublin and about $212 for DSRSD. The project would likely generate other revenues for Dublin. Residents cf the project would make retail purchases in town and the City would receive sales tax revenues from these transactions. Currently, Dublin receives about $253 per capita per year in sales taxes and it is likely that new residents living at Hansen would have similar spending patterns. ,t 86123 9-2 9. Fiscal Analysis TABLE 9-1 PERCENT DISTRIBUTION OF NON-BOND PROPERTY TAX LEVY TAX CODE AREA 26001 Agency Percent Alameda County 31.04% Dublin San Ramon Services District 21.23 City of Dublin 6.94 Educational Agencies 29.04 County Library 5.00 Flood Control 2.52 Air Pollution Control District 0.23 Mosquito Abatement 0.15 BART 0.67 East Bay Regional Parks District 3.20 Alameda County Resource Conservation 0.03 Total 100.00% Source: Alameda County Auditor's Office The City would also receive subventions from the state based on the increase in population on the site. The size of these subventions has varied considerably in recent years, but the current average revenue for the Motor Vehicle in lieu fee and cigarette tax is $37.30 per capita. , 86123 9-3 9. Fiscal Analysis The other major revenue source that would be applicable to Hansen Ranch is the utility franchise tax charged to electric, gas, garbage and cable television franchisers. 9.4 POSSIBLE TRANSFER OF OPEN SPACE TO EBRPD The City of Dublin is concerned about maintenance of public open space that may be included in the project. If the City is not to assume responsibility for this function, at least two other possibilities may exist. The project Homeowners Association could assume responsibility or the land could possibly be dedicated to EBRPD which would then maintain it. Based on recent EBRPD reports, it is estimated that annual maintenance costs could range from $15 to $50 per acre per year. At the higher figure, 50 to 75 acres of the site could be maintained for $2,500 to $3,750 per year. At the completion of Phase 2, when the site design has been completed, EBRPD has requested that the City submit a letter formally requesting EBRPD to consider accepting the site as part of the regional park system. The following discussion describes current District plans for park facilities in the vicinity of the project site and presents several ( ^ considerations pertinent to the design phase of the project to enhance its usefulness to EBRPD. EBRPD provides a variety of types of park areas. Regional Wildernesses are a minimum of 3,000 acres, Regional Parks are 500 acres, Regional Preserves and Regional Recreation Areas are each about 100 acres. By itself, Hansen Ranch is too small to be designated a wilderness or park. Regional Preserves are intended to protect features of outstanding elements of natural or historical significance. The criteria for preserves include locations of nat,"ral wonder or scientific importance, the presence of significant his;oriel or cultural tradition, or possession of regional open space values. It is doubtful in the case of Hansen Ranch whether significant natural, scientific, or cultural resources are present. Certainly the site exhibits good open space values, bur the minimum size for a preserve would leave only one-third of the site developable. The same size criteria applies to Recreation Areas, but the most important criteria address the intensity of use and the availability of "proven" recreation resources. It is 86123 9-4 9. Fiscal Analysis possible that such a recreation site could be developed at Hansen, but this option would be relatively expensive in terms of both development and maintenance of the area and would not necessarily be consistent with the intent of Dublin to simply provide for public stewardship of the open space in the project. The most attractive option in terms of current District Plans relates to the regional trail system in the area. EBRPD Board of Directors received in March 1986 a feasibility report for developing a major regional park on the Sunol and Pleasanton Ridges. This location is directly south of Hansen Ranch across I-580. The study concluded that a 9,000 acre park was feasible, and the recommended boundaries extended north to Devaney Canyon just south of the project site at I-580. The 1980 EBRPD Plan also calls for a trail linking the Sunol Ridge with Las Trampas Regional Wilderness. The proposed trail route would pass through Little Hills Recreation Area, the Bishop Ranch Land Bank area located west of I- 680 and Cull Canyon Recreation Area. This last area is just east of Castro Valley, and would pull the trail far west of the Hansen Ranch site. Otherwise, Hansen Ranch is on a straight line between Las Trampas and Sunol. The shape of the site and its proximity to the major north-south ridge lines in the area suggest that it could provide a link with this proposed trail system, perhaps as an access trail route from the urban area of Dublin to the main Las Trampas-Sunol Ridge. The primary difficulty is the lack of access across I-580 to the at this particular location. This may be one reason behind the District's plan to swing the trail west to Cull Canyon. Much further study and discussion with EBRPD is necessary to determine if the trail system is feasible. In terms of the site design, if the site is to be recommended as a trail spur, an east-west corridor should be maintained from either Silvergate or Hansen Drive through the site's western boundary toward Donlan Ridge. Limited parking at the trailhead will probably also be necessary. One logical alternative to dedicaticn to EBRPD would be to require the project homeowners association to pay for maintenance of the open space on the site. Just as an example, if 75 acres are left in open space and 75 homes are built on the remaining land, the average annual cost per home Would be $50, or about $4 per month. If more homes 86123 9-5 9. Fiscal Analysis (7" are built, the cost per unit would be even less. Alternatively, the City could support the creation of a Landscape Maintenance and Lighting District. The cost per dwelling unit would be similar to that for the homeowners association. 9.5 REVIEW OF LAFCO REQUIREMENTS. LAFCo authority to review and approve annexations is provided by the Knox-Nisbet Act of 1965 (Government Code 54773 et seq.). LAFCo is required to consider a number of factors in reviewing annexation proposals. The primary considerations include: o population, land use, projected growth in the area, o the needs, cost and adequacy of governmental services, o the effect of the proposal on adjacent areas and local government structure within the county, o effect on agricultural preserves and open space uses, and o conformity with the city and county general plans and'the sphere of influence of the city. Most of these items will be addressed in detail in Phase 3 of the study when a specific project proposal is evaluated. However, it may be noted that the site does lie within the sphere of influence of the City of Dublin. The County General Plan designates the site for agricultural uses but the City General Plan designates most of it for residential uses, with the creek portion reserved for open space. Therefore, the proposal to annex the site ' to Dublin for the purpose of developing residential uses is generally appropriate to the institutional setting. Please refer to Section 10 below for further discussion of the planning and land use issues related to the site. 9.6 OPPORTUNITIES AND CONSTRAIN'T'S At this time, the fiscal characteristics of the site do not appear to establish any significant constraints to development. In terms of site opportunities, if dedication of the open space on the site to the East Bay 1 Regional park District (EBRPD) is desired, the open space should be of a linear character extending from one of the roads at tNe eastern end of the property through to the western 86123 9-6 9. Fiscal Analysis f end, to permit development of a trail. Consideration should be given to providing a small parking area for people using the trail_ 9.7 DATA SOURCES City of Dublin, Preliminary Bud.get and Financial Plan, Fiscal Year 1986-1987, June 26, 1986 Dublin San Ramon Services District, Budget 1986-1987, June 20,'1986 East Bay Regional Park District, Master Plan-1980 The Planning Collaborative, The Ridgelands Regional Park Feasibility Study, March 1986. Thomas Lindenmeyer, EBRPD Land Stewardship, telephone conversation, November 11, 1986 Bruce Kern, Alameda County LAFCo, telephone conversation, November 19, 1986 86123 9-7 .,. ...... ... ...._. ..... ._....,.....r, ....,.. -_.;.-....._�_.,.....,.,�...�...�:�. .-.'�7�R'ul rcrnea►zcw.wr*�a..e..,wY.r.--.. ,-.�-....-...-...«....-..,.v-.-.r,..-....... 10 LAND USE 10.1 OBJECTIVES AND METHODS The key objective of this section is to identify those planning policies in the City of Dublin General Plan that are applicable to project site development, and provide a preliminary assessment of those policies as they relate to the project site. Not unlike many General Plans, the Dublin Plan contains several statements that are broad and generic in nature, and subject to a range of interpretation. Further, some implementing ordinances and guidelines, which could provide greater specificity regarding the actual intent of the planning policies, have yet to be adopted, precluding the opportunity for precise identification of the degree of policy applicability. Therefore, this analysis will attempt to both identify policies and provide a preliminary policy interpretation. Methods of analysis employed in this section include review of relevant City of Dublin planning documents, particularly the City's General Plan, review of City of Dublin staff reports regarding development of the project site, review of project sponsor documents, discussions with members of both the City of Dublin and County of Alameda Planning Departments, and discussions with project sponsor consultants. This document review and discussion period serves as the basis for the contents of this section. 10.2 SITE HISTORY The project site is located on the western edge of the City of Dublin, and is a part of the larger Tri-Valley area generally comprised of the communities of Dublin, San Ramon, Pleasanton, and Livermore. Prior to the 1850s, the Tri-Valley area was populated by Native Americans, who relied upon hunting and gathering activities to sustain their culture for many years. The Dublin area was first settled by non-natives in the 1850s, and by the 1970s was part of a larger homesteading settlement near the transcontinental railroad. From roughly that periop to the 1950s, the Dublin area was a productive 86123 10-1 .. .._•.�..T♦.�rr._\1iV Y.+tI...✓ti.\:iN�.^._bYK:..tYW.v..n9�.��_ ��i��.K.•r err..-��w�._���-_.-.�-..�-...�..��..--.�.....�._._�_�..�_. 10. Land Use agricultural center. At the beginning of this agricultural period, the Hansen family purchased the project site, and used it for agricultural purposes. From the 1950s to roughly 1980, the area gradually became a community exporting labor to jobs outside the Tri-Valley area. Since 1980, the Dublin area has grown to form part of an emerging regional employment center. Consistent with the Dublin area's historical role as an agricultural a-rea, agricultural activity, in this case in the form of cattle grazing, has been a predominant activity on the project site for several years, although there is evidence on the eastern portion of the project site that orchard crops were cultivated at some point in the past. Prior to that time, and assuming no dramatic change in landscape characteristics, the site may have served as hunting grounds for local Native Americans due to the presence of substantial habitat cover on the site. A small, now dilapidated house is located on the extreme north- central portion of the site. The present effort to convert the site from agricultural to urban uses appears to be the first such effort to alter historical uses on the site. 10.3 CURRENT APPLICABLE ORDINANCES AND POLICIES IN THE PRIMARY AND EXTENDED PLANNING AREAS This portion 'of the section provides an overview of major features of the Dublin General Plan, information on population and housing growth reflected in the plan for the remainder of the century, and a summary of current and planned land use designations in the project vicinity. OVERVIEW OF THE DUBLIN GENERAL PLAN, AND PLANNED GROWTH The City of Dublin, incorporated in 1982, is approximately 4.1 square miles in area. The City's 1985 General Plan is the main planning policy document in the City, while the City's Zoning Ordinance is the key land use regulatory mechanism. The General Plan identifies a Primary Planning Area (PPA) which includes the 3.8 square mile area that formed the original incorporated area of the City, as well as a 0.3 square mile area of previously unincorporated land near the western hills. The PPA is the main area where General Plan policies are more than schematic in nature. The City has also identified a 15.6 square mile Extended Planning Area (EPA) that "bears relation to its planning" pursuant to Government Code Section 65300. The EPA is largely undeveloped, and is 86123 10-2 10. Land Use generally characterized by steep slopes and oak woodlands to the west of the City, and gently sloping grasslands east of the City. The western segment of the EPA, which contains a portion of the project site, is approximately 5.3 square miles in area, and is shown in the Figure 10-1.1 The PPA and EPA together comprise approximately 16 square miles, and also-comprise the City's entire Sphere of Influence (SOI) area. The SOI contained an estimated population of approximately 17,600 people in 1985, according to the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG), as documented in their report, Projections 185. The Dublin area is projected by ABAG to increase to 40,500 people by the end of the century, a 130% increase. ABAG estimates that the number of households in the SOI will increase from 4,800 in 1985 to 12,250 by the year 2000, an increase of 7,450 households, or 155%. In terms of comparison, Alameda County is projected to experience a 15% increase in population, and a 20% increase in household growth over the same time period. As noted in the City's 1985 Housing Element of the General Plan, only about 160 acres of non-commercial land remained undeveloped in the PPA, including several surplus school sites. All acreage identified as undeveloped were infill parcels, in that these parcels were contiguous to existing developed land. Inherent in projections of growth is the apparent assumption that future development will occur on remaining undeveloped parcels in the PPA, on redeveloped parcels in the PPA, and in the EPA. CURRENT AND PLANNED LAND USE IN PROJECT VICINITY As noted above, the project site is used for cattle grazing. The County of Alameda General Plan designation. for the site is Agricultural. The County's Zoning Ordinance identifies the land for exclusive a icultural activity, while a—owing one dwelling unit per 100 acres, resulting in a maximum of one unit on the project site.2 Current land use activities in the project vicinity include low-density residential development on the north, east, and south, the Valley Christian Center to the south, and vacant land planned for medium density housing to the northeast. Several of the parcels immediately to the west and north of the project site are currently in Williamson Act agricultural land contract status, which provides tax savings to contract holders in exchange for guarantees to retain land in agricultural production for a period of ten years. Renewal is automatic on an annual basis unless the contract holder elects to serve notice that the contract will not be renewed. Non-renewal will result iA contract termination after a ten-year period. The 86123 10-3 •10. Land Use only known parcel in the project vicinity that is in non-renewal status is the Nielsen parcel, which is in the first year of the termination period.3 The project site is segmented by the PPA-EPA boundary line, and is one of only two parcels in the western portion of the City that is segmented, with the other parcel being the Nielsen property to the northwest of the project site. As part of the General Plan refinement study being conducted, consideration should be given to alignment of the PPA- EPA boundary line to be coterminous with property lines in the project vicinity, as is typically done as part of planning and zoning studies, which attempt to avoid the splitting of parcels into multiple categories. This could be achieved as part of a project sponsor response to' a major City policy providing that residential development in the EPA be based on an assessment of location, extent, and'density, predicated on the availability of public services and General Plan refinement studies. The western portion of the site in the EPA is approximately 70-75 acres, or about one-half of the project site.4 Further, the EPA portion of the site comprises about 2% of the City's western EPA, which extends approximately 3.25 miles west of the PPA boundary line. As shown at page 10 of the City's General Plan, up to 70% of the EPA's western portion has limited development potential, with slopes of 30% or greater. The remainder is identified as "open land with development potential,"5 which appears to mean low-density residential and residential support uses on moderate slopes, with multi-family density housing considered on "flatter" land.6 A comparison of project sponsor information on slopes in the EPA portion of the project site and General Plan documents suggest that the amount of land with slopes of 30% or greater on that portion of the site is substantially greater than documented in the General Plan.7 Assuming that other portions of the EPA currently designated as having slopes of less than 30% would also be similarly compared, the actual growth potential in the 5.3 square mile western EPA area could be substantially less than that shown in the General Plan. PPA Buildout Potential General Plan designations for the PPA portion of the project site, as shown in Figure 10-2, : include Open Space/Stream Corridor, Single-Family Residential (0.9 to 6.0 units per gross acre),-and Medium Density Residential (6.1 to 14.0 units per gross acre). The majority of surrounding areas to the north, eastIand south are designated Single-Family Residential. 86123 10-5 LAND USE CHA' \CTEAISTICS FIGURE 10-2 EIP ASSMATES: DAVID GATES 6 ASaGC:AT-,S \ f` FEET sw loco 2000 caone„c.2s 1� W v ex ' =C2 2. `` -- G'-.....:. \ sue_. ����` �\1 7 •L�a�•. . • la.�..... \-- Ste\\\ �y tq a :^^;\.. j.\.`.^...- ' -- _ —_:::C�!"". _-- _ '�`� �-^ oco�J, �.0`� '� r-.",p• '�- At ✓fir: Project Site Cr , Single Family Residential Service Area Zcne s Strata (Water Pressure Zcne) R Dublin City Limit Line VACANT Unceveicced Lands Minimum Eievncn Suitacle for Zone s Tanx(Elev. 1015 Ft.) MPrimary Planning Area(PPA)Boundary Line Preferrea Zone 4 Tank Site West of line is Extended Planning Area(EPA) / i ® Agricultural Preserve Lands ':� Possible Alternative Zones I Tank Site [TGj AgriculturaUGra_ing Lands Private Temporary Reservc:r This is current use or Protect Sate ano aetacent carceis m umncoroeratea area. as welt as cesig+gnation acor.ez ta Nose txs ;tng Tank parcels in County o1 Aiameea General Pbn ano-'enrng aranance. + ■ i Existing Water and Sewer Lines Private Temporary Pump Stat:cn 0� !� .••111�I■, I. 10. Land Use The Open Space/Stream Corridor designation continues to the east of the site, while the Medium Density Residential designation is applied to parcels to the northeast of the site. The General Plan, at pages 7-8, has identified three areas on the project site within the PPA that provide greater specificity to the land use designations described in the previous paragraph. . The three areas are generally described as follows, using site numbers from the General Plan: No. of Site No. Acres Unit Range Location 5 4 24-32 Extreme northeast corner of site. 6 7 7-20 East of Christian Center, abutting southern property line. 7 6 6-20 Abutting property line north of Christian Center. Calculation of site areas was conducted by EIP Associates as part of this analysis, using the three criteria of acreage not in riparian corridors, not in oak woodland areas and not in areas with slopes of 30% or greater.8 This effort resulted in the following acreages for the three sites: General Plan Site No Acreaze EIP Acreage 5 4 2.0 6 7 12.7 7 6 17.3 Totals 17 32.0 A comparison of the two different density designations for the project site, found in Figure 1 and at page 8 of the General Plan, and associated dwelling unit totals, along with application of those two density desi ations to the two acreage totals, appears below in Table 10-1. Based on existing General Plan designations for the site, development potential on the PPA portion of the project site could be 35-208 units. The wide range in the number of dwelling units that could be built on acreage without the three aforementioned constraints 36123 10-7 10. Land Use TABLE 10-1 PPA ACREAGE WITH LESS THAN MAJOR POLICY CONSTRAINTS AND RANGE OF DEVELOPMENT DENSITIES No. of Acres No. of Units ` } Pinn FTD Tlono:4a� laon�o Plan FTD 5 4 2.0 6.0-8.0/gross ac.1 24-32 12-16 6 7 12.7 1.0-2.9 7-20 13-37 7 6 17.3 1.0-3.3 6-20 17-57 Totals 17 32.0 37-52 42-110 5 4 2.0 6.1-14.0/gr.ac.2 24-56 12-28 6 7 12.7 0.9-6.0 6-42 11-76 7 6 17.3 0.9-6.0 5-36 16-104 Totals 17 32.0 35-134 39-208 C 1Densities for site stated at page 8 of the General Plan. 2Densities for site stated in Figure 1 of General Plan. does not, however, provide any insight with respect to other constraints such as, for example, major ridgeline retention or grading and geologic considerations. These and other factors could act to increase or decrease the number of potential units that could be developed in the PPA. Further, the number of potential units does not provide any insight into the amount of identified acreage that can be altered, suggesting that there is considerable potential to mitigate development impacts through use of, for example, clustering and attached units, and incorporation of guidelines to reduce the amount of acreage actually covered with dwelling units and associated facilities. While it is known, based on conversat}ons with City staff, that the lower of the two density designations is considered"the'apolicable set of designations for the PPA portion of the site, an official determinatioA of the appropriate density designations for the site 86123 10-3 ~r 10. Land Use 1, should be sought from the City prior to detailed design studies. Further, specific site development guidelines regarding clustering of dwelling units, mix of housing types, and use of attached units in clustering areas should be developed to reduce the alteration of identified developable acreage. EPA Buildout Potential A wide range of dwelling units could be located in the EPA, pursuant to Plan policies. The guiding policy in the EPA, mentioned earlier, is consideration of medium-density housing on "flatter" land, and consideration of low-density housing on moderate slopes. For the purposes of this analysis, it is assumed that "flatter" land means land with less than 20% slopes, and "moderate" slopes means land that is between 20% to 30% slope. Applying the major constraint criteria to the EPA portion of the project site (i.e., slopes over 30%, riparian corridors and oak woodlands) results in approximately 33.6 acres of land that could be used for residential development. Of this total, 16.6 acres have slopes less than 20%, and 17 acres have slopes of between 20% - 30%. Several interpretations of City policy render a wide range of development potential, which, in turn, could be increased or decreased due to the incorporation of other criteria, such as ridgeline maintenance or grading constraints. Assuming that identified acreage in the EPA was incorporated into the PPA, for example, and designated with the same low- density housing classifications as found on Sites 6 and 7 in the PPA portion of the project site, the number of dwelling units that could be built on identified acreage could be the • following: Acreaze Plan. Figure 11 Plan, Pale 82 33.6 34-104 units 30-202 units 1Density range of 1.0-3.1 units per gross acre. Upper limit of range based on mid-point of upper limits of range for Sites 6 and 7. 2Density range of 0.9-6.0 units per gross acre. Identification of approximately 16.6 acres of land as "flatter" land that can be considered for multiple-family densities, and application of a range of housing densities, results in the following: � 86123 10-9 10. Land Use - Range with 1 Range with Multi-Family Acreage Site 5 Density Plan Density2 16.6 100-133 units 101-232 units 1Density based on 6-8 units per gross acre, as stated on page 8 of the PIan. ZDensity based on 6.1-14.0 units per gross acre, as shown in Figure 1 of the Plan. If the 17 acres identified as areas of "moderate" slopes can be considered for low-density residential development, the following range of potential development could result: Range with ' 1 Range with Low-Density Acreage Site 6 & 7 Densities Plan Densities2 17.0 17-53 units 15-102 units 1Densities based on midpoint of densities for Sites 6 and 7, as discussed on page 8 of the General Plan. 2Densities based on low-density designations shown in Figure 1 of the Plan. Combining buildout potential on both "flatter" and "moderate" sloped lands in the EPA could result in the potential for as many as 116-334 units on 33.6 acres of land not having the three major constraints identified earlier, resulting in a potential for a density of 3.5- 9.9 units per acre on identified acreage. Summary The range of development potential on the 32.0 acres of land in the PPA portion of the project site not having any of the t;�ree r;ajor constraints identified earlier would be 35- 208 units, for a density of 1.1-6.5 units per gross acre. The range of development potential on the 33.6 acres of land in t`ie EPA portion of the project site not having the same constraints would be 30-334 units, for a density of 0.9-9.9 units per gross acre. Overall development potential on the 65:6 acres of land not having any of the three major constraints identified earlier would be 65-542 units, for a density of 1.0-8.3 units per gross t acre. Again, this number could be increased or decreased when other on- and off-site 86123 10-10 10. Land Use r- criteria are also considered. Further clarification of City policy is needed to narrow the range of units that can be located on the site. It should be noted that the precise identification of lands with less than major constraints, that can be developed in a manner that minimizes alteration of the site, is perhaps more important than identification of a number of permitted dwelling units. Once appropriate building envelopes are identified, the identification of densities and building mix become more relevant and meaningful. 10.4 IMPACTS OF A POTENTIAL ROAD SYSTEM Extension of urban services, including roads, onto the project site could result in impacts on adjacent lands to the west, the majority of which are under Williamson Act agricultural land contract. The purpose of this sub-section, therefore, is to examine the potential impacts associated with an expanded road network in the EPA west of the project site. The project site is considered part of the area's western hills, which were identified in a 1980 National Parks Service Study as an area of regional significance,9 suggesting that local planning policies should reflect regional needs for open space and recreation ! resources. Further, excluding parcels fronting on I-580, about 90% of the City's entire EPA is under Williamson Act agricultural land contract. The State of California, pursuant to Government Code Sections 51290-51293, clearly discourages public improvements on agricultural preserve lands by establishing guidelines for State and County review of a City's intent to approve a project requiring improvements on or across such lands.10 It is clear, then, that development on or near agricultural preserves is more than a local issue. Current Alameda County zoning regulations, which are still aoolicable in the EPA, permit 100 acre minimum lot sizes, and one dwelling unit per 100 acres. Assuminc all lards in the western EPA were zoned for a icultural activities. and assuming t ,at the area contained only 100 acre parcels, up to approximately 340 housing units could be developed. This figure is, again, based on County regulations and must be considered a theoretical maximum, however, as several parcels in the western EPA are la:;er than 100 acres. The City's guiding policy regarding these lands is to maintain Williamson Act contract lands 'as rangeland, provided that specific proposals for conversion to urban use consistent with the General Plan may be considered not sooner than two years prior to contract expiration. Another key policy appears at page 30 of the Plan, which states: 86123 10-11 10. Land Use Prevent premature urbanization of agricultural lands. The City's key implementing policy on conversion of agricultural land appears at page 15 of the General Plan, and is as follows: Approval of development of agricultural land not under contract shall require findings that the land is suitable for the intended use and will have adequate urban services and that conversion to urban use will not have significant adverse effects on adjoining lands remaining under contract. It appears that the City's chief concern, then, with respect to the effects of an expanded road system in the project vicinity, is that the timing of development not result in the premature termination of viable agricultural operations on Iands adjacent to the project site. Review of Williamson Act lands, discussed above, shows that only one of the two Nielsen parcels, in this instance the parcel immediately north of the project site, has not been renewed, resulting in the potential conversion of that parcel to other uses after a minimum of nine years. All other parcels have a minimum of ten years remaining before contract termination, and a minimum of eight years before the City can review project proposals. Access to the site can be conceivably achieved from four locations: Silvergate Drive, east of the site; Hansen Drive, south of the site; Canyon Circle, northeast of the site; and via the Valley Christian Center, south of the site. Only Silvergate Drive would provide direct access onto a major collector street; all other access points would require use of minor collector streets, or, in the case of the Christian Center, construction of a new road to connect to Dublin Boulevard. It is not known, however, whether the Silvergate Drive access point could be capable of serving project-generated traffic at a level consistent with maximum bu'ildout potential of 65-542 units (see traffic analysis prepared by TJKIM, under separate cover, for more detail). Site constraints (eg., slopes, soils, drainageways, tree cover, etc.) are such that construction of more than a minimal minor collector street network could result in the need for substantial grading and use of stringent erosion control methods. This would appear to preclude the location o? major collector or arterial streets on the project site to serve the EPA should it be developed in the future. Location of a minor street network on 86123 10-12 10. Land Use the site could act to induce growth on a portion of the Blaylock parcel to the west of the project site, and could even be designed to serve that growth. While a street network design for the site or the EPA has yet to be developed, and definitive analysis of impacts is therefore premature, it appears that expansion of a road network onto the project site, designed in a -manner to minimize impacts, would have limited impacts on premature development of adjacent agricultural lands. 10.5 POLICY REVIEW This portion of the section will identify applicable General Plan policies, and provide a discussion of the possible degree of project compliance with those policies. RESIDENTIAL COMPATIBILITY The General Plan, at pages 11-12, provides policies regarding residential compatibility in both the PPA and EPA. In the PPA, the guiding policy is aimed at avoiding abrupt transitions between single-family development and higher density development on adjoining sites. Implementing policies include a requirement that all site plans respect the privacy and scale of residential development nearby, and require a planned development zoning process for all development proposals over 6.0 units per gross residential acre. The project could, pursuant to the Plan, locate medium density housing on the extreme northeast corner of the site, next to parcels planned for similar densities. Further, this on-site higher density housing would be buffered from on-site low-density housing by the existing creek flowing along the northern site boundary, as well as the - riparian vegetation in the creek corridor. Location of low-density housing in the southern portion or the site would, if sensitively sited and screened, not be incompatible with existing low-density housing along Hansen Drive, or the Valley Christian Center. That portion of the project site in the EPA would be subject to different policies, again precluding the assessment of the project as a unit. As stated earlier, residential proposals (including residential support, if proposed) will be considered by the City or, moderate slopes, with multi-family densities considered on flatter land. Implementing policies include the location/extent/density policy discussed above, as well as policies which require a determination that provision lof services in the EPA not pose a financial burden on Dublin residents and businesses, site grading and means of access not disfigure 86123 10-13 10. Land Use ridgelands, timing of development not result in premature terminations of adjacent agricultural operations, and that the fiscal impact of new housing in the EPA not draw upon and dilute the fiscal base of the remainder of the City. The portion of the project site in the EPA would be subject to the policies outlined above. That portion of the site would have to be considered as part of the entire project, rather than a separate project, to accurately evaluate fiscal viability (see Section 10, Fiscal Analysis, for further information). This portion of the site could be the location for up to 30-334 units in areas out of steep slopes, oak woodlands, and riparian corridors. Siting these units could result in a decrease in the number of potential units due to the need to minimize unsightly grading and accessways. As noted in the previous sub-section, the potential would exist for the termination of agricultural activities on adjacent lands, but it appears that impacts would be minimal due to steep slopes and access constraints across the project site. PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY AIL A policy often associated with enlightened planning practice is the formal.recognition of open space resource preservation as a means of promoting public health and safety. The City's General Plan, at page 15, recognizes the health and safety value of open space in policies calling for the preservation of oak woodlands, riparian vegetation, and natural creeks as open spaces for resource value, as well as maintenance of slopes predominantly over 30;'v as permanent open space. In conjunction with this orientation, City policy, as stated in the Plan at page 35, regulates development in hill areas to minimize runoff by preserving woodlands and riparian vegetation. Further, creek channels are to be retained with right-of-ways for maintenance and for maximum water flow. Implementing policies include required dedications of broad stream corridors, protection of riparian vegetation, prohibition of woodlands removal and required preparation of drainage studies. Approximately 55% of the project site, or about 81 acres, is either riparian corridor, oak woodland, or sloped greater than 30%. Based on policy language, it is clear that the City's intent is to retain existing site characteristics to the greatest extent possible. Any proposal to alter oak woodland or riparian areas, or build on slopes over 30% would not appear to be favorably reviewed by the City. Clarification of the extent of alteration of these site characteristics while still adhering to the intent of General Plan policies will 86123 10-14 10. Land Use r have to be undertaken prior to initiation of detailed site planning efforts. The Plan policies on safety recognize the fire hazard potential associated with the steep, inaccessible slopes and grassland/oak woodland vegetation which characterize the western hills. At page 34 of the Plan, special fire protection requirements are to be imposed on project sponsors in the hills outside of the PPA due to the high hazard potential. Implementing policies call for the enactment of a high hazard ordinance specifying fire retardant roof materials, water storage, spark arrestors, and mandatory vegetation clearance around structures, as well as sprinklers for all habitable structures beyond five minutes response time from a station. As noted in Section 9, Public Services, sprinklers could be mandatory for any habitable structure approximately 400 feet west of the PPA boundary line. Further, the project would have to respond to the policy on construction materials and features; it does not appear that this would be a constraint to development. Policies regarding the public safety aspects of geologic conditions are discussed in Section 3, Geotechnical Studies. AGRICULTURAL Agricultural policies have been discussed in other portions of this section, most notably in 10.4, Impacts of a Potential Expanded Road System, and will not be repeated here. RECREATION Two guiding recreation policies are found in the General Plan, at page 16. One of these policies calls for expansion of parkland to serve new development. Implementing policies do not identify the project site for acquisition for recreation purposes, nor do these policies require any action by project sponsors in the form of park fees or land dedications. Therefore, it does not appear that these policies are applicable as part of the project review process. In-lieu park fees and land dedications are required as part of subdivision review. The City's Subdivision Ordinance provides for a land requirement of .011 acres per unit for single-family units, and .009 acres per multi-family unit. If fees are paid, the appraised value of identified acreage, assuming, that a project is approved, is used as the basis for determining the fee amount. The prpject would be subject to either land dedication or fee 86123 10-15 10. Land Use payment. Once the number and mix of units is identified, calculations could be made to determine land dedications and fees. Somewhat related to recreation, a guiding policy of the General Plan, again on page 16, restricts structures on hillsides that, "appear to project above major ridgelines." Subdivision and site design review is to be used by the City to preserve or enhance the ridgelines that form the skyline as viewed from freeways or major arterial streets. The intent of the policies is to retain Dublin's appearance as a freestanding city ringed by open hills. A portion of the project site can be seen from I-580 and several major arterials, and thus would be subject to the provisions of this policy. It can be assumed, then, that the area previously identified for potential development, based on slope, vegetation, and riparian corridor constraints, may be further reduced to conform to the City's ridgeline policy (see 5., Visual Quality, for detailed discussion of potential ridgeline impacts). SCENIC HIGHWAYS I-680, I-580, San Ramon Road, and Dougherty Road were designated scenic routes by Alameda County in 1966. These routes were those used by people travelling through the Dublin area, and provided venues to gain visual impressions about the area. The City incorporated, by reference, the previously designated scenic routes into the 1985 General Plan. The key implementing policy is to conduct a design review of all projects within 500 feet of a scenic route and visible from it. The project site is visible from 1-580 but not 500 feet from it. Thus, the project would not be subject to design review of all portions of the site pursuant to this policy. Regardless of whether the site is more than 500 feet from the freeway, it can be seen from the freeway. While no other guidelines are provided, consideration should be given to siting- and bulk of structures, building materials, planting materials, roadway cuts, and other landscape alterations, particularly in the southwestern portion of the project site facing I- 580 (see Chapter 4, Visual Impacts, for discussion of potential visual impacts). CITY AND REGIONAL HOUSING GOALS The City of Dublin General Plan Housing Element, adopted in January 1935, is the leading housing policy document in the City, and incorporates the Association of Bay Area 86123 10-16 ' 10. Land Use Governments (ABAG) regional fair share allocation for the City. While ABAG is mandated by State law to identify and allocate regional housing needs, local governments are not bound by law to attain housing allocation levels. ABAG has identified 1,956 dwelling units as the portion of overall regional need for the City, of which 665 units are Jo be affordable to households with very low (less than 50% of median annual household income) or low (50-80% of median income). Dublin's 1983 housing stock was composed of approximately 4,040 single-family units in 1983, or 91% of the City's stock. Recent development has resulted in a shift away from single-family homes, but the stock will still remain at least 75% single-family for the foreseeable future. Increasingly, households are having difficulty in purchasing housing, as housing prices continue to increase relative to incomes. The target for units available to low and very low income households will prove unrealistic unless federal subsidy programs for new construction are revived and sites for construction of affordable housing are made available. Housing prices in the Dublin area can be expected to increase rapidly as new residents to the Tri-Valley area seek housing near to work. In response to increasing needs for housing, the City's Housing Element contains, at page 25 of the General Plan, four goals that are intended to: promote housing of different size, location and price to meet current and future housing needs; preserve existing housing stock; ensure that housing will be served by adequate public services; and provide equal housing opportunity and access for all. Key policies include the designation of suitable sites for housing; the three areas identified for housing development on the project site provide tangible evidence of this policy (see 11.3 above for detailed discussion of these sites). Another key policy to provide below-market rate housing is City encouragement of developers to cooperate with non-profit providers to develco below-market rate units. Site 5, in the extreme northeast portion of the project site, is planned for medium density housing, with a capacity of up to 16 units. Construction on this site would result in increasing the supply of a small yet growing number of multi-family units in the City. Further, consideration should be given too identifying Site 5 for below-market rate housing, as it could be easily developed due to flatness and size, would be buffered from adjacent 86123 10-17 .. ♦. ...a...w•.r1....r .:....,v...•t..1r..�.�.LI`...'.h.•.......... . ....,. .. ... ... . ..'1ll �.Y�4V�C Tw'wTTS r..va.....— —�._..—� 10. Land Use lower density housing areas by riparian corridors and other barriers, and be compatible with contiguous multi-family housing sites to the north and northeast. Consistent with City policy, consideration should be given to developer cooperation with non-profit housing providers to enhance the potential for construction of high quality below-market rate housing. This housing could be for lower income households that are either engaged in or retired from the workforce. 10.6 DEVELOPMENT OPPORTUNITIES AND CONSTRAINTS Major constraints, which serve to limit development on the site, include steep slopes over 30%, riparian corridors, and oak woodlands, all of which are invariably identified in the City's General Plan for protection, preservation, or retention. At, no point in City policy statements is there reference to removal or management of these resources, with the singular exception of possible consideration of one oak tree as part of the project review process. It should, therefore, be noted that at most 81 acres, or 55% of the project site, is considered to have very low development potential. Further investigation is needed, however, to clarify the City's precise interpretation of such seemingly inviolate policy statement words as "prohibit," "preserve" and "protect." Given a literal interpretation of these words should not, however, be construed as setting the upper limit of development potential on the site, as reinterpretation of these words as well as other policies, most notably those associated with geologic hazards, vegetation and wildlife, ridgeline management, traffic and services, could serve to increase or decrease development potential. Major opportunities exist on the site to build housing to meet a portion of the housing needs of new residents to Dublin, or current residents wishing to move into higher quality housing. Further, an opportunity exists to provide below-market rate, medium density housing consistent with identified housing needs that the City formally acknowledges as difficult to attain. This housing could be located in the extreme northeastern corner of the site, and could be designed to be compatible with adjacent land uses, and not be built at a scale that might prove objectionable to residents in the area. This portion of the site is one of the few readily developable areas in the western portion of the City with appropriate zoning and other characteristics that could make below-market rate housing feasible. This housing could bel"tailored to, for example, the needs of lower income households working in the Dublin areb. 86123 10-18 10. Land Use 10.7 DATA SOURCES The following data sources were used in the preparation of this section. In addition, persons were contacted for various reasons in the course of section preparation. The names, titles, and affiliations of these individuals appear in the footnotes at the end of this section. Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG), Housing Needs Determination. San Francisco Bay Region, July 1983, p. 44. Proiections '85, August 1985. City of Dublin, General Plan, February 1985. , Housing Element, Vol. 2, Technical Supplement, January 1985. , Zoning Ordinance, 1985. , City Council Agenda Statement, August 11, 1986. , General Plan Draft EIR, February 1984. , Resoonses to Comments on Supplement to Environmental Impact Reoort, February 1985. County of Alameda, General Plan. Zoning Ordinance. David Gates and Associates, Hansen Hill Ranch Environmental Planning Studv, 1986. 1Kevin Gaily, Senior Planner, City of Dublin Planning Department, telephone communication, November 18, 1986. 2Darryl Gray, Associate Planner, County of Alameda Planning Department, telephone conversation, November 13, 19S6. 3John DeHorn, Consulting Engineer, Hansen Hill Development Corporation, discussion, November 14, 1986. 4Calculations of various acreages on, and off the site are derived from maps at various scales and levels of accuracy. Therefore, all such calculations should be viewed as both preliminary and approximate. 86123 10-19 10. Land Use z 5City of Dublin General Plan, February 1985, p. 10. 6Ibid., p. ii. 7A comparison of the Slope Analysis map at page 22 of the Hansen Hill Ranch Environmental Planning Study, prepared by David Gates Associates (project sponsor consultant), with Figure 8 at page 32 of the City of Dublin General Plan reveals that slopes over 30% comprise a greater percentage of the EPA portion of the project site than shown in the Plan. The discrepancy may be due to the scale of analysis used in the Gates analysis, which would facilitate more detailed analysis than that used in the Plan. $Calculations prepared by EIP Associates. City of Dublin General Plan, February 1985, at.p. 28. 10 Jack Fergeson, Principal Planner, California Office of Planning and Research, telephone communication, March 6, 1986. 86123 10-20 11 CONCLUSION 11.1 COMPOSITE CONSTRAINTS SUMMARY The main concern in this section is to compile and review the significant physical and biological characteristics of the site as an initial approach in contributing to the formulation of develop ment.concepts. The Summary Composite Constraints Map has been prepared by extracting from.each of the large-scale factor maps those environmental features that would preclude construction or offer high constraints to construction. The composite map is thus simplified in terms of the quantity of data shown,. as indicated below: CONSTRUCTION UNSUITABLE Mao Svmbol Description Ls Large Landslides Ce Creek Erosion Zone Re Riparian Corridor Sk Scenic Knoll CONSTRUCTION CONSTRAINED Mao Svmbol Description SL Slopes More Than 30% Ow Oak Woodland Vp Visual Prominence An examination of the map shows considerable overlap of the above features, particularly r around the lower slopes parallel to the creek. Although the map shows that most of the site is covered by unsuitable or constrained construction, it must be stressed that within 86123 11-1 11. Conclusion both categories there are exce tions and miti able opportunities as g P g P expressed in the individual chapters of this report. For example, the large landslide areas, though included in the unsuitable rating, should be subject to further site engineering studies to determine the depth and degree of activity of each slide mass. Moreover, both the vegetation and visual sections offer caveats for the high constraints areas within these topics. Where overlapping constraints occur, particularly within the Construction Constrained category, are areas that would indicate that mitigation techniques would progress to higher levels, and that impacts would likely be more severe. For example, oak woodland within areas of greater than 30% slope would represent areas of potentially greater impact. Conversely, development in areas not covered by map symbols are considered to be low to moderately constrained, and would incur low orders of impact. 11.2 ANALYSIS OF PRELIMINARY SITE CONCEPTS Two development concepts that have been considered by the applicant are labeled A - Hill Orientation and B - Creek Orientation. The former concept shows the main access collector street as extending along the long axis of the site, across the upper slopes near the southern site boundary. Developable areas extend downslope from entry-ways off of the main collector. Concept B - Creek Orientation indicates the main access route parallels the creek with access points to residential areas upslope from the collector. By overlaying the two concept diagrams on the Composite Constraints Map, some generalizations can be made about their merits in terms of relative potential impacts: HILL AREA ORIENTATION o More potential for development to impinge on large slide areas requiring detailed geotechnical studies to identify avoidance or slide stabilization mitigations. o Roadways are less likely to cross oak-wood land/swale areas within tributary creek, thus avoiding interception of wildlife migration routes. In addition, the main access route avoids the riparian area altogether. o More emphasis on development in high constraint visually prominent zones. requiring detailed siting and building design mitigation to increase absorption capacity. o Earth grading for roads may require detailed mitigation to avoid soil color cor.trasts in visual prominence zone. 86123 11-2 11. Conclusion (77."'a o Main collector routes would increase access to adjacent properties to the west, although this may be considered a potential growth-inducing feature. CREEK ORIENTATION o Main road. alignment impinges on riparian corridor although an adjusted alignment would establish a permanent buffer between development and the creek-side riparian community. C Moin nnoii Cr.^.°.V°S Q31:-::'^.OdISt:d incre°.cing impacts to I. i r`tinn wil,"ife 5 ...D through tributary creeks to the riparian zone. • Development oriented downslope nearer the creek could take advantage of building envelopes on flatter, high tree canopy locations within the oak woodland. • Creek orientation may occur more development downslope and away from visually prominent areas. • Main road alignment suggests a more "self-contained" approach, reducing future access to adjacent properties and decreasing growth-inducement potential. 11.3 RELEVANCE FOR DEVELOPMENT Given the number and extensive coverage of potential constraints inherent.in the Hansen Ranch property, a traditional large-lot subdivision approach would not be appropriate here. The uniform distribution of individual single-family structures carried out under uniform low-density zoning ordinance regulations would incur serious impacts to visual, biotic and geotechnical resources due to extensive building coverage)grading and landscaping requirements. To take maximum advantage of buildable sites and to focus design and siting mitigation measures on areas delineated as "construction constrained" will require a Planned Unit Development (PUD) orientation based on dwelling unit density transfer from open space and highly constrained areas to areas oi. less potential impact. A development plan could propose the clustering of higher net density common-wall structures at lower elevations while providing more open space and larger parcels on the upper slope areas. Density transfer would yield more protection and preservation of open space and could be implemented through the deeding of development rights. A high quality residential development on this property will be characterized by attention i 86123 11-3 11. Conclusion to exemplary building siting and design details. A mix of detached and attached residential products that are sited to take advantage of existing vegetation screening, while employing appropriate roof-pitches and earth-tone facades to blend into the landscape would be the most positive approach. This scenario should also include reduced grading techniques through the use of minimal roadway dimensions and cut slopes on hillsides. Project designers should review the following two documents for possible design and mitir ation principles. Both are considered appropriate sources of design guidelines beca::se they deal with local and similar landforms. The first document is Danville Hillside/Ridgeline Develooment Standards by the City of Danville. This material offers some useful and generic guidelines relating to*ridgeline setbacks, cut and fill on hillsides, roadway configurations, landscaping and architectural treatment. The second document Oak woodland Preservation and Land Planning, Portola Valley Ranch, by Hardesty' Associates, March 1984 offers more detailed guidelines, particularly for viewshed and oak woodland management. f 86123 11-4 t� It 12 REPORT PREPARATION EIP ASSOCIATE STAFF: Linda Peirce Principal-in-Charge Mark Trembley Project Manager Yane Wordhoff Geotechnical. Studies Baseline Ricardo Villasenor Vegetation and Wildlife Jennifer Toth Visual Quality Slope Analysis Jeff Hornek Noise Kristie Postel Archaeology Douglas Svensson Public Services Fiscal Analysis Chuck Setchell Land Use KEY CONTACTS: City of Dublin Planning Department Laurence L. Tong, Planning Director Kevin J. Gailey, Senior Planner Kathryn A. Wilson, Vice President, Venture Corporation Sidney H. Cerates, P.E., Wilsey and Hann Chris P. Kinzel, P.E., TJKM, Transportation Consultant Other contacts listed under "Data Sources" in each report chapter. 86123 12-1 { t FIGURE 10-1 'a LAND USE PLANNING CHARACTERISTICS SOURCE:OtrYi WSUN 6EMEMl/lNl INS'= I "II li L! GUIDINPOUCY - •.'� �-, 'r= 'r-"'r Consider residential d-0101monr 2 a - \ • '..- -_ Y' _ proposals(Including suPWnlacdides) slonos,Wrtn mulct-family I (�. 1 donsdios typically considered on Aador I O g I land. t •., 2 —': I IMPLEMENTATION�OUCY fie location,extent and density • r j` .-r•'• _�� 01"sidential development will be \t rr ^\\ .r" s vt derermmed When mumc'Pals.'ices _ _l can be provided and tnrougn Ganenl FREE`NAY 560 plan re/inemenrstudias. i�rf g�tpl MILES 2 FEET a v 1, .. a.:: 500 1000 2000 , DUBLIN GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATIONS EXTENDED PLANNING AREA POLICIES I Project Site I •Project Site i I ❑ Single Family Residential Primary Planning Area(PPA)Boundary' i (0.9-6.0 Units per Acre) i f � I Medium-Density Residential �� Sphere of Influence Area (6.1-14.0 Units per Acre) Open Space;Stream Corridor p _ l -- - .............. -- Ila ids.```` \\\`\�`\�`• ` - — fc� o. NN ��•''•�\ ♦ \� �. ; . X61 it ANCRNINN b WE NORMAN Mi \ -- >i`\moo �0\► \•.`� M `� dim ..��',i' ` ,�j•':�w. ' ��►•, ASMt- "Emlig INS IN � ���•'�� � ��j!1��,L��i«tom 7\�� y �\ 0 1 ! � OP 7a "W PA /'I/ �9'��I'iaj� �• I���'��Jfl /+��, ��Z�6�i Vii. :AA�r •:l r�i'0E% I Ire MON VAN � ,l'' .� �, ,��a►,,,;� k . IF -0 WOMEN N �N ON FA . � A / ' �\ Visual Features 0,9 _ - �` l ik 'LEGEND.: _ _\\"d \( / JI \ ! P Pr6mInenI Knoll Grassland Mjnor'RIdJe.. . ® Trco'Masses :' 't�� ? � ��� .-.�' / � � /'/-',` •� �� \\ it °s .. '� Cam':--\. � I ,,• �,_ � � . .� ,, .- . ... , _ .. \ \ _--VALLEY / \ b N .. � CHRISTI 'I ♦ TER N .. GE ... b -- �1_ K , °� � '� i �, � tip; \.. ,...•\.,�".�•i.:y.�.. 1 �/ __... ..... �/— •b a �`—�Hydrology, Geology and Soils 1 ti 1 LEGEND 1.. ./�����'� ` q .. '.�. �. :K..,•.vv.•nr m.,..n floral.o«rl.a tU I t II.SII a e, Soil Croo * ' �n.I. n•n..,.,.vvr•Atm•�•�r 1•••�• i „O \ Stream or Gully t $Q PP 9 P a•••. I ;...:� *:.•..• a ,k-Yk #ko...L.v a•Irnv n.,•In...uv.u.p Landsll,de Hazard Area •����� ��\ '.,� J---I� •, , ••..,, ••..r :.•: ��:�t' . ff-k-k•.aeoraino��e vo�eite ra.n.rail..,'[nr�r..:%, � �\ , :L ndclidos.. ;C�ook;:•Sotback.•Zono,.:: n. •• /n• n[...u.v,`.,.mi..•I iit_,., +'� .=��b �� �:,. �;,:.,t. ,�;,;�r?`i$jA.�:;�.. .,.�.�• ::i�:'' .oa..I�.�s.r.Inv'n7; I �� Vim• /// 1:7�:I, 1 1F PJfI:�'.,: �'��' �'G.i f: '.1 it;?;! ,:;;�ij9;•�-•f!.:f:,y"y:,7: .,�I•:1.,�..f.,t6e:;:�F;'t a::.;/,v: ' - 1.f:`•�.•liJ>`', ',1•., ,F.S. ..a[{%v:t,Gilri".i�:�:.,,pfi:f„^ti:•t:�`: li:;.,.;,. =�:' - ��t'vF.;,.". .5'lte''''i.. C I C.;r••,n ..r, V��i•:..., ^'�ir• [.:°i• r [ro � .4. q.f.a.�;.•eti�.• L�r.,ccp, rC;m'•...r.Ilt;�) r. /, "-�'•7:�..rY:..n:� r .,�••d,.. 7r,i, ,., ri'd'�:ry.f .J;,.�;t:o;4i(ii-`;:j?>',�;4;..':ai'!. �i�•;��: !�i>,i�;� n.LiulC:;+_•il.+:.A_t S(:li�.:�,flJ 1 .t .. ', ;' ',! � '��� Jc / ''_�� \ n •1�^ ��' nd'"� Nt14 pw. a \ [.Jtocwi •. ON :, � ilt i�•1 I -i Q-- p �� .:%'y: - b 1 �����\�----may:.� }1�•t� \ ,'i�/ •�' 11 I 1 ' . Pit V6b n City. irrili �Oqe ` �—�f j� •%. _..._ — 'v.:, _ n�c� I I� � ;�� , � `\.\ `• 1��` •� tl l��I� 1 — - 1 A \ �;•.',,,`` �..�°�' J / rti, Vegetation < i I':_ •iii• � I ' LEGEND:'' a coast, o`Oak%•y Mature Trees . �\ Safer. Forest,' O A�, m,�,;phru.m a. r... oru.u. M LI:o.w •, I •;•;'r.• :..1•1,•':1v�:li'.I•:,i"'•:'. :O,Ai.eolu.e.11le/nla. .O Ou.reu.lebol. :Nativo•For,ennlnl�+i't•�:�- o.w •t �! V ,:DUn CI1Jra SS)y!1'y:i[��r�f :/;':'^ la.nv '�umn alvl.rl..au.rni.. - •� ` C1r ):��:•''.i�:'%•:.�'i:,� �.Ot,..iC.lilernl.CYa.mor.• .�•C.Illornl•o.J .'Annual.Grasslond;' is 7. I'arlan..Coirldor'. �•�''I �., r �� � \-. ';fit: 'tt t. •.\ i - /= .• lip .• �. l' I l i :Dhb n Cit im,t \ i ilr ! zt�- - SAP \ =�% � '" -- - �•• \ �• \ '\ •, � � `1 �I 1 i ALLEY Ertt ll I w. � - l '� ��\J�ii:• l. .•CHRISTIkt . 1/ /, 1 11 kmQ\��• .'••!'• ��`� CENTER V. J, ;.,(..:,.r. n 1s _p�r{)Y't.�sy�J�, v° -% ,k�'t 4+n t. .f :.� ':r, r1 :rh• ✓i�Y, rr'.(yf.;7VY Rr„!°eYi'.p.� bx ,� Cyi' ?'i * .r. S •,.r, p,,, ro. }rr`;nu p' ,'•r. 4 , lA.)vrG•.6fi ,r.,• � m;'-i � �P.av, ,4rr�;'�ir:,+� ra' . R r,,”` �: 'e a w� ,i: �: ✓ .���, �r � 1?k y��'�<', R ',A'y? ,� .._Cf;:t r "i.. {{ t r.,k,� '�,:._w,ry� r,•:.,a,,�ijp. p �'« <� � "•* t� , ,:r�� � 4�1�5 r 'Si11,,yi. , fa rB,� '�"' y , r•, 'Y 1`fi �i 1 Y v}ei•, a i'1 S✓ , N�k I �},3 �9+F ` i.+fl n1r`n ""�i n tt' r ',is " ,z?"i.c:'•i.t.7J' d"� • >ti Ff,i ,� A°'4'{t.: f r •'r4. ..e rYP S. p.,Y�`�YY"'� °`, 9yt"n+ui�•1 r > `fY "00 ' -C " ''`•,�i * 4 L "tom r' mn;i.lg �•. ,t,�'!i w t^ i p r'Sn�{'x-�•cr7 U �r'� r'�e'�},.;,n t .T. �''�,�.- r�7z>^ ,,y 'jil�•"t +,f to rht :�i'�., e�:";i.1p•!^.��,,p;r p-i;l.' P a r wj°� .-.1�. •4 r Fc ,rkT ^2 x„r .,.*fr ct .f,kr ;f,"ro;<ritai�h4.x{fl ' C.A."fi .7.�a.,,, R7H•}. '� � er,,:NmrJ ,. �-0er,pfJbflil.,i;k°�9i r.rj :•• 'r !;fjr m•.p kA.kr N�fbi 7d•irL:;ifi,�. k r'x.u7fr+3 °riY 3 srr: {ytjJ4 i,):�4,i c4 iM1 ti..F 'w' fi3.',. +°J+.rY1 Yc.:yisfarx s c r Sr rRSx fJ'A r�• ��ar7' t �LS•,t °s r a a a K.r`.:� J 'r ! rJ!'.,5 :y arr a, b Sro }, •. �.Jir,,.'AiA 1 rJf !!'S n"i, Er �S" z'•'u'Ir"'4, ':..y.`•,,�7, J.r'rsU k,L 1'x' 5. r't my s' a,w 'S.r( y ;,e }*�;;.�,S+ k�r ! 'ar .,{.,,J.> ..1• ! rs; r5 ?.' t�-�J r y4 dcr ,, x;%',�Y ir, �€+•{}a�,:>_{r r'T�•�,S- ! ''f 3,.,.:+`n"'."f, 6r":E.'�: � hr..3'�wi"�, wgAr 'i�r 'r _ .a4 ar li + J.,”; ft yr a", t• tr.�+ {c�rY;"f'i y ,*y '�,. �Y c .^!cam.:,"•;a,. ��.. , 3r,fi 4�srr •�,�,t �a f f�Y t��.,,(lr7�F�$�'.,,. p ro f"i�e'� ;�iF�'`�':f`r✓.T7�� '.iot6 J�A'*.fi'�j`F�ti.� K t.. k'; ,:•, }, t r r,/+r't'� 1f, t4 �x�' S.il .r� � � � iA�F }PH��`t ��� /� tYr1sli 5r{.� ��4..��". a kt1t a� +, %' r r �',� a r 1 �*!kks ;:�.; tx.k e. v ;r�'. R 1 x a�'{r`�tr o �t-/�,.>��.�,1� * ?yt�; � (5, aJrnl:r `•'� a'�4,��° xta`�'� ¢?�„t` r . '. eY a,;�, �{ .,:, r.i.,/r:t.,, R� �•�' SI�t �,'rX k:��en�ge° }� 4d�/*t,r 4��t� i"`ff'rn�.�r17."'ri'�,,;C;c y�����"'+- 4,1�y t•,yrr�� Y?Y;?:',r-rLtYV�aJt Sr• �i F. ,_.., ......_...w.� ......... .......+.:.'.......«........�,.,,r,.......... ...t.,k._.a•�.f.n:P...:+ud},Y�iXtL^'�2 u:�:,,s�C.�.tr5��w'+�,°d£3:��..,'uf�:..;f 3P,�,5yf......•1,«..,�t J.wkn+.ti..al�ic�fifrYtfa Jub.,-Er+i«LdG,'o-i:+.tx...a...fsrt«m}.0§.r3••..a n:_....s.,,. • � ^ Russell C. Smerz y p 7530 Rolling Hills Circle Dublin, Ca. - 94568 828-7796 August 4, 1988 City of Dublin Dublin City Hall . AUG 81388 . Dublin, CA 94568 BAUM _ . Attn: Laurence L. Tong IDMBQN Planning Director _ Dear .Mr. Tong,. . : . Letrme' begin by'commending you and the planning board for your professional and thorough handling of the Hansen Hill Ranch project. Obviously, with the number of .topics discussed, and people talking, it would have been very difficult to note or absorb all that took place during the August 1 meeting. With this in mind I would like to submit the following summary of my comments to the board. Applicable Regulations: Section 8-31.0-Pg. 2 Agenda Statement/Staff Report d) Be compatible with and enhance the development. of the general area; e) Create an attractive, efficient and safe environment. Page 5 - Same Staff Report - "Deletion of Hansen Drive Extension/Addition of Alternate Road." The last sentence of the section states "addition of a collector street parallel to Hansen Drive.” Page 6 - Item 6 - Same Staff Report - "Amend General Plan to include alternate roadway serving Hansen Hill Ranch site (Valley Christian Center access road) and designate as a collector street. After calling attention to these sections of the staff report I pointed out and showed on the wall map the exact location of the "collector road." According to the plans submitted, and the model layout provided, it will be located directly adjacent to the fence line bordering the Silvergate Highlands Townhouse property. This is on the northeast corner of the proposed project and feeds on to Silvergate Dr. My fellow homeowners and I would like to voice our strongest objection to this "collector road" placement for the following reasons: Health and Safety - of the resident's bordering this "collector road." With the construction of 248 units)irectly adjacent to our property our estimate of 5 trips per day/per unit or 1240 0 ehicles using these roads. As the location of Silvergate Ave. to the project is much closer to the project than Dublin Blvd. (exiting through Valley Christian Center) the vast majority of vehicles would be using the "collector road" next to our . . ' 87-045 Hansen Hill R. Smerz letter dated received August 8, 198S r c t .,t ; r . ;,5, +'' '. !••TY 't ' i l r � t ac.. rt s t* i ,r \V l C�Y��, .� ,� �' t t1x ♦r ` _: `'_. '.. ,., � tt:..t k �.-.r.t�r t Y r{�':?t vl � Ar r.t i r. 'a)� 4. !. dS �l� � S �'dr•�xti;1: i5,t M�Y 6ti. }u �3 rr 4 4k � ; { ' 1 r i "`':i'ti' � Mt, e 4 it r r.,s} ' 7, �^ sr•c-ipy•i i}?C�J a. ?' " r ru v..� „, t .'. s j.i 1: tt .?�+tu 4 x.' iZf; t. . sl •r't a a 'Cv .x415.. " t,i' A Yix � ui➢1{� h Ja r R ¢i7 xray tai A: �k fi 4.1 x� 1 A 'i"'• d 2 ',u i 4 .+� X + ,;: •ii�,�`y,arr>f+t4 �t s Y ,,�• :y;, r (JS. nfsY r 5° t 1 t t \ i,�. 2 ..r � ,,+ t,� � �••� y u',+ SE � �•�ci t � °t� ti'�IR}+ .� 7� c„ ' PS.s•T. 5J �'r t{, x; _ �.. k:r.' C9Sa;� ,.•.i.n kh p, Y .,'v4 e'.� x V, . ;t,.N` x�'r}•y C a>3.\ ..�. : w�' '• :J"rqr•) 11 5 - y, wp .a�"�3 ��i, r•fi r* fit,.+.: � ti u x• a , , t d :__qq th}fixtS+.A�i s',r.. p y t} hrTit '^Cil 2h.�N \`C'e ;q;V t' .:t^ +A•rti; ,off 7'PYi�,'T t`1�t ..' '":'?4'diF F 1� 5 t ,..,.,'`t� y.df.� �xti�,(' Y�' M ,'J f t° x'7 ",Kk,e �iy'k .SY'irr. at ,� f`kti,a r• �,a1, ia1 4+f<<3;l i+.�1yn,.9 ��C �t�. v7;.r'tl �'1 kYt, �-��S tti, �>.* 5 3;..y ti ?:.tt::�� ..i. �,. ..•ri.�. r' t::aC'•...•.�Y rhl_y,r.J�,,..'�,dt::dli��c.�..,.:1.�Ss a -.,+,'4: 1� t ✓ ry'�trti +- 15w.+l'�;,r. r �q,;.�,.,, LL t :.;M...-,.f,rrr:Y,,..M ... r.ri'A: .,r w.a«;z 'r r:r:.sY .., y, #•ice jk"?^`P fr':' rYt•. `�' rk:.e" fia.. SK, 4 Sr. .7.+?�c, ,'l.v";,a7p rr 3vv•. r, r . li r t Y. �+: .� �r f IAN ra' z •' t �, &; �.9pyry`,, *�; YC{� -]�:..„t'�y'�,, 3.jaf,..: . :"'! L. Cc,.!•><N'a? '4NS Y�,r3. .; �'n .',�4.fS 9 'v,..5o.'} Y+k yr y t ;tfr#�'Y- ., c`�A '!5,. +}S ( f•ti7 r�yf<h�y. i,. �,?,,..fJ :;3r�v. .)'C� 't F.Sr'F:• . r Ss+� �,v+ .�°rY�$?�L.,•} f �k w';q,• :� s. �'. .r . Nt,,� :. JS.,,�A�,�G�.�•�pr'1-�J•.t•# •.` yL.If�rt'��„�°���'Q.�.y,� :,,s ywa' ,,.�r�:r,�z � A!,��; f =;� S._�r r$ t'�i ,r,•} 7� ty,C m±,�t�i°fi, ',. '.f t •' ,: a ,r �# *��' �r J,^ ,F: `- 5u�'nT,r,PSx�'" "r:•tk, "3T,.' {,£#` 5;. F":�kt t+� ..;rav r. •.. d,ir r+ y ., fir , ! r ' >r �r j r3 C 1�r_ "'E .t t :qx uC Fn K. M..,;..Ya ! �..:p<.0 4p4�.,J •'�t�,�� ,ig��;{�Ta, � „>`,�?+} ,�Y_r.. A`'f, r e�.,��lf y,,�,v,+t', •,v� ir.. ..�^p 2 tt ".,.�i /:t4..,.t5„�tP,.ct..4r,' r,vr: ,4 c. i':.'$,, 1r- '..' . .`' - •,.�, p]� L^ :.,:. t7ss ,�..ar' • r '�.,-.aj;y '' f yTi .. `^ u r..f, '.A7`.`�. >;..,w;b x., $, , "'Y•ylL. sir'{ -C' :2'r``` Mri"°r.�...v a �'�S!d,•. .�•e,,: � P`tr :• : � _, `�"yay�r,� t.r'�.✓it Via, �d' d r Y �;:��t+)",c.<�,{� ,s;rr, rye. �p :v.• •. .• �.r..,,,.,,,,}}} Y };,3.• III „}'yc., (�, „"5,. < $: ?2`: a. i iF?• }. ,1' "r2tJ .��• ,.7"; #ti ,. r.., et Y-y” yy i?aw .• S< ��•�yx.. a:uh .er y_,"I• .av 5."w J.� 'i yix'-+•e�1.. ,,,. $.., .,. .:!.a . _,.fir ,. ,n is>, f+,:r"� '4tr, + a. I+]'wd -'.t„:rn. r-r �J• ''.t'fp. 3L,r• . .f'k Sr^i ,•�-', t +"j P r il t•^;_nom" a.r;«,*.F .+.,+' d•.(:,, Y .1., e,.n �5� '3 h•. '.!"F a r, } , ..r .. 's<Vr �i:M*? r 4r. a,' r r• !k.ma i:. ;. }',fil”. vc T.,{err:.as `5'x A.+?,.•.r•{.p. J" 4., ::rt' "•'' .r' t.?'�w:. i., y+j.: r. .:� .f ¢.,.1, r€n i.'kr :5_ r .A ..-Y: .d r7, f h•,i r N,. f,a v'. },...,r F�ll�.. r. .. y.'PA ,�.(. r# 9•:fc 'rJ' #� •;.,,.r <. ..:.N."J.- At, d +r &.ar o. 7r. ✓ a•,;4. !41 .<:4 5,,yy.„ a .:!td' `•.0 r�»•••��..'< •K., T.. a�.r-j{'g '@j �.1,..,.'Ir ::.,,.: .�.',/"kv,`Sr't ..r'.ie. rr.� riu r"s.. aF"ria ?r,: .. rw&v' 'h_/s,;l:�'.t. •{j pr '',ns„�r d..rl ;.'*'k::,%�+•yr E, �7i .;< ,,�s. ,n_,..�,.f„{�'iv .�� -cLe,.��E � r..q d+...¢?•., ....'r. !r},l: •+,f,?°w ,r t1s { p,t, .t;.R r ^,�,4•:. '....r",Jy=,.•, r � +"A,FE v w9 .+ ,;.1 F�.;.n .' ._.,�s{r -v sy rr�n"(d•`<w ,;•.Su.»„ ,h ..., �.•rt ..K. � �, ,. "&w �•r z;,.,s' ,..nq�},z�f,a1. � Z !t«. f -.t�. i�t '�',•:7 ,h, r+,ar,'„ a^1 W” !..tr +.7. '?,_�3� ^. ;r..;}.., :.,-,. ,✓,a s.,.�Ja".T'. �' s#p,_�tY '+�S� rJ,, - �.z�'� '�'-4#r'�ta&, �W �-.�,lv ^'w r4ti .��E'fk?•.f „+.�`a, d.. ,�'.. .�v a•-iirw L4,...,�7. '.,�. x.rn.r ;2.-...- .t -"�' �a, �y.��ti cf'�.� ,�:r> ;+J,,>'�r.,1,,,,fv,.,..f„s`;a�..>'a l.5.1.,.lti r,.,f c a?j`.,,.:s-�'_!5.t;,.1 Yr r aA.f�,JM�,.,',,....@r..<t,,h.�9�t^�t.fi i/.'I°;ai,..r..r_,>„l,:..J:f,a ntt fa a.��,'t+,.4'v,�}�-.;t.;3`:.„,b'.y..r.r.x..Y-{,�,:,,w nz__Y'��„is}!s!x�3�,7'itf'i�r"rf.”...`-rd..t:zl�r,n.`.,•r+,;�(,�y,,,s t^a zi'•r 4M�''.{"3�a''•:ev�'nr xr 5 a.�yr� �,;z r'.r'y tS.,,v r„t'�.�rc,.„x'3.,,.n.Uxt7'F i,h•'.f?.:«,G:;:-.•]3'w"i^r.,�>.a 1?..q`a,,,..•N,r��•a•F�s v3 ty J,�.+.;t�i,"_�.::^,.•e,r Y�.�,t v J o"'e�;..,i�''•�..,w:.a'.a,t;�`+i4 y.Y i$n.•�,.,;+'.+..!r�+�,:.�.�ar yY 15" r. .' ,. s, w*�. Li ;..,t"u�, �LT. iq :! t,k ,r ,y },,, »,•., r..cri ” >SwIW`.., �„ '7,'. r.* 4 t( d,: � ati +�1.N+4.++ ''f�•�J,kl' Jkur�,.,�kf4.3>',�$ Toxic Emissions - All townhouses along the "collector road" are constructed at an elevation above ground level of 12 to 15 feet. Our major concerns are toxic emissions and noise levels. The basic health of those living directly "above' -a street handling arge numbers of vehicles could be severely affected by breathing emissions (carbon monoxide is one of the most deadly gasses known to man) on a regular basis. This condition is magnified by the fact that a road entering onto Silvergate Dr. must have a stop sign. In other words, every car leaving the project which uses this exit would be required to stop (hopefully) , idle until traffic was clear to proceed onto Silvergate, and then apply extra gas to continue onto Silvergate Dr. All these motions of a vehicle increase emissions. (If you would like to test this, stand on any street corner where a stop sign is located that is heavily traveled. Note the air quality - then move down the street to an area which has free moving traffic. The difference is obvious.) Noise - During the meeting I referred to Section 6. Noise, contained in the Environmental Assessment Study and pointed out specifically item 6.3, Policy Review. It's difficult to imagine, given the traffic patterns described above under emissions, that the noise level for residents living in this area will not be higher than the 60 dBA regulation slated in this Section. Please keep in mind the elevation of these homes directly above and to the northeast of this street. It's also a basic fact of nature that our wind pattern carries from West to East. This air flow will also carry'both the noise and toxic emissions. Our homes are located on the northeast section of this proposed development. Safety - A brief comment was made concerning the speed of vehicles using Silvergate Dr. Our association will be contacting the city regarding the addition of "stop signs" as the intersection of Silvergate Drive and Rolling Hills Drive. Due to the rise and lowering of Silvergate through our community there are concerns about the ability of autos to stop if necessary for crossing pedestrians or autos. The expected increase in "cross traffic" preceding north on Silvergate from this "collector road" could be dangerous. My final comment referred to Section 10 - Land Use Page 10-12, para. 3, last sentence. "It is not known, however, whether the Silvergate Drive access point could be capable of serving project-generated traffic at a level consistent with maximum buildout potential of 65-542 units." I was a little uncertain what this applied to and, understanding the nature of the meeting not to answer questions, but to take comments, realize it may or may not be directly related to my prior comments. My interpretation was that the staff already is concerned about this "collector road" , however didn't have sufficient information to make a conclusion at this time. In closing I would like to reiterate my satisfaction with you and your staff in handling all aspects of this project. While concerns of others relating to landfills, land cuts, trees, fox and even snakes are important, I'm personally concerned with our most valuable asset, the people. Please feel free to contact me cone'erning this letter or any other aspect of our community. Sincerely, ?,74 L m�- Russell C. Surer r � i, ` t ,i ` } tif x C art i} ,a ter`` ''fit°t+'9 t2}�jy,t.�:tA.y°,y'vt •`t y a � }.� ` t i r..,` }t.'. x r � l f,r� } q }�. � t�\ �� t :y\ < A`',y SAy 4 ,t�rwr^•°xt'.a�' c i+�v .�l,}�:C vt}k�4b k"1t•t# r � y rs `: �, ^ �! �.t�,Ta Yt. rf, �+, yt� �}� r Zt. "•\ � �,� tir �R S i \:„A.ro a �its,Jr��•._:,\i�4 at�,r•ir:;�`b ran�{r+r �v<`"�.��b7. 2.. Y�..e'1' R„,r .. r- +1„ .r r ry\�+t,;]: ,r.�t.t � �,.-��t '' ',',.:T x'zxte :.; lr'�..>+ 7 +•+ :t,*!.,y r,.�v i t ,.Sy9;a,t t,� .�. 14�' :.rat ��` i+:.'#,,,,�'1., •,'�o`t,,.n� �uw:4 l t iF s..�.:, { : .J ,,.,, t ar, }'- i ] �� Tt. icj- r t t.•o < +, c. .4 r ri S 1 t �'1 N 'C c a,�,ti� ty £ �`a;,�? �♦Vj{.t}y'A r�. .#1, .;�.'r ]:7 c...'•r4>>a:._•.:1-•. :ai :.'rF1 r yti:x•ty ,,., �:. .1,. ....1 ft't.;.;��1q��yN 4'^ly.kr�ii�7�.-�i ti,iT r,St �ntii; 4V�'*�17f�t�?`S8:' ,"°Y L!� '?.ta. � .. � .i '4•'t\�71. �h+J•1 "l� ��•: 1 r ¢.,, ,F. .�.,. y4 h�3. 1 ,•t:..% 'C.l" , �'�{{ �YT'�,$q"4•.'S�r'��•.t✓r:.•'k Ei,: va'�!F.v'l'fi� a �\ t $•i•4a,? 1t 4�?J,.1• S✓ .;�."`` ; .:rL4• 'Wra� »r1S � � i +;O r} wr h r.�, 3;:..r't "�'.i:v?".�.%i�,r.:C a,� .�;�;d,• q�e-,-�rr�s, k .. :.a4..`-.43 •,.?:x !S.tl,a.rS'l� ,^r..'y�. i. c4 ,+>�•z '`- t$� sa r a„. ?.r -!'4 1 '.,t:�t� 4�. 't. �.,+x, ,i,..;t: ��� a,-.a 5,�+-`�.�F .S��, ,Et'ia�^., w>wgf;`�.y��v u at ``F x4;''�.�r��i y. ±� r.;ww��r ,'k„� 't - 5- �,..¢� ,'.i y?eHt".,,•^��- k't¢;f;h.- �t ,x„^�^ C..:.+�«�; �+ ,;i•"°3 a:;+\:!;� 't :�"„1`t<.?����,i,,.t�ia•Y..\>•b:3.15e," �1,,gga�l•n-s,tt.•h; �,e^�5yy�$. ,A H,.4� a.,m J t...$5 r t t� at�.n��`jv.: b';y��^':,•e� '-t .fir fin: 6d t,+ ti, ;g t^\ 3. +ryA:a.,.3+� t 1, 7�,Y r.,M .! a,..,+,A',.e;ti �.i at(i. �. 6S- '°S Z..,„ "r. It '{w+a ��`�+.`, r -t{ 4i 7�.'�;. uY v .t�-� ; A� b at�:a t t' „o . -*:'r+ 4 t A�y,,+,At\`1#-x 7 - r +,�S Y <tka"x,R +} ', i t ,�•' ,:i,.��,,r..en.x�x+,'V�..��R.,..,'w b�.:,..:a.t. �,•trr_,,. ....:.�:k.�'�SI�S'�,4a1,.@ rr "r�•..:!aw`�h..,.,»z ....,,..'S�c.,.,..,...�a<s,:?>J.';�-: ��R�;�,°_�„r;�?�*1`�..c, '�4..s;5 ..v..`,..��x ?.5}^,�*�•"�;t.....#e!La�_r ..•,,..,��; -tf t 1 r.rN•w rut n..nr �. �, \ . • , SUBMITTAL FOR �!1 u';• ;{—. �j�f,, "•y - _-"" ' DUBLIN CITY .COUNCIL t l ; �• ' '\ °;;' �- 1lY'L k-is 3 � y "% \ n.rss.. MEETING ]],t� i ' .7•a"�,•, M / \.�._\ _ xr t'rN r7�•:���`�-•�lai..t•e 7 f° !t■�i,s/i».° ti•`.\•i • �7 s �"•*•`•°,...."_. i .41 v►± /*1•►a.�.f�r•,-�..• 'n.>f t f°•:�., •.t ae �a-�°7 •y,� • I.f-.✓,.•af.•"..- ��, •i•• ._. t 1v 4'h . 'i allovember it yaa :°° !J �.��•-•'J'ji-� _ .1/ ' ` r �.a > ? ,. )\ .Y' •\•/ `�ts •�ato C•�itt_ m• _it a'f• �'f . ' aof�.. '�'` '•^tea..��'j+ 'r 1 .!� - TREES NOT AFFECTED As—as •` \\ /,..7, _ BY REVISED GENERAL .1 7.a . .;. ,-- _ •- ,,.r; �;� --_= .._. PLAN PROPOSAL , t 7 • /� -�•'�e , 1.9 i, Ja ` / a.L V1 aOtiai. '\ •!.� -..e - Ity'` \ ,/ n•i¢�ti • C r.+e n» — �1 •�- , a>r t a � ,.`• I p _ +y^sJ_. 1 _ / aa►a.• o •ai;Jr, t ,\ aa- �'•\ '1 .,a to � .. ., v E -- - - .� � e •ale ` ,�..` ' DU OUN rax rK f^ \� \ • T �� .f--•_, C`�^ry' . n _ as .. ]J• tA r y.r-r ° • x:s� ',T•.t.'. <�r.. � ...� !_ �_. 1 ._�_� _ .fO....�'�'w..r' o.�_... ..�_��^ � ��--«e• .If•fa•»•L.N+.f•• .. so yi.. �i•.�` y= '�" r••t k f i t�f '•.. 1• rrw �v r... � �.• -� •`,1. °�:�i•+ - • .�-•`• to rrY o•fl•rt L.w,lu' ..If.f„ �_ Y �, oil •,`l•7. +•, ���� !. �; � si �^ _ .\\ y oir'f 'rte r,1�� d �� i.n•ff•fr L.ar.m• �� ` � F � �✓ �f•�i �` fifer :� 'r' .,.ft->.•ls'L-•r.m• � - - � •or ' \�• - * \ \\ af.0 \/y!= .w.ir w+.rf ,r.«r ,ww.Jr J II I ._ tr ` - /-�,f • ` • J•ff•'• �-f r/-... r..cr r:a• � - ~• tr nr,. ti ,L?il `a,,` :'r'a �f p+•' i nrs l j ' 'rsa PAW 1 x ^ a ' L ,`\��'��. 1 ♦�� `i :.i7»-\,\`_ f- •••a nl.nn LEGEND i a j• 'ixr • �� `1 ::}� a_ Aye \, .. ��, O TREE WILL BE AFFECTED.BY DEVELOPMENT •1 O TREE MAY BE AFFECTED ` .•:i,-.:.�s� _ •-�I �- .1.j .y w.•ur O TREE NOT AFFECTED .. , IaZtI. • rl•y.Ois•R- >! ��• `.l f,I i •f•L Y•7f•0/'L-�.fi•• '. 2i1 Efu•'E Y-0' b Za 0 b IN 11• . I.Y. • MrA/ TREE WTTM TRUNK FOR DREATER I 4 ♦ �.,,, / o.rf•7••o-L.Y.Y• SEE SHEET TrT FOR TREE TYPE 1 SIZE Ir at fw.uf AIr oa -ie.•rtr.• '�,.;;.> . I:.. r - nlras./ r 1 . 1 J/-<f .IN.L. 71•Y•L.1L • �� - ?- ! ........... �.�•�. .n uer. ,u vn . WILS E7 • NAY -' I ' ..Hill .Ranch :Hansen 'Mlv.' TEjJTAT MAMEN .ML� DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION ^_ °i' •'/' — -� $� 87-045 Hansen Hill L. :S. Applicant's Submittal Map 1 Trees Not Affected By Revised tt ACHM General Plan Proposal 3 • s -•,� �„ \,��. /i- "',� ;-- •,• Ks .� az•,aw Daa,e•re••s y.�� . . - - _- CD SUBMITTAL FOR_ "t ',r „ '•' DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL i �;�, � •\ � �\ ,:' MEETING. November 14, 1988 �t ►'•Y ...<� .�. \ `(r `.� \�•a 'pa.1.R�o `•.\d ''�'• � .� .�<. iq � 11 =`\ <• . . 1 ^� \ t TREES NOT AFFECTED //• �" � ,�, BY REVISED GENERAL '+ / MIST,•DUDe,•TYD•aDTulaUU• \ \ ' „- ,1,~.,, \�� / '�'"J y� PLAN PROPOSAL - ` .I /� •s, �s<, "�! .: � • '�\ � I hL \ •� �� N ,' ��` hb to • , 1 ,IV ... t r'•��f ` I I .(11: / .1 1�^1 \�•I i•�, � � � M<2.«t a�I. }}; fi-•<2 Ts. /MI b i`h RR I'w/__� I 'f Ms. !1 I , , T `.!I A<r F .< +S � .•or — �.. / c II � I wss l ,•-.tA'� .rr/ fr�1�1' I � � L ` � I2 '\V 1's \\•.,~ � 1 'L< / • dol '� ti'R \ "iM .�� � %!�_ ��'• a I �_FL f fll 9 s�4:i•I'^• •a �.I ,.n ^r .*••\`i` � �aea - `L �'�. Y ,\ •3(�\: ./ i� �, �. =ice:Jli ` 1: �' </�/./sue !•� `,�`�\ •-.•� S t .LOT 71 -XiMp 3 J/,!rf \ '.\{`�/ /� b �'1 !� _ •�'r•_. — \�/ f - — - TT'C5P7^�Q( ' .Y,�..` ( +YA \\�. i. 'd .on I. /•12 Ira<' w<o •aa Ir.a- la<• ay :r' e. � ..r_ b'• �\���``' �I _ I I II 1 �I 1 �� i 1 I ���� t I I a ,N�V• � m /•�a �_ -- ' � .. •.. ... - �_� �...- � to i • � - 11r .. •�1 l � \ \ � ... _. A .Ih• Ir <aall jl': !,a / %� ? . _ LEGEND '„�,�,,,;��/• � _ .._ O THEE WILL BE AFFECTED BY DEKE[ •ENT - _ •.v „ • jj _y 'O TREE MAY HE AFFECTED , � - 16 'NOT TREE AFFECTED / li 3L/,• -' SES SHEET,T-T FOR TREE TYPE&SIZE ' . ss/ TREE WITH TRUNK CIRCUMFERENCE 3'-0' g - •L,_. - _ .. • .. - OR GREATER '....0 -'>+%fir• - S �.fi I wat 1..an I I �•w• y - Hansen'=Hill Ranch - — °'.�°~ NILSITY . AY { "ANISEN 'HLL' DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION `� _ _ a . ti TENTATIVE MAP • TRACT 5766 ' `" �,., `TREE SURVEY r �■ ,,,a ,,, SEE SHEET-T--7 FOR TREE TYPE 3 Sra \ '))ll '✓y � �o SUBMITTAL FOR t ) �`� DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL V `� rl/ n>r ♦'t / / MEETING E WILL BE AFFECTED BY DEVELOPMENTX 1 r sI 1 r ' \ ri / .1.• /� -�.,i TRE -� ir•i :. a- e'. r-•s- a? y O TREE MAY BE AFFECTED 'h /•rfs y ry:'r •J fi �;..,,...�a `.� •. \ III � �` • ,,.� - - November ,14, '1988 \= "�Q 7 O TREE,NOT AFFECTED aw• •!�` - - t ii i1 ''� I ,r ��.• aaa TREE WITH TRUNK CIRCUMFEREN`CC��A a ~ �• S F ;f' ;.I+ i,w. ., •✓ \ !ro � ,�I air .. n.t TREES NOT AFFECTED A I's BY REVISED GENERAL • r ^ is f.• •-ru, : :.. Sal�/f \''• i °' PLAN PROPOSAL y� Sos 'If r {� ,f • � tae• (�')\�•1 Y - � •aq .. e!! S<� - : ua-•� �a�j a m < ` 1 !• � as .._. /QO/a A ase�'-� •a ia.• .-.7C NsN - ♦ F\\` as zannw uw,snwlwn nu rua iSU-� }-_ • . ••�Vf'i~� •'r uia »au. w 1�� a✓ a,i .f } s-/.. :, w„ EC E ,aef o• ♦a.d • )aa � SfR�- aastN _ i - x .• �` \ ,o�,�leaa.wa• ' « as •_,•tis °'... � �.a.r�,. •� ry - 1! ,! •%• •�,ao, ,aoiaas. waM ... nr• .�a� y: • F ',I. �c• wr�..-Zf �4 �y.1 " �d4V [�/I�� as • \ a• � ♦: � 11••ar\ �. • b 20 e b w tae //�� aa_l�•r// we ,\� ,•b,'•,� >• •!fh IM/ {Ca1.R Ir!.,[I�r aaar`/ .a, aa0, �',/�' 1 ' �.��)•���.J/ri V„� ` Kam` �• v���;a+. of aaa. _• 1 � .�.' r �!aY•a,i�� •�yl/ /uo i . '\ , , aaa• ill.'11 ,. .aa ` ao• 1 wi } *' .na '-a a,.; t t � w 1' •A -.l \iar ,a'--1 -i•r!��=�) ('� {a:. �'���` '_\,o.),,: a,v \ � � - - l � a,i /I .•Y. a. a\.y..�aia - y)f f � �q•�� w� •'•�� V I \ / _ - .V - .� \� a • �[ aa• IJaa r fa. "\" alyl �W... :J�ir .. . C •.\` \! _ \ • ao. .<l,lC -1a `` SGf JO! pY� ' �aaa� rBa• /`\/ Ifs V. y af0 Z/`-` �.' wa• `{oaa �.♦ �' :'aia � \ '! aaa♦ \ laaar -{0a•)OY •{ a •` /: o . � `� a4• 'a ws• �1'•�, ^u, y>.' �\ Sol ,�\\ 'L��:��� � i,..-±� aii \ � �.alp \' !�" i/ 1 •�. ,• Alp. \��• 1 �fa > _ ,aaa nu \ r l' -���' •°o'•\ \ 'a, r•a �. �'•.,` F /�1��� / .' ' .. `irr S tl '. .ta i'"n�/sS '" \\ �.�. • a \ff•'�a •'y, 11��� � �>1�.\ ''� Sy t ./ / \\ Sos \ ;_ '.rai .aaa>••�a1 >�/ \ :"+' aAr \ ra{raa F•'i: r)./ . Tarr pw .. �� \ i r•{ to � �� ` � ru..v � � t•nr. \ / /�•• a'. n., _' - �y •,aaa w, ,\�` tr av �.•/ za,.- 1 i• \ ✓ `mil nn rm r ?ff '\`\ /' �r �. `�\ - _ - •'! Aar \ A nN� �� •wy 1 - :?l� +� 2 r, Hansen Hill Ranch °���� -— T' w�� �- _ . . causer •NAY _ w.,. w►risEN rur DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION '.: TENTATIVE MAP • TRACT 5766 _ `_'• TREE SURVEY �,. s�...�.a�.., .T--..�.-...�--.._- - _- .,_ .. ... .. ---... _ �_......... .. ._...._._.._.._.._._.- .,._ _ .. .:.. ... •.. ,. ,..cerrs�.-^r�+cc•v--•T—st=-taW,r-+z—�,r^:- . ...-..,.-.-.. -...,... .. ...., erg ,..,.. .... �.. °i i�j* c � OO ^ ^ +r.�•, tl �ucsc 't .; ;e::l.fjry•-r.-;,��'i��,,�t._'.�'-t",:�• "` rvSUBMITTAL^_FOR cart \ DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL A.I.L _�,\�"'�` ,�•-„ k = — =• .. \� MEETING - November. 14, 1988 30 1131 ..aJ TREES NOT AFFECTED M 'i°• =„r'� I 11 •! ', BY REVISED GENERAL PLAN PROPOSAL ' '':a X �_ `naa � ,.w t��• t,sa� v: lal •. tit. f f RE ,t ua Ila � -.. _�- 'm. t a�~b•a.tt ,N�n1e _ i i' o .., - YED ..••: ,. ,t; \ '! :1,Y}v/l; ,.a•.= �\a�� t,;a - :fax. `' _... ,, if ' � �•� `„a j � .. I t '� ,t' , � j p�'- ��.A+1{c'11u�,C tt � , •.' - -- - :v:_ -� ' '^ta• a tai- i .�% '�' CIA ( / � _ / oaa •~ � ,�.-.. tie xw� it, a �” W _. ' tioa team-,' o•o,o _ ' �`_ \ < ` y . �, s. M :, %f i% - ."0 7-�_ .•� :'.\ te.e. Ie�r ` - �t�mat . , Il .♦ , G/.,.\,\ \�','�' tv 044) toga. � °i.. ar � 1 \•. ttoaf I �oaa ,io .tt n �•� ,e�,,, ; .. It "y_'. tw.w• � W3 tes i ••�/ '� t� \ � I� .VI ''�./ { \ °"'• _ its I� r /' . ,e,.-•+ w,.; - ,ei� tm to � toia� �L�: .. , i, a _/�'� ' ,» ? ` = ..-+aria ai; .►• >e•� rl - f,I'y , \ �` `� `, �.c 'lE� .N rat `� 1 ,ou toL�� leor tO1'"�ieaa\.\ \ I1 d , -•;'ICt .. SEE SHEET T:-? t 1 ; ,e2 uaa'1t`�` FOR TREE TYPE b rt :Y.. 1I � .-�-•\ ,ew �^t� o. i ;. mss+\ %+_ � - LEGEND Aff , a�• ` �� TREE WILL BE AF CTED BYO OTREE MAY BE A ECTED OTREE NOT AFFE O i! ALOAe t.. 'ae ° lii,TREB WIT"TRUNKATENOf!]� \•OR Og2ATE WILSEY`a NAY ' Hansen Hiil Ranch ~�'.� _ a �y'�° ' — TENTATIVE MAP TRACT 5766 HANSEN HILL OEVElOPMENT CORPORATION _ ;' TREE SURVEY - _ _ _. _..�_._-.-. ._-_._ .. _ ;~�-:r.�^a:r-,• Y�' v--agyr-^_:.rT.±T._dS-_ .yr. >C� -k'•TP.:T:-��_ _ c�c_. r, rfit` � '.,i 4>ti ,.. L!y t�: 'r'a"n 7a,a e"c�3 $?�; r,,,.�,;, a tY� s. � x ,y °,�,r• ,,�y,t,` tx�..rtr,d x r: ,M1,m �+ a �l>"+J .j-;.> t r rW�r�ldi�1•E � i�p��Nlr fi sx'4�+ti,`,�1're+A��h(-ir`i,�q,;t�"�,,r�,ui�Fk�{-.��2'�i+� �/�'�,f':''� r'!` ? n 3�a:-mar .1�'t�' �.., .;� ;rm�1,k€. !�}i`�+`.}«,'v � ?', S$� {. S S ✓' r+l" 71f k F N 1 R `O"�-r 1�' °t 4 �7 1 f r x.t t is i i as r � ✓ tt u 3 n 6r #P ^ F k+ n r a !p ! a� rli v a/q w•' i..ifs¢¢ 7 It ,rr,�r i; a 2=`;� ys��'., 1/�y M W P'"d >✓R "`f � '� tt� ! Of t7;. 3� 1 "( •' 4�t k�.r 7:, ^ +lS trlrr r{r J�,� �.L,+'Y '{'+-, `.3 e �'+(t�. o �(r',r ii y'f 'Ny,.iS V,•J'.r, F '.. '�°t ,. �� -lei, t ``.+1`p y s .,! . »�7.6;+ «r-�r r yx yr jj �;74rc �t+�rw 3 -:rky '" Firal. r rvr_f af., r r Y ' ° ?'v 15- ' �f "{r "'i tax 3 .1A• �3 < '`r' �r k .,f Gel f L•P'P,a .fi" oy Y lIK;-R "'X3 `rvK r 1 ,.,y �: '! r+l,'?"i ., ! i r-Kr e..k^E ay.'a.x Y�.-+ 'q +•�-a + 'o-,' ,JTr�'ti � r#�ItI.3? .N T Af'rY..✓,ro f.F ,, � r' r 't� r. - r„+::•' t .rrwr•..f S '.r�. yr. ,y.�ail �;�i4""f3�';#°'7}r,'�4YS�"#l+._r §t Xs� r�;'t}"'.�.,���Y��,t"�;5." r�,lst�k��,�r t6 ,rtrC�..�fr.[�.�•y.:c•�-,rz `�S!N..r_"'r:,r+ ,G - s � t r'.iM r'Y. f.. t.0 ti•>-1r��1. -y�`` YF 4ti t. fr. � Jay�i''r}� `..wR• dl:�� *�f�l f�i4�i44�t4 !r.- F �3y�,��}Y ,�f� !7.5yyN / -i: -'� a :.'.J 'p .� r )t !Af i t 1 4z tti '�Y� k`k r �• r{r SE < � ` d•, '�' r 4 Y' .t , t- k�. !�i:�i Tv:. .,r,• la Sr,<;tq$.i v-rp-.rE! Y,r z;'kq eryl+lt.'t.".i'y.t'1'�.?�'r. ? f1�#ly Y 'tf,, f^�3'�r� t ��N.i� �}nir.Vr`74 _;,}�rk' �I•J. - 5� .,t 7+ t.�''� .r. � <,ti,�� '`hrb t� .•t>♦y rwN�a-, r�✓r �a�,�.���"'.F R. .!k� fr��,,��tar 4t 51�,�ilt�i"-��r"G K.f. ,r`�r'.y"t.:�ry r .+ 7:,tie 4 ;; r' i.`�. °r ,,,�� #�y.4•r"r^r :P.1w E w,�,i.; t�s"��'`fy sr�Y ';fY°'c'hpy /'�� �?:i�>r,w „✓,:1! pAky qr�• ��•3 klr+i'�� Y.;w;r ..,.{ 1,.,..,...�._�..t,.:r.t'y.i.y,a L'.t.:i.,? v '7""` �+y�:r4.:,ky" Il,,f,n°P� _w�,.,g`✓�'3�n. w" t :s�,ra' r�ti ?�' `��_' �!+.�} fi''{,�'�w„ya"�+f'�-1 .�xv� 2d•'^ts>,: 6 i. r •r r 3;{ t ,. ..,,_...J' _._.....tia,e.:1.....e..wc:i.,.lc...S:x..tdv.,u_....l.n.t `L>'Y.Y:r=.�':a.c��r.,:.:5:r.rx...rvt�..,_�aL::�f..�h....�5.',^ r,«T.:t. t;.ar..-.:�+.yd.�.eka,n.,;Fk3..'t:.:.tj>+§.�r i._✓.'....�wNf�.,n-, RECEIVED, r. HANSEN HILL RANCH SUBMITTAL FOR DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL 0 C T Cs, 'l MEETING ON NOVEMBER 14, 1988 DUOUN P1AfVN»;0 ADDITIONAL TREES NOT AFFECTED AS A RESULT OF THE REVISED PLAN Tree Species Circumference Rating Previous Number Type (inches) Status (DEIR) 165 California Bay 12.0 B+ Will Be Affected 166 California Bay 9.0 B+ Will Be Affected 167 California Bay 6.0 C- Will Be Affected 168 California Bay 5.6 D Will Be Affected 169 California Bay 5.8 B+ Will Be Affected 170 California Bay 6.6 B- Will Be Affected 171 Coast Live Oak 6.0 C WIll Be Affected 172 Coast Live Oak 6.0 C- Will Be Affected 173 Coast Live Oak 4.5 B- Will Be Affected 174 Coast Live Oak 6.8 B- Will Be Affected 175 Coast Live Oak 4.6 B- Will Be Affected 176 California Bay 6.3 B- Will Be Affected 178 Coast Live Oak 7.0 B- Will Be Affected 179 Coast Live Oak 5.3 B- Will Be Affected 187 California Bay 11.0 B- Will Be Affected 202 California Bay 11.0 B- Will Be Affected 203 California Bay 6.8 B Will Be Affected 204 Coast Live Oak 4.5 B- Will Be Affected 207 Valley Oak 6.0 B Will Be Affected 208 Coast Live Oak 4.5 C Will Be Affected 213 Coast Live Oak 4.2 C+ Will Be Affected 214 Coast Live Oak 3.3 D Will Be Affected 216 Coast Live Oak 6.0 C Will Be Affected 228 California Bay 3.0 A May Be Affected 229 California Bay 5.0 B- Will Be Affected 230 California Bay 6.4 B Will Be Affected 231 Valley Oak 3.3 D Will Be Affected 232 California Bay 3.0 B Will Be Affected 234 California Bay 5.5 B- May Be Affected 235 Coast Live Oak 4.3 B May Be Affected 407 Coast Live Oak 9.5 A- Will Be Affected 408 Coast Live Oak 3.2 B Will Be Affected 409 Coast Live Oak 7.0 A Will Be Affected 410 Coast Live Oak 5.3 B- Will Be Affected 411 Coast Live Oak 6.3 A Will Be Affected 412 Coast Live Oak , 4.6 C Will Be Affected 413 Coast Live Oak 4.2 B Will Be Affected 414 Coast Live Oak 4.4 B- Will Be Affected 415 Coast Live Oak 6.8 B- Will Be Affected 416 Coast Live Oak 7.2 A Will Be Affected 417 Coast Live Oak 3.8 A- Will Be Affected 418 Coast Live Oak 5.3 A- Will Be Affected 419 Coast Live Oak__ 5.41 B _ _Will Be Affected 87-045 Hansen Hill Applicant's Submittal w' List of Trees Not Affected .fit-,� 't. t t. t��- !.a , tit^,.ir �ysl a4y, ,Kky�•^�jt`'s 24t � "i y°.��i� � .•"' yt�•v��� r t r, i . artA ,r+�s'iy; 7: ?' <, -� n t L:. « ;.., +ti "`t,.yt syNy �,{ t rytl^''��v�,_ krA\Ni''�it:'�^ti+�$t�:`k' � tr+ �.•,°ry„ �py t }, � i +r .r^ � 1:,t 1`'' '., Y...,•'�2 a. f" tt�. fi,'.y'�r�,tr a `•y. '�h`. : ,c tr;.t,'},A t 4i::!GV,t��i�" ''U�,.,Rwly}rt°are s` x^r.fnit��d;1t_ ; r 't.' ,.,e..1 2 .W\-;4'.rr^... r,4,,'` ,'tee Y'.il•::A.>`i�iu n- .:f L `i i. .7^'e 1i.X�Ae ryy t A•.`Et t�?.t�c^Yt !�{}4 z":r'.Sa.yr�'l.k fit', �u `� ,s eYaatZ 4T4t r� �b ....Y.iy y ,_. " � r.� :.tm.,�'•:x., , � x. at'ya .R. ,�,r�^ tc. .7}va t � y �... t wt tiv 4 #t -�t>{"x3"',t 1ac6�``S+j"��a`a�M�t re?I7;;p y''jt` -��h:.:H«,��t_ � 1 ,�;.. `^ '�•y t .>{L nY+, x e.,r. f ^� t' r ?.-��:tat "t\�. t ya:r y tiurt? ,s:� � _"Ce E �,.1 K �J•K, ,�:v.'}1r,�4•-�.; 7 rY�t�\-��•}y., r:"tta. r^3 .:d. r' �" '4 vtr xt :. .6.. ,'.:.. ..-,:-. .....,i .t.-..,,,�� ,- .,.�vaz .,1_,.t:?vc.j+?,n.�iro'+. ;;..,hr t,��.-ct,.,. .aZA`h%4r.�._ .`rc4°�..w-.,.h�p'a�ca�.�J''�'r.;l•$.:.YFa,. „?Sa r+t:'i.r_ a..., ,•..� tT � r"w�'it._-. �, - . ' ii s ' f r a ti t."af xSi y4'Y.e•i r is .' lr I xH+�inrr°;Y�7•;,'.,xr.tr`J y-,," ' q!i.:.� 5t sT :va'ei r��l. �K>, �L.t...uN 15,�..C;. �}(r{ i� ,wria'fP'yyii.��.°�t��";,. s n14'+i..,.d•.y+•'it '' yF: _ •,,£,. `.{ + `X rx ,l +r*' ,f t y a .rEr* rf 5 p"�•eY4 �'w w r5+ti/W;w. ..;:,�' i > t.,w "i�y yi �ss�r,^��a s<fir• ,S�'u: � 3k # � o � ,M. 5 7 vrii s•a Ivt W+}r pNrCx � Sp• l Yid rf+kF + < a p nE r 1', Y :+ 1 } t a riS��•�\,�' �t � " z�,y r �,,=Tk 'S,1��� ,.s �-c .t• r..,` t � �.� t t<t i'' t --I-.'1 r'%{ f y T'"','e�G t...h 1„�t 1 <:.4✓r.i..r t}.r.I t r N t 4a•.sr wv.A rY.>�1:x!�u:r:',.t.•I(�r Y?YntP°;r.Y'h'a"r Mhy''A 1`k`l;_t yr�:i,My'+�i'd�'t t s t 1•j x".,,'•fi,,"t 3r,t rr b F r-,+l fdi i g t'.r 1 1t:,w,p.•�.;N{v�/'f'rl.�+�r�,�s✓'t�.,i;':,pfii r`'✓G.e r.•:.`..'r�ki'.&3x'r'«Pfi i}'l"ry'rr 7 j.y_r:t j',ia'�s`''r l j''fsf<t{.l+a r,-a/a°S"tt.'•x-dt;t,,g r't r L st�r�br'd Ay.i s.f T..1r^.a't r y•.t*xU i.�P,��ac f.+.,:•.r¢t XPs.asd r`rt wf S z'.:>?it[4 'rF""'"a-;rr'3'ri(-`T`.'i•i.i t":<J rs4 v r t;+Nr{•ar:�v�A gg7'1tj+S^x,,�!t-Y"+['.T,:;`a N'*�A'•7yr+'"""•.'t't.}Y<tM I K J�i-C t ct,� r ls(�5♦P bd zaF �'>--•}r t•o yb v: f 4 a y t. i'' v of at .s r ilt,'c, y Y.W,tA• •tp t y..-.� <p -. c .• � 3. 8 �ti ' r.Y+J ry` tZ . .. ,..:7 r-.`.,.y3•; 'i. :t',. J. � r'Sr�,� t tyy..aYrl'�7X;W �af<C.Sr �.;P,E"•{1'(,3�'.�.r}I4a i.s r r .,L'x' S �t-:�;, + + .tM+�t`*�+ 3 t.r> •t ,.,�, ;.r '-M. F r r -} t Snf({.`., y�A�.�''1.y y ..7'"t^dn�ir'.Cyt;..B `�, /;yafi.Y t ,± a+h f,1 f U✓p ,,. qty h r,F <.. G ti:'3++ .k't t a,"ryA p „!}'S ;G' .4.+ta y 4: c t .•t• t s'. "7i.;,r. . .Nt.i"?"-•.t.t yt^Af,F,I.7 rr X v f.}a�L,.'•r>5aal.' K,�S�1 t,'3��j.1K�r rt.r""�`•,+y�n t"�...Y,�''t;,lJ' a ryt,_'#Fh.,y.y,,n•4' y sM �e�i.{lr; l1r 3 kT*.P 1 w.. W+, I.ltl !�.y'ti. p rv:+},St ,it f 4 7¢ti k. `h 1r{ .,_}r,re N.;,.h1 -1�,K ,'+{.>- r `�r• ess'�„)a'S if F,.r aid r �.:e 4 J y ✓,.frtlt r �Pr 9tya.,�•K'ih lk "'F4.a)+ idd' .'K`9'$, ;3 t, rA k.. y -;:s tS' S 3 S y c,Y: > fi.`t 6.Y`f4 x .lF'�Sr'} .r :r J" kr+vi•+`Y'i+ �l 4 nyi 4i+ �.r.YxrWr f L'i' 1 al .t r4.rw t t a � v.,t' e y -•�,�ti; ' s'P l,S ,. ,. r ' ? d_t �.1. r ,, s i .; �,-nt'� .�4 •'� s�' �t'.r.'x?G. �'.'.��.;'�..,.5*,?..'M .c♦..ww.:�'r:..�..�'1 ,_......,.«. ....yi........r..,arc..P..,..t,�i''"t'.'�.as•,...�i:+e.�_.+,.3's.>::i�:.�.s..r.',��.ti....,. .a HANSEN HILL RANCH SUBMITTAL FOR DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL MEETING ON NOVEMBER 14, 1988 ADDITIONAL TREES NOT AFFECTED AS A RESULT OF THE REVISED PLAN Tree Species Circumference Rating Previous Number Type (inches) Status (DEIR) 420 Coast Live Oak 3.0 B Will Be Affected 422 Coast Live Oak 6.7 B Will Be Affected 423 Coast Live Oak 4.1 B- Will Be Affected 424 Coast Live Oak 4.0 C Will Be Affected 433 California Buckeye 14.0 B- Will Be Affected 434 Coast Live Oak 12.0 B+ Will Be Affected 436 Coast Live Oak 3.0 A- Will Be Affected 437 Coast Live Oak 5.0 B Will Be Affected 442 California Bay 8.4 B Will Be Affected 445 California Buckeye 5.0 C Will Be Affected 446 Coast Live Oak 6.5 B- Will Be Affected 447 California Bay 5.0 C Will Be Affected 448 California Bay 4.7 C- Will Be Affected 454 Coast Live Oak 15.3 A Will Be Affected 455 California Bay 7.7 B Will Be Affected 456 California Bay 7.0 C Will Be Affected 457 California Bay 3.6 C Will Be Affected 458 California Bay 7.8 C Will Be Affected 459 California Bay 8.0 B Will Be Affected 460 Valley Oak 3,2 C- Will Be Affected 461 California Bay 5.3 C Will Be Affected 462 Coast Live Oak 9.4 B- Will Be Affected 463 Coast Live Oak 4.4 B Will Be Affected 464 Coast Live Oak 7.2 A Will Be Affected 465 Coast Live Oak 4.4 A Will Be Affected 466 Coast Live Oak 5.5 A Will Be Affected 467 Coast Live Oak 4.0 C- Will Be Affected 468 Coast Live Oak 4.5 B Will Be Affected 469 Coast Live Oak 4.8 C Will Be Affected 470 Coast Live Oak 6.0 A Will Be Affected 471 Coast Live Oak 4.8 B Will Be Affected 472 California Bay 6.7 B Will Be Affected 473 California Bay 15.0 B Will Be Affected 474 California Bay 9.5 C Will Be Affected 475 California Bay 15.0 B- Will Be Affected 476 California Bay 3.0 B- Will Be Affected 477 California Bay 16.0 B Will Be Affected 482 Coast Live Oak 7.5 C May Be Affected 483 Coast Live Oak 12.0 A May Be Affected 484 Coast Live Oak 4.0 B May Be Affected 485 Coast Live Oak .. 10.0 B Will Be Affected P 486 Coast Live Oak 11.3 A May Be Affected 487 California Bay 5.2 B 2 May Be Affected __ s P ,I + afi}1t yt,� ' , t 1 ` y ♦ S. t T'ttnal. ` r YZ` wair IY t f \"+ a F l �`.k�Y� �,v SYr tt t+'t j'`},kv 1"' Fr T ,♦ +. ��) J+ y_, a r ` _ s t.♦1 + +r a.s,.'°1 ,, +. . th s. c.7 �M Yt 4i:t Yc•, +1♦-.. b N. r a� k•^i S3i 3♦ r t Y Ai, ,a, s f ' �.h• ( '1 i. t \t � it, ,} '1�r�. \a?'gy`e♦ t 'ndt{\ .3` tir \xy2, 3� Y .«t tt t ♦: . s r .�•y , i �-' ya[/r>t`a v \ +.. t. 1 .(�'li C l'♦.a ah �, _ \ � -, `H1` 1 RA� 3 1.. 'A •y t t -...,.... .. .. . � t.`5t.�.-•.,k4, y i'�::n.. .y.da�'k,._:a ,n. .. e„ 1. «Y.•,.. ,...:..''. `4..,.A`'.. . :... ... .:`a<s- »_'Lt.?r. .,.p. ai�:.y.:�.., ,. ......._ eb d °} >` a r'{" "P.'? J" /,.• xjrt .t. s ' ( ' A •'S /+1.AY \ ) r' t a `!` 4 { >15 k y fYf ,• .+ !,,. 'rY+. k ;} [`r $ Yr y qi t ,... .x;i J' rj,SFµ:�rti .e '"4�.•4't' y.jyk I f ,�rryt✓ fR, a F`..tss ^N rS d t$ S ..rfR 'v°' c , 'C• . T r• A , +' .yba ..a t .y 1r"];_ !.' ,Cak yx .�.(".,'*o;�9•t't* n L" F �'4 51iY'rrr': • .*S`.} H 4*4C ♦::3 { •} n x ��., H b " 37= .�4d -.r a � w ?! , ., tt n, F -� f' � qy,,,�} .s:��'. ✓:ai,..-4rd7.. ^1r� r>rp^c.�v;�?}L i1�•rrx' P�+-''�^x x 'a 6 r 1. ) t I +. �..+. , 4.r', r y�� f sL,7d•„y { k �''.y .:u: 'ii s+l'tar t+4 �C' `/ :tydY` C.r':'{i'Ly3.`7 i. rr. .4i t { a, `y rs f •s +,-a St rr iiw"rL'r h*y {;•# .•h" fi.5'LS , ,r1t�, �XC • ws,.si Sr 7 ` ":t i .?r xr K.pwy L Yt`,-} ,rt.f G{i Y. �`''�<�1K�,'x¢��. 1 �,)r''rs,�S >b'`sr=p1,( •y.��rs +i..�.a r. `:, • t '?it +�-1 r 3 - f'_-.. 3 .$ 55 �d,rre a e K3'+ 'd �•t � +w 3 4�.7 r s'"f t ... ',C' ,,r5 x, . )r �" xs F,a FF •. � f S ,,n.r=J�n�,f+vp al.�.�q a t,�°x�°j��s4 R, ��pYr 3;x,fkr f r t� �i J +.: `e :.,i. x,S• r s c. t .. 4 i✓"a 'r 4�f+ r �r,rr'Yf'tr ) E` Fs/;!of r ...:. •."',fr x''.•i.f, J°�,jF7)nrI'r t 3+'.' ...a' t •; • .. 4 . j ,' ..'. +r"' '� t` �{9 t 3s l t�, ?'w jeCi'�k�:r G}�^. .•el � +R' .�•Y ci 7;1 r {.R)a'�: a�rF �d`r , 3. •:� s � r. r .�rr..-L Wf}t�+�'sp a<{fi•"jq�x(+>'ly r kr i.t��w• �Sr3u ���.y ¢r � �:�ruffi�4��'y�yb lyk✓'�."u'` d�C'.r".6� r{w roe• ; 7 . r i � 7r Fx�f ,r' + £✓1r"ly, r S.,.y +.3r tT>•� R.;✓� �• ��n r d{l� � t< t,e; r a ­A:7 •r rr y. i j .r`' �} +Y� '�` s-). f _.F .. __.. ...... ...» ._ .,. _. .._, s._.._.•._...��._.t35.w.��^e.�iir...-''.,`c,.,:t�.r_"�;.!s:.�L.•' a+:r:� .a hk:.? i:.��•.��r,$r..�!:t<.rj".?.�:�`S'`,.�f',;ea._s.:z`..`.�s,,"*`'N.tL:`sx>r..•.f.:......�'.. � ..� HANSEN HILL RANCH SUBMITTAL FOR DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL MEETING ON NOVEMBER 142 1988 ADDITIONAL TREES NOT AFFECTED AS A RESULT OF THE REVISED PLAN Tree Species Circumference Rating Previous Number Type (inches) Status (DEIR) 488 Coast Live Oak 6.8 B May Be Affected 489 Coast Live Oak 8.0 B- May Be Affected 490 Coast Live Oak 7.3 B- May Be Affected 491 Coast Live Oak 4.4 B Will Be Affected 492 Coast Live Oak 8.5 B+ Will Be Affected �- 540 California Buckeye 3.4 B- May Be Affected 541 California Buckeye 7.5 A May Be Affected 758 Coast Live Oak 3.0 C- May Be Affected 759 California Bay 6.0 B- May Be Affected 760 Coast Live Oak 4.5 B- , May Be Affected 761 Coast Live Oak 7.0 B- Will Be Affected 762 Coast Live Oak 3.3 D May Be Affected 764 Coast Live Oak 4.2 B 2 May Be Affected 765 Coast Live Oak 3.3 B- Will Be Affected 766 Coast Live Oak 5.5 B- Will Be Affected 767 Coast Live Oak 4.9 A l May Be Affected 770 California Bay 7.0 B Will Be Affected 771 Coast Live Oak 8.0 B May Be Affected 772 California Bay 4.0 B Will Be Affected 773 Other 3.5 C Will Be Affected 774 Coast Live Oak 9.2 A- Will Be Affected 775 Coast Live Oak 3.0 B May Be Affected 843 Coast Live Oak 3.0 B May Be Affected 844 Coast Live Oak 6.5 B May Be Affected 845 California Bay 3.2 B 41 May Be Affected 868 California Bay 4.5 B- Will Be Affected 869 California Bay 4.5 B May Be Affected 870 California Buckeye 5.0 D Will Be Affected 871 Coast Live Oak 4.5 B- Will Be Affected 872 Coast Live Oak 15.0 B 1 May Be Affected 873 Coast Live Oak 13.0 B Will Be Affected 874 Coast Live Oak 7.5 .B+ Will Be Affected 899 Coast Live Oak 3.3 B- Will Be Affected 3 910 Coast Live Oak 12.0 B- May Be Affected 923 California Bay 5.5 A- Will Be Affected 924 California Bay 12.0 A+ Will Be Affected 925 Coast Live Oak 11.0 A+ Will Be Affected 926 California Bay 4.3 B May Be Affected 927 Coast Live Oak 5.3 B Will Be Affected 928 Coast Live Oak 4.5 B+ Will Be Affected 929 Coast Live Oak 5.7 B Will Be Affected 930 California Bay 7.0 A- Will Be Affected 938 Coast Live Oak 5.5 A Will Be Affected S • .. ' .. v .4: 1 at f yr: �1 �i � y` .i."'t j . \ 3 � v Vim' ksv tTy,"e`i i, t41 tF '`i2•s r � 1 s . {y'z# -.y 51 4. `",$ cc'i; _ '. . . .. .. .. ,. .._ �..y..., • t t:i:r. P}8'. �2J.;...', f •1,;. T _.li,..•^h .-erns �.�rrv.,+,. ..fax .i I ;�l csj..� r2 rf, 1 z, f`, } r t•a ...5: 4 �n„�, •�^� , ..,r< !� c n is t. ' tr• r r.F'S.r / * ,f.i},p•+-.;�'� Ir Y4 ry ��.e?C'r it �'�'��',t�.}},,.f, �.�' ".� ,�7yrS�-��r ,tr��r �a..n.r ,3�. :;€.A, la,,�6' `,;,?�/� �' ..:a�xs��5.4���1tt ✓ .,e3, ��t7{�Y' t x > °r,c'+yf 'tr'Y 7r{? #,�- FitS'.' •�1`' ..-r- f, fi" ,', r p.', +. 'v. 4 ry <3 „<a l� ,�:�. s"r" 5 �:. Xa ^: 5,�.�ec Y' � �,,a. S.��Na 1 rXi t S�it r;t,�•e•, t ,mow M1 t.�•.'tS� . -, t` 3r 1:7. .#. 1r t ,.' �'`a 1', -� f r3-'! ; <F� �i w•x f x T�'n� ro ,�+ r �'s'�. '�x f�e.t^Y,t R'���a{., t r' hl #"„ it /t �. Hfi'/1XY t a ry ,t ...... � �y4 ;'kt'iE�.a�sti;� �, r' rrrc �. 'S J' �' a •1 r tl, r / t a �e ra�x. t r •. .. r:_�.iyt t+* " t.�/ a �:�% a Sl.ry �p Y�rF 'f,P+53:S�t,'772, � Z' rY,.a fu .' i,++t "A'/S. •+w. ofY`-•'vys,�, �.,; w C r t ..rr •! o� r rr' k"'".Y:�,a r,. .rn:� ±t�S�G,y+r�x S�'¢f°n�i�LJ/�:� <..C. ��::.1. t ,{r�1':`�r� '�,;K�.+�.�ai"{ •� .�t.5�nf{'77H'7Z'ey,� �C�. �` r r f :�'x {":„ t '� i' d'..r �. 1 t :;�' `�, rJ', r1 y Y,�r� -Fi"?4 +f'(�.�}i;�' rJi'�� ?.0 C.7r! 1'. ✓�.'p "`a r }. S*�€f +L 7 r a r' a y3r'9 ..,....r_. ._.`.._.,`.. ..!..':.r. ..,;...._.,�..-r?..�^'.�..ax15.u_t....:.cy.�f!�tal...."��:.,.u.r�..r!r.'�.,.rn.� ru'a..tr.M'.�,<w.�.:�.ua;!n2f".T:wdi c'.:..c:�.6;sL+.•:ir`_otf�1..:a;'F.:.+.,7„4X.-su4....C.er_.'....,J. .... .. ..s HANSEN HILL RANCH SUBMITTAL FOR DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL MEETING ON NOVEMBER 14, 1988 ADDITIONAL TREES NOT AFFECTED AS A RESULT OF THE REVISED PLAN Tree Species Circumference Rating Previous Number Type (inches) Status (DEIR) 939 Coast Live Oak 4.5 B+ May Be Affected 940 Coast Live Oak 3.2 A- May Be Affected 941 Bigleaf Maple 3.2 B- 3 May Be Affected 942 Coast Live Oak 5.5 C Will Be Affected 943 Coast Live Oak 3.3 B Will Be Affected 944 Coast Live Oak 8.0 B- May Be Affected 945 Coast Live Oak 4.3 B- 2 May Be Affected 946 Coast Live Oak 5.0 C Will Be Affected 947 Coast Live Oak 3.0 B May Be Affected 948 California Bay 3.3 B May Be Affected 949 Coast Live Oak 6.3 B May Be Affected 950 Coast Live Oak 3.0 B Will Be Affected 951 California Bay 3.1 B- Will Be Affected 952 Coast Live Oak 3.1 B- Will Be Affected 953 Coast Live Oak 5.3 B- Will Be Affected 954 Coast Live Oak 4.5 B Will Be Affected 5 955 Coast Live Oak 9.0 B- May Be Affected 956 Coast Live Oak 4.5 B Will Be Affected 957 Coast Live Oak 5.0 B Will Be Affected = 958 Coast Live Oak 6.0 A- May Be Affected 959 California Bay 3.3 B Will Be Affected 960 Coast Live Oak 5.5 A- Will Be Affected 961 California Bay 4.5 B I May Be Affected 962 Coast Live Oak 4.0 B+ o - No Indication 963 Coast Live Oak 4.0 B- e - No Indication 964 Coast Live Oak 4.0 B Will Be Affected 965 Coast Live Oak 4.0 B+ Will Be Affected 966 Coast Live Oak 3.0 B Will Be Affected 967 California Bay 4.5 B Will Be Affected 970 California Bay 3.5 B Will Be Affected 971 California Bay 3.5 B Will Be Affected 972 California Buckeye 6.0 D Will Be Affected 973 California Bay 13.0 C Will Be Affected 974 California Buckeye 11.0 D Will Be Affected r 1054 Coast Live Oak 3.0 B+ May Be Affected 1050 Coast Live Oak 12.0 A- May Be Affected 1086 Coast Live Oak 9.0 B Will Be Affected 1087 Coast Live Oak 6.5 A- Will Be Affected 1094 Coast Live Oak 25.0 B Will Be Affected 1164 Coast Live Oak f 4.0 A- ' May Be Affected 1165 Coast Live Oak A 3.3 B Will Be Affected 1166 Coast Live Oak 4.0 B+ Will Be Affected 1167 Coast Live Oak 4.0 A- Will Be Affected ' l�- 4!11 4._ _ .. r, .+.s re j�s[�•y�'0 wt 3 e a^-•r'tN# '1 #>; "1.�.s+ . t � 1 " t :c, x A tw+� •rti a ! ktl er c �, � �#rye'*,. t t4 T ` _y a xY } �y r�i,� � i � 'tl�,t, �� '�'` '�jj• � L,-� r 4 ti�.r: z tf w, !1 t k !ii�''r �.��a+ir� t I,F a ea'nS C� o i ;'�, ,u, q t�uf� 71 r# .,i, b.. 4 $ ..} 1�"f" wr•` ! " � �� t t. r- i,jt ! ht i'`!♦ Vt.. •3.v'�, ��,-..,'t�' +rJ,. \\>a dry t ,+tt a. :tt#�4t�i C ,Sa �.T -5!i Y.lt �,r'i '",.vw z ' Mt::e 1t rt t, . .... .�,. ,- ..\ .. �. .-.'1: _- :+. ,���.�_ �?.*..t��..:]tip` t':.'Y9..+��tz\,•tv.�.S;� ,: y ��i'"`�, �,� t�:r ..0,)..�C y '.'r'+ ✓::.+:',• '`r�';.; t b•`+,. .1I .�f-. I 2 •�:�:d. Y.''".F?.q J.,7 r ,art �y,1,.N-,Y„ r.,sq g±} l:,bt 'v4Y,y! $I�s�L+,�f ih�/'�+F:;?ftYia� �p+r'.r 4 +x,+'' f'3y'�:�'t 4>••FX.F ::�� + 'J.r i },,�! i •:ti r ..m? s. f y t aid > �. .: 1*�, t h"a �' ,x r +. r r Ss~f ar.;,-. r-,.i + + , t 'r t' 4 t i fa'''r ..+ '...a'; t ,; r r�Ft�d•�r f4iv i`'x YV',+�<r r„ s 7F Z4 S .w 7 .r' �" o- {° + t" JA P..si rf ��� �,t L \ F i l ! i k .i. i ti.•+jr _.rt Zip'. 7r t ro t+. + .w ^.:1,.a...... .. +.-.r. ... rr. 4,.YV.a..... . .. .. .. .i.Y. ...tw,I x.us.>°-u.(n r•. .+ ,... ...1'u.....w -.uM>"i.L J...;,..f1f...r ._ .. HANSEN HILL RANCH SUBMITTAL FOR DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL MEETING ON NOVEMBER 141 1988 ADDITIONAL TREES NOT AFFECTED AS A RESULT OF THE REVISED PLAN Tree Species Circumference Rating Previous Number Type (inches) Status (DEIR) 1167 Coast Live Oak 4.0 A- Will Be Affected 1170 California Bay 4.8 B- Will Be Affected 1171 Coast Live Oak 5,0 B Will Be Affected 1172 Coast Live Oak 5.3 B+ Will Be Affected 1173 Coast Live Oak - 5.0 B- Will Be Affected 1174 California Bay 3.0 B- Will Be Affected 1175 California Bay 4.0 B Will Be Affected 1176 California Bay 3.3 B Will Be Affected 1177 California Bay 6.0 B Will Be Affected 1178 California Buckeye 6.5 ? Will Be Affected 1179 Coast Live Oak 6.0 B- Will Be Affected 1180 California Buckeye 7.0 B May Be Affected 1181 Coast Live Oak D May Be Affected 1182 Coast Live Oak 4.0 C May Be Affected 1183 Coast Live Oak 6.5 B May Be Affected 1184 California Buckeye 16.0 B Will Be Affected 1185 Coast Live Oak 3.3 C- Will Be Affected 1186 Coast Live Oak 4.5 B- Will Be Affected 1187 Coast Live Oak 3.3 B May Be Affected 1188 Coast Live Oak 8.0 B May Be Affected 1189 Coast Live Oak 6.0 B- May Be Affected 1204 California Bay 10.0 B Will Be Affected 1206 Coast Live Oak 3.5 B- Will Be Affected 1207 California Buckeye 9.0 B Will Be Affected 1208 Coast Live Oak 3.5 B Will Be Affected 1209 California Bay 4.0 B Will Be Affected 1210 California Buckeye 6.5 B Will Be Affected 1211 Coast Live Oak 4.5 B- Will Be Affected 1212 California Bay 5.0 B+ Will Be Affected 1213 California Bay 4.0 B- Will Be Affected 1214 Coast Live Oak 5.0 B+ Will Be Affected 1215 Coast Live Oak 3.5 B Will Be Affected 1216 Coast Live Oak 5.5 A- Will Be Affected 1217 Coast Live Oak 8.5 A- Will Be Affected 1218 California Bay 8.5 B Will Be Affected 1220 California Bay 3.0 B- Will Be Affected 1221 California Bay 4.5 B- Will Be Affected 1222 Coast Live Oak 4.0 B Will Be Affected 1223 California Bay 5.5 B Will Be Affected 1224 California Bay 7.5 C- Will Be Affected _ 1225 Coast Live Oak 3.5 B- Will Be Affected 3y�: 'w a+'` y'i 5 kFd �w,� r ��rv9\��s'L+. '�' 4 ;�t \, �. � +tf i� '�S t d.J r d �; yh r . � i �a �ri5,•{ '!r t, � } �' ,i .V .�. \ ,+ , \z�\a f, M �-+.:G`A4-f �Yt1 E}. .� � aj ..a w.r1.S,,ti Z'Syk i r r -?.�5 Hit ...t- 3 3 ;•\ °rx ati .+., ' ,,,.. 7 , October 26, 1988 VENTURE CORPORATION RECEIYED, Ms. Maureen O'Halloran Senior Planner DUBUN FiA,' NINN City of Dublin Planning Department Dublin, CA 94568 Dear Maureen: Enclosed please find the information you requested in your letter of October 20th. It is my understanding that such information will be submitted to the City Council for their November 14th meeting. The information includes: 1) 20 full sized copies of our General Plan Proposal which was adopted by the Dublin Planning Commission at their October 17th meeting. 2) Acreage of proposed land uses designated on the Revised General Plan proposal. Our calculations indicate the following: 1) Open space -- 62.2 acres 2) Single Family -- 76.7 acres 3) Medium Density -- 8 . 1 acres As we discussed over the phone as well as at the Planning Commission, such calculations do not take into consideration the amount of open space that would be included within the areas designated for either the Medium Density Residential or the Single Family Residential. Based on the more detailed calculations done for our Tentative Map, a total of 86. 6 acres is to be dedicated open space and an additional 11. 4 acres is allocated to buffer areas bordering the dedicated open space. Using these figures, open space areas would account for 98 acres and residential development would occur on 49 acres. Moreover, the Revised General Plan would result in additional open space, over and above the amount indicated in the previously submitted Tentative Map. The Revised Tentative'Map will have more dedicated open space based on the changes resulting from the revised General Plan. -d t- 87-045 t'` 87-045 Hansen Hill del pplicant's Letter dated received October 27, 1988 3) Grading -- As I indicated over the phone, we are not able to submit, nor should we be required to submit, a revised grading plan because only a General Plan Amendment rather than Tentative Map approval is being sought. We have not prepared a revised Tentative Map based on our Revised General Plan. Therefore, we are not able to prepare a new grading plan. However, to get to the points we discussed over the phone, our Revised General Plan proposal contemplates three basic grading changes. First, we would no longer propose an extensive grading at the top of the first swale. This action would reduce the previously proposed cuts and fills in that area. Secondly, we would reduce the amount and depth of fill in the tributary swale referred to in previous Planning Staff reports as Area 2 : The depth of fill could be reduced from 70 feet to 50 feet by redesigning that area with a roadway entering from the north rather than south of the swale. Third, we would reduce the grading in Area 3 by slightly realigning the loop road on the northwest end of the property. As noted in recent Planning commission meetings, there are also several other areas where we would be able to make more subtle changes in the previously submitted Tentative and grading maps thereby reducing the amount of grading. The grading required for the Revised Plan would allow a balance of cut and fill. Therefore, there would not need to be any dirt trucked off the property. An estimated 930, 000 cubic yards of dirt would be moved during the development. This represents a significant reduction from the 1. 6 million cubic yards proposed in the plan studied by the DEIR. 4) Reduction and Transparencies -- Attached please find the requested number of reductions and transparencies. 5) Revised Tree Survey -- Attached please find two copies of a list and maps indicating how the Revised General Plan Proposal would affect trees. A comparison of the Revised General Plan changes to the tree survey (which was included in the Draft EIR) indicates that 212 fewer trees, than estimated in the Draft EIR, would be affected by the proposed development. - 2 - .Z .Rl. .•.4 :.7�_,., � h 5� s {.:.r; s t[�F w �.Tn�.°tr ,.,?".s+54(�' 1r;'?.er Y, �.c.' " a a •?4 s „p,i`t f u 4 5r.r!Ljit4°i u'`f l*r"e!i.,1'l.r r 4+,,r';1 w,1{rr4 Z.,�')tr p F St+>'x',{T d.7s'',�°,F.Y'7 a}i:i'"�«^•�r•d F�'{"fir,Ir^m�a r ar d y h,py+rq'r�J'$Fy�.Y'.if.f',r�;��l 3'1'a L ..v1 y``'4 q��r`w��.�i' }�t:S{�3''p`'r':-i,lr�,r`'aX+��,XX�:,c��Y.h(�4",`/,�rh✓w'X+k'� k vin lfm"i 4 K,5.t�.�A.rT"4•+I❑,,r r6�•�-�•�y�...+.5x.�,+,'�7�.Ye7 ar�,+,°,w✓e�3�5�d w,a7 r.,;=�.M'">r t r;-':.•t..fpr-�.!'r*:r't�;t���!,a.4{1,+�fi.�w�s r t'+3*.Y',.��p.7 y}i:y vt�F+.4v..�:'.'rrr"�7 a.f r K 5.,,L,�)��f r(r+Yrt.e c.`4''l1.N.+,,9'�.Y�i�!a'�h'f�,Y.w r+�s¢Y�1u,}.'0,}.ti r!�#t"3..�T'.�'��Y'r'`x'l r✓ra,{��s+>".r�'.rt°-�' J. '. r{ s a�j�y. ,:�' .�f t>r �; arc *�''�°y>y�.»o�r' '•1I�+�tJr�'.,1����.'S``�,'_�fic�iT� > � �`+'La..+_ F s ts� J c .,d..c s x r r,:� r, ..° rc I �,r •,t < ..ac+i'+.7 c 'u1' }2`J +lh, Ti' ''t a L K F, -_v y..-,f� . .tom}i . ti .,1 ..f:�',,r w,„. �' -�.'� rct4.Y,.,�� a�r•`,�',^s. � �..;>,3!y.,r,,3 S�,r+c:X t as A f�' .r,? .,, �x�" •i f r �. , r�, s., ,-ma:r 7 €�.t r 'fir `S..1', t.r. .-., S. .,i:, 'fir ar"-+ r �,,.a:,. n: r .,l4�, rTrl.r�t.a r5 �# ti y �,. f.pr-'x ,n. ,.,il11?r r•a r�•f• +�•^,? u✓{yk' r y ,v rr 35 w r l i t tS.t S xJ � y r `,u•5 � a .y,u'U 3_"f ° •� ti c r-s r f r1 r+.� r f r,t , xN, y,t � p'r >f',+•c-..rA.!.,?a,,.c <r b #'t,;.}.^�•1�I��r��Y;7+r�,+y 7 F17tip'.!:.F� r f s�...,� ,''.2�, r.ra r't"lf ',#r Y r c�/ .•m•1� ^+� '�C�A � �ar xri�.4?��ti.�',�� rf�s,#c�17,�.'i-��r,r•f�� t "',,�7 t'"^:.R'k �" .�`a(e � �.",�a '"'�idt'i..,u.�7 e 'r.. � ,.;3 . ..�. .,... . �,Y ,_._.r.. ;.. ,�..7 r_.:.�:;..s.G_..�......nU �n�i!�:�....�r�'.r�t�#X��,�:.f:•:�s.;..,.,.G'�_., ..�.,-.`t.s.,:..a.,.,+.�,rr��,L�..�,�G-,,.w..rc�3�.u:;rof ,..y.,.=r::z_..�rw.....,,..>G�.�:t"aim..,,w.�r.�.Jx:�u.cK.�.wr,.... 6) Exhibits -- The Planning Department staff has collected all the exhibits used in the Planning Commission Public Hearings and Study Sessions except the slides used in the discussion on density and the colored versions of the Tentative Map. The slides and the colored Tentative Map are enclosed. I understand that the City will bill us an additional $320 for extra copies of the DEIR and FEIR. Please call me if there are other materials we can provide you for the upcoming City Council meeting. Since ly, o dg D. Jac by V'ce Presi a of evelopment Hansen Hil evelopment Corporation Enclosures cc: Bob Saunders, Bren Company - 3 - I - ... ...... �., ,., ... �.,, ✓r t.-a � 5 s4ta.. ��' :ZF r : c i r �� z1� x`7�'�;�s'�i� � sk}3�'; �.., d�4 l 1� * `�;.,av � Y �� ALL � 1,�,wra S^`r`�•;y�{, `k^�"w,» w'R'+�4 a,i t \ ` '+ _ `d,� .. 'E-•} £'* �< 7F ,.at tab ti. sa - + r t t � 1 f i -' •'e H } s r § , .. :1• � +.i< 1. `«�1 •tir>'��r a r ltR.,..,a .,t ti �, °�G� c f r � , • \ �. t a• l \`s,\k �k of 1 \\ ` -.n r� 0 'y \ t F 5.,.yi\} t T,��t tt` �\.ta eah. F`fti\,r£ t ♦i 'f'k'y r ,� c �l > z t. a� •t t Wk e t. Nl� <7 � �.S\ ,y 1t w�r t<t u� r 5 t `•-... ° + 7 t„ S�}� `st, � ..t �t a •`�\Z i..• ��,.t?CC.�,;ka t�.0 +3 sr y��u3 5,^7. � •� \:7 4 *0 n'C X 1 l t � '' � t • 5 i�'\ .ti tst�? ��yt d\�\g� kllr iU 1 ctr`fr• t�•1L' L.r;f'n" .'r a'�t,. c.t+� kiZ;y i!}}:�,.$4 \tin y � Y"c t.t x. ` kxr t 7 +i. _ .`k-, 1 y.r�.l� ci,'>,t� }i3•• rt+u:.., y�Wa`d�'�' �'i t7 '.. h k'V'.a.,;p � HYt'(�.y �V:.iV'i'Y��yyp'�,,1' � ,1 ,y,y r��,.+ . �+\ �+,�..L I.^ l V �1,�ye�`?F?S ��iY �r;,4.1 ,K 1 'Y*�k fi.5 L�44t.1,�}•� ?4 ;�S k A'�'+.,\, Y,kl..�,}f`�Syty 1 Y� ?1 '} Yv� �+ \ r y ' Y t:t 4' 1 L r 3' �- r-i :�'� �S It 1 ``�1 t �iY� t y\ r\ a `t.Jc•,, t ♦ '[ ,.+• $a iS _, \,.. .�si. I'. . . !. ��lw.ts_-..;� .,�.,��?\. ..�c�~:i�� \te*u.�,p:ti+',..k•t� ?•;:�'�\.k ''•�,�'u L�:�1�"'�`r`,rt�....�n, t -r.w.... r<•+ ,-,+.�. �t. :7:. 'j F'1 a a a H Q m x W a W O H Q z Iti H -W wEX p a o z z > > > m02 EH H w w zo In :O W W W W zzEm M0l� H a a a a wHwHH>+a u zI-i E D D D WWxoEa WO %HH Hz W z U7 WQrn O O O 3UPOZHEHH HE mxw''1 co x CQ 4 HHHaa Um FCEQ O - Z4 Uzzi 4 wwZQ x ww H a a z a z O a O > O w H H W z m m W z O a mw zx00W W H E 49QzH U a0 40 AO E m x HwHH W E-i>I HZQm w H O 2>' 4 r 4 a Qz � F C, > H > H ,' 7 H W x w W O H w a a H z H a a a Q Exza OW Oa W m�4 as Z, aK PF4 a� 3H a xEH �ppWa D aQDm QU QU QU H 0 &1mg W H!�D aEH Ix ° W NQO z zzj W4 °wHXPizz >1:1H mw CW- I °aQIQzw 00 I9 9 00 19-1 CO H o Q O� H c°i F A W z w � w I�Q, w In a Iii O Inm r- CA -IT m 1 a ZQHa a 117 r7 HD.. HZD rD In aHW O W aH W m W IH-lId aEaWiQO�Z Ut o z m W a x o X H z H ` U 1' i' a W W z W a V OHO W UHj °H IHn 00 03 zoo H z• ' tV H M a s H O N H >I W H 09 D U a H., W .. Cry <r .D U EwwZvE4Ml 0 QI<E Hw u7000� W a W z m Q 4l< f< 0z0H4 W U z Hzr UH9 C7 117EIy' O a H U H UQaE '✓oo W OQ zH Q . ` W W H E O E W +I +I O z O w W Z Z O rQ z U W ? E 117 W- W w a W z m E a O a O Q f��i O a In z w u a W H > w E P+ x r) ij D "OaH m o •• a OD c Hz z m3EH aaDa UI H 0HgEIm °7-I NHUI' >I -aw W >+ OO, >4 E-1 a�oXm Pl0mm za 1997 En En a H x m a PQ H rn O E-4 4 a W w 4 W D H w O O 4 H, H X O H H z m O D W Q W Q H Q H w H H a C) U mm U m H Hx W I U°UHza xzH W H W Ha-m W'd• >+ Hm E a II II HzH -I�z Igo HH O xa UWvEad' x �a H w DoH m ww g wwr wowz m PI ci m D h Q w a uH ow 0(nz Olno>4 3OO H w z `H H O ".W a m 0 a v � x X 4 >+ H H W >I N °H H Q m H .. Q H D m m W° C7 C7 D a H E 0 u I4 a s E W Qz E H E a w U m z m 0 a m - O ..H O U m U a s •• a m x D W N H a W W E x H% H H D P4 4 w H x UNa a' 0.l U - I<4 m W Z 0ul mm&i as E am awo - a .>4 a as W OaDWEHzm OQ as H WO M H O H Q H 0 4% m o z E W x z 4 N W U -m W ' a m 0 H W E W NZZHO ••mmc7 D» ax morn O U) z •• H H H Q W H O H U m O D o a z W E w E N W -.W w H aEQ Waxald W>+a0 HWW U z O m z w Hp Z H EImU>I W EOa ZEU as >+W H U) O a H a 0 4 0 H W O z a H a x 0 z w 4 0 z W 4 W ..O ,W ,� N I� pP,UaQH3 as EUaH UHQ a W 007 a Q H H ZH N Ih 4 N 10 r C0 � I - _'•sba' 77 LLL r� (f k• a��r74 "F" : �,.a a.. � t .' � .k. � ,,;ti r v� t.. W O OE-I -w H m O Q U) W m a wC7Q W x w H 0 z z 4 m Q . I4 x O Z Z a W U H H O m QZ a r ¢ U HI�Ow z H aaHw - Ou O OLL U Cl - a W x H m Z O a Q QU! 'i',a HO -Q1 W W U° H E x W F EH zQ 117 -H QN W w m ar-I Y J pl'r -1 0 k >1 H In mH EHP:x3 W wQ P+H0 ZQa 4coa ON H rt; u W'.4 mgzwoam OHU o W HwazH t7 X_HZEa0 O a >+ F'O H Q w %O a H zx0www z- Wa0W0U > P4 FO � v U za Y Q a xD HW Mo aCPwrnn° Ha - aW W - DPWIOW aH HWH a m � U o UPQ I� Hz H O QHama W Q >r Uaw z -FBI P4 U4 04 W W W z zQW3D<om zo Z oEzQ ,H Hz —U ° HOt 'U,J cl wIC,•WS'•HN W 0uHZH 0 W T W >4 H Qio Wm Qz W O E-HQ W m0l�xHl o w0 -I�mx W H W m DHZH w QP'' -. HQ zj HH Eou) HW0 xHws3: 4>'° zti. HE O wH Iad'W a' Qa DQ HH OHM >I '.D W W WHOxQa H3EHEOr r wz ' 0 31n D -N zu74wUa W< - H m D HQO a Da PIN 04 0x W X ,r 0O, >rn 07 HPi ,'�•>I Qmx aOtro a W E a00 W x -O a U W e wx z m W u r H a„ In W pQ G., z H.q W m PL r- 00HU0li go HEIC7»a W 0 H 0 a�w Q m D3 H �HW Ha1 nwEa 3CW7HaaQH z° 4W Q O a U O 07 U Q H 0 -W 4 H U , 44 El) W o ff W Q W a H aHIPIH W 4 H Z W Em P, o P.a a E W K!i4 NO4Ua a o4Qw - 4 -W am a`O zma ao oO PQ ° am W z aaawx.�U) SS zs z >,w 0OlW44xzuwHHN O E H.<<, O W 4 4 0 - E as W EP* W m -z Z W H Q O H H N OHZH z z =0 .O W UQ P+H a W Mwzwzz W rD a' a W I,wzza 0m C14 f,D I�QEU0MD WH%D0 r+3£m UH0 W W W Z- r W a W pO U z 4 DlnxHrnU HHH W a I< z Ha WQHa HN0Z a0 z x pH Z If"',Dzwuw 0 Oaz W z H:) W -Q W m a Wa x W amm >9 - m EInH0 U) W z w>4 z a c-r� 0 Q aQP4 w z w m a O H U r W H z W z m a U rn 1.7 H N Z a O a z O z U H a Ewa W wwON C7 a]wU7om H wOox H Ha E-I W 0NPl Z W x a 0 a U w z W a x W a H a x mz EI Z Pa » q H m W x H W H X U D Z 4 H Q w W H S � 0 H P4 w� ��w HmwzwaomHhw p E-4 wwoszmw� CQ FOH0 0 z" ° o u ° H ° zOP4 a oa u 4 mp4°z w zm zQ z zu o Q O >IQ 4 HZMDZxa EUWm x OwD -EW O OzW zQm H Hz W O a w a W r w EFL H O �QQ aE3>+aaa3iaa W W m Pl mma>E -z m zHa� W a H a D I� a H u H w W m O a a W 0 x 00 O D a W a x • W m 4P.r�P000 H m W a 0 xFcum H Wm c� Ira a44 uwaHHx»aauu xDwzaEzw0Ww >aa I-aow4ZHzw gH33 W %HQ a m <wwz HPQa< H E az P H a aU a0a W wmwQo4m J Lv p M LL O LU I V 0 W p Ww O Z V� (0O w Q 0 � w � � Iz Q Q A:zz Q W�®U, CL LL r p O P � U a f 1,11 ILL 0' (f) ll. OyOZI UJ w dZ�d N Q'7 Loa own' D 0 a z a �� F u ObO� lvowb � � � b gg, LL Nbs t z z �- > U! - O N O coo d a U O U) U3 F- a) Q QZ W ¢ O OLL w x Y J o O _ W LLJ U z O LLf > o FO � v Y Q a O W m o _^ OD N J —U T i G Q - e u q (` 6J IW SS J Lv p M LL O LU I V 0 W p Ww O Z V� (0O w Q 0 � w � � Iz Q Q A:zz Q W�®U, CL LL r p O P � U a f 1,11 ILL 0' (f) ll. OyOZI UJ w dZ�d N Q'7 Loa own' D 0 a z a �� F u ObO� lvowb � � � b gg, LL Nbs t z z �- > U! - O N O coo d a U O r O r � U3 F- a) Q QZ ¢ O OLL x Y J QQ U rn LLf > o FO � v Y Q a O W m N J —U T x. ;• az � .9l .p+s r ;N' die — 4 $1 yF e �: VIk. tai , }• .. �� ly r gyp• o L • y x P 00 1 ii :Y 4K .yyS�+� , • 1 I ID 1 • � _�_ � rr" 1 . ff � t 3; ' '. tY r3� 1 • 1 It 1� w r ti'� $ f'.. .. tky'ci�i146q o`. r F,- l � • ya'}" "tf d' A� I. abx (ti�'g1c x+" r. ;ti<. uY. a. 1 � • i f x� sx c 117 � ,�f •; � , � • � �� •,bYa �•. ..Kr. ..vr�4 • • 4.•