Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout6.3 DubRchWest Attch 10-12 RESOLUTION NO. 05 -16 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ADOPTING A NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (CUP) AND SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW (SDR) TO CONSTRUCT A 53,860 SQUARE FOOT AUTO SALES AND SERVICE ESTABLISHMENT ON THREE PARCELS AT 6363, 6391, AND 6451 SCARLETT COURT P A 04-009 RESOLUTION NO. 05 -17 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A 53,860 SQUARE FOOT DUBLIN HONDA AUTO SALES AND SERVICE ESTABLISHMENT ON THREE PARCELS AT 6363,6391, AND 6451 SCARLETT COURT APNS 941-0550-13-4, 941-0550-14-2, and 941-0550-12-11 P A 04-009 8.3 P A 02-028 Annexation Application, Pre-Annexation Agreement, General Plan/Specific Plan Amendment, Prezoning and Stage 1 Development Plan - An application for Annexation of a 189 acre area within the City of Dublin Sphere of Influence, a Pre- Annexation Agreement and an amendment to the General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan to replace a 9.7-acre school site with Medium High Density Residential to replace a Neighborhood Commercial land use designation with an Open Space designation; approval of a PD-Planned Development prezoning for the Project site; approval of a Stage 1 Development Plan for the 184-acre Dublin Ranch West portion of the Project site that would allow development of up to 1,064 dwelling units, a Neighborhood Park and Open Space. No land use changes are proposed for other properties within the Project area. Chair Schaub opened the pu blic hearing and asked for the staff report. Mr. Porto presented the staff report and a PowerPoint presentation. The proposed Project includes Certification of a Supplemental ErR (which includes a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program); pre-zoning the entire area for annexation to the City of Dublin and approval of a PD-Planned Development Zoning District with related Stage 1 Development Plan; an Amendment of the land uses shown the in General Plan and the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan for the Lin Family property only; an application for Annexation of the entire project area to the City of Dublin and to the Dublin San Ramon Services District (DSRSD); and approval of a pre-arrnexation agreement with the consenting property owner. Staff is requesting that the Planning Commission recommend these items to the City Council for approval. The project area, which is the subject of this annexation, contains approximately 189 acres of land. It includes property held by three separate owners. As it is yet to be annexed, the project area is located 1/!6mrrin¡¡ (:ommúsîort ~!M1<tÎIIiJ 44 ATTAéH'MËiff 10 within the unincorporated area of Alameda County within the City's Sphere of Influence near the northeasterly City limits. The project area generally consists of grasslands from high hills in the north and west sloping to the south and southeast. Tassajara Creek runS north to south through the area to its southerly point. The area currently is used for farming/ grazing, firewood sales and storage, several rural homesteads, agrieultural outbuildings, and two strueture of potentially historie signifieance - a sehoolhouse. The Tassajara Creek corridor is vegetated with native oaks and riparian plant materials. The development conœpt for the area strives to preserve the natural environment and create a community that is compatible with the natural terrain. Approximately 107 of the 189 acres would be converted from vacant or agricultural land to urbani suburban use. The number of units within the project area is anticipated to range from 652 to 1,418 based on the density ranges with the mid-point at 1,053 units. The ellrrent action before the Planning Commission is to consider recommending that the City Council adopt a resolution authorizing Staff to initiate an application to LAFCo for the requested annexations of the 189-acre project area to the City of Dublin and the DSRSD. The proposed annexations are consistent with City's planning efforts and would provide for the logical and orderly extension of urban serviœs to the eastern portion of Dublin. After submittal of the annexation application, but prior to LAFCo approval, the City will be required to enter into a tax transfer agreement for the area to be annexed, and the property owners would be required to enter into agreements with DSRSD. The proposed General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan land use amendments provide a. more practical and efficient land use pattern with the intent of preserving the topography of the T assajara Creek corridor, maintaining scenic corridor qualities, and enhancing the natural environment. The proposed land uSe amendments are in the public interest protecting sensitive wildlife species in Tassajara Creek, and the General Plan as amended will remain internally consistent. The Stage 1 Planned Development zoning is consistent with the General Plan and the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan, as amended. It also serves as pre-zoning required for the annexation application to LAFCo. The EIR has undergone a review process established by CEQA and addresses the environmental impacts associated with the proposed project through mitigation measures or statements of over-riding consideration. The requested annexation area is within the City's Sphere of Influence and represents a logical step towards incorporation of the Sphere of Influence area. The proposed pre-annexation agreement ensures that the City's costs associated with the annexation of the project area and subsequent development will be revenue-neutral and not a burden or expense to the City's sourceS of funds. The proposed LAFCo hearing is tentatively scheduled for May 2005. Staff recommends the Planning Commission adopt a resolution recommending that the City Council certify the Supplemental Environmental Impact Report and approve the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program; adopt a resolution recommending that the City Council approve Amendments to the General Plan and to the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan; adopt a resolution recommending that the City Council approve a Planned Development (PD) Prezone Stage 1 Development Plan for Dublin Ranch West; and adopt a resolution recommending that the City Council direct Staff to file an application with Alameda County Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCo) for annexation to the City of Dublin and to the Dublin San Ramon Services District. Mr. Porto concluded his presentation and was available for questions. Chair Schaub stated he would like to discuss the Environmental Impact Report first. Cm. King asked about the East Bay Regional Parks District (EBRPD) plan around Tassajara Creek. He asked for the park issue to be addressed. He felt the EBRPD plan could be accommodated and a description should be included in the EIR. iPf4nrrin¡¡ CotalllÍmÍm 'RItJuW 94mÎ#¡J 45 'f./iruary 22, 2005 Mr. Porto showed the Commissioners on the Power Point the area that belongs to EBRPD. Staff has had disellssions with EBRPD and a condition was created that establishes a link along a flat course on the top of the creek bank to the Contra Costa County line. In no way has EBRPD been precluded from having their trails and was addressed through the environmental process. He showed the Commission the location of the trails. Cm. King said it was not contained in the document and should be in there. Jerry Haag, Consultant stated he had two meetings with EBRPD staff. The district chose an alignment along the creek and an agreement was made. He stated the environmental document adequately addressed the trail issue. He stated that if the Commission would like additional discussion it could be added if the Corrimission would provide the type of analysis they would like to see. Cm. King said he would like something added in the discussion of alternatives, which is on page 137 of the draft supplemental environmental impact report. He stated he is not sure what he is looking for, but something that explore what the EBRPD plan is and whether it can be accommodatcd and if not, why not. Mr. Haag stated that local trail that is being planned adjacent to Tassajara Creek is part of the project that is clearly shown on the project exhibit and was designed and built to accommodate EBRPD standards. Kit Fabion, City Attorney stated in the Draft ElR, Exhibits 10 and 11 clearly show the easement areas and various arrows for the connections to the trail easements. Also there is a comment letter from EBRPD and comments and a response from Staff. She suggested that if Staff includes those comments in the final dOellment that would be sufficient. Cm. FasuIkey asked if the last official document the City has was dated January 3rd. Mr. Porto said yes. Cm. King did not find any meaningful responses from Fish and Game. Mike Porto stated he did not receive a letter from Fish & Game prior to the close of the comment period. The City has never received a letter from Fish and Game that has basically said anything good. The City did receive a comment letter well after the comment period, and they were very happy with the ElR as it was prepared, very happy with the mitigation measures and were very comfortable with everything in the document and look forward to working with Staff. Fish and Game did respond but chose not to do it during the comment period that is required by CEQA Cm. King asked if it could be included in the ElR. Mr. Porto stated yes. Cm. King stated he could not find how many heritage trees would be sacrificed. Mr. Haag said the biologist went out there several times, and he put a mitigation condition to require the developer to provide tree preservation plan of all trees not just the heritage trees. Cm. King asked if that was in the Draft ElR. I/!6mnin¡¡ eøm_ 't.I¡JuW !MI<tÎII¡J 46 'l'.6rvary 22, ZOOS Mr. Haag responded yes. Cm. King commented that he would like to see a simple traffic explanation of the traffic impacts. He felt that a great deal of time and effort has gonc into all issues including environmental issues. Mr. Haag stated he would take that into consideration for future EIRs. Cm. Biddle asked about the gap between the boundaries for this project and the EBRPD plan. Is that a concern? Mr. Haag stated it may be, but this project cannot remedy that. Cm. Biddle said there were two road accesses into the site and two bridges across the creek. He asked if that was minimal environmental impact. Mr. Haag said the fire department made that a requirement. There was a lot of thought on the bridge placement. Cm. Biddle stated to his understanding that one of the bridges will connect two parks. Mr. Haag stated yes. Cm. Wehrenberg asked what herpetological was. Mr. Haag stated hcrpetology is a study of amphibians and reptiles - it is basically to keep the tiger salamanders away from grading activity. Chair Schaub asked if there were any other questions of Staff. Cm. Biddle asked for clarification On the park that is on the main thoroughfare. Mr. Porto showed the park slide again and said they were connected across from Quarry Lane School and showed the access point. Chair Schuab stated there are concerns with kid's parks near six lane roads. Mr. Porto stated that all of these points were brought up to the City Council and were discussed at a meeting back in Octobcr 2004. Issues such as fencing and landscaping materials were discussed and will be considered either through the Stage 2 development in terms of the right-of~way in that area or through the design of the park. Staff was very concerned with parks be located in this area. He explained that part of the issue with the parks was how much parkland was necessary. Originally on Wallis Ranch there was 10.5 acres. There were two parks that could not be developed. The actual requirement to deal with tl1e number of residential units that would be on Wallis Ranch would be significantly less than 10.5 acres. The parkland in the original specific plan showed a lot more. The City Council considered getting parkland closer to future development and something on this project so tl1e residents wouldn't have to go any further. Staff is working on locating additional park acreage for the east side of Tassajara Road. Chair Schaub had concerns with people coming down a rural road from Contra Costa Road going 60 miles an hour. wtå.rrin¡¡ CømmUnm. 'Rrd""'" 'MmirIg 47 Pemw.ry 2;1, 200$ Mr. Porto stated that Staff would condition a project through a Tentative Map. With development there is a need for infrastructure and the need to improve property. With Tentative Maps and development patterns the City will do additional traffic studies and a certain amount of development brings the need for a certain amount of roadway and Staff conditions the developer to provide that particular roadway. On arterials such as Tassajara Road the City has a reimbursement program for improvements created outside of what the developer's requirements are. The roadways are put in place when they are necessary so such things don't OCellr. Cm. Biddle asked if in the near future this roadway being discussed would be 6 lanes all the way to the County line. Mr. Porto stated not in the near future. It will be 4 lanes to the county line in the near future. Mr. Peabody stated it would eventually go to 6 lanes at some point when traffic volumes dictate the nced for more than 4 lanes. Chair Schaub asked if Contra Costa County will dictate the traffic. Mr. Peabody stated that part of the agreement with Contra Costa County is that funding would have to come from Contra Costa County for improvements as the traffic dictates. Cm. Biddle asked about the status of the property to the east and along Tassajara that is right outside the Wallis project. Mr. Porto showed the Commission those properties on the PowerPoint presentation and stated there has not been any interest from the owners to develop those areaS. Cm. Wehrenberg asked for clarification regarding the Zone 7 letter and about the ground water, items 5 and 6 to that letter, and the encroachment into Contra Costa County. She asked if Zone 7 stated if there is enough water. Mr. Haag stated that there is adequate water, even under drought conditions. The Applicant provided a very detailed water service analysis that is required for this project. On item 5, the salt loading, the DElR talks about the salt loading program to help leech SOme salts out of the ground. On item 6, a small portion of the project site is outside the City boundary and it is not considered in the EIR or part of this project because it is outside the jurisdiction. Cm. Biddle asked where the nearest school was located. Mr. Porto showed on a map where the nearest elementary school was located as well as the middle school that is currently under construction. Cm. Biddle asked if there is a middle school planned for the east side of Tassajara. Mr. Porto stated no. Cm. Biddle stated that thjs is a much better plan than what was done a few years ago. Martin Inderbitzen, Applicant, thanked the Planning Commission and Mr. Porto for his work on the project. He felt the understanding of the project was clear and explained how this project has been brought forward. He is confident this will have a very successful outcome. He discussed some of the œca.nitt(J CmtmrltiWm '*d1ÚM !Mmitt(J 48 'Fø5nl4ry 22, ZOOS ErR issues that were brought up earlier. He stated when they initiated the application a few years ago they could of done the easy thing and make an application for annexation and prezoning consistent with the existing specific plan. Under that circumstance the EIR would have been simple. The difference is that all of the work they have done to get to this stage would now be taking place with a Stage 2 PD Rezone, which would have been harder to understand the issues. As they have been working through the deveJopment of the main portions of Dublin Ranch, they have been working with the wildlife agencies (Fish and Game, Fish and Wildlife) and they have developed an extensive mitigation program that accommodates a main portion of this property. He addressed the issue of the trail plan for EBRPD and stated they will not be affected by this project. The biology report addressed the heritage but they will be further addressed in the Stage 2 PD application. He discussed the layout and entrance of the project and how they avoided most of the heritage trees and addressed the issues raised about the park and traffic. He stated that Jerry Haag has done an excellent job on the environmental report, whieh has addressed all the issues. He thanked Staff and the Commission and was available for questions. Chair Schaub asked if there were any other speakers; hearing none he dosed the public hearing. Cm. King asked for a 4-5 paragraph description on the East Bay Regional Parks plan as an alternative and to include the Fish and Game letter. On motion by Cm. Biddle, 2"~ by em. Wehrenberg subject to the language and letter modifications, the Planning Commission unanimously adopted RESOLUTION NO. 05 - 18 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL CERTIFICATION OF A SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMP ACT REPORT AND APPROVAL OF MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM FOR THE DUBLIN RANCH WEST PROJECT P A 02-028 On motion by Cm. Biddle, 2"d by Cm. Fasulkey by a vote of 5-0, the Planning Commission unanimously adopted RESOLUTION NO. 05 -19 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE AMENDMENTS TO THE GENERAL PLAN AND EASTERN DUBLIN SPECIFIC PLAN FOR A PORTION (APN 986-0004-005-01) OF THE PROJECT KNOWN AS DUBLIN RANCH WEST P A 02-028 On motion by Cm. Wehrenberg, 2"d by Cm. Schaub, the Planning Commission unanimously adopted RESOLUTION NO. 05 - 20 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT THE ORDINANCE ""'''''1''11 eo"""usUJ" Ø(Jøukr !MI<tÎII¡J 49 w.6nury 22, 200S APPROVING A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT (PD) PREZONING AND STAGE 1 DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE 189-ACRE AREA KNOWN AS DUBLIN RANCH WEST P A 02-028 RESOLUTION NO. 05 - 21 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL DIRECT STAFF TO FILE AN APPLICATION WITH THE ALAMEDA COUNTY LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION (LAFCO) TO ANNEX 189 ACRES OF UNINCORPORATED TERRITORY INTO THE CITY OF DUBLIN AND THE DUBLIN SAN RAMON SERVICES DISTRICT (DSRSD) FOR THAT LAND KNOWN AS DUBLIN RANCH WEST LOCATED SOUTH OF THE COUNTY BOUNDARY, NORTH OF THE EXISTING CITY LIMITS, EAST OF THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT PROPERTY KNOWN AS PARKS RESERVE TRAINING FACILITY (PRTF), AND GENERALLY WEST OF TASSA]ARA ROAD, LOCATED WITHIN THE EASTERN DUBLIN PLANNING AREA, REQUESTED FOR PREZONING TO PLANNED DEVELOPMENT (PD) AND IDENTIFIED AS P A 02-028 ~~- OTHER BUSINESS - Mr. Peabody passed out a newsletter from the League of California Cities with some irúormation about what the department does each year. He asked Commissioners to check their calenda.rs for April 5, 2005 for a joint City Council/Planning Commission Study Session regarding the East Dublin Property Owners project. Mr. Peabody said the volunteer dinner is Thursday night February 24, 2005 and all were invited. Mr. Peabody stated that on Saturday, February 26, 2005 at 9:00 a.m. in the Regional Meeting Room there would be a Planning Commission and City Council Goals and Objectives meeting. Chairman Schaub said they have not received a packet for that meeting. :Mr. Peabody said the Commission would receive their packet before Saturday. ADJOURNMENT - The meeting was adjourned at 9;15 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Planning Commission Chairperson 1/!6mrrin¡¡c.'tmImiuitm ~!M1<tÎIIiJ 50 'F.6roaty ZZ, zoos Suggested Revised Wording for DWR Final EIR 2/26/05 (changes underlined) Comment 3.2: East Bay Regional Park District · Comment 3.2: The proposed project would not be consistent with the District's 1997 Master Plan. The Master Plan located the Tassajara Creek Regional Trail along the ridge in the eastern vicinity of Parks RFTA and then proceeding northward towards Mt. Diablo State Park. The proposed project would locate the Regional Trail in a corridor between two areas proposed for low and medium density residential development. The Draft SEIR is inadequate because it does not address significant impacts associated with the lack of consistency with the Master Plan and the impacts from changing the existing open space to residential development adjacent to the regional trail corridor. Revised Response: Based upon discussions between the East Bay Regional Park District staff, City of Dublin staff and the applicant for development of the Dublin Ranch West project, it was understood that the Park District supported a change to show the Regional Trail along the Tassajara Creek corridor, which would be consistent with the 1993 Eastern Dublin Specific Plan. Mitigation Measure 3.3/16.0 contained in the 1993 Eastern Dublin EIR requires the provision of a Oass I paved bicvcle and pedestrian path parallel to Tassaiara Creek. The Park District presently controls an easement for a future trail linking the area south of the Dublin Ranch West proiect area with Mount Diablo to the north. The existing easement traverses moderate to steep topography on land owned by Parks RFTA and is not located on the Dublin Ranch West proiect site. The Stage 1 Development Plan for the Dublin Ranch West proiect (reference SDEIR Exhibit 11) indicates that recreational trails are proposed e:enerallv parallel to and on both sides of Tassajara Creek. The proiect developer has indicated a willingness to ensure that either one of the proposed trails would be designed to be consistent with East Pav Ree:ional Park District trail standards and could be connected to existine: Park District trails. In addition, the Development Plan includes proposed trail linkae:es to the existine: Park District trail easement to the west. ATTACHMENT 11 In any event, the proposed Dublin Ranch West project does not change the existing Park District regional trail location off of the project site. The Stage 1 Developrnent Plan for the Dublin Ranch West project offers a greater degree of flexibility to the District to provide an alternative location for the proposed regional trail adiacent and parallel to Tassaiara Creek. Trail locations adia.ccnt to Tassaiara Creek could also be more conducive to visitor use, since topography adiacent to the Creek is flatter. The City of Dublin bclievcs thc 1993 Eastern Dublin EIR adequately addresscd the potential impacts of future trails adjacent to Tassajara Creek as shown in Eastern Dublin Specific Plan. The City has not identified any specific impacts with the requested land use change that would rcplace existing open space uses with Low Density Residential uses further to the west on the Dublin Ranch West property. Stale of.Ç.g.!ifornia - The Resources Aoencv DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME hUe: / /www dfa.ca aD\! POST OFFICE SOX 47 YOUNTvILLE. CALIFORNIA S4599 (707) 944-5S00 February 1.7, 2005 ARNOLD SCHWARZ~NEGGER. Governor . Mr. Michael Porto Ci ty of Dublin 100 Civic Plaza Dublin, CA 94568 Via Fax (925) 833-6628 Dear Mr. Porto: Dublin Ranch West/Wallis Ranch Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact Report City of Dublin, Alameda County Department of Fish and Game (DFG) personnel have reviewed the "Dublin Ranch West Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact Reportll (DEIR), dated November 2004, Alameda County. The DEIR discusses the 190-acre Dublin Park West residential development. The site provides habitat for a number of native species including the western burrowing owl, California red-legged frog, and California tiger salamander. Development of this site constitutes a loss of habitat for native species and will result in significant impacts to a number of special status species unless adequate mitigation is provided. DFG has worked with the applicant to address impacts to California tiger salamander on the site for a number of years and has expressed our overall satisfaction with the measures in the DEIR to City planning staff. We appreciate the efforts of the applicant and the lead agency to propose mitigation measures in the DEIR which satisfy most of DFG concerns and are sufficient to reduce impacts to a level of less-than- significant. These mitigation measures were developed to supplement local populations of the species which will be impacted by the project. DFG supports the requirements for the applicant to obtain approval from the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service and DFG as appropriate for impacts to western burrowing owl, California red-legged frog, California tiger salamander and other public trust resources prior to project construction. The amount and specific location of off-site mitigation/compensation areas will be determined by the resource agencies. RECEIVED Conserving Ca[ifornia's 11liM[ife Since 1870 FES lA 2005 e ATTACHMEN13L1J .NING ~ Mr. Michael Porto February 17, 2005 Page 2 DFG personnel are available to discuss our comments and to assist in finalizing the mitigation requirements for the project. If you have any questions, please call Janice Gan, Environmental Specialist, at (209) 835-6910; or Scott Wilson, Habitat Conservation Supervisor, at (707) 944-5584. cc: Ms. Sheila Larsen U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2800 Cottage Way, W2605 Sacramento, CA 95825 Mr. James Browning U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2800 Cottage Way, W2605 Sacramento, CA 95825