HomeMy WebLinkAbout6.1 HansenRnchMap&DevAgmt
it
,.
e
.
CITY OF DUBLIN
AGENDA STATEMENT
CITY COUNCIL :MEETING DATE: FEBRUARY 27, 1995
SUBJECT: Public Hearing P A 94-054 Hansen Ranch Tentative Map Amendment &
Development Agreement Amendment
REPORT PREPARED BY: TashaHuston, Associate Planner c&;It
EXHIBITS ATTACHED: (Exhibit A.
/
/
/
/
Exhibit B
Exhibit C:
Project Plans: Reduced copy of Tentative Map,
Limits of Grading Exhibit, Creek Access Road
Exhibit, and Staff Study
Draft Resolution Adopting Negative Declaration
Draft Resolution Approving Tentative Map
Amendment
Exhibit D:
Draft Ordinance Approving Development Agreement
Amendment
Exhibit E:
Draft Resolution relating to P A 91-099 Hansen Hill
Ranch Development Agreement Annual Review
BACKGROUND ATTACH:MENTS
RECOM:MENDATION~.
1.)
~ 2)
--\ 3)
4)
5)
6)
7)
8)
7)
1.
Staff Reports from January 17, and February 6, 1995 Planning
Commission Meetings, without attachments
Applicant's letters: one dated February 13, and two dated February
16, 1995
City's letter responding to applicant's February 13 letter
Memorandum from City Attorney
Applicant's Written Statement regarding Tentative Map and
Development Agreement Amendments
Location Map
Minutes of the January 17 and February 6, 1995 Planning
Commission Meetings
Current Hansen Hill Ranch Development Agreement
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
Open Public Hearing and hear Staff presentation.
Take testimony from Applicant and the public.
Question Staff, Applicant and the public.
Close public hearing and deliberate.
Adopt Resolution Approving Negative Declaration (Exhibit B)
Adopt Resolution Approving Tentative Map Amendment (Exhibit C)
Waive Reading and Introduce Ordinance Approving Development
Agreement Amendment (Exhibit D)
Adopt Resolution Relating to P A 91-099 Hansen Hill Ranch
Development Agreement Annual Review (Exhibit E)
Continue public hearing to March 13, 1995, at 7:00 p.m.
-----------------------------------------------------.------------------------------------------.-----------------
ITEM NO. -"..1
COPIES TO:
CITY CLERK
FILE ~
e
e
FINANCIAL STATE:MENT: None
DESCRIPTION
Martha Buxton, on behalf of California Pacific Homes, Inc., has requested a Tentative Map
Amendment and Development Agreement Amendment for limited revisions to Phase I of the approved
Tentative Map and Development Agreement for the Hansen Hill Ranch project. The amendments to the
Map involve changing pad elevations, making minor lot line adjustments, and reducing the width of the
creek access road from 12 feet to 8 feet wide, while providing an access road on the north side of the
creek. The requested Development Agreement modifications relate to the width of the access road, the
timing of development of the road, and the extension of a creek access road off the site. Also, the
applicant has requested that the Annual Review of the Development Agreement be conducted in
conjunction with the City Council's review of the proposed project amendments.
The proposed amendments to this project were reviewed by the Planning Commission with Public
Hearings on January 17, 1995, and February 6, 1995. The Staff Reports prepared for these meetings
recommended that the majority of the applicant's requests for amendments be granted, with several
conditions of approval. The main issues for the City Council's review are: I. the Creek Access Road
redesign; II. the change in pad elevations; and III. the Development Agreement Annual Review.
I. Creek Access Road, Access Trail, and Martin Canyon Road cul-de-sac
Applicant's Request
The applicant has requested that a Creek Access Road required for the development be reduced in
width from 12 feet to 8 feet, and that it serve as a "Hiking Trail". In conjunction with the narrower
"Trail", a 12 foot wide "Access Road" is proposed on the North side of the creek. The redesign of the
Access Road is due to the significant grading and retaining walls necessary for construction. The applicant
has stated that the amount of grading necessary for a 12 foot wide road could be substantially reduced if
the road width is reduced to 8 feet, and it is utilized as a "Trail".
In addition, the applicant is proposing that the Access Trail and Road be constructed in two phases,
concurrent with the project construction phases. Also, the applicant requests that a previous requirement
to construct an access road beyond the northwest boundary of the site, to serve the open space area, be
eliminated.
The applicants are opposed to the staff's recommended condition of approval requiring a cul-de-sac
on Martin Canyon Road adjacent to the proposed Access Road to be constructed on the north side of the
creek..
Background
The Hansen Ranch Tentative Map was approved by the City Council in November of 1989, and
included the provision of a Creek Access Road to serve the creek and open space area. As approved, the
Access Road's primary purpose is to provide for maintenance and repairs to the creek area, emergency fire
and police access, and a recreational hiking path. A condition of the current Development Agreement
requires that the road be 12 feet in width, and that the entire length of the creek access road must be
constructed with Phase 1 of the project (See Attachment 8, Page 18, Subparagraph 5.3.2, Condition a.).
Another Development Agreement condition required that a gravel creek access road be constructed in the
open space and extend beyond the project's northwestern boundary (See Attachment 8, Page 18,
Subparagraph 5.3.2, Condition b.).
The project as approved provides that the City of Dublin will become responsible for maintaining
the creek area. To accommodate the City's responsibilities for maintenance of the creek area, a road of at
least 12 feet wide will be needed on at least one side of the creek. Staffis recommending that if the eight-
foot wide road on the south side of the creek is accepted, a 12 foot wide access road should be provided
-2-
e
e
along the north side of the creek. This would include use ofan existing private road west of Martin
Canyon Road, on the adjacent property north of the project site, and a 12 foot wide strip along the
northern property line east of Martin Canyon Road. In order to provide this road north of the creek for
City access, the following items must be accomplished:
a. A strip ofland along the north side of the creek, east of Martin Canyon Road, must be
improved to 12 foot wide, with aggregate base, and fenced and gated for use only by
maintenance and emergency personnel.
b. An access to the creek must be provided between the lots off ofthe Silvergate cul-de-sac
(Lots 6, 7, and 8) and the creek bank, as illustrated by the "Staff Study" included as a part
of Exhibit A (page 8).
c. The proposed amendment would result in the primary access to the creek and open space
areas for maintenance, repair, and emergency vehicles to be provided from the north side of
the creek via Martin Canyon Road. This road should be improved with a cul-de-sac bulb at
the end. The need for this improvement is warranted in order to bring the street into
compliance with City street standards; enable more efficient maintenance; to avoid trash
buildup; and provide an improved turnaround for large emergency vehicles and maintenance
equipment.
d. An easement for improvement, use, and maintenance of a private road on the Nielsen
property will need to be obtained and transferred to the City. If the applicant is unable to
arrange for the appropriate easement, an alternate location for a 12 foot wide access road
must be provided on the project property, or the project approval would revert back to the
previous approval (with a 12 foot wide road on the south side of the creek).
e. Various other conditions of approval would be applied to the approval of the proposed
creek Access Road and Access Trail redesign, as reflected in the Resolution Approving the
Tentative Map Amendment (Exhibit C) and the Ordinance Approving the Development
Agreement Amendment (Exhibit D).
During the project review process, several concerns have been raised related to the proposed redesign.
Some of the major concerns include:
a.) Tree loss resulting from construction of the road;
b.) The cost to the City for maintaining two creek access roads;
c.) The practical use of an 8 foot wide road for emergency and maintenance vehicles;
d. ) Various potential problems with easement rights for use of a road on the Nielsen property
e.) The feasibility of obtaining State and Federal agencies permission to construct a road along
the narrow flat area north of the creek (east of Martin Canyon Road);
f) East Bay Regional Parks District recommendations for access roads; and
g.) Statements and letters from several concerned residents adjacent to the project.
The Public Works Department has indicated a preference for the gravel access road on the north
side of the creek because it provides closer access to the creek. If the developer provides this road, in
addition to the Access Trail on the south side of the creek, the City would avoid having to eventually
construct a road in this area at the City's expense.
Only minor issues have been raised related to the construction of the creek Access Road and/or
Trail in two phases, as opposed to entirely with Phase I of the project. If the City allows phased
construction, temporary turnarounds would be needed at the ends of the roads with the Phase I
construction. When the roads are extended in Phase II, permanent turnarounds would be needed at the
ultimate ends of the roads.
-3-
e
e
Finally, the applicant has requested the deletion of a condition requiring providing a gravel creek
access road beyond the project boundary. With the new proposal, an eight-foot wide access trail is
proposed to extend to the west end of the property south of the creek and within the project boundary.
This eight foot wide access trail would be adequate for access to and maintenance of the open space area,
and would eliminate the need to provide the previously proposed access road off the project site for creek
maintenance.
Planning Commission Recommendation
At the February 6 meeting, the Planning Commission recommended that the access road/trail not be
reduced from 12 feet wide to 8 feet wide, that an additional 12 foot wide road on the north side of the
creek not be approved, and that the access road/trail be constructed as it was originally approved. The
Commission also recommended that a cul-de-sac bulb at Martin Canyon Road not be required, for two
reasons: a. The access road on the north side of the creek was not being recommended, and b. The
previous Tentative Map approval did not include a requirement for this cul-de-sac. The Planning
Commission recommended approval of limited Development Agreement amendments, including: 1.) The
construction of the creek access road may occur in two phases, concurrent with the phases of project; and
2.) An access road off-site to serve the open space area would not be required.
Staff Recommendation
Conditions of approval have been included in the Resolution Approving the Tentative Map
Amendment (Exhibit C) and the Ordinance Approving the Development Agreement Amendment (Exhibit
D). These conditions would address concerns with accessibility due to a reduced road width on the south
side of the creek. The recommended conditions of approval prepared by Staff include: 1. Construction of
a cul-de-sac at the end of Martin Canyon Road, and the development of a 12 foot wide Access Road on
the north side of the creek. (The width of the road may be reduced in limited areas where necessary for
tree preservation). Staff recommends approval of the Tentative Map and Development Agreement
Amendments related to the creek Access Road and Access Trail redesign, as shown in Exhibits C and D.
ll. Pad Elevation Changes
Applicant's Request
The Tentative Map Amendment application initially involved minor revisions to the lot and street
configurations, and changes in pad elevations, most notably concerning lots 26-40 (See Exhibit A). The
adjustments were proposed in order to provide less steep road grades for some streets, to make less severe
cuts into the hillsides, and to generally reduce the overall area of grading for Phase 1. The most significant
aspect of the pad elevation changes concerned higher pads on the cul-de-sac adjacent to Hansen Drive,
where pad elevation changes range from 2 to 21 feet.
Background
The approved Tentative Map pad elevations for lots on the cul-de-sac in question were lower than
most of the house pads on Hansen Drive. The Planned Development General Provisions approved for this
project allow two story homes with a maximum height of32 feet. Home designs for this subdivision were
approved under a Site Development Review application in 1992, and are currently in effect.
The applicant's proposal to revise pad elevations on the cul-de-sac would result in increases up to
21 feet on some of the lots. Several concerns were raised by residents of Hansen Drive related to visual
impacts with the higher pad elevations. At the February 6, 1995 Planning Commission meeting, staff
recommended that restrictions be placed on the ultimate height allowed for three of the lots on the cul-de-
sac adjacent to existing Hansen Drive residences. The Planning Commission voted to approve the pad
elevation changes, with these suggested lircitations.
-4-
e
e
.
After the February 6 Planning Commission meeting, the applicant submitted a letter to the City
dated February 13, 1995, in response to the Commission's action on the project (see attachment 2-A).
This letter stated that the applicant would like to revert to the pad elevations shown on the "currently
approved grading plan". However, the City does not have an approved grading plan for this project. The
pad elevations approved with the Tentative Map in 1989 would still be in effect, unless modified by
subsequent project approvals. Also, the design criteria in the Planned Development General Provisions,
approved in 1989, would govern the design and height limits for the project in general. However, the
home designs approved under Site Development Review in 1992 are still in effect.
A follow-up letter from the applicant (dated February 16, 1995), clarified that the applicants no
longer wish to amend the elevations of any of the lots on the cul-de-sac adjacent to Hansen Drive. Because
the applicant is withdrawing the elevation amendments for these lots, the Staff position on this issue needs
to be revised. Staff recommends that the City Council eliminate the condition of approval regarding height
restrictions on lots 31,32, and 33, which the Planning Commission and Staff had previously recommended.
Also at the February 6 Planning Commission meeting, the Commission requested that staff obtain
legal input from the City Attorney regarding the City's liability iflandslides occur as a result of the project
grading. City Attorney Elizabeth Silver has indicated that it does not appear the City would be held liable
in the event of ground failure or landslides due to the City's approval of this project. This is because the
Planning Commission and City Council review the staff reports and other information presented, then make
an independent discretionary decision on approval of the Tentative Map based upon this review. The City
should be immune from liability for any damages caused by landslides or soil movement on private property
because the City's only action is to approve the Tentative Map. A copy of the City Attorney's
memorandum commenting on this issue is attached as background attachment #4, for further information.
The City Attorney will also be available at the February 27, 1995, City Council meeting to answer
additional questions.
Planning Commission Recommendation
The Planning Commission recommended that the City Council approve the Tentative Map minor
lot line revisions, street reconfigurations, and elevation changes, with restrictions placed on the ultimate
height allowed for three lots, as follows:
#4. "The total height of pad elevation plus house shall not exceed the following:
a. For Lot #32, the same height as the residence at 7439 Hansen Drive (approximately 530 feet) plus
or minus one foot
b. For Lot #33, the same height as the residence at 7445 Hansen Drive (approximately 542 feet) plus
or minus one foot
c. For Lot #31, shall not exceed 530 feet, which is the Equivalent of the previous project approval for
pad elevation plus house
The height shall be measured at the highest ridge of the homes, and shall be subject to verification by the Dublin
Planning Department."
Also, the Planning Commission recommended that the City Council obtain legal input from the
City Attorney regarding the City's liability iflandslides occur as a result of the project grading, and
consider this information in making its decision on modifications to the Tentative Map.
Staff Recommendation
Conditions of approval have been included in the Resolution (Exhibit C) which would address
issues with street grades, curve radii, and other aspects of the requested revisions to the lot line and street
-5-
e
.
.
~ ..
configurations. As previously noted, these were relatively minor revisions which provide less steep road
grades for some streets and other minor adjustments. With the applicants withdrawal of any pad elevation
changes on the cul-de-sac, the staff has no concerns with other pad elevation changes. Staff recommends
conditional approval of the Tentative Map Amendment.
ill. Development Agreement Annual Review
Applicant's Request
On February 16, 1995, the City received a letter from Martha Buxton, representing California
Pacific Homes, Inc. (see Attachment 2-c). The letter requests that the Development Agreement Annual
Review required for the project be conducted in conjunction with the City Council's review of other
project approvals. The letter notes that California Pacific Homes, Inc. has complied with all of the terms
and conditions of the agreement and is working diligently to commence construction in April of 1995.
Background
The Ordinance approving a Development Agreement for the Hansen Hill Ranch project, between
the City of Dublin and the Donald L. Bren Company, now California Pacific Homes, Inc., was adopted in
February of 1992. The Development Agreement requires that an annual report be presented to the City
Council, as per Section 8.12.140 of the Municipal Code, regarding the status of the project. March 1 was
established as the annual review date.
In requesting the Tentative Map and Development Agreement Amendments, the developer is
demonstrating its attempt at resolving issues with the project so that construction may commence in the
Spring of 1995.
Staff Recommendation
Staff believes that the Developer has demonstrated good faith compliance with the provisions of the
Development Agreement. Staff recommends the City Council adopt the draft resolution (Exhibit E)
relating to PA 91-099 Hansen Hill Ranch Development Agreement 1992-93 Annual Review.
CONCLUSION
The attached staff reports from the Planning Commission meetings of January 17, 1995, and
February 6, 1995, provide further descriptions of the staff analysis and issues discussed. Exhibit A
(attached) illustrates the proposed amendments to the approved Tentative Map, and the proposed Creek
Access Road and Trail redesign. Exhibits Band C (attached), represent the proposed Resolutions
approving the Negative Declaration and Tentative Map Amendment, with exceptions, restrictions, and
conditions of approval. Exhibit D (attached) represents the Ordinance and related Amendment to the
Development Agreement. Exhibit E represents the Resolution for the Development Agreement's annual
review, supporting good faith compliance with the Agreement. Several large size maps and exhibits will be
available at the City Council meeting to help illustrate the proposal.
Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the attached Resolutions and Ordinance amending
the Tentative Map and Development Agreement.
g: \pa#\ 1994\94054\ccsr2. doc
-6-
~ ~) '" .~.
=--0:D)'- )
~~ ~r. ...
~ ,'"
=0-
z ,..",\P<
~-o~'"
Z:,\~ D
.,
~
C).
/:
o
......
<IQ
. ~ .
Lr:.
IIIII'IITTF'I',I '-,:,,~, I' ~ ~ '::;--'
r)
,J
r-
NIj'T""Wt
-~--
/
/
tI<.
, <
..'{
/
/
J01
i;
; """~~; ""~,
, -
. ~
i -~
l
~
~
!:
DUBLIN
TENTATIVE MAP -SUBDIVISION S766
HANSEN Hill RANCH
"tAL/EDA tovNTY
PR~PARto IN TkE OffICE Of
CAUfORNIA
_~~"l~"t
---
--'7
i"{-;'
1!
j'
~~/~
.' "
?l
~
,
n
~ ~
~ ~
::! ~,
(
l>
s:
fT1
c.nz
Co
com
00
<-I
~fT1
" --;7
z~
01J>
--.j-l
(j)<
(j)fT1
s:
J>
-0
- ~"''':..&1rr~._r
~-.E':"-.:.'::::-
~~~~._-
Z nUl
..... r-",
~~~
~
)
C!
,-'
(
3
~~
.., ~~~'//'
--~-~..~//
'-~I~:~~
I- _.......................... ~}J 1
~".~~I/-...!:.... ~
~\ ~...~
-'~ ::~.'
._........~:-.
-.-
-.....,:
-~~
. /;
..<~ .J
-. - ",-.f}'
-_u' :11-
-'-. >Y3\ ~ .".
jl' --. ....--.::---
...... ':$," ::
I J ~. ~~
~"
't"~
ll/"
,1/
/1
. !.
:.>:
.J, ~g~
.~ ~~r;
:>..
ii:::
Cl)t<:I
~?;
bt>J
.....b
::;...,
V)t>J
.....'<::
c...,
'<:::..
"'~
'-J<:::
2:;t>J
ii:::
:..
'lJ
"'..-"
I~
....,
It'
co
..."
I"
.- ;
..---~ ;:;~,-"
-.. .--
":.; f~ ----:---::~-:\ _r- p"' -.." ..J'
~- - -------- i -=-~..._ -. J
. 'I
L~
IN H OFTfCE Of"
c~ """":~"~..:-.
_ -~:;..~_.U:.:...
~~~
~~ n.o'"
~ -.c~
z~;b<
_ tJ:)Vfm
Z 0
:l
'''''
,>
:~
,.,.,
I \Ii
0.
f~
~i
"
is
-lit...
,_ ',-- .:_~..: .-'1 /
~ ~ .<......,( "
, :~-"'t~-; ~/ .'.....~-,. j
.' ..~~"'<'.-" ----;'"
,S
#
C'l
~
~
..
......-.-..-.-...-----~--
"
" --
~~
<I
...
..
'"
'\,
'.
~
~
~
~
'0.
_.-~'"
~J~
.:;>
~~~~~. ~
.0.
1- -
- "
____oj, ,
-
..~~ "".
""
'" ,~..."
.1IJo;'.~ "',,{,
--_.- \ -;. ~ .J'
-411 ':t ~
_.~'6~
~~..,,~
;c- ..1'".....
"..
"..
..'.-
"
- ~"'----~ ~
-~~~;~~
I j
__..::r~I'
SEE
SHEET 2
:.t. 'D IN TH FFlCE 0
'"
-~_..-.. ..:..
,A ~~~l?~.;.:;;~~~. .~
r
::,.
".
CI);';
c::;<':
",t:::
~~
",I:::
'"
",""
C'l~
a~
'<;:0,:
t.J'I~
"'~
~~
:;::
::,.
'"
.~ ?~..\
.~ Q~rr
CI\
J' .
i~~=
~~
2Z~=b <
zfl_tTJlII
Z CD
,-""
Q.
('
-""'""'=--.
~~
-.........-.
./' ~~, #w-
_.- _.~--==-~.~ '~~..,
- . m . I ,
~. -..-... !
I
I ,."
,<
.-
,
I i)"
i,{,
SU8DIVIOlON 5766
AMENDED TENTA~~~~ -HILL RANCH
,
.""..........- ....
~R
. ;
; .
,
~,..
OK
~~
· iI '
Z J
!"
-:;"
!~
~R 1'": ~
...........,.....
!II
'--'.".
-,- ":'I -:-.';'\ -"
~}! ~1
!.
- ~
. "
~.
~.'!.
.!.
! .
,
, :
.~ ..
~~
! 'r
-=-.-- ~
./
!.
"-
.1
..:.:--=--~:;;',
!'. .
..!, .
~>(
~.
~"
!.
-"-
~~
,:~-
."
'.
n',' (~
:~~
'.
~ ~.._--
.";:;'
.,[~-~.~."
;~ ...-,':: :.~~~ ~ ", ~ .;,"::,::;.:)..:.--: - ~
i~~ .'
~i~
~~i
~:i
fU
~i Ell
~i
\~:-.
'''. \)~
':." )"-';':"::0::'::::;:; .;:;>~-:'"'.;.~:::;:/<-:L._
~'c 'c. :~;., .:::-,~" ';,_~ _~~
'"
-...1"--::". '.
:.!:
"
n:," ~L:~. _. . /.
~";.:.::_-:.-.:::-_-~:-
- ~ '1...~
.~ -'
,I!
!;!.
;~. '.
.. " ~
.fw
,.
!&
:;ir.
,".1.
t..., ;
"'J
:)C.
\..:
-. ~~ ~
~I'l
"
,
!,
~:
~'-
,.
>:
~..
'.
:.
"J(..n_
Q
"
'"
,..
... ~::
"'<..::.:..:
rt~""J
'"
..i.b
...
:. ~
.. >:
..."",
~ .
'"
'~ ~ '0(
I
j~
,F t '!~
/~~~~
I~
;' I, I' . "'<
"\
'"
~.
,~
.".
~----., k ,
I I ~ ,t.
J
/.
/-::..
~"
~
~.r ~r--~~
~
~~~:~:~:~~
=Q)!:2~
CD-" H-"III
!Ek C'?"S)n
~~
~
-
- ~~--_lo~
.....~._~11l~. __~___
-~t____~ --:.
,,"
I !UII of
i
I
'..
~ ~ ~
.' ~I ~.
1':';' So
"
"
.p.
!t.
o. .
.Jl~
\
~ i;
"
".
. .
"t
tt
I'i.
tiS {_
'..
. .
'.
, f
;
',0".
,.
'J
, ,
I ~.,_,_,: ,
- g~ ~.
:-:~--~-=-~-
'-'~-~
.Q..." - -~-
,...--'- "':I
.---<
.-~--- ._-,--
--tr.----.-~.,..
""
"
;;
t;; ~:
~
~,
.~..
=i
~
:~
i_ _
. :..~~.~;~:,..
'.::, ! !, '. !
'.J
!'!'
!,
!.
~ _ [I
;
\ .
, "
I,
I'
,1.1
~< :~ :-~
,
, !
il. '.
~ ;
~ !
. ;
-: t\~i
-
;.....__1 . ..-.
! 1'_',
.!
"', .
i.:.:-:-:--"".:.... .
,~;1 !
, -! -
" i
I
i
_ IJ",
i
~~
~.
~"
'"
:,;
..
.! I I
.'4;1......'
i,' ! I,
I I ~. I
,',- ;.:~-: (~ .:..~-':.:.....:::. ~ ;~..;
j
. . ! I ~. ; to 1
"-\:C'~~ >..:~ ~.:,:.;-::;--::~.:.
j'-:i \. :
I
I
~
,
!j'i I
" ,
.
_..........~.
~<c-.'-.:::::,-,~ ' ~. --'"S':" :..c,:; .J'.--
,
1# '
,
.
. -, ...
,. ~~~"-~--~-:_'--~
"~:-~- "'-.... -----...-.'
~..~~--;: - ...
,,-' '< .-:..::....._-\ ----;';-:'1-
- J ~j
-- 1-=-T ',.-.., ..'_.,. ..
-. -:';;;;~':'::::"~~~~.k>":;-
, ..- !El :
I,;!
\
\
': '.\,
I-~,
\\
I \'.
~,
\.
I
i' I
. I ,
, J." I ~
,
~~' i
. ':_,:1.
,I ','"
~; t "':", i I .
\I"
\< ;.-::>
, i
I,
'. r"
- .." ",...~
::' ~:E _. _ ..
~--
~ ~~
VE MAP ~ SU6DIVISION 5766
AMENDED T~~~~N HILL RANCH
.. "
.'
.~-'
~>\
!~
t.~.. ."
--~~ ,
;j- .
'~
\;;:
- . 'c)
. ,
..
\ .'
":;1.
"
~. --
:.110
~
.;. ..
u,___ l<' __~" <'
~"Io::':~. - _ ~..:...~,..>.~~:.:..;:-';:I; --
.l,'.:_l.:.,__::_,-,:;.;.'.~,i,- ;" -,"{
'" I' -""."" ,-',-' ',-,'-- -_c'," ...;; , '
._.'___~..- .~_._r~~~., :.~,f":,~". ,~) ......,....
1--- ,~ '~ J
, ~~ ' /'
'--''--~: _ - ':::f::;:~;' '/;.,,"
~~,~'":':~, :::<,~ .....~:,' CFii/>j,
--- .-:;, ;-~~.~<~,.'''....~~:.,.:.':_~~.~-:(j:0.'li' '~~
~C <':.:c" . ---,'--": "". '-.f- -p; ,.
,:;;~-'_ ' ,~0.. '" :~f.<tl" j
"~-" /;~~~:,..,;,~:'..", :'
.M' ; f"' ~J
,,+
'"
.-:-'*
;1 ~.>:?"I
/?I~
, I,\.:.:i..~~"\.
. f~~~-
r.,..,~~:~,,;
"
>->--- --
.. , - .:-......~ ~:'""':,.-=.
~
(Ii :t
8 )>
0 -< Z
"l (f)
0
C'l " IT! ::
:= ~ Z
> ;;
!2 . III
Z :c 'I'l
C'l ~ )>
t"l Z
t; (') i'
~ :I
=.;:~-
~
O 0 I il ~
i i '"
I' H II! '
IH~H
.i'jlln
I ! i' I
I I h
; i
;
i
I
i -z..,-........
~ml!
..1liJ I
! ~I" !
" -I
ilL
I~'; !
i ~;
,;
I~
'"
Ie-
.-..,
~
I"
I
~ - ~ .
~_r':"--
,',,:'.';'.:-'
~
m
Cq
I..J.
I
o
-;-1
100
JITllI
!irilli
r ;1> !
""1
1iil",
Ii ;~
i ;1;
. - ~,
- ~-'~
--
/
>
r:
('J
.t'l
tJJ
-lll
I
o
C:J:
till>
Cz
z(/)
- m
~()z
~ ;lo
,;0
'iil>
Oz
:ll(')
~J:
/
.--~
.".: ~--~
-I
,'-j"
-- '-. .--
'_._';:-..::::;:~:;-"":~~:,,,,=:=. ......::
. ..~-;;::
_.._~ -:.:-.:.:- ..
--
II
.'
~i
Ii
-~ ' --.~_.
':-- .,----,-
.-r':-
11
H
'I
I,
.~.-:-
___. J
'.'~.
',.
.~?~..."..
\. ~ ::- .
. :' ..;.::.r-::::-:;;-;.'_~
- . -.;r-:. :':,:.' _n
.,. -:i..~.' -.:"":'"1:
.' " ,,>'<'
. '":".: ::( . ~.:.' '
'... --~-'
.-.YfJ)t~;~C>;._
..- ~:,-,--:,_",_-,:-?_--_:"--::-~'~---'---(-_:..-'.:.-'-_:~",_.:-'.~ ' ~. ~....- - --
I ,- :~ - ~ - -;y;?::--!):::>,~
. ~~~{t:~~~;/~~~~~
....'.'
.:::"..
Martin Can)'on
Road
..,.
....
;;
-
'Z
n
...
,.;
;;.
-
,....
t'J
><
...
"'"
,..,
E
.-j
l':
\/...~
''1.
(
r'"
~ .:
1/"
~ ~/ ;:;
.....~~~ . \.'
"\ '0
'II
~,
1'~-/--
\\J
-- r: .
"\'::: -. '.
,:---..t\I '
......... I,
-~'\
'P' ....
:...\
~o.;:'
(;)
[;2
Ie';;>
.-,
I..
<::>
..,..,
1-0
..--.......-,
- ,
STAFF STUDY
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCn.
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ADOPTING A NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR P A 94-054 HANSEN RANCH TENTATIVE MAP
AND DEVELOP:MENT AGREEMENT AMEND:MENTS
WHEREAS, California Pacific Homes, Inc., has filed an application requesting Tentative Map &
Development Agreement Amendments for the Hansen Ranch project; and
WHEREAS, the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), together with the State CEQA
Guidelines and City of Dublin Environmental Guidelines require that certain projects be reviewed for
environmental impacts and that environmental documents be prepared; and
WHEREAS, an Initial Study was conducted finding that the project, as proposed, would not have
a significant effect on the environment; and
WHEREAS, a Negative Declaration has been prepared for this application; and
WHEREAS, the Staff Report was submitted recommending that the Negative Declaration be
adopted; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did review and consider the Negative Declaration at public
hearings on January 17, and February 6, 1995 and recommended City Council approval of the Negative
Declaration and the Tentative Map and Development Agreement amendments; and
WHEREAS, the City Council held a public hearing on said application on February 27, 1995; and
WHEREAS, proper notice of said public hearing was given in all respects as required by law; and
WHEREAS, the City Council did hear and consider all said reports, recommendations and
testimony hereinabove set forth.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE Dublin City Council does hereby find
that:
1. The Hansen Ranch Tentative Map & Development Agreement Amendments will not have a
significant effect on the environment.
2. The Negative Declaration has been prepared and processed in accordance with State and
local environmental laws and guideline regulations.
3. The Negative Declaration is complete and adequate.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT THE Dublin City Council hereby approves a Negative
Declaration for P A 94-054 Hansen Ranch Tentative Map and Development Agreement Amendments.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 27th day of February, 1995.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
- !EX'HIB,!JT ~
RESOLUTION NO._
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
APPROVING P A 94-054 HANSEN RANCH TENTATIVE MAP AMENDMENT
FOR LIMITED MODIFICATIONS TO THE APPROVED TENTATIVE MAP 5766 AND
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR THE TENTATIVE MAP
WHEREAS, California Pacific Homes, Inc., requests approval of a Tentative Map Amendment
to Phase 1 of Tentative Map 5766, and to modify Condition No. 76 of City Council Resolution No.
130-89, which approves Tentative Map 5766 concerning PA 89-062 Hansen Hill Ranch project,
modifications which will permit minor changes to the subdivision configuration and to various conditions
of approval. A request for approval of a Development Agreement Amendment to modify Conditions
No. (a.) and (b.) of Subparagraph 5.3.2. of Exhibit liB" of City of Dublin Development Agreement for the
Hansen Hill Ranch project is also being requested, a modification which will permit the reduction of the
Creed Access Road from 12 feet to 8 feet wide, allow construction of the Creek Access Road and Trail
to occur with the project phases, and eliminate the requirement for an access road off the project site; and
WHEREAS, the application has been reviewed in accordance with the provisions of the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and a Negative Declaration has been adopted (City
Council Resolution No. --> for this project as it will have no significant effects on the environment; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held public hearings on said application on January 17,
and February 6, 1995; and
WHEREAS, proper notice of said public hearing was given in all respects as required by law; and
WHEREAS, the Staff Report was submitted recommending that the application be conditionally
approved; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did hear and consider all said reports, recommendations
and testimony hereinabove set forth and recommended City Council approval of the Tentative Map
Amendment; and
WHEREAS, the City Council held a public hearing on said application on February 27, 1995;
and
WHEREAS, proper notice of said public hearing was given in all respects as required by law; and
WHEREAS, the Staff Report was submitted recommending that the application be conditionally
approved; and
WHEREAS, the City Council did hear and consider all said reports, recommendations and
testimony hereinabove set forth.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE Dublin City Council does hereby find
that:
A. Tentative Map 5766 Amendment is consistent with the intent of applicable subdivision regulations
and City Zoning and related ordinances.
B. Tentative Map 5766 Amendment is consistent with the City's General Plan as it applies to the
subject property.
1
EXHIBIT C
C. Tentative Map 5766 Amendment will not result in the creation of significant environmental
impacts.
D. Tentative Map 5766 Amendment will not have substantial adverse effects on health or safety or be
substantially detrimental to the public welfare, or be injurious to property or public improvements.
E. The site is physically suitable for the proposed development in that the site is indicated to be
geologically satisfactory for the type of development proposed in locations as shown, provided
the geological consultant's recommendations are followed; and the site is in a good location
regarding public services and facilities.
F. The request is appropriate for the subject property in terms of being compatible to existing land
uses in the area, will not overburden public services, and will facilitate the provision of housing of
a type and cost that is desired, in the City of Dublin.
G. General site considerations, including unit layout, open space, topography, orientation and the
location of future buildings, vehicular access, circulation and parking, setbacks and similar
elements have been designated to provide a desirable environment for the development.
H. This project will not cause serious public health problems in that all necessary utilities are, or will
be, required to be available and Zoning, Building and Subdivision Ordinances control the type of
development and the operation of the uses to prevent health problems after development.
I. The amendments will not materially change the provisions of the approved Tentative Map.
1. The approval of the Tentative Map Amendment will be consistent with the Dublin General Plan.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT THE Dublin City Council does hereby approve P A 94-
054 Hansen Ranch Tentative Map Amendment application as generally depicted by materials labeled
Exhibit "A", stamped approved and on file with the Dublin Planning Department, subject to the approval
of the related Development Agreement Amendment, and to the following conditions:
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL:
Unless stated otherwise. all Conditions of Approval shall be complied with prior to the issuance of
building permits or establishment of use. and shall be subiect to Planning Department review and
approval. The following codes represent those departmentsla~encies responsible for monitoring
compliance of the conditions of approval. rPL 1 Planning. [llJ Building. rpOl Police. [WPJ Public Works.
[ADM) Administration/Citv Attorney. [FINl Finance. [F] Dougherty Regional Fire Authority. [DSRl
Dublin San Ramon Services District. [CO] Alameda County Department of Environmental Health.
GENERAL PROVISIONS
1. This approval is for limited amendments to the Tentative Map 5766 concerning changes in pad
elevations, and minor revisions to lot and street configurationsThe amendments will permit the
plans attached as Exhibit to overlay and replace certain aspects of the approved Tentative Map
5766, for the Phase I (72 units) of the 180 unit Hansen Ranch Subdivision, including minor street
and lot reconfigurations, changes in pad elevations, and a redesign of the Creek Access Road and
Trail. [PL]
2. Except as specifically modified elsewhere in these conditions, development shall conform to the
Conditions of Approval established by: City Council Resolution Nos. 20-89 and 21-89, approved
on February 27, 1989, pertaining to PA 87-045 Hansen Hill Ranch General Plan Amendment and
Mitigation Monitoring Program for EIR; and City Council Resolution Nos. 128-89, 129-89 and
130-89, approved on November 27, 1989, pertaining to PA 89-062 Hansen Hill Ranch Tentative
Map, Prezoning, Annexation and Mitigation Monitoring Program for the Mitigated Negative
Declaration. [PL]
2
3. Approval of this Tentative Map amendment is subject to the applicant securing approval from the
City Council of the proposed Development Agreement Amendment associated with this request.
[PL]
STREETS
4. Maximum street grades, centerline curve radii and site distances at intersections shall not exceed
those approved on the previous improvement plans, except as specifically approved by the City
Engineer. [PW]
5. The collector road shall be 40 feet curb-to-curb.[PW]
6. A temporary paved turnaround shall be constructed at the end of the stub collector street into
Phase II, located on Page 3 of Exhibit A.[pW,PL]
GRADING & DRAINAGE
7. The cut-and-fill slopes shall not be steeper than 2 horizontal to 1 vertical (with benches), except
as may be reinforced with retaining walls or reinforced earth as designed and approved by the
developer's soils consultant. [PW]
8. Landslides and erosive areas as outlined in the Geotechnical Investigation Report for Hansen Hill
Ranch project prepared by Berlogar Geotechnical Consultants dated January 1992, shall be shown
on the Grading and Improvement Plans. Proposed repairs shall be outlined on these same
plans. [PW]
9. Prior to approval of grading plans, the Applicant shall conform to the recommendations outlined
in the Geotechnical Investigation Report for the Hansen Hill Ranch project prepared by Berlogar
Geotechnical Consultants dated January 1992, as a minimum. Stricter controls, particularly on
landslide repairs, retaining structures, sub drains, and surface drainage, may be imposed by the
Public Works Director.[pw]
CREEK ACCESS
10. The trail head at the collector street near Silvergate shall be 8 feet wide extending to the street
and designed to allow maintenance vehicles to access the trail from the street.[pW,PL]
11. The proposed aggregate-base access road along the north side of the creek and east of Martin
Canyon Road shall be 12 feet wide, and shall be dedicated to the City with the creek
improvements, to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director and subject to the approval of the
Department ofFish and Game and the Army Corps of Engineers. This creek access road may be
less than 12 feet wide in limited areas where necessary for tree preservation. [PW, PL]
12. The developer shall construct a cul-de-sac bulb on the end of Martin Canyon Road and shall
fence around the end of the bulb with 6-foot black clad chain link fence with a lockable gate to the
maintenance roadway to the east, to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director. The bulb can
be all one-sided (to the west). [PW, PL]
13. There shall be turn around improvements made at the ultimate west end of the access road and
access trail, which shall be aggregate base for maintenance vehicles and police patrol purposes.
Temporary turnarounds shall be constructed if needed at the ends of these roads in Phase I,
subject to the determination of the Public Works Director.[pW,PL]
14. The developer shall obtain, in the name of the City, an access easement to use the proposed
access road on the north side of the creek prior to recording of final map for Phase 1. The
applicant shall obtain the permission of the property owner on which the road exists to make
3
improvements to the access road, and shall ensure that the road is 12 feet wide at a minimum and
has an aggregate base satisfactory to the Public Works and Planning Department, prior to
dedication of the creek area to the City. [pW,PL,F,PO]
15. If the applicant is unable to arrange for an easement for use and maintenance over the road
discussed in condition #14, an alternate location for a 12 foot wide access road shall be provided
on the project property, subject to the approval of all applicable City Departments. If this
condition or any other condition of approval related to the creek access trail or roads cannot be
fulfilled by the developer, the portion of this project approval related to the creek access trail/road
shall revert back to the previous approval for PA 89-062 and PA 91-099 (with a 12 foot wide
creek access trail! road on the south side of the creek). [pL, PW]
16. Lockable, removable bollards, or some other acceptable type of vehicle security measures, shall be
installed at each vehicular access to the trail to prevent unauthorized vehicles from using the trail,
while enabling access to the trail in the event of an emergency. The Dougherty Regional Fire
Authority may require during the site review process or during construction process access to
gates and behind houses for emergency purposes.[pW,PL,F,PO]
17. The access across the creek shall be over a properly designed pipe or culvert that will pass the
design storm flow and support fire and maintenance vehicle traffic loadings. The access road over
this pipe and creek area shall be paved with 2 inches of asphalt over 6 inches of aggregate base
rock (as a minimum). The inlet and outfall of the pipe shall be protected from erosion.[PW]
18. The developer shall provide a ten-foot wide flat rocked access area between the lots off the
Silvergate cul-de-sac and the top of the creek bank, as shown in "Staff Study" attached to Exhibit
A. This is to provide access to the culvert headwall area upstream of Silvergate Drive. [PW]
19. Those portions of the access road and access trail adjacent to and associated with Phase 1 shall be
improved and dedicated to the City prior to occupancy of any units in phase 1. [PL,PO]
20. The Phase 1 access road and access trail improvements shall extend to and include the proposed
creek culvert crossing so that a drive-through maintenance loop can be made without having to
back up or turn around. [PW,PL]
21. When the creek area is dedicated to the city for maintenance of the public open space, the City
will accept, and be responsible for maintaining, the improved access road and access trail and the
open space and creek areas which are accessed from these roads. The City shall determine the
acceptable level of maintenance to be provided by the City.[pW,PL]
22. Every effort shall be made to locate, design, and construct the creek access trail and access road
so that grading and tree removal impacts are reduced to the maximum extent possible, so as to
minimize damage to the ecological and aesthetic value and characteristics of the open space area,
while providing the necessary service functions.
FIRE
23. Fire Hydrants shall be spaced every 400 linear feet in residential areas comprised primarily of well
spaced, average single family dwellings. * [F]
24. The maximum grades for fire apparatus roadways shall not exceed: *
a) 15% for all weather driving surfaces.
b) 15% to 20% for grooved concrete or rough asphalt for short stretches not to exceed 50
feet. [F]
25. The minimum number offire access roads shall be as follows: *
4
a) 1-25 units One public access road
b) 26-74 units One public access road and one emergency access road
c) 75+ units Two public access roads [F]
26. The maximum length of a single access road shan be no greater than 1000 feet. * [F]
27. Dimensions. Fire apparatus access roads shall have an unobstructed width of not less than 20 feet
and an unobstructed vertical clearance of not less than 13 feet 6 inches. * [F]
28. Surface, Fire apparatus access roads shan be designed and maintained to support the imposed
loads of fire apparatus and shall be provided with a surface so as to provide all weather driving
capabilities. * [F]
29. Future site plans of the proposed project should be submitted to the Dougherty Regional Fire
Authority for review. [F]
*This is not inclusive of the creek access road and access trail.
POLICE
30. Fire access between residences shall be controlled by fences and adequate gates to prevent
unauthorized pedestrian traffic. [F,PO]
31. Applicant shall submit a projected timeline for project completion to the Dublin Police Services
Department, to allow estimation of staffing requirements. [PO]
OPEN SPACE/COMMON AREAS/LANDSCAPING
32. Open space area - Provide for weed abatement before, during and after construction with the
following guidelines:
a) Clear all weeds within 100 feet downhill from the property line
b) Clear all weeds within 30 feet uphill from the property line
c) provide an environmental thinning plan for the area between 30 and 100 feet of this
development. [F]
33. Provide a landscape plan for wild land open space areas. Supply vegetation fuel modifications
and/or buffer zones, and possible use of fire resistive or drought tolerant varieties of plant life. [F]
34. The developer shall post a sign at the entrance to the creek access road on the north side of the
creek from Martin Canyon Road, stating that the road is private, and is to be used for private use,
creek maintenance, and emergency access only, [F]
DUBLIN SAN RAMON SERVICES DISTRICT roSRSD)
35. Prior to issuance of any building permit, complete improvement plans shall be submitted to
DSRSD that conform to the requirements of the DSRSD Code, the DSRSD "Standard
Procedures, Specifications and Drawings for Design and Installation of Water and Wastewater
Facilities", all applicable DSRSD Master Plans and all DSRSD policies. [DSR]
36. All mains shall be sized to provide sufficient capacity to accommodate future flow demands in
addition to each development project's demand. Layout and sizing of mains shall be in
conformance with DSRSD utility master planning. [DSR]
37. Sewers shall be designed to operate by gravity flow to DSRSD's existing sanitary sewer system.
Pumping of sewage is discouraged and may only be allowed under extreme circumstances
following a case by case review with DSRSD staff. Any pumping station will require specific
5
review and approval by DSRSD of preliminary design reports, design criteria, and final plans and
specifications. The DSRSD reserves the right to require payment of present worth 20 year
maintenance costs as well as other conditions within a separate agreement with the Applicant for
any project that requires a pumping station. [DSR]
38. Domestic and fire protection waterline systems for Tracts or Commercial Developments shall be
designed to be looped or interconnected to avoid dead end sections in accordance with
requirements of the DSRSD Standard Specifications and sound engineering practice. [DSR]
39. DSRSD policy requires public water and sewer lines to be located in public streets rather than in
off-street locations to the fullest extent possible. Ifunavoidable, public sewer or water easements
must be established over the alignment of each public sewer or water line in an off-street or
private street location to provide access for future maintenance and/or replacement. [DSR]
40. Prior to approval by the City of a grading permit or a site development permit, the locations and
widths of all proposed easement dedications for water and sewer lines shall be submitted to and
approved by DSRSD. [DSR]
41. All easement dedications for DSRSD facilities shall be by separate instrument irrevocably offered
to DSRSD or by offer of dedication on the Final Map. [DSR]
42. Prior to approval by the City for Recordation, the Final Map shall be submitted to and approved
by DSRSD for easement locations, widths, and restrictions. [DSR]
43. Prior to issuance by the City of any Building Permit, all utility connection fees, plan checking fees,
inspection fees, permit fees and fees associated with a wastewater discharge permit shall be paid
to DSRSD in accordance with the rates and schedules established in the DSRSD Code. [DSR]
44. Prior to issuance by the City of any Building Permit, all improvement plans for DSRSD facilities
shall be signed by the District Engineer. Each drawing of improvement plans shall contain a
signature block for the District Engineer indicating approval of the sanitary sewer or water
facilities shown. Prior to approval by the District Engineer, the Applicant shall pay all required
DSRSD fees, and provide an engineer's estimate of construction costs for the sewer and water
systems, a perfonnance bond, a one-year maintenance bond, and a comprehensive general liability
insurance policy in the amounts and forms that are acceptable to DSRSD. The Applicant shall
allow at least 15 working days for final improvement drawing review by DSRSD before signature
by the District Engineer. [DSR]
45. No sewerline or water line construction shall be permitted unless the proper utility construction
permit has been issued by DSRSD. A construction permit will only be issued after all of the items
in condition #43 above have been satisfied. [DSR]
46. The Applicant shall hold DSRSD, its Board of Directors, commissions, employees, and agents of
DSRSD hannless and indemnify the same from any litigation, claims, or fines resulting from
completion of the project. [DSR]
47. A water line connection to Water Zones 2 and 3 is required which will connect to lines at the west
end of Hansen Drive. An easement has already been dedicated across property in Tract 4988 to
accommodate this connection. A 20 foot wide easement shall be dedicated to the District on the
Final Map or by separate instrument satisfactory to the District, to align with the existing
easement, allowing the necessary water line connection to Bay Laurel Street (new street). [DSR]
48. A water line and connection to Water Zone 3 is required which will connect the project to Zone 3
lines in Rolling Hills Drive. A 15 foot wide easement shall be dedicated to the District on the
Final Map or by separate instrument satisfactory to the District, to align with the existing Zone 3
connection on the north boundary of the project. A portion of this required water line may
alternately follow the existing access road along the north side of Martin Canyon Creek. [DSR]
6
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 27th day of February, 1995.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
G:\P A#\1994\94054\CCresolM.doc
7
ORDINANCE NO. 95 -
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCil
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
APPROVING AMENDMENT TO
PA 91-099 HANSEN RANCH PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
THE CITY COUNCil OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOllOWS:
Section 1.
RECITALS
A. The City of Dublin and California Pacific Homes, Inc., successor in interest to the
Donald L. Bren Company, previously entered into a Development Agreement for the Hansen Hill
Ranch project dated March 25, 1992.
B. The Donald L. Bren Company has assigned its rights under the Development
Agreement to its affiliate, California Pacific Homes, Inc..
C. California Pacific Homes has filed an application requesting an amendment to the
Hansen Hill Ranch Development agreement to modify Conditions No. (a.) and (b.) of Subparagraph
5.3.2. of Exhibit "B" of City of Dublin Development Agreement for the Hansen Hill Ranch project. The
proposed modification will allow for the construction of the creek access road referred to in this
Condition to be reduced in width from 12 feet to 8 feet and be constructed with the project phases,
and will eliminate the requirement for an access road to be extended in a designated area which is off
of the project site. A copy of the proposed Development Agreement Amendment is attached hereto
as Attachment 1.
D. Public hearings on the proposed Development Agreement amendment were held
before the Planning Commission on January 17, and February 6, 1995, for which public notice was
given as provided by law.
E. The Planning Commission has made its recommendation to the City Council for
approval of the Development Agreement amendment, which recommendation includes the Planning
Commission's determinations with respect to the matters set forth in Section 8.12.080 of the Dublin
Municipal Code.
F. A public hearing on the proposed Development Agreement amendment was held
before the City Council on February 27, 1995, for which public notice was given as provided by law.
Said public hearing was continued to February 13, 1995.
G. The City Council has considered the recommendation of the Planning Commission
(Planning Commission Resolution No. 95-06), including the Planning Commission's reasons for its
recommendation, the Agenda Statement, all comments received in writing and all testimony received
at the public hearing.
H. The previously adopted Negative Declaration for the Hansen Hill Ranch Development,
Agreement adequately covers the environmental setting and potential environmental impacts of this
project.
Section 2
FINDINGS AND DETERMINATIONS
Therefore, on the basis of the foregoing Recitals, the City Council finds and determines that:
1. The Development Agreement is consistent with the objectives, policies, general land
uses and programs specified and contained in the City's General Plan in that a) the
project approvals of said Agreement include a General Plan Amendment adopted
specifically for the Hansen Hill Ranch project, and b) said Agreement furthers the
affordable housing, parks, and open space policies of the General Plan;
1)
2.
Section 3.
The Development Agreement is compatible with the uses authorized in, and the
regulations prescribed for, the land use district in which the real property is located in
that the project approvals include a Planned Development Rezoning adopted
specifically for the Hansen Hill Ranch Project;
3.
The Development Agreement is in conformity with public convenience, general welfare
and good land use policies in that said Agreement will provide public access to property
that was previously private and not accessible, will provide funds for affordable housing
which will improve general welfare, and will provide land use and access that are
consistent and compatible with adjacent land use;
The Development Agreement will not be detrimental to the health, safety and general
welfare in that the development will proceed in accordance with the project's
environmental impact report and mitigation measures; and
4.
5.
The Development Agreement will not adversely affect the orderly development of
property or the preservation of property values in that the project will be consistent with
the General Plan.
APPROVAL
The City Council hereby approves the Development Agreement amendment (Attachment 1)
and authorizes the Mayor to sign it.
Section 4.
RECORDATION
Within ten days after the Development agreement is executed by the Mayor, the City Clerk
shall submit the Agreement to the County recorder for recordation.
Section 5.
EFFECTIVE DATE AND POSTING OF ORDINANCE
This Ordinance shall take effect and be in force thirty (30) days from and after the date of its
passage. The City Clerk of the City of Dublin shall cause this Ordinance to be posted in at least three
(3) public places in the City of Dublin in accordance with Section 36933 of the Government Code of
the State of California.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Dublin on this 27th
day of February, 1995, by vote as follows:
ATTEST:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
MAYOR
CITY CLERK
(g: pa\94054\ccordda)
-2-
AHENPM:E::m TO AGREEMENT IlETWEEN
THE CITY OF DUB~IN AND
THE DONALD L. BREN COMPANY
REGARDING THE HANSEN HILL PROJECT
'l'HIS AMENDMENT ("Am€ndmcntll) dated for identification as of
February 27, 1995, is entered into by. and between the city of
Dublin, a municipal corporation ("Cityll), and California Pacific
Homes, Inc. successor in interest to the Donald L. Bren Company,
a California corporation (IIDeveloper").
RECITllS
This Amendment is entered into on the basis of the following
facts, intentions and understandings of the Parties hereto:
A. The parties previously entered into that certain
Development Agreement/City of DUblin for the Hansen Hill Ranch
ProjQct dated March 25, 1.992 (IIDevelopment Agreement") .
b The Donald L. Bren company has assigned its rights
under the Development Agreement to its affiliate, California
Pacific Homes, Inc.
c. The Parties now wish to amend the Development
Agreement.
AGREEMENT
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants and
promises set forth herein, the receipt and adequacy of which is
hereby acknowledged, the Parties hereto hereby agree to amend the
Development Agreement as follows:
1. Substitution of Successor in Interest.
The reference on page 1 of the Development Agreement to
"DONALD L. BREN COMPANY, a California corporation" is replaced by
"cALIFORNIA PACIFIC HOMES, INC., a California corporation" and
the referencQ in paragraph 21 to "Donald L. Bren Company" and the
address for DEVELOPER is changed to:
California Pacific Ho~es, Inc.
1 Civic Plaza, suite 300
Newport Beach CA 92660
Attn: Jeffrey Slavin, President
1
ATTACHMENT 1
2. Amendment to Exhibit B Subparagraph 5.3.2 (a): Exhibit B, Subparagraph
5.3.2., Subparagraph (a) of the Development Agreement is hereby modified to
read as follows:
"DEVELOPER shall construct an 8-foot wide aggregate base access trail (the
"Access Trail") over the Property along Martin Canyon Creek as described in
Condition No. 76 to the CITY's approval of the Tentative Map for PA 89-062
("Condition 76"), and as modified in various conditions of the City's approval of
Tentative Map Amendment for PA 94-054. The Access Trail, together with that
portion of the Property lying between the fence to be constructed by Developer
pursuant to Condition 76 and the northern boundary of the Property, shall be
dedicated to the CITY for public access and maintenance purposes.
The aggregate-base access road (the "Access Road") proposed along the
north side of the creek and east of Martin Canyon Road shall be 12 feet wide, and
shall be dedicated to the City with the creek improvements, to the satisfaction of
the Public Works Director and subject to the approval of the Department ofFish
and Game and the Army Corps of Engineers. The width of the Access Road may
be reduced in some limited areas where needed for tree preservation, but the
Access Road shall be no less than 8 feet wide in these limited segments.
The construction and dedication required by this paragraph shall occur
either in two phases, concurrent with the two phases of project construction, or
the entire length of the road shall be constructed with Phase I of the project. At a
minimum, that portion of the Access Road and Access Trail adjacent to and
associated with Phase 1 shall be improved and dedicated to the City prior to
occupancy of any units in Phase 1.
When the creek area is dedicated to the city for maintenance of the public
open space, the City will accept, and be responsible for maintaining, the improved
Access Road and Access Trail, and the open space and creek areas which are
accessed from these. The City shall determine the acceptable level of maintenance
to be provided by the City. Upon dedication, DEVELOPER shall be released from
all liability for the maintenance of the property so dedicated."
3. Amendment to Exhibit B Subparagraph 5.3.2. (b): Exhibit B,
Subparagraph 5.3.2., subparagraph (b) of the Development Agreement, is hereby
modified to read as follows:
"There shall be turn around improvements made at the ultimate west end of
the creek Access Road and Access Trail, which shall be aggregate base for
maintenance vehicles and police patrol purposes. Temporary turnarounds shall be
constructed if needed at the ends of the Access Road and Access Trail in Phase I,
subject to the determination of the Public Works Director."
2.
'.01
. .
IN WITNESS ~nEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this
Agreement to be executed as of this date and year first above
written.
CITY OF DUBLIN
Ey:
Name::
Its:
(NOTARIZATION ATTACHED)
Approved as to form
city Attorney
Atteat
City Clerk
CALIFORNIA PACIFIC HOMES, INC.
By;
Name:
Its:
(NOTA.~IZATION ATTACHEO)
114\ag~ee\hansen.ame
3
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ESTABLISHING FINDINGS TO SUPPORT GOOD FAITH COMPLIANCE FOR PA 91-099
HANSEN Hll.L RANCH DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT 1994-95 ANNUAL REVIEW
WHEREAS, On February 24, 1992, the City of Dublin entered into a Development Agreement with
the Donald L. Bren Company (now California Pacific Homes, Inc.) for the construction of the Hansen Hill
Ranch project; and
WHEREAS, the City Council is required to hold a public hearing to conduct an annual review of the
Development Agreement; and
WHEREAS, Martha Buxton, representing the Developer, California Pacific Homes, Inc., has
submitted a letter to the City of Dublin to demonstrate good faith compliance with the provisions of the
Hansen Hill Ranch Development Agreement; and
WHEREAS, this project was previously reviewed in accordance with the provisions of the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and a Negative Declaration of Environmental Significance was adopted
(City Council Resolution No. 10-92) as it will have no significant effect on the environment; and
WHEREAS, the City Council did hold a public hearing on said application on February 27, 1995.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council finds that
1. The Developer has indicated that it has complied with all of the terms and conditions of the
Development Agreement and is working diligently to receive the necessary project approvals.
2. The Developer, in requesting the Tentative Map and Development Agreement Amendments,
is demonstrating its attempt at resolving issues with the project so that construction may
commence in the Spring of 1995.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT THE City Council finds that during the 1994-95 Annual
Review of the Hansen Hill Ranch Development Agreement, the Developer has demonstrated good faith
compliance with the terms and conditions of the agreement.
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 27th day of February, 1995.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN :
Mayor
City Clerk
g:\pa#\1994\94054\ccresdar.doc
EXHIBIT ~
TO:
FROM:
PREPARED BY:
SUBJECT:
GENERAL INFORMATION'
PROJECT:
APPLICANT:
PROPERTY OWNER:
LOCATION:
ASSESSOR PARCEL:
PARCEL SIZE:
GENERAL PLAN
DESIGNATION:
EXISTING ZONING
AND LAND USE:
/,.---
CIIT OF DUBLIN
PLANNING COMMISSION
AGENDA STATElVIENT/STAFF REPORT
:Meeting Date: February 6, 1995
Planning Commission
Planning Staff
Jf
Tasha Huston, Associate Planner :Jt:-H-
Cf..<...-
P A 94-054 Hansen Ranch Tentative Map Amendment & Development
Agreement Amendment
Request for limited amendments to Phase I of the approved Tentative Map
and Tentative Map Conditions (Tract 5766) and the approved
Development Agreement for the Hansen Hill Ranch project. The limited
amendments involve a change in pad elevations, minor lot line adjustments,
a request to reduce the width of the creek access road from 12 feet to 8
feet wide and provide a creek access road and additional staging areas on
the north side of the creek, and amendments to various conditions of
approval related to the proposed changes.
California Pacific Homes, Inc.
One Civic Plaza, Suite 300
Newport Beach, CA 92660
Martha Buxton, Agent
California Pacific Homes, Inc., 1 Civic Plaza, Suite 300, Newport Beach,
CA 92660. Phone #:(714)721-2770
West of Silvergate Drive, north of Hansen Drive, south of Winding Trail
Lane.
941-110-1-9; 941-110-2
::::: 147 acres (phases 1 and 2)
Low Density Single-Family Residential;
Open Space, Stream Corridor
Planned Development District; Vacant Agricultural land with grazing use.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ITEM NO. ~ · \
P,t\GE ~ OF .53 COPIES TO:
Applicant l'TTACHMEMr 1
Owner A
Address File
SURROUNDING LA!'t'D
USE AND ZONING:
North: Planned Development District with residential use; Alameda
County Agricultural District with grazing use.
South: R-I-B-E District with residential use; Agricultural District with
church use; Planned Development District with grazing use.
East: Planned Development District with residential use.
West: Planned Development District with grazing use, Agricultural
District with grazing use.
ZONING HISTORY:
PA 87-045: On February 27, 1989, City Council adopted a General Plan Amendment to allow
Low Density Single Family Residential and Open Space, Stream Corridor land use
designations and policy revisions, for the Hansen Hill Ranch project. Along with
this approval, and on the same date, the City Council certified the Final
Environmental Impact Report on the project, with Findings and a Statement of
Overriding Considerations, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act.
PA 89-062: On November 27, 1989, City Council approved Planned Development Prezoning,
Tentative Map, and Annexation proposal, for 180 single family units and ::!:96 acres
of open space, for the Hansen Hill Ranch project. On May 23, 1991, LAFCO
certified Annexation No.7, bringing the approximately 147 acre Hansen Ranch
property into the Dublin City limits.
P A 89-115: On May 14, 1990, City Council denied General Plan Amendment, Planned
Development Prezoning, and Tentative Map to redesignate open space for 10
single family custom lots.
P A 90-018: On j\'farch 19, 1991 the Applicant applied for Site Development Review for
Residemial floorplans for the 180 lot project, then requested that the application be
\vithdrawn in order to facilitate the redesign of the single-family units. The
Planning Department closed the file, in response to the withdrawal request from
the Applicant.
PA 89-062: On December 2, 1991, the Planning Commission approved a time extension of the
Planned Development Prezoning, to May 27, 1992, coinciding with the expiration
date of the approved Tentative Map 5766.
P A 91-096 On February 18, 1992 the Planning Corrunission adopted Resolutions 92-013 and
92-014 approving PA 91-096 Hansen Ranch Conditional Use Permit (approving a
minor modification to the approved General Provisions for the Hansen Ranch
Planned Development Project), and Hansen Ranch Site Development Review
(SDR) for the First Phase (lots 1-72) of the 180 lot Hansen Ranch Project.
P A 91-099 On February 24, 1992, the City Council adopted the Hansen Hill Ranch
Development Agreement Ordinance cPA 91-099), approving a Development
Agreement between the City and The Donald L. Bren Company (Hansen Ranch
property owners) for the Hansen Ranch project. The Development Agreement
was entered into by the City on March 25, 1992, and is effective for an initial term
of eight years. All previous project approvals are automatically extended for the
tenn of the Development Agreement. cPA 91-099).
f'.~,"/'" " r_.t::.:1
(-,. 'L' "" :,.;;1..;1
J."" __..J!__
-2-
APPLICABLE REGULATIONS'
Current City procedures require that an amendment to an approved Tentative Map be processed under
the same procedure used for the original approval, or the most comparable procedure provided in the
Zoning Ordinance. This would require that an amendment be subject to Public Hearings and the review
and approval of the Planning Commission and City Council.
Section 9.4 (1) of the approved Development Agreement provides for amendments to the agreement, or
minor amendments to project approvals, to be processed without a public hearing under specific terms
and when the amendments are minor. Upon analysis of the requested amendments, it has been
determined by the Planning Director that the proposed revisions to the project are not minor, and
therefore the minor amendment process of the Development Agreement cannot be used. Due to this
determination, the procedures for modification would be subject to the applicable zoning, subdivision,
and other land use ordinances, according to Section 9.4 (2) of the Development Agreement.
Therefore, Section 8.12.120 of the Dublin Municipal Code would be applied to the application, which
requires that an amendment to a Development Agreement be processed through the same procedure as
used for entering into an agreement in the first instance. This process includes being subject to Public
Hearings and the review and approval of the Planning Commission and City Council, as well as an Initial
Study pursuant to CEQA, .
ENVIRONNIENT AL REVIEW: An Initial Study has been conducted for the project, and a Negative
Declaration has been prepared pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), State
CEQA Guidelines, and the City of Dublin Environmental Guidelines. The proposed project will not have
a significant effect on the environment.
NOTIFICATION: Public Notice of the January 17, 1995 Planning Commission hearing, as well as the
February 13, 1995 City Council Hearing, was published in the local newspaper, mailed to adjacent
property owners, and posted in public buildings and at the project site. A second Notice of Public
Hearing was distributed which announced the change in meeting date from February 13th to February
27th, 1995 for the first City Council Hearing.
BACKGROUND'
Development applications for the Hansen Hill Ranch project were first approved in February of
1989 with the City Council approval of a General Plan Amendment and Environmental Impact Report to
allow Low Density Single Family Residential (0.5 - 3.8 units per acre), Open Space, Stream Corridor
land use designations and General Plan policy revisions relating to Land Use, Circulation, Safety and
Conservation, for the Hansen Ranch project. Additional project approvals occurred in November, 1989
with the Prezoning of the site to a Planned Development District, and Tentative Map for 180 single
family lots. Annexation of the property into the City of Dublin was certified in May, 1991, and the
Dublin City Council adopted the Hansen Ranch Development Agreement Ordinance in February, 1992.
After the initial tentative map approval was granted, the applicants decided to process the
subdivision in two phases. Phase 1 of the subdivisions involves 72 lots, and Phase 2 involves the
remaining 108 lots. The current request for amendments concerns items in-Phase I of the tentative map.
These changes are being requested due to issues which were identified after additional studies were
conducted by the applicant following approval of the Tentative Map and Development Agreement.
The applicant's request for amendments to the project was reviewed by the Planning Commission
at its January 17, 1995 meeting. A staff report was presented, the applicant addressed the Commission,
and several members of the public spoke regarding various areas of concern. After lengthy discussion,
the applicant agreed to continue the discussion of this project to the next Planning Commission meeting,
in order to attempt to resolve some of the issues surrounding the project amendments. The project was
continued by the Planning Commission to the February 6, 1995 meeting.
"
-J-
PAr.r- 3 (.: 53
....---......': ---
ANAL YSIS:
California Pacific Homes, Inc., has applied for a Tentative Map Amendment and Development
Agreement Amendment to allow modifications to the approved Tentative Map and Development
Agreement for Phase I (72 lots) of the 180 unit Hansen Ranch Subdivision. The requested amendments
apply to limited aspects of the Tentative Map and Development Agreement approvals.
TENT ATIVE MAP AMENDMENT
The Tentative Map Amendment request is to allow for modification of Tentative Map 5766
involving minor revisions to the lot and street configurations, and changes in the pad elevations, most
notably concerning lots 26-40. Lot lines and street configurations within the Tentative Map have been
slightly adjusted in order to provide less steep road grades for some streets, to make less severe cuts into
the hillsides, and to generally reduce the overall area of grading for Phase 1. The Applicant's request to
modify the lot and road configurations could be considered a minor modification of the approved
Tentative Map.
The applicant is also requesting modification of Condition number 76 of the City Council
Resolution #130-89 Approving Tentative Map 5766, Concerning PA 89-062, Tentative Map Conditions
of Approval. This condition, along with a condition of approval in the Development Agreement, requires
that a 12 foot wide creek access road be constructed in the open space area along the creek. As
approved, the road's primary purpose is to provide access to the creek for maintenance and repairs,
emergency fire and police access, as well as to provide a recreational hiking path. The current request is
to change the width of this access road along the south side of the creek bank from 12 feet wide to 8 feet
wide. The applicant has indicated that the grading and retaining walls necessary for a 12 foot wide road
would be excessive, but could be substantially reduced if the road width is reduced.
DEVELOPi\1ENT AGREEMENT:
The Development Agreement Amendment request is to allow modification of the approved
Development Agreement conditions involving the creek access road discussed above. The conditions of
approval affected by the requested modifications are contained in Subparagraph 5.3.2 of Exhibit B to the
Development agreement, and involve the width of the access road, the timing of development of the road,
and the ex1ension of a creek access road off of the site. The applicant is requesting that condition (a.) of
this subparagraph be reworded to allow for an eight-foot wide road, and that the road not be required to
be constructed entirely within Phase 1 of the project. The request is also for deletion of Condition (b.) to
eliminate the requirement that an access road serving the open space area be constructed beyond the
northwest boundary of the site.
DISCUSSION
A detailed discussion and analysis of the proposed amendments is contained within the Staff
Report prepared for this project for the January 17, 1995 Planning Commission meeting, which is
attached as Background Attachment 1 for reference. The complete discussion of the proposed
amendments will not be repeated in this Staff Report. However, additional analysis of several issues
which were discussed at the public hearing will be presented in this Staff Report.
The issues which will be addressed in further detail are:
1. Visual impacts of homes on cul-de-sac near Hansen Drive and possible limitations on height of
these homes to a single story.
2. Easement for access to and maintenance of the 12 foot \vide access road on the north side of the
creek, west of Martin Canyon Road, on the Nielsen property (refer to Condition "b." of
Subparagraph 5.3.2 of Exhibit B of approved Development Agreement).
"'(\_ L ^_ '':Z..
r ii \: i: -=r.. L; i. ---i:'-
-4-
3. Road width necessary for creek access road
4. Necessity of cul-de-sac bulb on Martin Canyon Road
5. Public comment concerns
a. Tree removal
b. Herbicide spraying
c. Slope stability behind homes on Hansen
Visual impacts
The requested amendment involves changes from the approved Tentative Map pad elevations for
homes on the cul-de-sac near Hansen Drive. At the Planning Commission public hearing, possible
limitations on height of homes were discussed to address the visual impacts of the higher pad elevations.
The Staff suggested that by limiting the homes on lots 30 through 34 to single-story homes, the impacts
upon views from existing adjacent residents would be lessened. Cross-sections showing a comparison of
the pad elevations and approximate home heights for existing homes on Hansen Drive versus proposed
homes on this cul-de-sac are attached herein as Attachment 2.
The applicant's initial response noted concerns with the appearance offive similar homes in a
row, if the requirement is to construct all single-story homes on these five lots. However, since the
January Planning Commission meeting, the applicant has indicated that it may be feasible to develop
another home design which appears from the rear of the home to be a single story, but is actually two
stories. The rear elevation of the home would have windows on only the first floor, and a hip roof on the
rear half of the second story. Second-floor windows would only be visible from the side and front
elevations. This design would address concerns with privacy, stemming from the situation where a two-
story home would be located behind or overlooking a single-story home. However, the homes would be
approximately the same height as a two-story home, and therefore would not address concerns \vith
impacts to the views which residents on Hansen Drive currently enjoy.
Thus, a condition of approval is recommended, which would require that the houses situated on
lots 30 through 33 be designed to minimize the impacts to existing views from residences on Hansen
Drive. On some lots, where the view impacts are the greatest, the homes should be limited to single-story
homes. This would include lots 31, 32, and 33. On lot 30, where the view impact is less severe, the
developer could use a model which appears to be a single-story home from the rear elevation. The pad
elevation of lot 34 would not affect the view from homes on Hansen Drive.
Additionally, at the time of Site Development Review for these homes, several different house
elevation designs and color schemes for each model are required, providing the opportuniIy to produce
very different appearances for each of the homes, and avoiding a situation of five homes in a row which
appear exactly alike. The above-mentioned condition of approval addressing the impacts to existing
views from residences on Hansen Drive., has been incorporated into the Tentative Map Resolution as
Condition # 4.
Easement
As part of the proposal to reduce the original approved creek access trail on the south side of the
creek to 8 feet wide, a 12 foot wide access road for maintenance of the creek was required and proposed
on the north side of the creek. This access road which is west of Martin Canyon Road, lies on property
owned by Nielsen. The owner of the Hansen Ranch property has been deeded a non-exclusive private
road easement on a portion of this propeny, which the applicant has proposed to transfer to the City for
future use and maintenance of this road over the Nielsen property. Concerns have been raised that the
easement rights may not include the right for maintenance, and that the easement may not extend far
-5-
D~"'\~ r:: ,-.~ 5 '2
i. '..\':i... _~_ tJ:" _'i?_
enough along the creek to provide the necessary access. Thus, the easement which the applicant
proposes to transfer to the City for use of the road on the north side of the creek may not be useable for
the necessary purposes. A condition of approval has been incorporated into the Tentative Map
Resolution as Condition # 16 to address the possibility that the easement issue may not be resolved. This
condition would require that if the applicant is unable to arrange for an easement for use and maintenance
over this road, an alternate location for a 12 foot wide access road would be provided on the project
property, or the project approval would revert back to the previous approval (with a 12 foot wide road
on the south side of the creek).
It is also noted that the wording of several conditions regarding the maintenance of access roads
have been modified from the previous wording. The modifications were addressed in the Staff
Presentation before the Commission on January 17, 1995, and relate to the City's agreement to maintain
access roads, and that the acceptable level of maintenance is to be detemUned by the Public Works
Department. Modifications such as these are indicated in the conditions, with st;ikcout for text which has
been deleted, and italics for text which has been added.
Creek Access Road Widths
At the Public Hearing on this project, several members of the public stated objections to the need
for an access road which is 12 feet wide. The 12 foot minimum standard is consistent with the
recommendations of agencies who have experience in maintaining both drainage culverts and creeks in
open space areas. The reasons for needing 12 feet of road width have been addressed in the previous
Staff Report. Recent discussions with the Staff at the East Bay Regional Parks District has concluded
that the 12 foot minimum standard is necessary for all of the reasons previously mentioned, as well as a
few other additional reasons. These, along with the previously discussed reasons, are presented below.
Heavy Equipment will be needed to maintain creek improvements and to keep the creek area clear
of flooding hazards. Standard Caterpillar equipment such as backhoes and tractors are at least 8 feet
wide for the smaller models. Standard maintenance trucks for trash pickup are approximately 6 feet
wide.
Emergency Vehicles are approximately 6 feet wide for a patrol vehicle, and wider for trucks and
engines. Although a 12 foot wide road \vould be provided on the north side of the creek, this would not
provide direct access for larger emergency vehicles to situations on the trail on the south side of the
creek. The 8 foot wide trail could accommodate the smaller patrol vehicles, but larger brush trucks and
engines will be unable to drive along the trail on the south side of the creek. This could be a concern if an
emergency situation occurred a significant distance down the trail, and the only access wide enough for
the proper vehicle is from the north side of the creek. In fact, EBRPD standards would require a 12 foot
wide minimum for the access trail along the creek, to accommodate maintenance and emergency vehicles.
In summary, the EBRPD recommendation would be to design the access trail on the SOlJTH side
of the creek to a minimum width of 12 feet \vide to accommodate all potential users. The District warns
that \vith an 8 foot-wide trail, emergency and maintenance vehicles would need to access the area from
the north, crossing the creek. Their suggestion would be to design the trailta a 12 foot minimum to
provide the most direct access for emergency response, including wildland fire response, and trail and
creek maintenance. They also recommend that the multi-use road/trail be designed and constructed to
avoid significant specimens or stands of oak trees, and other significant natural features.
The City Council Resolution adopting the General Plan Amendment for Hansen Hill Ranch
addressed the impacts of a creek access road through the open space area. A condition of approval for
the project required that access roads, including emergency access roads, that must pass through open
space areas shall be designed to minimize grading to the maximum extent possible so as not to damage
the ecological and aesthetic value and characteristics of the open space area. A condition of approval of
this proposed Tentative ~fap A..mendment has been incorporated as Condition #23, to remind the
developer of this requirement.
r:~.,':" I. ^.,.. 5.3
I .-~~1,.."=- _~__ !..:i" n_......_
-6-
Thus, the current options to address the creek access road issues are as follows:
1. Approve applicant's proposal for 8 foot wide trail on south side, and 12 foot wide trail on north.
Attach recommended conditions of approval which require that if road on north side of creek
cannot be arranged, project approval reverts back to previous approval with 12 foot wide access
road on south side of creek.
2. Deny applicant's proposal for 8 foot wide trail on south side, and retain 12 foot wide access road
on south side, as per previous project approvaL
If the Commission recommends granting the applicant's request to reduce the trail on the south
side of the creek to 8 feet wide, the project will necessarily result in the development of two roads
through the creek and open space area, one for emergency access and maintenance of the creek, and one
primarily for recreation. This option would provide creek maintenance access closer to the creek bed, but
having two roads may cause more disturbance to the creek area.
If the Commission recommends denying the applicant's request, it would result in only one access
trail through the open space area, which would provide for multiple uses, as with the existing approvaL
In either case, the above noted condition of approval should be added which will require that the
access trail and roads shall be designed to minimize grading and tree removal to the ma..ximum extent
possible, so as to minimize damage to the ecological and aesthetic value and characteristics of the open
space area.
Cul-de-sac bulb on 1\'Iartin Canvon Road
This item was discussed in the previous Staff Report, as well as at the Planning COnmllssion
meeting on January 17, 1995. The staff has explained several reasons why a cul-de-sac bulb at the end of
this stub street is needed, and should be constructed with the improvements of this project. An excerpt
from the Staff Report from the January 17 meeting is repeated here for reference:
"The primary access to the creek for maintenance, repair, and emergency vehicles "ill be pro\ided "ith the access
road on the north side of the creek \ia Martin Canyon Road. In its current configuration, ~lartin Canyon Road
ends with a blunt dead-end, which creates a nuisance for street maintenance "ith trash collecting in the street
corners. Staff is recommending that improvements be made to the stub street where it currently stops near the
project's north property line, inyohing a cul-de-sac bulb at the end of the street. This \,ill bring the street into
compliance with City street standards, enable more efficient maintenance to avoid trash buildup, and provide an
improved turnaround for large emergency vehicles and maintenance equipment".
The applicant has consistently objected to this requirement, and is still in disagreement with this
condition of approvaL Condition #- 13 of the Tentative Map has been modified slightly, to allow for the
cul-de.sac bulb to be a modified configuration rather than the "standard" City cul-de-sac bulb.
Public comment concerns
Tree removal
A tree survey was conducted in 1987 which identified the trees on the property which would and
which may be affected by development. According to this survey, in the area along the proj ect' s northern
property line, east of Martin Canyon Road, there is only one tree within 20 feet of the property boundary
line. This tree has previously been identified as being possibly impacted by the development. The next
closest trees are 25 feet away from the property line, according to the survey, and have also been
identified as maybe affected by the development. It appears feasible that the construction of the access
road in this area can be done \vithout causimz removal of the trees, if the closest tree is 16 feet from the
property line. Ho\vever, it is possible that the trees may also be affected by the work \vhich \vill be
necessary to reinforce the creek.
""r,,. 2 53
,r :. . ~ ,... ,_ ,...
........:... -... ~.,Ji'. _ __
-7-
The specific impacts of the grading and improvements, including creek reinforcements, will be
ascertained in more detail when grading and improvement plans are prepared for the project. However, it
should be noted that the previous Tentative Map approval required that prior to the issuance of a grading
permit, visually important trees shall be tagged in the field for protection and preservation, and
appropriately fenced, subject to the review and approval of the Public Works Director. In addition, a
condition of approval has been added under this project amendment which would encourage further
protection of trees along the creek. The new condition, number 12 of the Tentative Map Resolution,
would allow the creek access road on the north side of the creek, east of Martin Canyon Road, to be less
than 12 feet wide in limited areas where necessary for tree preservation.
Herbicide spraying
The maintenance of common areas, including ornamental landscaping, graded slopes, and open
space areas, is to be the responsibility of the Homeowner's Association. A plan for Open
SpacelLandscape Management Specifications for the project has been submitted to the City for review.
This plan indicates that a weed control program may be necessary, subject to the approval of the
Homeowners Association, and that the contractor would be responsible for any damage resulting from
the use of herbicides. However, the plan also states that routine spraying of plants is to be avoided, but
that a regularly scheduled detailed inspection of plants should be conducted to identify and diagnose
problems. It further states that only pest or disease infestation which threaten the survival of the open
space plant species shall be treated in the open space area. This treatment would need to be done under
the supervision of a qualified environmental consultant.
The landscape plans for the project, which were approved along with the approval of the Planned
Development rezoning, indicate that there is no landscaping to be installed along the creek access trail.
Some planting will be installed along the fences behind homes adjacent to open space. This area is
indicated on the landscape plans as a fire buffer zone, and planting includes low, fire-resistant
groundcover at least fifteen feet wide. A narrow maintenance path would separate this groundcover from
the native vegetation. There does not appear to be any introduced landscaping proposed along the
project's northern property line.
The City's maintenance of the creek access roads and trail would include occasional spot spraying
for weed control. The City currently has contracts with outside firms for similar types of maintenance
and spraying in other areas of the City. Herbicide spraying is required by law to be conducted under
proper conditions, and the contractor doing the work is responsible to ensure that the proper conditions
are met. The City would also require that when these targeted applications are made, the contractor uses
the necessary precautions and safeguards, so as to avoid potential problems with herbicide application to
the greatest extent possible.
Slope stabilitv
A detailed Geotechnical Investigation has been prepared for the Hansen Ranch project, identifying
unstable soils and recommending extensive measures to be taken to stabilize the land for development.
The previous conditions of approval for the Tentative Map require that the recommendations of the
previous preliminary geotechnical report prepared by Harlan Nliller Tait be incorporated into the
improvement plans for the project. Staff recommends that conditions of approval be added to this
approval, which modify the wording of two previous conditions of approval, to make reference to the
recent detailed Geotechnical Investigation prepared by Berlogar Geotechnical Consultants. This would
be handled with Conditions # 9 and #10 of the Tentative Map Resolution.
Additionally, it should be noted that a previous Tentative Map condition of approval required that
prior to issuance of grading permits, the City shall contract for a third party soil's engineer to review and
make recommendations on the applicant's submitted Geotechnical Investigation Report as related to
landslide repair. The applicant or developer is required to pay for the cost of this third party review.
[:,~",..o 5.3
I J'.~_~;:'::' 0 l ;;-:-
----- \... -'---
-8-
Several graphic displays which illustrate various aspects of the proposed amendments were
available for review at the Public Hearing on January 17, 1995. These displays will also be available at
the Planning Commission meeting on February 6, 1995.
SillvIMAR y
. .
The issues raised at the Public Hearing on January 17, 1995 have been addressed, and the above
recommended conditions of approval have been included in the Tentative Map and Development
Agreement Resolutions, along with the previous suggested conditions. As mentioned earlier, changes in
the conditions of project approval from the previous Staff Report have been indicated with strikeout for
text which has been deleted, and italics for text which has been added. The application has been
reviewed by the applicable City departments and agencies, and their comments have been incorporated
into the Conditions of Approval. Staff recommends approval of the Negative Declaration (Exhibit B) and
the Applicant's request for a Tentative Map Amendment and Development Agreement Amendment,
subject to the conditions listed in the draft resolutions attached (Exhibit C & D), respectively, including
adoption of the findings required by Section 8.12.080 of the Dublin Municipal Code.
RECOMMENDATIONS'
FORMAT: 1)
2)
3)
4)
5)
ACTION:
Open public hearing and hear Staff presentation.
Take testimony from Applicant and the public.
Question Staff, Applicant and the public.
Close public hearing and deliberate.
Adopt Draft Resolutions (Exhibits B, C, & D) relating to PA 94-054, or give Staff
and Applicant direction and continue the matter.
Staff recommends the Planning Commission adopt the following Resolutions:
1. Draft Resolution approving the Negative Declaration (Exhibit B),
2. Draft Resolution recommending City Council approval of the Tentative Map
Amendment (Exhibit C),
3. Draft Resolution recommending City Council approval of the Development
Agreement Amendment (Exhibit D)
A TT ACHMENTS'
Exhibit A:
Exhibit B
Exhibit C:
Exhibit D:
Project Plans: Reduced copy of Tentative Map, limits of Grading Exhibit, Creek Access
Road Exhibit, and Staff Study
Draft Resolution Approving Negative Declaration
Draft Resolution Recommending Approval of Tentative Map Amendment
Draft Resolution Recommending Approval of Development Agreement Amendment
BACKGROUND ATTACHMENTS
1: Staff Report from January 17, 1995 Plarullng Commission Meeting, with exhibits only
2: Cross Sections of pad elevation changes for lots on cul-de-sac near Hansen Drive
c:\planning\tasha\hansen\94054sr
!'H', Cl IV' ~ ?
rti~~ -L- vl~ ~
-9-
'-,..:1.
(]
TO:
FROM:
PREP AREDBY:
SUBJECT:
GB.\TERAIJ INFORMATION'
PROJECT:
APPLICANT:
PROPERTY OWNER:
LOCATION:
ASSESSOR PARCEL:
PARCEL SIZE:
GENERAL PLAN
DESIGNAll0N:
EX5fIN"GWNING
ANJ9 LAND lISE:
; ~,;\\'. '
8
CITY OF DUBLIN
PLANNING COMMISSION
AGENDA STATEMENT/STAFF REPORT
Meeting Date: January 17, 1995
Planning Commission
Planning Staff
Tasha Huston, Associate Planner
PA 94-054 Hansen Ranch Tentative Map Amendment & Development
Agreement Amendment
Request for limited amendments to Phase I of the approved Tentative Map
and Tentative Map Conditions (Tract 5766) and the approved
Development Agreement for the Hansen Hill Ranch project. The limited
amendments involve a change in pad elevations, minor lot line adjustments,
a request to reduce the width of the creek access road from 12 feet to 8
feet wide and provide a creek access road and additional staging areas on
the north side of the creek, and amendments to various conditions of
approval related to the proposed changes.
California Pacific Homes, Inc.
One Civic Plaza, Suite 300
Newport Beach, CA 92660
Martha Buxton, Agent
California Pacific Homes, Inc., 1 Civic Plaza, Suite 300, Newport Beach,
CA 92660. Phone #:(714)721-2770
West of Silvergate Drive, north of Hansen Drive, south of Winding Trail
Lane.
941-110-1-9; 941-110-2
:1:147 acres (Pba.ses.l and 2)
Low Density SinBie-Family Residential;
Open Space, Stream Corridor
Planned Develnpment District; Vacant Agricultural land with grazing use.
--.---------------------...-------------------------------------
IT.Dl !il'O.
COPIES TO: Applicant
Owner
Address File
PAGE ~ Of tJ!J.
ATTACHMENT 1
<:...
{. . " .~' ". '.
;:~
: .'~ ~ . ~ ': ,lj
SURROUNDING LAND
USE AND ZONING:
North: Planned Development District with residential use; Alameda
County Agricultural District with grazing use.
South: R-I-B-E District with residential use; Agricultural District with
church use; Planned Development District with grazing use.
East: Planned Development District with residential use.
West: Planned Development District with grazing use, Agricultural
District with grazing use.
ZONING mSTORY:
P A 87-045: On February 27, 1989, City Council adopted a General Plan Amendment to allow
Low Density Single Family Residential and Open Space, Stream Corridor land use
designations and policy revisions, for the Hansen Hill Ranch project. Along with
this approval, and on the same date, the City Council certified the Final
Envirornnental Impact Report on the project, with Findings and a Statement of
Overriding Considerations, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act.
PA 89-062: On November 27, 1989, City Council approved Planned Development Prezoning,
Tentative Map, and Annexation proposal, for 180 single family units and :i96 acres
of open space, for the Hansen Hill Ranch project. On May 23, 1991, LAFCO
certified Annexation No.7, bringing the approximately 147 acre Hansen Ranch
property into the Dublin City limits.
P A 89-115: On May 14, 1990, City Council denied General Plan Amendment, Planned
Development Prezoning, and Tentative Map to redesignate open space for 10
single family custom lots.
P A 90-018: On March 19, 1991 the Applicant applied for Site Development Review for
Residential floorplans for the 180 lot project, then requested that the application be
withdrawn in order to facilitate the redesign of the single-family units. The
Planning Department closed the file, in response to the withdrawal request from
the Applicant.
PA 89-062: On December 2, 1991, the Planning Commission approved a time extension of the
Planned Development Prezoning, to May 27, 1992, coinciding with the expiration
date of the approved Tentative Map 5766.
PA 91-096 On February 18, 1992 the Planning Commission adopted Resolutions 92-013 and
92-014 approving PA 91-096 Hansen Ranch Conditional Use Permit (approving a
minor modification to the approved General Provisions for the Hansen Ranch
Planned Development Project), and Hansen Ranch Site Development Review
(SDR) for the First Phase (lots 1-72) of the 180 lot I::Iansen Ranch Project.
P A 91-099 On February 24, 1992, the City Council adopted the Hansen Hill Ranch
Development Agreement Ordinance (P A 91-099), approving a Development
Agreement between the City and The Donald L. Bren Company (Hansen Ranch
property owners) for the Hansen Ranch project. The Development Agreement
was entered into by the City on March 25, 1992, and is effective for an initial tenn
of eight years. All previous project approvals are automatically extended for the
tenn of the Development Agreement. (pA 91-099).
PAGE ~ OFC;~
-2-
VI
~
(.":{~',)
'.,";'.~J~r
APPLICABLE REGULATIONS:
Current City procedures require that an amendment to an approved Tentative Map be processed under
the same procedure used for the original approval, or the most comparable procedure provided in the
Zoning Ordinance. This would require that an amendment be subject to Public Hearings and the review
and approval of the Planning Commission and City Council.
Section 9.4 (1) of the approved Development Agreement provides for amendments to the agreement, or
minor amendments to project approvals, to be processed without a public hearing under specific tenns
and when the amendments are minor. Upon analysis of the requested amendments, it has been
determined by the Planning Director that the proposed revisions to the project are not minor, and
therefore the minor amendment process of the Development Agreement cannot be used. Due to this
determination, the procedures for modification would be subject to the applicable zoning, subdivision,
and other land use ordinances, according to Section 9.4 (2) of the Development Agreement.
Therefore, Section 8.12.120 of the Dublin Municipal Code would be applied to the application, which
requires that an amendment to a Development Agreement be processed through the same procedure as
used for entering into an agreement in the first instance. This process includes being subject to Public
Hearings and the review and approval of the Planning Commission and City Council, as well as an Initial
Study pursuant to CEQA, .
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: An Initial Study has been conducted for the project, and a Negative
Declaration has been prepared pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), State
CEQA Guidelines, and the City of Dublin Environmental Guidelines. The proposed project will not have
a significant effect on the environment.
NOTIFICATION: Public Notice of the January 17, 1995 Planning Commission hearing, as well as the
February 13, 1995 City Council Hearing, was published in the local newspaper, mailed to adjacent
property owners, and posted in public buildings and at the project site.
BACKGROUND:
Development applications for the Hansen Hill Ranch project were first approved in February of
1989 with the City Council approval of a General Plan Amendment and Environmental Impact Report to
allow Low Density Single Family Residential (0.5 - 3.8 units per acre), Open Space, Stream Corridor
land use designations and General Plan policy revisions relating to Land Use, Circulation, Safety and
Conservation, for the Hansen Ranch project. Additional project approvals occurred in November, 1989
with the Prezoning of the site to a Planned Development District, and Tentative Map for 180 single
family lots. Annexation of the property into the City of Dublin was certified in May, 1991, and the
Dublin City Council adopted the Hansen Ranch Development Agreement Ordinance in February, 1992.
After the initial tentative map approval was granted, the applicants decided to process the
subdivision in two phases. Phase 1 of the subdivisions involves 72 lots, and Phase 2 involves the
remaining 108 lots. The current request for amendments concerns items in Phase 1 of the tentative map.
These changes are being requested due to issues which were identified after additional studies were
conducted by the applicant following approval of the Tentative Map and Development agreement. It is
anticipated that the applicant will also be requesting amendments to various aspects of Phase 2 of the
Tentative Map in the near future.
ANALYSIS:
Martha Buxton, representing California Pacific Homes, Inc., has applied for a Tentative Map
Amendment and Development Agreement Amendment to allow modifications to the approved Tentative
Map and Development Agreement for Phase 1 (72 lots) of the 180 unit Hansen Ranch Subdivision. The
requested amendments apply to limited aspects of the Tentative Map and Development Agreement
approvals.
Pfl.GE ~ OF .52
-3-
r:;::,
\ -t.:'.;.~
(-:7:\
TENTATIVE MAP AMENDMENT
The Tentative Map Amendment request is to allow for modification of Tentative Map 5766
involving minor revisions to the lot and street configurations. and changes in the pad elevations. most
notably concerning lots 26-40. Lot lines and street configurations within the Tentative Map have been
slightly adjusted in order to provide less steep road grades for some streets, to make less severe cuts into
the hillsides, and to generally reduce the overall area of grading for. Phase 1. The Applicant's request to
modify the lot and road configurations could be considered a minor modification of the approved
Tentative Map.
Pad elevations have changed on several lots, mainly resulting in higher pad elevations for the
units. The most notable area of pad elevation changes occurs on proposed lots 26 through 40, on the
cul-de-sac adjacent to Hansen Drive. Lots on this cul-de-sac as shown on the approved Tentative Map
were previously labeled as lots 24 through 39. The changes were requested in order to make less severe
cuts into the hills for pad grading, and avoid potential problems with slope stability affecting the homes
on Hansen Drive. In this area, pad elevation changes range from 2 to 21 feet. The most noticeable
aspect of the elevation changes would be the visual impacts from higher house pads, especially as they
relate to the homes on Hansen Drive. The elevations of house pads on the proposed plan for the five lots
near Hansen Drive with the greatest increase are:
Lot 30 - 21 feet higher,
Lot 3 1 - 21 feet higher,
Lot 32 - 19 feet higher.
Lot 33 - 14 feet higher. and
Lot 34 - 11 feet higher.
A graphic display developed by the applicant which illustrates the differences in the approved pad
elevations versus the proposed elevations will be available for review at the Public Hearing before the
Planning Commission on Tuesday, January 17, 1995. Through analysis of photographs and research of
the visual impacts addressed in the EIR for the project, the visual impact which could potentially result
from the modifications to pad elevations has been detennined to not be significant. However, the
increases may be noticeable to the adjacent residents. An option available to address concerns with the
impacts of higher elevations is to limit the height of homes on lots 30 through 34 to a single story.
The applicant is also requesting modification of Condition number 76 of the City Council
Resolution #130-89 Approving Tentative Map 5766, Concerning PA 89-062. Tentative Map Conditions
of Approval. This condition, along with a condition of approval in the Development Agreement, requires
that a 12 foot wide creek access road be constructed in the open space area along the creek. As
approved. the road's primary purpose is to provide access to the creek for maintenance and repairs,
emergency fire and police access, as well as to provide a recreational hiking path. The current request is
to change the width of this access road along the south side of the creek bank from 12 feet wide to 8 feet
wide. The applicant has indicated that the grading and retaining walls necessary for a 12 foot wide road
would be excessive, but could be substantially reduced if the road width is reduced.
During initial discussions with staff, the applicant proposed reducing the road to four feet wide.
However. it was noted that a four foot wide road would not allow any standard vehicles to use the
roadway, which could pose problems for maintenance or in emergency situations. Therefore, an 8 foot
wide road was determined to be the minimum allowable for maintenance and emergency purposes. The
subsequent proposal to reduce the width of the road to 8 feet wide was reviewed by the applicable City
Departments and other agencies, and several additional concerns were raised.
The needs of the Public Works Department for maintenance and repair work to the creek includes
access for large equipment such as tractors and backhoes. The minimum road width for such equipment
to maneuver would be 12 feet wide. Staffis recommending that if the eight-foot wide road on the south
side of the creek is accepted, a 12 foot wide access road will be needed along the north side of the creek.
This would include use of an existing road along the creek west of Martin Canyon Road, on the adjacent
property north of the project site, which would be a private road, used by the City only for maintenance
-4- PAGEn 062
(-.
/"~.
of, and emergency access to, the creek area. Also, the proposed 6-foot wide aggregate base access road
along the north side of the creek east of Martin Canyon Road would need to be 12 foot wide, and fenced
off and used only for maintenance and emergency access. An additional requirement recommended to be
added as a condition is to provide an area for access to the creek between the lots off of the Silvergate
cul-de-sac (Lots 6, 7, and 8) and the creek bank. This area is illustrated by a "Staff Study" which is
included as a part of Exhibit A. A condition of approval has been added to address this requirement.
The above requirements will provide the City with a creek access trail, culvert access. and a road
along the north side of the creek of adequate width to enable emergency and maintenance vehicles access
and maneuverability. Because the path on the south side of the creek would now mainly be used as a
public hiking trail, it will be referred to in the conditions of approval as the access trail. The 12-foot wide
road on the north side of the creek will be referred to as the access road. The applicant has concurred
with the above recommendations and requirements.
Another staff concern has been raised which is related to providing access to the creek area from
the north. The primary access to the creek for maintenance, repair. and emergency vehicles will be
provided with the access road on the north side of the creek via Martin Canyon Road. In its current
configuration, Martin Canyon Road ends with a blunt dead-end, which creates a nuisance for street
maintenance with trash collecting in the street corners. Staffis recommending that improvements be
made to the stub street where it currently stops near the project's north property line. involving a cul-de-
sac bulb at the end of the street. This will bring the street into compliance with City street standards,
enable more efficient maintenance to avoid trash buildup, and provide an improved turnaround for large
emergency vehicles and maintenance equipment. However, the applicant does not concur with this
condition.
Conditions of approval have been included in the resolution which would address issues with
street grades. curve radii, and other aspects of the requested revisions to the lot and street configurations.
Additional conditions of approval have been incorporated into the resolution to address accessibility
concerns with the request to reduce the road width on the south side of the creek. With these conditions
of approval, staff recommends approval of the Tentative Map Amendment.
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT:
The Development Agreement Amendment request is to allow modification of the approved
Development Agreement conditions involving the creek access road discussed above. The conditions of
approval affected by the requested modifications are contained in Subparagraph 5.3.2 of Exhibit B to the
Development agreement, and involve the width of the access road, the timing of development of the road,
and the extension of a creek access road off of the site. The applicant is requesting that condition (a.) of
this subparagraph be reworded to allow for an eight-foot wide road, and that the road not be required to
be constructed entirely within Phase 1 of the project. The request is also for deletion of Condition (b.) to
eliminate the requirement that an access road serving the open space area be constructed beyond the
northwest boundary of the site.
Regarding the request to reduce the width of the road on the south side of the creek, concerns
with this issue have been discussed in the Tentative Map section above. If the request is granted,
conditions of approval would be recommended to address concerns with the reduced road width.
Regarding the phased construction of access roads, conditions of approval would also be
recommended to address concerns of maintenance and access. Staff recommends requiring temporary
cul-de-sacs at the end of the access road and access trail as built in Phase 1. to provide turnarounds for
emergency and maintenance vehicles. When the roads are extended in Phase 2, turnarounds would be
needed at the ultimate ends ofthe roads. Also, the recommended conditions state that when the creek
area is dedicated to the city for maintenance of the public open space. the City would accept, and be
responsible for maintaining, only the improved access road and access trail on the project property, and
the open space and creek areas which are accessed from these roads. Additionally, the creek access road
and access trail should be provided in improved fonn for that phase of the project which they serve, prior
to occupancy of any unit in that phase. This would address concerns with residents using a road or trail
PAGE83 orS2
-5-
(~
that is under construction, unimproved or inaccessible in open space or creek areas, as well as providing
emergency access to this area.
Finally, the applicant has requested that the requirement of Condition (b.) of Subparagraph 5.3.2
of Exhibit B of the Development Agreement be deleted. The condition refers to a requirement for
grading and rocking an area in which a creek access road was previously proposed to extend beyond the
project boundary. With the new proposal, an eight-foot wide access trail is proposed to extend to the
west end of the property south of the creek and within the project boundary. This eight foot wide access
trail would be adequate for access to and maintenance of the open space area, and would eliminate the
need to provide the previously proposed access road off the project site for creek maintenance. Staff
recommends deletion of Condition (b.).
PUBLIC CONCERNS
Public Notice of the Negative Declaration and of Public Hearings to be held on this project was
mailed to property owners within 300 feet of the site, and was published and posted in public buildings
and at the project site. Several nearby residents have inquired about the project, and the City received
letters of comment from several residents. The main issues raised in the letters include the following:
1. Additional traffic in the neighborhood, especially on Silvergate Drive
2. Dirt from construction work
3. School impacts
4. Annexation and development of this property
A brief discussion of these issues in response to the letters of comment would be appropriate.
In general, the issues which are being raised relate to issues surrounding the development project as a
whole. It is important to note that the various Hansen Hill Ranch project applications have been
approved by the city in various stages beginning in 1989. The current application before the City is a
request for minor amendments to the Tentative Map and Development agreement, concerning only
limited aspects of the approvals. The question of whether development should occur on this site at all,
and what impacts will result, has been discussed and analyzed in the EIR and during previous approvals.
The current requested amendments do not affect the basic project annexation, land uses, number of units,
or type of residential development.
One of the letters received questions how this project was annexed to the City for development,
considering the voter opinions in the last election. It also questions whether Phase 2 of the project has
been approved, and what notices were mailed to surrounding home owners. The Hansen Hill project
General Plan Amendment and EIR were adopted by the Dublin City Council on February 27, 1989. The
Hansen Ranch annexation was approved by the City Council on November 27, 1989. along with a
Planned Development Prezoning, and a Tentative Map. as noted earlier in this staff report. Public
notices of the project applications involving public hearings are required to be made by various
procedures, such as publication, posting, and direct mailing, according to state and local laws and
ordinances.
Regarding the issue of additional traffic, the Environmental Impact Report on the Hansen Hill
Ranch Project (the "EIR") was prepared in December of 1987, and certified by the City on February 27,
1989. This EIR was prepared in compliance with CEQA, and addressed issues and environmental
impacts identified as potentially significant in the City of Dublin's Initial Study of the proposed project.
Traffic impacts were discussed in the EIR on pages 3-101 through 3-110. Impacts from the
buildout of 282 dwelling units were analyzed at various intersections, and along several roadway
segments. including Silvergate Drive. The analysis of impacts to traffic volumes on roadway segments
included analyzing not only the existing situation plus anticipated traffic from the project itself, but also
the cumulative impacts considering build-out of other residential projects west of San Ramon Road, and
north and west of Silvergate Drive, as well as the build-out of downtown Dublin.
-6-
PAGE1ior.? ,;
P>
The Ern. discussion of traffic impacts includes analyzing both the physical capacity of roadways,
as well as the "Environmental Capacity". Environmental capacity is a term used to express the volume of
traffic on a roadway which will cause residents to express concern about issues such as difficulty in
backing out of driveways into the street, safety of children playing in front yards or on sidewalks, noise,
speed of traffic, air pollutants, etc. As stated in the EIR on page 3-105, the "perception of tolerable
traffic levels is very subjective and varies" among neighborhoods and individuals. In the opinion of the
consultant preparing the EIR, based upon experience with responding to residential concerns about traffic
volumes, a reasonable standard for environmental capacity of a roadway would be 40% of the physical
capacity of the roadway.
The projected existing-plus-project traffic volumes were determined to be within not only the
physical capacity of the roadways, but also within the "environmental capacity limits". The projected
cumulative impacts of the project, considering build-out of other residential projects in the afea, would
fesult in traffic volumes within the environmental capacity of Silvergate Drive at all locations except
between Peppertree Road and Creekside Drive. On this segment, volumes would exceed the
environmental capacity of 6,000 vehicles per day by 15 percent. As stated in the EIR on page 3 -1 09,
"while no operational or safety problems would result from the future traffic increase on Silvergate Drive,
residents along this section of Silvergate Drive may notice an increase in noise and inconvenience in
backing out of their driveways."
Suggested mitigation measures to address the impact of exceeding the environmental capacity for
that segment of Silvergate Drive between Peppertree Road and Creekside Drive included reducing the
project size. reducing the cumulative effects of other projects, providing sole access to Hansen Ranch
from Dublin Boulevard, or encouraging the use of the Dublin Boulevard access. During the project
feview process, the Hansen Ranch development was feduced in size to include 180 units. In the City.
Council Resolution No. 019-89 Making Findings pursuant to CEQA, Certifying the EIR, and including a
Statement of Overriding Considerations, the traffic volume impact of exceeding the environmental
capacity of the portion of Silvergate Drive between Peppertree Road and Creekside Drive were not
considered significant.
Regarding the issue of impacts to residents from dirt or dust from construction work, Air Quality.
including dust and temporary construction related impacts, was discussed in the EIR on pages 3-116
through 3-127. Condition of Approval number 82 for Tentative Map 5766 requires that areas
undergoing grading and all other construction activities shall be watered or other dust-palliative measures
used to prevent dust, as conditions warrant. This requirement is based upon the suggested mitigation
measures of the Ern. for this impact, on page 3-125 of the EIR.
Regarding the issue of school impacts, this item was discussed in the EIR on pages 3-78 through
3-81. The analysis of impacts to school capacities determined that the school capacities had adequate
surplus capacity to accommodate the students projected to be generated from this project. This analysis
assumed that the projected number of students to be generated by the project would be 56. based upon
the Murray School District's average generation fate of 0.2 students per dwelling unit and a total of282
dwelling units for the project.
The cumulative impacts resulting from development of other residential projects north of the
Hansen Ranch project were also addressed in the EIR. The total number of students projected to need
placement in schools from cumulative projects would exceed the capacity at Nielsen School by 68.
However. the school was utilizing portable classrooms and had room on the grounds at the time the EIR
was prepared fOf mOfe portable classrooms to accommodate the 68 person surplus. As stated in the EIR
on page 3-79. "The District does not anticipate significant adverse impacts from the proposed project
given the existing surplus capacity and space for portable classrooms at the Nielsen School, as well as the
two unused schools", (which had been closed due to decreasing enrollments).
Othef issues addressed in the Ern. related to School impacts include the cumulative development
impacts of busing and safety programs.. The implementation measures recommended that the School
District implement an impact fee to be applied to new housing to mitigate development impacts. The
-7-
PAGE~Oh7
(::-
(--
(" ;"'~
\,' :
School District currently charges an impact fee of$I.72 per square foot for each new residential dwelling
unit built in the city. This fee must be paid prior to issuance of a building permit for the unit.
SUMMARY
The application has been reviewed by the applicable City departments and agencies, and their
comments have been incorporated into the Conditions of Approval. The applicant has indicated
agreement with all conditions of approval, with the exception of the improvements to the cul-de-sac bulb
at the stub of Martin Canyon Road. Staff recommends approval of the Negative Declaration (Exhibit B)
and the Applicant's request for a Tentative Map Amendment and Development Agreement Amendment,
subject to the conditions listed in the draft resolutions attached (Exhibit C & D), respectively, including
adoption of the findings required by Section 8.12.080 of the Dublin Municipal Code.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
FORMAT: 1)
2)
3)
4)
5)
ACTION:
Open public hearing and hear Staff presentation.
Take testimony from Applicant and the public.
Question Staff, Applicant and the public.
Close public hearing and deliberate.
Adopt Draft Resolutions (Exhibits B, C, & D) relating to P A 94-054, Of give Staff
and Applicant direction and continue the matter.
Staff recommends the Planning Commission adopt the following Resolutions:
1. Draft Resolution approving the Negative Declaration (Exhibit B),
2. Draft Resolution recommending City Council approval of the Tentative Map
Amendment (Exhibit C).
3. Draft Resolution recommending City Council approval of the Development
Agreement Amendment (Exhibit D) .
ATT ACHMENTS'
Exhibit A:
Exhibit B
Exhibit C:
Exhibit D:
Project Plans: Reduced copy of Tentative Map. limits of Grading Exhibit. Creek Access
Road Exhibit, and Staff Study
Draft Resolution Approving Negative Declaration
Draft Resolution Recommending Approval of Tentative Map Amendment
Draft Resolution Recommending Approval of Development Agfeement Amendment
Background Attachments:
Attachment 1: Location/Zoning Map
Attachment 2: Applicant's Written Statement
Attachment 3: Approved Tentative Map 5766
Attachment 4: City Council Resolution No. 130-89 for PA 89-062 Hansen Hill Ranch Tentative Map
Attachment 5: Development Agreement for Hansen Hill Ranch project
TKH
-8-
I:~Ianning\tasha\hansen \94054SR3 .doc
pfl.GE~05 ?
S f-f.- f'l-f\N'S 'S -rAM P6b
S~~IGll A
~() R fE-5R \J Prt'Z '-( [Q) I q or 5
3 -l P-r::: F gf:poR I
PAGE!LOFf'?
(d".
EX tt 1 C3 l -r A
Martha W. Buxton
Real Estate Development Services
120 Village Square #130
Grinda, Ca 94563
(510) 254-6968
FAY.. (510) 254-7954
February 13, 1995
Larry Tong, Planning Director
City of Dublin
100 Civic Plaza
Dublin, CA 94568
Dear Larry:
This letter is in response to the action taken by the Dublin Planning Commission on
February 6,1995.
1. California Pacific Homes agrees that construction of Martin Canyon Road as a cui
de sac should not be its responsibility, as affirmed by the City Council in 1989.
2. California Pacific Homes has decided to revert to the pad elevations that are shown
on the currently approved grading plan for the subdivision design that was
approved in 1989. Those pad elevations and the design criteria in the general
provisions specified in PD Prezoning Resolution 129-89 will govern the architecture of
the new house plans that will be submitted for Site Development Review for Phase 1.
This eliminates the need for any further restrictions placed on those lots. If you do
not agree with this interpretation, please notify me immediately.
3. California Pacific Homes disagrees that the hiking trail/access road should remain
12 feet wide with no improvements on the north side of the creek. Police, fire, public
works and park and recreation support the proposed plan of an 8 foot hiking
trail/access road with improvements on the north side of the creek. The proposed
plan provides better circulation for the police, a staging area for the fire department,
better access for creek maintenance for public works and a more attractive hiking
trail for recreation. The 12 foot hiking trail/access road causes greater tree loss and
high retaining walls. Finally, public works needs access to the creek for
maintenance purposes and will construct, at City expense, the aggregate base rock
road behind the townhouses if California Pacific Homes is not allowed to implement
the proposed plan that has been negotiated with the City departments.
Please include this letter in the packet for the City Council's February 27th meeting.
Sincerely,
~1L~!lcJ
Martha W. Buxton
Consultant for California Pacific Homes
flcrl~El)
FEg 1 4 1995
nUBLlN
PLANNINr
ATTACHMENT 2.A
...r ..-....
"'-
Martha W. Buxton
Real Estate Development Services
120 Village Square #130
Orinda, Co 94563
(510) 254-6968
FAX (510) 254-7954
February 16, 1995
T ash a Houston, City Planner
City of Dublin
100 Civic Plaza
Dublin, CA 94568
Dear T osha:
This letter is meant to clarify the intention of California Pacific Homes to revert to the pad
elevations as currently approved on the cui de sac adjacent to the existing homes on
Hansen Drive. The purpose of this change is to alleviate the perception of the adjacent
homeowners that they will be adversely impacted compared to the current approval.
All other pad elevations would remain the some os indicated on the amended tentative
map for Phase 1 currently in process.
You ore correct to point out that the approval that I should have referenced in my
February 13 letter is the site plan os approved in Site Development Review Resolution
92-014 which indicates the pad elevations rather than the grading plan.
Thank you for your assistance in this matter.
Sincerely,
~."7f\ D~
I 1 . ...J,I......
I / /~uJLc!/ "-u
iJ ~
Martha W. Buxton
Consultant for California Pacific Homes
RECEIVEO
FEe 1 S j995
.." '''1, '~I "
. J.,,"}!.rc""4 "~'.' .....~. n"",
t "- :!. t. ~ oJ :
ATTACHMENT 2-1
Martha W. Buxton
Real Estate Development Services
120 Village Square #130
Orinda, Ca 94563
(510) 254-6968
FAX (510) 254.7954
February 16, 1995
Laurence Tong, Planning Director
City of Dublin
100 Civic Plaza
Dublin, CA 94568
Dear Larry:
Once again it is nearing time for the annual review of the Development Agreement with
the City of Dublin for Hansen Hill Ranch. California Pacific Homes has complied with all
the terms and conditions of the agreement during the past year. As you know,
California Pacific Homes is working diligently to receive approvals that will allow
construction to commence in April 1995.
It would make sense to conduct the annual review by the City Council in conjunction
with a City Council meeting reviewing the amended approvals for Phase 1 or Phase 2. If
the meeting on February 27 reviewing Phase 1 is too soon, then the Council meeting
reviewing Phase 2 might be appropriate. It is my hope that we will be before the City
Council for Phase 2 at the end of March or April 10 at the latest so that construction can
commence.
Please let me know if you need further information for the annual review and what the
timing will be. Thank you.
Sincerely,
mV;.kc fjzyPzo
Martha W. Buxton
Consultant for California Pacific Homes
cc: T asha Houston ~
Richard Ambrose
Jeff Slavin
"EeEI
... \f1I1)
~EB 1 Co
u ;991;
r.; 0 'tvI
"'. AifitflMENT 2.e.
..-:<,.-\, J ..'"~.
.(~ \~. .)(1;,'0-
...."':.~."'~.-..--~..-............,'.... ~/ /',
{f~Y ~ ,.~\~
(1\:(4!I~i~i'~) CITY OF DUBLIN
'\\\\~~~/IJj
---\~~,.~ /1.1)/-- .. .
~ {' ;.- _, /..;...., ,: PO Box 2340. Dublin, California 94568
--.'.. /..: / r~--;-'\,..'~.~~;.:..
_ " .. ~_; _,~ ,r
Martha W. Buxton
120 Village Square #130
OOOda, CA 94563
. .
.
City Offices, 100 Civic Plaza, Dublin. California 94568
February 22, 1994
Dear Ms. Buxton,
1bis letter is in response to your February 13, 1995 letter. regarding California Pacific Homes' position in
response to the Planning Commission's action on the Hansen Ranch Project at the February 6, 1995 meeting.
Regarding Comment # 1, the Planning Department Staff acknowledges California Pacific Homes'
agreement with the Commission's recommendation that the cul-de-sac bulb at the end of Martin Canyon Road
should not be required. However, it should be noted that this recommendation was made in relation to the
Commission's recommendation to leave the design of the creek access road as it was previously approved, with a
12 foot road on the south side of the creek only. The Commission noted that with the approved design, the primary
access to the creek would be from the south. The need for a cul-de-sac at the Martin Canyon Road stub was based
upon the proposed redesign, which would provide primary creek access from the north. If the City Council reverses
the Planning Conunission's recommendation regarding the creek access road redesign. staff would recommend that
the Martin Canyon Road cul-de~sac be provided by the developer.
The statement made in comment #2 of your letter is contrary to the Planning Department's interpretation
regarding approved pad elevations. The letter states that California Pacific Homes would like to "revert to the pad
elevations that are shown on the currently approved grading plan for the subdivision design that was approved in
1989". The letter further states that "Those pad elevations and the design criteria in the general provisions
specified in the PD Prezoning Resolution 129-89 will govern the architecture of the new house plans that will be
submitted for Site Development review for Phase 1". The City does not have any record of an approved grading
plan for the subdivision. Thus, if the current application for revisions to the Tentative Map pad elevations is
withdrawn, the design of the Tentative map as approved in 1989 would still be in effect. Any significant changes to
these pad elevations would require an amendment to the approved tentative map.
In relation to this issue, a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) and Site Development Review (SDR) application
was approved by the Planning Commission on February 18, 1992. As you know, the CUP was necessary to revise
the Planned Development Standard Provisions, so that the house plans of the 1992 SDR approval could replace the
plans approved with the PD in 1989. The elevations forlots 31 through 33, as approved under the CUP and SDR
in 1992, are not significantly different from the pad elevations approved in the original Tentative Map. These
approved pad elevations, and not the pad elevations shown on a grading or improvement plan, would represent the
maximum allowable pad elevations currently approved by the City. Your follow-up letter of February 16, 1995,
clarifies the February 13 letter's reference to an approved grading plan. TItis new letter notes that the elevations as
approved in the Site Development Review Resolution 92-014 should be considered the approved pad elevations.
Also, the approved Planned Development (PD) General Provisions, approved by the City in 1989, would
remain in effect. unless modified or amended by subsequent project approvals. These Provisions restrict houses to
a maximum building height of 32 feet, or two stories, at anyone point. While these standards would govern the
height of the subdivision homes in general, the current approved heights for some of the homes may be limited by
the SDR approved in 1992. 1bis approval showed some single~story homes for some of the lots, and represents the
maximum height of the houses approved for the subdivision, unless a new or amended SDR is processed and
approved. ATTACHMENT .3
Administration (510) 833.6650. City Council (510) 833-6605. Finance (510) 833-6640. Building Inspection (5101 833-6620
Code Enforcement (510) 833-6620 . Engineering (510) 833-6630 . Planning (510) 833-6610
Police (510) 833.6670 . Public Works (510) 833.6630 · Recreation (510) 833-6645
Finally, in response to statement #3 of your letter, the Planning Staff acknowledges your disagreement with
the Planning Commission's reconunendation that the hiking trail/access road should remain as originally approved
(12 feet wide on the south side of the creek, with no improvements on the north side). The letter further states that
the Police, Fire, Public Works, and Parks & Recreation Departments support the proposed plan ofan 8 foot hiking
trail! access road with improvements on the north side of the creek.
The input received by the Planning Department during project review indicated that the proposed access
road redesign would be acceptable to City Departments, if several conditions are met. However, concerns were
expressed with the cost of City maintenance for two gravel roads through the creek area, as well as the practical use
of an 8 foot wide road for emergency and maintenance vehicles. Although City Departments found the access road
redesign to be acceptable, only the City Council has authority to approve the changes. No plans have been
negotiated for approval by staff. The only written comment from a City Department that notes a preference for the
proposed redesign (with an 8 foot path on the South and a 12 foot access road on the North) was received through a
memo on February 15, 1995. The Public Works Department expressed this position in reference to issues of
maintenance, height of retaining walls, and tree loss.
Conunent #3 of your letter also states that the Public Works Department "will construct, at City expense,
the aggregate base rock road behind the townhouses if California Pacific Homes is not allowed to implement the
proposed plan..." For clarification, the Public Works Department has stated that "if there were no access road
along the north side of the creek east of Martin Canyon Road, and a creek bank failure occurred or a tree fell into
the creek in that area during the winter, the City would have to build its own gravel road to move equipment to the
problem site". However, it is the City's intention to require that the developer of this site provide the necessary
improvements to the creek so that the creek is reinforced and stabilized before the City accepts responsibility for
maintaining the creek.
Lastly, the staff appreciates the follow-up letter that you submitted on February 16, 1995. This letter
clarifies the intention of California Pacific Homes to revert to the previously approved pad elevations for the cul-de-
sac adjacent to Hansen Drive. Staff understands that the applicant wishes to withdraw its request for changes to
pad elevations on lots 26 through 40, but still wishes to process all other aspects of the requested Tentative Map
and Development Agreement Amendments. Because the applicant is withdrawing the elevation amendments for
these lots, the Staff position on this issue will change. Staff will recommend that the City Council maintain the
previously approved pad elevations for the lots adjacent to Hansen Drive. The condition of approval regarding
height restrictions on lots 31, 32, and 33, which the Planning Commission and Staff had previously recommended,
will be eliminated since it will no longer apply.
I hope this letter clarifies the Planning Department's interpretations and understanding of these issues.
Please feel free to call me if you have any more questions.
Sincerely,
-::dr~A /~; ./A_
7~V'...-~t aY-tC~
Tasha Huston
Associate Planner
cc: Richard Ambrose
Larry Tong
Lee Thompson
Carol Cirelli
Libby Silver
c: \planning\tasha \hansen \ltrb~in. doc
MEYERS, NAVE, RIBACK, SILVER & WILSON
A Professional Law Corporation
Michael R. Nave
Sleven R. Meyers
Elizabeth H. Silver
Michael S. Riback
Kenneth A. Wilson
Gateway Plaza
777 Davis Street, Suite 300
San Leandro, CA 94577
Telephone: (510) 351-4300
Facsimile: (510) 351-4481
Sanm Rosa Office
Clifford F. Campbell
Michael F. Rodriquez
Kathleen Faubion
Wendy A. Roberts
David W. Skinner
Sleven T. Mattas
Rick W. Jarvis
555 Fifth Screet, Suile 230
Sanm Rosa, CA 95401
(707) 545-8009
R E w:; E i V ~ D (707) 545-6617 (Fax)
FE B 2 1 1995
Reply to:
San Leandro
"JOLIN PLANNINr
Of counsel:
Andrea J. Saltzman
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Tasha Huston
Associate Planner
DATE: February 17, 1995
FROM:
Elizabeth H. Silver, City Attorney
By: Larissa M. Seto, Associate Attorney
RE:
City'S Potential Liability for Hansen Ranch Tentative Map
and Development Agreement
BACKGROUND.
The applicant for the Hansen Ranch tentative map has submitted
a soils report which states that there are concerns regarding soil
stability for the project. Remediation measures are suggested in
the report. Members of the public have expressed concern about the
effect site grading will have on existing landslides.
ISSUE.
Could the City be held liable in the event of ground failure
or landslides due to the City'S approval of this project?
BRIEF ANSWER.
No, so long as the Planing Commission and, if appealed, the
City Council reviews the reports and other information presented,
then makes an independent discretionary decision based upon their
review.
DISCUSSION.
California's Tort Claims Act (Govt. Code ~ 810 et seq.) grants
cities broad immunity from tort liability, except for instances
ATTACHMENT 4
DATE:
PAGE:
Tasha Huston
Elizabeth H. Silver
City's Potential Liability for Hansen Ranch Tentative Map
and Development Agreement
February 17, 1995
2
TO:
FROM:
RE:
specifically imposed by statute. The Act states that
A public entity is not liable for an injury caused by the
issuance, denial, suspension or revocation of, or by the
failure or refusal to issue, deny, suspend or revoke, any
permit, license, certificate, approval, order or similar
authorization where the public entity or an employee of
the public entity is authorized by enactment to determine
whether or not such authorization should be issued,
denied, suspended or revoked. (Govt. Code ~ 818.4)
In our situation, the Planning Commission and City Council
have discretion to determine whether or not to approve a tentative
map. Government Code ~ 818.4 eliminates liability for the
discretionary decisions made by the City regarding the approval of
a project.
This interpretation of Government Code ~ 818.4 is supported
by a case involving a condominium homeowners' association suit for
damages from subsidence of land against a city.l The homeowners
argued that the city building inspector had a mandatory duty to
ensure that the developer compacted the soils to a 90 percent
level, as specified. in a city ordinance. The city inspector had
conducted tests and determined that the existing fill was not
compacted to the required level, but required that additional fill
be compacted to 90 percent. Based upon that requirement, and
discussions with the engineer about the sufficiency of the
requirement, the city inspector issued the grading and building
permits. Some time later, subsidence of the land caused damage to
the.homes.
The homeowners argued that the city inspector should not have
issued the permits unless he was certain that the soils would be
compacted to 90 percent. The court rej ected their argument,
holding that the city's ordinance requiring the 90 percent
compaction was discretionary. The court further reasoned the city
was immune from liability based upon Government Code !:l 818.4
because the building inspector investigated the necessary issues
and made an independent discretionary decision based upon his
investigations.
Cancun Homeowners Assoc.
Caoistrano (1989) 264 Cal.Rptr. 288.
1
Inc.
v.
City
of
San
Juan
. .
TO:
FROM:
RE:
Tasha Huston
Elizabeth H. Silver
City's Potential Liability for Hansen Ranch Tentative Map
and Development Agreement
February 17, 1995
3
DATE:
PAGE:
This view of immunity from liability for approvals is further
supported by an earlier decision dismissing a claim arising from
damage "resulting in large part from private improvement and
development of property in which the county and city played no part
other than their approval of plans and issuance of permits. ,,2
CONCLUSION.
In our situation, the City should be immune from liability for
any damage caused by landslides or soil movement on the private
property because the Cuty's only action is to approve the tentative
map. However, if there is an approval of the map, the Planning
Commission and Council resolutions should state that the Commission
or Council has considered all information presented (ie. staff
reports, the soils report, public testimony, etc.), required
remediation measures where necessary, and based their independent
decision on the information.
Please contact me if you have further questions with regard
to the above raised issues.
Very truly yours,
MEYERS, NAVE, RIBACK, SILVER & WILSON
J.~
i,_ . .I, /.
I i/ !,J / I f;-
.... / ,. i, I
,.~~.( ,-I ---"'c..:-"( ~'- "":":!.A... 1
"_/ ...., .- ......,..- /~
Elizabeth H. Silver (
EHS: jde
cc: Larry Tong, Planning Director
Carol Cirelli, Senior Planner
\114\memo\Ol\hansen.mmo
2
Ellison v. City of San Buenaventura (1976) 131 Cal.Rptr.
433.
.------.
(:
" .
.
(" l'
WRITTEN STATEMENT
In 1989 the City Council approved Tentative Map 5766 together with Planned
Development Prezoning and Annexation of 147 acres to allow 180 single family lots on
approximately 51 acres and approximately 96 acres of open space, wet of Silvergate
Drive, north of Hansen Drive and South of Winding Trails. Subsequently, the project was
divided into two phases. Phase 1 (Subdivision 5766) consists of 72 lots. Phase 2
(Subdivision 6308) consists of 108 lots. California Pacific Homes (fonnerly known as the
Bren Co.) desires to amend Phase 1.
The primary difference between the approved Tentative Map and the amended Tentative
Map for 72 lots in Phase 1 is that the grading has been reduced. The revised plan does
not cut into to the existing grade as much as the approved plan resulting in less steep
grades on some streets. It also results in a higher elevation of the lots on the cuI d'sac
adjacent to homes on Hansen Drive. The soils engineer has recoIlUTIended that we do not
cut into the hillside as much as previously shown in order to avoid potential problems with
the stability of the existing yards of the Hansen Drive homes. The elevation change is
approximately 20 feet higher than approved plan as the revised plan only cuts into the
hillside approximately 10 feet as opposed to the 30 feet of the current plan.
Another change from the current project is to reduce the access road from 12 feet to 8
feet in width. This will greatly reduce the grading and related tree loss from the current
plan. In addition, the hiking trail/access road will be more pleasant to walk as the
retaining walls will be somewhat reduced.
The project remains consistent with the general plan and the planned development zoning
of open space, stream corridor and low density single family residential. The number of
lots and the size of the lots are consistent with what has been approved. All of the costs
that were associated with the approved Tentative Map will remain the same. A
Development Agreement was approved which added the requirement that the creek area
be dedicated to the City and that the public have access to the hiking trail. Thus the
project has added benefits since it was the Tentative Map was approved in 1989. All
other impacts of the project would be the same as currently approved.
PAGE-LOF ~~
AttacImett _ 5
RE~~VjD
~E~ (3~99lt
~'~~Q.~ ill I
:")tlSllN if ..'\NN'IN~
"
/,,--.
,
,- ..I'
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT AMENDMENT
On March 25th, 1922 a Development Agreement was entered between the City of Dublin
and the Donald L. Bren Company (now known as California Pacific Homes) for the
Hansen Hill Ranch project. California Pacific Homes is requesting an amendment in which
all terms and conditions of the Development Agreement would remain the same except for
conditions 2.a and 2.b. found in Exhibit B which should be amended to reflect requested
changes to the access road.
The requirement to build a 12 foot access road as described in Condition No. 76 of the
Tentative Map is an onerous and environmentally insensitive requirement. At the time the
12 foot requirement was imposed, the evening the City Council approved the Tentative
Map, an engineering study of the impact of the road had not been done. Since then,
further studies have shown that the 12 foot width would require substantial tree loss and
the construction of very high retaining walls on both sides of the road in many places. It
should be noted that the primary purpose of the road is for the public to hike through a
beautiful creek area. The needs of the police, fire and public works departments are duly
noted. California Pacific Homes has met with those departments and is willing to build an
8 foot access road. This will cut back on some of the tree loss and somewhat lessen the
retaining walls and still allow police, fire and public works to perform their duties.
In addition, the construction and dedication of the access road was always contemplated
to be in two phases because grading for the required stub street in Phase 2 cuts through
the access road. The current grading plan approved ny Public Works for Phase 1 shows
the access road ending in a temporary bulb just east of the required stub street. It was an
oversight to have a condition in the Development Agreement which implies that the entire
access road be constructed with Phase 1. The grading in Phase 2 for the required stub
street would make hiking impossible in that area of the access road and result in a
dangerous situation if hikers came too close to the heavy grading equipment.
Therefore, we request that SubparaQIaph 5.3.2.a. be amended to require construction of
an 8 foot access road. (Tentative Map Condition No. 76 would also need to be amended.)
In addition the construction and dedication of the road should be divided into two phases,
ending in a bulb in Phase 1 as shown on the Tentative Map which is part of this submittal.
All other conditions in the paragraph would remain the same.
Subparagraph 5.3.2.b and Attachment 1 should be deleted. Attachment 1 indicates that
the access road must continue off the Hansen Ranch property and then return. In a
walking field trip with the public works director along the creek this requirement proved
to be untrue. An existing jeep trail continues on the Hansen property. In fact the location.
of the proposed extended access road on Attachment 1 would require two unnecessary
creek crossings and due to extreme grade differentials between the two properties is not
feasible, if even possible, to build.
PAGELOF~
~ Eel! I v~ 0
~6EN-f'199It-_
~'I\~~9..\),-~
f1UB(IN ?,lANNI"'c;
I,
.,..-.
I I l
. .
., -
" .
: !
,r-.
I. ,',
., I
:- j
: i
'.1 .
. "- :
'. .
."; .
. . .
PAGELOFL
PRD Jeer
5r-re-
AllACHMEHT ,b
Regular Meeting - January 17, 1995
A regular meeting of the City of Dublin Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, January 17, 1995,
in the Dublin Civic Center City Council Chambers. The meeting was called to order at 7:37 by
Commissioner North.
**********
ROLL CALL
Present: Commissioners Zika, Burnham, Geist, and North; Laurence L. Tong; Planning Director;
Elizabeth Silver, City Attorney; Dennis Carrington, Senior Planner; Carol Cirelli, Senior Planner; Jeri
Ram, Associate Planner; Tasha Huston, Associate Planner and Gaylene Burkett. Recording Secretary.
Absent: Commissioner Rafanelli
**********
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG
Cm. North led the Commission, Staff, and those present in the pledge of allegiance to the flag
**********
ADDITIONS OR REVISIONS TO THE AGENDA
The minutes of the January 3, 1995, meeting were approved as submitted.
**********
ORAL COMMUNICA TrONS
Subject:
6.1
Election of Officers (continued from 1-3.95 meeting).
Cm. North continued this item until the next meeting.
**********
WRITTEN COMMUNICA nONS
None
**********
PUBLIC HEARING
SUBJECT: 8.1
P A 94-001 Santa Rita Commercial Center Rezone and proposed Negative
Declaration request to rezone 75+ acres from Planned Development - Business
ParklIndustrial (low coverage) to a standard Planned Development. This project
has a Specific Plan Designation of General Commercial. The proposed Planned
Development would allow for an 800.000+ square foot commercial center which
may include retail stores. offices. movie theaters and restaurants. among other
uses. The project is located at the southeast corner ofthe intersection of Dublin
Boulevard and Hacienda Drive. A Development Agreement between the City of
Dublin. Homar! Development Company and Alameda County Surplus Property
Authority is part of the project. The Development Agreement contains provisions
that include. but are not limited to. project and infrastructure phasing. and traffic.
noise and public'facilities impact fees. (continued from 1-3-95)
....--..-----------------------....----..............................--..-..--------------------.---..-----------------------------...--.--------..........---.......---
Regular Meeting
[1-17min]
PCM-1995- 12
January 17A1T AeHMEN' 7
.,_~;:~t:.:~~-. . ~
Cm. North opened the public hearing and asked for the staff report.
Jed Ram, Associate Planner, presented the staff report. She reviewed the December 19, 1994 and
January 3, 1995, agenda statements. Ms. Ram stated that Staff recommended that the Planning
Commission recommend the City Council approve the Mitigated Negative Declaration, Response to
Comments, Mitigation Monitoring Program, Rezone to a General Commercial Planned Development
and Development Agreement. She further indicated that Staff would like to add two additional
Conditions of Approval to the PD Rezone Resolution which was Exhibit D from the December 19, 1994,
Agenda Statement. Ms. Ram read the new conditions number 36 and 37 for the record. Ms. Ram
recommended that the Planning Commission adopt Exhibit C from the December 19. 1994 staff report,
Resolution recommending that the City Council certify the Mitigated Negative Declaration and adopt the
Mitigation Monitoring Program; adopt Exhibit D from the December 19, 1994, staff report, Resolution,
recommending City Council approval of Planned Development Rezoning with the addition of conditions
number 36 and 37 as noted; adopt Exhibit D from the January 3, 1995, staff report, Resolution,
recommending City Council approval of the Development Agreement. Also, if the Planning
Commission so desired, recommend that the City Council support, in concept, the preparation of a
Greenway Study along Tassajara Creek and recommend that the City Council support continuing to work
with the East Bay Regional Park District on trails consistent with the City's Parks and Recreation Master
Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan. Ms. Ram asked ifthe Planning Commissioners had any
questions of Staff.
Cm. Zika asked about the Fiscal Study. He wanted to know what occupancy rate and what years were
used to project the amount of sales tax per square foot.
~. .
Laurence Tong, Planning Director, referred Cm. Zika to page 3 of the staff report. He indicated that
Staff had contacted Mr. Steve Spickard of ERA, the consultant who prepared the Fiscal Analysis, and
discussed the issues raised with him. Mr. Spickard had indicated that the method used to determine the
taxable sales per square foot were based on the regional competition, the transfer of sales from other
businesses within the City and the vacancy rates. The largest factor used to indicate the discounting was
the regional competition. The vacancy rate used were in the range of 5-1 0%, which were comparable to
other projects of this nature. The retail sales tax capture rate was comparable to the convention used in
other similar types of sales projections.
Cm. Zika asked if there was a base year.
Mr. Tong stated the base year for retail sales and vacancy rate were based on fiscal year 1995-1996, for
the first Phase of operation and then the rates were projected out from there.
Cm. Zika asked if the vacancy rate in Dublin was only 5-10%.
Mr. Tong indicated that is was closer to 10%.
Ms. Ram stated that the 5-10% vacancy rate that were used in the fiscal analysis was based on similar
centers to the Homart project.
Cm. Zika asked if the study to determine the vacancy rate of these similar centers was based on the Tri-
Valley area, the Valley area or the whole world.
Ms. Ram indicated she did not know.
"., r~ l1 J~~g~rN~dtil)g/
~ .: \ i" 11-t7iriiilJ ~ ~ ~ ~
PCM-1995- 13
January 17, 1995
Cm. Zika expressed concern that this project not cost the City of Dublin money. His concern was that he
had seen discount centers throughout the Valley that are empty or half full and that we were building
mega-square footage Centers and wondered where we were going to get the tenants to fill the project.
Cm. Zika also asked about the change on paragraph 26, "Status", in the Development Agreement.
Elizabeth Silver, City Attorney, indicated that there was one new paragraph that was added to the
Development Agreement after the packets were distributed on Thursday. The new paragraph 26 relating
to status was added at the request of Homar!. The paragraph provides that if a prospective purchaser or
lender for either the County or Homart wanted to know the status of the County's obligations or
Homart's obligations under the Development Agreement, that the City would, in writing, inform the
prospective lender or purchaser of the status of the obligations. In other words. how far along was the
Developer or the County with respect to completing one oftheir obligations under the Development
Agreement. She stated that the other items that the Commissioners received that night were Exhibit Al
and Exhibit A2 which were maps. Exhibit Al was a map of the development location and Exhibit A2
was a map of the vicinity showing the property and its location in relationship to the rest of the City.
Cm. Zika inquired about the 10 year Development Agreement tenn. He wanted to know what would
happen if the project were not completed in 10 years.
Ms. Silver indicated that the Agreement would terminate at the end of 10 years
Cm. Zika asked ifthe 10 years were to lapse and Phase II were not completed and the Developer applied
for a new application, would he then be subject to additional fees, if the fees had gone up by then.
Ms. Silver indicated yes, once the Development Agreement tenninates. the Developer would be subject
to whatever fees were in effect at the time.
Cm. North asked about paragraph 30 where it stated that the Agreement may be executed in three
separate counterparts, he asked what the three counterparts were.
Mr. Silver stated that it meant three copies so that there would be an original copy for each of the three
parties.
Cm. North asked about the last paragraph of the staff report where it states, in Response to Comments
raised at the January 3, meeting, the City had prepared a Fiscal Analysis. He wanted to know if that
Fiscal Analysis was prepared specifically in response to Mr. DiManto's comments.
Mr. Tong stated that it was intended to indicate that the Fiscal Analysis that was prepared was for the
overall General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan.
Cm. North stated that the way the staff report was worded, it seemed to indicate that there was a new or
updated Fiscal Analysis.
Mr. Tong clarified that a new or updated Fiscal Analysis was not prepared in response to the comments
raised at the January 3, 1995, meeting and that Staff should change the syntax of that paragraph. He
further indicated that the November 3, 1994, Fiscal Analysis was specific to the Homart project and
Eastern Dublin annexation
.....--........-----------------..........-...---.........--....-..-......--.....--...---------------................-----.............----------------------------...--..----------................---
Regular Meeting
[1-17min]
PCM-1995- 14
January 17,1995
Cm. North asked if the only updates were on page three of the staff report.
Mr. Tong answered yes.
Cm. North stated that he would continue the public hearing and asked how many people wished to speak
on this item.
Mr.:John DiManto, Dublin Land Company, indicated that the Commissioners had a copy of his
comments and notes from the last meeting and asked the Commissioners if they had any questions. He
indicated that his comments applied to east of Tassajara Road, so that his targeting was on the County
property in particular. He asked Staff, through the Chair, that following the anticipation ofthe rezoning
approval, what happened architecturally, what controls does the Commission or Council have and what
process would this project go through. He felt that if the conceptual idea gained momentum without any
challenge to its architectural wonder, Mr. DiManto asked what rights the public would have for input.
Cm. North stated that the Planning Commission would make only a recommendation to the City Council
and'that Council would hear the item at least two times.
Mr. Tong indicated that the process set forth in City policy would provide that the next level of review,
which would be the Tentative Map, would be processed by Staff and be finaled by Staff unless appealed.
The Specific Plan also sets forth design guidelines which will be used to evaluate the plans.
Cm. North indicated that there would be at least one more process before the project actually starts.
@m:'North asked Staff if anyone could appeal the Site Development Review or if only the individual
submitting it could appeal.
., .
Iii'.-T-ong indicated that anyone could appeal according to the provisions in the Zoning Ordinance.
"
.,,',
Mr. DiManto asked ifhe could receive a written response from Staff on his comments.
t~r.::,!
em. Burnham stated that in Mr. DiManto's comments, number 7 about a scaled model, was premature.
Mr. DiManto stated that was why he asked what the process would be and at what time would it be
proper to request a scale model.
Cm. Burnham reiterated that this project at this stage would be in concept only, and that the size, shape
and color had nothing to do with the Commissions' decision that night.
Mr. DiManto expressed concern that he and other land owners had attended meetings for seven years and
had been a.party to conceptual guidelines and architectural requirements. This project would be a flag
ship amhnodel for what they would be required to comply with.
Mr. Tong clarified that the project would not necessarily need a Tentative Subdivision Map, instead
might require a Tentative Parcel Map. A Tentative Parcel Map could be acted upon by Staff and not
necessarily need to come before the Planning Commission unless it was appealed.
em. Zika asked if it would be possible that the Planning Commission would not have this project come
before them again.
Regular Meeting
[1-17min]
PCM-1995- 15
January 17, 1995
-'
Mr. Tong indicated that was correct.
Cm. North asked if once the City Council acted on the project, then it would not come before City
Council again.
Mr. Tong indicated that was also correct.
Ms. Marjorie LaBar asked for clarification that if the Planning Commission would not be hearing this
project again, would City Council be reviewing in a Public Hearing fonnat, the final Site design of the
project.
Mr. Tong indicated that through the process that had been set forth in City policies, guidelines and the
Specific Plan, the additional details can be flnaled at the Staff level, unless appealed. If they are
appealed, they would go before the Planning Commission, and if the Planning Commission decision
were appealed, then it would go before the City Council. Without appeal, it would not have to go
through the public hearing process.
Ms. LaBar asked how the public would be notified when the Parcel Map would be filed.
Mr. Tong stated that there would be public noticing, but there would not necessarily be a public hearing.
Ms. LaBar stated that she felt that this would be a dangerous precedent because the project is the first in .
a massive Eastern Dublin Development, and that the public would not be insured that the final design
and design perimeters such as signage and other things that had been discussed, would go through the
same process.
Mr. Tong indicated that the speaker and any member of the public could participate by attending or
providing comments based upon the public notice and the process had been utilized for the past five
years very successfully.
Cm. North asked if anyone else wished to comment. Hearing none, he closed the public hearing and
asked the Commissioners for their comments.
Cm. Zika commented that with other projects such as Burger King, the Commission looked at colors,
concepts and three dimensional designs; and for the Eastern Dublin Plan, there was a large mock-up of
where the homes would go, but on this project with 800,000 square feet at the entrance to the City, that
the Commission would not have a chance to hear public input concerned him.
Cm. North clarified that when Burger King came in for a Site Development Review, they were going to
completely change the property around. Cm. North's perception was that the colors being used were
secondary to getting the building approved and that they were not required to bring in the color scheme,
although they did. He indicated that the Commission did review a lot in the Specific Plan in regards to
design guidelines, how wide the sidewalks had to be. and what the setbacks had to be.
Cm. Burnham indicated that he felt the Commission was talking about an entirely different process, and
that what was up for review was the concept. He stated that Burger King was not a concept, rather it was
a food establishment and the Commission did not have to review whether Burger King should or should
not be built.
Regular Meeting
[1-17min]
PCM-1995-16
January 17, 1995
Cm. Burnham stated he did not have a problem with the development going there or the contractor doing
the job, but had a problem with the County doing the job. Cm. Burnham asked Mr. Tong who would be
inspecting the project.
Mr. Tong answered that the County and the City had an agreement whereby the City would be doing al1
of the building inspections and public works inspections. The County would be acting as a property
owner and would be paying all of the processing fees and making all the improvements, in terms of
infrastructure as well as studies, that are necessary for this project to go forward. The studies and
infrastructure would mount up to millions of dol1ars.
Cm. Burnham stated that he was still leery.
Ms. Silver clarified that the property was owned by the Surplus Property Authority for the County of
Alameda which was a separate legal entity, separate and apart from Alameda County. Although the term
"County" was used in the Development Agreement. it is short for the Surplus Property Authority. The
Surplus Property was not different from any other developer.
Cm. Zika asked if the County Supervisors could come in and change the game.
Ms. Silver stated the County Supervisors act as the Board ofthe Surplus Property Authority.
Cm. Zika asked if the County Supervisors could get in and tinker with it.
Mr. Tong stated they could not tinker with the agreement, nor could they tinker with the land uses as
specified in the rezoning, nor in the specific conditions of the Development Agreement.
Ms. Silver stated that the Surplus Property Authority was the same as a private property owner.
Cm. Burnham clarified that he did not want a piece of property out there with the County's name on it as
an island in the City of Dublin. If for any reason the property was a plus or minus, he did not want
everyone pointing the finger at the City of Dublin, and not be able to do anything about it if it was owned
by the County.
Ms. Silver stated that the City of Dublin and the Surplus Property Authority and Alameda County has
had an agreement since 1986, and the agreement was amended last year. Pursuant to that agreement, the
Surplus Property Authority had agreed that the City's Zoning Ordinances were applicable to its property.
Cm. North commented on the letter from the East Bay Regional Park District. When they spoke at the
last meeting, they asked the City to include the trail crossing in the project until they could complete
their Master Plan and the Commission discussed how long it had been in the works, and every indication
indicated that it would be complete in about a year.
Cm. North asked for any other questions of the Commissioners.
Cm. North asked Staff for clarification of what the Commission was going to recommend
approval for, because he did not see a recommended approval for the Development Agreement.
Ms. Ram clarified that the Commission would be recommending approval of the Resolution
recommending approval of the Development Agreement by City Council.
Regular Meeting
[1-17min]
PCM-1995- 17
January 17, 1995
"_.......-..;.,-~.,.-~.....-. --
Cm. North clarified that there were two Exhibit D's, one from December 19, 1994 and one from January
3, 1995.
Ms. Silver stated that the Development Agreement that staff recommended that the Planning
Commission recommend to the City Council, was the one that is attached to the staff report for January
17, 1995, with the change that was passed out adding a new paragraph 26, and the two page Exhibit 1
attached to it.
Cm. Zika asked ifthere were any differences between the Agreement approved tonight and the one that
would go to the City Council. Would those sections be specifically pointed out to Council as it was for
the Planing Commissioners.
Ms. Silver answered yes. She indicated that throughout the process of negotiating the Development
Agreement, there were a number of changes. She anticipated that there may be more minor, non-
substantive changes to the language between January 17, 1995, and when the Agreement goes to the
City Council.
Cm. Zika moved to recommend approval of the December 19, 1994, Exhibit C, Resolution to
recommend the City Council certify the Mitigated Negative Declaration and adopt the Mitigation
Monitoring Program, Exhibit D, Resolution recommended the City Council approval of the Planned
Development Rezoning and from the January 3. 1995 meeting, Exhibit D, Resolution recommending the
City Council approve the Development Agreement.
Cm. North added as amended with the pages that the Commissioners received that night.
Cm. Zika asked about the two conditions they were given tonight.
Ms. Ram clarified they were Conditions 36 and 37 to be added to the Conditions of Approval which were
part of Exhibit D from the December 19, 1994, Agenda Statement, which was the Resolution
recommending that the City Council approve the Planned Development Rezone.
Cm. North also included the Planning Commission should recommend that City Council support, in
concept, the preparation of a Greenway Study along Tassajara Creek, and recommend that City Council
support continuing to work with the East Bay Regional Park District on trails consistent with City Parks
and Recreation Master Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan.
Cm. Zika agreed with the inclusion.
On motion by Cm. Zika, seconded by Cm. Burnham, with a vote of 4-0. the Planning Commission
adopted:
RESOLUTION NO. 95-01
RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF THE MITIGATED NEGATIVE
DE CLARA TION AND ADOPT THE MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM FOR P A 94-
001, THE SANTA RITA COMMERCIAL CENTER PROJECT.
Regular Meeting
[l-17min]
PCM-1995- 18
January 17, 1995
.-~'-:..:.::"~-
Cm. North clarified that there were two Exhibit D's, one from December 19, 1994 and one from January
3, 1995.
Ms. Silver stated that the Development Agreement that staff recommended that the Planning
Commission recommend to the City Council, was the one that is attached to the staff report for January
17, 1995, with the change that was passed out adding a new paragraph 26, and the two page Exhibit 1
attached to it.
Cm. Zika asked if there were any differences between the Agreement approved tonight and the one that
would go to the City Council. Would those sections be specifically pointed out to Council as it was for
the Planing Commissioners.
Ms. Silver answered yes. She indicated that throughout the process of negotiating the Development
Agreement, there were a number of changes. She anticipated that there may be more minor, non-
substantive changes to the language between January 17, 1995, and when the Agreement goes to the
City Council.
Cm. Zika moved to recommend approval of the December 19, 1994, Exhibit C, Resolution to
recommend the City Council certify the Mitigated Negative Declaration and adopt the Mitigation
Monitoring Program, Exhibit D, Resolution recommended the City Council approval of the Planned
Development Rezoning and from the January 3, 1995 meeting, Exhibit D, Resolution recommending the
City Council approve the Development Agreement.
Cm. North added as amended with the pages that the Commissioners received that night.
Cm. Zika asked about the two conditions they were given tonight.
Ms. Ram clarified they were Conditions 36 and 37 to be added to the Conditions of Approval which were
part of Exhibit D from the December 19, 1994, Agenda Statement, which was the Resolution
recommending that the City Council approve the Planned Development Rezone.
Cm. North also included the Planning Commission should recommend that City Council support, in
concept, the preparation of a Greenway Study along Tassajara Creek. and recommend that City Council
support continuing to work with the East Bay Regional Park District on trails consistent with City Parks
and Recreation Master Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan.
Cm. Zika agreed with the inclusion.
On motion by Cm. Zika, seconded by Cm. Burnham, with a vote of 4-0, the Planning Commission
adopted:
RESOLUTION NO. 95-01
RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL AFPROV AL OF THE MITIGATED NEGATIVE
DECLARATION AND ADOPT THE MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM FOR PA 94-
001. THE SANTA RITA COMMERCIAL CENTER PROJECT.
Regular Meeting
[1-17min]
PCM-1995- 18
January 17, 1995
Ms. Huston indicated yes.
Cm. North indicated that he had the Conditions of Approval that were approved in 1992, if they wished
to review them.
Cm. Geist asked about the liability of the access road on the Nielsen Property.
Ms. Huston indicated that the conditions ofthe City were a 12 foot wide, aggregate base road so that
large equipment could get in there. The road does need to be maintained and the City had modified their
previous position that they would be willing to accept maintenance of that road to a certain degree, not
necessarily to the level of a paved road, but the City would go out to maintain the road to the same
degree as the road on the south side is maintained by the City. She stated that the City was not proposing
that they accept ownership of the road when the creek area was dedicated, it would still be on private
property and the City would have any easement over it for use and maintenance.
Cm. Geist asked if the easement could be revoked in the future.
Ms. Huston explained that the legal implications of whether the Applicant would be able to obtain the
easement and turn it over to the City had not be established. The easement was a requirement of
approval; however, the reduction of width in the access road may not be approvable.
Cm. North asked if the easement was not granted and dedicated to the City, does it come back before the
Planning Commission again, or will Staff make the determination.
Ms. Huston stated that it would revert back to the previous approval.
Cm. North asked about Exhibit C, page 4, item 27, if the Police had any idea what the staffing
requirements would be to patrol the area.
Ms. Huston stated the Police Department Condition had to do with timing of when the Police would need
to have the staffing in place and working out the schedules in the Department.
Cm. North asked if the Police knew how much money it would cost and was that included in the
Development Agreement.
Ms. Huston indicated that they would have to check with the Police Department.
Mr. Tong indicated that the Police Department does know what their total staffing requirement would
be, they just need to know when to bring that staff on line.
Cm.. North asked if the Applicant was present.
Marti Buxton, representing California Pacific Homes, addressed the Commission and indicated that
California Pacific Homes is the new name for the Bren Company, and that they were the same owners
that received the approval in 1989. Ms. Buxton indicated that it was California Pacific Homes intention
to construct the project in 1995 and that the redesign is an attempt to reduce grading, therefore reducing
cost while still essentially the same project in lot lay-outs and quality. She stated that they would be
bringing Phase II before the Commission which also had some changes, but that they wanted to do them
separately so that they could get started on the improvement plans in order to build in April, 1995.
--........-------------.....------------............------------...........---------...........--------------..--.---------.......-------........._----..--...----_....__..------
Regular Meeting
[1-17min]
PCM-1995- 20
January 17, 1995
Ms. Buxton stated the two major issues in the redesign involve the cul-de-sac and the creek access road.
She discussed several elements of the proposal and some of the additional reasons for the amendments.
She indicated that since there was a reduction in grading, the homes would be at a higher elevation and
there were three homes where the homes are higher, however, the homes that would be impacted are
single story and heavily vegetated with 5 to 5~ foot fencing. She indicated the houses to be built are 150
to 200 feet away from the actual house. to-house condition, arid they would have fuller landscaping on
Hansen side to further screerithe homes. Another aspect was the creek road. In 1989 the City Council
imposed a 12 foot road upon the development for Police patrol and Public Works maintenance. The 12
foot road would require great tree loss and massive retaining walls for great distance. She felt that the
impact had not been analyzed at the time of approval and in the past 5+ years the impact had now had a
chance to be analyzed and reviewed. She stated that originally the preference of the Applicant was that
the first part of the trail be a 4 foot wide road, however. that was not acceptable to Staff, but they were
willing to compromise with an 8 foot road, with other improvements on the north side.
Ms. Buxton was appreciative of Staff s working with them on the conditions and solutions. The
Applicant noted the one condition which she objects to was the cul-de-sac bulb on Martin Canyon Road.
Ms. Buxton asked the Commissioners if they had any questions.
Cm. North stated that he had been out to the stub streets at the end of Hansen Road and at the end of
Rolling Hills Drive and that at the end of the cul-de-sacs there were large amounts of garbage. He felt
that the City's request to make a bulb for the street sweeper to get around was not that far out of line.
Ms. Buxton stated that she felt that the trash there was not being generated by any of the residents on
Hansen Drive. She indicated that she hoped the City would budget for the bulb if they felt it necessary;
however, she felt it was not an associated impact from the subdivision.
/,.
''(:
Cm. Burnham asked Staff who owned the property at the Martin Canyon dead-end before and after the
lumber stop.
Ms. Huston stated the City owned the street right-of-way, but where the fence began, down to the creek,
would be the property of California Pacific Homes, although she was not certain the lumber stop was
exactly on the property line.
Frank Berloger, President of Berloger Geotecnical Consultants, addressed the Commission, stating that
his firm first started working on the project three years ago. He identified a number of geologic
concerns, including the cul.de.sac and explained some of the geologic and soil issues there. He stated
basically the area beyond the existing homes was a large fill area placed in the canyon during the grading
of the initial project. He indicated that the proposed cut into the hill would have been in existing fill,
overlying landslide debris, overlying a geologic unit prone to instability. In their 1992 Report they
cautioned the Bren Company, now California Pacific Homes, on making the cut because of the potential
for instability.
Cm. Zika asked which area Mr. Berloger was talking about.
Mr. Berloger pointed to the map the area to which he was referring, which indicated the cul.de-sac near
Hansen Drive.
Mr. Robert Neilsen, 11637 Alegra Drive, asked for clarification of the reference to the south side of the
creek. He asked if they were referring to the property on the Tentative Map.
Regular Meeting
[l-17min]
PCM-1995- 21
January 17, 1995
Cm. North indicated that was correct.
Mr. Neilsen indicated that he was involved with the property on the north side of the creek and wanted to
point out that the property was off of the Tentative Map and that no arrangement had been made for
access on the north side of the creek.
Cm. North indicated that he understood from Staffthat they would have to reach an agreement with Mr.
Neilsen or they went back to the old conditions.
Ms. Buxton stated that Mr. Neilsen and his brother deeded a non-exclusive private road easement to
various land owners, and the Hansens and their other partners were some of those land owners. She
stated that there was nothing in the easement about the ability to rock the road:
Cm. North indicated that there seemed to be a conflict between Mr. Neilsen and the Applicant about the
rights to the easement.
Mr. Tong stated that Staff would need to be able to confion the rights of easement; however, it was a
specific Condition of Approval.
Ms. Buxton stated there were two different easements. She gave some background on the easement
draft.
Cm. North stated she should make arrangements with Mr. Neilsen and Staff to deteonine the rights of
easement.
Dan Morris, 7439 Hansen Drive, stated concerns with impacts to his property from the proposed
amendment to the pad elevations on the cul~de~sac, including impacts to his privacy, resale of his
property and his view.
Cm. North asked Mr. Morris if they were to build single story homes, ifhe still would have an objection.
Mr. Morris responded that he felt they would still be impacted.
Lucy Horowitz, 11404 Winding Trail Lane, indicated she was a new resident and had not attended the
previous meetings; however, she wanted to register her dismay that another development of homes were
going up and ruining a lovely place.
Cm. North indicated that when her home was built, people registered the same comments.
Cm. Burnham asked Ms. Horowitz if at the time she purchased her townhome. was she made aware that
there would be a project going in.
Ms. Horowitz answered yes, but at that time, the development was on hold.
Marjorie LaBar addressed the Commission with three questions regarding property tax revenue
recalculations; comparison of to day's traffic impacts with those projected when the original traffic study
was done, and school impacts which may have changed from the original study. She also noted
objections to the 12 foot road and asked the Planning Commission to reconsider this requirement.
Cm. Zika asked Ms. LaBar which 12 foot road she disapproved of.
..........------------_.....................-..--...----------------_.._..._-..........---------------.............----------------.........-.........---...---------------...-.....--........------
Regular Meeting
[1-17min]
PCM-1995- 22
January 17, 1995
Ms. LaBar stated objection to all of them, and commented on some history on how the 12 foot road
requirement was established.
Cm. Zika stated that the traffic study was based on the build out of 282 units, and there was only going
to be 180 units. He also referred Ms. LaBar to the Dublin Unified School District for the school impacts.
Cm. Zika and Ms. LaBar discussed the traffic impact and how and when they were handled.
Mehran Sepehri, Sr. Civil Engineer, addressed the traffic study and the impacts to the intersections.
Ms. LaBar asked for the base line for the traffic study.
Mr. Sepehri stated that the City of Dublin annually studied the major intersections in the City, and that
Dublin Boulevard and San Ramon Road were looked at and were operating at a good level of service.
Cm. North stated that they were not there that night to discuss whether or not the development project
should be canceled or remodeled or reduced in size. He indicated they were there to talk about the
amendments to the Tentative Map.
Cm. Burnham asked if there were actually 20-30% less traffic than anticipated.
Mr. Sepehri stated that, through the level-of-service study and street counts. the level of service was
satisfactory .
Diana Day, 11395 Rolling Hills Drive, expressed concerns on the access road related to preserving the ' ,\;
nature they have there and also concern on the maintenance of the road and what "to a certain degree"
meant.
Mr. Sepehri stated that the road was going to be an easement and used by other property owners. He did
not want the property owners to come back in the future and ask for the road to be paved, but wanted to
keep it aggregate base to meet the City's standards.
Doug Abbott, stated that he felt this was not a minor change, but a significant change that would impact
many residences. He felt this could be considered a new project, based on economics.
Steve Degal, 11515 Silvergate, across from the proposed driveway. He wanted to know ifthere would
be one or two access roads to the project.
Cm. North stated that when they built up to 71 or 72 homes there would only be one access road,
however, when then go beyond that and build the other 108 homes, there would be two access roads, and
that the law dictates the number of access roads based on the number of homes built.
Mr. Tong indicated that Attachment 3 of the staff report was the original approved Tentative Map for the
Hansen Hills Project. In Phase I, there would be two public access roads.
Ms. Bina who lives on Hansen Drive agreed with all of the concerns that had been raised. Her concern
was the degree of grading and what was the process regarding the concerns being raised.
Cm. North stated the Planning Commission would listen to the concerns, consider them and then make a
motion and vote on what recommendation to make to the City Council.
--..--.....---------..-.............-...-....--------------......-.................---------..---........-------------..-..---.-......-----------.....-----------..-----.......---------......--
Regular Meeting
[1-17min]
PCM-1995- 23
January 17, 1995
Cm. lika then indicated that it would be up to the City Council whether to agree or disagree with the
Planning Commission's recommendations and that the public could express their concerns before the
City Council.
Ms. Bina asked about the prices of the homes.
Cm. lika stated that the Planning Commission nor the City Council had the authority to set prices.
Cm. North indicated that the developer had the right to keep the prices to themselves at this stage ofthe
process.
Al Jorden, who lives on Winding Trail lane, wanted to register discontent with the project. He did not
think there was enough room for an 8 foot wide trail behind his home.
Cm. North stated that any work done around the creek area will require the approval of the State Fish and
Game and the Corps of Engineers.
Ms. Buxton commented that the developer had proposed 6 feet along the creek; however, the City was
requiring 12 feet. She indicated that ifthe 12 foot road were required, she felt that if they were not
successful in getting Mr. Neilsen to rock the road and the Corps of Engineers and Fish and Game
approval, there would be huge retaining walls and tremendous tree loss. .
Cm. Burnham asked what good 6 feet would do.
Ms. Buxton indicated that the City could get some equipment in there, but not the big equipment, and
also the 6 foot road would mean they would not have to cut into the creek area. She referred Cm.
Burnham to the maps showing the 6,8 and 12 foot scenarios.
Cm. Burnham asked if an 8 foot road were used, would that cut back on the retaining wall.
Ms. Buxton answered yes.
Cm. Burnham asked if they could get by with an 8 foot road.
Ms. Buxton indicated that yes, that was what they had proposed.
Cm. Burnham asked about Phase II access roads.
Ms. Buxton indicated that there were no further issues around the creek that would need to be addressed.
Ms. Buxton had pictures of the 7439 Hansen Drive home, and indicated that the house was single story
and the pad grade of the house is approximately 3 feet below the bottom grade of his fence and then there
was a 5 1/2 foot fence, and felt that there was not a view from the backyard. Ms. Buxton did not think it
was a fair trade-off to require the developer to put single family homes behind the 7439 Hansen Drive
home.
Bob Leeward, Civil Engineer for the project, stated that it was approximately 100 feet between the
proposed houses and 7439 Hansen Drive.
Cm. North asked the difference in elevation.
..-..-----..---------------------------..-........--....---......---....--------..--------------------.....-..............----..-------..-........--...---------------------_........
Regular Meeting
[1-17min]
PCM-1995- 24
January 17, 1995
Mr. Leeward stated the proposed house pads would be 10 feet higher than the approved pad grades.
Dave Gates showed on the maps the proposed landscape and a 30 foot landscape fire barrier between the
properties. He indicated on the map where the landscape would go on the three properties that could
have a visual impact. He stated that they were putting in species that would be just enough to block the
view ofthe proposed home on the pad and nothing higher. He indicated he was referring to cross section
8 on the map.
em. North asked if the pad of lot 31 was going to be 21 feet higher than the house at 7439 Hansen Drive.
Mr. Leeward clarified that it would be 21 feet higher than the approved plan, but only 10 feet higher than
the existing house.
Ms. Buxton gave the Commissioner's pictures she had of the impacted properties.
Mr. Morris felt that he would still be impacted by the view of a two story house into their property. He
objected to blocking the view with various types of vegetation. Mr. Morris felt the fill soil was unstable
on top of a previous landslide debris.
Frank Berloger explained the topography of the slope and canyon. He outlined how the cut slope would
affect the project. .. .
Ed Skubic, 7427 Hansen Drive, questioned the stability of the slope.
/-
I,'
Cm. North indicated that he felt Mr. Berloger had indicated that it was unstable to build larger houses;
however, the land as it sits now was not necessarily unstable. He stated that if they were to build on the
slope, then a requirement to build would be to make sure that there was a stable foundation for the
houses.
Mr. Berloger indicated Mr. Skubic was referring to Section 10, which was behind the houses on the cul-
de-sac on the downhill slope. He addressed the stability concerns and that part of their work would be to
develop a stable grading scheme so that when the grading was completed, stability would be established.
Ms. Huston clarified that on Section 10, that the first Exhibit did show a house; however, the new
proposal did not include a house behind Mr. Skubic's home because there was a reconfiguration ofthe
lots.
Mr. Morris asked if the homeowners could request a second neutral soil appraisal.
Cm. North indicated that the developer would be required to get approval from the Building Inspection
Department and Public Works Department, and that there were engineers on Staff to review the project.
Mr. Morris asked if Public Works had made comments to the soils report.
Cm. North answered yes, that several Departments had made comments and had done several site
inspections of the project.
Mr. Morris asked for a compromise on the impacts to his home.
--..--...-----------------...--.......-......-...........--..-.....-......-..--------------------...---------.......------------------............-------...............--......-----------------
Regular Meeting
[1-17min]
PCM-1995- 25
January 17,1995
Ms. LaBar asked about the underlying landslide.
Mr. Berloger indicated on the map the grade and how the cut-slope would impact the slope, and indicated
where the instability would occur without the revised grading.
Ms. Huston stated that Staff had a copy of the soils report.
Gloria Kasdan asked about the north side ofthe creek, ifthey anticipated the removal of any trees.
Ms. Buxton stated they had not anticipated any large amount tree removal, if any.
Mr. Sepehri indicated that he had just had a discussion with Staff and the Applicant and if they agree to
maintain the creek, then the City does not have to have a maintenance road. He stated the Applicant had
agreed to maintain the creek; however, he needed to discuss further with Staff the implementations of a
less than 12 foot road. Mr. Sepehri suggested the Planning Commission continue the public hearing until
he had a chance to speak with the other Departments.
Mr. Tong indicated that the Public Works Staff and the Applicant had agreed to a two week continuance
to consider an alternative to maintaining the creek with less than a 12 foot access road. Mr. Tong
indicated the public hearing should be continued to the February 6, 1995, meeting.
Cm. Burnham asked why a 12 foot road was being required.
Mr. Sepehri answered that a typical size truck carrying equipment would require the 12 foot road.
Cm. Zika asked if once the project was built, would it be up to the Homeowners Association to maintain
the creek, and if so, how would the City enforce the maintenance.
Mr. Sepehri indicated that at the present time, the homeowners maintain the east side of the creek. If the
homeowners do not maintain the creek per the Clean Water Map Act, the City will first give a warning,
then the City can fine up to $10,000 per day to do the clean up.
Mr. Tong stated the terms for the maintenance of the creek and the relationship of the creek being
dedicated to the City for hiking purposes and how the City can guarantee an adequate level of service
would be discussed.
Mr. Zika stated he did not see the need for a road down both sides of the creek.
Ms. Buxton commented on the extent that the homeowners would be maintaining the creek, if it also
included the hiking trail which would be used by the public.
Cm. Burnham stated he felt that if the Homeowners Association were responsible for the trail, and the
City is responsible for the liability, then there may be a problem. .
Cm. North thanked the public for attending and for their input and continued the Public Hearing to
February 6, 1995. He then asked Staff, to address several issues in the staff report or the next meeting
including single story homes on lots 30-34, whether Condition B of Exhibit B of the original
Development Agreement would be deleted, the issues of the creek access road width, and the bulb on
Martin Canyon Road.
......------...-..............-.....-----------------......--.........------------....................----------...--..................------------...-----.....--------------_...........................-----
Regular Meeting
[l-17min]
PCM-1995~ 26
January 17, 1995
~r~~...'~. -_.- --
NEW OR UNFINISHED BUSINESS
Mr. Tong informed the Commission that at the upcoming City Council meeting, they would hear the
Homart application and will also have the Eastern Dublin Reorganization conducting authority public
hearing.
OTHER BUSINESS (Commission/StaffInformation Only Reports)
Cm. Zika asked where the trucks were parked this week.
Cm. Geist commented they were parked at Target.
Cm. North commented that on the parking space issue, he and staff went out to measure the spaces.
Although the parking spaces did not meet the required measurements, Staff indicated that the painted
lines that did not meet the standards; however, Staff assured that there was 65 feet between the two grid
lines which meet the Standards. He felt that there was no way of knowing if the spaces met the
Standards.
Mr. Sepehri stated that one of the problems was that during the plan check stages, the Applicant was
required to meet the Standard, however, the City does not have the resources to do a site inspection. He
stated that when checking with other jurisdictions, they issued site plan penn it and the parking lot was
inspected according to that plan. He indicated that the City was looking at that type of plan.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 10:48 p.m.
* * * * * * * * * * *
Respectfully submitted,
Planning Commission Chairperson
A TIEST:
Laurence L. Tong, Planning Director
--..........---------------------.....----...-.............-..-----...........--------------------..--.........----...........-...----------------...--..--....---...........--........-...-----------
Regular Meeting
[l-17min]
PCM-1995- 27
January 17, 1995
Regular Meeting - February 6, 1995
A regular meeting of the City of Dublin Planning Commission was held on Monday, February 6,
1995, in the Dublin Civic Center City Council Chambers. The meeting was called to order at 7:40
by Commissioner North.
**********
ROLL CALL
Present: Commissioners Zika, Burnham, Geist, and North; Laurence L. Tong; Planning Director;
Carol Cirelli, Senior Planner; Tasha Huston, Associate Planner and Gaylene Burkett, Recording
Secretary.
Absent: Commissioner Rafanelli
**********
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG
Cm. North led the Commission, Staff, and those present in the pledge of allegiance "to the flag.
**********
ADDITIONS OR REVISIONS TO TIlE AGENDA
The minutes of the January 17, 1995, meeting were approved as submitted.
**********
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
Subject:
6.1
Election of Officers (continued from 1-17-95 meetinQ;).
Cm. North continued this item until the next meeting.
**********
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS
None
**********
PUBLIC HEARING
SUBJECT: 8.1
P A 94-054 Hansen Ranch Tentative MaD and Development Ag;reement
Amendment. A request for limited amendments to Phase I of the
approved Tentative MaD and Tentative MaD Conditions (Tract 5766) and
the approved Development AQ;reement for the Hansen Hill Ranch oroiect.
The limited amendments requested involve a change in oad elevations.
minor lot and street adiustments. reduction in the width of the creek access
road from 12 feet to 8 feet. oroviding an access road on the north side of
the creek. and amendments to various conditions of aDDroval related to the
requested changes.
.....--...----------------------........-------------.......---------......-----------..------....--------------........................---.........
Regular Meeting
[2-6min}
28
February 6, 1995
Cm. North opened the public hearing and asked for the staff report.
Tasha Huston, Associate Planner, presented the staff report. Ms. Huston used the overhead
projector to illustrate Staff's recommended condition which would impose height limitations on
three lots, #31, #32, and #33, which are experiencing elevation changes due to the Applicant's
proposed revisions. She stated that since the distribution of the staff report, significant comments
and new information had been submitted. One resident of Hansen Drive submitted a report that
indicated that a single story limitation alone would not substantially lessen the visual impact of the
proposed changes in elevation. Ms. Huston indicated that after further review of that issue, Staff
had developed a modification to the Condition of Approval which addressed the issues of the
Applicant and adjacent residences. Ms. Huston read the new Condition of Approval, item #4 of
the Tentative Map Resolution. She also indicated that after recent discussions with the East Bay
Regional Parks District, they had stated that the 12 foot wide access road was necessary for heavy
equipment to maintain the creek and for patrol vehicles, and that they recommended to design the
access road on the south side of the creek a minimum width of 12 feet to accommodate all potential
users. Ms. Huston stated that Staff recommended approval of the Negative Declaration and the
approval of the Applicant's request for a Tentative Map Amendment and Development Agreement
Amendment subject to the conditions previously listed in the draft Resolutions and as modified that
night.
Cm. Zika asked if one of the options available were to go back to the originally approved plan.
Ms. Huston answered yes.
Cm. Burnham asked that if the project were denied and went back to the original approval, would
it go straight to City Council.
Ms. Huston stated that if denied at this level, the Applicant could appeal to the City Council.
Cm. Geist asked that ifthe Applicant was unable to arrange for the easement on the north side of
the creek, would that item come back before the Plamring Commission.
Ms. Huston stated only if Staff felt the item was too complex to approve and needed direction from
the Planning Commission.
Cm. North asked if Staff had contacted Mr. Neilsen regarding the easement on the north side.
Ms. Huston stated that Staff had not been in contact with Mr. Neilsen; however. through research,
had found a copy of the title report indicating the property was dedicated a non-exc1usive private
road easement for access to a portion ofMr. Neilsen's property. She indicated Staffwould seek
legal opinion whether the grant of the easement would include the rights to maintain the easement.
Cm. North asked about why Staff had gone against East Bay Regional Parks recommendation for
a less than 12 foot road.
em. Huston stated that Staff's position was to evaluate the position of the Applicant, and that there
were pros and cons to both proposals.
..--.....-------......----------............----------...--..------.......------.......-------------..-...-----..........-------------.....--..-------------
Regular Meeting
[2-6min}
29
February 6, 1995
Cm. North asked about the modified Condition 4 as it relates to the three lots and how Staff
came up with the height limitations.
Ms. Huston provided the Commission with a copy ofthe modified Condition 4 and explained
how Staff arrived at the new height limitations.
Cm. North asked if the Applicant was present.
Marti Buxton, representative for California Pacific Homes, stated that the Applicant was in
agreement with all Conditions of Approval except #4 and #13. She stated that if a 12 foot wide
access road were required, there would be a tremendous tree loss and would require high
retaining walls. She indicated on a map on the wall where the 12 foot trail would be developed
during Phase I and Phase II of the development.
Cm. North asked if the entire 12 foot road could be built during Phase I, and blocked off during
the construction of Phase II.
Ms. Buxton stated that it was possible; however, there was still future grading to be done and felt
it would be safer to develop the second half of the trail during Phase II of the project. She stated
that she still did not feel the need to put in a cul-de-sac at the end of Martin Canyon Road. Ms.
Buxton felt that Condition 4 was not fair. She thought that the 17 foot height limitation on the
house behind Mr. Morris' could not be done without going back to the original 30 foot cut.
Cm. North asked if the issue of the cuts was addressed in 1992.
Ms. Buxton answered no. She stated that Mr. Berloger's finn was retained in 1992, and that the
previous engineer had not addressed the area as having immediate mitigation.
Cm. North asked if Ms. Buxton had contacted Mr. Neilsen regarding the easement on the north
side ofthe creek.
Ms. Buxton stated she had spoke with Mr. Neilsen and gave him a copy of the easements.
Cm. North asked if there was a place along the creek where fire and police could cross the creek
if necessary.
Ms. Buxton stated that there was an existing culvert that would be rebuilt with a locked gate for
access.
Ms. Huston stated that Staff had reviewed the Soils Report and reviewed the issues of soi I
stability, and based on the report done in 1992 for the approved development at that time, the
soils report did not conclude that there would be unacceptable stability to the soil. It addressed
concerns and remediations.
Cm. Burnham stated that the City of Dublin approved the project based on the original Soils
Report and wanted to know why the City was accepting the new Soils Report.
----..---......------------------............---------------................----------_...............----------_........------------------_.......----------------
Regular Meeting
[2-6min}
30
February 6, 1995
Ms. Huston stated that the new Soils Report did not include compelling evidence that the soil was
not stable. She stated that the Applicant's engineer felt that it would be safer if they did not cut
into the hill as much as originally planned; however, the report does state that under the projected
improvements, it would be adequate.
Cm. Zika asked who would be liable if the homes slide.
Ms. Buxton indicated that nobody was talking about homes sliding and that the area referred to in
the soils report was in the rear of some of the yards.
Cm. Zika asked when Phase II would be built.
Ms. Buxton stated that they would soon be coming to the City with Phase n modifications and that
there were fixed costs in Phase I that made it necessary to build Phase II as soon as possible if the
development were to make money.
Cm. North asked if the original Soils Report addressed the stability of the hill.
Ms. Huston stated that the Soils Report addressed the mitigation needed for the construction of the
project as it was approved at the 1989 configuration and that after construction and improvements,
including soil stability improvements, the soil stability concerns would be addressed.
Ms. Buxton stated the previous Soils Report was silent as to extraordinary mitigations. She also
stated that Mr. Eerloger's report does not state that the soil is unstable, but that it would be better
not to make as deep a cut as previously reported.
Frank Berloger, representing Berloger Geotechnical Consultants, gave a brief history of his
involvement with this project. He spoke of his Soils Report and about previous landslides in the
area and why the problems were identified as they were. He presented a drawing of cross sections
showing the soil cuts.
Mr. Berloger stated that the risk would be at the time the cuts were made, and that once all the
work was completed, he was confident that the area would be stable.
Cm. Zika asked if the risk would lessen if the cuts were not made during the rainy season.
Mr. Berloger stated that was correct.
Bob Leewor, with the Civil Engineering firm of Adams/Streeter, indicated to the Commission that
there was a drawing that was given to the Commission that night showing a model of a house,
whereas from the back of the house you do not see any windows from the second story.
There was a discussion among the Commissioners about the different elevations of the houses and
different models of the proposed homes.
Cm. North stated that the chart showing the different elevations did not match on lot 32 and asked
for the elevation of the house at 7439 Hansen Drive.
Regular Meeting
[2-6min}
31
February 6, 1995
Ms. Huston stated that the cross sections submitted by the Applicant were somewhat inaccurate in
terms of the height and style of homes being represented. She indicated that the current approval
for lot 32 indicated a single story home and the property was still controlled by the previous
approval. She further stated that if there was a new home design being proposed, it would have to
come through as a Site Development Review approval, including the home that was being proposed
that night.
Cm. Geist asked the elevation of the approved house on lot 32.
Ms. Huston stated that the existing approved pad elevation for lot 32 was 505 feet, with an
approved single story house height of 21 feet, for a maximum height of 526 feet.
Cm. North stated that he did not agree with the elevations shO\\1l on Mr. Berloger's map.
Mr. BerIoger stated that they could not tell the exact measurement from the street, and he agreed
with Cm. North. He stated he did not know why lot 31 was included in the group that would be
limited to single story, and felt that lots 32 and 33 were adjacent to single homes and felt both rear
yards would be private.
Marti Buxton summarized what they were willing to do on lots 32 and 33 as was indicated on the
plan that the Commissioners had in front of them. She stated that based on what Staff was
recommending that night, the only remedy would be a 30 foot cut as currently approved.
The Commissioners had a discussion about the different elevations and asked Staff to look at the
cross-section dra\\ing that was handed to them that night to see if they matched the City's
recommendation.
Ms. Huston responded using the cross-section which the Applicant handed to the Commission to
show the proposed home heights compared to the Applicant's recommended plan, and the approved
elevations.
Cm. Zika asked on the original project approval, which lots had single story homes.
Ms. Huston stated lot 32 was originally approved for a single-story home, and lots 31 and 33 \vere
originally approved for two-story homes.
Ms. Buxton clarified that on the new proposed home on lot 32, the rear roof height was 11' 7" at
the back as opposed to a normal gable roof height of26 feet.
Cm. North informed the public that there were only 4 elements of this proposal being discussed
that night, and asked the public to limit their comments to the 4 elements.
After a 5 minutes recess, Cm. North asked for comments from the public.
Dan Morris, 7429 Hansen Drive, gave an overhead presentation that outlined the report he gave the
Commissioner's in their packet. He stated that he felt his home would be greatly impacted by a
two story house behind his home and asked the Commission to consider the impacts the
Amendments would have on his home.
--.....-...-----...........----------------.....---..----.....----------.....----......----------.....----.......----------...--------........-----------------
Regular Meeting
[2.6min}
32
February 6, 1995
Hans Heydorn, 11430 Winding Trail Lane, stated he was opposed to building an access road on
the north side of the creek, and expressed concern over tree loss for the access road on the south
side.
Ms. Huston used a map on the wall to clarify the area where the access road on the north side of
the creek would be built. She also stated that a tree survey was done and it appeared that the
access road could be built without the removal of trees; however, there was a Condition of
Approval that the road could be less than 12 feet wide, if needed, to accommodate trees. She
noted that the majority of trees to be removed was a result of improvements which are currently
necessary to reinforce the creek.
Cm. Burnham asked for verification on the map where the access road would go on the north
side and where it would come out on Silvergate.
Ms. Huston stated the road would not come out on Silvergate, and indicated on the map where
the road would end.
Cm. Burnham asked if the only access to the 12 foot access road would be Martin Canyon Road
from the west and heading east, with no exit at the east end.
Ms. Buxton indicated there would be a bulb provided near the end for vehicles to turn around.
Lee Thompson, Public Works Director, stated that the reason for the access road would be so
that if any trees fell in the creek, the City would be able to get in there to remove them to reduce
the risk of flooding. lfthe creek bank were to start eroding towards the townhomes, the City
would need to be able to get in there and build up the bank.
Mr. Tong clarified that as part of the Conditions of Approval, the creek would be dedicated to
the City to be used as recreational facilities, and the public would be provided access and use of
the creek.
Marjorie LaBar indicated that her concern was not to destroy the resources that we are trying to
save. She also indicated that getting a Stream Bed Alteration Agreement from the Fish and
Game could be difficult. She stated that maybe the maintenance could be done with smaller
equipment so that a smaller access road could be put in place. She recommended that the
Commissioners check with the City of Pleasant on regarding landslide issues and the liability to
the City.
Mr. Morris read Mr. Berloger's recommendation for the area in relation to the fill in the area and
stated that Mr. Berloger's firm had done a lot of testing on the area behind his home.
Robert Patterson, Rolling Hills Drive, had a concern about the creek's access to the public, and
felt that having a dead-end street with a bulb at the end of it, may encourage some problems in
the area.
AI Jordon, 11428 Winding Trail, indicated that there were trees approximately 6 feet from the
property line that may be impacted by the access road.
-----...........------.......................---------.............--------...--......-----....---...----------..........-------..........---------.......----------_........-----
Regular Meeting
[2-6min}
33
February 6, 1995
Ms. Huston indicated that the infonnation on trees in the proximity of the northern property line
was obtained through a tree survey and a site visit. The measurements on the tree survey diagram
did show a 20 foot distance between the northern property line and the most closest tree. She
indicated that there is a slight deviation from the actual property line to the existing barbed-wire
fence that could mislead someone measuring the fence line to the closest tree.
Tom Ford, 7262 Tina Place, stated he was concerned about the deep cuts that were proposed and
the liability to the City. He felt the meadow area would be a flood area and could pose the problem
of getting flood insurance, if necessary.
Cm. North clarified that they were not there that night to decide whether the project was or was not
going to be built and asked the speakers to limit their comments to the issues at hand.
Mike Conlkin, 11432 Winding Trail Lane, expressed his concern on the access road behind the
townhomes. He stated that there was not an access road there now, and questioned why the road
was needed to be placed there at this time.
Cm. North stated that the plan was approved with a 12 foot wide road on the south side and the
Applicant is asking for it to be reduced to 8 feet, and the question was if the Applicant's request
were approved, would there be a need for a road on the north side of the creek.
Sherry Heacox, 11427 Winding Trail Lane, expressed concern over the trees and asked if some of
the trees were to die, who \vould come back and replace them.
Cm. North stated if trees were removed, at this point, the Applicant would not be required to
replace them.
Ms. Heacox stated she hoped the City of Dublin would maintain the area as a recreational area as
close to as it now exists.
Cm. North pointed out that trees were removed to build the homes where Ms. Heacox now lives.
Ed Skubic, 7427 Hansen Drive, expressed concern over the removal of dirt near his home.
Cm. North commented that if the project were to be approved, it would be the responsibility of the
Applicant, as monitored by the City Engineers, to make sure that whatever was done, leaves stable
earth and stable area. He stated that in California there were no guarantees that any area ofland
could not be uprooted at any time due to earthquakes.
Mr. Skubic asked if it were safe to be in his home during the removal of the soil in the area.
Cm. North stated the Applicant would be required to maintain a safe environment at all times.
Ms. Buxton responded to the audience comments stating that the meadow area was not considered
a flood plain by FEMA, that a bulb at the end of the cul-de-sac on Martin Canyon could invite
unwanted traffic, and stated that the City Public Works Director would work with them on the
access roads. She stated that even without the access roads, there would be a lot of work done in
----.......----.....----.....---..----..---...-----..------...----.....-....---...--..----------..------.....-......-----------....--.....---------.....--....
Regular Meeting
[2-6min}
34
February 6, 1995
the creek area to shore up the eroding oxbows and place in structures to slow the flow of the creek.
She stated that there were Conditions to get approval from the Fish and Game and would work
with them and the City. She stated that they had not intended to build one-story homes and felt the
height restriction was unfair.
Cm. North stated that the original plan did allow two-stories throughout, but after the deeper cut
was proposed, the plan changed.
Ms. Buxton stated that with the numbers given them that night, they could not build even a two
story home there and would be coming to the City with new drawings for the proposed homes.
Cm. North asked Staff if they wished to make final comments.
Mr. Thompson clarified that the City had a concern on the cul-de-sac due to the debris that collects
at the end. He stated that anyone going to the end of the street would have to use a private
driveway to turn around. He conunented that the access roads would be gated off and the public
would not be able to use them. He also stated that the houses at the end of Silvergate would be
raised up 18 inches to acconunodate the possible flood hazard. Mr. Thompson stated that they
would be rocking the access road and it should not effect the root system of any of the trees and
also that the road would not be used everyday, but only in the cases of emergency or maintenance.
Cm. Zika informed the public that the COnmllssion would only make a recommendation to the City
Council and that the public could attend the City Council meeting and make comments to the
Council on this issue.
Ms. Huston stated that there was a hearing date set for the City Council to hear the project on
February 27, 1995.
Cm. Burnham asked the Director of Public Works whether or not the access road on the north side
would be approved, how ,,'ould the City get down there if there were an emergency now.
Mr. Thompson stated that if the creek failed or a tree fell in the creek, the City would need to get
down there whether or not the access road were rocked. He also stated that at the end of the cul-
de-sac off Silvergate, there was a road that goes to the headwall of the creek that could be used if
necessary .
Cm. North closed the public hearing.
The Commissioners discussed the various options being proposed in the height limitations.
Cm. North re-read the new modification to Condition 4.
Cm. Burnham stated that he had heard there may be some risk of going back to the original cuts on
lots #32 and #33.
Cm. North stated he heard there may be some risk during the process of construction of Phase I;
however, once the process was completed, the houses would not be subject to landslide.
-------------....---------........------..--.............----.........--...----..---------...-...--.......---------...---.....-...-..--------..--------........------
Regular Meeting
[2-6min}
35
February 6, 1995
Cm. Zika agreed and felt it would not be a City risk, but a contractor or developer risk.
Cm. Zika recommended that Staff get legal clarification from the City Attorney as to the liability to
the City over the potential risks involved in the cuts during Phase 1.
Cm. Burnham asked the Engineer to clarify the statement that he made that the risk of landslide
exists only during construction.
Mr. Berloger indicated that was correct.
By consensus, the Commission determined that for visual impact they would recommend to the
City Council the height limitations per the revised Staff recommendation given at the meeting on
lots #31, #32, and #33 and that they would recommend to the City Council the Applicants request
on lots #30 and #34 on page 5 of 53 of the staff report.
The Commissioners discussed the various options on the access roads.
Cm. Burnham stated he still did not feel comfortable relying on the information they were given.
Cm. Zika asked if there had been an agreement with the Department ofFish and Game.
Ms. Huston stated that there was a Streambed Alteration Agreement granted.
On motion by Cm. Zika, seconded by Cm. Geist, and by majority vote, the Commission agreed to
revise the Resolution and recommend to City Council to go with the original approval of a 12 foot
road down the south side with no road on the north side and deny the Applicant's request to modify
the road to 8 feet. Cm. Burnham voted against this motion.
The Commissioners discussed the cu-de-sac bulb on Martin Canyon Road.
By consensus, the Commission decided to recommend to City Council that there not be a bulb at
the end of Martin Canyon Road.
On motion by Cm. Zika, seconded by Cm. North and by unanimous vote, the Conunission voted to
adopt draft Resolution recommending approval of the Negative Declaration, adopt draft Resolution
recommending City Council approval of the Tentative Map Amendment and adopt draft Resolution
recommending City Council approval of the Development Agreement with changes just discussed.
**********
RESOLUTION NO. 95-04
RECOMMENDING CITY COUCIL ADOPTION OF A NEGATIVE DECLARATION
FOR PA 94-054 HANSEN RANCH TENTATIVE MAP AND DEVELOPMENT
AGREEMENT
----..----...-----------.....-----.----.......------..--......-----.......-..----...---..---...........----...---------------...----.......-----......
Regular Meeting
[2-6min}
36
February 6, 1995
. .
RESOLUTION NO. 95-05
RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION APPROVING
PA 94-054 HANSEN RANCH TENTATIVE MAP AMENDMENT REQUEST FOR A
MODIFICATION TO THE APPROVED TENTATIVE MAP 5766 AND CONDITIONS
OF APPROVAL FOR THE TENTATIVE MAP
RESOLUTION NO. 95-06
RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL ADOPTION OF ORDINANCE APPROVING PA
94-054 HANSEN RANCH DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT AMENDMENT FOR
P A 91-099 HANSEN RANCH PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
Cm. North noted to Staff that they recommend to the City Council to obtain legal advise on the
City's liability in regard to the land slide area during their discussion of this item.
NEW OR UNFINISHED BUSINESS
None
OTHER BUSINESS
Mr. Tong informed the Commission that the City Council, at its next meeting, will be considering
the Tri-Valley Transportation Plan. The City Council will also consider a request to enter into an
Agreement to form a Tri-Valley Planning Committee or CounciL Additionally, Staff had received
information on the Planners Institute on March 22, 23 and 24 in Monterey and would be contacting
the Planning Commissioners with more information.
Cm. Zika asked if the City was ticketing the trucks at Target.
Cm. North answered no.
Mr. Tong indicated that the manager of the private property would need to contact the Police
Department directly to either ticket or tow.
Cm. Zika indicated there was a new banner on a vehicle that looked tacky at the new nail shop
where the old Saw Mill used to be and asked if the City could do anything about it.
Mr. Tong indicated that when City Council took action on the modification to the Sign Ordinance,
they requested Staff ask the property owners to be aware and consider asking the tenants to park
within the previously approved parking plan, perpendicular rather than parallel to the street, and
Staff did send a letter to the property owner and had not received a response. Mr. Tong stated he
would have the Zoning Inspector follow up on the letter.
-----------.....--------.........-----.....--------..------...----....-----..--------...---..-----------...------..........-----...
Regular Meeting
[2-6min}
37
February 6, 1995
. .
Cm. North commented that there was now a truck for the barber shop next to the truck for the gun
shop that had not been moved in several weeks and asked that the Zoning Inspector follow up on
that also.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 10:22 p.m.
**********
Respectfully submitted,
Planning Commission Chairperson
A TrEST:
Laurence 1. Tong, Planning Director
-...........-----.......---......-------.......----..--------....---........----...---..----..-..----...------..----..------------...---.....--...-----........-
Regular Meeting
[2-6min}
38
February 6, 1995
p 2
-' -
n .". ,
;;jfB-SO
\'-'
"
\
_~ . I
..
J~, _ ~'
"
"
-I
,........................
I, '
RECEIVED
APR 17 1992
(.-
r.!TY ~r: nl JBLlN
P.ECC;,~ ;:') I" ,,- - .
n o~ !~~~:~;;.':. :-, ;.:,~~. .::~~"~c~cs
....Hc- C ~...,_~. . _lr.
- + wn I::... ~ ~.~ -::';. :\::C,:':CER
RECORDING REQUESTED BY,
AND WHEN RECORDED RETURN TO:
City of Dublin, City Clerk
100 civic Plaza Drive
P. O. Box 2340
Dublin, CA 94568
D.H.
'92 FlRR 26 Pr1 3 1 Y
/) /7
....: ./
space above this line for Recorder's Use
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
CITY OF DUBLIN
FOR THE HANSEN HILL RANCH PROJECT
THIS DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT is made and entered in
the city of Dublin on this 25th day of March, 1992, by and
between the CITY OF DUBLIN, a Municipal Corporation
(hereinafter referred to as "city"), and DONALD L. BREN
COMPANY, a California corporation (hereinafter referred to
as "Developer"), pursuant to the authority of SS 65864 et
sea, of the California Government Code and city of Dublin
Ordinance No, 8-91.
RECITALS
A, California Government Code SS 65864 et sea.
and Dublin Ordinance No. 8-91 authorize the CITY to enter
into an Agreement for the development of real property with
any person having a legal or equitable interest in such
property in order to establish certain development rights in
such property; and
B. DEVELOPER desires to develop and holds legal
interest in certain real property consisting of
approximately 147 acres of land, located in the city of
Dublin, County of Alameda, state of California, which is
more particularly described in Exhibit A attached hereto and
incorporated herein by this reference, and which real
property is hereinafter called the "Property"; and
C. DEVELOPER proposes the development of the
Property with 180 single-family homes (the "project"); and
HANSEN AGREEMENT
PAl'll" \ ... 2~ruary 28, 1992
lJC _ Or
"
1
,\TI,\UWNT 8
,
,j
T
...-~
( c'
C
\,.,:- ,-,
. .~.
92091B50
D. DEVELOPER has applied for, and CITY has
approved, various land use approvals in connection with the
development of the Project, including a general plan
amendment (Res. No. 021-89), a planned development prezoning
(Res. No. 129-89), a tentative map (Res. No. 130-89), site
development review, and a conditional use permit (planning
Commission Resolution No. 92-013) (collectively, together
with any approvals or permits noW or hereafter issued with
respect to the project, the "Project ApprovalS"); and
E. On August 27, 1990, the CITY duly ordered the
annexation of the project, formerly located in an
unincorporated area, to the CITY's juriSdiction, which
annexation was effective on May 23, 1991.
F. CITY desires the timely, efficient, orderly
and proper development of said Project; and
G. The city council has found that, among other
things, this Development Agreement is consistent with its
General Plan and has been reviewed and evaluated in
accordance with Dublin Ordinance No. 8-91; and
H. CITY and DEVELOPER have reached agreement and
desire to express herein a Development Agreement that will
facilitate development of the project subject to conditions
set forth herein.
I. On February 24, 1992, the city council of the
City of Dublin adopted Ordinance No. 5-92 approving this
Development Agreement. The ordinance took effect on March
25, 1992;
J. An Environmental Impact Report and Addendum
were prepared for a general plan amendment ("General Plan
EIR"), which documents were certified by the city Council of
CITY as being complete for the general plan amendment
entitled the "Hansen Hill Ranch General Plan Amendment" by
Resolution No. 19-89 on February 27, 1989. A mitigation
monitoring program covering the general plan amendment was
approved by the city Council on February 27, 1989 by
Resolution No. 20-89. On November 27, 1989, the city
council adopted Resolution No. 127-89, approving a mitigated
negative declaration for the Project, consisting of 180
residential lots on a 147-acre site. On February 10, 1992,
1992, the city council adopted a negative declaration for
this Development Agreement, by Resolution No. 10-92.
HANSEN AGREEMENT
February 28, 1992
Pi\GE L Of ~-2
'/
2
/-
, .
J
,'-"'"
( ._:.1
r~
[.
~2091850
NOW, THEREFORE, with reference to the foregoing
recitals and in consideration of the mutual promises,
obligations and covenants herein contained, CITY and
DEVELOPER agree as follows:
AGREEMENT
1. Description of Property.
The Property which is the subject of this
Development Agreement is described in Exhibit A attached
hereto ("Property").
2. Interest of Developer.
The DEVELOPER has a legal or equitable interest in
the Property in that it owns the Property in fee title.
3. Relationship of city and Developer.
3.1 It is understood that this Agreement is a
contract that has been negotiated and voluntarily entered
into by CITY and DEVELOPER and that the DEVELOPER is not an
agent of CITY.
3.2 The CITY and DEVELOPER hereby renounce the
existence of any form of joint venture or partnership
between them, and agree that nothing contained herein or in
any document executed in connection herewith shall be
construed as making the CITY and DEVELOPER joint venturers
or partners.
4. Effective Date and Term.
4.1 The effective date of this Agreement shall be
the date upon which this Agreement is recorded in the Office
of the Alameda County Recorder.
4.2 The initial term of this Development Agreement
shall commence on the effective date and extend eight
(8) years thereafter, unless said term is otherwise
terminated, modified or extended by circumstances set forth
in this Agreement. This Agreement shall t~rminate upon
completion of construction of all 180 units and the
performance of the conditions set forth in Exhibit B. upon
request of DEVELOPER, CITY will record a document evidencing
termination of this Agreement.
4.3 If Developer has exercised reasonable
diligence to obtain, but has been unable to obtain, water
hook-ups and sewer connections providing adequate water and
HANSEN AGREEMENT
February 28, 1992
r-;\0~c.':.1 f)f l?
(.\.: J_'\", .......-.
:,
3
.~._---~-~-----~.
/
i \
;' ,
/
J
"
-~~
(: '..:!
l~-'\
~. . . '-'
92091850
sewer service to the Project by the date that is one hundred
eighty (180) days prior to the date of expiration of this
Agreement, then, so long as Developer continues to exercise
such reasonable diligence during such l80-day period, at the
conclusion of the term of this Agreement, this Agreement
shall automatically be extended one day for each additional
day that Developer is unable to obtain such adequate water
hook-ups and sewer connections, provided that in no event
shall this Agreement be extended for more than two (2)
years.
5. Use of the Property.
5.1 Developer shall have the vested right to
develop the Project on the Property in accordance with the
terms and conditions of this Agreement, the Project
Approvals (as and when issued), and any amendments to any of
them as shall, from time to time, be approved pursuant to
this Agreement.
5.2 The permitted uses of the Property, the
density and intensity of use, the maximum height, bulk and
size of proposed buildings, provisions for reservation or
dedication of land for public purposes and location and.
maintenance of on-site and off-site improvements, location
of public utilities and other terms and conditions of
development applicable to the Property, shall be those set
forth in this Agreement, the project Approvals and any
amendments to this Agreement or the Project Approvals.
5.3 provisions for the following ("Additional
Conditions") are set forth in Exhibit B attached hereto and
incorporated herein by reference.
5.3.1 Conditions, terms, restrictions,
requirements for subsequent discretionary actions.
conditions do not affect Developer's responsibility
obtain all other land use approvals required by the
ordinances of the City of Dublin.
5.3.2 Additional or modified conditions agreed
upon by the parties in order to eliminate or mitigate
adverse environmental impacts of the project or otherwise
relating to development of the Project.
and
These
to
5.3.3 provisions that the Project be
constructed in specified phases, that construction shall
commence within a specified time, and that the Project or
any phase thereof be completed within a specified time.
HANSEN AGREEMENT
,~r,,..,[ .:ebruary 28, 1992
rAl.::t ~ Cir II
4
i .
:,/.
J
/
I
)
"
r~
I. -' ,\
(::
92091650
5.3.4 Terms relating to subsequent
reimbursement over time for financing of necessary public
facilities.
5.3.5 Terms relating to payment of fees.
6. Applicable Rules. Regulations and Official
policies.
6.1 For the term of this Agreement, the city's
ordinances, resolutions, rules, regulations and official
policies governing the permitted uses of the Property,
governing density and intensity of use of the Property and
the maximum height, bulk and size of proposed buildings
shall be those in force and effect on the effective date of
this Agreement.
6.2 Unless expressly provided in paragraphs 5
and/or 6.1 of this Agreement, the ordinances, resolutions,
rules, regulations and official policies governing design,
improvement and construction standards and specifications
applicable to the Project, including but not limited to, all
public improvements, shall be those in force and effect at
the time of the applicable permit approval.
6.3 Unless expressly provided in paragraph 5 of
this Agreement, the Project shall be constructed in
accordance with the provisions of the Uniform Building,
Mechanical, Plumbing, and Electrical Codes and Title 24 of
the California Code of Regulations, relating to Building
Standards, in effect at the time of approval of the
appropriate building, grading, or other construction permits
for the Project.
7. Subsequent Iv Enacted Rules and Reaulations.
7.1 The CITY may, hereafter, during the term of
this Agreement, apply such newer enacted or modified
ordinances, resolutions, rules, regulations and official
policies of the City which are not in conflict with those
applicable to the Property as set forth in this Agreement
and application of which would not prevent or materially
delay development of the Property as contemplated by this
Agreement and the Project Approvals.
7.2 Nothing in this Agreement shall prevent the
CITY from denying or conditionally approving any subsequent
land use permit or authorization for the Project on the
basis of such new or modified ordinances, resolutions,
rules, regulations and policies except that such subsequent
HANSEN AGREEMENT
February 28, 1992
r i r.... k ('.!'\ ')."
J1\..:i.:~_:;,)J~
5
--,
(.
92091850
actions shall be subject to any conditions, terms,
restrictions, and requirements expressly set forth herein.
7.3 Notwithstanding anything to the contrary
contained herein, in the event an ordinance, resolution or
other measure is enacted, whether by action of CITY, by
initiative, referendum, or otherwise, that imposes a
building moratorium which affects the project on all or any
part of the Property, CITY agrees that such ordinance,
resolution or other measure shall not apply to the Project,
the Property, this Agreement or the Project Approvals unless
the building moratorium is imposed as part of a declaration
of a local emergency or state of emergency as defined in
Government Code 5 8558.
8. Subsequent Iv Enacted or Revised Fees and Taxes.
No fees imposed on new development, such as traffic
impact fees, fees for the provision of affordable housing,
inclusionary housing in-lieu fees, child care fees or other
similar development fees, adopted by the CITY subsequent to
the effective date of this Agreement, shall be applicable to
the project. However, any existing application, processing
and inspection fees that are revised during the.term of this
Agreement and any subsequently enacted city-wide fees or
taxes shall apply to the Project provided that: (1) such
fees or taxes have general applicability to all ,residential
property in the city; (2) the application of such fees or
taxes to the subject property is prospective; and (3) their
application would not prevent development in accordance with
this Agreement.
9. Amendment or Cancellation.
9.1 Modification Because of Conflict with state or
Federal Laws.
In the event that state or federal laws or
regulations enacted after the effective date of this
Agreement prevent or preclude compliance with one or more
provisions of this Agreement or require changes in plans,
maps or permits approved by the city, the parties shall meet
and confer in good faith in a reasonable attempt to modify
this Agreement to comply with such federal or state law or
regulation. Any such amendment or suspension of the
Agreement shall be approved by the city council in
accordance with Dublin Ordinance No. 8-91.
HANSEN AGREEMENT
February 28, 1992
1_;,,,: 'A fir: 1 ."
I.~;~:l- -\fI- \...: k.~
..,
6
'~
.~
t' .-,' I
~-
92091850
9.2 Amendment bv Mutual Consent.
This Agreement may be amended in writing from
time to time by mutual consent of the parties hereto and in
accordance with the provisions of Dublin Ordinance No. 8-
91. Any amendment to this Agreement which does not relate
to (1) the term, permitted uses, density or intensity of
land use, (2) conditions, terms, restrictions and
requirements relating to subsequent discretionary actions,
or (3) any conditions or covenants relating to the use of
the Property, shall not require a public hearing before the
parties may execute an amendment.
9.3 Amendment Exemptions.
Any amendment of any of the Project Approvals,
any resubdivision of the Property except a resubdivision
that increases the number of lots over 180 lots, or any
filing of an amended subdivision map that creates new legal
lots or that reflects a merger of lots shall not require an
amendment to this Agreement. Instead, any such amendment,
resubdivision (except a resubdivision that increases the
number of lots over 180 lots), or filing shall be deemed to
be incorporated into and vested under this Agreement at the
time that such amendment, resubdivision, or filing is
approved as provided in this Agreement.
~.4 Amendment of proiect Approvals.
Any project Approval may, from time to time, be
amended or modified in the following manner:
(1) Upon the written request of
Developer for an amendment or modification of a Project
Approval including, but not limited to, (a) the location of
buildings, streets and roadways and other physical
facilities, or (b) the configuration of the parcels, lots or
development areas, the Planning Director of the CITY shall
determine whether the requested amendment or modification is
minor and whether the requested amendment or modification is
consistent with this Agreement, the General Plan and
applicable provisions of the CITY's zoning and subdivision
ordinance in effect as of the effective date of this
Agreement. For purposes of this Agreement,. the
determination whether such amendment or modification is
minor shall refer to whether the amendment or modification
is minor in the context of the overall project. If the
planning Director finds that the proposed amendment is both
minor and consistent with this Agreement, the General Plan,
and the applicable provisions of the CITY's zoning and
HANSEN AGREEMENT
r",,:,='-' .~ebrUary 28, 1992
I nl..:l. _L (Ii Z:2
7
~-,
,
r...
I
, ,
~2091850
subdivision ordinance, the Planning Director may approve the
proposed amendment without notice and public hearing.
(2) Except as provided in
subparagraph (1) above, any amendment or modification of any
Project Approval shall be subject to the applicable
substantive and procedural provisions of CITY'S applicable
zoning, subdivision, and other land use ordinances.
9.5 Cancellation bv Mutual Consent.
Except as otherwise permitted herein, this
Agreement may be cancelled in whole or in part onl~ by the
mutual consent of the parties or their successors ~n
interest, in accordance with the provisions of Dublin
Ordinance No. 8-91. Any fees paid pursuant to Subparagraph
5.3.5 of Exhibit B of this Agreement prior to the date of
cancellation shall be retained by CITY.
10. Term of proiect Approvals.
Pursuant to California Government Code
section 66452.6(a), the term of the tentative map described
in Recital 0 above (the "Tentative Map"), or any
resubdivision or amendment to the Tentative Map (including
any lot line adjustment or merger of lots within the
Tentative Map), or any other tentative map filed and
approved prior to the termination of this Agreement, shall
automatically be extended for the term of this Agreement.
The term of any other Project Approval shall automatically
be extended for the term of this Agreement.
11. Annual Review Date.
11.1 The annual review date for this Agreement shall
be March 1.
11.2 The CITY's Planning Director shall initiate the
annual review, as required under Section 8.12.140 of Dublin
Ordinance No. 8-91, by.giving to DEVELOPER thirty (30) days'
written notice that the CITY intends to undertake such
review. DEVELOPER shall provide evidence to the planning
Director prior to the hearing on the annual review, as and
when reasonably determined necessary by the Planning
Director, to demonstrate good faith compliance with the
provisions of the Development Agreement. The burden of
proof by substantial evidence of compliance is upon the
DEVELOPER.
11.3 To the extent practical, CITY shall deposit in
the mail and fax to DEVELOPER a copy of all staff reports,
HANSEN AGREEMENT
r.'\G~ .1- c~~i~ary 28, 1992
8
.-~.. .......
(-.
,
'.
92091850
and related exhibits concerning contract performance at
least five (5) days prior to any annual review.
11.4 Costs reasonably incurred by CITY in connection
with the annual review shall be paid by DEVELOPER in
accordance with the City's schedule of fees in effect at the
time of review.
12. Default.
12.1 upon the occurrence of an event of default, the
parties may pursue all other remedies at law or in equity
which are not otherwise provided for in this Agreement or in
city's regulations governing development agreements,
expressly including the remedy of specific performance of
this Agreement.
12.2 Upon the occurrence of an event of default by
either party, the nondefaulting party shall serve written
notice of such default upon the defaulting party. If the
default is not cured by the defaulting party within thirty
(30) days after service of such notice of default, the
nondefaulting party may then commence any legal or equitable
action to enforce its rights under this Agreement; provided,
however, that if the default cannot be cured within such
thirty (30) day period, the nondefaulting party shall
refrain from any such legal or equitable action so long as
the defaulting party begins to cure such default within such
thirty (30) day period and diligently pursues such cure to
completion. Failure to give notice shall not constitute a
waiver of any default.
13. Estoppel certificate.
Either party may, at any time, and from time to
time, request written notice from the other party requesting
such party to certify in writing that, to the knowledge of
the certifying party, (a) this Agreement is in full force
and effect and a binding obligation of the parties, '(b) this
Agreement has not been amended or modified either orally or
in writing, or if so amended, identifying the amendments,
and (c) the requesting party is not in default in the
performance of its obligations under this Agreement, or if
in default, to describe therein the nature -and amount of any
such defaults. A party receiving a request hereunder shall
execute and return such certificate within thirty (30) days
following the receipt thereof, or such longer period as may
reasonably be agreed to by the parties. city Manager of
city shall be authorized to execute any certificate
requested by DEVELOPER. Failure to execute an estoppel
certificate shall not be deemed a default.
HANSEN AGREEMENT
C'/.f''': () r-~ebrUary 28, 1992
,',\';1.. -=4.- ,.)1 -l.?
9
...-:--~
r "'"";, _ ~
r-,
/....
92091850
14. Severability.
The unenforceability, invalidity or illegality of
any provisions, covenant, condition or term of this
Agreement shall not render the other provisions
unenforceable, invalid or illegal.
15. Attorneys' Fees and Costs.
If CITY or DEVELOPER initiates any action at law or
in equity to enforce or interpret the terms and conditions
of this Agreement, the prevailing party shall be entitled to
recover reasonable attorneys' fees and costs in addition to
any other relief to which it may otherwise be entitled.
If any person or entity not a party to this Agreement
initiates an action at law or in equity to challenge the
validity of any provision of this Agreement or the Project
Approvals, the parties shall cooperate in defending such
action. DEVELOPER shall bear its own costs of defense as a
real party in interest in any such action, and shall
reimburse CITY for all reasonable court costs and attorneys'
fees expended by CITY in defense of any such action or other
proceeding.
16. Transfers and Assiqnments.
16.1 Riqht to Assiqn.
DEVELOPER'S rights hereunder may be
transferred, sold or assigned in conjunction with the
transfer, sale, or assignment of all or a portion of the
Property subject hereto at any time during the term of this
Agreement, provided that no transfer, sale or assignment of
DEVELOPER's rights hereunder shall occur without the prior
written notice to CITY and approval by the city Council,
which approval shall not be unreasonably withheld or
delayed. The city council shall consider the matter within
60 days after DEVELOPER's notice.
Notwithstanding the foregoing, DEVELOPER shall
have the right to transfer, sell or assign its rights
hereunder to any "affiliate" without the prior approval of
CITY. As used herein, "affiliate" shall.mean any person or
entity controlling, controlled by, or under common control
with DEVELOPER. "Control" and related forms of the word
shall mean the ability to direct the management and
operations of another entity such as a partnership or
corporation.
HANSEN AGREEMENT
February 28, 1992
.- ,.. 1- o. - "2..
r tlGi:. t.-V- (-c,...:;;t
10
.
I"
.,,--\
\ .
r-
92091850
16.2 Release Upon Transfer.
upon the transfer, sale, or assignment of
DEVELOPER's rights and interests hereunder pursuant to
paragraph 16.1 of this Agreement, DEVELOPER shall be
released from the obligations under this Agreement, with
respect to the Property transferred, sold, or assigned,
arising subsequent to the date of city council approval of
such transfer, sale, or assignment; provided, however, that
if any transferee, purchaser, or assignee approved by the
city council expressly assumes the obligations of DEVELOPER
under this Agreement, DEVELOPER shall be released with
respect to all such assumed obligations. In any event, the
transferee, purchaser, or assignee shall be subject to all
the provisions hereof and shall provide all necessary
documents, certifications and other necessary information
prior to city council approval.
17. Aqreement Runs with the Land.
All of the provisions, rights, terms, covenants,
and obligations contained in this Agreement shall-be binding
upon the parties and their respective heirs, successors and
assignees, representatives, lessees, and all other persons
acquiring the Property, or any portion thereof, or any
interest therein, whether by operation of law or in any
manner whatsoever. All of the provisions of this Agreement
shall be enforceable as equitable servitudes and shall
constitute covenants running with the land pursuant to
applicable laws, including, but not limited to, section 1468
of the civil Code of the State of California. Each covenant
to do, or refrain from doing, some act on the Property
hereunder, or with respect to any owned property, (a) is for
the benefit of such properties and is a burden upon such
properties, (b) runs with such properties, and (c) is
binding upon each party and each successive owner during its
ownership of such properties or any portion thereof, and
shall be a benefit to and a burden upon each party and its
property hereunder and each other person succeeding to an
interest in such properties. Notwithstanding the foregoing,
this Agreement shall cease to be binding upon any parcel in
the Project (i.e., any of Lots 1 through 180) when such
parcel is acquired by a person or persons with the intent to
reside in the home constructed or to be constructed upon
such parcel or by a person or persons for the benefit of a
family member intending to reside in such home (provided,
however, that the benefits of this Agreement shall continue
to accrue to any such parcel until the city has issued a
certificate of occupancy for such parcel).
HANSEN AGREEMENT
February 28, 1992
r;u.!;ll( n'=' ",.
I: HI"::L. \... .__ 1,.'1 ...t'.L-
11
".
..' .....
(.i.:' "
, .:.'-,
,r",
o,r)OQ18'-O
~....... .::>
18. Bankruptcv.
The obligations of this Agreement shall not be
dischargeable in bankruptcy.
19. Indemnification.
DEVELOPER agrees to indemnify and hold harmless
CITY, and its elected and appointed councils, boards,
commissions, officers, agents, employees, and
representatives from any and all claims, costs and liability
for any personal injury or property damage which may arise
directly or indirectly as a result of any actions or
inactions by the DEVELOPER, or any actions or inactions of
DEVELOPER's contractors, subcontractors, agents, or
employees in connection with the construction, improvement,
operation, or maintenance of the Project.
20. Insurance.
20.1 Public Liabilitv and Propertv Damaae Insurance.
During the term of this Agreement , DEVELOPER
shall maintain in effect a policy of comprehensive general
liability insurance with a per-occurrence combined single
limit of not less than one million dollars ($1,000,000) and
a deductible of not more than two-hundred and fifty
thousand dollars ($250,000) per claim. The policy so
maintained by DEVELOPER shall name the CITY as an additional
insured and shall include either a severability of interest
clause or cross-liability endorsement. In the event that
DEVELOPER exercises its right to assign pursuant to
paragraph 16.1, CITY shall have the right to determine the
amount of the deductible, provided that the deductible shall
not be less than $1,000 per claim.
20.2 Workers Compensation Insurance.
During the term of this Agreement and any
extension thereof DEVELOPER shall maintain Worker's
Compensation insurance for all persons employed by DEVELOPER
for work at the Project site. DEVELOPER shall require each
contractor and subcontractor similarly to provide Worker's
Compensation insurance for its respective employees.
DEVELOPER agrees to indemnify the city for any damage
resulting from DEVELOPER's failure to maintain any such
insurance.
HANSEN AGREEMENT
February 28, 1992
i ", c \,.,. fiC" 'Z""
;'{~:":;l. ..\..~- ...1 ---~
12
(~~.~
f
~2091BSO
20.3 Evidence of Insurance.
Prior to city Council approval of this
Agreementr DEVELOPER shall furnish CITY satisfactory
evidence of the insurance required in sections 20.1 and
20.2 and evidence that the carrier is required to give the
CITY at least fifteen days prior written notice of the
cancellation or reduction in coverage of a policy. The
insurance shall extend to the CITY, its elective and
appointive boards, commissions, officersr agents, employees
and representatives and to DEVELOPER and each contractor and
subcontractor performing work on the Project.
21. Notices.
All notices required or provided for under this
Agreement shall be in writing and delivered in person or
sent by certified mail, postage prepaid. Notices required
to be given to CITY shall be addressed as follows:
city Manager
city of Dublin
P.O. Box 2340
Dublin, CA 94568
Notices required to be given to DEVELOPER shall be addressed
as follows:
Donald L. Bren company
6601 Owens Drive, suite 250
Pleasantonr California 94566-9736
Att'n: Michael Toohey
A party may change address by giving notice in writing to
the other party ar.d thereafter all notices shall be
addressed and transmitted to the new address. Notices shall
be deemed given and received upon personal deliverYr or if
mailedr upon the expiration of 48 hours after being
deposited in the United states Mail.
22. Aqreement is Entire Understandinq.
This Agreement is executed in three duplicate
originalS, each of which is deemed to be an original. This
Agreement consists of fourteen (14) pages and two (2)
exhibits (of nine pages) totalling twenty-three (23) pages
which constitutes the entire understanding and agreement of
the parties.
HANSEN AGREEMENT
February 28r 1992
13
-;,::EC'_Of 28
../-:---..
(
, '
r-
(, .
92091850
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused
this Agreement to be executed as of the date and year first
above written.
CITY OF ~N:
Br/~
Name: Peter Snyder
Its: Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
HANSEN AGREEMENT
February 28, 1992
"" ,..., II' N'? 2.
,'_:;~_ ~\'r~
DONALD L. BREN COMPANY:
~BY:~CL_
Name: Jeffrey A. Slavl.n
Its: President
'eJ,~ Jl ~.~
Clty Attorney
(NOTARIZATION ATTACHED)
P~tUJ ft <! 23
d
,.
14
..........:..-...........,-.. ~ " :'I.......~..'i... ','.:..._..~ !.~~_~~'.'~.'i"''''T_.. '.'
/
( .
(-
~2091B50
EXHIBIT A
Description of the Property
HANSEN RILL RANCH
ALL THAT LAND SITUATE IN THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF
ALAMEDA, MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
COMMENCING AT A CONCRETE MONUMENT AS SHOWN ON THE MAP OF
TRACT 4859, FILED IN MAP BOOK 147, PAGE 56, ALAMEDA COUNTY
RECORDS, SAID MONUMENT BEARING NORTH 30 221 00" EAST, 215.36
FEET FROM THAT CERTAIN CONCRETE MONUMENT BEING THE
INTERSECTION OF THE MONUMENTED LINES OF SILVERGATE DRIVE AND
HANSEN DRIVE AS SHOWN ON THE MAP OF TRACT 2405, FILED AUGUST
9, 1863 IN MAP BOOK 46, PAGE 73 TO 76, INCLUSIVE, ALAMEDA
COUNTY RECORDS; THENCE ALONG THE MONUMENT LINE OF SILVERGATE
DRIVE AS SHOWN ON THE AFOREMENTIONED MAP OF TRACT 4859 NORTH
120 441 36" WEST, 554.50 FEET; THENCE LEAVING SAID MONUMENT
LINE SOUTH 770 15' 24" WEST, 34.00 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF
BEGINNING, SAID POINT BEING ON WESTERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF
SILVERGATE DRIVE AND ALSO BEING THE MOST SOUTHEASTERLY
CORNER OF PARCEL 'B' AS SHOWN ON THE MAP OF TRACT 5410 IN
MAP BOOK 163 AT PAGES 32 THROUGH 42, INCLUSIVE, ALAMEDA
COUNTY RECORDS; THENCE ALONG THE SOUTHERLY BOUNDARY OF SAID
PARCEL 'B' OF TRACT 5410 SOUTH 810 341 52" WEST, 307.14
FEET; THENCE NORTH 640 39' 05" WEST 474.40 FEET TO THE
SOUTHWESTERLY CORNER OF SAID PARCEL 'BI, SAID POINT ALSO
BEING THE SOUTHEASTERLY CORNER OF TRACT 4943, FILED IN MAP
BOOK 148, PAGE 1 TO 4, INCLUSIVE, ALAMEDA COUNTY RECORDS;
THENCE ALONG THE GENERALLY SOUTHWESTERN BOUNDARY OF SAID
TRACT 4943 NORTH 640 39' 05" WEST, 493.20 FEET; THENCE NORTH
460 18' 50" WEST, 251.80 FEET; THENCE NORTH 570 33' 04"
WEST, 228.71 FEET; THENCE NORTH 280 35' 14" WEST, 73.99 FEET
TO THE SOUTHWESTERLY CORNER OF TRACT 4943; THENCE LEAVING
SAID TRACT 4943 NORTH 810 43' 41" WEST, 214.01 FEET; THENCE
HANSEN AGREEMENT
February 28, 1992
15
r;rJ?,- ae (:'.':"'2.
I n'_1..- D- \)1 v.:L..
. I
-"
( . n,
(;,\
920g1850
NORTH 570 27' 05" WEST, 421.08; THENCE NORTH 760 39' OS",
WEST, 224.40 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 890 50' 55" WEST, 53.46
FEET; THENCE NORTH 700 09' OS" WEST, 245.52 FEETj THENCE
SOUTH 640 50' 55" WEST, 151.80 FEETj THENCE NORTH 570 09'
05" WEST, 778.14 FEETj THENCE NORTH 580 24' OS" WEST, 264.00
FEET; THENCE NORTH 370 54' OS" WEST, 426.36 FEET; THENCE
SOUTH 010 55' 55" WEST, 1174.80 FEETj THENCE SOUTH 010 OS'
55" WEST, 1356.30 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 550 49' OS" EAST,
1075.80 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 880 391 OS" EAST, 407.88 FEETj
THENCE NORTH 010 20' 5511 EAST, 537.24 FEETj THENCE SOUTH 880
54' OS" EAST, 1328.58 FEETj THENCE SOUTH 010 OS' 55" EAST,
131.32 FEET TO A POINT ON THE WESTERLY PROLONGATION OF THE
NORTHERLY LINE OF PARCEL 'A' AS SHOWN ON PARCEL MAP 1168, AS
FILED IN MAP BOOK 80, PAGE 21, ALAMEDA COUNTY RECORDS;
THENCE ALONG THE NORTHERLY BOUNDARY OF SAID PARCEL 'A' SOUTH
810 08' 00" EAST, 164.01 FEET TO THE NORTHWESTERLY CORNER OF
TRACT 4988, FILED IN MAP BOOK 139, PAGE 69, ALAMEDA COUNTY
RECORDSj THENCE ALONG THE NORTHERLY BOUNDARY OF SAID TRACT
4988 SOUTH 810 08' 00" EAST, 181.07; THENCE NORTH 880 23'
00" EAST, 58.75 FEETj THENCE NORTH 77057' DO" EAST, 68.63
FEET TO THE NORTHWESTERLY CORNER OF TRACT 2534, AS FILED IN
BOOK 49, PAGES 6 TO 9, INCLUSIVE, ALAMEDA COUNTY RECORDS;
THENCE ALONG THE NORTHERLY CORNER OF TRACT 2534, THENCE
ALONG THE NORTHERLY BOUNDARY OF TRACT 2534 NORTH 670 27' 00"
EAST, 68.63 FEETj THENCE NORTH 620 12' 00" EAST, 427.06
FEET; THENCE NORTH 710 08' 3D" EAST, 87.40 FEETj THENCE
NORTH 770 29' 30" EAST, 87.40 FEETj THENCE NORTH 830 29' 40"
EAST, 158.17 FEETj THENCE SOUTH 800 58' 00" EAST, 260.00
FEETj THENCE NORTH 74029'12" EAST, 1.18 FEET TO THE
NORTHWESTERLY CORNER OF SAID TRACT 2534 SAID CORNER BEING ON
THE WESTERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF SILVERGATE DRIVE; THENCE
ALONG SAID WESTERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF SILVERGATE DRIVE
159.74 FEET ALONG A NON-TANGENT CURVE CONCAVE WESTERLY
HAVING A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 110 26' 26" A RADIUS OF 800.00
HANSEN AGREEMENT
February 28, 1992
'.""'-I~o-22
!-:- i':/
-; ...... ..... ... 11II
-,
16
. '.n. :. .~. ,,} ..' .. -. .' :__: ~ -'"' ',. ." . T . . '.' ,. " ".,~. .', ;
('
92091850
FEET, THE RADIUS POINT FOR WHICH BEARS NORTH 880 41' 50"
EAST; THENCE NORTH 120 44' 36" WEST, 454.48 FEET TO THE TRUE
POINT OF BEGINNING.
CONTAINING 146.840 ACRES, MORE OR LESS.
HANSEN AGREEMENT
February 28, 1992
r'.~ "Ie J" r:"" """
. :~..:. .. _...L ".)f" __~
17
"
. }
/
r-
(
~2091B50
EXHIBIT B
Additional Conditions
The following Additional Conditions are hereby
imposed pursuant to Paragraph 5.3 above.
1. SubparaGraph 5.3.1: DEVELOPER must obtain
all necessary building, grading and other construction
permits as set forth in paragraph 6.3 of this Agreement.
2. SubparaGraph 5.3.2:
a. DEVELOPER shall construct a 12-foot
access road (the "Access Road") over the property along
Martin Canyon Creek as described in Condition No. 76 to the
CITY's approval of the Tentative Map ("Condition 76"). The
Access Road, together with that portion of the Property
lying between the fence to be constructed by Developer
pursuant to Condition 76 and the northern boundary of the
Property, shall be dedicated to the CITY for public access
and maintenance purposes. The construction and dedication,
required by this subparagraph shall occur as part of Phase
I of the Project. Upon dedication, DEVELOPER shall be
released from all liability for the maintenance of the
property so dedicated.
b. DEVELOPER shall grade and rock the area
shown on Attachment 1 hereto to allow CITY to extend the
Access Road over such area, which extension shall be
constructed to the standards set forth in condition 76 and
as a part of Phase I. CITY shall obtain or provide all
permits, easements and licenses necessary to permit
DEVELOPER to so grade and rock such area.
c. DEVELOPER's obligation to pay its 23.7%
proportionate share of the cost of the improvements prior to
the release of occupancy, as described in Condition No. 47
to the CITY's approval of the Tentative Map ("Condition
47"), shall be based on CITY's cost of performing the
improvements to the "T" intersection of Dublin Boulevard and
silvergate Drive, adjusted for inflation, at the time of
payment.
d. The improvements to be constructed or
performed by DEVELOPER pursuant to Subparagraphs (a) and
(b) shall be included within the scope of the subdivision
improvement agreement to be entered into by and between
DEVELOPER and CITY as described in Condition No. 65 to the
HANSEN AGREEMENT
February 28, 1992
18
'. '~ L1- eF Z3
"
~~~-....
;---
92091850
CITY's approval of the Tentative Map (the "Tract Developer
Agreement") .
3. Subparaqraph 5.3.3: Except as imposed
pursuant to any building, grading or other construction
permits required pursuant to Paragraph 6.3 of the Agreement,
the Project shall not be subject to requirements relating to
timing or commencement or completion of construction. The
Project shall, however, be constructed in two phases. Phase
I shall consist of the recordation of a final map for Lots
1 - 72 and shall include construction of the Access Road and
dedication of the area specified in subparagraph 2(a) ,
performance of the work described in subparagraph 2(b), and
completion of the road across the Valley Christian Center
property, as shown on the tentative map. Phase II shall
consist of the recordation of a final map ~or Lots 73 -
180.
4. Subparagraph 5.3.4: Not applicable.
5. Subparaqraoh 5.3.5:
a. DEVELOPER shall pay to CITY the total sum
of One Hundred Fifty Thousand Dollars ($150,000) for use by
CITY to provide affordable housing, to be paid as follows:
the sum of $60,000 shall be paid to CITY at the time the
final map for Phase I, consisting of 72 units, is approved
and recorded and the sum of $90,000 shall be paid to CITY at
the time the final map for Phase II, consisting of 108
units, is approved and recorded, provided that if the final
map for Phase II is not approved and recorded within one
year from the date the Phase I final map is recorded, then
the sum of $90,000 shall be increased by the percentage
increase in the Consumers price Index for the San Francisco
Bay Area (Wage Earners Index) for each year or fraction
thereof, until the final map for Phase II is approved and
recorded.
Notwithstanding the foregoing, if CITY should subsequent
to the effective date of this Agreement adopt an
inclusionary housing ordinance generally applicable to new
residential development within the CITY that provides for
the option of paying a fee in lieu of providing affordable
housing ("city's In-Lieu Housing Fee") which is lower on a
per-unit basis than the fee to be paid by DEVELOPER pursuant
to this subparagraph ("Developer's Housing Fee"), then the
per-unit amount of Developer's Housing Fee shall be reduced
to an amount equal to the per-unit amount of City's In-Lieu
Housing Fee. In no event shall DEVELOPER be entitled to a
reduction in Developer's Housing Fee to the extent that
such fee has already been paid with respect to Phase I or
HANSEN AGREEMENT
February 28, 1992
," "r- (a " ~
: --L OF.VL
19
.. ,..~.~._...,.,
;. .....~ ;~
., ..":.. . _. ',. . .0 ..:. . ~ ,
~,
,
. ')
, ' .
,--.
(ui
...-.
( -
, ' -
92091850
Phase II of the Project at the time of the effective date of
the inclusionary housing ordinance.
b. Park In-Lieu fees shall be paid as
follows:
180 D.D. x 0.016 AC/D.U = 2.88 AC.
2.88 AC. x $165,548/AC. = $476,778 or $2,649/D.U.
Park In-Lieu fees for Phase I, in the amount
of One Hundred Ninety Thousand Seven Hundred Twenty Eight
Dollars ($190,728), shall be paid by DEVELOPER to CITY when
the final map for Phase I is approved and recorded or by
April 1, 1992, whichever is earlier.
Park In-Lieu fees for Phase II shall be paid
by DEVELOPER to CITY when the final map for Phase II is
approved and recorded and shall be calculated in accordance
with the provisions of CITY's ordinance then in effect and
current market values of the land as of the date of ,payment.
HANSEN AGREEMENT
February 28, 1992
. , . -; ~ = kfl Cf -_'Lt.?
20
'+r '.
~ f ~. ~
. ..
. -' ~ '
.. t' I
(.-r'-.\,
/0\
:-:.'".<: .~
/_. .__n .
./
I
/ /,
I . )
;' .J
.... ,/
. .
'.-
. I . f
~
\~
~
~
ra.
\ FAGE U Of :2-2
~I
~~
:li
'il
\
.\
1
I
I
1
I
,
i
\5
NO ~Le'
~
..
.- I'
., :. ~ ~ J~.
170
\'..':.. .:
<. ..,
r"
92031850
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
)
COUNTY OF ORA1.'1GE )
On March 19, 1992 before me, Helen R. Kelly
personally appeared .Jertrey A. Slavin ,
personally known to me (or proved to me on the basis of
satisfactory evidence) to be the person whose name is
subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me
that he executed the same in his authorized capacity, and
that by his signature on the instrument the person, or the
entity upon behalf of which the person acted, executed the
instrument.
WITNESS by hand and official seal.
OffICIAl SEAl
HelEN R. ICElL V
N~~
Comm. . . 20, ms
4ttt.n./l~ulll\-.
U
HANSEN AGREEMENT
February 28, 1992
PAGE ~~'12
-.
22
,
.~ - ,( , .' f'
" , /' r;
r'
r.
92091850
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF ALAMEDA
day of 1/1at.chJ 1992, before me,
the undersigned Notary Public, personally
appeared Peter w. Snyder, personally known to me (or proved to me
on the basis of satisfactory evidence) to be the person whose
name is subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to
me that he executed same in his authorized capacity as Mayor of
the city of Dublin, and that by his signature on the instrument
the person, or the entity upon behalf of which the person acted,
executed the instrument.
On thi Z&+ll
KAY ~c.k ,
8 OFFICIAL SEAL
KAY KE(X
. NOTARY pusuc. c,o.lIi'~.A
ALAMEDA COUNTY
My Cemm. Expires Aug. 28, 1992
WITNESS by hand and official. seal.
Notary' s SignaturOJ.4..(~'j( f t2/L_
\.. f.J t_
HANSEN AGREEMENT
February 28, 1992
--'. -.~ '1b--'I.I1
. t",
'...-...:....-.. \.)(....---
23