HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 8.3 Response to Commetns on EIRFebruary 26, 1992
To:
From:
Re:
CITY OF DUBLIN
MEMORANDUM
Members of the Planning Commission
Brenda A. Gillarde
Staff Report for the Upcoming Hearing on Western Dublin
As a point of clarification, the Staff Report that was dated February 18, 1992 will
be used for the March 2, 1992 public hearing on Western Dublin. As you recall,
the Western Dublin item was continued from the February 18 meeting to March 2,
1992. The agenda will be the same as stated under "Recommendation" with the
exception of the last item (5) which should now read: "Continue public hearing to
March 16, 1992."
Please note that Steve Spickard of Economics Research Associates will make a
presentation to the Commission on fiscal aspects of the Western Dublin project at
the March 2 meeting. After the presentation, additional public testimony will be
taken on Chapters 8 through 18 of the EIR. If there is no further public
testimony, the public hearing can be closed as the formal State mandated review
period for the EIR ends on March 2, 1992.
If you have any questions, please call me at (510) 932-2887.
AGENDA STATEMENT
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING DATE:
MARCH 2, 1992
SUBJECT:
REPORT PREPARED BY:
ATTACHMENTS:
RECOM MENDATION:
Response to Comments Received During Public Hearings
on the Environmental Impact Report and Summary of
Previous Joint Planning Commission and City Council
Study Sessions
Brenda A. Gillarde, Project Coordinator
1) Minutes from Joint Planning Commission/City Council
Study Sessions
1) Continue public hearing from January 29, 1992
2) Hear Staff presentation
3) Hear Economic Consultant presentation
4) Take public testimony
5) Continue public hearing to March 4, 1992
FINANCIAL STATEMENT: None
DESCRIPTION:
I. BACKGROUND
At the January 29 hearing, testimony was received on Chapters 1 through 7 of the
Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for Western Dublin. The remaining chapters (8
through 18) will be discussed tonight by the public.
Over the last two months of hearings on the Western Dublin General Plan
Amendment/Specific Plan/ EIR, various comments have been made by the public,
some of which Staff believes need to be addressed at this time. This staff report
provides responses to those comments.
Three joint Planning Commission/City Council study sessions were held in 1989 and
1991. These study sessions focused on different planning and policy issues related
to development in western Dublin. A summary of those sessions is included in this
staff report to provide the public and the Planning Commission an opportunity to
comment on them. Copies of the study session minutes are attached for inclusion
in the public record of the public hearings. There were no Minutes taken for the
December 13, 1989 Study Session.
ITEM NO. " .3
COPIES TO: Applicant
Owner
Address File
PAGE) OF 31
II. DISCUSSION
A. RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
Traffic
1. Comment: Hayward Area Recreation District opposes the Schaefer Ranch
interchange in any location that interrupts activities at Rowell
Ranch rodeo grounds.
Response: Two options for the Schaefer Ranch interchange were considered
in the EIR (refer to page 4-7): 1) a diamond interchange; and
2) a hook -ramp interchange. The hook ramp alternative would
minimize impacts on the existing Rowell Ranch. The EIR
analysis assumed the hook -ramp option.
Appendix E of the EIR further analyzes the interchange options.
The hook ramp would be located west of the park's service
entrance on Dublin Canyon Road. This alternative would not
create direct impacts on existing park and picnic areas but
would require acquisition of some land for right of way. The
land necessary for this acquisition would involve the loss of
parking on the periphery of one lot. (Page E-11 of the EIR.)
It may be possible to minimize this impact by modifying the
alignment of Dublin Canyon Road. This will have to be further
analyzed during a separate environmental review of the
interchange and subsequent discussions with HARD.
2. Comment: Brittany Drive is being considered a collector in the plan. It is
not sufficiently sized to be a collector as it is only 36 feet
wide.
Response: Page 4-7 of the Specific Plan describes streets which would
function as arterials and collectors. Those streets are Hollis
Canyon Boulevard, Dublin Boulevard Extension, Shell Ridge Road,
North Ridge Drive and Skyline Ridge Drive. Access to
individual residential units would not be permitted in most
cases. Brittany Drive is shown as a residential street which
would serve residences within the Cronin project. Individual
residences could directly access this street. (Refer to Figure 4-
2 in the Specific Plan).
Language will be added to the Specific Plan and Final EIR to
clarify the definition of a collector street in western Dublin.
3. Comment: The EIR does not evaluate impacts on other local streets.
Response: The EIR does not address this issue because there was no
change in levels of service on other local streets. On Page C-3
in Study Report 2: "Land Use Options and Policy
Considerations" projected trips were defined for several local
Page 2 of 8
PAGE OF 31
streets - Rolling Hills Drive, Hansen Drive and Silvergate Drive.
If desired, this information could be added to the EIR.
4. Comment: Additional traffic analysis on a road over Skyline Ridge has
been prepared.
Response: A preliminary report was prepared by TJKM at the request of
the applicants - Milestone Development Corporation. The report
is currently being revised. Once the revisions are complete is
will be available for review.
Water Surely
5. Comment: Water costs will increase for existing residents as "new" water
for western Dublin will cost more than water does today.
Response: Dublin San Ramon Services District (DSRSD) intends to submit a
written reply by February 18 to the City on the water supply
and cost issues.
6. Comment: Will water stored in Powerline Reservoir adversely impact
wildlife or vegetation on the site?
Response: The water stored in the reservoir will meet all applicable water
standards. (See Appendix G of the EIR, page G-18.) Given the
high standards required by the Regional Water Quality Control
Board, there should be no adverse impacts to vegetation or
wildlife.
Language will be added to the EIR to ensure there are no
adverse effects of secondary treated water on vegetation and
wildlife.
7. Comment: The State Water Project facilities only delivered 10% of its
contract amount to Zone 7 in 1991. The EIR states it can
deliver 50% of the contract amount in a critical dry year.
Response: See response to Comment 5.
8. Comment: When the State builds all of its water facilities, it can only
deliver one half of its commitment.
Response: Neither the EIR preparers nor the City have found data that
confirms this statement. Any additional factual data on this
issue would be welcomed by the City.
Sewer
9. Comment: What happens if the package treatment plant fails?
Response: An onsite package treatment plant was considered for western
Dublin; however this idea has since been replaced with a
Page 3 of 8
PAGE 3 OF 3
secondary filter treatment system which would be installed at
the existing plant. Appendix G in the EIR discusses this system
in detail.
Vegetation
10. Comment: There is no mitigation for loss of riparian and wetland
vegetation.
Response: Pages 6-10, 11 and 13 discuss impacts and mitigation measures
related to riparian habitats. Mitigation Measure 6-10 on page
6-11 requires a minimum 50 foot buffer zone on each side of a
stream and replacement of vegetation per the requirements of
the Army Corps of Engineers and State Department of Fish and
Game.
Mitigation Measures 6-16 and 6-17 on page 6-14 discuss
replacement of aquatic habitat so that there is no net loss and
establishment of a monitoring program of newly created aquatic
habitat. There are also mitigations in the Specific Plan which
require enhancement of onsite aquatic habitats (see page 6-13 of
the EIR).
11. Comment: The small stream corridor south of Brittany will be impacted by
the extension of this road.
Response: The stream corridor referred to is discussed in conjunction with
the riparian corridor present on the Cronin Ranch. Refer to
pages 6-10, 11 and 13 in the EIR.
Visual
12. Comment: Visual impacts of Brittany Lane are not addressed in the EIR.
Response: Page 5-11 of the EIR addresses development over 740' elevation
on the Cronin Ranch, although it does not specifically address
the impacts of Brittany Drive extension. The saddle on Clark
Ridge is at elevation 750'; the road would be at 740' elevation.
Finished grade would be above 740' elevation.
Language will be added to impact 5.3C on page 5-9 of the EIR
to clarify the visual impact of the Brittany Drive extension.
13. Comment: The photos for Cronin Ranch do not reveal a skyline effect on
the Cronin Ranch as stated on page 5-10 of the EIR.
Response: The photos in the EIR represent select views of the site from
four vantage points. There are other vantage points and from
some of them the skyline effect would be visible.
Page 4 of 8
PAGE 4" OF 3
Language will be added to the EIR to clarify that silhouetted
views would occur from viewpoints not represented by the
photos.
Open Space Management
14. Comment: The Specific Plan should not be approved until the open space
management issue is settled.
Response: The Specific Plan and EIR mention several options that the City
can explore for management of the open space in western
Dublin. Even if a method were selected today, it could be
many months before a written agreement was formulated and
signed.
A condition of project approval will be added to the Specific
Plan requiring formulation of a methodology to manage the open
space prior to approval of the site specific development plan
and/or grading plans.
Geotechnical Constraints
15. Comment: The proposed Brittany Drive Extension traverses areas that are
geologically unstable. There are 6 faults in the vicinity of this
proposed road.
Response: Figure 9-5 in the EIR delineates known faults within the
Western Dublin Study Area. The dashed lines represent
approximate locations only. With the exception of the Dublin
fault, all the faults in the vicinity of the proposed Brittany
Drive extension have had no known activity for thousands of
years.
Dublin fault is classified as potentially active. Trenching was
done on the Cronin Ranch to determine the extent of the fault
on the property. The location of the fault was mapped (see
Figure 9-5); however, there was no conclusive evidence of the
fault's activity level.
The proposed Brittany Drive extension would cross the Dublin
fault. Pages 9-16 and 9-17 list mitigation measures dealing
with potential seismic hazards including a minimum setback of
50 feet from both sides of the Dublin fault.
Language could be added to Mitigation 9-24 to require special
design measures where utilities cross an identified fault.
Alternatives
16. Comment: Road alternatives have not been considered for the Cronin
Ranch.
Page 5 of 8
PAGE 5- OF 31
Response: Road alternatives for Cronin Ranch are addressed in Chapter 4
and 17 of the EIR. Chapter 4, page 4-11, describes four site
development options that would eliminate the Brittany Drive
extension and one which would substantially reduce the traffic
volumes on the extension, if it were built. The alternatives
are:
The No-Proiect Alternative. No development would be approved
on the Cronin property.
Rural Residential Alternative. Two homes would be built on the
property, with no access on Brittany Drive.
Reduced Development Alternative. Sixteen homes would be
built on the property with access on Brittany Drive. Additional
traffic on Brittany Drive would be reduced to 10 percent of the
applicant's plan.
Cluster Development Alternative. Seventy-four units would be
permitted on the Cronin property. Only one full public street
access would be required, and access would be through the
Hansen Hills Ranch subdivision.
Optional Site Alternative. Development would be shifted to
another site, eliminating traffic impact on Brittany Drive.
Chapter 17 of the EIR describes these development alternatives
in greater detail.
Mitigation Monitoring
17. Comment: There is no mitigation monitoring program for oak tree
replacement.
Response: Pages 6-9 and 10 of the EIR discuss mitigation measures for
oak trees, including a requirement that removed trees shall be
replaced at a 3:1 ratio. A mitigation monitoring program will
be developed once the City Council has heard all public
testimony on the project and has made its recommendations to
Staff. To develop a program now would be premature as there
may be additional mitigations added to the project as the public
hearings proceed.
B. SUMMARY OF STUDY SESSIONS
In 1989 and 1991 three study sessions on the Western Dublin project were held
before the joint Planning Commission and City Council. These study sessions were
conducted as informal meetings and no votes were taken by either the Planning
Commission or City Council. The content and outcome of these sessions is
summarized on the following pages.
Page 6 of 8
PAGE CO OF
Study Session 1: Environmental Setting
Held on December 13, 1989, this session presented "Study Report 1: Environmental
Setting/Planning Considerations." A slide show illustrating some of the site's
natural features was given by Dennis Dahlin of WPM Planning Team, the
consultants• in charge of preparing the planning documents and the EIR for this
project. Questions about various physical aspects of the site were fielded from the
audience and members of the Commission and Council. The purpose of this
meeting was to present information. Study Report 1 is available for review at the
City Planning Department.
Study Session 2: Land Use Options and Policy Considerations
This session held on February 28, 1991 signaled the end of Phase II of the Western
Dublin Study - Develop a Preferred Alternative. During this phase, the applicants'
proposals were evaluated against opportunities and constraints identified in Phase I -
of the study. Alternative development schemes were formulated by the consultant,
WPM, and the City for consideration by the public, Commission and Council. A
report was prepared (Study Report 2: Land Use Option and Policy Considerations)
which is available from the City Planning Department.
The critical question at this juncture of the process was the level of development
that should be considered in Western Dublin for purposes of further study and
environmental analysis. Also under consideration were possible modifications to the
City's general plan policies, which would be required if the applicants' proposals
were selected for further study.
The applicants' proposal and four development options were presented for public
review and discussion. The two options for the Eden/Schaefer Heights properties
were: 1) a lower density alternative (200 units) which would avoid most of the
identified physical constraints; and 2) a similar number of units as proposed by the
applicants but emphasizing more multifamily units clustered in the most developable
areas of the site. For the Cronin project the two options considered were: 1) 20
units located in the least constrained areas of the site; and 2) two luxury homesites
which would not require urban utilities.
All of- -these options were presented at the study session with accompanying
graphics. Comments were made by the public, Commission and Council. The
applicants' proposed development concept was indicated as the option that should be
further studied for purposes of environmental analysis and preparation of the
specific plan. It was stressed that the option selected was a concept only and that
it could be changed -throughout the Specific Plan and EIR process. The other
options would be studied in the EIR as alternatives.
Study Session 3: Visual Issues and Hollis Canyon Linear Park
This session held on September 11, 1991 focused on three specific items related to
preparation of the specific plan. The first dealt with modifying the proposed
emergency vehicle access (EVA) over Skyline Ridge. The modification would
involve the placement of a full public street- in the location of the EVA. The
placement of a public road over Skyline Ridge raised several issues: visual
Page 7 of 8
PAGE 7 OF '
impacts, disruption of the ridgeline regional trail, additional grading and circulation
difficulties.
The second- item of discussion was visual impacts resulting from development on
Cronin Ranch above the 740' elevation. Visual simulations were presented depicting
how such development would appear from selected viewpoints.
The third item discussed was the concept of a linear park along Hollis Canyon.
This linear park was being proposed as part of the Specific Plan for Western
Dublin. It would extend approximately 2.5 miles from the neighborhood center
located -in the far western corner of the project, along the Hollis Canyon stream
corridor, eventually ending at the Village Center located on the eastern side of the
project. It would provide a link to the ridgeline regional trail corridor and would
serve as a strong pedestrian connection between different areas of the Western
Dublin project.
The public, Commission and Council commented on the three items. The outcome
of the discussion by Commission and Council indicated 1) minimal support for a
public road over Skyline Ridge; 2) concern for development above the 740' elevation
on the Cronin Ranch; 3) a request for additional photos of development on Cronin
Ranch with mature vegetation; 4) a request that the EIR examine the visual impact
of development above 740' elevation; and 5) general support for the linear park
concept.
III. CONCLUSION
At the February 18 meeting, the Planning Commission should receive additional
public comment on the EIR. The next meeting is scheduled for March 4, 1992. At
that time, the State mandated 45 day public review period for the EIR will be
complete. The Commission can ask for additional public comment on the EIR, the
General Plan Amendment (GPA) and the Specific Plan and any other project related
issues a member of the public wishes to speak on. The Commission can then close
the public hearing and begin discussion and deliberation on the EIR, the GPA and
the Specific Plan.
[s/wdeirl]
Page 8 of 8
PAGE Z OF ...
JOINT CITY COUNCIL/PLANNING COMMISSION STUDY SESSION -
February 28, 1991
A special joint Dublin Planning Commission and City Council
study session meeting was held on February 28, 1991, in the
Regional Meeting Room of the DublinCivic Center. The meeting
was called to order at 7:30 p.m., by Mayor Snyder.
ROLL CALL
PRESENT: Councilmembers Burton, Howard, Jeffery, Moffatt, and
Mayor Snyder; Planning Commissioners Barnes, Burnham, North,
Rafanelli and Zika
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
The Mayor led the Council, Staff and those present in the
pledge of allegiance to the flag.
WEST DUBLIN STUDY SESSION e/2o -Z��
Planning Consultant Brenda Gillarde described the background of
the West Dublin project and indicated that the staff report was
a summary of the West Dublin study report which was available
to the general public from Dublin's Planning Department.
Ms. Gillarde indicated that the purpose. of this meeting was for
the Council to give direction regarding their preferred
development concept. When that direction is given, Staff can
continue with the environmental evaluations and reports, and
future review and analysis of the project.
Ms. Gillarde introduced Dennis Dahlin of the WPM Planning Team,
the project manager for the West Dublin project.
Mr. Dahlin described the general orientation of the site area
as well as various ridgelines within the property. Some of the
environmental issues involved with this project were steep
slopes/valleys and trees. These impacts need to be considered
and possibly reduced.
@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*
CM - Vol 10 - 101
Workshop Study Session Meeting February 28, 1991
PAGE OF-3/
Mr. Dahlin introduced Mike McKissick of the Eden Development
Group.
Mr. McKissick described the proposed development. He indicated
that the site would be enhanced with a lot of room for open
space areas. He would not be crossing the ridgelines and the
project had been done in the most economical way available.
There was land set aside for commercial development, parks,
schools and fire stations as well as regional park trails and a
sewer treatment plant. He stressed that there would be over
60% of open space available and the removal of trees had been
drastically reduced.
Mr. Dahlin said the proposal involved 33 million cubic yards of
grading and 130 acres of trees to be removed. The City would
need to modify its General Plan policies if the proposal is to
proceed.
A member of the audience asked how much of the project was
visible from the freeway.
Mr. McKissick indicated that the project could not been seen
from the freeway.
A member of the audience asked how the roads would be
connecting to Dublin Boulevard.
Mr. McKissick indicated the roads would be connected from the
Dublin Boulevard Extension to the Schaeffer Road frontage. The
Eden Canyon and Schaeffer Road ramps to the freeway would also
be developed to accommodate the project.
Commissioner North asked if there was access to the proposed
property from the Cronin site.
Mr. McKissick indicated there would be no access over the
ridge.
@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*
CM - Vol 10 - 102
Workshop Study Session Meeting February 28, 1991
PAGE`I ° - OF 3 l
Mr. Dahlin proceeded with the environmental issues of the
project. He indicated there were serious concerns regarding
the Elderberry Canyon area, an important native habitat area.
The developer was proposing to fill the lower portion of the
canyon. Some of the other issues are tree removal, landslide
areas, visual impacts, land alterations, ridgelines, etc. He
indicated the General Plan policies would need to be amended to
accommodate the project as proposed.
Mayor Snyder asked if the graded dirt_would be removed from the
site.
Mr. Dahlin indicated that all of the dirt would remain on site.
In certain areas, the proposed grading was 150 feet deep.
Commissioner North asked if the proposed connector roads would
be enough to accommodate the proposed population of the
project.
Mr. McKissick indicated the road would be four lanes with a
median and this was sufficient.
Commissioner North indicated that if there were about 3000
additional units proposed, it seemed that there would be an
additional population of 8900, which was much higher than what
was indicated in the reports.
Staff indicated that there were several types of units being
proposed and three people per household was the standard
population projection for this area and was used in the
reports.
Mr. Dahlin proceeded to describe two alternatives to the
Applicant's proposal which were shown on the wall maps; one
being called the open space option and the other being called
the cluster option.
@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*
CM - Vol 10 - 103
Workshop Study Session Meeting February 28, 1991
PAGE-/ I- 'OF ,31
Mr. Dahlin indicated the open space option had 200 units and
used septic tanks. There would be no treatment plants, or
interchange proposals. Most of the site would be left open
space with emphasis on regional trails. This option would be
consistent with current General Plan policies.
Councilmember Jeffery thought that septic tanks were being
discouraged. She asked what the traffic impact on Dublin
Boulevard would be.
Mr. Dahlin indicated septic tanks were being discouraged in
this area for public health reasons. Dublin Boulevard would
not be extended to Schaeffer Ranch Road and there would be no
additional interchange developed. The traffic would move onto
the frontage road already existing.
Commissioner Burnham asked if there could be the cluster option
with ranchettes and have a sewer treatment plant.
Mr. Dahlin indicated this could be a possibility as a variation
on the open space option.
A member of the audience asked if there was a concern about
fire protection.
Mr. Dahlin indicated there were fire concerns for all of the
alternatives. There was more of a concern with the open space
option because of the isolated homes.
Mr. Dahlin went on to describe the cluster option. He
indicated that this alternative would substantially comply with
the existing General Plan policies and be may economically
viable as well. It would primarily consist of apartments and
townhouses. The canyon would be preserved and there would be a
minimum of tree and creek loss. The access streets would be
the same as the developer's proposal.
@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*
CM - Vol 10 - 104
Workshop Study Session Meeting February 28, 1991
PAGE' 121 OF.3I _
Ms. Andrea Morgan, the economic consultant for the project,
compared the cost to provide services and revenues for both
alternatives. The open space option would have small positive
benefits; however the property owners would need to maintain
the roads. The cluster option would have lower value homes.
Commissioner Zika asked who would be responsible for
maintenance of the open space areas.
Ms. Morgan indicated that a special district would need to be
set up. This would need to be looked into at a future date.
Commissioner North and Ms. Morgan discussed the percentage of
revenues for each alternative. There would be a negative cash
flow at first, then after several years, the revenue figures
would be on the positive side.
Councilmember Jeffery asked where the level of houses would be
around the golf course.
Mr. Dahlin indicated the homes would sit 50-80 feet above the
golf course.
Councilmember Jeffery questioned the amount of repair to the
Elderberry Canyon.
Mr. Dahlin advised that with the cluster option there may not
be the need for any repair of the canyon. Their goal was to
avoid the canyon area.
Councilmember Jeffery asked if the open space would be
available to the general public.
Mr. Dahlin indicated these details would need to be worked out
at a later date.
@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*
CM - Vol 10 - 105
Workshop Study Session Meeting February 28, 1991
PAGE 3 OFIL
A member of the audience asked if the golf course was
eliminated in the cluster option, would this lessen the grading
of the area.
Mr. Dahlin indicated that the grading would decrease somewhat,
but not significantly.
A member of the audience asked if the "cluster" concept had
been done in other areas.
Mr. Dahlin was unaware of any. There was a question of
economic viability with the cluster option. It might be more
difficult to finance.
Councilmember Jeffery asked if the cut/fill grading would be
balanced on the site with the cluster option.
Mr. Dahlin indicated that this could be done. There would need
to be more studies done to balance the cut and fill on the
site.
Mr. Dahlin advised that if the cluster alternative was the
preferred option, additional review of the General Plan
policies and economic burden would need to take place.
A member of the audience asked what the tree replacement ratio
would be.
Mr. Dahlin indicated that there would be more than a 3:1 ratio.
More trees would be put back, than what were being removed.
Mr. Dahlin proceeded with discussions regarding the Cronin
property. He indicated that the property had serious impacts
and under the current General Plan policies, only eight acres
@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*
CM - Vol 10 - 106
Workshop Study Session Meeting February 28, 1991
PAGE ILI OF
of land were suitable for development. There was a Williamson
Act contract on the property. This would need to be reviewed.
Mr. Glenn Brown, developer for the Cronin property, indicated
that the only constraints for this site were the landslide
concerns. Repair of the landslide areas was needed for the
whole project.
Mr. Brown described the proposed development. He indicated
that there would be no flat lots and custom homes with nice
streetscapes would be developed. There would be approximately
8,000 cubic yards of dirt graded per dwelling unit versus the
10,000 cubic yards for the rest of the project. They would not
be using septic tanks and only 23% of the trees would be
removed. There was potential for a road over the ridgeline
that might help the existing traffic concerns; however the road
would be visible from parts of the existing Dublin area,
including being visible from the Dublin Civic Center. He felt
that this land was comparable to the rest of the project.
Councilmember Jeffery had concerns regarding water drainage.
Mr. Brown indicated that a new channel would be created at the
end of the new fill area.
Councilmember Burton referred to the Schaeffer overpass and
asked where on the hill would the road be developed. Would
this road over the ridgeline be considered an arterial
connector?
Mr. Brown pointed out where the new road would be on the wall
map. He indicated that, depending upon the traffic studies, it
would probably be a collector street. There would not be
enough traffic to consider the street an arterial connector.
Councilmember Burton asked if there would be any houses backing
up onto the proposed street.
@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*
CM - Vol 10 - 107
Workshop Study Session Meeting February 28, 1991
15 .
PAGE. OF 3
Mr. Brown indicated that the street could be an "unloaded"
collector so that no one would back out of driveways onto the
street.
Councilmember Burton asked about the visibility of houses in
the project.
Mr. Brown pointed out the water tank on the wall map and
indicated that there were two ridges and only one part of the
project would peek over the ridge. He pointed out a house that
he thought would be visible from City Hall. A portion of the
Cronin project would be visible; however, as you move closer,
the hills would become a screen. He pointed out that there
were green belts running through the Cronin site.
Mr. Dahlin indicated that access to the property and the
visibility concerns were the key issues for the proposed
project. The road over the ridge would be very visible,
possibly being seen all the way to the Altamont Pass. This
development was not consistent with the current General Plan
policies. The elevations for the Cronin property were
approximately 900-1180 feet, compared to the Valley Christian
Center site which was approximately 1000-1100 feet.
Mr. Dahlin indicated that the proposed development could funnel
a substantial amount of traffic through existing neighborhood
streets. The access road would lead onto Brittany Drive and/or
through the Hansen Hill project.
Ray Skinner, geotechnical consultant to the City, had concerns
regarding the landslide areas and indicated that there were
massive landslides up to 50-60 feet deep within Martin Canyon.
There was a potential earthquake fault line located in the
canyon area. The developer would need to regrade up to the top
of the slopes.
Councilmember Jeffery questioned the potential earthquake
fault.
Mr. Dahlin indicated that it was not identified as an active
fault.
@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*
CM - Vol 10 - 108
Workshop Study Session Meeting February 28, 1991
PAGE' I OF 3 11
Mr. Dahlin reviewed the three options: Option A - the
developer's proposal with approximately 125 units; Option B -
the consultant's proposal with approximately 16 units and
Option C - the area staying rural with two homes built.
A break was taken at 9:10 p.m. Councilmember Howard was not
present when the meeting reconvened.
Mr. McKissick indicated that they had studied all of the
options and felt that Option A was the preferred alternative.
There were a variety of homes proposed and Option B, with the
apartments and townhouse concept, was not economically
supportable.
Ms. Gillarde indicated that it was time for public comment.
She reminded everyone to focus on their preferred option.
A member of the audience reminded the Council that whichever
option was preferred, this development was for the whole West
Dublin area. He did not want to separate the existing city.
He was concerned with the road development, landslides and
requested that the proper conditions and policy changes be made
to avoid these impacts. He was for the development and asked
that Staff work with the developers.
A question was asked about reclaimed water and if there would
be a recycling process proposed.
Felicia Dean, Civil Engineering Consultant, indicated that the
East Bay Municipal Utility District (EBMUD) has been processing
reclaimed water for over four years. There were strict
guidelines to be followed.
Bert Michalczyk, DSRSD Staff member, indicated that the
District was very interested in using reclaimed water.
@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*
CM - Vol 10 - 109
Workshop Study Session Meeting February 28, 1991
PAGEOF 3 /
A question was raised regarding traffic impacts. Mr. Dahlin
indicated that there could be effects on the nearby
intersections; however, this concern could be mitigated.
A concern was raised regarding adequate roads to accommodate
the traffic. There were a lot of homes for the proposed road
additions. Was one access road enough for the whole
development? What about traffic on Dublin Boulevard?
David Othling, of TJKM, the City's Traffic Consultant, reported
that two access roads were needed. If this was reduced to one
access road, there would possibly be congestion, especially in
case of an emergency. Dublin Boulevard could be widened to
accommodate additional traffic.
A concern was raised regarding the access points to the Cronin
property. Where would these access roads be located?
Mr. Dahlin indicated there would be two access roads; one
leading onto Brittany Drive and the other from the recently
approved Hansen Hill project.
A concern was raised on how much traffic was allowable.
Mr. Dahlin indicated that if there was more than 40% of the
capacity, people would start complaining. Per TJKM's reports,
1300 more vehicles per day could be allowed. All of the
physical options had been looked at and two access roads were
needed for the proposed project. The City did not allow more
than a level of service "D" on any existing roadways.
Commissioner North commented that there seemed to be three
separate cities; East Dublin, West Dublin and the main Dublin.
All three areas were connected to one main road. Additional
arterial roads were needed to accommodate the new developments.
He had concerns regarding the fiscal impacts on the City.
@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*
CM - Vol 10 - 110
Workshop Study Session Meeting February 28, 1991
PAGE IP OF 3 I
Commissioner-Rafanelli had concerns with the environmental
impacts. He felt that more access roads were needed to
accommodate the new development.
Commissioner Zika had concerns regarding traffic impacts and
landslides. He felt there could be visual damage to the
ridgelines in connection with the Cronin property.
Commissioner Barnes indicated that she preferred a development
somewhere between the cluster and the developer's option. She
had concerns regarding traffic impacts and the amount of trees
being removed.
Mr. Tong reminded the Council/Commission that Staff was looking
for guidance on a preferred land use for the area. Staff could
then begin the more detailed planning process.
Ms. Libby Silver concurred with Mr. Tong. An Environmental
Impact Report will indicate any alternatives.
Commissioner North had concerns regarding fire service for the
open space areas.
Councilmember Burton felt that either both projects should be
built or neither of them should be built. He had concerns
regarding the grading, landslides and traffic. He indicated
that the General Plan policies would need to be altered;
however, only for this project, not the East Dublin project.
Councilmember Moffatt had concerns regarding traffic
circulation and ridgelines; however the slope and landslide
concerns could be mitigated and required to be sculptured and
natural looking. The General Plan policies would need to be
modified to give additional flexibility for the development.
He felt that there should be additional roads to loosen up the
traffic congestion, possibly create roads onto Eden Canyon
Road.
@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*
CM - Vol 10 - 111
Workshop Study Session Meeting February 28, 1991
PAGE 9 OF31
Councilmember Jeffery had concerns regarding the open space
option. She felt that the cluster option did not provide a
feasible housing product and preferred the developer's proposal
with different housing and income levels over the two
alternatives. She did not want to see Elderberry Canyon
disturbed and was concerned with the access over the ridgeline.
Councilmember Jeffery had concerns regarding landslides,
density, and the visual aspect of the Cronin development. She
felt that subtle changes to the General Plan could be done.
Councilmember Snyder concurred with Cm. Burton. He wanted to
see the project fine tuned as shown in the staff report. He
had concerns regarding the proposed road on the Cronin property
which would cause visual impacts on the ridgeline.
Councilmember Burton and Ms. Silver discussed the potential
General Plan policy modifications for the proposed development.
Ms. Gillarde summarized the comments that had been made. It
was Staff's understanding that the Commission/Council wanted
more flexibility in the General Plan policies to accommodate
the West Dublin project only. Staff would proceed with the
Eden and Cronin developments with tonight's comments in mind.
Additional meetings would be held to review the General Plan
and Specific Plan, once these documents are prepared.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 10:30 p.m.
ATTEST:
(� Ci'ty Clerk
@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*
CM - Vol 10 - 112
Workshop Study Session Meeting February 28, 1991
PAGE 2 OF 3.L
JOINT PLANNING COMMISSION/CITY COUNCIL STu3Y SESSION
September 11, 1991
A special joint Dublin Planning Commission and City Council Study
Session meeting was held on September 11, 1991 in the Regional Meeting
Room at the Dublin Civic Center. The meeting was called to order at
7:38 p.m. by Mayor Snyder.
ROLL CALL
PRESENT: Councilmembers Burton, Howard, Jeffery, Moffatt, and Mayor
Snyder; Planning Commissioners Burnham, North, Rafanelli, and Zika.
ABSENT: Commissioner Barnes
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
The Mayor led the Council, Commissioners, Staff, and those present in
the pledge of allegiance to the flag.
wESTERN DUBLIN JOINT STUDY SESSION
Planning Consultant Brenda Gillarde indicated that this was the third
study session on western Dublin. The purpose of the study session was
to receive input and feedback from the Council, Commissioners, and
Community. The topics in this study related to the road over the
Skyline ridge in regard to the visual aspects of the road, how the road
might interrupt the park trail, and the possible traffic and circulation
problems. The options presented are to 1) incorporate the road into the
Specific Plan; 2) have an alternate access road; or 3) not proceed with
the road. Also to be reviewed would be the Hollis Canyon Linear Park.
Dennis Dahlin, consultant for WPM, gave a brief overview of the map of
western Dublin and pointed out the specific areas which were to be
discussed.
Mr. Dahlin explained that in regard to the nature of circulation, in the
current Specific Plan there was only one link between central Dublin and
western Dublin, that being Dublin Boulevard. Due to the fact that there
is a 500 feet rise in elevation, there was no way that a straight
through street could be constructed. There would need to be two access
roads from the Cronin project. The three possibilities were to extend
Brittany Drive, to have a road from Hansen Hills Ranch along Martin
Creek as a fire access road, or to build a road over the ridge. Mr.
Dahlin felt that the traffic created would not be heavy, but be the
leisure Sunday drive type traffic, but there was some concern about
adding traffic to the street.
Several residents from Rolling Hills Drive expressed concern over
increasing traffic on their street. One resident stated that there are
people already treating the residential street as a boulevard and that
@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*
CM - Vol 10 - 343
Study Session Meeting
September 11, 1991
PAGE 21 OF 34
there was already a serious problem of people speL...ing up to 60 miles
per hour.
Diana Day indicated that she would not allow her children to play out
front and that the police have already been called numerous times in
regard to speeders. Some of the residents have hosed down cars that
were speeding. She questioned where the Cronin Ranch people would shop.
She was afraid that they would just cut across and use their street.
Marjorie LeBar felt that no matter how the cars came out of the Cronin
development, that a large portion would be dumped onto Silvergate Drive
which she felt already had a traffic problem. She was concerned as to
whether the streets could take the additional impact of traffic. She
was also concerned over the safety of children going to school and to
the parks.
A resident of Rolling Hills Drive stated that the street was steep and
there was a problem backing out of their driveways. More cars would
only increase the problem.
Another resident of Rolling Hills Drive felt that people would try to
avoid the I-580/I-680 interchange and use this road as a shortcut. The
public road would cross part of the trail corridor, and the visual
impact of the Cronin Development and the road over the ridgeline would
not be good.
Another member of the audience expressed concern that the City was
trying to service the Cronin project at the expense of the ridge and
open space.
Mr. Dahlin indicated that a road over the ridge could damage the park
district's interest in acquiring land as an open space situation. He
also expressed concern over the visual impact of both the road over the
ridge, as well as the Cronin project which would be over the 740 ft
level line of development.
A resident questioned how the Cronin project would get water since the
project was so high in elevation. Would a well be used?
Mr. Dahlin responded that the present EIR stated that there was adequate
water.
Margaret Tracy indicated that she had read in literature from Zone 7
that there was not enough water for eastern and western Dublin.
Councilmember Jeffery questioned whether the pictures showed the entire
Cronin project.
Mr. Dahlin responded that the pictures showed only one-third of the
project. Eden Development was behind the ridge and therefore not seen
in the picture.
A resident questioned the status of development of Hansen Ranch.
Mr. Tong responded that Bren Company had determined that the market was
not healthy for them to proceed right now so they were working with the
City to create a long term agreement for permits.
@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*
CM - Vol 10 - 344
Study Session Meeting September 11, 1991
PAGE 2 2 OF /
Someone in the audience asked who would build the road if Hansen Ranch
was not being developed at this time.
A resident of Rolling Hills Drive expressed his concern that when he
bought his home he was told that there would be no building above him.
He questioned whether the General Plan would have to be amended to allow
for the building.
Mr. Dahlin indicated that even if the Cronin property was built,
Brittany Drive may not be extended.
Glen Brown, consultant for Cronin Project, requested that a traffic
study be done to see if there would be more or less traffic onto Rolling
Hills Drive and Silvergate Drive. He asked if East Bay Parks District
would be addressing the trail corridor. He indicated that another water
zone would be established to service the homes in the Cronin Project.
Mr. Thompson, Public Works Director for Dublin, explained that a lot of
reverse curves would be needed to keep at a 12% grade due to the
steepness of the area. He also indicated that Zone 7 had 4 to 5 years
of water stored underground, but that they did not have the pumping
capacity. State water had been cut off due to the drought, but he was
hopeful that the drought would be over soon.
Councilmember Jeffery asked how the visual impact would differ between
an access road and a public road.
Mr. Thompson responded that if it was not a public street, that there
would not be any many standards to meet.
Mr. Thompson indicated that the number of roads and types of roads
depended on the number of units to service in the project. If there
were over 75 units, there would need to be two access roads. 75 units
and less required one paved road and one emergency vehicle access road.
25 units or less required one paved road.
A resident inquired if 75 units could be built instead of 125 units.
Mr. Dahlin stated that there was a high cost to develop in this area so
there had to be a certain number of units built to make it fiscally
possible to build. 125 units had been planned.
A resident expressed concern about the removal of trees for the
development.
Mr. Dahlin indicated that there could be a reduction in the number of
trees removed.
Another resident expressed concern that the development could start and
then stop like Ahmanson, leaving the hillside scarred.
A member of the audience asked that since the Cronin project needed two
access roads, could it be done without the extension of Brittany Drive.
Mr. Dahlin indicated that there would be much grading needed to extend
Brittany Drive.
@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@.@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@ @*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*
CM - Vol 10 - 345
Study Session Meeting September 11, 1991
PAGE �" 3Of 37
A resident asked how the dirt would be removed and what the timeframe
would be.
Mr. Dahlin responded that the dirt would be left on the site.
Another resident asked if the dirt would be taken to fill the canyon?
Mr. Dahlin responded yes.
One member of the audience indicated that the fact that Brittany Drive
was steep would increase the temptation to speed. He stated that one of
the attractions for, buying there had been that the General Plan
indicated that there would be no more building above. His expectation
was that the road would not be a through way. Now the rules were going
to be changed in the middle of the game. He felt that there would be a
loss of quality of life to benefit others. He hoped that other
alternatives would be considered.
Glen Brown felt it was unfair to say that 3,000 trips would be made. He
again requested that a traffic study be made.
A resident questioned if an access road was built, what was the
guarantee that that road would not be turned into a public road later.
Another resident felt that with the Cronin development in the middle of
the traffic pattern, that temptation would be created when 1-680 became
a parking lot for people to use the road as a shortcut to get home
through other people's front yards.
Mr. Dahlin responded that that could arise, but he was not sure people
would want to wind their way through the streets.
Linda Prat, Advanced Planning for EBRPD, expressed some concerns of
EBRPD. There has been a Master Plan for many years. This area could be
unique if left undeveloped. There was the possibility of a major ridge
trail corridor where local and others could enjoy. The proposed ridge
road would bisect the ridge trail cutting it in half and taking away the
open trail experience. It would also create management problems in
relation to grazing by creating two grazing units. The proposed road
would also cut through the wild life corridor for animals. The major
grading needed would damage the open space and could create public
safety issues. The Park District might be favorable to an access road
rather than a public road, but they would prefer to keep the open space.
Councilmember Jeffery asked if the Park District had money allocated for
the trail.
Ms. Prat responded that she was not familiar with the money aspects.
Councilmember Jeffery asked if Ms. Prat was aware that this land had
been overgrazed.
Ms. Prat responded that the Park District was very good at grazing
management and that they moved the cattle around.
Councilmember Moffatt asked how the park would be accessed.
@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*
CM - Vol 10 - 346
Study Session Meeting September 11, 1991
PAGE 2`f OF 31
Ms. Prat answered that there would be a staging area in Eden Canyon and
Donlan Canyon with local access trails linking up.
Councilmember Moffatt asked if Rolling Hills Drive and Brittany Drive
would be used.
Ms. Prat responded yes.
Councilmember Moffatt questioned how the land would be obtained.
Ms. Prat responded that land was usually obtained through dedications.
Councilmember Moffatt asked if after obtaining the land through
dedication, could the land then be sold off.
Ms. Prat stated that the land would not be sold.
Councilmember Moffatt questioned the timeframe for the opening of a
park.
Ms. Prat responded that she was not sure, but that it was possible for
it to open fairly soon.
Councilmember Moffatt questioned if camping and bicycling would be
allowed.
Ms. Prat answered that this would be a passive park, so camping would
not be allowed. With single lane trails, bicycles would not be allowed,
but if there were access roads, bicycles could be used.
Ms. LaBar indicated that a trail along Martin Creek to Hansen would be
simple to link. People would be on foot so there would not be a great
impact in the neighborhood in regard to traffic. Donlon Canyon should
be kept whole.
Glen Brown asked the size of the grazing area.
Ms. Prat responded that 200 acres was one management unit
A resident questioned the geological stability of the area. Was there a
fault line through the area?
Brenda Gillarde responded that there was not a fault line where the road
was proposed.
One resident indicated that since this study was addressing growth and
impacts, that this gift of nature should continue to be respected
because once the road is built, other roads could be created to branch
off of it.
Ms. LaBar questioned whether an alternate route for the emergency- access
road could be shown as part of the map. She felt that there would be
considerable amount of grading, fencing, and movement of cattle.
Mr. Dahlin responded that it would be quite minor, comparable to a jeep
trail.
@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*
CM - Vol 10 - 347
Study Session Meeting
September 11, 1991
PAGE OF /
Libby Silver indicated that land use that falls under the General Plan
can be amended, but once an owner dedicated property as open space it
becomes permanently open space and can not be changed.
Mayor Snyder reassured the audience that this session was not a decision
making time. This was a study for the community to indicate their
concerns. An EIR would be created to identify the positives and
negatives and would be brought back in a draft form for further
discussion.
A resident indicated that he had bought his home in 1976 with the
attraction being the ridge line. He has slowly watched the ridge line
die. It was being killed.
A member of the audience who is a trail advocate expressed that she had
been in a lot of ridge parks and that there was not over grazing. In
fact, the parks were well cared for and a pleasure to go through. She
would like to see this area preserved because there was a need to have a
place like this close to you.
Commissioner Burnham asked what percentage of the Cronin Development was
shown on the picture.
Mr. Kennedy of CADP responded that about one-third was shown.
Commissioner Burnham asked what an emergency access road was.
Chief Ritter explained that there was a standard. For 1 to 24 units, 1
full public street was required. For 25 -74 units, 1 full public street
and 1 emergency access which was not open to the public was required.
For 75 units and over, two full public roads were required. An
emergency access road is an all weather road that could support the
weight of fire vehicles. Grades over 15% were generally not allowed.
Commissioner Zika questioned what the blue road represented.
Chief Ritter responded that this road already existed, but that it was a
crude road used for emergencies.
A resident pointed out that if winds blow west to east, smoke will block
the open road.
Chief Ritter responded that it would be something the fire department
would have to deal with.
Commissioner Burnham indicated that if the proposed ridge road was a
dirt road, that he had no problem. But he would have a problem if the
road was paved. In an aside, he indicated that now the people on
Rolling Hills Drive know how the people on Silvergate felt with the
additional traffic due to their development.
Commissioner Zika indicated that all he saw were negatives and wondered
why it should continue to be studied.
Commissioner Rafanelli could see reasons to look at this, but he did not
want to negatively impact the existing neighborhoods. He wondered if
@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*
CM - Vol 10 - 348
Study Session Meeting September 11, 1991
PAGE 6 OF 3
9
stop signs and speed bumps could help the speeding problem. He was in
favor of parks and open space using the natural beauty. He supported an
emergency access road rather than a full public road.
Commissioner North asked if there were any other options for other
roads. Could a third road be included in the area?
Mr. Dahlin responded that the area was too steep and would create major
environmental problems to go through Martin Creek. Audience responded
with loud "NO."
Mr. Tong, Planning Director, stated that the Donlon Canyon project had
been approved and had the entitlements. There would be 300 apartments
and 17 lots with some permanent open space.
Councilmember Burton indicated that his response might not be popular,
but he felt that the new road would relieve traffic in the neighborhood
by having cars go over the hill and not come down into the City. The
road was important for circulation and safety. There must be
flexibility and there was a need to get traffic out of downtown Dublin.
This road could even be important to the people of Rolling Hills Drive
and Silvergate. Safety and accessibility were the important issues. He
was not concerned with the separating of the grazing. He also could not
see stopping the road for a few hikers. As to the visual impact, as a
native California, he has had to adjust to people coming to California.
The City has to provide for people coming here.
Councilmember Jeffery felt that there was a need to protect the hills.
She was against using Hansen Road, but she had no problem with an access
road. She also had a problem with bringing the traffic down Brittany
Drive.
Councilmember Howard expressed concern over the visual impact of the
proposed road. She also was concerned that there would be only two
access roads out. She did not like the idea of traffic coming down
Silvergate.
Councilmember Moffatt indicated that he would like to keep the options
open and free. An access road was needed. He agreed with Councilmember
Burton that the road would create free flowing traffic. He did have a
concern over scarring the hills. Was there some way the area could be
camouflaged with trees or canyon roads through the open space. Tilden
Park had two major roads and was able to keep the scarring to a minimum
with little effect on the flora and animals.
Mayor Snyder expressed a concern with the road. He felt that the road
violated the concept of privacy in the area. The cost and mitigation
was unnecessary for whatever was developed on Cronin Ranch.
The second item under discussion was the Cronin Ranch project being
allowed to develop above the 740 ft elevation level.
Mr. Dahlin explained that the City policy was to not allow development
above the 740 ft elevation level. The General Plan stated that there be
no silhouette on the skyline. The Cronin Ranch project would not be on
the skyline, but there would be a loss of open space and a loss of
trees. Reducing the number of units in the project would reduce the
@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*
CM - Vol 10 - 349
Study Session Meeting September 11, 1991
PAGE -21 OF .
visual impact, but what does the reduction in the number of units do to
the economic viability of the project.
Commissioner Burnham questioned where Hansen Hills appeared on the
picture.
Mr. Dahlin responded that Hansen Hills was hidden by Montgomery Ward
because it was lower in elevation.
A member of the audience suggested that the 740 ft elevation mark be
added to the pictures and maps for reference.
Commissioner North questioned how many homes could be built if the
project was kept below the 740 ft level.
Ms. Tracy reiterated that Zone 7 made a statement that there was not
enough water for the new areas.
A resident stated that development along the ridge already had scars.
It was not acceptable to continue developing if the ridge was trying to
be preserved.
Another resident indicated that this development was not considered
affordable housing. This housing would be beyond the reach of 90% of
the people. It was horrible. The City should be thinking in terms of
what was needed in the way of housing needs.
A member of the audience asked if the roads would be put in prior to the
development. Would there be use of the roads while the construction was
going on.
Mr. Dahlin responded that these would be custom homes with the roads
being built first and the homes built as they were sold.
A member of the audience asked what the price tag on these homes would
run.
Glen Brown indicated that it would be difficult to know the cost at this
time. Factors such as access, infrastructure, number of lots would need
to be considered.
A resident asked about the grading and the effect on the prevailing
winds.
Mr. Dahlin responded that there could possibly be an effect, but the
ridgeline would not have gaps.
Another resident indicated that he was aware that there had to be
change, but that it was important to know about the changes and get
together to make better changes. Their lives were in the City's hands.
Commissioner Burnham felt that there were not enough details, but he was
in favor of staying below the ridge line.
Commissioner Zika was concerned over the violation of the policy by
allowing development above the 740 ft level. He felt it would ruin the
@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*
CM - Vol 10 - 350
Study Session Meeting September 11, 1991
PAGE 2-8 OF.3/
character of the City, but he also felt that there was not enough
detail.
Commissioner Rafanelli was concerned about the visual impact. He felt
the City should hang onto the ridgeline. He saw the rape of the
northwest. He was aware that there had to be growth, but he felt it
should be directed.
Commissioner North questioned the availability of water. He had seen
the projected growth of Livermore and Pleasanton. He would hate to see
us stop our plans if there was enough water. He would like to see the
ridgeline remain, but there needed to be balance and compromise on the
ridgeline.
Councilmember Burton felt the picture was misrepresenting. More trees
could be planted. There were mitigating measures to reduce the impact.
An economic evaluation should be made to determine the number of units
that could be reduced.
Councilmember Jeffery indicated the development should be kept off the
upper ridge. The 740 ft level should be kept. Homes should be kept off
the hills.
Councilmember Howard indicated that she needed more information. She
felt the pictures were deceiving. She felt that this project was the
same as what the City has now.
Councilmember Moffatt felt the homes should be built on the knoll to
preserve the horizon line. He wanted to minimize the impact. There
were very few custom homes in Dublin. The homes could be built with
constraints of the land layout. He had no problem with the project
being higher than 740 ft level as long as the visual impact was alright.
Mayor Snyder indicated that it was deceiving to look at the property
with no landscaping. Briarhill 20 to 30 years ago would seem the same.
Although the General Plan stated that no development should be above the
740 ft level, it was with the understanding that each case could be
reviewed individually.
Mr. Dahlin introduced Hollis Canyon Linear Park for discussion. Hollis
Canyon Linear Park would be a new type of parkland. It would be left in
a natural, open space. It would be unique. It would be for walking and
bicycling. There was an existing reservoir. Ownership, liability,
policing, and maintenance would need to be determined. This could be 1)
a dedicated City park, 2) a landscape and lighting district for local
residents, or 3) a homeowner's association, making it a private park.
We need to determine who would benefit by the park. It could be a
Citywide asset though it was remote from other parts of Dublin.
A resident questioned the width of the trails.
Mr. Ambrose responded that a fiscal evaluation had not been done as yet.
The purpose of this discussion should be conceptual rather than in terms
of cost.
Ms. LaBar indicated that this was the kind of recreational amenity that
she was in favor of. Hallelujah, it was about time. She would not mind
@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*
CM - Vol 10 - 351
Study Session Meeting September 11, 1991
PAGE 29 OF' 3/
paying a couple of dollars more to her tax bill if she was going to get
this kind of park. This park presented quite interesting possibilities.
Another resident indicated that he thought that Eden Canyon was going to
have to do major changes with a lot of grading. Mr. Dahlin responded
that it would be left as it is.
A resident questioned where the park was in reference to specific
streets and backyards. Mr. Dahlin responded that the park was not close
to any existing homes.
One resident cautioned that a lot of grading should not be done, but to
preserve the natural values.
A member of the audience asked if horses would be allowed to go through
the park. Mr. Dahlin responded that there should be some consideration
of areas for horses.
Another resident expressed concern over the width of the bicycle trails.
He did not want vehicles to be able to use the trails. Mr. Dahlin
responded that it would be comfortable for bicycles to go in both
directions, but that there would be only emergency access for vehicles.
Cordelia Morris questioned how the park would go through the Morris
property? Mr. Dahlin responded that there was an easement, but that the
details needed to be worked out.
Ms. Morris indicated that it was a private road.
A resident questioned whether motorized or non -motorized vehicles would
be allowed. Mr. Dahlin responded non -motorized.
One resident felt the quality of life will be gone if the City allowed
bikers and picnickers. There would be no way to stop the traffic.
Mike McKissick of Eden Development said that Eden had no rights
regarding the Morris property and if the Morris family chose not to
participate in the park that the park and road could exist on either
side of their property.
Ms. Morris indicated that the Morris family did not want the quality of
their life impacted by the development.
Commissioner Burnham liked the concept, but stated that the details
would have to be worked out between the City and the property owners.
Commissioner Zika also liked the concept, but he was concerned about the
cost of maintaining and policing the area, as well as insurance.
Commissioner Rafanelli agreed conceptually with the idea, but would like
to have the management of the park addressed later.
Commissioner North also agreed with the concept, but needed more
details.
Councilmember Burton felt if a person bought a home near the area, they
would not want an attractive nuisance. The area belonged with the
@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*
CM - Vol 10 - 352
Study Session Meeting September 11, 1991
PAGE 36.0F 3/
people who live there, therefore it should not be made a public park.
He felt it belonged with the development of the area and should not be a
City park.
Councilmember Jeffery stated that this new development should add to
Dublin rather` than detract from Dublin. This park had unique features.
She felt the park should be shared by everyone.
Mayor Snyder asked Mr. McKissick about gating. Mr. McKissick responded
that gating was an option for part of the area. Hollis Canyon Road
would be an open public thoroughfare with public access, later phases of
the project had potential for gating.
Councilmember Jeffery felt it should be a public access park.
Councilmember Howard liked the concept, but needed to know the costs to
the City.
Councilmember Moffatt enjoyed and encouraged parks, but if the park was
City owned, it could be expensive. He would like to see the park
incorporated in the East Bay Regional Parks District, or have it put on
the ballot due to the heavy expenditure. If the whole City was willing
to pay, he felt it was a good idea.
Mayor Snyder enjoyed the concept. It would be unique to have this
facility, but he wondered whether it should be part of the private
development. He was not so concerned with the maintenance costs.
People would utilize and enjoy the park, but he felt the plan should be
studied more.
Brenda Gillarde stated that the next step would be to finish the EIR,
which would be ready in early November. She summarized the discussions
by stating that there seemed to be minimal support for the ridge road to
be a public road, but as an access road, it would be alright. There was
concern about allowing the Cronin development above the 740 ft elevation
level, but that more information was needed. The concept of the Hollis
Canyon Linear Park was liked, but that more information as to costs
would need to be provided.
Mayor Snyder adjourned the session at 10:23 p.m.
ATTEST:
(21/'
tpajor
y-47(F-L__ty Clerk
I 11(P02�
@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*
CM - Vol 10 - 353
Study Session Meeting
September 11, 1991
PAGE 3 OF