Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Minutes 01-29-1992 I T ~ , ` ~ Special Meetinq - January 29, 1992 A special meeting of the City of Dublin Planning Commission was held on January 29, 1992, in the Dublin Civic Center Council Chambers. The meeting was called to order at 7:30 p.m. by Chairperson Zika. * * * * ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Burnham, Barnes, North, Rafanelli and Zika; Laurence L. Tong, Planning Director; Libby Silver, City Attorney; Brenda Gillarde, Planning Consultant; and Dennis Carrington, Senior Planner. * * * * PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG Cm. Zika led the Commission, Staff, and those present in the pledge of allegiance to the flag. * * * * PUBLIC HEARINGS SUBJECT: PA 88-144 Western Dublin General Plan Amendment, Specific Plan, Environmental Impact Report (EIR), Prezoning, Amendment to the Sphere of Influence, and Annexation to the Citv of Dublin and the Dublin San Ramon Services District (continued from the January 14, 1992 Planning Commission meeting} Cm. Zika indicated that the adjournment time for this meeting would be 10:00 p.m. He indicated that he had reviewed the tages from the previous meeting (January 14, 1992) and was familiar with that meeting. Ms. Brenda Gillarde indicated that we will begin discussions on the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) at this meeting. The document was available from the Planning Department. There were two volumes; one was the text document and the other was the technical appendices. Ms. Gillarde indicated that the EIR discussed, in considerable detail, the various impacts for this project. She complimented the EIR consultant on doing a very thorough job on the report, which clearly laid out the issues and was easily readable. Ms. Gillarde discussed two types of mitigations mentioned in the EIR. Many of the mitigations have already been incorporated into the Specific Plan and General Plan policies. There are additional impacts and mitigations that are required for this project. Ms. Gillarde reviewed the staff report and gave a summary of the specific chapters of the EIR. She indicated that this meeting would Special Meeting PCM-1992-1 January 29, 1992 [1-29min] • • give the public an opportunity to comment on the content and conclusions of the EIR. Cm. North questioned the amount of population growth projected for this development and what were the indirect effects from this growth. Mr. Tong referred Cm. North to the indirect off-site emplayment growth discussed on page 16-6. Cm. Zika started the public comment period with Chapter #1. He indicated that the public needed to fill out speaker slips and requested they keep their comments to 5-6 minutes. Mr. John Anderson referenced Chapter #1 - Existing General Plan policies. He had concerns with grading, cutting of ridges, filling of canyons/creeks, grassland loss, oakwood land loss, slope stability, traffic hazards, open space management. He indicated in regards to the Highway 580 corridor, HARD was not in support of the urban development. He indicated that the City would be open to legal suits if accidents happened because of slope instability/traffic hazards. He asked who would be responsible for the management of the open space Would the City be held liable/culpable for accidents? Ms. Silver indicated that the question is general and opened ended. If the Commission had more specific questions afterwards, she would be happy to answer them. Mr. John Anderson questioned further if it could be studied now and find out what would happen instead of waiting until something does happen. Could it be part of the study that is being reviewed. Cm. Zika indicated that a more specific question needed to be formulated. Cm. Zika moved on to Chapters #2 and #3 - Communitywide Social Economic Impacts and Land Use Planning. There was no public comment. Cm. Zika moved on to Chapter #4 - Traffic and Circulation. Mr. Glenn Brown, representing Milestone Development, clarified Milestone Development's position regarding the Cronin Ranch development and its impacts. He discussed the EIR's requirement for an emergency access road over the ridge as well as the performance standards for that road. Mr. Brown added that the public has expressed a concern regarding the Brittany Lane road extension. He suggested that the Commission recommend that a road over the ridge be considered for regular traffic circulation in place of the proposed Brittany Lane extension which has considerable impact and little support within the community. Mr. Anderson had concerns regarding the Brittany Lane extension. He referred to page 4-10 of Volume 1 and page B-36 of Volume 2 and quoted the California Highway Patrol's concerns regarding long access roads Special Meeting PCM-1992-2 January 29, 1992 [1-29min] • • and the Brittany Lane extension. He indicated that Brittany Lane was not designed as a collector street or access to other neighborhoods. Mr. Mike Lutz had concerns regarding the Brittany Lane road extension. The main arterial for the Cronin development should be the road over the ridge. He was not in favor of the development at all; however he indicated that Brittany Lane was not designed for additional traffic. Mr. John Corallo had concerns regarding the Brittany Lane road extension. There will be too much traffic and speeding which would cause many safety hazards. People do not stop at the existing stop signs. The children will be jeopardized and the reasons for owning a home in the hills - quiet serene area will be compromised. Mr. Robert Patterson was opposed to using Brittany Lane as an access road. He was concerned about traffic impacts. Mr. Bob Sakerson indicated that he was opposed to massive development that would impact the quality of life for everybody. The hills should be developed in a very prudent and reasonable manner and he hoped that this development was modified to a degree that does not affect the surrounding areas. Mr. John Anderson referred to page 4-10 and B-36 and discussed the safety hazards/impacts, such as speeding and stop signs, associated with the proposed Brittany Lane road extension. Mr. Wes Asmussen, HARD, clarified that the Hayward Recreation Department was not interested in the management of the open space of the proposed development. He referred to page 4-7, Schaeffer Ranch Road interchange. This interchange would have a significant impact on Rowell Ranch Rodeo Park which is owned/operated by HARD. The District is opposed to this interchange. He suggested an alternative area for the interchange - approximately 1/4 mile from the proposed interchange. Ms. Marti Buxton felt that the mitigation measures noted in the traffic/circulation chapters were well written and Eden Development could abide by them. Mr. Bill Banse was opposed to the Cronin Development and hoped the Commission would consider the reduction of homes being proposed on that property. This would create a more desirable area which would be compatible to the Silvergate Highlands development. Mr. David Bewley had concerns regarding the Brittany Lane road extension. He referred to page 4-10 in Volume 1 and page B-36 in Volume 2. He reiterated Mr. Anderson's concerns regarding safety hazards. This road will be the longest road in the development and steepest road in the City of Dublin. He felt that the road was in violation of the General Plan, as amended, and referred to Section 5.1d. He concurred with Glenn Brown's comments about the emergency vehicle access and noted that the EIR did not focus on the impacts of the surrounding streets connecting through Brittany Drive. Special Meeting PCM-1992-3 January 29, 1992 [1-29min] . • • ~ Mr. Bewley stated that there was a potential liability issue regarding the Brittany Lane road extension. He felt that the City might become liable for any future accidents that may occur because the City allowed the construction of the road. Mr. Emmett King had concerns regarding the traffic impacts associated with the Brittany Lane road extension. He did not feel that it would be a wise decision to extend that road. There were other alternatives available. Cm. Zika clarified to the audience that the Planning Commission has not made any decisions regarding the proposed project. The Commission was listening to everyone's concerns/comments and the document has not been finalized. Ms. 5tephanie Leonard indicated that she lived at the end of Brittany Lane. Several vehicles, such as garbage collectors, use her driveway to turn around. She was concerned that if the street is extended, this would create potential traffic accidents. She was also concerned with the destruction of the beauty of the area, such as the woods, canyons and streams. Cm. Rafanelli asked Mr. Glenn Brown what the traffic counts would be if the main road out of the Cronin Development was the road over the ridge and the emergency access road was the extension of Brittany Lane. Mr. Brown indicated that some additional work had been done by TJKM, the City's traffic consultant regarding the question. There would be no trips from the golf course over the hill heading east. There would be minimal trips from the Cronin area heading west. The Hansen Drive road within the Hansen Hill project would be the road used the most in this scenario. Cm. Rafanelli asked if he was correct in saying that the impact would be greater at the Hansen Subdivision extension if there was no access through Brittany Drive. Mr. Brown indicated that there would be an increase in traffic on the Hansen Subdivision road; however it would not exceed the capacity of the street, which was 3-4,000 trips. Mr. King indicated that there would eventually be more than the proposed 125 homes built. There would possibly be thousands of home in the future which will create serious traffic concerns. The City was opening a can of worms if they allow homes in the hills. Mr. Corallo commented that young drivers tend to be less experienced and more reckless and would be more prone to drive on the long downhill streets rather than streets with a lot of stop lights or signs. Therefore, this will accentuate more problems on any road over the ridge. The Commission took a 10 minute break. Special Meeting PCM-1992-4 January 29, 1992 [1-29min] , • • Upon returning, Cm. Zika continued on to Chapter #5 - Visual Quality and Site Design. Mr. Brown discussed skyline affect, performance criteria, roadway shown in exhibits. He agreed with the performance criteria. Marjorie LaBar, PARC, had concerns with design of the Cronin Ranch. She questioned if the design was in compliance with the General Plan being that the development was so high on the ridge. This project needs to be redesigned and suggested that the alternative allowing 74 homes with one access road be a place to start. She commented on the visual impacts across the freeway. John Anderson had concerns that Chapter #5 did not discuss the visual impacts of the Brittany Lane extension. You can see the saddle from Dublin Boulevard and San Ramon Road and it is much more visible than the skyline ridge. He proposed that this impacts should be part of the visual analysis. Robert Patterson had concerns with the visual impacts of additional homes in the hills. He indicated that this impact does nothing for the City's image or the general area. Paul Speroni, representing Save Our Hills, had concerns with visual impacts of the project. He indicated that these impacts are shared with all residents not just the people in the project vicinity. The project should be consistent with the existing General Plan and not require any amendments. If amendments are required, they should be voted upon by the City residents. Ms. Nancy Nilssen had concerns with the unavoidable impacts of the project. The impacts were unavoidable if the project was allowed to be developed. She questioned what the positive aspects were of the project. Why change the City's policies regarding steep slopes and ridges. Mr. Don Kelley indicated that there was a lot of land that could be developed; however, he felt that the hills should be left alone. Development of the hills cannot be reversed and future generations will not be able to enjoy the area. The City needs to consider these issues. Mr. Bewley reiterated that the Brittany Lane road extension was not mentioned in the EIR as a visual impact and should be addressed as one. He felt that the road would be an adverse impact. He asked what would happen to the project if the open space was not adopted into an assessment district/maintenance or other mechanism for management. Cm. Zika indicated that it was his opinion that if the open space was not secured, the project could not continue. However, the Commission was only making a recommendation to the City Council. The Council would make the final decisions on the project. Mr. Bewley noted then that the integrity of the open space and resource areas were vital. He reminded the Commission that the Special Meeting PCM-1992-5 January 29, 1992 (1-29min] . . • . . Brittany Lane road extension cut across a resource protection area and the open space is a vital concept of the plan. Mr. Bewley indicated that the Brittany Lane road extension could possibly become an emergency access road and merits consideration. He noted that what changes are made today does not guarantee they will remain that way forever. What guarantee was there that the emergency access road would remain one? Ms. Marti Buxton commented that people had some concern that there would eventually be thousands of homes built on the proposed open space. She indicated that Eden Development had no control over the Milestone development of Cronin Ranch; however the open space is part of the total project and would be approved as a total project. Ms. Buxton indicated that in regards to visual impacts, the Eden Development project would not have any adverse impacts. The area would look the same except for the emergency access road which is required. Currently, the open space is privately owned. The open space will be available for everyone once the project is approved. Its important to consider everything in context. Cm. Burnham asked Staff how many houses could be built on the Cronin property without any grading or to stay within the current City guidelines. Mr. Dahlin referred to Chapter #17 {Figure 17-3) which indicates that approximately 16 homes could be built with minimal grading. Cm. North asked how many homes could be built if the development stayed below 740 feet. Mr. Dahlin estimated that it would be about 30-40 less than proposed (about 85-95). Cm. Zika went on to Chapter #6 - Vegetation and Wildlife Mr. Anderson had concerns regarding the preservation of oak woodlands. He indicated that the current General Plan specifies that the oak woodlands should be preserved. He felt that we presently had a limited amount of woodlands and should not eliminate them further and noted that if we took the same general direction as has been happening since 1950, we only have 15~ left. This is a national problem and should be considered so that we can preserve what we still have. Mr. Anderson had concerns regarding the wildlife corridors. He reiterated the fact that the proposed Brittany Lane road extension would cut off the resource protection area. It also captures a stream corridor which exists at the bottom of the cliff on Brittany Lane. There are a lot of animals living in this area. Both the road extension and the emergency access road would cut off the wildlife. Mr. Anderson invited the Commission to view the area near the end of the existing Brittany Lane. Special Meeting PCM-1992-6 January 29, 1992 [1-29min] • • Mr. Doug Abbott was opposed to the massive grading, cut and fill, and destruction of riparian habitat that will occur with this project. He stated that there was nothing positive about the proposed project. He urged the Commission to consider the alternatives noted in the EIR so that various impacts could be avoided. Mr. Mike Lutz was concerned about the loss of the oak trees. There are no current programs to replace them. One alternative would be to force the Developer to plant additional trees. He was also concerned with the loss of the wildlife, natural habitat, scenic environment, and the instability of the hills. These hills are not suitable for development. Cm. Zika referred to page 6-9, item 6-7. He quoted "...removed trees shall be replaced at a 3:1 ratio". There is a requirement to replace the trees. Ms. Marjorie LaBar reiterated comments from the last three speakers. She had concerns regarding the Brittany Lane extension and the possibility of a regularly traveled road over the ridge. These roads make a convenient place for people to dump garbage. The Fish and Game Department discourages island habitats. Ms. LaBar was also concerned with the loss of riparian and wildlife habitats and grading. There is no adequate mitigation for the loss of these habitats. She indicated that once the habitats are gone, we cannot get them back. Cm. Zika went on to Chapter #7 - Public Services. Mr. Abbott referred to Chapter #18 regarding water allotments. He felt that the State's allotment was inaccurate. Zone 7 has made comments that refute DSRSD's assurance that there was enough water for this project. The additional water will cost a lot more money and present homeowners will need to pay for the water needed for the West Dublin project. He felt that there should be more information regarding the amount and cost of additional water supplies before a commitment is made. Ms. LaBar had concerns regarding water supply allotments, package sewage treatment plants and infrastructure funding from Mello-Roos bonds. She hoped the City would look into these concerns before going through with the project. Mr. Anderson referred to page 7-6. He indicated that the water treatment is to be held in a reservoir which is supposed to re-supply the ponds for the wildlife. He asked if a study has been done on what kind of impact this would have on wildlife. Cm. Zika concluded the meeting. Cm. North referred to newspaper articles that indicated that DSRSD cannot supply sufficient amount of water to this project. He asked Staff if they could get a statement from DSRSD regarding this concern. Special Meeting PCM-1992-7 January 29, 1992 [1-29min] . , .y. ~ ~ Mr. Tong indicated that Staff would request information from both DSRSD and Zone 7. Mr. Bruce Webb, representing DSRSD, indicated that the district will be commenting on the Specific Plan and EIR regarding the water supply issues. * * * * ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 9:45 p.m. and continued to the February 18, 1992 meeting. Respectfully submitted, " ~s% e anning ommi sio hairperson Laurence L. Tong Planning Director Special Meeting PCM-1992-8 January 29, 1992 [1-29min]