Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Minutes 05-01-1995 v ~ ~ ~ Regular Meeting -May 1 , 1995 A regular meeting of the City of Dublin Planning Commission was held on Monday, May 1, 1995, in the Dublin Civic Center Council Chambers. The meeting was catled to order at ?`31 by Commissioner Geist. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Geist, Jennings, Johnson, and Lockhart; Laurence L. Tong; Planning Director; Carol Cirelli, Senior Planner, Taslia Huston, Associate Planner, and Gaylene Burkett, Recording Secreta~. Absent: Commissioner Zika PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG Cm. Geist led the Commission, Staff, and thase present in the pledge af allegiance ta the flag. ADDITIONS OR REVISIONS TO THE AGENDA The minutes of the April 17, 1995, meeting were approved as submitted. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None WRITTEN COMML)NICATIONS None PUBLIC HEARING 8.1 PA 95-007 Hansen Ranch Phase II- The apgtieant is requesting approval of a General Plan Amendment Planned Develogment ~PD~ Rezoning, and Tentative Map Amendment to the approved Tentative Map The Hansen _ Ranch Subdivision includes 180 units overall on a 147 acre site on the west side of Silver~ate Drive narth of Hansen Drive and south of Winding Trails Lane. The proposed amendments a~~ly to Phase II of the ~ subdivision, and involve appro~matelX 2 4 acres of land (overall~ redesignated from open svace to residential land use, with 16 homesites relocated into an OakBav woodland area on the project site Cm. Geist asked for the sta.ff report. Regulaz Meeting 39 May 1, 1995 {5-lpcmin} ~ ~ Tasha Huston, Associate Planner, presented the sta,ff report. She briefly outlined the project. Ms. Huston used the overhead projector to show a Summary of Impacts that relate to the significant environmental effects of the proposal. She showed the grading as proposed and how it was previously approved. She indicated that Sta.ff felt the proposedplan would be inconsistent with the GP policies and recommended the Planning Commission recommend denial of the GP Amendment Rezoning and Tentative Map Amendment to the City Council. Ms. Huston asked the Planning Commissioners if they had any questions. Cm. Lockhart ask Ms. Huston to comment on the letter they received late from LSA. Ms. Huston responded to the LSA letter and outlined concerns raise.~ by the Fish and Game Department. She stated the comment in the letter about the revegetation on the proposed and approved projects being about the same, was nat correct. She refened to the overhead exhibit that clearly shows a grea.ter impact under the propased iot relocation. Ms. Huston said that based on conversations she had with the Fish and Garne Department, they recommended surveys be done on the project site for the presence of whipsnakes, even though the LSA Ietter stated that there were no whipsnakes found on adjacent properties. She said the project had the minimum of 2 acres of chaparral which would meet the Fish and Game Standards for requiring a survey. Cm. Lockhart asked if the 2 acre area was in the area where the 16 lots would be reloca.ted. Ms. Huston sta.ted it was hard to tell from the map. Cm. Geist asked if the survey would still be required if the project were denied. Ms. Huston stated that if the Planning Commission took the action ta deny the project, and the Applicant reverted to the old approval, then there would not be a signifieant enough change to warrant the survey. Cm. 7ennings asked who requested LSA to evaluate the property and prepare the letter. Ms. Huston indicated the Applicant. Cm. Geist asked if the Applicant would like to address the Planning Commission. Marti Bu~rton, representing California Pacific H~nes, addressed the Planning Commission and asked for Staff's Sutnmary of Impacts to be presented on the overhead again. She responded ta the three points recommending denial made by Staff. The first was the inconsistencies with GP policy in Attachment 5, she stated that, with the exception of Section 7.7f, the difference of what was currently approved and what they had proposed met all the GP policies. Ms. Buxton then presented to the Planning Commission a map showing the proposed grading. The second point recommending denial was the Summary of Environmental Impacts. She sta.ted that Staff had subtracted the 6.6 acres that was graded for the sewer line that was in an area of an active slide She stated DSRSD would not allow them to build a sewer line in the slide axea.. She felt the Staff Report did not mention the visual benefits of the proposed project. Ms. Buxton stated that Staf~s third reason for denial was that the 16 homesites were intended to be a road. She stated this was why they were asking for the GP Amendment and feIt that the benefits of the project outweighed the GP policy that would need to be changed in that area. Ms. Bu~an said that the 100 foot swath behind the proposed residential lots that Staffwas showing, was not required. She also stated that Regular Meeting 40 May 1, 1995 {5-lpcmin} ~ • the Department of Fish and Game's Standards for wildlife openings between lots was 30 feet to 100 feet. Ms. Huston clarified the statement made by Ms. Bu~rton, that the Fish and Game had established a Standard of 30 feet and 100 feet wide for comdors. She refened to EIR text and stated that 30 feet and 100 feet widths given in the EIR te~rt relate to a buffer area from ihe top of the creek bank or the edge of the tree canopy to the closest edge of development. It was intended to be a creek buffer, not the amount of corridor needed for animals to roam from one biome to the other. Malcolm Sproul, Principal of LSA Associates of Natural Resources and Environmental Plaauiing Consulting Firm addressed Staf~s points of denial. He clarified some points in his letter. He felt the major impacts came from building the road. Mr. Sproul explained that the whipsnake habitat is open chapanal and these habitat conditions are not present in the proposed project azea. He felt the proposed project would not require a study for the presence of whipsnakes. Although the proposed change decreases the width of the comdor from the interior oak/woodlands to the Martin Canyon Creek area, he felt the larger species had sufficient room to enter the 330 foot corridor. Dave Gates, Landscape Architect, addressed the Planning Commission and asked Ms. Huston to clarify Sta~s revegetation exhibit of the approved and proposed plan. He stated that there was a 20 foot buffer zone required for fire sa.fety, nat 100 feet as Staff presented. Mr. Ga.tes stated they proposed to revegeta,te with fire reta.rdent plant species to meet DRFA requirements. Bob Leeward, Civil Engineer with Adam Streeter, addressed the wildiife corridor. He ctarified where the comdor would shift to under the proposed plan. He indicated that the flooding shauld not change due to the density being the same. Mr. Leeward stated that v~th the discovery of the new fault and the physica.l constraints of the site, they had researched extensively and could not imagine finding 16 more lots elsewhere on the site. He said they shifted the site slightly to avoid grading the 16.3 acres of lrnolls. He indicated that the sewer line was on the fault, and would have to be moved with the current plan, but not with the proposed plan. Greg Caligari, Law Firm of Morrison and Fcerster, addressed the issues afthe project. He gave a brief history of the Hansen Ranch project. He felt the impacts of the proposed project anly addressed one or two acres in relation to the whole project. He fett there was a misunderstanding in the interpretation of the law in relation to the GP policies. He stated that once you amend the General Plan, then the project will conform with the General Plan. Mr. Caligari addressed the revegetation GP policies. He went into great detail of how they would be affected. He stated that the differences of the approved and proposed project were not substantial. He admitted that there were some small differences, but felt they were not significant. He statea that the significant impact to the riparian comdor as addressed in the 1989 EIR were to the oak/ woodlands and it was identified that they could not avoid tlus significant impact. Priscilla Brown, Attorney for the Dublin Unified School District, addressed the Planning Commission. She stated that although they were not adding any more hauses, she felt that there would be an impact to the schools. She stated that the EIR approved 6 years ago does not address environmental issues that exist today. She stated the EIR indicated that the irnpact to the schools would be zero and that just was not true anymore. She said that the cucumstances have changed dramatically since the EIR was prepared, the schools were full or at near full capacity. She stated the School District could not house the proposed students today. Ms. Brown stated that the Regular Meeting 41 May I, 1995 {5-lpcmin} . • ~ Planning Commission should deny the GP Amendment, or send the developer to them and they will work something out. Cm. Lockhart indicated that even if the Amendment were denied, and the deveioper went back to the original plan, it would still be the same number of units. Ms. Brown felt that since the Applicant triggered the event to amend the General Plan, the CEQA guidelines stated that an Environmental Analysis must be done since the circumstances of the project are not essentially the same. Cm. Lockhart asked if Ms. Brown wanted the Planning Commission to go ahead with the project, but with a new EIR. Ms. Brown said it was up to the Planning Commission how the project goes, bnt tbat the Planning Corrunission had a legal obligation to re-look at the adequacy of the schools. Ms. Buxton sta.ted the school district just wanted money for the project. Mr. Tong stated the Assistant City Attomey would address the issues. Doug Abbott, 8206 Rhoda Avenue, thanked Staff for a thorough presentation. He felt Mr. Caligari's comment about only one or two acres being impacted missed the point. He felt they were very important one or two acres from an open space and wildlife habitat standpoint. He stated that even though the corridor would be the length of a football field, it would be in the wrong place. The Fish and Game Department were right on target, in that these are significant irr?pacts. He asked where the sewer line would be reloeated to in the revised plan. Ms. Bu~on answered they had two options: a maintenance access road or pumping. Marjorie LaBar, stated she was involved with this proje~t since 1987. She asked the Planning Commission to take Staffs recommendation and recommend denial of the project. In the proposed project, there would be a moving of the corridor, which would not make quality open space. She felt the GP policies were flexible now and we can't even get a project going in the west. She said to listen to the School District's response. Where would they put the kids in the schools, and what would happen with traffic. She said based on discussions from the study session, she felt the Applicant should have prepared a redesign and we could have all gone forward, however, the project should be denied as it stands now. John Anderson, 11174 Brittany Lane, made comments based on review of the previous EIR. He clarified which areas would be disturbed. He addressed the landslide areas, and indicated that development could reactivate slides, or cause landslides in areas that have not shown any previous signs of slide activity. He asked if wildlife would still try to follow the natural carridor. What would happen if you asked the animals to deviate, and wouldn't you lose the natural migration of the animals due to the deviation? Mr. Sproul stated that in the corridor area, the animals woutd not be significantty affected in their ability to move back and forth. Ms. Buxton stated that in the approyed plan, their habitats are changed anyway. Regutar Meeting 42 May 1, 1995 {5-Ipcmin} . • • Mr. Anderson stated that although that may be true, by putting homes in the way, you woutd change it even more. He asked if the Applicant had plans to convert 2.4 acres elsewhere back to open space. Ms. Buxton stated that was why they were reque~g a GP Amendment. Bob Jih, owner of Milestone properties surrounding the project, stated that when he bought the property in 1989 the access road was very vital to him. He stated that based on the two exhibits shown, it created an illusion that the street stopped at the end, and new homeowners in that area might feel the road will not go through. He said the proposed praject was a major concem to him. Mr. Jih agreed with the other spea.kers on the ma.jar impacts these new proposals would cause. He was willing to work with Staff and the developer to develop other altematives. Ms. Bu~rton clarified that the road would go through, and the new homeowners would sign a statement saying they were made aware that the road would go throagh. Tom Ford, Vice President of the Briarhill Homeowners Association, stated that the area does not have a neighborhood park, but they have been paying towards one for 20-25 years through ta~ces. He said the developer was required to pay $450,OOEJ in Park and Recreation fees and felt tl~e money would go into a trust fund to be used elsewhere a~i the Briarwood area would not have a park now or in the future. He stated that there was a trail in the area; however, the trail head parking would overflow into the neighborhoods. There was aiso not a recreation area up there. He felt this was the last chance to get some recreation area and this project could provide a solution to that problem. He felt there could be a solution to the thre,e problems of off-street parking, recreation area and the relocation of the 16 homes. He offered a solution in keeping the same number of density, and addressed the three concerns outlined above. He had ta.lkked to several people on the organization of his alternate plan, and had received a positive resgonse an the suggested redesign. He suggested denial of this proposed plan, and suggested to take a look at other possibilities. Elliott Healy, 11362 Betlen Drive, stated his main concern was the importance of protecting Martin Canyon Creek. He was upset with the way the Applicant had treated and was arrogant to Staff. He felt that the Planning Commission shauld preserve this beautiful area. and deny the proposed project. Roxanne Nielsen, 11637 Alegre Drive, stated she felt the changes were significant and as a neighboring property owner, her main concem was the loss of access to their property as was planned and approved in the General Plan in 1984. She asked the Planning Commission to deny the proposed Amendment. Cm. Lockhart asked what difference would it make if the road were going to be there anyv~ay, if there were houses on either side of the road up to a certain road or not. Ms. Neilsen answered until hearing the previous speaker, they were not even sure there would still be an access road, but that the access was vital. Mr. Jih commented that even though a.n access road was intended, there could be possible litigation from homeowners saying they did not anticipate tbe road going through. Regulaz Meeting 43 May 1, I995 {5-lpcmin} ' . ~ Ms. Bu~on clarified that there would be an access road, and they would disclose that information to potential homeowners. Ms. Nielsen asked if the road would be designed as a thoroughfare. Ms. Buxton answered that it would be the same standards as cunent. She indicated that the cul- de-sac on the map should be a dotted line ta show that it was temporary. Cm. Johnson asked Ms. Buxton to explain the difference in the road elevations between the approved vs. proposed plans in the area where homesites would be relocated. The engineer stated the road was not levet and there would be a 25 foot drop. Mr. Ford sta.ted Mr. Zika's concem was that previously people were concerned on having multiples in the area; however, now there were townhomes in the area that kept increasing in price, so they must be desirable and people wauld be open to a multiple unit plan. Cm. Johnson asked for an explanation of the area. on the map, showing ioss of trees, and whether both proposals had the same amount of tree removal. Ms. Huston showed on the map the area where the increased tree removal would be. Mr. Leeward gave the actual numbers; 1.24 acres for the proposed plan and 1.06 acres for the current plan, with a difference of .2 of an acre. Cm. Johnson asked if the road elevation would be identical on both plans. Mr. Leeward answered that the road woald be lower in the proposed plan. Cm. Johnson asked would that allow the wildlife to move across the open areas better than the higher graded road. Mr. Sproul stated elevation would not make a clifference to the anirnals. Cm. Geist asked if the relocation of the sewer would ha.ve to be dealt with with either plan. Mr. Leeward sta.ted that yes, once the earthquake fault was discovered, they were required to stay out of the setback zone, and they lost 2.3 acres of developable land due to the earthquake fault. Cm. Geist asked if the cunent subdivision cauld be built given the eunent earthquake fault discovery. Mr. Leeward answered it could not. Mr. Tong stated the Staff was prepared to respond to some of the issues that had been raised. Regular Meeting 44 May 1, 1995 {5-lpcmin} . • ~ Ms. Huston showed on the overhead where the houses were reconfigured. She indicated on the map where the earthquake fault was discovered and where the houses were rnoved from on the proposed plan, and how the road changed to the other side of the houses due to the fault, but the number of homes in the fault area remained the same. Cm. Lockhart asked if Staff felt that the developer was using the earthquake to redesign and get away from some of the more expensive grading. Mr. Tong answered that due to the discovery of the earthquake fault, the houses were relocated in that portion of the property to stay away from the fault and it still had the same ~umber of lots. Cm. Jennings stated that the approved project could nat be built due to the faut~. Mr. Tong answered technically that was true, because some of the lots were on the area where the earthquake fault was located. Ms. Buxton stated that the key to why we were all here was that this project had been approved for six yea.rs and they want to build the project. She stated that financially, the project was not working out and that the recession had contributed to this. Then, when the earthquake fault was discovered, the project had to be redesigned. She stated that the financial problein was not the Planning Commission's problem. When they redesigned the project because of the earthquake fault, they looked at the whole project that would have the least amount of impact.. She stated that when you start shifting lots, different areas become impacted. She felt that the developer had given enough information to show that this was the oniy way this project could go fonvard. Cm. Lockhart asked what California Pacific Homes would do if the project was not approved. Ms. Buxton sta.ted they would have to go back and discuss it and take a look at it again. She stated they had not thought in those terms because they hoped they had shown that this was the best project, and that the changes would result in the least amount of impact. Cm. Lockhart asked how she felt about a new EIR for the project. Ms. Buxton stated she did not feel that it would be necessary. Cm. Lockhart stated that the EIR said there should not be homes in the area. Ms. Bu~rton stated that the EIR said that no homes in the area should lessen the impacts. Kit Faubion, City Attorney's Office, addressed Ms. Brown's legal question about the validity of the EIR. She said that although Ms. Brown may be conect in stating the impact to the schools was out of da.te, the specific changes proposed by tlvs project do not effect school attendance, and therefore, was not an issue for environmental review of the project as proposed. She stated that Staff had prepared an Initial Study. She explained the CEQA guidelines and how they relate to the Initial Study. She stated that we were not looking at the entire project again or the addition of additional lots; therefore, it dces not implicate school issues. Cm. Johnson asked if there would be a difference as far as the 16 houses were concerned in relation to CEQA , Regulaz Meeting 45 May 1, 1995 {5-lpcmin} . i ~ Ms. Faubion stated that the environmental issue of school capacity related to placing homes in tlus area and not other places was basically identical as identified in the origrnal EIR. She stated that if you put homes in the riparian corridor and the oak/woodlands area you wauld have an impact, if you put more homes there, you would have more of an impact and then it becomes a question of how much was significant and how much mitigation could you do. Ms. Brown addressed Ms. Faubion's issues and read a comment from the Initial Study, and said that a new EIR was necessary to address today's school impact issues, and you could not rely on the 1989 EIR. Cm. Johnson asked what the School District liad done to prepare for the project. Ms. Brown sta.ted the School District had levied the impact fees to the maximum e~ctent allowed by law. Although the EIR states the School District could get money fram the State, the Schaol Bond issue was voted down and there was no money from the State. The only other option would be a parcel tax in the City of Dublin. Lee Thompson, Public Works Director, addressed the sewer situation and stated that in either project or plan they would have to move the sewer over to get away from the slides, however, that may require an easement from Bud Nielsen. Cm. Jennings asked the City Attorney what the City's obligation was to the SchooT District. Ms. Faubion stated the City had no obligatioq because the project density did not change. Mr. Caligari agreed with Ms. Faubion. He stated CEQA sta.tes that if you rely on a previous EIR, the environmental circumstances must be similar to what was analyzed in the previous EIR. He stated issues that have changed in relation to the School District were fiseal, economic, and school district bounda.ry issues that are not required to be addressed by CEQA. Ms. Brown asked Mr. Caligari to specify. Mr. Caligari stated that the environmental impacts of the proposed project on the school was the same as the environmental impact of the currently approved project, the differences were limited to fiscal differences which do not need to be addressed under CEQA. Mr. Tong addressed the trail head parking. He had spoken with Diane Lowart, the Recreation Director, and both felt the parking would not be a problem and the street parking would be adequate. Additionally, the area. west of San Ramon Boulevard had the highest area. of neighborhood parks in the City, which cunently meet the Standards adapted in the Parks and Recreation Master Plan. Cm. Johnson asked if the City had plans to make the meadows in the hill area into a park. Mr. Tong stated no, the City did not have plans to make the meadows into parks. Mr. Ford stated that he spoke with Ms. Lowart, and although the area may have enough park area, the closest park is .6 miles away. He felt long term parking problems were still an issue. Regulaz Meeting 46 May 1, 1995 {5-lpcmin} ' ~ • Cm. Geist closed the public hearing and asked the Planning Commission to deliberate. Motion was made by Cm. Jennings, seconded by Cm. Lockhart and with a vote of 3-1-1, the Planning Commission voted to adopt draft Resolutions recommending denial for PA 95-007 Hansen Ranch Phase II General Plan Amendment, denial of the Planned Development Rezoning and denial for the Tentative Map Amendment. Cm. Lockhart stated he had hoped that Staff and the developer had worked together on a plan that would work for all parties concerned. Cm. Johnson felt the project was well planned. He felt the road being moved was not a significant change, because the road was already there. - Cm. Lockhart asked if the damage was already done with the road, could Staff work with the developer to find another place for the road. Cm. Geist had concern over the short time frame with the Planning Commission having only two sessions to review the project. Cm. Jennings asked Ms. Bu~rton if she ha.d said they did not want to go back to the drawing board. Ms. Buarton stated that was correct. Cm. Geist stated that this was a recommendation to the City Council, and this item would be brought before the City Council on Monday, May 8, 1995, at 7:00 p.m. NEW OR UNFINISHED BUSINESS Mr. Tong informed the Planning Commission that begnming in June, 1995, the City Council would be changing their regular meeting date to the second and fourth Tuesday of each month and asked the Planning Commission for feed back to consider the changing of the Planning Commission meetings to the first and third Tuesday of each month; however the Park and Community Services Commission currently meets on the third Tuesday, and something would have to be worked out with them. Cm. Jennings asked if the packets would still be delivered on the same day. Mr. Tong answered yes. The Planning Commission's consensus was that they would appreciate the additional day to review the packets and it would not be a problem to change the dates to the first and third Tuesday of each month. Mr. Tong indicated he would prepare a draft and request the change. OTHER BUSINESS None Regulaz Meeting 47 May 1, 1995 {5-lpcmin} ~ , ~ • ADJOURNMENT ~ The meeting was adjourned at 10:15 p.m. Respectfully submitted, i~ lanning C 'ssion C rperson ATTEST: r y Laurence L. Tong Planning Director Regular Meeting 48 May 1, 1995 {5-lpcmin}