Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Minutes 02-06-1995 I ,t ! ~ ~ Regular Meeting - February 6, 1995 A regular meeting of the City of Dublin Planning Commission was held on Monday, February 6, 1995, in the Dublin Civic Center City Council Chambers. The meeting was called to order at 7:40 by Commissioner North. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Zika, Burnham, Geist, and North; Laurence L. Tong; Planning Director; Carol Cirelli, Senior Planner; Tasha Huston, Associate Planner and Gaylene Burkett, Recording Secretary. Absent: Commissioner Rafanelli PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO TI-~ FLAG Cm. North led the Commission, Staff, and those present in the pledge of allegiance to the flag. ADDITIONS OR REVISIONS TO TI~ AGENDA The minutes of the 7anuary 17, 1995, meeting were approved as submitted. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Subject: 6.1 Election of Officers (continued from 1-17-95 meetin~). Cm. North continued this item until the next meeting. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS None PUBLIC HEARING SUBJECT: 8.1 PA 94-054 Hansen Ranch Tentative Map and Development Agreement Amendment. A request for limited amendments to Phase I of the approved Tenta,tive Map and Tentative Map Conditions (Tract 5766) and the approved Development Agreement for the Hansen Hill Ranch project. The limited amendments requested involve a change 'm pad elevations, minor lot and street adjustments, reduction in the width of the creek access road from 12 feet to 8 feet,~roviding an access road on the north side of the creek, and amendments to various conditions of a~roval related to the requested changes. Regular Meeting 28 February 6, 1995 [2-6min} ~ . • ~ . Cm. North opened the public hearing and asked for the staff report. Tasha Huston, Associate Planner, presented the staff report. Ms. Huston used the overhead projector to illustrate Staf~s recommended condition which would impose height limitations on three lots, #31, #32, and #33, which are experiencing elevation changes due to the Applicant's proposed revisions. She sta.ted that since the distribution of the staff report, significant comments and new information had been submitted. One resident of Hansen Drive submitted a report that indicated that a single story limitation alone would not substantially lessen the visual impact of the proposed changes in elevation. Ms. Huston indicated that after further review of that issue, Staff had developed a modification to the Condition of Approval which addressed the issues of the Applicant and adjacent residences. Ms. Huston read the new Condition of Approval, item #4 of the Tentative Map Resolution. She also indicated that after recent discussions with the East Bay Regional Parks District, they had stated tha.t the 12 foot wide access road was necessary for heavy equipment to maintain the creek and for patrol vehicles, and that they recommended to design the access road on the south side of the creek a minimum width of 12 feet to accommodate all potential users. Ms. Huston stated that Staff recommended approval of the Negative Declaration and the approval of the Applicant's request for a Tentative Map Amendment and Development Agreement Amendment subject to the conditions previously listed in the draft Resolutions and as modified that night. Cm. Zika asked if one of the options available were to go back to the originally approved plan. Ms. Huston answered yes. Cm. Burnham asked that if the project were denied and went back to the original approval, would it go straight to City CounciL Ms. Huston stated that if denied at this level, the Applicant could appeal to the City Council. Cm. Geist asked that if the Applicant was unable to arrange for the easement on the north side of the creek, would that item come back before the Plannuig Commission. Ms. Huston stated only if Staff felt the item was too complex to approve and needed direction from the Planning Commission. Cm. North asked if Staffhad contacted Mr. Neilsen regarding the easement on the north side. Ms. Huston stated that Staff had not been in contact with Mr. Neilsen; however, through research, had found a copy of the title report indicating the property was dedicated a non-exclusive private road easement for access to a portion of Mr. Neilsen's property. She indicated Staff would seek legal opinion whether the grant of the easement would include the rights to maintain the easement. Cm. North asked about why Staff had gone against East Bay Regional Parks recommendation for a less than 12 foot road. Cm. Huston stated that Staff's position was to evaluate the position of the Applicant, and that there were pros and cons to both proposals. Regular Meeting 29 February 6, 1995 [2-6min} . ~ • . Cm. North asked about the modified Condition 4 as it relates to the three lots and how Staff came up with the height limitations. Ms. Huston provided the Commission with a copy of the modified Condition 4 and explained how Staff arrived at the new height limitations. Cm. North asked if the Applicant was present. Marti Buxton, representative far California Pacific Homes, stated that the Applicant was in agreement with all Conditions of Approval except #4 and # 13. She stated that if a 12 foot wide access road were required, there would be a tremendous tree loss and would require high retaining walls. She indicated on a map on the wall where the 12 foot trail would be developed during Phase I and Phase II of the development. Cm. North asked if the entire 12 foot road could be built during Phase I, and blocked off during the construction of Phase II. Ms. Buxton stated that it was possible; however, there was still future grading to be done and felt it would be safer to develop the second half of the trail during Phase II of the project. She stated that she still did not feel the need to put in a cul-de-sac at the end of Martin Canyon Road. Ms. Buxton felt that Condition 4 was not fair. She thought that the 17 foot height limitation on the house behind Mr. Morris' could not be done without going back to the origina130 foot cut. Cm. North asked if the issue of the cuts was addressed in 1992. Ms. Buxton answered no. She stated that Mr. Berloger's firm was retained in 1992, and that the previous engineer had not addressed the area as having immediate mitigation. Cm. North asked if Ms. Buxton had contacted Mr. Neilsen regarding the easement on the north side of the creek. Ms. Buxton stated she had spoke with Mr. Neilsen and gave him a copy of the easements. Cm. North asked if there was a place along the creek where fire and police could cross the creek if necessary. Ms. Buxton stated that there was an existing culvert that would be rebuilt with a locked gate for access. Ms. Huston stated that Staff had reviewed the Soils Report and reviewed the issues of soil stability, and based on the report done in 1992 for the approved development at that time, the soils report did not conclude that there would be unacceptable stability to the soil. It addressed concerns and remediations. Cm. Burnham stated that the City of Dublin approved the project based on the original Soils Report and wanted to know why the City was accepting the new Soils Report. Regular Meeting 30 February 6, 1995 [2-6min} . ~ ~ Ms. Huston stated that the new Soils Report did not include compelling evidence that the soil was not stable. She stated that the Applicant's engineer felt that it would be safer if they did not cut into the hill as much as originally planned; however, the report does state that under the projected improvements, it would be adequate. Cm. Zika asked who would be liable if the homes slide. Ms. Bu~cton indicated that nobody was talking about homes sliding and that the area referred to in the soils report was in the rear of some of the yards. Cm. Zika asked when Phase II would be built. Ms. Bu~rton stated that they would soon be coming to the City with Phase II modifications and that there were fixed costs in Phase I that made it necessary to build Phase II as soon as possible if the development were to make money. Cm. North asked if the origina,l Soils Report addressed the stability of the hi1L Ms. Huston stated that the Soils Report addressed the mitigation needed for the construction of the project as it was approved at the 1989 configuration and that after construction and improvements, including soil stability improvements, the soil stability concerns would be addressed. Ms. Bu~rton stated the previous Soils Report was silent as to extraordinary mitigations. She also stated that Mr. Berloger's report does not state that the soil is unstable, but that it would be better not to make as deep a cut as previously reported. Frank Berloger, representing Berloger Geotechnical Consultants, gave a brief history of his involvement with this project. He spoke of his Soils Report and about previous landslides in the area and why the problems were identified as they were. He presented a drawing of cross sections showing the soil cuts. Mr. Berloger stated that the risk would be at the time the cuts were made, and that once all the work was completed, he was confident that the area would be stable. Cm. Zika asked if the risk would lessen if the cuts were not made during the rainy season. Mr. Berloger stated that was correct. Bob Leewor, with the Civil Engineering firm of Adams/Streeter, indicated to the Commission that there was a drawing that was given to the Commission that night showing a model of a house, whereas from the back of the house you do not see any windows from the second story. There was a discussion among the Commissioners about the different elevations of the houses and different models of the proposed homes. Cm. North stated that the chart showing the different elevations did not match on lot 32 and asked for the elevation of the house at 7439 Hansen Drive. Regular Meeting 31 February 6, 1995 [2-6min} . ~ ~ Ms. Huston stated that the cross sections submitted by the Applicant were somewhat inaccurate in terms of the height and style of homes being represented. She indicated that the current approval for lot 32 indicated a single story home and the property was still controlled by the previous approval. She further stated that if there was a new home design being proposed, it would have to come through as a Site Development Review approval, including the home that was being proposed that night. Cm. Geist asked the elevation of the approved house on lot 32. Ms. Huston stated that the eausting approved pad elevation for lot 32 was 505 feet, with an approved single story house height of 21 feet, for a maximum height of 526 feet. Cm. North stated that he did not agree with the elevations shown on Mr. Berloger's map. Mr. Berloger stated that they could not tell the e~ct measurement from the street, and he agreed with Cm. North. He stated he did not know why lot 31 was included in the group that would be limited to single story, and felt that lots 32 and 33 were adjacent to single homes and felt both rear yards would be private. Marti Bu~on summarized what they were willing to do on lots 32 and 33 as was indicated on the plan that the Commissioners had in front of them. She stated that based on what Staff was recommending that night, the only remedy would be a 30 foot cut as currently approved. The Commissioners had a discussion about the different elevations and asked Staff to look at the cross-section drawing that was handed to them that night to see if they matched the City's recommendation. Ms. Huston responded using the cross-section which the Applicant handed to the Commission to show the proposed home heights compared to the Applicant's recommended plan, and the approved elevations. Cm. Zika asked on the original project approval, which lots had single story homes. Ms. Huston stated lot 32 was originally approved for a single-story home, and lots 31 and 33 were originally approved for two-story homes. Ms. Bu~rton clarified that on the new proposed home on lot 32, the rear roof height was 11' 7" at the back as opposed to a normal gable roof height of 26 feet. Cm. North informed the public that there were only 4 elements of this proposal being discussed that night, and asked the public to limit their comments to the 4 elements. After a 5 minutes recess, Cm. North asked for comments from the public. Dan Morris, 7429 Hansen Drive, gave an overhead presentation that outlined the report he gave the Commissioner's in their packet. He stated that he felt his home would be greatly impacted by a two story house behind his home and asked the Commission to consider the impacts the Amendments would have on his home. Regular Meeting 32 Febniary 6, 1995 [2-6min} ~ • ~ Hans Heydorn, 11430 Winding Trail Lane, stated he was opposed to building an access road on the north side of the creek, and expressed concern over tree loss for the access road on the south side. Ms. Huston used a map on the wall to clarify the area where the access road on the north side of the creek would be built. She also stated that a tree survey was done and it appeared that the access road could be built without the removal of trees; however, there was a Condition of Approval that the road could be less than 12 feet wide, if needed, to accommodate trees. She noted that the majority of trees to be removed was a result of improvements which axe currently necessary to reinforce the creek. Cm. Burnham asked for verification on the map where the access road would go on the north side and where it would come out on Silvergate. Ms. Huston stated the road would not come out on Silvergate, and indicated on the map where the road would end. Cm. Burnham asked if the only access to the 12 foot access road would be Martin Canyon Road from the west and heading ea.st, with no eaut at the east end. Ms. Buxton indicated there would be a bulb provided near the end for vehicles to turn axound. Lee Thompson, Public Works Director, stated that the reason for the access road would be so that if any trees fell in the creek, the City would be able to get in there to remove them to reduce the risk of flooding. If the creek bank were to start eroding towards the townhomes, the City would need to be able to get in there and build up the bank. Mr. Tong clarified that as part of the Conditions of Approval, the creek would be dedicated to the City to be used as recreational facilities, and the public would be provided access and use of the creek. Marjorie LaBar indicated that her concern was not to destroy the resources that we are trying to save. She also indicated that getting a Stream Bed Alteration Agreement from the Fish and Game could be difficult. She stated that maybe the maintenance could be done with smaller equipment so that a smaller access road could be put in place. She recommended that the Commissioners check with the City of Pleasanton regarding landslide issues and the liability to the City. Mr. Morris read Mr. Berloger's recommendation for the area in relation to the fill in the area and stated that Mr. Berloger's firm had done a lot of testing on the area behind his home. Robert Patterson, Rolling Hills Drive, had a concern about the public's access to the creek, and felt that having a dead-end street with a bulb at the end of it, may encourage some problems in the area. A1 Jordon, 11428 Winding Trail, indicated that there were trees approximately 6 feet from the property line that may be impacted by the access road. 33 Regular Meeting February 6, 1995 [2-6min} . ~ • Ms. Huston indicated that the information on trees in the proxirnity of the northern property line was obtained through a tree survey and a site visit. The measurements on the tree survey diagram did show a 20 foot distance between the northern property line and the closest tree. She indicated that there is a slight deviation from the actual property line to the existing barbed-wire fence that could mislead someone measuring the fence line to the closest tree. Tom Ford, 7262 Tina Place, stated he was concemed about the deep cuts that were proposed and the liability to the City. He felt the meadow area would be a flood area and could pose the problem of getting flood insurance, if necessary. Cm. North clarified that they were not there that night to decide whether the project was or was not going to be built and asked the speakers to limit their comments to the issues at hand. Mike Conikin, 11432 Winding Trail Lane, expressed his concern on the access road behind the townhomes. He stated that there was not an access road there now, and questioned why the road was needed to be placed there at this time. Cm. North stated that the plan was approved with a 12 foot wide road on the south side and the Applicant is asking for it to be reduced to 8 feet, and the question was if the Applicant's request were approved, would there be a need for a road on the north side of the creek. Sherry Heacox, 11427 Winding Trail Lane, expressed concern over the trees and asked if some of the trees were to die, who would come back and replace them. Cm. North stated if trees were removed, at this point, the Applicant would not be required to replace them. Ms. Heacox stated she hoped the City of Dublin would maintain the area as a recreational area as close to as it now eausts. Cm. North pointed out that trees were removed to build the homes where Ms. Heacox now lives. Ed Skubic, 7427 Hansen Drive, expressed concern over the removal of dirt near his home. Cm. North commented that if the project were to be approved, it would be the responsibility of the Applicant, as monitored by the City Engineers, to make sure that whatever was done leaves stable I , earth and sta.ble area. He stated that in California there were no guarantees that any area of land could not be uprooted at any time due to earthquakes. Mr. Skubic asked if it were safe to be in his home during the removal of the soil in the area. Cm. North stated the Applicant would be required to maintain a safe environment at all tunes. Ms. Buaton responded to the audience comments stating that the meadow area was not considered a flood 1 ' p am by FEMA, that a bulb at the end of the cul-de-sac on Martin Can on could invite Y unwanted traffic and stated that the Ci Publi , c Works Direc r ty to would work with them on the access roads. She sta.ted that even without the access roads, there would be a lot of work done in Regulaz Meeting 34 Februaiy 6, 1995 [2-6min} . ~ • the creek area to shore up the eroding oxbows and place in structures to slow the flow of the creek. She stated tha.t there were Conditions to get approval from the Fish and Game and would work with them and the City. She stated that they had not intended to build one-story homes and felt the height restriction was unfair. Cm. North stated that the original plan did allow two-stories throughout, but after the deeper cut was proposed, the plan changed. Ms. Buxton stated that with the numbers given them that night, they could not build even a two story home there and would be coming to the City with new drawings for the proposed homes. Cm. North asked Staff if they wished to make final comments. Mr. Thompson clarified that the City had a concern on the cul-de-sac due to the debris that collects at the end. He stated that anyone going to the end of the street would have to use a private driveway to turn around. He commented that the access roads would be gated off and the public would not be able to use them. He also stated that the houses at the end of Silvergate would be raised up 18 inches to accommodate the possible flood hazard. Mr. Thompson stated that they would be rocking the access road and it should not effect the root system of any of the trees and also that the road would not be used everyday, but only in the cases of emergency or maintenance. Cm. Zika informed the public that the Commission would only ma.ke a recommendation to the City Council and that the public could attend the City Council meeting and make comments to the Council on this issue. Ms. Huston stated that there was a hearing date set for the City Council to hear the project on February 27, 1995. Cm. Burnham asked the Director of Public Works whether or not the access road on the north side would be approved, how would the City get down there if there were an emergency now. Mr. Thompson stated that if the creek failed or a tree fell in the creek, the City would need to get down there whether or not the access road were rocked. He also sta#ed that at the end of the cul- de-sac off Silvergate, there was a road that goes to the headwall of the creek that could be used if necessary. Cm. North closed the public hearing. The Commissioners discussed the various options being proposed in the height limitations. Cm. North re-read the new modification to Condition 4. Cm. Burnham stated that he had heard there may be some risk of going back to the original cuts on lots #32 and #33. Cm. North stated he heard there may be some risk during the process of construction of Phase I; however, once the process was completed, the houses would not be subject to landslide. Regular Meeting 35 February 6, 1995 [2-6min} ~ ~ Cm. Zika agreed and felt it would not be a City risk, but a contractor or developer risk. Cm. Zika recommended that Staff get legal clarification from the City Attorney as to the liability to the City over the potential risks involved in the cuts during Phase I. Cm. Burnham asked the Engineer to clarify the statement that he made that the risk of landslide eausts only during construction. Mr. Berloger indicated that was correct. By consensus, the Commission deternuned that for visual impact they would recommend to the City Council the height limitations per the revised Staff recommendation given at the meeting on lots #31, #32, and #33 and that they would recommend to the City Council the Applicants request on lots #30 and #34 on page 5 of 53 of the staff report. The Commissioners discussed the various options on the access roads. Cm. Burnham sta.ted he still did not feel comfortable relying on the information they were given. Cm. Zika asked if there had been an agreement with the Departrnent of Fish and Game. Ms. Huston stated that there was a Streambed Alteration Agreement granted. On motion by Cm. Zika, seconded by Cm. Geist, and by majority vote, the Commission agreed to revise the Resolution and recommend to City Council to go with the original approval of a 12 foot road down the south side with no road on the north side and deny the Applicant's request to modify the road to 8 feet. Cm. Burnham voted against this motion. The Commissioners discussed the cu-de-sac bulb on Martin Canyon Road. By consensus, the Commission decided to recommend to City Council that there not be a bulb at the end of Martin Canyon Road. On motion by Cm. Zika, seconded by Cm. North and by unanimous vote, the Commission voted to adopt draft Resolution recommending adoption of the Negative Declaration, adopt draft Resolution recommending City Council approval of the Tentative Map Amendment and adopt draft Resolution recommending City Council approval of the Development Agreement with changes just discussed. RESOLUTION NO. 95-04 RECOMMENDING CITY COUCIL ADOPTION OF A NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR PA 94-054 HANSEN RANCH TENTATIVE MAP AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT AMENDMENTS Regular Meeting 36 February 6, 1995 [2-6min} ` • ~ RESOLUTION NO. 95-05 RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION APPROVING PA 94-054 HANSEN RANCH TENTATIVE MAP AMENDMENT REQUEST FOR A MODIFICATION TO THE APPROVED TENTATIVE MAP 5766 AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR THE TENTATIVE MAP RESOI.~UTION NO. 95-06 RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL ADOPTION OF ORDINANCE APPROVING PA 94-054 HANSEN RANCH DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT AMENDMENT FOR PA 91-099 HANSEN RANCH PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT Cm. North noted to Staff that they recommend to the City Council to obtain legal advise on the City's liability in regard to the land slide area during their discussion of this item. NEW OR UNFINISHED BUSINESS None OTI~R BUSINESS Mr. Tong informed the Commission that the City Council, at its ne~ct meeting, wilY be considering the Tri-Valley Transportation Plan. The City Council will also consider a request to enter into an Agreement to form a Tri-Valley Planning Committee or Council. Additionally, Staff had received information on the Planners Institute on March 22, 23 and 24 in Monterey and would be contacting the Planning Commissioners with more information. Cm. Zika asked if the City was ticketing the trucks at Target. Cm. North answered na Mr. Tong indicated that the manager of the private property would need to contact the Police Department directly to either ticket or tow. Cm. Zika indicated there was a new banner on a vehicle that looked tacky at the new nail shop where the old Saw Mill used to be and asked if the City could do anythiug about it. Mr. Tong indicated that when City Council took action on the modification to the Sign Ordinance, they requested Staff ask the property owners to be aware and consider asking the tenants to park within the previously approved parking plan, perpendiculax rather than para11e1 to the street, and Staff did send a letter to the property owner and had not received a response. Mr. Tong stated he would have the Zoning Inspector follow up on the letter. Regular Meeting 37 February 6, 1995 [2-6min} ~ ! Cm. North commented that there was now a truck for the barber shop ne~rt to the truck for the gun shop that had not been moved in several weeks and asked that the Zoning Inspector follow up on that alsa ADJOURNMENT T'he meeting was adjourned at 10:22 p.m. Respectfully submitted, ~ Planning Commission airperson VrLE CN~4t2...P~dZ56~~ ATTEST: Laurence L. Tong, Planning Di ct Regular Meeting 38 February 6, 1995 [2-6min}