Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Minutes 02-20-1996 ' ~w ~ ~ Regular Meeting - February 20, 1996 A regular meeting of the City of Dublin Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, February 20, 1996, in the Dublin Civic Center City Council Chambers. The meeting was called to order at 7:30 by Commissioner 7ennings. ROI,L CALL Present: Commissioners 7ennings, Zika, Johnson and Lockhart; Laurence L. Tong; Planning Director; Dennis Carrington, Senior Planner; and Gaylene Burkett, Recording Secretary. Absent: Commissioner Geist PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG Cm. Jennings led the Commission, Staff, and those present in the pledge of allegiance to the flag. *****s**** Mr. Tong introduced Eddie Peabody, Director of Community Development. Mr. Pea.body addressed the Planning Commission, and sta.ted he looked forward to working with them. ADDITIONS OR REVISIONS TO TI~ AGENDA The minutes of the January 3, 1996 Study Session were approved as submitted. The minutes of the January 16, 1996 regular meeting were approved as submitted. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Cm. Jennings explained the summary and format of the meeting. She invited anyone wishing to address the Planning Commission to fill out a blue speaker slip and submit it to the secretary. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS None PUBLIC HEARING None Regular Meeting 17 February 20, 1996 [2-20-P~~l ' , . • ~ ~ NEW OR UNFINISHED BUSINESS 9.1 PA 94-028 Schaefer Ranch Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) 5tudy Session The project involves a request for residential and commercial development including 474 homes and 11 acres of retaiUoffice uses on appro~umately 500 acres west of the Dublin City limits. Project applications include a General Plan Amendment, PD Rezone, Annexation, Subdivision Map, and Development Agreement. The purpose of the meeting will be to discuss and receive comments from the Planning Commission and the public on the draft EIR and the project. No action will be taken. T'his item was continued fram the January 16, 1996 meeting. Cm. Jennings asked for the staff report. Tasha Huston, Associate Planner, presented the staff report. She summarized the steps leading up to the meeting. She outlined the project and gave a brief history of the project. She stated the public comment period had been extended until February 20, 1996. This meeting was continued from the January 16, 1996 meeting. She stated that there will be no action taken at tonight's meeting. Ms. Huston passed out a list of people or agencies that had submitted comments that had been received by 5:00 today and indicated that four other letters of comments had been received after 5:00. Ms. Huston stated that Staff policy on receiving comments on the EIR is to incorporate the comments into a formal response document, which will be responded to relevant to the draft EIR. She indicated that there will be another study session within the next 2 months to inform the decision makers and the public about the project. She turned the meeting over to Jim Parsons, the project Applicant, to present a summary description ofthe project. Jim Parsons, PA Design Resources, Applicant, gave a brief history for the project. He then explained the project itself, indicating that there will be 4 neighborhoods within the project, all unique in type, price and size. He showed on an overhead projector where the open space would be and he indicated that 161 acres would be offered for dedication to the East Bay Regional Parks District. He pointed out that he felt the EIR was well prepared and it would address the comments that had been received. He requested the Planning Commission recommend certification of the EIR to the City Council. In closing, he requested pernussion to go forward with the project and asked that the Planning Commission hold special meetings to get this project to go forward. Cm. Zika. asked if the accelerated process would include meeting with the Castro Valley School District to resolve boundary issues and with DSRSD to resolve water and sewer issues. Mr. Parsons stated that there had been ongoing meetings to resolve these issues before it would come before the Planning Comtnission and City Council so that this project would go forward. Mr. Tong indicated that there was a representative from the Castro Valley School District in the audience. Cm. Lockhart asked about the northern edge of the property and why the homeowner's association would be responsible for the up-keep and why did they want to keep control of the open space area. Mr. Parsons stated that East Bay Regional Parks District was not that interested in it, and when they first looked at the project, they wanted to make sure it did not cost the City any money. A homeowner's association would maintain it. Regular Meeting 18 February 20, 1996 [2-20-pcmi] ~ • • Cm. Zika stated East Bay Regional Parks was luke warm with this project, have they changed their opininn of the project. Mr. Parsons stated that they had received a lot of input on that issue. The project had been modified and East Bay Regional Park District did talk about on how they would fund the project. He stated it would be an assessment against the owners along with the homeowners association dues. Ms. Huston gave a project description clarification that Jim Parsons and Rob Yohi represent the Schaefer Ranch component of the project, and that the project also included the General Plan Amendment request by another land owner, Dennis and Laurie Gibbs. They own 48 acres at the southwest portion of the project site. Ms. Huston stated the proposal for that land included 23 single family units on 48 acres, as well as a one-and-one-ha.lf acre retail office site. Dennis Dahlin, gave a brief description of the contents of the EIR. He stated it was the intention of the EIR to identify ways to provide information and guidance to reduce or avoid environmental damage. He indicated that we were at the comment phase of the process. The neart step would be for his firm, WPM, to prepare responses to the comments that have been received. Cm. Jennings opened the public hearing. James O'Connor, Assistant Superintendent for Business Services of the Castro Va11ey School District indicated his comments in two letters sent to Mr. Tong indicated that it was the intention of the Castro Valley School District to mainta.in the integrity of the current district attendance school boundaries. He stated that the Castro Valley School Board would not compromise this position. This project was located on the Castro Valley line for school boundaries. He stated they would be working with the Applicant to bring this project forward. Mr. 0'Connor did not oppose the project or the EIR. He felt it was a fine development for the Dublin Community, but that the development would remain in the Castro Valley School District. Cm. Lockhart asked how many students were being served in that area. Mr. O'Conner stated they felt there would be 459 students generated by this project, however, he did not know how many students were being served now. Cm. Johnson asked if they had classroom facilities to handle the e~ctra students. Mr. O'Conner stated that they did not have existing facilities and would have to build a new facility. He stated, like Dublin, they have one middle school and one high school. He stated that currently at the high school site they have 1,800 students, and at the middle school they have 1,600 students. Cm. Johnson asked how many other projects were being developed in the Castro Va11ey area . Mr. O'Conner stated that there were three other projects. One had 27 units, another had 75 units or so, and there was another major developer. Cm. Zika asked the capacity of the high school and middle school. Mr. O'Conner stated 1820 for the high school and 1640 for the middle school. Regular Meedng 19 February 20, 1996 [2-20-pcmi] . r , . , • . . . ~ Cm. Zika asked how the Castro Valley School District planned to serve the project when they were already at capacity. Mr. O'Conner stated they would need a developer who takes their responsibility. Cm. Zika asked how far the was the project from the existing schools and dces Castro Valley School District project busing. Mr. O'Conner stated they did provide busing for a fee, but estimated the development was about 2 1/2 miles from the neaxest school. Cm. Zika stated that a split school district does not work. He has seen it tried and it does not work. He stated that since we would not be part of the established status-quo, our citizens get the short end of the stick. He felt the Castro Valley School District had no plan and was not interested in the childreq but getting the average daily attendance. Cm. 7ohnson asked if this happened at the other end in Hayward. Mr. O'Conner stated that this was happening at the Hayward side, and it was yet to be resolved. He stated Hayward had a policy statement that Hayward development would have children that go to a Ha.yward School District school. He stated that in that situation, the developer was interested in having the students attend a Castro Valley School District school. Marjorie LaBar, 11707 Juarez Lane, gave a commendation to the developer in how they were reaching out to the community in finding how wha.tthe community wanted and would accept in the Western Hills. She commented on steep slops and thought this project was a model for handling this type of situation. She stated that a split school district also made her nervous and had some of the same concerns Commissioner Zika had stated. The adequacy of the wildlife studies concerning rare and endangered reptiles and amphibians did bring up some questions. She felt the EIR was lacking in project specific information. In particular, there may be some areas that may be migration areas for the Alameda County Whip Snakes and the Red Legged Frog. If the wetland and oak woodland would have to be rebuilt, there should be some questions raised about how reintroduction can be done so that other species don't get introduced that may endanger the e~usting species. She stated that year- round water would have to be provided to large mammals. She suggested the Applicant be required to take caxe of the plants and trees for 10 years so that they get a good start. She wanted other vegetation to be all native species, and not non-native species. Regarding grading and geologic, she had major concerns on the visual impacts on the Gibb's parcel. She felt the Gibb's project was unacceptable. She stated that the Rowell Ranch would be substantially impacted. Ms. LaBar stated public open spaces were important. She felt there was a need for a children's playground within the project. She was not sure that the normal5-7 acres of parkland that was normally required by the City was necessary for this project due to the amount of trails through the area and would be available to the public and felt that some credit should be given to the developer. She felt possible growth inducing impacts were minimized. She asked that future project containing 40 or more units that contain an EIR have two public meetings during the draft EIR review period. Cm. Zika asked Ms. LaBar if she wanted to dead-end Dublin Blvd. Ms. LaBar stated yes. Regular Mee6ng 20 February 20, 1996 [2-20-pcmi] . a ~ . . ~ Cm. Johnson asked Ms. LaBar if she wanted to land-lock the property beyond that. Ms. LaBar indicated that the property beyond had a 60 foot easement that would allow for emergency vehicle access. Cm. Zika felt that the fire and police would not a11ow that. They needed at least two ways to get out of there. Ms. LaBar stated that she felt there was flat land that was buildable to the east, and that was where we should be building, not in landslide prone, isolated hills. Ga.ry Balsdon, ALIQUOT Associates, stated he had worked on this plan as a consultant. He had never opposed a plan, however this situation was unique for him. He stated that the Donlan and Hansen projects had been required to provide access roads. He stated he had never seen a project plan like this one that cuts off territory. He felt there should be a requirement for at least one arterial access to the north or to the west. He stated it was the City CounciPs decision to decide which projects should go in to Western Dublin. He felt this project would eliminate any future projects in that area. Linda Chavez, East Bay Regional Park District, stated the District was interested in some type of regional trail to tie Las Trampas to Pleasanton. Now that things are ha.ppening, the East Bay Regional Park District was taking a stronger stand with these developments. They wanted to possibly accept the open space for a regional trail corridor, which would tie in to the K& B project, making a nice trail corridor, protecting the ridgeline. Cm. Zika asked how many acres were they taking from Donlan Canyon. Ms. Chavez stated it was 116, and the District can only ta.ke on land that they can manage. David Beuley, resident of Dublin, stated that he had taken a look at the project. He was pleased to ha.ve the developer contact the neighbors, and felt that was a better way of doing things. He did have some concerns, and asked how were we going to deal with the General Plan for future western Dublin projects. He was worried about view sheds, oak forests and sloped areas. He felt this was a grea.t opportunity to look at planned development. This was a good process to take a look at what we want in the westem hill area. We should look at the implications of this project. Although there were many people who want development in the western hills, there were plenty of people who did not. He stated the General Plan adopted in 1982 stated that policy was made because they did not want large development in the western hills. He felt there was a tremendous value in having a project that has open areas. He stated the reason these processes exist were because the developer was asking for something that they can't have now, and this was the time to set policies in the western Hills. He felt Schaefer had some give and take. He felt the dedication of park lands was good. Once developed, you can't go back; once authorized, you cant go back. That was why they were here today. He did not want piece-meal development in the western hills. He hoped that the Dublin School District would be the School District that handles this project. He had concerns that once we have guidelines, we have continuity. He thought the Gibb's parcel did not have the same constraints as the Schaefer project and thought they should be the same. Regular Meeting 21 February 20, 1996 [2-20-pcmi] _ ~ . _ ~ • Susan Bueley, resident of Dublin, felt that the Dublin School District should maintain control of that area. She felt that it was important to look at the schools and the funding, and make sure it was secure so that people know that they will be within their own district and be taken care of. She felt it was great that the East Bay Regional Park District was working with this project, and felt there should be a children's playground with small, safe equipment. She stated she was worried about piece-meal development. The overall development of the area should be reviewed. Cm. Zika stated that the Dublin school boaxd had assured the Planning Commission that there was enough room and that everything was fine with the Hansen project. Tom Ford, 7262 Tina. Place, felt it was a quality project with lots of open space and trails. He had concerns with trai~ic on Dublin Boulevard. He also had concerns with the housing values and had some safety issue concerns. He stated if the school board followed through with their plan to keep Neilsen and Dublin elementary schools, there would be more than enough capacity at the elementary school level for development in the western hills. Mr. Parsons commented on concerns of the various speakers. He stated that he had met with Mr. O'Conner's predecessor, Del Warran, and he stated that they will be meeting with the Dublin School District next week, and this would be an ongoing issue. When this project was started, it was planned that the children would belong to the Dublin School District. He stated it will be an ongoing process, and pointed out that not all the property was located in the Castro Va11ey School District, and they would work to resolve the issues as fast as they could. The construction and alignment of Dublin Boulevard was the crux of the entire plan, and when they started on the project three years ago, circulation was where they started They worked to minimize the grading and visual impacts of the project. He stated that they are not cutting offthe ranchers to the west. Cm. Johnson asked where the gate to the private homes would be. Could a rancher from a back property bring 200 head of cattle through there? Mr. Parsons stated it was not actually a gate, just a statement. And yes, they could bring the cattle through there. Cm. 7ohnson asked if it would be the same type of access to the north? Mr. Parsons stated there was a 20 foot easement that comes offthe same point. He stated that at this time, the only thing before the Planning Commission was this project. There have been no other plans submitted for development in the western hills. Mr. Bueley disagreed with Mr. Parsons in that we should look at the entire Western Hill area as part of the planning process, and although there were not projects now, there was an interest. Cm. Jennings thanked everyone for their indulgence in letting the public comment on this item. She again gave the time frame for this project. She then declared a 10 minute break at 9:25 p.m. Regular Meeting 22 February 20, 1996 [2-20-pcmi] - ~ . . , ~ ~ ~ 9.2 Eastern Dublin Scenic Corridor Adoption and Eastern Dublin Scenic Corridor Policies and Standards The City has completed a draft Eastem Dublin Scenic Corridor Policies and Standards document. This document complies with the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Action Program 6Q, which requires the City to officially adopt Tassajara Road, I-580 and Fa11on Road as designated scenic corridors and adopt a set of scenic corridor policies, and establish review procedures and standards for projects within the scenic corridor viewshed. This item was continued from the January 16, 1996 meeting. Cm. Jennings asked for the staff report. Carol Cirelli, Senior Planner, presented a brief outline of the project. She stated that since the last meeting, Staff had met with two property owners regarding concerns they had. One of the property owners indicated they were still not satisfied with the project. The other property owner, John Dimanto, who could not be present tonight, gave her an outline of his concerns. Ms. Cirelli passed out graphics Mr. Dimanto had provided for the Planning Commission. One showed how the view cone would adversely affect the marketing of his property and another graphic showed how he would prefer it to be. She stated that Staff recommended that figure 6 on page 10 of the staff report remains as modified and Staff felt that 1VIr. Dimanto graphic was too arbitrary and not based on the elevations of the ridgeland. She stated that Mr. Dimanto felt that we should be concentrating more on views of Mt. Diablo from the I-580 and Tassajara Road overpass vs. the ridgelands view. However, the Specific Plan policies emphasize preserving the ridgeland views, not Mt. Diablo. Mt. Diablo can easily be viewed from all around. She stated that Staff felt that Mr. Dimanto's request dces not meet the intent of the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan policies and programs regarding preserving scenic vistas. Staff recommended the Planning Commission adopt the draft Resolution recommending City Council officially adopt Tassajara Road (between the Contra Costa County/Alameda County boundary line and I-580); I-580 (portion that abuts the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan area.); and Fa11on Road (between the Contra Costa County/Alameda County boundary line and I-580), as designated Scenic Corridors and approve the Eastern Dublin Scenic Corridor Policies and Standards. Cm. Zika stated it seemed that Mr. Dimano objected to the cone of the view by 1/3 to 1/2, but not concerned about the heights of the buildings. Ms. Cirelli stated that she had not spoken with Mr. Dimanto regarding the graphics, that she was making assumptions on what he wanted. Cm. Johnson asked if Mr. Dimanto had a specific development plan in mind for his property. Ms. Cirelli stated no. She stated if there was a development plan, that would have enabled Staffto help Mr. Dimanto with applying the Standards. She introduced Linda. Gates, consultant for the project. Linda Gaxes briefly presented how they prepared the policies and standards. She stated the area was divided into 6 zones in which addressed different view points. She briefly explained the views from each of those 6 view points and development standards for those views. Cm. Zika asked if there was a story restriction in that axea. Ms. Cirelli sta.ted the Specific Plan states it can go up to 6 stories. Regular Meeting 23 Febn?ary 20, 1996 [2-20-pcmi] ' ' a d ~ ' ~ ~ On motion by Cm. Lockhart, seconded by Cm. Johnson, and with a vote of 4-0, with Cm. Geist absent, the Planning Commission unanimously adopted Resolution No. 96-06 APPROVING PA 95-030 RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL OFFIClALLY ADOPT I-580, TASSAJARA ROAD AND FALLON ROAD AS DESIGNATED 5CENIC CORRIDORS AND RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF THE EASTERN DUBLIN SCE1vIC CORRIDOR POLICIES AND 5TANDARDS Cm. Lockhart asked if Bob Harris, who was sitting in the audience, if his concerns were addressed. Mr. Harris indicated Staff had addressed the concerns quite adequately. NEW BUSINESS Mr. Tong indicated City Council was willing to meet with the Planning Commission on March 19, at 7:00 p.m., in lieu of the regular Planning Commission meeting regarding the Affordable Housing. Cm. Zika indicated he may be late. ADJOURNMENT f~;' l~'t-Ic~ The meeting was adjourned at 3.~ PM Respectfully submitted, ~ r lanning ommission Chai erson ATTEST: P anning Director Regular Meeting 24 February 20, 1996 [2-20-pcmi]