Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04-08-1996 CC/PC Study Session Study Session City Council and Planning Commission April 8, 1996 A special Study Session of the City of Dublin City Council and Planning Commission was held on Monday April 8, 1996, in the Dublin Civic Center City Council Chambers. The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m., by Mayor Houston. ROLL CALL Present: Mayor Houston, Councilmembers Barnes, Burton, Moffatt, and Commissioners Jennings, Geist, Johnson, Lockhart and Zika; Rich Ambrose, City Manager; Kathleen Faubian, City Attorney; Eddie Peabody, Community Development Director; Carol Cirelli, Senior Planner; Tasha Huston, Associate Planner; and Gaylene Burkett, Recording Secretary.. Absent: Councilmember Howard and Commissioner Zika PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG Mayor Houston led the Council, Commission, Staff, and those present in the pledge of allegiance to the flag. ADDITIONS OR REVISIONS TO THE AGENDA None ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS None PUBLIC HEARING None Joint Study Session April 8, 1996 [4-8 SSMI] 1 67 NEW OR UNFINISHED BUSINESS 9.1 Schaefer Ranch Study Session Eddie Peabody, Community Development Director gave an outline of the project. He indicated the Schaefer Ranch project would require an annexation to the City, a General Plan amendment and detailed approval of zoning. He stated staff felt the study session would help the Applicant submit a better application packet. He stated what would be asked from the City Council and Planning Commission. He indicated no action would be taken at tonight's study session. He introduced the Applicant, who made a brief presentation. Jim Parsons, fi.om PA Design Resources, indicated he was representing Schaefer Ranch, the Applicant. He gave a history of the project. Mr. Parsons explained how the Schaefer Ranch project came about and how they had arrived to this point. He indicated that there were 3 items on the agenda that would be discussed tonight. 1) Provisions of Public Services, including fire service and schools; 2) Access to other Western Dublin properties from the Schaefer Ranch project; and 3) Park land requirements and ownership and maintenance of open space lands. Tasha Huston, Associate Planner, gave a presentation using the overhead projector to show graphics of the project. She outlined the three major issues, and asked the City Council and Planning Commission for direction in addressing these issues. Mayor Houston stated we would discuss the items in order. He asked the status of the discussions with the school districts on the first issue. He stated there was no clarification to which district was going to service the area. Eddie Peabody stated as of the last discussion at the Planning Commission meeting, the Castro Valley school district preferred to have the property stay within their district and it was scheduled to be discussed on April 17 at their board meeting. Mayor Houston stated until the school districts agree on this issue, there was not a lot that could happen with this at this time. Mr. Parsons suggest both school districts meet at one time, and have the issue settled by the two school boards, without having a court action or having the state board involved. Mayor Houston stated he would like to see the kids go to Dublin schools. Eddie Peabody stated given the location and existing roads to the project site, it would be difficult for the kids to go to Castro Valley schools. Cm. Moffatt asked Mr. Ambrose whose decision was it on which school district would service the children. Mr. Ambrose stated the City Council would have a political role, not a jurisdictional role. He stated a condition would have to be placed on the project to provide additional school mitigation over and above the state maximum required. Cm. Moffatt stated if the DUblin school district could not service the area, would they have to work with Castro Valley school district. Cm. Burton stated that we should continue with talks with the understanding that something will be resolved in the future. Mayor Houston asked if anyone in the audience would like to address the school district issue. Joint Study Session April 8, 1996 [4-8 SSMI] 168 There was no response from the audience. Mayor Houston again stated he would like the area to be serviced by the Dublin school district. There was general consensus that the council preferred the project be serviced by the Dublin school district. Mayor Houston moved to the next topic of Fire and Public Safety. The question was, are the proposed measures to mitigate fire emergency and medical response appropriate to the City? He asked the Fire Chief for his comments. Chief Diekman indicated that this project was not large enough to support a new fire station. Although the area still needs service, DRFA had worked with the developer in resolving some issues. One issue was the response to wildland incidents. The developer suggested placing barriers around the project. He felt this mitigated the concern. Also, the developer was willing to upgrade one of the fire trucks to handle the issue. Also, each structure would have a fire sprinkler system. They also agreed to place a central station alarm system, in addition to smoke alarms, etc. Medical response was also an issue, and DP, FA was in the process of joining with other agencies in improving the response time. If there was a good public .emergency education program, this would help the residents in that area understand the response time issues. Cm. Moffatt asked if the open space land was to become part of the East Bay Regional Parks system, would EBRPD have the facilities to handle the area and fight wildfire. ChiefDiekman, stated EBRPD had some fire protection. They will have helicopter services available that can be drawn on, and this has been used in the past. Those services are controversial now, but it can be worked out. Cm. Burton asked about the wiring for the fire sprinklers, would they be hard wired? ChiefDiekman stated it was a central station monitoring. There was an off site monitor located at a central service station. There is a private alarm company who monitor 24 hours per day vs. the fire station which could not offer 24 hours of monitoring. Additional future projects would share in the cost for additional facilities that may be brought into that area. Cm. Barnes stated she wanted to hear more on the medical response times. ChiefDiekman stated this was an issue, and he proposed a good community education program, to teach people to call for help sooner, and let people know when they move in that area that they have to take some personal responsibility. The response time would be 6-8 minutes, compared to Dublin's 3-4 minutes, and the County's 10 minute response times. This would be comparable to living in the outskirts of Alameda County. Cm. Lockhart asked about the City's liability on the extended response times. Kit Faubion, from the City Attorney's, office stated when the Council considers providing mitigations that are a reasonable response to a particular issue, then the City would not be liable. She stated that when someone lives in the country, personal responsibility is necessary, as long as the mitigation issues are handled reasonably. Zev Kahn, Dublin resident, had some concerns on payment for the alarm monitoring. Would it be through homeowner's dues? ChiefDiekman stated it would not be the City's responsibility, but probably left up the homeowner. Joint Study Session April 8, 1996 [4-8 SSMI] 1 69 Mr. Kahn stated that if leR to the homeowner, families would cut the alarm monitoring service out. What would happen with the sale of property, what if the new owners did not keep the service? He had concerns on the response times. He asked if the notification of hazards in a community have changed in the last several years. Ms. Huston stated the Eli{ states that this development would have notification to the new home buyers. Ms. Faubion stated that was what the CC&R's were for; they provide notice to the owner along with the deed. Mr. Kahn stated that if the CC&R's were presented at the time of sale, that was too late. He stated helicopters were for transportation only, the emergency care would be provided by paramedics arriving by vehicle. Mayor Houston stated by real estate law, the CC&R's are presented 15 days before the final sale. There were several ways to inform the homeowners of various items that pertain to the development. He stated the lender usually wants to see the CC&R's before funding. Ms. Faubion stated CC&R's are private arrangements between property owners. The difference would be a condition of approval and EIR mitigation backing it up. Usually if there is a price tag attached to a condition, and they are listed in the financial area of the CC&R's, people would be more apt to read it. Cm. Barnes asked who pays for the alarm, if it is in the CC&R's that alarm monitoring is required. The response to Cm. Barnes question was it may come out of the homeowners association dues. Cm. Jennings asked what Mr. Parsons would be paying for with the DRFA's $600 per unit fee. ChiefDiekman stated that DRFA currently has a fire developer fee. This cost goes towards the development paying their fair share of a future fire station. Mr. Parsons stated fire safety has been a major concern from day one. They have worked closely with DP, FA in making this project the safest in the City. The fire alarm would be a standard feature in the home, and paid for by the homeowners association. Medical response time is calculated from the station to the farthest point in the subdivision. One point that came up, was the need to straighten the road out so that the emergency vehicles could drive more safely up to the site. Mark Houle, Director of Alameda County Operations for American Medical Response West (A_MR), stated they were the County transport provider to all 911 medical emergencies along with the fire department. He felt that the greater portion of the development would be within the allocated response time of 10 minutes. The fire department is training their staffto that of a first paramedics level. Any development on the outskirts of the central population will get a slower response than those in the center of the City. They have talked with the developer on possibly moving their ambulance company. It was a difficult process to relocate a station. Cm. Lockhart asked how many responses did they have a year in Dublin. Mr: Houle stated that there was some studies done, and he could forward the information, also showing anticipated response times to the area. He stated a majority of their responses were with the fire department. ChiefDiekman stated he was pleased with their relationship with AMR. Although, they were only activated when they were needed. The ambulance company is outside the control of the City, and there was no control over employees or location changes. Joint Study Session April 8, 1996 [4-a SSMII 170 Cm. Moffatt asked ifDRFA would be training paramedics, and would they have the paramedic along on their truck. ChiefDiekman stated, yes, they will have first response medical training. Cm. Moffatt asked if the alarm system would be part of an assessment district. ChiefDiekman stated that would probably be handled through the homeowner association, and the insurance companies would have a say in how this development was handled. Mayor Houston stated that due to the fires in the Oakland hills, houses are being built differently, and more efficiently because of what they have learned from that disaster. He stated that, backed up by the City, there should be something that the homeowner signs stating they are aware of what they are getting themselves in to. Cm. Barnes stated that when she moved into Dublin, her insurance went down because this is such a good area. Cm. Moffatt asked if there would be hydrants in the project. ChiefDiekman stated yes. Rob Yohai an owner of Schaefer Ranch, agreed with Doctor Kahn. He stated that there would be provisions that these fire mitigations were not an option, but a requirement of the developer. He stated they would work with DRFA in public awareness, by having basic life support and advanced life support on each fire truck that responded. He stated this would be a very safe project. He felt a disclosure of every item would not be a problem. Mayor Houston stated it could be designed so that people would understand what they were getting into when they buy in this development. They could work with the City Attorney in developing a document that addressed the issues. Cm. Moffatt asked if the fire hydrants would be using recycled water. Rob Yohai said it would not be recycled water, although it would be cheaper if they did. Mayor Houston moved on to item number 2, Access to other Western Dublin Properties. He asked staff if the roads were to be made real roads out to reach property lines, would that effect the EIR. Mr. Peabody stated in his opinion no, because there has not been any development approved on adjacent properties. He stated there are no general plan designations. He stated that stubbing a road out to the property line does not necessarily mean they would be connected. We would look at that, if it were the direction of the City Council and Planning Commission. Mayor Houston stated existing easements would have to be retained. What can we expect, are there going to be any changes? Ms. Huston stated that what was now existing were easements to the Fields and the Machado properties, which must be retained by law and they could not be landlocked~ The project was proposing to provide the paved roads to serve the units in the project. She stated that beyond the units there would be some type of gravel surface for EVA. Mayor Houston stated stubbing the roads out would cause problems. He felt this project should stand alone. He felt that if they were to be serviced, it would come from the Castro Valley area. Joint Study Session April 8, 1996 · [4-s SSM~I 171 Cm. Burton agreed this project should stand alone. However, there should be the ability for future development if it should go that way. Not to say that it will, but the provision should be made. He felt the road should go to the property lines. Cm. Moffatt asked Mr. Peabody what stubbing out meant. Eddie Peabody stated you would carry the roadway to the property line so that it could be used by other properties. There were a number of ways to either provide or prevent access now, which could limit our options in the future. Cm. Johnson asked to see the Open Space Land exhibit on a transparency. Tasha Huston put up a transparency of the Open Space Land. Cm. Johnson questioned if the road going north on H Court, is the location of the easement for the Northern exit? Mr. Parsons explained where the easement would be and that it would provide an EVA to the property to the North. He also stated that there would be a gravel road there. He stated there would be an emergency vehicle access going out to the East, there was one proposed going to the North and to the West. He stated if there was development to the West, that the primary access would come from Eden Canyon and it would connect back to Schaefer Ranch through the EVA's. Cm. Johnson asked if the extension of Dublin Boulevard becomes Schaefer Ranch Lane? He asked if the two lots beyond the cul-de-sac would have a private driveway to the west? Mr. Parsons stated yes and that they had to provide fire department turn arounds and there was a 60 foot wide easement coming off'the end of the cul-de-sac that goes down to the property line and hits the existing 60 foot wide easement. He stated it also serves as a driveway. He stated that the perception was that Schaefer Ranch was cutting off 3000 acres, however it was not. There is access from Skyline Road from the East. There was access to the other properties from other sides of their properties. Cm. Johnson stated he wanted to see Dublin Boulevard. extended to Eden Canyon and that an East/West access to the City was needed. He stated if the freeway was to back up, another alternate route other than the super highway was needed. Mr. Parsons stated Dublin Boulevard. would be extended to Schaefer Ranch Road which goes under the freeway. Cm. Geist asked if Schaefer Ranch Road did go through as proposed, how difficult would it be for it to become a public road in the future. Mr. Peabody stated that would be addressed at the Planned Development stage. Marjorie LaBar, 11707 Juarez Lane, disagreed with Mr. Peabody regarding the repercussions of stubbing out roads. She stated that the community spoke clearly that the community did not want massive development in that area. She stated folks were working with the Schaefer family on dealing what could be done to address some major issues. Extending Dublin Boulevard defeats 85% of what these folks have tried to do: This project does not meet the kind of goal to open up that area again. Schaefer has designed a self-controlled project and has done a lot of work to address the needs of the community and the City. She would like see the roads left alone. John Anderson, 11174 Brittany Lane, asked who paid for the extension of Dublin Boulevard? Joint Study Session April 8, 1996 [4-8 SSMII 172 Mayor Houston stated the developer pays for it. Mr. Anderson asked if everyone would still have access to their properties. Mayor Houston stated yes. Tony Field, 22084 Eden Canyon Road, stated his easement has been there for many years. There used to be five entrances to his property, the highway went through and took three of the entrances and when the freeway was put in, it took the remaining two entrances. The reason the easement was there was so that they could get to their property. He stated he was not going to quit-claim the easement. He stated he would know more in a week, as they were working with attorneys in assessing the situation. Mayor Houston agreed the integrity of the easements would have to remain. Gary Balsdon, representing some of the ranchers in the Western Dublin area, explained the reasons for the EVA. He stated ali of the ranchers have been there since 1930 or so, and the City asked them to be included in the sphere of influence. If the City approved Schaefer Ranch, they would be making a policy statement. These ranchers need public dedicated access to the west and to the north. Mayor Houston supported the project as designed with the EVA's and not roads stubbed to the property lines. Cm. Moffatt reminded City Council Members and Planning Commissioners that there was a referendum on development in the Western Hill. He also stated the 10 people up here represent the City, and speak for the City folks. He felt that with the Schaefer Plan, the developer did their homework, and a majority of the Dublin citizens would welcome this type of project. He noted the purpose of the Study Session was not to make any decisions, but to give Staff direction whether processing of the project should move ahead. He felt that with easements remaining in place, he recommended Staff move ahead. Cm. Lockhart agreed with Cm. Moffatt. He supported the project and noted Schaefer applicants worked well with the community and felt it was a good project. Cm. Geist stated she had nothing to add that had not already been said. Cm. Jennings complimented Mr. Balsdon on the points he made, and questioned whether applicants would work with Mr. Fields to discuss issues. This was confirmed. Cm. Burton asked if Schaefer Ranch Lane was a City street? Mr. Thompson, Director of Public Works, stated the City Council could accept whatever they wanted. This would come in as a Planned Development which allows standards to be set at that time. He noted the street would be 60' right of way which is wide enough for a street to be put in later. Cm. Burton stated he supported the project. Cm. Johnson supported the project. Cm. Barnes supported the project. Mayor Houston asked for a summary of the third issue: Park Land requirements and ownership and maintenance of Schaefer Ranch open Space lands. Ms. Lowart stated the project would be required to dedicate approximately 7.6 acres of park land. She gave the breakdown of the parks. She stated staffwould ask to include a public neighborhood park. This Joint Study Session April 8, 1996 [4-8 SSMII 173 project would be subject to the new public utilities fees, and it would have to be recalculated based on the new population to the city. Mr. Parsons stated their design was based on no cost to the City, making the parks private, under the direction of the Homeowner Association. As the project progressed, there have been different options proposed to meet the needs of flat areas, but to meet the 5-7 acres park requirement, would be difficult. They would look to expand the basketball areas and tot lot area. Cm. Burton felt they could get 5-7 acres of flat land within the development. Mr. Parsons stated the previous E1R had a constraint map, and they have tried to work within those constraints. Ms. Lowart stated when the standards were put together for parks, the cost of maintaining the parks was a factor. Smaller parks were more costly for the City to maintain. Mayor Houston stated that a lot of our standards were geared toward Eastern Dublin, and we should be flexible in applying the standards to this project. Cm. Moffatt stated that in other areas such as Berkeley, many of the parks were not flat with multiple kinds of topography and they were used a lot. He agreed with Mayor Houston and felt we shOuld be flexible. Ms. Lowart stated that the Western Dublin projects should not impact the existing Dublin facilities, because those facilities were exceeded to the limit. Cm. BUrton felt that we were all in Dublin, and people should be allowed to use all the facilities. Ms. Lowart stated that the City did have a policy that all new development pay their own way. Cm. Barnes felt the project should provide public neighborhood parks on site. She felt large usable type of facilities were necessary. She felt a tot lot and basketball hoops near homes, does not cut it: She stated 5- 7 acres of good parks should be required. Dr. Kahn commented Donlan park was not flat. It was multi-tiered with basketballs and tot lots combined, however it does not allow hit balls. It was a 5 acre park, and might not be big enough. Marjorie LaBar suggested that we give the developer some time to come back with some community park facilities. She felt there should be some public facilities in that area. Tom Ford, 7262 Tina Place, felt that parks were important. He felt it was an excellent project, but felt the parks needed to be addressed. Mayor Houston stated that there was a willingness of the Applicant to work on this park issue. He suggested that it may have to be modified from the Parks and Recreation Master Plan. Mayor Houston stated that if the improvements were provided, the developer should be eligible for a credit towards the reduction in the community parks land component of the public facilities fee. Cm. Burton stated it was important that we stay consistent. They have to meet our goals and standards. The consensus of the City Council and Planning Commission was to stay consistent, but also allow some flexibility from the Parks and Recreation Master Plan Standards for the Western hills. Mayor Houston moved on to Ownership and Maintenance of 161 acres public open space for dedication of a regional park. Joint Study Session April 8, 1996 [4-s ssml 174 Linda Chavez, East Bay Regional Parks District, stated the Park District did have a regional trail that connects Las Trampas to Pleasanton ridge. This project offers the prospect of providing the link to that trail. The District may take the open space, but it would come under the Zone of Benefit. On April 16, the Board will vote on accepting the K & B project open space. Mayor Houston stated the two components would be the trail, and Zone of Benefit. Ms. Chavez explained how the Zone of Benefit worked. She stated the District was interested in the open space. They want to pursue a trail corridor for this area, and wide open space in the region. Cm. Moffatt asked about the Zone of Benefit. Would it be for the immediate area. Ms. Chavez stated yes. Both projects would have a regional corridor with trails, and have open space. She stated they would have to work with the developer in setting up the fee and do a study. All Dublin residents are paying a fee now, but when this project and K & B are approved, they will be paying an additional cost. The cost could vary, but approximately $35 per unit. For the K & B project, they are proposing a $24 per unit fee. Cm. Burton asked how the fees were determined? Ms. Chavez stated it depended on how much fencing there would be, how much of the local trails and infrastructure needed to be maintained. She stated it is determined on actual costs and park personnel. Mayor Houston stated that he does not want the City to own or maintain the open space. It either has to be EBRPD or a homeowners association. Them was a consensus on this issue. He asked if there was any other issues that needed to be addressed at this time. Hearing none, he adjourned the meeting. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 10:00 p.m. Minutes prepared by Maria Carrasco, Planning Department Office Assistant I1. Community Development Director Respectfully submitted, Mayor Joint Study Session April g, 1996 [4-8 SSMIl 1 75