Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout4.01 Draft CC 12-21-2004 Min R£GULAIt MEETING - D£CEMBEIt 21~ 2004 CLOSED SESSION A closed session was held at 6:30 p.m., regarding: 1. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL - ANTICIPATED LITIGATION Government Code Section 54956.9, subdivision c (one potential case) A regular meeting of the Dublin City Council was held on Tuesday, December 21, 2004, in the Council Chambers of the Dublin Civic Center. The meeting was called to order at 7:05 p.m., by Mayor Lockhart. · ROLL CALL PRESENT: Councilmembers Hildenbrand, McCormick, Oravetz, Zika and Mayor Lockhart. ABSENT: None. · PLEDGE Of ALLEGIANCE The pledge of allegiance to the flag was recited by the Council, Staff and those present. · REPORT ON CLOSED SESSION ACTION Mayor Lockhart advised that no action was taken. · MAYOR'S APPOINTMENTS TO CITY COMMlSSIONS/COMMlTI'EE 7:07 p.m. 3.1 (110-30) Following Dublin's general municipal elections in November of even-numbered years, terms expire on each of the City's commissions/ committee. In response to 3 openings on the Planning Commission, 17 applications were received by the deadline. Seven applications were received in response to 3 openings on the Parks & Community Services CITY COUNCIL MINUTES VOLUME 23 REGULAR MEETING December 21,2004 PAGE 554 t-\ . \ -v Commission; four applications were received in response to 3 openings on the Heritage & Cultural Arts Commission; and seven applications were received in response to 3 openings on the Senior Center Advisory Committee. New members will be sworn into office in January. Mayor Lockhart stated we have a wonderful list of candidates and it was very difficult to make the decisions this year. Mayor Lockhart read the names of her appointments for each Board. Planning Commission - Bill Schaub, Doreen Wehrenberg and Donald Biddle. All three were present and expressed their pleasure at being selected. Parks & Community Services Commission - Sue Flores, Steven Jones and Angela Muetterties. None were present. Herita5l:e & Cultural Arts Commission - Mary Beth Acuff, Judy Lussie and Kim Halket. None were present. Senior Center Advisorv Committee - Hans Berg, Albert Edge and Luis Batiza. All three were present and stated it will be a privilege to serve. Vm. Zika thanked everybody who applied. There were outstanding resumes. It is nice to see people involved. Mayor Lockhart stated each and every person who applied received a letter. On motion of Cm. McCormick, seconded by Cm. Oravetz, and by unanimous vote, the Council confirmed the Mayor's appointments to 4 year terms expiring in December, 2008, as follows; Plannin51: Commission Donald Biddle, Doreen Wehrenberg and Bill Schaub Parks & Community Services Commission Sue Flores, Steven Jones and Angela Muetterties Heritas:e & Cultural Arts Commission Mary Beth Acuff, Judy Lussie and Kim Halket Senior Center Advisory Committee Hans Berg, Albert Edge and Luis Batiza CITY COUNCIL MINUTES VOLUME 23 REGULAR MEETING December 21, 2004 PAGE 555 CONSENT CALENDAR 7:16 p.m. Items 4.1 through 4.5 Cm. Hildenbrand pulled Item 4.1 and indicated she would abstain from voting on the December 6, 2004 minutes. On motion of Vm. Zika, seconded by Cm. McCormick, and by unanimous vote, the Council took the following actions: Approved (4.1) Minutes of Adjourned Regular Meeting of December 6 (Cm. Hildenbrand abstained), and Regular Meeting of December 7, 2004; Adopted (4.2 600-30) RESOLUTION NO. 235 - 04 APPROVING FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE UTILITY RELOCATION AGREEMENT WITH PG&E FOR THE RELOCATION OF UNDERGROUND ELECTRIC FACILITIES LOCATED WITHIN THE 1-580/SAN RAMON ROAD INTERCHANGE PROJECT LIMITS Confirmed (4.3 110-30) the appointment of Mayor Lockhart to the Alameda County Housing Authority and directed Staff to notify affected agencies; Awarded (4.4 350-20) Purchase Order in the amount of $40,388.86 to Ford of Dublin for the purchase of Fire Prevention vehicles (one light industrial Ford pickup truck and one compact style SUV); Approved (4.5 300-40) the Warrant Register in the amount of $2,450,549.23. . PUBUC HEARING AMENDMENT TO flRE FACILmES FEE 7:17 p.m. 6.1 (390-20) City Manager Richard Ambrose advised that because of a miscalculation in the Fire Facilities Fee, this item was being pulled from the agenda. It will be renoticed and placed on a future City Council agenda. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES VOLUME 23 REGlILAR MEETING December 21,2004 PAGF. 556 On motion of Cm. McCormick, seconded by Vm. Zika, and by unanimous vote, the Council withdrew this item. . SCHAEFER RANCH - REVIEW OF PROPOSED LOT RECONnGURATION CONCEPT FOR CONFORMANCE WITH VESTING TENTATIVE MAP AND RELATED APPROVALS 7:18 p.m. 8.1 (410-40) Acting City Engineer Mark Lander presented the Staff Report and advised that the Schaefer Ranch project was reconfigured to conform with regulatory permitting requirements. The proposed Lot Reconfiguration Concept that resulted from the regulatory process is now before the City Council for review to assess conformance with the Vesting Tentative Map. Schaefer Ranch has previously been granted approval of various entitlements for development of the property. The approvals include a General Plan Amendment, PD District Rezoning, Resolution approving PD Rezone General Provision, Land Use and Development Plan and Vesting Tentative Map. A Final Environmental Impact Report for the project was certified by the City Council on July 9, 1996. A Development Agreement was approved on December 1, 1998 and expires on December 31, 2006. Mr. Lander advised that the Developer and Design Consultants would not make a presentation, but would answer any questions. Taylor-Woodrow Homes is under contract to purchase the property. There will be a decrease of 165 single-family residential lots and there would be 16 instead of 14 estate lots. The proposal results in less grading on the site. EBRPD had indicated approval of the proposal. Mayor Lockhart read a statement for clarification. "Ourpurpose tonight is to hear Staff's presentation and to indicate to Staff whether the City Lòunc1l believes the Lot Reconfiguration Lòncept substantially conforms to the tentative map and thus, direct Staff to work with the applicant on the final map. We are not reconsidering the ments of the prqject, what conditions should or should not be im~ what en vironmental impacts would result from the project or any of the other issues that were dealt with when the project was approved back in 1998. Although this is not a public hearing, the City Counc1l is interested in hearing any comments from the public that relate to the purpose of tonight's meeting. \.t11en I call lOr any public comments, please remember to focus your comments on the conformity of the proposed reconfiguration of the lots with the approved tentative IT/llp. This is the only issue we can consider tonight. Because the CITY COUNCIL MINUTES VOLUME 23 REGULAR MEETING December 21,2004 PAGE 557 City Council is acting in a quasi-judicial capacity tonighl> I'd like to ask CounCllmemÅ“rs if they have had conversations with the applicants or others to indicate for the record with whom you spoke and the nature of such conversations. 77 Cm. McCormick stated she met with the developers. She saw the proposed reconfigured map and proposal. Cm. Oravetz stated exactly the same. Vm. Zika stated he has met with no one. Cm. Hildenbrand stated during her orientation she was apprised of the project but not to any detail. Mayor Lockhart reported she has also met with them to look at the reconfiguration map. Mayor Lockhart clarified that it was a previous City Council that took this project to LAFCO and approved the project. There has been considerable work on their part to work with all the agencies involved. Is this map basically in conformance? We will take every opportunity to arrange meetings with City Staff and anyone who is interested to make sure they understand this project. Cm. McCormick clarified they are not to discuss environmental concerns tonight? Mayor Lockhart stated yes, the issue at hand is does this map conform. Cm. McCormick pointed out when this was approved, we did not have a Heritage Tree Ordinance. Vm. Zika told them the homeowners may have some concerns. Mr. Lander stated the Heritage Tree Ordinance of today would not apply to this project. The test is whether the project conforms to what was in effect at that time. Cm. Oravetz pointed out the fact that the affordable housing 12 Yz% requirement also doesn't apply. Mr. Lander stated what they have to determine is whether this falls within the sphere of approvals in effect back in 1998. The developer does have entitlements. Since the lots have been reconfigured, is this the same project that was looked at in 1 998? CITY COUNCIL MINlJTES VOLUME 23 REGULAR MEETING December 21,2004 PAGE 558 City Attorney Elizabeth Silver explained the process. When a project comes before the City, the City Council approves an amendment to the General Plan which approved a project of this nature and shortly thereafter approved rezoning and then tentative map. At that time, the Council imposes conditions to make sure there are appropriate mitigation measures. After that, the developer then goes back and does homework to satisfy all the conditions of approvaL One condition was the applicant had to go to state and federal regulatory agencies and get permits. This process took several years. As a result of this they come back to say they need to reconfigure lots somewhat based on the regulatory agencies. It is not unusual for a final map to differ from a tentative map. The legislature allows the city to approve a final map substantially in conformance with the tentative map. Typically a City Engineer makes this determination. If the Council does not make this determination, they have to list their findings. This is not the issue before the City Council tonight. Regarding the Heritage Tree Ordinance, they looked at this several months ago, but there are conditions that will require them to meet requirements similar to what's in the Heritage Tree Ordinance. Vm. Zika asked if the City Engineer can determine, why didn't he do this? Why is this before the City Council? Ms. Silver stated it takes a lot of time and money to prepare a Final Map and before they took this step, Staff felt it was good to get a read from the City CounciL Staff believes that the lot reconfiguration final map can be found to be in substantial conformance. Rob Yohai, representing the ownership group of Schaefer Ranch, stated he has been working on this since May 1988. This is a much evolved plan. Steve Cox stated he was coming as homeowners association president of CA Highlands again requesting notice and to ask when will they have someone on Staff to answer questions. Mr. Lander responded as the project moves into final design, a senior level engineer will act as project manager and he will also be available. Mr. Ambrose clarified that all that will come back to the City Council is a final map. Mayor Lockhart stated she felt what might be more effective is to get liaison contact information going. She suggested that residents give their name and contact information to Mr. Lander and he will contact them. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES VOLUME 23 REGULAR MEETING December 21,2004 PAGE 559 Linda Howard stated she is one of the original residents of CA Highlands. Things have really changed in our community. Is there not a method for them to be heard? They have valid concerns. They need some help on this. They came several weeks ago and tonight and are told they can't talk. Even though it's approved, we have to think of 2005. Mayor Lockhart stated having a liaison with Public Works will be good. We are all limited because this has already been approved. There were residents that actually worked with the developer toward improving the project. This project was not approved in a vacuum. It went before LArco and it went to a Planning Commission consisting of 5 residents of our City. She suggested that perhaps the liaison could pull some of this historical information together. Mr. Landers will be the contact to work with homeowners to answer questions. Scott Menard, with Taylor-Woodrow Homes stated he would also be happy to work with Mr. Landers and address concerns. Gary Paris stated he has been a resident for 8 years at CA Highlands, which is the last development on Dublin Boulevard. They were told that the Schaefer Ranch was a dead issue several years ago. Recently, they have found that their peace and quiet is again in danger. They don't look forward to heavy equipment cutting through the road and new and existing residents traveling on the street to avoid 1-580. Increased traffic noise will be 300 to 600 times what it is now to those residents closest to Dublin Boulevard. What will be the impact to deer being killed? Does the City care about their property rights or only interested in increased revenue? Judy Mahr, a CA Highlands resident stated she was in Phoenix and visited a wonderful development, Verado, which was very well planned. They have an idea we could all look at. She has issues with a tree concern. They live in a very sheltered canyon with lots of trees. Some of the trees are 100 years old. Replanting will not make it the same as it is now. Changing the landscape is a big issue. In Verado, they required that the developer create their own overpass and it was of no impact to neighboring areas. When can they say they want Dublin Boulevard to end and not go forward? Mayor Lockhart stated that issue has already been approved and this is not a matter for discussion at this point. That was approved in 1998. Dublin Boulevard will go through. Questions can go through our liaison with Staff and the developer. They have been very receptive. We are looking at a much larger open space area, trails, access for residents to tie into EBRPD land and opportunities which residents don't currently have. It is important now that there is a plan to take advantage of this liaison with the homeowners association to see what we are trying to accomplish. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES VOLUME 23 REGULAR MEETING December 21,2004 PAGE 560 The Developer Agreement was approved in 1998 and expires in 2006. Mayor Lockhart indicated they have come back within the timeframe and as citizens we can now provide input and concerns on the project itself. As far as changing or rejectins what has already been approved, we don't have that opportunity. Kathy Leonard, resident of CA Highlands, challenged the City Council to look at this. She felt the plan has changed because of the layout of lots and grading. Time changes and Dublin has changed. Why do we have to stay stagnant in certain environmentally sensitive areas that we cannot be progressive and look at these issues? We need to accept the challenge that we are a different town now. The people who voted on this may not even live here now. The City Council needs to give the residents a voice and opportunity to look at this now. Kevin Young stated he agreed with other residents that the plan has changed and should be reviewed carefully. We should take issue with sculpted hills as these are fluff words. Developers are not concerned with our quality of life. Traffic and environmental are big concerns. Let's do the right thing now. Yes, it has been approved since 1998, but their application expires in 2006. Let's looks very carefully at this for 3 years. Mayor Lockhart stated this group has been working with the conservation agencies during the last few years. They had City approval, but they had to get environmental approvals. They have all agreed that this is a strong environmental plan. They look very harshly at plans. They were addressed with current standards. Mr. Cox stated the developer never worked with the homeowners association; they just heard of this 2 months ago. They want to minimize impacts on their way of life. Richard Tobasco stated in 1998 there were not nearly the residents that are there now. How can you figure out how you are going to get 1000 residents in and out if you don't have some type of access off the freeway? We have to look at access to the property based on who is here today, not in 1998. There is a huge traffic jam just getting up to the school. Mayor Lockhart advised that these are questions that have been dealt with. It takes a long time to plan and build. The General Plan, including the number of houses planned were discussed when this project was approved. She suggested they get the minutes of the meetings which took place; many people had the same concerns. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES VOLUME 23 REGULAR MEETING December 21, 2004 PAGF. 561 Cm. McCormick asked when traffic studies were done initially were they projected out? Mr. Lander addressed this and stated what was reviewed was a worst case situation. We looked at 465 lots initially. Cm. McCormick stated the Staff Report talks about 27 acres of trees which will be lost but 1500 to 1900 will be planted. Will there be a net loss or gain? Mr. Lander stated if you compare a newly planted tree for first 100 years it is a loss. Initially we will lose 7 acres, but will plant 28 acres, plus we gained additional off site and trees will be protected under perpetuity. Mr. Ambrose pointed out the Machado property is located right next to this site and they can go and cut their trees today if they want. This property would be placed under a conservation easement if the project moves forward. Mr. Lander stated we gain protection plus adding trees and preserving undisturbed habitat. Cm. McCormick discussed grading, which was originally to be in Marshall Canyon and now it is in 3 places. Mr. Lander stated the permits have been obtained. The agencies felt that Marshall Canyon provides the most substantial benefit. There is little habitat value in the 3 ravine areas because they go nowhere. The regulatory agencies made this decision. There will be no habitat loss to the site. Cm. Oravetz discussed soundwalls; soundwalls sometimes create a problem. He stated when he purchased his home in 1988, they were the end of the line and Dougherty Road was only two lanes. About 2 years later, San Ramon built homes and he now has 13,000 homes to his left. Things change; that's California. He encouraged them to work with City Staff. Vm. Zika pointed out that members of the City Council who voted for this with one Assemblyman exception, still live in Dublin. If Staff says this is in substantial compliance and the City Council says it's not, this opens the City to substantial litigation. We thought the project died, but they've gotten the necessary environmental permits. He has no reason to not vote for substantial compliance. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES VOLUME 23 REGULAR MEETING December 21, 2004 rAGE 562 Cm. Hildenbrand stated she felt the additional open space is a benefit to everyone in the community. We're moving a park to a more centrally located area. There are very few parks on the west side. We are looking at a lower density on housing, 451 to 302 and no changes to the day care or commercial. She stated she too will vote to approve this. Cm. McCormick stated she looked at this carefully and it is probably in compliance. In a perfect world, she stated there would be no Schaefer Ranch and further, in her perfect world, there would also be no CA Highlands. Our City is growing. She also stated she doesn't want to put down a former City Council. On motion of Mayor Lockhart, seconded by Cm. Oravetz, and by unanimous vote, the Council determined that the Lot Reconfiguration Plan is consistent with the PD Zoning and the Land Use and Development Plan and directed Staff to continue working with the developer to prepare a Final Map consistent with the Lot Reconfiguration Concept. . OTIIER BUSINESS 8:31 p.m. The entire Council wished happy holidays to all. Mayor Lockhart advised that she will be giving the State of the City address on January 12th. . ADJOURNMENT 11.1 There being no further business to come before the Council, the meeting was adjourned at 8:33 p.m. Mayor AITEST: City Clerk ~ CITY·COUNCIL MINUTF.S VOLUME 23 REGULAR MEETING December 21, 2004 PAGE 563