Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC MInutes 04-17-1995 Study Session ~ . ~ ~ ~ Regular Meeting - April 17, 1995 A Study Session Meeting of the City of Dublin Planning Commission was held on Monday, April 17, 1995, in the Dublin Civic Center City Council Chambers. The meeting was called to order at 7:30 by Commissioner Zika. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Zika, Geist, Jennings, Johnson, and Lockhart; Laurence L. Tong, Planning Director; Carol Cirelli, Senior Planner; Tasha Huston, Associate Planner, and Gaylene Burkett, Recording Secretary. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG Cm. Zika led the Commission, Staff, and those present in the pledge of allegiance to the flag. ADDITIONS OR REVISIONS TO THE AGENDA The minutes of the March 20, 1995, meeting were approved as submitted with one typo correction. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS None PUBLIC HEARING None NEW OR UNFINISHED BUSINESS 9 1 PA 95-007 Hansen Ranch Phase II-Study Session The a~licant is rec~uesting annroval of a General Plan Amendment, Planned Development PD Rezoning, and Tentative Map Amendment to Phase II of the a~roved Tentative Map The project involves approximatel,y 2 4 acres of land (overalll redesignated from o~en space to residential land use with 16 homesites relocated into an Oak/Bay woodland area, on the 147+ acre Hansen Hill Ranch project site Public comment welcome. Commissioner Zika indicated that this was a study session and asked for the staff report. Tasha Huston, Associate Planner, presented the staff report. She briefly outlined the proposed project. She used the overhead projector to show the area previously designated as open space. Ms. Huston outlined various options available to the Commission. She outlined the Planning Commission's role for the study session and asked for questions from the Commissioners. Regular Meeting 33 April 17, 1995 {4-17pcmin} Cm. Zika asked if the Fish and Game De ~ent and East Ba Re ional Parks had been notified. P Y g Ms. Huston answered Staff had contacted the Fish and Game Deparrinent; however, due to staffmg problems they had not gotten back to Staff yet and East Bay Regional Parks had not responded to date. Mr. Johnson asked about the road in Phase II and would there be a lot of grading in that area and how many trees would be removed. Ms. Huston showed on the map the approved grading area and indicated the areas where trees would be removed on the current approved plan and the new proposed plan. Approximately 6 1/2 additional acres of trees would be saved and 3 1/2 additional acres of trees would be destroyed, for a net savings of 3 acres of trees. Cm. Zika asked if the Applicant wanted to speak. Marti Buxton, representing California Pacific Homes, gave an outline of the proposed changes. She stated they needed to know what would be approved in Phase II before they started building Phase I, because of the tremendous start up costs in order for the project to be financially feasible. She stated one of their goals was to cut down on grading and reduce the cost. She stated the streets would not have as steep of a grade and that they had to consider an earthquake fault that was not previously shown on the map. Ms. Buxton stated that the current (old) plan had 19 custom lots, and now they had all production lots that would all be built at the same time, maintaining the same number of lots. She emphasized that the grading had to take place in order to put in the road. It was a requirement to place a loop road in for fire and police which would require grading, but they were not grading a lot over and beyond what was required by them. They were also required to place a stub street in. She stated they shifted lots in order not to build expensive crib walls. She referred to page 5 of 10, Attachment 2 in the staff report, showing the difference in acres and grading. She introduced their land use attorney. Cm. Zika asked why some of the previously approved lots were not going to be built on. Ms. Buxton stated that when they shifted some of the lots over due to the newly discovered earthquake fault, there was not enough room for the previously approved lots. Greg Caligary, Law firm of Morrison and Foerster, addressed the Commission on the proposed project. He stated they felt the staff report presented a strict interpretation of the General Plan. He felt the General Plan policies were open to interpretations and levels of consistency. He stated the Planning Commission must balance the issues and the project must be compatible with the applicable plan, not in exact compliance. He quoted court case verbiage on cases that supported his theory. He pointed out areas of the staff report that could be interpreted differently. Cm. Lockhart asked Staff for their interpretation of Mr. Caligary's explanation. Ms. Huston stated Staff's interpretation was based on significant research into the history of this project and the previous EIR. Staff had made General Plan Policy interpretations based on Resolution adopted by the City Council in 1989, and page 3 of the 1989 GPA Resolution (attached to the staff report), gets into General Plan Policies that were related to the project and adopted for this project. Mr. Tong stated that was a correct summarization of what action the City Council took in 1989. Cm. Jennings asked Cm. Zika to recall what he thought the reason was for the roads through the open space area. Cm. Zika stated, as far as he remembered, the road was required for public safety to provide two exits for police and fire. Cm. Jennings asked Mr. Caligary to address the modification to the General Plan under his alternative options. Mr. Caligary stated it was Planning Staffls interpretation that the four policies would have to be revised or amended and he did not agree that the project, as proposed, was inconsistent with the four General Plan policies. Cm. Lockhart asked Mr. Caligary about the previous approval that states they are to prohibit development within designated open space areas except that designed to enhance public safety. Mr. Caligary stated that was the reason they felt they had to process the General Plan Amendment which would redesignate the area from open space to single family residential. Cm. Jennings asked Staff if the old Resolution would have to be revised and readopted. Cm. Zika asked if they would have to make finding in order to justify the change. Ms. Huston stated yes. Cm. Zika asked Mr. Caligary what court case he was referring ta Regular Meeting 34 April 17, 1995 {4-17pcmin} Mr. Caligary outlined the court case, and st'afed why there were inconsistencies with a General Plan. Cm. Zika asked Mr. Caligary if he felt an amended EIR was unnecessary. Mr. Caligary stated they were relying on the previous ~IR and would need to prepare an addendum if there were any impacts that would result from the new proposal that were not previously addressed. Cm. Zika asked Staff if they would have to prepare a new EIR . Ms. Huston stated the previous EIR was certified based on the mitigations and the General Plan policies. If there was a change, the policies may not apply, and new mitigations would have to be developed. Cm. Johnson asked if there was going to be less tree removal and less grading, wouldn't it then be considered a better project. Ms. Huston stated not necessarily, due to differences in habitat value, and we were still waiting for comments from the Fish and Game Department. Mr. Caligary stated that the redesignated lot area was not going to be left in its natural state as approved now, and they would be revegetating newly graded areas except on the reconfigured lots. Cm. Johnson asked about the original custom lots. Ms. Buxton indicated on the map where the custom lots were going to be. She stated that 10 additional lots that were requested in the open space area were denied by the City Council. She gave reasons why the City Council denied the previous approval for the project before with the open space designation. She pointed out on page 20 of 22 of Attachment 4, it was not the project that was previously approved. They had approval of up to 225 units, and as the project was proposed now, it was more in keeping with the neighborhood as it is now. Marjorie LaBar, 11707 Juarez Lane, stated she was here in 1987 when the previous project was proposed. She stated they ended up fighting for every tree and inch of open space. She stated that there were trade offs that took place, and that the project was reconfigured to leave the creek alone. The riparian habitat was protected by the General Plan and should stay that way, send the developer back to the drawing board to redesign and leave the riparian habitat alone. Island habitats do not work and the quality of the habitat would be poor. She questioned the statement made by Ms. Buxton that grading for a street mysteriously created more lots. She said the reason for custom lots was that each one would have to be approved and would have to come before the Planning Commission, whereas now they had 16 factory lots. She stated they had worked hard to save the corridor. Mr. Lockhart asked Ms. LaBar to indicated the sensitive area on the map. Ms. LaBar indicated on the map the area she was referring to and stated that the previous EIR addressed a totally different project than that of the proposed project now. Doug Abbott, 8206 Rhoda Ave., stated he felt there was not enough open space in Phase 2, and felt the developer should not be able to redesignate the open space. Mr. Lockhart asked Mr. Abbott if he felt the trade-off of removing less tress and less grading was fair. Mr. Abbott stated he had not seen enough evidence to indicate that. John Anderson, Dublin resident, stated that our guidelines established a certain quality and standard of living for the residents of Dublin. In 1987, this issue of homes in the sensitive area was ruled out, not mitigated, but ruled out by duly appointed representatives of the City. He stated he felt there were 6 elements of change that need to be addressed; 1) what is the trade-off in tree loss; 2)the habitat loss; 3) changes in elevation; 4) grading changes; 5) the visual impact; and 6) the amount of open space. He also spoke about other proposals in the west, and the citizens did make their position known, and did speak their mind on how they felt. Ed Skubic on Hansen Drive, asked if the discovery of the earthquake fault was something new. Staff indicated yes. Mr. Skubic asked if the earthquake would effect Phase I, and would there be any more testing for earthquakes in Phase I. Ms. Buxton indicated that was how they found the new fault through more soils tests. Mr. Skubic suggested Staff contact the City of Lafayette on a landslide problem they had. Ms. Huston pointed out on the map the area east of the road near the project's western property boundary where the fault was discovered. ~I Regular Meeting 35 April 17, 1995 I! {4-17pcmin} David Buely, Brittany Lane, stated he was~ot here through all the past history of the projec•is concern was if there were changes to the General Plan, they work to weaken the previous passages that were approved to protect the riparian habitat. He felt that if the project were reviewed today, the project would have more concerns. He was impressed that there would be more trees staying, but questioned whether that would be environmentally significant. He felt the citizens are due their say, and their concerns should be given much weight. If people fought hard to save environmental areas, then it was incumbent on those in power to review that. If Phase II were turned down, what would the developer do. Cm. Zika stated in order to get higher density, there would have to be townhouses and condos, and that was discussed previously, and people would start to come forward to protest that proposal. He remembered that people did not want to increase density. Mr. Buely asked if the developer could still request 225 units if Phase II were not passed. Cm. Zika indicated if denied, the developer had several options and it would be up to them to decide what course of action they would take. Mr. Buely asked if the project would survive without the 16 additional houses. He felt the General Plan was a guideline and the document was meant to preserve open space and if gaining more trees was a benefit, it should require further investigation as documentation to this fact. Tom Ford, 7262 Tina Place, stated he did not oppose the plan; however, as Vice President of the Briarwood Homeowner Association they had concerns over the lack of open space and not having a park in that area, except for what they support themselves. He wondered if some of the $400,000 impact fees could be put back in to the area and to meet their requirements. He offered other alternatives to the proposal. His concern was that the impact fees would go into the treasury and possibly be used for other projects and the money would not be there for parks in their area. He stated if you don't have a place to put your recreation, you don't have recreation. Cm. Zika stated that Briarwood not having a park was the blame of the County, and it was too late in the game far Mr. Ford's proposal. Mr. Tong stated that this proposal does not indicate a park, but does propose a trail system which meets the Parks and Recreation Master Plan. At this point, several audience members asked questions from their chairs and did not address the Commission formally, therefore the names of the audience participants are not known in every case. Mr. Ford indicated they were adding open space in the Briarwood area, but it was not good recreation play area. Cm. Zika suggested that Mr. Ford address the Parks and Recreation Commission and see what they could do. Mr. Ford felt that people would not object to multiples or duets in that area. Cm. Zika thanked him for his input. An audience member asked where the stub roads would be. Cm. Zika indicated on the map where the stub roads would be. T'he same audience members asked the average size lot on Phase II. Ms. Huston stated 7,700, as approved. Ms. Buxton addressed some of the concerns of the speakers and said the park impact fees will be paid at the time Phase II was built. She stated there was 320 feet between the houses leading to the open space. She stated that they were not and never were in the riparian corridor. The 16 lots are not visible and in an area that would have been graded anyway. She felt the project enhances the ~ quality of life and would have a nice hiking trail. I Ms. Huston stated that the Applicant incorrectly stated that they would be staying out of the riparian area, and she showed a map to the Commissions where the riparian corridor was. A person from the audience asked what was there before, and how it affected the riparian corridor. Mr. Buely asked if the area he had indicated would be changed no matter what and would there be a road there and if the trees would be removed anyway. Ms. Buxton indicated that was correct. Regular Meeting 36 April 17, 1995 {4-17pcmin} Ms. LaBar suggested a redesign to Staff an~e developer to leave an easement for the road~t not build it until development is approved on the adjacent property: rather than building the road through the riparian corridor. Eight of the 161ots could be relocated. Cm. Zika asked what happened if Mr. Nielsen did not get his road. Mr. Thompson indicated that Mr. Nielsen wanted the road, and the only other way for him to get out would be through a narrow easement. Cm. Zika stated they could not landlock people. Mr. Buely asked how Mr. Nielsen had access now. Ms. Buxton stated that the stub roads were required. Cm. Zika remembered that the roads were a non-negotiable item. Cm. Zika asked how many feet between houses were needed for animals for a refuge. Ms. LaBar stated that if you added 100 feet, it would be closer to the 500 foot standard Oakland uses. Cm. Johnson stated that opening the area does not necessarily solve the issue, and that the arange area on the map was the area that they were not going to grade, and the area they are talking about will be graded anyway. Cm. Johnson asked what animals other than deer would get back there. He felt all the other animals were still present among the existing hill development, except deer, and they usually get to where they want to be. Ms. LaBar stated that if the plans are going to change, they may as well change for the better. Cm. Zika asked what the Staff wanted from the Commissioners. Mr. Tong stated that there were a number of issues that Staff could look into and what other items did the Commissioners want Staff to elaborate on. Cm. Zika stated the Commission would need to know what the Fish and Game Department had to say about the project; where the houses were going to be and what the impact was on the corridor; how wide of a gate area was needed for the animals to have proper access to the island habitat; was Marjorie's suggestion feasible or not; what kind of commitments were made between Mr. Nielsen and the City; and what problems might be caused to him if he was only given an easement; if project was redesigned, from the City Attorney's standpoint, would that be considered a major change to the EIR and what would happen, he would like another attorney's opinion. Cm. Jennings asked for Staff to explain what £mdings the Commissioners would have to make in order to justify the inconsistencies and what does it entail in order to make the fmdings. Mr. Buely asked if the Commissioners have the authority to suggest modifications to the plan as submitted by the developer. Cm. Zika stated they could make any changes they felt appropriate. The Planning Commission would then make a recommendation to the City Council. Cm. Zika stated he would encourage everyone to come back to the May 15L meeting and then to attend the City Council meeting on May 8~'. Cm. Zika then ended the Study Session. OTHER BUSINESS Mr. Tong informed the Commissioners that at the next City Council meeting on Apri124`~', the Council will consider the 2°d reading of the Subdivision Ordinance amendments regarding vesting Tentative Maps.. Cm. Zika mentioned two Budget trucks were parked at Circuit City. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 9:58 p.m. Regular Meeting 37 April 17, 1995 {4-17pcmin} ~ Res ectfull submitted ~ P Y ~ ~ , .t: < Planning Commission irperson ATTEST: ~ Laurence L. Tong, Planning Directar Due to a power shortage at the beginning of the meeting, the tapes for this meeting are on several tapes labeled accordingly. I Regular Meeting 38 April 17, 1995 {4-17pcmin}