Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Minutes 01-17-1995 . ~ i'w"~cl ~ ~ 'E Regular Meeting - January 17, 1995 A regular meeting of the City of Dublin Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, January 17, 1995, in the Dublin Civic Center City Council Chambers. The meeting was called to order at 7:37 by Commissioner North. . ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Zika, Burnham, Geist, and North; Laurence L. Tong; Planning Director; Elizabeth Silver, City Attorney; Dennis Carrington, Senior Planner; Carol Cirelli, Senior Planner; Jeri Ram, Associate Planner; Tasha Huston, Associate Planner and Gaylene Burkett, Recording Secretary. Absent: Commissioner Rafanelli PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG Cm. North 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 January 3, 1995, meeting were approved as submitted. ORAL COMIVIUNICATIONS Subject: 6.1 Election of Officers (,continued from 1-3-95 meetingl. Cm. North continued this item until the next meeting. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS None PUBLIC HEARING I SUBJECT: 8.1 PA 94-001 Santa Rita Commercial Center Rezone and ~ronosed Negative ' I Declaration rec~uest to rezone 75+ acres from Planned Develo~ment - Business Park/Industrial (,low coverage) to a standard Planned Develonment. This project ! has a S~ecific Plan Designation of General Commercial The ~ro.~osed Planned Development would allow for an 800,000+ square foot commercial center which may include retail stores offices, movie theaters and restaurants, among other uses The ~roiect is located at the southeast corner of the intersection of Dublin Boulevard and Hacienda Drive A Develo~ment A~reement between the Citv of Dublin, Homart Develonment Com~any and Alameda CountX Surplus Pro~ertv Authority is part of the ~roject The Development A~reement contains nrovisions that include but are not limited to,,.~roiect and infrastructure phasing and traffic, noise and nublic facilities impact fees (continued from 1-3-951 Regular Meeting PCM-1995- 12 January 17, 1995 [1-17min] i . . ~ , ~ ~ Cm. North opened the public hearing and asked for the staff report. Jeri Ram, Associate Planner, presented the staff report. She reviewed the December 19, 1994 and January 3, 1995, agenda statements. Ms. Ram stated that Staff recommended that the Planning Commission recommend the City Council approve the Mitigated Negative Declaration, Response to Comments, Mitigation Monitoring Program, Rezone to a General Commercial Planned Development and Development Agreement. She further indicated that Staff would like to add two additional Conditions of Approval to the PD Rezone Resolution which was Exhibit D from the December 19, 1994, Agenda Statement. Ms. Ram read the new conditions number 36 and 37 for the record. Ms. Ram recommended that the Planning Commission adopt Exhibit C from the December 19, 1994 staff report, Resolution recommending that the City Council certify the Mitigated Negative Declaration and adopt the j Mitigation Monitoring Program; adopt E~ibit D from the December 19, 1994, staff report, Resolution, ' recommending City Council approval of Planned Development Rezoning with the addition of conditions number 36 and 37 as noted; adopt E~ibit D from the January 3, 1995, staff report, Resolution, recommending City Council approval of the Development Agreement. Also, if the Planning Commission so desired recommend that the Ci Council su ort in conce t the re aration of a , tY PP , p, P P Greenway Study along Tassajara Creek and recommend that the City Council support continuing to work with the East Bay Regional Park District on trails consistent with the City's Parks and Recreation Master Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan. Ms. Ram asked if the Planning Commissioners had any questions of Staff. Cm. Zika asked about the Fiscal Study. He wanted to know what occupancy rate and what years were used to project the amount of sales tax per square foot. Laurence Tong, Planning Director, referred Cm. Zika to page 3 of the staff report. He indicated that Staff had contacted Mr. Steve Spickard of ERA, the consultant who prepared the Fiscal Analysis, and discussed the issues raised with him. Mr. Spickard had indicated that the method used to determine the taxable sales per square foot were based on the regional competition, the transfer of sales from other businesses within the City and the vacancy rates. The largest factor used to indicate the discounting was the regional competition. The vacancy rate used were in the range of 5-10%, which were comparable to other projects of this nature. The retail sales tax capture rate was comparable to the convention used in other similar types of sales projections. Cm. Zika asked if there was a base year. Mr. Tong stated the base year for retail sales and vacancy rate were based on fiscal year 1995-1996, for the first Phase of operation and then the rates were projected out from there. Cm. Zika asked if the vacancy rate in Dublin was only 5-10%. Mr. Tong indicated that is was closer to 10°/a Ms. Ram stated that the 5-10% vacancy rate that were used in the fiscal analysis was based on similar centers to the Homart project. Cm. Zika asked if the study to determine the vacancy rate of these similar centers was based on the Tri- Valley area, the Valley area or the whole world. Ms. Ram indicated she did not know. Regular Meeting PCM-1995- 13 January 17, 1995 [1-17min] o ~ ~ • Cm. Zika expressed concern that this project not cost the City of Dublin money. His concern was that he had seen discount centers throughout the Valley that are empty or half full and that we were building mega-square footage Centers and wondered where we were going to get the tenants to fill the project. Cm. Zika also asked about the change on paragraph 26, "Status", in the Development Agreement. Elizabeth Silver, City Attorney, indicated that there was one new paragraph that was added to the Development Agreement after the packets were distributed on Thursday. The new paragraph 26 relating to status was added at the request of Homart. The paragraph provides that if a prospective purchaser or lender for either the County or Homart wanted to know the status of the County's obligations or Homart's obligations under the Development Agreement, that the City would, in writing, inform the prospective lender or purchaser of the status of the obligations. In other words, how far along was the Developer or the County with respect to completing one of their obligations under the Development Agreement. She stated that the other items that the Commissioners received that night were E~chibit Al and E~ibit A2 which were maps. Exhibit Al was a map of the development location and E~ibit A2 was a map of the vicinity showing ~he property and its location in relationship to the rest of the City. Cm. Zika inquired about the 10 year Development Agreement term. He wanted to know what would happen if the project were not completed in 10 years. Ms. Silver indicated that the Agreement would terminate at the end of 10 years Cm. Zika asked if the 10 years were to lapse and Phase II were not completed and the Developer applied for a new application, would he then be subject to additional fees, if the fees had gone up by then. Ms. Silver indicated yes, once the Development Agreement terminates, the Developer would be subject to whatever fees were in effect at the time. Cm. North asked about paragraph 30 where it stated that the Agreement may be executed in three separate counterparts, he asked what the three counterparts were. Mr. Silver stated that it meant three copies so that there would be an original copy for each of the three parties. Cm. North asked about the last paragraph of the staff report where it states, in Response to Comments raised at the January 3, meeting, the City had prepared a Fiscal Analysis. He wanted to know if that Fiscal Analysis was prepared specifically in response to Mr. DiManto's comments. Mr. Tong stated that it was intended to indicate that the Fiscal Analysis that was prepared was for the overall General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan. Cm. North stated that the way the staff report was worded, it seemed to indicate that there was a new or updated Fiscal Analysis. Mr. Tong clarified that a new or updated Fiscal Analysis was not prepared in response to the comments raised at the January 3, 1995, meeting and that Staff should change the syntax of that paragraph. He further indicated that the November 3, 1994, Fiscal Analysis was specific to the Homart project and Eastern Dublin annexation Regular Meeting PCM-1995- 14 January 17, 1995 [1-17min] e • « • ~ ~ Cm. North asked if the only updates were on page three of the staff report. Mr. Tong answered yes. Cm. North stated that he would continue the public hearing and asked how many people wished to speak on this item. Mr. John DiManto, Dublin Land Company, indicated that the Commissioners had a copy of his comments and notes from the last meeting and asked the Commissioners if they had any questions. He ~ indicated that his comments applied to east of Tassajara Road, so that his targeting was on the County property in particular. He asked Staff, through the Chair, that following the anticipation of the rezoning approval, what happened architecturally, what controls does the Commission or Council have and what process would this project go through. He felt that if the conceptual idea gained momentum without any challenge to its architectural wonder, Mr. DiManto asked what rights the public would have for input. Cm. North stated that the Planning Commission would make only a recommendation to the City Council and that Council would hear the item at least two times. Mr. Tong indicated that the process set forth in City policy would provide that the next level of review, which would be the Tentative Map, would be processed by Staff and be finaled by Staff unless appealed. The Specific Plan also sets forth design guidelines which will be used to evaluate the plans. Cm. North indicated that there would be at least one more process before the project actually starts. Cm. North asked Staff if anyone could appeal the Site Development Review or if only the individual submitting it could appeaL Mr. Tong indicated that anyone could appeal according to the provisions in the Zoning Ordinance. Mr. DiManto asked if he could receive a written response from Staff on his comments. Cm. Burnham stated that in Mr. DiManto's comments, number 7 about a scaled model, was premature. Mr. DiManto stated that was why he asked what the process would be and at what time would it be proper to request a scale model. Cm. Burnham reiterated that this project at this stage would be in concept only, and that the size, shape and color had nothing to do with the Commissions' decision that night. Mr. DiManto expressed concern that he and other land owners had attended meetings for seven years and had been a party to conceptual guidelines and architectural requirements. This project would be a flag ship and model for what they would be required to comply with. Mr. Tong clarified that the project would not necessarily need a Tentative Subdivision Map, instead might require a Tentative Parcel Map. A Tentative Parcel Map could be acted upon by Staff and not necessarily need to come before the Planning Commission unless it was appealed. Cm. Zika asked if it would be possible that the Planning Commission would not have this project come before them again. Regular Meeting PCM-1995- 15 January 17, 1995 [1-17min] ` ' ~ ~ Mr. Tong indicated that was correct. Cm. North asked if once the City Council acted on the project, then it would not come before City Council again. Mr. Tong indicated that was also correct. Ms. Marjorie LaBar asked for clarification that if the Planning Commission would not be hearing this project again, would City Council be reviewing in a Public Hearing format, the final Site design of the project. Mr. Tong indicated that through the process that had been set forth in City policies, guidelines and the Specific Plan, the additional details can be finaled at the Staff level, unless appealed. If they are appealed, they would go before the Planning Commission, and if the Planning Commission decision were appealed, then it would go before the City Council. Without appeal, it would not have to go through the public hearing process. Ms. LaBar asked how the public would be notified when the Parcel Map would be filed. Mr. Tong stated that there would be public noticing, but there would not necessarily be a public hearing. Ms. LaBar stated that she felt that this would be a dangerous precedent because the project is the first in a massive Eastern Dublin Development, and that the public would not be insured that the final design and design perimeters such as signage and other things that had been discussed, would go through the same process. Mr. Tong indicated that the speaker and any member of the public could participate by attending or providing comments based upon the public notice and the process had been utilized for the past five years very successfully. Cm. North asked if anyone else wished to comment. Hearing none, he closed the public hearing and asked the Commissioners for their comments. Cm. Zika commented that with other projects such as Burger King, the Commission looked at colors, concepts and three dimensional designs; and for the Eastern Dublin Plan, there was a large mock-up of where the homes would go, but on this project with 800,000 square feet at the entrance to the City, that the Commission would not have a chance to hear public input concerned him. Cm. North clarified that when Burger King came in for a Site Development Review, they were going to completely change the property around. Cm. North's perception was that the colors being used were secondary to getting the building approved and that they were not required to bring in the color scheme, although they did. He indicated that the Commission did review a lot in the Specific Plan in regards to design guidelines, how wide the sidewalks had to be, and what the setbacks had to be. Cm. Burnham indicated that he felt the Commission was talking about an entirely different process, and that what was up for review was the concept. He stated that Burger King was not a concept, rather it was a food establishment and the Commission did not have to review whether Burger King should or should not be built. Regular Meeting PCM-1995- 16 January 17, 1995 [1-17min] . , • ! Cm. Burnham stated he did not have a problem with the development going there or the contractor doing the job, but had a problem with the County doing the job. Cm. Burnham asked Mr. Tong who would be ~ inspecting the project. Mr. Tong answered that the County and the City had an agreement whereby the City would be doing all of the building inspections and public works inspections. The County would be acting as a property owner and would be paying all of the processing fees and making all the improvements, in terms of infrastructure as well as studies, that are necessary for this project to go forward. The studies and infrastructure would mount up to millions of dollars. Cm. Burnham stated that he was still leery. Ms. Silver clarified that the property was owned by the Surplus Property Authority for the County of Alameda which was a separate legal entity, separate and apart &om Alameda County. Although the term "County" was used in the Development Agreement, it is short for the Surplus Property Authority. The Surplus Property was not different from any other developer. Cm. Zika asked if the County Supervisors could come in and change the game. Ms. Silver stated the County Supervisors act as the Board of the Surplus Property Authority. Cm. Zika asked if the County Supervisors could get in and tinker with it. Mr. Tong stated they could not tinker with the agreement, nor could they tinker with the land uses as specified in the rezoning, nor in the specific conditions of the Development Agreement. Ms. Silver stated that the Surplus Property Authority was the same as a private property owner. Cm. Burnham clarified that he did not want a piece of property out there with the County's name on it as an island in the City of Dublin. If for any reason the property was a plus or minus, he did not want everyone pointing the finger at the City of Dublin, and not be able to do anything about it if it was owned by the County. Ms. Silver stated that the City of Dublin and the Surplus Property Authority and Alameda County has had an agreement since 1986, and the agreement was amended last year. Pursuant to that agreement, the Surplus Property Authority had agreed that the City's Zoning Ordinances were applicable to its property. Cm. North commented on the letter from the East Bay Regional Park District. When they spoke at the last meeting, they asked the City to include the trail crossing in the project until they could complete their Master Plan and the Commission discussed how long it had been in the works, and every indication indicated that it would be complete in about a year. Cm. North asked for any other questions of the Commissioners. Cm. North asked Staff for clarification of what the Commission was going to recommend approval for, because he did not see a recommended approval for the Development Agreement. Ms. Ram clarified that the Commission would be recommending approval of the Resolution recommending approval of the Development Agreement by City Council. Regular Meeting PCM-1995- 17 January 17, 1995 [1-17min] , , ~ ~ Cm. North clarified that there were two Eachibit D's, one from December 19, 1994 and one from January 3, 1995. Ms. Silver stated that the Development Agreement that staff recommended that the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council, was the one that is attached to the staff report for January 17, 1995, with the change that was passed out adding a new paragraph 26, and the two page E~ibit 1 attached to it. Cm. Zika asked if there were any differences between the Agreement approved tonight and the one that would go to the City Council. Would those sections be specifically pointed out to Council as it was for the Planing Commissioners. Ms. Silver answered yes. She indicated that throughout the process of negotiating the Development Agreement, there were a number of changes. She anticipated that there may be more minor, non- substantive changes to the language between January 17, 1995, and when the Agreement goes to the City Council. Cm. Zika moved to recommend approval of the December 19, 1994, Earhibit C, Resolution to recommend the City Council certify the Mitigated Negative Declaration and adopt the Mitigation Monitoring Program, E~ibit D, Resolution recommended the City Council approval of the Planned Development Rezoning and from the January 3, 1995 meeting, E~ibit D, Resolution recommending the City Council approve the Development Agreement. Cm. North added as amended with the pages that the Commissioners received that night. Cm. Zika asked about the two conditions they were given tonight. Ms. Ram clarified they were Conditions 36 and 37 to be added to the Conditions of Approval which were part of Exhibit D from the December 19, 1994, Agenda Statement, which was the Resolution recommending that the City Council approve the Planned Development Rezone. Cm. North also included the Planning Commission should recommend that City Council support, in concept, the preparation of a Greenway Study along Tassajara Creek, and recommend that City Council support continuing to work with the East Bay Regional Park District on trails consistent with City Parks and Recreation Master Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan. Cm. Zika agreed with the inclusion. On motion by Cm. Zika, seconded by Cm. Burnham, with a vote of 4-0, the Planning Commission adopted: RESOLUTION NO. 95-O1 RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF THE MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND ADOPT THE MITIGATION MO1vITORING PROGRAM FOR PA 94- 001, THE SANTA RITA COMMERCIAL CENTER PROJECT. Regular Meeting PCM-1995- 18 January 17, 1995 [1-17min] . , • . RESOLUTION NO. 95-02 RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL AND ESTABLISfIING FINDINGS AND GENERAL PROVISIONS FOR A PD, PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REZONING CONCERNING PA 94-001, SANTA RITA COMMERCIAL CENTER RESOLUTION NO. 95-03 RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF PA 94-001 SANTA RITA COMMERCIAL CENTER PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT Cm. North declared a 5 minute recess. PUBLIC HEARINGS 8.2 PA 94-054 Hansen Ranch Tentative Map and Develonment Agreement Amendment A re~uest far limited amendments to Phase I of the a~roved Tentative Ma~ and Tentative Map Conditions (Tract 57661 and the a~roved Develo~ment Agreement for the Hansen Hill Ranch ~roject. The limited amendments requested involve a change in ~ad elevations, minor lot and street adjustments, reduction in the width of the creek access road from 12 feet to 8 feet~nroviding an access road on the north side of the creek. and amendments to various conditions of a~roval related to the requested chan~es. Cm. North reconvened the meeting and asked for the staff report. Tasha Huston, Associate Planner, presented the staff report. The presentation included discussion of several letters of comments received from the public concerning the project. The main issues raised in the letters included;l) additional traffic in the neighborhood, especially on Silvergate Drive; 2) dirt from construction work; 3) school impacts; 4) impacts on wild life and 5) the annexation and development of this property. Staff also received a letter from the Applicant presenting their position with regard to the staff report and requested revisions to several Conditions of Approval for the project. Ms. Huston briefly outlined the issues in the Applicant's letter. Ms. Huston concluded her staff report presentation with Staffls recommendation that the Planning Commission adopt the Resolution approving the Negative Declaration; that the Planning Commission adopt the Resolution recommending City Council approval of the Tentative Map Amendment and that the Planning Commission adopt the Resolution recommending City Council approval of the Development Agreement Amendment. Ms. Huston asked the Commission if they had any questions. Cm. Zika asked about the need for the access road on the north side of the creek west of Martin Canyon Road, he indicated that it was not needed before but is necessary now due to the fact that the size of the road on the south side would be reduced from 12 feet to 8 feet. Ms. Huston indicated that was correct. The main reasons were for the large equipment needed for maintenance and in the event of an emergency. Cm. Zika asked if it were necessary to have 12 feet of access road on at least one side of the creek. Regular Meeting PCM-1995- 19 January 17, 1995 [1-17min] ~ ~ ' ~ • Ms. Huston indicated yes. Cm. North indicated that he had the Conditions of Approval that were approved in 1992, if they wished to review them. Cm. Geist asked about the liability of the access road on the Nielsen Property. Ms. Huston indicated that the conditions of the City were a 12 foot wide, aggregate base road so that large equipment could get in there. T'he road does need to be maintained and the City had modified their previous position that they would be willing to accept maintenance of that road to a certain degree, not necessarily to the level of a paved road, but the City would go out to maintain the road to the same degree as the road on the south side is maintained by the City. She stated that the City was not proposing that they accept ownership of the road when the creek area was dedicated, it would still be on private property and the City would have any easement over it for use and maintenance. Cm. Geist asked if the easement could be revoked in the future. Ms. Huston explained that the legal implications of whether the Applicant would be able to obtain the easement and turn it over to the City had not be established. The easement was a requirement of approval; however, the reduction of width in the access road may not be approvable. Cm. North asked if the easement was not granted and dedicated to the City, does it come back before the Planning Commission again, or will Staff make the determination. Ms. Huston stated that it would revert back to the previous approval. Cm. North asked about Eachibit C, page 4, item 27, if the Police had any idea what the staffing requirements would be to patrol the area. Ms. Huston stated the Police Deparhnent Condition had to do with timing of when the Police would need to have the staffing in place and working out the schedules in the Department. Cm. North asked if the Police knew how much money it would cost and was that included in the Development Agreement. Ms. Huston indicated that they would have to check with the Police Department. Mr. Tong indicated that the Police Department does know what their total staffing requirement would be, they just need to know when to bring that staff on line. Cm.. North asked if the Applicant was present. Marti Buxton, representing California Pacific Homes, addressed the Commission and indicated that California Pacific Homes is the new name for the Bren Company, and that they were the same owners that received the approval in 1989. Ms. Buxton indicated that it was California Pacific Homes intention to construct the project in 1995 and that the redesign is an attempt to reduce grading, therefore reducing cost while still essentially the same project in lot lay-outs and quality. She stated that they would be bringing Phase II before the Commission which also had some changes, but that they wanted to do them separately so that they could get started on the improvement plans in order to build in April, 1995. Regular Meeting PCM-1995- 20 January 17, 1995 [1-17min] • • ~ . Ms. Buxton stated the two major issues in the redesign involve the cul-de-sac and the creek access road. She discussed several elements of the proposal and some of the additional reasons for the amendments. She indicated that since there was a reduction in grading, the homes would be at a higher elevation and there were three homes where the homes are higher, however, the homes that would be impacted are single story and heavily vegetated with 5 to SH/~ foot fencing. She indicated the houses to be built are 150 to 200 feet away from the actual house-to-house condition, and they would have fuller landscaping on Hansen side to further screen the homes. Another aspect was the creek road. In 1989 the City Council imposed a 12 foot road upon the development for Police patrol and Public Works maintenance. The 12 foot road would require great tree loss and massive retaining walls for great distance. She felt that the impact had not been analyzed at the time of approval and in the past 5+ years the impact had now had a chance to be analyzed and reviewed. She stated that originally the preference of the Applicant was that the first part of the trail be a 4 foot wide road, however, that was not acceptable to Staff, but they were willing to compromise with an 8 foot road, with other improvements on the north side. Ms. Buxton was appreciative of Staffls working with them on the conditions and solutions. The Applicant noted the one condition which she objects to was the cul-de-sac bulb on Martin Canyon Road. Ms. Buxton asked the Commissioners if they had any questions. Cm. North stated that he had been out to the stub streets at the end of Hansen Road and at the end of Rolling Hills Drive and that at the end of the cul-de-sacs there were large amounts of garbage. He felt that the City's request to make a bulb for the street sweeper to get around was not that far out of line. Ms. Buxton stated that she felt that the trash there was not being generated by any of the residents on Hansen Drive. She indicated that she hoped the City would budget for the bulb if they felt it necessary; however, she felt it was not an associated impact from the subdivision. Cm. Burnham asked Staff who owned the property at the Martin Canyon dead-end before and after the lumber stop. Ms. Huston stated the City owned the street right-of-way, but where the fence began, down to the creek, would be the property of California Pacific Homes, although she was not certain the lumber stop was exactly on the property line. Frank Berloger, President of Berloger Geotecnical Consultants, addressed the Commission, stating that his firm first started working on the project three years ago. He identified a number of geologic concerns, including the cul-de-sac and explained some of the geologic and soil issues there. He stated basically the area beyond the existing homes was a large fill area placed in the canyon during the grading of the initial project. He indicated that the proposed cut into the hill would have been in existing fill, overlying landslide debris, overlying a geologic unit prone to instability. In their 1992 Report they cautioned the Bren Company, now California Pacific Homes, on making the cut because of the potential far instability. Cm. Zika asked which area Mr. Berloger was talking about. Mr. Berloger pointed to the map the area to which he was referring, which indicated the cul-de-sac near Hansen Drive. Mr. Robert Neilsen, 11637 Alegra Drive, asked for clarification of the reference to the south side of the creek. He asked if they were referring to the property on the Tentative Map. Regular Meeting PCM-1995- 21 January 17, 1995 [1-17min] ~ ' ~ ~ Cm. North indicated that was correct. Mr. Neilsen indicated that he was involved with the property on the north side of the creek and wanted to point out that the property was off of the Tentative Map and that no arrangement had been made for access on the north side of the creek. Cm. North indicated that he understood from Staff that they would have to reach an agreement with Mr. Neilsen or they went back to the old conditions. Ms. Buxton stated that Mr. Neilsen and his brother deeded a non-exclusive private road easement to various land owners, and the Hansens and their other partners were some of those land owners. She stated that there was nothing in the easement about the ability to rock the road. Cm. North indicated that there seemed to be a conflict between Mr. Neilsen and the Applicant about the rights to the easement. Mr. Tong stated that Staff would need to be able to confirm the rights of easement; however, it was a specific Condition of ApprovaL Ms. Buxton stated there were two different easements. She gave some background on the easement draft. Cm. North stated she should make arrangements with Mr. Neilsen and Staff to determine the rights of easement. Dan Morris, 7439 Hansen Drive, stated concerns with impacts to his property from the proposed amendment to the pad elevations on the cul-de-sac, including impacts to his privacy, resale of his property and his view. Cm. North asked Mr. Morris if they were to build single story homes, if he still would have an objection. Mr. Morris responded that he felt they would still be impacted. Lucy Horowitz, 11404 Winding Trail Lane, indicated she was a new resident and had not attended the previous meetings; however, she wanted to register her dismay that another development of homes were going up and ruining a lovely place. Cm. North indicated that when her home was built, people registered the same comments. Cm. Burnham asked Ms. Horowitz if at the time she purchased her townhome, was she made aware that there would be a project going in. Ms. Horowitz answered yes, but at that time, the development was on hold. Marjorie LaBar addressed the Commission with three questions regarding property t~ revenue recalculations; comparison of today's traffic impacts with those projected when the original traffic study was done, and school impacts which may have changed from the original study. She also noted objections to the 12 foot road and asked the Planning Commission to reconsider this requirement. Cm. Zika asked Ms. LaBar which 12 foot road she disapproved of. Regular Meeting PCM-1995- 22 January 17, 1995 [1-17min] . . ~ • Ms. LaBar stated objection to all of them, and commented on some history on how the 12 foot road requirement was established. Cm. Zika stated that the traffic study was based on the build out of 282 units, and there was only going to be 180 units. He also referred Ms. LaBar to the Dublin Unified School District for the school impacts. Cm. Zika and Ms. LaBar discussed the traffic impact and how and when they were handled. Mehran Sepehri, Sr. Civil Engineer, addressed the traffic study and the impacts to the intersections. Ms. LaBar asked for the base line for the traffic study. ~ Mr. Sepehri stated that the City of Dublin annually studied the major intersections in the City, and that Dublin Boulevard and San Ramon Road were looked at and were operating at a good level of service. Cm. North stated that they were not there that night to discuss whether or not the development project should be canceled or remodeled or reduced in size. He indicated they were there to talk about the amendments to the Tentative Map. Cm. Burnham asked if there were actually 20-30% less traffic than anticipated. Mr. Sepehri stated that, through the level-of-service study and street counts, the level of service was satisfactory. Diana Day, 11395 Rolling Hills Drive, expressed concerns on the access road related to preserving the nature they have there and also concern on the maintenance of the road and what "to a certain degree" meant. Mr. Sepehri stated that the road was going to be an easement and used by other property owners. He did not want the properiy owners to come back in the future and ask for the road to be paved, but wanted to keep it aggregate base to meet the City's standards. Doug Abbott, stated that he felt this was not a minor change, but a significant change that would impact many residences. He felt this could be considered a new project, based on economics. Steve Degal, 11515 Silvergate, across from the proposed driveway. He wanted to know if there would be one or two access roads to the project. Cm. North stated that when they built up to 71 or 72 homes there would only be one access road, however, when then go beyond that and build the other 108 homes, there would be two access roads, and that the law dictates the number of access roads based on the number of homes built. Mr. Tong indicated that Attachment 3 of the staff report was the original approved Tentative Map for the Hansen Hills Project. In Phase I, there would be two public access roads. Ms. Bina who lives on Hansen Drive agreed with all of the concerns that had been raised. Her concern was the degree of grading and what was the process regarding the concerns being raised. Cm. North stated the Planning Commission would listen to the concerns, consider them and then make a motion and vote on what recommendation to make to the City CounciL Regular Meeting PCM-1995- 23 January 17, 1995 [1-17min] ~ ~ . ~ Cm. Zika then indicated that it would be up to the City Council whether to agree or disagree with the Planning Commission's recommendations and that the public could express their concerns before the City CounciL Ms. Bina asked about the prices of the homes. Cm. Zika stated that the Planning Commission nor the City Council had the authority to set prices. Cm. North indicated that the developer had the right to keep the pricesto themselves at this stage of the process. A1 Jorden, who lives on Winding Trail lane, wanted to register discontent with the project. He did not think there was enough room for an 8 foot wide trail behind his home. Cm. North stated that any work done around the creek area will require the approval of the State Fish and Game and the Corps of Engineers. Ms. Buxton commented that the developer had proposed 6 feet along the creek; however, the City was requiring 12 feet. She indicated that if the 12 foot road were required, she felt that if they were not successful in getting Mr. Neilsen to rock the road and the Corps of Engineers and Fish and Game approval, there would be huge retaining walls and tremendous tree loss. Cm. Burnham asked what good 6 feet would do. Ms. Buxton indicated that the City could get some equipment in there, but not the big equipment, and also the 6 foot road would mean they would not have to cut into the creek area. She referred Cm. Burnham to the maps showing the 6, 8 and 12 foot scenarios. Cm. Burnham asked if an 8 foot road were used, would that cut back on the retaining walL Ms. Buxton answered yes. Cm. Burnham asked if they could get by with an 8 foot road. Ms. Buxton indicated that yes, that was what they had proposed. Cm. Burnham asked about Phase II access roads. Ms. Buxton indicated that there were no further issues around the creek that would need to be addressed. Ms. Buxton had pictures of the 7439 Hansen Drive home, and indicated that the house was single story and the pad grade of the house is approximately 3 feet below the bottom grade of his fence and then there was a 5 1/2 foot fence, and felt that there was not a view from the backyard. Ms. Buxton did not think it was a fair trade-off to require the developer to put single family homes behind the 7439 Hansen Drive home. Bob Leeward, Civil Engineer for the project, stated that it was approximately 100 feet between the proposed houses and 7439 Hansen Drive. Cm. North asked the difference in elevation. Regular Meeting PCM-1995- 24 January 17, 1995 [1-17min] . , ~ ~ Mr. Leeward stated the proposed house pads would be 10 feet higher than the approved pad grades. Dave Gates showed on the maps the proposed landscape and a 30 foot landscape fire barrier between the properties. He indicated on the map where the landscape would go on the three properties that could have a visual impact. He stated that they were putting in species that would be just enough to block the view of the proposed home on the pad and nothing higher. He indicated he was referring to cross section 8 on the map. Cm. North asked if the pad of lot 31 was going to be 21 feet higher than the house at 7439 Hansen Drive. Mr. Leeward clarified that it would be 21 feet higher than the approved plan, but only 10 feet higher than the existing house. Ms. Buxton gave the Commissioner's pictures she had of the impacted properties. Mr. Morris felt that he would still be impacted by the view of a two story house into their property. He objected to blocking the view with various types of vegetation. Mr. Morris felt the fill soil was unstable on top of a previous landslide debris. Frank Berloger explained the topography of the slope and canyon. He outlined how the cut slope would affect the project. Ed Skubic, 7427 Hansen Drive, questioned the stability of the slope. Cm. North indicated that he felt Mr. Berloger had indicated that it was unstable to build larger houses; however, the land as it sits now was not necessarily unstable. He stated that if they were to build on the slope, then a requirement to build would be to make sure that there was a stable foundation for the houses. Mr. Berloger indicated Mr. Skubic was referring to Section 10, which was behind the houses on the cul- de-sac on the downhill slope. He addressed the stability concerns and thaY part of their work would be to develop a stable grading scheme so that when the grading was completed, stability would be established. Ms. Huston clarified that on Section 10, that the first EaLhibit did show a house; however, the new proposal did not include a house behind Mr. Skubic's home because there was a reconfiguration of the lots. Mr. Morris asked if the homeowners could request a second neutral soil appraisaL Cm. North indicated that the developer would be required to get approval from the Building Inspection Department and Public Works Department, and that there were engineers on Staff to review the project. Mr. Morris asked if Public Works had made comments to the soils report. Cm. North answered yes, that several Deparhnents had made comments and had done several site i~ inspections of the project. , Mr. Morris asked for a compromise on the impacts to his home. , ~ Regular Meeting PCM-1995- 25 January 17, 1995 II [1-17min] i ~ • ~ ~ Ms. LaBar asked about the underlying landslide. Mr. Berloger indicated on the map the grade and how the cut-slope would impact the slope, and indicated where the instability would occur without the revised grading. Ms. Huston stated that Staff had a copy of the soils report. Gloria Kasdan asked about the north side of the creek, if they anticipated the removal of any trees. Ms. Buxton stated they had not anticipated any large amount tree removal, if any. Mr. Sepehri indicated that he had just had a discussion with Staff and the Applicant and if they agree to maintain the creek, then the City does not have to have a maintenance road. He stated the Applicant had agreed to maintain the creek; however, he needed to discuss further with Staff the implementations of a less than 12 foot road. Mr. Sepehri suggested the Planning Commission continue the public hearing until he had a chance to speak with the other Departments. Mr. Tong indicated that the Public Works Staff and the Applicant had agreed to a two week continuance to consider an alternative to maintaining the creek with less than a 12 foot access road. Mr. Tong indicated the public hearing should be continued to the February 6, 1995, meeting. Cm. Burnham asked why a 12 foot road was being required. Mr. Sepehri answered that a typical size truck carrying equipment would require the 12 foot road. Cm. Zika asked if once the project was built, would it be up to the Homeowners Association to maintain the creek, and if so, how would the City enforce the maintenance. Mr. Sepehri indicated that at the present time, the homeowners maintain the east side of the creek. If the homeowners do not maintain the creek per the Clean Water Map Act, the City will first give a warning, then the City can fine up to $10,000 per day to do the clean up. Mr. Tong stated the terms for the maintenance of the creek and the relationship of the creek being dedicated to the City for hiking purposes and how the City can guarantee an adequate level of service would be discussed. Mr. Zika stated he did not see the need for a road down both sides of the creek. Ms. Buxton commented on the extent that the homeowners would be maintaining the creek, if it also included the hiking trail which would be used by the public. Cm. Burnham stated he felt that if the Homeowners Association were responsible for the trail, and the City is responsible far the liability, then there may be a problem. Cm. North thanked the public for attending and for their input and continued the Public Hearing to February 6, 1995. He then asked Staff, to address several issues in the staff report or the next meeting including single story homes on lots 30-34, whether Condition B of Exhibit B of the original Development Agreement would be deleted, the issues of the creek access road width, and the bulb on Martin Canyon Road. Regular Meeting PCM-1995- 26 January 17, 1995 [1-17min] ~ . ~ ~ NEW OR UNFINISHED BUSINESS Mr. Tong informed the Commission that at the upcoming City Council meeting, they would hear the Homart application and will also have the Eastern Dublin Reorganization conducting authority public hearing. OT`HER BUSINESS (Commission/Staff Information Only Re~orts~ Cm. Zika asked where the trucks were parked this week. Cm. Geist commented they were parked at Target. Cm. North commented that on the parking space issue, he and staff went out to measure the spaces. Although the parking spaces did not meet the required measurements, Staff indicated that the painted lines that did not meet the standards; however, Staff assured that there was 65 feet between the two grid lines which meet the Standards. He felt that there was no way of knowing if the spaces met the Standards. Mr. Sepehri stated that one of the problems was that during the plan check stages, the Applicant was required to meet the Standard, however, the City does not have the resources to do a site inspection. He stated that when checking with other jurisdictions, they issued site plan permit and the parking lot was inspected according to that plan. He indicated that the City was looking at that type of plan. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 10:48 p.m. Respectfull submitted, , Planning Comm~i sion Chairperson ATTEST: ~ ~ Laurence L. Tong, Planning re tor Regular Meeting PCM-1995- 27 January 17, 1995 [1-17min]