Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout4.1 Approve 11-14-1988 Minutes • REGULAR MEETING - November 14, 1988 A regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Dublin was held on Monday, November 14, 1988, in the West Room of the Shannon Community Center. The meeting was called to order at 7:45 p.m. , by Mayor Linda Jeffery. * * * * ROLL CALL • -- PRESENT: Councilmembers Hegarty, Moffatt, Snyder, Vonheeder and Mayor Jeffery. * * * * PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE The Mayor led the Council, Staff and those present in the pledge of alle- giance to the flag. * * * * Hansen Hills Ranch Discussion Zev Kahn requested that the Council consider changing the order of the 4 public hearings in order to hold the hearing related to the Hansen Hills Ranch proposal first. Most of the audience was present relative to this issue. Mayor Jeffery queried the Council with regard to this request. Cm. Hegarty indicated he had a problem keeping the other people waiting for what will most likely be a lengthy discussion. He did not feel that the other public hearings would take long. By a Council consensus, the order of the agenda was left as presented. * * * * Teen Center Katrina Myers, 8728 Wicklow Court indicated she is a 2 1 /2 year Dublin resident, and she would like to see some kind of a teen center established in Dublin. Teenagers need a place where they can go to congregate and dance and thereby avoid a lot of drinking and getting into trouble. Mayor Jeffery stated she was sure the Park & Recreation Commission would be willing to look into this . Cm. Hegarty requested that Ms. Myers get in touch with Diane Lowart, Recreation Director, so that her request can be put on the agenda for consideration by the Park & Recreation Commission. * * * * @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @@ CM-7-323 Regular Meeting November 14, 1988 I 1(2/1 1' �" Shannon Center Acoustics Harvey Scudder suggested that the acoustics in the meeting facility were very poor and felt that the Council should have some microphones. Mayor Jeffery apologized and stated that everyone would be glad when the City's Civic Center is complete, thereby providing more adequate and functional meeting space. * * * * PRESENTATION BY EMERGENCY SERVICES NETWORK City Manager Ambrose advised that the City received notification today that Ms. Fran Bitterman, who was to make the presentation at this meeting, has the flu. The presentation will be rescheduled for a future agenda. * * * * CONSENT CALENDAR On motion of Cm. Snyder, seconded by Cm. Moffatt, and by unanimous vote, the Council took the following actions: Approved Minutes of Regular Meeting of October 24, 1988; Approved City Treasurer's Investment Report for Period Ending October 31 , 1988; Authorized Staff to solicit bids for the wooden sound fence on the west side of San Ramon Road between Silvergate Drive and Alcosta Boulevard; (Cm. Snyder questioned how many children are served by the Joint Use Agreement at Nielsen School. Recreation Director Lowart advised that attendance is about 40 children per day. ) Approved a Joint Facility Use Agreement for a portable classroom at Nielsen School and authorized the City Manager to execute the agreement; Received a report related to the Holiday Tree Lighting Ceremony to be held on Monday, December 5, 1988; Accepted improvements under Contract 87-8 (Dublin Boulevard widening at Clark Avenue) ; authorized payment of $100 to RHN Landscape for additional irrigation repair work at the CA State Automobile Association site; authorized final/retention payment to Ambo Engineering in the amount of $3,821 .31 ; and approved additional appropriation from reserves of $4, 271 .31 to cover the cost of this project within FY 1988-89; Authorized an additional appropriation from unappropriated reserves to the Insurance Premium Account for insurance services for prior years (Alameda County) in amount of $10,800. @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @@ CM-7-324 Regular Meeting November 14, 1988 (Cm. Snyder questioned a check on the Warrant Register made payable to the City of Dublin. Staff advised that in the past, transfers of funds into the City' s payroll account were accomplished via telephone. In order to provide a clearer audit trail, the City will from this point forward, prepare a check from the general account, payable to the payroll . account. ) Approved Warrant Register in the amount of $457, 679 .49.. * * * * VALLEY ARTISTS REQUEST TO WAIVE SHANNON COMMUNITY CENTER RENTAL POLICY Recreation Director Lowart advised that the Valley Artists are asking that an exemption be granted to the Shannon Community Center Facility Use Policy in order to allow their club to continue meeting at the Center. Only 16% of their membership reside in Dublin and therefore, the group does not meet the residency requirements as a Community Group. Ms. Lowart explained that in March, 1986, the Valley Artists submitted a grant application to the City with the objective being for support of meeting facilities, equipment and services for the Valley Artists. The total dollar amount requested was $2, 898. The Park & Recreation Commission recommended against direct funding of non-profit groups and instead recommended that the City provide in-kind services such as utilization of Shannon Center at no cost or an equipment lending library. The City Council concurred with these recommendations. Even though in July, 1986, a request was approved for the use of Shannon Center at no cost, the group was unable to obtain insurance at an affordable cost, and so they were forced to continue meeting at an. alternate facility. In September, 1987, the group again approached the City about utilizing Shannon Center, as they had been able to obtain the required insurance. They were granted a permit for January - June, 1988, and informed that they would need to renew their permit on an annual basis. The Park & Recreation Commission considered the request on November 8, 1988, and it is the consensus of the Commission that the community is somewhat lacking in the area of cultural arts and that the Valley Artists are working to fill this void. The Commission therefore recommended that the Valley Artists be allowed to utilize Shannon Center at no cost for their monthly meetings, as well as their Spring and Fall art shows . However, due to the renovation of Shannon Center, the facility will not be available for the Spring 1989 show. Staff also recommended that use by the Valley Artists be evaluated on a yearly basis to determine the progress made to further promote cultural arts within the City of Dublin. Mrs . Florence Scudder, represepting the Valley Artists stated that the group has been in Dublin for 18 years and are now asking for help from the City. @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @@ CM-7-325 Regular Meeting November 14, 1988 • Zev Kahn stated he was opposed to this request in principle. If we are going to allow a 'no charge' policy, then this group should be willing to donate something to. the community. He suggested that they could donate 2 courses for residents. They should provide some kind of in-kind service. Ms. Lowart reported that the group's meetings, which feature various speakers are open to the public free of charge. . Mr. Bilotti, Creekside Drive questioned if an outsider wanted to add to their show, could this be done. Mrs. Scudder responded yes, they would be open to anyone. Harvey Scudder stated he wished to point out that the Valley, Artists have placed their artwork in banks, offices and other public places, mostly at no charge. They rotate it every 3 months. Cm. Hegarty felt this was a small consideration compared to the almost $3, 000 originally requested. Cm. Vonheeder asked if Mrs . Scudder was aware of the newly formed Dublin Fine Arts Commission. This may be a stepping stone for something much larger in the future. On motion of Cm. Hegarty, seconded by Cm. Moffatt, and by unanimous vote, the Council upheld the recommendation of the Park & Recreation Commission in allowing the Valley Artists to utilize the Shannon Community Center at no cost for their monthly meetings and art shows. * * * * PUBLIC HEARING REQUEST FOR 20 MINUTE PARKING ZONE IN FRONT OF 6908 SIERRA COURT Mayor Jeffery opened the public hearing. City Engineer Thompson advised that this item,, which was introduced at the October 24, 1988 meeting is for a small area of 20 minute parking along the curb in front of the Equinox Press business at 6908 Sierra Court. Steve Steen of Equinox Press mentioned a sight-distance problem related to the curve on which his building sits; however, TJKM feels that because traffic volume is low and parking turnover is slight, there is no reason to red curb the curve. The 20 minute parking zone is not proposed to be on the curve, but rather on the north facing side of the building. No comments were made by members of the public relative to this issue. Mayor Jeffery closed the public hearing. • . On motion of Cm. Hegarty, seconded by Cm. Snyder, and by unanimous vote, the Council waived the reading and adopted @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @C @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @@ CM-7-326 . Regular. Meeting November 14, 1988 ORDINANCE NO.: 20 - 88 ESTABLISHING A 20 MINUTE PARKING ZONE AT 6908 SIERRA COURT * * * * PUBLIC HEARING - HUCKE SIGNS VILLAGE PARKWAY CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW Mayor Jeffery opened the public hearing. Planning Director Tong explained that in April 1987 as a result of the Citywide sign survey conducted in September 1986, the property owner and tenants were notified by the City' s Zoning Investigator of all illegal signs identified on the property at 7016-7150 Village Parkway. Illegal signs identified included Wall Signs, Freestanding Signs and illegal A-Frame Signs. The illegal Freestanding and A-Frame Signs were subse- quently removed. The property owner subsequently filed an application for 1 ) a Conditional Use Permit and Site Development Review for two C-2-B-40 Directory Signs/Special Easement Signs, and 2) Site Development Review for Sign Program for business identification Wall Signs which exceed the height, length and sign area regulations established by the City's Zoning Ordinance. On May 2, 1988, the Planning Commission approved the SDR for C-2-B-40 Directory Sign and Sign Program and the CUP for special easement sign subject to Conditions of Approval. On May 12, 1988, the Applicant appealed the Planning Commission' s action stating that "the Conditions of Approval are such that under them, it is almost impossible to meet the needs of the rear tenants for whom these signs are to benefit. . . " . Staff met with the Applicant and advised that the Conditions of Approval were worded in such a way as to allow Staff to review and approve the precise location of the Directory Sign on either the southern or northern side of the driveway once plans were submitted. The Applicant indicated he would hire a sign company to draw up plans in compliance with the Conditions of Approval . Staff met with the sign company on August 31, 1988, to discuss the Conditions of Approval . The proposed signs did not comply with the Conditions of Approval as the signs included tenant identification on parcels which the tenants were not located and one sign was located in the public right-of-way. Staff indicated that the Applicant must submit plans in compliance with the Conditions of Approval with the exception that the signs may be located at the north side of the driveway subject to review and approval. On September 9, 1988, the Applicant requested an appeal before the City Council. Mr. Tong advised that although the Applicant' s appeal letter does not specify which Conditions of Approval would be difficult to comply with, it appears the Applicant has difficulty with Condition #5, #6 and #10 . Condition #5 states that C-2-B-40 Directory Signs shall not be located within the public right-of-way. Condition #6 states that C-2-B-40 Directory Signs shall provide business identification for @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @@ CM-7-327 Regular Meeting November 14, 1988 businesses located on the parcel on which the sign is located. Condition #10 states that prior to the installation of any C-2-B-40 Directory Sign, the Applicant shall modify the southern most driveway on site to allow ingress and egress subject to a traffic and circulation study to be prepared by the City's Traffic Engineers and subject to review and approval of the Planning Director and Traffic Engineer. The site layout and development of the property consists of a group of buildings fronting directly on Village Parkway and another group of buildings situated directly behind the front buildings. This layout has caused signage difficulty for tenants located in the rear buildings who wish to increase and enhance business identification from Village Parkway. The Applicant is requesting approval of two single faced Directory Signs. The Applicant proposes to locate Sign "B" within the front planter area at 7124-7150 Village Parkway and locate Sign "A" in the planter area in front of Wolds House of Hobbies at 7100 Village Parkway. . The Applicant proposes to situate the single faced directory signs parallel to the front property line. The proposed maximum sign height is 6' with a maximum sign area of 16 sq ft (4' x 4' ) . Three of the tenants identified on Sign "B" are located on the adjacent parcel. A CUP is required to locate business identification signs on parcels other than the parcel on which the business is located. However, the Special Easement Sign can only be granted for parcels without direct access or frontage on an improved public right-of-way. Additionally, said properties must be interconnected with a traversable non-revocable, non-exclusive recorded access easement. Both parcels have direct access on Village Parkway. Additionally, in reviewing the property profile provided by the Applicant, Staff advised that there does not appear to be a recorded access easement between the two properties. Therefore, H & K. Manufacturing, Valley Auto Clinic and Electra Door are not permitted business identification on Sign "B". These businesses may locate identification signs on Directory Sign "A" . Also, John' s Transmission, Amador Ceramics and Dublin Graden would not be allowed on Sign "A" because Sign "A" is on a different parcel. Signs for these businesses would need to be located on the parcel where the business is located. Mr. Tong advised that it is noted that a landlocked parcel (regardless of easements) does not meet the City's minimum standards for subdivision purposes. To date, the Applicant has not provided verification that the lot was legally subdivided in compliance with the California Subdivision Map Actor the City's Subdivision Ordinance. TJKM recommended conversion of the southern driveway to an enter only driveway, including pavement directional arrows, "DO NOT ENTER" and "STOP" pavement markings. Staff recommended modification to Condition #10 to require conversion of the southern most driveway from exit only to enter only in compliance with the memo and Figure 1 from TJKM received November 7, 1988. Staff also `recommended a 45 day time limit for. compliance with this condition. @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ @ @ @ @ @ @@@@@@ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @@@ @ @ @@@ CM-7-328 Regular Meeting November 14, 1988 Under a previous Alameda County approval in 1969, a sign program for the site was established restricting the maximum sign area per business to 40 square feet. The program also established a maximum of 60 sq ft per group of locator signs for businesses located in the rear buildings . The Citywide sign survey conducted by the Zoning Investigator in September 1986 revealed that the majority of business identification signs located on the Applicant' s property were illegal, in that the signs did not comply with the approved sign program. This was primarily due to the fact that the tenants use of signs painted directly on the building face do not require building permits. The lack of a requirement for a building permit or sign permit makes the monitoring and regulation of wall painted signs difficult from a zoning standpoint. Staff prepared a sign program which promotes uniformity in signage among the tenants by establishing maximum sign area, letter height and length, and by designating location of signage. This proposed sign program criteria permits larger signs than some of the existing signs and smaller than others . The sign program does not .exceed the maximum dimensions permitted by the Zoning Ordinance through the SDR process . In processing one single SDR for the signs on the site, it-. eliminates the need for each tenant to file a separate SDR application and $105 fee for each individ- ual sign. All signs will require zoning approval prior to placement. Staff recommended that the Council uphold the Planning Commission' s action approving PA 87-122 with a revision to Condition #10 requiring conversion of the southern driveway to an "Enter Only" driveway and establish a 45 day time period for compliance with Condition #10 . Cm. Vonheeder indicated she was confused regarding the legal parcels, and questioned how this happened. Mr. Tong advised that the City has a property profile provided by the Applicant which references a recorded map which shows 3 equal parcels. The assessor' s map shows a land-locked parcel in the back. The legal issue then becomes ' is this a legal lot' ? Cm. Moffatt asked with regard to the south driveway ingress/egress situation, if TJKM had studied the issue of the median strip being just a little further south and people coming into the driveway from the wrong direction off of Village Parkway. Mr. Tong advised that the Traffic Consultant was made aware of this concern and it is a basic enforcement consideration. Some people try this even now, so the signage is not effective. The only solution seems to be education and enforcement. Cm. Hegarty felt that people who miss this turn may have missed it because of poor signage. Because of the configuration of Village Parkway, this may cause problems with people going the wrong way into an entrance at this location. He felt there were problems at this location @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ @ @ @ @ @@ @ @@@ @ @ @ @@@ @ @ @@@ @ @ @ @ @ @ @@ @@ CM-7-329 Regular Meeting November 14, 1988 due to the way Mr. Hucke is conducting his business. IRS rules have caused Mr. Hucke to split the parcel between himself, his wife and his daughter. He felt the Council and Mr. Hucke want directory signs, but our Ordinance is saying he can' t quite do what he wants. City Engineer Thompson advised that with a signal going in at Village Parkway & Clark Avenue, there will be a lot less opportunity for people to go into this driveway the wrong way. Cm. Hegarty felt that Mr. Hucke simply wants to put up some signs and now the City is telling him how the traffic should go. He questioned Staff' s objection to where he wants to put the signs . Mr. Tong clarified that one sign is being proposed to be put in the public right-of-way. Also, lot line adjustements or . a parcel map can be filed to clarify the lots . City Manager Ambrose advised that there is a project in the 5 Year Capital Improvement Program to widen the sidewalks along Village Parkway. Mr. Hucke showed slides of the site and indicated that when he went before the Planning Commission he left thinking he had won everything he went for. He argued that he should be able to put a sign in front directing customers to the businesses in the rear. The split of the property was done strictly for tax purposes. He felt the City Council had the right and the power to allow him to put a sign where he is requesting. There are a lot of trucks that enter into one of the two driveways. He did not feel that this is an earth-shaking decision. This process has taken 14 months . He stated he wants to put Amador Ceramics on a sign that is in front of his property. Ken Begun addressed the Council and stated he represented the adjacent south side property owners. They have a problem in that their parking lot gets all the overflow parking. He agreed with the Planning Director that the southern driveway should be an entrance only. If a sign were located about 20' before the businesses, this would give people a chance to see it. Lloyd Richardson, representing Dublin Garden, a business in the rear stated that if this is made an entrance only, it would create a problem for large trucks . When cars are parked in the back, it gets really clogged up. He expressed concern that currently, there are no signs at all. Ken Begun suggested that putting "Parking in Rear" on the sign would help. Mr. Tong advised that "Parking in Rear" could be added to a directory sign if there is enough room. Debbie Vasquez, a concerned citizen felt the current signs are very tacky. There needs to be one neat sign with all tenants listed. @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @@ @@ CM-7-330 Regular Meeting November 14, 1988 Mayor Jeffery closed the public hearing. With regard to the legal technicality of location of signs on the property, Cm. Vonheeder questioned_ if the Applicant could apply for a Variance. Mr. Tong advised that a special easement sign can be requested if a parcel has no frontage. The Applicant, to date, has not been able to provide the City with the required documentation. Mr. Hucke stated he furnished a complete set of all of the deeds with all of the easements to the Planning Commission a long time ago. Mr. Tong advised that unfortunately, the information provided does not show the vehicular easement to the back parcel. He requested that Mr. Hucke provide an additional copy of whatever he has . The City' s record does not show the necessary access easement. Cm. Snyder felt everyone could argue this issue all night but the 4 basic issues need to be layed out, and tell the parties to come back with an agreement that the City can buy into at the next meeting. The issues are 1 ) Sign B has to be out of the right-of-way; 2) Sign A can be where it is as long as proof can be given that it's in the right location per the easements; 3 ) we want the driveway at the south end to go in and not out; and 4) we want the rear of the property cleaned up so you can' t see all the used auto parts . If this could be accomplished, Cm. Snyder indicated he would be willing to approve the sign agreement. Cm. Hegarty suggested that the City also add a requirement that in addition to cleaning up the back, the front part should be landscaped. The report mentions that landscape issues should be brought up and submitted to the City. He felt Mr. Hucke should be allowed to put his sign where it will best suit his tenants. The ingress/egress on the south side should be considered after the signs go up to see if the signs do what they are supposed to do. He felt that because Mr. Hucke owns the whole property and it was split for IRS purposes, he is not concerned about this . He felt the graffiti should be removed from the walls and make the place look neat. Cm. Hegarty said he was prepared to give direction to Staff that he wants the back yard cleaned up, he wants the front yard landscaped, and Mr. Hucke can have his signs, as long as they are out of the right-of-way, and the City will be done with it. He felt it was ridiculous that this has taken a year and a half to get through the bureaucracy. The owner of the property should submit a landscape scheme for the front of the property, clean up the back of the property, and we can deal with the south ingress or egress at a later date. Mr. Tong advised that the City needs to at least see a sign proposal to pinpoint the proposed location, and determine if it can be approved. @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ @ @ @ @ @ @@ @ @ @ @ @ @@ @ @ @ @ @ @@@ @ @ @ @ @@ @ @@ CM-7-331 Regular Meeting November 14, 1988 City Attorney Nave felt it would be advisable that he take a look and review the conditions that 'the Council is requesting, as the landscape . and clean up -issues are new issues. He requested that the matter be continued to the December 12th Council meeting. Cm. Hegarty did not feel that- the issues were new. A Council policy has been that when anything is done to any of the older developments in the City, the image issues are considered. This is neither new or strange to anyone. • Mayor Jeffery felt the best way to proceed would be to find out legally what the City can require. The Council has indicated to Mr. Hucke that it is trying to accommodate Mr. Hucke with his signs, as long as they are not in the .public right-of-way. Additionally, the Council urged him to get the documentation that shows the cross easements. The driveway issue will be handled at a later date to see if the sign works in keeping people from missing the original driveway. Mr. Hucke indicated he was • curious as to just what documentation could be given that would change anything. Mayor Jeffery advised that the City has no documentation that shows the cross easements. - On motion of Cm. Snyder, seconded by Cm. Hegarty, and by unanimous vote, the Council continued this item to the December 12, 1988 City Council meeting. * * * * PUBLIC HEARING - APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION DENIAL FIRST WESTERN DEVELOPMENT PARCEL MAP & VARIANCE, 7450 AMADOR VALLEY BLVD. Mayor Jeffery opened the public hearing. Staff advised that in October, 1987, the Planning Commission denied the Applicant's previous subdivision request to create two parcels including one landlocked parcel and denied without prejudice the Site Development Review for construction of a 10, 000 sq ft commercial building. This action allowed the Applicant to apply for a substantially different subdivision and apply for a SDR within a 1 year period. The Applicant subsequently applied for a new SDR, a subdivision to create 2 parcels including 1 .09 + acre flag lot and a Variance for substandard effective lot frontage on the flag lot. Staff provided the Applicant with a list of comments and corrections on. the project in March, 1988 and informed the Applicant that Staff would have difficulty recommending approval of the Subdivision and Variance request as proposed, but would likely recommend approval of the SDR provided the corrections were incorporated into the revised plans. In April, 1988, the Applicant requested Staff to process the SDR application separately from the parcel map and Variance request. On June 27, 1988, the Planning Director approved the Applicant's SDR request @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @@ CM-7-332 Regular Meeting November 14., 1988 • to construct a: 10, 000 sq ft commercial retail building on the existing parcel currently developed with Circuit City, TJ Maxx and Oshmans. ' 'On September 6, 1988, the Planning Commission. held a Public Hearing and denied the Applicant' s Subdivision request and Variance request. The Applicant appealed the Planning Commission 'action on September 15, 1988 . The .Applicant is requesting approval of a minor subdivision and Variance to create 2 parcels of land from one existing 7 + acre' parcel. Parcel A would consist of 5 .91 + acres, currently developed with the 57, 680 sq ft Circuit City/TJ Maxx building and the 12, 000 sq ft Oshman's Sporting Goods building. and approximately 287 parking spaces. • Parcel A would. have approximately 690' frontage on Amador Plaza Road and a 391 ' frontage along Amador Valley Boulevard and 170' frontage adjacent to the flood control channel. Parcel B would consist of a 1 . 09 + acre flag lot within the -existing eastern parking lot area between the Circuit City/TJ Maxx building and the Oshman's building located on Parcel A. This area, although currently . supporting parking and drive aisles, will eventually be developed with the 10, 000 sq ft retail' commercial building and approximately 51 parking spaces previously approved. Approval of the Applicant's proposed ' subdivision would result in the creation :of a parcel (Parcel B) with substandard effective lot frontage necessitating approval of a Variance. The City' s Zoning Ordinance requires the effective lot frontage of all new building sites to equal 1 /2 of the median lot width, either actual or required, whichever is greater. The median lot width for the proposed Parcel B is 150' . A -75' wide effective ' lot 'frontage is required. The Applicant is proposing a 25' wide effective lot frontage. The major concerns associated with the Applicant' s subdivision and variance -proposal relate to: 1) future development; 2) easements'; and 3) signage. Staff recommended that the Council approve the Subdivision and : . Variance request including a' condition requiring the Applicant/Property Owner to submit a request for. Planned Development rezoning of Parcel A and B. ' Mr. Tong advised that it has come to Staff' s attention that a 'particular condition regarding the Declaration of Encumbrances has not been included, and . Staff suggested that such a specific condition be added, as proposed by the Applicant. ' • John Hess, a partner with First Western Development advised that it had received SDR approval with glowing colors and should fit in very well with the existing center. The specialty shops should be suited for people that are shopping in Circuit City and TJ Maxx. People won't have to get into their cars and drive somewhere else. They felt the Declara- tion of Encumbrances answered all of Staff.'s, problems with regard to signs, maintenance, ingress/egress, etc. They do not -object to the . approval with the conditions, provided that what they have is a complete application or a PD. They were applying fora PD rather- than a building permit. @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @@@@ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @@ CM-7-333 Regular Meeting November 14, 1988 • • • Geoff Etnire, Attorney for the development indicated he was present to address any technical questions or concerns that the Council may have. He indicated that they have worked very hard with the Planning Department and they felt the Planning Director was particularly tough on this application due to past problems. ' Cm. Hegarty questioned if this entire site was once a PD. Mr. Tong advised no, it is currently one site. The Applicant is requesting to subdivide it into two properties. Mayor Jeffery closed the public hearing. Cm. Moffatt asked about the consideration of the documentation brought up by Mr. Hess. Mr. Tong stated that the basic information submitted would be adequate for the Planned Development, and we would need only supplemental forms, fees and statement. • On motion of Cm. Snyder, seconded by Cm. Vonheeder, and by majority vote, the Council adopted RESOLUTION NO. 143. - 88 ADOPTING THE NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR PA 87-159.2 FIRST WESTERN DEVELOPMENT MINOR SUBDIVISION, TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 5364 AND VARIANCE REQUEST and - RESOLUTION NO. 144 - 88 ' APPROVING PA 87-159.2 FIRST WESTERN DEVELOPMENT VARIANCE REQUEST TO ALLOW A SUBSTANDARD PARCEL WITH INSUFFICIENT EFFECTIVE LOT FRONTAGE AT 7450 AMADOR VALLEY BOULEVARD SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL and ' RESOLUTION NO. 145 - 88 APPROVING PA 87-159.2 FIRST WESTERN DEVELOPMENT TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 5364 Cm. Hegarty voted NO on this motion. • RECESS • The Mayor called a short recess. All Councilmembers were present when the meeting reconvened. * * * * @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@'@@ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @@ CM-7-334 Regular Meeting November 14, 1988 PUBLIC HEARING HANSEN RANCH GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT STUDY, EIR, PLANNED DEVELOPMENT PREZONING, TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP NO: 5766, AND ANNEXATION REQUEST FOR 245 DWELLING UNITS ON 147 ACRES, WEST ,OF SILVERGATE DRIVE AND NORTH HANSEN DRIVE Mayor Jeffery opened the public hearing. Planning Director Tong advised that the Hansen Hill Ranch General Plan Amendment involves major issues: 1 ) Conflict with Open Space Policies of the General Plan; 2) Type and Number of Dwelling Units (Land Use Designa- tion and Density) for the Developable Areas; 3) Significant Environmental Impacts .on Oak/Bay Woodlands and Stream (Riparian) Corridor; and 4): Significant Environmental Impacts from Mass Grading. With regard to issue #1 : Should the General Plan policies be changed to allow resi- dential development on areas that would otherwise be maintained as open space? Issue #2 : What is the appropriate type and number of dwelling unit's for the developable areas? Issue #3: Should the project avoid ' impacting the oak/bay woodlands and stream corridor, or are these impacts acceptable based on specific overriding benefits? , Issue #4: Should the project avoid mass grading, or are the associated impacts acceptable based on specific overriding benefits? Mr. Tong explained that the Hansen Hill Ranch project application involves consideration of 5 planning items on which action must be taken. These include: 1 ) Certification of the Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) ; 2) Adoption of General Plan Amendments relating to land use desig- nation and guiding policies affecting potential development on the site., 3 ) Approval of a PD Prezoning establishing the zoning for the project site. California State Law requires consistency between the City' s Zoning and General Plan. The Planned Development Prezoning will establish the appropriate number of units for the site, establish minimum setbacks, maximum building heights and other development standards. 4) Approval of a Tentative Subdivision Map: The subdivision map will, establish division of land, including precise property dimensions, estab- lishment of easements and dedication of land for public right-of-ways and open space. 5) Initiation of Annexation proceedings with LAFCO to expand the City limits to incorporate the project site within the City limits. The Planning Commission took the approach of considering and providing the City Council with recommendations on the EIR and General Plan Amendment concurrently. Once the Council takes action on these 2 items,, the Planning Commission would then consider and provide recommendations on the Planned Development Prezoning, Tentative Map, and Annexation requests concurrently. Resolution of the General Plan Amendment issues will establish the parameters essential to guiding development of the site. The General Plan Amendments will identify areas on the site appropriate for development, through land use designations and through General Plan policies. The General Plan land use designations and policies the City Council ultimately adopt for the Hansen Hill Ranch site will directly affect the PD Prezoning and Tentative Map for the site as the General Plan establishes the general framework in which development can occur. @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @@ CM-7-335 Regular Meeting November 14,, 1988 • In addition to the General Plan Amendments relating to land use designation and density, the following General .Plan Amendments were recommended by the Staff and the Planning Commission: 1 ) Amend General Plan to incorporate entire Hansen Hill Ranch project within the primary planning area. 2) Amend General Plan to delete Areas 5, 6 and 7 from Table I and Figure 4 of the General Plan. Inclusion of the entire Hansen Hill Ranch project site within the primary planning area and adoption of land use density and designation eliminates need for Areas 5, 6 and 7 on Table I and Figure 4. 3) Amend General Plan policy and map with regard to Hansen Drive extension. The General Plan currently shows Hansen Drive extending to the Western Extended Planning Area. 4) Amend General Plan to include alternate roadway serving Hansen Hill Ranch site (Valley Christian Center access road) and designate as a collector street. 5) Amend General Plan to include policy establishing Level of Service D as maximum level of ,service acceptable.. The City's General Plan currently does not contain policies addressing acceptable level of service. 6) Amend General Plan to include policies requiring fire protection buffer zone around perimeter of residential development which interface with open space lands. 7) Amend General Plan to include policies related to open space maintenance. Gordon Jacoby passed handouts to the Council and Staff which, contained information not included in the packets. Mr. Jacoby stated they realize that nothing will conclude tonight at this meeting, and they anticipate subsequent meetings. He thanked the Council for hearing this item at this meeting. They started this project a little over 2 years ago, and the project has progressed and changed considerably over this time period. He gave a brief history of the site. Many of the existing neighborhoods were not there 2 years ago. Their plan calls for approxi- mately 1 , 700 trees to be planted, which is about ' a 3 to 1 ratio to trees that would be lost. They have tried to design in such a way so as to improve views for the people with views to the north from Hansen Drive. They will improve the road used by Valley Christian Center at a substantial cost. - - David Gates, Landscape Architect,, displayed slides showing the site' s proximity to I-580/2-680 and adjoining parcels. John Tanascio, 11414 Winding Trail Lane, expressed concern about the road going off of Silvergate behind their townhomes. The road will be about 10' from their windows. Smog and noise problems were also of concern. They will be meeting with the developer next Tuesday, and will reserve. their final judgment until after this meeting. Doug Abbott, 8206 Rhoda Avenue, advised that he is the Chairman of the Tri-Valley Regional Subgroup of the Sierra Club. His concern is with what appears to be a major change in policy. He stated he would like to think that in Dublin we take our General Plan seriously and would only change it if it was in the bes4t interest of the community. There are good reasons for not building on 30% slopes, or in oak habitat or stream beds. If enforcing these rules makes a project uneconomical, then this @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ @@ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @@ CM-7-336 . Regular Meeting November 14, .1988 is tough. If Venture can' t make a profit playing by Dublin's rules, then maybe someone else should take a crack at the project. Mr. Abbott felt that this development is sending the message that Dublin' s hills are up for grabs . He urged the Council to uphold the General Plan policies. Debbie Vasquez, 7669 Martin Canyon Road, advised that some of the trees they are proposing to be removed are over 100 years old. It will take a long time to get the same impact from the trees that are removed. They are forcing houses into an unbuildable area. She questioned if the price would be out of reach of most people. This- is the last hill we have left and she questioned if Dublin was that -desperate for the revenue. Bob Patterson, 11552 Rolling Hills Drive, stated he was in agreement with Doug Abbott and requested that the Council uphold the City' s General Plan. He indicated he favored Staff' s recommendations. Cm. Snyder questioned Ms. Vasquez regarding her comments related to revenue. Ms. Vasquez. stated she wanted to question if the tax benefits from new people coming into the community was worth .tearing down the hill. Zev Kahn, 11708 Harlan Road, expressed concern related to all the grading and what may be found under the dirt. It was believed that bedrock boulders may be found. Bordeaux Estates went bankrupt trying to dispose of these boulders . He questioned . if the East Bay Regional Park District was interested in this area. Mr. Kahn. felt that in the interest of being able to maintain the interest of citizens, there should be special planning sessions devoted to this project, or because of its importance, this subject should at least be put at the beginning of City Council meetings . Mr. Schuitemaker, 7397 Hansen Drive, stated that he felt that with regard to the open space, they are actually getting rid of land that they can' t develop. He questioned what will happen to the open space and who will guarantee that it doesn' t become an eyesore. These problems should be resolved before rather than after the fact. Bob Anderson, 11412 Winding Trails Lane expressed concern regarding the proximity of the proposed road to the townhouses. Gordon Brandt, 7402 Hansen Drive, stated that the developer has from the beginning, assured everyone that not a single yard of dirt will be removed from the site. Now, however, they are proposing to move some dirt down the Valley Christian Center road and onto Dublin Boulevard. He felt if this is the case, they should be made to pay to haul, using Dublin streets . The intersection is especially bad at Dublin Boulevard and Silvergate Drive because of the configuration. He questioned the reason for the bridge to the west as he thought the road led nowhere. Mr. Jacoby advised that there are stub roads required to provide future access to adjacent properties . @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @@ CM-7-337 Regular Meeting November 14, 1988 • Dr. Harvey Scudder, 7409 Hansen Drive, expressed concern with the overall process. He has spent a great deal of his life working with decision making bodies. He was concerned that he has seen a Planning Commission with 5 members operating most of the time with only 3 Commissioners present at the meetings . We should not even begin this process with less than 7 people, as complex issues require at least 7 complex personali- ties . There also needs to be an adequate number of staff plus outside consultants . The Applicant spends a great deal of time trying to educate the Planning Commission, the public .and Staff. The process has not been adequate. He felt the larger picture is "What is the valleywide planning of which this is a part?" A development of this sort takes it toll on the traffic, water, sewer, air quality, etc. Bob Colores, 11424 Winding Trail Lane, stated he does not begrudge the applicant a fair return on his investment. The General Plan is supposed to be futuristic in scope. The amendments we are considering are major and serious when you think about removing trees and landfill. He felt a strong concern for future generations. This issue needs some very strong and serious consideration. Marjorie .LeBar, 11707 Juarez Lane, stated she was speaking in her capacity as Vice President of the Preserve Area Ridgelands Committee. They have been involved with this project from the beginning. Their concerns relate to the inconsistencies with the General Plan, particularly with regard to the filling of the swale. This area includes a 30% slope area which should not be built on and disturbs a rather valuable habitat. Their other concerns relate to the willingness of the developer to make some rather substantial dedications for open spacer The developer who owns the property next to the Hansen Ranch is considering the dedication of more than 3/4 of his property to the East . Bay Regional Park District. Her group urged the City Council to consider the Martin Creek corridor in its entirety from San Ramon Road up to the Hansen property, as a possible linear park with hiking and biking trails . They had no quarrel with the proposed densities, and felt that cluster housing is a good idea. Mr. Bilotti, Creekside Drive, questioned where the developer will get water and sewer. Mr. Jacoby pointed out on the map where they will tie into their water system and sewer source. The Council discussed the need to schedule future sessions to deal with all the issues related to this development, and also discussed dates for a field trip to the site. The Council scheduled a field trip for Sunday, November 27th at 1 : 00 p.m. The trip will primarily be a walking tour, but 4-wheel drive vehicles should be made available. The Council then scheduled special meeting dates for consideration of the, 4 major issues related to this project. These dates were: Tuesdays, 7 : 00 p.m. , November 29, December 6, December 13, 1988, and January 10, 1989 . The location of the special meetings will be determined by Staff. @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ @@@ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @@ @ @ @ @ @ @@ CM-7-338 Regular Meeting November 14, 1988 Mayor Jeffery continued the public hearing to the date of the field trip and to the subsequent study session meeting dates. City Manager Ambrose advised the Council that they will most likely need to schedule a study session for the East Dublin General Plan Study sometime in the next few weeks also. Mr. Ambrose questioned the Council' s desire regarding the second regular meeting in December. This meeting falls on December 26th. By a consensus of the Council, the second meeting in December was cancelled. * * * * REQUEST FOR FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE FROM THE DIABLO VALLEY FOUNDATION FOR THE AGING Recreation Director Lowart advised that the City has received correspondence from Marge Stout, Coordinator of Senior Recreation and Information for the San Ramon Valley, asking that the City contribute $749 . 36 for the printing and distribution of the "Silver Streaks" in Dublin. Ms . Lowart explained the background that led to this request. Mrs. Stout is asking for funding for only those issues of the Silver Streaks that are distributed in Dublin. Three hundred copies that are distributed in Dublin are printed by hand utilizing the copier and paper provided by the City of San Ramon. Ms . Lowart pointed out that while 300 copies are distributed in Dublin, Staff estimates that not more than 50% are actually received by Dublin residents . Staff felt that this publication is valuable for seniors throughout the Valley and therefore, recommended that the City offer to copy and distribute the next 4 issues in Dublin as an alternative to providing funds . It ' is estimated that the cost to copy the Silver Streaks utilizing the Recreation Department copier and Building Attendants should not exceed $200 . Cm. Snyder questioned if the Recreation Department would simply run the brochure through the copy machine page-by-page. Ms . Lowart responded yes that a Building Attendant would run the copies . Cm. Moffatt asked if this had been run past the Senior Citizen's Committee. - Ms . Lowart responded that it had not, but about 18 months ago, the Park & Recreation Commission recommended against spending the requested money and opted to put the money toward Dublin' s senior activities. Cm. Snyder felt we should try to monitor this in some way to determine what the benefit is to Dublin' s seniors. A report could be made back to the Council at budget time. @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ @ @ @@ @@@ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @@ @ @ @ @ @ @ @@ CM-7-339 Regular Meeting November 14, 1988 • On motion of Cm. Hegarty, seconded by Cm. Vonheeder, and by unanimous vote, the Council denied the request 'for funds, 'but offered to copy and distribute the Silver Streaks in Dublin. • FINANCIAL REPORT-FORMAT REVISIONS Finance Director Molina advised that during the last several months, Staff and members of the Council Audit Committee have discussed the possibility of revising the format of the City's Financial Reports to the City Council. * The Committee indicated it was interested in a report that was streamlined; easy to understand and provided a good comparison of actual expenses and revenues. versus budget. Since the City is in the process of converting its manual accounting system- to a computerized system, it appears that this would be an opportune time to change the financial report format. Two sample Balance Sheets were prepared and several sample Income Statements were enclosed for Council consideration. Following review and discussion, by a consensus of the Council', Staff was given direction to prepare the Balance Sheet in a format which consoli- dates funds by fund type; prepare Revenue & Expenditure Report that consolidates fund by fund type, identifies expenditure by department only and identifies those major revenue categories. . * * * * OTHER BUSINESS . East Bay Division/League of CA Cities City Manager Ambrose advised that there will be an East Bay Division Board meeting_ on November 16th. ' * * * Election Results City Manager Ambrose advised that Staff hopes to have the election results ready for Council certification at the Council's regular meeting on November 28th. The Alameda County Registrar of Voters actually has until December 6th (28 days following election) to provide these official results. The Council could then reorganize at that meeting. . * * * * . Planning Commission Appointment/Abe Okun Cm. Hegarty announced that he recently appointed Abe Okun, a Dublin resident for 20 years, to the Planning Commission. Mr. Okun will fill the vacancy created by Pat Tempel's resignation. Mr. Okun is a retired engineer who does consulting services. * * * * @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @@ CM-7-340 Regular Meeting November 14, 1988 Alameda County Housing Authority/20th Anniversary Cm. Hegarty advised that he will be attending the 20th Anniversary party of the Alameda County Housing Authority being held in Union City. Such dignataries as Dellums, Stark, Edwards, bockyer and Campbell will be in attendance. Cm. Hegarty requested that Staff prepare "a •proclamation which can be presented on this occasion. * * * Cable TV Workshop Cm. Vonheeder commented on a publication announcing an upcoming workshop /seminar related to cable television franchising. She suggested that Staff send a copy of the notice to Claudia" McCormick, the City's repre- sentative on the Cable TV Committee. * * * Random Access Network (RAN) Advisory Board Mayor Jeffery advised that she had received a reminder notice that Cm. Snyder's term on the RAN Board end January, 1989. Cm. Snyder requested a copy of the form to complete to advise the nominating committee of his continued interest in serving in this capacity. - * * * * . CLOSED SESSION At 11 :50 p.m. , the Council recessed to a closed executive session to discuss pending litigation, City of Dublin vs. Salgardo. * * * * ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to come before the Council, the meeting was adjourned at 12 :00 midnight. * * * * Mayor ATTEST: * * * * City Clerk @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @@ CM-7-341 . Regular Meeting November 14, 1988