Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 4.01 Approve 05-12-1992 Minutes ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING - May 12, 1992 An adjourned regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Dublin was held on Tuesday, May 12, 1992, in the Council Chambers of the Dublin Civic Center. The meeting was called to order at 7 : 32 p.m. , by Mayor Snyder. ROLL CALL PRESENT: Councilmembers Burton, Howard, Jeffery, Moffatt, and Mayor Snyder. ABSENT: None PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE The Mayor led the Council, Staff, and those present in the pledge of allegiance to the flag. PUBLIC HEARING - WESTERN DUBLIN GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT AND SPECIFIC PLAN (420-30) Mayor Snyder opened the public hearing. Planning Consultant Brenda Gillarde explained the process for the public hearing that night in that this meeting would be to receive public comments in relation to the General Plan Amendment for Western Dublin and the Specific Plan. She indicated that the Environmental Impact issues would not be discussed at this meeting, as there had been previous public hearings held at the Planning Commission level and the Public Hearing on the Environmental Impact Report was closed. Dennis Dahlin, consultant from WPM Planning Team, gave a slide presentation of the project site which is located west of the existing Dublin City limits and bordered by I-580 on the south, Eden Canyon Road on the west, and the Alameda/Contra Costa County line to the north. He indicated that the property is currently in the unincorporated portion of Alameda County and is zoned A (Agriculture) . The site has outstanding natural features of woodlands, and scenic ridges . The Land Use Plan would have open space areas, residential areas, commercial areas, and schools . This has been a ` two year effort of work between Staff, the Applicants, and the Consultants. The Plan addresses transportation and circulation components, pedestrian circulation with a continuous trail called the Hollis Canyon Trail that would extend from one end of the site to the other allowing people to walk from their homes to schools and other destinations in Western Dublin. The Regional Trail System crosses the site. Public facilities are covered in the Plan in regards to the water supply, waste water treatment and drainage. CM - Vol 11 - 187 Adjourned Regular Meeting May 12, 1992 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COPIES T0: ITEM NO. Other elements include Open Space, Biological, Geological, and Visual Concerns, Air Quality, Noise, and Architectural Design. The Plan represented an effort to combine natural features of the site with the development . Mike McKissick, representing the primary applicant Eden Development Group, stated that originally their project consisted of 13 separate parcels owned by individual ranchers with no development proposals . The ranchers have combined all the parcels under one applicant, the Eden Canyon Country Club project. The goal of the applicant was to cluster the development on the most developable areas of the property, preserve the open space as best it could, and to satisfy the City, the applicant, and the remainder of the community of Dublin. They have been working long and hard with all the agencies involved through opportunities and constraints for the last two years so that a truly consensus plan has evolved. Mr. McKissick indicated that the key features of the project were: 1 ) the variety of housing types which consisted of eleven different product types varying from apartments all the way up to custom homes and which met the socioeconomic values of the entire community; 2) the golf course and country club which would be an 18 hole championship golf course with a full service clubhouse and community facility; 3) an elementary school site within the project; 4) a number of park sites including play fields; and 5) a village center and neighborhood shopping commercial area. He felt that the project had preserved the visual integrity of the existing City of Dublin. The project was self- contained back in its own valleys. The original intent was to have no development on the eastern slope. The only visual impact would be the Schaefer Ranch Interchange which would be visible from the freeway. An innovative system had been developed for recycling waste water generated by this product and could possibly include recycling waste water generated by existing City of Dublin facilities . The freeway interchange at Schaefer Ranch was an amenity that kept the project from impacting existing traffic problems in the City of Dublin and in some certain circumstances would help alleviate those problems. Mr. McKissick stated that the advantages of this project included the proximity to urban areas and jobs to avoid long commutes, the current use of the land as grazing property was considered to be degraded habitat and would now be of functional use to the public. 60% of the land would be dedicated to permanent open space and would rehabilitate the habitat so that in the future the habitat can be used by native species, native plants, and native grasses and not be degraded by a continued agricultural or grazing use. Mr. McKissick identified some misconceptions that happened earlier in the project. 1 ) It would be a gated community. Eden Development Group has not proposed that the project be a gated community. 2) There was some concern that the zoned open space could be rezoned for development at a later date. That was not their proposal, they wanted to dedicate. CM - Vol 11 - 188 Adjourned Regular Meeting May 12, 1992 open space to some public agency or put it into a perpetual open space. and 3 ) The project would be built all at once and very soon. 1996 would be the beginning of a build out that would consist of a ten to fifteen year period of time. Mr. McKissick felt that the benefits to the current residents included amenities to the clubhouse, the regional trail system, the linear park, sports fields, as well as an increased value to the current residents in having a country club community within the City limits . The recycling efforts for the waste water treatment would help solve the major waste water treatment problems for the City of Dublin. They were also currently funding a search by Dublin San Ramon Services District for additional water sources over and above Zone 7 water which would help stabilize the water supply for the entire City. Jim Parsons, of Parsons, Rourke & Walker, planners, engineers, and landscape architects representing Schaefer Heights, who have been working very closely with Eden Development Group to generate an overall project that will promote a strong sense of community and be an economic asset to the City of Dublin. In addition to the Championship Golf Course, the Clubhouse facilities, the neighborhood parks, the huge open space, the major Regional Public Ridge Trail System, there would be the village center at Schaefer Heights. This village center was situated on 11 acres on the main entry boulevard just north of the Schaefer Road Interchange and Dublin Boulevard Extension. The village center was a pedestrian friendly, main shopping area for Dublin with an innovative mix of up to 70, 000 square feet of commercial and office space, 110 residential units, and areas for recreational uses . There would be a grocery store, restaurants, cafes, specialty shops, a day care center, and medical and dental offices at the Village Center. It would be a key meeting place and activity center for all of Dublin residents . It would also function as a transit stop where people could easily walk from their nearby homes. Every effort has been made to create a pedestrian oriented center including covered walkways, benches, bicycle storage, shaded sitting areas, and a connection to the major Regional Public Ridge Trail System, as well as a connection to the Linear Park. Mr. Parsons felt that this project would be a major social and economic asset to the City of Dublin. Cm. Moffatt asked if the golf course was going to be a private or public course. Mr. McKissick responded that the golf course would be a semi-private golf course facility. That would mean the club house facilities, and banquet rooms would all be open to the public for wedding receptions or graduation parties. There would be a management company that ran the golf facility and there would be a private club portion of it with some public play as well. CM - Vol 11 - 189 Adjourned Regular Meeting May 12, 1992 Mayor Snyder reminded the public that the comments should only be related to the General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan and not on the Environmental Impact Report. John Anderson, Brittany Lane, commented that as stated in the General Plan, the State required the City to adopt a General Plan that was comprehensive, long-term, and general. He indicated that being comprehensive meant it must comprise all the elements within the City' s physical development plans; in being long term, it must have a twenty year span ( 1985-2005) ; and in being general, it served as a framework on which all developments were judged. He stated that the General Plan was adopted by the City Council on February 11 , 1985 "because it was in the City' s best interest and the public' s health, safety, and welfare. " He felt all proposals must be judged against the adopted General Plan. He further indicated that all proposals must be judged by the social, economic, and environmental impacts . He stated that the question had to be asked what changed over the past four or five years that would cause such a massive reversal of position? Was the original premise of the General Plan in error, or was the proposal as it was now being proposed in error? He indicated that he was not saying do not develop. Although a lot of time and effort had gone into the General Plan Amendment being presented, maybe the best solution has not been arrived at as yet. He felt that the General Plan should be considered more than a document of convenience. Greg Tembo, 8018 Brittany Drive, stated that in regards to the Brittany Drive Extension, the Planning Commission recommended Brittany Drive not be extended and he wanted to emphasize that he felt that was a good recommendation because the roads down from Brittany Drive were not set up to take the additional traffic. Doug Abbott, 8205 Rhoda Avenue, indicated that he was a resident of Dublin, as well as a representative of the Sierra Club. On May 11 , 1992 the executive committee of the San Francisco Bay Chapter of the Sierra Club passed a resolution which he submitted for the record. The resolution stated that the City of Dublin was considering large scale, low density residential development in the steep hills and canyons to the west of the current City limits, that the Environmental Impact Report for this project detailed massive environmental destruction, that there was no mitigation for this destruction short of the no project alternative, that Zone 7 had barely enough water to serve the existing General Plans of valley cities, that the land proposed for development was under the Williamson Act agricultural contracts until 1998-9, and that the genuine housing needs of the Tri-Valley could be met more efficiently by utilizing land within the existing urban boundaries where infrastructure, transportation, and shopping already existed. He, on the behalf of the San Francisco Bay Chapter of the Sierra Club, strongly urged the City of Dublin to reject this development proposal as being premature, inconsistent with responsible environmental policies, and not in the best interest of the existing residents of Dublin, the Tri- Valley, and the Bay Area. CM - Vol 11 - 190 Adjourned Regular Meeting May 12, 1992 As to personal observations, Mr. Abbott stated he was appalled by the proposal . He felt it was the worst project he had seen since he had started following development issues as an environmental activist. He indicated it was "rape and scrape" development of the worst kind. He indicated to chop off ridges and fill canyons to the extent proposed in this plan in order to create flat land was unconscionable, stupid, and bad planning. He felt the residents of Dublin were the losers . Western Dublin did not connect with the rest of Dublin and this development would not necessarily benefit Dublin businesses . These residents could shop in Castro Valley. Mr. Abbott indicated that in regard to transportation, although the plan was proposed as a pedestrian friendly development, the people who buy million dollar houses on exclusive golf courses did not ride bikes to the store. The project would exacerbate the transportation and air quality problems of the Bay Area, not contribute to their solution. Mr. Abbott asked in regard to water, how many more years of drought was it going to take to make people realize that there was no more water. Most of California including this valley was basically a desert. He indicated Zone 7 recently released an updated water supply projection that showed that they cannot even meet the demands of the existing cities, general plans in the valley. How were they going to supply Western Dublin? He stated that the ground water basin had been overdrafted for the past eight years . Mr. Abbott felt that it was stupid to forge ahead with massive new development when there was barely enough water for the people here now. He predicted there may be a backlash against water conservation efforts in the future where people would not conserve water any longer so that new development could be created. Harvey Scudder, 7409 Hansen Drive, felt that open space needed to be planned. He had been completely dissatisfied with the way the City had stated how open space would be managed. He felt that if you put people near open space without a policy of management, it became an open dump with old cars, bathtubs, trash, beer cans . The open space had to be managed. Today people were dealing with many stresses . Open space was not just for animals that needed to live in the open space, but the population itself needed the open space as a window for the soul. If the open space was created as islands of areas, it did not work. The open space needed to be connected. Song birds were disappearing because predators could pick them off too easily if they were confined to small areas. Dr. Scudder questioned on the Specific Plan the word "dedication" was crossed out and replaced with "land shall be restricted. " He felt that "restricted" was a weasel word and that "dedication" meant the land became open space from then on. He asked why those changes were made. CM - Vol 11 - 191 Adjourned Regular Meeting May 12, 1992 Dr. Scudder indicated that open space had to be considered an intricate part of the planning and there had to be a commitment made to open space in terms of management. It should not be something that may get done if someone got time or it was convenient. David Bewley, Brittany Lane, felt the proposal was for a change from rural land to urban use. He stated the presentation by the developers showed many significant positive and intriguing aspects of their development that deserved considerable merit. But there were also some negative impacts that also deserved careful consideration. As Mr. Bewley understood it, Marie Cronin sold her land to Milestone Development which included one road. Milestone Development was now asking for three roads . One of those roads was the Brittany Road Extension. He said Milestone had no legal right to access over the Nielsen property. He felt the Council had before them a need to balance housing and development versus the right to quiet, continued enjoyment of the existing residents that would be impacted by the proposed extension of Brittany Drive. He indicated the Planning Commission recommended the Brittany Drive extension not be part of the Milestone Development and 74 units be developed rather than the original 125 units which were requested. He stated if the Council allowed the creation of 125 units rather than the 74 units recommended by the Planning Commission, there would be a highly increased value for the Milestone Development, but the extra 50 homes would result in the loss of quality of life and possible economic value to the residents of Brittany Lane and the adjacent streets impacted by this development. Mr. Bewley asked the Council what was a reasonable expectation for a resident who paid a significant amount of his personal wealth for a home in this community. Was it reasonable to rely on the pronouncements in the General Plan? Could Milestone Development come to the Council and say they had a reasonable expectation that they could buy a ranch and have new roads extended across the lands of others to allow them a substantial increase in value beyond what they had purchased? He felt the Council could not find significant justification to allow for the Brittany Lane extension. Hillside terrain did not allow itself to heavy traffic. He indicated the Brittany Lane extension was inappropriate. He stated he was not against new housing or development to our community, but he felt it was a question of reasonableness and proper planning that considered the needs of the current residents, as well as those of the future who were yet to come to the City. Terry Palmisano, Wild Life Biologist for the California Department of Fish & Game, indicated the Department of Fish & Game wrote a strongly worded letter in response to the EIR for this project. The answering response to their letter and meetings with the developer had not alleviated their concerns. The Department was not opposed to development in the hills, but they were opposed to the magnitude of the project before the Council. Specifically, they were opposed to the magnitude of the impacts to the wildlife resources and the habitats that CM - Vol 11 - 192 Adjourned Regular Meeting May 12, 1992 I they needed to survive. Obliterating over 120 acres of oak woodlands, 13 miles of creek, ' and several entire canyon systems was not acceptable. There was no mitigation that could give you back what you would lose. No policy would reduce those impacts to less than significant. She realized the project could not be designed with no impacts; however, the impacts could be reduced and stronger policies written to protect the existing resources. The Department recommended the development be redesigned to more closely met the intent of the current adopted General Plan and environmental standards. With the championship golf course came some championship impacts. There were options to reduce these impacts such as eliminating the golf course, clustering the developments, and reducing the number of units. The Department of Fish & Game strongly urged the Council to develop stronger policies that protected the existing resources rather than relying on mitigation. Mark Vitz, Advanced Planning Manager for the East Bay Regional Park .District (EBRPD) , indicated the concerns of the Park District were set forth in the letter dated May 8, 1992 . The Western Dublin area was a key part of the larger open space and wildlife habitat context for the Parks District chain of Open Space, Parks, and Trails in this area. He stated the Open Space must be protected by the land use decisions of local government. He felt that was the basic intent of the State Legislation that mandated an Open Space element in every local General Plan and called for coordinated planning for it at State, Regional, and Local levels . He indicated the approval of 3, 000 dwelling units, a golf course, with the very extensive grading broke up the important open space context and destroyed the wildlife habitat. It would throw a barrier of urbanization across an open space corridor and result in the loss and reduction in value of the visual assets of this area. The Park District asked that the project be referred back to the Planning Commission and Staff with a directive to work with neighboring communities, the County, and Park District Staff to establish a coordinated open space plan for this area. This plan should benefit and enhance the future value and quality of Dublin and its environments as a place to live. If the City Council elected not to follow the request of the Park District, then the Park District requested the Council to establish in the General Plan Amendment protection for the specific park district interests noted in the May 8th letter including restriction of grading and structure height near the ridgeline, keeping the open space corridor on the eastern slope ridge as wide as possible, limiting the development on the Milestone property to the 16 unit alternative, including the District' s Regional Trail Link and maintenance support for it, and limiting the emergency vehicle access to a graded, unpaved roadway, and retaining the present General Plan Policy restricting development to slopes under 30%. The Park District wanted to make clear that before it could accept any responsibility for any Open Space, that Open Space must have logical, manageable boundaries and there must also be suitable mitigation measures to protect natural areas and habitats, and adequate means of financial support for the District to take on permanent obligations of ownership and stewardship. Consideration should be given to the larger regional implications of eliminating this CM - Vol 11 - 193 Adjourned Regular Meeting May 12, 1992 open space. In conclusion, he indicated the District wished to point out that decisions for the future on a large part of the community were always difficult ones, but the District' s experience was that the long term view was never regretted. Cm. Jeffery asked for clarification in regard to the letter sent to the Council by the District. She said the letter indicated that voters passed Measure AA and that brought dollars that could be potentially used to purchase park land in this City. The letter also indicated land was to be purchased in surrounding cities, but the letter did not state the District intended to purchase any land for parks in Dublin. Was the District intending to use any of this money to purchase land in Dublin? Mr. Vitz responded the Measure AA Bond Issue did not include specific provision for acquisition by the East Bay Regional Parks District for open space land in Dublin. Cm. Jeffery asked if East Bay Regional Park District was planning to let Dublin know what they were going to do for our community. It sounded to her as if the Park District was saying put the land aside, but Dublin you take care of it. Mr. Vitz indicated the East Bay Regional Park District in acquiring parks and open space throughout its territory cannot purchase all of the open space that creates the total context of open space for those parks . He indicated it was the coordinating planning by the Park District, cities, and the County that would create an open space concept for the entire urbanized area. He said in the Dublin area there were no proposed acquisitions by the Parks District, but the District wanted to work with the City to plan the total open space. Cm. Jeffery asked if some agreement had been worked out with the Park District and some of our surrounding communities in order for the Park District to have land in those communities . Mr. Vitz indicated those lands were part of the Plan District' s Master Plan. Cleo Davidson, 11315 Rolling Hills Drive, indicated that she had concerned neighbors who kept her and others who were out of town informed on the meetings. She expressed her concern over a part of a report from her neighbors that said the Planning Commission had mentioned more than once that unless it heard from a significant number of residents, it would be assumed that the Plan had minimal opposition. The word "assumed" really troubled her. She knew the developers would be at the meetings because that was their job. She said a lot of people earn their living out of town and have to travel and cannot attend these meetings. She was concerned it would be assumed because she could not attend all the meetings that she did not care. She pointed out a lot of people at the meeting tonight (specifically the City Council) were not at the previous Planning Commission meetings . CM - Vol 11 - 194 Adjourned Regular Meeting May 12, 1992 Mayor Snyder clarified the fact City Councilmembers cannot attend Planning Commission meetings . It was a conflict of interest. Ms. Davidson indicated she cared about the open space. Too often she had heard that trees would have to be taken out, but new trees would be planted and would grow up to be beautiful . In her development it was mandated that 600 trees be planted on their hillside. Of the nearly 600 trees planted, there were only 46 living trees today. The weeds were high. The association did not want to be an association. The developers let it go. It had been neglected and it looked terrible. Just to say there was thousands of acres of open space did not do it. She urged the Council to save the trees and think of the open space. Mary Drag, 5392 Crown Court, Castro Valley, indicated she had fought very hard against the Shapell-Palomares Hills Development. If the Council wanted to see what this kind of cut and fill kind of development made into flat lands looked like, the Council should visit Palomares Hills and look at that development. The only hill left was the one going up into the development. All the open space was 30% slope. The hills were cut and the valleys were filled. The hills deserved development that was designed for hills . The hills should not be redesigned for flat land development. Tim Stear, 11555 Shannon Avenue, expressed two concerns in opposition to the Plan. The first concern was the Bay Area had enough people right now. The more growth, the more problematic life became for everyone. He felt no more growth was needed in this area, as well as the whole Bay Area. Traffic problems, lack of water, and air pollution, all develop because of overgrowth. His other concern was from the 1990 census results, it had been determined that California had become two societies, one comfortable and fairly affluent and one very poor, many of whom did not speak English. Where should local communities put their money? Who did the community reach out to and try to help? If new homes were going to be built, the people who could not afford a home should be considered. Encourage housing people on the lower end of the income scale could afford. John Anderson, Brittany Lane, requested a standing poll be taken of the people present who were opposed to the Brittany Lane extension. About 50 people stood up. In regard to the ecological side on the issue, specially the oak trees, an article from "Fremontia" indicated the oak trees were not regenerating themselves . An oak tree that was 4 inches in diameter was over a hundred years old. 126 acres of oaks were going to be destroyed. He indicated this constituted 25% of all the oaks in this area. He stated if the oak was destroyed, in essence everything in that bio was destroyed. Destroying the oak trees had many hidden effects. He explained he was not saying do not develop, but part of the development should be changed so accommodations were made for what was already there. CM - Vol 11 - 195 Adjourned Regular Meeting May 12, 1992 Diana Day, 11395 Rolling Hills Drive, asked who were the people who were going to be coming to live in the new developments . The "Images" have been partly built with some of the hills left with just cement slabs and weeds growing. The Hansen Development had yet to be built. There were all these developments that have been approved, but had not been built yet. Although there were trees out her back yard right now, in three or four years, she could be looking out her back yard into someone else' s back yard. She requested the City not allow for building on the tops of the hills . The Cronin Development should be limited to 74 units that would not mar the hillsides so the residents of Dublin that live on the flatland would be able to still look up and see the hilltops . When Mr. Bewley returned to the podium to speak again, Mayor Snyder apologized to the audience but went on to explain that the Planning Commission had a different format from the City Council public hearings. He indicated at the City Council public hearings everyone had a right to address the Council one time at the podium during that public hearing. Due to the misunderstanding, he allowed Mr. Bewley to continue to speak, but indicated that after that, everyone had one time at the podium this evening since only one public hearing was being addressed that night. Mr. Bewley stated the letter submitted to the Council in regard to the Brittany Lane extension had 100 signatures on it and that represented 97% of the residents of Brittany Drive. In gathering the signatures, he was not able to find anyone in favor of the extension. He requested the Council delete the Brittany Lane extension from the General Plan Amendment because he felt it was not in the best interest of the public. Mr. Bewley continued in regard to open space the Council could ask that the open space be dedicated. He indicated in the recent Amendment to the Plan in Section 7 on implementing policy, open space to be dedicated had been deleted from the draft and "the reservation of open space" had been substituted. He felt "reservation" was not as binding as "dedication. " He urged the Council to make the open space dedicated and permanent. Emmitt King, 11460 Rothchild Place, felt Brittany Lane was already a dangerous, narrow road that was curvy with parking on both sides . If the extension was allowed, it would dump thousands of cars through their development. He asked if any of the Councilmembers had been approached by Milestone or Eden Development and if so, what were the topics discussed and were any decisions or conclusions made. Mayor Snyder explained on a regular basis he was kept up-to-date by developers on how far along the developers were in their planning and was asked if the Councilmember had any major concerns. Mayor Snyder also indicated he tried not to comment relative to those issues because he felt it was an inappropriate time. He felt the more appropriate time to comment was in a public setting. But he could only speak for himself. He further explained if any decisions had been made, it would CM - Vol 11 - .196 Adjourned Regular Meeting May 12, 1992 be a violation of the Ralph M. Brown Act and he doubted any member of the City Council would like to suffer the consequences of the Brown Act. Jean Olds, Regio Drive, indicated she has been a resident of Dublin for 18 years and she was concerned about the management of open space, the availability of water, air quality, and the remoteness from the core of Dublin of this development. The reason her family moved to Dublin and the reason they stayed and the reason they loved Dublin was that Dublin was a place for ordinary people. She enjoyed the fact Dublin was not Pleasanton or Blackhawk. She would like to retain that character. To her, this looked like a ghetto for the rich. She felt isolating people in any way from the core of their city made them non-citizens. She asked the Council to please consider carefully. Robert Patterson, 11552 Rolling Hills Drive, stated he was opposed to the Brittany Lane extension and he was opposed to the Specific Plan mainly due to the shortage of water, smog, and the other problems mentioned. At past Planning Commission meetings, it was said past mistakes were blamed on the County Planning Commission and he pointed out that the Council would not be able to blame the County for this decision. Steve DeGalan, 11515 Silvergate Drive, indicated he was speaking for a group of four neighbors who were unable to make the meeting due to childcare concerns. They lived near the Hansen Hill development. They had three concerns . 1 ) the proposed Hansen Hill Ranch road did not improve access; 2) the Hansen Hill project as it stands already had 140 homes approved, already had a steep hillside, and probably offered commuters no benefit; 3) this narrow area was not designed to take a huge road that would be necessary to -allow for thousands of people to use; and the traffic would not move in a smooth fashion. The corner already proposed at Silvergate Drive was less than a hundred feet from another corner, which was a stop sign corner. He felt the alternative route should be somewhat north to allow for better traffic movement and to allow the people in the community some option in where they were going. Stephen M. Green, 11314 Rolling Hills Drive, stated he was in opposition to the Brittany Lane extension. He felt it would bring loss of quality of life, it would create health & safety hazards, and it would bring a loss of economic value. He applauded the developer for creating a new workplace and living area for residents. But he looked to the Council for their insight into the future of the community and he appreciated the opportunity to speak to the Council. Tony Woodard, 11438 Rolling Hills Drive, asked the Council to consider the time and effort and local tax dollars invested in the Planning Commission' s recommendation. He attended most of the Planning Commission meetings and he asked the Council to please listen to the recommendation of the Planning Commission. He moved to Dublin because he was attracted to the peace and the trees of the area. He felt if the CM - Vol 11 - 197 Adjourned Regular Meeting May 12, 1992 development went through as it stands, the streets would be far less safe and far noisier. Elliot Healy, 11362 Betlen Drive, asked where the Cronin Development was or where the road would go down through Hansen to the gate in relation to the hillside? He asked if it was visible from Dublin? Mr. Dahlin indicated where the development was on the map, as well as the Brittany Lane extension and the Hansen Ranch road. Jocelyn Combs, Dublin' s representative to the Board of the East Bay Regional Parks District, thanked the City Council for the cooperative efforts with the East Bay Regional Parks District primarily on the land swap with Tassajara and the on-going work with Cm. Burton on the Iron Horse Trail. She would rather see this area not developed at all, but it was not in EBRPD' s Master Plan. She wished EBRPD had the monies to purchase all the ridgelands and open space in Alameda and Contra Costa County, but she realized it was not practical. She explained if there was ridgeland development in the County, it went through the Park District for comment. She asked the Council to work more closely with the Parks District. If the Council approved this development, it would be the first break through project on the ridgelands. This would set an example for any future development in the valley. She hoped it will be done sensitively and set an example. Cm. Jeffery indicated her understanding was that the EBRPD was suppose to represent all the communities and she felt Dublin had not gotten good consideration from the EBRPD and that was why she asked if the Parks District was planning to spend any money in this area in Dublin as part of the parks system. Ms . Combs responded the Master Plan was based not on communities but on unique open space. Cm. Jeffery asked if Dublin was considered unique open space. Ms. Combs stated no, it was not specifically delineated in the Parks District Master Plan. When the Master Plan was drawn up in 1972, public input contributed a lot to what areas were set aside. This area was not identified in the County Plan either. Even if there was no park in the Parks District Master Plan for the City of Dublin, by using the open space Dublin had left appropriately and conforming it in such a way, you could make yourself a pretty sizeable regional facility. But if it was treated as the leftovers, it would be used like the leftovers . Mayor Snyder indicated the Dublin City Council had received a letter dated May 12, 1992 from Chuck V' Soske, which he wanted to read into the record since the' Council had not had an opportunity to receive the letter. CM - Vol 11 - 198 Adjourned Regular Meeting May 12, 1992 Dear Sirs: Regarding the General Plan Amendment and specific plans for the Milestone and Eden Canyon Development, I would like to voice my concerns about the effects of these developments on future traffic on the west side of Dublin. Unless I am unaware of more recent traffic plan studies, it would appear that all the assumptions and projections about the flow of traffic into and out of these developments are based on the original Hanson Ranch EIR Traffic Studies (circa 1989?) . The published report dealt with access to the Hanson Ranch development (±175 homes) via the proposed Hanson Ranch Road and another road connecting Dublin Boulevard to the southern edge of the development using a right of way through the valley Christian School property. If the extension of Brittany Lane or another route allowing access to these developments from the north is voted down, I question whether the Hansen Ranch Road and the Valley Christian access road could even begin to handle the traffic in and out of future developments that will include over 3, 000 homes when completed. Granted the new interchange on I-580 will serve residents who need to drive west, but in my opinion anyone in the west hills of Dublin who drives I-680 north (to Bishop Ranch, Walnut Creek, etc. ) would opt to avoid the 5801680 interchange and take Hansen Ranch Road or Dublin Boulevard to get the Alcosta on- ramp of I-680. I believe that this would dramatically increase traffic on Silvergate Drive and the San Ramon Valley Road--to the point that past traffic studies based on ±175 homes in Hanson Ranch would be invalid. Can the City be serious about going ahead with development of more than 3, 000 homes with the northernmost access road being less than 314 mil from I-580? The development map clearly shows that most of the new development lies north of the proposed Hanson Ranch Road. Can future residents be expected to drive due south, and negotiate the 5801680 interchange just to get to 680 north? I personally drive to and from Walnut Creek everyday and would never consider taking 680 south to 580 west to the San Ramon Valley Road exit to Dublin Boulevard to get to Silvergate Drive--even though my home is only 112 mile north of the Dublin Boulevard/Silvergate Drive intersection. I believe that most people would just as soon drive "as the crow flies" and avoid freeway interchange given the choice. Either traffic studies need to be completely re-done to take the total western development into consideration or other northern access road options need to be looked at. I for one am not excited about living adjacent to the "Silvergate Parking Lot" in years to come. I look forward to your reply. Sincerely, Chuck V'Soske, 11511 Silvergate Drive, Dublin, CA 94568 CM - Vol 11 - 199 Adjourned Regular Meeting May 12, 1992 Anna Hoifjeld, 11200 Rothchild Court, stated the City of Dublin adopted a General Plan in 1985 which was to guide the City' s development through the year 2005 . The City was only a third of the way through the period the General Plan was intended to cover and the current City Council was considering massive changes to the Plan and its related zoning. She felt the changes were for the sole purpose of allowing the construction of two new developments. She felt the changes were necessary because the developers involved would not meet the current existing standards regarding ridgeland preservation. This meant disfigurement, urbanization of agricultural lands, geological hazards, and run-off minimization. The zoning would have to be changed from agricultural use to residential use. She stated the homes built would house 9, 655 people which would be a 38% population increase. She asked what the benefits to the existing residents would be. She felt new residential developments placed a burden on existing schools and services . Dublin had been the beneficiary of a substantial commercial tax base. The owners who purchased property since 1985 did so with the full knowledge of the zoning restrictions and the existing General Plan. She felt the current owners have no basis for complaint. She did not want the Council to distort "the greatest good for greatest number" into "the greatest good for the largest campaign contributors in American politics today. " She asked the council to remember the priorities and concerns that led to the creation of the General Plan in 1985 . The intervening years had not done anything to relieve the anxiety regarding the vanishing wild lands and the ever deceasing quality of life. Susan Nelson-Bewley, 11166 Brittany Drive, addressed the public safety ,and open space issues. In regard to the Brittany Lane extension, increasing traffic on Silvergate, Creekside, and Rolling Hills Drive created a greater potential for injuries to children who played in the street. Rolling Hills had had accidents where children were injured. People had trouble now getting in and out of their driveways on Creekside and Rolling Hills . 300-400 more cars would make the situation unbearable. She expressed concern over the acreage of oak trees that would be destroyed and might never grow back. The open hills in the Silvergate Highlands Association were not planted, droughts might continue, there was a windy condition. so the trees had a hard time growing. It could be difficult to start any new oak trees growing. So taking 140 acres could make the hillside scarred and pretty brown throughout the year regardless of a drought. She stated oaks trees could not be replaced. She also expressed a concern with filling in the valleys with the tops of the ridges and taking down the ridges by a hundred feet. What if the golf course did not continue as a green area due to a drought. It became a desert with lots of wind blowing through. She did not feel there was enough water and golf courses take a lot of water. Mr. King asked what the timeframe was on voting on this . Mayor Snyder responded he would address the timeframe after everyone had spoken. CM - Vol 11 - 200 Adjourned Regular Meeting May 12, 1992 Mike McKissick clarified that Eden Development Group did not represent nor. did they have anything to do with the development of the Cronin property. Therefore, they were not responsible for the possible destruction of the oak trees recounted in the Specific Plan. Eden Development did not have any plan or designated connections through the Cronin Ranch project into either Brittany Drive or the Hansen Hills . Their project had an extension of Dublin Boulevard as required by CALTRANS and the construction of a new interchange at Schaefer Ranch where an existing overcrossing was in place and the expansion of the interchange at Eden Canyon Road. The traffic studies related to Hansen Hill had nothing to do with the traffic studies that have been done in connection with Eden Canyon Country Club. He further stated the General Plan adopted in 1985 designated the western extended planning area as residential for future residential development for the City of Dublin. The fiscal impacts to the City were addressed in the Specific Plan with a very extensive fiscal study of the project. He wanted to clarify this project was not building million dollars homes for Blackhawk type people. This was a diversity of product that covered the entire spectrum of residents . There would be no sense of exclusivity here. It was for Dublin and it would be a part of Dublin. He stated this was not a flat land type of development. The grades and the grading established on the project were the result of the health and safety ordinances of the City of Dublin. The streets were graded on a grade that met those requirements . It was for the health and safety that the project had been designed as it was. All the houses in Eden Canyon Country Club were on secondary ridges that were behind the main ridge. There would be apartments, townhouses, condominiums, and duettes, so he did not understand how it could be labeled "urban sprawl" . It was their intention to divest themselves totally of the 1 , 800 acres of open space. The language was changed in regard to the Open Space to give the City the greatest amount of leeway in taking care of the land. He indicated it was not good prime agriculture land. This was also not unique open space, but was graded grazing land. There was not habitat here and there was no agricultural viability here. This was not public property that they were trying to take away from the public. It was private property with no trespassing. Those ridges were now closed to the public where the property owners were grazing cattle. They were proposing a better and higher use of the property with the opportunity for public use of the property. Ms . Silver clarified the language change on page 7-17 of the Specific Plan was at her suggestion to read "land designated as a resource protection area shall be restricted to open space by documents which shall emphasize that this land may not be considered for development in the future. " The change in language was not to diminish the provisions of the Specific Plan but to provide greater flexibility to the City with respect to the means by which the land could be restricted to open space uses . She indicated land does not necessarily have to be dedicated in order to be restricted to open space use. This change in language would give the City greater flexibility to achieve the goal of restricting the CM - Vol 11 - 201 Adjourned Regular Meeting May 12, 1992 land to open space uses. The change was not at all intended to mean the dedication was not allowed. Dedication would be one means of restricting land to open space uses. There were other means such as imposing conservation easements on the property. Planning Director Tong indicated for the record that the Planning Department did receive several other written communications . 1 ) Eden Development Group dated May 8, 1992; 2) Milestone Development Corporation dated April 20, 1992; 3) City of San Ramon dated May 12, 1992; and 4) some diagrams from Eden Development Group. He indicated these were in addition to the letters referenced by the various speakers. Mayor Snyder closed the public hearing and with the concurrence of the Council indicated that Council would make its deliberation on Thursday, May 14, 1992 beginning at 7 : 30 p.m. in the same location. Planning Director Tong stated there were a lot of procedural items including an additional Staff Report that would need to be prepared for the subsequent council meeting. Staff and Consultants would not be prepared to meet on May 14th. Staff would recommend the meeting be held on May 27th if Council was available. After checking their calendars, the Council determined the deliberations would take place on Thursday, May 28, 1992 at 7 : 30 p.m. Mayor Snyder clarified that at this meeting there would be no public input accepted, but it would be strictly for the deliberation of the City Council and . the final report of Staff. A member of the audience indicated if she was not able to attend the meeting that she wanted the Council to know she still cared. Cm. Burton felt it was marvelous that everyone had shown up and had given excellent presentations. Mayor Snyder adjourned the meeting at 10 : 08 p.m. * * * * Minutes Prepared by Sandie Hart. Mayor .ATTEST: City Clerk CM - Vol 11 - 202 Adjourned Regular Meeting May 12, 1992