Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01-21-1993 Adopted CC MinutesADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING - January 21, 1993 An adjourned regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Dublin was held on Thursday, January 21, 1993, in the Council Chambers of' the Dublin Civic Center. CLOSED SESSION At 6:30 p.m., with all Councilmembers present the Council went into a closed executive session to discuss potential litigation (640-30) in accordance with Government Code Section 54956.9(c). The public portion of the meeting was called to order at 7:35 p.m., by Mayor Snyder. * * * ROLL CALL PRESENT: ABSENT: Councilmembers Burton, Houston, Howard, Moffatt and Mayor Snyder. None. * * * * PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE (610-20) Mayor Snyder led the Council, Staff and those present in the pledge of allegiance to the flag. * * * PUBLIC HEARING - Continued From January 14, 1993 EASTERN DUBLIN GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT & SPECIFIC PLAN (420-30) Mayor Snyder announced that the meeting would be adjourned at 11:00 p.m. He requested that anyone wishing to speak, complete one of the blue slips and turn it in to the City Clerk. Everyone who wishes will be given an opportunity to speak. Mayor Snyder stated by action of LAFCO today, a lot of the pressure has been lifted. They have agreed that the May 15th deadline for dealing with the issues of the North Livermore Study and the East Dublin Study is unrealistic. They agreed to extend the deadline to July 15th and it may be possible to extend the date even further if Livermore Mayor Cathie Brown agrees. Mayor Snyder opened the public hearing. Planning Director Tong stated this is the second public hearing before the City Council, and the 21st public meeting on eastern Dublin. A number of issues have been discussed and he stated that Mr. Carrington would give a brief itemization of the issues that have been raised. CM - VOL 12 - 34 Adjourned Regular Meeting January 21, 1993 Senior Planner Carrington advised that items discussed included the Airport Protection Area issue, grading issues, curvilinear street system, whether the transit spine should be 2 or 4 lanes, location of a high school, wastewater and water availability, feaSibility of financing, and the San Joaquin Kit Fox habitat. Since the last meeting, letters had been received from the City of Walnut Creek, Pacific Teal and Contra'Costa County, noting various concerns. Major issues listed by the public last week included: open space; development should be phased; airport protection area; recommendations that rural lands be designated as open space; proposal that the plan itself be downscaled and not as large as~proposed; and discussion about the Kit Fox 3 to 1 habitat replacement. Sherman Lewis, 2787 Hillcrest Avenue, Hayward, recently elected to the BART Board, stated he was embarrassed about his ignorance of the details of the plan being considered. He had come to Dublin in the past to attend a Planning Commission meeting when this subject was being discussed. He also gave advise on the west Dublin issues, which obviously wasn't needed. He comes to the BART Board with some strong opinions. He has spent his life studying economics. He has an interest in dense development around BART stations. He wants to save as much of our beautiful open space as possible. The 100 acres closest to the station needs to be very dense. The 1/4 mile surrounding it should have a transit emphasis. With the 1/2 outer mile, there is still a need to emphasize walking transit. It is frustrating dealing with the land around the BART station because so much of it is not usable. He noted that 3,000 parking spaces are planned and stated this sounds crazy. It simply makes BART a part of the sprawl. He would like to look into a very strong feeder bus system and have a level of service that is adequate. He summarized that he was looking forward to working with the people of Dublin on the future stations. Edwin Diemer, 11528 Betlen Drive, Dublin, stated in addition to being a Dublin resident he is also a pilot who has been a user of the Livermore Airport over the years. He represented over 600 pilots who want the protection zone. Placing 1,000 residents under the flight pattern is simply not acceptable. This says that Dublin is not concerned about the safety of the people in the air or on the ground. He discussed at length the way departures occur. He stated the pilots would prefer to see the residential zoning changed to non-residential. A 4/5 override vote by the Council would be a big disservice to everyone. Since Dublin most likely won't be able to provide services to this part of the plan for 30 or 40 years, it could just be left agricultural and then dealt with several years from now. Mr. Diemer suggested moving the sphere of influence in to a smaller area. As a citizen of Dublin, he has been involved with this since stage one. The issues are very complex, but it has been very interesting. Dublin has come a long way, but we still have a long way to go. Phases I to IV have not hit the desired results. At the meeting last week, no one raised any new issues; however, a lot of issues have not been addressed. They were led to believe that the groups would be working groups, but their concerns have not been addressed. He questioned what has happened. He realizes that Dublin has a limited Staff to CM - VOL 12 - 35 Adjourned Regular Meeting January 21, 1993 devote time to this and there is'also the money limitation. It appears that the City Council has issued orders to limit responses to the various issues. Dublin needs to look beyond its own borders. Dublin ignores the impacts to its neighbors. Dublin is perceived as a City with no concern for others and just doing its own thing. The plan seems to be very incomplete and needs major rework. People will be standing in line to attack the plan if the issues are not addressed. Staff has put many years of hard work into this plan and it is not fair to rush it through at this point. He was glad to see that the open comment period has been extended. He would like to see time taken to address all the issues and eliminate the errors. Dublin must open dialogue with others in the Valley. He stated he would submit written comments. Doug Abbott, 8206 Rhoda Avenue, Dublin, stated it seems we are witnessing the dawn of a refreshing new era of Dublin politics. How can we make the east Dublin plan one we can live with and be proud of? With regard to the environmental process, in the past Dublin has tended to view the CEQA process as a legal hurdle to be overcome. Serious adverse impacts are identified and boilerplate responses are issued. There are many clear inadequacies in the documents and he believes it would be prudent to recirculate the EIR and maybe if we scale the plan back, the impacts would be less. If an impact cannot be mitigated, perhaps the plan should be held up until it can be mitigated. Residents should be asked if they are willing to tolerate the inadequacies. The plan should not degrade the existing quality of life for Dublin residents. Martin Inderbitzen, 5000 Hopyard Road, Pleasanton, representing the Lin Properties and Doolan Associates stated this has not been a rush process and it represents the City's vision. They submitted a plan in 1987. Staff and the City Council can be confident in and take pride in the fact that the process has been controlled in every way. The irony is that it has been to the chagrin of some that not everyone has been able to participate. If you review the record, the plan started from the point of the goals and objectives of the City and its citizens, not the property owners to the east. He urged everyone to continue to focus issues to a point where the City Council can begin to make decisions. A 6 year process is not a short process. It has proceeded at a very deliberate pace. He encouraged the City to adopt a plan. Neighbors are not going to stop their planning. The Council must think about the opportunities for the City. He recognized the requests to scale the plan back, but urged Staff and the Council before making a final decision, to' analyze this in terms of competing goals and review the balance of jobs to housing. John Chapman, a resident of Danville, stated he had a positive idea that might help. There is the possibility that the 3 other projects might end up in court. If Contra Costa County moves forward, it might end up the same way. Dublin has a chance to do something right that might not end up in the courts. He stated he had a 50 minute video by Andreas Duany entitled, Rethinking Suburban Sprawl", that the Council could review as homework. The video will really challenge those who CM- VOL 12 - 36 Adjourned Regular Meeting January 21, 1993 view it and he urged the Council to consider it as part of the process. Bob Patterson, 11552 Rolling Hills-Drive, Dublin, stated he had major .concerns with the plan. He used to live in Livermore right under the flight plan. He urged the Council to not build homes under the flight plan. This is unnecessary. Also, traffic mitigation levels E or F sounds pretty bad. We might just build ourselves into a big traffic jam. Dr. Harvey Scudder, 7409 Hansen Drive, Dublin, Stated what basically bothers him is that each city does their own thing. The area cannot tolerate this. There has to be a regional approach without bickering of individual cities against each other. We have one air mass, and one huge traffic problem and all these problems must have one common remedy. The air problems already exceed the limits of this valley. Adding thousands more people simply doesn't make sense. With regard to the water supply, no one is prepared to supply the water that will be needed by this plan. With regard to the traffic pattern, he stated he would like to know what the size of 1-580 would need to be. We should do everything possible to encourage mass transit. With the method of planning we are doing, the transportation issue will never be under control. Dr. Scudder discussed what he felt were the very important issues of the increasing levels of poverty, crime and ill health. For 22 years, he has been a public health officer. We need to prevent these things from becoming a reality and education could attack all 3 areas. With regard to the tax base, he questioned Where the people would be coming from that will be able to afford $300,000 to $600,000 homes. If there is a market for the homes built, the people will come from the large cities. We will be robbing major cities. With regard to open space, he was still concerned that he didn't see a formal plan for handling open space. Plants and wildlife need this. A place to walk, run, or hold a picnic demands more than an attempt on the part of the City Council, but a plan. It is absolutely essential to the mental health of the people coming in. There is a trend to destroy. Marjorie Labar, 11707 Juarez Lane, Dublin, representative of the PARC as well as a Dublin resident stated Dublin has traditionally been a crossroads for the valley. We now have an opportunity rather than to follow other mistakes and problems to step out in front and lead the region into the next century. She suggested an alternative that would go to Fallon Road and fOllow the 500' contour of the hills. With regard to current alternatives in the EIR, she was concerned with allowing property owners to transfer some of the densities toward the designed urban core. Camp Parks will ultimately expand its operations. The City could be a good neighbor by planning less suburban uses in that area. It isa good place to put parks for family type activities. She urged us to work actively with the County and BART for surplus land on the southern border of Camp Parks. She felt we should go back and design a smaller plan and recycle the current EIR as being inadequate. It doesn't address all the issues which need to be mitigated. By downsizing, a lot of the issues will solve themselves. We should be able to come back for final hearings CM - VOL 12 - 37 Adjourned Regular Meeting January 21, 1993 by the first of May. Also, we should look at sewerage that doesn't require the TWA, and look at reverse osmosis. She was pleased to see that the City Council is willing to take another look at where we are going. She urged Dublin to take advantage of the opPortunity to have round table discussions with the East Bay Regional Park District. She gets very frustrated hearing about the jobs/housing balance. Two people in a household With each making about $15 an hour can't afford a $400,000 home. We have an opportunity to work together to find out where the development really belongs. Don Redgwick, 25599 Huntwood Avenue, Hayward, stated he owns 160 acres in the Specific Plan area. Their property is the fifth largest parcel. They submitted a Specific Plan in May, 1987 which shows 810 housing units and 90 acres of open space. The current plan allows only 60 homes, so they are not the recipient of generous zoning. Obviously, they did not control the process. Ample affordable housing is not what attracts people to this area. People who believe themselves to be environmentalists are causing some of the major problems. He suggested that houses don't create people; people create people, and thus, the need for housing. Stopping and blocking development is counter-productive. Carolyn Morgan, 5184 Doolan Road, Livermore, stated the ideas she presented are not new; she has been saying them for the past 10 years, but they have been ignored. If Dublin needs to grow, the only logical place is to the east. There are a number of impacts listed in the EIR that cannot be mitigated which should be done. The plan should end at Tassajara Road. Infrastructure should be fully borne by developers who wish to develop. Schools must be completely funded. A plan for open space must be developed. Hills and canyons must be kept in permanent open space, thus creating a buffer between the cities. Leapfrog development should not occur. The City Council, and not Staff, needs to negotiate for land to the south of Camp Parks. Housing should be placed within walking distance from BART. Let's create a plan that will make Dublin a city its residents and others in the valley can be proud of. She pointed out that there were many sponsoring property owner meetings where the public was not allowed. Cathy Straus, 7826 Alto Way, Dublin, stated with regard to comments made about the Specific Plan not being a development plan, once the SP is approved, land that changes zoning, changes its value. The City could also be subjected to a laWsuit. The City Council should be really sure that what is approved will not be substantially changed in the development agreement process in order to protect the City from potential lawsuits. Comments made at all the public hearings have not been typed up and responded to. City Staff should be directed to type up all these and the Council should then be able to read them. They are not bringing up new problems. They have been brought up all along. Dublin's School Board is not doing their .job right now with regard to developer fees. People should attend the February 3rd School Board meeting and let the Board know they are not representing the people of Dublin. Our schools are 20 to 30 years old and there is a lot of money needed. Policies 8.3 and 8.C need to be changed back to how they were originally proposed in the General Plan. This is · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · CM - VOL 12 - 38 Adjourned Regular Meeting January 21, 1993 very important so that we are sure that the impacts on our schools are property paid for by new residents. One hundred fifty eight acres going into open space is just not adequate. Ms. Straus stated that Ted Fairfield commented that they are asking for more community parkland than can legally be required. If this is the case, how will we get these parks? Using the ratio of 1/2 acre per thousand people, she questioned how we will actually get the parkland. With regard to the fiscal analysis, San Ramon's Mayor stated they will lose 47% of their property tax if the proposed budget is passed. Dublin needs to carefully look at this. She would like to see justification for the sales tax figures. She hoped that the Council would schedule another public hearing. Mayor Snyder adviSed that he will ask Staff to supply responses at the next meeting. Jim Stedman, 29 Eckley Place, Walnut Creek, stated he is a Civil Engineer representing the Po Lin property. They support taking the time that is required to approve the plan. They have submitted letters suggesting improvements to the plan themselves, which are very detailed. They would like very serious consideration given to their requests related to the high school site, the general commercial area adjacent to 1-580, and the spine street expanded to 4 lanes. With regard to the town center area, they share the concerns that there should be high density development closest to the freeway and BART station. This plan does need to be approved, however, the grid street requirement cannot be changed. Staff has indicated a willingness to consider revisions to the town center area. Staff should be directed or authorized to undertake this study. Donna Ogelvie, 5360 Doolan Canyon Road, Livermore, read a letter from the Biologist they hired to do a study of some of the species, including the San Joaquin Kit Fox and other endangered species found in their area. She has lived in Doolan Canyon for quite a long time. She was concerned that there will be many species that will not have a home. We need to keep habitat for animals and other things so our children will know what they are all about. More studies need to be done. Bobbie Foscalina, 5200 Doolan Road, Livermore, stated the thing missing in the study is an independent market analysis. She read excerpts from an article out of a 1991 issue of the California Farmers magazine related to rural'versus urban. We need to grow together, agriculture and cities and to present a plan that will work for everyone so that everybody will benefit. Mayor Snyder stated he felt that in light of the LAFCO action, we need to consider whether to hold the next meeting beyond the February llth date which was tentatively scheduled. Cm. Moffatt felt Staff should be given ample time to look at the things discussed tonight and consider alternatives. He stated he would like to leave the process oPen. CM - VOL 12 - 39 Adjourned Regular Meeting January 21, 1993 Cm. Burton stated some interesting perspectives had been presented. Not everyone will be satisfied. Of the things recommended, he questioned what could be done under the present EIR. Would changing boundary lines, and changing heights that can be built, require the EIR to be redone. Tradeoffs may require the city Council to make decisions in a shorter time. The big picture must be considered. There are a lot of changes going on and if we don't do something, we may lose control. If the Dougherty Valley develops, we could be impacted without having any say. It is important that we have some control over the area. Staff printed up comments from the last meeting and he stated he would like Staff to take the essence of what was said tonight and relate it to the EIR. He would not like to see the EIR have to be studied for 3 or 4 more years. Cm. Moffatt questioned if Staff could take the EIR back to the bare bones. What would be the minimum we could do within the EIR and SP as it is now. Cm. Houston felt that Staff should be allowed to address all the issues. Using the EIR may be like the tail wagging the dog. He would like to see the concerns addressed regarding the financial impacts. It is difficult to answer every financial question right off the bat. The City's consultant should be able to come back and address them in a public forum. What can we do to not have houses in the airport protection area? With regard to the idea of having some kind of a ridgeline limit, he questioned what other communities have come up with. Some of our neighbors might have some things they could share on what they've done. Cm. Moffatt asked what part of the project the financial concerns related to if it was 1/2 or what part of the project. Cm. Houston stated initially it has to be the whole project. Maybe phasing could be discussed and what the financial impact would be on the City. Tax implications have not been clearly spelled out. Cm. Houston stated she would like to have Staff bring back information about Camp Parks future groWth plans and also the EIR issues. Mayor Snyder stated he thought it would be beneficial if Staff could bring back to the next meeting, the most recent information obtained from Camp Parks about their future plans. Cm. Burton asked what is involved in changing the border line. Does this automatically start a new process if we drop it back 1/2 mile or so? Mr. Tong stated it would depend on the particulars. If it has been addressed in the EIR as an alternative, it could then rely on the existing EIR. The SP would have to be modified, but the EIR could possibly stand as is. Minor modifications can be made. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · [] CM - VOL 12 - 40 Adjourned Regular Meeting January 21, 1993 Mayor Snyder stated as the plan evolved through the process, there were 3 alternatives considered in the deliberations before the Planning Commission and the 3 are discussed in the EIR. Cm. Burton asked if the airport changes would require a new EIR. Mr. Tong responded possibly not as it was adopted for noise and safety concerns. It would depend on the type of residential use. Cm. Burton stated he was concerned that as long as we keep rehashing this, we raise the price of the homes. Cm. Moffatt stated of concern to him was how far can we tinker with this plan and still have BART come out here and if we lose the ability to meet our obligations, then what happens? Mr. Ambrose clarified his understanding of what the Council wished Staff to go back and restudy. These would relate to 6 items: 1) Fiscal Impact: Address issues raised regarding finances, costs of service, as well as infrastructure. The study was done on the plan plus the Santa Rita property. Any additional study would have to be redone. Staff should look at everything in the study area. The consultant should come out and justify his findings. 2) Airport Protection Area: What type of uses could replace housing and also is it significant enough to have to address the EIR. 3) Ridgeline Issue'. What would be the impacts if we set a 500', 600' or 700' limit and also, what have other cities done with elevation limits. 4) Camp Parks Environmental Issues 5) Camp Parks Surplus Property 6) Overall view of what the Army has as a master plan for the Camp Parks property. Cm. Burton asked if traffic should be addressed in any more specific way in the EIR because of the Dougherty Valley development. Mr. Tong stated our EIR uses one model and the Dougherty Valley analysis uses a different model. There are different results from the 2 models. Maybe 2 different variables or assumptions were used. Cm. Burton stated some people have indicated we should just start over. This is not practical, however, because of costs and time. Mayor Snyder stated we first need to ask if the current EIR addresses the concerns and if not, you then review the EIR. Ms. Silver stated the EIR concerns the plan as proposed and several alternatives. If the City Council wants to approve something other CM - VOL 12 - 41 Adjourned Regular Meeting January 21, 1993 than one of the alternatives such as a plan that goes only to Fallon Road, Staff would need to take a look at the EIR to see if it adequately addresses the impacts. Staff is unable to tell at this point until it knows what the Council would be approving. Cm. Houston stated the list of 6 items should be brought back at the next meeting and then'more concrete definition would need to be given based on what the Council wants. Cm. Moffatt asked with regard to a reduced planning area, if you take the limits to 500' would this be a viable beginning. He suggested using Alternate 2 and drop the height. There was no disagreement from the Council. He stated he would be interested in knowing what Staff felt would be appropriate. Mr. Tong requested clarification in that there is not a continuing straight slope in the eastern area. Cm. Burton felt Staff should provide information on how this will change the number of housing units. Provide information on just Alternate 2 which stays within our sphere of influence and the SP area. Mayor Snyder questioned if February llth would still be a reasonable date to continue. Mr. Ambrose advised that the economic consultant is not available on February 11, but would be on February 23rd. The Council concurred that the continuation of the public hearing on east Dublin will be on February 23, 1993. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to come before the Council, the meeting was adjourned at 10:00 p.m. ATTEST: CM - VOL 12 - 49- &djourned Regular Meeting January 21, 1993