Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05-28-1992 Adopted CC Minutes W Dub EIRADJOURNED REgULAR MEETiNG - May 28~ L992 An adjourned regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Dublin was held on Thursday, May 28, 1992, in the Council Chambers of the Dublin Civic Center. The meeting was called to order at 7:30 pomo, by Mayor Snyder. ROLL CALL PRESENT: ABSENT: Councilmembers Burton, Howard, Jeffery, 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. WESTERN DUBLIN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (420-30) Planning Consultant Brenda Gillarde discussed the format for the meeting and advised that copies of the EIR comments were sent to public agencies° Mayor Snyder advised everyone that the public hearing was closed at the last meeting and that the Council would deliberate tonight. The Staff Report was presented and the major issues summarized, which relate to: Additional Mitigation Measures; EIR Adequacy; and EIR Certification~ The proposed project, as considered in the EIR, consists of 2 deVelopment proposals: Eden Canyon CountrY Club and Cronin Ranch. Eden Development Group and Schaefer Heights are jointly proposing the countrY club, while Milestone Land Development Corporation is proposing Cronin Ranch. A predominantly residential community is proposed for the Eden/ Schaefer portion with much of the site preserved as open space° A maximum of 3,131 units would be constructed on 676 acres of the 2,940 acre site. Homes would be clustered into neighborhoods, separated by wooded ridges and canyons. A championship 18 hole golf course would be a major feature. A pedestrian-oriented Village Center would serve as a convenient mixed-use shopping area and activity center. Milestone Land Development Corporation is proposing 125 custom residential lots on 175 acres in the eastern portion of the site with 3 acres designated for small recreation areas. Approximately 57% of the total project units would be single family houses. Employment at the 3 commercial center and country club [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] · [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] CM - VOL 11 - 211 Adjourned Regular Meeting May 28, 1992 facilities is estimated at about 200. At buildout, western Dublin would have a maximum of about 8,400 people° About 38 million yards of grading would be required to accommodate the project, 126 acres of oak woodland would be removed and over a linear mile of riparian vegetation destroyed. Ridges would be lowered in some cases by 100', and fill placed in canyons exceeding depths of 100' in certain locations° In order to accommodate the specific plan development concept, the City's current General Plan would have to be modified. The major policy changes to the current GP would occur in the open space and conservation elements. Before taking any action on the proposed Western Dublin GPA & SP, the Council must first consider and certify the Final EIR. The Draft EIR identifies the impacts of the proposed project for Western Dublin on the existing and future environment, including on-site, vicinity and communitywide impacts. Each of the 18 chapters contains a summary Which identifies all impacts and associated mitigations. Unavoidable significant adverse impacts for the project are: 1) alteration of Eden Canyon for a main access road into the project; 2) major landform alteration resulting from project grading; 3) visual impacts on the existing Morris residence due to landform alteration; 4) loss of significant stands of coast live oak woodland, riparian woodland and natural stream corridors; and 5) contribution to regional ozone emissions. EIR adequacy is based on disclosure of all relevant information, not on the severity of the impacts. With regard to EIR adequacy, the Council must determine whether the EIR adequately addresses required CEQA issues. The final action would be for the Council to adopted the Resolution certifying the Western Dublin EIR as adequate. Cm. Jeffery questioned if the Council makes changes to the project, should~they be discussed before approving, the EIR. Ms. Gillarde stated no, but rather they must'indicate that all the components have been addressed. City Attorney Silver advised that the Council can take action to approve the project with any of the alternatives described in the EIR~ but if the Council selects something that is not an alternative, the EIR would have to go back for revision~ so that any additional impacts could have to be addressed° Cm. Jeffery questioned if they mixed and matched some of the alternatives, would this mean we have to go back and redo the EIR. Ms. Gillarde advised that mixing and matching would not affect the EIR. Ms. Silver advised that the Planning Commission basically has already mixed and matched° ~ - VOL ~ - Z~Z Adjourned Regular Meeting May 28, 1992 Cm. Burton questioned if the Council added or changed a road such as going over the ridge~ would this require that the EIR go back through the processo Ms. Gillarde advised that a road over the ridge was not addressed in the EIR as it was not part of 'the original specific plan. There was no direction by the City Council or Planning Commission to consider this in the EIR. Cm. Moffatt stated he thought the road was to be an emergency vehicle access road. Mso Gillarde stated 2 alignments were addressed. The maps displayed showed a northerly alignment and a southerly alignment. Cm. Burton questioned what the process would be to change the road. If we make this into a major road~ what process would we have to go through? Ms~ Gillarde indicated that there would have to be a contract amendment and they would have to conduct an analysis. The EIR would require an addendum which would have to be circulated and then back to the Planning CommiSsion and then on to the City Council for their review and recommendation° Cm. Burton expressed disappointment that this was never included as he indicated that he brought it up several times. Cm. Jeffery pointed out that there was no Council direction to include this. Cm. Moffatt questioned if the off-site grading will be imported~ Ms. Gillarde stated it is a balanced cut and fill in that area. Additional mitigation issues with which the Council must deal include: a) Oak Woodland Replacement. Determine whether or not to add oak woodland replacement as an additional mitigation to the Final EIR. If the vote is to add it~ determine what ratio it shOuld be - 3:1 or 1:1 or some other ratio. The Planning Commission and Staff recommended to not include this as an additional measure in the EIRo Staff feels the Draft EIR adequately addresses mitigation of oak woodland losso Mitigations include tree surveys~ delineation of tree protection areas~ adjustments to the development plan and a revegetation program requiring 3:1 replacement on-site. b) Open Space Fee Program. Determine whether or not to add the fee/purchase program as a mitigation in the Final EIR. The Planning Commission and Staff recommend to not include the fee purchase program as a mitigation in the Final EIR. Staff believes the CM - VOL 11 - 213 Adjourne4 Regular Meeting May 28, 1992 EIR adequately provides for ways to address the management and maintenance of on-site open space. Mitigations include preparatiOn of an open space ownership and management plan, reservation of a regional trail corridor~ and preparation of an environmental management plan. c) Off-Site Grading° Determine whether or not to incorporate the grading easement option as the preferred mitigation measure in the Final EIR. The Planning Commission and Staff recommended that the EIR mitigation option be incorporated which directed that a grading easement be obtained° The Commission also recommended that provisions be added to ensure no adverse visual impacts on the existing community would result from grading in this area. Cmo Jeffery made a motion, which was seconded by Cm. Howard to go with Staff and Planning Commission recommendations on the 3 issues. Ms. Silver suggested that the motion be split and that each issue be dealt with by a separate motion and vote. On motion of Cm. Jeffery, seconded by Cm. Howard~ and by unanimous vote, the Council agreed to not include the oak woodland replacement as an additional measure in the EIRo On motion of Cmo Jeffery~ seconded by Cm. Howard~ and by unanimous voter the Council agreed to not include the fee purChase program as a mitigation in the Final EIR. On motion of Cm. Jeffery~ seconded by Cm. Howard, and by unanimous vote, the Council agreed to incorporate the EIR mitigation option which directed that a grading easement be obtained. Cm° Moffatt asked if this included numbers of units to be built. Ms. Gillarde advised that this document just assesses the impacts of the propoSed plan. Cm. Moffatt indicated that some of the land will not be able to develop for several years because of a lack of roads, etc. If the market changes and the City changes, wouldthis affect any development of that plan. He asked if it is possible to come back and review parts of this in 5 years to see if it still fits° Ms. Gillarde advised that if an amendment were proposed~ there may need to be additional mitigation work. This would be with the Specific Plan~ not the EIR. Cm. Burton questioned where in the process he could bring up the road going over the ridgelineo Ms. Gillarde advised that it would be under the next discussion item. CM - VOL 11 - 214 Adjourned Regular Meeting May 28, 1992 Mso Silver advised that if the Council certifies the EIR as being adequate, they can discuss the road over the ridge, but impacts would have to be considered. cm. Burton stated he just wanted to make sure this can be discussed. On motion of Cm. Burton, seconded by Cm. Jeffery, and by unanimous vote, the Council felt the EIR adequately addressed required CEQA issues. On motion of Cm. Jeffery, seconded by Cm. Moffatt, and by unanimous vote, the council adopted RESOLUTION NO. 59 - 9Z CERTIFYING THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE WESTERN DUBLIN GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT AND SPECIFIC PLAN WESTERN DUBLIN GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT AND SPECIFIC PLAN PA 88-144 (420-30) Brenda Gillarde advised that Staff was requesting that the Council take action on the Western.Dublin General Plan Amendment~ and Specific Plan via non-binding straw votes. Staff will next draft resolutions for the project including any required findings; 'statements of overriding consideration, if necessary; adoption of the GPA; adoption of the SP. The resolutions will be considered by the Council at the June 8, 1992 Council meeting. MSo Silver advised that the Council should discuss the GPA/SP and hopefully come to a tentative conclusion that is non-binding. They cannot take action at this time to approve the final plan. Because of the complexities of the plan, no resolutions have been proposed. Procedurally, a mOtion would be in order, but it should be understood by everyone that the vote is non-binding at this point. After this meeting, Staff will prepare resolutions which will be formally considered by the council on June 8th. Cm. Jeffery questioned what happens if there is disagreement amongst the Council and you can't tell which way the City Council will go. Cm. Moffatt asked if the majority would prevail. Ms° Silver stated she hoped this would be the case. She also advised that if there is uncertainty, 2 resolutions could be prepared. Once the resolutions are prepared, they will be subject to the Council's review and can be modified at that time. Major issues and actions which the Council should consider: CM - VOL 11 - 215 Adjourned Regular Meeting May 28, 1992 ae Specific Plan/GPA issues relating to the Milestone property, determination of whether to; 1) retain the Brittany Drive extension; 2) permit development above 740'e Be Specific Plan/GPA issues relating to the Eden/Schaefer property, determination of: 1) whether to modify the development concept as proposed by the applicants; 2) applicant requests to modify the SP text. Ce Minor GPA/SP text revisions: 1) direction to Staff on minor text revisions° In order to accommodate the Specific Plan development concept, the City's current General Plan would have to be modified. The proposed GPA pertains only to the western extended planning area. The major policy changes to the current GP would occur in the open space and conservation elements. Key existing GP policies that would have to be modified include: Existing GP Policies Proposed GPA Policy Modifications Preserve oak woodlands Protect woodland wherever possible Maintain slopes over 30% as open space Generally confine development to areas under 30%; consider land alteration in areas over 30% under certain conditions Protect riparian vegetation Alteration of riparian vegetation will be necessary; give special consideration to protection of riparian woodland Restrict development on slopes over 30% Require steep slopes to be restricted to open space except where they occur in designated development areas Protect oak woodland; require preservation of oak woodlands Emphasize oak woodland preserva- tion; allow removal only after all feasible efforts to preserve them have been made Mse Gillarde discussed GPA/SP issues relating to the Milestone property° Options for development considered included: a) Leave the development as presently proposed in the Draft SP - 125 units, 2 public access roads (Brittany Drive extension and Hansen Hills Ranch Road). b) Reduce the number of allowable units to a maximum of 74 units, eliminate the Brittany Drive extension and provide an emergency vehicle access route, c) Permit development of 125 units, eliminate the Brittany Drive extension, and allow a full public access road to be built over Skyline Ridge. d) Recommend another development option. CM - VOL 11 - 216 Adjourned Regular Meeting May 28, 1992 Planning commission and Staff recommended that the project be reduced to a maximum of 74 units, that the Brittany Drive extension be eliminated and that the southerly alignment be established. Cm. Jeffery expressed concern because originally when the GP was discussed, the community said they did not want the hills scarred and any growth should not adversely affect those that are already here. She felt the Council should look at the possibility of leaving the Milestone property as rural residential. Cm. Moffatt asked if she wanted to take Milestone out of the plano Cmo Jeffery responded nod but leave the area rural residential° Cmo Moffatt asked if it would be possible to bring this part back in the future. Cm. Jeffery stated she would like to see it kept this way. This would take away all the major concerns of the Milestone property° Mayor Snyder questioned what could happen in the future° Ms. Silver advised that the GP can always be amended° If rural residential is selected as the alternative for the Milestone property, this would not require an amendment to the GP~ but it could be amended in the future. Cm. Burton felt that good Planning would call for 3 roads. He sees problems with school kids having to come down to the Schaefer Interchange to go to high school. He asked why everyone is so upset about a road going on top of the ridge. Three outlets would alleviate concerns about traffic. The project doesn't necessarily mean all 3,000 homes will drop traffic onto Brittany Drive. The environmental people have talked about disturbing natural habitats, but arrangements could be made to have a culvert for animals to go through. This is being done all over. Three roads should be put in: one through the Hansen project~ one over the ridge; and extension of Brittany Drive. Cm. Moffatt felt that this particular land won't be developed for a considerable amount of time and a lot of things can happen in 5 or 10 years. The folks on Brittany Drive have a lot of reasons why they don~t want the road. He did not recommend any extension of Brittany Drive at this time. Why should we plan this now when in 5 years there could be many changes. This should be held in abeyance in a sense until the developers can start developing up there. Cm. Jeffery reminded that the Council needs to give Staff direction. Cmo Moffatt stated Milestone should be left out and come back in 5 years to review it. The Brittany Drive extension would not be there. Cm. Jeffery stated it is more than just the Brittany Drive people; it's all the people who came to the GP meetings several years ago. CM - VOL 11 - 217 Adjourned Regular Meeting May 28, 1992 Cm. Moffatt felt the 740' height standard as required by DSRSD should be left. Cm. Burton stated he would rather go with option 3.c., which would permit development of 125 units, eliminate the Brittany Drive extension and allow a full public access road to be built over Skyline Ridge. Forcing everyone to go out on the freeway or down the Dublin Boulevard extension is not good planning. Cm. Burton made a motion to approve 3.c., which was seconded by Cm. Moffatt. Cm. Jeffery stated this would allow 125 units and this is exactly what the community doesn't want° Mayor Snyder indicated he could not support this either° This is a major decision regarding development in the community, and this would create a situation where you degrade a ridge° Cm~ Howard suggested that perhaps 2 resolutions may be required. Cm. Jeffery again suggested a rural residential designation be left on the Milestone property which wOuld mean the roads would not be necessary. Ms. Silver advised that there would be no reason to come back with a resolution for alternative 3.Co, because the Planning Commission did not fully consider a full access road over the ridge~ It would take quite some time for this option.to go through the whole process before coming back to the City Council. Mayor Snyder tried to clarify that if there wasn't a majority of support for this, the Council should move on° Cm. Moffatt asked if there would be any support for alternative 3,b. Cm. Burton stated he didn't like this option as he is still for the roads. Three roads would be good planning and the right way to go. Cm. Howard stated she couldn't supPort leaving it rural residential, but didn't necessarily agree with the other discussion either. Cm. Jeffery asked if this would delay everything or just this particUlar aspect° Ms. Gillarde advised that it would delay approval of the Specific Plan. It would stop the entire process° Cm° Moffatt asked if this could be suspended and hammered out at a later date~ or if it could be split. Mayor Snyder called for a short recess. CM - VOL 11 - 218 Adjourned Regular Meeting May 28, 1992 Ail Councilmembers were present when the meeting reconvened. Ms. Gillarde briefly described the land use options for the Milestone property: 1) Planning Commission recommendation (same as 3.b.) would be a cluster development as discussed in the EIR; 2) Leave project as presently proposed in the SP (3.a.); 3) (3.Co) would required going back to do additional environmental review; 4) another option that is discussed in the EIR would be to reduce density to 16 units and this would not include the Brittany. Drive extension but for access through Hansen Hills; 5) rural residential alternative would permit 2 units, no Brittany Drive extension, no access through Hansen Hills, access would be a private driveway near Martin Creek. Cm. Burton felt that 6 months is not too long to wait to do it right. Ms. Gillarde advised that another option discussed during the break would be to delete the Milestone property from the Specific Plan. This would mean that the SP would only cover the Eden/Schaefer property and the Milestone property owners would then need to come back at another time with their own SP. Cm. Moffatt questioned if a new EIR would have to be done when they came back. Ms~ Gillarde stated that at some future time, if they came back and the project was within the parameters there might not be additional EIR work required. Cm. Burton stated but then you wouldntt have a road over the ridge. Silver Stated the City could potentially condemn for the roadway. Ms. Gillarde again stated that a full access road was not part of this proposal. They have not made that accommodation in their plan. Cm. Moffatt asked if the concept of 3.b., would allow having an amendment in the future to the SPe Ms. Gillarde pointed out that the potential extension falls on property that is not owned by Milestone° The property owner indicated quite some time ago that he wasn't interested in having the road on his property. Cmo Jeffery felt they should look at good planning. Cm. Howard suggested going with option 3.b. Cm. Burton felt this shOuld be sent back for more study. Cm. Howard asked if Milestone is postponed to stUdy a road going over the ridge, would it be a part of the EIR. CM - VOL 11 - 219 Adjourned Regular Meeting May 28, 1992 Ms. Gillarde advised that there would have to be additional work as there is no provision in the environmental plan to go over the ridge. Cm. Moffatt asked if we provide emergency vehicle access, do we still have the same problem with the landowner. Ms. Gillarde stated she could not specifically comment on this. Dennis Dahlin advised that Schaefer Heights had expressed opposition with a number of reasons why they opposed any connection whatsoever. Cm. Moffatt stated he felt at this point that Milestone should be separated out. cm. Burton pointed out that this would mean theY will have to start all over again. Alternative 3.b. should be selected and then it can proceed. He still thought there should have been a road over the top, however. ~'. A&Jf,. On ,otioll of Cm. Burton, seconded by Cm. Moffatt~ and by a~%tc'~ens~s, the Council agreed to proceed with alternative 3.b., reduce the number~k~ of allowable units to a maximum of 74 units~ eliminate the Brittany ~'~ Drive extension and provide an emergency~vehicle accedes route ~the cluster development alternative).{~ ~ ~ F/~~~~ Cm. Burton pointed out that if the Eden project doesnst go through and the people don't pick up the option, then Brittany Drive has to be considered as one of the Hansen Hills accessways. Mayor Snyder stated there is no connection between Hansen Hills and Brittany Drive. Cm. Burton clarified that he meant to say the Nielsen property. Mayor Snyder indicated that this is not on the table for discussion at this time. Mr. Tong clarified that we would be saying Brittany Drive would remain as it is today which provides access to the water tank, plus potential access to the Nielsen property~ which is currently zoned agricultural. Ms. Gillarde discussed GPA/SP issues related to the Eden/Schaefer property. Options for consideration were: a) Leave the development concept as presently proposed in the Draft SP - 3,131 units with an emphasis on large lot, custom homes surrounding the golf course. Development would occur in most of the major canyons, including Elderberry and Wildflower Canyons. b) Select the Cluster Development Alternative - 3,131 clustered units with an emphasis on small lot single-familY and multi-family homes. Development would be excluded from Elderberry and Wildflower Canyons although other canyons would be developed. A locatiOn would be provided for the golf course, c) Recommend another development option. I · · I [] · · · · [] · · · · · · · · · · [] · · · · [] · · · [] · [] [] [] [] CM - VOL 11 - 220 Adjourned Regular Meeting May 28v 1992 Planning Commission and Staff recommended that the Eden/Schaefer project remain as currently proposed in the Specific Plano Cm. Moffatt stated he would rather see the cluster approach° We need an area that is affordable and we need an area where we can Put our service type residents. We need to start thinking about getting the prices down lower. Cm. Jeffery stated she felt that in providing infrastructure, the prices will be raised above service level affordability. Cm. Burton stated they have to make certain housing available. We have in-lieu fees to make affordable housing On motion of Cm. Jeffery, seconded by Cm. Howard, and by a consensus, the Council agreed that the Eden/Schaefer project should remain as currently proposed in the Specific Plan. In February, the Eden Development Group submitted letters reqUesting certain modifications to the SP text which related to: a) Street Standards; b) Golf Course Access; c) Golf Course Water Feature; d) Lot Orientation; e) Design Review. Committee; & f) Tax and Assessment Caps. Planning Commission and Staff recommended only certain revisions. The Council indicated a general concurrence that the Planning Commission and Staff's recommendations were acceptable. Ms. Gillarde requested that the Council review several minor GPA/SP changes. Changes to the GPA were identified as a) through d) in the Staff Report. Changes to the SP were identified as a) through g) in the Staff Report. Staff recommended incorporation of GPA changes a) through d) and SP changes a) through g) into the text of these respective documents. The Council concurred with Staff's recommendation regarding the minor text revisions. Mayor Snyder announced that at the City Council meeting on June 8, 1992, the Council would consider approval of the Draft resolution(s) adopting the GPA and SP. CM - VOL 11 - 221 Adjourned Regular Meeting May 28, 1992 ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to come before the Council, the meeting was adjourned at 9:40 p.m. Mayor ATTEST: [] m [] [] · · [] m · [] [] · · m · m · · · · · [] · · · m · · [] [] m · · · [] CM -VOL 11 - 222 ~djourned Regular Meeting May 28, 1992