Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 4.1 Approve 05-26-1992 & 05-28-1992 Minutes (2) REGULAR MEETING - May 26, 1992 A regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Dublin was held on Tuesday, May 26, 1992 , in the Council Chambers of the Dublin Civic Center. The meeting was called to order at 7:40 p.m. , by Mayor Snyder. ROLL CALL PRESENT: Councilmembers Burton, Jeffery, Moffatt and Mayor Snyder. ABSENT: Councilmember Howard. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE (610-20) I 1 Life Scout Bret Locus, from Troop 905 led the Council, Staff and those present in the pledge of allegiance to the flag. Bret stated he started out as a Cub Scout 4 years ago. He is trying to earn his Eagle rank and has been to a great number of summer camps. He has earned a lot of merit badges. Ballot Measure ,G (630-30) Guy Houston, 7611 San Sabana Road, introduced himself as Chairman of the Citizens Committee for Measure G. He thanked the City Council for having the vision of putting the question of a directly elected mayor on the ballot before the voters. The surrounding areas are all for this and the Valley Times and Tri-Valley Herald have also come out this week in support of Measure G. Most importantly, however, the citizens of Dublin are in favor of having a directly elected mayor. CONSENT CALENDAR On motion of Cm. Burton, seconded by Cm. Jeffery, and by unanimous vote (Cm. Howard absent) , the Council took the following actions: Approved Minutes of Regular Meeting of May 11, 1992; Received the Winter Quarter 1992 Recreation Programs Report (950-30) ; Adopted RESOLUTION NO. 56 - 92 APPROVING PRELIMINARY ENGINEER'S REPORT, CONFIRMING DIAGRAM AND ASSESSMENT FOR STREET LIGHTING MAINTENANCE ASSESSMENT DISTRICT 83-1 (360-50) and CM - VOL 11 �/ Regular Meeting May 26, 1992 ------------------------------------------------------------------ COPIES TO: ITEM NO. 44 �`� r RESOLUTION NO. 57 - 92 APPOINTING TIME AND PLACE OF HEARING PROTESTS IN RELATION TO PROPOSED ASSESSMENTS FOR STREET LIGHTING MAINTENANCE ASSESSMENT DISTRICT 83-1 Approved Warrant Register in the amount of $258, 358.79 (300-40) . Cm. Moffatt requested that the sign report be pulled from the Consent Calendar for discussion. He felt that some folks seem to be having a hard time complying. He asked if it would be possible to request the landowner to make the changes or solicit his or her cooperation in getting these things done. Planning Director Tong advised that typically the person who owns the sign is contacted and the second person would be the landowner. if the City ultimately needs to abate the sign, we would contact both by registered letter. City Attorney Silver advised that under both the City's provisions and the State Code, we would be required to contact the property owner as shown on the last Assessor Roll and the property owner could be assessed. The property owner is an integral part of this process. Cm. Moffatt asked if there had been discussion in all cases. Mr. Tong responded that in some cases, there has been discussions with the property owners. Cm. Moffatt stated he felt the City is doing a great job in trying to bring signs into conformity. He understands reluctance on the part of a small business owner in changing a $3,000 or $10, 000 sign. Cm. Burton questioned what the process would be after the July deadline. Mr. Tong advised that there is a fairly rigorous procedure set forth in the State Law that we will be following. The item will ultimately be brought to the City Council if Staff cannot resolve it. On motion of Cm. Moffatt, seconded by Cm. Burton, and by unanimous vote (Cm. Howard absent) , the Council received a monthly status report of existing Non-Conforming Signs identified on the Non-Conforming Sign Summary List (400-30) . PUBLIC HEARING ORDINANCE AMENDING THE CITY'S CONFLICT OF INTEREST CODE (640-40) Mayor Snyder opened the public hearing. City Clerk Kay Keck advised that the City's Conflict of Interest Code requires that no public official at any level of local government shall make, participate in making or in any way attempt to use his/her official position to influence a governmental decision in which he/she ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ / ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ CM - VOL it Requla3. Meeting May 26, 1992 knows or has reason to know he/she has a financial interest. Local agencies are required by State Law to review their Conflict of Interest Code on a biennial basis in order to identify changes which may need to be made. Ms. Keck advised that following a review by the City Attorney's Office and the City Clerk, Staff recommended that several positions be added to the list of positions required to complete annual Statements of Economic Interest. These positions include: Administrative Services/Finance Director; Recreation Director and Assistant City Manager. In addition, the title City Engineer will be amended to Public Works Director/City Engineer. Ms. Keck advised that the Fair Political Practices Commission, the state agency charged with enforcing the Political Reform Act, also requires that the position of Consultant be listed as a designated employee. Staff reviewed the filing requirements for a list of 30 Consultants. The City Manager may make determinations, based on criteria provided by FPPC as to which of the City's Consultants must file Statements of Economic Interest. Cm. Moffatt asked if the City Attorney is on the list. Ms. Keck responded that the City Attorney's position is on the designated list to complete annual Statements of Economic Interest. Cm. Burton clarified that nothing was being done except adding names. Ms. Keck responded that this was correct. Mayor Snyder closed the public hearing. On motion of Cm. Jeffery, seconded by Cm. Moffatt, and by unanimous vote (Cm. Howard absent) , the Council waived the reading and INTRODUCED the Ordinance. PUBLIC HEARING - ORDINANCE ADOPTING A STORM WATER MANAGEMENT AND DISCHARGE CONTROL PROGRAM (1030-20) Mayor Snyder opened the public hearing. Public Works Director Thompson presented the Staff Report and advised that recent amendments to the Federal Clean Water Act and the California Regional Water Quality Control Board have made it necessary to adopt plans and programs to meet specific requirements: 1) effective prohibition of non-storm water discharges into the storm sewer; and 2) establishment of controls to reduce the discharge of pollutants from storm water systems to waters of the United States. Mr. Thompson stated the City entered into an agreement to implement the Alameda County Urban Runoff Clean Water Program in order to obtain the required National Pollution Discharge Elimination System Permit to discharge storm water into the San Francisco Bay. The proposed Storm s ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ s ■ ■ CM - VOL 11 Regular Meeting May 26, 1992 Water Management and Discharge Control Ordinance will empower the City to implement pollution control measures that satisfy the program's requirements. The Ordinance also provides for authorized enforcement officials, including the Fire Chief, the Public Works Director/City Engineer, the Building Official, and their designated associates. Penalties range from misdemeanors, which carry a fine of not more than $1, 000 or 6 months imprisonment or both, to infractions, which are punishable by a $100 fine for the first violation, $200 for the second violation in the same year, and $500 for each additional violation in the same year. Cm. Moffatt questioned with regard to enforcement, the relationship between the Alameda County Flood Control & Water Conservation District (ACFC&WCD) and the City. He asked if this had gone into effect and how we fit into the picture. Mr. Thompson advised that they own some of the creeks and issue permits if anyone wants to work in there. We would respond if we see some illegal dumping going on. Cm. Burton stated he did not see any appeal process in the Ordinance. If someone is cited and arrested, does this go to the court system? Ms. Silver responded that it would be in the court system. Cm. Burton stated this bothered him as there is a lot of subjective judgment. He could see people having a bad reaction to this. This Ordinance is very comprehensive and gives a tremendous amount of discretionary latitude to a representative of the City Manager. He is nervous about this large amount of discretionary power being given to one person. Also, they could close a business down if they think a business is likely to cause a discharge. Some individual who has the ability to assume that something is going to happen makes him nervous. Mr. Thompson advised that they would have to take samples during an investigation. Cm. Burton felt it should be modified in some way. A lot hangs on a presumption. Mr. Thompson stated they would be concerned about people dumping things down the storm system. Some people cut their grass and dump it all down the system. Cm. Burton felt this could cause some tough times with our businesses. He requested that we start out being very gentle with these situations. It could affect a major business or homeowners in the community. Enforcement and fines were discussed. CM VOL 11 Regular Meeting May 26, 1992 Ms. Silver advised that a person could be charged with a misdemeanor or could be cited as an infraction. Any right to appeal is through the court system. Violations could also be charged as a civil action. The City Council would decide this. It would then come before the City Council before a civil action is initiated. It is not possible to bring the City Council in as arbitrator because the Criminal Justice System is set up to process those types of violations and the State Penal Code would pre-empt the City from establishing a different type of appeal process. An enforcement officer would have to have some reasonable basis to issue Cease and Desist and reasonable evidence to investigate. The requirement for monitoring is not mandatory. Mr. Ambrose stated if someone has a hazardous spill on private property, the violation occurs when it goes into the storm drain system. This would give us the ability to prevent it from going into the storm drain system. There must be some built in protection for keeping these things out of the storm drains. Mayor Snyder closed the public hearing. Mayor Snyder pointed out that most of the terminology used is standard to NPDES. If there is a violation, the City is responsible. It behooves us to do everything possible to prevent this from occurring. The City has to assure self-monitoring. We are a County permittee with all the other agencies. Ms. Silver advised that this Ordinance was prepared for all the cities in the County. The Ordinance will be adopted in pretty much the same format by all the cities. Cm. Burton stated he just feels there is a lot of loose ends. If a person was not doing his job the right way, it could cause a lot of problems. He was speaking from a businessman's perspective. Mayor Snyder stated he understood what Cm. Burton was saying, but if we are not doing this, the State would probably be doing it. The thought was that it would be much easier to handle on a- local basis. Cm. Burton stated he saw no reference to recycled water and asked if this should be included. Mr. Thompson stated the January, 1993 requirement says you have to have a total water policy to try and reuse water and reduce consumption. It is actually more of a policy issue. Cm. Burton questioned if people are responsible for what goes down the stream if a creek goes through their back yard. If a large storm occurs, a lot of debris could come down. Mr. Thompson advised that this has occurred before in the City and the answer is yes. There are some property owners who have ditches and they are required to keep the ditches clean. They are responsible for the part that is on their land. :e:u:a : ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ CM - VOL 11 Meeting May 26, 1992 Cm. Burton questioned who was responsible for the open space. Mr. Ambrose advised that they are all privately owned and each of the property owners are responsible for cleaning their portion. Cm. Burton asked when the City becomes responsible. Mr. Thompson stated on the big creeks, we don't have any rights to go onto the property. If it is dedicated to the City, we then become responsible. Ms. Silver clarified that if you own property where a creek runs, you have an obligation to keep the stream free and not obstruct down stream users from getting water. Cm. Burton requested that the City Attorney investigate whether infractions can be appealed to the City Council rather than having to go through the court system. On motion of Cm. Jeffery, seconded by Cm. Moffatt, and by majority vote (Cm. Howard absent) , the Council waived the reading and INTRODUCED the Ordinance. Cm. Burton voted against this motion. ENCROACHMENT PERMIT ALMOND PLAZA DRIVEWAY ON SAN RAMON ROAD (670-40) Public Works Director Thompson advised that the owner of the Almond Plaza Shopping Center on Regional Street has submitted an application for a Conditional Use Permit/Site Development Review for a new shopping center entrance off San Ramon Road. Mr. Thompson explained that because of a deed restriction on the property which relinquishes the property owner's rights to access San Ramon Road, the property owner must obtain an encroachment permit from the City Council in order to obtain driveway access to San Ramon Road. A Zoning Administrator hearing for this project is tentatively scheduled for June 3 , 1992, and in order for the Zoning Administrator to act on the application, prior Council approval must be obtained. Mr. Thompson advised that Public Works Staff has reviewed the proposed location of the driveway and feels that such access would not adversely affect traffic on San Ramon Road. Staff is recommending that the new driveway be "in-only" , because of its proximity to the San Ramon Road/Amador Valley Boulevard intersection. The City Attorney advised that the encroachment permit approval is not assignable and is proposed to be revocable at the desire of the City upon 3 months' advance written notice. :eE ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ CM - VOL li gular Meetinq May 26, 1992 Mr. Thompson advised that David Malcolm apologized for being unable to attend this meeting due to a conflict in his schedule. Cm. Burton questioned if the road behind the back of the building could be used for parking. Mr. Thompson stated he thought there was one-way parking there now. Cm. Burton asked if they will be able to put signs on the other side as a storefront. He also questioned circulation. Mr. Thompson advised that there will be signs showing this as a one- way road. He assumed that they would want to orient it toward San Ramon Road. It will go through a Site Development Review and Conditional Use Permit process. Cm. Moffatt questioned if the reason for ingress only with no egress was because there is not enough land there. Mr. Thompson stated the problem is that some people might get out onto San Ramon Road and try to make a u-turn at Amador Valley Boulevard and there isn't enough space to safely cross all the lanes of traffic. Also, the property owner is mainly concerned with getting people into the center. On motion of Cm. Jeffery, seconded by Cm. Burton, and by unanimous vote (Cm. Howard absent) , the Council adopted RESOLUTION NO. 58 - 92 GRANTING AN ENCROACHMENT PERMIT TO DAVID MALCOLM FOR DRIVEWAY ACCESS FROM SAN RAMON ROAD BETWEEN AMADOR VALLEY BOULEVARD & DUBLIN BOULEVARD TO PROPERTY LOCATED AT 7150-7222 REGIONAL STREET OTHER BUSINESS Historical Preservation (910-40) Cm. Burton indicated he had received a copy of a letter sent to Diane Lowart from the City Attorney regarding the cemetery and the difficulties facing us regarding the use of that property. He requested that this be placed on the next City Council agenda so that we can drop the cemetery and school from the Measure AA grant application. There is no use spending Staff time on this until it can be resolved, particularly since it can't be resolved before the June 15th deadline. He suggested that Measure AA dollars be put toward the church alone. Cm. Moffatt clarified that the meeting would be to give Staff direction to not put any more time toward acquisition of the cemetery property. CM - VOL 11 /�_/ Regular Meeting May 26, 1992 Cm. Burton stated it could be the church only, the historical building. Cm. Burton asked Ms. Lowart if there was a meeting planned for the Task Force, as he was anxious to move forward. Ms. Lowart advised that she would discuss this with Cm. Burton after the Council meeting. Inquiry Regarding Resolution of Court System Complaint (580-75) Mayor Snyder asked if any information had been obtained regarding the different amounts for parking citations at Dublin High School. Ms. Joyce Alcamo, 7605 Knollwood Place inquired at the May 11th Council meeting. She felt she was getting the run around from the Court. Lt. Norm Gomes advised that the Court Clerk is supposed to be drafting a response and getting back to him. He spoke with Mike Alexander, the Court Clerk and he advised that it has to do with a person receiving a prior citation and that was the reason for the different amounts. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to come before the Council, the meeting was adjourned at 8: 30 p.m. Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ 0 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ CM _ VOL 11 j■/ Regular Meeting May 26, 1992 ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING - May 28, 1992 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 p.m. , by Mayor Snyder. ROLL CALL PRESENT: Councilmembers Burton, Howard, Jeffery, Moffatt and Mayor Snyder. ABSENT: 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 facilities is estimated at about 200. At buildout, western Dublin would have a maximum of about 8,400 people. ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ CM - VOL 11 Adjourned Regular Meeting May 28, 1992 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 1001 , 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. CM - VOL 11 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 process. 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. Ms. 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 EIR. Staff feels the Draft EIR adequately addresses mitigation of oak woodland loss. 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 EIR adequately provides for ways to address the management and CM - VOL 11 Adjourned Regular Meeting May 28, 1992 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. Cm. 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 EIR. On motion of Cm. Jeffery, seconded by Cm. Howard, and by unanimous vote, 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, would this 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 ridgeline. Ms. Gillarde advised that it would be under the next discussion item. ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ CM - VOL 11 --4, Adjourned Regular Meeting May 28, 1992 Ms. 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 - 92 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. Ms. 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: :djourne : ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ a ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ CM - VOL 11 /'c'/Regular Meeting May 28, 1992 A. Specific Plan/GPA issues relating to the Milestone property, determination of whether to; 1) retain the Brittany Drive extension; 2) permit development above 7401 . B. 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. C. 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 Generally confine development to space 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 Require steep slopes to be over 30% restricted to open space except where they occur in designated development areas Protect oak woodland; require- Emphasize oak woodland preserva- preservation of oak woodlands tion; allow removal only after all feasible efforts to preserve them have been made Ms. 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 v �6 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 plan. Cm. Jeffery responded no, but leave the area rural residential. Cm. 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. Cm. 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 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 .c. , 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. All Councilmembers were present when the meeting reconvened. :djour :e: ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ CM VOL 11 Regular Meeting May 28, 1992 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 .c. ) 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 wouldn't have a road over the ridge. Ms. 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 SP. 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. Cm. 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. 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 - VOL 11 Adjourned Regular Meeting May 28, 1992 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. On motion of Cm. Burton, seconded by Cm. Moffatt, and by a consensus, the Council agreed to proceed with alternative 3 .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 (the cluster development alternative) . Cm. Burton pointed out that if the Eden project doesn't 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. Planning Commission and Staff recommended that the Eden/Schaefer project remain as currently proposed in the Specific Plan. CM - VOL 11 - 10-, Adjourned Regular Meeting May 280 1992 v 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 prject 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 resolutions adopting the GPA and SP. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to come before the Council, the meeting was adjourned at 9:40 p.m. Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk :djourned ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ CM VOL 11 -���Regular Meeting May 28o 1992