Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout3.1 Approve 05-23-1983 Minutes REGULAR MEETING - MAY 235 1983 A regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Dublin was held on Monday, May 23 , 1983 in the multipurpose room of Fallon Elementary School , 7425 Larkdale Avenue . The meeting was called to order at 7 : 38 p .m. by Mayor Peter Snyder. ROLL CALL PRESENT: Councilmembers Hegarty, Jeffery, Moffatt and Mayor Snyder. Councilmember Burton was excused for vacation. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE The Mayor led the Council , Staff and those present in the pledge of allegiance to the flag. CONSENT CALENDAR On motion of Cm. Hegarty, seconded by Cm. Jeffery, and by unanimous vote , (Cm. Burton absent ) , the following were 'approved: Minutes of regular meeting of April 25 , 1983 , and Adjourned Regular Meeting of April 28 , 1983; Warrant Register in the amount of $53 ,920 . 74; Financial Report for Period Ending April 30 , 1983; and second modification of Conditional Use Permit C-4031 , St . Philip Lutheran Church. PUBLIC HEARING PA 82-003 BARRATT SAN JOSE Mayor Snyder explained the procedure that would be used to conduct this hearing: 1 . Staff Presentation 2 . Hearing opened by the Mayor 3 . Applicant ' s/Appellant ' s Presentations 4. Public Presentation 5 . Question Staff and Applicant 6 . Close Public Hearing 7 . Discuss - Deliberate - Decide The City Manager explained that Mr . Larry Tong would make the Staff presentation, and that a group of technical people who were involved with the design issues on the project were present to answer any questions the City Council may have . �J CM-2-82 _':ri;J �:`,G• May 23, 1983 Mr . Tong indicated that Barratt San Jose has applied for a Planned Development rezoning and a Tentative Map approval for 112 residential condominium units . The project would be located at the southwest corner of Silvergate Drive and San Ramon Road. Current zoning on the site is C-N, Neighborhood Business . The project , as was indicated on displays presented , would consist of 14 structures with 8 units in each structure . The breakdown would include 56 1-bedroom units at 530 sq . ft . each and 56 2-bedroom units at 685 sq . ft . each. Overall , the building coverage on the site would be approximately 13%, the parking and driveways would take up 32%, and the open space and landscaping would account for 55% of the site . As a Planned Development , the applicant may be allowed design flexibility, increased density and more intensive uses based upon superior design and amenities . In terms of processing this application, Staff began processing the project in November , 1982 . The plans were distributed and viewed by the Planning Staff, the City Engineer , the police services , the Alameda County Geologist , Alameda County Building Inspection, Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation District and the Dublin San Ramon Services District , Public Works Division and Fire Division, as well as various utilities and other public agencies . Detailed reports were submitted as part of this application. There was a Staff Analysis by John Forristal , Consulting Traffic Engineer, a Soils Investigation by Terrasearch, Inc . , Soils Foundation and Geological Engineers , a Noise Assessment Study by Edward L. Pack Associates , Consulting Acoustical Engineers , and Geotechnical Investigation by Berlogar , Long.& Associates , Soil Engineers and Engineer Geologists . A design conference was held in March, 1983 to discuss the technical issues involved in this project . Based on that design conference , the Staff completed an initial study which indicated 4 potentially significant environmental impacts . Those 4 were noise , traffic , flooding and seismic . Based upon the detailed reports and the analysis of those reports , the project plans were revised to eliminate those significant impacts and the City was given a forceful commitment by the applicant to assure that the mitigation measures will occur. The mitigated negative declaration which is proposed for this project was thus prepared in March 1983. With that mitigated negative declaration, Staff then went to a detailed analysis of the other issues related to this project , primarily land use . After preparing a detailed Staff Analysis , the Planning Commission held a hearing on this matter on April 18 , 1983. The Staff report , the applicant ' s presentation and various citizen' s comments were heard at that time . After reviewing all of that information, the Planning Commission adopted the Mitigated Negative Declaration on a 4-1 vote , recommended approval of the planned development rezoning with a 3-2 vote , and approved the Tentative Map with a 3-2 vote . Subsequent to the action of the Planning Commission, the Silvertree Homeowner ' s Association appealed the Tentative Map approval . Following that , the applicant requested tonights public hearing, and submitted some additional traffic analysis by John Forristal and some detailed flood control information by MacKay & Somps , Civil Engineers . CM-2-83 Regular Meeting May 23, 1983 The key issues in this particular proposal appear to concentrate in terms of land use , environmental impact , design and economics . In terms of land use issues , and this is probably the single most important issue that faces the Council in terms of this project , is the proposed use and density appropriate for the location and is the proposed use compatible with and will it enhance the surrounding area? On the question of land use , Staff sees 3 options . One would be continuation of the presently zoned office uses , secondly presently zoned retail commercial uses , or third, some sort of multi-family residential use . The current zoning on the site , Neighborhood Business , would allow various retail business and office uses such as retail stores , hardware stores , auto parts stores , offices , banks , etc . These uses would be allowed without a conditional use permit . It would, however, require a site development review to consider the design aspects of the proposal . . A drawing was presented of a previously approved office complex that was approved by the County in 1980 , prior to Dublin' s incorporation. It involves 6 2-story buildings for offices and would account for approximately 110 ,000 sq. ft . , including 418 parking spaces . Staff compared this proposal with the current Barratt proposal . In comparison, the Barratt proposal would provide more open space and landscaping, provide less building coverage , and generate less traffic than the offices . Similarly, the Staff reviewed and compared the Barratt proposal with the adjacent Silvertree townhouse proposal . Compared with the existing Silvertree proposal , Barratt would provide more open space and landscaping , less building coverage , and wou'l-d contain fewer people per acre based upon fewer number of bedrooms per unit . From a physical development standpoint , the Barratt proposal thus would provide more on-site amenities and more off-site public recreational improvements than the previously approved offices and the adjacent residential project . Other issues that needed to be considered if the project is to proceed would include the environmental impact . Has there been adequate consideration of potential environmental impacts related to the project? Will the project impact Dublin Green Drive and Silvergate Drive , and will the project generate or be subject to significant flood impacts? From a design aspect , will the project provide an attractive efficient and safe environment , and does the project provide adequate common open areas and other amenities? From an economic standpoint , will the project provide sufficient economic benefits to the community. Also, a concern that has been raised is , will the project be low and moderate income development that will adversely effect the adjacent properties? There are 3 alternatives open to the Council : 1 ) Approve the project , i .e . Planned Development , Rezoning and Tentative Map. To do so, the City Council must first adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration. 2 ) Continue the Planned Development , Rezoning and Tentative Map until the San Ramon Road Specific Plan is completed , and that would allow the Specific Plan to address the land use question on this particular site . Such an action must be taken prior to going into public hearing, and must have the applicant ' s consent . CM-2-84 Regular Meeting May 23, 1983 3) Deny the Planned Development , Rezoning and the Tentative Map based upon findings as indicated in a separate memo from the City Attorney. Based on the supplemental Staff Analysis and Pre-Hearing Staff Analysis , the Planning Commission and Staff recommend that the City Council : 1 ) Adopt the resolution adopting the Mitigate Negative Declaration 2 ) Introduce and waive the reading of the ordinance approving the Planned Development Rezoning 3 ) Adopt the resolution approving the Tentative Map Mayor Snyder opened public hearing and asked for presentation from applicant , Barratt . Mr. Joseph Head, Barratt San Jose , introduced the project indicating the type of citizen/resident they anticipate would be moving into this type of home . Mr. Head felt that anytime a proposal of this type , residential units that are much smaller than anything people are used to, is made , it ' s incumbent upon them as developers to try to lend some understanding to the extent they are able , of what this condominium community would be like if it were to be built . He briefly outlined their experience in a similar community in Fremont . They are also building another community of this same general type in San Jose , and are planning others in Dublin and other cities . The Fremont experience is important to look at because they anticipate the citizens coming to the proposed development would be a good cross section of people , as was represented in the audience at this meeting. They tend to be younger than average . In Fremont , the average age was 35 and if you exclude the retired people , it would probably be about 28-30 . For almost all , it will be the first residential unit they will own. It will be their starter house . Excluding those retired, they will all be employed. Their average length of time on the job will be 6. 7 years . They will have lived in the City 22 to 3 years . The units being proposed in Dublin are about 30% larger than those in Fremont . Mr. Head read a list of jobs held by those that bought in Fremont . Included were : programmer analyst , 22 years on the job; plummer, 2 years ; bank department manager, 9 years ; teacher , 6 months , grocery clerk, 52 years ; salesperson, 2 years ; technical illustrator, 8 years ; industrial engineer, 1 year; test operator 12 year; record keeper, 25 years ; janitorial service owner, 8 years ; secretary, 4 years . Mr. Head suggested the people try to keep an open mind and that the smallness is required if they are to keep the price affordable for a large majority of citizens , citizens who want to purchase their first residential unit . The annual income required is $20 ,000 - $25 ,000 in order to purchase a unit in the $60,000 range . The people who will live in this project will be a positive benefit to the community and people much like those residents in the audience . An issue raised at the Planning Commission meeting was whether this would turn into a rental project . Citizens are correct in that once Barratt is out of the project , they have no control . They are willing, however, to accept a condition that they would only sell to an owner/occupant and would place owner/occupancy financing on all the units . Hopefully, this would give the people of Dublin an assurance that the people buying want to live CM-2-85 Regular Meeting May 23, 1983 there and make it their home , just as those who live in larger homes take pride in ownership. Mr . Richard Frisbee , with the Environmental Center addressed the Council and audience commenting on the building design. He indicated that as they are proposing more and more of these units in various cities , the square footage is something that always becomes prominent in discussions of the project . He indicated that the size is probably the only factor that is different about the project being proposed. The units have some very standard features that could be found in townhouses , in other condominiums , and in single family homes . They all have cross ventilation, compartmented baths , ( separate vanity from toilet and shower compartment , giving more privacy) , and all bathrooms have exterior windows ( something that doesn' t necessarily happen in all kinds of units , but a feature that most people find very desirable ) . The one bedroom unit has a walk-in closet , a feature that is not even always present in single family homes . There are small inside laundry facilities in each unit , so there won' t be a laundry building outside , which is very typical in condominium/apartment type projects . Every unit will have its own private deck/patio area. There is plenty of exterior storage for each unit, and when the units were designed, it was in such a way that rooms work together so that the kitchen, for. instance , instead of being a separate small room, is open into the living and dining areas so that the space appears much larger when you enter the room. From an exterior standpoint , Mr . Frisbee explained that it will be a stucco building with wood accents for window trim and the private decks . The decks will be redwood. There will be-'-a composition roof , but of a heavier composition which gives a shadow pattern on the roof. The roof will be color coordinated with the rest of the building to give a pleasant visual appearance . There will be extensive landscaping throughout the project . Over half of the site will be an open space , which is not necessarily a common situation with condominiums , but Barratt felt desirable and Staff has encouraged as well . The scale of the buildings is also in keeping with the size of the units . Every building contains 8 units ; 4 units on first floor and 4 on top floor. The two end units are 2 bedroom units and the 2 middle units are one bedroom units on each floor. They could have increased the .yield on the site by organizing with long runs of buildings , but felt it would be more desirable to keep the buildings very small scale , so they are in keeping with the units . The buildings are only about 93 feet long and about 32 feet deep. This also keeps from giving it a dense apartment or motel type look. When you enter the site , you look out into a major open space . Each unit has a covered parking space very close to the front door. In addition, each unit has an uncovered guest parking space . When you enter a unit , you enter into a small entryway which looks directly through the unit and out into the open space . Cm. Hegarty clarified that this would apply to only half of the units . Mr. Frisbee stated that although not all of the units would overlook the major common green area , they would indeed look out into an open area, rather than cement . CM-2-86 Regular Meeting May 23, 1983 Jack Beechum, 11873 Dublin Green Drive , questioned the Barratt representatives as to whether the end product would look like the illustrations . Mr. Head stated it would, absolutely! He indicated they had learned from the Fremont project . Problems that were immediately evident have been remedied. Mr . Beechum stated he did not want this development approved at this meeting , mainly because it is not consistent with the General Plan. He indicated the house next door to his recently sold for $145 ,000 and people are concerned about the price of these units bringing down the value of their property. An unidentified member of the audience asked Mr. Head if there would be a homeowner ' s association to maintain the grounds . Mr. Head responded that there would be a homeowner ' s association, and both at their suggestion and the City ' s requirement , there will be a professional management firm that will need to be retained by the association. The monthly dues will be in the $60 - $70 range . This requirment will be in the CC&R ' s . Mayor Snyder referred to the specific paragraph that addresses this issue. An unidentified member of the audience questioned the fact that perhaps sometime in the future 112 residents will object to paying for the landscaping of the par course , when it is shared by all residents of Dublin. The Planning Director clarified that the ongoing maintenance of the landscaped area along San Ramon Road, including the par course will be specified in the CC&R ' s , which 'all the homeowners will have to sign as part of their agreement . It will be-in front, of them, and they will have to acknowledge that they have received and reviewed it . Mr . Dennis Anderson, a homeowner in Silvergate , indicated he had moved to the area 6 months ago from an area near Dallas , Texas . His concern was that the project would turn into rental units . Because we are a mobile society, he felt that as people move out , investors will be there waiting to buy, for rental property. He felt this was very similar to the federal government trying to build low cost housing in an affluent neighborhood. Ms . Kathy Waterson, 11769 Serra Court , compared this issue to past projects that were denied for the same reasons . She stated developers tried to put apartments where Dublin Green Drive exists today. She fought this , as well as an area in Briarhill , along Hansen Drive . She fought apartments being put in on Village Parkway. She indicated this project should not proceed until the General Plan is in place . Tim Bowus , a 6 year Dublin resident expressed concern regarding safety for school children. He felt there would be many children in Barratt ' s project that would need to cross streets . Martin Lucas , President of the Dublin Homeowner ' s Association on Hansen Drive , stated he supported the Silvertree Homeowner ' s Association in all their concerns and viewpoints , and stated he didn' t feel that Dublin was founded on apartments , but rather single family dwellings . CM-2-88 Regular Meeting May 23, 1983 Dave Petty stated he agreed with all the other comments . His main concern was density, in looking at not only this project , but the whole San Ramon Road corridor . He recommended that the project should be turned down pending completion of the General Plan, and then turn down the whole proposal . Tom Dixon, a Silvergate Drive resident felt concern over the lighting density of the proposed project . He felt there would be additional crime problems . Mr. Fisk, a Woodren Court resident identified himself as one of those people with a messy fence facing San Ramon Road. The mess , according to Mr. Fisk was created by the contractor who was allowed by the County to put a fence in with the posts approximately 6 inches into the ground, and maybe 2 handfulls of concrete . He urged the Council to look at the drawings in the perspective in which they are drawn. He felt the drainage of Martin Canyon Creek, as proposed, was inadequate . Jim Gjerpe , a Woodren Court resident , urged the City Council to listen to the wishes of the majority in this issue . The property should stay commercially zoned. Beverly Bowus , Woodren Court , questioned Barratt regarding visitor parking. Mr . Head explained that there would be an uncovered guest parking space inside the grounds for each unit . Others who made comments were : Lorraine- Dixon, Larry Valdez , Alice Store of San Sabana Road, Russ Branch of Alto Way, Trevar Tooze of Silvergate Drive , and Jim Strickler of Calle Verde Road. Bob Halerton, a Madera Court resident , was once many years ago president of the Silvergate Homeowner ' s Association. He addressed the Alameda County Planning Commission some years ago when this exact parcel was rezoned from light commercial to commercial . He felt people were panicking and a lot of emotion was present . He felt those in the audience were trying to make this an area "for. us important people" in Dublin, and not let anyone else come in. He was concerned as to what kind of neighbors he has , and asked if they really feel they should shut others out and not give them a chance . Donald King, a resident of Livermore indicated he had come to this area 5 years ago. He stated he hadn' t owned a home since 1971 when he was divorced. He felt a lot of people are in this same situation. He is concerned with the plight of people who don' t own homes , who can ' t buy a , first home to move up to another. He felt there should be a lot of concern shown by those who "have made it" . Cm. Hegarty felt the issue which should be decided at this meeting was the use of the land. If the people want it left commercial , there is no point in talking with Barratt , or any other housing developers . Chris ' Kinzel , TJKM, the City ' s Traffic Engineering Consultant explained the ultimate plans for San Ramon Road. Trevar Tooze stated he felt the light CM-2-89 Regular Meeting May 23, 1983 that is being proposed for the intersection of San Ramon Road and Silvergate Drive will only make the traffic situation worse . RECESS A short recess was called . The meeting reconvened at 10 :45 p.m. with all Councilmembers present . (Cm. Burton absent ) The City Engineer addressed the subject of last winter ' s flooding situation, and the possible effects that the Barratt proposal would have on future flooding of Martin Canyon Creek. It was determined that this proposal would have no effect on the flooding, as the problem area was above this development . The Calaveras Faultline and earthquake damage possibilities were discussed. Cm. Hegarty stated they had heard a lot of comments from the audience , but the fact remains that there is a piece of land that will be developed. If the County ' s General Plan had been adopted, this use would not be in conformance . He asked the audience what they wanted to see on the property, or if the Council will go thru .this same process every time a proposal is submitted. Several developers have tried to develop this property, but there have always been groups opposed to the particular project . He advised the audience that it would be nice for the location to be a park, but everyone knows that won' t happen. Trevar Tooze indicated in answer to Cm. Hegarty-' s question, he would like to see a park on the property. Cm. Hegarty questioned if he would like to see the City of Dublin taxed for a park. Mr. Tooze responded that this was a different issue . Cm. Jeffery stated she had received a paper that was distributed by those in opposition to this project . She received calls from people who were under the impression that the City Council had distributed them. She urged the group, if they chose to do this again, make it clear who they were . Cm. Jeffery asked the applicant if they would object to the City Council delaying a decision on this issue until after the adoption of the Specific Plan. Mr. Head questioned an approximate timeframe . The Planning Director indicated the Planning Commission would hear the draft of the Specific Plan the middle of June , and hopefully to the City Council at the end of June . Mr. Head agreed that this would be acceptable . Mr. Head indicated that he wished to work with and convince the community of the positive aspects of this project and that a one or two month delay would give him the opportunity to accomplish this . Cm. Jeffery made motion to continue this issue until after the approval of the Specific Plan. The motion was seconded by Cm. Hegarty, and was passed by unanimous vote (Cm. Burton absent ) . CM-2-90 Regular Meeting May 23, 1983 Mr'. Gjerpe objected , stating he felt the project should be put off until the General Plan is adopted instead of just the Specific Plan. Diane Binetti , a former owner of the property indicated she was an 18 year resident of Dublin and felt concerned that the people had turned down numerous proposals submitted for this property. She stated she was tired of looking at the mess on this vacant lot and felt this proposal looked pretty good. Mayor Snyder indicated that the Public Hearing was hereby continued. EXECUTIVE SESSION At 11 : 50 p.m. , the Council recessed to a closed session. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to come before the Council , the meeting was adjourned at 1 : 15 a.m. Mayor ATTEST: City C er CM-2-91 Regular Meeting May .23, 1983 Also provided is a swimming pool and a small spa in the major open space . There is one major entrance point into the project and they have purposely landmarked it with textured paving to accent that entryway, along with substantial landscaping, so that you get a very pleasant feeling as you enter the project , and don' t feel confined. There is a separate emergency access in the event that both of the two lanes were blocked. Mr . Frisbee indicated in discussions with the Planning Commission, the City had requested that certain improvements be discussed for the property along San Ramon Road, i .e . a par course and some extensive landscaping. Barratt prepared a schematic of how this could look. Mr . Barry Fell represented the Silvertree Homeowners Association and a group of 300+ people from the neighborhoods surrounding this project who had signed a petition. They have had a series of meetings to discuss the problems , and he addressed several issues of concern. Their major concern was that the general growth and development plan for Dublin has not yet been written. They felt it inappropriate to even consider a project of this type prior to adoption of the General Plan. He felt the General Plan would address the haphazard development that has occurred along San Ramon Road. The location of this proposed development is the only remaining commercial property on San Ramon Road. The only other undeveloped commercial parcel is on Dougherty Road. The density and traffic studies , when compared with the previously approved office complex, were questioned and felt to be inaccurate . Mr. Fell questioned Barratt ' s marketing survey which covered only 32 units . He felt they were probably very nice people , and we would welcome them in Dublin, but not living right here . With regard to traffic issues , the group felt there was an immediate need for a traffic signal at Silvergate Drive and San Ramon Road, even before any further development goes in. They questioned the findings of the City ' s Traffic Engineer who determined that the Barratt project would have a 20% effect on the overall traffic situation. Mr. Fell felt that according to his calculations , the increase in traffic would be 150%. Another concern was the issue of flooding. It was felt that Silvertree homeowners would be liable for damages if Martin Canyon Creek were to overflow. Statistics prepared by technical experts in this field were questioned. In summary Mr. Fell stated they felt the traffic , the density, the flooding and the location of this development are inappropriate . According to a memo from the City Attorney, the City Council must make a finding that is consistent with the General Plan in order to approve this . Since the City does not have a General Plan, the Council should wait to make a decision until such time as the General Plan is adopted. CNI-2-87 Regular Meeting May 23, 1983