Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08-22-1990 Adopted CC Min Study SessionADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING (STUDY SESSION) - August 22, 1990 An adjourned regular meeting (Study Session) of the City Council of the City of Dublin held jointly with the Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, August 22, 1990, in the Council Chambers of the Dublin Civic Center. The meeting was called to order at 7:10 p.m., by Mayor Paul Moffatt. ROLL CALL PRESENT: Councilmembers.Hegarty, Jeffery, Snyder, Vonheeder and Mayor Moffatt; Commissioners Burnham, Okun and Zika ABSENT: Commissioners Barnes and Springer PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE The Mayor led the Council, Commission, Staff and those present in the pledge of allegiance to the flag. SUBJECT: PA 87-031 East Dublin Land Use Concepts Brenda Gillarde, Project Coordinator for the East Dublin project, stated that she was pleased with the public turnout. She indicated that this meeting was not a public hearing. It was'a study session to review two land use concepts for the East Dublin area. There would be no decisions made or votes taken at this time. Ms. Gillarde reviewed the agenda procedures and indicated that speaker slips were available for everyone's use. She indicated that Wallace Roberts & Todd (WRT) would be presenting the land use concepts and introduced Steve Hammond and John Skibbe from WRT as well as Mike Aronson of DKS. Steve Hammond, WRT, indicated that five separate land use concepts had been discussed at the April 18th study session. Concept #4 had been chosen as the best alternative out of those five. .. Mr. Hammond indicated that WRT has been working with Staff for the past two months refining Concept #4. He stated that with the build out of Concept #4, would create a population of approximately 50,000 people; 18,000 dwelling units; 11,000 square feet of additional office space and 28,000 new jobs. Mr. Hammond described the refined plan as being a community with distinction. A slide show was presented which described Concept ~4. There would be town/village centers; high density residential areas concentrated in the flat lands with single family dwelling units @*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@,@,@,@,@,@,@, CM- 8 - 225 Study Session August 22, 1990 higher up on the hillsides; and businesses concentrated closer to the freeway areas. Noise and visual concerns were also looked at. There were detailed slides describing open space areas; transportation grids; neighborhood parks; retail uses; employment generating uses; residential uses; architectural styles of dwelling units; and conceptual sketches. The slides further deScribed various enhancements for pedestrian travel: bicycle pathways; neighborhood parks within walking distance; sportsground parks; ridgelines; open space buffers and provisions for alternative transportation other than automobiles (pedestrians walking and bicycling around town). Also illustrated were shopping malls; large auto-malls; specialty shops; commercial areas; business park; high density office areas, professional offices, industrial park use; and dwelling units ranging from 6-45 units per acre. It was indicated that although there is still a demand for single-family large lots there is also a need to provide multi-family units that people could afford; John Skibbe, WRT, described portions of the town center concept, particularly traffic circulation; pedestrian walkways; and one-way streets. He indicated that the concept would promote more pedestrian traffic~which would eliminate some of the automobile congestion. He talked about schools being linked to the open space areas and described architectural styles of dwelling units (uptown versus downtown styles); landscaping; residential Streets, regional trail system; parks; bike trails, etc. Mr. Hammond indicated that Concept #4 promoted planning for the future. It would provide a sense of community as well as a healthy and affordable environment. Mr. Hammond indicated that Concept #5 had also been evaluated and was similar to Concept #4. However, Concept #5 would eliminate the town center concept. The county-owned land would become a business park and the statistics would change - the population would be about 34,000; there would be about 12,000 dwelling units and office space would be 15 million square feet. He felt that there would be a job/housing imbalance and larger unaffordable single-family dwelling units. He felt that Concept #4 was a more feasible plan. Ms. Gillarde asked if the Council/Commission had any questions they would like to ask. Councilmember Snyder asked what type of alternative financing for the project was available. He felt that the project should be able to support itself. Ms. Gillarde indicated that a full fiscal analysis would be done at the Specific Plan stage of the project. @*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@* CM - 8 - 226 Study Session August 22, 1990 Commissioner Zika requested clarification on the job/housing balance of the two concepts. He felt that Concept #4 would be more feasible in providing that balance. Ms. Gillarde indicated that there was no guarantee that people would work and live in the same City. However, Concept #4 could make the job/housing balance more of a reality. Concept #5 would not create that type of environment. Councilmember Jeffery asked the Consultant what type of marketing studies had been done for the town center concept. Mr. Hammond indicated that according to ERA, a 20-year projected demand had been studied. CoUncilmember Jeffery had concerns regarding how well the open style walkways would fare in Dublin's windy climate area. She indicated that the architectural style of homes seemed to be suited more to an urban environment. Mr. Hammond indicated that the eastern area of Dublin needed to have its own identity, a sense of community with urban surroundings. There should be a commitment in limiting automobile usage in the area. Cm. Okun had concerns that Concept #5 would not create a job/housing balance that was needed. Mr. Hammond indicated that this was definitely an issue to be considered. Councilmember Hegarty had concerns regarding traffic circulation. He felt that the pedestrian (foot) traffic seemed like a good idea; however, there would still be people coming into the town center who would need to park their cars. The concept is attractive; however is it a reality? Mr. Hammond indicated that all of the plans analyzed traffic concerns and Concept #4 had the best traffic scenarios. It would be impossible to create utopian standards which would accommodate all forms of traffic; however, Concept #4 would give pedestrians the option to walk. Mr. Mike Aronson, DKS, stated that the "worst case assumption" had been used when analyzing the traffic patterns and congestion for the area. There will always be certain individuals who prefer to use their automobiles. Ms. Gillarde indicated that there were several concepts before the Council/Commission. The property owners and public would now have an opportunity to ask any questions and/or voice their concerns. The question put to the Council/Commission, "What kind of vision was there for East Dublin?" She indicated that.on page 5 and 6 of the staff report there were questions and issues they might want to review. @*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@,@,@,@,@,@,@, CM - 8 - 227 Study Session August 22, 1990 Ms. Gillarde indicated that Attachment #4 and #5 of the staff report had comments that had already been received by City Staff. Mayor Moffatt requested that everyone, who wished to speak, fill out the speakers slips and turn them in before the break was over. The Council/Commission took a 15 minute recess. The meeting reconvened with all Councilmembers, Commissioners and Staff present. Donna Oglevie, 5360 Doolan Canyon, indicated that Concept #4 would be a heavy financial burden on the property owners. Future costs of the project would be detrimental. Staff needed to consider the individuals who were presently living in the area. Dan Lee, 879 Via Sevell, had concerns regarding the airport protection area (buffer zone). He indicated that the Livermore Airport was a major transportation facility and a economic asset to the Tri-valley area. He stated that he was pleased to hear Staff addressing this important issue and asked that the plan incorporate a strict adherence to the protection area, restricting residential growth within the buffer zone. Councilmember Snyder asked Staff if it was appropriate to ask questions of the public. Ms. Libby Silver, City Attorney, indicated that this meeting was not a public hearing. It was okay to ask questions, however no decisions were to be made at this time. Councilmember Snyder asked Mr. Lee why the Residence Inn and Triad facility, which was located within the protection area, had been approved. Mr. Lee indicated that the Residence Inn was not classified as residential, it was a hotel. There were no objections to the development of hotels within the protection area. Councilmember Snyder asked Mr. Lee what level of employment was allowed in the Industrial Park (Triad). Mr. Lee indicated that there are 550 acres within that area and the Triad facility was within an Industrial Park zoning district, which was allOwed within the protection area. Don Redgwick, representative for Dublin Ranch North property owners, had concerns regarding the economic viability of the plan. An economic study had not been done and he felt that the proposed retail would not be able to support the area. He indicated that there were not enough single-family dwelling units proposed and there needed to be more densities along the hillsides. @*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@~*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@* CM - 8 - 228 Study Session August 22, 1990 Syvette/John Phillips, 1760 Sunset Drive, Livermore, had concerns regarding development within the Livermore Airport's flight pattern. They indicated that the community should not be affected by the development and asked that the plan consider the detrimental effects upon the airport. Marjorie LaBar, PARC, had concerns regarding the funding for the infrastructure and the airport safety zone. She indicated that affordable housing was needed, and that the development should pay for itself or share the burden. She was pleased with the "Village" concept, however asked that the job/housing balance be taken into consideration. John Caruth, had concerns regarding the airport safety zone. He indicated that major corporations were developing in the Tri-valley area and the airport was a major transportation facility. He asked that the airport safety zone be considered in the proposed plan. Dave Burton, 11396 Dillon Way, had concerns that the "new" Dublin would devastate the older sections of Dublin. He indicated that the plan was creating a brand new city, with a change of lifestyle and asked that the existing downtown area of Dublin be protected. He had concerns regarding the job/housing balance and indicated that there was a need for affordable housing, such as granny units~and mobile parks. Carolyn Morgan, 5184 Doolan Canyon, had concerns regarding the diversity of the plan, the airport buffer zone, the sewer/water capacity and costs, water/air quality, and parking/traffic congestion. She indicated that the proposed segregated housing could turn the area into another "West Oakland". The noise from the airport as well as Camp Parks' firing range should also be considered. John Sherwin, had concerns regarding the airport protection area. indicated that the airport was an asset to the Tri-Valley area and that residential development should be eliminated from the buffer zone. He Mr. Martin Interbitzen, representative for Doolan East/West, indicated that he preferred Concept #4 and was in favor of moving forward with this plan. He had mixed feelings regarding the urban concept and would like to see an increase in single-family dwelling units versus the multi-family high density development that was proposed. He felt that the area should be able to pay for itself and Mello Roos districts could be set up to help pay for the infrastructure. Mr. Interbitzen asked that additional information regarding the open space areas be considered, such as are these areas public or private? What about maintenance and funding of those areas? Mr. Interbitzen discussed the east-west road grades and technical issues and offered some solutions to Staff. He requested that the areas shown in Concept #5 with the asterisks be considered for some residential potential. The areas did not have 30% or greater slopes @*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@* CM- 8 - 229 Study Session August 22, 1990 and did not involve ridgelines. He requested that the plans allow for further geotechnical studies. John Di Manto, had concerns regarding tax revenues, noise and traffic circulation. He indicated that the "village" concept was a beautiful dream, however not very realistic. There was no cash flow or revenues generated from this kind of concept. He felt that people wanted security type housing with recreational facilities, such as spas and tennis courts. Mr. Di Manto was concerned that the proposed park would become a policing problem being out in the open area and felt that it should be moved back into the residential areas. Mr. Di Manto described his own concept, which included business park settings and urged the Council to talk to financial consultants. He felt that the whole plan needed to be redesigned. Marjorie Kohler, Tassajara Road, had concerns regarding her property being rezoned as a park. She felt that the land could be used for more productive purposes. Adolf Martinelli, representing Alameda County, indicated that the Board of Supervisors had an interest in the Dublin plan.. The County had an annexation agreement with the City of Dublin regarding the County's land within the East Dublin area. The County Nas very concerned about sound planning, social responsibilities~ feasibility and fiscal benefits for bOth the County and City. He indicated that the County would consider modification of the agreement, if the County and City were both unharmed fiscally and made whole. Mr. Martinelli indicated that the County's land was zoned for industrial park uses similar to Hacienda Business Park across the highway. The County feels that the planning proceed with efforts directed towards both Concept #4 and #5. Mr. Martinelli felt that the town center concept was very complex, expensive, and not realistic. When considering the job/housing balance, Dublin should be looked at as one whole area. Dublin should also look at Pleasanton's General Plan to coordinate Dublin's planning efforts with Pleasanton. He felt that there was not enough known yet about the financial impacts of the proposed project. Patrick Adams, had concerns over the park areas, the lifestyle of the residential neighborhoods, and traffic flow. He indicated that the Santa Rita jail facility should be considered when developing the open space park areas. The road from the jail moves right t]lrough the proposed park area which would cause enforcement proble]~s in the area. He felt that small parks should be developed within the residential neighborhoods. Mr. Adams asked that the proposed plan consider the lifE~style of the existing residents. @*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@,~@*@*@*@*@*@*@* OM - 8 - 230 Study Session August 22, 1990 Connie Eccles, had concerns regarding the airport protection area. Concepts needed to be planned that were compatible with the airport and residential neighborhoods should not be considered in the buffer zone. Land uses will be subjected to high noise levels and any land use concept interfering with the airport should be rejected. She indicated that Concepts #3, #4 and #5 were not compatible with the airport. Mr. Frank Berlogar, 5587 Sunol Boulevard, indicated that certain areas in Concept #5 (asterisks) were shown as being sensitive landslide areas and development was being discouraged in those areas. He felt that it was feasible to develop these areas and Staff should co~Sider these areas for potential development. Mr. Jim Steadman indicated that Concept #4 was a sensible plan with a good job/housing balance. His concerns were with the town center concept. He preferred arterial roadways. Concept #5 shows an unbalance in the job/housing market. He felt that the flatlands should be densely developed and Concept #5 would provide a higher tax base than Concept #4. He preferred Concept #5. Mayor Moffatt closed the public discussion. Councilmember Snyder indicated that although he liked Concept #4, he never envisioned this type of development. He was concerned the concept would detract from the community as it is now and would like to see a more homogeneous concept. He felt that a combination concept with parts of Concept #4 and #5 could be considered. Councilmember Jeffery felt that Dublin would be divided into two separate communities. There did not seem to be any connection between what was now existing and there needed to be a mixture of uses. She was concerned with large buildings being built on the hillsides. Councilmember Vonheeder indicated that the concept was a dream and did not want to see two separate communities. She felt that the community was not ready for the town center concept. She was also concerned that the park along Tassajara Road would become a problem. The road was a busy street and felt that parks were needed for the local community. A regional park was not needed. Councilmember Hegarty agreed with most of the citizen's concerns and that Staff needed to do additional studies regarding these comments. He had concerns regarding the job/housing balance, densities, development on the ridgelines, and airport protection area. He felt that there was a need for more public meetings as well as refinements to the proposed concepts. Mayor Moffatt had concerns regarding affordable housing. He felt that Staff needed to look into using Dublin Boulevard extension to tie in Dublin's existing commercial areas with the new business areas. We should think about an industrial park located along 1-580. Mayor Moffatt requested that Staff conduct several workshop on the East Dublin plan. @*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@,@,@,@,@,@,@,@,@,@,@,@,@,@,@,@,@,@,@,@,@,@, CM - 8 - 231 Study Session August 22, 1990 Ms. Gillarde thanked everyone for their comments. Based on the input received, it is apparent that some major modifications would be necessary. Staff and the Consultant will continue to work together to refine the plan. However, she stated that before any refinements could be made, the issue with the annexation agreement between the City and the County needed to be resolved. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business t© come before the Council/Commission, the meeting was adjourned at 10:30 p.m. ATTEST: k~A~stant City Manager @*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@,@,@*@,@,@,@,@,@,@,@,@,@,@,@*@,@,@,@,@,@,@, CM - 8 - 232 Study Session August 22, 1990