HomeMy WebLinkAbout04-18-1990 Adopted CC Min Study Session ADJOURNED REGULAR ~EET~N9 (Study Session) - April 18, 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 Monday, April 18, 1990, in the Council Chambers of the Dublin Civic
Center. The meeting was called to order at 7:03 p.m., by Mayor Paul
Moffatt.
ROLL CALL
PRESENT: Councilmembers Hegarty, Jeffery, Snyder, Vonheeder and Mayor
Moffatt and Planning Commissioners Barnes, Burnham, Mack, Okun and
Zika.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
The Mayor led the Council, Commission, Staff and those Present in the
pledge of allegiance to the flag.
Staff'advised that this study session was scheduled to discuss General
Plan Policies and Land Use Concepts for East Dublin.
Mayor Moffatt introduced Project Coordinator, Brenda Gillarde. Ms.
Gillarde advised that this is 'one of the largest planning projects in
Northern California and that the East Dublin General Plan Amendment/
Specific Plan/EIR Study (GPA/SP/EIR) was initiated by the City in the
fall of 1988, following submission of a request to consider
development of the 930 acre Dublin Ranch. The City Council determined
that prior to acting on the request, a comprehensive study should be
undertaken for the entire East Dublin area. The City retained the
firm of Wallace, Roberts & Todd to prepare the East Dublin GPA/SP/EIR.
Ms. Gillarde introduced Alison Massa with WRT.
Ms. Massa advised that the study area includes approximately 7,400
acres of relatively undeveloped land east of Dublin. The topography
ranges from virtually level land adjacent to 1-580 to steeply sloping
hills in the upper, northern portion of the study area. Some grazing
occurs in the hills and there are approximately 35 occupied residences
on the property. Approximately 66% of the study area lies within
Dublin's existing Sphere of Influence. The remainder of the planning
area, including a portion of Doolan Canyon, lies outside the City's
Sphere of Influence.
Ms. Massa presented the Concepts Report which detailed five different
land use options that could be considered for East Dublin. Some of
the land use concepts would'require minor modifications to existing
policies; others would involve major policy adjustments to accommodate
the level of development represented by the concept. The concepts
were preliminary only and subject to further refinement. The area is
quite extensive and varied and slides were shown of how the area
currently looks. An underlying vision common to all the concepts was
@*@*@*@*@*@*@,@,@,@,@,@,@,@,@,@,@,@,@,@,@,@,@,@,@,@,@,@,@,@,@,@,@,@,@,
CM- VOL 9 - 89
Study Session April 18, 1990
that East Dublin is seen as a living and working community.
concept contained a sUbstantial amount of retail use.
Each
The five concepts share a common vision of a dynamic community that
provides opportunities for people to live and work as well as
recreational opportunities. Within the community would be one or more
business centers containing a mix of office, retail and other
commercial uses. Residential neighborhoods of different types of
housing would surround each center and would be connected by
landscaped parkways and pedestrian pathways. An extensive system of
open space corridors would provide visual relief from the urban
landscape, as well as outdoor recreational opportUnities.
Cm. Zika questioned if, in figuring the housing deficit, does this
assume the number employed compared to the number of dwelling units
available. Where do earnings come into play and whether or not the
units will be affordable.
Ms. Massa advised that the report does not take into account questions
of affordability, but does take into account the number of people in a
household.
Cm. Hegarty stated that if every community would strive to create a
jobs/housing match, we would not have the commute situations that
exist today. If one city accomplishes this and another doesn't, then
one will obviously suffer. You then might develop a concept of one
city creating jobs and letting another city build the houses. He felt
the goal was to have as close a match as possible.
Ms. Massa advised that in putting the concepts together, and in
evaluating them, theY looked at a number of factors besides the ratio
of employed workers to housing units. There are some significant
traffic impacts which would require some substantially greater
infrastructure for roads and highways.
Cm. Jeffery advised that one of the reports used in developing the
land use concepts was the Economics Research Associates of 1988. She
questioned who commissioned this report.
Ms. Massa advised that it was a part of the overall East Dublin
contract.
Ms. Gillarde discussed the policy issues raised by the 5 concepts.
Because this is a General Plan Amendment, the possibility of modifying
some of the policies can be considered to accommodate different kinds
of development in East Dublin than has occurred elsewhere in the City.
There are 43 policies in the General Plan which can be applied to East
Dublin; however, 6 were selected which most impact development in East
Dublin. The 6 policies were then reviewed.
Cm. Jeffery advised that with Concept 5 she was concerned regarding
the agreement with Alameda County and what will be forced upon us by
legislature regarding jobs/housingbalance.
@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@,@,@,@,@,@,@,@,@,@,@,@,@,@,@,@,@,@,@,@,@,@,@,@,@,@,@,@,
CM -VOL 9 - 90
Stu4y Session April 18, 1990
City Manager Ambrose advised that this is something we will have to
discuss with the County. There is no question that this is a problem.
Ms. Gillarde advised that the County fully acknowledges their
agreement. The County has rethought their position and are actually
in favor of a more mixed use.
Cm. Jeffery indicated that when the agreement was made, there was no
land that was set aside as a transportation center.
Ms. Gillarde indicated that in discussions with the County, they are
open to considering other uses.
Cm. Hegarty questioned what type of height requirements were being
recommended.
Ms. Gillarde stated she thought it was 200' with regard to the Airport
Land Use Commission referral. They anticipate no conflicts with this.
There is a requirement to forward a developed plan to them and then
they have a chance to comment.
Cm. Hegarty stated he was concerned regarding spreading things out and
using up all the land. Land can be preserved by building upwards.
ThiS is the time to carefully consider heights. When the original GP
was adopted, the Council told people to bring their plans and concepts
in regarding height and the Council would consider how high to go..~
There was flexibility built in.
Cm. Mack felt the designation of a 600 acre business park on the Santa
Rita property in Concept 5 was inconsistent with the first 4 concepts.
Mayor Moffatt called a short recess and advised that when the meeting
reconvened, audience members would be allowed to offer comments. All
Councilmembers and Commissioners were present when the meeting was
reconvened.
Mayor Moffatt reiterated that no votes or consensus will be taken at
this meeting, but the purpose of the meeting was for a study session
only.
Zev Kahn, 11708 Harlan Road stated he had concerns regarding parks and
recreation issues. He questioned how the amount of land was figured
and also, how the school yards related to park uses. Schools and
school yards have been indicated as recreational areas. If there are
not enough parks, you will severely restrict the people who will
eventually live there. He did not see any real park areas on the
maps.
Mayor Moffatt advised that specific questions would not be addressed
tonight, but would be added to the list of concerns to be studied.
Ms. Massa briefly explained that the General Plan says only to expand
park space in the extended planning area. They took the upper end of
the Quimby Act dedication requirement, which is 5 acres per thousand
@*@*@*@*@*@,@,@,@,@,@,@,@,@,@,@,@,@,@,@,@,@,@,@,@,@,@,@,@,@,@,@,@,@,@,
CM - VOL 9 - 91
Study Session April 18, 1990
residents. They also introduced the notion of school parks. They are
not cutting back on the acreage devoted to parks, but rather
combining. Another idea common to all the concepts is the idea of a
Citywide sports park, shown in 3 of the concepts on flatland along
Tassajara, adjacent to the proposed Alameda County government center.
Mary Beth Acuff, 8048 Via Zapata expressed concerns that Dublin is
under the gun to produce affordable housing. She felt that of all the
concepts presented, only #4 gives enough flexibility for the city to
negotiate so that some lower income housing is built. It is extremely
important to consider architectural planning for height, open space,
etc., and flexibility must be built in.
Therese Swan, 6931 Langmuir Lane pointed out that many companies are
laying people off, and questioned why Dublin would want to build
another business park. All this will do is drive down property
values. Not enough businesses are moving into this area.
Larry Anderson with BART stated he was very encouraged by the focus of
the plan on pedestrian network and provisions that will encourage
transit. Park & Ride facilities have been placed near 1-580. He was
concerned about the configuration of a roadway, in that Dublin
Boulevard seems to move away from the BART station.
Adolph Martinelli with Alameda County reminded the Council and
Commission that the Santa Rita property has a different status from
the other property. This is subject to an initial agreement which is
very sensitive related to tax transfers and land uses. The County is
not opposed to alternative uses, but it is a very sensitive issue.
The County would support mixed use on the property, particularly to
work toward jobs/housing balance. He felt a policy should be added to
look at vertical land uses, particularly on the western portion of the
study area. He also pointed out that the Triad Business Center in
Livermore is shown on all the plans, but BART is not shown.
Circulation will be a controlling factor, even more than open space
and jobs/housing balance. This is a long term plan which will take
many years to build out. Dublin is blessed with geography and timing
and Dublin can become the focal point of the entire region.
Marjorie LaBar, 11707 Juarez Lane indicated that several assumptions
made in the report jump out at her as being downright dangerous. She
was concerned with water shortage and the fact that we may not be able
to get all of our allotment from the State of California. To assume
this kind of growth with an unstable water supply is dangerous. She
suggested a concept 6 that would take into affect the airport buffer
zone, amount of water available, and a 30% slope development
restriction. She also felt that the financial figures might need to
be redone. Everyone should know up-front what it will cost to meet
Level of Service D. She was concerned with development height and
conflicts with the flight zones.
Ted Fairfield, P. O. Box 1148, Pleasanton stated he was glad to
finally be at this point in the process. It appears we are headed
toward the real thing. He represented 2400 acres of the property.
@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@,@,@,@,@,@,@,@,@,@,@,@,@,@,@,@,@,@,@,@,@,@,@,@,@,
CM - VOL 9 - 9Z
Study Session April 18, 1990
Concept 3 has been referred to as the developers option. It does have
problems, but overall is a good plan. He discussed the various
concepts and felt that #4 takes away a little of the flexibility. We
must keep in mind that we are looking 20 years into the future. What
is done now will somewhat put a cap on what is ultimately done. We
cannot change our minds years from now. All the infrastructure will
be built as one of the first phases of development. There will be
some very heavy front-end costs. Ownership and use of open space is
somewhat in questiOn. There are a lot of nice thoughts for the land.
This will be an evolutionary process. Putting in a band of 5 acre
ranchettes as a buffer might be desirable. With regard to the
riparian corridors, they hoped that these are counted for density
purposes. This will be a substantial issue as the study progresses.
He felt personally that there are too many schools on the site, and
based this on other communities in which they have done plans. In
summary, he felt that everything is headed in the right direction.
Trevor Patterson, 5661 Doolan Road expressed concern that he was
deleted from the ownership pattern page. He questioned how much area
in width is included in the riparian corridor. He pointed out that
Concept #3 takes out his house completely. He also asked if
Cottonwood Creek had been mapped.
Ms. Massa advised that the riparian corridors were approximately 200'
wide and also that Cottonwood Creek has not been mapped.
Marty Inderbitzen, 62 West Neal Street, Pleasanton stated he
represented Doolan property and Lin properties along with Ted
Fairfield. One of the notable things is that there is a substantial
amount of property owned by a few property owners. This gives a
chance for the proPerty owners to participate in the future
development of the City of Dublin. This area of the Valley represents
Dublin's opportunity to grow to maturity and a chance to become the
real jewel of this Valley. It is exciting. With regard to the ALUC,
Dublin needs to be cognizant of this commission, but he did not feel
that they could impose any restrictions.
Bobbie Foscalina, 5200 Doolan Road quoted various ABAG statistics and
felt that the plans presented would throw Dublin's jobs/housing ratio
out of balance. She questioned if the area could absorb this much
commercial development or housing. The Council should be concerned
because each of the concepts conflict with the General Plan, and all
the plans seem to lead to a LOS D or F, which are unacceptable. She
felt there should be an additional plan which would leave Doolan
Canyon undeveloped which would also keep infrastructure costs down for
the rest of the area. Most of the residents of this canyon are not
interested in being developed into Dublin.
Bill Diehl, 22916 ESpada, Salinas congratulated everyone involved in
putting these plans together. He urged Dublin not to be timid in the
future. Developers are becoming very sensitive. It is difficult to
look 20 years into the future, but the key has to be flexibility.
Whatever land concept is chosen, you may discover that some of the
things may be ina. ppropriate. He urged the City to go forward.
@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@,@,@,@,@,@,@,@,@,@,@,@,@,@,@,@,@,@,@,@,@,@,@,@,@,@,
CM - VOL 9 - 93
Study Session April 18, 1990
Doug Abbott, 8206 Rhoda Avenue stated he was troubled by this whole
process. Since he assumed that a lot of thought was put into the
General Plan, why not develop a concept that conforms. Each one of
the concepts presented asks for exceptions to the General Plan.
Dublin's General Plan should mean something and should protect
existing residents.
Carolyn Morgan speaking for Donna Ogelvie, 5184 Doolan Canyon felt it
was premature to have these meetings since LAFCO has not made their
decision and won't until next month. The costs for infrastructure are
staggering. She questioned how this will be funded and who is going
to pay for it. The drought of the last few years is a major concern.
Why not leave Doolan Canyon as 5 and 10 acre parcels and use them as a
bUffer. She also was very concerned regarding traffic circulation.
Carolyn Morgan felt that Dublin was leaving itself open for tons of
complaints regarding schools and other proposed uses under an airport
path. She also pointed out that she saw no reference in the report
related to the transfer of development credits. About 4 months ago,
they asked permission to submit their own plans. She questioned the
percentage of costs for infrastructure compared to the percentage of
housing for just Doolan Canyon. The newspaper reported that housing
in Doolan~Canyon would be under $200,000. She did not feel this could
be done. She questioned Congressman Stark's proposed legislation and
also the County's policy. She also questioned why Doolan Canyon was
even included in the plan.
Ed Freiling, 7773 Woodren Court stated that it appeared that the
Council and Commission is finetuning and he questioned if he was even
on the same channel. He asked what these plans will do to property
values. Also, what will an influx of 40,000 to 80,000 people have on
the drug situation, the water supply, and various other health issues.
He felt that that many people will bring social diseases.
Glenn Brown, Stedman Associates, 1646 North California Boulevard,
Walnut Creek stated he wanted to make a pitch for higher use of the
flatlands, as this allows more preservation of the land. Some high
rise development will pull people off the freeway and get them into
the office uses. He questioned the 400' noise buffer zone as it
distracts visibility from the freeway. High density residential might
be better kept closer to the freeway as a way of keeping
infrastructure costs down. Dublin needs to have freeway visibility.
Don Redgwick, 1632 Loganberry Way, Pleasanton (Dublin Ranch owner)
stated he was the owner of 160 acres in the Sphere of Influence. He
felt the proposed Doolan Canyon Road should be moved to the east and
the existing road could be left in a rural sense which would leave
them out of the costs of infrastructure. He discussed the economics
of housing versus jobs market. The housing element can pay for itself
quite easily if it is a mixture of low cost as well as upscale
housing. Mr. Redgwick passed out 2 letters to the Council and
Commission and stated he favored Concept #3 as having a higher
percentage of single-family residences and lower percentage of
@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@,@,@,@,@,@,@,@,@,@,@,@,@,@,@,@,@,@,
CM - VOL 9 - 94
Stu4y Session April 18, 1990
multiples. It also has a better jobs/housing ratio than the others.
He felt that Concept #3 was clearly the best choice.
John DiManto, San Jose Construction advised that he represented
property at the northeast corner of Tassajara Road and 1-580. His
company has been business park commercial developers for many years.
Combinations will ultimately be appealing to developers. If you
create a high profile area, you can mix sizes, shapes and heights
along the freeway all the way to Livermore. He felt it was important
to show the connection to Santa Rita Road on future plans.
Harvey Scudder, 7409 Hansen Drive advised that traffic is absolutely
solid on the freeway from Tracy into Dublin. If you place this many
additional cars on the freeway, plans need to be done to accommodate
all these cars. He felt that everyone on the Council and Commission
should observe this traffic volume on a weekday.
Bob Beebe, General Manager of DSRSD stated he felt it would be quite
straight forward to serve this area from an engineering standpoint.
Zone 7 is now serving the area and does not feel that water will be a
problem for many years.
Mayor Moffatt announced that the public comment portion of the meeting
was closed.
Ms. Gillarde stated General Plan Policy #1: Consider residential
development proposals (including support facilities) on, moderate
slopes, with multi-family densities typically considered on flatter
land.
Cm. Snyder felt that if we change the concept to preserve the land,
then densities must be reconsidered.
Cm. Vonheeder felt this is one of the ways in which we can work toward
achieving a greater housing balance.
Cm. Zika felt the policies should be compared to the various concepts.
Cm. Hegarty stated the City had talked extensively about the 30%
slopes. If there were pockets that could be developed, the Council
would consider this. He felt there was nothing wrong with the
existing General Plan as it provides flexibility. ~ He expressed
frustration at seeing all the colors on the map, when in actuality,
when the development plans come in, these will change. He felt the
policy related to the 30% slopes should be maintained. On a case-by-
case basis, some modifications could be made.
Cm. Vonheeder felt that there could be an increase in density on
moderate slopes of up to 30%.
Cm. Jeffery stated she had no problem considering higher densities on
other than flatlands, provided there was a right place for it. We can
preserve the look of the Valley and still allow for some development.
She indicated no problem with height, unless it blocks the hills.
@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@,@,@,@,@,@,@,@,@,@,@,@,@,@,@,@,@,@,@,@,@,
CM - VOL 9 - 95
Study Session April 18, 1990
Ms. Gillarde stated General Plan Policy #2: Approval of residential
development in the extended planning area will require determination
that ... proposed site grading and means of access will not disfigure
the ridgelands.
Cm. Jeffery stated that~in some areas, you have to do some cutting for
roads, but disfigurements can be mitigated and put back to a natural
state.
Cm. Hegarty mentioned that he liked a term that he had once heard John
DiManto use, and that was to "sculpture the hills". Often times,
development can actually improve the visual impacts.
Ms. Gillarde stated Policies #3 and #4: Maintain slopes predominantly
over 30% (disregarding minor surface humps and hollows) as permanent
open space for public health and safety. Prior to planning and/or
building permit approval of more than 9,000 (22%) of the potential
jobs in the Extended Planning Area, one or more Specific Area plans
shall be developed to designate sufficient land for housing in
reasonable relationship to existing jobs and jobs being proposed; and
to demonstrate how needed municipal services will be provided.
Ms. Gillarde indicated that before you can approve x number of square
feet, you must have housing for the workers.
Acting City Attorney Silver indicated she was not aware of any
specific legislation regarding jobs/housing requirement balance.
Cm. Zika asked what is reasonable and who determines this.
Mr. Tong indicated that this is a policy decision. The City needs to
make a good faith effort to obtain a balance.
Cm. Vonheeder felt the law was that you should strive for a 1/1~ ratio.
Cm. Mack indicated she would like to see the policy changed.
Cm. Zika felt the policy is vague enough that we can do what we want.
Cm. Jeffery stated she did not see a problem with the way it is
written.
Cm. Snyder felt this was a statement that Dublin may never even have
to deal with, if housing is in place before the jobs are created. The
area needs to be economically viable and this allows for flexibility.
Cm. Mack asked if the City had ever considered trailer parks as a way
of providing affordable housing.
Mayor Moffatt indicated that specific uses were not being discussed,
but this type of comment would be more appropriate at a later time.
Cm. Okun felt that other types of housing must be considered.
@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@,@,@,@,@,@,@,@,@,@,@,@,@,@,@,@,@,@,@,@,@,@,@,@,@,@,@,@,
CM - VOr. 9 - 96
Study Session April 18, 1990
Ms. Gillarde stated General Plan Policy #5: Regulate grading and
development on steep slopes.
Cm. Snyder indicated that there were extensive discussions during the
development of the General Plan relative to this. There is a
possibility that there may be ridgelines that would be more attractive
developed than undeveloped. Some can be enhanced.
Cm. Vonheeder stated that another issue that comes into consideration
is that ridgelines are not clearly defined; and from what locations.
Some can be enhanced by grading.
Cm. Jeffery felt that defining ridgelines is almost as difficult as
defining affordable housing.
Cm. Hegarty added that basically, he saw nothing wrong with a house on
a hill, if it is done correctly.
Ms. Gillarde stated Policy #6: Strive to phase development and road
improvements outside the Downtown Specific Plan area so that the
operating Level of Service (LOS) for major street intersections shall
not be worse than LOS D.
Cm. Vonheeder indicated she had a problem with the policy beginning
with "Strive". She felt it should simply being, "Phase
development... "
Cm. Snyder advised that Pleasanton has a stipulation in the NPID that
does not allow anything beyond LOS D. If it is worse than this, it
restricts future development.
Cm. Jeffery discussed the BART station location.
Ms. Gillarde advised that Staff will next find common threads and come
back to the City Council and Planning Commission regarding land use.
The final plan will be a synthesis of all the plans.
cm. Vonheeder indicated she liked the parks concept.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business to come before the Council, the
meeting was adjourned at 10:00 p.m.
M lv_~5~ - 7 (
ATTEST: "~ ~" ~ ~
city~C~er~k;~
~*~*~,~,~,~,~,~,~,~,~,~,~,~,~,~,~,~,~,~,~,~,~,~,~,~,~,~,~,~,~,~,~,~,~,
CM - VOL 9 - 97
Study Session April 18, 1990