HomeMy WebLinkAbout01-24-1989 Hansen GPAADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING - January 24r 1989
An adjourned regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Dublin
was held on Tuesday, January 24, 1989, in the meeting room of the Dublin
Library. The meeting was called to order at 7:08 p.m., by Mayor Paul
Moffatt.
ROLL CALL
PRESENT' Councilmembers Jeffery, Snyder, Vonheeder and Mayor Moffatt.
Cm. Hegarty arrived at the meeting at 7:10 p.m.
HANSEN RANCH GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT STUDY, EIR, PLANNED DEVELOPMENT
PREZONING~ TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP NO. 5766~ AND ANNEXATION REQUEST
Staff advised that this item was continued from the January 10, 1989 City
Council meeting at which the Council established this date and
February 16th for future meeting dates to continue the discussion related
to the Hansen Hill Ranch project proposal.
At the January 10th meeting, the Council reviewed and unanimously voted
to reaffirm General Plan policies for the entire project site related to:
3.1A Preserve oak woodlands, riparian vegetation, and natural creeks as
open space for their natural resource value.
3.1B Maintain slopes predominately over 30% (disregarding minor humps or
hollows) as permanent open space for public health and safety.
3.1C Continue requiring reservation of steep slopes and ridges as open
space as a condition of subdivision map approval.
Ms. O'Halloran advised that additional clarification is needed for~issues
related to 1) conflict with the open space policies of the General Plan;
and 2) significant environmental impacts on oak/bay woodlands and stream
(riparian) corridor; concerning whether roadways will be permitted
through open space areas.
At the January 10th meeting, the Council discussed the issue of impacts
from mass grading and determined that the General Plan policy regarding
enhancing the ridgeline could include filling the saddle between two of
the existing knolls.
At that meeting, the Council began discussion on the type and number of
dwelling units (land use designation and density) for developable areas;
however, the item was continued to provide sufficient time for the
Applicant's presentation on the issue. In addition to the above items,
resolution of other issues needed to be addressed. These include: 1) the
7 other General Plan Amendment issues: a) incorporate entire Hansen Hill
Ranch project within primary planning area; b) amend Table 1, development
+++**+++**+++**+++**+++**+++**+++**+++**+++**+++**+++**+++**+++**+++**+++*
CM-8-43
Adjourned Regular Meeting · January 24, 1989
policies for residential sites, page 8, and Figure 4 sites for housing
development, page 9, eliminating Areas 5, 6 and 7 from the Table and
Figure; c) amend General Plan policy and map with regard to Hansen Drive
extension; d) amend General Plan relating to alternate roadway serving
project site; e) amend General Plan relating to maximum acceptable level
of service (LOS) for major street intersections; f) amend General Plan
relating to fire protection buffer zone; g) amend General Plan relating
to open space maintenance. 2) Other EIR issues (mitigation measures,
overriding considerations, EIR monitoring program).
City Manager Ambrose advised that Staff is asking for clarification, as
the action taken at the last meeting absolutely precludes any type of
development in those areas, including roadways.
Cm. Jeffery stated that part of the idea in going through the General
Plan is to interpret what was written. Roads will be necessary, and she
did not intend that the Council action would preclude roads.
Cm. Hegarty agreed.
Cm. Vonheeder agreed.
Cm. Snyder stated that this was not his intention in making the motion at
the last meeting. He felt the consensus of the Council was that there
was a feeling that they didn't want residential struCtures in the area.
Mayor Moffatt stated that the Council would consider densities and type
and number of developable units.
Ms. O'Halloran presented the Staff Report.
Cm. Hegarty asked if we require the developer to preserve certain areas,
how can this density be transferred. He questioned how a transfer of
densities can be accomplished and how can they get around the cap
figures.
Ms. 0'Halloran said the policy indicates areas designated for residential
development. Once an area is set aside as open space, a density transfer
from the open space cannot occur somewhere else on the site.
Mayor Moffatt felt this issue would be clarified once the discussion
progresses.
Cm. Jeffery questioned if open space was considered, when acreage and
densities were calculated.
Ms. 0'Halloran advised yes, open space was taken into consideration. The
open space that was designated by the General Plan, however, was not
counted in. The Applicant is proposing some custom homes in Area 3. If
these are allowed, a new General Plan land use designation should be
established. The current policy calls for open space. An open space/
custom home designation could be adopted. No grading would occur other
than what is required for streets. Homes must be harmonious with the
+++**+++**+++**+++**+++**+++**+++**+++**+++**+++**+++**+++**+++**+++**+++*
CM-8-44
Adjourned Regular Meeting January 24, 1989
open space setting. With regard to the transfer of densities, Policy
Statement 7.3B was read, which would require preservation of the oak/bay
woodlands. It does not address areas which are designated as open space.
Mr. Ambrose felt that if the Council changes its original position, Area
3 and Area 1, for the areas they thought should be open space, then this
policy would apply. Area 3, for the most part, is 30% slope.
Mr. Tong gave additional background, and stated that under the existing
General Plan, development would not be allowed anywhere other than the 3
pockets specified in our existing General Plan. A density transfer would
come into play if it was found through additional studies that there were
some oak trees on the site. Staff is recommending a much larger develop-
ment area, but there are significant areas that are being recommended to
stay as open space.
Gordon Jacoby presented some handouts and stated that their recommenda-
tion has been that the density called for in the General Plan under
single family housing, which is .9 - 6 units per acre, be the one applied
to their site. They believe that they have done a plan and gone through
a process over the last 2 years that was intended by the General Plan all
along. There is nothing that says a density of 2.8 should be applied to
their entire site. Table I of the passed out information was referenced.
Several years ago, a study was done related to the specific site
conditions. This study formed a basis for all the analysis for the
density range. Given the site conditions and given the General Plan
policies, there could be somewhere between 65 and 542 units for the
entire site. They used this for guidance for allowable density for
single family units. A second study was done subsequent to this by them
and they then did their site plan, which was submitted in March, 1987.
This was studied thru the EIR process in more detail. They thought this
site analysis would help set the density for the property. With regard
to a transfer of densities, this has perplexed them for quite sometime,
as far as how this will work.
Mr. Jacoby advised that 96 of their 147 acres have constraints. Eleven
acres are riparian areas and about 65 were areas of slope. Ninety-six
acres are a combination of slope, riparian and trees. They feel their
densities are at a point lower than other developments. Actually, it's
like comparing apples and oranges. Other developments were built with a
different set of rules, in that 65-70% of their area is open space. They
did not feel that there is another area in Dublin that has this amount of
open space. They feel they stack up very good from a density standpoint.
Mr. Jacoby referenced the existing large lots that back onto San Ramon
Road that are not particularly attractive.
Ms. O'Halloran stated that Staff had not had an opportunity to review the
handout showing a comparison of densities. The General Plan policy
statement on Table I refers to establishing a maximum and minimum number
of units, but doesn't establish a density range. What this statement is
saying is that the density range would be worked out, based on the site
conditions. Open space in the other development projects was discussed.
Ninety acres of Dougherty Hills was preserved.
+++**+++**+++**+++**+++**+++**+++**+++**+++**+++**+++**+++**+++**+++**+++,
CM-8-45
Adjourned Regular Meeting January 24, 1989
Cm. Hegarty stated that the whole 90 acres on top of the.Dougherty Hills
was preserved because no one wanted development up there. The County,
rather than the City preserved it. He remembered during the General Plan
development stage, it was determined that with regard to pocket areas,
when pockets were there which could be developed, the Council would
discuss it. If we are going to preserve them, then that's fine, but he
felt that those who are investing their money should get a fair shake.
It comes to a situation of give and take. Residents have indicated they
want the uniqueness of Dublin to remain, so if a few homes could go in in
a certain area, we should be willing to give somewhere.
Mr. Ambrose clarified that Staff was not talking about whether or not
this space was designated as open space, but just for the sake of
comparison with other development areas.
Mayor Moffatt felt that the transfer of densities issue will come up in
the planned development stage, and can be discussed in generalities only
at this time.
Assistant City Attorney Silver clarified that no designations can be made
at this time.
Cm. Vonheeder felt there was an interpretation conflict, and that Staff
and the Applicant are asking the Council for clarification.
Planning Director Tong stated that Staff's understanding is basically
that if an area is relatively flat and unconstrained, and if there were
oak trees on the area, in that situation, except for the oak trees, the
site could be developed. Staff would say an allowance could be made for a
density transfer. In this case, the General Plan policy says only where
development could otherwise be allowed except for oak trees, can you
transfer densities. On this property, there are not only oak trees, but
also streams, etc. In some of the areas, they would have to violate many
General Plan policies to get to the site.
Cm. Vonheeder felt that what it actually comes down to is whether the
Council is going to grant a density transfer on the entire site.
Mr. Jacoby stated that if this is only determined with the tentative map
and planned development, they would have come in with homes proposed in
the open space, just to get density transfers. They have gone through a
very exhaustive exercise to avoid presenting a bogus plan.
Mr. Tong advised that this plan is not precise at this point. In the
future, when we get to a subdivision or a site development reView, then
it will get to the level of specificity of the tentative map and planned
development stage, and we can identify exactly where trees are and where
the density transfer could occur.
Zev Kahn stated that he'had heard 3 different interpretations with regard
to densities and felt the stream issue was very confusing. Mr. Kahn
questioned how many of the existing developments were developed by.the
County and how many by the City.
+++**+++**+++**+++**+++**+++**+++**+++**+++**+++**+++**+++**+++**+++**+++*
CM-8-46
Adjourned Regular Meeting January 24, 1989
Staff discussed each development and advised whether it was developed
under the County or the City.
Elliott Healy requested that the Council consider the fact that when you
look at the hillside, you see Hacienda and Bordeaux homes at relatively
the same site. He would like to see consistency in the planning, so that
the homes generally fit a consistent arrangement rather than each
development being different. He felt the single family homes should be
about 2.5 maximum density, which is .about the same as Hacienda Heights
and .Bordeaux Estates. In the custom areas, it should be a lower density
of about 1.7 or even lower.
Marjorie LaBar, Preserve Area Ridgelands Committee stated she was very
relieved to see the City Council's concern over some of Area 3, and the
possibility of much of that area being declared as open space. As much
of this area as possible should be left alone. Even the smallest
intrusion could cause great damage.
Cm. Snyder felt that there seems to be more than one disparity between
Staff, Applicant and the Council. Perhaps a change in philosophy is
needed. A density that gives a range over the whole buildable acreage
could be considered and allow them more flexibility in the development of
the acreage. One of the greatest areas of concern is noted in the medium
density proposal. Staff is recommending a higher number than Venture
wants to build.
RECESS
A short recess was called.
meeting reconvened.
Ail Councilmembers were present when the
Cm. Snyder felt that there was approximately 57.2 acres of developable
land and he suggested a density range of 0.5 to 3.8 units per acre.
Mr. Ambrose suggested that the Council include in their discussion, 4.A.
and 4.B. which are the other General Plan Amendment issues.
Cm. Snyder indicated that as part of the 4.B. discussion, he would
eliminate Areas 5, 6 and 7.
Cm. Snyder made a motion which was seconded byCm. Hegarty that the type
and number of dwelling units be set at 0.5 - 3.8 dwelling units per acre
for single family homes on the 57.2 acres. This would give them maximum
flexibility. This mOtion passed with a unanimous vote.
Cm. Jeffery questioned if this would violate a plan that the City has
related to mixed use of housing spread throughout the City.
Cm. Hegarty felt thi~w~s intended to apply to a large development. He
~.~elt that the 1200.D~f~Rafanelli & Nahas Project was a large develop-
ment. He did not feel that 150 acres, with 57 acres of developable land
would be considered large.
+++**+++**+++**+++**+++**+++**+++**+++**+++**+++**+++**+++**+++**+++**+++,
CM-8-47
Adjourned Regular Meeting January 24, 1989
General consensus of the Council was that this was not considered a large
development.
Ms. O'Halloran explained that 4.C. relates to a General Plan amendment
which would eliminate an extension of Hansen Drive to the extended
Western planning area. The General Plan currently shows Hansen Drive
extending to the extended planning area. The Applicant's proposal shows
a collector street that would come up through the Valley Christian Center
site, in a north/south position. This General Plan amendment would
eliminate the Hansen Drive extension. Item 4.D. would provide for the
new collector street.
Ms. O'Halloran advised that 4.E. would be to amend the General Plan to
include a policy establishing level of service D as a maximum level of
service acceptable. Staff may need to refine the wording to avoid being
overly restrictive.
Michelle DeRobertis from TJKM briefly explained the level of service
designations.
Ms. 0'Halloran°advised that Item 4.F. would provide policies for a fire
protection buffer zone around the perimeter of residential development
which interfaces with open space land. Existing General Plan policies do
not specifically address this issue. Item 4.G. relates to open space
maintenance. Dedication of open space would be addressed at the
tentative map and PD zoning stage of the planning process. Several
recommended policies were included in the Staff~Report.
Gordon Jacoby stated he felt he could sUpport a~l of Staff's recommenda-
tions. The only inconsistency seems to be with~Item 4.G.F. which States,
"Prohibit development'within designated open sp~ce areas except that
designed to enhance public safety and the environmental setting."
Ms. O'Halloran stated that this policy applies to access roads through
the open space for emergency vehicles for maintenance or something like
park benches which would be designed to enhance the environmental
setting.
Harvey Scudder stated he felt that 4.E., level of service should not be
less than level of service D.
Ms. O'Halloran stated that the specific wording will be looked into to
achieve the intent.
Marjorie LaBar encouraged the City Council to adopt the General Plan
amendments related to open space. The General Plan, as it currently
stands, is inadequate. This is a start that will provide something
positive to the City in the future.
Zev Kahn questioned if it was possible to deal with open space on a
retroactive basis. .There is open space which currently exists which
doesn't fit into these categories. He stated he would like the Council
to take this into consideration.
+++**+++**+++**+++**+++**+++**+++**+++**+++**+++**+++**+++**+++**+++**+++*
CM-8-48
Adjourned Regular Meeting January 24, 1989
Ms. O'Halloran advised that policies are implemented as plans come in.
If an existing development came back with some type of additional
requests, this would be the only way to implement new policies.
Mr. Ambrose advised that this would be very unlikely on an existing
development.
Ms. Silver advised that when property is developed, it must be in
compliance with the General Plan at that time.
Harvey Scudder stated that the General Plan is relevant only to plans for
development, but if any open space comes under the management of the
City, then it could be put under a well-defined General Plan policy.
Mayor Moffatt advised that this would be appropriate for discussion at
another time.
Cm. Vonheeder stated the Council had not yet actually addressed Staff's
wording related to Custom homes and the conflict with G.f., "Prohibit
development within designated open space areas except that designed to
enhance public safety and the environmental setting".
Cm. Jeffery asked if this would prohibit stables from being built.
felt the word "development" needed to be defined.
She
Planning Director Tong stated he did not see this as a conflict as long
as they were done in a manner sensitive to the area. The open space
designation in the General Plan is very general.
Discussion ensued related to agricultural zoning. Certain types of
development can occur and be consistent with the open space designation.
When the actual zoning is designated, the findings have to be made.
Mr. Tong advised that the Council could approve custom homes in the area.
Mr. Jacoby indicated that they favor Plan #2. Knowing that it applies to
Area 3, they would have to come in knowing they could'achieve the 3
required things at the time of a site development review. There should
be no loss of trees or grading for the purpose of building a house.
There are a couple of areas that need to be repaired to avoid slippage.
Slope stabilization is important, as this would be done to save some
trees below.
Cm. Snyder felt this would be in direct conflict with the last motion
related to the 52 acres. This will change the densities.
Cm. Hegarty felt they should be instructed to stay out of this area.
On motion of Cm. Snyder, seconded by Cm. Hegarty, and by unanimous vote,
the Council approved items listed in Section 4. C. through G.
C. Amend General Plan policy and map with regard to Hansen Drive
extension. The GP currently shows Hansen Drive extending to the Western
+++**+++**+++**+++**+++**+++**+++**+++**+++**+++**+++**+++**+++**+++**+++*
CM-8-49
Adjourned Regular Meeting January 24, 1989
Extended Planning Area. This GP Amendment would eliminate this
extension.
D. Amend GP to include alternate roadway serving Hansen Hill Ranch site
(Valley Christian Center access road) and designate as collector street.
E. Amend GP to include policy establishing Level of Service D as maximum
level of service acceptable. Policy wording, "Phase development and road
improvements outside the Downtown Specific Plan Area so that the
operating Level of Service (LOS) for major street intersections in Dublin
shall not exceed LOS D." The specific wording will be reviewed and
revised so as not to be overly restrictive.
F. Amend GP to include policies requiring fire protection buffer zone
around perimeter of residential development which interface with open
space lands. Policy wording, "A fire protection buffer zone shall be
provided around the perimeter of residential development situated
adjacent to undeveloped open space land".
G. Amend GP to include policies related to open space maintenance. The
specific issue of dedication of open space would be addressed at the
Tentative Subdivision Map and PD Zoning stage of the'planning process.
Policies which address this issue are:
a. "Require open space management and maintenance programs for open space
areas established through subdivisiOns and Planned Development districts.
Programs should include standards to ensure control of potential hazards;
appropriate setbacks; and management of the open space so that it
produces a positive and pleasing visual image."
b. "Require that land designation as open space through development
approval be permanently restricted to open space use by recorded map or
deed."
c. "Require revegetation of cut and fill slopes."
d. "Require use of native trees, shrubs and grasses with low maintenance
costs in revegetation of cut and fill of slopes."
e. "Access roads (including emergency access roads), arterial streets and
collector streets that must pass through open space areas shall be
designed to minimize grading to the maximum extent possible so as not to
damage the ecological and/or aesthetic value and characteristics of the
open space area.
f. "Prohibit development within designated open space areas except that
designed to enhance public safety and the environmental setting."
g. "Promote inclusion of hiking, bicycling and/or equestrian trails
within designated open space areas."
Section 5 related to other environmental impact.report issues was next
discussed.
+++**+++**+++**+++**+++**+++**+++**+++**+++**+++**+++**+++**+++**+++**+++,
CM-8-50
Adjourned Regular Meeting January 24, 1989
Scott Edmonson with EIP gave a summary of the impacts and mitigation
measures and explained that certification of an EIR is not project
approval.
Cm. Vonheeder pointed out that the CEQA impacts and mitigations are now
totally different than in the beginning.
Mr. Edmonson explained that they are not really that different. CEQA has
a number of modifications allowed for a project to go forward. We have a
basic analysis of the basic impacts. If this document is certified,
Staff can use it to review and identify any potential impacts of the new
plan.
Ms. Silver stated that the EIR addressed a project which is denser than
the project they are now reviewing, or'the project now calls for a lesser
density. It may be necessary to amend the addendums.
Ms. O'Halloran advised that this will be amended as part of the
resolutions.
Marjorie LaBar felt that if a fence is put around the entire area, the
creatures can't move. A basic chainlength fence would destroy this area.
She felt that Martin Creek should be developed as a City trail.
Elliott Healy stated he wasn't sure how Hacienda Heights was allowed to
develop, when you consider the visual impacts from various parts of
Dublin. He referred to the stipulation that building should occur well
below the ridgelines.
Cm. Vonheeder stated that we actually have a definition of the areas of
where you stand to make the determination. The locations are defined in
the General Plan.
Harvey Scudder expressed concern regarding the decreasing air quality in
the Valley and felt this proposal demands overall Valley consideration.
The smog situation is getting worse and he felt this should be dealt with
before we have an impossible problem.
Mr. Edmonson advised that this point is addressed in the EIR.
On motion of Cm. Snyder, seconded by Cm. Jeffery, and by unanimous vote,
the Council directed Staff to prepare the appropriate resolutions of
approval for the General Plan amendments and certification of the EIR and
Monitoring Program.
Mayor Moffatt advised that the special meeting that was tentatively
scheduled for February 16th is hereby cancelled. The next meeting where
this topic will be discussed will be combined with the regular meeting on
February 27th.
+++**+++**+++**+++**+++**+++**+++**+++**+++**+++**+++**+++**+++**+++**+++*
CM-8-51
Adjourned Regular Meeting January 24, 1989
Mr. Ambrose advised that the February 27th meeting would normally be held
at the Library, but.Staff will try to locate a larger meeting room.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business to come before the Council, the meeting
was adjourned at 10:10 p.m.
ATTEST: · ~
City
+++~+++~+++~+++~+++~+++~+++~+++~+++~+++~+++~+++~+++~+++~+++~
CM-8-52
Adjourned Regular Meeting January 24, 1989