HomeMy WebLinkAbout11-14-1988REGULAR MEETING - November 1 4 w 1988
A regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Dublin was held on
Monday, November 14, 1988, in the West Room of the Shannon Community
Center. The meeting was called to order at 7:45 p.m., by Mayor Linda
Jeffery.
ROLL CALL
PRESENT:
Jeffery.
Councilmembers Hegarty, Moffatt, Snyder, Vonheeder and Mayor
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
The Mayor led the Council, Staff and those present in the pledge of alle-
giance to the flag.
Hansen Hills. Ranch Discussion
Zev Kahn requested that the Council consider changing the order of the 4
public hearings in order to hold the hearing related to the Hansen Hills
Ranch proposal first. Most of the audience was present relative to this
issue.
Mayor Jeffery queried the Council with regard to this request.
Cm. Hegarty indicated he had a problem keeping the other people waiting
for what will most likely be a lengthy discussion. He did not feel that
the other public hearings would take long.
By a Council consensus, the order of the agenda was left as presented.
Teen Center
Katrina Myers, 8728 Wicklow Court indicated she is a 2 1/2 year Dublin
resident, and she would like to see some kind of a teen center
established in Dublin. Teenagers need a place where they can go to
congregate and dance and thereby avoid a lot of drinking and getting into
trouble. ' ~,:.~ '~
Mayor Jeffery stated she was sure the Park & Recreation Commission would
be willing to look into this. ~
Cm. Hegarty requested that Ms. Myers get in touch with Diane Lowart,
Recreation Director, so that her request can be put on the agenda for
consideration by the Park & Recreation Commission.
CM-7-323
Regular Meeting November 1 4, 1988
Shannon Center Acoustics
Harvey Scudder suggested that the acoustics in the meeting facility were
very poor and felt that the Council should have some microphones.
Mayor Jeffery apologized and stated that everyone would be glad when the
City's Civic Center is complete, thereby providing more adequate and
functional meeting space.
PRESENTATION BY EMERGENCY SERVICES NETWORK
City Manager Ambrose advised that the City received notification today
that Ms. Fran Bitterman, who was to make the presentation at this
meeting, has the flu. The presentation will be rescheduled for a future
agenda.
CONSENT CALENDAR
On motion of.Cm. Snyder, seconded by Cm. Moffatt, and by unanimous vote,
the Council took the following actions:
Approved Minutes of Regular Meeting of October 24, 1988;
Approved City Treasurer's Investment Report for Period Ending October 31,
1988;
Authorized Staff to solicit bids for the wooden sound fence on the west
side of San Ramon Road between Silvergate Drive and Alcosta Boulevard;
(Cm. Snyder questioned how many children are served by the Joint Use
Agreement at Nielsen School. Recreation Director Lowart advised that
attendance is about 40 children per day.)
Approved a Joint Facility Use Agreement for a portable classroom at
Nielsen School and authorized the City Manager to ~execute the agreement;
Received a report related to the Holiday Tree Lighting Ceremony to be
held on Monday, December 5, 1988;
Accepted improvements under Contract 87-8 (Dublin Boulevard widening at
Clark Avenue); authorized payment of $100 to RHN Landscape for additional
irrigation repair work at the CA State Automobile Association site;
authorized final/retention payment to Ambo Engineering in the amount of
$3,821.31; and approved additional appropriation from reserves of
$4,271.31 to cover the cost of this project within FY 1988-89;
Authorized an additional appropriation from unappropriated reserves to
the Insurance Premium Account for insurance services for prior years
(Alameda County) in amount of $10,800.
CM-7-324
Regular Meeting November 14, 1988
(Cm. Snyder questioned a check on the Warrant Register made payable to
the City of Dublin. Staff advised that in the past, transfers of funds
into the City's payroll account were accomplished via telephone. In
order to provide a clearer audit trail, the City will from this point
forward, prepare a check from the general account, payable to the payroll
account.)
Approved Warrant Register in the amount of $457,679.49.
VALLEY ARTISTS REQUEST TO WAIVE SHANNON COMMUNITY CENTER RENTAL POLICY
Recreation Director Lowart advised that the Valley Artists are asking
that an exemption be granted to the Shannon Community Center Facility Use
Policy in order to allow their club to continue meeting at the Center.
Only 16% of their membership reside in Dublin and therefore, the group
does not meet the residency requirements as a Community Group.
Ms. Lowart explained that in March, 1986, the Valley Artists submitted a
grant application to the City with the objective being for support of
meeting facilities, equipment and services for the Valley Artists. The
total dollar amount requested was $2,898. The Park & Recreation
Commission recommended against direct funding of non-profit groups and
instead recommended that the City provide in-kind services such as
utilization of Shannon Center at no cost or an equipment lending library.
The City Council concurred with these recommendations.
Even though in July, 1986, a request was approved for the use of Shannon
Center at no cost, the group was unable to obtain insurance at an
affordable cost, and so they were forced to continue meeting at an
alternate facility.
In September, 1987, the group again approached the City about utilizing
Shannon Center, as they had been able to obtain the required insurance.
They were granted a permit for January - June, 1988, and informed'that
they would need to renew their permit on an annual basis.
The Park & Recreation Commission considered the request on November 8,
1988, and it is the consensus of the Commission that the community is
somewhat lacking in the area of cultural arts and that the Valley Artists
are working to fill this void. The Commission therefore recommended that
the Valley Artists be allowed to utilize Shannon Center at no cost for
their monthly meetings, as well as their Spring and Fall art shows.
However, due to the renovation of Shannon Center, the facility will not
be available for the Spring 1989 show. Staff also recommended that use
by the Valley Artists be evaluated on a yearly basis to determine the
progress made to further promote cultural arts within the City of Dublin.
Mrs. Florence Scudder, representing the Valley Artists stated that the
group has been in Dublin for 18 years and are now asking for help from
the City.
CM-7-325
Regular Meeting November 1 4, 1988
Zev Kahn stated he was opposed to this request in principle. If we are
going to allow a 'no charge' policy, then this group should be willing to
donate something to the community. He suggested that they could donate 2
courses for residents. They should provide some kind of in-kind service.
Ms. Lowart reported that the group's meetings, which feature various
speakers are open to the public free of charge.
Mr. Bilotti, Creekside Drive questioned if an outsider wanted to add to
their show, could this be done.
Mrs. Scudder responded yes, they would be open to anyone.
Harvey Scudder stated he wished to point out that the Valley Artists have
placed their artwork in banks, offices and other public places, mostly at
no charge. They rotate it every 3 months.
Cm. Hegarty felt this was a small consideration compared to the.almost
$3,000 originally requested.
Cm. Vonheeder asked if Mrs. Scudder was aware of the neWly formed Dublin
Fine Arts Commission. This may be a stepping stone'for something much
larger in the future.
On motion of Cm. Hegarty, seconded by Cm. Moffatt, and by unanimous vote,
the Council upheld the recommendation of the Park & Recreation Commission
in allowing the Valley Artists ho utilize the Shannon Community Center at
no cost for their monthly meetings and art shows.
PUBLIC HEARING
REQUEST FOR 20 MINUTE PARKING ZONE IN FRONT OF 6908 SIERRA COURT
Mayor Jeffery opened the public hearing.
City Engineer Thompson advised that this item, which was introduced at
the October 24, 1988 meeting is for a small area of 20 minute parking
along the curb in front of the Equinox Press business at 6908 Sierra
Court. Steve Sheen of Equinox Press mentioned a sight-distance problem
related to the curve on which his building sits; however, TJKM feels that
because traffic volume is low and parking turnover is slight, there is no
reason to red curb the curve. The 20 minute parking zone is not proposed
to be on the curve, but rather on the north facing side of the building.
.,
No comments were made by members of the public relative to this issue.
Mayor Jeffery closed the public hearing.
On motion of Cm.. Hegarty, seconded by Cm. Snyder, and by unanimous vote,
the Council waived the reading and adopted
CM-7-326
Regular Meeting November 1 4, 1988
ORDINANCE NO. 20 - 88
ESTABLISHING A 20 MINUTE PARKING ZONE AT 6908 SIERRA COURT
PUBLIC HEARING - HUCKE SIGNS
VILLAGE PARKWAY CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW
Mayor Jeffery opened the public hearing.
Planning Director Tong explained that in April 1987 as a result of the
Citywide sign survey conducted in September 1986, the property owner and
tenants were notified by the City's Zoning Investigator of all illegal
signs identified on the property at 7016-7150 Village Parkway. Illegal
signs identified included Wall Signs, Freestanding Signs and illegal
A-Frame Signs. The illegal Freestanding and A-Frame Signs were subse-
quently removed. The property owner subsequently filed an application
for 1) a Conditional Use Permit and Site Development Review for two
C-2-B-40 Directory Signs/Special Easement Signs, and 2) Site Development
Review for Sign Program for business identification Wall Signs which
exceed the height, length and sign area regulations established by the
City's Zoning Ordinance.
On May 2, 1988, the Planning Commission approved the SDR for C-2-B-40
Directory Sign and'Sign Program and the CUP for special easement sign
subject to Conditions of Approval. On May 12, 1988, the Applicant
appealed the Planning Commission's action stating that "the Conditions of
Approval are.such that under them, it is almost impossible to meet the
needs of the rear tenants for whom these signs are to benefit...". Staff
met with the Applicant and advised that the Conditions of Approval were
worded in such a way as to allow Staff to review and approve the precise
location of the Directory Sign on either the southern or northern side of
the driveway once plans were submitted. The Applicant indicated he would
hire a sign company to draw up plans in compliance with the Conditions of
Approval. Staff met with the sign company on August 31, 1988, to discuss
the Conditions of Approval. The proposed signs did not comply with the
Conditions of Approval as the signs included tenant identification on
parcels which the tenants were not located and one sign was located in
the public right-of-way. Staff indicated that the Applicant must submit
plans in compliance with the Conditions of Approval with the exception
that the signs may be located at the north side of the driveway subject
to review and approval.
On September 9, 1988, the Applicant requested an appeal before the City
Council. Mr. Tong advised that although the Applicant's appeal letter
does not specify which Conditions of Approval would be difficult to
comply with, it appears the Applicant has difficulty with Condition #5,
#6 and #10. Condition #5 states that C-2-B-40 Directory Signs shall not
be located within the public right-of-way. Condition #6 states that
C-2-B-40 Directory Signs shall provide business identification for
CM-7-327
Regular Meeting November 1 4, 1988
businesses located on the parcel on which the sign is located. Condition
#10 states that prior to the installation of any C-2-B-40 Directory Sign,
the Applicant shall modify the southern most driveway on site to allow
ingress and egress subject to a traffic and circulation study to be
prepared by the City's Traffic Engineers and subject to review and
approval of the Planning Director and Traffic Engineer.
The site layout and development of the Property consists of a group of
buildings fronting directly on Village Parkway and another group of
buildings situated directly behind the front buildings. This layout has
caused signage difficulty for tenants located in the rear buildings who
wish to increase and enhance business identification from Village
Parkway.
The Applicant is requesting approval of two single faced Directory Signs.
The Applicant proposes to locate Sign'"B" within the front planter area
at 7124-7150 Village Parkway and locate Sign "A" in the planter area in
front of Wolds House of Hobbies at 7100 Village Parkway. The Applicant
proposes to situate the single faced directory signs parallel to the
front property line. The proposed maximum sign height is 6' with a
maximum sign area of 16 sq ft (4' x 4'). Three of the tenants identified
on Sign "B" are located on the adjacent parcel.
A CUP is required to locate business identification signs on parcels
other than the parcel on which the business is located. However, the
Special Easement Sign can only be granted for parcels without direct
access or frontage on an improved public right-of-way. Additionally,
said properties must be interconnected with a traversable non-revocable,
non-exclusive recorded access easement. Both parcels have direct access
on Village Parkway. Additionally, in reviewing the property profile
provided by the Applicant, Staff advised that there does not appear to be
a recorded access easement between the two properties. Therefore, H & K
Manufacturing, Valley Auto Clinic and Electra Door are not permitted
business identification on Sign "B". These businesses may locate
identification signs on Directory Sign "A". Also, John's Transmission,
Amador Ceramics and Dublin Graden would not be allowed on Sign "A"
because Sign "A" is on a different parcel. Signs for these businesses
would need to be located on the parcel where the business is located.
Mr. Tong advised that it is noted that a landlocked parcel (regardless of
easements) does not meet the City's minimum standards for subdivision
purposes. To date, the Applicant has not provided verification that the
lot was legally subdivided in compliance with the California Subdivision
Map Act or the City's Subdivision Ordinance.
TJKM recommended conversion of the southern driveway to an enter only
driveway, including pavement directional arrows, "DO NOT ENTER" and
"STOP" pavement markings. Staff recommended modification to Condition
#10 to require conversion of the southern most driveway from exit only to
enter only in compliance with the memo and Figure I from TJKM received
November 7, 1988. Staff. also recommended a 45 day time limit for
compliance with this condition.
CM-7-328
Regular Meeting November 1 4, 1988
Under a previous Alameda Count~ approval in 1969, a sign program for the
site was established restricting ~he maximum sign area per business to 40
square feet. The program also established a maximum of 60 sq ft per
group of locator signs for businesses located in the rear buildings.
The Citywide sign survey conducted by'the 'Zoning Investigator in
September 1986 revealed that the majority of business identification
signs located on the Applicant's property were illegal, in that the signs
did not comply with the approved sign program. This was primarily due to
the fact that the tenants use of signs painted directly on the building
face do not require building permits. The lack of a requirement.for a
building permit or sign permit makes.the monitoring and regulation of
wall painted signs difficult from a zoning standpoint.
Staff prepared a sign program which promotes uniformity in signage among
the tenants by establishing maximum sign area, letter height and length,
and by designating location of signage. This proposed sign program
criteria permits larger signs than some of the existing signs and smaller
than others. The sign program does not.exceed the maximum dimensions
permitted by the Zoning Ordinance through the SDR process. In processing
one single SDR for the signs on the site, it~eliminates the need for each
tenant to file a separate SDR application and $105 fee for each individ-
ual sign. All signs will require zoning, approval prior to placement.
Staff recommended that the Council uphold the Planning Commission's
action approving PA 87-122 with a revision to Condition #10 requiring
conversion of the southern driveway to an "Enter Only" driveway and
establish a 45 day time period for compliance with Condition #10.
Cm. Vonheeder indicated she was confused regarding the legal parcels, and
questioned how this happened.
Mr. Tong advised that the City has a property profile provided by the
Applicant which references a recorded map which shows 3 equal parcels.
The assessor's map shows a land-locked parcel in the back. The legal
issue then becomes 'is this a-legal lot'?
Cm. Moffatt asked with regard to the south driveway ingress/egress
situation, if TJKM had studied the issue of the median strip being just a
little further south and people cOming into the driveway from the wrong
direction off of Village Parkway.
Mr. Tong advised that the Traffic Consultant was made aware of this
concern and it is a basic enforcement consideration. Some people try
this even now, so the signage is not effective. The only solution seems
to be education and enforcement.
Cm. Hegarty felt that people who miss this turn may have missed it
because of poor signage. Because of the configuration of~Village
Parkway, this may cause problems with people going the wrong way into an
entrance at this location. He felt there were problems at this location
CM-7-329
Regular Meeting November 1 4, 1988
due to the way Mr. Hucke is conducting his business. IRS rules have
caused Mr. Hucke to split the parcel between himself, his wife and his
daughter. He felt the Council and Mr. 'Hucke want directory signs, but
our Ordinance is saying he can't quite do what he wants.
City Engineer Thompson advised that with a .signal going in at Village
Parkway & Clark Avenue, there will be a lot less opportunity for people
to go into this driveway the wrong way.
Cm. Hegarty felt that Mr. Hucke simply wants to put up some signs and now
the City is telling him how the traffic should go. He questioned Staff's
objection to where he wants to put the signs.
Mr. Tong clarified that one sign is being proposed' to'be put in the
public right-of-way. Also, lot line adjustements or a parcel map can be
filed to clarify the lots.
City Manager Ambrose advised that there is a project in the 5 Year
Capital Improvement Program to widen the sidewalks along Village Parkway.
Mr. Hucke showed slides of the site and indicated that When he went
before the Planning Commission he left thinking he had won everything he
went for. He argued that he should be able to put a sign in front
directing customers to the businesses in the rear. The~split of the
property was done strictly for tax purposes. He felt the City Council
had the right and the power to allow him to put a sign where he is
requesting. There are a lot of trucks that enter into one of the two
driveways. He did not feel that this is~an earth-shaking decision. This
process has taken 14 months. He stated he wants to put Amador Ceramics
on a sign that is in front of his property.
Ken Begun addressed the Council and stated he represented the adjacent
south side property owners. They have a problem in that their parking
lot gets all the overflow parking. He agreed with the Planning Director
that the southern driveway should be an entrance only. If a sign were
located about 20' before the businesses, this would give people a chance
to see it.
Lloyd RiChardson, representing Dublin Garden, a business in the rear
stated that if this is made an entrance only, it would create a problem
for large trucks. When cars are parked in the back, it gets really
clogged up. He expressed concern that currently, there are no signs at
all.
Ken Begun suggested that putting "Parking in Rear" on the sign would
help.
Mr. Tong advised that "Parking in Rear" could be added to a directory
sign if there is enough room.
Debbie Vasquez, a concerned citizen felt the current signs are very
tacky. There'needs to be one neat sign with all tenants listed.
@88888888@@@@888888888888888888@8888888@88@88888@@8@8@8@888@@@88@8@888888
CM-7-330
Regular Meeting November 14, 1988
Mayor Jeffery closed the public hearing.
With regard to the legal technicality of location of signs on the
property, Cm. Vonheeder questioned if the'Applicant could apply for a
Variance.
Mr. Tong advised that a special'easement sign can be requested if a
parcel has no frontage. The Applicant, to date, has not been'able to
provide the City with.the required'documentation.
Mr. Hucke stated he furnished a complete set of all of the deeds with all
of the easements to the Planning Commission a long time .ago.
Mr. Tong advised that unfortunately, the information provided does not
show the vehicular easement to the back parcel. He requested that Mr.
Hucke provide an additional copy of whatever he has. The City's record
does not show the necessary access easement.
Cm. Snyder felt everyone could argue this issue all night but the 4 basic
issues need to be layed out, and tell the parties to come back with an
agreement that the City can buy into at the next meeting. The issues are
1) Sign B has to'be out of the right-of-way; 2) Sign A can be where it is
as long as proof can be given that it's in the right location per the
easements; 3) we want the driveway at the south end to go in and not out;
and 4) we want the rear of the property cleaned up so you can't see all
the used auto parts. If this could be accomplished, Cm. Snyder indicated
he would be willing to approve the sign agreement.
Cm. Hegarty suggested that the City also add a requirement that in
addition to cleaning up the back, the front part should be landscaped.
The report mentions that landscape issues should be brought up and
submitted to the City. He felt Mr. Hucke should be allowed to put his
sign where it will best suit his tenants. The ingress/egress on the
south side should be considered after the signs go up to see if the signs
do what they are supposed to do. He felt that because Mr. Hucke owns the
whole property and it was split for IRS purposes, he is not concerned
about this. He felt the graffiti should be removed'from the walls and
make the place look neat.
Cm. Hegarty said he was prepared to give direction to Staff that he wants
the back yard cleaned up, he wants the front yard landscaped, and Mr.
Hucke can have his signs, as long as they are out of the right-of-way,
and the City will be done with it. He felt it was ridiculous that this
has taken a year and a half to get through the bureaucracy. The owner of
the property should submit a landscape scheme for the front of the
property, clean up the back of the property, and we can deal with the
south ingress or egress at a later date.
Mr. Tong advised that the City needs to at least see a sign proposal to
pinpoint the proposed location and determine if it can be approved.
CM-7-331
Regular Meeting November 1 4, 1988
City Attorney Nave felt it 'would be advisable that he take a look and
review the conditions that'the council is requesting, as the landscape
and clean up-issues are new'issues. He requested that the matter be
continued to the December 12th Council meeting.
CTM. Hegarty did not feel that the issues were new. A Council policy has
been that when anything is done to any of the older developments in the
City, the image issues are considered. This is neither new or strange to
anyone.
Mayor Jeffery felt the best way to proceed would be to find out legally
what the City can require. The Council has indicated to Mr. Hucke that
it is trying to accommodate Mr. Hucke with his signs, as long'as they are
not in the.public right-of-way. Additionally, the Council urged him to
get the documentation that shows the cross easements. The driveway issue
will be handled at a later date to see if the sign works in keeping
people from missing the original driveway.
Mr. Hucke indicated he was'curious as to just what documentation could be
given that would change anything.
Mayor Jeffery advised that the City'has no documentation that shows the
cross easements.
On motion of Cm. Snyder, seconded by .Cm. Hegarty, and by unanimous vote,
the Council continued this item to the December 12, 1988 City Council
meeting.
PUBLIC HEARING - APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION DENIAL
FIRST WESTERN DEVELOPMENT PARCEL MAP & VARIANCE~ 7450 AMADOR VALLEY BLVD.
Mayor Jeffery opened the public hearing.
Staff advised that in October, 1987, the Planning COmmission denied the
Applicant's previous subdivision request to create two parcels including
one landlocked parcel and denied without prejudice the Site Development
Review for construction of a 10,000 sq ft commercial building. This
action allowed the Applicant to apply for a substantially different
subdivision and apply for a SDR within a I year period. The Applicant
subsequently applied for a new SDR, a subdivision to create 2 parcels
including 1.09 ~ acre flag lot and a Variance for substandard effective
lot frontage on the flag lot.
Staff provided the Applicant with a list of comments and corrections on
the project in March, 1988 and informed the Applicant that Staff would
have difficulty recommending approval of the Subdivision and Variance
request as proposed, but would likely recommend approval of the SDR
provided the corrections were incorporated into the revised plans.
In April, 1988, the Applicant requested Staff to process the SDR
application separately from the parcel map and Variance request. On
June 27, 1988, the Planning Director approved the Applicant's SDR request
CM-7-332
Regular Meeting November 14, 1988
to construct a 10,000 sq ft commercial retail building on the existing
parcel currently developed with Circuit City, TJ Maxx and Oshmans. On
September 6, 1988, the Planning Commission held a Public Hearing and
denied the Applicant's Subdivision request and Variance request. The
Applicant appealed the Planning Commission action on September 15, 1988.
The Applicant is requesting approval of a minor subdivision and Variance
to create 2 parcels of land from one existing 7 + acre parcel. Parcel A
would consist of 5.91 + acres, currently developed with the 57,680 sq ft
Circuit City/TJ Maxx b~ilding and the 12,000 sq ft Oshman's Sporting
Goods building and approximately 287 parking spaces.
Parcel A would, have approximately 690' frontage on Amador Plaza Road and
a 391' frontage along Amador Valley Boulevard and 170' frontage adjacent
to the flood control channel.
Parcel B would consist of a 1.09 +' acre flag lot within the existing
eastern parking lot area between The Circuit City/TJ Maxx building and
the Oshman's building located on Parcel A. This area, although currently
supporting parking and drive aisles, will eventually be developed with
the 10,000 sq ft retail commercial building and approximately 51 parking
spaces previously approved. Approval of the Applicant's proposed
subdivision would result in the creation of a parcel (Parcel B) with
substandard effective lot frontage necessitating approval of a Variance.
The City's Zoning Ordinance requires the-effective lot frontage of all
new building sites to equal 1/2 of the median lot width, either actual or
required, whichever is greater. The median lot width for the proposed
Parcel B is 150'. A 75' wide effective lot frontage is required. The
Applicant is proposing a 25' wide effective lot frontage.
The major concerns associated with the Applicant's subdivision and
variance proposal relate to: 1) future development; 2) easements; and 3)
signage. Staff recommended that the Council approve the Subdivision and
Variance request including a condition requiring the Applicant/Property
Owner to submit a request for Planned Development rezoning of Parcel A
and B.
Mr. Tong advised that it has come to Staff's attention that a particular
condition regarding the Declaration of Encumbrances has not been
included, and Staff suggested that such a specific condition be added, as
proposed by the Applicant.
John Hess, a partner with First Western Development advised that it had
received SDR approval with glowing colors and should fit in very well
with the existing center. The specialty shops should be suited for
people that are shopping in Circuit City and TJ Maxx. People won't have
to get into their cars and drive somewhere else. They felt the Declara-
tion of Encumbrances answered all of Staff's problems with regard to
signs, maintenance, ingress/egress, etc. They do not object tO the
approval with the conditions, provided that what they have is a complete
application or a PD. They were applying for a PD rather than a building
permit.
CM-7-333
Regular Meeting November 1 4, 1988
Geoff Etnire, Attorney for the development indicated he was present to
address any technical questions or concerns that the Council may have.
He indicated that they have worked very hard with the~P!anning Department
and they felt the.Planning Director was particularly tough on this
application due to past problems.
Cm. Hegarty questioned if this entire site was once a PD. '
Mr. Tong advised no, it is currently one site. The APplicant is
requesting'to subdivide it into two properties.
Mayor Jeffery closed the public hearing.
Cm. Moffatt asked abqut the consideration of the documentation brought up
by Mr. Hess. -
Mr. Tong stated that the basic information submitted would be adequate
for the Planned Development, and we would need only supplemental forms,
fees and statement.
On motion of Cm. Snyder, seconded by Cm. Vonheeder, and by majority vote,
the Council adopted
RESOLUTION NO. 143.- 88
ADOPTING THE NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR PA 87-159.2
FIRST WESTERN DEVELOPMENT MINOR SUBDIVISION, TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 5364
AND VARIANCE. REQUEST
and
RESOLUTION NO. 144 - 88
APPROVING PA 87-159.2 FIRST WESTERN DEVELOPMENT VARIANCE REQUEST
TO ALLOW A SUBSTANDARD PARCEL WITH INSUFFICIENT EFFECTIVE LOT FRONTAGE
AT 7450 AMADOR VALLEY BOULEVARD SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
and
RESOLUTION NO. 145 - 88
APPROVING PA 87-159.2 FIRST WESTERN DEVELOPMENT
TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 5364
Cm. Hegarty voted NO on this motion.
RECESS
The Mayor called a short recess.
the meeting reconvened.
Ail Councilmembers were present when
CM-7-334
Regular Meeting November 1 4, 1988
PUBLIC HEARING
HANSEN RANCH GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT STUDY, EIR,
PLANNED DEVELOPMENT PREZONING, TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION
MAP NO~ 5766, AND ANNEXATION REQUEST FOR 245 DWELLING UNITS
ON 147 ACRES~ WEST OF SILVERGATE DRIVE AND NORTH HANSEN DRIVE
Mayor Jeffery opened the public hearing.
Planning Director Tong advised that the Hansen Hill Ranch General Plan
Amendment involves major issues: 1) Conflict with Open Space Policies of
the General Plan; 2) Type and Number of Dwelling Units (Land Use Designa-
tion and Density) for the Developable Areas; 3) Significant Environmental
Impacts.on Oak/Bay Woodlands and Stream (Riparian) Corridor; and 4)
Significant Environmental Impacts from Mass Grading. With regard to
issue #1: Should the General Plan policies be changed to allow resi-
dential~development on areas that would otherwise be maintained as open
space? Issue #2: What is the appropriate type and number of dwelling
units for the developable areas? Issue #3: Should the project avoid
impacting the oak/bay woodlands and stream corridor, or are these impacts
acceptable based on specific overriding benefits? Issue #4: Should the
project avoid mass grading, or are the associated impacts acceptable
based on specific overriding benefits?
Mr. Tong explained that the Hansen Hill Ranch project application
involves consideration of 5 planning items on which action must be taken.
These include: 1) Certification of the Final Environmental Impact Report
(EIR); 2) Adoption of General Plan Amendments relating to land use desig-
nation and guiding policies affecting potential development on the site.
3) Approval of a PD Prezoning establishing the zoning for the project
site. California State Law requires consistency between the City's
Zoning and General Plan. The Planned Development Prezoning will
establish the appropriate number of units for the site, establish minimum
setbacks, maximum building heights and other development standards. 4)
Approval of a Tentative Subdivision Map. The subdivision map will
establish division of land, including precise property dimensions, estab-
lishment of easements and dedication of land for public right-of-ways and
open space. 5) Initiation of Annexation proceedings with LAFCO to expand
the City limits to incorporate the project site within the City limits.
The Planning Commission took the approach of considering and providing
the City Council with recommendations on'the EIR and General Plan
Amendment concurrently. Once the Council takes action on these 2 items,
the Planning Commission would then consider and Provide recommendations
on the Planned Development Prezoning, Tentative Map, and Annexation
requests concurrently. ReSolution of the General Plan Amendment issues
will establish the parameters essential to guiding development of the
site. The General Plan Amendments will identify areas on the site
appropriate for development, through land use designations and through
General Plan poliCies. The General Plan land use designations and
policies the City Council ultimately adopt for the Hansen Hill Ranch site
will directly affect the PD Prezoning and Tentative Map for the site as
the General Plan establishes the general framework in which development
can occur.
CM-7-335
Regular Meeting November 14, 1988
In addition to the General Plan Amendments relating to land use
designation and~density, the following General Plan Amendments were
recommended by the Staff and the Planning Commission:
1) Amend General Plan to incorporate entire Hansen Hill Ranch project
within the primary planning area. 2) Amend General Plan to delete Areas
5, 6 and 7 from Table I and Figure 4 of the General Plan. Inclusion of
the entire Hansen Hill Ranch project site within the primary planning
area and adoption of land use density and designation eliminates need for
Areas 5, 6 and 7 on Table I and Figure 4. 3) Amend General Plan policy
and map with regard to Hansen Drive extension. The General Plan
currently shows Hansen Drive extending to the Western Extended Planning
Area. 4) Amend General Plan to include alternate roadway serving Hansen
Hill Ranch site (Valley Christian Center access road) and designate as a
collector street. 5) Amend General Plan to include policy establishing
Level of Service D as maximum level of service acceptable. The City's
General Plan currently does not contain policies addressing acceptable
level of service. 6) Amend General Plan to include policies requiring
fire protection buffer zone around perimeter of residential development
which interface with open space lands. 7) Amend General Plan to include
policies related to open space maintenance.
Gordon Jacoby passed handouts to the Council and Staff which~contained
information not included in the packets. Mr. Jacoby stated they realize
that nothing will conclude tonight at this meeting, and they anticipate
subsequent meetings. He thanked the Council for hearing this item at
this meeting. · They started this project a little over 2 years ago, and
the project has progressed and changed considerably over this time
period. He gave a brief history of the site. Many of the existing
neighborhoods were not there 2 years ago. Their plan calls for approxi-
mately 1,700 trees to be planted, Which is about a 3 to I ratio to trees
that would be lost. They have tried to design in such a way so as to
improve views for the people with views to the north from Hansen Drive.
They will improve the road used by Valley Christian Center at a
substantial cost.
David Gates, Landscape Architect, displayed slides showing the site's
proximity to 1-580/I-680 and adjoining parcels.
John Tanascio, 11414 Winding Trail Lane, expressed concern about the road
going off of Silvergate behind their townhomes. The road will be about
10' from their windows. Smog and noise problems were also of concern.
They will be meeting with the developer next Tuesday, and will reserve
their final judgment until after this meeting.
Doug Abbott, 8206 Rhoda Avenue, advised that he is the Chairman of the
Tri-Valley Regional Subgroup of the Sierra Club. His concern is with
what appears to be a major change in policy. He stated he would like to
think that in Dublin we take our .General Plan seriously and would only
change it if it was in the best interest of the community. There are
good reasons for not building on 30% slopes, or in oak habitat or stream
beds. If enforcing these rules makes a project uneconomical, then this
CM-7-336
Regular Meeting November 1 4, 1988
is tough. If Venture can't make a profit playing by Dublin's rules, then
maybe someone else should take a crack at.the project. Mr. Abbott felt
that this development is sending the message that Dublin's hills are up
for grabs. He urged the Council to uphold the General Plan policies.
Debbie Vasquez, 7669 Martin Canyon Road, advised that some of the trees
they are proposing to be removed are over 100 years old. It will take a
long time to get the same impact from the trees that are removed, They
are forcing houses into an unbuildable area. She questioned if the price
would be out of reach of most people. This~is the last hill we have left
and she questioned if Dublin was that~desperate for the revenue.
Bob Patterson, 11552 Rolling Hills Drive, stated he was in agreement with
Doug AbbOtt 'and requested that the Council uPhold the City's General
Plan. He indicated he favored Staff,.s recommendations.
Cm. Snyder questioned Ms. vasquez'regarding her comments related to
revenue.
Ms. Vasquez.stated she wanted to question if.the tax benefits from new
people coming into the community was worth.tearing down the hill.
Zev Kahn, 11708 Harlan Road, expressed concern related to all~ the grading
and what may be found under the dirt. It was believed that bedrock
boulders may be found. Bordeaux Estates went bankrupt trying to dispose
of these boulders. He questioned.if the East Bay Regional Park District
was interested in this area. Mr. Kahn. felt that' in the interest of being
able to maintain the interest of citizens, there should be special
planning sessions devoted to this'-project, or because of its importance,
this subject should at least be put at the beginning of City Council
meetings.
Mr. Schuitemaker, 7397 Hansen Drive, stated that he felt that with regard
to the open space, they are actually getting rid of land that they can't
develop. He questioned what will happen to the open space and who will
guarantee that it doesn't become an eyesore. These problems should be
resolved before rather than after the fact.
Bob Anderson, 11412 Winding Trails'Lane expressed concern regarding the
proximity of the proposed road to the townhouses.
Gordon Brandt, 7402 Hansen Drive, stated that the developer has from the
beginning, assured everyone that not a'single yard of dirt will be
removed from the site. Now, however, they are proposing to move some
dirt down the Valley Christian Center road and onto Dublin Boulevard. He
felt if this is the case, they should be made to pay to haul, using
Dublin streets. The intersection is especially bad at Dublin Boulevard
and Silvergate Drive because Of the configuration. He questioned the
reason for the bridge to the west as he thought the road led nowhere.
Mr. Jacoby advised that there are stub roads required to provide future
access to adjacent properties.
CM-7-337
Regular Meeting November 1 4, 1988
Dr. Harvey Scudder, 7409 Hansen Drive, expressed concern with the overall
process. He has spent a great deal of his life working with decision
making bodies. He was concerned that he has seen a Planning Commission
with 5 members, operating most of the time with only 3 Commissioners
present at the meetings. We should not even begin this process with less
than 7 people, as complex issues require at least 7 complex personali-
ties. There also needs to.be an adequate number of staff plus outside
consultants. The Applicant spends a great deal of time trying to educate
the Planning-Commission, the public.and Staff. The process has not been
adequate. He felt the larger picture is "What is the valleywide planning
of which this is a~part?'' A development of this sort takes it roll.on
the traffic, water, sewer, air quality, etc.
Bob Colores, 11424 Winding Trail Lane, stated he does not begrudge the
applicant a fair return on his investment. The General Plan is supposed
to be futuristic in scope. The amendments we are considering are major
and serious when you think about removing trees and landfill. He felt a
strong concern for future generations. This issue needs some very strong
and serious consideration.
Marjorie LeBar, 11707 Juarez Lane, stated she was speaking in her
capacity as-Vice President of the Preserve Area Ridgelands Committee.
They have been involved with this project from the beginning. Their
concerns relate to the inconsistencies with the General Plan,
particularly with regard to the filling of the swale. This area includes
a 30% slope area which should not be built on and disturbs a rather
valuable habitat.. 'Their other concerns relate to the willingness of the
developer to make some rather substantial dedications.for open space.
The developer who owns the property next to the Hansen Ranch is
considering the dedication of more than 3/4 of his property to the East
Bay Regional Park District. Her group urged the City Council to consider
the Martin Creek corridor in its entirety from San Ramon Road up to the
Hansen property, as a possible linear park with hiking and biking trails.
They had no quarrel with the proposed densities, and felt that cluster
housing is a good idea.
Mr. Bilotti, Creekside Drive, questioned where the developer will get
water and sewer.
Mr. Jacoby pointed out on the map where they will tie into their water
system and sewer source.
The Council discussed the need to schedule future sessions to deal with
all the issues related to this development, and also discussed dates for
a field trip to the site.
The Council scheduled a field trip for Sunday, November 27th at 1:00 p.m.
The trip will primarily be a walking tour, but 4-wheel drive vehicles
should be made available. The Council then scheduled special meeting
dates for consideration of the 4 major issues related to this project.
These dates were: Tuesdays, 7:00 p.m., November 29, December 6, December
13, 1988, and January 10, 1989. The location of the special meetings
will be determined by Staff.
CM-7-338
Regular Meeting November 14, 1988
Mayor Jeffery continued the public hearing to the date of the field trip
and to the subsequent study session meeting dates.
City Manager Ambrose advised the Council that they will most likely need
to schedule a study session' for the East Dublin General Plan Study
sometime in the next few weeks also.
Mr. Ambrose'questioned the Council's desire regarding the second regular
meeting in December. This meeting falls on December 26th. By a
consensus of the Council, the second, meeting in December was cancelled.
REQUEST FOR FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE FROM
THE DIABLO VALLEY FOUNDATION FOR THE AGING
Recreation Director Lowart advised that the City has received
correspondence from Marge Stout, Coordinator of Senior Recreation and
Information for the San Ramon Valley, asking that the City contribute
$749.36 for the printing and distribution of the "Silver Streaks" in
Dublin.
Ms. Lowart explained the background that led to this request. Mrs. Stout
is asking for funding for only those issues of the Silver Streaks that
are distributed in Dublin. Three hundred copies that are distributed in
Dublin are printed by hand utilizing the copier and paper provided by the
City of San Ramon. Ms. Lowart pointed out that while 300 copies are
distributed in Dublin, Staff estimates that not more than 50%.are
actually received by Dublin residents.
Staff felt that this publication is valuable for seniors throughout the
Valley and therefore, recommended that the City offer to copy and
distribute the next 4 issues in Dublin as an alternative to providing
funds. Ir'is estimated that the cost to copy the Silver Streaks
utilizing the Recreation Department copier and Building Attendants should
not exceed $200.
Cm. Snyder questioned if the Recreation Department would simply run the
brochure-through the copy machine page-by-page.
Ms. Lowart responded yes that a Building Attendant would run the copies.
Cm. Moffatt asked if this had been run past the Senior Citizen's
Committee.-
Ms. Lowart responded that it had not, but about 18 months ago, the Park &
Recreation Commission recommended against~spending the requested money
and opted to put the money toward Dublin's senior activities.
Cm. Snyder felt we should try to monitor this in some way to determine
what the benefit is to Dublin's seniors.. A report could be made back to
the Council at budget time.·
CM-7-339
Regular Meeting November 1 4, 1988
On motion of Cm. Hegarty, seconded by Cm. Vonheeder, and by unanimous
vote, the Council denied the request for funds, but offered to copy and
distribute the Silver Streaks in Dublin.
FINANCIAL REPORT-FORMAT REVISIONS
Finance Director Molina advised that during the last several months,
Staff and members of the Council Audit Committee have discussed the
possibility of revising the'format of the City's Financial Reports to the
City Council.~' The Committee indicated it was interested in a report that
was st~eamlined~ easy to understand and provided a good comparison of
actual expenses and revenues versus budget. Since the City is in the
process of converting, its manual accounting system'to a computerized
system, it appears that this would be an opportune time to change the
financial report format.
Two sample Balance Sheets were prepared and several sample Income
Statements were enclosed for Council consideration.
Following review and discussion,.by a consensus of the'council, Staff was
given direction to prepare the Balance Sheet in a format which consoli-
dates funds by fund type; prepare Revenue & Expenditure Report that
consolidates fund by fund type, identifies expenditure by department only
and identifies those major revenue categories.
OTHER BUSINESS
East Bay Division/League of CA Cities
City Manager Ambrose advised that there will be an East Bay Division
Board meeting on November 16th.
Election Results
City Manager Ambrose advised that Staff hopes to have the election
results ready for Council certification at the Council's regular meeting
on November 28th. The Alameda County Registrar of Voters actually has
until December 6th (28 days following election) to provide these official
results. The Council could then reorganize at that meeting.
Planning Commission ApPointment/Abe Okun
Cm Hegarty announced that he recently appointed Abe Okun, a Dublin
resident for 20 years, to the Planning Commission. Mr. Okun will fill
the vacancy created by Pat Tempel's resignation. Mr. Okun is a retired
engineer who does consulting services.
CM-7-340
Regular Meeting November 1 4, 1988
Alameda County Housing Authority/20th Anniversary
Cm. Hegarty advised that he will be attending the 20th Anniversary party
of the Alameda County Housing Authority being held in Union City. Such
dignataries as Dellums, Stark, Edwards, Lockyer and Campbell will be in
attendance. Cm. Hegarty requested that Staff prepare a.proclamation
which can be presented on this occasion.
Cable TV workshop
Cm. Vonheeder commented on a publication annOuncing an upcoming workshop
/seminar related to cable television franchising. She suggested that
Staff send a copy of the notice to Claudia McCormick, the City's repre-
sentative on the Cable TV Committee.
Random Access Network (RAN) Advisory Board
Mayor Jeffery advised that she had received a reminder notice that Cm.
Snyder's term on the RAN Board end January, 1989.
Cm. Snyder requested a copy of the form tO complete to advise the
nominating committee of his continued interest in serving in this
capacity.
CLOSED SESSION
At 11:50 p.m., the COuncil recessed to a closed executive session to
discuss pending litigation, City of Dublin vs. Salgardo.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business.to come before the Council, the meeting
was adjourned at 12:00 midnight.
ATTEST:
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
CM-7-341
Regular Meeting November 14, 1988