Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout4.01 Draft 06-29-2010 Jt CC Min~ ~a~ I ~ DRAFT ~~,' ".~ ~~;, MINUTES OF A JOINT CITY COUNCIL/ ~-~-~h s~ PLANNING COMMISSION ~~:~ . ~// SPECIAL MEETING - June 29, 2010 A special joint meeting of the Dublin City Council and Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, June 29, 2010, in the Dublin Library Community Meeting Room. The meeting was called to order at 6:07 p.m., by Mayor Sbranti. ROLL CALL PRESENT: Councilmembers Biddle, Hart, Hildenbrand, Scholz, and Mayor Sbranti. Planning Commission Chair King and Commissioners Brown, Schaub, Wehrenberg, and Swalwell. ABSENT: None PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE The pledge of allegiance to the flag was recited by the City Council, Staff and those present. • STUDY SESSION Mayor Sbranti welcomed the audience and opened the public comment period. Hearing no comments he closed the public comment period and informed the audience there would be another opportunity to speak at the end of the meeting. PA 07-036: Downtown Dublin Specific Plan. The purpose of this joint City Council/Planning Commission Study Session is to discuss traffic associated with increased development potential in the Downtown Dublin Specific Plan (DDSP) Area and the proposed Community Benefit Program (CBP). Mayor Sbranti asked about the tentative timeline for follow-up meetings. Joni Pattillo, City Manager, replied that another joint Study Session is expected the week of August 16tn Mayor Sbranti confirmed that there will be one more joint Study Session and, if everything goes as planned, Planning Commission will review the draft Downtown Dublin Specific Plan, and then City Council. DUBLIN CITY COUNCIUPLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ VOLUME 29 G~~,~oFdUB~~ SPECIAL MEETING ,,, ~ ~~~ June 29, 2010 19~~~~ ~~ ~ ~ ~'~LIFOR~~~ ~ ~ t~ ~ % ~ ~~ DRAFT Ms. Pattillo stated that the meeting's intent is to discuss and get direction as it relates to traffic and the Community Benefit Program for the DDSP. Erica Fraser, Senior Planner, presented the Traffic Background as outlined in the Staff Report. Ms. Fraser clarified that, while the Levels of Service (LOS) do include cut-through traffic, cut- through traffic does account for approximately 50% of the trips made through the Downtown Area. She further clarified that cut-through traffic includes those cars getting off of the freeway and heading down Dublin Blvd. to their destination, and not staying within the Downtown Area. Chair King asked for clarification regarding the City of Pleasanton's Downtown being exempt from LOS. Ms. Fraser clarified that Pleasanton specifically exempts their powntown Area from their LOS requirements in their General Plan. She further clarified that Pleasanton's General Plan states that intersections shall have a LOS of D or better except for the Downtown Area, among other exceptions. Mayor Sbranti asked for comments and questions regarding the Traffic Background. Commissioner Schaub asked if the existing LOS for Dublin Blvd. includes the vacant Mervyn's building and vacant Crown Chevrolet car lot. Ms. Fraser replied that the LOS anticipates both properties being operational. Commissioner Schaub asked how the cut-through traffic was calculated. Ms. Fraser replied that RBF Consulting performed a license plate survey while creating the Environmental Impact Report (EIR). She clarified that license plates of cars getting off the freeway at San Ramon Road were written down, and then they followed traffic down to Amador Plaza Road to see where traffic was flowing. After a brief discussion, Commissioner Schaub stated that he does not agree with the results of cut-through traffic survey as he believes some of the cars cutting through the Downtown Area may be traveling to their homes in Dublin. He stated that he would consider cut-through traffic as non-resident cars. Commissioner Brown asked, in regards to the LOS report, how the LOS improves from E to D for maximum build-out at Amador Valley Blvd. and San Ramon Road. Jaimee Bourgeois, Senior Civil Engineer (Traffic) replied that the difference between the LOS in the existing Specific Plan and the maximum build-out is not large. She stated that the types of growth are occurring in different locations which, in the case of maximum build-out, would be an improvement for Amador Valley Blvd. and San Ramon Road. Ms. Bourgeois confirmed that the difference has to do with the way the intensity of the land use is being distributed throughout the Downtown Area. Ms. Fraser stated that a few minor modifications can be made to help alleviate traffic; however, the intent is to improve the economic and pedestrian vitality that people want to see in the Downtown Area. DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL/PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2 VOLUME 29 G`~~oFOU~~y SPECIAL MEETING ~„ June 29, 2010 '`~~~'~~~ . c~~,~RNs ~~~ ; ~? DRAFT Commissioner Wehrenberg stated that cities like Walnut Creek have nice Downtown Areas and increases in traffic; however, the scenery is pleasant and vibrant which makes sitting in traffic more bearable. She further stated that she would not consider the LOS of those cities horrible even though studies show their LOS at an E or an F. There was a discussion regarding the intent and purpose for Dublin's Downtown Area. Mayor Sbranti stated that, back in 2000, three Specific Plans were put together to create the Downtown Specific Plan which was successful in improving the City; however, the City would like to now see more. He further stated that the City Council and Commission realizes the concept of doing things differently with the three districts and offering a Development Pool, and the idea that if pedestrian-friendly areas are going to be built, the capacity of these regions needs to increase. Mayor Sbranti stated that the intent of the new DDSP is to allow current property owners and new developers more flexibility to help enhance the Downtown Area. He clarified that a vibrant Downtown will come with more people and more traffic; however, that adds to the vitality of the Downtown Area. Vice Mayor Hildenbrand agreed with Mayor Sbranti but stated that she remains skeptical that many changes will be made if the City depends on developers coming in to make changes to the Downtown Area on their own. She stated that she does not see the Downtown Area becoming as walkable as the City truly envisions. Mayor Sbranti and Cmr. Swalwell agreed that the new DDSP would allow more flexibility in improving the Downtown Area. Cmr. Schaub stated that there are 22 stoplight intersections along Dublin Blvd. between San Ramon Road and Tassajara Road and currently it takes 2.5 minutes to get from San Ramon Road to Village Parkway. He clarified that, in a worst case scenario, it would take 4.75 minutes to get from San Ramon Road to Village Parkway, which is only a 2.25 minute difference or a 20% increase in travel time. Mayor Sbranti agreed that Cmr. Schaub's finding was an interesting point. Cmr. Schaub suggested excluding San Ramon Road and Dublin Blvd. from the discussion because most of that traffic consists of people getting on the freeway. Mayor Sbranti opened the discussion for public comment. Hearing no comments, Mayor Sbranti closed the public comment period. Commissioner Wehrenberg asked for clarification on the 10-year review of traffic and development impacts. She asked if a Traffic Study would be done 10 years after development or adoption of the DDSP. DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL/PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES s VOLUME 29 G`~~OFDpe~~ SPECIAL MEETING r„ June 29, 2010 '`~~~~~ ~dGIFpR~1~ ~~ ~~7 DRAFT Ms. Fraser repiied that it wouldn't necessarily be a study, but that Staff would determine at that time what level of information would be appropriate to bring before the City Council. She clarified that if, at that time, the City felt a Traffic Study was appropriate, that would be something to discuss. Mayor Sbranti suggested reading the questions and obtaining feedback from the Planning Commission before the City Council provides direction. 1. Should the downtown be exempt from the current General Plan Policy which requires all intersections to operate at LOS D or better? • All Planninq Commissioners agreed that the Downtown Area should be exempt from LOS requirements. • All City Councilmembers agreed that the Downtown Area should be exempt from LOS requirements. 2. Should an implementation measure be established in the Downtown Specific Plan to review traffic and development impacts in 10 years following the adoption of the Specific Plan? • Cmr. Schaub stated that he didn't understand the need for a 10-year review as all projects are reviewed 10 years after they're built anyway. • Cmr. Wehrenberq asked if the 10-year review were to be established, would the last business going into a project be penalized because they bring in too much traffic. • Mayor Sbranti stated that the Development Pool is one incentive the City can offer. He clarified that the first developers to come in receive the benefit of the Development Pool because they're the ones who can take advantage of maximizing the space available. • Mavor Sbranti stated that the last developer to pick from the Development Pool has no risk and the City is increasing their Floor Are Ratio (FAR) by right in every district within the Specific Plan boundaries. • Chair Kinp agreed that the traffic should be studied in 10 years. • Vice-Chair Brown agreed with Cmr. Schaub as he didn't see a benefit to establishing a 10-year review for the DDSP as every project is reviewed 10 years later anyway. • Ms. Pattillo stated that the 10-year mark is related to KMA and where the build-out would be at that point. She clarified that 10 years is a milestone recognition that came out of the KMA Report. She further stated that when BART opens, traffic will have to be studied again and 10 years is a good check-in point as this is an evolutionary process. • Ms. Pattillo confirmed that establishing the 10-year review is just a commitment to say that the City will formally look at the traffic and development impacts at some point. • Mavor Sbranti clarified that there will be a new City Council and Commission between now and 10 years and the 10-year review is a reminder that the impacts will be looked at again by Staff. • Cmr. Swalwell stated that he would fike to establish a 10-year review. DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL/PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES a VOLUME 29 G`~OFDpB~ SPECIAL MEETING u, ~ ~~~ June 29, 2010 '\\~,i~~,~%/ ~~~ ~ ~~~ ~7 DRAFT • Cmr. Wehrenberq stated that she did not feel a 10-year review was necessary. • Vice-Chair Brown stated that after discussion, he would like to establish a 10-year review. • Mayor Sbranti and Vice-Mayor Hildenbrand stated that they would like to establish a 10-year review. • Councilmembers Biddle, Hart and Scholz stated that they would like to establish at least a 10-year review; however, a review may be needed sooner. It was agreed that with the BART Station's opening and the economy possibly not recovering fully, it would be best to have the option to review it in less than 10 years as a lot can change in just 5 years. • Mayor Sbranti confirmed that the City will continue to monitor the progress. Ms. Pattillo summarized the City Council's responses and poin#s, stating that the City Council would like to make the Downtown Area exempt from Level of Service requirements and that a 10-year review of the traffic and development impacts is preferred, if not sooner than 10 years. Ms Fraser continued with the Community Benefit Program presentation as outlined in the Staff Report. Mayor Sbranti asked for comments and questions regarding the Community Benefit Program (CBP). Chair King asked if, the economy improves in the future, would there be any money for the City to designate towards making modest improvements to the Downtown area or would it be completely up to developers. He asked if a financial incentive could be offered. Ms. Pattillo replied that, in the past, the City has discussed fa~ade improvements with various businesses in the Downtown Area but there was no interest shown. She stated that small improvements have been made and if the economy improves, making an investment in the Downtown Area is something the City Council could look at then. Cmr. Wehrenberg asked if the Dublin Historical Park area would be included as part of the CBP. Vice Mayor Hildenbrand stated that specifying parks could be dangerous as there are other parks in the City that need improvements. Mayor Sbranti replied that any projects that build in the City are required to pay a Park Fee which could go towards improvements or into a General Park Fund for future decisions. Ms. Pattillo asked Cmr. Wehrenberg if she would be comfortable with the general term of "Parks." Cmr. Wehrenberg replied yes. DUBLIN CITY COUNCIUPLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 5 VOLUME 29 SPECIAL MEETING G~~oroo~~ ~ v, a~ ' ~ ~ June 29, 2010 ~~ ~ ~ dGIFpR~ G/ p 1 ! f DRAFT Ms. Pattillo clarified that the City has phased the construction of their parks to allow for functionality. She stated that, moving forward, the Benefit could be designated as something more generic like "Parks." Cm. Hart stated that he agrees the Benefit of Parks is a great idea; however, Parks require maintenance and that could cost a lot of money to keep the parks maintained. Ms. Pattillo clarified that the proposed Community Benefit Program was something that everyone concurred to move forward and the intent is to benefit the vibrancy of the Downtown Area. She stated that when there is an opportunity, a Benefit can be added as an additional amenity. Mayor Sbranti suggested reading the questions and obtaining feedback from the Planning Commission before the City Council provides direction. 3. What additional benefits would you like to see in the Community Benefit Program? • Cmr. Wehrenberq stated that she would like to have Parks added as a Community Benefit. • Cmr. Swalwell stated that he would like to add electric vehicle charging stations and Public Safety equipment like a Police car or motorized scooter as the Downtown Area will need active Public Safety. • Vice Commissioner Brown stated that he would like to add Public Art to the Community Benefits as well as a possible developer sponsorship of a Downtown event. • Chair Kinq stated that he would like to see enhanced gateway features that give the presence of a Downtown Area. He stated that he would like to see a more pedestrian-friendly environment, like more sitting areas and fountains, as well as something like a skate park to produce more energy and vibrancy. • Mayor Sbranti stated that he has not identified any additional benefits. • Cm. Biddle stated that he liked the statement of "Other benefit proposed by developer and approved by the City Council" but would like to change that to "Other benefit proposed by developer and Staff, and approved by the City Council." Cm. Biddle stated that he felt that this would enable the Council to look at more options. • Cm. Hart stated that he likes the outline that Staff has presented for the Potential Benefits but would like to consider Cmr. Swalwell's suggestion of Public Safety Community Benefits, should that be proposed. He stated that putting funds towards Dublin 101 would be acceptable as well, as that would give back to the community. • Cm. Scholz stated that she appreciates and supports the effort to level the playing field for small and large business alike. She stated that she does support additional Benefits such as Parks and Public Safety. She further stated that any services that extend the safety of Dublin's Citizens are very important. DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL/PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES s VOLUME 29 G`,~~oFOO~~y SPECIAL MEETING n, ~ a~ June 29, 2010 '~~~~~~ ~4G/FOR~~ 7~~~7 DRAFT 4. Should the Community Benefit Program start at the adoption of the Specific Plan or should a two year grace period be put into place which would allow developers to pull from the Development Pool without entering into the Community Benefit Program? • Cmr. Wehrenbera stated that she didn't feel that a grace period of finro years is necessary as it may present opportunities for original owners to sell off properties that have problems without advising the new owners. • Mavor Sbranti and Ms. Fraser clarified that the two-year grace period is proposed to give developers more time to plan and develop, rather than feeling rushed to get everything done right away. In addition, it could give developers a push to build within those two years as opposed to waiting and leaving land vacant. Ms. Fraser clarified that if the Specific Plan were adopted, developers could pull from the Development Pool and, for two years, no Community Benefits would have to be given. • Vice Mavor Hildenbrand stated that she felt having a two-year grace period would be risky. She stated that, with a two-year grace period, there is a large risk of the smaller businesses and property owners paying into the CBP and the larger developers not paying into it because the larger developers can afford to wait two years. • Ms. Pattillo asked Ms. Fraser for clarification in regards to small businesses having an incentive in regards to receiving additional development capacity. Ms. Fraser replied that there is an incentive in regards to the proposed DDSP leveling the playing field for both large business and small businesses. She clarified that today there are properties that are at a disadvantage because they are given very limited flexibility for what they can build, and some other properties have more flexibility and achieved development capacity which they are not using. • Ms. Fraser confirmed that, if the two-year grace period were recommended, the City could ask for Community Benefits in exchange for a development potential; however, it could be a way of fostering more support for it because they would have more time (finro years) to build what they would, in some cases, not be able to build today. • Chris Foss, Assistant City Manager, clarified that developers would only be allowed to keep the additional development capacity from the Development Pool for finro years, after which if nothing were built, the additional development capacity would be available for another developer's use. • Ms. Fraser clarified that a benefit of the CBP is that the City would be entering into an agreement with a developer stating how long they get to keep that increased density. She stated that, if a developer pulls permits, their permits expire and their finro years is up, they would have to start back at square one. • Mavor Sbranti opened the discussion for public comment. Hearing no comments, Mayor Sbranti closed the public comment period. • Cmr. Brown stated that he would prefer giving developers the option of deferring their project for two years then entering into the CBP, rather than waiting two years and being exempt from the CBP. • Ms. Pattillo stated that the original intent of the CBP is that some property owners have held on to certain properties and done nothing with them. She stated that the DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL/PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ VOLUME 29 ~OFppB SPECIAL MEETING v;~/~~,~, ~~~ June 29, 2010 '~~v~~~~ ~'1GIFOR~~~ ~ ~ ~`! ~ DR.AFT Council and Commission can consider whether or not they agree with the CBP, and whether or not there should be grace period which would allow capacity in the Development Pool to be utilized. • Mayor Sbranti confirmed Ms. Pattillo's statement by stating that, although the formula still needs to be defined, the City is basically looking at a Downtown Fee to go towards Community Benefits. He further stated that developers would be providing the request for Community Benefits or paying into a fund that would later go towards Community Benefits. • Vice Mayor Hildenbrand asked for clarification regarding existing owners on Village Parkway and whether or not they are exempt from paying into the CBP because they are close to reaching their maximum FAR and options are limited for future build out. • Ms. Fraser stated that the properties along Village Parkway are being dealt with differently as the majority of them are small business owners and Village Parkway does not offer a lot of capacity for transit-oriented development. She stated that to give current property owners a benefit, the City is not requiring they pay into the CBP. • After a brief discussion regarding what look the Downtown Area should have and how to achieve that, Mayor Sbranti clarified that when the DDSP is adopted, there are still Design Elements regarding the way the streetscape needs to look. • Cmr. Wehrenberq stated that although the transit area has the opportunity to achieve a Downtown Area, the area where Mervyn's and Orchard Supply are located would need to be completely redone to appeal to the Design Elements. • After a brief discussion, Vice Mayor Hildenbrand and Cmr. Wehrenberq expressed concern that if developers are allowed a two-year grace period, the City would end up paying for powntown improvements out of the General Fund, as developers would just choose to build during that finro-year period and not contribute to the CBP. • Ms. Pattillo clarified that any public improvements outside the CBP would have to be discussed as a City. • Cmr. Swalwell stated that he does agree with the finro-year grace period because it would enable projects to get started sooner rather than later. • Cmr. Schaub stated that he feels it would be best to look at projects as they come in because not enough information is available right now. He stated that, until the Specific Plan is approved, the City won't know what the most important attributes are for the Downtown Area. • Cmr. Brown stated that he would be okay with a 50% reduction in payment for two years as oppose to a two-year grace period or complete exemption. • Chair Kinq stated that he doesn't feel there's much of an added benefit to giving developers a finro-year grace period. • Mayor Sbranti stated that, in looking at the existing Specific Plans, there is no identifier in regards to who is going to pay for the Community Benefits such as plazas and parks. He further stated that the CBP will provide direction for the City and developers on how to obtain Community Benefits. • Mayor Sbranti stated that he would prefer the two-year grace period or complete exemption; however, he would be fine with a 50% reduction in payment for two years as well. He stated that there are many vacant properties in the City and those DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL/PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES a VOLUME 29 G~~,~OFDpB~~ SPECIAL MEETING ~„ June 29, 2010 '~~~~'~~~ ~'~c,~ s i~of'r-~; DRAFT properties can be developed. He further stated that if the two-year grace period makes a difference for even one developer, it's a success. • Mavor Sbranti stated that the City has seen successes such as pick-up in residential activity and although some of it may be due to the market, it is also because of the incentives that the City offers. • Vice Mavor Hildenbrand stated that she does not believe in the grace period. She stated that she believes larger projects will pull what they can from the Development Pool and build as fast as they can versus a smaller project that may take their time building. She clarified that this is going to cause the CBP payments are going to ride on the back of small and mid-size businesses. • Vice Mavor Hildenbrand stated that the idea is to have really grand projects come in and develop, especially near the transit area. She stated that she felt that if a grace period is granted, the City would be missing an opportunity for potential improvements that the City may have to pay for instead of receiving them through Benefit funds. • Vice Mavor Hildenbrand stated that she would be willing to discuss a 50% reduction for two years, but not a deferment or exception. • Cm. Biddle stated that he is not in favor of the grace period and thinks the CBP benefits the developers. He stated that not having a grace period seems more consistent with existing policies and would prefer not to have it. • Cm. Hart stated that he is not in favor of the grace period and agreed with Councilmember Biddle's comments regarding developers already benefitting from the program. • Cm. Scholz stated that she does not support the grace period as economic times are too uncertain for such a grace period. • Mavor Sbranti stated that any developer that decides to move forward, even if they do pay into the CBP, is going to receive a tremendous benefit by being able to increase the density of their site. Ms. Pattillo summarized the City Council's responses and points stating that the City Council agrees that no grace period is preferred. She stated that there will be consideration regarding the Public Safety and Parks discussions in relation to what is part of the CBP. Ms. Pattillo clarified that developers would not be paying into the CBP unless they wanted to increase their FAR. She stated that she agreed with the Mayor that it activates some desired improvements or amenities that are needed in the Downtown Area. Councilmember Hart stated that considerations may not be as significant for the Village Parkway area; however, it is very significant for the other areas. He stated that it is very important to consider the potential future investments of those properties. Ms. Fraser stated that Staff will be finishing the Specific Plan and Draft Environmental Impact Report. She clarified that a joint Study Session will be held in August for the City Council and Planning Commission to review the Draft DDSP. Ms. Fraser stated that after the joint Study DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL/PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 9 VOLUME 29 G`~~OFDpe~~ SPECIAL MEETING „ ~ ~~ June 29, 2010 '~`~V~~~~ ~GlFOR~~ DRAFT /~ a ~ ~ ~~ Session, the DDSP will be finalized and available for public review along with the Draft EIR to meet the required 45-day public review period. Ms. Fraser stated that after the 45-day public review period, Staff will prepare responses to comments regarding the Draft EIR, and the Final EIR will be created. She stated that the Final EIR will, at that point, go to public hearing for adoption. Chair King asked if the City should create some sort of overlay to show what the City expects the Community Benefits to amount to in the future. Mayor Sbranti stated that the Streetscape Master Plan helps provide direction in regards to what things should look at in the end in relation to public improvements along the streets. After a brief discussion, Ms. Fraser stated that the Design Guidelines will cover some of the main concepts in regards to what the City is looking for in the way of Downtown Improvements and an overall look. Mayor Sbranti confirmed that the draft DDSP and Design Guidelines will be reviewed in August. The City Council, Commission and Staff agreed the next joint Study Session will be held on Saturday, August 21, 2010 at 9 a.m. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to come before the City Council, the meeting was adjourned at 8:05 p.m. Minutes prepared by Taryn Gavagan, Secretary. Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk DUBLIN CITY COUNCIUPLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~o VOLUME 29 G`~yOFDpe~y SPECIAL MEETING i,, ~ ~~~ June 29, 2010 '~~~;i~-~~~~ ~~~ ~