Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Minutes 06-19-1989 :R,. { ~ ~ Regular Meeting - June 19, 1989 A regular meeting of the City of Dublin Planning Commission was held on June 19, 1989, in the Meeting Room, Dublin Library. The meeting was called to order at 7:30 p.m. by Cm. Burnham, Vice-Chairman. ~ ~ ~ ~ ROLL CALL PRESENT: Commissioners Burnham, Mack, Okun, and Zika; Laurence L. Tong, Planning Director; Maureen 0'Halloran, Senior Planner; Rod Barger, Senior Planner; Laura Hoffineister, Associate Planner; and Gail Adams, Planning Secretary. ~ ~ ~ ~ PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG Cm. Burnham led the Commission, Staff, and those present in the pledge of ~ allegiance to the flag. ~ ~ ~ ~ ADDITIONS OR REVISIONS TO THE AGENDA Mr. Tong asked the Commission ta change the order of Item 8.3 and 8.4 so that Item 8.4 could be heard first. The Commission 'reversed the order. Mr. Tong advised that due to special circumstances, the minutes would need to be held to the next Planning Commission meeting. ~ ~ ~ ~ CONSENT CALENDAR 5.1 MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING - The minutes of June 5, 1989 were held until the next Planning Cornmission meeting. 5.2 PA 88-109 HEALY VARIANCE - Approved ~ ~c ~ ~ ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Zev Kahn indicated that there was still construction being done at the Ahmanson development on the weekends. He indicated that 7:00 a.m. was much too early and some kind of action needed to be taken. ~~~~~~~~c~~~~~~~~c~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Regular Meeting PCM-8-86 June 19, 1989 * - ~ ~ Mr. Tong indicated that he had discussed the issue with the Public Works, Police and Building Inspection Staff. Ahmanson had permission from the Public Works Director to work on the weekends, However, the developer would be informed of the situation. Mr. Tong indicated that there have been no other complaints from the neighborhood. If there were formal complaints made, the Public Works Director could withhold weekend work privileges. Cm. Zika asked if the Police Department had any authorization to issue a citation. Mr. Tong indicated that the Police Department did have authorization to issue tickets. This would be a misdemeanor offense and subject to fines or imprisonment. ~ Mr. Kahn asked if the Public Works Director could be more specific and indicate to the developer that 7:00 a.m. was much too early. Mr. Tong indicated that the issue would be discussed with the Public Works Director. Cm. Burnham asked for clarification on the sale of the Heritage Commons development to JL Construction. He asked if all conditions of the Commission's approval were still in effect. Mr. Tong indicated that all specific conditions of approval were still in effect. The Commission was under the impression that CoastFed had no intention of selling the property, and were uncomfortable with the change in ownership. ~ ~ * ~ WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS Mr. Tong advised that the Commission had received 7 action letters. ~ ~ ~ ~ PUBLIC HEARINGS SUBJECT: PA 89-037 Valley Nissan/Mitsubishi Conditional Use Permit request to maintain the existing use of an automobile dealership (Valley Nissan/Mitsubishi) at 6015-6015B Scarlett Court Cm. Burnham opened the public hearing and called for the Staff Report. Mr. Barger indicated that this item involved a Conditional Use Permit extension request frorn Valley Nissan/Mitsubishi allowing the continued operation of a auto dealership. ~r~~c~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~r~~~~~~~c~~~~~~~*~~e~~~~e~~~~~~~~r~~~~~~~~~~~~~~r~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Regular Meeting PCM-8-87 June 19, 1989 ! ~ ~ ~ Mr. Barger indicated that on March 3, 1986, the Commission approved the Conditional Use Permit and Site Development Review applications to allow construction of the 11,000+ square foot facility housing the Valley Nissan and Volvo dealerships. The Volvo dealership has been replaced by Mitsubishi. Mr. Barger indicated that the use permit for the facility was valid until February 6, 1989. The Applicant is requesting a two-year extension approval from the Commission. Mr. Barger indicated that the extension request has been reviewed by all appropriate departments and no problems or complaints have been received. Staff recommends the Commission approve the extension request for three years. At that time, the Applicant may request an administrative extension from the Planning Director for an additional two years. The Commission asked Staff if the Applicant was in the audience. Mr. Barger indicated no. Cm. Zika asked to have the public hearing kept open and continue the matter so that the Applicant could be present to give the Commission an opportunity to ask questions. Cm. Burnham closed the public hearing. On motion from Cm. Mack, seconded by Cm. Okun, and with a vote of Z-2-1 (one absent), the Planning Commission could take no action being that the vote was tied. The Commission continued the item to the July 5, 1989 meeting,to give the Applicant and Commission an opportunity to discuss the issues. SUBJECT: PA 88-117 Doyle Variance appeal of the Zoning Administrator's action denying a Variance request to allow up to a 9' high fence (now existing) where a maximum height of 6 feet is required Cra. Burnham opened the public hearing and called for the Staff Report. Ms. Hoffineister indicated that this was a Variance request to allow a rear yard fence up to 8'6" tall where a 6 foot maximum was allowed at 8121 Via Zapata. Ms. Hoffineister indicated that in 1979, the Alameda County approved development of the pro~ect. In October of 1988, zoning clearance was issued for a patio cover attached to the house and a deck that was'less than 30" high. On October 12, 1988, the building inspector noticed an existing spa that did not have a permit and request the Applicant to comply with the building requirements. On October 26, 1988, the building inspector discovered and notified the property owner that the fence that was replaced was over the maximum height requirements and the Applicant subsequently applied for a Variance. Regular Meeting PCM-8-88 June 19, 1989 ' ' • • Ms. Hoffineister stated that on March 14, 1989, the Zoning Administrator ~ adopted a resolution denying the Variance request and on March l6, 1989, the ~ Applicant appealed that decision. Ms. Hoffineister discussed the shape of the Applicant's lot. The rear property line was adjacent to a downsloping drainage way about and located 200' away from other property developments across the creek. The homes to the north, east and west were similarly developed. The fence was approximately 7'6" to 8'6" tall. Ms. Hoffineister stated that the Applicant had indicated that the additional fence extension was needed in order to provide privacy from the creek, however, there was tall vegetation which obscures views from the rear yard. The rear yard adjoining residential homes was more than 200 feet away. Ms. Hoffineister discussed the three findings that would have to be made to grant a Variance. She stated that the three findings associated with granting a Variance could not be supported. Ms. Hoffineister indicated that the Applicant had a spa in the rear yard and the Zoning Ordinance would support a fence extension if the extension was capable of admitting 90~ light. The fence at this time does not admit 90~ light as is required. Ms. Hoffineister indicatecl that Staff had recommended alternatives to the Applicant, however, the Applicant felt these alternatives would not be as effective or desirable as the existing illegal fence. Ms. Hoffineister indicated that Staff recommended the Commission uphold the Zoning Administrator's denial of the Variance request. Cm. Okun asked if any complaints have been made from the neighbors. Ms. Hoffineister indicated no. Mr. Ronald Doyle, Applicant, handed out additional pictures and petitions from residents in the area. He stated that the neighbors felt that he did have special circumstances to allow a fence extension on his property. Mr. Doyle discussed the history of his backyard projects. He indicated that he had made a point of following all the correct procedures in obtaining permits for his projects. The building inspector had notified him that the spa needed a permit and he obtained one. The building inspector informed him that the fence was too high and he applied for a Variance. Mr. Doyle indicated that the neighbors liked the fence and there had been no complaints. The house was located on a sharp drop in the rear yard and the contractor took measurements from the grade. Mr. Doyle indicated that it would cost a lot of money to tear down and he had concerns over the safety of the children. Cm. Zika asked Staff what type of screening fabrics could be used above the typical six foot fence height limit. ~~~~~~~~~~c~~~~~~~~~~x~~c~~*~r~~~~~~~~~~~~c~~~~~~~*~~~~~r~~~~r~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Regular Meeting PCM-8-89 June 19, 1989 . • • ~ Mr. Tong indicated that a chain link fence was a possibility. Cm. Burnham questioned the fence height requirement. He indicated that when you look around the neighborhood, there were other fences similarly constructed. He asked if the original fence was illegal. Ms. Hoffineister indicated that Staff had no fence plan available. Cm. Zika and Cm. Burnham discussed the fence dimensions and slope configurations. Cm. Burnham asked where the measurement of the fence would be taken. Staff indicated that the measurement would be taken at grade level. Hypothetically, if ineasurements were taken from an elevated structure, then the fence could become very high, therefore the grade line is used for all height measurements. Mr. Berry Beck, 11696 Harlan Road (neighbor), indicated that he was confused about the regulations. The surrounding neighbors did not understand what the issue was. He indicated that Mr. Doyle had put a lot of money into his project and all rules had e~ceptions. He requested the Commission to endorse the Variance request. Elliott Healy, 11362 Betlen Drive, indicated that the Commission should consider the basic intent and approve the Variance. Marilyn Beck, 11696 Harlan Road, indicated that the alternative chain link or plastic would not look very nice. The fence extension was well constructed as it is now. She felt the lattice top was done nicely and would improve the look more than the other materials suggested by Staff. Cm. Burnham closed the public hearing. On motion from Cm. Okun, seconded by Cm. Mack, the Commission requested Staff to draft new resolutions that would approve the Variance and reverse the Zoning Administrator's action. The Commission indicated that they could support findings necessary to approve the Variance. The Commission continued the matter to the July 5, 1989 meeting to be approved on a consent calendar basis. SUBJECT: PA 87-012 Donlan Canyon (Blaylock, Gleason & Fletcher) General Plan Amendment request to include approximateliy 197 acres of pro_ject site within the City's Primary Planning Area, to designate 19.1 acres for medium-high density residential, 13 acres for single-family residential and 164.9 acres for open space. Subsequent applications pendin~ General Plan Amendment action W~ii include Planned Development Prezoning, Subdivision and Annexation (continued from the May 15, 1989 meetin~ Regular Meeting PCM-8-90 June 19, 1989 ' ' • ~ Cm. Burnham opened the public hearing and called for the Staff Report. Ms. 0'Halloran indicated that at the May 15th Planning Commfssion meeting, the Commission continued the item to the June 19th meeting. This project was noticed again in the newspaper. Ms. 0'Halloran indicated that the Applicant was requesting approval of a General Plan Amendment which would include a 197+ acre site within the City's Primary Planning Area. There were three designated land uses being requested for approval: Low density single-family (0.5 to 3.S DU/Acre), medium-high density (14.1 to 25 DU/Acre), and the open space are which consisted of 164.9 acres. Ms. 0'Halloran indicated that the Commission's role was to conduct public hearings on the application and make a recommendation to the City Council concerning the General Plan Amendrnent and certification of the Final EIR. The Commission should discuss one issue at a time; the Final EIR and then the General Plan Amendment. Ms. 0'Halloran indicated that the Final EIR consisted of the Draft EIR and the Final EIR Response to Comments which includes copies of all written comments received during the public review period, the minutes from the May 1 and May 15th Planning Commission meetings, and responses to the comments received. Ms. 0'Halloran indicated that the EIR document identifies anticipated impacts of the proposed project as well as mitigated measures to minimize any significant effects of those impacts. Ms. 0'Halloran indicated that the EIR document identifies six alternatives to the proposed pro~ect. These are: 1) no project alternative, 2) mitigated alternative, 3) neighborhood context alternative, 4) single-family low-density alternative, 5) medium-low density multi-family alternative, and 6) medium density, multi-family alternative. Ms. 0'Halloran indicated that Assembly Bill #3180 required the adoption of a monitoring program vahen certifying an EIR. The purpose of this program is to ensure compliance with all mitigation measures imposed on the project. The monitoring program will be prepared by Staff and reviewed by the City Attorney's office. Ms. 0'Halloran indicated that Jennifer Toth from EIP was in the audience if the Commission would like to ask her any questions. Michelle DeRobertis from TJKM (traffic consultants) was also in the audience. Jennifer Toth, EIP Associates, discussed the Draft and Final EIR documents. She identified and discussed the comments received that were incorporated into the Final EIR. Some mitigation measures were expanded in regards to Letter #1, #3, #4, and #S. These changes are shown in bold type. Additional information was added regarding comments from Letter #S and #14. Cm. Okun asked what could be done about the added cost the City would be carrying with this proposed development. Ms. Toth suggested that additional development fees could be one way of eliminating the additional cost burden to the City. ~~~~r~~~~~~c~c~~~c~~~*~c~r~~~~~~~c~~~~~~~c~~~~~~c~~~~~c~~~~~~~~~~~c~~~~*~~~t~~~~c~~~~~~c~c~~~ Regular Meeting PCM-8-91 June 19, 1989 ` ' ~ ~ Ms. 0'Halloran stated that cost issue would be discussed in the General Plan policy section. Sh~ indicated that large developments usually pay for themselves. The Pl'anning Commission and City Council could considered additional fees. Cm. Okun asked for more clarification on way to collect fees. Ms. 0'Halloran indicated a detailed fiscal assessment study could be done. She indicated that the cost to the City could range from $4,000-15,000. Cm. Okun indicated that the City does not have that kind of money. Ms. 0'Halloran indicated that the Planning Commission and City Council would determine the outcome of this concern. They could request additional mitigation measures. The additional development fee could be added at the approval of the Tentative Map and Planned Development stage. Ms. Toth indicated that a more detailed fiscal analysis could be dane. Ms. Toth discussed the cultural and archealogical issues of the project. Cm. Okun had concerns regarding earthquakes and landslides in the area. He asked if a potential increased danger could occur when the dirt was being moved. Ms. Toth indicated that it would be best to talk with a geologist on these subjects; however, site specific studies will be prepared in con~unction with specific development proposals such as the Tentative Map and Prezoning. Cm. Zika asked if Letter #1 was accurate and adequate. Ms. Toth indicated that adequate consultant work had been done. Cm. Zika indicated that the East Bay Regional Park District seemed to have some concerns. He asked how stable was the ground. Was the City liable if problems occurred. Ms. Toth indicated that these concerns were discussed in the Final EIR on page 3-6. The Commission and Staff discussed who would be responsible for site maintenance, inspection responsibility, and property management. Mr. Tong suggested that geotechnical concerns be discussed at the Tentative Map and Prezoning stage. He indicated that he would discussed the matter with the Public Works Director. He discussed the General Plan land uses and stages of improvements. The Commission asked what risks were involved in having the geotechnical studies done in the early stages of approvals. Mr. Tong indicated that a preliminary getechnical study was appropriately done for the proposed General Plan Amendment. The additional cost of a more detailed geologic study was generally not warranted until the Planned Regular Meeting PCM-8-92 June 19, 1989 • ~ Development rezoning or tentative subdivision map stage. The datailed gelogic study would need to consider the exact location of the proposed structures, which usually is not known until after the General Plan is amended. Mr. Tong indicated that in areas where the preliminary geotechnical study identifies potential hazards, no dwelling units would be allowed until a detailed geologic study was prepared and adequate mitigation measures were applied. The developer takes the risk that the hazard might not be able to be physically and economically be mitigated. Cm. Mack had concerns regarding grading requirements shown in Letter #7, page 3-44. Would landslides occur or would the ravine be altered. Ms. 0'Halloran suggested that the Commission look at page 4.613 regarding abrupt visual transition which would address this concern. Cm. Burnham had concerns regarding Comment #1 in Letter #7 which addressed the annexation issue. Who has control over the land in question. Mr. Tong indicated that Alameda County is now in control of the proposed project area and has jurisdication on the road way. The process would be as follows: after the General Plan Amendment is completed, the next stage would be the PD/Prezoning approvals and then the Annexation process. The project is not within the City limits and an annexation process would have to occur which would include the road. Basically, Staff concurs with Letter #7. Cm. Okun had questions regarding road access at Valley Christian Center. Ms. 0'Halloran indicated that the City Council with the Hansen Hill project approved a General Plan Amendment which included an arterial street to Hansen Hill Ranch through the Valley Christian Center. The Hansen Hill General Plan Amendment elimiantes the future extension of Hansen Drive to the west. The Tentative Map for the Hansen Hill project was in the planning process and would include details for the location of the Valley Christian Center road. The Commission requested information regarding the traffic issues. Michelle DeRobertis, TJKM, indicated that the traffic mitigations were the same as the Hansen Hill Ranch pro~ect. When mitigations occur, the level of service for the pro~ect would be "D". Cm. Okun asked about the traffic on the eastbound lanes of Dublin Boulevard. Ms. DeRobertis indicated that mitigation measures identify that additional lanes should be added at Dublin Boulevard. Cm. Okun indicated that there was a lot of traffic backup at Regional Street and Dublin Boulevard. Ms. DeRobertis indicated that the plan line of Dublin Boulevard addressed this issue. Cm. Zika indicated that he had concerns regarding the negative cost impact to the City, geological and traffic problems.. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~r~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~r~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Regular Meeting PCM-8-93 June 19, 1989 . • • ~ Cm. Burnham had concerns regarding financing and asked Staff for additional information on the City's impact when developments are built. Mr. Tong indicated that generally single-family low-density units have a negative fiscal impact. The higher density units and retail development usually have a positive fiscal impact. A cost/revenue analysis of the specific project would have to be done. Mr. Tong indicated that the Hansen Hill development would not require expanded City services and the City would basically break even. Retail and commercial projects are the developments that balance the books. Cm. Zika asked if all hillside development would cost the City money. Mr. Tong indicated not necessarily. These type of projects tend to be upscale and higher quality projects, with higher costs and higher amounts of property taxes. The Planning Commission and Staff discussed cost revenue to the City in regards to the Hansen Hill and Donlan Canyon projects. Cm. Okun had concerns about the open space dedication and when this would occur. Ms. 0'Halloran indicated that dedication of open space would occur at the Tentative Map and Planned Development Prezoning stages. Michael Gleason, Applicant, discussed the cost of the homes and indicated that the fiscal impacts were overestimated. He indicated that the police officer allocated for this project could be shared with other developments as well as the fire department costs. Cm. Zika asked Staff what the criteria was for so many additional police officer or fireman per square miles, population, etc. Ms. 0'Halloran indicated that the Police Department required one additional officer for this development. Mr. Gleason indicated that additional geotechnical and archaeology studies would be done at the Tentative Map stage. What studies have been done so far are appropriate for this stage of the planning process. He felt that he should proceed with the project and take any risks involved and that extensive studies at this stage would be inappropriate. Cm. Zika indicated he felt more responses and discussions regarding the geotechnical studies with the Public Works Director and other agencies was appropriate. Mr. Gleason asked the Planning Commission to recommend to the City Council that the Final EIR was complete and adequate. Marie Cronin had concerns regarding the high density of the apartment complexes and felt that approximately 800 people living in 17-19 acres was to dense. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~*~~~~~~~~~~~~~*~~~x~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Regular Meeting PCM-8-94 June 19, 1989 ` • ~ ~ Ms. Cronin had concerns with the water shed pattern and the open space dedication. She indicated that the land was in the acquisition stage and hoped the park would be dedicated so that the land could not be sold. ~ Ms. Cronin had concerns regarding the environmental issues and habitats of the area. Marjorie LaBar, PARC, indicated that she was in agreement with the clustered apartment units which would preserve the open space area. She had concerns over the visibility impacts of the project and referenced Policy 3.3.F which was shown on page 6 of the Staff Report. Ms. 0'Halloran indicated that the Planning Commission and City Council would make findings consistent with the General Plan policies. Ms. LaBar reminded the Commission that San Ramon was working on the West Side plan and that both Cities should worked together on preserving the open space. Ms. 0'Halloran clarified Ms. Cronin's concerns. She indicated that the creek was addressed in the EIR with mitigation measures on page 4-12. The design issue of the apartments would be discussed at the Tentative Map and Planned Development stage. The actual number of apartments would be decided at that time, however the actual density range would be decided at the General Plan Amendment stage. Also, the dedication of open space would be considered at the Tentative Map stage as well. Mr. Gleason indicated that the certification of the EIR included a monitoring program that would be adopted. Ms. 0'Halloran continued the Staff Report regarding the General Plan Amendment issues and policies. Ms. 0'Halloran indicated that Policy 2.1.3A discusses the avoidance of abrupt transitions between single-family and higher density development on adjoining sites. She indicated that Staff recommends the Commission find the proposed General Plan Amendment request consistent with Policy 2.1.3A. Ms. 0'Halloran indicated that Policy 2.1.4A stipulates that residential development should be built on moderate slopes, with multi-family densities considered on flatter land and next to business parks. She indicated that Staff recommends the Commission find that the proposed General Plan Amendment is consistent with Policy 2.1.4A. Ms. 0'Halloran indicated that Policy 2.1.4C stipulates that 1) services should not be financial burden to Dublin residents and businesses; 2) fiscal impact of new developments support themselves and not draw upon and dilute the fiscal base of the remainder of the City; 3) proposed site grading and access ways should not disfigure the ridgelands; and 4) the timing of development would not prematurely terminate viable agriculatural operations surrounding the ~ project area. Ms. 0'Halloran indicated that some of these issues had been discussed at the EIR stage of the Staff Report. She indicated that Staff recommended that the Commission find that the proposed General Plan Amendment is consistent with Policy 2.1.4C. Regular Meeting PCM-8-95 June 19, 1989 , . ~ ~ Ms. 0'Halloran discussed Policy 3.1.A regarding preserve oak woodlands; Policy 7.1.A regarding riparian vegetation protection; Policy 7.1.D regarding open stream corridors and Policy 7.1.E regarding revegetation of creek banks. Ms. 0'Halloran indicated that approximately 230 trees were estimated to be removed from the area which represented about 3~ of the total trees on the site. The Applicant proposed to replace the trees on a 3:1 ratio and to create a new riparian habit corridor along the east and west sides of the multi-family development. Ms. 0'Halloran indicated that the EIR contained mitigation requiring a detailed tree survey and grading study at the Tenative Map and Prezoning stages. Ms. 0'Halloran indicated on the wall map which portions of Lots 11, 12 and 13 encroached within the oak woodlands. The Applicant was requesting an exception to the existing policies. Ms. 0'Halloran indicated that if the City Council finds that the proposal is consistent with the intent of the policies, site specific grading and tree survey and preservation study should be required at the Tentative Map and Prezoning stage. Ms. 0'Halloran indicated that Staff recommended the Planning Commission find that the proposed General Plan Amendment with mitigation is consistent with the intent of Policies 3.1.A, 7.1,A, 7.1.D, and 7.1.E. Ms. 0'Halloran discussed the land use designation and density issues. She indicated that there were three proposed densities: 1) low-density single- family residential (0.5 to 3.8 DU/Acre); 2) medium-high density residential (14.1 to 25 DU/Acre); and 3) open space for the remainder of the site. Ms. 0'Halloran indicated that the low-density single-family density was a new category recently adopted when the Council adoptaed the Hansen Hill General Plan Amendment. She indicated that the precise number of units would be determined at the Tentative Map process. The Planning Cornmission needs to determine if the proposed density of land is appropriate for the site. Ms. 0'Halloran indicated that the visual impacts from I-580 have been addressed in the EIR; however visual impacts from I-680 have not. Ms. 0'Halloran indicated that the saddle on which the single-family development was proposed was an extension of the minor ridge which crossed both the Hansen Hill and Donlan Canyon site. She referred the Commission to Attachment #8, 9 and 10 of the Staff Report. Ms. 0'Halloran discussed Policy 3.3.F regarding restriction of structures on the hillside that appear to project above major ridgelines and Policy 3.3.F regarding preservation and enhancement of ridgelines. Ms. 0'Halloran indicated that the Planning Commission needs to consider and determine what is considered minor and/or major ridgelines. The General Plan does not identify specific ridgeslines as being major or minor. She indicated Regular Meeting PCM-8-96 June 19, 1989 . - ~ ~ that if the issue is not addressed at the General Plan Amendment level, the Planning Commission would need to address the ridgeline/skyline issue at the Tentative Map stage. Ms. 0'Halloran showed a video movie noting the visual impacts of the proposed project. She discussed the ridgeline area, knolls, and visibility impacts from I-580, I-680 and Amador Valley Boulevard, Dublin Boulevard and San Ramon Boulevard. Ms. 0'Halloran discussed the medium-high density land use designation. She indicated that there were four sites within the City that currently used the medium-high density designation. The proposed project would yield 269 to 477 dwelling units which would result in 15.7 dwelling units per acre. Three projects, Village I, Amador Lakes and Kildara have a similar density and range from 2 and 3 story rental units to two story townhouse units. Ms. 0'Halloran indicated that the proposed General Plan Amendment is consistent with the policies relating to transition of single-family neighborhoods and development on flatter portions of the site. Ms. 0'Halloran discussed the open space corridor. She indicated that the Applicant was proposing to designate 164.9 acres to open space. This is consistent with the General Plan policies relating to preservation of oak woodlands and 30~ slopes. Ms. O'Halloran indicated that ownership and maintenance of the proposed open space area should be addressed at the Tentative Map and Prezoning phase. At that time, it would be determined whether the City, East Bay Regional Parks, a Homeowners Association or a combination thereof would own and/or maintain the open space area. The Planning Commission may want to consider at that time whether they want to require the developer to improve the open space area in compliance with the General Plan policies. Mr. Gleason discussed the General Plan Amendment regarding the creek area and replacement of trees and requested the Planning Commission adopt these outlines. Cm. Zika and Staff discussed the density of the medium-high and medium range. Cm. Okun had concerns regarding the ownership and maintenance combinations. Ms. 0'Halloran indicated that the issue would be addressed at the Tentative Map stage and the issues addressed were only possibilities. Mr. Tong indicated that because of the possible configuration of the open space, more than one entity could own and/or maintain it. Mr. Gleason discussed the visual impacts from I-680. Ms. Toth, EIP, indicated that Letter #5 of the EIR and 5-2 on page 3-27 discussed the I-680 visibility issue. A photo montage was done showing the single-family homes; however the Hansen Hill project would screen Donlan Canyon. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~c~~~~~~~~~~~~~c~~c~~~~~c~~~~t~~~~r~~c~~~~~~~~~c~~c~~~~c~~~~~e~~*~~c~~~t~~c~~c~~ Regular Meeting PCM-8-97 June 19, 1989 . - ~ ~ Mr. Gleason indicated that the preservation of the ridgelines was his ultimate goal. Ms. 0'Halloran requested direction from the Planning Commission. Cm. Burnham closed the public hearing. Cm. Zika requested more information on the geotechnical studies and financial burden to the City. Cm. Mack requested more information on geotechnical studies. Cm. Okun requested information on the geology, financial, earthquake and traffic issues. Cm. Burnham concurred with the rest of the Planning Commission. The Commission indicated that they had no concerns with the single-family or medium-high density land use designations. The Commission continued the item to the July 5, 1989 meeting requesting additional information on the geology studies and fiscal analysis. They directed Staff to prepare the appropriate mitigation program and resolutions for the July 17, 1989 meeting. SUBJECT: PA 89-068 Civic Center General Plan Amendment Study to consider desi~nating ~ the Civic Center site a public/semi-public facility or similar land use designation Cm. Burnham opened the public hearing and called for the Staff Report. Mr. Tong indicated that this item was to consider designating the Civic Center siste as a public/semi-public facility. The General Plan currently designates the Civic Center as a"retail/office" and "parks/recreation" site. The General Plan identifies "public/semi-public facilities" as "uses other than parks owned by a public agency that are of sufficient size to warrant differentiation from adjoining uses". Mr. Tong indicated that it would be appropriate for the Planning Commission to 1) adopt a Negative Declaration prior to amending the General Plan; 2) amend the Dublin General Plan - Primary Plannin~ Area map; and 3) amend Section 1.8.1 Land Use Classification adding "Civic Center" as an example under the description of public/semi-public facilities. Mr. Tong indicated that Staff was recommending the Planning Commission adopt resolutions recommending the City Council adopt a Negative Declaration and General Plan Amendment. Cm. Burnham closed the public hearing. On motion from Cm. Zika, seconded by Cm. Mack, and with a vote of 4-0-1, the Planning Commission adopted ~~~~~*~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~e~~~~~~*~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~e~~*~e~~~e~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~c~c~c~~~~ Regular Meeting PCM-8-98 June 19, 1989 , ~ ~ ~ RESOLUTION N0. 89-030 RECOI~R~IENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT A NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR THE CIVIC CENTER GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT RESOLUTION N0. 89-031 RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT THE CIVIC CENTER GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT ~ ~ ~ ~ NEW BUSINESS OR UNFINISHED BUSINESS Subject: Review of 1989-90 Update to the 1988-1993 Capital Improvement Program (CIP) Mr. Ambrose indicated that the Planning Commission is required by law to review the Capital Improvement Program. Last year the Commission reviewed the CIP as part of the 5-year program, this year the Commission is to review any new and updated projects that were incorporated into the CIP. . Mr. Ambrose discussed new pro,jects which included the Dublin Boulevard sidewalk program and library access improvements, He discussed community and recreation improvements which included Dublin High School renovations. Cm. Mack asked if the connection of Mape Park to Nielsen School is one of the improvements. Cm. Zika and Mr. Ambrose discussed the joint use agreement that would determine what the costs would be. Cm. Burnham had concerns over the school facility renovations. Will the City be able to recoup some of the costs in these renovations. Why pay the school district to take care of their tot lot. Mr. Ambrose indicated that there was an intangible element for having these facilities available for the community. The recreation department would like to have these facilities available for their use. There are not a lot of play areas for small children in that area. Cm. Burnham asked if the City was liable for the tot lot. Mr. Ambrose indicated that both sides were liable. The City Council requested that these improvements be a higher priority. It is a matter of community pride and identity. Mr. Ambrose recommended that the Planning Commission take an action on the item and move that the CIP was in conformance with the City's General Plan. He indicated that there were budget hearings scheduled for June 27 and 29, 1989. Cm. Okun requested more information regarding the CIP. He wasn't sure what the correct procedures were in adopting the program. ~~~~~~~~~~r~~~~r~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~*~r~~~~~~~~r~~~~~~~~~~~~r~~r~~r*~~~~~ Regular Meeting PCM-8-99 June 19, 1989 ` • ' ° ~ . Mr. Ambrose indicated that the State Government Code requires the Planning Commission to approve that the CIP was in conformance with the General Plan policies. On motion from Cm. Mack, seconded by Cm. Zika, with a vote of 3-1-1 (Cm. Okun was not familiar enough with the pro~ect to vote in favor of the conformity to the General Plan), the Planning Commission voted that the Capital Improvement Program was in conformance with the City of Dublin's General Plan. * ~ ~ * OTHER BUSINESS Mr. Tong indicated that the next Planning Commission meeting on Wednesday, . July 5, 1989 would consist of 5 public hearing items which included the continuation of Crown Chevrolet, Valley Nissan, Doyle and Donlan Canyon. Cm. Mack indicated that she would be unable to attend the July 5, 1989 meeting. ***~r PLANNING COMMISSIONERS' CONCERNS Cm. Burnham had concerns regarding the excess of lumber at ABC Company on Dougherty Road. Mr. Tong indicated the Building Official was investigating the issue and was preparing documentation for the City Attorney's review. Mr. Ambrose indicated other governmental agencies were also taking enforcement actions. * ~ ~ ~ ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 11:55 p.m. ~ ~ ~ ~ Respectfully submitted, nning Commiss on ir son Laurence L. Tong Planning Director ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~~~~~~~~c~~~~~~~~~~~~c~~~~r~*~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~e*~~~~~~~~~~c~c~~~~~~~c*~~~~~~~~~r~~~c~c Regular Meeting PCM-8-100 June 19, 1989