Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Minutes 12-16-1991 _ .1...-._..~ , ~ ~ • Regular Meetinq - December 16, 1991 A regular meeting of the City of Dublin Planning Commission was held on December 16, 1991, in the Dublin Civic Center Council Chambers. The meeting was called to order at 7:30 p.m. by Commissioner Burnham. * * * * ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Burnham, North, Barnes, and Rafanelli; Laurence L. Tong, Planning Director; Libby Silver, City Attorney; Brenda Gillarde, Planning Consultant; and Gail Adams, Recording Secretary. Absent: Commissioner Zika * * * * 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 None * * * * MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING The minutes of December 2, 1991 were continued to the next meeting. * * * * ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None * * * * WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS Mr. Tong indicated that a couple of letters had been received for the Planning Commission's review. * * * * PUBLIC HEARINGS SUBJECT: PA 91-067 Dublin Municipal Ordinance Amendment Management Audit (continued from the December 2, 1991 Planning Regular Meeting PCM-1991-156 December 16, 1991 [12-16min] . ~ ~ • Commission meetinq - to be continued to the January 6, 1992 Planning Commission meeting) Mr. Tong indicated that the City Attorney had not been able to complete her review of the Draft Ordinance. Staff recommended that the Commission continue this item to the January 6, 1992 Planning Commission meeting in order to provide the City Attorney time to complete her review. With a unanimous vote from the Planning Commission, this item was continued to the January 6, 1992 meeting. SUBJECT: PA 88-44 Western Dublin General Plan Amendment, Specific Plan, Environmental Impact Report (EIR), Prezoning, Amendment to the Sphere of Influence, and Annexation to the City of Dublin and the Dublin San Ramon Services District Ms. Brenda Gillarde welcomed everyone to the public hearing. She introduced the Applicants, Staff, and Consultants who were working on the Western Dublin project. Ms. Gillarde briefed the public on the public hearing procedure. She indicated that the purpose of the public hearing was to hear from the public regarding their concerns or comments. Tonight's meeting would be focused on the Specific Plan document. This document was available in the City's Planning Department. After reviewing each chapter, there would be a public comment period. The Planning Commission would then be able to make their comments. Ms. Gillarde pointed out that there would be no decisions made at this public hearing. She asked the Planning Commission if they would like to set a time limit on the Western Dublin public hearing. The Planning Commission decided that the hearing for this project would end at 10:30 p.m. Ms. Gillarde gave a brief overview of the project. The applications ; were submitted in 1988. Since that time, the project has been refined. Study sessions were completed and background documents were produced. She indicated that there has been a lot of work done on the project to date; however, they still had a long way to go. There would be a series of Planning Commission and City Council public hearings. Ms. Gillarde oriented the public on where the project was located on the wall map and indicated that the project was for a golf course residential community. There would be a"Village" commercial center, three parks, a school, fire station, as well as a park and ride lot. Ms. Gillarde indicated that most of the open space would be preserved (approximately 60~); and there would be a linear park and regional trail corridor within the project. Ms. Gillarde indicated that the Cronin property would consist of 125 residential units. There would be no access to the other section of Regular Meeting PCM-1991-157 December 16, 1991 [12-16min] . . . ~ • the project and Brittany Lane would be extended into the Cronin development. Mr. Tong discussed the planning application process to the audience. Members of the audience were concerned with the Cronin development. They indicated that the Cronin project had a severe impact on them and asked if the hearing process could be split so that the Cronin area could be discussed separately. Mr. Tong understood the audiences concerns. He indicated that the project involved both the Cronin and Eden Development Group. The Planning Commission can alter the components of the Western Dublin project; however, the project, as a whole, would go to a public hearing. The City Council approved the study of the Western Dublin project, which consisted of both the Eden Development and Cronin areas as one application. Mr. Tong indicated that separate components of the project would allow separate discussions and recommendations. He requested the audience make their concerns at the appropriate time. Mr. Hegarty asked what would happen if the Cronin area was not developed. Would their be an ingress/egress concern or would the City be separated? He asked why the property had to be annexed. Mr. Tong clarified the logic for including the Cronin property in the project. Without the Cronin area there would be a hole in the donut of approximately 175 acres. However, the City wanted to study the area comprehensively. Annexation could occur without the Cronin property. The Cronin property and the Eden Development property are contiguous to the existing City limits. The Staff and Commission discussed the procedures for reviewing the Specific Plan and General Plan Amendment documents. The Specific Plan was currently being reviewed while the General Plan Amendment would be discussed at a later date. A member of the audience indicated that the City's current General Plan did not allow the proposed development and asked why the City was changing the policies. Who does this benefit? Ms. Gillarde indicated that a request was made by the Applicant/ Property Owners for a General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan. The City Council directed Staff to proceed with the planning process and study all impacts to the City. The current General Plan indicates that a Specific Plan needs to be completed for Western Dublin prior to any development. Development policies for Western Dublin are contained in the Specific Plan. Mr. Tong indicated that the hearing needed to proceed. The audience would have an opportunity to voice their concerns after the review of each chapter of the Specific Plan. Regular Meeting PCM-1991-158 December 16, 1991 [12-16min] . ~ ~ • Ms. Libby Silver, City Attorney, indicated that the City Council directed Staff and the Commission to study an amendment to the General Plan for land uses in the Western Dublin area. The Specific Plan was similar to the General Plan; however it would be more specific. The public hearing was to hear public comments. The General Plan Amendment would be approved first. The City Council had the final say on the General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan. Mr. Hegarty indicated that the Sphere of Influence was under the County's control. He asked if any land within the Sphere of Influence could be taken away from the Cit~. Ms. Silver clarified that LAFCO made the decisions on the Sphere of Influence boundaries. The sphere of influence can be amended by LAFCO. Mr. Mike McKissick, Eden Development Group, representative for various Western Dublin property owners, stated that he was under contract with the property owners. The Cronin property was separate from his development. His project has been going on for three years and felt that the public hearing process should be conducted from the podium. Ms. Gillarde continued the review of the Specific Plan. The first chapter discussed Land Use and Housing. She asked for any public comments. Greg Tietbohl had concerns regarding the additional traffic on Rolling Hills Drive, Silvergate Drive and Dublin Boulevard. It would cause additional accidents and speeding episodes. He requested the Commission to look at alternative routes. Cm. Burnham reminded the audience that they were reviewing the "Land Use and Housing" chapter of the Specific Plan. Doug Abbott had concerns with the potential affordable housing proposal. He felt that affordable housing should be built elsewhere, closer to available transportation . Marjorie LaBar, PARC, had concerns regarding grading and visibility. She felt that the proposed grading was extensive and this would scar the hillsides/visibility. The Cronin property was too steep to build on. Shirley Corallo had concerns with the affordable housing concept. She requested the houses be built to the "Bordeaux Estate" standards. She felt that the property values would decrease if affordable housing was built in this area. Peter Parrish had concerns regarding the available water to support the development. Glenn Halperin felt that the decisions had already been made on this project. He wanted the land to stay "as is". He asked where the money was coming from to support this project. Regular Meeting PCM-1991-159 December 16, 1991 [12-16min] • ~ • Robert Patterson had concerns regarding the impact on the existing hills. He felt that 20 acre lots would be sufficient and would decrease the impacts on the area. Rich MacDougall questioned the need for additional housing at this time. Diana Day had concerns regarding the need for more housing and available open space. Narinder Shargill questioned if it was worth doing the project at this time. He felt that the process should be started over. Mr. Tong responded that the City was in the process of reviewing the detailed plans for the development. A final determination would be made after this review process. Sherry Retton had concerns regarding the cost of the project and asked who was paying for this development. She also felt that future developments should be disclosed to potential buyers in the area and asked the City Attorney if it was illegal not to disclose this information. Mr. Tong indicated that the property owners and developers were paying the processing fee. The infrastructure and maintenance costs would be discussed at a later date. Ms. Silver referred Ms. Retton to a real estate attorney to answer her "disclosure" concern. Ms. Retton reiterated that the proposed development was not disclosed to her when she bought her property. She had concerns regarding the Cronin development, the Brittany Lane road extension and possible market depreciation of the existing homes. Mr. Hegarty felt that the residential development planning process should continue. The Commission needed to work with Mr. McKissick. There were other options available. The City needed to develop the land and work with the surrounding property owners and developers. With a golf course, this development would compliment the area - similar to the Blackhawk area in Danville. Mr. Hegarty indicated the Commission and Council needed to consider the development carefully with reasonable growth. We should not lag behind or we will become stagnant. He indicated that he had moved here in 1962 and there wasn't any development on the west side of Dublin. The hills were nice to look at,- why not let development in to see the area. Tony Woodward felt that the area should be developed at a slower pace. Earl Hoifield opposed rezoning the land. There should be a clear benefit to the public before the land is developed. Residential neighborhoods are not an adequate tax base for services. He referred to the Bordeaux Estates development and indicated that they had gone Regular Meeting PCM-1991-160 December 16, 1991 [12-16min] ~ ~ - through several developers. He felt that the affordable housing was not feasible for the Western Dublin area. Mike McKissick indicated that a complete plan was now being studied. The current proposal had 60~ of the land in permanent open space areas. There were several types of housing - mixed uses with low to high density. The property owners should have the right to develop their land. Thirteen landowners agreed to the proposal. The Planning Commission took a 10 minute break. On returning, everyone was present. Cm. Burnham clarified that the public hearing was open. Mr. Tong clarified that financial resources and services were addressed in Section 10 of the Specific Plan. The Housing Element requires the City to adopt an ordinance for low-moderate housing for any development with 20 or more units. The City is considering in- lieu fees to satisfy the affordable housing requirements. This ordinance has not been adopted yet. Ms. Gillarde referred to page 3-20 of the Specific Plan which stated that in-lieu fees would be paid instead of developing affordable housing on the Cronin property. Ms. Gillarde continued the Specific Plan discussion for Chapter 4- Traffic and Circulation. She indicated that there would be three external improvements made: 1) Dublin Boulevard Extension to Schaefer Road; 2) Schaefer interchange and 3) Eden Canyon interchange. She emphasized that there would be internal improvements which included several arterials and bike and pedestrian paths. There would be two access points to the Milestone property: Brittany Lane and Hansen Drive. She then asked for public comments. Peter Parrish had concerns regarding the speeding traffic on Rolling Hills Drive. The existing stops signs were not being used. There was a high potential for traffic accidents. John Anderson indicated that there will be an additional 375 vehicles generated from the Cronin development. Brittany Lane would need to be widened. He was concerned with the excess speeding vehicles. He felt that there was a better solution and wanted to preserve the quality of life. David Bewley concurred with Mr. Hegarty's discussion/concerns. He felt that the City should think carefully about the development and consider the quality of life for all individuals. The City should not degrade the area. He indicated that the Brittany Lane extension should not be allowed. Other alternative routes should be considered which would benefit everyone. Sherry Redmond concurred with Mr. Bewley. Other alternative roads should be looked at. The ridgeline access road would be a nice compromise. Regular Meeting PCM-1991-161 December 16, 1991 [12-16min) i i - Marjorie LaBar, PARC, had concerns regarding the financial burden of the road improvements. She asked how the road can be built without a good economy. She felt the Cronin property was not suited for housing and the ridgeline road was unacceptable. Mr. Hegarty had concerns regarding road and housing development. He referred to Amador Valley Boulevard and Village Parkway and hoped that the development was done correctly the first time. Jerry Weiss had concerns regarding the Cronin development. The increased traffic on Brittany Lane clearly violates Policy 4-11 of the Specific Plan. Greg Tietbohl had concerns regarding the Brittany Lane extension. He indicated there were no problems with the road capacity; however felt alternative routes should be considered. Andrea MacKenzie indicated that the East Bay Regional Park District would like to work with the City to protect the ridgelines. The Specific Plan shows potential impacts if a road is constructed over the ridge. She opposed the development of the road over the ridge. Tony Woodward had concerns regarding the construction trucks on Rolling Hills Drive, the quality of life, and increased school population. Les Jardine opposed the Brittany Lane extension. He owns a home on Brittany Lane and indicated there could be potential accidents with the increased traffic, especially while backing out of the driveway. He felt that the traffic study was preliminary and inaccurate. He had concerns regarding grading and the potential speeding traffic. Glenn Brown, Milestone Development, representative for the Cronin property owners, referred to Policy 4-10 which prohibited the road over the ridgeline. He felt that this policy should be relaxed and the connection should be allowed. This would lessen the traffic impacts on the existing roads and there would be minimal grading to the area. Shirley Corallo concurred with G1enn Brown. The Brittany Lane extension should be eliminated. The emergency access road was already visible and brown asphalt would obscure the road. She hoped the Planning Commission would develop the proposed ridgeline road. Ann Books had concerns regarding the Brittany Lane extension and concurred with the other citizens. Other options should be considered. Susan Bewley indicated that the Planning Commission had the duty to create a safe area for children. If the traffic increased, there would be more potential for traffic accidents. An alternate road was needed. Mike McKissick indicated that it was the intention of the developer to be more creative. Page 4-9 through 4-11 of the Specific Plan was very Regular Meeting PCM-1991-162 December 16, 1991 [12-16minJ . • , • ~ ~ specific. There should be more flexibility to the Specific Plan regarding road widths. He indicated that the developer pays for the processing of the project. Bill Banse supported all expressed concerns. He had concerns regarding the Brittany Lane access, the quality of life, amount of traffic, emergency exits, and access roads. He felt that the Cronin development should be reduced to 74 units which would allow one access road over the ridgeline. Myles Spann felt that an access road to Valley Christian Center could be an alternative route. He opposed the extension of Brittany Lane. Mr. Tong clarified that the access road from the Cronin development would link to the Hansen Hill development, which links to the Valley Christian Center. Chuck Gudian concurred with Ms. MacKenzie of the East Bay Regional Park District. He felt the City should work with the park district. He wanted to see the ridgeline road developed. Manual and Sharron Marcos did not speak; however, opposed the proposed development. Ms. Gillarde concluded the discussion and indicated that the meeting would be continued to the January 6, 1992 Planning Commission meeting. * * * * NEW OR UNFINISHED BUSINESS None OTHER BUSINESS Mr. Tong indicated that at the December 23, 1991 City Council meeting, Staff would be reviewing the nonconforming signs and discussing the Alameda County General Plan process. PLANNING COMMISSIONERS' CONCERNS Ms. Barnes requested that the Specific Plan discussions be split into various public hearings with specific chapters being discussed at each meeting. For example, Chapters 5 through 8 could be discussed at the January 6th meeting. Chapters 9 through 11 could be discussed at the next public hearing. This would allow the community a better chance to comment on specific items at a particular meeting, without having to wait through the entire evening to find out the item would be continued. Cm. North felt that Staff might need to schedule meetings specifically for the Western Dublin project. Regular Meeting PCM-1991-163 December 16, 1991 [12-16min] ? i • ' ~ • ~'The Planning Commission and Staff decided to have the Western Dublin project reviewed at the January 6th Planning Commission meeting. That meeting would be continued to a special meeting on January 14th. * * * * ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 11:00 p.m. Respectfully submitted, -ea°~ , ~ lanni Commis~ on hairperson r Laurence L. Tong Planning Director Regular Meeting PCM-1991-164 December 16, 1991 [12-16min]