Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Minutes 11-17-1992 ' • • e .i ~ Special Meetinq - November 17, 1992 A special meeting of the City of Dublin Planning Commission was held on November 17, 1992, in the Dublin Civic Center Council Chambers. The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Commissioner Zika. ROLL CALL Commissioners Barnes, Burnham, North, Rafanelli and Zika; Laurence L. Tong, Planning Director; Brenda Gillarde, Planning Consultant; Libby Silver, City Attorney; and Gail Adams, Recording Secretary. SUBJECT: PA 87-031 Eastern Dublin Responses to Comments regarding the Specific Plan - Part II Cm. Zika indicated that this was a continuation of the November 16th meeting and discussion would start with Letter #5 from the Dublin San Ramon Services District. Ms. Gillarde indicated that most of the comments dealt with clarifying information. Staff has agreed with most of the comments. The exceptions are outlined in the staff report. Ms. Gillarde reviewed Comment #1 regarding the inclusion of SB 1019 within the Specific Plan. Staff has no jurisdiction over mandating water or wastewater services and recommended that the text remain as shown in the Specific Plan. No comments were made by the Commission and with a straw vote of 5-0, the Commission concurred with Staff's recommendation. Ms. Gillarde continued on to Comment #2 regarding wastewater storage areas. It would be premature to specify storage tank locations at this time and Staff recommended the text remain as is. No comments were made by the Commission and with a straw vote of 5-0, the Commission concurred with Staff's recommendation. Ms. Gillarde went on to Comment #3 regarding recycled water service with Table 9.1. Staff recommended that the table add a third bullet under "Phasing-Developer" which would state "secure permits in conjunction with DSRSD for recycled water." Ms. Gillarde indicated that DSRSD has adopted policies requiring the use of recycled water in its service area. No comments were made by the Commission and with a straw vote of 5-0, the Commission concurred with 5taff's recommendation. Ms. Gillarde reviewed Comment #4 regarding utility and connection fees and financing alternatives. Staff recommended revisions to the text to include reference to fees from DSRSD and Zone 7 and reference to potential fees for the TWA project. Special Meeting PCM-1992-234 November 17, 1992 [11-17min] • • • . , , , Ms. Gillarde pointed out that TWA has certified their EIR; however it has not selected a project alternative. No comments were made by the Commission and with a straw vote of 5-0, the Commission concurred with Staff's recommendation. Ms. Gillarde moved on to Comment #5 regarding utility impact fees. This issue will be discussed at the specific development review process. Staff recommended that the text remain as is. No comments were made by the Commission and with a straw vote of 5-0, the Commission concurred with Staff's recommendations. Ms. Gillarde continued on to Comment #6 regarding Appendix 6, requesting an update to reflect the TWA project capacity requests. These figures are not yet known and Staff recommended this language not be inserted. No comments were made by the Commission and with a straw vote of 5-0, the Commission concurred with Staff's recommendation. Ms. Gillarde moved on to Letter #6 from the City of Livermore. Comment #1 requested a reduction in the development of Doolan Canyon. She commented that Doolan Canyon is outside the Specific Plan area and 5taff recommended that the text remain as is. No comments were made by the Commission and with a straw vote of 5-0, the Commission concurred with Staff's recommendations. Ms. Gillarde referred to Comment #2 regarding the proposed Livermore Airport protection zone. The land uses do not conflict with the currently approved Airport Protection Zone. Staff recommended that the text remain as is. Cm. Rafanelli asked what happens if the updated Airport Protection Zone plan is approved. Will the land uses have to be revised for that area. Mr. Tong indicated that if the plan becomes an adopted airport land use policy, the City Council would have to override the vote with a 4/5ths majority to allow the proposed land uses. The City would, however, have to accept certain liabilities. Cm. Rafanelli had concerns with land uses, such as schools and multi- family homes, being developed within the airport flight pattern. The City has a responsibility to prevent hazards within that area because of the potential for airplane accidents. Cm. North indicated that the Livermore Airport was privately owned and felt that there were other flight patterns. We had na obligations to the City of Livermore. Cm. Rafanelli disagreed and felt that the airport was an asset for the Tri-Valley area. As the valley grows, we could see more commuter Special Meeting PCM-1992-235 November 17, 1992 [11-17min] . . ~ fliqhts and could be an alternative to the traffic problems on the freeways. Cm. North stated that there were too many residential areas around the airport to allow commercial flights. Mr. Tong indicated that the Livermore report identifies noise and safety concerns. He noted that there were hundreds of existing dwelling units, as well as schools, adjacent to the airport and within the present airport protection area which were much closer than eastern Dublin. These people will be far more impacted than anyone within eastern Dublin. Cm. Rafanelli pointed out that it was unfortunate that these homes and schools were located so close to the airport; however, we should not repeat our mistakes. Mr. Tong stated that Staff was in agreement with the current noise and safety standards within the eastern Dublin area. There is a problem with the impacts of the existing residents. Even with an 80~ increase in airport operations and projections to 2010, there is no documentation showing significant impacts to the eastern Dublin area. There is merit to an airport protection area; however Livermore's report indicates that the 65 CNEL contour lies south of I-580. Cm. Burnham indicated it was his understanding that the proposed airport protection zone would allow single-family residence and not allow schools or commercial uses. What is the difference? Mr. Tong explained that the City of Livermore proposal would not allow any type of residential use or schools within the buffer zone. There are already hundreds of dwelling units, schools and parks in the proposed APA within the City of Livermore. These people would be the most impacted by the proposed protection area. The report shows these impacts as south of I-580. There is no exceeding of standards north of I-580. Cm. North reiterated that it was not Dublin's responsibility to lessen the impacts of the Livermore Airport. Livermore needed to change their flight patterns. The Commission described alternative flight patterns the airport could use. No further comments were made by the Commission and with a straw vote of 5-0, the Commission concurred with Staff's recommendation. Ms. Gillarde continued on to Comment #3 regarding traffic volumes generated by commercial/industrial development along Dublin Boulevard. There is information on page 51 of the Specific Plan that deals with this concern and Staff recommended the text remain as is. No comments were made by the Commission and with a straw vote of 5-0, the Commission concurred with Staff's recommendation. Special Meeting PCM-1992-236 November 17, 1992 [11-17min] ~ • Ms. Gillarde continued on to Letter #7 which commented on Fiberoptics. Staff recommended revising Chapter 5, section 5.7 to add a reference to consider the use of Fiberoptics to reduce daily commuting traffic. Cm. North asked why be limited to Fiberoptics and requested that the language state, "...Fiberoptics, or other means to reduce daily commuting...". No further comments were made by the Commission and with a straw vote of 5-0, the Commission concurred to add Cm. North's additional language to Staff's recommended revision. Ms. Gillarde went on to Letter #8 which commented on the junior high school location. She referred to Staff's response to Comment #1-1. Staff recommended retaining the text as shown. No comments were made by the Commission and with a straw vote of 5-0, the Commission concurred with Staff's recommendation. Ms. Gillarde moved on to Letter #9 from John Anderson, a Dublin resident. Comment #9-2 referred to violation of Policy 4-5 for the Tassajara Village Center. The development is not intended to be laid over the creek. The creek would be an integral part of the developed area. Staff recommended that the text remain unchanged. No comments were made by the Commission and with a straw vote of 5-0, the Commission concurred with Staff's recommendation. Ms. Gillarde indicated that the rest of Mr. Anderson's comments were editorial in nature. She briefly reviewed Comments 9-1; 9-3; 9-4; 9-6 through 9-10 and indicated Staff's position which were detailed in the staff report. No comments were made by the Commission and with a straw vote of 5-0, the Commission concurred with Staff's recommendation. Ms. Gillarde continued on to Letter #10 from the Preserve Area Ridgelands Committee. She indicated that the issues within this letter have been addressed in previous responses and Staff felt that no additional action was required by the Commission. No comments were made by the Commission and with a straw vote of 5-0, the Commission concurred with Staff's recommendation. Ms. Gillarde moved on to Letter #11 from Gregg Anderson regarding redesignating the open space land use on his property to residential uses. She pointed out the site on the wall map. Staff recommended modifying the text to clarify the purpose of the foreground hills and the potential to develop the backside of the hills as long as the ridgeline was preserved. Cm. North felt that Mr. Anderson wanted to develop his property and asked Staff for clarification. Special Meeting PCM-1992-237 November 17, 1992 [11-17min] • ~ . Ms. Gillarde explained that most of his property was designated single-family and indicated that Mr. Anderson has development potential. She indicated that the back side of the "green" area on the wall map could be developed; however the front side needed to be kept undeveloped. Cm. North asked if these hills were over 30~ grade. Mr. Hammond stated that the hills were designated as "visually sensitive". This section of hills forms the skyline from I-580. Approximately 8.8 acres of the Anderson property is in open space. It is permissible to have units developed behind the ridge as long as they do not extend above it. Cm. Burnham asked if the visual impacts were the only reason the land is not developable. Ms. Gillarde indicated yes. This would create a visual buffer for the development that would occur behind it. She pointed out several developments that were proposed behind the hills. Cm. North asked if the open space area would be broken as indicated in the letter. Ms. Gillarde referred to Croak Road which already existed; however the land would be connected. Cm. Burnham felt that it would be more feasible to develop this piece of raw land since there would be development all around it. This portion of land would stick out. Ms. Gillarde pointed out that this issue was discussed at several study sessions and the Council felt that it was important to preserve this area as a visual resource. Mr. Hammond explained that if development was to occur on the ridgelines, those houses would form the skyline. The General Plan recommends against this type of development. Mr. Tong referred to Appendix A-46 which shows the land use mix on the Anderson property. He reviewed the acreage of development and indicated that there was a fair amount of development that was allowed on this property. No further comments were made by the Commission and with a straw vote of 5-0, the Commission concurred with Staff's recommendation. Ms. Gillarde indicated that the Commission had requested that certain policies of the General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan be reworded. She referred to General Plan Amendment Policy 3.1B. She reviewed the three requirements for considering development in areas over 30% slope. 5pecial Meeting PCM-1992-238 November 17, 1992 [11-17minJ • • , Cm. North had concerns with requirement #2 which stated "...a minor portion...". This could be as much as 49o and he felt that something more specific should be used, such as "under 20~". The Commission discussed several language options for requirement #2 and indicated that the wording should be "less than 20~" instead of "a minor portion". They clarified that all three criteria had to be met in order to allow development on 30~ slopes. Ms. Gillarde continued on to General Plan Amendment Policy 3.2A regarding the Williamson Act. She reviewed the revised wording shown in the staff report with the Commission. Cm. North requested that the word "generally" be struck from the language. This word weakens the statement. The Commission concurred and requested Staff to delete the word "generally". No further comments were made by the Commission and with a straw vote of 5-0, the Commission, with the two revisions requested, concurred with Staff's recommendation. Ms. Gillarde indicated that this was the end of Staff's presentation on the Eastern Dublin project. OTHER BUSINESS None PLANNING COMMISSION'S CONCERNS Cm. Burnham had a concern regarding the upcoming Council agenda regarding the appointment of Planning Commissioners. He objected to the Mayor having the power to appoint or discharge a Commissioner. He felt that a majority vote process would be more appropriate. Cm. Barnes pointed out that the existing procedures allow a Councilmember to discharge its appointed Commissioner. Cm. Burnham explained that he was concerned that it took a majority vote to appoint a Commissioner and at the same time, the Mayor had the power to discharge that Commissioner. Cm. North understood that the new process is the same as the old procedures; except that the Mayor wants to have the same authority to appoint and discharge the Commissioners. He asked Mr. Tong for clarification. Mr. Tong explained that under the existing ordinance the individual Councilmember selects each Commissioner and announces this selection at the next regular meeting. They do not have to confirm the appointment. The Commissioners can be removed by the individual appointing Councilmember. State law provides that if there is a directed elected Mayor, the Mayor can appoint the Commissioners, Special Meeting PCM-1992-239 November 17, 1992 [11-17min] . • • , , . _ subject to confirmation from the Council. However, the law does not state clearly how the removal process is determined. Mr. Tong further explained that a subcommittee has been formed to screen and make recommendations to the Council. This subcommittee consists of the Mayor and a Council person. This recommendation will be reviewed by the Mayor and the appointments will be subject to a majority of the Council. At this last Council meeting, an ordinance was introduced to allow the Mayor the sole discretion to remove an individual Commissioner. The second reading comes up at the next meeting. The ordinance takes 30 days after that to take effect. Mr. Tong indicated that in the interim, the Mayor is requesting that the current Commissioners continue to discuss and make recommendations on the Eastern Dublin studies. Cm. North had concerns with Wayne's Gun Shop. The van has been sitting for awhile and has a flat tire. This van will block the center's sign. Mr. Tong indicated that he would have the Zoning Investigator look into it. Cm. Zika continued the meeting to December 7, 1992 at 7:00 p.m. The meeting was adjourned at 8:10 p.m. Respec fully submitted, r-~-r' annin ommissi Chairperson Laurence L. ong Planning Director Special Meeting PCM-1992-240 November 17, 1992 [11-17min]