Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Minutes 10-29-1992 _ • ~ ~ ' • Special Meetinq - October 29, 1992 A special meeting of the City of Dublin Planning Commission was held on October 29, 1992, in the Dublin Civic Center Council Chambers. The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Commissioner Zika. ROLL CALL: Present: Commissioners Barnes, Burnham, North, Rafanelli and Zika; Laurence L. Tong, Planning Director; Brenda Gillarde, Planning Consultant; Libby Silver, City Attorney; and Fawn Holman, Recording Secretary. PUBLIC MEETING SUBJECT: PA 87-031 Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment, Specific Plan, Draft Environmental Impact Report and related pro~ect implementation includinq Amendment to the Sphere of Influence, and Annexation to the City of Dublin and the Dublin San Ramon Services District (DSRSD) Cm. Zika indicated that this hearing had been continued from the October 21st meeting. Ms. Gillarde requested that the meeting dates for future eastern Dublin meetings be changed to accommodate the multitude of comments to the draft EIR. She indicated that it would be impossible to complete responses to comments by the November 2, 1992, meeting and suggested cancelling the November 2nd meeting and have the next meeting on Monday, November 16th. She suggested that the Commissioners decide on a second meeting date within that week. The Commissioners approved the cancellation of the November 2nd meeting and set the next two meeting dates for Monday, November 16th and Tuesday, November 17th. Both meetings would begin at 7:00 p.m. Ms. Gillarde recommended that Cm. Zika close the written comment period for the eastern Dublin Draft Environmental Impact Report. Cm. Zika asked the audience for any more written comments. When none were presented, he closed the written comment period for the eastern Dublin Draft EIR. Ms. Gillarde suggested they conclude the responses to comments on the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment, which had been continued from the October 21st meeting. Cm. Zika approved the continuation. Ms. Gillarde opened with Item 1, comments from a letter from Ted Fairfield, dated September 7, 1992. She read comment 1-1 of the October 21st staff report regarding the terms "ridgeland" and "disfigure". Ms. Gillarde then responded with Staff recommendations and asked the Commissioners for comments. Special Meeting PCM-1992-202 October 29, 1992 [10-29min] e . ~ ' There were no comments from the Commissioners and there was a 5-0 straw vote concurring with Staff's recommendations. Ms. Gillarde continued on to comment 1-2 regarding 30~ slopes, indicating the modifications recommended by Staff. Cm. North expressed concern that the verbiage standing on its own was unclear and confusing and suggested the following modifications: add the word "slope" after the term "30~"; add the words "if the area to be developed is less than 3 acres in size..."; and add "and is primarily located within an area that is less than 30~." Commissioners and Staff discussed the definition of "30~ slope". Mr. Tong defined with the following example of a 10-acre parcel: Most of the 10 acres is under 30~ slope. Up to 3 of those 10 acres has a slope of more than 30%. Under that circumstance, we could consider that development on that 10 acres, even though on 3 of those 10 acres, it has slopes over 30°s. Cm. North questioned if a 4-acre development which had 3 acres an a 30~ slope (90~ of the total area) be allowed? Mr. Tong responded that it could be considered. Commissioners and Staff discussed qualifying the policy by adding that a proposal could be considered as long as the area of the 30°s slope is less than 20-30% of the total site. Cm. Zika requested that Staff re-word the policy with the changes discussed and bring it back to the next meeting. Ms. Gillarde continued on to comment 1-3 regarding oak woodlands, riparian vegetation and natural creeks as open space and indicated the modifications recommended by Staff. Cm. North expressed concern with the term adequate mitigation to replace disturbed resources" and guestioned Staff on how a creekbed could be replaced if removed. Ms. Gillarde acknowledged Cm. North's concerns and assured him that whenever a streambed is modified, permits are needed from the Corps of Engineers and the Department of Fish and Game, who would study the proposed modification. Mr. Tong, verifying Ms. Gillarde's statement, stated that prior to any construction or modification, permits from the Corps of Engineers and Fish and Game must be secured. He also indicated that substantial fines would be levied if work was done without permits. Cm. North recalled a proposed project for the Cronin property, in conjunction with the western Dublin development, regarding filling in a streambed. He stated he didn't recall any mention of securing a permit from the Corps of Engineers. Again, he expressed concern about Special Meeting PCM-1992-203 October 29, 1992 [10-29min] . + ~ ~ ~ the term "adequate mitigation" and questioned how a streambed, if removed, could be replaced. Ms. Gillarde replied that the idea was to allow the decision-making body to determine what the adequate mitigation would be. To not remove the streambed would be a possibility, but it would need to be evaluated at the time the proposal was made. Cm. Zika questioned if the decision-making body would be allowed to deny the proposal if they felt the mitigation was inadequate. Ms. Gillarde replied that the wording of the policy would give the decision-making body that discretion. There were no further comments from the Commissioners and there was a 4-1 straw vote, with Cm. North opposing the proposed modification recommended by Staff. Ms. Gillarde continued on to comment 1-4 regarding the cancellation of the Williamson Act, indicating Staff's recommendation that the wording remain unchanged. Cm. Zika indicated that he did not see any reason to change the policy and asked for any other comments. Cm. North questioned Staff concerning comments from the State regarding the City's ability to approach property owners in regard to the Williamson Act. He did not recall what the State had said, but thought the comment referenced a time frame. Ms. Gillarde responded that, to her knowledge, the State felt the amended language being recommended for eastern Dublin was encouraging the cancellation of contracts. This was the State's main concern; she did not recall a mention of time frames. Mr. Hammond indicated that part of the letter from the State was confusing because they referenced the western Dublin policy, and interpreted it as encouraging the cancellation of contracts for eastern Dublin. He indicated that the policy was saying that the City did not support the cancellation of the policy, but is trying to be flexible. Mr. Hammond further explained that in developing a comprehensive plan, rather than deleting the land under contract, the Applicants looked at what might happen to that area in the future. Cm. Zika asked Mr. Hammond to be a more specific about which sites he was talking about. Mr. Hammond responded that most of the contract lands affected were in the far eastern portion of the planning area; most of the Specific Plan area was not affected and most of the contract terminations would probably occur before any construction began in that area. Special Meeting PCM-1992-204 October 29, 1992 [10-29min] . s ~ ~ Cm. North questioned that if the modification to take off the 2-year restriction were made, could the City approach someone who has not notified the State and suggest or discuss the termination of their contract? That would not be allowed under the current policy. Ms. Gillarde responded that Staff would need to investigate whether the land was under Williamson Act contract and if that contract had not been filed for renewal. She referred to a figure in the EIR under 3.1-C that showed the eastern Dublin area and which agreements were in force and which had not been renewed. Cm. North agreed with Ms. Gillarde, but said he was speaking specifically about the change suggested in 3.2A. If the last portion of the sentence was deleted, the City could conceivably go to property owners who had not notified the authorities that they did not want to renew their contract, and discuss their options with them. Mr. Tong explained that the previous policy provided no specific proposals for conversion to urban use consistent with the General Plan could be considered sooner than two years prior to contract expiration. This created a dilemma because a proposal could not be considered for future planning until the contract was within two years of expiration. So if a property owner had a legitimate, compelling public reason for considering cancellation, the City could not talk with them about long-term planning until two years prior to contract expiration. Mr. Tong further explained the proposed modification states the City does not generally support cancellation of the Williamson Act unless we can be shown that compelling public reason. When there is the potential compelling reason, then we may begin discussing future plans. That doesn't mean that it would be cancelled unless the necessary findings, which are very specific State laws, are made. Cm. North apologized for not being able to make his point clear. He wanted to clarify that if the City took a piece of property for which the owner had not notified the authorities that they did not intend to renew the contract, the owner would have nine years left to run on it. Then, if this portion of the policy was deleted, the City could, at any time, discuss with the property owner the possibilities of using their land, even though they have not notified the authorities. If they had notified the authorities, the City could, several years in advance of the cancellation, discuss their options with them. However, we could also go to the property owners who had not notified the proper authorities. Ms. Silver responded that the City typically does not approach property owners and suggest cancellation of the Williamson Act. Cm. North concurred with Ms. Silver; however, suggested that a developer might approach property owners. He didn't mind removing the restriction of two years prior to expiration as long as it is stated that the City cannot approach a property owner until after they've notified authorities of their intent to cancel their contract. Special Meeting PCM-1992-205 October 29, 1992 [10-29min] , . ~ ~ Cm. Zika indicated that since most of the parcels involved were in the very outskirts of the project, he saw no reason to change anything. Ms. Silver reiterated that a propert~ owner can only cancel the contract if the City Council makes certain affirmative findings, which are very specific, and are set forth in State law. The land owner just can't cancel the contract; he has to apply to the City or appropriate agency. Cm. North suggested a modification to the two-year restriction wording to read as follows: "...may be considered if the property owner has notified the proper authorities of intent not to renew." Mr. Hammond explained how the Williamson Act is strictly a tax arrangement; it does not prohibit anyone from considering what they want to do on their land. Part of the confusion might be in the language. The wording states that applications for development not be considered for two years prior to termination of the contract, and given how long it takes to get through approval process, many times applicants may want to begin more than two years in advance. However, the City may not necessarily deal with an application more than two years in advance. Cm. North reiterated his suggested wording which would remove the two year limit, but still preclude anyone from talking to the land owner before they notified the proper authorities. Cm. Zika expressed concern about the land owner getting a tax break while planning how to make the most money from of his land and again indicated he didn't see any reasons to change the current policy. Cm. North acknowledged the reason to change the two year limit, because as Mr. Hammond stated, development planning takes longer now, and the land owner would end up paying regular taxes for several years before the plans are approved or disapproved. However, he still thought the possibility existed that the City could approach someone who has no plans of developing land other than for agricultural purposes. He requested a stipulation be added which stated that the City could not talk to anyone until the proper authorities had been notified of the intent to cancel contract. Cm. Burnham asked what would stop anybody from approaching the land owner about what they can do for him and questioned what was wrong with someone planning ahead? The Commissioners further discussed time limits involved in the Williamson Act and how to break the contract. Ms. 5ilver clarified the two ways to break the contract: 1) give a notice of non-renewal after which the property owner will have another 9 years to run, and 2) approach the Board of Supervisors (if it's in the county) or the City Council (within city limits) and ask for early termination. At that time, the Board or the Council would make very detailed, specific findings set forth in the State law. Although much of the property in the GPA is under Williamson Act contract, it does Special Meeting PCM-1992-206 October 29, 1992 [10-29min] . ~ ~ ~ not preclude the City from planning for land uses in that area that are not agricultural land uses. However, the property owners cannot develop the land at this point unless they give notice of non-renewal, or if they were able to have an early cancellation approved. Cm. North stated he can see two options: add in his suggestion about somebody who hasn't filed renewal or change the two years to a longer time frame. Mr. Tong clarified that the existing terminology said "specific proposals" which might mean specific development applications (i.e., site plan) or it might be broadened to mean an overall land use designation which would mean somebody doing long-term planning could not do that. The whole point of doing long term planning is so there is a sense of what the land should be used for in the future. From this stand point, the policy could be modified to add that specific development applications for conversion to urban use consistent with the General Plan may be considered if the property owner has notified the proper authorities of non-renewal or request of cancellation has been filed. Cm. North stated that it should be the property owner's decision to withdraw his property from the Williamson Act before the City considered any proposals for that property. Mr. Tong asked if Cm. North meant in the actual development application as opposed to preparing some general plan amendments for some point in the future? Would the City require, at the time someone comes in for a development application, that they either have notified the appropriate authority of non-renewal or have requested cancellation? Commissioners and Staff discussed having the land owner show proof of application of non-renewal or cancellation to prove his serious intent to develop prior to the City processing any development applications. Cm. Zika asked for further questions or comments. When none were given, he directed Staff to change the wording as discussed and bring the modifications to the next Planning Commission meeting. Ms. Gillarde continued on to comment 1-5 regarding performance standards and a run-off ordinance, indicating Staff's recommendation that Policy 7.2C remain unchanged. Cm. North expressed concern between this and previous discussion regarding comment 1-3. Previous comments indicated the ability to modify a creekbed if the disturbed resources were replaced; however, this comment indicated the need to protect the streamcourse. Ms. Gillarde indicated that it would depend on how one interpreted the word "protect." She stated the wording said "maintenance and protection of streamcourses", it did not say "the need to be preserved in their original condition". Special Meeting PCM-1992-207 October 29, 1992 [10-29min] . ~ ~ Th~ere were no comments from the Commissioners, and there was a 5-0 straw vote concurring with Staff's recommendations. Ms. Gillarde continued on to comment 1-6 regarding funding methodology for parklands. She acknowledged the need to establish funding but suggested it be discussed at a later, more appropriate date. There were no comments from the Commissioners, and there was a 5-0 straw vote concurring with Staff's recommendations. Ms. Gillarde continued on to comment on 1-7 regarding road alignment, indicating Staff's recommendation that Policy 7.7E of the draft GPA remain unchanged. Cm. North questioned if the recommendation stated that the Applicants will go back and re-do the road layout. Ms. Gillarde acknowledged that the road alignment is conceptual at this stage and Staff has been working with the applicants on an alternate layout that would minimize grading to a greater degree, which would be incorporated into the final Specific Plan. There were no comments from the Commissioners, and there was a 5-0 straw vote concurring with Staff's recommendations. Ms. Gillarde continued to Item 2, Draft EIR comments on the GPA, and read comment 2-1 regarding City Policy 3.1A, indicating Staff's recommendation to modify the policy (referring back to comment 1-3). Mr. Tong reiterated that Staff would be re-wording the policy in comment 1-3. Cm. Zika verified that Staff would also be re-wording the next item, comment 2-2. Ms. Gillarde read comment 2-2 regarding City Policy 3.1.B, and acknowledged that Staff did recommend a modification to the policy (referring back to the comment 1-2}. Ms. Gillarde proceeded with comment 2-3 regarding City Policy 8.2.3A concerning woodlands preservation, indicating Staff's recommendation to modify the policy by adding the words "wherever possible" to the first sentence to make the GPA and SP consistent. Cm. Zika asked for a definition for the term "wherever possible." Ms. Gillarde responded that their highest goal was to protect and preserve and enhance, but also realizing that, in a large development, there may be some instances where it's not possible or feasible. There were other policies throughout the Specific Plan that very carefully protect vegetation and stream courses. The term was created to allow some flexibility in, for example, the alignment of a road. The current policy would not allow for that road. Cm. Zika asked for questions or comments. None were given. Special Meeting PCM-1992-208 October 29, 1992 [10-29min] . . ~ ~ Ms. Gillarde continued with comment 2-4 regarding City Policy 8.2.3C concerning woodland removal, indicating Staff's recommendation to modify as shown in agenda statement. Ms. Gillarde continued to comment 2-5 regarding five potential inconsistencies between the existing general plan and the proposed specific plan, indicating that Staff considered them consistent with the existing policies and Staff would be making some errata recommendations for the EIR which would be brought back when the EIR is discussed. Cm. North requested to back up to comment 2-3. He clarified that the statement "The removal of individual oak tree may be was part of 8.2.3C, not 8.2.3A. Ms. Gillarde acknowledged that Cm. North was correct and annotated her notes. Cm. North indicated that the whole statement was regarding 8.2.3C, not 8.2.3.A. Mr. Tong acknowledged the duplication in comments 2-3 and 2-4. Ms. Gillarde asked the Commission to consider the recommendations for comments 2-1 through 2-5 and indicate to Staff by straw vote how they should proceed. Cm. Zika clarified that there were some changes coming based on the answers. Changes to comments 2-2 and 2-5 would be brought back to the next meeting; Staff was looking for concurrence on 2-1, 2-3 and 2-4 at this point. There were no comments from the Commissioners and there was a 5-0 straw vote concurring with Staff's recommendations regarding comments 2-1, 2-3 and 2-4. The Commission took a 5-minute break. Upon returning, Cm. Zika continued onto the October 29th agenda statement, with comments regarding the GPA. Ms. Gillarde opened with comment A-1 regarding land use category "Rural Residential" and indicated Staff's recommendation to modify text as proposed. Cm. Zika disagreed with Staff recommendation and questioned the term "rural residential/open space." How could it be defined as "open space" if it's private praperty which is not open to the public. He felt it was mis-stating the policy by adding the "open space" to rural residential. Ms. Gillarde stated that in the definition of the rural residential category, it does emphasize that this is a very low density area (1 unit per 100 acres) and the intent is to cluster the new development and the rest would remain undeveloped. Special Meeting PCM-1992-209 October 29, 1992 [10-29min] ~ ~ Cm. Zika acknowledged Ms. Gillarde's statement, but reiterated his concern and asked the other Commissioners for comments. Cm. North questioned the tax advantages to open space as opposed to rural residential, then agreed that the proposed modification would be confusing. Mr. Tong proposed a modification saying "Rural Residential/ Agricultural", which would reflect the existing zoning and land use designation of the County. Cm. North felt it was a good recommendation as long as the definition of the wording was consistent with other cities and county systems. Cm. Burnham asked for Staff's definition of "open space" as far as public open space. Ms. Gillarde responded that there was the possibility that this remaining land could be dedicated to an agency and could become public open space. Cm. Burnham was concerned about having a piece of property that was privately owned and calling it "open space." He wanted to know what a piece of property that's defined as public access to this "open space" is called. Are they both called "open space"? Cm. North indicated that the definition said, "However, the City is encouraged to pursue public ownership of the open space portions," and interpreted it as saying that any time there is an open space which has one house per 100 acres, the City is encouraged to pursue ownership of that land. Cm. Burnham again questioned the definition of "open space." Mr. Tong clarified that open space is basically an area that is undeveloped and can be a private undeveloped area or a publicly-owned undeveloped area. Open space could also be in the form of an easement. This area is privately owned, but with a open space easement over it, and the use is still open space. There are many different forms of open space without getting into the ownership question. Cm. Burnham questioned how a person reading a map would know which "open space" he could go on and which he would be trespassing. Mr. Tong indicated that in that situation a distinction would have to be made on the map showing publicly and privately owned open space. An open space could be for visual access purposes only and doesn't necessarily mean that it's owned by a public entity. Cm. North interpreted the definition of "open space" as meaning that space would ultimately be publicly-owned. He referred to the definition in the proposal under A-2. Special Meeting PCM-1992-210 October 29, 1992 [10-29min] , . ~ ~ ~ Ms~. Gillarde indicated that he was referring to what was being recommended by the commenting agency, not what was being recommended by Staff. Cm. North acknowledged the correction. There were no further comments from the Commissioners and there was a 5-0 straw vote to modify the term "Rural Residential" to "Rural Residential/Agricultural." Ms. Gillarde continued on to comment A-2 regarding text revision of words "open space", indicating Staff's recommendation to modify text, except the sentence reading "Open space shall ultimately be publicly owned." Cm. North questioned if the term "The intent of this provision" was referring to the provision that it should be designated as open space or the provision that it should be publicly owned. He questioned if the words "of this provision" should be stricken as well and indicated that the word "provision" could be changed to "designation" to make it more clear. Ms. Gillarde responded that it could be changed to "designation". Mr. Tong indicated that Staff would want to delete the word "public" in front of "open space" so that it would read "the intent of this designation is to insure the protection as open space..." Cm. North indicated the need to re-word the statement after taking out the word "public" to make it read correctly. He questioned if the wording "The City may allow only open space uses on this land." meant that the City could tell someone what to do with their land. Commission and Staff briefly discussed the wording and all concurred that the City could tell a property owner what the land use would be. There were no further comments from the Commissioners and there was a 5-0 straw vote concurring with Staff's recommendations, which included the additional re-wording recommendations made by the Commission. Ms. Gillarde proceeded to comment A-3 regarding addition of a new policy to the General Plan Amendment, indicating Staff's recommendation to incorporate the proposed policy as a goal in the introduction of Section 3.0 of the GPA. There were no comments from the Commissioners and there was a 5-0 straw vote concurring with Staff's recommendation. Ms. Gillarde continued on to comment A-4 regarding combining text with policies for western Dublin, indicating Staff's recommendation that text remain the same. Cm. North clarified the dates on comment A-4 addressed in the October 21st agenda statement, not October 29th. Special Meeting PCM-1992-211 October 29, 1992 [10-29min] . ~ ~ Ms. Gillarde concurred with Cm. North. There were no additional comments from the Commissioners and there was a 5-0 straw vote concurring with Staff's recommendation. This ended the comments for the General Plan Amendment. Ms. Gillarde opened the draft Specific Plan discussion by reading comment 1-1 regarding high school relocation, indicating Staff's recommendation that the high school location remain as shown. Cm. North questioned if Dublin High School was on a major arterial, which lead the Commissioners to discuss the pros and cons of having a school on a major arterial. There were no further comments from the Commissioners and there was a 5-0 straw vote concurring with Staff's recommendation. Ms. Gillarde continued on to comment 1-Z regarding general land use designation, indicating Staff's recommendation that the designation remain as shown. There we no comments from the Commissioners and there was a 5-0 straw vote concurring with Staff's recommendation. Ms. Gillarde continued on to comment 1-3 regarding small public parks, indicating Staff's recommendation that the parks remain as planned. Commissioners and Staff discussed residential park size and location and how the small parks within a grid pattern would affect traffic flow. Ms. Gillarde emphasized that these parks were designed as gathering spots for local residents; they were not planned as sports grounds and indicated problems, such as noise, could be mitigated. Cm. Burnham expressed concern with the grid layout and suggested the eventual possibility of rival groups competing for park "turf". There were no further comments from the Commissioners and there was a 4-1 straw vote, with Cm. Burnham opposing Staff's recommendation. Ms. Gillarde went on to respond to comments 1-4 and 2-1, both of which requested a change in the grid-street pattern, and indicated Staff's recommendation that the plan remain unchanged. Cm. North directed a question to Steve Hammond, WRT, regarding if the intent of the grid pattern was to build apartment buildings. Mr. Hammond replied that there was no intent for apartments; however, it would depend on how the project was set up. Cm. North questioned if there was a required density for that area and expressed concern about a concentration of low income housing. Special Meeting PCM-1992-212 October 29, 1992 [10-29min] . ~ ~ Mr. Hammond referred to a map on the wall to show how affordable housing was dispersed. Cm. North directed a question to Ms. Gillarde as to Staff's objections to the proposed changes to the grid-pattern. Ms. Gillarde referred to Attachment A and stated that the Applicant's proposal would divide the Village Center into quadrants which would change the pedestrian pattern and result in high speed automobile travel. Mr. Hammond also replied that the proposed pattern would create a barrier, when the purpose of the grid layout was to enhance community interaction. Commissioners and Staff, including Mr. Hammond, discussed a"wagon wheel" pattern, as opposed to the grid pattern, and it's relation to the number of car trips vs. pedestrian activity and community interaction. Cm. North expressed concern about the lack of parking shown on plans and indicated a need for more parking other than just on-street parking for people coming in to visit shopping centers. Ms. Gillarde replied that the Specific Plan allowed for on-street parking, parking behind stores and parking lots, then emphasized that the businesses located in the Village Center would be used mainly by residents in the immediate area. Mr. Hammond referred to the wall map while explaining the hierarchy of commercial retail centers, i.e., heavily auto-oriented centers (malls and large grocery stores) vs. small retail centers for the immediate community. Cm. North reiterated his concern with the lack of parking. Mr. Hammond replied that the parking issue would be resolved once it has been decided what use will go in that area. Cm. North again reiterated his concern about the parking issue. There were no further comments from the Commissioners and there was a 4-1 straw vote, with Cm. North opposing Staff's recommendations. Ms. Gillarde continued on to comment 2-2, which included 5 requests regarding traffic, and indicated Staff's recommendation not to modify the Specific Plan except to indicate right-of-way for six lanes on Tassajara Road through the Town Center. Cm. North requested more definition regarding the 2-lane transit spine and directed Staff to refer to the wall map. Ms. Gillarde responded to the request by explaining where the 2-lane transit spines would be in relation to 4-lane and 6-lane arterial roads, which would direct heavier traffic. Special Meeting PCM-1992-213 October 29, 1992 [10-29min] . . ~ ~ Cm. North questioned who would be traveling along the transit spines and what sort of businesses would be located along transit spines. For example, would a movie theatre be allowed along the spine? Ms. Gillarde indicated that a movie theatre could be located along the spine, encouraqing people to have dinner in the area and to walk to the theatre. Cm. North asked if the intent of the plan was to have the majority of people who visited the area actually live within a few blocks of the Village Center. Ms. Gillarde responded that the densities in the immediate area would support a fairly intensive residential area; however, it would not preclude anyone from visiting the area and mentioned the bus service and auto parking in the area. Commissioners and Staff, including Steve Hammond, further discussed the types of businesses to be located in Town Center and their impact on traffic along the 2-lane transit spine. Cm. North verified that right-of-way would be allowed for a 6-lane road between Tassajara Road and Dublin Boulevard. Ms. Gillarde concurred with Cm. North's observation. Cm. Burnham had no objections with the plan as long as Fallon Road served as an express way because people would use that area as a short cut to Contra Costa County. Ms. Gillarde acknowledged that Fallon Road would serve as an express way with limited access from that road to adjacent residential neighborhoods. Commissioners and Staff referred to Fiqure 5.1, page 57, of the Specific Plan and discussed the possibility of having the 6-lane right-of-way extend to include Gleason Road at the intersection of Hacienda Road and Tassajara Road. Cm. North expressed concern about the result of DKS traffic study and reiterated his desire to have a 6-lane right-of-way at the intersection on Gleason Road along Tassajara because the traffic cannot go west through Camp Parks. Ms. Gillarde pointed out that traffic may be dispersed by the two 4-lane north/south connections between Gleason Road and Dublin Boulevard. Mr. Tong acknowledged Cm. North's concern and indicated that Staff would double-check with the traffic consultant to see if a 6-lane right-of-way at that intersection would be necessary. There were no further comments from the Commissioners and there was a 4-1 straw vote with Cm. North opposing Staff's recommendations. Special Meeting PCM-1992-214 October 29, 1992 [10-29min] • ~ ~ Ms. Gillarde opened discussion regarding Item 3, comments from 5tedman & Associates, dated October 14, 1992, by reading comment 3-1 regarding the deletion of section titled "FORM", and indicated Staff's recommendation to retain this section as shown. There were no comments from the Commissioners and there was a 5-0 straw vote concurring with Staff's recommendation. Ms. Gillarde proceeded to comment 3-2 regarding maximum building height, indicating Staff's recommendation to retain this section as shown. Commissioners and Staff discussed building height requirements for parking structures. Would a 4-story building be required or would a 3-story be sufficient. Ms. Gillarde stated that a 3-story parking structure would suffice. There were no comments from the Commissioners and there was a 5-0 straw vote concurring with Staff's recommendation. Ms. Gillarde continued on to comment 3-7 regarding the deletion of text under the "FORM" section, indicating Staff's recommendation that the wording remain the same. There were no comments from the Commissioners and there was a 5-0 straw vote concurring with Staff's recommendation. Ms. Gillarde proceeded to comment 3-11 regarding deletion of text under "AUTO CIRCULATION" and indicated Staff's recommendation that the text remain the same. There were no comments from the Commissioners and there was a 5-0 straw vote concurring with Staff's recommendation. Ms. Gillarde continued to comment 3-12 regarding deletion of text under "PEDESTRIAN/BICYCLE CIRCULATION" and indicated Staff's recommendation that the text remain the same. There were no comments from the Commissioners and there was a 5-0 straw vote concurring with Staff's recommendation. Ms. Gillarde continued to comment 3-3 regarding the deletion of the Town Center Concept Plan and indicated Staff's recommendation to retain Figure 7.1 in the Specific Plan, but modify text on page 79 of the Specific Plan. There were no comments from the Commissioners and there was a 5-0 straw vote concurring with Staff's recommendations. Ms. Gillarde went on to comment 3-4 regarding rear and side entries, indicating Staff's recommendation to modify the language. Special Meeting PCM-1992-215 October 29, 1992 [10-29min] ' ~ ~ ~ There were no comments from the Commissioners and there was a 5-0 straw vote concurring with Staff's recommendations. Ms. Gillarde proceeded to comment 3-9 regarding flexible entries and indicated Staff's recommendation to keep the text as written. There were no comments from the Commissioners and there was a 5-0 straw vote concurring with Staff's recommendations. Ms. Gillarde continued to comment 3-16 regarding the deletion of Figure 7.22 and indicated Staff's recommendation to add the word "generally" to the figure caption. There were no comments from the Commissioners and there was a 5-0 straw vote concurring with Staff's recommendations. Ms. Gillarde went on to comment 3-17 requesting the deletion of Figure 7.24 and indicated Staff's recommendation that the figure remain as shown. Cm. North requested to add the word "generally" to the caption to preclude any misunderstandings on what is required for windows and balconies. Commissioners and Staff concurred with Cm. North's suggested modification to Figure 7.24. There were no further comments from the Commissioners and there was a 5-0 straw vote concurring with Staff's recommendation. Ms. Gillarde continued to comment 3-5 regarding on-street parking, indicating Staff's recommendation to retain parking on the transit spine. Cm. North reminded Staff about required on-street parking for the handicapped. There were no further comments from the Commissioners and there was a I 5-0 straw vote concurring with Staff's recommendations. I Ms. Gillarde proceeded to comment 3-10 regarding deletion of text I under "PARKING" and indicated Staff's recommendation to keep the text I as shown. Commissioners and Staff briefly discussed parking setbacks and ! detached garage structures. ' There were no further comments from the Commissioners and there was a 5-0 straw vote concurring with Staff's recommendations. Ms. Gillarde continued to comment 3-6 regarding 18-foot sidewalks, indicating Staff's recommendation to retain sidewalk setbacks as ' shown. I Special Meeting PCM-1992-216 October 29, 1992 I [10-29min] I i ~ There were no comments from the Commissioners and there was a 5-0 straw vote concurring with Staff's recommendations. Ms. Gillarde proceeded to comment 3-8 regarding varied setbacks and indicated Staff's recommendations to revise four items on page 88 of the Specific Plan. Cm. North referred to item 2 and asked if the definition of "Landscape" and if it suggested something other than lawns. Ms. Gillarde indicated that great emphasis will be placed on drought- tolerant and low-water landscaping. Cm. North referred to item 3 questioned if, with a 6-lane road nearby, would a 60-foot setback be enough. Ms. Gillarde indicated that Staff's recommendation was to delete the I! 60-foot setback and add the wording "adequate setback be provided..." A specific noise study would have to be done for that area to determine the necessary setback. ' Cm. North requested other wording be added to insure adequate , setbacks. I Ms. Gillarde concurred with Cm. North and indicated that wording could be added to say "along with other mitigation measures." Commissioners and Staff discussed item 4, regarding residential buildings fronting on high volume streets. Cm. North expressed concern with the term "do not front" and requested it be re-worded to clarify to avoid conflicts. Commissioners and Staff concurred with Cm. North's modification request. There were no comments from the Commissioners and there was a 5-0 straw vote concurring with Staff's recommendations, including recent modifications. Ms. Gillarde continued to comment 3-14 requesting a change in setback requirements and indicated Staff's recommendation to modify requirements to show a 10'-20' range. There were no comments from the Commissioners and there was a 5-0 straw vote concurring with Staff's recommendations. Ms. Gillarde went on to comment 3-15 requesting a change in setback requirements, indicating Staff's recommendations to modify the caption under Figure 7.17. There were no comments from the Commissioners and there was a 5-0 straw vote concurring with Staff's recommendations. Special Meeting PCM-1992-217 October 29, 1992 [10-29min] , . . , ~ • • Ms. Gillarde continued to comment 3-18 regarding change in setbacks and deletion of the 3rd bullet and indicated Staff's recommendation to retain the figure as presently shown. There were no comments from the Commissioners and there was a 5-0 straw vote concurring with Staff's recommendations. Ms. Gillarde proceeded to comment 3-19 regarding modification to Figure 7.44, indicating Staff's recommendation to retain the text as presently shown. There were no comments from the Commissioners and there was a 5-0 straw vote concurring with Staff's recommendations. Ms. Gillarde ended with comment 3-13 regarding open space and public facilities, indicating Staff's recommendation to retain text as previously discussed. There were no comments from the Commissioners and there was a 5-0 straw vote concurring with Staff's recommendations. Cm. Zika continued the public meeting on the Draft Environmental Impact Report to November 16, 1992 at 7:00 p.m. Regular staff reports would also be heard at this meeting. The meeting was adjourned at 10:05 p.m. Respectfully submitted, . anning ommissi Chairperson La ence L. Tong Planning Director I I Special Meeting PCM-1992-218 October 29, 1992 ' [10-29min]