HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Minutes 10-06-1992 ~ • . .
Reqular Meetinq - October 6, 1992
A regular meeting of the City of Dublin Planning Commission was held
on October 6, 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; Dennis Carrington, Senior
Planner; Brenda Gillarde, Planning Consultant; Libby Silver, City
Attorney; and Gail Adams, Recording Secretary.
PUBLIC HEARING
SUBJECT: PA 87-031 Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment, Specific
Plan, Draft Environmental Impact Report and related project
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 asked if there were any additional comments on the General
Plan Amendment. Being none, Staff continued with their presentation
of the Specific Plan, Chagters l through 5.
Ms. Gillarde indicated there were two meetings scheduled to discuss
the Specific Plan. She explained that the Specific Plan is basically
a refined General Plan. It has more specific detail and definition to
the type, location, character and design of development for the area.
She pointed out that approval of the Specific Plan is not approval of
a particular development; it is an approval of a plan for development.
Each individual developer will have to come in with their specific
application and this application would be reviewed in accordance with
the Specific Plan policies.
Ms. Gillarde stated this meeting will focus on the first five chapters
of the Specific Plan. She pointed out the Specific Plan area on the
wall map which totals about half of the total General Plan Amendment
area (3300 acres). She described the Eastern Dublin project as a
"full service" community extending the existing Dublin to the eastern
boundaries. She pointed out and described several subareas of the
Specific Plan from the wall map which included: Tassajara Gateway;
Tassajara Commercial; Town Center Residential; Fallon Gateway;
Industrial Parks; and Hacienda Gateway.
Ms. Gillarde reviewed the circulation system from the wall map. Major
access points would be Tassajara and Fallon, north and southbound; and
Dublin Boulevard extension to Collier Canyon, east and westbound.
Gleason Road would be extended to Fallon and the transit spine would
be a major route primarily for transit use. The circulation is based
on a grid system which will disburse traffic over several roads which
creates a pedestrian oriented atmosphere. The circulation system in
Regular Meeting PCM-1992-147 October 6, 1992
[10-6min]
. . ~ ~
the outlying areas conform more to the existing topography and would
be a grid system.
Ms. Gillarde explained that the proposed plan was trying to decrease
automobile use by looking at other transportation systems which give
people choices on how to travel in the area. She briefly discussed
the open space network and pointed out the city parks, neighborhood
parks, rural residential and stream corridor areas on the wall map.
Mr. Steve Hammond gave a slide show which illustrated various examples
of land uses within the project (i.e., low/high densities, employment
generating uses, campus/office structures, general commercial uses,
signature buildings, town center, amenities, parking, transit spine,
public/semi-public, and recreational areas). The slides gave the
Commission a sense of densities and design characteristics of the
proposed development.
Cm. North referred to page 57 of the Specific Plan. He was under the
assumption that Tassajara Road future right-of-way would be six lane
to the Town Center and then the road would go down to four lanes.
Then at Dublin Boulevard there was the potential for eight lanes. He
asked Staff if this was correct. He was concerned with a bottleneck
situation and felt there should be the potential for six lanes on
Tassajara at the Town Center.
Ms. Gillarde explained that the number in parenthesis indicated future
right-of-way. This would be a policy and land use decision that the
Commission will be making during their deliberations. The right-of-
way is to accommodate future planned development outside of Eastern
Dublin, i.e., Dougherty and Tassajara Valley projects. Whether these
developments occur is uncertain.
Mr. Tong indicated that the illustration on page 57 shows only the
major roads and collector streets. There were other parallel roads to
Tassajara as shown on page 83, Figure 7.1. The roads traveling north
and south would be able to disburse additional the traffic.
Cm. Zika continued the public hearing on Chapter #4 - Land Use and
asked for public comment.
Andrea McKenzie, East Bay Regional Park District, described its
interest in the Eastern Dublin project. There was a Tassajara Creek
staging area and planned regional trail connecting the creek to
Sycamore Valley open space. This will eventually be connected to Mt.
Diablo State Park. The district is in the process of annexing 276
acres of the Eastern Alameda County and will be looking at providing
regional open space in the Tri-Valley area. She indicated the
district would be submitting written comments to the Specific Plan.
Ms. McKenzie indicated that the Specific Plan did not provide for
dedication of any public open space and the rural residential land use
designation did not meet the same objective for permanent protected
open space. The Specific Plan should differentiate between rural
residential, regional public open space and local open space.
Regular Meeting PCM-1992-148 October 6, 1992
[10-6min]
• .
Ms. McKenzie had concerns about the park district's responsibility for
small remnant pieces of open space left over from rural residential
development. These small areas might be taken care of by homeowner
associations which might not be equipped to maintain the area. She
indicated that on the northeast corner of the site a single-family
residential development had been designated for the plan. She
referred to policy 6-16 and 6-18 and indicated this site should be
zoned for open space and wildlife habitat. This area would be
constructed on a visually sensitive ridgeland and would fragment the
area designated for open space. She indicated the district urges the
City to consider cluster development that avoids fragmenting the open
space into isolated unmanageable areas.
Ms. McKenzie referred to Policies 6-13, 6-14, Program 6-F and 6-G and
indicated the residential development proposals along Tassajara Creek
conflict with these policies. She stated that development should be
confined to the eastern side of Tassajara Creek to protect the
wildlife corridor. Since the Specific Plan identifies the park
district as the managing agent for the creek corridor, Program 6-F
should include participation by the district.
Ms. McKenzie referred to Policy 4-29 and indicated that the "fair
share" language was unclear and needed to be defined.
Ms. McKenzie indicated there was little discussion in the Specific
Plan or the General Plan Amendment about the relationship between the
two areas, especially concerning land uses, trails and road networks.
She referred to the upper right hand corner of the wall map and
indicated it was difficult to tell where the Specific Plan study comes
to an end and the General Plan study begins. This makes it difficult
for the park district to coordinate its efforts in managing the open
space areas.
Marjorie LaBar referred to policy 4-E and had concerns with
development agreements that had general regulations that might not
follow the General Plan and Specific Plan guidelines. The
infrastructure should be solved before development occurs. She felt
the project should be downscaled by 30~.
Ms. LaBar referred to item 4.6.3 and felt that job/housing balance
criteria needed more detail information on what type of jobs would be
produced compared to the type of housing to be built. She referred to
item 4.8.2 and had concerns about water rationing. She felt there
should be strict guidelines on what type of landscaping would be used.
She referred to policy 4.8.4 and concurred with the park district's
representative. There was not enough contiguous open space and the
plan did not reserve wildlife habitats and wetlands. She discouraged
the use of CC&R's for maintenance of open space fragments.
Ms. LaBar referred to item 4.9.2 and felt that there should be sites
in the downtown area that did not allow vehicles and underground
parking could be used outside of the area. She encouraged the use of
building awnings and to have the structures built with wind resistant
designs. She referred to item 4.9.6 and had concerns with interfacing
suburban and agricultural land uses. This would cause a strain on the
Regular Meeting PCM-1992-149 October 6, 1992
[10-6min]
. M •
police patrol of the area which would cause additional vandalisrn,
fires, etc. This would also cause difficulties in land uses staying
within a rural residential or agricultural designation because of the
different living styles.
Ms. LaBar referred to item 4.9.9 and felt that the City needed to
resolve the conflicts between its proposals and the County's planning
efforts.
Doug Abbott indicated that from a conceptual urban planning
standpoint, the Eastern Dublin project had a lot of good ideas;
however he felt that the project was too large. He had concerns that
the proposal might succeed which could cause the existing downtown
area to suffer, possibly becoming a ghost town. The proposal might
siphon away all of the good business from the downtown area. He asked
if this was in the best interest far the existing Dublin residents?
There were already a lot of vacant commercial buildings in Dublin and
felt that we should be directing some of our energy to revitalizing
the old area.
Carolyn Morgan referred to item 4.1 and asked what the "extreme"
estimate of the proposed population for Eastern Dublin would be.
Referring to Item 4.3.1 she asked if the proposal had anything in
common with the existing Dublin community. Item 4.4 stated that 50~
of the office/campus could be used for housing. She asked how many
additional residents would this create. Referring to Program 4.4B,
she felt that by giving Eastern Dublin different zoning regulations
this would cause a community separation with nothing in common with
each area.
Ms. Morgan referred to item 4.7 and asked why there was no mention of
equestrian trails when a major center currently exists along the
proposed Tassajara trail. Will Yara Yara Ranch be forced to quit
business? She mentioned that both San Francisco golden gate park and
New York Central Park have equestrian centers and indicated there was
no mention of a municipal golf course in the plan. She felt the plan
lacked adult entertainment and recreation and there was not enough
open space for the amount of residents proposed for the area. There
was a need for trails and/or buffers between low density and rural
residential land uses.
John Anderson indicated that the overall plan was well thought out and
the goals tended to meet the objectives of the General Plan. The
themes, such as the Town Center and Village Centers, created a good
appeal and value to the area. It was a total plan; all the way to the
Sphere of Influence with a total framework for any future development
within the area. It provides greenbelts, such as in the Town Center
and there was a good logistical mix of industry, commerce and
residents. There is an attempt to preserve natural resources, such as
Tassajara Creek and the ridqes.
Mr. Anderson had concerns that the plan was too general in its terms;
there were too many "if possible" and/or "when feasible" type of
language. Since there were several property owners and developers for
this project, there was a need for a central control or quantifiable
Regular Meeting PCM-1992-150 October 6, 1992
[10-6min]
, , ~ •
ideas regarding rules and regulations governing the project. It would
be difficult for the City to regulate and work with future developers
in satisfying specific themes and requirements.
Mr. Anderson referred to item 4.3.1 and how the amount of vehicles
would be reduced for this development. People will come from al1
parts of the Bay Area to this area. The job/housing balance is not a
guarantee; depending on the market, skills, cost of living, etc.
There is a need for transit systems to bring people from their home to
their jobs.
Mr. Anderson referred to policy 4.5, Figures 4.1/2, Figure 6.3, EIR
Figure 3.7A/B and 3.7-3. The Tassajara/Fallon Road would be overlaid
with the creek and felt this was in violation of the policies
mentioned. This was a northern riparian habitat area with freshwater
marshes. Tassajara Village was on top of one of the tributaries which
was considered a sensitive site. Was there to be an overpass?
Mr. Anderson referred to Figure 4.1 and indicated the single-family
designation appeared to be on sensitive ridgelands located by the EIR
Figure 3.8-H. What is the prime location of these units? Are they on
the sides, top, back of the ridges? Were they out of view?
Jim Stedman stated that there were many good qualities of the plan and
referred to the Town Center, transit spine, and location of high-
density residential near other amenities which encouraged pedestrian
use.
Mr. 5tedman indicated that at tonight's meeting he would be describing
counter points on the proposed design of the plan. He referred to the
high school site and felt it should front on Tassajara Road. The
campus/office uses fronting I-580 should be designated for general
commercial land uses. Dublin needed to compete with the major
business and needed as much freeway exposure as possible.
Mr. Stedman had concerns with the residential area of the Town Center
east of Gleason and felt that the rectangular blocks and grid pattern
was not the best design for Dublin. He indicated that the General
Plan called for mixed uses and large projects and the proposal could
not accommodate these designs. He referred to Section 5.5.1 of the
General Plan and stated that neighborhood collector streets were not
to be used for traffic. The proposed concept would disburse traffic
through the neighborhood streets.
Mr. Stedman read a report to the Commission prepared by a Southern
California architect specializing in housing communities. This letter
described an alternative design of the Town Center area that would
meet the same housing and commercial needs as the existing proposal
with an urban design character. The letter indicated the existing
proposal would create noise, traffic, unlimited function of open space
and deterioration of the residential areas.
Mr. Stedman described his preferred design on his wall map which had
curvilinear streets and collector roads. He indicated his plan would
channel the primary traffic through or around the development without
Regular Meeting PCM-1992-151 October 6, 1992
[10-6min]
- ~ ~
disturbing the residential communities. He referred to Figure 7.1 and
indicated that the plan before the Commission was very restrictive and
undesirable. His proposal would better enhance the community by
having a network that keeps the traffic out of the neighborhoods and
allows a greater flexibility for design.
Cm. Zika continued onto Chapter #5 - Traffic and Circulation
Andrea McKenzie had concerns with the extension of Fallon and Doolan
Roads in the open space plan. The roads dissect the open space areas
which would eliminate natural resources and habitat areas, including
the golden eagle sites. Local trail crossings could be hazardous with
the proposed 4-6 lane road system. She felt that the Specific Plan
road extension plans should take into consideration the open space
trails and wildlife corridors.
Ms. McKenzie requested consideration for single-loaded roads adjacent
to the open space areas for emergency access and patrol and visually
access for the entire community. She referred to Figure 5.3 and had
concerns with the lack of regional connections to any park district
system. The park district recommended that the plan show these
connections to existing and proposed regional open space trails and
staging areas. She indicated the park district would be submitting
written comments on the project.
Carolyn Morgan referred to page 48 and asked at what stage of
development would Dublin Boulevard be widened to serve Eastern DubJ.in.
She referred to page 49 and commented that there was bus service to
the Santa Rita Jail site. Referring to 5.2.12 she asked at what stage
of development would the freeway improvements be made. Would
development be allowed to be continued before the road improvements
are made and who pays for these improvements? She indicated the EIR
shows that the traffic policies have not met the City's goals and felt
that the circulation patterns should be revised before the plan is
adopted.
Ms. Morgan referred to Figure 5.3 and indicated Class 1 bike routes
should be on all major streets such as Tassajara Road, Dublin
Boulevard and Fallon Road. Bike paths should be included on all
freeway overpasses. Bike, walking, and equestrian trails should be
continued along Tassajara Creek and proceed under the freeway to
connect with other trail systems. She referred to policy 6-13 and the
park district's trail system. She indicated that both sides of
Tassajara creek should be used for different types of recreational
activities.
Marjorie LaBar referred to policy 5.2.5 and indicated the EIR showed
level of service "E" and "F". The plan needs to be redrawn or
densities changed or the plan needed to clearly state that development
would stop when the level reaches beyond "D". She referred to 5.2.12
and had concerns on who could afford to pay for the freeway
improvements. The State of California should not be relied upon since
there were no funds available. She recommended that the development
be phased to meet realistic schedules for freeway expansion projects,
or local funds might need to be used.
Regular Meeting PCM-1992-152 October 6, 1992
[10-6min]
` ~
Ms. LaBar referred to policy 5.3 and requested that bus shelters be
used with landscaping for shade. She recommended that high winds and
rain conditions be addressed and that bright and safe lighting be
used. She referred to 5.5.1 and indicated that the outer
neighborhoods needed to be serviced. She indicated that the trail
network was not complete. Bike trails should be planned on Collier
Road to access Las Positas College. The City should work with
Livermore and San Ramon to create trail connections and passive uses
for the open space buffer areas. Referring to 5.5.2, she indicated
that secure bicycle parking areas were needed in the major employment
and commercial centers.
John Anderson referred to 5.2.7 and had concerns with the traffic
noise impacts on wildlife habitats along Tassajara Creek. He referred
to policy 5.19 and indicated that quantifiable standards were
required. He recommended that studies be completed on what type of
„
users needed the parking. The phasing out of vehicle use was needed
with time frames set for reducing traffic. An effective program I
needed to be evaluated.
Jim Stedman had concerns with the "bottle neck" road system on
Tassajara Road and transit spine. This would create congestion with
traffic disbursing into adjacent neighborhood. He proposed that
Tassajara Road between Dublin Boulevard and Gleason Road have at least
6 lanes available. He was sensitive to the pedestrian oriented
atmosphere of the Town Center; however requested that flexibility be
allowed to accommodate four lanes. He referred to Figure 5.1 and
indicated that the two north-south roadways in the Specific Plan
should also be capable of carrying four lanes.
Mr. Stedman clarified that the Walnut Creek downtown area had two
parallel, two lane streets. There are four lane roadways outside of
the main street that are in commercial districts, with no residential
areas. This works very well and the disbursement of traffic is on the
four lane roadway which carries traffic out of town. Across the
downtown areas there are three 4-lane roadways. The two lane roadway
is very attractive and recommended this style of roadway.
Doug Abbott referred to Figure 5.1 and commented that one-way streets
for the north-south lanes in the Town Center might be feasible. This
would take vehicle traffic off the transit spine which would reserve
the road for transit and pedestrian use only.
Milton Righetti, property owner, indicated that he would be writing
comments on the circulation pattern of the plan. He felt that the
traffic on Tassajara Road was unacceptable and suggested a possible
overpass over Tassajara on Dublin Boulevard for pedestrian purposes.
This would allow children to safely walk to the community park and
avoid traffic on the major roadways, such as Tassajara Road. There
was a need for long range planning and alternatives that would be
safer for pedestrian use and avoid traffic congestion.
Regular Meeting PCM-1992-153 October 6, 1992
[10-6min]
_ ~
. , , ~ ~ ~
Cm. Zika continued the public hearing to October 12, 1992 at 7:00 p.m.
He indicated that the next meeting would start with Chapter 6 of the
Specific Plan.
Ms. LaBar asked for clarification on when the written comment
deadlines were for the Specific Plan. ~
Mr. Tong responded that the public hearing was scheduled to close on '
the General Plan Amendment and 5pecific Plan on October 15~h. Written ,
comments on the Draft EIR will be accepted through 5:00 p.m. on
October 29th.
Ms. Morgan asked Staff if there would be an opportunity to make
comments on the plan at the Council level.
Mr. Tong explained that there would be a reopening of the public
hearing regarding the General Plan and Specific Plan at the City
Council level. The Planning Commission public hearing will close on
October 15th.
The meeting was adjourned at 9:10 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
~
lannin Commissio Chairperson
~
~
Laurence L. Tong
Planning Director
Regular Meeting PCM-1992-154 October 6, 1992
[10-6min]
~