Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Minutes 10-01-1992 . . . ~ ~ Regular Meetinq - October 1, 1992 A regular meeting of the City of Dublin Planning Commission was held on October 1, 199'2, in the Dublin Civic Center Council Chambers. The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Commissioner Rafanelli. * * * * ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Barnes, Burnham, North, and Rafanelli; Laurence L. Tong, Planning Director; Brenda Gillarde, Planning Consultant; and Gail Adams, Recording Secretary. Absent: Commissioner Zika 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. Rafanelli indicated that this hearing had been continued from the September 29th meeting. This hearing consists of the public giving additional testimony on the Draft EIR, a Staff presentation on the Draft General Plan Amendment and public gi.ving testimony on the Draft General Plan Amendment. For the record, he stated that he has listened to the tapes for the September 21st and 29th meetings. He asked if there were any additional comments from the public on the Draft EIR. Mr. Ted Fairfield, representing the Dublin Ranch and Doolan Ranch properties, commented that the Draft EIR has been well presented and written. He indicated he was preparing thorough written comments on the Draft EIR and would be submitting them before the deadline. Cm. North noted that at the last meeting a comment was made that if there was not sufficient water resources for the project, the Draft EIR would be considered deficient and inadequate. He asked Staff if they had a chance to look into this comment. Mr. Tong indicated that Staff has not completed its review; however they will be responding to the comment. No further comments were made on the Draft EIR. Cm. Rafanelli asked Staff for its presentation on the General Plan Amendment. Ms. Gillarde indicated that the next part of the Eastern Dublin planning process is the General Plan Amendment. This amendment is necessary to amend the existing General Plan in order to accommodate the development that is envisioned by the proposed Specific Plan. She noted that this was not a General Plan update. This General Plan Regular Meeting PCM-1992-143 October 1, 1992 [10-lmin] . _ . ~ ~ Amendment only pertains to the Eastern Dublin area. There was a similar General Plan Amendment completed for western Dublin which only applies to that project. Ms. Gillarde explained that the existing General Plan supported some development in the Eastern Dublin area. There was a guiding policy stating that consideration should be given for residential proposals on moderate slopes with higher densities on flatter land. This gives some policy framework for residential development. The plan does state that refinement studies would be needed to implement exact locations and density requirements for land uses for the Eastern Dublin area. Ms. Gillarde indicated on the wall maps that the boundary of the extended planning area would now include the Doolan Canyon area, west of Collier Canyon road, and would follow property lines north up to the Contra Costa line. The land use classifications of the General Plan would be modified to add "rural residential" and "high-density" land use categories to create more flexibility for the type of units being developed and to accommodate the income levels and market conditions for the area. There will be four commercial categories added: general commercial, neighborhood commercial, campus office; and industrial park. Two additional land uses would be added: public/semi-public and open space categories. She described these land uses on the wall map and referred to a table on page 13 in the Draft General Plan Amendment that outlined all the land use categories with their respective acreages, buildouts, etc. Ms. Gillarde explained the Draft General Plan Amendment would modify several policies in the existing General Plan. A policy would be added to further define and encourage higher density uses on the flat lands and gentle slopes. The agricultural land policy would be modified to remove a time limit prior to the expiration of Williamson Act contracts which allows more flexibility. An implementation policy would make sure park and trail facilities are provided for the Eastern Dublin area. Ms. Gillarde indicated that Chapter 4 of the General Plan was being amended to add specific reference to the number of schools needed for the area and that the schools should be operated by the Dublin School District. Chapter 5 would be modified to emphasize different modes of transportation and needed circulation improvements which include the extension of Dublin Boulevard, the extension of Fallon and Gleason Road and widening of I-580 to ten lanes. Additional languages would encourage higher density near transit and designate Fallon as a future scenic route. Chapter 7 will have language added to describe agricultural land and cultural resources in Eastern Dublin. Cm. North questioned the population figures used for medium and high- density dwelling units and was concerned that we were under-quoting services needed for the area. Mr. Tong indicated these are the population figures used in the existing General Plan and they are consistent with the 1990 census. Regular Meeting PCM-1992-144 October 1, 1992 [10-lmin] , . ~ ~ Staff felt that these were the best numbers to use for the projections. Cm. North had concerns with the "2.0" figure used for medium density units. This did not seem realistic since this would mean there were no children in these homes. Cm. North referred to page l0 where it indicated there was no industrial use in the Eastern Dublin area and asked for clarification. Ms. Gillarde explained that the typeface in italics represented the language changes from the Western Dublin General Plan Amendment. Cm. Barnes asked if the "2.0" figures were based on the census. This would mean that there could be "single" person dwellings as well as people with children. Mr. Tong indicated yes, she was correct, this was an average count. Cm. Barnes noted that she received a phone call after the last meeting from a concerned citizen about the Commission's requirement of stating their name when making public testimony. She indicated there was no camera available and the tape recorder needed to be able to identify who was speaking at the meetings. Cm. Rafanelli stated that it was also important when one of the Commissioners was absent because they would be listening to the tapes and would need to know who was talking. Marjorie LaBar referred to page 19 and indicated Staff was allowing pre-planning within Williamson Act area and was discouraging renewal of these contacts. On page 29 she indicated there were only vague ideas and comprehensive buffers were needed. She referred to page 27 and indicated it showed justification for development, not conservation of the land. On page 31 there did not seem to be any solid policies and felt there should be more restrictive language added. She was concerned about developing a heritage tree ordinance and felt that the open space policies were too vague. There was no language to provide sufficient resource protection. She recommended that the Commission look at City of San Ramon's resource overlay. Carolyn Morgan referred to page 17 under 3.1B and indicated that the rural residential category should not be considered permanent open space. This language should be defined to show permanent open space which is deed restricted and used by the public. Jim Stedman felt that the General Plan Amendment had good aspects as well as quality, i.e., the Town Center, the transit spine, location of residential by major facilities, encouragement of pedestrian usage, etc. He had suggestions regarding the high school site and pointed out these areas on the wall map. He felt that the high school site should be fronting on Tassajara Road which would allaw a common entry for both the high school and middle school. He had concerns with access and circulation for the high school where proposed. He Regular Meeting PCM-1992-145 October 1, 1992 [10-lmin] ! • indicated that the State standards encourage school sites to front major arterials and felt that the City should follow these guidelines. Mr. Stedman had concerns with the small parks located around the Town Center where there might be a maintenance and surveillance problem. He preferred private interior parks incorporated into projects. He was also concerned with the office/campus sites and felt these areas should front I-580. The City should provide as much general commercial as possible along the frontage area for visibility purposes. Mr. Fairfield indicated they have been watching the General Plan and Specific Plan evolve over the last several years and encouraged the' City to plan boldly for the future and he has submitted several written comments to the Planning Department. He stated that a General Plan will outline the plan for the area; however it will not provide - all of the solutions. The plan is merely the beginning of the solutions. Cm. Rafanelli continued the public hearing to October 6, 1992 at 7:00 p.m. He indicated that the next meeting will continue additional testimony on the General Plan Amendment, if any, and Staff will make a presentation on the Specific Plan with an opportunity for public testimony through Chapter 5. The meeting was adjourned at 8:15 p.m. Respectfully submitted, . lanning ommissi Chairperson Laurence L. ong Planning Director Regular Meeting PCM-1992-146 October 1, 1992 [10-lmin]