Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Minutes 04-20-1992 ~ f .i ~ ~ ~ . ~ ~ ~ . Reqular Meetinq - Apri1 20, 1992 A regular meeting of the City of Dublin Planning Commission was held on April 20, 1992, in the Dublin Civic Center Council Chambers. The meeting was called to order at 7:30 p.m. by Chairperson Zika. * * * * ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Burnham, Barnes, North, Rafanelli and Zika; Dennis Carrington, Senior Planner; Libby Silver, City Attorney; Brenda Gillarde, Planning Consultant; and Gail Adams, Recording Secretary. * * * * PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG Cm. Zika 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 Cm. North noted that he had listened to the tapes from the previous ~ meeting twice. The minutes for March 30, Apri1 2 and 6, 1992 were approved. * * * * ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None * * * * WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS Ms. Silver indicated that a letter addressed to the Commission from the Milestone Development was received by the City. She advised Staff that she felt it was inappropriate to provide this letter to the Commission at this time. The public hearing was closed some time ago on the General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan. If the Commission wished, the public hearing could be re-opened in order to have the letter part of the public testimony or the letter could be forwarded onto to the City Council for testimony at its public hearings. Milestone Development can provide any written comments they have or testify at the City Council hearings. She had informed Milestone's attorney regarding these comments. Regular Meeting PCM-1992-77 April 20, 1992 [4-20min] • . • ~ On consensus, the Planning Commission decided not to re-open the public hearing and requested the letter be sent to the City Council. * * * * PUBLIC HEARINGS SUBJECT: PA 88-144 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 (continued from the April 6, 1992 Planninq Commission meetinq) Cm. North indicated that he had received a phone call from a woman who identified herself as Marti from Eden Development Group. She asked him three questions; 1) had he listened to the tapes from the April 6th meeting; 2) did he intend on being at tonight's meeting; and 3) how was he going to vote on the proposed project. He indicated to her that he did not feel that it was appropriate to discuss these matters with her at that time and notified Staff of this conversation. Ms. Gillarde indicated that the Commission had three resolutions before them that needed their consideration and adoption at tonight's meeting. Ms. Gillarde indicated that the first resolution was for recommendation to the City Council for certification of the Final Environmental Impact Report. She described the Commission's direction from the previous meeting on several aspects of the EIR: 1) to not include a mitigation requiring off-site replacement of oak woodlands; 2) to not include a mitigation reguiring a fee program for purchase of open space; 3} the EIR did adequately address additional issues raised by Fish and Game and Caltrans; and 4) to proceed with preparation of the resolutions. She described the outline and content of the resolution recommending City Council certification of the Final EIR. On motion from Cm. North, seconded by Cm. Rafanelli, and with a 5-0 vote, the Commission adopted RESOLUTION NO. 92-023 A RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL CERTIFICATION OF THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE WESTERN DUBLIN GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT AND SPECIFIC PLAN Ms. Gillarde continued onto the resolution for the adoption of the General Plan Amendment. The Commission had recommended some modifications to the General P1an Amendment at the previous meeting. The Commission had directed Staff to draft a resolution adopting the General Plan Amendment with the changes indicated. She described the outline and content of the resolution. On motion from Cm. North, seconded by Cm. Barnes, and with a vote of 4-1, the Commission adopted Regular Meeting PCM-1992-78 April 20, 1992 [4-20min] . . . ~ ~ RESOLUTION NO. 92-024 A RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL ADOPTION OF THE WESTERN DUBLIN GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT Ms. Gillarde continued onto the final resolution for the adoption of the Specific Plan. At the previous meeting, the Commission had made modifications to the text and maps and gave direction to 1) reduce the number of units on the Milestone development to a maximum of 74 units; 2) delete the Brittany Drive extension and 3) designate a southerly alignment for the emergency vehicle access road connecting to the Eden/Schaeffer development. Cm. North stated that he had listened to the tapes from the previous meeting. He felt that there were some inaccuracies in regards to Staff's comments on the Commission's options. He referred to pages 3.4 and 3.5 in the Specific Plan and quoted in part "...adoption of the Specific Plan does not mean approval of the development proposals. They are subject to change based on EIR analyses and subsequent Staff evaluation. Adoption of the Specific Plan does not imply approval of a particular project. Figure 3.2 is included in the Western Dublin Specific Plan for illustrative purposes only to show one possible way the project could be developed". He got the impression from the April 6th meeting minutes, that if the Commission did not approve the Specific Plan, it would be a total annihilation of the project. He felt that the cluster development did not significantly change the project and would not require that the Specific Plan and EIR be rewritten. He felt that Staff's conception was somewhat inaccurate and the project could be approved without changing the documents. Cm. Zika felt that as the Specific Plan is written, he agreed with Cm. North. He planned on voting against the Specific Plan because he was under the impression that if the Commission voted for the project as shown, then this would be the type of development that would occur. Someone has to step back and take a look to see if we could save more of the canyon areas. Cm. North felt that the cluster development would save a significant amount of Wildflower and Elderberry canyons. The project should go forward, the City needs the project. He did not believe that the cluster development was that bad of an alternative. Cm. Zika concurred with Cm. North. Mr. Dahlin referred to illustrations that Cm. North had referred to in the Specific Plan. These are illustrations only in case property would change hands. On page 3.4 it also states that the land use plan in Figure 3.1 is the actual Specific Plan map. The cluster development alternative is substantially different from the map shown. Ms. Silver explained that the EIR considered this project as a whole, which is the General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan. The Commission can pick this project or it can pick any one of the alternatives that are discussed in the EIR. One of those alternatives is the cluster development. If the Commission picks something that is not in the Regular Meeting PCM-1992-79 April 20, 1992 [4-20min] . . . ~ • EIR, the EIR would need to be rewritten and recirculated. No revisions were required to the EIR if the Commission picked the cluster development alternative. However, the Specific Plan, as written, would need to be rewritten to accommodate the cluster development alternative. If the Commission voted for the cluster development alternative, Staff would need to revise the resolution to the City Council to accommodate that recommendation, with appropriate changes to the Specific Plan. Cm. North felt that the Specific Plan did not need to be rewritten or approved with the EIR. He reiterated his statements regarding the Specific Plan and asked why on page 3.5 it shows that the adoption of the Specific Plan does not imply approval of this particular project. Why can we change the Cronin property from 125 homes to 74 and there does not seem to be a problem. However, when we try to change the Eden Development property, we are required to change the Specific Plan. Mr. Dahlin indicated that it was a matter of degree. When looking at the Cronin property, there were not as many changes and less time required to make minor drafting revisions. Al1 of the tables, figures and impacts would have to be redone for the Specific Plan if the cluster development alternative was recommended. He indicated that the EIR notes that the cluster development alternative may not be viable and may have a negative impact on the City. Ms. Silver explained that the Commission was not approving any specific project. The General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan were parameters. There was additional processing to be done before any of the property owners could develop their property. The Commission was adopting a resolution to the City Council recommending what the land uses can be within that project area. The property owners would have to come back to the City with particular proposals for development of their property consistent with the parameters set forth in the General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan. The Commission was not approving any land use entitlement to any property owner. Cm. Zika asked if the Commission approved the Specific Plan as written, the cluster development would not be an alternative. Ms. Silver explained that once the Commission recommends approval of the Specific Plan, the cluster development is no longer an alternative. It is; however, still an alternative to the City Council. The Commission is making only one recommendation to the Council. It could be either the project as proposed, one of the alternatives identified in the EIR, or something else the Commission or Council prefers. On motion from Cm. Barnes, seconded by Cm. Burnham, and with a vote of 3-2, the Commission adopted RESOLUTION NO. 92-025 A RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL ADOPTION OF THE WESTERN DUBLIN SPECIFIC PLAN Regular Meeting PCM-1992-80 April 20, 1992 [4-20min] . ~ ~ Ms. Gillarde reminded everyone that there would be a City Council public hearing on May 12th and 14th. These are public hearings on the General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan documents and public testimony will be taken at these two meetings. NEW OR UNFINISHED BUSINESS None OTHER BUSINESS None PLANNING COMMISSION'S CONCERNS The Planning Commission thanked all of the residents that came forward and voiced their comments and/or concerns. Cm. Burnham indicated that almost everyone who came to the meetings did their homework and a lot of information was brought to the surface. Cm. Rafanelli felt that it was also very educational for both sides. He appreciated all of the time and effort everyone put into this project. Cm. North felt that the City needed to go forward with the project; however had concerns with the project as it is proposed. Cm. Zika concurred with Cm. North. He thanked everyone for their input and patience and encouraged public input at the City Council level. Mr. Carrington referred to concerns made by the Commission with regard to banners and for-lease signs. He indicated that the Zoning Investigator had looked into the matter and had issued warning notices to Cross Creek for banners to be removed by April 8th. Fall Creek had to remove their banner by April 8th. Murco Center had to remove their banners by April lOth. Auto House/Kassabian Motors had to be removed by today. The "For-Lease" signs are consistent with the Zoning Ordinance. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 8:10 p.m. Respectfully submitted, v~+' ~anni Co i on Chairperson ` Laurence L. Tong Planning Director Regular Meeting PCM-1992-81 April 20, 1992 (4-20min]