Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Minutes 01-14-1992 ~ . ? • • ~ ~ Reqular Meetinq - January 14, 1992 A regular meeting of the City of Dublin Planning Commission was held on January 14, 1992, in the Dublin Civic Center Council Chambers. The meeting was called to order at 7:30 p.m. by Vice-Chair Rafanelli. * * * * ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Burnham, North, Barnes, and Rafanelli; Laurence L. Tong, Planning Director; Libby Silver, City Attorney; Brenda Gillarde, Planning Consultant; Dennis Carrington, Senior Planner; and Gail Adams, Recording Secretary. * * * * PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG Cm. Rafanelli 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 The January 6, 1992 minutes were continued to the January 21st meeting. * * * * ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None * * * * WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS None. * * * * 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 January 6, 1992 Planninq Commission meeting) Regular Meeting PCM-1992-11 January 14, 1992 (1-14min] ~ , . ' • • The Commission indicated that the adjournment time for this meeting would be 10:30 p.m. Ms. Brenda Gillarde gave a brief review of the previous meeting. She indicated that they would be completing the review of the Specific Plan at tonight's meeting. If there was time remaining, there would be discussion on the General Plan Amendment. She turned the meeting over to Dennis Dahlin. Mr. Dahlin presented a slide show to describe various details of the proposed project. Some of the items discussed were an Environmental Management Plan, monitoring impacts, geology, landslide concerns, seismic/earthquake hazards, soils, vegetation, grasslands, grazing, woodlands, riparian habitats, blackbird pond, air quality, winds, noise, visual impacts, landmarks, cultural features, pedestrian orientation, standard designs, privacy, security, building designs, landscaping, financing, planning process, annexation, sphere of influence, and the Williamson Act. Mr. Dahlin referred to the Williamson Act contracts and indicated that all of the property owners under this agreement have filed for non- renewal status. Ms. Gillarde began the public comment period with Chapter #8 of the Specific Plan - Environmental Management. Doug Abbott, PARC, felt that Chapter #8 did not set any standards for protection. The language was very generalized and requested that more specific regulations for environmental protection be added to the report. He added that the Environmental Impact Report must have alternatives for all environmental impacts. John Anderson had concerns regarding landslide areas, earthquake faults, steep slopes (over 30~), visual and lighting impacts. He felt that the General Plan Amendment should maintain visual qualities for the site. Dr. Harvey Scudder was concerned that there was no plan for maintaining the open space areas. He felt that this issue needed to be addressed. Ms. Lanna Herrmann referred to Section 8.5. She had concerns regarding noise, visual impacts, and air quality. Mr. Mike McKissick indicated that the Specific Plan, General Plan Amendment and Environmental Impact Report addressed all of these concerns. The proposed project has been revised many times in the last 2-1/2 years which to create the best possible project for the City. Mr. David Bewley had concerns with the impacts the proposed project would create for his own property. He felt that the Brittany Lane extension was not consistent with the other roads proposed. He had concerns regarding visual impacts, landslides and fault areas. He Regular Meeting PCM-1992-12 January 14, 1992 [1-14min] ~ , , ' • • felt that the geological solutions suggested to prevent landslides/faults was not absolute. Mr. Emmett King, 11460 Rothchild Avenue, had concerns with the Brittany Lane road extension. He felt that there would be too much traffic and the existing road needed to be widened to accommodate more vehicles. He indicated that this evening was the first time he had heard anything about the proposed project. He had received a flyer which said that this was a"do or die" meeting and felt that the City needed to notify the surrounding property owners of pending projects. Mr. Glenn Hillbren indicated that the City needed to mail official notices to everyone regarding proposed projects. Mr. Tong stated that the City had exceeded their legal requirements for notifications. There has been supplemental mail outs, new media and notices posted around the City. The last mailing cost the City approximately $100.00 for postage. If anyone would like, they may request to be put on the mailing list by contacting the Planning Department. Mr. McKissick stated that there were no decisions being made at this meeting and felt that concerned individuals should not panic. There would be at least six more meetings before the Planning Commission. Everyone had an opportunity to voice their concerns. Mr. Bob Sebcowski had concerns regarding faults/landslides. He felt that the Specific Plan lacked specific guidelines and the Commission should consider all the costs for maintaining the roads. They should consider all mitigation measures. They were taking a gamble with the generalizations in the Specific Plan. Mr. Anderson indicated that Mr. McKissick was incorrect. This meeting was a"do or die" meeting. There was specific language in the public hearing notice that reads "If you challenge the above-described actions in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice...". He indicated that this meeting was very important. Mr. King asked what other alternative roads were being looked at. Mr. Tong indicated the Staff would be addressing alternatives with the Environmental Impact Report. Ms. Bobbi Foscalina asked if there had been a meeting addressing the goals and policies for this project. Had the General Plan Amendment been discussed already? Why were detailed plans being addressed before the General Plan Amendment? Ms. Gillarde indicated that the General Plan Amendment would be discussed after the Specific Plan. Ms. Foscalina indicated that this seemed backwards. The General Plan Amendment should be discussed first in order to set certain general policies. Regular Meeting PCM-1992-13 January 14, 1992 [1-14minJ Y • ~ , ~ . Mr. Tong indicated that the purpose of the public hearing was taking comments regarding the Specific Plan and policies incorporated into this document. There would be ample opportunity to comment on both the Specific Plan and the General Plan Amendment. Staff was presently hearing testimony regarding the Specific Plan. The Planning Commission explained that no decisions were being made and all concerns were being noted. They would give everyone an opportunity to comment on the project. Ms. Libby Silver, City Attorney, explained the necessary approval steps. The first step would be to recommend that the City Council certify the Environmental Impact Report. Secondly, the General Plan Amendment would be recommended for approval to the City Council. Thirdly, the Specific Plan would be recommended for approval to the City Council. The discussions on the project were being reversed; however, the approval steps are as mentioned. Ms. Foscalini had concerns that the General Plan Amendment should be discussed first in order to set policies. The Specific Plan needs to work around the General Plan Amendment. Ms. Gillarde explained that there had been public study sessions involving various alternatives to the project. At that time, there was a general consensus from the City Council to proceed with the proposed project. It was not a formal vote; however there had been discussions regarding the General Plan policies and different development options available to the City. Mr. Bewley indicated that the project had some positive features; however, this project would be amending the existing General Plan considerably. The Bordeaux Estates subdivision had been built within the current General Plan guidelines. The current proposal would be taking away the surrounding property owner's quality of life. He was very concerned about the proposed Brittany Lane road extension and indicated that there were several alternative roads that could be constructed. Ms. Gillarde went on to Chapter #9 - Design. She described various design concepts for the proposed site and asked for any public comments. No public comments were made. Ms. Gillarde continued on to Chapter #10 - Financing, and asked for any public comments. Mr. John Anderson asked if the land was not developed, who would be responsible for maintaining the land. Would there be an assessment district if the land was not developed? Mr. Dennis Dahlin explained that there could be a geologic hazards abatement district and gave the City of Clayton as an example. This would protect the City from disasters beyond their control. Regular Meeting PCM-1992-14 January 14, 1992 [1-14min] . ~ ~ Ms. Silver indicated that it was important to levy assessments in the area where the benefit would occur. Mr. Tong referred to the refinement of Appendix C- December 12, 1991. Ms. Gillarde continued on to Chapter #11 - Implementation and Administration and asked for public comment. This was the last chapter of the Specific Plan. No comments from the public were made. Ms. Gillarde indicated that there was additional time left to start the discussions for the General Plan Amendment. Ms. Gillarde explained that the current General Plan specified that a Specific Plan was needed for the Western Planning Area. She stressed that the proposed General Plan Amendment was for Western Dublin on1y. It does not involve the Eastern Dublin project ar the existing City. Ms. Gillarde briefly described the land use, open space, schools/ circulation and conservation elements of the General Plan Amendment. Two land use categories were being added: Estate Residential and Freeway Commercial. The report shows where the land uses should occur. There were significant changes to the open space regulations which added more flexibility. There would be one additional school constructed. Ms. Gillarde indicated that discussions would be done chapter by chapter. Mr. John Anderson reminded the Commission that they had indicated there would be an opportunity for the public to add any additional concerns that they had. The Commission concurred and asked if there were any additional concerns regarding the Specific Plan. Mr. Anderson indicated that the Brittany Lane extension was unacceptable based on the definition of a"collector" street. Brittany Lane was 33 feet wide. Section 4-5A refers to a collector street as being 40 feet wide. He preferred road connections through Hansen Ranch. There were 261 dwelling units to be built in the neighborhood. This would add 2610 to any new traffic counts. He had concerns regarding safety, traffic hazards, and speed of vehicles on Brittany Lane. He indicated that people would be backing out of their driveways which was a safety concern. The downhill grade of Brittany Lane was about 12~. He was in favor of other alternatives. The road through the Donlan Canyon project would work. Discussions were continued regarding the General Plan Amendment. Ms. Gillarde asked if there were any comments on Chapters #2 through #8. Regular Meeting PCM-1992-15 January 14, 1992 [1-14min] . ~ ! There were no public comments made. Cm. Burnham questioned if the General Plan Amendment had any bearing on the Eastern Dublin project. Ms. Gillarde said that this concern was clarified throughout the document to make sure there would be no confusion. Cm. Burnham had concerns with the broad statements made in the General Plan Amendment. Statements such as "keep at a minimum" were rather vague. He asked if there were standard laws stipulating certain required percentages. Mr. Dahlin indicated that the Environmental Impact Report identifies specific percentages. The City could put specific language in the Specific Plan. Mr. Tong explained that General Plan policies are the broadest. Specific Plans were more specific. The Environmental Impact Report had very specific numbers. More detailed standards such as zoning, number of lots, building designs, etc. would be identified at the Site Development Review stage of the project. Ms. Silver indicated that percentages could be put into the General Plan. Mr. Bewley asked if the General Plan Amendment for the Western Dublin area was adopted, would it take precedence over existing resolutions within other areas of the City. Would this amendment modify existing developments? Mr. Tong indicated that existing resolutions would still be in force. The General Plan Amendment would be focused on the Western Dublin project. All developments have their own standard regulations. Ordinances can only be changed by going back through the public hearing process. Ms. Silver explained that the Western Dublin area would be the only area impacted by the amendment. General Plans, however, can be amended. Mr. Dahlin indicated that this concern was clarified in the General Plan Amendment. The Planning Commission discussed the upcoming meeting on January 29th. Mr. Tong indicated that at this meeting there would be an opportunity for further comments regarding the General Plan Amendment and the Specific Plan. Beginning discussions on the Environmental Impact Report would take place. The comment period for the EIR would end on March 2, 1992. * * * * Regular Meeting PCM-1992-16 January 14, 1992 [1-14min] ~ ~ ~ ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 10:30 p.m. and continued to the January 29, 1992 meeting. Respectfully submitted, ~ ~ Plan ing mmission airperson ~ Lau ence L. Tong Planning Director Regular Meeting PCM-1992-17 January 14, 1992 [1-14min]