Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Minutes 05-03-1993 ~ ` ~ ~ Regular Meeting - May 3, 1993 A regular meeting of the City of Dublin Planning Commission was held on May 3, 1993, in the Dublin Civic Center Council Chambers. The ~ meeting was called to order at 7:30 p.m. by Commissioner Zika. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Barnes, Burnham, North, Rafanelli and Zika; Laurence L. Tong, Planning Director; Brenda Gillarde, Planning Coordinator; Dennis Carrington, Senior Planner; 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 The minutes for April 5, 1993 were approved as submitted. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS None PUBLIC HEARINGS SUBJECT: PA 87-031 Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment (GPAZ,, Specific Plan (SP) Environmental Impact Report (EIR~ and related project implementation including Amendment to the Sphere of Influence~ and Annexation to the City of Dublin and the Dublin San Ramon Services District (DSRSDZ Consideration of City Council recommended changes to the Draft Eastern Dublin GPA and SP which would eliminate potential for approximately 4 040 to 4 660 dwelling units 770,000 square feet of commercial uses 1 340 jobs housinq for 6,550 to 7,560 workers 2 school sites and 5 park sites Cm. Zika opened the public hearing and asked for the staff report. Ms. Brenda Gillarde reviewed the format of tonight's meeting, indicating that there would be a staff presentation which would include a review of the City Council's recommended changes and public testimony on these changes. The Planning Commission would then need Regular Meeting PCM-1993-22 May 3, 1993 [5-3min] . ~ ~ • to close the public hearing, deliberate and give direction to Staff regarding their recommendation to the City Council. Ms. Gillarde explained that the revised project recommended by the City Council was required, by law, to be reviewed by the Planning Commission since these changes had not been discussed by the Commission. The Planning Commission would need to take action on this project at tonight's meeting in order for the Council to have their hearing on this project at their next meeting scheduled for May 10th. Ms. Gillarde indicated the Council had initiated several changes to the General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan and these 11 items were outlined on page 2 of the staff report. Ms. Gillarde reviewed the first two items which dealt with the overall land use concept which has been modified by the Council. These changes were shown on the view graph. She explained that the General Plan Amendment boundary will remain the same. However, the area between the General Plan Amendment boundary line and the City's current sphere of influence boundary will be shown as "Future Study Area" with an underlying land use designation of "Agricultural". She reviewed the text changes describing this land use category. Ms. Gillarde indicated that the results of these modifications are that the 4.3 square miles designated "Future Study Area" will not show development and would eliminate approximately 4,000 dwelling units; approximately 770,000 square feet of commercial area (which would have provided approximately 1300 jobs); two school sites; and five park sites. Also, Doolan Canyon road would not be extended northerly to connect to Tassajara Road. She noted that the General Plan Amendment maps and tables will be changed to reflect all of these revisions. Ms. Gillarde discussed the modifications to grading policies within the Specific Plan which would create greater flexibility without compromising the intent. She briefly reviewed Policies 6-29; 6-33; 6- 35; 6-36 and noted that these revisions were shown on page 4 of the staff report. She indicated that the Second Guideline under Form, page 99 would be deleted and the First Guideline under Building Siting, page 99 would be modified to show "cluster development". Ms. Gillarde discussed the changes to the language requiring a grid- type street pattern indicating that all notations of a"grid" would be removed. Text would be added to allow various types of street systems which would still maintain the pedestrian accessibility intent. She briefly reviewed the specific text changes and referred to pages 18, 79, 88, 89, 107 and Figures 7.l and 7.44 of the Specific Plan. These changes were also shown on page 5 and 6 of the staff report. Ms. Gillarde stated that the Council was recommending the Transit Spine be four lanes instead of two lanes. She referred to the handout that had been distributed to the Planning Commission which indicated several modifications to the setback language in the Specific Plan. Regular Meeting PCM-1993-23 May 3, 1993 [5-3minJ _ - , • • Ms. Gillarde indicated that there were chanqes regarding flexibility in the design guidelines. The Council felt that the existing language was too restrictive and it might impede development. She noted the added paragraph shown on page 7 of the staff report regarding the use of the design guidelines. Ms. Gillarde discussed the text modifications regarding residential uses within the Livermore Airport Protection Area. Language as shown on page 7 and 8 of the staff report would be added to the Specific Plan. She indicated this language allowed flexibility regarding residential uses within the APA. Ms. Gillarde reviewed the text revisions regarding General Commercial within the Campus Office land use designation. These text changes would allow consideration of some General Commercial within the Campus Office areas. These areas are located along I-580, south of Dublin Boulevard between Tassajara and Fallon Roads and at the southwest corner of Dublin Boulevard and Tassajara Road. Ms. Gillarde reviewed Item #9 regarding the average intersection level of service, indicating that additional language was needed to clarify I~ what "average" meant. She noted the additional text as shown on page ~ 9 of the staff report. Ms. Gillarde reviewed Item #10 regarding school availability (Policy 8-3). Language would be added to clarify recent amendments to the law. She noted the text revisions shown on page 9 of the staff report. Mr. Tong indicated that Staff had met and reviewed policies with the school district staff. The first modifications to Program 8.B (page 120 of Specific Plan) would be to add the phrase "or any other means permitted by law." The second modification to Policy 8-2 (page 119 of Specific Plan) would be to add the phrase "in consultation with the appropriate school districts." These modifications add clarifications to the policies. Ms. Gillarde continued on to Item #11 regarding adequate depth for major retail development in the General Commercial area along Tassajara Road. She noted that Attachment 4 of the staff report showed a typical retail development configuration. Staff recommended that the General Commercial area north of Gleason Drive be relocated south of the Transit Spine to allow sufficient depth in this sector for a major retail store. A Medium Density Residential land use designation would be placed north of Gleason in the area formerly designated General Commercial. All text, maps and figures in the General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan would be adjusted to reflect these changes. Ms. Gillarde noted that some of the changes discussed this evening had not been specifically addressed in the Draft EIR. An Initial Study is being prepared to evaluate the environmental effect of these changes. Staff has determined that an Addendum to the EIR would need to be Regular Meeting PCM-1993-24 May 3, 1993 [5-3min] . ~ : • ~ prepared to accommodate all of the modifications to the Draft EIR. These documents will go before the City Council on May lOth. Cm. Burnham asked how far in the future would development be considered within the "Future Study Area". Mr. Tong explained that the City Council would hear requests for any future studies of that area. They would determine if it was appropriate to initiate that study. This procedure is similar to what happens when a General Plan Amendment is requested. There is no time limit on these requests. Cm. North asked for clarification on the extension of Fallon Road. Ms. Gillarde explained that the extension of Fallon Road was still in the plan. The extension of Doolan Road to Tassajara Road has been eliminated with the Alternative 2 proposal. Cm. North referred to a letter from the school district dated April 27 regarding a$2500 short fall. He asked if the May 3rd letter supersedes the previous letter. Mr. Tong indicated yes. Cm. North asked for information on the pending litigation of the Airport Protection Area. Ms. Libby Silver, City Attorney, stated the City did not file the lawsuit; some of the property owners within the area had filed this lawsuit about 1-1/2 months ago. She was not aware of the status at this time. Cm. North referred to page 10 of the staff report and asked if the Planning Commission needed to review the Addendum. Mr. Tong explained that CEQA requires that the decision making body would be required to review the Addendum in conjunction with the Final EIR. The Planning Commission did not need to review the Addendum. The Commission was, at tonight's meeting, making recommendations on the General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan. Ms. Silver further explained that the EIR considered Alternative #2• The modified proposal is being referred back to the Commission for review. Cm. Zika referred to the Campus Office land use designation which had potential for retail uses. He felt there would be significant impacts on the project and were these impacts addressed in the EIR. Ms. Gillarde indicated that specific impacts would be addressed with supplemental environmental reviews and would be reviewed at the time a development proposal was submitted to the City. Regular Meeting PCM-1993-25 May 3, 1993 [5-3min] , . • • Cm. Zika felt that the traffic would double if retail uses were allowed within the Campus/Office locations. Ms. Gillarde agreed there would be an increase; however the extent of the increase would be determined by traffic analysis at the time the application is submitted to the City. Cm. Zika asked if the developer would need to submit a Traffic Impact Fee for the increase traffic. Ms. Gillarde commented that if there was a need for additional traffic improvements, funding would have to be guaranteed. The plan indicates that traffic cannot exceed level of service D for internal streets which safeguards against traffic impacts. Cm. Zika asked how everyone would pay their fair share of the traffic impacts if some uses were commercial and some were retail. Mr. Tong indicated that the traffic analysis would be completed at the prezoning stage of the application. The study would assume that the areas designated General Commercial would have General Commercial uses. The area that is shown as Campus/Office would have some flexibility. At this point, a determination would have to be made as to how much retail or general commercial the property owner is asking for. Cm. Zika referred to the Transit Spine and asked the reason for the increase in lanes. This road concept was for transit and limited automobile traffic. Mr. Tong commented that the City Council felt it would be beneficial to have the additional traffic capacity on this road. Cm. North asked if traffic impacts had been estimated with the I additional lanes through the Transit Spine and the additional ' allowable retail uses. He commented that the freeway was already at LOS F. Mr. Tong explained that portions of the Transit Spine outside of the Town Center have always been designated as four lanes. The additional lanes within the Town Center should not significantly increase the traffic impacts. The modifications to the Campus/Office designations would be more controlled at the major intersections. Cm. North felt that the freeway could have significant impacts where Dublin Boulevard may not be impacted at all. Mr. Tong indicated that the length between I-580 and Dublin Boulevard would not allow for traffic to turn left out of or into additional retail areas. Traffic leaving the area between Tassajara Road and Fallon Road would need to exit onto Dublin Boulevard and come back down to the freeway. Either the outbound or inbound traffic to the additional retail areas would affect Dublin Boulevard. Regular Meeting PCM-1993-26 May 3, 1993 [5-3min] ~ • ~ Carolyn Morgan felt that the residents of Doolan Canyon had the right i to choose what they want. The majority of landowners did not want to be part of Dublin's plan. She felt that there would be no way to stop ' development in Doolan Canyon and this plan will cause leap frog development. She stressed that phasing should be mandatory and all impacts mitigable. Doug Abbott felt that the revisions being proposed were purely cosmetic and was concerned about the financial exposure of the existing Dublin taxpayers. He asked Staff if the Addendum to the EIR needed to be reviewed by the public. Mr. Tong indicated that the Addendum would be ready for the May 10th Council meeting and did not need to go through the public hearing process. John Anderson asked what the intent of the Future Study Area was; did this designation imply building would occur in the near future? Mr. Tong explained that the intent was for the area to be designated as a Future Study Area. There is no predetermination that it would be for future development or preservation. The underlying land use designation is agricultural and would remain until a General Plan Amendment was adopted. Mr. Anderson asked if this title brings the area under Dublin's Sphere of Influence. What advantages does this area give Dublin? Mr. Tong stated that this area does not fall within Dublin's Sphere of Influence; however it does remain in Dublin's overall general planning area. The City does intend to conduct studies in the future to determine what the best use of the property is. This designation leaves the door open to allow Dublin to plan for this area in the future. Ms. Silver explained that the property is within the County's unincorporated area and subject to the existing zoning. This area will remain under the County's jurisdiction until the land is annexed into the City of Dublin or Livermore. As Mr. Tong stated, the City of Dublin feels it is appropriate to plan for this area. However, the City of Livermore could plan for this area. The Future Study Area is not in Dublin's or Livermore's Sphere of Influence. Mr. Anderson felt that labeling the Doolan Canyon area as "Future Study Area" was a marketing gimmick and did not see the purpose of this. He asked what the disadvantages were to not labeling the area. Mr. Tong explained that Doolan Canyon is currently shown within Dublin's General Plan area. If the City eliminates this area from the plan, this would indicate the City was not interested in looking at the area. The City wants to keep the Doolan Canyon area in its overall planning area so that it could be studied at a future date. Regular Meeting PCM-1993-27 May 3, 1993 [5-3min] . . ~ ~ Ms. Silver reiterated that the Future Study Area can be placed in Livermore's Sphere of Influence even if its in Dublin's general planning area. There is nothing binding about the phrase "Future Study Area". Mr. Anderson asked how many property owners within the Future Study Area were interested in development of the area. Mr. Tong indicated that Staff did not have any specifics on this. Mr. Anderson felt that the purpose of the Transit Spine was to enhance pedestrian traffic versus automobile traffic. The four lanes seemed to counter this original concept and would change the whole purpose of the Transit Spine. Mr. Anderson asked how the traffic analysis was being calculated. Mr. Tong explained that the level of service was typically measured on an hourly basis and at peak hours. Clarification was needed within the document. Eloise Hamann, 7065 Incline Place, asked for clarification on phasing. She was concerned that development would be allowed "out of sequence" and was not sure what this implied. Mr. Tong noted that there were dozens of policies through out the Specific Plan that referred to phasing. He felt that the phrase "absolutely contiguous development" would be too constrictive. There were parcels of land within the existing City that were vacant and not yet developed and most cities did not require "absolute" contiguous development. Ms. Hamann had concerns about hodge podge development and felt that orderly development should occur in Eastern Dublin. She did not want the City to be responsible for this expense. Francis Croak had concerns with the four lane Transit Spine. The road seemed to terminate at the Future Study Area and felt this road was an exit route to Doolan Canyon which indicates future development within this area. He felt that the road should swing down southerly towards I-580. John DiManto described the property boundaries involved with his land and the adjacent property owners and felt that the retail commercial uses would take up quite a portion of his property. He was concerned that with the large amount of street dedication to accommodate the four lane road and rail system, there would not be enough land left for revenue producing retail. He suggested that a special assessment district be formed to fund the Transit Spine with all property owners paying their proportionate share. He was opposed to the width of the Transit Spine, the funding process for it, and the City's inability to finance these projects. He felt the Council should adopt a phasing Regular Meeting PCM-1993-28 May 3, 1993 [5-3min] . . ` ~ ` plan exhibit with their application to LAFCO which shows the City's ability to finance the infrastructure. Jim Stedman had concerns with the Transit Spine remaining two lanes and felt that the area would become very congested. He agreed that the Town Center should be pedestrian oriented; however, it should also have the ability to have automobile move through the area. He asked if left turn and left turn pockets would be allowed within the Town Center. Mr. Tong indicated that there was nothing in the guidelines that would preclude left turns. These decisions would be addressed at the development proposal stage. Mr. Stedman felt that left turns should be allowed with pockets for stacking. Mr. Stedman had concerns with the neighborhood parks that were in the 1-1/2 acre size. He felt that these parks were difficult and costly to maintain, would encourage undesirable activities, and were unsafe for children. He requested that the neighborhood squares be deleted. Bobbi Foscalina concurred with the other speakers and felt that phasing was very important and that infrastructure should be in place before development occurs. The General Plan should require contiguous development which would maintain fundable infrastructure. Cm. Burnham asked Staff if there was any liability to the City for piecemeal development. Ms. Silver explained that property cannot be annexed ta the City unless it is contiguous. It would be highly unlikely for the entire area to be annexed at one time; it would be annexed in phases likely starting from the west and moving east. If infrastructure is financed by developer fees, this money has to be paid. If it is financed through an assessment district, it is secured by bonds which are secured by the property. Mello-Roos authorizes assessment of a special tax against the property. Ms. Foscalina asked if property owners in between development would be affected by the improvements and would be required to pay special taxes to pay for the infrastructure. Ms. Silver indicated that when an assessment district or Mello-Roos district is formed, only the property within that district is assessed or subject to the tax. The assessment can vary due to several factors and there has to be a determination by the Council before any type of assessment can be imposed. Cm. Zika closed the public hearing. Cm. Zika had concerns with losing the grid street system, adding two additional lanes to the Town Center area, and allowing retail uses Regular Meeting PCM-1993-29 May 3, 1993 [5-3min] . ~ ~ within the Campus Office designation without having a traffic study prepared. He felt he would be opposed to the Council's modifications. Cm. North disagreed with Cm. Zika. He felt that the Transit Spine should be four lanes and should allow left turn pockets. Cm. Zika had a concern with where the Transit Spine would be located since we have modified the planning area and now show a Future Study Area. Cm. North indicated that the concern should be with the current Eastern Dublin plan and with the Town Center construction. Road improvements in the Future Study Area could change 5-10 years from now. Cm. North noted that the Eastern Dublin project may impact the freeway; however, with or without Eastern Dublin, I-580,will be at level of service F. He felt that there should be a generalized plan allowing retail within the Campus/Office land use designation for flexibility in the future. Cm. Zika felt that the construction of four lanes within the Transit Spine would just create a modified freeway. This will make it an alternate route when there is a backup on the freeway and would not make the area pedestrian oriented. Mr. Tong indicated that there had been some discussion on the four lane Transit Spine at the Council meeting. He referred to the view graph and indicated Staff had come up with three examples showing pedestrian oriented street systems. He reviewed Pleasanton's Main Street, Walnut Creek's Broadway Plaza, and Ocean Avenue in Carmel. Carmel is the only road system that has four lanes. He felt that these three examples were pedestrian-shopper oriented and successful and profitable. Cm. Zika commented that none of these streets were parallel to a freeway. Cm. North pointed out that there were large parking areas in Walnut Creek and Carmel. Cm. Burnham felt that the City could not duplicate the atmosphere of Pleasanton or Carmel. It took years to establish this type of community. The Transit Spine, as revised, will become a thoroughfare. Cm. Rafanelli felt that the four lanes distorted the original plan concept. Dublin Boulevard is meant to carry traffic east and west. Cm. Burnham felt that the Eastern Dublin project was suppose to be a "concept". The current plan was too specific. Five to ten years from now, the situation may be different and flexibility to accommodate changes were needed. Regular Meeting PCM-1993-30 May 3, 1993 [5-3min] . - - , ~ ` Cm. North commented that someone could come back several years in the future and request a General Plan Amendment to modify this plan. The Planning Commission reviewed Item #1 through 11 of the staff report as follows: The Planning Commission had no concerns with Item #1 and #2. Regarding Item #3, Cm. North had concerns with changing the word "shall" to "should". He felt "could" would give additional flexibility. Cm. Barnes concurred with Cm. North (3-2/concurred with Staff's recommendation). In reviewing Item #4, Cm. Zika indicated he was opposed to this revision. The rest of the Planning Commission had no concerns with Item #4 (4-1/concurred). Referring to Item #5, Cm. North was in agreement with having the Town Center constructed with four lanes. The rest of the Planning Commission was opposed to this revision (4-1/opposed). Continuing on to Item 6 and 7, the Planning Commission concurred with these revisions. Cm. Zika was opposed to Item #8. The rest of the Planning Commission concurred with this revision (4-1/concurred). Referring to Item #9 through #11, the Planning Commission concurred with these revisions. Cm. Zika asked for clarification on how the Commission should proceed with their vote. Mr. Tong felt that the Planning Commission should recommend their approval, as discussed, of ten of the eleven items. The eleventh item (two lanes within the Town Center) would be a negative recommendation. I He asked the Commission if this would include the modifications noted in the May 3rd letter to the Commission regarding the Transit Spine. The Planning Commission was in concurrence with the revisions noted in the May 3rd letter. Ms. Silver reviewed the draft resolution with the Planning Commission to clarify their recommendations. She indicated that on the second page of the resolution where it read "BE IT RESOLVED", language should be added noting that the Planning Commission did not recommend Item B.4 shown on page 1 of the resolution; specifically that the Transit Spine within the Town Center should remain as two lanes. The Planning Commission concurred with Ms. Silver. On motion from Cm. North noting that Item B.4 would remain as two lanes, seconded by Cm. Barnes, and with a vote of 4-1 (Cm. Zika opposed), the Planning Commission adopted Regular Meeting PCM-1993-31 May 3, 1993 [5-3min] ' ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ RESOLUTION NO. 93 - 013 A RESOLIITION RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF THE EASTERN DUBLIN GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT AND SPECIFIC PLAN ALTERNATIVE 2 WITH MODIFICATIONS UNFINISHED BUSINESS None i OTHER BUSINESS ' Mr. Tong reminded the Planning Commission that the May 17th meeting had been rescheduled to Tuesday, May 25th. COMMISSIONER'S CONCERNS The Planning Commission noted that John Moore with J. Patrick Land Company called and requested a meeting with them regarding the storage facility project being reviewed by Staff. They declined the invitation. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 9:50 p.m. Respectfully submitted, ~ ,1' ~ : ~~lannin Commissi C airperson La rence L. Tong Planning Director Regular Meeting PCM-1993-32 May 3, 1993 [5-3minJ