Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Minutes 12-19-1994 . ~ Regular Meeting - December 19, 1994 A regular meeting of the City of Dublin Planning Commission was held on December 19, 1994, in the Dublin Civic Center City Council Chambers. The meeting was called to order at 7:30 by Commissioner North. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Zika,, Burnham, Geist, and North; Laurence L. Tong; Plannuig Director; Dennis Carrington, Senior Planner; Jeri Ram, Associate Planner and Gaylene Burkett, Recording Secretary. Absent: Commission Ra£anelli ~ PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO TI-~ FLAG Cm.lVorth led the Commission, Staff, and those present in the pledge of allegiance to the flago ADDITIONS OR REVISIONS TO THE AGENDA The minutes of the December 5, 1994, meeting were approved as submitted. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS SUBJECT: 6.1 Election of Officers Tlus item was continued to the January 3, 1995, meeting. SUBJECT: 6.2 Presentation on East Dublin/Pleasanton BART Station Laurence L. Tong, Planning Director indicated that the Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) staff and consultants have completed and presented their plans regarding the East Dublin/Pleasanton Station. The station is currently under construction. The plans for the parking lot design have been completed and are currently out to bid. The contract is expected to be awarded in the Spring of 1995. Appro~mately 2,600 parking spaces are planned to be split between the north and south sides. The plans have recently been revised to include a radio tower with a small "out " building, The tower will be appro~cimately 120 feet tall. Marvin Delander, Project Engineer far BART, indicated that bids were due at 2:00 on Tuesday, December 20, 1994. The Notice to Proceed should be issued in March, 1995, and run for about one year. The parking structure plans include work on flood control facilities which will increase the flood control capacity throughout the area at a cost of approximately $1,000,000. Chuck Middlebrook, deta.iled the plan for the parking structure and bus stop areas. Visual slides were shown outlining the various sections of the parking lot. In addition to the 1,300 parking spaces on each side of the BART station, there will be an additional 41 parking spaces for BART employees. Mr. Regular Meeting PCM-1994-123 December 19, 1994 [12-19min] i • . ~ ~ Middlebrook showed where drop-off and pick-up stations will be located. In addition, he outlined the handicap spaces and the kiss-and-ride drop-aff station. The radio antenna that was added was required for BART communications train-to-train and train-to-central communications. The antenna is planned for the east side against the property line. BART is currently working with the Planning Director to make the antenna as unintrusive as possible. Mr. Middlebrook also outlined the pedestrian spine in relation to the station. There will be four concession buildings that BART will lease out to private vendars. Cm. Zika and Burnham expressed concern over the number of parking spaces and future plans to expand ~he parking lot. Mr. Delander outlined how the parking will be handled in the future and that the anticipated increased parking needs were addressed in the study. Cm. Geist questioned whether there were provisions to monitor the parking lot for BART patrons only. Mr. Delander answered yes. There were several ways to monitor the parking structure in order to keep it from becoming a Park-N-Ride lot. One such way was to have numbered spaces with corresponcling token slots inside the BART sta#ion. This would require patrons to enter the BART station to deposit a token ~.nd then proceed to the BART train. Another method used is for each BART patron to punch their parking stall number into a machine located inside the paid section of the station. A ticket would then be issued to the patron, and when the police monitor the maclune, those cars parked in spaces where a ticket was not issued would receive a$20 or $30 parking citation. These methods would discourage non-BART patrons from using the lot. Mr. Delander indicated that BART had this concern at all its stations, and uses e~rtensive measures to keep non-BART patrons from using their lots. Cm. North asked if BART still planned on starting train service in December, 1995; even though the parking structure was not due to be completed until March, 1996. Mr. Middlebrook explained that current plans are to be finished at the end of 1995. There may be certain elements that are not completed by that time; however, plans are to have some train service by the end of 1995. Cm. North questioned whether coordination efforts have been made with the Livermore Airport concerning the 120 foot tower and possible interference with their radar area. Mr, Middlebrook answered yes. The BART Communications group has handled all FAA regulationso Cm. North asked if BART had considered putting a smaller tower up on the hills on the Dublin grade. Mr. Middlebrook answered yes. There will be one tower on the Dublin grade and possibly one on the east Dublin side. Cm. North recommended that BART inform the public that the tower will be temporary. ************x~ Regular Meeting PCM-1994-124 December 19, 1994 [12-19min] ti ' ~ ~ WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS None PUBLIC HEARING SUBJECT: PA 94-001 Santa Rita Commercial Center Rezone and proposed Negative Declaration reauest to rezone 75± acres from Planned Development - Business Park/Industrial (low coverage) to a standard Planned Development This project has a Specific Plan Desi~nation of General Commercial The pronosed Planned Development would allow for an 800 000+ square foot commercial center which maX include retail stores, offices, movie theaters and restaurants among other uses The project is located at the southeast corner of the intersection of Dublin Boulevard and Hacienda Drive. Cm. North opened the public hearing and asked for the staff report. Jeri Ram, Associate Planner, presented the staff report, indicating that Staff recommend approval of the Rezone and Mitigated Negative Declaration to rezone 75± acres from Planned Development - Business Park/Ixidustrial (low coverage) to a standard Planned Development. Ms. Ram indicated that Sta.ff recommend the Planning Commission continue the Public Hearing to the January 3, 1995, meeting in order to review the public comments on the Mitigated Negative Declaration, and stai~s responses to comments prior to taking action on the Planned Development Rezone. At the January 3, 1995, meeting, Staff will be supplementing this staff report with additional information, Cm. Zika asked about the cost of infrastructure and how it would be paid. He also inquired about the amount wluch Santa Rita Commercial Center would have to pay for tl~eir part of the infrastructure. Ms. Ram indicated the City was preparing a Public Facilities Impact Fee Study that will address infrastructure needs to serve Eastem Dublin. In addition, a Traffic Impact Fee Study has been prepared to look at the actual roadway improvements that would be necessary in East Dublin ~and the costs to malce those improvements. The Development Agreement that will come before the Plaiming Commission on January 3, 1995, would contain provisions that the Applicant will be responsible to pay their proportionate share of fees identified in those studies. Cm. North asked if the financial details will be available by the January 3, 1995, Planning Cammission Meeting. Ms. Ram indicated that the exact numbers will not be available; however, Staff would have an agreement from the Applicant to pay their fair share which will be identified in the studies. Cm. Zika asked if the applicant had any idea what that amount would be. Ms. Ram indicated that yes, they had a good idea because a draft Traffic Study was already out for review. Cm. North asked if the Planning Commission would know the amount of the fees at the January 3, 1995, meeting. Laurence Tong, Planning Director, indicated that yes, the City should have some estimated fees. Regular Meeting PCM-1994-125 December 19, 1994 [12-19min) k • ~ ~ Cm. North commented that the City has a 180 square foot parking standard that was not followed. Cm. North asked Mr. Tong if under item 5 of the staff report, where it states minor adjustments can be made through the Site Development Review Process to the 24 foot isle width, would those minor adjustments be made by the Director or brought before the Planning Commission. Mr. Tong indicated the minor adjustments would be made through the Site Development Review process through the Staf~ however, the decision would be appealable to the Plaiming Commission. Cm. North asked Staff that even though there is a Standard of a 25 foot isle width, if the Applicant submits a Site Development Review with a 24 foot isle width, and it is considered a minor adjustment, would Staff approve the 24 foot isle width. Mr. Tong indicated yes, that is what Staffwas proposing. Cm. North asked why the City had a Standard if it is not followed. Mr. Tong indicated that the Standard was for all conventionaL projects and that this particular project was a Planned Development R~zoning and that due to the project's superior design refinements and with supplemental Staff review, there may be some instances where a minor adjustment may be warranted. In those cases where Staff can make those findings, Staff was reconunending that they have the ability to inake the adjusttnent rather than taking it back to the Planning Commission. Cm. North expressed concern that the Standard had not been followed in 1994, thereby indicating that there had not been a conventional plan before the Plamung Commission in 1994. Mr. Tong indicated that in all of the Site Development Reviews, the typical Standards have been followed. Cm. North had a question on Condition #31, E~chibit D, page 8 on the preconstruction survey. He askecY if the preconstruction survey was to be submitted by January 27, 1995, but would not go before the City Council until January 27, 1995. Ms. Ram indicated that any time within a 60 day period of the start of construction, the Applicant could submit the Preconstruction Survey. Staff wants a current study and not one that could be 6 months old. The survey would have to be submitted with enough time to allow Staff to review. Cm. Burnham concurred with Cm. North on the parking issue. He stated that it seems that the parking spaces are getting tighter as time goes on, and that we should keep an eye on new development as it related to parking space size as not everyone drives a conventional or compact car. Cm. North asked if anyone in the audience would like to speak. Glen Anderson, Development Director of Homart Community Centers, introduced the Homart Team; the Co-Applicant, Alameda County Surplus Property Authoriry, Adolph Martinelli; Don Casper, Director of Design and Construction; Brian Wolfe, M.P.R. Architects; David Gates, Landscape Architect with David Gates and Associates; Gary Black, Traffic Engineer with Barton Asclunan; and Arthur Crackhour and Sandra Weck, Marketing Agents from CB Commercial. Mr. Anderson gave a brief history of Homart Community Centers. He indicated that Homart was a subsidiary of Sears Roebuck Company and Homart Development was started in 1959 as the development arm for Sears. Its main purpose was to enable the expansion of Sears stores on a nation-wide basis. In 1989 the Community Centers Division was formed, Regular Meeting PCM-1994-126 December 19, 1994 [ 12-19min] . ~ , ~ ~ specializing in building Community Shopping Centers mostly in excess of 300,000 square feet. Mr. Anderson asked if the Pla.iuiing Commissioners had any questions. Mr. Zika asked if Homart had any projects in the Bay Area that are 10 years or older. Mr. Anderson indicated yes, Homart had built in the Bay Area; however, the Community Centers Division did not have a project similar to this project. The Homart Mall Development Division had built projects in the Bay Area. Cm. North asked if Homart planned on starting to build in April, 199~, and when they anticipated a finish date. Mr. Anderson sta.ted they would like to make buildings available to tenants to open after October l, 1995. Cm. North asked if there were tenants signed up now. Mr. Anderson indicated there were tenants in various stages of negotiation and various stages of "Letter of Intent" commitments. Cm. North asked how many screens there would be in the movie theater. Mr. Anderson stated they were aiming towards 20 screens. Cm. Zika expressed concern over the competition for tenants in this t}~pe of development. He stated with Wal-Mart and Cosco nearby, and Hacienda doing a 25-40 acre project, there comes a point when there are not enough customers to go around. Mre Anderson indicated that the attraction to this project was the critical mass that it brings. T'he reta.ilers were interested in the mass of the project and the draw from the regional trade areas such as San Ra.mon, Pleasanton, Dublin and Livermore. Each tenant would benefit the other tenants in the project. Cm. Zika asked if Sears was planning on being a tenant. Mr. Anderson answered no. He stated that Sears was traditionally a mall-type tenant and that this project is considered an Open Power Community Center and Sears typically does not occupy those types of Centers. Cm. North asked about the roads that surround the proposed Center and if there were plans to widen the roads prior to the finish of construction. Mr. Anderson indicated that there would be road improvements that will happen concurrently with the construction of the project during the course of the year. Cm. North asked Mr. Anderson to define road improvements. Mr. Anderson indicated there would be widening of Hacienda and Dublin Boulevard and that both streets would be four lanes. He then asked Don Casper, Director of Design and Development to respond mare specifically. Regular Meeting PCM-1994-127 December 19, 1994 [12-19min] t ~ ! Mr. Casper indicated that there had been a site-specific traffi,c study that had been done for the project which outlined the requirernents for current development as well as the year 2010 impacts. The long range impacts were addressed in the Traffic Impact Fee Study. The short range impacts, and potentially some additional improvements, would be done commensurate with the construction of the project such as when the Center was opened and that all issues in the Traffic Impact Study would be addressed. The key roads would be widened appropriate to the traffic levels anticipated as a result of the Homart Project and a11 other projects in the area at the time. Cm. North agreed with Cm. Zika that there would be a lot of traffic in the area. He indicated that level F and level E grade of service were not the level of service the Commission would like to see. He asked if there were any type of mitigation planned to improve the level of service. Mr. Tong asked for a specific point of reference in the report. Cm. North indicated page 12 of the Traffic Impact Analysis where it talks about levels of service. Mr. Tong clarified some of the meanings of the conditions in the report. Cm. North asked what the existing conditions were with the project. Gary Black, Traffie Engineer, indicated on page 21 of the report, there shows existing conditions of the project. Cm. North asked that when the study was made, if consideration was inade to projected construction on the other side of 580 in Pleasanton and the BART station. Mr. Black indicated yes, the study included all approved developineuts in Pleasanton and also the campletion of the BART station with 2,600 parking spaces, and that this project would not have a significant impact on traffic. Part of the access pl~,n for the project would include the uistallation of traff°ic signals at three locations initially, and two more locations in the future. Mr. Tong stated that the Traffic Study is best summarized on page 20 of the Study. On page 20 where it states "the intersection levels of service", the second paragraph indicates the criteria being used where a negative impact would result, where there was an increase in the voluine to capacity ratio of .02 or greater or there is a degradation to the level of service from level service D or better to level service E or worse, based on that criteria, the traffic report indicates that this project will not result in a significant worsening of the traffic beyond that which would othenvise exist without the project. Cm. Zika asked that with all the planned construction, if traffic service levels will not get worse than level of service D. Mr. Tong indicated that City arterials would not get worse than level of service D.. Cm. Zika asked if getting on and off the freeway, could traffic service levels drop to an E. Mr. Tong indicated that freeway intersections and interchanges have a level service E or worse standard. Those interchanges will at least work at level service E. Regular Meeting PCM-1994-128 December 19, 1494 [12-19min] . . ~ , Mr. Black indicated freeway interchanges were analyzed and were shown on page 21 of the Traffic Study, and they would operate well within the standard level service C at all three interchanges which were Hopyard/Dougherty, Santa Rita/Tassajara and Hacienda Drive with signals. Mr. Black showed several diagrams of the planned program providing access to the site. He outlined where the signals would ga Adolph Martinelli, Co-Applicant representing Alameda County Surplus Property Authority, indicated this is the first project in a large planning area where a specific plan had been adopted. He further stated the County had participated with the City to diligently provide access to the area and that there was participation with North Pleasanton Improvement District to make sure there would be one full service interchange at Hacienda Drive and a full service intercha.nge upgrade at Tassajara Road. Mr. Martinelli indicated that they have also acquired the right-of-way necessary to eartend Dublin Boulevard from the current urbanized portion of Dublin, easterly to the emerging areas in East Dublin, approximately 12 acres. In addition, Mr. Martinelli stated, as part of their regional obligation in the Traffic Impact Fee Study, the County is discussing with the City the option of improving to nearly the ultimate standards the Hacienda extension to Dublin Boulevard and the Dublin Boulevard frontage along the Homart Property, such that it would have a divided multi-lane thoroughfare fronting the property on both sides. This is the first project in the area. and its implications on traffic are extremely manageable, and they are interested in the overall development of East Dublin and want to make sure everything is in place in a logical progression and they are committed to working with the City to accomplish that goa1. Cm. Zika expressed his concern in placing a four-lane road now, and in the future tearing it up and placing a six-lane road to accommodate the traffic caused by growth and development. Mr. Martinelli agreed with Cm. Zika and stated that they did not want to duplicate improvements. He indicated that there were utility extensions and other issues that must be considered now that would affect the widening of the roads, and they did not want to do things twice. Cm. Burnham asked if there were rough-in cables for the proposed signals. Mr. Martinelli answered that where there are signals installed, there are complete signals, where there are proposed signals, the conduit and control areas would be in place, and they may go beyond the rough-in stage. Cm. North asked the Applicant is they had any problems with the Conditions of ApprovaL Mr. Anderson answered na Cm. North asked for a consensus by the Commission to table the project until January 3, 1995. Mr. Tong indicated that there would be supplemental staff information and asked the Commissions to bring their packets back to the January 3, 1995, meeting. NEW OR UNFINISHED BUSINESS None Regular Meeting PCM-1994-129 December 19, 1994 [12-19minj . ~ • OTHER BUSINESS (Commission/Staff Information Onl~Re~orts~ Cm. Zika. asked about the trucks parked at Chucky Cheese. Cm. North indicated he had not noticed any trucks parked there. Cm. Geist stated the trucks have moved to Target. Cm. Burnham was concerned about an article in the paper indicating the City was accepting applications for all of the Commissions. Mr. Tong clarified that the City was accepting applications for all expiring seats on all of the Commissions, but only those Commissioners whose seats are expiring that are interested in continuing to serve need to submit an application. Cm. Burnham asked if this was a legal requirement to provide an application if one was interested in the position. Mr. Tong sta.ted that is was the requirement of the Mayor. Cm. Burnham was not aware that there was a long questionnaire that needed to be filled out. Cm. North stated he read in the newspaper that the applicants would come before the City Council on December 27 and/or 28, 1994. Cm. North asked if that was for all Conunission applicants or just City Council applicants. Mr. Tong indicated that at this point, it was not clear whether all applicants wauld come before the City Council and Staff was waiting for direction from the Mayor whether he intends to have applicants for the Commission seats also attend on December 27 and/or 28, 1)94. Cm. Burnham found the questionnaire confiising and he felt that the questions asking for an opinion on certain issues were ludicrous. He felt that he had been involved in politics with the City long enough and felt people should know where he stands on issues. Cm. Burnham indicated he felt the questionnaire was ridiculous. Mr. Tong stated that Staff did not design the questionnaire. Cm. Burnham stated that in the past, he has heard what Dublin needs, now he is hearing about what Dublin wants, and the questionnaire points in the direction of want for the City, not for the needs of the City. Cm. North apologized to Sta,ff about bring up the parking stall Sta,ndards issue with the Applicant in the room. He indicated when the Burger King was built, he received complaints from citizens about the narrowness and shortness of parking spaces and he went out to the site twice and measured the spaces and they did not meet the City Standard, even though on that application it was said they would. When the new building behind the Warehouse was authorized to be built, he went out to measure the spaces, and they did not meet the City Standard by three feet. Cm. North asked why the City had a Standard when it had not been used all year. Mr. Tong explained the Standards as outlined in the Zoning Ordinance. Regular Meeting PCM-1994-130 December 19, 1994 [ 12-19min] s. - ~ ~ Cm. North indicated he would be glad to go out with Staff to measure parking spaces. Dennis Carrington, Sr. Planner indicated that Sr. Civil Engineer, Mehran Seperhi and he had gone out and checked the parking spaces at the Burger King/Home Express site and found the spaces to be in compliance. Mr. Carrington stated he would be willing to go out with Cm. North to measure parking spaces. Cm. Burnham concurred with Cm. North on the parking issue. He stated that it seems that what the Commission approves and what goes in does not always agree. Mr. Carrington stated that in some instances, if a project is several years old and the owners want to slurry seal the parking lot, there is not a provision in the current Ordinance for maintaining compliance for the original number of parking spaces and our current parking Standards are old and in need of updating. Cm. Burnham asked if there were some way the City could police the re-striping of existing lots. Mr. Tong indicated no, not with our existing staf£ Cm. Burnham asked if City inspectors continue to inspect the project throughout the parking lot stage. Mr. Tong indicated that the current planner and the building inspector review the parking lot to make sure it complies at the time of final inspection. After final inspection, it is the obligation of the tenant/developer to maintain the parking lot in a way that is was finalized. Sometitne changes are made after the fact. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 9:00 p.m. Respectfully submitted, f _ . L~ Plannin oinmission hairperson ATTEST: f'~ Laurence L. Tong, Planning D ector Regular Meeting PCM-1994-131 December 19, 1994 [12-19min]