Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Minutes 09-06-1994 . , . ~ Regular Meeting - September 6, ~4 A regular meeting of the City of Dublin Planning Commission was held on September 6, 1994, in the Dublin Civic Center Council Chamber. The meeting was called to order at 7:30 p.m. by Commissioner North. * * * * * * * * * * ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Burnham, North, Rafanelli and Zika; Laurence L. Tong, Planning Director; Carol Cirelli, Senior Planner; and Fawn Holman, Recording Secretary. * * * * * * * * * * PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG Cm. North led the Commission, Staff, and those present in the pledge of allegiance to the flag. * * * * * * * * * * ADDITIONS OR REVISIONS TO THE AGENDA The minutes of the August 15, 1994, meeting were approved as submitted. * * * * * * * * * * ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None * * * * * * * * * * WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS None * * * * * * * * * * PUBLIC HEARING SUBJECT: PA 94-030 Eastern Dublin Annexatio~Detachment and Prezone #1 request for prezoninq a 1,538 acre site, annexina the 1,538 acres to the City of Dublin and 4 additional acres to Dublin San Ramon Services District and detaching 1,029 acres from the Livermore Area Recreation and Park District located within the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan plannina area. Cm. North opened the public hearing and asked for the staff report. Ms. Carol Cirelli, Senior Planner, presented the staff report, indicating that Staff recommended the Planning Commission find the prezoning to be consistent with the City's amended General Plan and Regular Meeting PCM-1994-98 September 6, 1994 [9-6min] . ~ ~ Eastern Dublin Specific Plan and recommend City C~ncil approval of the prezone request. Staff also recommended that the Planning Commission support the annexation request and recommend City Council adoption of a resolution of application to the Alameda County Local Agency Formation Committee (LAFCo). Cm. Zika referred to page 2 of the staff report, and asked Staff for clarification as to the meaning of "a majority of the property owners who contacted the City concurred with the project." Ms. Cirelli responded that a property owners' meeting was held during the beginning stages of the project processing; although, few of the property owners attended. However, a majority of those property owners who attended concurred with the prezoning request. Cm. Zika asked exactly how many property owners attended the meeting. Ms. Cirelli indicated that 3 of 11 property owners showed up; 2 out of the 3 concurred with the application request. Cm. North asked if only 3 of 11 property owners had been contacted. Ms. Cirelli indicated that Staff had communicated with all 11 property owners through a letter which explained the project and how it would affect their property. The letter not only announced the meeting date, but indicated that individual meetings could also be arranged. Two property owners who could not attend the meeting, met individually with Staff at a later date. Ms. Cirelli further indicated that a second letter, in the form of a questionnaire, was sent out the previous week, asking property owners to indicate whether or not they concurred with the annexation and prezone request. Three responses had been received to date; two consenting, one dissenting. Cm. North asked what percentage of the 11 property owners had responded. Ms. Cirelli indicated that a percentage had not been computed. Mr. Tong pointed out that 3 of the 11 property owners were public entities: East Bay Regional Park District (EBRPD), CalTrans and the City of Pleasanton. Cm. North referred to a portion of page 2 of the staff report which read, "However, property owners controlling the majority of the project site concur with this request." He asked what percentage of annexation property did the consenting property owners represent. Ms. Cirelli responded that the Jennifer Lin family, one of the Applicant's, owned 70% of the total project area. Cm. North felt the statement on page 4 of the staff report which read, "Several of the property owners have consented to the annexation," was unclear as to what percentage of the property owners had consented. Regular Meeting PCM-1994-99 September 6, 1994 [9-6min] , . • . Cm. Zika also felt the statement was unclear. Ms. Cirelli indicated that the statement may be ambiguous because not all of the property owners had responded to the initial request for comments. This lack of response necessitated the questionnaire being sent out as a second request for comments. Cm. Zika suggested that Staff present the Commission with specific numbers in future staff reports, or more clear explanations. Cm. North agreed with the suggestion. Cm. Zika asked if a dissenting property owner could be automatically annexed to the City. Ms. Cirelli indicated yes. Mr. Tong reiterated that some difficulty had arisen because several property owners had not responded to either of the two Staff communications. Cm. North invited public comment, reminding the speakers to keep their comments to a 5-minute limit. Martin Inderbitzen, representing Jennifer Lin, referred to page 46 of 62 of the staff report and identified the parcels by property ownership to provide clarification as to which owners concurred, to his knowledge, with the application: Casterson (agreed); Koller (agreed); EBRPD (agreed); Gygi (disagreed); Jennifer Lin (agreed); Dublin Land Co. (disagreed); Paoyeh Lin (neutral); Devany (no response); CalTrans (no response); and Maynard (no response). He felt there was clear predominance of property ownership in support in support of the application. Mr. Inderbitzen further indicated his client, Jennifer Lin, concurred with Staff's conclusion that combining their application with surrounding property owners would result in a logical and contiguous annexation request to LAFCo. They also concurred with the draft resolution for prezoning which included the provisions for a school mitigation agreement. They agreed with Staff's analysis of environmental impacts and, as a result, believed that the application generated no new policy issues. He pointed out that the applieation represented a first phase annexation in Eastern Dublin, and indicated that development would also be phased. Before any development occurred, property owners would be required to submit detailed development plans which would require Planning Commission and City Council approval. Mr. Inderbitzen ended his presentation by pledging to work cooperatively with the City, Alameda County and other property owners regarding development issues. He indicted that they had already begun to work proactively with the City and the school districts on issues affecting school facilities. Robert Thurbin, representing Livermore School District, indicated that Livermore School District, as well as Dublin School District, had Regular Meeting PCM-1994-100 September 6, 1994 [9-6min] ' ' . • • previously raised concerns about the impact the project would have on the school districts. After meeting with City Staff and the Applicants, which resulted in the inclusion of Item F of Draft Resolution, Exhibit B(School Facilities Impact Mitigation), Livermore School District formally confirmed their satisfaction with the conditions of approval. Doug Abbot, 8206 Rhoda Avenue, felt the process was premature in that it was his understanding that the City Council would be reconsidering its approval of the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan during their next meeting. Cm. North responded that if an area was to be prezoned, the only purpose of the Planning Commission was to make a recommendation, if appropriate, to the Council that they consider the application. Therefore, final action was also taken by the City Council. To his knowledge, the Council would not be reviewing this application next week; although, they might be reviewing some other matter regarding Eastern Dublin. Mr. Abbott thanked Commissioner North for his explanation. Art Dunkley, representing co-Applicant Clyde Casterson, concurred with Mr. Inderbitzen's statement regarding no new policies being generated by the application. Marjorie Koller, owner of Yarra-Yarra Ranch on Tassajara Road, concurred with the Applicants' statements; however, expressed concern for the safety of her ranch's licensed water district. Cm. North indicated that the fact that she had a water district was included in the staff report, and asked Staff how Dublin San Ramon Services District (DSRSD) would handle the matter. Ms. Cirelli responded that Ms. Koller's 1,200-foot deep well may be affected if and when she applied for subdivision of her property. Cm. North recommended that Ms. Koller work with DSRSD to resolve the matter, indicating that Staff could provide her with a contact person at DSRSD. John DiManto, Dublin Land Company, requested to go on record as opposing the annexation and also opposing their property being included in the application. He felt the application lacked binding, recordable development agreements with the City, DSRSD and other governmental agencies. Hearing no further comments from the public, Cm. North closed the public hearing. Cm. Burnham asked Staff how binding the agreements were with the other governmental agencies (City of Pleasanton, CalTrans and EBRPD) involved, and questioned what would happen if one of the agencies backed out. Regular Meeting PCM-1994-101 September 6, 1994 [9-6min] , , . ~ ~ Mr. Tong indicated that those entities did not have to concur and typically do not respond or take a formal position. EBRPD had indicated that they supported the application, although neither the City of Pleasanton nor CalTrans had responded to the application. Cm. Zika asked if the school district would be determined at the County or State Board of Education level. Cm. North responded that the Board of Education usually required schools to be in the district of the city in which the school would reside. Mr. Tong indicated that the school district determination was beyond the scope of LAFCo. Cm. Zika asked if park districts were subject to LAFCo. Mr. Tong indicated yes. Cm. North suggested that, if the Commission decided to recommend City Council approval, Mr. DiManto's (Dublin Land Company) opposition to the annexation be forwarded to the Council. On motion by Cm. Zika, seconded by Cm. Rafanelli, and with a vote of 4-0, the Planning Commission adopted RESOLUTION NO. 94 - 027 A RESOLUTION FINDING PA 94-030 EASTERN DUBLIN ANNEXATION/DETACHMENT AND PREZONE #1 WITHIN SCOPE OF FINAL EIR RESOLUTION NO. 94 - 028 RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL FOR ESTABLISHING FINDINGS AND GENERAL PROVISIONS FOR A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT (PD) PREZONING #1 CONCERNING PA 94-030 EASTERN DUBLIN RESOLUTION NO. 94 - 029 RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL DIRECT CITY OF DUBLIN STAFF TO MAKE AN APPLICATION TO THE ALAMEDA COUNTY LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION (LAFCo) FOR ANNEXING 1,538 ACRES LOCATED WITHIN THE EASTERN DUBLIN PLANNING AREA TO THE CITY OF DUBLIN AND 4 ADDITIONAL ACRES TO DUBLIN SAN RAMON SERVICES DISTRICT AND DETACHING 1,029 ACRES FROM LIVERMORE AREA RECREATION AND PARK DISTRICT AND INVOLVED IN THE PLANNING DEVELOPMENT (PD) PREZONING REQUEST FILED UNDER PA 94-030 EASTERN DUBLIN ANNEXATION/DETACHMENT AND PREZONE #1 * * * * * * * * * * NEW OR UNFINISHED BUSINESS Mr. Tong indicated that on September 12th, the City Council would review the Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) issue and consider an Regular Meeting PCM-1994-102 September 6, 1994 [9-6min] - i override. Part of that discussion, as pointed ou~by Mr. Abbott, would be reconsideration of the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan; however, it would be linked specifieally with the ALUC override eonsideration. * * * * * * * * * * OTHER BUSINESS (CommissionjStaff Information Only Reports~ Cm. Zika suggested that when the Eastern Dublin properties came before the Commission to be developed, a copy of the original approval be submitted, as well as an outline of changes proposed. Referring back to the ambiguous count of consenting property owners for the current annexation request, he suggested that exact numbers be presented to the Commission in future staff reports. Cm. North agreed that the numbers presented were ambiguous, and would like to see more clear explanations in the future. Ms. Cirelli suggested that the Commission call Staff prior to the meeting with questions regarding mathematical computations, thereby giving Staff sufficient time to prepare the needed clarifications. Cm. Burnham pointed out that the general public might be confused as to what the planning area was like in the past and how it would look in the future, and wondered if there was a projection list as to where this proposal was at and when it would be completed. Mr. Tong indicated that this annexation was the first of many steps before anything was built, and briefly discussed the next few steps in the process. Cm. Burnham reiterated that the general public was not familiar with the process and suggested that some sort of press release detail the steps involved. He indicated that many people had expressed concern to him about how quickly the development seemed to be progressing. Cm. North referred to the property owners affected by the proposed annexation who were notified but did not respond, and suggested that Staff mail certified letters, instead of first class, to prove that property owners had received their notices but chose not to respond. Commission and Staff concurred with the suggestion. Cm. Burnham referred his past complaints about a large truck parked in the Circuit City parking lot, indicating that the truck was still parking in the lot. He asked Staff if it would be quicker to call the Police Department and ask them to check out the situation. Mr. Tong indicated that recently there was some difficulty in responding to zoning complaints due to Staff shortages. Mr. Tong then introduced new Associate Planner Tasha Huston, who would be working with Carol Cirelli in Advanced Planning. Commission welcomed Ms. Huston to the City Staff. Regular Meeting PCM-1994-103 September 6, 1994 [9-6min] ' ' ~ ~ Cm. North referred to the previous meeting when he suggested that Staff apprise the Commission of any incorrect information in a staff report prior to the meeting, and pointed out that, although several of the other Commissioners concurred with his suggestion, the meeting minutes only listed him. He felt that when there was discussion on a matter and the Commission concurred, that concurrence should be reflected in the minutes. Staff concurred with the suggestion. * * * * * * * * * * ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 8:30 p.m. * * * * * * * * * * Respectfully submitted, ~ Plannin ommission Chairperson ATTEST: ~~~~rt Laurence L. Tong, Pl nn'ng Director Regular Meeting PCM-1994-104 September 6, 1994 [9-6min]