Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01-24-2012 PC Minutes~~ Planning Comm~ss~on Minutes Tuesday, January 24, 2012 CALL TO ORDER/ROLL CALL A regular meeting of the City of Dublin Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, January 24, 2012, in the City Council Chambers located at 100 Civic Plaza. Chair Brown called the meeting to order at 7:00 PM. Present: Chair Brown; Vice Chair Wehrenberg; Commissioners Schaub, O'Keefe, and Bhuthimethee; Jeff Baker, Planning Manager; Seth Adams, Assistant Planner; Mike Porto, Consulting Planner; and Taryn Bozzo, Recording Secretary. Absent: None ADDITIONS OR REVISIONS TO THE AGENDA -NONE MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETINGS - On a motion by Cm. Schaub, seconded by Cm. O'Keefe the minutes of the December 13, 2011 meeting were approved. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - 5.1 Election of Chair and Vice Chair Cm. Schaub recommended Vice Chair Wehrenberg for Planning Commission Chairperson and Commissioner O'Keefe for Planning Commission Vice-Chairperson. Cm. O'Keefe and Cm. Bhuthimethee concurred with the recommendation. On a motion by Cm. Schaub, seconded by Chair Brown, on a vote of 5-0, the Planning Commission elected Vice Chair Wehrenberg as Planning Commission Chairperson and Cm. O'Keefe as Planning Commission Vice- Chairperson. CONSENT CALENDAR -NONE WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS -NONE PUBLIC HEARINGS - 8.1 PLPA 2011-00053 Dublin Psychic Conditional Use Permit Seth Adams, Assistant Planner, presented the project as outlined in the Staff Report. Cm. Brown asked what other use types are located in the surrounding spaces. Mr. Adams replied that the surrounding uses include a salon, pet grooming, a kitchen design retailer, yoga studio, a place of worship and two commercial schools. Cm. Brown asked what the business hours are for the surrounding businesses. Mr. Adams replied that most office uses are by appointment only; however, the majority of other uses are 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. He stated that the place of worship holds Bible Study on Wednesday and Friday evenings in addition to Sunday morning services. ,~~ 169 Mr. Adams confirmed that Dublin Psychic would be permitted to operate between the hours of 10 a.m. and 10 p.m., however, their actual operating hours may vary between those hours. Cm. Schaub asked if there are other Fortune Telling services in the City. Mr. Adams replied no. Chair Wehrenberg asked for further explanation on Condition 19's "non-residential security requirement." Mr. Adams replied that it is a Building Code requirement (DMC 7.32) which is standard for commercial tenants. He clarified that the requirement references addressing the building, safety lighting, door hardware and alarms. Chair Wehrenberg asked if Dublin Psychic will have a waiting area inside the tenant space or if customers will be expected to wait outside. Mr. Adams replied that the Applicant may be better suited to answer that question. Chair Wehrenberg opened the public hearing. Janet Adams, Applicant, replied to Chair Wehrenberg's question regarding a waiting area replying that customers would wait inside the office. Vice Chair O'Keefe asked if Ms. Adams is currently permitted in other cities. Ms. Adams replied that she is currently permitted in the city of Turlock and plans to continue operating her business in Turlock. Vice Chair O'Keefe asked what the planned hours of operation are. Ms. Adams replied that she is not likely to be in the office unless she has an appointment and hours of operation will be based on appointments at this time. Vice Chair O'Keefe asked if Ms. Adams plans to bring on other employees. Ms. Adams replied no. Cm. Schaub asked Ms. Adams why she chose Dublin for her business. Ms. Adams replied that she chose Dublin because of the energy, people and the demand for Fortune Telling services. Chair Wehrenberg closed the public hearing. Cm. Brown stated that he believes Dublin Psychic provides a service that Dublin does not currently have and would, therefore, be serving the current demand. Cm. Schaub asked why the project couldn't have been permitted with a Minor Use Permit (MUP). He stated that he believes a Fortune Telling use could be streamlined through a MUP process. Mr. Baker replied that per the Zoning Ordinance, a Fortune Telling use requires a Conditional Use Permit. He clarified that to change the required permit, a Zoning Ordinance amendment would have to be made. The Commission unanimously agreed that a Fortune Telling use should be permitted by requirement of a MUP. On a motion by Cm. Brown and seconded by Cm. Schaub, on a vote of 5-0, the Planning Commission unanimously adopted: 170 RESOLUTION NO. 12-01 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN APPROVING A CONDITIONAL~USE PERMIT FOR THE OPERATION OF A FORTUNE TELLING BUSINESS LOCATED AT 6918 VILLAGE PARKWAY, SUITE B (APN 941-0210-008) PLPA-2011-00053 8.2 PA 07-005 Capistrello Court, General Plan Amendment, Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment, Planned Development Rezone and related Stage 1 and Stage 2 Development Plan Amendment, Site Development Review and Vesting Tentative Tract Map 8072 for 12 single-family homes in a 12-lot subdivision, and CEQA Addendum to prior certified Environmental Impact Reports fora 2.8-acre area within the Positano planned community. Mike Porto, Consulting Planner, presented the project as outlined in the Staff Report. Cm. Schaub stated that he feels Lots 1, 8, 9, and 12 need enhanced elevations because of their visibility from the Positano entrance. Mr. Porto replied that a Condition could be added stating the requirement for enhanced elevations on those lots. Chair Wehrenberg asked if the project site is a relatively flat area. Mr. Porto replied that it is relatively flat and due to the slope behind the units that already exist, and the ability to place the houses on the lots, the site would be tilted towards Positano Parkway which would cause the increase in the driveway elevations. Cm. Schaub stated that aSemi-Public use on the site would incur more traffic as opposed to a Residential use. Mr. Porto confirmed that Residential land use does have less peak hour trips than aSemi-Public use. Cm. Bhuthimethee confirmed with Mr. Porto that the site is currently owned by the Developer and is maintained by their Homeowner's Association (HOA). Chair Wehrenberg asked if there is a timeframe in regards to the Developer selling the site. Mr. Porto replied that there is no timeframe and this is an opportunity for the Developer to make better use of the site. He stated that feedback regarding the site has shown it to be too large for a daycare center which usually looks for ahalf-acre to one-acre-sized site, and too small for a church which usually requires three and one-half acres or more. Cm. Schaub asked how large the School of Imagination site is, located in the Schaefer Ranch development. Mr. Porto replied one acre. Mr. Baker clarified that School of Imagination did not purchase that site. ;,,-. 171 Vice Chair O'Keefe asked for clarification regarding the rear yards having an overall average depth of 15 feet. Mr. Porto clarified that the required development standard is an average of 15 feet, however, in most cases they've been able to make that larger. Vice Chair O'Keefe asked for information regarding the efforts in obtaining aSemi-Public use for the site. Mr. Porto replied that the Applicant/Developer may be better suited to answer that question; however, from what the City has seen, Semi-Public sites are difficult to format for land uses that are affordable. He stated that the City is seeing the same difficulty with similar Semi- public sites of this size. Chair Wehrenberg asked if the Commission can expect more applications like this and if there are other Semi-Public sites within the Positano development that they may have to consider in the future. Mr. Porto replied that applications from other developments with Semi-Public sites will come forward but there are no other Semi-Public sites within the Positano development. Mr. Porto clarified that Fallon Village has four sites designated as Semi-Public. He stated that Jordan Ranch is requesting a land use amendment for their Semi-Public site as they are meeting their Semi-Public land use requirement elsewhere in the City. He further stated that the Croak and Chen properties have no development proposed at this time. Mr. Baker stated that several other Property Owners with Semi-Public sites have come forward to the City requesting an amendment to the Semi-Public land use designation. He stated that each case goes before the City Council to request the initiation of the General Plan Amendment Study and, if authorized, Staff moves forward with the study to take the findings to the Planning Commission for recommendation to the City Council. He further stated that the City Council also directed Staff to provide a report for the Council on the Semi-Public Policy itself, which was done in October, 2011. Mr. Baker clarified that there was a decision that no changes would be made to the Policy. Mr. Baker stated that when Property Owners with Semi-Public sites come forward for land use designation amendments, they- enter in to negotiations with the City Manager to provide a community benefit. He stated that the result of those negotiations is then ratified by the City Council to provide a benefit to the community. Cm. Brown asked what the Semi-Public Policy entails. Mr. Baker replied that a taskforce was created to come up with a policy that would help provide land for community type facilities. He stated that eight years ago, the City Council adopted the policy that, with General Plan Amendments of certain types, would require a certain amount of land to be designated as Semi- public in new developments. He clarified that the amount of required Semi-Public land would be based on the total number of units in a development. Cm. Bhuthimethee asked if Braddock and Logan would be meeting their Semi-Public requirement elsewhere in the City if the proposed project were approved. Mr. Baker stated that Braddock and Logan has entered into negotiations with the City Manager to provide a community benefit in lieu of the site, which would then move forward to City Council for consideration. Cm. Schaub asked what the last Semi-Public site sold was. Mr. Porto replied that Springfield Montessori School was the last project to develop aSemi-Public site and that site measured 172 one and one-half acres. He stated that the project differs from the proposed project because that developer took over a neighboring site to enable room for parking. Cm. Bhuthimethee asked if the project site is able to be subdivided in to more than one Semi- public site. Mr. Porto stated that it is possible, however, that would make the Developer responsible for finding more than one use to develop the sites. He clarified that finding a use for the acreage and requirements would prove difficult with such little space. Chair Wehrenberg opened the public hearing. Andy Byde, Braddock & Logan/Applicant, briefly stated the history of the Positano project and that, as the Master Plan process for the Positano project was wrapping up, the Council adopted the Semi-Public Policy. He clarified that the project site was originally intended for residential development but was amended to include the Semi-Public designation when Council adopted the Semi-Public Policy. Mr. Byde stated that the availability of the site was made aware to the brokerage community, however, no serious buyers have come forward. He stated that he believes Semi-Public uses are having development difficulty because the fees to develop the site are extremely high. He further stated that the Positano community would find that aSemi-Public use tucked into a residential community would be objectionable because it would create more traffic. Mr. Byde stated that Braddock and Logan held a community meeting at the project site to inform residents of the proposed plans for the site. He stated that approximately 12-15 residents from the surrounding community were present. Cm. Schaub confirmed with Mr. Byde that the useable yard area for the proposed units is not quite pool-sized because of slopes. Cm. Schaub asked how the existing wall is anchored on the slope. Mr. Byde replied that it sits on piers and that portion would not be touched during development of the project site. Mr. Byde clarified that Braddock and Logan is attempting to match the fabric of the existing community with the proposed project. He stated that he believes the proposal will reduce future land use conflicts and remove uncertainty of what will happen with that property. Chair Wehrenberg asked how the site has been marketed. Mr. Byde replied that the site has been marketed within the existing brokerage community. He stated that Braddock and Logan is apart of a large network of land brokers and that is typically how these properties are marketed. Chair Wehrenberg asked if there was a plan in regards to marketing to potential homebuyers and if potential future uses of the site were disclosed. Mr. Byde provided a copy of the Disclosure Statement given to all homebuyers, stating that any potential or future use was identified, including commercial use and market rate or affordable residential units. Cm. O'Keefe asked what percentage of Positano is built out at this point. Mr. Byde. replied approximately 300-350 units have been built and sold. Cm. Schaub asked if Braddock and Logan would agree to enhanced elevations on Lots 1, 8, 9 and 12. Mr. Byde replied yes. 173 Cm. Bhuthimethee asked what the community's reaction was to the proposed plans for the site. Mr. Byde stated that several ideas were thrown around as far as Semi-Public uses such as parks, community centers, pools; however, his goal was to provide background and technical information, and to advise residents of potential plans for the site. Vice Chair O'Keefe asked why Braddock and Logan decided to bring the proposal forward now as opposed to waiting longer to see if an interested buyer came about. Mr. Byde replied that the proposal is being brought forward now because the perception is that the property is vacant. He clarified that the longer the property is vacant, the more people believe it will stay vacant. Cm. Brown asked if the Semi-Public site is made aware to potential homebuyers when going over the Disclosure Statement. Mr. Byde replied that in the Positano sales office there is a Positano community map shown along with a map of Fallon Village, both labeling the Semi- public site. Mr. Byde stated that prior to construction, a sign was up on the actual site itself. Cm. Brown asked how much of the land owned by Braddock and Logan does not have a development plan. Mr. Byde replied other than designated Open Space areas, none. Regina Milkos, resident of 2316 West Cantara Drive, spoke in opposition of the project stating that she represents the nine families living in the Cantara subdivision within the one- to two- block radius of the project site. Ms. Milkos stated that residents were hoping for aSemi-Public development that would enhance the community, property values and quality of life, such as a community center, park, or an activity center, and residents were not notified of the proposed project until three months ago. She stated that residents would like verification that Braddock and Logan made a good faith effort to sell the property at its current market value. She further stated that the Semi-Public signage that was displayed on the project site was removed over a year ago and when calls to the City were made to get more information on the project, no information was given. Ms. Milkos stated that residents recommend that the City look at Semi-Public lot size requirements so that it may be more beneficial for development and therefore beneficial for the community. She further stated that a focus group should be created involving key residents, developers and the City to come up with alternatives to developing the project site as a residential site. Chair Wehrenberg asked if Ms. Milkos attended the community meeting held by Braddock and Logan. Ms. Milkos replied that she was unable to attend the community meeting. Rodney Gray, resident of 4842 Scala Court, spoke in opposition of the project stating that he is speaking on behalf of four homeowners on Scala Court. Mr. Gray stated that the homes on Scala Court are the most impacted as they back the project site. He stated in September of 2009 when the homes were bought, the Semi-Public sign was displayed on the project site and homebuyers were reassured by Braddock and Logan that homes would not be built on the site. Mr. Gray stated that the designation of Semi-Public was important because the community theme wall behind the homes is located four to ten feet from the back of his house. He stated that the wall blocks a portion of the view and lighting so it is nice to have the project site open to provide some scenery. He further stated that if homes were built on the project site, there would be a direct view into the rear of the houses which would cause the resale value of the homes to 1 >:r.~ :° 174 decrease. Mr. Gray stated that residents question as to how the site was marketed to potential buyers and that meetings between the homeowners and Braddock and Logan should've taken place months ago. Cm. Schaub stated that the Exhibit handed out by Mr. Byde shows that there is 14.3 feet between the community themed wall and the homes. Mr. Gray stated that he is sure it is four feet. Vice Chair O'Keefe asked what type of use Mr. Gray would like to see on the project site. Mr. Gray replied that residents are open to different ideas like a pool or community center, as long as they don't affect the neighborhoods with intrusiveness. Mr. Gray clarified that residents' main contention is that they weren't involved in the process or asked how they would be impacted by the proposed project. Wei Ma, resident of 2409 Capistrello Street, spoke in opposition of the project stating that when he purchased his home, the sales representative stated that the space would be reserved for a daycare or community center and no residential lots would be built. Mr. Ma stated that he doesn't believe it would benefit the community to build homes on the project site and that it would only benefit the developer. Cm. Schaub asked how far Mr. Ma's home is from site. Mr. Ma replied approximately 30 feet, or three houses away, off West Cantara Drive. Eric Zhong, resident of 2484 Cantalise Court, spoke in opposition of the project stating that his bedrooms look down on the project site and the open land was an incentive to buy his home. Mr. Zhong stated that he also has concerns regarding the efforts behind the developer's marketing of the site to potential buyers. Amol Tuli, resident of 2570 Calabria Court, spoke in opposition of the project, stating that the rear of his home faces the project site and the open space was an incentive in buying his home as well because of the view from his balcony. Cm. Brown clarified that if the site remained as Semi-Public designation, it would not remain vacant indefinitely and something would be developed at some point, possibly obstructing residents' current view. Mr. Tuli replied that homebuyers understood that something would be built on the site eventually; however, they were under the assumption that it would be something of community use, not more single-family homes. Cm. Schaub suggested that residents view other current developments on Semi-Public sites within the City to get an idea of what could be developed on the project site. Mr. Tuli replied that he understood and stated that because of such short notice of the project, residents were not able to really research alternatives. He further stated that the residents are willing to work as a community to find a common ground with the Developer. Dharmaraj Samuel, resident of 2423 Capistrello Street, spoke in opposition of the project and stated that he too was under the impression that the site would contain aSemi-Public use when he bought his home. Mr. Samuel stated that he was also told that the City owned the site and suggested building a library on it. He stated that when the site was originally designated as 175 Semi-Public, enough space should have been designated to allow for more uses. He further stated that the Community Meeting was held at 5 p.m. when most residents are getting off of work, making attendance inconvenient. Chair Wehrenberg concurred with Mr. Samuel's point regarding the size of the site, however, clarified that Braddock and Logan bought the property and the Semi-Public Policy was adopted after Braddock and Logan became involved with the property but well before it was entitled for development and then implemented during the project's design process. Vice Chair O'Keefe clarified that although some of the ideas for development of the site are possible, the Developer has to make the project work economically and that can be difficult. Raja Eswar, resident of 5205 Montiano Lane, spoke in opposition of the project stating that he was also under the impression that a community use would be developed on the project site. Mr. Eswar stated that the land is currently adding value to the community and if other homes are built, home values will go down. Mr. Byde apologized to residents who are frustrated and reiterated that the project site, regardless of designation, will be developed at some point. He stated that perceptions and frustrations may be a byproduct of where the Positano project is currently at with construction, as the project site is a part of one phase of a seven-phase project. He further stated that residents may have the perception that only houses are being built although there are two sites designated for parks and one site designated for an elementary school. Mr. Byde stated that grading has just started for one of the parks. Mr. Byde provided some context to the proposed project stating that if the site remains designated as Semi-Public, it will not be developed with a community center, park, school or pool. Mr. Byde stated that those uses were not a part of the intent or disclosures that were provided to the sales agents. He stated that the property would be developed with a commercial use that is consistent with Semi-Public land use such as a church or daycare. He further stated that the General Plan does call for affordable housing as a consistent use and although that is not a use Braddock and Logan would propose, it is a possibility. Cm. Schaub asked for clarification regarding Mr. Gray's statement regarding the community themed wall being four feet from his home when Mr. Byde's Exhibit shows a 14.3-foot distance. Mr. Byde replied that he is unsure where the variance is coming from, however, the information in the Exhibit is based on Civil Engineer plans. Mr. Byde stated that he does not have the actual location of the wall surveyed but he has a high degree of confidence in the materials submitted. Cm. Schaub confirmed with Mr. Byde that, for the proposed two-story homes, there would be approximately 9-12 feet between the height of the wall and the height of the home. Cm. Schaub asked if Braddock and Logan would be opposed to building eight homes on the lot and leaving some open land to be maintained by the HOA. Mr. Byde replied that maintaining the extra landscaping is not in the original HOA budget so a vote of the entire community would have to be taken and sales would have to cease during that time. Rodney Gray, resident of 4842 Scala Court, reiterated that the residents are amenable to discussing possibilities and concerns with the Developer. 176 Chair Wehrenberg closed the public hearing. Cm. Schaub confirmed with Mr. Baker that the Planning Commission is strictly reviewing the General Plan and Specific Plan amendment and making a recommendation on the land use change to the City Council. Mr. Baker clarified that the Planning Commission is to review and make a recommendation to the City Council and that the City Council will make the final determination whether or not to approve a land use change. Cm. Schaub stated that he feels the proposed land use change is appropriate and although the residents' concerns are valuable, they are not applicable to a land use decision. Chair Wehrenberg, Cm. Schaub and Cm. Bhuthimethee discussed the size of existing Semi- public sites and the financial commitment in developing and not developing those sites. Cm. Schaub stated that from a developer's standpoint, the site should be arevenue-producing piece of property. He stated that developing a community pool on the site would incur a huge maintenance cost for the HOA and not developing anything for several years wouldn't contribute much, if anything. Chair Wehrenberg stated that some long-time vacant lots located in the West Dublin hills have not produced positive results. Cm. Brown stated that he does not concur in amending the land use designation from Semi- public to Residential as there is more construction to be done in the community and that may provide more time and opportunities for a potential developer to take over the site. Cm. Brown stated that he believes the current Semi-Public designation is an appropriate land use. Vice Chair O'Keefe stated that the determination is ultimately up to the City Council, however, he feels there needs to be more discussion between the residents and the Developer before making a decision on a land use amendment. Cm. Schaub agreed that there needs to be more discussion between the residents and the Developer. Cm. Bhuthimethee stated that she is unsure if changing the land use to Residential benefits the City as whole. She stated that she feels the land is valuable designated as Semi-Public even if it isn't developed for a while. The Commission agreed that residents' concerns were valuable however not applicable to land use designation. They further agreed that for future projects like this, existing communities need to be more involved with and informed of what the developer's plans are. The Commission entered into a straw vote resulting in a unanimous agreement in favor of the CEQA Addendum. Chair Wehrenberg and Cm. Schaub voted in favor of recommending the General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendments; however, Vice Chair O'Keefe, Cm. Brown and Cm. Bhuthimethee were not in favor of this recommendation. The Commission unanimously agreed against recommending the Planned Development Rezone and subsequent Stage 1 and Stage 2 Planned Development and unanimously agreed to refer authority to City Council to approve the Site Development Review, with the 177 recommendation that, if approved, a Condition be included requiring the Applicant fo provide enhanced elevations on Lots 1, 8, 9 and 12. On a motion by Cm. Schaub and seconded by Cm. Brown, on a vote of 5-0, the Planning Commission unanimously adopted: RESOLUTION NO. 12 - 02 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN RECOMMENDING THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT A CEQA ADDENDUM TO THE EASTERN DUBLIN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT, THE SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE EASTERN DUBLIN PROPERTY OWNERS, AND THE SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR FALCON VILLAGE FOR THE PROJECT KNOWN AS CAPISTRELLO COURT AT POSITANO On a motion by Cm. Schaub and seconded by Cm. Brown, on a vote of 5-0, the Planning Commission unanimously voted: RESOLUTION NO. 12 - 03 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL NOT ADOPT A RESOLUTION AMENDING THE GENERAL PLAN AND EASTERN DUBLIN SPECIFIC PLAN TO CHANGE THE LAND USE DESIGNATION FROM SEMI-PUBLIC TO SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL FOR THE PROJECT KNOWN AS CAPISTRELLO COURT RESOLUTION NO. 12 - 04 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL NOT ADOPT AN ORDINANCE APPROVING A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REZONE AND RELATED STAGE 1 AND STAGE 2 DEVELOPMENT PLAN AMENDMENT FOR A PROPERTY KNOWN AS CAPISTRELLO COURT On a motion by Cm. Schaub and seconded by Cm. Brown, on a vote of 5-0, the Planning Commission unanimously referred authority to City Council, with the recommendation that, if ,._ ?-~, y~r>z.. ,_ ~ . 178 approved, a Condition be included for the Site Development Review requiring the Applicant to provide enhanced elevations on Lots 1, 8, 9 and 12: RESOLUTION NO. 12- XX A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN APPROVING A SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PERMIT AND VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 8072 FOR CAPISTRELLO COURT AT POSITANO, A RESIDENTIAL PROJECT OF 12 SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED UNITS ON APPROXIMATELY 2.8 ACRES Mr. Baker stated that the City Council is tentatively scheduled to consider this Item at the March 6, 2012 City Council Meeting and a public hearing notice will be mailed out for the City Council meeting. NEW OR UNFINISHED BUSINESS -NONE Mr. Baker stated that Joni Pattillo, City Manager, sent out notifications regarding upcoming Fiscal Strategy Forums. He clarified that these are five opportunities for the Planning Commission to attend and give input regarding the City Budget. Cm. Bhuthimethee asked if there is any information they can obtain before the meetings. Mr. Baker replied that information will be provided at the meeting. Mr. Baker stated that there will be Budget Study Sessions with the City Council in March and clarified that the Budget process has changed to closely align with the City's Strategic Plan which will be reviewed every two years. Mr. Baker stated that the 2012 Planner's Institute will be held in San Jose March 20th-22"d, 2012 and arrangements will be made per the Commissioners' availability. Chair Wehrenberg expressed concern regarding the traffic in the Safeway parking lot located on Dublin Blvd. She stated that she feels a traffic plan is needed to direct traffic, primarily for the gas station. Mr. Baker replied that he will take that concern to the Traffic and Safety Committee for consideration. Vice Chair O'Keefe expressed concern regarding the speed of traffic coming down the I-680 S Dublin Blvd off-ramp. He stated that cars tend to speed through the stoplight and it would be beneficial to have CalTrans consider putting a form of speed bumps on the off-ramp to help slow cars down. Mr. Baker replied that he will also take that concern to the Traffic and Safety Committee for consideration. After a brief discussion regarding the restrictions on when a member can be elected Chair and Vice Chair, the Commission agreed that any member can serve as Chair and Vice Chair at any time if approved by the Commission members. 179 OTHER BUSINESS -NONE 10.1 Brief INFORMATION ONLY reports from the Planning Commission and/or Staff, including Committee Reports and Reports by the Planning Commission related to meetings attended at City Expense (AB 1234). ADJOURNMENT -The meeting was adjourned at 10:02 PM. Respectfully submitt~ci; ~.~. Doreen Wehrenbe Chair Planning C mmissi n ATTEST: i Jeff Bak r Planning Manager G:IM/NUTES120121PLANNING COMM/SSIOM1.24.12 FINAL PC M/NUTES.docx ~~ 180