Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05-28-2013 PC Minutes /116ii —1‘91 `8 ' 2E Planning Commission Minutes Tuesday, May y 28, 2013 CALL TO ORDER/ROLL CALL A regular meeting of the City of Dublin Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, May 28, 2013, in the City Council Chambers located at 100 Civic Plaza. Chair O'Keefe called the meeting to order at 7:00:10 PM Present: Chair O'Keefe; Vice Chair Bhuthimethee; Commissioners Do, Goel and Kohli; Jeff Baker, Assistant Community Development Director; Kit Faubion, City Attorney; Kristi Bascom, Principal Planner; Seth Adams, Assistant Planner; Mike Porto, Consulting Planner; and Debra LeClair, Recording Secretary. Absent: None ADDITIONS OR REVISIONS TO THE AGENDA— NONE MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETINGS — On a motion by Cm. Do and seconded by Cm. Bhuthimethee, on a vote of 4-0-1 (Cm. Kohli abstained as he was absent) the Planning Commission approved the minutes of the April 23, 2013 meeting. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS — NONE CONSENT CALENDAR— NONE WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS — NONE PUBLIC HEARINGS — 8.1 PLPA-2013-00016 Creative Autism Solutions Team (CAST) Conditional Use Permit for the operation of a Day Care Center at 6533 Sierra Lane. Seth Adams, Assistant Planner, presented the project as outlined in the Staff Report. Cm. Bhuthimethee asked if the Applicant is leasing the space from the Pathway Community Church and asked if the church owns the property. Mr. Adams answered that the church leases the space from the property owner but does not own the property. The Applicant will sublease half of the space during the week and on Saturdays. Cm. Bhuthimethee asked if the church operates in the building currently. Mr. Adams answered that the church does not operate during the week. Chair O'Keefe opened the pubic hearing. Panning Commission Way 28,2013 guar Meeting 75 1 P a g e Ms. Annette Musso, Creative Autism Solutions Team, spoke in favor of the project. She felt that the community needs more places filled with love and acceptance. She stated that they are a neurological based center but will be filled with support and respect for people with autism and the gifts that they possess. She stated that the project is 100% volunteer run but they will hire staff in the future. She thanked the Planning Commission and asked that they approve the project. Chair O'Keefe asked where they were operating before the move to Dublin. Ms. Musso stated they had a program in Livermore in the summer of 2011 but are not currently operating. Cm. Kohli asked why the Applicant chose Dublin. Ms. Musso answered that they want to serve the East Bay and be located in an area with easy access to/from the 580/680 corridor. She felt that Dublin was the perfect location and that it will be a good partnership with other businesses in the area that support children with autism. Chair O'Keefe closed the public hearing. Cm. Kohli stated that he is surprised at the challenges in locating the right services for autistic children, especially as they become older. He stated that he is in support of the project. Cm. Bhuthimethee stated that she is in support of the project. Chair O'Keefe stated that he is in support of the project and excited for them to join the community. Cm. Goel stated that he has a family member with special needs who is now 67 years old and felt that she shows what love and nurture can do for someone with special needs. He thanked the Applicant for their contribution. Cm. Do also thanked the Applicant for providing this facility so that children are loved and cared for and made to feel special in their own way and become a contributing member of society. On a motion by Cm. O'Keefe and seconded by Cm. Goel, on a vote of 5-0, the Planning Commission unanimously adopted: RESOLUTION NO. 13-16 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR THE OPERATION OF A DAY CARE CENTER AT 6533 SIERRA LANE (APN 941-0205-020-00) PLPA-2013-00016 q'iiznning Commission rz�28,2013 'cgu(r Meeting 76 ! Page 8.2 PLPA 2013-00003 The Heights at Positano (Neighborhood E-2) Site Development Review for a portion of the Positano project which includes 84 single-family detached residential units on approximately 21.08 acres within Tract 8109. Mike Porto, Consulting Planner, presented the project as outlined in the Staff Report. Cm. Kohli mentioned that Mr. Porto stated that this project is the last project for the Positano development but felt that there are semi-public lots throughout the development. He felt that anything developed on those lots would come to the Planning Commission for review and approval. Mr. Porto answered that there is one semi-public lot but the subdivision work is complete. He stated that, depending on what type of project is brought forward, it may come back to the Planning Commission. Chair O'Keefe opened the public hearing. Ray Panek, KB Home, spoke in favor of the project. He thanked Staff for their help with the project. He felt that this project affords the opportunity to offer more varied floor plans with some different architecture. Cm. Kohli asked what the price of the homes will be. Mr. Panek answered that the market in the Bay Area has improved and the houses will be well priced for competition at approximately $800K—to $900K each. Cm. Bhuthimethee felt the driveways in these larger homes had the same scoring as some of the smaller floor plans. She asked if the Applicant would be willing to use some different scoring patterns in the driveways of this project. Mr. Panek agreed to use different scoring patterns on the driveways. Cm. Kohli asked Cm. Bhuthimethee to explain her request. Cm. Bhuthimethee directed the Planning Commission to pages L.7 through L.11. She felt that the scoring was average and that there is an opportunity to easily enhance the driveways. Cm. Kohli agreed and stated that he owns a KB home in the Positano community and wishes the driveways were better. Mr. Panek agreed to add some scoring patterns to the driveways throughout the project. Chair O'Keefe closed the public hearing. Cm. Do felt it was nice to have the final part of the development being constructed. Chair O'Keefe stated he was in support of the project and thanked the Applicant for agreeing to the enhancement to the driveways. c'(anning Commission May 28,2013 'RcguIdr!Meeting 771 P a g e On a motion by Cm. Bhuthimethee and seconded by Cm. Kohli, on a vote of 5-0, the Planning Commission unanimously adopted the resolution with a Condition of Approval added to enhance the driveways with different scoring patterns: RESOLUTION NO. 13-17 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN APPROVING A SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PERMIT FOR THE HEIGHTS AT POSITANO (NEIGHBORHOOD E-2) FOR 84 SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED RESIDENTIAL UNITS ON APPROXIMATELY 21.08 ACRES WITHIN TRACT 8109 (Lots 1 through 84) PLPA 2013-00003 8.3 PLPA-2013-00022 New Water Resources Element of the General Plan Kristi Bascom, Principal Planner, presented the project as outlined in the Staff Report. Cm. Kohli understood that the City of Dublin does not have control of the supply or delivery of water and does not manage flood control facilities, but can only promote water conservation and support the Dublin San Ramon Services District (DSRSD). He asked if the Element can indicate that the City is aware of how water prices impact the residents and will listen to concerns and share them with DSRSD. He stated that he has heard comments regarding water prices and asked if his concerns could be added into the Element. Ms. Bascom agreed and stated that Staff hears similar comments from the developers regarding the cost of new water services from DSRSD. She stated that the City has no role in water supply; therefore the City's efforts are focused on encouraging and mandating water conservation and conserving features in new homes. She continued that it sounds like a great idea but would have no "teeth." Cm. Kohli agreed but asked if there can be language added to the Element that at the same time the City is asking them to conserve water, they are also sensitive to price and it is the City's duty to share their concerns with the DSRSD, i.e., advocacy going both ways. He asked if that type of language can be added. Mr. Baker responded that water and sewer capacity issues are a frequent discussion topic for both new development and new businesses. He stated that would fall under the Economic Development Department who have programs in place is assist with "dwelling unit equivalent," where the City works with DSRSD and offers programs to subsidize the fees to allow the new businesses to get started. He felt that these programs addressed his concerns. Cm. Kohli felt that if someone is interested in water pricing, commercial and/or residential, they may not go to the Economic Development Element for information, they would go directly to the Water Resources Element. He felt there would be good will generated if they feel that the City is advocating for the residents. (Planning Commission May 28,2013 'R6gular56feetirtg 78 1 P a g e Cm. Bhuthimethee felt that the price is determined by DSRSD and should be addressed by them rather than the City. Cm. Kohli felt that, in the Water Resources Element, it clearly states that the City does not have any control over water but does try to influence the residents regarding conservation. He suggested including language that indicates that the City will do the same advocacy in terms of making sure that the City is cognizant of price changes. Cm. Bhuthimethee agreed with Cm. Kohli's idea but was concerned with the City's ability to deliver. Cm. Kohli responded that the City cannot require the residents to comply with water conservation, they can only promote it. Cm. Do agreed and felt that the City should advocate on the residents' behalf which would show good will and that the City is looking out for their residents. Cm. Bhuthimethee suggested that the language in the Water Resources Element reference the Economic Development Element. Cm. Kohli suggested language such as: "as stated in the Economic Development Element, the City will be aware of economic issues that impact both residents and business owners and will do what it can to advocate for..." He felt that the information should be readily available in the Water Resources Element to direct the reader to the Economic Development Element. Cm. Goel asked what the purpose of the Water Resources Element is in order to determine if the suggested comments need to be included. He asked what the overall vision of the policy is, what does it do, and how will it be used for guidance. Ms. Bascom referred the Commission to the Element, Item 1.1 Purpose which states: "The primary purpose of this Element and the reason for including this optional Element in the Dublin General Plan is to ensure that the City's waters resources are sustained and protected and to consolidate information and policies related to the conservation..." Cm. Goel felt that the section that Ms. Bascom referred to does not discus fees, practicality, or how to protect the water resources and asked if that was the correct understanding. Ms. Bascom responded that he is correct that there is no mention of fees in the section. Cm. Goel asked if the policy discusses water recharge. Ms. Bascom answered no; the Element does not go into that level of detail. She stated that this Element of the General Plan is a guiding policy document for the City, only addressing those items that the City can influence. Cm. Goel referred to Section 3.5.B, #7 and felt that the Planning Commission would refer to this guideline when reviewing design for new developments. He felt that the Commission has had discussions regarding concrete or impervious materials. He felt that the Commission might want to expand on this section. He also referred the Commission to 3.5.B, #2, regarding new O'lrxnning Commission 9day 28,2013 W,fgularfiefeeting 79 I T a g e streets indicating a minimum width and asked if the minimum width is for the travel way or the roadway cross section. Ms. Bascom answered the intent is for impervious surface, not parkway strips or medians but would be travel lanes. Cm. Goel stated that the section refers to meeting circulation flow and safety requirements and felt it should also indicate alternative means of transportation other than vehicles. Ms. Bascom suggested clarifying the section to state: "encourage design and construction of new streets to have the minimum travel lane width possible so that it does not preclude bike lanes, sidewalks, etc. to encourage alternative modes." Cm. Goel felt that it should say "the minimum width should account for alternative transportation means and complete streets." Mr. Baker felt that it might be a matter of changing the word "all circulation" to something that mentions alternatives. Kit Faubion, City Attorney, asked the Planning Commission to keep in mind that the General Plan and all of its Elements, even the optional Elements, are all on equal level of legal status. She stated that they should recognize that there are Elements that talk about things that might affect the width of roadways and that would be considered when looking at projects or implementing ordinances. But this would not necessarily mean that it takes a lesser role, it would still be on an equal level with all the other Elements. The challenge is to reconcile them all when reviewing a project. Cm. Goel stated his intent is to reconcile the elements to ensure that the cross-reference takes place. Cm. Bhuthimethee was concerned about the demand for water and asked if the City knows the capacity. She understood that the City doesn't control the water, and that DSRSD buys it from Zone 7. Ms. Bascom responded that DSRSD buys water from Zone 7 and they are the retail and service provider to Dublin. She stated that the City works closely with DSRSD in reviewing each new development application. She stated that DSRSD prepares an urban water management plan, to assess where the water supply is coming from and ensuring there is adequate supply for the projected development The Water Resources Element states that any time there is a large project, over a certain number of residents and over a certain number of square footage of commercial uses, there is a separate water analysis specific to the project that to ensure that DSRSD can supply the water needed for the development. Chair O'Keefe asked if Cm. Kohli wanted to add some language to the Element. Cm. Kohli answered that he would like to have the Commission vote but did not want to make it too specific. He felt that he wanted to recommend to the City Council to add explicit language in the Water Resources Element referring to the City being cognizant of the fees that impact the residents and business owners and advocate, when necessary, in regards to sensitivity around these issues. He felt that if a resident goes to the Water Resources Element, they are going c'lznning Commission Way 28,2013 gufar54ieeting 80 1O'rzg e there because they feel their water bill is too high and felt that the Water Resources Element should point them to the Economic Development Element to learn more. Cm. Goel suggested language that indicates that "the City should be cognizant of its economics to the community." Ms. Faubion commented that the General Plan is a land use document and did not feel that the General Plan is the correct place for these concerns. She felt there was a different way to make the same point and mentioned the Water Efficient Landscaping Ordinance that the City created and enforces. She felt that the City has been able to make good strides in doing what it can to encourage water conservation. She offered alternate language such as: "the City has control by these means and implements it with both cost efficiency and efficiency in conservation"within the context. Recognizing that the City does not have control over water, but is cognizant of costs where we do have control. She was concerned that the Commission should not go too far from the Land Use nature of the document. Cm. Kohli felt that the information in the Water Resources Element is missing and readers can be pointed back to the Economic Development Element for more information. He felt that the information is missing from the Water Resources Element and should be added. Chair O'Keefe asked Ms. Faubion where in the document she would recommend incorporating the information, in the Introduction or the Background section. Ms. Faubion felt that the Introduction was a good place. She felt that it might be inserted at the third paragraph that begins "The City of Dublin does not control the supply or the delivery of water to customers..." Cm. Kohli felt that was a good location. Chair O'Keefe stated that Cm. Kohli is requesting, and the Commission agreed, to insert language regarding the City not having control over the monetary aspect of water supply/prices and Cm. Goel suggested adding to the description in Section 3.5.B #2 to provide more specifics. He asked Mr. Baker if he has language to capture those suggestions. Mr. Baker answered yes, but felt that Ms. Bascom had also written down some suggestions. Ms. Bascom stated that, based on the thoughts she heard from the Commission: Policy 3.5.B #2 should be changed to read: encourage design and construction of new streets to be the minimum vehicular travel lane width possible while still meeting circulation flow and safety requirements for all modes of transportation to minimize impervious surface area. Ms. Bascom added to the 3rd paragraph in the Introduction which reads: • The City of Dublin does not control the supply or delivery of water to customers nor does it control cost and pricing mechanisms of water supply. The City also does not manage flood control facilities... The Planning Commission agreed. Panning Commission Ilay 28,2013 Wcgu(ar Meeting 81 IT a g e Cm. Goel asked to explain the water supply legislation; SB 610 and SB 221. He asked how the legislation reflects the things that the Planning Commission does. Ms. Bascom responded that SB 610 and SB 221 reference water supply. SB 610 requires a separate water supply assessment be completed for any development with more than 500 housing units or the commercial mixed-use equivalent. She stated that this is part of the CEQA/Environmental analysis that is done at the beginning of the project. Staff works with DSRSD, who prepares the document stating that the supply will be there to accommodate the project that might not have been anticipated. She stated that SB 221 prohibits an agency from approving a subdivision map of more than 500 housing units or a 10% increase in the number of water connections unless a water supply assessment has been done. She stated that the two bills work together to ensure that anytime there is a large project, a separate document is done. Chair O'Keefe asked about the body of water by Lowes. Ms. Bascom answered that is a water retention basin for Dublin Ranch, so that the Stormwater that flows from subdivision in Dublin Ranch gathers at the basin where it is retained there and then is metered out to a Zone 7 facility and treated. Chair O'Keefe asked if that was a requirement of the development. Ms. Bascom stated that the facility was designed to serve the entirety of Dublin Ranch. She stated that each new development is required to treat their water onsite before it enters the storm water facility. Mr. Baker stated that, as an example, there are several in Positano, including at the entry at Fallon Road. Chair O'Keefe asked why that location was chosen for Dublin Ranch and felt that it is prime real estate in that area, close to the freeway. Mr. Baker stated that it had to do with gravity because all the water drains to that area and the master developer owned and controlled that land. Cm. Goel felt that the area has sufficient enhancement to be used as a community park. He stated that the basins are also used to create a lag in the rainfall flow, delaying the peak flow, keeping sufficient capacity in the existing facilities. Ms. Faubion responded that the C3 requirements do not allow developments to have any more water run-off than is not already running off and it must be treated onsite. Cm. Bhuthimethee understood that the reason the west side does not have the water retention facilities are because the legislation was not in effect until recently. She stated that a big pond is the older version of the legislation and the newer legislation is that the storm water needs to be treated on-site and then the holding and retention of it so that it doesn't overwhelm the water ways. On a motion by Cm. Kohli and seconded by Cm. Goel, on a vote of 5-0, with the agreed upon language changes to the Element as to fees and transportation, the Planning Commission unanimously adopted: T fanning Commission May 28 2013 gufar Meeting 82 ! Page RESOLUTION NO. 13-18 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT TO INCLUDE A NEW WATER RESOURCES ELEMENT PLPA-2013-00022 NEW OR UNFINISHED BUSINESS — NONE 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). 10.2 Cm. Kohli mentioned the Summerhill/DiManto project that was discussed at the recent City Council meeting. He was interested to see how that would impact future projects that come before the Planning Commission. Mr. Baker gave a brief overview of the Summerhill/DiManto project and explained the process to initiate a General Plan Amendment. 10.3 Cm. Kohli asked about televising the Planning Commission meetings. He asked to hear the other Commissioners' thoughts. Chair O'Keefe stated that this is something that Staff wants to do but there is a budget issue and that is why it has not been done yet. The City Council would have to make the determination. Cm. Kohli felt that with more development happening in the City and the residents being more interested in what the Planning Commission is doing, he felt it would be good to televise the meetings. He felt it would be worth approaching the subject with the City Council and see what their thoughts are. Cm. Do asked if other cities televise their Planning Commission meetings and felt that most cities do. She agreed that it would be nice to have them televised or on the website to give residents an opportunity to see what goes on at a Planning Commission meeting. Cm. Goel stated that there are special funds for councils that cannot be used for commissions or committees. These funds are not just born by the City and there may be some guidelines regarding what type of group can be broadcast. He stated that he is open to having the meetings televised. Cm. Bhuthimethee agreed that most other cities have their Planning Commission meetings televised and felt a webcast is cheaper. Chair O'Keefe suggested that if Cm. Kohli feels strongly about this subject, he should speak with the councilmembers. Cm. Goel asked if the Planning Commission can ask what opportunities they might have for broadcasting the meetings. Mr. Baker responded that it would be a policy decision by the City Council. The City Council will see the discussion in the minutes, and he suggested that the Commissioners could contact the Councilmembers for a discussion. Cm. Bhuthimethee felt it would be a service to the public to have it available as another resource. Chair O'Keefe suggested that Cm. Kohli attend a City Council meeting and bring it up under Oral Communications. Cm. Kohli felt that it is important for transparency and because the residents are asking more questions. •?Canning Commission May 28,2013 Rcgu(ar meeting 83 ! t8 a g e ADJOURNMENT —The meeting was adjourned at 8:16:19 PM RespeAi ully submitted, 'nning Commission Chair ATTEST: Jeff Baker Assistant Community Development Director G:IMINUTES120131PLANNING COMMISSIOM05 28 13 FINAL PC MINUTES(CF).doc q'(anning Commission May 28,2013 ckcgu(ar Meeting 84 1 2'a g e