Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout8.1 Attch 02 PC Minutes from 07-09-2013 NEW OR UNFINISHED BUSINESS Cm. Do joined the meeting at 7:26:38 PM 9.1 PA 08-049 Dublin Crossing. Review of the Draft Dublin Crossing Specific Plan and Draft Environmental Impact Report (Draft EIR) for approximately 189 acres located at the northwest corner of Dublin Boulevard and Arnold Road. Kristi Bascom, Principal Planner, presented the project as outlined in the Staff Report. Cm. Bhuthimethee asked for an explanation of the mixed-use and commercial uses that are slated for the parcel at the corner of Dublin Blvd. and Arnold Road. Ms. Bascom explained that the Mixed Use parcel will have, at a minimum, commercial uses and a 5-acre Neighborhood Park. The parcel could also have residential uses in combination with the commercial, but not residential only. Cm. Kohli asked how the school's location could limit the type of commercial businesses that can be built on the parcel located next to it. Ms. Bascom answered that the Mixed Use parcel will be master-planned with the commercial, park, and (potential) residential uses and the location of the school will be kept in mind. It is expected that a bulk of the commercial uses would be closer to Dublin Blvd. and not at Central Parkway. Cm. Kohli was concerned about having a liquor store or some type of commercial business that would not be appropriate close to a school. Cm. Bhuthimethee asked if the old "Camp Parks" sign was studied as a cultural resource in the EIR. Ms. Bascom answered that the sign is outside of the Specific Plan project area and will remain on the active base. The existence of the sign was noted in the EIR, but since no changes are proposed to the sign or its setting, there were no impacts identified in the EIR. Chair O'Keefe was concerned with circulation and connectivity throughout the City. He asked if there had been any discussions during the last 10 years to have Central Parkway connect through the project to Scarlett Drive. Ms. Bascom answered that a number of different options for an east-west roadway have been considered during the time that the project has been reviewed by Staff and the Developer. However, the configuration of the street network and the location of the various land uses depend on the phasing plan and how the developer receives the land from the Army. Chair O'Keefe asked if this project were an empty parcel, would it be ideal to have a connectivity point from Arnold Road to Scarlett Drive. Ms. Bascom answered that yes, that would be ideal, and G Street is serving as that connection. <Planning Commission Ju[y 9,2013 ftgul2vWeetirrg Page 1 87 ATTACHMENT 2 Chair O'Keefe asked about any discussion regarding what roadway alignment is preferable to the City of Dublin. Ms. Bascom responded that the land plan and the circulation would look different if the project were an empty parcel. But since this is not the case, there are limitations to what can be done. The east-west roadway was envisioned as a reliever to Dublin Blvd. but there was a desire to not bifurcate the project area with an expressway going through it. She stated that a connection was desired, but one that served to connect Arnold and Scarlett, not necessarily provide a higher-speed expressway. Chair O'Keefe asked if G Street could be a faster paced arterial located at the northern border of the project area. Ms. Bascom stated that was examined many years ago when the Strategic Visioning Process was completed. There was a desire to have that connectivity, but an exact alignment was not selected. Once there was a developer on board, it became clear that there were challenges connecting the east-west road with Scarlett Drive and Dougherty Road. A five-legged intersection at Scarlett Drive and Dougherty Road was not a good connection. Cm. Bhuthimethee asked if the EIR addressed pedestrian traffic crossing Dublin Blvd. and the BART traffic. Ms. Bascom answered that there are policies in the Specific Plan related to improvements to the crosswalks at the main intersections heading to BART (DeMarcus and Iron Horse Parkway) and making it more pedestrian friendly. Cm. Bhuthimethee asked if there was a discussion regarding installing a pedestrian bridge. Ms. Bascom answered that there is a mitigation measure in the EIR regarding installing a pedestrian bridge over Dublin Blvd. at the Iron Horse Regional Trail to enhance pedestrian and bicycle travel across Dublin Blvd. Cm. Kohli was concerned about the project's impact on the flow of traffic on Dublin Blvd. Ms. Bascom responded that the Specific Plan assumed ultimate build-out of 1,995 residential units, 200,000 square feet of commercial uses, and a 12 acre school site with the capacity for 900 students. The traffic analysis took into account the worst case scenario (ultimate build-out) and reviewed 32 key intersections where the modeling was done for existing conditions, etc. With the mitigation measures identified, all of the impacts to Dublin Blvd were able to be reduced to acceptable levels. They included enhancements to Dublin Blvd., extension of Scarlett Drive, project periphery improvements, improvements identified in the City's traffic impact fee program and ultimate build-out with the proposed mitigations. Cm. Goel was concerned with the section regarding parking and alternative transportation. He stated that the Specific Plan reduced the parking requirements in the area and he was concerned that minimizing the need for parking might create parking impacts similar to the other areas in the eastern part of Dublin. Ms. Bascom answered that, in the areas that are designated Mixed Use or General Commercial/High Density Residential which are closer to the Transit Center and BART, the Specific Plan allows for the same parking requirements as those residential developments Planning Commission July 9,2013 Wegular Meeting �P a g e 188 across the street, which is 1.5 spaces per unit plus 15% of the total required spaces for guest parking. In all the other locations and land use districts, the City's standard parking requirements, per the Zoning Ordinance, apply. Cm. Goel asked if the Specific Plan and EIR had been provided to LAVTA and asked if they have provided any initial comments. Ms. Bascom answered that LAVTA has not responded, but the comment period has just started. Cm. Goel asked what traffic model was used. Ms. Bascom answered that, in the citywide traffic model, short term is Year 2020 and long term is build-out of the General Plan, which is Year 2035. Cm. Goel asked if any of the Dublin Blvd. intersections are at a level C or below. Ms. Bascom answered that there are a few existing intersections and then a few are new intersections at Dublin Blvd. Cm. Goel asked if there is a plan for any mitigation measures to control and funnel traffic onto one street within the project. Ms. Bascom responded that B Street lines up with DeMarcus Blvd. and D Street lines up with Iron Horse Pkwy. The others will not go through to Dublin Blvd., so by default, the pedestrian traffic will be focused on DeMarcus Blvd., Iron Horse Pkwy., and at the potential future elevated pedestrian bridge at the Iron Horse Regional Trail. Cm. Goel asked if the traffic model took into consideration the pedestrian traffic across Dublin Blvd. He felt that the City is encouraging residents to walk and take BART, but that during peak travel times the impact to Dublin Blvd. could double. Ms. Bascom stated that traffic was analyzed in great detail, and the need for the pedestrian bridge was identified because of the greater use of the Iron Horse Trail, both on a regional level and from pedestrians and cyclists travelling from within the Specific Plan area to BART. She stated that the impact of more pedestrians using the trail and pushing the "walk" button was studied. She stated that Staff and the consultant could review the traffic model to ensure that the traffic flow and the traffic modeling took into account the pedestrian traffic across Dublin Blvd. Cm. Goel asked if the Iron Horse Trail and Dublin Blvd. is the most convenient place for pedestrians to cross Dublin Blvd. He felt that people will find the most convenient point for them to cross Dublin Blvd. and asked if more opportunities for a pedestrian bridge would make sense. Bill Wiseman, RBF Consulting, explained what was analyzed in the traffic model. Cm. Goel asked if the project improves traffic impacts. Mr. Wiseman responded that the project has negative impacts on traffic, but the mitigation measures improve them to acceptable levels. Planning Commission July 9,2013 ftular5Weeting Page 189 Mr. Wiseman stated that the impact analysis includes projections of BART traffic and users that includes BART numbers in the peak a.m. and peak p.m. hours with additional foot traffic. He felt that the appropriate location for the pedestrian bridge is the Iron Horse Trail, which would accommodate both regional users of the trail headed to BART as well as users from the Specific Plan area. He stated that the pedestrian crossing/intersection improvements at DeMarcus Blvd./B Street and Iron Horse Pkwy./D Street would ensure a safe crossing for pedestrians. Cm. Goel asked if the school will be Kindergarten through 5th grade. Ms. Bascom answered that the school district has expressed a need for a 12 acre elementary school site within the Specific Plan area that can accommodate up to 900 students. Cm. Goel asked how the clean-up of the Army land could impact the developer's ability to develop the phased release part of the project. Ms. Bascom answered that the 189-acre site has been completely cleaned with the exception of two spots, which the Developer could provide more detail regarding. Cm. Goel asked if the water channels on site will be underground. Ms. Bascom answered that the only channel on the project site will be a man-made habitat corridor/water conveyance channel for stormwater and drainage that will connect to the Chabot Canal. Cm. Goel asked if there is potential of influencing the design of the channel so that it does not look like a ditch or controlling the flow of the channel. Ms. Bascom answered that the channel is intended to be created as a natural habitat, so it will be aesthetically pleasing. Cm. Goel asked what the level of flow will be. Ms. Bascom answered that the flow will be metered out from a retention basin on Camp Parks and then on to the Zone 7 Alamo Canal drainage channel. Cm. Bhuthimethee asked if the retention basin is part of the project. Ms. Bascom answered that the retention basin will be located on Camp Parks, north of the project site. Chair O'Keefe opened the public hearing. Gus Nystrum, Dublin Resident, asked how the military will access Camp Parks. Ms. Bascom answered that a new gate will be built at Dougherty Road with a new traffic signal lined up with Mariposa Circle, which will be the new Access Control Point to Camp Parks. Mr. Nystrum asked what was meant by "cleaning up the site." Ms. Bascom answered that any toxic contaminants have been removed and remediated to acceptable levels. Tfanning Commission -7idy 9,2013 W'gular Meeting P a g e 190 Gregory Kelley, Scarlett Drive Homeowners Association, was concerned about parking along Scarlett Drive and how the project will affect his neighborhood. He asked about parking for the Community Park. Ms. Bascom answered that the parking field for the Community Park shown in the Illustrative Site Plan is conceptual only. The parking for the park will be on-site, not on Scarlett Drive. Mr. Kelley was concerned with children's safety with the extension of Scarlett Drive and traffic/speeding. Ms. Bascom referred to Figure 4.17 which illustrates the Scarlet Drive precise plan, on page 4- 42, which illustrates the Scarlett Drive extension. The Scarlett Drive extension has been planned for several years, but is not currently in the City's 5-year CIP. The Dublin Crossing development will necessitate the extension of the street. It will be extended to Dublin Blvd. with bike lanes but there will be no on-street parking along Scarlett Drive. Mr. Kelley felt that no on-street parking along Scarlett Drive would be an issue for the residents on Scarlett Drive. Mr. Kelley was also concerned with the issue of clean up and asked if the NASA building has any airborne contaminates that the residents could be exposed to. Joe Guerra, SunCal, spoke in favor of the project. He responded to questions previously posed, including those related to the future school site and the commercial uses and Central Parkway, project phasing, hazardous materials clean up on site, and the street connection from Arnold Road through to Scarlett Drive, Chair O'Keefe asked about facilities on the remaining Camp Parks base and what would be on the north side of the project boundary. Mr. Guerra answered that everything north of phase #5 on the phasing plan is base housing; the remainder is currently grass. Chair O'Keefe was concerned with the use types that would.be located at the boundary of the project. Mr. Guerra responded that a chain link fence is located on all boundaries of the base and on Arnold Road. The only height restrictions from the Army is the project cannot have a window above 35 feet high. Cm. Bhuthimethee asked if residential backing up to the base is acceptable and asked if there are any special security requirements along the border of Camp Parks. Mr. Guerra responded that the requirement is that the project must replicate the current security requirements, which are to have a 6ft chain link fence with barbed wire along the new property line. Mr. Guerra further clarified that there will be a masonry wall constructed along the project border as well that will serve as backyard fences for the residences. Planning Commission juC 9,2013 9�ggular Ifeeting Tag e 191 i Mr. Guerra continued his responses to questions regarding the pedestrian bridge; the flow of Chabot Creek; cleaning up the project site and the NASA site; and the phasing of Central Park. Cm. Do was concerned that G Street is split between phase 2 and phase 5 and asked how G Street will be connected when it is built in two phases. Mr. Guerra stated that they anticipate G Street will not be connected until phase 4. There was a discussion regarding the phasing of the project and how the land will be received by the Applicant from the Army. Cm. Bhuthimethee was concerned that the first phase of development will be high density housing. Mr. Guerra felt that it is unlikely there will be any commercial uses in the phase 1A area. Mr. Kelley, Resident, returned to the podium and commented that, as a frequent user of the Iron Horse Trail and BART, he knows that the "walk" button at the pedestrian crossing on Dublin Blvd. doesn't make the light turn faster, and felt that the pedestrian bridge will be essential to the project. i Cm. Bhuthimethee asked if the EIR includes traffic and parking mitigations. Ms. Bascom responded that the EIR has traffic and circulation mitigations but parking was not addressed in the EIR, but will be addressed later on a project-by-project basis. Chair O'Keefe closed the public hearing. Cm. Kohli felt this study session was a good start for the discussion regarding pedestrian issues, traffic, and parking issues on Scarlett Drive. He stated that he is glad that the project will be reviewed to ensure good adjacencies between the school property and the potential commercial uses that could potentially be close by. He stated he looks forward to working with the developer to create a green community with good schools that will bring something to Dublin that will be considered the heart of the City with commerce, transportation and residential. Cm. Bhuthimethee was concerned with creating a sense of place for the project and felt that is important. She asked if there is a way to adopt those elements of the branding and marketing plan that is recommended in the Economic Development Element of the General Plan. Her other concerns included: • Ensuring that the gateway signage is relevant and withstands the test of time. • Noting that the project is a connection between west and east Dublin and felt there should be some type of gesture to recognize that. • Creating a marketing/branding element to make it more distinctly Dublin. • Supportive of the Community Park elements including the outdoor amphitheater. Also thought that instead of a vineyard, it may be more appropriate to have a demonstration garden for a more historically relevant crop in the area, which is hops. • Supportive of traffic calming elements in the plan, but is concerned about speed humps. • Supportive of providing more single-story units in order to integrate people of different ages, mobility restrictions, and abilities. Planning Commission ,duly 9,2013 ftufarWeeting T a g e 1 .92 Cm. Goel concerns and supporting comments were: • Parking will be a concern including overflow parking from BART patrons. • Supports the Alameda County Safe Routes to School Program that was mentioned in the Specific Plan, • Supports the unique concepts of the project, i.e.; the neighborhood garden concept in the Community Park and habitat corridor for educational purposes. • Intersection at Arnold and Dublin Blvd. is a gateway and would be one of the 4 corners of Dublin. This project may trigger the Transit Center area to have the commercial on the first floor. • Phasing is not the phasing that will ultimately play out. • This project is an opportunity to create a connection between east and west. Cm. Do agreed with the other commissioners and looks forward to working with the Applicant on the next phase. She agreed that BART overflow parking on Arnold and Scarlett will continue to be a problem and that this reality should be addressed in this plan. Chair O'Keefe agreed with Cm. Bhuthimethee regarding creating a sense of place, creating a civic identity, and felt that there could be some additions to the specific plan around that. He stated he is looking forward to the project incorporating some type of historical element. He was concerned that Dublin has no connection between east and west. While he understands the reasons for not having a bypass arterial, he felt that the people who live on east and west would like to see another main artery within Dublin. He asked that the Applicant try to work it into the project. He asked the Commission for their thoughts on a bypass arterial. Cm. Kohli agreed but felt that with the school, residential and the park they must be careful about how they create an artery where the speed would be above 25 mph. He supported looking at options but felt that they must consider the surroundings. Cm. Bhuthimethee was concerned with whether it was worth including an arterial in the project. Chair O'Keefe felt it was worth it because of all the comments he has heard from residents about the lack of another way to get from one end of the City to the other besides Dublin Blvd. Cm. Goel stated he would not encourage any of the streets within the project to become a bypass arterial. He endorses the statement on engaging safe routes to school and encouraging bike safety. He was sure that the Public Works Department will review the signal prioritization and maintain the flow of traffic and not encourage bypass traffic to go into the residential areas. Cm. Do was concerned about the possible speed of traffic on an arterial bypass when there is a school nearby. Chair O'Keefe wanted his thoughts to be heard and the feedback from residents to be acknowledged. He also wants to ensure that the project is not totally developer-driven but includes what the City wants as well. Cm. Kohli agreed and felt it is important to ensure the Planning Commission represents the residents of the City. Chair O'Keefe acknowledged Mr. Kelley for representing his neighborhood and promised to visit the area and observe the parking issue. He stated that he is happy that the developer has Planning Commission Yuf 9,2013 fgularYeeting Page 193 agreed to provide fundin "d g toward the construction of the pedestrian bridge. He also suggested considering a 2 or 3` pedestrian bridge along Dublin Blvd. at DeMarcus or Iron Horse Parkway. Chair O'Keefe asked the Commission for their thoughts on multiple bridge locations. Cm. Goel felt that commuters will find the location that is easiest for them and felt that the Iron Horse Trail point is a good connection and perfect for the commuter's time constraints. He also felt a different location could work better. Chair O'Keefe asked if the Commission wanted to add a 2nd or 3`d pedestrian bridges. Cm. Goel felt multiple bridges are not the answer, but that an alternate location should be considered. He was unsure if that is the visual that the City would want for Dublin Blvd. Chair O'Keefe felt additional pedestrian bridges should be considered. He also wanted to ensure that the most visible part of the project on Dublin Blvd. would include enhanced building materials enhanced, i.e.; brick, stone, etc. He suggested having that written into the guidelines that anything on Dublin Blvd will have enhanced building materials. Cm. Bhuthimethee agreed. Cm. Bhuthimethee thanked the Planning Commissioners and Staff for their work and felt that their concerns have been heard. Chair O'Keefe agreed. Mr. Baker thanked the Planning Commission and the public for their constructive feedback and discussed the next steps for the project. He advised the Commission that the Public Comment period for the EIR closes on August 8. Staff will then prepare responses to comments and incorporate changes in the Draft Specific Plan as necessary. The Planning Commission will have the opportunity to review the Draft Specific Plan and EIR at a public hearing in the fall and make a recommendation to the City Council. OTHER BUSINESS - NONE 10.1 Mr. Baker spoke regarding the Amador Crossing Commercial Pad project and shared the revised drawings that reflect the Planning Commission's comments. Mr. Baker also answered questions about the signage. Chair O'Keefe asked about the completion date for the project. Mr. Baker did not have a project opening date but the Applicant was working quickly and felt a spring opening was likely. 10.2 There was a discussion regarding the facade upgrade at the Village Parkway site and the grant program for construction and design of facade modifications. A question was asked regarding future grants for similar projects. Mr. Baker responded that there are funds allocated to do facade modifications to another building on Village Parkway. 10.3 Mr. Baker informed the Planning Commission that there will be no meeting on July 23`d ADJOURNMENT—The meeting was adjourned at 9:34:52 PM Tianning Commission ,fury 91 2013 Vytdar`Meeting Tag e 194