Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03-11-2014 PC Minutes (fie."14-0, Planning Commission Minutes Tuesday, March 11, 2014 CALL TO ORDER/ROLL CALL A regular meeting of the City of Dublin Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, March 11, 2014, in the City Council Chambers located at 100 Civic Plaza. Chair Bhuthimethee called the meeting to order at 7:02:33 PM Present: Chair Bhuthimethee; Vice Chair Goel; Commissioners Do, O'Keefe, and Kohli; Jeff Baker, Assistant Community Development Director; Kit Faubion, City Attorney; Kristi Bascom, Principal Planner; Seth Adams, Assistant 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. O'Keefe, on a vote of 3-0-2, Cm. Goel and Cm. Kohli were both absent, the Planning Commission approved the minutes of the February 25, 2014 meeting. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS — NONE CONSENT CALENDAR — NONE WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS — NONE PUBLIC HEARINGS — 8.1 PLPA-2014-00006 Development Agreement extension for the AMB/Prologis mixed-use office/residential project at 6700 Golden Gate Drive in Downtown Dublin. Kristi Bascom, Principal Planner, stated that, due to some irregularities in the Public Hearing notice that was mailed out, Staff recommends that the item be continued to the Planning Commission meeting on March 25, 2014. The Public Hearing will be re-noticed. Chair Bhuthimethee opened the public hearing and, seeing no speakers, closed the public hearing. On a motion by Cm. Do and seconded by Cm. Kohli, on a vote of 5-0, the Planning Commission unanimously voted to continue the item until the meeting of March 25, 2014. 8.2 PLPA-2013-00059 Dublin Toyota Site Development Review to make modifications to the building and site at the existing Dublin Toyota Automotive Dealership at 4321 Toyota Drive. Seth Adams, Assistant Planner, presented the project as outlined in the Staff Report. P'%anninyg Coanre ascot Marcie 11,2014 (¢gurar Meeting (2)age 41 Chair Bhuthimethee opened the public hearing and, seeing no speakers, closed the public hearing. Cm. O'Keefe felt that it made sense to approve the project as it is basically the same as what was approved in 2012. He stated that he is in support of the project and can make the findings. Cm. Do stated that she is in support of the project and can make the findings. Cm. Kohli stated that he is in support of the project and can make the findings. Cm. Goel stated that he is in support of the project and can make the findings. He felt it was a great addition and supports the expansion of existing businesses. Chair Bhuthimethee stated that she can make the findings. On a motion by Cm. Goel and seconded by Cm. Do, on a vote of 5-0, the Planning Commission unanimously adopted: RESOLUTION NO. 14 - 10 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN APPROVING SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW FOR A 1,186 SQUARE FOOT BUILDING ADDITION, A 10,282 SQUARE FOOT SALES BUILDING CARPORT/CANOPY, A 1,760 SQUARE FOOT SERVICE BUILDING CARPORT/CANOPY, FACADE MODIFICATIONS, AND RELATED SITE IMPROVEMENTS AT THE DUBLIN TOYOTA AUTO DEALERSHIP AT 4321 TOYOTA DRIVE 8.3 PLPA-2013-00073 Amendments to the Downtown Dublin Specific Plan (DDSP). General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan Amendment to increase the number of residential units permitted and decrease the amount of non-residential square footage permitted in Downtown Dublin and an Addendum to the DDSP Environmental Impact Report (EIR). Kristi Bascom, Principal Planner, presented the project as outlined in the Staff Report. Chair Bhuthimethee asked for an example of a development in Dublin with a density of 22 units/acre and 30 units/acre. Ms. Bascom answered that 22 units/acre, depending on the size and configuration of the parcel, can be either apartments or townhomes. She stated that the attached townhome units at Emerald Vista are approximately 23-24 units/acre. She stated that 30 units/acre would usually be an apartment project with 3-4 stories, but it also depends on the site. Chair Bhuthimethee asked why the distinction was made to allow live/work units in the Village Parkway District with a Conditional Use Permit. (Planning C oriumssron 94arcii 11,2014 1Rfrguhar114eeting 1'ca g e j 42 Ms. Bascom answered that the Village Parkway District is more sensitive as some of the buildings back up to single-family homes. She stated that the idea was to keep any residential development along Village Parkway very low key. Cm. O'Keefe stated that there had been an earlier project that was a Planned Development district with an overlay and asked if a similar concept could be applied to the DDSP, allowing a combination of commercial and/or residential zoning. He asked if that was possible and what authority has determined that the City cannot have that type of zoning. Ms. Bascom responded that the DDSP is generous in terms of the allowed uses in the different districts. She pointed out the Table of Land Uses in the DDSP which showed that residential uses and commercial uses are allowed throughout all 3 districts, with some specific types of commercial uses requiring CUPs in some of the districts. She stated that the DDSP was intended to be a broad and permissive document, setting standards and design guidelines for what type of development can happen. She stated that residential and commercial uses are allowed within the different districts, and it is just a question of how much. The residential use focuses on the Transit Oriented District because the BART station is close by, with the assumption that the development there would be denser. Cm. O'Keefe asked if the Planning Commission could determine that, in the Transit Oriented District, there would be X, Y & Z zoning. X would be residential, Y would be commercial and Z would be a combination of both. Ms. Bascom answered that currently, on any given parcel in the TOD, there is the potential to have residential use, commercial use or a mixed-use project. The DDSP outlines the maximum development density in the different districts because there must be a maximum for what the entire district can accommodate. Cm. O'Keefe felt that the reason for this amendment is to satisfy the City's RHNA obligation and asked if there is a way to craft the amendment so that it doesn't have to be one way or the other, but would provide more flexibility for the market. Mr. Baker stated that, if the Planning Commission were to adopt the DDSP amendment with 1,200 additional units, there is nothing that indicates they must be built; therefore, it could be all commercial, up to 2.2 million square feet, throughout the downtown, and the 1,200 units would never have to be built and the City would still be in compliance with State law. He stated that the City only must provide the ability for a developer to build the units. The DDSP is written to set the maximum generosity, which means that a developer can build commercial or residential on many of the parcels, within general parameters. He stated that there is a list of commercial uses and residential uses that are appropriate for the downtown and a developer could build any of those uses, as long as they follow the list. He stated that the DDSP has a 20-30 year vision for guiding development and it might be that none of the 1,200 units are built, but the capacity would be there if the market allowed that to happen. Kit Faubion, City Attorney, referred the Planning Commission to Land Use Table 3-1 on Page 18 of the Addendum. She stated that the table lists the uses allowed in each district and felt that this is what Cm. O'Keefe was asking for. Cm. O'Keefe felt that the current proposal would limit transit oriented commercial development to 1.6 million square feet, which is down from the 2.2 million square feet allowed in the DDSP. Tian ning Commission gaiarcna 11,2014 01aguiar;44eeting 2'age 143 He was concerned that there may be a business that wanted to locate in Dublin, because of the proximity to BART, and wanted to build more than 1.6 million square feet; they would not be allowed to. He wanted to give more flexibility to the third category that he was proposing. He suggested that the category should be more open and not specifically defined, or define it in a way that it satisfies RHNA, but doesn't lower the commercial square footage allowed. Mr. Baker stated that the 1.6 million square feet is above and beyond what already exists in the TOD. He felt that these are very large numbers, for example, it is more than the outlet mall in Livermore, which is approximately 500,000 square feet; currently there is the capacity in the TOD to build 3 Livermore Outlet Malls, in addition to the existing development. Cm. O'Keefe felt Mr. Baker's explanation helped and asked if there was 1.6 million square feet of commercial space available in the TOD and if there is the market for that much commercial space. Mr. Baker answered that, if the City were lucky enough to have an application that would exceed the 1.6 million square feet allowed, the DDSP would need to be amended, but he felt that was ambitious at this time. Cm. Kohli asked if the proposal came about because of the RHNA obligation or are they mutually exclusive and if the City is using the RHNA obligation as an opportunity to increase the residential units in the downtown. Mr. Baker answered that Staff noted the fact that 1,200 units are allowed in the downtown and 1,100 are already spoken for. The City is trying to increase the capacity in the downtown in order to get more people downtown and have more activity which was part of the vision for the DDSP. At same time, the RHNA obligation shortfall was determined and the two paths crossed. Staff felt it was an opportunity to achieve two goals; increase the residential units in the downtown and meet the RHNA obligation. He stated that the City is 1,075 units short of the RHNA obligation and if the increase were in the DDSP the City would not have to look at other areas of the City to meet that obligation. Cm. Kohli asked how the two goals (satisfying RHNA and increasing units in the DDSP) are different. He felt that to meet the City's RHNA obligation the City must designate the sites for the 1,200 units, but is under no obligation to build them. He asked if the City would be more responsible for ensuring those units are built if the units are added to other areas of the City. Mr. Baker stated that, in other areas of the City, if a commercial site is converted to residential land use for RHNA purposes, the commercial designation goes away and will never be commercial in the future. Whereas, in the downtown, there is flexibility because any use is allowed on any parcel, commercial or residential, but the City would still achieve the RHNA obligation. Ms. Bascom stated that Cm. Kohli is correct that the City is obligated to provide the residential sites, but is under no obligation construct the 1,200 residential units. Cm. Kohli stated that the City can designate whether the residential units will be added in the downtown or somewhere else in the City, but it would still be up to a developer to go through the process regardless of the development is under RHNA or something other than RHNA. He +?'funning Cornrnissiort 941arch 11,2014 I{cgu1ur 9ileetmg 'Page 144 stated that the 1,200 units could be built in one calendar year, over 10 years or they could never be built. He asked if the RHNA obligation is 1,075 units. Mr. Baker stated that the RHNA obligation is approximately 2,200 units and the City is 1,075 units short of that obligation. Cm. Kohli asked if Staff or City Council had discussed matching the number of units one-for-one and add 1,075 and matching the RHNA shortfall. He was concerned with the impact of more residential units on the school district. He asked if the Commissioners had a chance to read the letter from the Dublin Unified School District (DUSD) that discussed their concerns regarding the predicted shortfall in capacity and resources that would occur if the residential units were increased which would potentially include more students. He felt that is a challenge and that it was not clear if there had been discussions between the City and the school district regarding resolving the issues. Cm. Goel referred to Land Use Table 3-1 in the DDSP Amendment, and asked if"regional retail" referred to the big box stores. Ms. Bascom read the definition of "regional retail" which is: any business that is greater than 20,000 square feet, and generally serves a broad population... Cm. Goel referred to Table 3-1: Land Uses and the change to the live/work units allowed within the Retail District. He stated that live/work units had been prohibited in the Retail District but it is now allowed with Footnote #6 which states "Allowed throughout the Retail District except on those properties west of San Ramon Road." He asked if that change was part of the vision for the west side of San Ramon Road. Ms. Bascom responded that Footnote #6 makes the distinction between residential uses being allowed only east of San Ramon Road and not in the area west of San Ramon Road. She stated that currently residential uses are permitted west of San Ramon Road. Live/work units were previously prohibited in the Retail District; the current proposal would allow them in the Retail District east of San Ramon Road. Cm. Goel asked why live/work units are being excluding west of San Ramon Road. Ms. Bascom responded that the proposal is to exclude all residential uses west of San Ramon Road, whether apartments, condominiums, or live/work units; any residential uses in that small section of the specific plan. Staff looked at the parcels west of San Ramon Road and considered where to focus new residential development in the downtown and felt it was more appropriate to have those units closer to BART, therefore, the proposal here is to clearly identify that the parcels west of San Ramon Road should stay commercial uses. Cm. Goel asked if Staff obtained an expert opinion regarding the market that indicates a live/work scenario on that site should have an exception. He stated that he has heard from some of the business community, in regards to transit oriented development and overall work premise, a desire to have live/work units in the City. He felt that using the word "except" creates a situation where the developer must go through a process, when live/work units are allowed anywhere else in the Retail District. He stated he was not comfortable with that exception. He understood that the City has a vision for the downtown, but felt that the vision could be carried out without a superficial boundary being created. 'iiznr?ing(;`anumssion 91arch 11,2014 2 guar Meeting Page 1 45 Chair Bhuthimethee asked if live/work units are currently prohibited in the Retail District. Ms. Bascom answered yes. Chair Bhuthimethee asked if the restriction could be changed to allow residential with a CUP. Cm. Goel stated that Staff has already done that in the Village Parkway District but was unsure as to why the distinction was made for the Retail District. He felt that there could be an opportunity for a project that could be a good fit and that a CUP would be another step that the developer would have to go through to get the project built. He stated that he hasn't heard any convincing market analysis, other than the vision of the DDSP, which indicates that that a boundary should be drawn. Ms. Bascom explained that the Retail District is the largest district in the downtown, and without the amendment there are 100 residential units in the development pool allowed in that district; 1,100 are allowed in the Transit Oriented District and 100 in the Village Parkway District. She stated that all residential units must be pulled from the development pool in the downtown, which means that the City Council approves the allocation of those units for a particular project. She stated that, as Staff reviewed the opportunity sites for residential development, they felt that since the Retail District is the furthest from the BART station and taking a portion of the valuable 100 units and locating them west of San Ramon Road made less sense than focusing those units at the core of the district. With this Amendment, those 100 units would be increased to 400 units which would provide more flexibility. She felt that throughout the Retail District there is still a lot of potential for future development. Staff felt that this is an opportunity for the City Council to determine where the focus should be for future residential development. She stated that Staff reviewed various parcels in the Retail District which were all viable uses for the surrounding neighborhoods, the downtown as a whole and allowing a transition of those uses to residential did not make as much sense as focusing on the inner core of the area. Cm. Goel stated he would agree to disagree. Cm. O'Keefe felt it was important to address the letter from the DUSD and asked for Staff's opinion on the letter that was received and their viewpoint on some of the statistics and opinions. Cm. Kohli asked if Staff had a "Plan B" if the Amendment does not pass, realizing that the City must still meet the RHNA obligation, while keeping in mind the DUSD's concerns. Cm. Goel stated that the school district provided an option on how to mitigate for some of the impacts. He suggested using some of the key words within the presentation such as "enables" and "ability" as well as "achievable for the RHNA"; he felt that would make a difference when responding to the DUSD. Ms. Bascom stated that there is no school district representative in attendance to further explain their concerns. She stated that she cannot speak to the validity of the analysis because it is not the City's analysis. She stated that, if the City were to increase the development potential by an additional 1,200 units in the DDSP, there may be projects that will take advantage of those units this year, next year, or in ten years, the City doesn't know when that development will occur; there may never be any projects. She felt that the school district letter read as though their PGznning Commission .sfrcrcfi 11,2014 4{egulaar Warne 1'age 146 analysis assumed that all of the units would come on-line immediately, which could have immediate impacts on the school district. She stated that there have been on-going conversations with the school district regarding student generation rates. She questioned if the generation rates were for more typical developments and not higher density TOD's where there would be fewer school age children. She referred to Cm. Kohli's comment, if Staff does not identify additional development potential in the DDSP area, it must be identified elsewhere within the City. She felt that it was more appropriate to identify the units in a higher density area that would have lesser student generation rates. Cm. Kohli asked if the school district is aware of RHNA obligation. Mr. Baker answered yes. Cm. Kohli asked about the discussions with the school district and felt that Ms. Bascom's explanation was a logical one because the units must be made available and it's out of the school district's hands. He felt that the downtown plan makes more sense than spreading it around the City and the potential for student generation rates increasing that way, yet the school district still sent the letter. He asked why they are still concerned. Mr. Baker responded that Cm. Kohli's question highlights some of the very real challenges the City faces which are well intentioned requirements that have competing interests; the HCD requiring RHNA and housing throughout the state and then the schools have their own state mandates and funding issues and often those requirements don't meet. He felt that the issue is that the City must provide the housing units, but the State is not providing the funding to provide for more schools. He stated that Staff has met with the school district extensively, they are aware of the RHNA obligation; however, wherever the units are placed it will have an impact on the schools and so there is not a clear answer. The DUSD has not given the City a formal opinion other than to raise some issue, and they don't say what they want or how to solve the issues. Cm. Kohli asked when the public was notified of the hearing and if the DUSD knew the item was on the agenda. Mr. Baker answered that the City has been meeting with the school district since last summer, and the Planning Commission meeting was publicly noticed 10 days ago. Cm. Kohli asked if there had been an effort by the City and the school district to go up to the State level to ask if there is some sort of exception that can be made for future analysis. Mr. Baker answered that the school funding issues are bigger than the DUSD and there are on- going efforts to deal with those, but the State has no waiver process. Cm. O'Keefe asked if the Planning Commission can add language to the Resolution that would include that if the City is going to increase the number of residential units to meet RHNA standards, a developer fee would be added to provide for new school facilities. Mr. Baker felt that these are policy level issues for the City Council. He stated that the DDSP sets a framework for the 20-30 year horizon and provides a setting for that to happen. He stated that with each of the projects the City Council must allocate units to that project and felt P&nnin,j Commission drzrcfi ll,2014 2Z gu1 r Weeting 0'a g e 1 47 that Cm. O'Keefe's suggestion could be part of that process. There are mitigation measures that would require projects to provide funding to schools as part of their impact fees. Cm. O'Keefe asked if the Planning Commission could recommend to the City Council that, if the additional units are added, they add framework for development impact fees to offset the increase in units. Mr. Baker agreed and stated that could be something to add to require additional benefits for the school district. Cm. Kohli asked if it would be legal under RHNA to add these types of conditions that could prevent the project from being built and could be seen as going against the RHNA policy. Mr. Baker felt that there are things that the City can do, but the Draft Housing Element must be sent to the State for approval and if there are items that they consider to be roadblocks to development, it could be a potential concern and could jeopardize the certification. Ms. Faubion added that it is not only that there are roadblocks for the Housing Element, there are statutory limitations on mitigations for school impacts. She stated that the State legislature adopted statutory school fees under CEQA; therefore, the City Council has no flexibility to require mitigation for school fees. She suggested that the City Council could look for other funding assistance for the school district but should not frame it as a mitigation. Cm. O'Keefe asked if there could be an opportunity for the City Council, the Planning Commission and the school district to have a study session on the proposal. Ms. Bascom answered no. She stated that Staff received the letter from the DUSD last week. This is the first formal response from the DUSD regarding their concerns. Cm. O'Keefe understood that Staff had been meeting with the school district for the last 6 months, but felt that the proposal is too rushed. Chair Bhuthimethee stated that she has a different perspective and would like to share that with the Commission during deliberations. Chair Bhuthimethee opened the public hearing. Brad Skepner, property owner and representative of a group of owners of a parcel located west of San Ramon Road, spoke regarding the item. He stated that he has an issue with the limitation of development west of San Ramon Road. He stated that the parcel that they own is where McNamara's Steak House is located. He referred to a letter from a potential developer that the Planning Commission received at the meeting which asks that the restriction be removed. He stated that the building is too large for the existing retail use and the configuration and the site depth of the majority of the sites on San Ramon Road were not appropriate for a prime retail configuration. He felt that by prohibiting residential development west of San Ramon Road it would ensure that outmoded retail would remain in that location. He felt that because there are 8 different parcels, with a variety of leases and owners, a larger more meaningful retail strip would not be built in the near future. He mentioned some statistics from a website called walk.com which indicated a "walk-score" for residential areas within immediate access to food, parks, schools and public transportation. He felt that residential units on his P iaaning Commission ✓kiarcf 11,2014 `?cgu(ar51/ieeting P a 9 e 48 property would be considered a transit oriented development because of its proximity to BART. He stated that the sites are surrounded by multi-family residential, with a natural buffer between the core retail and the residential zone, which is a very wide San Ramon Road. He encouraged the Planning Commission and Staff to reexamine the restriction and allow development west of San Ramon Road on a case-by-case basis. Gabriel Lane, spoke regarding the project, and asked if there would be any relocation assistance for small business owners in the area. Mr. Baker answered that there were none currently in the DDSP Amendment, but referred him to the Economic Development Department who may be able to give him guidance if his site were to redevelop in the future. Chair Bhuthimethee closed the public hearing. Chair Bhuthimethee felt that the 1,200 additional units must be allocated somewhere in the City and felt that the location is irrelevant to the RHNA numbers because most of the students going into the schools will be in the areas that are considered moderate to higher income level homes. She felt that the school district should be worried about more commercial development that is not necessarily geared towards low and very low income residents. She asked if the RHNA shortfall is for low and very low income units. Mr. Baker responded that, in the concept of affordability, the units are considered affordable by design because the units are smaller and therefore would be more affordable. He added that the units would not be considered to be affordable in terms of the Inclusionary Housing programs where the units would only be available to a certain income level. Chair Bhuthimethee felt that the City must allocate the numbers somewhere and the school district is concerned about a separate issue. Cm. O'Keefe stated that there are two issues: 1) the RHNA obligation; and 2) increasing the number of units in the DDSP area because 1,003 are already allocated out of the 1,100 in the pool. He felt that there is a market demand for more housing in the DDSP area. Cm. Kohli felt that this is more of a bigger picture issue. He stated that over the last 12 months, he has heard more and more from constituents regarding the increase in residential development and the impact on the schools. He felt that there are two different policies from two different State agencies and not enough communication. He felt that there have been too many occasions where the Planning Commission looks at the near term when approving projects and figure out the rest of the issues as they go along. He felt that the City cannot afford to do that. He felt that the school district letter was just received and there hasn't been very much discussion or study sessions between the City Council, the school district, commissioners and Staff, etc. He felt that there should be a lot more deliberation on the topic and does not feel comfortable moving forward with the item until there is more discussion. Chair Bhuthimethee stated that she doesn't disagree with some of Cm. Kohli's comments. She felt that the school district and the City Council need to meet and discuss everything, but what the school district is concerned about is not the same issue. c?Gznning Commission 31arch 1.1,2014 cguf.zrMeeting fP a g e 49 Cm. Goel stated that the RNHA obligation has a process and timeline for a response and if they don't meet the timeline then they would have to go through the process within 4 years instead of 8 years. He stated that Staff's presentation used the word "enables" and he felt that should be taken into context because "enables" shows the ability that the City can achieve the RHNA requirement. He understood the school district's concerns, and that they must voice their opinion at every point of the process. He stated that there is no guarantee that these homes will be built in this area; there is no calculation that shows the impacts on the schools located on the west. He stated that the school district's letter shows the calculation for schools on the east side, so the density level relative to students mention whether the school district should be looking at density, and he felt that should be a separate conversation. He felt that it is not the Planning Commission's responsibility to make recommendations because it is unknown what will happen. He stated that, at the time a large development submits an application, the Planning Commission and City Council have a policy based decision on that development and felt that is when the school district needs to weigh in on the level of impacts. He felt that the school district's letter made a statement that Staff can refer and then address it in detail when the context is created and defined. He asked Staff about timelines, the impacts and what it will mean if the Planning Commission makes a recommendation to City Council for pause and evaluation. He stated that he was not encouraging that recommendation, but felt it was important to mention. Mr. Baker responded that there are timing issues related to RHNA, which are a part of the issue, but there also is the concept to increase the capacity to further enhance and activate the downtown area with residential units. The other piece is to meet the City's RHNA obligation. He stated that there are State law requirements to meet, with penalties if the requirements are not met, including instead of having an 8 year program the City must go back in 4 years. He stated that doesn't mean that the City does not have to meet the RHNA obligation, or that the numbers will go down. He felt that it would be best to figure out a solution, adopt the Housing Element and have the full 8 years. The deadline is January 2015 and Staffs goal is to have it completed by the end of 2014. He felt that the Planning Commissioners are struggling with some real issues and having a good discussion and keying in on the critical pieces. He felt that it was important for the Planning Commission to keep in mind that they are being asked to make a recommendation and part of the recommendation is the appropriateness of the proposal; does the City want to see more development, more activation in the DDSP and does this meet the goals of the DDSP, is this something that the City Council should consider, and the school district is a part of that. He felt that the Planning Commission's discussions will help the City Council frame the conversation. He stated that the Planning Commission doesn't have to make a decision to approve or deny the Amendment tonight but must make a recommendation so that the City Council can understand the community's viewpoint. Cm. Do felt that it would be important, in the future, for the school district to show their calculations when they voice their concerns. She stated that she lives in a large house and has no children but felt that the school district would count her house as having some number of children; therefore, her house would be a negative impact on the school district numbers. She wanted to know how they arrived at their calculations that determined where the bigger impact will be. Cm. Kohli stated that he is a big advocate of more development diversity in Dublin and felt it was too quick to take away potential commercial development and change it to residential without giving the issue more time. He was not yet convinced that they need more residential in the downtown area. He felt that the two issues brought up by the public regarding the limitations 4'V:inning Commission !March i,2014 CRegu(ar Meeting ?'age 150 of development west of San Ramon Road and assistance to small businesses that may be impacted, are serious concerns and he felt that there should be more detailed discussions. Cm. Do stated that the DDSP area is the only district in which either residential or commercial uses can occur on each parcel, but if commercial square footage is decreased in other parts of the City, the commercial square footage would be lost. She thought that should be kept in mind when making the recommendation. Cm. Goel agreed with Cm. Do and felt that Staff has identified the ability to achieve the RHNA requirements and goals in an opportune area. He felt that a side benefit would be if the square footage of retail was reduced in the DDSP area then maybe some retail space requirement could be moved to the east side which a lot of the community has been talking about. He stated that the developers feel that there is too much retail square footage in Dublin. He felt that this project identifies an opportunity that would make that comment possibly go away — taking the excess from DDSP and moving it to the east. He agreed with the developers regarding not prohibiting residential development west of San Ramon Road. He felt that the Planning Commission should make the recommendation that Footnote #6 from Table 3-1 that states "except on those parcels west of San Ramon Road" should be struck out. He stated that making that exception is a bold statement and felt that the area has a mixed-use function. He felt that there are no live/work units in Dublin and if a developer can see that then the City should provide that opportunity. He stated that the application would still need to go through the process of approval, but he felt that it was not appropriate in the DDSP document. Chair Bhuthimethee asked Cm. Goel if he felt that the footnote should be removed and allow residential west of San Ramon Road. She felt that if it is allowed the application would not have to come to the Planning Commission. Mr. Baker responded that, if the plan was to allow residential west of San Ramon Road, then Site Development Review would be required but only for design, there would not be a zoning action. Chair Bhuthimethee asked if the Commission could allow residential west of San Ramon Road but require a Conditional Use Permit (CUP). Cm. Goel stated that he is open to considering a CUP for residential development in the area, but felt that it would be an extra step for the developer. He felt that using the word "except" in the DDSP document sets a negative tone. Chair Bhuthimethee stated that residential is currently prohibited in this area and so nothing would change. Cm. Goel understood, but felt now was the time to make that consideration and residential could be a good fit in that area. Cm. Goel stated that in some of the other developments a transition plan is reviewed to determine how to transition from medium density to high density. Cm. O'Keefe felt that the ULI consultant said to let the market dictate where development should be then there should be no restriction. ''Panning Commission 9pfarch 11,2014 degugarMeeting 2'age 151 Chair Bhuthimethee stated that she came to the meeting with one thought and now felt she could go either way. She asked Mr. Baker to explain why Staff added the restriction. Mr. Baker responded that there are only a finite number of units allowed in the DDSP area and Staff tried to focus the resources where the goals of the specific plan can be achieved for a walkable, vibrant downtown. He stated that going out to the fringes of the Retail District area will be further from BART and the synergy of core of the downtown. Adding to that the width of San Ramon Road makes it feel separated from the other portions of the downtown and would water down the resources. He stated that most of the businesses on the west side of San Ramon Road are fairly successful retail businesses and would not be right for redevelopment. He felt that there are only a few sites in the area that could convert to residential. Those sites are small and would only allow for a very small residential project, and not conducive to place making. Staff felt that, if there are only a certain number of units, they should be focused where the changes and activation can occur for a cohesive development. Cm. Goel felt that Mr. Baker made some good points, but they were related to residential, he was more interested in live/work units which are a little different. He understands that San Ramon Road is very wide, but there are crosswalks, and individuals can walk to transit. He felt that the Transit Oriented District is very close to this area. He stated that he would like encourage live/work units in the area west of San Ramon Road. He felt that there is very little opportunity for live/work units in the City and that not allowing residential west of San Ramon Road was shortsighted. Chair Bhuthimethee agreed with Cm. Goel and stated that she like the live/work opportunity and would be willing to recommend a discussion on that issue. She did not like that it takes away density in the TOD area because she felt that Staff did a great job of allocating the units in that area. She felt that increasing the density in the TOD made a lot of sense. She stated that the DDSP vision was to create a pedestrian friendly atmosphere, and felt it was not very pedestrian friendly to cross 6 lanes of traffic. She did not feel it is a bad idea to allow residential west of San Ramon Road with the exception of live/work or mixed-use. Chair Bhuthimethee asked, if the Commission approved an increase in density in the TOD, what that would look like. She felt that currently there are a lot of apartment rentals and it would be good to have some ownership in the area, such as the Tralee development. She stated that Tralee was designed as a condominium project but was converted to apartment rentals. She felt the qualities of the buildings are nice and that the developers "step it up" when there is ownership involved. She felt that most of the community are homeowners and when the density in the TOD area is increased there could be more transient people and having ownership opportunities will bring more active community members. Chair Bhuthimethee felt that in increasing the density in the TOD the quality of architecture, materials and public space should also increase. She shared some images of architecture that has been built in more dense areas and distributed some of the pictures to the Planning Commission. Cm. Goel agreed with Chair Bhuthimethee and stated that he has always supported Transit Oriented development and pedestrian friendly environments. He felt that it is good to have the framework for live/work units to be a viable option. He stated that he understood the vision as part of the General Plan but still felt that the exception for residential west of San Ramon Road (Footnote #6 on Table 3-1) should be deleted which would allow for residential development in c'rannirg Commission 911arch 11,2014 4guiar eeting 2'a g e 152 that area. He understood the unit allocation, but felt that flexibility in the document is the right direction. Cm. O'Keefe stated that he would feel more comfortable with a recommendation that included the City Council meeting with the school district prior to adopting the Resolutions. Cm. Kohli agreed with Cm. O'Keefe but wanted to discuss the recent rash of burglaries across Dublin and the public's concern regarding the lack of resources in the City in regards to public safety and how that is addressed. He suggested that, as the Planning Commission adds more residential units to our City, those issues need to be addressed. He felt that the item came to the table for discussion but there was not enough information for him to feel comfortable making a decision. He stated that he could not vote yes for this item. Cm. O'Keefe asked if Cm. Kohli was asking for the item to come back to the Planning Commission for more discussion or if he would vote no. Cm. Kohli stated that he is willing to listen to the options, but he did not feel confident that a recommendation to have more deliberation would happen. Mr. Baker stated that the Planning Commission is being asked to make a recommendation which could be denial. Chair Bhuthimethee asked if they could continue the item. Mr. Baker answered that the request is for policy related issues that are for City Council; therefore, it is appropriate to make a recommendation to the City Council. Cm. Goel felt that Cm. Kohli's comment was outside the scope of the item, and felt that the City has a formula to address public safety, is exceeding that and has proven that. He stated that the proposal is an amendment to an existing document. Cm. Kohli stated that he was not saying that the City has not adequately addressed the issue of public safety; he stated that he has heard concerns from constituents in terms of their feelings regarding a lack of resources. He stated that he did not place blame, and understands that they should focus on the agenda item at hand, but as commissioners they are responsible for understanding how the agenda item will impact the residents. He felt that it is their responsibility and that is what he is trying to do. He felt that there is not enough information to make a recommendation to move forward with the item because he needs to understand what the greater impacts might be. Cm. Goel recognized what Cm. Kohli stated but felt that this is an amendment to a guidance document that shows the City's ability to meet their RHNA obligation. He stated that it is not an enforcing document that states what will happen and when. He felt it was important to understand that as the Planning Commission approves projects that they could be setting the wrong stage by including a topic of discussion that is actually a policy based decision and outside the scope of this document. He stated that the concerns of the DUSD and the feelings of the public are two separate topics. He felt that this document does not need to address that issue at this point. He recognized that the school district has concerns but felt it would be better addressed at the City Council level. c'lanning Commission .march 11,2014 goguiar Meeting 1)a A e 153 Cm. Kohli agreed and stated that he wanted to focus on this scope by saying he believes that the City does not need an additional 1,200 units in the downtown because the area is already active. He asked the other Commissioners why they believe that the City needs more residential units downtown. He felt that the DDSP does not need to be amended. Cm. Goel stated that nothing is set in stone; this is a framework for a decision to be made in the future, allowing the application of these types of density to be achieved. He stated that in order to have a successful TOD development it must have a higher density. He mentioned some of the TOD development and an existing storage facility that could be converted to high density housing within the TOD because it is close to a viable transit system that provides homes for all levels of economics. He stated that it doesn't mean that all TOD development has to be low income; it means that it provides an opportunity for residents to walk to anywhere in the area. Cm. Kohli asked why the document is being amended if nothing is set in stone. Cm. Goel felt that reducing the commercial square footage is an opportunity for more diversity throughout the City. He felt it was also an opportunity for more diversity in residential from the east side of Dublin to the west side. He felt there is not a fair share document that provides the framework to do equal distribution of the "penalties within the City of Dublin." He felt that all the development is happening on the east side, except for retail. He felt that the document allows two functions; taking away some of the retail from the west side and allowing it to be applied to the east and it allows the ability to meet the state requirements to achieve the goals and apply it to the west. He felt that it is the time and he felt that Staff has done a good presentation. His only issue is the exception of residential west of San Ramon Road. He stated that he would support the item even without removing the exception because of the validity of the rest of the document. He felt that the document has no meaning to the DUSD but merely provided an opportunity to make a reference for a future time. He stated that the DUSD closed a school on the west side therefore they have the ability, but not the funds. Cm. Kohli asked how should the Planning Commission move forward. Cm. Goel suggested making a recommendation to accept it with the modification to remove Footnote #6 on Table 3-1 but was open to any other conversations. Cm. Do asked if Cm. Goel would be willing to require a CUP for any residential west of San Ramon Road only for live/work units. She stated that she was willing to remove Footnote #6, but because live/work units are conditional in the Village Parkway District, she would like them to be included in the Retail District. Cm. Goel felt that Staffs argument was that residential had no function and no bridge but he felt that live/work would provide a transition. He stated that his recommendation is to strike Footnote #6 from the document. Cm. Do stated that she would prefer that residential be in the Transit Oriented District and only live/work units to the west of San Ramon Road. Cm. Goel responded that the definition of transit oriented development is that it is accessible to transit; in general, most transit oriented development is within 1/2 mile of transit which is walking distance. He felt that it was feasible to walk from the area west of San Ramon Road and if not there is a bus system that serves the area. O'[anrartg(:'onrrrrzssiwra .Watch 11,2014 :guitar 543eet:rag 0'a g e 1 .'4 Chair Bhuthimethee felt that there are a few suggestions which are: 1) Recommend that the City Council meet with DUSD before taking action on the proposal. • Cm. Goel was in favor • Cm. Kohli was not in favor • Cm. O'Keefe was in favor • Cm. Do was in favor • Chair Bhuthimethee was in favor 2) Recommend removing the Footnote #6 from Table 3-1 • Cm. Goel was in favor • Cm. Kohli was not in favor • Cm. O'Keefe was in favor • Cm. Do was in favor • Chair Bhuthimethee was in favor Cm. Kohli asked if the other Commissioners were in favor of moving forward with the proposal with the two suggested recommendations. Cm. O'Keefe stated that he would not be comfortable moving forward with the proposal without the two recommendations included. Cm. Kohli did not feel that he could support the proposal or the recommendations, therefore, did not feel a straw poll was necessary. Chair Bhuthimethee did not feel that the meeting between the City Council and DUSD was necessary. She felt it was a good idea for them to meet in general. She stated that she is open to removing Footnote #6 from Table 3-1. Luke Sims, Community Development Director, felt that it would be helpful to understand that if the Planning Commission is going to make a recommendation that asks the City Council and the DUSD Board to meet prior to their action, to determine what they would like them to discuss. He stated that the Board and the City Council recently had a discussion regarding this issue and there have been ongoing discussions regarding student generation, overcrowding, impact on schools of development, etc. He stated that those kinds of meetings have been held, including in a public forum and, in case the Planning Commission is unaware, that these meetings have been very public and open and a very large issue that everyone is aware of. He felt that the Planning Commission should be aware of that fact before directing or suggesting actions by the City Council that may be already taking place. Cm. O'Keefe thanked Mr. Sims for sharing that information with the Planning Commission. He stated that he still wanted to include the condition because, given the importance of the issue, he felt strongly that the City Council and the DUSD should meet. He felt that the City Council could receive the Planning Commission's recommendation and determine that they don't need another meeting in order to make a decision and that would be OK with him. He stated that he does not feel comfortable supporting this proposal without the recommendation and would vote against it without it. He understood that, if the DUSD felt passionately about the issue, they would have been in attendance at the meeting. But, given the importance of the issue and taking into consideration the marketing of our City as having a good school system, he wanted 'Canning(`ommirsion "lurch 11,2014 i0pgufarfileeting (1'a g e 155 to encourage the City Council to consider meeting with the school district before they take an action. Cm. Goel wanted to clarify the recommendations that will be included; he asked if the context for using the word "consideration" for City Council to meet and evaluate comments made in this subject document. Cm. O'Keefe stated that he would support using the word "consideration" in the recommendation regarding the City Council meeting with the DUSD. Mr. Baker felt that the Planning Commission wanted to recommend that the City Council consider the impacts to the DUSD before they make a final decision. Cm. Goel did not want to go to that level, referring to the letter from the DUSD. Mr. Baker responded that it is difficult for the Planning Commission to support the City Council's weigh in on the letter from the DUSD because it may change and is not a full analysis. But he felt that the Planning Commission is concerned about the impacts to the school district. Cm. O'Keefe agreed but wanted to hear the wording for the recommendation. Chair Bhuthimethee felt that Cm. O'Keefe was recommending a meeting but Cm. Goel was recommending that the City Council consider a meeting. Cm. Goel responded that the recommendation should use the word "consider" because there are on-going meetings between the City Council and DUSD. He felt that the Planning Commission is basing the recommendation on the letter received from DUSD. Cm. Kohli suggested that the recommendation should state that the Planning Commission is recommending that the City Council engage in further deliberations with the DUSD before making a final decision. He felt that deliberations have been on-going but the Planning Commission would like to see more deliberations occur. Chair Bhuthimethee did not feel that a meeting is necessary because they have been having conversations, although she would still encourage a meeting, not discourage one. Cm. Goel suggested making a motion and then the Planning Commission can revise it prior to voting. Cm. Kohli asked for Staff to suggest how the recommendation should be made. Mr. Baker suggested that the Planning Commission is perhaps getting a little too deep into directing the City Council and the reality is that the Planning Commission can make the recommendation but the City Council will decide how to proceed. He felt that the Planning Commission wanted the City Council to consider the impacts to the school district but it is up to the City Council to decide how they do that. He suggested that the Planning Commission recommend that the City Council consider the impacts to the school district and let the City Council decide the appropriate mechanism. Pfrznning Commission Warta 11,2014 fgufar!Meeting .P. a g e 1561 On a motion by Cm. Goel seconded by Cm. O'Keefe, on a vote of 4-1, the Planning Commission adopted the Resolution with the following recommendations: 1) Recommend that the City Council consider a meeting with the DUSD regarding potential impacts, prior to adopting the Amendments. 2) Recommend striking Footnote #6 of Table 3-1 regarding the properties west of San Ramon Road. RESOLUTION NO. 14 - 11 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT AN ADDENDUM TO THE DOWNTOWN DUBLIN SPECIFIC PLAN EIR RELATED TO INCREASING THE NUMBER OF RESIDENTIAL UNITS AND DECREASING THE AMOUNT OF NON-RESIDENTIAL SQUARE FOOTAGE PERMITTED IN DOWNTOWN DUBLIN RESOLUTION NO. 14 - 12 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL AMEND THE GENERAL PLAN AND DOWNTOWN DUBLIN SPECIFIC PLAN (DDSP) TO ALLOW AN INCREASE IN THE NUMBER OF RESIDENTIAL UNITS PERMITTED IN THE DDSP BY 1,200 UNITS AND TO DECREASE THE AMOUNT OF NON-RESIDENTIAL SQUARE FOOTAGE PERMITTED BY 773,000 SQUARE FEET AND CREATE MINIMUM DENSITY THRESHOLDS FOR THE TRANSIT-ORIENTED AND RETAIL DISTRICTS 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 Mr. Baker informed the Commission that there is information in front of them regarding the Planning Commissioner's Academy and a lunch is scheduled for the group on Thursday, March 26, 2014, with a location to follow. 10.3 Cm. Kohli referred to his comments regarding not having enough information to make a decision. He wanted to make it clear that he felt that Staff did a great job of educating the Planning Commission and thanked them for their support and for always putting them in a position to make an informed decision. The Planning Commission all agreed. Tanning Commission Warcfi 11,2014 ygut rWeeting (z'a g e 1 57 ADJOURNMENT— The meeting was adjourned at 9:28:31 PM Respectfully submitted, A/Mu 40E4-- Planning Commission Chair ATTEST: Jeff Ba er Assistant Community Development Director aIMINUTESI20141PLANNING COMMISSIOM03.11.14 DRAFT PC MINUTES.docx Planning Commission MarcIi 11,2014 Wegufa r eeting Tag e 158