Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09-22-2015 PC Minutes "' '-� ' Planning Commission Minutes �� 1 Tuesday, September 22, 2015 CALL TO ORDER/ROLL CALL A regular meeting of the City of Dublin Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, September 22, 2015, in the City Council Chambers located at 100 Civic Plaza Chair Goel called the meeting to order at 7:00 p m Present: Chair Goel, Vice Chair Kohli; Commissioners Do, Bhuthimethee and Mittan; Linda Smith, Assistant City Manager; Jeff Baker, Assistant Community Development Director; Kit Faubion, Assistant City Attorney; Martha Aja, Associate Planner: Mr. 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 Kohli, on a vote of 4-0-1, with Cm Bhuthimethee being absent from the meeting, the Planning Commission approved the minutes of the July 14, 2015 meeting. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS — NONE CONSENT CALENDAR — NONE WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS — NONE PUBLIC HEARINGS — 8 1 PLPA-2015-00022 Al Mustafa Foundation Conditional Use Permit for the operation of a Place of Worship at 6543 Regional Street, Suite A Martha Aja, Associate Planner, presented the project as outlined in the Staff Report. Chair Goel opened the public hearing and, with no speakers, closed the public hearing. Cm Mittan asked for an explanation of the surrounding area Ms Aja provided an explanation of the surrounding area and what is adjacent to the project. Chair Goel asked if there are any residential developments in the area or occupants present at night. Ms. Aja answered that the closest residential development would be Connolly Station which is close to the West Dublin BART station Cm Milan asked about the zoning for the nearby warehouse and what it could be if redeveloped Y/ammng(omnn,,,.,n deptemtier 22,201,' 'Xrn+wr feetmg .Page I 26 Jeff Baker, Assistant Community Development Director, answered that the warehouse is located in the Downtown Dublin Specific Plan (DDSP) which allows a variety of different uses, including commercial, office or residential uses and potentially could be any of those future uses, but it could be a future residential project He mentioned that all activities for this project would be indoors with no outdoor activities to affect the surrounding residents or businesses Cm Mittan asked about a hotel that was planned for the area Mr. Baker answered that a hotel would be an allowed use in the DDSP. He stated that BART owns the site to the south of Connolly Station and had considered a hotel for that site with no immediate plans Cm. Do was in support of the project and felt it could invigorate the area which is mostly vacant. She stated that she can make the findings. Cm. Bhuthimethee shared Chair Goel's concern regarding the TOD area but the tenant is a good use of the space She asked if typical tenant improvements would include bicycle racks. Mr Baker responded that, through the Building Code, there are requirements that address parking, including bicycle racks. He stated that the issue would be addressed during the Building Permit process. Cm Kohli stated that he is in support of the project and can make the findings. Chair Goel asked how many attendees would occupy the space during worship services and was concerned about noise at the close of meetings after 10:30 pm. Ms. Aja answered that there is a Condition of Approval stating that there should not be more than 49 people in the building at one time and there will be placards posted stating the maximum occupancy of 49 people. She stated that the City does not regulate how late the businesses are open. Chair Goel asked if there is a sound ordinance that would ensure there is no excessive noise being generated from the business. Ms Aja yes and stated that there are several Condition of Approval regarding noise She stated that any complaints would be addressed Cm Mittan asked if there is an event room or strictly a religious facility. Ms. Aja answered that there are two worship rooms (men's and women's), an office, a library and a TV recording area but most of the activities will occur within the spaces of worship. On a motion by Cm. Mittan and seconded by Cm. Do, on a vote of 5-0, the Planning Commission unanimously adopted: RESOLUTION NO. 15-07 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION YWnnm,)rommnnon September22.2015 RrquLr ttteluj eagt, OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR THE OPERATION OF A PLACE OF WORSHIP (AL MUSTAFA FOUNDATION) AT 6543 REGIONAL STREET, SUITE A 8.2 General Plan Amendment/Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment (EDSP), including land use amendments to portions of: 1) Dublin Ranch Subarea 3 (PLPA 2015-00046); 2) Wallis Ranch (PLPA 2015-00047), and 3) Jordan Ranch (PLPA 2015-00045) All General Plan and EDSP land use amendments would be accompanied by related and consistent Planned Development rezone with related Stage 1 and/or Stage 2 Development Plans In addition, Jordan Ranch has submitted an application for: a) Site Development Review, b) Vesting Tentative Maps 8267 and 8269, and c) a Development Agreement amendment with BJ-ROF Jordan Ranch LLC Mission Valley Properties. Linda Smith, Assistant City Manager, presented an overview of the negotiations between the City, Dublin Unified School District and the developer and the reasons for the project Mr Porto, Consulting Planner, presented the project as outlined in the Staff Report. Cm. Bhuthimethee asked why the houses are attached only at the first floor Mr. Porto responded that it is for efficiency of land use He stated that garages and laundry room uses are non-noise-generating uses that can be hooked together and it allows the living spaces more light and air above. Chair Goel asked if the recommendations should be approved as one action Kit Faubion, City Attorney, responded that it is the City Manager's position, in constructing this agreement with DUSD and the developer, that all of the items be considered as one package. She stated that the Planning Commission can make recommendations, but as far as the City Council is concerned, Staff would not make a recommendation to provide this school site to the district if all of these items are not adopted Chair Goel felt that, if the items were taken individually, certain items would not be recommended the City Council. Ms. Smith responded; that is correct. Mr Baker suggested that the City Attorney go over the decision-making process and what action the Planning Commission is being asked to make He stated that there is a difference between the deal with DUSD and the land use that is before the Planning Commission. Ms Faubion stated that Ms. Smith, Assistant City Manager, gave an overview of the agreement which is complicated with a lot of people working very hard to make it happen She added that the City received a letter from Amy Miller, on behalf of the DUSD Board, indicating their support She stated that the agreement will be accomplished through a series of land use approvals that make up the project; which is where the Planning Commission comes in She stated that the items before the Planning Commission are not the agreement or the negotiations The Planning Commission is being asked to review the General Plan and Eastern .2(annmq nrmzuv„n Srplrmbrr 22,201i Nryuiar t!clinv Page Ilk Dublin Specific Plan Amendments, Planned Development Rezone, the Site Development Review and Vesting Tentative Maps for Parcel H and Neighborhood 7 and a Development Agreement Amendment which are all of the land use details that will allow this project happen She reminded the Planning Commission that only the land use approvals are within their purview Chair Goel asked if Ms. Faubion would give the Planning Commission any more guidance. Ms. Faubion responded that the Planning Commission can vote on each item separately or as a package She stated that they can discuss each item and then determine if they want to include a Condition of Approval for the SDR or other changes to the items. She felt that it would be easier to approve the items as a package Chair Goel asked if the Mitigated Negative Declaration can be discussed and acted upon separately. Ms Faubion stated that the Mitigated Negative Declaration is not a land use application but is the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) review that supports the land use applications. She stated that all the items require CEQA review, therefore, the Mitigated Negative Declaration should be included in the package of approvals Mr. Baker stated that the Planning Commission is being asked to make a recommendation to the City Council; they are not approving the items. The City Council will make a decision on approving or denying the various aspects of the project. Cm Bhuthimethee asked if the Jordan Ranch School/Park and one other park would be developed with this project Ms Smith answered that the Jordan Ranch Park will be a joint use facility Cm Bhuthimethee asked if the Jordan Ranch Park and the school site would 4.7 acres Ms. Smith stated that the collective Jordan Ranch School/Park site is 10 acres She stated that Staff has been working with DUSD on the site planning for the school and have tried to tighten up the building area to include as much field area and open space area as possible for use by the community She mentioned that the Jordan Ranch Park site will be next to the school, and east of the building area of the school She added that one of the reasons Staff felt that the location of the school/joint use facility is good at that location is because there will be an additional future seven-acre community park built adjacent to the site Cm. Bhuthimethee asked if the City will be constructing the school. Ms Smith responded that the City will not construct the school. She stated that part of the reason to move very quickly is that DUSD needs to take this plan and the adopted environmental documents to the state for approval in order to begin design and construction work on the school Cm Bhuthimethee asked if the City will retain ownership of the site and then lease or rent it to the district Ms Smith answered yes The City will create a ground lease agreement with DUSD and the City will retain ownership of the property. She gave a brief summary of how the City's park rLnnor,j r ,�r�rr or,n 1Tirm6rr22,201i Rttiule. 1retuij 'Page "r system works When development occurs in Dublin and there is park land tied to that project the developer is required to dedicate that property to the City in exchange for free park land dedication credits. This was done for this project with Mission Valley Properties offering to dedicate the park land to the City and use fee credits to pay for their park land obligations She stated that the reason for entering into this agreement was to ensure that the City would not expend any dollars, other than providing the land opportunity to the district Cm. Bhuthimethee asked if the Jordan Ranch park site is a current requirement of that site Ms Smith answered that the neighborhood park site is 5 8 acres and the developer offered to dedicate the land. Typically the City develops its own parks This means that, when the City collects impact fees for the improvements that need to be made to those parks, they will be prioritized by the City Council She added that, at this point, the prioritization has been Emerald Glen Recreation and Aquatic Complex, followed by Fallon Sports Park. Jordan Ranch Neighborhood Park, and then Sean Diamond Park The developer's community benefit to construct this park, which is designed and ready to build, means delivery of this park without impacting the fee program, which means that the cash flow will be freed up for the park that comes behind it Sean Diamond Cm Kohli felt that, even if the project is approved, there is still no guarantee a school will be built That is up to the school district to find the funds to construct the school. Ms. Smith responded that the superintendent came to the March 17th City Council meeting, when the MOU was approved, and stated that the funds were available to build the school. Cm. Kohli felt that the school still has to execute and the City would not be in control of that process Ms Smith stated that, part of the agreement is that the City will not provide the site to the district until they have demonstrated that they have the ability to construct that school. Cm. Kohli asked if the "school benefit fee" paid by the developer would go towards the construction of the school. Ms. Smith answered that would be an arrangement between the district and the developer. She understood, in reviewing the district's staff report, that the funds can be used for any purpose Cm Kohli asked if he would be able to ask questions of the developer regarding the arrangement in this forum Ms. Smith was unsure regarding the relevance to this discussion and suggested that Ms. Faubion could answer the question. Ms Faubion stated that the purpose of the meeting tonight is to discuss the land use, and not the agreement. She stated that the importance of the development agreement, where a lot of these negotiations pertain, is the fact that the development agreement vests the land use approvals that the Planning Commission will be making a recommendation on tonight. She felt that it was not appropriate to discuss the arrangement but that the Planning Commission should focus on the land use approvals Cm Mittan asked for an explanation of the situation with the park in Subarea 3 )Ia,, p t mv,mn (September'22,2011 R aura((I1 eel Page 31 Ms Smith responded that the developer will not receive credit for the amount of acreage that was lost on Jordan Ranch which is approximately 10.5 acres. Whatever the building area for the school site is on Jordan Ranch, which is approximately four acres, they will not get credit for a similar amount of acreage in Subarea 3, but they will for the balance If the park is four acres, and the joint park/school site is 10 5 acres, the developer will receive 6 5 acres of park land dedication credits to use Cm Mittan was concerned that the area in Subarea 3 is characterized by moderate to steep slopes and felt that the majority of the public would not consider it a usable park He felt that it could be a liability to the City, and that normally this would be an HOA-maintained hillside, not a City-maintained hillside Ms Smith stated that the Parks Commission and the City Council adopted an updated Parks and Recreation Master Plan which included a new category of park land for Dublin called Community Nature Park. She stated that the intention was to ensure that there is a balance of active and natural park space. She stated that the area is not intended to be used for active sports activity that you would traditionally see in a flat area Cm Mittan disagreed that the City is providing this park as a benefit to the citizens. He stated that he has completed many City surveys regarding the parks and has always advocated for more natural park space for enjoyment of nature He did not feel that this area would fulfill the natural park space since it is such a steep slope and basically unusable Ms. Smith responded that the Parks Commission and the City Council will take up that item as a part of subsequent approvals for the design of a park in that area. Ms Faubion felt that some of the impetus for this unique Dublin feature came out of some of the Subarea 3 public testimony. She stated that members of the public came and said, "You know, wouldn't this be good if we could hike up and have this unique vista" because so much of the Dublin plain is so flat. She added that there were a number of speakers at the Planning Commission hearing that spoke exactly to this kind of a use and acknowledged that it was fairly unique in Dublin Chair Goel felt that when Subarea 3 (Irongate) was approved the park site was reconfigured to show how that trail would move down the hill. He asked Mr Porto to explain and also mentioned that, when this was approved, the Community Nature Park designation was not in existence Mr. Porto indicated that Cm Goel was correct He stated that the area is a trail along a stream corridor which continues up along the west side of Fallon Sports Park, to Gleason. The trail has a 10-foot-wide paved surface adjacent to it Mr. Porto pointed out the trail on the slide Cm. Mitten asked about the visitor parking for the Jordan Ranch development He asked where overflow parking would be and was concerned with a parking issue within the neighborhood. Mr. Porto responded that the City has recently changed the parking requirements from .5 spaces per unit to 1 guest stall per unit. Since that change there have been no parking issues, but any overflow parking would spill out onto Jordan Ranch Drive He felt that it would not be an issue Cm Mittan asked about the fencing for the view units in the Jordan Ranch Parcel H and 1f•;nm,t; n;.n . e;'ternbr??,U Xt'l'd.:r!lle.:11 l fade Ili Neighborhood 7. Mr. Porto answered that the only units that are view are oriented on Central Parkway and Fallon Road Cm Bhuthimethee asked, if under the proposed agreements, the developer would construct and deliver parks (Jordan Ranch Neighborhood Park and Wallis Ranch Park) sooner than they would normally be delivered Ms Smith answered that the Wallis piece is not related to the school package. She stated that the City can only make four General Plan Land Use Amendments per year which is why Wallis is part of this project She stated that the goal for Wallis is to obtain an additional 1 9 acres of public/semi-public land to add to the existing acreage of 7.6 acres of community park land, in order to create more park land. She stated that Staff will be working with the Wallis Ranch developer on an improvement agreement, in which they will construct those improvements much sooner than they would otherwise be constructed Chair Goel felt that part of the answer is regarding the total acreage of parks in order to meet the total park acreage required for the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Cm Bhuthimethee felt that there were three parks to be developed and asked for an explanation. Chair Goel asked Mr Porto to show the Wallis Ranch land use map slide which shows the area Ms Smith apologized if her opening statement was confusing. She stated that her statement pertained to the school package deal regarding the benefit that would be received to the Jordan Ranch area, which would include a joint use school/park site and a neighborhood park being constructed in that area She stated that, with Wallis Ranch, the City's intention is to work with the developer to have them build the improvements for the community park She stated that, if the Planning Commission recommends and the City Council approves the General Plan Amendments to add additional park acreage, we're asking them to build those improvements when they construct their project because, if we don't, there will not be funds to build the park for several years Cm. Bhuthimethee directed the meeting to page three of 22 in the Staff Report, which says, "However, under the proposed agreements, the developer would construct and deliver the Jordan Ranch Neighborhood Park and Wallis Ranch Park sooner " She asked for an explanation. Chair Goel felt that he could explain, with Mr. Porto's help. He stated that inside of the arrangement, the developers will be providing $1.6 million towards the net total of Jordan Ranch, which they estimate at $1.965 million and then essentially the City would pay the remainder of that balance, or provide credit of that The element of construction at the Wallis Ranch location has not been discussed as far as who's paying for it. Therefore, he felt that it would be assumed that the City is responsible for that or any other arrangements that are made subsequently Mr Baker felt Cm Bhuthimethee's question is how many parks are going to be built as a result of this project He stated that the development proposal states that the developer would build out the neighborhood park in Jordan Ranch Separate from that, the other park that would potentially be built out is Wallis Ranch, as a separate agreement with the Wallis Ranch developer, Trumark Homes. Trumark Homes would then dedicate this land as a park, and then build out the Wallis Ranch Park as part of their agreement with the City. Cm. Bhuthimethee asked if the developer is building the Wallis Ranch Park. Ms. Smith answered that is the goal Chair Goel asked if he should ask questions now or later. Ms. Faubion answered that this the part of the meeting for clarifying questions from the Planning Commission to Staff. If there are factual questions or something that you feel needs to be clarified, this is an appropriate time for those The actual deliberation and questions related to that would come after the public hearing, when we've had the benefit of both Staff and the public input. Cm Mittan was concerned that the Jordan Ranch School/Park site would not be large enough to support a middle school He felt that the Fallon Middle School is approximately 21 acres and the Jordan Ranch School site would be only 10 5-11 acres Mr. Porto answered that Fallon Middle School is approximately 21-22 acres Cm. Mittan asked if the Jordan Ranch School/Park site would be 11.1 acres Ms Smith answered that the site is approximately 10 acres. Cm Mittan felt that was less than half the size of Fallon Middle School's site Ms. Smith answered yes Cm. Mittan was concerned with how the school district can build a middle school on half the site Mr. Porto answered that the school would not be a middle school but a K-8 school that has a smaller component of middle school students. He stated that the size requirement is not the same as what it was for Fallon Middle School. Cm. Mittan agreed but felt that there should be sports facilities provided to those students like the ones provided at Fallon Middle School but would not be provided at this school site because of the lack of acreage Chair Goel felt Cm. Mittan's question was regarding the request the school district made in 2005 or 2010 in their response to the EIR about the amount of acreage for the original school site Ms. Smith stated that the district made a request for an additional acre for the 10-acre site She stated that the district had a time period in which they needed to act on that one acre, which was in 2013 They did not act on that one-acre piece, per their agreement Chair Goel asked if the 10 acres was also removed as part of an expiration of the developer's agreement vth:n,nd� „�nn:.,r:„n ).pten,ber_32,2015 ReauL r 4leam,1 Vagf 11 Mr. Baker answered no He stated that originally there was a 10-acre site identified for the school in 2010 There was an opportunity for an additional acre and there was a term in which the developer had to exercise that decision, and they did not Therefore, they were left with the original 10-acre parcel Chair Goel asked if the 10 acres are gone, or part of this transaction. Mr. Baker answered that the 10-acre site is part of this transaction They would be moving to a different future site. Chair Goel asked if that 10-acre site was part of the May City Council action. Ms Smith stated that, to clarify the term used by the community was "swap " There is no swap. Chair Goel felt that there was a $36 million offset or something of that magnitude. Ms. Smith answered yes. If the Planning Commission recommends and the City Council adopts this package, the District will not have to expend any money to buy that other 10-acre school site, because they will be ground leasing from the City for a dollar per year. Chair Goel asked if school district still has an option for the 10-acre site then they will need to come up with the funds. Ms. Smith answered that, at this point, they have an option. Chair Goel asked what those 10 acres are being converted to in this plan. Mr. Porto answered that the 10 acres has an underlying land use of medium-density residential that was analyzed as part of the 2012 project that came before the Planning Commission and then ultimately was approved by the City Council Chair Goel asked if it was rezoned. Mr. Porto answered yes Cm. Kohli asked if there is dual zoning on the 10 acres. Mr. Porto answered that it is an if/then situation. if the school district doesn't move forward with the project, then it can be developed for medium-density residential uses. Chair Goel asked if this package could potentially erase that option. Ms. Smith answered that this package will erase that option Cm. Mittan asked if the school district would consider something similar to an Amador Elementary, where it would be a double-story, to maximize use of the space. Mr Porto stated that Amador Elementary is the prototype that they're utilizing, with a few minor changes. Cm. Kohli asked if he was referring to the new site Mr. Porto answered yes P7avmn4('nvl PILLS ICn September 2?, 2015 ,,jiuder Nrrtn+0 page , ■q Cm. Do asked if there will be no more commercial development. Mr Porto answered that there will be no more commercial. He stated that if this project is approved tonight, there will be a maximum number of units developed on Jordan Ranch of 899 units, which is 165 units less than what was originally approved on this project site Cm. Do asked if there were any other developments. Mr. Porto answered that there are no other residential units, existing or proposed, on the other two sites, in Subarea 3 or in Wallis Ranch Cm Kohli asked what the project will be if it was not recommended to the City Council. He asked if it would be the 2012 numbers with a max of 964 units with 5,000 commercial square feet and possibly a school or let's assume the school's coming, in the original. He wanted to be clear because he felt that the presentation pointed out 899 units, comparing it to the 2005 number of units, but it's actually the 2012 Mr Porto answered that, at this point, it's the 2012 number Chair Goel felt that if the school district finds the money, If that underlying rezone was not there, it would be the 2010 numbers Mr. Porto answered that it is the 2012 numbers, minus 100 units. Chair Goel asked if the number was 864, which is less than 899. Mr. Porto answered yes. He stated that in 2012 the mixed use site was created on Fallon Road for 115 units and 5,000 square feet of retail. This project is reducing that to 45 units to offset the impacts to the school improvements on the south side of Central Parkway. Chair Goel felt that the "if/then" is not depicted in these numbers. Mr Porto answered that it will be if the school district exercises their option for the existing school site, finds the money to buy it, and then it would be developed as a school Chair Goel asked if this is presented as the school district does not have the funding. Mr. Porto responded that the district did not know if they wanted or needed the ES school site in 2012 So it was set up that, in the event that the school district didn't need the site, there was an underlying land use available to develop the property and there would be no need to come back for another general plan amendment on the project Chair Goel asked, if it was correct, regarding the terms of the MOU with the Dublin School District, that they asked for this new position or new location Ms. Smith answered yes Chair Goel asked if their comments regarding acreage were ever revisited and what would be the minimum required. He asked if the district is entertaining a K-8 concept and recently finished the Amador School at what acreage Ms. Smith answered that Amador Elementary is approximately the same amount of acreage at J'Lirmmg Co nnu non September 22, 2015 Rpg+'iar'41eetuz,' l'age 3c 10 acres Chair Goel felt that the joint school/park site was not 10 acres. Mr Baker responded that the new site will be a joint use of school and park land. Therefore, the school will be using some of the park land Ms Smith stated that during the day it will function as a school and after school hours it will function partially as a park. Chair Goel felt that the site was approximately 4.6 acres and asked what would be allowed for that use. Mr Porto answered that the school portion is 3.7 acres Chair Goel asked who would have the responsibility of developing the park land, or school grounds and felt it would be the school district. He stated that the Staff Report says specifically that the Planning Commission's purview does not include the deal points. He felt that somewhere else in the package the deal points are an attachment, which makes it part of what the Planning Commission is approving as part of the package. Ms. Smith explained that the City has a deal with the district that's not subject to Planning Commission review, which are the deal points that were submitted to the Council on March 17, 2015. She stated that the deal points include the ground lease and the district will build this facility and maintain this facility on the City's behalf. She added that the City will gain the use of the site as a park. She added that deal is separate from the Development Agreement deal terms Chair Goel asked for an explanation of the underlying zoning for the site Ms. Faubion explained that the dual designation means the site could be developed as medium-density residential if the school district did not require it for their purposes. She stated that the general plan map shows the underlying zoning and the environmental review analyzed both of those potential uses for the site Chair Goel asked what the trigger would be to change the zoning and is there a timeline for any change to the zoning Ms. Smith responded that there is no timeline. She stated that, if in fact the Planning Commission recommends and the Council takes action approving this package, they will no longer have rights to that property. They will not have a right to acquire that site following the actions that we're asking you to take Chair Goel stated that he would like a better understanding in order to make a choice He asked if the 10 acres that the school district has access to has a fee of $30 million Ms Smith responded that the school district would have to buy the site at fair market value. Chair Goel asked where that money would go Ms. Smith responded that the money would go to the developer because it is their property. Neither the City nor the school district owns it Pfannny I nm mtmnn ccp temEer 22,2015 'RWuGer 11eetTng ruge 136 Chair Goel asked what triggered the original discussion between the City and the school district for the offset of cost. to enable this to occur Ms. Smith stated that when the City brought the MOU proposal to the City Council in March 2015, the proposal stated that providing the district an alternative site, in looking at a joint use school/park site, would relieve the district of having to expend money to purchase lands. The land was valued at approximately $30 million, or three million dollars per acre. She stated that it was more of a testament to what it cost to buy land, and the cost associated with the district's need to buy land, which they don't have Chair Goel stated that, based on what the zoning is, the school district has access to 10 acres currently Mr Baker answered yes. Chair Goel stated that the district now has access to an additional optional location that the City has graciously provided. Ms Smith stated that the district will no longer have access to that other school site, following these actions Mr. Baker stated that it is either one or the other Chair Goel asked if the agreement that happened in March is already done. Ms. Smith answered no She stated that the City entered into an MOU with the school district related to the use of the community park site as a school/park site Once actions are taken to the affirmative to allow the developer to vest those units on that 10-acre parcel of the original school site, they will no longer have a right to purchase that site. Their option will be working with the City on the ground lease agreement, which we intend to bring back next month to the City Council for consideration, provided that there is an approval of this package. Chair Goel felt that it is really critical that the Planning Commission understand this, because he felt that there were a lot of messages coming across. He stated that the 10 acres is technically still there and the MOU is in place and if the MOU is executed and this occurs, the 10 acres goes away, and then the underlying zoning triggers, and those parcels become vested So this is all tied. Ms. Smith stated that the original school site becomes vested if the Planning Commission takes an action and the City Council takes an action to vest them via the Development Agreement Chair Goel asked if the site is currently considered non-vested Ms Smith answered yes. Ms Faubion stated that there has clearly been a lot of negotiation and the school district is in support of the project. Chair Goel stated that he can respect Ms. Faubion's opinion, but he felt that some of the people in the audience and others that are not here have asked these questions Ms. Faubion stated that she was referring to the letters in the record. T(an n,ry7 Commis wn Seplem5er 22,2015 .R.yu/e∎'tleeknp lag I ii Chair Goel felt that it is his responsibility to ask these questions because this is a total review of a land use designation and that is within the Planning Commission's purview. Ms Faubion stated that there are approximately 9 2 acres of Neighborhood 7 that are proposed for residential development and there have been no letters from the district in opposition to that project She stated that there are letters and evidence in the record showing that the district has been participating in the package regarding obtaining a school site on the 3.7 acres This is what is in the record. Cm Kohli asked what will happen if the package does not pass tonight, will things stay as is. Ms. Smith stated that the Planning Commission's recommendation to the City Council would be to deny and the City Council would take an action. Chair Goel stated that he had not made a recommendation or taken a position as yet. Ms Smith responded that she was not suggesting that and she was referring to Cm. Kohli's question Chair Goel stated that he was trying to understand the package in front of the Planning Commission so he could make a choice. Ms. Smith clarified that the project would not stop here It would continue on to the City Council with a recommendation for denial. Chair Goel stated it would be only a recommendation. Cm. Kohli asked if there is an expiration on the school district to act on the land that has a dual designation of semi-public and medium-density Ms Smith answered no. Chair Goel asked for an explanation of items "G and "I" of the amendment to the development agreement, Attachment 1, Exhibit A to the Staff Report He was unsure of the numbers based on 2012 approvals Mr. Porto recited The end result of the subsequent project approvals is to reduce the approved residential units from 964 to 899." Chair Goel asked if that was the 2012 to 2015 numbers. Mr. Baker answered yes and stated that "I" is addressing what's before the Planning Commission tonight Chair Goel asked if"G" is a predecessor. Mr. Baker answered that "G" is 2010 numbers Chair Goel indicated that "G" is 2012 numbers. Mr. Baker stated that from 2010 to 2012, as shown on the screen, the numbers are going from 781 up to a maximum of 964 punning(on mn sum drprcmher22.201, ,iirqufar 'Pi le 1 Chair Goel felt that it indicates, "From 780 to 864, plus a potential of up to 100 units on the school site"and asked if that is tied to the underlying zoning. Mr Baker answered right; for a total of 964, which is shown on the screen as the 2012 number. Chair Goel felt that receiving the packet on a Thursday is not enough time to review such a large project He felt it was good to hear from the public and referred to letter #3.1 in the Response to Comments attachment Mr. Baker asked if Chair Goel was referring to the comments received on the MND. Chair Goel answered yes and stated that the response addressed Parcel H He asked when Parcel H was disclosed relative to the timeframe of Jordan Ranch being developed. Mr. Porto answered in 2012. Chair Goel asked about the homes on Jordan Ranch Drive. Mr. Porto responded that those homes were not constructed yet He stated that was the model complex for Brookfield's Mariposa development. Chair Goel asked if anything happening inside of that development would have been a disclosure requirement relative to Parcel H at that time Mr Baker responded that the City could not speak to disclosure, but it was a known item at that point So at a minimum, the information was public knowledge Mr Porto stated that the developer was informed of what was going on, and notified of the action in 2012. Chair Goel asked if those homes were built after 2012. Mr Porto answered yes. Chair Goel stated he was trying to make sure the Planning Commission was addressing everything He directed the Planning Commission to page 16 of the same Response to Comments, comment #3 23. He asked Mr. Porto to elaborate on the response there He stated that the comments were "the open space is the only green area they have in front of us. They hope the brown vegetation will turn green during the winter gains." And then the response- "This comment is noted and will be considered by the Planning Commission and City Council during their deliberation on the project." He asked if this response was referring to the Planning Commission evaluating what's happening to that land as part of that underlying rezone. Ms. Faubion explained that the CEQA environmental document, the green-covered Mitigated Negative Declaration, was circulated for public review and the public had the opportunity to submit comments on the document. She stated that the City is not required to provide answers to those comments like it is on an EIR. But, in this case, because of the interest in the project, the City did prepare responses. Chair Goel was concerned that the response indicated that the Planning Commission was going to be considering the comment N.u,w,,4,,,, u.,an --- ).p,rmber 22,2015 XWut r Veal/7g I'age i„ Ms. Faubion stated that the comment is in the record and the decision makers have the benefit of being able to read that comment She stated that this just means that the comment will go forward as part of the record to the Planning Commission and City Council Chair Goel asked if the comment was referring to Parcel H Mr Porto answered yes. Chair Goel asked if Parcel H is not considered part of the open space area. Mr Porto answered yes He pointed out Parcel H a slide. The three lots, which comprise the model complex for Mariposa, are the only lots that are exposed to this He stated that this site is significantly below grade and, as a medium-density development, there will be 45 units There are already 115 units allowed on the site, which is the low end of the high-density range and at least four-story buildings would probably be built there Chair Goel asked if there is any height range for the project He was concerned about the grade and what would be seen from the street. Mr Porto answered that the development standards are approximately 40 feet in height and there is a difference in grade elevation between the street and where these units are located Chair Goel asked if there would be a 15 foot difference. Mr. Porto answered it would be approximately 15 feet Mr Baker added that he felt that perhaps there was a misunderstanding with the author of that letter that this is not in fact open space, but is currently is zoned to allow a mixed use project, as Mike mentioned, with potential for a four-story building there Chair Goel asked if this was the school site. Mr. Porto answered no Mr. Baker stated that this is the mixed use site. Chair Goel asked where the original school site was located and the new school site, relative to Parcel H, and how that would have impacted Parcel H. He also asked if Parcel H was always going to have a medium/high density Mr. Baker answered yes. Chair Goel asked if it was part of the Irongate project. Mr Porto answered no. He stated that Parcel H was designated as a mixed use site in 2012 At that point the density range was for 115 units and up to 5,000 square feet of commercial, effectively a mixed use project. He referred the Planning Commission to the map where it shows "proposed land use" or "existing land use." The existing school site is in blue. Chair Goel asked if, by existing, he meant originally proposed Mr. Porto answered that the originally proposed school site is in blue on the slide and pointed Ylann.rry'rn rn.n September_'E1/ NrguLT!Wee ny] FWr !n out the site that is mixed use Mr Baker asked Mr. Porto to orient the Planning Commission as far as geographically where that is. Mr. Porto pointed out the area on Jordan Ranch Drive to the north, Central Parkway to the south, and Fallon Road to the west, and the open space running through the development all the way up into Positano. He also pointed out the location of Jordan Ranch Park Chair Goel asked if Parcel H was always a mixed use or medium-density and that's part of those hundred units Mr. Porto answered yes. Chair Goel asked if the blue are on the slide is now the new proposed location for the K8 school Mr Porto answered yes Chair Goel referred to the attachment to the revised initial study, table one In the 2015 column, under "Dwellings — Non-residential" there is a 411 number with a footnote four He asked for an explanation of why the number is higher but yet the total is lower Mr Porto explained the calculations in the chart He stated the count was originally 105 units, when it was originally 100 which is a difference of 55. Chair Goel asked if the calculations included a school/no school. There was a discussion regarding the numbers on table. Chair Goel asked about Table 12 within the Mitigated Negative Declaration, page 42 It talks about a "no-project and with-project" in 2040 the PM. Mr Porto stated that he was referring to the traffic study at the back of the MND. Chair Goel was concerned with the "Level of Service F" (LOS) at the school site and what's contributing to it because the school was originally proposed at 500 students and now will go up to 950 students Obaid Khan, Transport and Operations Manager, asked if the question is regarding no-project LOS or with-project LOS He stated that there is no change in the LOS. Chair Goel felt this is a LOS F; it is always going to fail and it had nothing to do with the change in status of the school and the PM traffic. Mr Khan answered yes and stated that the City's LOS criteria is based upon the Volume-to- Capacity (V/C) ratio. Chair Goel referred to Exhibit E — Statement of Overriding Considerations, Page 2, bullet 3 - Unavoidable Significant Adverse Impacts He asked what EDPO means. Mr Baker answered Eastern Dublin Property Owners He stated that in the early 2000's, the ,in:r::,.r,,r: 1.ptem5rr.22, 201c )' U1LV Vtrrhr.i i'j.lr 11 entire original Fallon Village area was referred to as EDPO or East Dublin Property Owners which later became Fallon Village Jordan Ranch is a subset of Fallon Village EDPO Chair Goel asked if this supplemental impact traffic — six, seven, eight, and eleven — essentially are experiencing no change as a result of this project. Mr Khan responded that they found no significant impact because the intensity of development reduced the number of units and the school trips are related to the local circulation That is why a supplemental study was done as part of the Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) that reviewed the local intersection to make sure that none of those would be impacted because of school trips Chair Goel was concerned about the traffic circulation and safety measures with the new school He stated that there were recommendations about the median divide which is on the main spine road going in and out of the development He felt that adding traffic on the thruway would cause the queue to back up during the school hours Mr Khan stated that the school time, which is near the bell time, is different than the LOS analysis criteria. Chair Goel stated he understood. Mr Khan stated that he did a separate analysis of the bell time impacts that are queuing related, which is in the MND He stated that they increased the peak hour factor for the school bell time and the peak hour factor for LOS is usually around 0 9 or 0 92. They reduced that level of peak hour factor to increase the surge of vehicles at the bell time. He stated that they asked to create a separate right-turn lane into the school at the school entrance He pointed out the school entrance Chair Goel recommended that Staff consider some sort of valet dropping area, and/or queuing ability for these students because it's going to be an issue. Mr Khan stated that they created a drop-off zone in front of the school and inside circulation is similar to Amador School Chair Goel wanted to ensure that the City is guiding the school district to implement correct safety measures through these recommendations Kevin Fryer with Mission Valley Properties, Applicant, spoke in favor of the project. Chair Goel opened the public hearing. Mr Baker stated that the school board president submitted a letter to the Planning Commission and she asked that it be read into the record He asked Chair Goel to read the letter for the record Chair Goel read the letter into the record. "Dear Commissioners. I am writing to you today to express my concern about an item you will be discussing at your meeting tomorrow night Unfortunately I am unable to attend as the school board has a regular board meeting at the same time. PLnrurr,;r omrnumm f rembre_" JO!S xw,:� Va,in,, ,,,; "As you are all aware, Kevin Fryer's request to have the 150 additional homes he would like to have vested as a part of his project will be coming to you Tuesday night. I would like to give you some perspective about why its important for this project, unlike the last three — Trumark. Jerry Hunt (aka the Green) and the Promenade — to be approved. "We at the DUSD have been working very hard with the City and the developer to come to an agreement so that we are able to build a K8 school in this development We have spent countless hours meeting, consulting with our lawyers and planning so that this school can get built "I'm sure you're sick of hearing about how the state has failed us, but it is the reason we are in this situation. We never thought for a second we'd be having to pay for an entire new school until recently "The governor's decision to stop funding school construction is only a couple years old We unfortunately never knew this could or would happen. Thankfully there will most likely be a ballot measure in 2016. But until then we are working hard at finding solutions for our community "We cannot purchase the land set aside for us by Mission Valley, which by no means is their fault. We have come to an agreement with the developer and City to acquire the land on Central Parkway for this school and have also found the means to build it "Most of Kevin Fryer's project is in fact already vested. The difference these 150 homes will make is insignificant due to the trade-off of getting the school site, collecting another$1 on top of the developer's Level 2 fees, and the agreement of the developer to make all of the street improvements needed on the new school site "I am asking you to consider voting to give the council a chance to discuss the project's merits and the hard work and many hours that have been devoted to finding an agreement that works for everyone "I know more homes is not what the residents want. But do they also want to face the alternative? We will be forced to look at boundary changes, diverting students—hundreds from the east to west— and possibly placing portables on Nielsen to house the kids that are coming due to all the vested properties that will be built regardless. "Here is some info for you to digest: If these units get vested he is still building 65 less homes than what is on the original plan He originally planned for 964. Of those 749 are already vested, and he is asking for 150 more unvested, which totals 899. "That is 65 less units than originally planned And while we know that the medium- density may bring a few more kids than high-density, the difference is somewhat insignificant in this case since we will have a school. 'Although I understand the interest in stopping all unvested properties, this is not a good idea on this particular project. MOST of his units are vested and he will build them no matter what. So, the 749 units will come and we will have NO school because the City cannot give us the land if those units are not approved. "I do know that a large contingency of residents concerned about the development on Parcel H, would like to see their view preserved by not allowing two-story or higher homes built lG,mim;t c mL ann l.g,i ember 21,Jul N.guG.- t.ehng LPage 13 —something I recently learned. "Please, I urge you to at least agree to allow the City Council to take the matter up We will be there, my board and Dr Hanke, to speak about the process we've been through regarding this particular project and why we support it "Thank you for taking the time to read this long email. I have attached some documents I think you might find interesting. Please don't hesitate to contact me anytime with questions or comments. Sincerely, Amy Miller, President, Dublin Unified School District Board of Education." Shrub Nanji, Dublin resident, spoke in opposition to the project. She stated that she supports slow growth and is concerned with density, the drought and how the project would impact water supply. She stated that she supports schools. Elisabeth St. John, Dublin resident, spoke in opposition to the project. She stated that she supports slow growth and is concerned with density, the drought and how the project would impact water supply. She suggested that the medium-density residential be changed to low- density residential She asked if a follow-up environmental impact report was done since 2012. She was also concerned about traffic with only one entry/exit into the project Chair Goel closed the public hearing Cm. Mittan asked to show a circulation map to get an idea of what the speaker was talking about regarding the inflows and outflows of the two proposed residential areas. He asked for a comment from Staff regarding her concerns in general Mr Porto stated that a left turn is not allowed because it is a one way in, or a left in only, you cannot make a left out. However, the residents here would have the opportunity to come out a driveway and proceed into the left-turn pocket and go south on Fallon Road. He stated that Staff looked at various alternatives such as gating, speed bumps, etc. He stated that there is a concern about that and Staff is working with the developer to find a way to help keep the cut- through traffic to a minimum because these streets are not public streets Chair Goel asked about the line of sight/steepness issue. Mr Porto described it is a vertical curve, in order to get out onto the street, there would be a vertical curve such that the cars would be up to the hump and level with and be able to see both directions Cm. Do stated that she has seen people make that left turn many times She stated that she is having mixed feelings about this project She was in support of the idea of the school, but was also concerned with changing mixed use to medium-density and felt that low density would be a better choice. She felt that is part of the reason why there is a school issue. because we are getting more homes and more residents, but not enough schools Cm. Mittan asked about the downslope along Fallon Road from Parcel H. Mr. Porto responded that there is a downslope in one area and an upslope in another area but it's relatively at grade Cm. Mittan asked if there is sound buffering or a wall mm„n,„„„ d epic m6er 25,2015 ReguLir in A..pl "qqe 41 Mr Porto answered no. He stated that it is very similar to Tassalara Road north of Gleason where the units front onto the frontage road. There is no sound attenuation in that particular area because it is far enough back, and the units themselves block the sound for units further inside the project. Cm Bhuthimethee felt that everyone was very focused on the deal, but wanted to remind the Planning Commission that there is still an SDR to review. Chair Goel agreed. Cm. Bhuthimethee stated that the elevations vary from Jordan Ranch and felt that the pull-apart townhomes are so much more attractive than the duets She asked what happened to the duets. Chair Goel asked if Cm. Bhuthimethee would like to ask the Applicant. Cm. Bhuthimethee answered yes. Cm. Koh li made a motion to reopen the public hearing. Cm Mittan seconded the motion to reopen the public session. The Commission voted unanimously to re-open the hearing Chair Goel requested the Applicant come forward. Mr. Fryer asked if the question was what happened to the duets Cm Bhuthimethee answered yes Mr Fryer responded that he would like to have the architect respond to the question Mr Porto offered to explain Mr. Fryer suggested that Mr. Porto give his thoughts, and then the architect can address the question. Cm. Bhuthimethee felt that they look very flat Mr Porto stated that there is a lot of undulation on them. The patios on the front of the homes are quite unique and quite large compared to the others The architecture is using the same materials that are being used throughout Jordan Ranch. He stated that the units are very similar to the units the Planning Commission has reviewed and approved as part of Wallis Ranch. They are more of a contemporary farmhouse, rather than the traditional type of board- and-batten farmhouse. Mr Fryer stated that was an intentional choice. He wanted to speak to some of the comments about low-density residential He stated that as an introduction into Jordan and the theme of the architecture throughout the project, which is their most urban and intense location at the corner of heavily-trafficked Central and Fallon, they looked at approximately 47 different versions of the site plan together on Parcel H and at least three or four, different housing types He felt that the consensus that a less dense plan would impact our ability to provide some of ceple :5rr 23,LUIS 'Regular}teen nj ,Yz e {■ the community benefits as part of this process He felt low density would produce more students on a per-unit basis than a denser project and was a less appropriate land use concept. He felt it was a nice way of introducing the theme of Jordan Ranch in an intense and urbanized location with a slightly urbanized version of that architecture Cm. Bhuthimethee was concerned with only having two elevations to choose from in such an intense development She felt that, in such a small area, there should be more variation Mr. Fryer felt that, with 45 units, two elevations was an appropriate amount He stated that he would be willing to craft a condition to that effect and work with Staff to try to achieve that Cm Mittan asked if the stone work is on the face of the homes. Mr Porto suggested having the architect answer the question. Ms. Emily Bonano, The Dahlin Group Architecture & Planning, answered that the stone is along the low courtyard walls in the front and extends up onto the supports of the balconies. Cm. Mittan asked how high it extends Ms. Bonnano answered that the courtyard wall is between 36 and 42 inches high Above the patio on the inside, it could get a little bit higher if there's grade along the paseos. The porch railing would be approximately 14 to 15 feet high. Cm Mittan was concerned that the landscaping would eventually obliterate the feature wall as it matures. Ms Bonano stated that it is possible that there may be some areas where the wall isn't high due to grade in the paseo. Cm Bhuthimethee agreed with Cm Mittan regarding the landscaping covering the feature wall. Cm Mittan stated that he would prefer not to have the wall plain stucco with little feature. He suggested adding more of the faux stone in order to have the feature more visible Ms. Bonano agreed to take a look at that. Chair Goel Any other questions for the applicant? Cm. Kohli asked what the reasons were that low-density would not work in this project He wanted to ensure that he understood, as well as the residents who spoke in favor of low- density He asked if there was still an opportunity for a compromise Mr. Fryer felt that, from his perspective, going from the mixed use designation that allowed up to 115 units, down to medium-density with 45 units, was a very significant reduction in the density of the project He stated that they tried to figure out a land use that Staff and he could agree on and was appropriate for the location that addressed some of the political concerns and constraints about intensity of use. And then also being able to ensure that, essentially, this would all work and that there was enough residual land value to be able to provide the community benefits both to the district and to the City in the constructed park Mr. Fryer continued that, while there is open space adjacent to this, this is not open space. YL:nnmj r orvnu non .krtemfier 22,JUt+ Rrdurar MCI!CI!(Mg Ja,le 46 This is vacant land that is designated as mixed use He stated that he spent a lot of time trying to balance the proximity to Fallon, both for livability of future residents of Parcel H, as well as continuing and creating some interest from Fallon as you're driving on that street. He felt that the housing type created some variety, and part of it obviously is the economics Cm Kohli agreed and stated that it is the reality Mr. Fryer stated that this is the reality to make all of this project work Cm Kohli agreed and stated that he appreciated his honesty He asked that, when he was doing the analysis for the best plan for the parcel, if there a number that he came up with that would determine how many units would actually be in a low density project. Mr. Fryer stated that he did an analysis of some less efficient housing types than the duets, like the four-pack cluster homes that are along the open space, through the middle of Jordan, that Toll Brothers is now building and selling. He stated that they also looked at the pull-apart townhomes and more intense uses but did not find an exact breaking point in some of those lower-density uses that didn't fit the project Cm Kohli stated that Mr. Fryer mentioned the economic impacts in terms of what this package is all about He asked if he had looked at a low-density solution for this area, and if he had anything that he could share, such as some sort of estimate, where the gap is in terms of the economics. Mr Fryer stated that there are a lot of things that happen when you reduce density from an economic perspective. Typically the size of the house is increased, and then the price of those houses is also increased There are some unintended consequences when lowering densities, providing less diverse housing stock, creating less supply and larger houses that are more expensive He asked if he answers Cm Kohl's question Cm. Kohli answered no but, it gave him an idea. Mr. Fryer asked if Cm Kohli wanted to know if there is a breaking point Cm Kohli answered yes. Mr Fryer answered yes, there is but it is hard to say what it is. He felt that he is putting a very strong effort into making economic sacrifices and a commitment to try to pull this all together. The primary goal for him was for some certainty, in that we don't know if and when the district will be in a position to purchase this site. Without their ability to do that, there's an economic impact on us and there's a significant impact and the uncertainty is quite a risk for the community and the impact on the schools Cm. Kohli thanked Mr. Fryer. Mr. Fryer wanted to address one of the comments regarding their concern about the impact on the biologicals or "environmental " He stated that the environmental impacts were studied as part of the MND He stated that they have processed the agency permits with all the agencies that have jurisdiction over animals and waters, this area was assumed to be impacted from the original permitting with Fish and Wildlife, Fish and Game, Regional Board, Army Corps, back in 2010. This has always been a site that was assumed to be impacted In fact, in its previous days, when we first bought the site, this was the homestead site with gravel parking, a house, Ylamurz,,t n rn mu non ceptrmhrr '_,201 Rr■vfar vremrp Page I 11 and two or three barn structures, it was a fairly improved area He stated that they removed all of those structures and cleaned up the site. Cm Bhuthimethee asked how many units per acre on these sites. Mr Fryer answered approximately 10/acre, gross 4.5 gross acres equals 45 units. Cm. Bhuthimethee asked if medium is a range. Mr Fryer answered that ten is the midpoint of the medium-density range which is 6 1 to 14 du/ac Chair Goel asked if he considered building only two stories, instead of three. Mr Fryer answered yes and asked if he was talking about on Parcel H specifically Chair Goel answered yes; Parcel H. He felt that the other point was low or lower in height Mr Fryer stated that he pointed out previously that there are five fully detached two-story units closest to Fallon Road there that side towards Fallon which are two-story plans. He stated that there are 11 or 12 of the 45 units that are two-story but to do that throughout would significantly reduce the size of these homes and kind of reduce their utilities. So this is something of a transition as you come Chair Goel asked if he evaluated providing low density along Jordan Ranch He felt that would be the compromise of the transition from single-family to a denser three-story Mr. Porto stated that portion of the site is roughly 12 feet lower than Jordan Ranch Drive which basically eliminates one story Mr. Fryer agreed Mr. Porto stated that the view to Jordan Ranch Drive is of a two-story unit because those units are roughly 12 feet lower and there is also a series of retaining walls. He stated that with the original project they were very concerned about a fence or a walled community, backing onto a street, creating basically an element that can be "graffitied" or an element that creates a feeling of not being part of the community. Chair Goel asked what the setback is from the back-of-curb to Jordan Ranch Drive, is it 25 feet behind Mr. Porto answered that 25 feet would be a minimum but is probably more than that. Chair Goel felt that part of the reason they're looking for lower density and a lower roof height is the feeling of claustrophobia coming down the street Mr Porto answered that the setback would be approximately 40 feet in the widest spot. Chair Goel felt that was a sizable distance back and asked if there are elevations of the single- family homes. Mr. Porto referred Chair Goel to Sheet A13-01 of the project plans lldnnin(1( nnmmmn S'p(rm6rr22,JOI KM uG t:t1 pw f''Or Jn There was a discussion regarding which page the elevation was shown on. Mr. Baker asked Mr Porto to point out the two-story homes on the slide Chair Goel asked if the two-story units are the five in a line. Mr. Porto answered that those are the ones that are detached There was a discussion regarding where the two-story units are located in the project. Chair Goel asked if there are seven two-story units. Mr Fryer stated that of the 45 units there is 11 or 12 two-story units. The five pointed out are detached, but that entire edge along Fallon Road is two-story and the two on the either end are attached at the garage on one side Chair Goel stated that he counted seven two-story units and asked Mr Fryer where the other 4- 5 two-story units are located. Ms Bonano pointed out the lot numbers where the two-story units are located. Mr Porto stated that the two-story units come in both attached and detached form. Chair Goel asked if Mr Fryer had considered building two-story units along Jordan Ranch Drive. Mr Fryer answered no, because they are less efficient, buried in the site, and don't have much visual. Chair Goel asked if there could be a swap for a more pleasing line of sight, a visual element Mr. Fryer asked Chair Goel what goal he is that is trying to achieve Chair Goel stated that his goal is to drop the line of sight from the homes on Jordan Ranch Drive where there are two-story units exposed. Mr Fryer stated that he understood Chair Goel stated that he was trying to understand if it was a possibility Mr Fryer felt that he could commit to review lots 10 and 11, to determine where the two- and three-story units are located and maybe provide lots 10 and 11 as two-story units. He felt it may have some impact on retaining wall height. Mr. Porto agreed that it would Mr. Fryer was concerned with the width of those units Mr Porto felt that they would have to push the retaining wall. Mr. Fryer stated that he would agree to review the request to ensure there are not any unintended consequences. Yran nnpl I nm+rt,.wn September 22.2W S Reaulu, t4 el ny! 1'41e 19 Chair Goel asked if Mr. Fryer was potentially willing to evaluate his concern. Mr Fryer answered yes, and stated that it would not be as easy to do on lots 13, and 14 Chair Goel stated that lot 14 is already a two-story unit Mr Fryer stated that he does not have a configuration where there are two-story and two-story together, but felt that there are fewer homes that are impacted from a line-of-sight perspective in that location Chair Goel felt that Cm. Bhuthimethee was asking if we did flip the houses, how it will look at the top of the house; will it start to mess around with the elevation too much. Ms Bonano felt that only the second floor of the house would be visible Mr. Fryer stated that he can agree to work with Staff to evaluate it and try to make that change if it doesn't have consequences that Staff is not comfortable with. Cm Bhuthimethee asked if Mr Porto can confirm that there will be enhanced elevations on any of the homes that are siding onto or backing up to Fallon or Panorama Mr Porto responded that the quality of their architecture is significantly above the quality of the architecture that is on some of the other homes, therefore, there was no need for enhanced elevations Cm. Bhuthimethee agreed and mentioned to the architect that the streetscape elevation really doesn't do the homes any justice Cm Mittan asked where the metal siding would be located for Plan 3A Mr. Porto directed the Planning Commission to Sheet A13-32 which shows the "Corrugated metal siding or four-inch vertical wood siding " Ms. Bonano stated Mr. Porto was correct She stated that it would be corrugate metal siding, board and bat, or vertical siding Cm. Mittan asked if that feature is used in other parts of the Jordan Ranch development in general Mr Porto answered that it is one of the materials that was originally approved as part of the design elements and it is used in different places for different uses. Cm Mittan asked about the maintenance on the metal siding and if it rusts out Ms Bonnano answered no. Cm. Bhuthimethee was concerned with water usage and asked what type of planting will be installed in the park Mr. Porto answered that recycled water is now being used for all areas, front yards, parks, and open space areas Cm Bhuthimethee asked if the purple pipes will be installed. rGnnv®t_„mmnmon Yrpremher 2,0 H.qU;:v Nre:1,1,f Puy. CO Mr. Porto answered yes Cm Bhuthimethee asked if that would be for the residences, and not just the common spaces. Mr Porto answered yes. Chair Goel closed the public hearing Cm Bhuthimethee felt that there was a valid point made about open space, wildlife, and natural areas and felt that Cm Mitten's point about some areas not being useful and might not be active parks, but for more passive activities would be something unique for the community. She disclosed that she had received some personal emails from the community regarding the project and some of their concerns are density, loss of commercial space, and the wildlife. She felt that the problem is that Parcel H was already planned for high-density and if the Planning Commission doesn't pass the project, that's what will be built. She stated that there was a comment about if the EIR had been updated She asked if, since the density is being reduced, would there need to be another EIR completed. Chair Goel felt that Ms. Faubion could answer that question. Ms. Faubion responded that she was generally correct; when an EIR is prepared, it identifies a certain project, certain uses, locations, densities, and so on. Once the EIR goes through the whole process CEQA says that if you come back again with a project that's in the same area, or a variation on the project, you don't necessarily need to go through the whole process again. It should just be updated as needed Chair Goel asked if it's fair to say that through that process, the MND/Initial Study that was done in August is the revision that addresses any changes that are being sought Ms Faubion answered yes. Chair Goel asked if that is the reason why the MND/Initial Study is one of many options of the package. Ms Faubion gave an example, the 2012 addendum updated 100 units on the Neighborhood 7 site, which is the old school site Chair Goel asked if that was the underlying zoning. Ms. Faubion answered yes; each time there's a decision, it needs to be adequate enough to meet CEQA analysis Sometimes it's a giant EIR like it was in 2005 and sometimes an addendum needs to be done CEQA is all about documentation. So you'll see that analysis laid out for you in the Initial Study and the MND/Initial Study Chair Goel felt it was fair to say that this accounts for the current proposal. Ms. Faubion answered yes. Chair Goel asked if it includes the reduction on Parcel H, not the current status Ms. Faubion answered if the same development area is being affected, then that's what you would note in your initial study Whatever happens above the ground, this amount of ground is September 22, i auL,. it,nn: 1 ,4e •I going to be affected. She stated that was what we talked about in the 2010 addendum and the 2005 EIR and those mitigation measures carry forward. We don't have to impose them again but it is said for the record so that everybody understands Chair Goel asked if that would stand true also for the wildlife. Ms Faubion answered yes. Chair Goel asked even if something new was discovered, it would have been identified. Ms Faubion answered yes Chair Goel asked Cm. Bhuthimethee it that answered her question Cm Bhuthimethee stated that when she received the notice for another GPA, her initial reaction was negative. She felt that there were a lot of pros to the deal and to see that the City is working with the school district and with the developer was very positive The school board is in support of this project and submitted a letter to that affect. She wondered who is opposing this and why but felt that some people want lower density and this project is providing that She was concerned that only two speakers came to the meeting. She felt that the development being proposed is attractive and they did a fantastic job with the pedestrian connectivity from neighborhood to neighborhood She wished all our neighborhoods were like that. She does not see a lot of negatives, the City will lose some commercial, but from the comments from the community is that we want to have less impact on our schools She felt that a lot of people are happy with the project and it seems like its a decent deal. She stated that she can make the findings Cm Kohli asked about the Dublin Crossing school deal that was discussed earlier and asked for someone to refresh his memory as to what was approved Ms Smith asked if his question was in regards to the school. Cm. Koh l! answered yes Ms Smith stated that, for comparative purposes, this site was existing park land and had already been acquired and credited as a park site. The site within Dublin Crossing was always intended to be a school site So we don't have the encumbrance of this already being a park land site and having to shuffle around to identify additional park lands to offset this site Cm. Kohli asked why the City cannot do something similar in this situation where we're dealing with a plot of land that has already been designated. He asked if it was because Dublin Crossing was actually designated for school or was that a dual designation Ms Smith answered that it was not a dual designation The reason the City can't do it here is because the City doesn't own it. The City does not own the original school site. The City owns the community park site. In the case of Dublin Crossing, ownership was still with the developer. Cm. Kohli stated that in the Dublin Crossing case, the developer owned the site. Ms Smith stated that the Staff negotiated a transaction that it would then be deeded to the City. Cm Kohli stated that in the Jordan Ranch case, the developer owns the site He asked what ;,� �„�a s.n'nma.r „ 211:1' ery�d.,, „ 1•■1 ",,,, was discussed, or why didn't something similar happen Ms. Smith stated that there is no comparison of the two projects. In the Dublin Crossing situation there are 1,995 units which are part of the project which has yet to be developed. There's a lot more negotiating opportunities when you have a need and you have something to give for that need There was a discussion regarding the difference between the Dublin Crossing school site and the Jordan Ranch school site Cm. Kohli asked if any surveys were done of the community regarding essentially swapping out building an elementary school for a K-8 school Ms. Smith answered that the City did not conduct a survey She stated that she is a member of the District Optimization Committee (DOC), which looked at this issue They of course held a town hall to get community input But the DOC, which was comprised of different people from all over the community at all different levels; i e, staff, community members, City representatives, the conclusion was that in order to alleviate the Fallon Middle School overcrowding, that this school could be what's called a flex school Fallon Middle School started out as an elementary school and then grew up into a full-blown middle school. She felt that the district was hoping for the flexibility. Cm. Kohli asked if Neighborhood 7 is a dual designation, medium-density or public/semi-public and that is reserved for the school district to purchase the land to build a school. Parcel H is mixed use with 115 units and 5,000 square feet of commercial space and then the community park that the City owns as its 10+ acre community park. He stated that in that situation we would have a total of 964 units in Jordan Ranch compared to 899 units with this plan today which would be fewer units But there would be more medium-density units He understood that the K-8 option could go up to 950-student for the school that is being proposed to be built on this new land, there was a study done for that, in terms of the environmental study. Ms. Faubion answered yes Cm Mittan was concerned with the school district's evaluation of the number of students that will be placed in a new school He felt that the number is never adhered to Ms Smith felt that was not a question for the City to answer The school district is the one that would need to answer that question She stated that the district provided their site locations that they needed in eastern Dublin, have made agreements to change those or move sites, shrink sites, with the development community. The City does not process their schools, therefore the City does not have much say in their school populations per site Cm Mittan felt that, since the City is the landowner, they would have some say in the number of students coming into a school. He felt that when the district blows through those numbers, it totally throws off all those traffic studies. That was all fantasy land, because in essence were 30, 40, 100% higher than what we anticipated. He asked if there is any way for the City to negotiate an upper limit. Mr. Baker stated that when the City does a CEQA analysis and it involves a school site, we use the best information that's known at the time which includes anticipated enrollment at the time. When the district attempts to build a school, if they're deviating from their enrollment 1'Gn wn,i,emmu non seplesie. Rs',vu(dr_ feet Ong Page ,S information, then they are responsible for doing a CEQA analysis, which would include traffic impacts and mitigations for those impacts Cm Mittan asked if there is no additional leverage that the City has to influence it. Mr Baker answered no. Cm Mittan stated that the school site would be a flex site and asked if part of that flex site could be a middle school only Ms Smith stated that, as the City representative of the DOC that was not a discussion. Chair Goel suggested polling the Planning Commission to determine their thoughts. Cm Bhuthimethee stated that she can make the findings but would add a condition to the SDR Cm. Kohli felt it is a tough decision. He agreed with Cm. Bhuthimethee in that the Planning Commission has heard from all sides; the community, residents, the developer, and the City He felt that everyone has worked hard to make the project work and create a win/win situation for all parties. He felt that the City was acting too quickly and that the state would not be bankrupt for the rest of their lives. He felt it would have been good to hear an actual number that showed an analysis was done on low-density housing He was concerned that the school benefit fee would not go towards building schools and that there is no guarantee that the school will be built and with more houses being built it will create a problem He felt that the City should take more time and evaluate more options. Cm. Do stated that she is leaning towards not recommending the project. She agreed with Cm. Kohli regarding the school not being built and felt that the City should take more time and evaluate more options. Ms Smith wanted to clarify a point Commissioner Kohli made and felt that Commissioner Do confirmed She stated that there is bond funding coming from a school construction bond which will go towards repaying Amador School, which is the next school that they need to repay She stated that there would not be money in the next bond to pay for Jordan Ranch School. She wanted to make sure everybody understood that Cm Mittan asked Ms. Smith to explain "potential bond " Ms. Smith answered that she was referring to the bond that was qualified for the November ballot Chair Goel asked if she was referring to the governor's ballot or the school districts. Ms Smith stated that there is an initiative that has received enough signatures to place a school bond measure on the 2016 ballot. Whatever money comes of that will go to repay the building of Amador School, since the district took out a bond anticipation note on the existing local bond to pay for the construction of that school She stated that there would not be funding in the pipeline in that next issuance to pay for the construction or the purchase of land and the construction of Jordan Ranch School. She added that the district has made it abundantly clear to the City Staff that there is no time. Cm Mittan asked, if the bond that's upcoming is approved, if the district knows the amount that f4mvng ommvoian )ertemher 1'01i 8,4741,4, L'ran,y Pwle I ■ they would receive Ms. Smith answered yes. She stated that they will receive a $28 million reimbursement for Amador School and then whatever the next school is would fall at the very bottom of the list and they would not receive any funding out of that bond measure Mr. Baker stated that the district would like to move forward on a school now because waiting would not enable them to have a school come online as quickly. Ms Smith responded yes She added that the district has stated to us that they need the next school by 2018-19 to relieve the pressure off of Fallon Middle School, or else those things that Board President Miller had suggested in the letter would occur and they do not want to do that if they can at all avoid it. Cm Mittan responded he understood and that he would lean towards approving the project. Cm. Bhuthimethee asked if she was missing something and asked if there were more cons to the project that she was not aware of Chair Goel felt that his remarks may help Cm Bhuthimethee with her decision He stated that he would like to see a school built but is concerned with the traffic impacts. He felt that the City is always chasing themselves, trying to find a Band-Aid. He suggested a "land banking" program that would offer 10 acres for 100 units, and then swap it with another developer and make it 20 acres, and thereby the City would have a bigger parcel for the school He was concerned about the deal which has an engineer's estimate that the park is worth $1.96 million but yet we asked for 1.6. He felt that the City was trying to make the deal work for everyone, but taking a potential risk regarding funds Ms Smith responded that there is no risk. Chair Goel did not agree Ms Smith stated that the developer takes all the risk. Chair Goel asked if the developer will receive a credit Ms Smith answered that the developer will receive a credit of anything above the 1.6 that they have provided to the project Chair Goel asked what the credit will be applied to. Ms Smith responded that when the developer pulls building permits, they can sell those credits in the open market for future development in Dublin. Chair Goel felt that was still a loss in revenue to the fund balance Ms Smith answered no, it is not a loss in fund balance. She stated that the City will use the public facility fee to pay for the construction of the park, or credit him the entire $2 million but they will only get credit for $365,000 of that The balance of that is a contribution to the construction of the park and will free up cash flow in the public facility fee to fund other parks Chair Goel asked to discuss a feeling in the community regarding some failed deliveries and a YL,nmrg(t.r,r.ae,rer ccptember 22,201 P Rtduiar teftms Page Ic deficit in 2020. He was concerned with how the parks will be built and asked if the district would build the infrastructure of the park He felt that his understanding was that Jordan Ranch will be developed by the developer who will receive a potential of up to 365 credits if the construction cost goes above 1 6 and the school is fully developed by the school district Ms Smith answered; that is correct Chair Goel asked if the school has indicated that they have the funds to build the school. Ms. Smith answered that the District has indicated that they have funding to build the school. Chair Goel asked how much it would cost to build the school Ms. Smith answered it would take approximately $46 million to build the school Chair Goel stated that there is approximately $46 million to develop this facility and there is potentially a school bond measure in November. He was concerned with the smaller plot for the school and felt that there are some negotiation points that could potentially amount to a better deal. He appreciated that all parties have worked very hard on the arrangement but felt something is missing He felt that he would not be able to make the finding Cm. Kohli felt that the Planning Commission should make a motion because the project would be going to City Council Chair Goel felt the project would be going to Council with a recommendation of whatever the Planning Commission decides. Ms. Faubion reminded the Planning Commission that they are reviewing only the land use decisions. She suggested, before the Planning Commission takes a vote, that they take a short break to make sure She stated that there can be a single vote, or it can be broken up into individual pieces Chair Goel stated that he was ready to move forward Cm Do stated that she was not in favor of breaking up the item Cm Kohli asked if the Planning Commission will be recommending the entire item to City Council Ms. Faubion answered, that's correct Cm. Kohli suggested going forward with a motion Mr. Baker stated that the Planning Commission would be voting on Jordan Ranch and Subarea 3 with a separate transaction for the Wallis Ranch project and the conversion of park land. Cm. Do asked if they are all connected. Cm Kohli felt that at the beginning of the meeting it was made clear that the best interest was to not break this up and now it has been suggested that the Planning Commission should think about breaking it up. iGnnme(ommucion ieptemher 22,2015 Regular:5fretm11 ILgr so Chair Goel felt that Wallis Ranch and Subarea 3 are already approved but just changing the name of the designation to Community Nature Park Ms. Smith stated that, in her opening statement, she was trying to provide the global perspective as it relates to the school deal and the package and felt that she had clarified that Wallis Ranch wasn't part of that. Wallis is included with this specifically because the City can only do four general plan amendments per year Chair Goel asked which recommendation includes Wallis Ranch Cm Kohli responded that Trumark is building an additional park. Cm. Kohli asked if the City Council can break up the items. Chair Goel stated that the City Council will see the Planning Commission's deliberation and it will save some time Ms Faubion felt that, from the recent discussion, it would be difficult to unbundle the items and asked if the Planning Commission felt more comfortable voting on the items as a package, then perhaps they could make a motion Chair Goel felt that Staff could take a secondary recommendation where it actually figures out how to take Wallis Cm Kohli asked Commissioner Mittan and Commissioner Bhuthimethee if they would like to unbundle items, or keep it bundled. Cm Mittan stated that he would have preferred to have it unbundled but felt that it was presented as bundled He stated that he was unsure with the connection between Wallis Ranch and the other projects if Wallis Ranch was a party to the school negotiation issue He felt that Wallis Ranch should have been set aside and explained that this is not part of the whole deal. He was concerned with the high school situation and felt that if all we could get was 10 acres for the middle school, then how would the district get enough acreage for another high school within the City of Dublin. Chair Goel asked for a motion. There was a discussion regarding how to accomplish the motion. Ms. Faubion felt that the Planning Commission would like to recommend approval of the five items and asked if that was correct Cm. Do answered that she felt the Planning Commission would recommend the majority of it but not the whole. Ms. Faubion suggested that the motion be simple. The motion can be that the Planning Commission recommends that the City Council deny the five items listed above Mitigated Negative Declaration, General Plan Amendments, Plannned Development Rezoning, Site Development Review, and Development Agreement Amendment for the reasons stated in the Planning Commission discussion. It can also be "does not recommend approval," if you feel more comfortable with that t'Lennrq t ommunrU 5eptem6er!',2015 Regular lfeelvg Page ' �� There was a continued discussion regarding how to read the motion Mr. Baker stated that if the Planning Commission is making a motion recommending approval, you could move the staff recommendation, for simplicity Cm. Mittan made a motion, seconded by Cm Bhuthimethee, for the Planning Commission to recommend that the City Council approve the Staff recommendation. Chair Goel asked for a roll call. Roll call. Cm. Do - Nay Cm. Mittan - Aye. Chair Goel - Nay Cm Kohli - Nay Cm. Bhuthimethee -Aye. Ms. Faubion stated that the motion fails on a 2-3 vote. Ms. Faubion stated that the Planning Commission needs to make a recommendation. She stated that this one failed, and suggested that a recommendation be made to not approve the amendments, and that would be the Planning Commission's recommendation to the City Council Chair Goel agreed Mr. Baker stated that someone would need to make a motion and that motion would need to be seconded Chair Goel made a motion recommending that City Council deny the requests as presented on item 8 2 by Staff Cm Kohli seconded the motion Mr. Baker restated that there was a motion by Chair Goel and a second by Vice Chair Kohli. Roll call: Cm Do - Aye Cm Mittan - Nay. Chair Goel - Aye. Cm Kohli - Aye Cm. Bhuthimethee -No Krigin;r nmmu vnn 5'eptemher.12,701 f Ntg uL4r trtetIitJ Page `A Ms Faubion stated that the motion passes by a vote of 3-2. Therefore, there is a recommendation to the City Council, and that recommendation will be to not approve the five items that are before you On a motion by Chair Goel and seconded by Cm. Kohli, on a vote of 3-2, the Planning Commission recommends that the City Council not approve the five items. RESOLUTION NO. 15-08 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL NOT APPROVE THE GENERAL PLAN/EASTERN DUBLIN SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT, PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REZONE, SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW, VESTING TENTATIVE MAPS, DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR THE JORDAN RANCH/SUBAREA 3/WALLIS RANCH PROJECT L J�_ NEW OR UNFINISHED BUSINESS – NONE OTHER BUSINESS - NONE 101 Brief INFORMATION ONLY reports from the Planning Commission and/or Staff, including Committee Reports and Reports by the Planning Commission related to meetings attended at City Expense (AB 1234) ADJOURNMENT –The meeting was adjourned at 10:35.19 PM Respectfully submitted, Planning Commission Chair ATTEST Jeff Ba er - Assistant Community Development Director G IMINUTES120151PLANNING COMMISSIOM09 22 15 DRAFT PC MINUTES(CF)(2)don Pia ninny(ommamm 1'eplrmbrr 22,201c XI quWr 1eetIni J'igr i co