Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-27-2015 PC Minutes Planning Commission Minutes �\ �f Tuesday, October 27, 2015 CALL TO ORDERIROLL CALL A regular meeting of the City of Dublin Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, October 27, 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, Commissioners Bhuthimethee and Mittan, Jeff Baker, Assistant Community Development Director; Kit Faubion, Assistant City Attorney; Mike Porto, Consulting Planner, and Debra LeClair, Recording Secretary. Absent: Vice Chair Kohli and Cm. Do ADDITIONS OR REVISIONS TO THE AGENDA — NONE MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETINGS — On a motion by Cm. Mittan and seconded by Cm. Bhuthimethee, on a vote of 3-0-2 with Vice Chair Kohli and Cm. Do being absent, the Planning Commission approved the minutes of the October 13, 2015 meeting, as amended. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS — Marlene Massetti, Dublin resident, spoke in opposition to the Trumark/Regional Street project which was approved by the Planning Commission at the October 13, 2015 meeting She asked the Planning Commission to reconsider their approval. She was concerned with additional residential units in Downtown Dublin and their impact on traffic, schools, parking and quality of life. Jeff Baker, Assistant Community Development Director, stated that Councilmember Gupta has appealed the Planning Commission approval of the Trumark/Regional Street project to the City Council and the appeal is tentatively scheduled to be considered on November 17, 2015. CONSENT CALENDAR— NONE WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS — NONE PUBLIC HEARINGS — 8.1 PLPA 2012-00013 — Schaefer Ranch General Plan Amendment, Planned Development Rezone with related Stage 1 and Stage 2 Development Plan, Site Development Review, Vesting Tentative Map 8136 to create 19 single-family lots, and a CEQA Addendum Mike Porto, Consulting Planner, presented the project as outlined in the Staff Report. Chair Goel asked who will maintain the open space mentioned in the Staff Report. Mr. Porto answered that the open space will be maintained by the Geologic Hazard Abatement District (GHAD) and pointed out the area pf X,■41:1' V.<u^9 r,,.r ,C Chair Goel asked for an explanation of the CHAD Mr. Porto answered that the CHAD fee is included on the tax bill and is paid by the homeowners in the general area. Chair Goel asked if the "general area" would be defined as Schaefer Ranch or would it be specifically for the 19 homes in the proposed project. Mr. Porto answered that the CHAD would include all of Schaefer Ranch. Chair Goel asked how many homes are included in the CHAD Mr. Porto answered that, if the proposed project is approved, there will be 419 homes. Chair Goel asked if the City received any comments from the 419 residents. Mr Porto responded that there is a SB 343 document on the dais which includes approximately 10 emails from residents regarding the proposed project. Mr. Baker mentioned that there are three emails that were requested to be read into the record. Chair Goel asked if the open space was connected to any public trails. Mr. Porto answered that the proposed open space is not connected to any trails but there is connectivity in other portions of Schaefer Ranch. He stated that, in other portions of Schaefer Ranch, there are connections to East Bay Regional Parks District (EBRPD) trail system through the open space GHAD area There is also an EBRPD staging area at the corner of Marshall Canyon Road and Dublin Blvd that is connected to their trail system to the north, and into the canyons Cm. Bhuthimethee asked, since the proposed open space will be private, if it will have any public access. Mr. Porto answered no; the resource agencies have been strict regarding the type of access granted to these areas and what type of separation there will be He stated that this was all part of negotiations which were done a long time ago. He stated that the resource agencies became involved and redistributed the land uses in the area and decided what land should be saved and a lot of land went into open space category that was not originally planned in that way. Cm. Bhuthimethee asked if the proposed open space is private open space and the public will not have access to it She felt that there are many benefits to having the land preserved. Mr. Porto answered yes. Chair Goel asked if the open space was a part of any mitigation. Mr. Porto answered no. Planning Commission Orto6er 27;2015 Xtgutr greeting 'Page I " Chair Goel asked if, prior to the proposed design, the area that was designated by the resource boards as open space was originally part of the 6 Estate Residential sites, how was the open space protected at that time Mr. Porto answered that the open space designation did not have anything to do with the 6 Estate Residential sites but was included in other areas of Schaefer Ranch Chair Goel stated that the proposed project is requesting a reduction in the Estate Residential acreage from 17 acres to 7 acres and converting 10.2 acres to open space. Mr. Porto stated that the proposed project is not required open space. He stated that the resource agencies did not require the proposed open space to be dedicated for any reason or preserved for any reason He added those areas have already been defined in Schaefer Ranch; they have been dedicated and improved and the resource agencies are in support of that. Chair Goel asked why the proposed open space area will be private open space, will have no access to a trail system, but will be protected. Mr Porto answered that there would be no reason to utilize the area because it is rolling hills with no direct access to public streets He stated that this area is similar to open space in other communities within Dublin Chair Goel restated that there is no opportunity for pedestrians to access the proposed open space area Mr. Porto pointed out the area on the map that shows the lands that are outside the City of Dublin and privately owned; there are no public trails from the area that was pointed out. Chair Goel asked if there will be access from the north and south of the project. Mr Porto pointed to an area of dedicated open space, controlled by resource agencies, and was required as part of the mitigations for Schaefer Ranch He also pointed out Mr. Otto Schaefer's property on the slide Chair Goel asked if there is an opportunity for public access in the open space area north or south of the project Mr. Porto answered that there is a steep hillside with graded V-ditches and there would be no purpose to be there because it leads to nowhere Chair Goel asked if the proposed project was located near any landslide areas Mr. Porto answered that the landslide area is in an already developed area of Schaefer Ranch. Chair Goel asked where the nearest trail would be to the proposed 19 units. Mr. Porto pointed out the nearest trail on the slide. rGpp,nfl(unm .,,. ct L,e.r�.:n1 xwvwr'Cleo n,r' Cm. Mittan felt that there should be a benefit for increased open space in the project, but felt that the developer was not taking buildable land and creating open space, which would be a benefit, but, the proposed project is only taking an unbuildable area and creating open space where they would not be able to build anyway. Mr. Porto answered that the proposed project has an existing graded slope which is currently in larger lots. The proposed project would change the designation to open space. He felt that the area was probably not buildable because it was too steep and would not sustain additional grading without violating the grading ordinance as being too steep. The area that has been re- designated as open space would not be developable. He stated that the area could have been a back or side yard for the estate lots. Cm. Mittan felt that there was quite a lot of retaining wall usage on the lots in order to allow buildable lots Mr. Porto answered yes, in some places. Cm. Mittan asked if the developer has paid any school fees for the project. Mr. Porto answered none at this time He stated that the school district has known about the site for approximately three years with no particular comment on this issue. He stated that the Schaefer Ranch/Discovery Builders built the EBRPD staging area, the School of Imagination and the community park, as well as providing inclusionary housing in the development, all as community benefits Mr. Baker added that Schaefer Ranch/Discovery Builders helped fund the Heritage Park He stated that any further questions regarding the school impact fee payments should be directed to the Applicant. Cm Mittan asked if the Applicant will use the 6 student per household calculation for the DUSD allotment and if they have held discussions with DUSD. Mr. Baker referred Cm. Mittan to the Applicant. Cm. Bhuthimethee asked if there are any restrictions on how the 6 estate residential lots can be developed Mr. Porto answered that there are standard development guidelines that are part of the original Planned Development (PD) for the area which would have to be followed regarding setbacks and building heights, etc. But the proposed project is consistent with the PD and there is no uniqueness to this area or the estate lots category in the existing PD Cm Bhuthimethee asked if the estate lots remained estate lots, could the residents create a golf course, a vineyard or something else on their lot, and would there be any restrictions. Mr. Porto answered yes, there are restrictions The size of the house and site coverage issues are covered in the PD and the allowable coverage area is generous for estate lots The homes could cover up to 35% of the lot and 35% of a 24,000 sf lot is a very large house. If the homeowners wanted to add swimming pools and vineyards that would be considered landscaping and they can landscape their yards however they wanted „y�(., nr«iner _w, Cm. Bhuthimethee asked if there are no restrictions on leaving part of their estate lot undeveloped Mr. Porto answered no, there are no restrictions. Cm Bhuthimethee asked if there would also be no restrictions if the zoning were changed to single-family residential. Mr Porto answered that there would still be no restrictions Cm. Bhuthimethee asked for an explanation of a Statement of Overriding Considerations Kit Faubion, Assistant City Attorney, explained that, under CEQA, an environmental review is done to identify environmental impacts and mitigation measures that will resolve the impacts. She stated that, in some cases, impacts are identified and even if mitigated, the impact won't be reduced to the level of significance, and in those cases, CEQA requires that the protect can still be approved but a statement of overriding considerations must be adopted stating how they balance the unavoidable impacts against the benefit Chair Goel asked if all 6 estate parcels are considered developable and if the project was not approved, can the developer still build the 6 estate units Mr. Porto answered yes; they are legal lots. Chair Goel asked if the grading has been completed. Mr. Porto answered yes; the majority of the grading has been done. Chair Goel opened the public hearing Marlene Massetti, Dublin resident, spoke in opposition to the project. She felt that the proposed project is of no benefit to the community She was concerned that the proposed project includes 19 units instead of 20 therefore the developer avoided paying in lieu fees for affordable housing and public art. She felt that there was no intent to provide a benefit to the community She was concerned that 19 more homes will add to the overcrowding of Dublin. She asked that the Planning Commission deny the project Razi Sharma, Dublin resident, spoke in opposition to the project He was concerned with the lack of estate homes in the City and that there should be a wide range of properties. He felt it would be good to have billionaires living in Dublin, and that the area is perfectly suited for estate homes but building single-family homes defies logic because the area is very dangerous He was concerned with shared driveways and the line of site. He was also concerned with traffic and the impact of the other residents paying the GHAD to maintain the open space and it would not be accessible for the general public He asked that the Planning Commission deny the project Chair Goel read into the record the following comments: Dear Dublin Planning Commissioners, rono4gt O PPr0'tn, ihtnfie-.S;201 Kfi ulJ-'Vet ryJ . + I am unable to make the meeting tonight (October 27, 2015) regarding the Schaefer Ranch General Plan Amendment as noted above 1 know that you all understand that my failure to be at your meetings or for that matter the failure of others is not an implied consent or an agreement with the proponents or the Staff. I have appeared for over 25 years before the Council and Commission and in that context, have gained an appreciation for the processes involved in land use decision making So as to this particular proposal, to convert 6 Estate Residential lots to 18 residential lots and create a 19th lot on a different street which are not currently vested is inappropriate given the overdevelopment which, as a matter of fact, not opinion, exists in our City today As you all know there are just under nine thousand units planned but not built here in Dublin. This proposal confers absolutely no significant benefits to the local community or the city in general and burdens the current Schaeffer residents with over development. Considering overdevelopment: Where is the established need and where is the benefit conferred to anyone other than those who will benefit by selling more homes? There are only burdens. .. . .no significant benefits with this proposal that appear in the Staff Report For example- 19 units added give a benefit to the builder not the City as it is below the20 unit threshold for acquiring a payment in lieu fee for such projects as the Public Art Fund, affordable housing and some other factors that I am sure I am not considering at the present time Another example Open space is not increased by 10 acres but shifted to an area that is not available to the public That is really a burden, as someone will have the burden of care and the public gets nothing of value Increasing open space in Schaefer Ranch is a falsehood and in my opinion, a misrepresentation of fact Over my 25 years of participating and viewing the many projects before this City I have read many detailed Staff reports The staff IS comprised with professionals it is true, but I have noted on numerous occasions in the past 25 years errors, failures of understanding, and even inappropriate bias in their reports You should understand that this is true for other cities too, as well as for other professions In particular I can factually document many of the errors and biases over this 25 year time period as well as very good reporting by the Staff which is not important at to this matter however In my opinion, professional reports in general, such as Staff Reports should never be accepted but instead should read for information and analysis only. In this particular case, the Staff recommends approval In my opinion this particular Staff recommendation is inappropriate; it is for the Commission to advice and Council to make that decision Staff should remain neutral in this case particularly where the observable burdens outweigh the benefits Please deny and read this email into your record or include as an exhibit Thank you, David Bewley I respectfully request the planning commission not approve any non-vested projects proposed this evening There is absolutely NO benefit to our city from these projects Why is staff recommending approval of this project? The staff report identifies no benefits to the city, yet staff recommends approval I believe our city Staff should remain neutral on projects and )'(mrp{(eThet!"'" O.m0er2i,01 Ngu/af 14fU q,g i'uyr a: not try to tip the scales in favor of more development when residents everywhere are complaining about excessive growth, terrible traffic, and overcrowded schools Respectfully, Kerrie Chabot, 16 year resident Task Force Committee appointee Please vote NO tonight on the Schaefer Ranch rezone a parcel to homes. Let me repeat that- Please vote NO! My family moved to Dublin in 2003 with cows behind our home and the expectation of always having a seat in an "uncrowded"public school classroom whether there were homes behind us or cows in the future. I have seen our tremendous growth in the Bay Area --especially those who work in Silicon Valley. I recognize that Dublin is an affordable place for newcomers who commute from here by car or train -- or who work here But in good conscience, can you really feel like you are doing a new Dublin resident a favor if you give them a home and then force their kids and veteran Dublin residents into an overcrowded classroom? My family feels that the explosive (and irresponsible) growth and poor planning to align educational needs with a growing population for our city makes those of us who selected Dublin years ago feel like Dublin has done a "bait and switch" on us Our family is now actually considering a plan to leave here before our younger kids reach high school I'm sure we will have no trouble selling our home to another person who is unaware of the grave state our city has come to with lack of planning for growth, I feel sad for people buying a new home not knowing the details behind the community that they are Joining --one that is making overcrowding the "new normal" Not only that that, they might come to sense their presence is less welcoming with every new tract of homes your planning commission forces through -Dr Sharon Marts, EdD Gleneagles Dublin Ranch Neighborhood Doug Chen, Discovery Buildings, Applicant, indicated he was available to answer questions. Cm. Mittan asked about the Applicant's conversation with DUSD regarding the impact of the proposed project to the school district Mr. Chen stated that there was an agreement with DUSD before Schaefer Ranch Holdings purchased the property They have continued to amend that agreement to include higher levels of fees that were previously agreed to. He stated that there are three tiers to the school fees based on the number of units (1-150 units, 151-300 units, and 301+ units) and they are currently paying the highest fee. Cm. Mittan asked if the calculation of .6 students per household was used in their agreement Mr Chen stated that, regardless of what the calculation is, they agreed to pay fees at the higher density tier. Yurifling Lorr/LLU,ni, Orfoherli,2015 `100L1 Minn,/ ,'uYe I Fa Cm Bhuthimethee felt that all previous benefits were negotiated for other parts of the Schaefer Ranch and asked if there have been any new benefits negotiated for the proposed project Mr. Chen answered that during the discussion of fees for building the School of Imagination and dedicating additional open space, it was always contemplated that they would be adding more units, and as more units are added there would be additional fees. Chair Goel stated that he will ask the questions brought up by the public and asked the Applicant to respond He asked if the 6 estate units planned were considered vested. Mr. Chen responded that the 6 estate units were vested under the first final map. He stated that a lot of those areas are sloped and therefore not buildable. He was concerned that the current residents have built onto those slopes with hardscape and landscape features. He felt it was reasonable to reduce the estate residential acreage to 7.04 acres of single-family residential because the building pads for those 6 estate homes have already been created; there will be no more grading of the slope. He stated that those same building pads will now accommodate 19 single-family homes Chair Goel asked about shared driveways and line of site that was mentioned by one of the speakers Mr. Chen stated that those driveways were designed by a licensed civil engineer, as well as extensive review by Public Works and the Fire Department to ensure that the access is within the grading tolerance for the fire access requirement. He stated that there is a preliminary grading plan in the Staff Report that shows driveway slopes which was reviewed by Public Works and the Fire Department. Chair Goel asked about the Applicant's motivation to eliminate the estate homes when there are few homes of that type within Dublin. Mr Chen responded that they did a market analysis and it was determined that there is currently no market for estate homes in the area. He stated that the price is already high for the single- family homes, and estate homes would be far more expensive and would limit affordability to a select few. Chair Goel asked Mr Chen to address the comments regarding the community benefit Mr. Chen felt they have worked extensively with the City in providing parcels within Schaefer Ranch for semi-public use when they were previously zoned for commercial use; they built the School of Imagination on one parcel, which is definitely a benefit for the community and parcel K remains semi-public and will be put to use at some point in the future, the contribution to the Heritage Park, the 10 acre parcel of open space in the proposed project; the EBRPD staging area and the trails that have been built. He stated that Schaefer Ranch is approximately 500 acres and they can build 474 homes with approximately 300 acres set aside for open space They also purchased another 250 acres for conservation research. He felt that they have provided sufficient benefits to the community He stated that not all open space parcels are open for public use but there are trails throughout the open space and the remaining open space is set aside as conservation easement for biological resources. He stated that the general public cannot access those parcels but setting aside parcels for biological resources is still considered a benefit to the overall community. ,, ,, n,bIM1CT1I Yn; Chair Goel closed the public hearing. Cm. Bhuthimethee was concerned about adding more units and how that would benefit the community. She stated that projects are reviewed, not just for how they will affect the immediate community, but for all of Dublin She stated that, in reviewing the staff report, she felt that there was not a lot of reason to approve it She felt that there should be estate residential in Dublin and that this was an appropriate place for it She felt that there is a lot of merit in designating open space as biological resources, however, with estate residential she felt it was unlikely that the homeowners would develop the entire parcel because some of it would not be buildable and would remain open space. She suggested that the City Council take into account the Statement of Overriding Considerations when reviewing the project. She stated that after reading the staff report she did not review the project plans and felt that the project was not worth it Cm Mittan felt that the homes seemed generic and had a problem with the design because he wants Dublin to hold the builders to a higher standard of quality. He felt that Dublin is lacking in estate homes and just by calling them "estate homes" does not make them mansions He felt that a 4,000-5,000 square foot home is not out of the question for the area. He asked for the size of the largest home in Schaefer Ranch. Mr Porto answered that the largest home in Schaefer Ranch is approximately 5,000 square feet. Cm. Mittan felt that a 5,000 square foot home is an estate home. Cm Bhuthimethee stated that Mr Porto mentioned that there would be the possibility of a much larger home on the estate parcels Cm Mittan felt that Dublin needs more estate type homes but that the developer would rather build smaller single-family homes that will sell more quickly, than hold on to property indefinitely. He felt that the community wants diversity in the home stock and that Dublin does not have it at that end of the market. Chair Goel was concerned with the increased liability and risk on existing community members regarding CHAD and felt they may not understand the significant burden to them. He felt that open space should add a natural resource or a human benefit, but that is not the case in the project. He felt that there would be an additional burden on the schools and that even though the developer had conversations with DUSD in the past, things have drastically changed He stated that he could be in support of the project if the developer stayed with the 6 estate units He was concerned with the affordable housing and public art issue with only 19 homes in this project and felt that the public comment was clear about that He stated that he respects and understands the various contributions made by the developer in the past, but today is now. He felt that estate homes would be welcome and might also provide an opportunity for some custom homes in Dublin On a motion by Cm Chair Goel and seconded by Cm Bhuthimethee, on a vote of 3-0-2, with Vice Chair Kohli and Cm Do being absent, the Planning Commission denied xi,�uLr icgr , °P Ms. Faubion stated that it would be helpful if the Planning Commission provided some guidance to the City Council stating the main reasons for not recommending the project, which are: 1) Lack of community benefit; 2) Maintain a diversity of housing types, 3) The potential effects on the GHAD; 4) Times have changed since the developer made the agreement with DUSD, and 5) No affordable housing or public art benefit. Ms. Faubion stated that Staff will prepare a resolution for the City Council indicating that the Planning Commission recommends denial of all 4 actions. RESOLUTION NO. 15-13 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL NOT APPROVE THE GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REZONE WITH RELATED STAGE 1 AND STAGE 2 DEVELOPMENT PLAN, SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW, VESTING TENTATIVE MAP AND CEQA ADDENDUM FOR SCHAEFER RANCH UNIT 3 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). 10 2 Chair Goel mentioned a memo from Ms. Faubion regarding the City's Ex-Parte Communication Policy and asked if she would be providing instructions. Ms. Faubion stated that she anticipated having a brief presentation as a part of the appeal of Grafton Plaza Tentative Parcel Map at the November 10, 2015 Planning Commission meeting. Mr. Baker stated that if the Planning Commissioners have questions about the policy then they should talk about because it addresses their interactions in advance of that meeting. Ms Faubion gave a brief overview of the City's Ex-Parte Communication Policy. ADJOURNMENT — The meeting was adjourned at 8:13 32 PM Respectfully submitted, 2 PI ning Commiss - •ir ATTEST Jeff Baker Assistant Community Development Director G IMINUTES120151PLANNING COMMISSIOM102715 FINAL PC MINUTES(CF)docx 1Yammm C nmmunon Ot«,fin it,201• BrquIv•Hahn,; %,(e 1 01