Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Agenda Statement 10-29-1992AGENDA STATEMENT PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING DATE: OCTOBER 29, 1992 SUBJECT: PREPARED BY: ATTACHMENTS: RECOMMENDATION: Staff Responses to Remaining Comments on the Draft GPA; and Staff Responses to Comments on the Eastern Dublin Draft Specific Plan - Part I Brenda A. Gillarde, Project Coordinator A. Letter from Hallgrimson, McNichols, McCann & Inderbitzen, dated October 16, 1992 1. Letter from Allwin Development Corporation, 8/18/92 2. Letter from Allwin Development Corporation, 10/8/92 3. Letter from Stedman & Associates, 10/14/92 1. Hear Staff presentation 2. Discuss responses and related issues 3. Provide direction to Staff per the Commission Action section contained in the agenda statement 4. Continue meeting to November 2, 1992 FINANCIAL STATEMENT: None BAC3013,OUND,; Fourteen letters containing over 200 comments were received on the Eastern Dublin Draft Specific Plan. Staff will provide responses to these comments for the Planning Commission's consideration at this and subsequent meetings. Because of the number of comments and the short time frame between Commission meetings it is not possible for Staff to provide responses to all of the comments at one time. Therefore, the responses will be provided to the Commission in "batches". Each batch will be contained in an agenda statement with the appropriate date and the nomenclature "Part I, Part II," and so forth. The first batch contains letters from representatives for the Pao Lin property (Allwin Development Corporation and Stedman & Associates). Also included in the first batch are four comments from the attorney representing Mr. Ted Fairfield which deal with the Draft General Plan Amendment. The final version of the draft comments submitted October 15 were not received in time to include in the previous, October 21 agenda statement. The Commission can consider them now and direct Staff accordingly. ISSUES: The following section contains Staff responses to written comments received on the Eastern Dublin Draft General Plan Amendment (GPA) and Draft Specific Plan. Each comment is paraphrased and is followed by a staff recommendation/ 1 explanation. The numbers in the left hand column refer the reader to the actual wording of the comment in the attached letters. Required action by the Planning Commission is indicated by bold typeface. Any direction given by the Commission should be done by straw vote since the public comment period on the Draft FIR remains open. A. Letter from FIallgyimson, McNichols, McCann & Inderbitzen. dated October 16. 1992 (NOTE: These comments pertain to the General Plan Amendment) A-1 Comment: Modify the land use category "Rural Residential" to "Rural Residential/Open Space." (Refer to letter for actual wording of proposed map and text modifications.) Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends modifying the text as proposed in Letter A. Staff acknowledges that the proposed modification would clarify and strengthen the open space uses associated with the rural residential category. Commission Action Rewired: Direct Staff, by straw vote, whether to modify the text as recommended by Staff. A-2 Comment: Revise the text under the category "Open Space" on page 9 of the Draft Specific Plan. (Refer to letter for actual wording of proposed text Modification.) Staff Recommendation: Staff recom mends modifying the text as proposed in Letter A, with the exception of the second sentence which should be deleted: "Open space shall ultimately be publically owned." Public ownership of all open space lands may not be feasible. Staff believes this statement would place an unrealistic mandate on the City to make all open space land public -owned. Commission Action Required: Direct Staff, by straw vote, whether to modify the text as recommended by Staff. A-3 Comment: A new policy should be added to each of the existing General Plan open space categories. (Refer to letter for actual wording of proposed policy.) Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends incorporating the proposed policy as an open space goal. This goal would be placed under the General Plan heading 3.0: LAND USE AND CIRCULATION SECTION: PARKS AND OPEN SPACE ELEMENT. This would avoid unnecessary duplication in the document. Commission Action Reouired: Direct Staff, by straw vote, whether to modify the text as recommended by Staff. 2 A-4 Comment: Combine the text in the following sections with the policies for western Dublin: 3.1, 3.2, 7.1, 7.2, 8.2.3. Staff Recommendation: These comments are addressed in the October 29 Planning Commission agenda statement with the exception of 7.1. Staff recommends no change to this policy. Policy 7.1 protects riparian vegetation. This section was modified for western Dublin only. Discussion regarding the rationale for keeping eastern and western Dublin policies separate is discussed in the October 29 agenda statement. Commission Action Required: Direct Staff, by straw vote, whether to modify the text, or leave it unchanged, as recommended by Staff. - END OF GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT COMMENTS 3 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS EASTERN DUBLIN DRAFT SPECIFIC PLAN PART I • October 29, 1992 1. Letter from Allwin Development Corporation. dated August 18. 1992 1-1 Com ment: The high school should be relocated westerly to front both Tassajara Road and Seventh Street for several reasons including traffic, land use compatibility and school siting criteria. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that the high school remain as currently shown on the draft land use map (Figure 4.1, Draft Specific Plan). As the Commission is aware, considerable discussion has ensued during the Eastern Dublin planning process regarding the location of the high school. During the last series of public workshops in 1991, an informal consensus of the City Council and the Planning Com mission was that the high school should be located away from the major intersection of Tassajara and Gleason to avoid direct access onto Tassajara which could pose safety hazards for students and pass -through motorists. The school would still have access from a major arterial - Gleason Road. The letter states that single family adjacent to a high school is not compatible. Staff believes that with proper siting, the high school can be a compatible neighbor. Review of Figure 4.1 shows that an open space corridor will buffer the east side of the school from the adjacent residential area; on the north side proper siting of buildings could effectively screen any undesirable uses from the adjacent neighborhood. Locating the school close to residential neighborhoods also has the advantage of encouraging students to walk or bike to school rather than arriving by car. The letter further states that local and state criteria favor siting high schools at the intersection of major streets. Review of the "School Site Selection and Approval Guide" prepared by the California State Department of Education in 1989 reveals no such criteria. The Guide does list twelve general criteria including safety, soils, topography, accessibility, cost and others. Consultation with the Livermore School District indicated that the District relies heavily on the State School Site Guide. In the District's view, locating a high school on a major arterial can create problems due to the heavy volume of unexperienced drivers (i.e. student drivers) entering and exiting the canipus. The District prefers to see high schools located in mixed -use commercial/residential areas close to, but not directly on, major arterial streets. Finally, it should be noted that the ultimate selection of a high school site is made by the California State Board of Education at the time a school district comes forward with a development proposal. 4 Commission Action Reqpir' ed: Direct Staff, by straw vote, on whether the high school location should be modified, or remain unchanged as recommended by Staff. 1-2 Comment: The general commercial land use designation on Figure 4.1 should be extended to the eastern edge of the Pao Lin property to aecom modate major retailers. Staff Recommendgion: Staff recommends that the general commercial designation on the Pao Lin property not be extended and remain as shown on Figure 4.1 in the Draft Specific Plan. The mix of general commercial and other commercial uses has been carefully balanced throughout the specific plan planning area. The plan already contains more than four times the amount of retail commercial recom mended by the fiscal studies prepared for the project. This was in response to the desire to provide an ample market for this type of development. The general retail land uses have been located to take advantage of freeway frontage and access from existing interchanges. The Pao Lin property currently shows general retail uses on the western half of the property. The remainder is designated campus office which could include corporate office headquarters. The amount of acreage in each category is sufficient to provide ample development opportunities for the property owner. There is no demonstrated need to provide additional general retail space in this location. Commission Action Required: Direct Staff, by straw vote, on whether the general retail area on the Pao Lin property should be modified or remain unchanged, as recommended by Staff. 1-3 Comment: The small public parks located within the high density areas should be removed and included as private open space within future residential development projects. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that the public parks remain as shown on Figure 4.1 in the Draft Specific Plan. These parks will provide public gathering places for local residents. Rather than enclosing the space within the residential developments and isolating neighborhood residents from each other, the parks are placed in public locations to provide a community focal point. The parks will be about two acres in size and would have both passive and active facilities such as picnic tables, a tot lot, a basketball court and so forth. Because these areas will be in full view of adjacent residences, neighbors can "keep an eye on each other" and will also have an attractive green space to view from their apartment windows. Commission Action Requfred: Direct Staff, by straw vote, on whether the parks should be deleted, or remain unchanged as recommended by Staff. 1-4 Comment: The grid -street pattern in the Town Center area should be changed to allow more flexibility. 5 Staff Recommendation: This comment is addressed under 2-1 in the following section. 2. Letter from Allwin Development Corporation. dated October 8. 1992 2-1 Comment: The straight grid -street pattern will create endless blocks of housing with the same setbacks, and visually boring streetscape. This street pattern should be eliminated and the Plan should permit curvilinear streets, buildings oriented inward and private open spaces. Staff Recommendation; Staff recommends that the grid -street pattern in the Town Center remain as shown in Figure 4.1 of the Draft Specific Plan. Staff supports the grid -street pattern for the following reasons: a) The Town Center (east and west of Tassajara) has been carefully structured to enhance neighborhood character, community interaction and pedestrian safety/orientation. It has been specifically designed to discourage high speed through traffic. Thus large, high -volume streels through the Town Center are not necessary. b) The grid -pattern design has a higher capacity than its four -lane counterpart, because it disperses traffic over a greater number of streets, rather than concentrating it on a few. Because travel speeds are slower and street widths narrower, the grid -pattern is conducive to pedestrian activity. c) High volume roads for pass -through travellers are provided on either side of the Town Center: Gleason on the north (four lanes) and Dublin Boulevard on the south (six lanes). The presence of these roads in addition to the numerous two lane streets throughout the Town Center eliminates the need for four lane arterials through the Town Center area. In response to design concerns, the Town Center residential area does not require identical development patterns cind does not present endless blocks of undifferentiated development, as shown below: a) There are at least three types of residential densities designated for the area. b) Residential areas are divided into a number of neighborhood "subunits", each focused around a neighborhood square. These subunits are generally four blocks or less in width and punctuated by public parks, schools, open space corridors and com mercial areas. e) Streetscapes would include ample landscaping, perhaps lamp posts or other features which would make it an attractive pedestrian environment. Housing units fronting onto the street will also create a connection between the street and the buildings, thus making the streetscape part of the neighborhood rather than having it separate neighbors. 6 Commission Action Rewired: Direct Staff, by straw vote, whether to modify the street patter, or leave it unchanged, as recommended by Staff. 2-2 Comment: a) Traffic should be directed to high volume streets; b) traffic should be minimized in residential areas; c) the transit spine should be four lanes; d) Tassajara should be built to eight lanes between 1-580 and Dublin Boulevard and six lanes from Dublin Boulevard and Gleason Road; and e) the two north/south streets shown in the Town Center (see Figure 5.1) should be four lanes not two lanes. Staff Recp_m mendation: Staff recommends that the Specific Plan not be modified except to indicate right-of-way for six lanes on Tassajara Road through the Town Center. This would require modification to Figure 5.1 and associated text. Items 2-2-a. br c and e: The applicant is requesting that two four lane arterials be constructed within the heart of the town center (refer to the illustrated figure attached to letter 2-2) and that the transit spine be increased to four lanes. This configuration would dissect the Town Center into four quadrants, separated by high volume streets. This pattern of streets would seriously disrupt the pedestrian orientation of the Town Center, as four -lane high volume streets discourage pedestrian crossings, strolling along adjacent sidewalks, window shopping and outdoor dining. (For additional discussion of street patterns, refer to Response to Comment 2-1 above.) Item 2-2-d.: The Draft Specific Plan designates right-of-way for eight lanes on Tassajaro between 1-580 and Dublin Boulevard and six lanes on Tassajara between Dublin Boulevard and Gleason Road except in the Town Center (refer to Figure 5.1). The need to construct these roads to the ultimate width represented by the right-of-ways would only be required when cumulative development to the north of the project site (i.e. Dougherty and Tassajara Valleys) is built out. Until such time, Tassajara can adequately accommodate buildout of eastern Dublin with four lanes from the County line south to Dublin Boulevard, where six lanes would be required. The issue of expanding the right-of-way on Tassajara to six lanes in the Town Center was discussed at the last Planning Com mission meeting. Constructing Tassajara to six lanes in the Town Center would occonimoda.te future cumulative traffic whereas the four -lane configuration currently proposed by the Specific Plan would create undesirable service levels at several intersections which could not be mitigated. It should be kept in mind that the cumulative development scenario assumes full buildout of Dougherty and Tassajara Valleys which may or may not occur. Construction of six lanes through the Town Center, while accommodating future cumulative traffic beyond the Year 2010, would have substantial land use implications for the Town Center. As discussed, a six -lane thoroughfare would essentially bisect the Town Center and separate eastern Dublin into a west and east side. Pedestrian travel along or across a six -lane road would be severely limited due to high traffic volumes and safety concerns. 7 Commission Action Required: Direct Staff, by straw vote, 1) whether to modify the Town Center street system as proposed in Items 2-2-a, b, c and e, or leave it unchanged as recommended by Staff; and 2) whether to modify the right-of-way on Tassajara to show six lanes in the Town Center area, as recommended by Staff. 3. Letter from Stedman & Associates. dated October 14, 3992 The comments from this letter have been grouped by topic to avoid repetition of Staff responses and facilitate referencing of statements made about a particular concern. FORM 3-1 Comment: Delete the entire section entitled "FORM," Section 7.1.1, page 79 of the Draft Specific Plan and replace with wording which would support the illustrated site plan attached to the letter. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends retaining this section as currently shown in the plan. Deletion of this section and replacement with wording which supports the applicant's illustrated site plan would conflict with the basic design premise for the Town Center which is to encourage pedestrian activity and direct traffic flow to the edges of the area. The applicant's plan would funnel high volumes of traffic through the Town Center commercial area and would divide the Town Center into isolated quadrants, disconnected from each other and the core commercial area. While Staff does recommend against this modification, Staff does recommend some modifications to other design guidelines to create additional flexibility for building setbacks, entries and orientation. Commission Action Required: Direct Staff, by straw vote, whether to modify the text under FORM in Section 7.1.1, or leave it unchanged, as recommended by Staff. 3-2 Comment: Change the maximum building height in the Town Center from three to four stories to increase design flexibility. (Section 7.1.1 "BUILDING HEIGHT", page 80) Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends retaining the maximum building height as three stories. Increasing the maximum height of buildings from three stories (40 feet) to four stories (55 feet) would erode the pedestrian scale and character of the Town Center Neighborhood Commercial area. A forty -foot maximum would adequately accom modate the kinds of convenience commercial uses intended for this section of the Town Center. These uses include drug stores, cleaners, bookstores, specialty retail, cafes and restaurants, and so forth. 8 Larger scaled buildings, up to six stories, are designated along Tassajara Road where access would be primarily by automobile and pedestrian usage is not such a high priority. Commission Action Required: Direct Staff, by straw vote, whether to modify the maximum building height from three to four stories, or leave it unchanged, as recommended by Staff. 3-7 Comment: Delete the paragraphs under FORM, Section 7.1.2, page 88 and replace with wording to encourage the illustration attached to the applicant's letter. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends retaining the language as it presently appears in the Draft Specific Plan. The language in this section pertains to the grid -type street pattern in the Town Center. For additional discussion of the grid -type street pattern, refer to Responses to Comments 2-1 and 3-3. Commission Action Required: Direct Staff, by straw vote, whether to modify the Specific Plan text under FORM in Section 7.1.2, or leave it unchanged, as recom mended by Staff. 3-11 Cornmeal. Delete the entire text in Section 7.1.2, page 89 under AUTO CIRCULATION because it violates current General Plan policy 5.1 I. Replace with wording which would support the applicant's proposed land use scheme. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends retaining the text as it presently appears in the Draft Specific Plan. For an explanation of Staff's position, refer to Response to Comment 3-3. Commission Action Required: Direct Staff, by straw vote, whether to modify the text, or leave it unchanged, as recom mended by Staff. 3-12 Comment; Delete reference to the grid pattern in Section 7.1.2, page 89 under PEDESTRIAN/BICYCLE CIRCULATION. Staff Recom mendation: Staff recom mends retaining the text as it presently appears in the Draft Specific Plan. Retaining the text is consistent with the pedestrian -oriented grid street pattern in the Specific Plan. Commission Action Required: Direct Staff, by straw vote, whether to modify the text, or leave it unchanged, as recommended by Staff. TOWN CENTER CONCEPT PLAN 3-3 Comment: Delete the Town Center Concept Plan (Figure 7.1, page 83) and replace with a scheme which reflects the applicant's illustrated site plan. 9 Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends 1) retaining Figure 7.1 in the Draft Specific Plan as it currently appears; and 2) modifying the iext on page 79 to further reinforce that the site plan is illustrative only and does not require subsequent development plans to replicate the layout portrayed in Figure 7.1. The applicant makes several arguments against the layout scheme envisioned by the Specific Plan; Staff has responded to each one below: Item 3-3-1: The grid -type street pattern does not violate eurcht general plan policy. The policy referred to is Policy 5.1 I which states "Prevent misuse of neighborhood collector streets by through traffic" (Dublin General Plan, page 21). The grid -type pattern proleel s neighborhoods from through traffic because most of the streets are two lanes and would attract local residential and commercial traffic, not high volume, i °ugh truffle. Through traffic would be attracted to the high -volume arterials which run parallel to the Town Center Neighborhood Commercial area (Gleason Road - four lanes; and Dublin Boulevard - six lanes). This type of traffic would not be attracted to two-lane streets because of their size and slower traffic speeds. Item 3-3-2: The blocks are the size of average residential blocks found in mid -size communities such as Walnut Creek, Los Altos and Palo Alto. Densities are varied which will result in different types of housing products throughout the residential section of the Town Center, A six foot planting strip is required as part of the street right-of-way and another fifteen foot landscaped setback is required along residential streets (Draft Specific Plan, page 112). This will result in ample, and quite lush landscaping along the residential blocks in the Town Center. Item 3-3-3: The Draft Specific Plan eneourage;1 balconies to be included as part of the architecture for residential structures. Patios could also be designed for either tlie front or rear of buildings. The Plan does emphasize an outward orientation to create a better sense of corn:nullity, versus the "walled effect" of having all the buildings oriented inward. Item 3-3-4: Refer to Response to Comment 2-2 regurding the sizing of streets throughout the Town Center. Commission Action Rewired: Direct Staff, by straw vote, whether to modify the Town Center Concept Plan as requested by the applicant, or leave it unchanged, as recommended by Staff. ENTRIES 3-4 Comment: The caption under Figure 7.8, page 86 should be changed to allow for entries from the rear and sides of buildings. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that the wording be changed to state that entries should generally be located on the fronts of buildings but that side or rear entries are acceptable. 10 Commi&5ion Action Reouired: Direct Staff, by straw vote, whether to modify the language as recommended by Staff. 3-9 Comment: Delete the text in Section 7.1.2, page 89 under ENTRIES and replace with wording that promotes flexibility in locating entries. Staff ecommendation: Staff recommends retaining the text as it presently appears in the Draft Specific Plan. The language pertaining to entries in Town Center Residential does not preclude entries from the side or rear of buildings. It does encourage front entries to maintain a connection to the streetscape. 3-16 Com ment: Delete Figure 7.22, page 91 which requires all entries from the street. Staff Reom mendation;. Staff recommends retaining Figure 7.22 as it presently appears in the Draft Specific Plan and adding the word "generally" to the caption underneath. This figure does not preclude entrances from other locations. See Response to Comment 3-4, Commission Action Required: Direct Staff, by straw vote, whether to retain the figure and modify the text as recommended by Staff. 3-17 Comment: Delete Figure 7.24, page 91 which depicts huilding orientation relative to the street. Staff Record mendation: Staff recommends retaining Figure 7.24 as it presently uppeurs in the Draft Specific Plan. The figure refers to the location of balconies, porches and windows for better neighborhood security and connection with the streetscape. It does not require buildings to front onto 1 he street. Commission Actioal,equired: Direct Staff, by straw vote, whether to delete the figure, or leave it unchanged, as recommended by Staff. PARKING 3-5 Com ment: On -street parking on the transit spine should be removed; turnouts at intersections should be provided for buses (Figure 7.10, page 86). Staff Recom mendation: Staff recom mends retaining parking on the Transit Spine. The Plan currently L:hollis turnouts at intersections for buses (refer to Figures 7.44 and 7.45). Parking on the sire allows shoppers to park near the commercial buildings they wiEl to visit. The elimination of all on -street parking would discourage small businesses from locating in this area. As stated previons3y, the Transit Spine is not intended as a high volume thoroughfare through the Town 11 Center. Traffic desiring to get through this area quickly would take either Dublin Boulevard or Gleason Road. pmmission Action Required: Direct Staff, by straw vote, whether to modify the parking on the Transit Spine, or leave it unchanged, as recommended by Staff. 3-40 Comment: Delete text in Section 7.1.2, page 89, under PARKING that pertains to mid -block alley access, sett for garages and depressed parking structures. Stuff Recommendation: Staff recommends retaining the text as it presently appears in the Draft Specific Plan. The language pertaining to parking areas provides important guidance for an area that is often an afterthought and not well integrated into the residential design of a project. Staff believes that the language allows for sufficient flexibility and does not unduly restrict parking area locations. Commission Action Ecquired: Direct Staff, by straw vote, whether to modify the text, or leave it unchanged, vS Pecom mended by Staff. SETBACKS 3-6 Comment: Delete the require m ea for 18' sidewalks. Require 12' setbacks; additional setbacks should be required for businesses desiring sidewalk displays or eating areas (Figure 7.13, page 87). Staff Re_coip Rendation: Staff recommends retaining the 18' sidewalk setback requirement. This setback only applies to the area adjacent to the transit spine. Because of the emphasis on pedestrian movement in this Eo1flolt of the Town Center, ample setbacks arc necessary to provide such items as street furniture, areas for outdoor dining, special merchandising placards and transit shelters. Commission Action RequireDirect Staff, by straw vote, whether to modify the setback requitement, or leave it uncl longed, as recommended by Staff. 3-8 Comment: Modify Section 7.1.2, page 88 to allow for varied setbacks, to reduce the amount of landscaped and building setbacks and to delete the requirement regarding building orientation. Staff Recomytendation: Staff recommends the following revisions to page 88 of the Draft Specific Plan: a) Revise text under BUILDINGSITING, to delete the word "uniform." Add text stating that internal orientation could be acceptable as long as buildings do not back onto the street. b) Revise the first bullet tinder Setbacks to replace the 15' minimum setback with a setback range of 10' to 20' maximum. 12 c) Revise the third bullet under Setbacks to replace the requirement for a 60' setback with wording that ensures adequate setbacks to protect residents from undesirable noise levels due to arterial traffic. d) Revise the fourth bullet under Setbacks to replace the requirement for a 90 degree orientation with wording that ensures buildings are oriented so that they do not front on high volume, arterial streets. Commission Action Rewired: Direct Staff, by straw vote, whether to modify the text as recommended by Staff. 3-14 Comment: Change the setback requirements in Figure 7.16, page 90 to require a 10' setback, rather than a 15' setback. Staff Recommendation:. Staff recommends modifying the figure to indicate a range of 10'-20' feet for the setback. Commission Action Reouired: Direct Staff, by straw vote, whether to modify Figure 7.16 as recommended by Staff. Commission Action Required: Direct Staff, by straw vote, whether to modify the text, or leave it tmehanged, as recommended by Staff. 3-15: Comment: Change the setback requirement from 60' to 25' in Figure 7.17, page 90. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends modifying the caption under Figure 7.17 to state that setbacks be of sufficient width to protect residents from undesirable arterial traffic noise. Commission Action Rewired: Direct Staff, by straw vote, whether to modify the text as recommended by Staff. 3-18 Cornmeal Section 7.5.2, page 107 under TRANSIT SPINE, to change the 18' setback to 12' and delete the third bullet stipulating 8' for parallel parking. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends retaining the text as it presently appears in the Draft Specific Plan. For further discussion of why sufficient sidewalk setbacks and parking are required along the Transit Spine, refer to Responses to Com ments 3-5 and 3- 6. Commission Action Rewired: Direct Staff, by straw vote, whether to modify the text, or leave it unchanged, as recommended by Staff. 3-19 Cornmeal Modify Figure 7.44, page 110 to change the setback to 12', eliminate parking, provide four lanes and turnouts for transit buses. Staff Recommendation; Staff recommends retaining the figure as it presently appears in the Draft Specific Plan. 13 For further explanation of Staff's position on these issues refer to Responses to Comments 3-5, 3-6, 2-2. Commission Action Rewired: Direct Staff, by straw vote, whether to modify the figure, or leave it unchanged, as recommended by Staff. PARKS 3-13 Cornmeal. Delete the text relating to neighborhood squares in Section 7.1.2, page 89 under OPEN SPACE AND PUBLIC FACILITIES. Staff Recommendation: Staff' recom mends retaining the text as it presently appears in the Draft Specific Plan. For an explanation of Staff's position on this issue, refer to Response to Comment 1-3. Commission Action Required: Direct Staff, by straw vote, whether to modify the text, or leave it unchanged, as recommended by Staff. RECOMMENDATION: L Hear Staff presentation 2. Discuss the Commission actions in the agenda statement; ask Staff questions 3. Direct Staff, by straw vote, on the various Com mission Actions 4. Continue the meeting to November 1, 1992. s/edoct29 14 I aw Offices of Hallgrimson, McNichols, McCann & lnderbitzen P.O. Box 10189 5000 Hopyard Road, Suite 400 Pleasanton, California 94588-0189 Telephone 510 460 3700 Facsimile 510 460 0969 File No.: Reply To: Pleasanton October 16, 1992 Laurence Tong Planning Director City of Dublin P.O. Box 2340 Dublin, CA 94568 Stephen L.R. McNichols, Jr. Steven L. Haltgrirnson William D. McCann Eric Wong Martin W. lnderbitzen Howard S. Miller Kevin W. Wheelwright Harvey E. Levine Steven M. Fleisher Ronald I. Rainey Nickolas P. Tooliatos II Of Counsel: Wm. H. Gale, Jr. Michael E. Kyle Mark L. Hirsch Nancy L. Brandt Celine Ellett Duke William F. Burns Lawrence R. Jensen Phillip G. Vermont Christopher D.A. Meidl Pamela A. Lewis Claudia J. Martin Mark K. Smallhouse Mark Makiewicz RECEIVED OCT 16 1992 DUBLIN PLANNING RE: EAST DUBLIN SPECIFIC PLAN PROPOSED AMENDMENTS Dear Larry: This letter and the attachments to it are by way of follow-up to Ted Fairfield's correspondence of early September commenting on the East Dublin General Plan and Specific Plan documents, and a conversation which you subsequently had with Rod Andrade. It is my understanding that you suggested to Rod it would be helpful for the City if we were to provide specific language changes to the documents which we felt would be more consistent with both the spirit and intent of the Specific Plan/General Plan documents and our proposed development plans. I have taken the liberty therefore to propose specific language changes to various policies and programs which are offered for your consideration. I believe that the language changes are consistent with the spirit and intent of the documents and in many cases are even more consistent than the Draft language. Through the course of the ongoing planning effort in Eastern Dublin, members of our development team have had numerous conversations with your staff and field trips to properties in East Dublin to try to reach a meeting of the minds on how the property might best be developed. While we believe there is a mutual understanding regarding this intent, we find some difficulty with the specific language in the Plan documents. Therefore, the suggested changes. 1in\amendment.tng ATTACHMENT A San Jose Office: 40 S. Market Street, Suite 700, San Jose, California 95113-2303 Telephone 408 275 6600 Facsimile 408 275 0315 Page 2. Thank you in advance for your consideration of these suggestions. Should you require specific clarification or amplification of the suggestions please do not hesitate to contact me. Very truly yours, HALLGRIMSON, McNICHOLS McCANN & INDERBITZE MARTIN W. INDERBITZEN MWI\pc Attachments cc: Ted C. Fairfield Richard Ambrose lin\amendment.tnq o nth ¶, .±Lo: 1.17ttw- EASTERN DUBLIN GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT PROPOSED REVISIONS I. The land use map (Figure 2-B) should be modified so that the category entitled "RR - Rural Residential" one dwelling unit per 100 acres is redesignated to RR/OS - rural residential open space one dwelling unit per 100 acres. The text at page 7 under the category "Residential: Rural Residential (one unit per 100 gross residential acres)" should be deleted. In its place should be substituted the following language: "Rural Residential/Open Space: (one unit per 100 gross residential acres)." The text should read as follows: Rural Residential/Open Space lands are those areas shown as Rural Residential/Open Space on the land use map (Figure 2-B). This designation permits limited development in areas that are intended to remain predominately rural and open space in character due to environmental or aesthetic constraints. The City shall encourage the clustering of residential units on lots of one half acre to five acres in size. The corresponding open space portions of Rural Residential/Open Space land may be either publically or privately owned. However, the City is encouraged to pursue public ownership of the open space portions. The open space areas may be used for agricultural production and grazing, and both passive and active recreational uses consistent with the public health and safety and environmental concerns for the area. II. The text at page 9 under the category "Open Space" should be deleted. In its place should be substituted the following language: "Open Space lands are those areas shown as open space on the land use map (Figure 2-B) and other areas dedicated as open space on subdivision maps. Open space shall ultimately be publically owned. The intent of this provision is to ensure the protection as public open space those areas with -special significance such as areas with slopes over 30%; stream and drainage way protection corridors; woodlands; and visually sensitive ridgelands. The City may allow only open space uses on this land. Equestrian, riding and hiking trails will be encouraged. Other types of recreational uses, agriculatural and grazing may be permitted where appropriate." III. A new policy should be added to each of the categories of Open Space (3.1 for Preservation of Natural Resources and for Public Health and Safety; 3.2 Agricultural Open Space; 3.3 Open Space for Outdoor Recreation). The policy should read as follows: A-1 Preserve open space areas for the protection of public health and safety, the provision of recreational opportunities, and the production of naturail resources. Explore methods of preserving open space npurchase, conservation and scenic easements, transfer of development rights, and special District financing. l Plan IV. General drafting revision obine to he Draft Eastern GDublin policies Amendment for Eastern Dublin is Western Dublin policies where consistent. 2 , This .1,7 r2 vi8si2 n3 • is possible in the following sections: 3.1, ALLWIN URt TEL: (818) 285-9823 TELEX: 4955381 FAX: (818) 285-8146 9657 E. LAS TUNAS DRIVE, TEMPLE CITY, CA 91780 August 18, 1992 Job No. 8089-87-00 Mr. Richard Ambrose City Manager City of Dublin P.O. Box 2340 Dublin, CA 94568 Subject: Pao Lin Property East Dublin Dear Rich: Thank you for meeting with us. We appreciate the time you gave us. It is helpful for us to have your perspective on issues affecting the Pao Lin property. We are pleased that hearings for the General Plan amendment and Specific Plan are scheduled in the tall so that the City Council may adopt both by the end of 1992. As we told you, we feel several changes to the land use plan should be made before adoption. The first change is to the location of the high school site. On figure 4.1 of the Draft Eastern Dublin Specific Plan ("Specified Plan") dated May 27, 1992, the high school site is located east of Tassajara Road fronting on Seventh Street. We believe the high school site should be moved westerly to front both Tassajara Road and Seventh Street for the following reasons: 1. Traffic. The major entrance to the high school site should be at the controlled intersection on Tassajara Road that also serves as the major entrance to the junior high school site. That entrance location requires the least number of turning movements from Tassajara Road to access the high school site minimizes traffic on Seventh Street and reduces air pollution. 2. Land Use. With the high school site located at the ATTACHMENT I Mr. Richard Ambrose City of Dublin August 18, 1992 Job N0. 8089-87-00 Page 2 intersection of Tassajara Road and Seventh Street, the adjacent land use on the north and east boundaries should be the more compatible medium or high density residential rather than single family residential. The noise and general nuisance of high school activity is more readily accepted by residents of medium of high density neighborhoods than by residents of single family neighborhoods. 3. School Siting Criteria. State and local school. district criteria should be the basis for siting the high school. It is our belief those criteria will favor siting of the high school at the intersection of Tassajara Road and Seventh Street as we propose. The second change is to the land use designation for the area between Dublin Blvd. and I-580. On figure 4.1 of the Specific Plan the General Commercial land use is shown extending easterly of Tassajara Road to approximately the center of the Pao Lin property. We want the General Commercial land use to be extended easterly to the east property lien of the Pao Lin property for the following reasons: 1. To maximize visual exposure of major retailers to I-580 traffic. Large signature type buildings should be located in the northeast quadrant of the Tassajara, I-580 interchange. Major retailers, such as Costco and Walmart, should he located on Pao Lin land further to the east. 2. There is major competition for the major retailers from Livermore and Pleasanton, both of which are changing land use designations along I-580 to accommodate the major retailers. The City of Dublin must have the maximum amount of I-580 frontage area designated for general commercial in order to complete for the major retailers, to attract area - wide consumers and to generate sales tax revenues. The third change is to the four small 1.5-acre public parks located in the medium and high density neighborhoods within the Poa Lin Pao Lin property. Those parks will be maintenance and liability problems for the City. To better serve the people and the City, we want to incorporate those park areas into the private open space areas of the neighborhoods we will create. The fourth change is to the town center area. The straight Mr. Richard Ambrose City of Dublin August 18, 1992 Job No. 8089-87-00 Page 3 streets and rectangular blocks shown on the Specific Plan will result in neighborhoods with similar characteristics to those in older inner cities such as south central Los Angeles. We want a more creative solution to the town center area which emphasizes more curvilinearity or local streets, encourages less and slower traffic, has a softer residential feel and emphasizes security in the residential areas. We will propose a graphic illustration of the town center: area that we envision. The spine street: in the neighborhood commercial area will be very congested with just one travel lane in each direction. We see two travel lanes in each direction. Please review the above concerns with the planning staff and WRT, and incorporate those requested changes into the Specific Plan. We look forward to working with you and your staff to complete the planning process by the end of 1992. Thank you for your consideration and coorperation. Very truly yours, Kenny �r1an cc 3. o0. c m to 0 — G'- g6- - - , �M one a°S ALLWIN_ TEL: (818) 285-9823 TELEX: 4955381 -- FAX: (818) 285-8146 9657 E. LAS 1 UNAS DRIVE, TEMPLE CITY, CA 91780 DATE: 4-uq l c/ 194'2 TO: LCZr-e) 7 - U FILE REFERENCE: ENCLOSURES: PLEASE FILE ANI) RETURN A CONFORMED COPY PLEASE SIGN AND RETURN PLEASE SIGN, HAVE NOTARIZED AND RE:'I'URN PLEASE TELEPHONE ME e\ FOR YOUR REVIEW AND COMME • OTHER: RECEIVED AUG 211992 DUBLIN PLANNING FOR YOUR INFORMATION IN ACCORDANCE WITH YOUR REQUEST PLEASE SIGN AND RETURN ORIGINAL AND COPIES PLEASE KEEP COPIES FOR YOUR FILES PLEASE RETURN COPIES TO ME ALLWIN 0,6 TEL: (818) 285-9823 TELEX: 4955381 FAX: (818) 285-8146 9657 E. LAS TUNAS DRIVE, TEMPLE CITY, CA 91780 October 8, 1992 Dublin Planning Commission City of Dublin 100 Civic Plaza Dublin, CA 94568 Re: Draft Eastern Dublin Specific (Traffic and Circulation) Dear Planning Commissioners: Page 1 of 3 Plan, dated May 27, 1992 The subject Specific Plan has many qualities. Among them are the town center concept, transit spine and residential areas located in close proximity to shopping, employment centers, schools, parks and civic buildings. There are however two Specific Plan design requirements under Traffic and Circulation which are inconsistent with the General Plan that would result in undesirable residential neighborhoods. 1. STRAIGHT STREET IN A SMALL GRID PATTERN. Section 2.1.2.c of the General Plan requires a mixture of dwelling types in large projects. The illustrative plan shows rows after rows of long and endless straight street creating more that 40 small rectangular blocks of housing in the town Center area east of Tassajara Road, each with essentially the same walk-up, constant building setback, visually boring streetscape which will result in sterile, unappealing neighborhoods like those that failed in residential areas all over the United States, especially south central Los Angeles. 2. DISPERSION OF TRAFFIC THROUGH RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOODS. Section 5.1.I of the General Plan requires that neighborhood collector streets are not to be misused by through traffic. The Specific Plan proposes two lanes for the Commercial Transit Spine in the Town Center area east of Tassajara Road. Traffic congestion would be the result even without considering delivery stop, on street parking ATTACHMENT Z. Dublin Planning Commission Page 2 of 3 City of Dublin movement, vehicle breakdown, accident, and etc. The only choice for avoidance of congestion would be to disperse non resident traffic through residential neighborhoods. Those Two design requirements can be easily modified by revising Chapter 7.1.2 of Specific Plan without compromising the overall good objective of creating a Town Center area with housing close to shopping, etc. that encourages pedestrians rather than autos. 1 Eliminate the requirement for straight street in a grid pattern with limitations on the block sizes. Except for the transit spine allow curvilinear streets with various parcel sizes. Encourage flexible, creative neighborhood design that includes buildings oriented inward to the landscaped, open, private usable areas with controlled access for security. Buildings fronting public streets should g _j be oriented with interesting, varied landscape plantings between the buildings and the streets. Encourage interesting design of pathways and pedestrian trails within and from the residential areas to the shopping areas, etc. with good lighting and creative signage.-] 2 Direct automobile traffic to high volume, controlled collector and arterial roadways. Minimize Traffic dispersion to residential neighborhood streets. Require that the transit spine be four lanes throughout its entire length. Require eight lanes for Tassajara Road between I-580 and Dublin Boulevard and six lanes between Dublin Boulevard and Gleason Road and four lanes each for the two north/south streets shown on Figure 5.1 of the Specific Plan in the Town Center area east of Tassajara Road between Dublin Boulevard and Gleason Road. Dublin Planning Commission Page 3 of 3 City of Dublin We prepared the enclosed Town Center Concept Plan to illustrate our recommendations. Please incorporate our recommendations and Illustrative Town Center Concept Plan into the Specific Plan. Healthy commercial and residential neighborhoods for the residents of Dublin will be the result. Thank you for your consideration. Yours sincerely, Kenny Wan cc: Larry Tong Brenda Gillarde Richard Ambrose o o z -a 0 0 0 Stedman & Associates, Inc. 1640 .�. (:uli�rn'tttrr R/;vl. Suite 2-10, Wut,, 0 Crr('Gk ('uli/�rrrrin 9-/5996 5/0-935-9l !0 F.1.0 5I0-935-5S-12 Dublin Planning Commission City of Dublin 100 Civic Plaza Dublin, CA 94568 Re: Draft Eastern Dublin Specific Plan, dated May 27, 1992 (Chapter 7.0, Community Design) Dear Planning Commissioners: RECEIVED OCT 1 } 1992 DUBLIN PLANNING tick- 0 I VCR Bid October 14, 1992 Job No. 8089-87-00 (.r-, tl I', u,guieeri rrg Lund !'lu,urrr,9 L�rru! .Srureyrn^ The Community Design requirement that Town Center streets be arranged in a rigid grid pattern with small blocks of no more than 500 feet in length will result in thirty three blocks of tenement style housing with all of the unfavorable results experienced by the major cities in the United States in the last one hundred years. It is a requirement that should be modified to allow a "mixture of dwelling types in large projects" as stated in Section 2.1.2.c of the General Plan. We recommend the following modifications to Chapter 7.0 of the subject plan: SECTION 7.1.1, Page 79 - Under the heading "FORM" delete the entire section: Appropriate wording should be inserted to allow development in accordance with EXHIBIT A enclosed herewith. SECTION 7.1.1, Page 80 - Under the heading "BUILDING HEIGHT, second bullet" change "3 stories (40 foot maximum)" to "4 stories (55 foot maximum)." This will increase the design flexibility of commercial/residential buildings which will result in more interesting architectural solutions. FIGURE 7.1, Page 83 - The "TOWN CENTER CONCEPT PLAN" should be deleted for the following reasons: 1. It depicts the streets in a grid pattern with small blocks of no more than 500' in length which violates the intent of the General Plan. 2. It depicts 33 blocks of housing with identical 15' setbacks, with living units oriented to bleak, ineffectively landscaped streets, that will result in harsh neighborhoods. 3. It depicts minimal private outside space for the residents. 4. It depicts the transit spine as a two lane street which will cause congestion and dispersion (by design) of non resident traffic onto the small residential neighborhood streets fostering noise and air pollution. Stedman & Associates, Inc. lv V. California 13174. .Snit(' 2-10, Walnut Creek CaliJiu'nia 9-1596 510-93 5-91 10 F.1.A 5111-935-5812 Dublin Planning Commission City of Dublin Page 2 October 14, 1992 Job No. 8089-87-00 The "TOWN CENTER CONCEPT PLAN" should be replaced by one which emphasizes quality commercial and modern, softer residential community design such as that shown on EXHIBIT A, for the following reasons: 1. It depicts neighborhoods of varying size and shape with amenities that enhance quality of life. 2. It depicts residences that orient inwardly to private landscaped community areas, with emphasis on personal security for the residents. 3. It depicts interesting and useable landscaped areas within the neighborhoods and along the streets. 4. It depicts curvilinear collector and arterial streets to enhance traffic flow with most residences located on cul de sacs or minor streets. 5. It depicts internal neighborhood pathways that connect to walkways which provide convenient pedestrian access to shopping, transit and other nearby destinations. 6. It depicts building arrangements of varying building settings and orientations which encourages great diversity of architectural design. FIGURE 7.8, Page 86 - Change the caption to the following: "Entries to upper floor offices and housing on the transit spine may be located at the rear or sides of the buildings. " FIGURE 7.10, Page 86 - Remove on -street parking for the transit spine. Four traffic lanes are more important than parking on the transit spine. Turnouts at intersections should be provided for transit buses. FIGURE 7.13, Page 87 - Delete the requirement for 18' sidewalks. Require 12' setbacks to building fronts. Additional building setbacks should be required for those businesses that desire sidewalk displays or eating areas. SECTION 7.1.2, Page 88 - Under the heading "FORM" delete both paragraphs. Insert wording to encourage the FORM shown on EXHIBIT A. Stedman & Associates, Inc. 1 ti-16 V. Culi/aruia 131z d. Suite 2.10, 1Valnul Carle Cali/aruia 94596 i 10-93 -91-10 FAX 510-935-5 -12 Dublin Planning Commission City of Dublin Page 3 October 14, 1992 Job No. 8089-87-00 SECTION 7.1.2, Page 88 - Under the heading "BUILDING SITING" modify the first paragraph to the following: "Buildings should be built with varying settings and orientations to the streets." Under "setbacks" change the first bullet to read "Provide a landscaped 10' minimum setback from street ROW. The second bullet under "BUILDING SITING" should be changed to provide 25' rather than the excessive 60' setbacks. The third bullet under "BUILDING SITING" should be deleted. SECTION 7.1.2, Page 89 - The entire section under the heading "ENTRIES" should be deleted. Replace with wording that allows flexibility in the location of entries. SECTION 7.1.2, Page 89 - Under the heading "PARKING" delete bullets three, four and five. Parking arrangements should be flexible. SECTION 7.1.2, Page 89 - The entire section under the heading "AUTO CIRCULATION" should be deleted because it violates Section 5.1.I. of the General Plan which states that neighborhood collector streets are not to be misused by through traffic. Insert language that provides auto circulation similar to that shown on EXHIBIT A. SECTION 7.1.2, Page 89 - Under the heading "PEDESTRIAN/BICYCLE CIRCULATION the first line of the first paragraph should be revised to delete the words "the grid of." SECTION 7.1.2, Page 89 - Under the heading "OPEN SPACE AND PUBLIC FACILITIES" delete the second bullet which requires dedication of "neighborhood squares." Those squares would be unsafe, high maintenance cost liabilities for the City. Those open space and park areas should be included as private open spaces designed into projects for the benefit of residents. FIGURE 7.16, Page 90 - Change caption to the following: "Provide a 10' minimum landscaped setback for Town Center and Village Center residential buildings. Change figure to read 10' minimum setback. 15' is excessive for residential areas. FIGURE 7.17, Page 90 - Change figure to read 25' minimum setback. 60' is excessive for setback from arterials. FIGURE 7.22, Page 91 - Delete. It is poor design to require all entries from the street. There should be flexibility in the location of entries. Stedman & Associates, Inc. 11i-1( V. Blvd. Smile 2-10, Nair 0 Creek Culi�brnur 9-1596 510-935-91-10 FAX 510-935-55-12 Dublin Planning Commission City of Dublin Page 4 October 14, 1992 Job No. 8089-87-00 FIGURE 7.24, Page 91 - Delete Figure 7.24. It is very poor design to require street orientation of all residential buildings in the town center area. Design flexibility should be allowed that will result in a variety of housing types and orientations as depicted on EXHIBIT A. SECTION 7.5.2, Page 107 - Under the heading "TRANSIT SPINE - In the Town Center and Hacienda Gateway" the first bullet should be revised to read, "12' sidewalk between curbline and ROW line allows outdoor merchandising, transit shelters and street furniture." Sidewalk cafes or similar uses require greater setback. The third bullet requiring 8' parallel parking should be deleted. FIGURE 7.44, Page 110 - Change the building setback to 12', eliminate parking, provide 4 travel lanes and indicate turn outs for transit buses at intersections. In conclusion the Community Design Chapter of the specific plan should encourage flexibility of design that will result in neighborhoods with varying architectural character with high quality, private usable open space located within walking distance of shopping, transit and other destinations on safe, well signed pathways. Streets should be arranged so that traffic is directed to collector and arterial roadways to minimize non resident traffic in residential neighborhoods and to reduce noise and air pollution. Those features and others that enhance quality of life will result from the modifications that we have recommended and illustrated on EXHIBIT A.. Thank you for your consideration. Yours sincerely, STEDMAN AND ASSOCIATES, INC. CIVIL ENGINEERS/SURVEYORS/PLANNERS es R. Stedman resident JRS:kj cc: Pao Lin, Kenny Wan Richard Ambrose Brenda Gillarde Enclosure 4