Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01-23-2001 PC MinutesA regular meeting of the City of Dublin Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, January 23, 2001, in the Dublin Civic Center City Council Chambers. Chairperson Johnson called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners, Johnson, Musser, Jennings, Nassar and Fasulkey; Dennis Carrington, Senior Planner and Maria Carrasco, Recording Secretary. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG Cm. Johnson led the Commission, Staff, and those present in the pledge of allegiance to the flag. The minutes from the December 12, 2000 meeting and January 9, 2001 were approved as submitted. ADDITIONS OR REVISIONS TO THE AGENDA - None ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - None WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS - None PUBLIC HEARING 8.1 PA 00-015 Commerce One Headquarters Development - An Ordinance Approving a Development Agreement between the City of Dublin, Alameda County Surplus Property Authority and Commerce One. Cm. Johnson asked for the staff report. Mr. Carrington advised the Commission that Commerce One is proposing a Development Agreement between Commerce One, Alameda County Surplus Property January 23, 2001 Planning Commission Regular Meeting 4 Authority and the City of Dublin as required by the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan. At the December 12, 2000 Planning Commission meeting the Commission approved the Site Development Review for the project and recommended City Council approval for the Planned Development Rezone. One of the implementing actions of the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan calls for the City to enter into Development Agreements with developers in the plan area. The Development Agreement provides security to the developer that the City will not change its zoning and other laws applicable to the project for a specified period of time. Additionally, it is a mechanism for the City to obtain commitments from the developer that the City might not otherwise be able to obtain. The Development Agreement is one means the City has to assure that the Specific Plan goal, that new development fund the costs of infrastructure and service, is met. The Commerce One Development Agreement has a term of five years with three additional years that can be added as an option. Staff recommends the Planning Commission adopt a resolution recommending City Council approval of an ordinance adopting the Development Agreement. Cm. Jennings asked why three public hearings are held for a development agreement. Mr. Carrington stated there is a hearing before the Planning Commission and two hearings before the City Council; one hearing to introduce the ordinance and a second hearing to adopt it. Cm. Jennings asked if eight years is the normal time frame for a Development Agreement. Mr. Carrington responded that five years is the typical time frame for a Development Agreement. Due to the significance of the project the three-year option was added. Cm. Jennings asked if Commerce One would pay $100,000 for each additional year exceeding 5 years. Mr. Carrington responded yes. Cm. Fasulkey asked if there is a phasing plan for the development of the buildings. Mr. Carrington stated the project would have a Phase I and II Development Plan. There are four office buildings and two buildings will be built at a time. Cm. Fasulkey had concerns with the time frame of the Development Agreement. He asked if there were any implications for a developer not completing a project. Mr. Carrington stated the City would have an incomplete development. The project infrastructures are built in phases based on four buildings. PMnntndj comnttsston 5 januarf 23, 2001 Regular Meeting Cm. Fasulkey stated the improvements to a road could be left unfinished with the infrastructures built in phases. Mr. Carrington stated there is a provision in this Development Agreement that allows deferral of certain improvements. The infrastructure would be phased with the development plan phasing. Cm. Fasulkey was concerned with the potential of an economic set back. It could leave an incomplete roadway on one side of the property, which could cause negative affects to the flow of traffic. He asked if Dublin Blvd. would be completed? Mr. Carrington responded yes, within the next six months. Cm. Fasulkey asked if the four acres dedicated as parkland are consistent with the Parks Department? Mr. Carrington responded yes; the Parks Department reviewed the project. Cm. Fasulkey asked if the four acres are contingent upon the completion of Phase I development. Mr. Carrington referred to Exhibit B of the Development Agreement. He read a section of the Development Agreement - Not withstanding the forgoing the City's Public Works Director may in his or her sole discretion upon the receipt of documentation in the form satisfactory to the Public Works Director that assures completion allow Developer or County to defer completion of discreet portions of any of the public improvements required for the project until after issuance of certificates of occupancy of the first building for the project if the Public Works Director determines that to do so would not jeopardize the public health safety or welfare. He read condition number 67 of the Conditions of Approval for the Site Development Review. Public Facilities Fee. Applicant/Developer shall pay a Public Facilities Fee in the amounts and at the times set forth in City of Dublin Resolution No. 195-99for commercial development if applicable, or in the amounts and at the times set forth in any resolution revising the amount of the Public Facilities Fee approved by the Planning Commission December 12, 2000. Cm. Fasulkey asked if it was for this particular site. Mr. Carrington responded yes. Cm. Jennings asked for clarification on the phasing and timing requirements for the development. Mr. Carrington stated the Development Agreement contains no requirements that the development may initiate or complete development by any period of time set by the City. januar~ 23, 2001 Cm. Nassar asked if the City requires infrastructure first, such as roads, water and sewer for a project. Mr. Carrington stated infrastructure is put in first, including all of the sewer and water before building starts. Cm. Fasulkey stated that the City has not protected themselves adequately with the Development Agreement. It is a cornerstone property for the entire Eastern Dublin area. It would be a shame to see the property left partially undeveloped. Cm. Musser explained that the City couldn't force any developer to develop an entire project if he is not capable of doing it. There are certain guarantees in the Development Agreement on public improvements. Commerce One owns the land and is required to develop it at some point in time. If the company runs in to trouble Commerce One would have the option to build the buildings and sublet them out or sell the property. Cm. Fasulkey stated there is the possibility of building two of the buildings and not building the remaining two buildings for ten years. Cm. Musser stated there is that possibility with any project that the City approves. Cm. Fasulkey asked if Commerce One is the owner and developer of the project. Mr. Carrington responded yes. Cm. dohnson stated, in his opinion, the Development Agreement is set-up up correctly to protect the City and the County of Alameda. Condition #19 states the obligation of this agreement shall not be discharged in bankruptcy. He asked if the condition is to protect the City or the developer. Mr. Carrington said to protect the developer. Cm. Fasulkey asked if the Development Agreement standards are reviewed on an annual basis. Mr. Carrington stated yes. Cm. Fasulkey stated the City is giving way their ability of telling the developer they are not performing as required. There are no non-performance repercussions outside the infrastructure requirements. januar~ 23, Re~lar Meetiudj Mr. Carrington stated Staff would advise the Council as they did in the past with the Schaefer Ranch project that the Developers were not performing as required. If a project has economic difficulties, the City can not require them to build. Cm. Fasulkey again expressed his concerned with the eight-year time frame on the Development Agreement. Cm. Johnson stated the Commission has approved numerous projects that went undeveloped. He stated he does not have any problems approving the Development Agreement. Cm. Nassar asked if the project meets all of the City's zoning requirements. Mr. Carrington responded yes. Cm. dennings stated page 3 of the Agenda Statement addresses the parkland dedication. Cm. Fasulkey stated he could not locate it in the Development Agreement. Cm. Musser stated the parkland dedication might be addressed under the Public Facilities Fee condition. Cm. dohnson asked if anyone from the public had any questions for the Commission. Mr. Paul Rocket, 6598 Conistoga Lane stated that it is his first time attending a Planning Commission meeting. He agreed the economic factor would determine whether a project is built. An eight-year time scale appears too long and the City should be more proactive in encouraging builders to build. Cm. dohnson thanked Mr. Rocket and asked if there were any other questions or comments from the public; hearing none he closed the public hearing to deliberate. Cm. dennings asked Cm. Musser with his experience is eight years too short or too long for a Development Agreement? Cm. Musser stated that normally a developer would like to develop their project as quickly as possible because it is in his best interest. The developer is requesting eight years to accommodate slow down in the market and not have to renegotiate with the City if development exceeds the standard five-year period. If two of the buildings are constructed in two years and an economic slow down delays development for two or three years, they are already at five years. That is also why the developer is willing to pay the additional $100,000 per year. p[annindl corantisston 8 januar~ 23, 2001 ~e~[ar Meetindl Cm. dennings stated the economy has been good but there may be times of uncertainty. Cm. Fasulkey stated all the uncertainty falls on the City in terms of undeveloped property. Is there an option to renegotiate the additional years at some point in the future? Cm. Jennings stated there is a provision to review the agreement annually. Cm. Fasulkey stated to his understanding the additional three years is not one of the provisions that is renegotiated. Mr. Carrington stated the only provision required by the Developer is to give the City notice 90 days prior to expiration of the Development Agreement and pay an additional $100,000 per year. Cm. Musser asked if this was pre-negotiated with Staff?. Mr. Carrington responded yes. Cm. Johnson asked if there were any other questions or comments; hearing none he asked for a motion. On motion by Cm. Musser, seconded by Cm. Nassar with a vote of 4-1-0, with Cm. Fasulkey opposed, the Planning Commission adopted RESOLUTION NO. 01-01 RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT FOR PA 00-015 COMMERCE ONE HEADQUARTERS NEW OR UNFINISHED BUSINESS - None OTHER BUSINESS 10.1 League of California Cities Planners Institute March 21-23 Schedule Maria Carrasco advised that an informational packet and schedule on the upcoming League of California Cities Planners Institute was included in the Commissioner's binder. Reservations have been made for Mr. Peabody and the four Commissioners attending the conference. Planntndl commission 9 Januarf 23, 2001 Re,/ar Meetin~ ADOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 8:00 p.m. Community Development Director Re~t~l~ully~mit te ~/ anning Comrr~ssion Chairperson Minutes are not transcribed verbatim and are the interpretation of the Recording Secretary januanf 23, 2001 RedJular Meettn~