HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-14-2008 PC MinutesC? ry
'9/ - -} z
Planning Commission Minutes
Tuesday, October 14, 2008
CALL TO ORDER/ROLL CALL
A regular meeting of the City of Dublin Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, October
14, 2008, in the City Council Chambers located at 100 Civic Plaza. Chair Schaub called the
meeting to order at 7:05p.m.
Present: Chair Schaub; Vice Chair Tomlinson; Commissioners Wehrenberg, King, and Biddle;
Mary Jo Wilson, Planning Manager; Jeff Baker, Senior Planner; Jamie Rojo, Assistant Planner;
Mike Porto, Consulting Planner; Kristi Bascom, Consulting Planner; and Debra LeClair,
Recording Secretary.
Absent: None
ADDITIONS OR REVISIONS TO THE AGENDA - NONE
MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETINGS - On a motion by Cm. Tomlinson, seconded by Cm.
Wehrenberg the minutes of the September 9, 2008 meeting were approved.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - NONE
CONSENT CALENDAR - NONE
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS - NONE
PUBLIC HEARINGS -
8.1 PA 04-016 Fallon Crossing/Standard Pacific Homes (Legislative) Development Agreement
Mike Porto, Consulting Planner presented the project as stated in the Staff Report.
Chair Schaub opened the public hearing and hearing no comments closed the public hearing.
On a motion by Cm. Wehrenberg and seconded by Cm. Biddle, on a vote of 5-0, the Planning
Commission approved the following:
RESOLUTION NO. 08 -24
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT
AN ORDINANCE APPROVING A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT FOR
FALLON CROSSING
PA 04-016
(Planning Commission October 14, 2008
Wegur r.cWeeting 113
8.2 PA 07-019 The Green on Park Place (Legislative) Development Agreement.
Kristi Bascom, Consulting Planner presented the project as stated in the Staff Report.
Chair Schaub opened the public hearing and hearing no comments closed the public hearing.
On a motion by Cm. Wehrenberg and seconded by Cm. Tomlinson, on a vote of 5-0, the
Planning Commission approved the following:
RESOLUTION NO. 08 - 25
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
RECOMMENDING THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT AN ORDINANCE APPROVING A
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF DUBLIN AND
STOCKBRIDGEBHV EMERALD PLACE LAND COMPANY FOR
THE GREEN ON PARK PLACE RETAIL CENTER PROJECT
APNS 986-0033-002 AND 986-003:3-003
PA 07-019
8.3 PA 07-037 Anderson (Legislative) Development Agreement.
Jeff Baker, Senior Planner presented the project as stated in the Staff Report.
Chair Schaub opened the public hearing and hearing no comments closed the public hearing.
On a motion by Cm. Biddle and seconded by Cm. Wehrenberg, on a vote of 4-0-1, with Cm.
Tomlinson abstaining from the vote, the Planning Commission approved the following:
RESOLUTION NO. 08 -26
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT
AN ORDINANCE APPROVING A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF
DUBLIN AND DUBLIN RE INVESTORS LLC FOR THE NORTHERN 7-ACRES OF THE
ANDERSON PROPERTY
(APN 905-0006-001)
PA 07-037
(P(anning ('onmtission octo6er 14, 2008
W egufar Meet ing 114
8.4 PA 08-016 B & B Motorsports - Conditional Use Permit approval to operate a 3,500±
square foot Automobile/ Vehicle Sales facility with oul door display of 2 vehicles within
an existing 11,831± square foot building at 6310-A Houston Place.
Jamie Rojo, Assistant Planner presented the project as stated ir. the Staff Report.
Chair Schaub asked which Condition of Approval mentions the letter from the Applicant
regarding the "Signed Agreement Regarding Future Use Types." Mary Jo Wilson, Planning
Manager answered Condition of Approval #12.
Cm. Wehrenberg asked Ms. Rojo to explain the parking agreement between the Suite A & B.
Ms. Rojo explained the parking requirement and the agreement. Cm. Wehrenberg asked if the
parking for Suite B had been confirmed. Ms. Rojo answered that Suite B is an auto repair and
service shop with 14 parking spaces all of which are being used. Cm. Wehrenberg was
concerned about a parking conflict, asked if there was any gUZLrantee that Suite B would not use
more parking spaces than is allowed and what recourse does f-te City have for complaints.
Ms. Wilson stated Cm. Wehrenberg's concern is shared by Staff which is the reason for the
Conditions of Approval to try to limit any parking conflict for future users of the vacant tenant
space. She continued that if the City became aware that they were not in compliance with their
conditions, Code Enforcement could investigate.
Cm. Wehrenberg asked if this was a new business or was it being relocated from another
location. Ms. Wilson stated it was a new business.
Cm. Tomlinson stated that if the parking becomes a problem, the other business could make a
complaint and it wash t resolved in a satisfactory way, the CUP could be revoked.
Cm. Biddle stated he visited the site at midday and found that most parking spaces were filled
with approximately 20% not being utilized.
Cm. Biddle asked what modifications would need to be made to Suite A to allow for a
maintenance and service use.
Ms. Rojo answered the maintenance and service use is allowed under permitting process and no
additional permits would be required. Ms. Wilson stated that the Building Department could
determine what tenant improvement permits would be needec. to make those modifications.
Chair Schaub opened the public hearing.
Roger Shank, Planning Consultant for the Applicant, spoke in s=avor of the project. He stated the
Applicant will restrict his business to sales only in a small operation where cars are bought and
sold individually with no carriers bringing vehicles. He stated the back portion of Suite A is
being used for storage of appliances from another business vrith no other plans for the use of
that space. He continued the Applicant is willing to sign the letter of agreement and is in
agreement with all conditions of approval.
(P(anning Commission October 14, 2008
Regular,Weeling 115
Cm. Biddle asked what type of vehicle the Applicant will sell at the site. Mr. Shank answered
high end, pre-owned, luxury vehicles.
Cm. Wehrenberg asked if this is a new business being relocated from another location. Mr.
Shank answered this is a new business.
Chair Schaub asked if the Applicant would be selling the vehicles on consignment. Mr. Shank
answered no; they would be purchased from auto auctions and brought there for sale.
Chair Schaub closed public hearing
On a motion by Cm. Biddle and seconded by CM. Wehrenberg, on a vote of 5-0, the Planning
Commission approved the following:
RESOLUTION NO. 08-27
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO OPERATE A 3,500± SQUARE FOOT
AUTOMOBILENEHICLE SALES FACILITY WITH OUTDOOR DISPLAY OF 2 VEHICLES
LOCATED AT 6310-A HOUSTON PLACE (AP -4 941-0550-067)
PA 08-016
8.4 PA 08-005 Schaefer Ranch South (Legislative) General Plan Amendment to change the
existing Estate Residential (0.01-0.8 du/ac) and Retail/Office land use designations to
Single-Family Residential (0.9-6.0 du/ac), Open Space and Public/Semi-Public land uses,
and a Planned Development Rezone with Stage 2 Development Plan for an 81.3+/- acre
area, and Vesting Tentative Map 8000 to subdivide 41.5+/- acres into 140 single-family
residential lots, a Development Agreement, and a CI:QA Addendum to the Schaefer
Ranch Environmental Impact Report.
Jeff Baker, Senior Planner presented the project as stated in the Staff Report.
Chair Schaub asked Mr. Baker to explain the other items that the Applicant had agreed to
provide the City. Mr. Baker answered there are a number of items in the Development
Agreement that he would speak to later in the presentation. Chair Schaub felt it was important
to note what the Applicant is providing to the City in exchange for approval of the increase in
the number of units since those units will be more expens ve and the profit larger for the
Applicant. Chair Schaub agreed to wait until that part of the presentation to continue the
discussion.
Chair Schaub asked about lots on the back side of the project location. Mr. Baker answered that
at the end of Dublin Blvd there are 6 additional estate lots that are not part of the project.
A4nning Commission octo6er14, 2008
wgjufar Meeting 116
Cm. King asked if there is still a park in the existing plan. Mr. Baker answered yes, but it is not
subject to this application. The park is part of the larger Schaefer Ranch project and is located
on the north side of Dublin Blvd.
Cm. King asked if the mitigation pond was to the north of the ]3,roject. Mr. Baker answered yes.
Cm. Wehrenberg asked if the public/semi public area was part of the proposal or existing. Mr.
Baker answered the area is currently designated retail/office and would change to public/semi-
public with this proposal. He continued the lower parcel was originally anticipated to be a day
care center and the northern parcel was reserved for a future fire station site, that will not
change with this proposal. Cm. Wehrenberg asked if the area that is currently designated
commercial will be homes and the lower part, which is difficult to develop, will be open space.
Mr. Baker answered yes.
Chair Schaub asked if the fire station is still proposed at that site which is next to the School of
Imagination. Mr. Baker answered yes; the site was reserved in the original development
agreement for a fire stating but the City opted not to take that option however, as part of this
project it would give the City and additional two years to determine if they still want/need the
site.
Cm. Tomlinson asked if the need would materialize. Mr. Baker answered the Alameda County
Fire Department is currently conducting a needs analysis through out the City to determine if
the site will be needed.
Chair Schaub asked if two years would be sufficient or should the Commission consider 5 years.
Cm. Wehrenberg agreed.
Ms. Wilson commented the study will be completed sooner than two years. If the study
determines that a fire station is needed then the City would take the option and hold the parcel
as a fire station site.
Cm. Biddle asked with the elimination of commercial frorn the project will there be other
commercial/ retail businesses in the area. Mr. Baker answered there would be no commercial
areas within the Schaefer Ranch project except the public/semipublic type uses.
Chair Schaub mentioned that the Commission had tried to create villages where residents could
walk to commercial areas and we were successful in the 'Cassajara area because there are
enough people, but with only 400 houses it could not sustain a store and would not be practical.
Cm. Biddle suggested a small commercial site at Schafer Ranch Road and Dublin Blvd. for
commercial use. Mr. Baker stated the site has steep slope topography and would be difficult to
develop as a commercial site.
Cm. Biddle asked if the same criteria for public/ semipublic designation were used for this
project as is used for other projects, and what kind of acreage would be allowed for Schaefer
Ranch area. Mr. Baker answered the City has a public facilities policy and it requires that if a
new project creates 150 units then there is an acreage requirement they must provide. He
(Aanning Commission Octo6er14, 2008
WegularSileeting 117
continued while the project before the Commission does not meet the 150 unit threshold, there
will be public/semi-public facilities to serve the overall project.
Cm. King asked if the houses would be visible from I-580. Mr. Baker answered not any more
than what was originally approved.
Cm. Biddle felt there has been a lot of grading for the project and asked if it is completed. Mr.
Baker answered yes the overall grading of the site is complete and there should be only some
fine tuning of the pads.
Cm. Tomlinson stated the Applicant is proposing 104 additional lots but the original number of
lots that was approved was more than that. Mr. Baker answered the original number of lots
approved was 474 and they have 302 homes currently approved. Cm. Tomlinson stated the
overall project, including the additional 104 units, is still below the number of lots that were
originally approved. Mr. Baker miswered the project is 68 units less.
Chair Schaub asked if the traffic impacts for the project is still below what was originally
approved. Mr. Baker answered yes because it is a less intense use both in the number of units
and since the commercial is eliminated it further reduces the traffic impacts.
Cm. Wehrenberg asked when the $1.5 million to the City for the Historic Park would be paid.
Mr. Baker answered it would be paid in phases. He stated the first half of the payment would
be paid when the Applicant receives all their entitlements, or their first building permit. Cm.
Wehrenberg asked if this application redefines their terms of payment. Mr. Baker stated that
currently the Applicant is not obligated to pay any money towards the Dublin Historic Park.
Mr. Baker continued the City was able to negotiate with the Applicant as part of the approval
process that if the project is approved they would provide the City with $1.5 million for
construction of the park which is money the City would not otherwise receive or be compelled
to require the developer pay without the agreement. Cm. Vehrenberg asked when the next
installments would be made. Mr. Baker answered after the first payment of 50% would be at
entitlements or when the first building permit is issued and then the balance or second payment
would be after the issuance of the 75th building permit.
Ms. Wilson explained the entitlements mean all the way through SDR approval, therefore the
Applicant could receive approval of the zoning and the map aad wait to come forward with the
SDR at a later date. Cm. Wehrenberg stated the Applicant has 15 years to build the project
therefore it could be some time before the City actually receives any money. Ms. Wilson
answered yes.
Chair Schaub stated the park is completely funded therefore, the $1.5 million would be extra.
Ms. Wilson stated the park will be built in phases, at this time, all of the tenant's spaces are
vacant and demolition is anticipated to begin soon. She continued that certain phases of the
park are funded.
Chair Schaub asked if there is anything in the DA that would allow the Applicant to pay all in-
lieu fees instead of building inclusionary units, if the City Council wishes to do that. Mr. Baker
(Planning (commission October 14, 2008
W rilular Meeting 118
stated there was nothing in the DA that would preclude them from allowing that but the
Council would have to give that direction. He also stated the Applicant would be required to
enter into an Affordable Housing Agreement which is not in place currently.
Chair Schaub felt that over time the City would require more money in the Affordable Housing
fund and less actual housing.
Chair Schaub asked Mr. Baker to explain the peak hour trip generation comparison chart. Mr.
Baker stated Tim Cremin, City Attorney's office; Jaimee Bourgeois, Traffic Engineer; Mark
Lander, City Engineer; and Jerry Haag, Planning Consultant are present to explain the traffic
study and specifically the trip generation chart.
Cm. Biddle asked if the site was graded for the proposed project or the existing. Mr. Baker
answered the site has been mass graded for the existing project and would require only minor
grading for the proposed project.
Chair Schaub stated that the perimeter that is visible tc day is the same as the initial
development. Mr. Baker stated the proposed development would occur within the same
footprint and would actually reduce the footprint by creating the open space area along the
freeway and reducing the developable area of the project and increasing the overall open space.
Cm. King asked if there is freeway access to Schaefer Ranch Rc ad. Mr. Baker answered no.
Cm. King asked if the project was originally planned for estate lots. Mr. Baker answered under
the current approvals there would be 12 estate lots, at approximately 2 acres each and 24 SFR's.
Cm. King was concerned about what houses would be visible from 580. Mr. Baker stated there
would be approximately 10 lots visible from the freeway. Cm. King asked were any of the
estate houses going to be visible from I-580. Mr. Baker answered it was only the single family
homes that would be visible.
Cm. Tomlinson explained that basically some of the homes viere visible before and some will
still be visible with this project. Mr. Baker commented none of the visible homes would be
estate homes.
Cm. Biddle stated he appreciates the increase in open space and asked if it will remain open
space and owned and maintained by the HOA not the City. Mr. Baker answered it will be
maintained through the GHAD not the HOA.
Cm. Wehrenberg asked, since the current Commission was not part of the original approvals,
what was expected at that time when planning the commercial zoning. She stated that the
Commissions intent with the "village" concept of fewer trip;; into the City and include small
retail within walking distance; what was the Commission expecting at the time. She stated the
Commission reviewed the project as a full project and now the project is coming in pieces. She
stated she wanted to avoid this problem in the future and asked why the Planning Commission
did not address the commercial zoning at the time it was originally approved. She felt that the
project was small and understood that it would not support a store but wanted to understand
(Aanning Commission Octo6er14, 2008
Wcgufar.Meeting 119
why it wasn't addressed originally. She felt the project was the opposite of what was intended
and asked if this would be the right thing to do because of the market.
Mr. Baker answered the project goes back to 1996 when Schafer Ranch was originally approved
the project had 10-11 acres of commercial development and at the time it was felt there would
be additional development in western Dublin. He stated there was a plan submitted for
approximately 3,000 homes as part of a Western Dublin Specific Plan, therefore there would
have been considerably more homes to support commercial development. He stated that
project has been withdrawn and there is a development moratorium beyond the limits of the
Schafer Ranch Development and some factors have changed from the originally anticipated
number of homes in the area. He continued in 2006 when the Commission reviewed the PD it
was for zoning and the land use designation was already in place, and there was no request to
change the zoning. Therefore, the opportunity wasn't there to change the zoning nor did the
Council direct any change. The approval in 2006 provided zoning for an existing land use
designation to allow the development if the Applicant was able.
Cm. Wehrenberg thanked Mr. Baker for his explanation.
Cm. King stated there was a proposal in 1993 for a project of 3, 000 homes which was referended
and rejected by the voters in Dublin. He felt some of thZLt project would have supported
commercial in the area. He continued that in 1998 a plan was submitted for an additional 100
homes which were close enough to the Schaefer Ranch project to support the commercial also.
He continued that Dublin adopted a "policy" of discouraging more houses in the west hills and
he felt it was not a mistake when the original Schaefer Ranch project was approved, but only
because there was an assumption of more support for commercial in the area.
Cm. Biddle stated he likes the change from the estate housing to the single family housing units,
he felt they are a better fit with the Dublin character. He asked if the minimum lot size of 4500
square feet is typical for Dublin. Mr. Baker stated yes, they would be very similar to other
developments.
Cm. Wehrenberg asked if the Inclusionary housing would lx! at the City Council's discretion.
Mr. Baker answered yes.
Jaimee Bourgeois, Traffic Engineer, spoke regarding the traffic study for the Schafer Ranch
Initial Study. She summarized the 1996 EIR which analyzed 10.7 acres of a retail/office
commercial mix, and the total trip generations that were assumed in the study. She stated this
information was used as a part of the environmental review and compared to the EIR, and
mitigation measures. She continued that with the current proposal the commercial portion is
eliminated, the residential component is reduced, and the day care is included. Therefore, the
current proposal reduces the overall trip generation.
Ms. Bourgeois stated the from a CEQA standpoint it would be speculative to assume that all the
commercial trips would come from within the development. She stated in order to offer a
conservative analysis, it was assumed that most of trips would come from outside the
development and the fact that the commercial is being eliminated further reduces the trip
generation for the current proposal.
(Aanning Commission October 14, 2008
(Regurar Meeting 120
Cm. King stated that it would reduce the trip generations within the development but would
increase it on Dublin Blvd. Ms. Bourgeois stated that was correct, the residents can no longer
shop within the development but that was what was assumed in the 1996 EIR, that the residents
would have to drive down Dublin Blvd. to do their shopping and the commercial/ retail within
the development would generate trips from outside the development.
Cm. King asked how many trips per day the project would generate on Dublin Blvd. Ms.
Bourgeois answered they review the peak hours because they are the worst times and build
improvements to accommodate those times.
Cm. King stated that a normal guideline is for 500 car trips per day on a residential street but
Dublin has 1500 car trips per day which he has objected to. His question was for a total trips
generated on Dublin Blvd. which he felt was a collector street instead of a residential street.
Ms. Bourgeois stated she not have that information readily available. She agreed that Dublin
Blvd. is not a residential street and felt that Dublin Blvd. in the downtown area generates over
the course of the day experiences approximately 30,000 to 40,000 vehicle trips per day.
Cm. King asked what level of service would be at peak hours at the intersection of Silvergate
and Dublin Blvd and who decides the level of service. Ms. Bourgeois stated a traffic signal is
expected to be installed and that the City of Dublin standard iE if an intersection operates at E or
F and satisfies industry standard warrants, then the signal `mould be installed to bring to the
operation to D or better. She felt the project would not degrade the level of service from what
was included in the EIR.
Chair Schaub asked when the traffic signal would be installed.
Mark Lander, City Engineer stated that phase 1 of the existing Schaefer Ranch project is
required to install a traffic signal at Silvergate and Dublin Blvd. as well as widen Dublin Blvd
from Silvergate easterly to Hansen. He felt it would be approximately mid 2009 when the signal
and improvements will be completed.
Cm. Biddle asked if was anticipated that there would be any traffic signals along Dublin Blvd.
in the Schaefer Ranch area. Ms. Bourgeois answered there would be a traffic signal at Dublin
Blvd and Schaefer Ranch Road.
Chair Schaub opened the public hearing.
Doug Chen, Discovery Builders, representing the Schaefer Holdings spoke in favor of the
project. He stated the proposal is limited to the acres currently within the development
footprint, with the increased density from the current plans by 104 lots and the elimination of
commercial, the project is still below the originally approved number of units. He continued
that within the developed area they will set aside 11.5 acres of open space; the net overall
project will increase but the developed area will decrease. He also stated there would be a
greenbelt and trails within the area. He mentioned there wou..d be no additional grading to the
project.
e?ranning commission October 14, 2008
(Wegular,meeting 121
Cm. King asked if the trail is part of the Conditions of Approval. Mr. Chen answered yes.
Cm. Wehrenberg asked if the trail connects to the Dublin bikeways. Mr. Baker stated the trail is
not part of the bikeway system but would connect to it.
There was a discussion regarding the trails in the Schaefer Ranch development and what agency
would be responsible for maintenance.
Cm. King asked if it would be possible to plant trees to shield the project from I-580 without
blocking the views of the homeowners.
Mr. Chen answered that in their landscaping plans there will be a trail along the perimeter of
the project and when they submit landscaping plans they will show how that area will be
landscaped.
Chair Schaub felt the project removed a lot of trees during grading and the Commission would
expect that when the Applicant comes back to the Planning Commission for SDR approval they
will have a plan for the open space area.
Mr. Baker stated the intent for the open space would be to keep the natural landscaping rather
than a defined landscaped edge, may be able to work wilh Discovery to provide natural
screening and keep the intent of natural landscaping.
Cm. King asked how may trees are to be replanted for the overall project. Mr. Chen answered
there will be approximately 3000 planted, 2500 of which have already been planted.
Cm. Tomlinson asked once the remaining entitlements have been received, understanding the
challenging market, when would they move forward with construction. Mr. Chen answered
they are currently working on the SDR and have shown the preliminary architecture to Staff
and anticipate submitting within the next few months.
Chair Schaub asked, realizing this is not a Planning Commission issue, if there is a way to
receive part of the $1.5 million sooner due to some requirements for the Heritage Park. Chair
Schaub suggested City Council take a look at receiving the motley sooner.
Mr. Chen stated the Applicant worked on the DA for several months and their preference
would be to approve the Development Agreement then if they need to change elements of it
they would review it.
Louis Parsons, Discovery Builders, stated they could, in anticipation of approval of these
entitlements, of the initial $750,000, provide $350,000 by June 2009 and upon SDR approval
provide the balance of the $750,000 and then the additional: $750,00 at the 75th building permit.
Chair Schaub asked if the City does not need the fire station, what will happen to the land. Mr.
Chen answered a portion of the parcel will be used for parking for the preschool.
Tfanning Commission October 14, 2008
(di?ju(ar Illeeting 122
Cm. King stated he noticed trees planted along Dublin Blvd but not many within the project
area. Mr. Chen answered most of the trees planted so far are in the mitigation area and are
native to the area.
Mitch Sigman, School of Imagination, 7567 Amador Valley Blvd., spoke in favor of the project.
Mr. Sigman gave an overview of what Discovery Homes is doing for the community and the
School of Imagination, also known as Happy Talkers. He wanted to express his gratitude to the
City of Dublin and Discovery Homes for a permanent home fo:- their school.
Chair Schaub closed the public hearing.
Cm. Biddle asked if the property to the west of the Schaefer Ranch project is privately owned.
Mr. Baker answered the property directly to the west is tfLe Butch Schaefer residence and
beyond that is Alameda County. Cm. Biddle asked if there was any road connection through to
the other side to the west. Mr. Baker answered no.
Cm. Tomlinson felt it was a worthwhile project; he appreciated the context of the commercial
and retail areas, significant other developments on the west side of town with commercial and
retail at the edge of the City, those projects don t work. He can see why the retail and office
doesn't work in this location the way the project is now. He views this project as cleaning up
something from before that didn't work. He felt that the School of Imaginations presentation is
a tangible benefit to the community. He stated he is in favor of the project because it has a
lower number of units than originally approved, and the type of housing product. In light of
the economy and the financial markets, expensive housing requires jumbo loans which are
harder to receive. He continued there is more open space, traffic trips are lower which are also
reasons to support it. He stated he prefers landscaping the trees on the outside of the sidewalk
so that the sidewalk is on the inside creating tree-lined streets which makes for a more visually
appealing project.
Cm. Wehrenberg agreed with Cm. Tomlinson and felt it was a good presentation; she
appreciated hearing the history of the project. She agreed with the findings and rezoning but
questions whether the project is right for inclusionary housing.
Cm. Biddle also agreed and felt this type of housing is a better fit for the community; he likes
the increase in open space, but was searching for a way to increase the public/semi-public land
but didn t feel there was a good option with this project. He felt the "village" concept would
not work for this project. He stated he is in favor of the project.
Cm. King felt it was a complicated decision. He stated he rr.et with Mr. Chen approximately
one year ago who gave him a tour of the area and he also discussed it with the Mayor. He felt
there were two things that complicated his decision; 1) the School of Imagination focuses on
autistic children, he has a step-son who was diagnosed autistic so he would be very supportive
of that use; 2) he is concerned with the need for a community theater. The Historical Park
includes a theater; therefore it was good to hear that the funding will go towards the park and
theater. He stated his philosophy of the planning process is that those considerations are not
valid considerations for land use planning. He felt the questioon was is it consistent with land
use and specific plans and can we make the findings regarding safety and consistency with the
Aanning Commission Octo6er 14, 2008
(Rrgufar Meeting 123
rest of the area. He was concerned with the environmental issues because the Army Corp of
Engineers was concerned about the red legged frog in the area so the project was forced to cut
back because of those concerns. He wondered how to add homes without encroaching on the
environmental concerns that were raised. He felt that the reality is that the proposed project is
part of the land within the project and is not close to the area that was of concern to the Army
Corps of Engineers therefore, there is no environmental issue.
Cm. King further stated he has encouraged retail in residentia.i areas in order to reduce traffic.
He stated the retail would create traffic in different directions, some residents could walk
therefore reducing traffic, but then it would encourage traffic from other parts of Dublin. He
stated the traffic engineer explained that if the project was approved it would result in a net
reduction in vehicle trips on Dublin Blvd. He felt that it made sense that the retail would save
some trips but there is are residents who would drive west to the store. He felt traffic would not
be a problem. He felt his responsibility is to find reasons why the project should not be
approved. He stated the current: policy of the City of Dublin is to discourage building in the
west hills and mentioned that Valley Christian was not allowed. to build housing because of that
policy. He continued this project was approved before the policy was adopted so he could not
find a planning reason to vote against it based on the current policy. He mentioned Measure M
was adopted in 2000 which requires any additional housing ir. the west hills to be voted on by
the residents. He stated it was understood that the Schaefer Panch project was excluded from
Measure M. He felt there should have been fewer homes in the west hills based on the General
Plan which called for the area to be retained as a greenbelt. Cm. King stated he is in favor of
the project.
Chair Schaub is in favor of the project. He is personally aware of the good work that Happy
Talkers does. He commended the developer for the good work they have done for the
community.
Mr. Baker asked Mr. Parsons to confirm their proposal for the $1.5 million.
Louis Parsons, Discovery Builders agreed that they would mace a payment of $350,000 on June
1, 2009, then at approval of SDR or issuance of first building permit whichever comes first, the
balance of the $750,000 will be paid, and then with the issuance of the 75th building permit the
remaining $750,000 would be paid.
Mr. Baker stated the Commission could make that recommendation to the Council.
Chair Schaub asked to have that agreement stated in the recommendation to the Council.
On a motion by Cm. Biddle and seconded by CM. Wehrenberg, on a vote of 5-0, the Planning
Commission approved the following resolutions, with a recommendation for the above
modifications to the DA:
RESOLUTION NO. 08 - 29
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
1'Ginning Commission October 14, 2005
Wggu(ar Meeting 124
RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT A RESOLUTION
AMENDING THE CITY OF DUBLIN GENERAL PLAN TO CHANGE THE EXISTING ESTATE
RESIDENTIAL, SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, AND RETAIL/OFFICE LAND USE
DESIGNATIONS TO SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, OPEN SPACE AND PUBLIC/SEMI-PUBLIC
LAND USE DESIGNATIONS FOR THE PROJECT KNOWN AS SCHAEFER RANCH SOUTH
(APNs 941-2832-027 to 028, and 031 to 032, 941-2835-001 to 003, and 052 to 075, and
941-2837-002 to 003, and 010 to 021)
PA 08-005
RESOLUTION NO. 08 -30
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT AN ORDINANCE APPROVING A
PD-PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REZONE WITH STAGE 2 DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE
PROJECT KNOWN AS SCHAEFER RANCH SOUTH
(APNs 941-2832-031 to 032, 941-2835-001 to 003, and 052 to 075, and
941-2837-002 to 003, and 010 to 021)
PA 08-005
RESOLUTION NO. 08 - 28
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT A CEQA
ADDENDUM TO THE 1996 FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR
THE SCHAEFER RANCH PROJECT AND A RELATED INITIAL STUDY
(APNs 941-2832-027 to 028 and 031 to 032, 941-2835-001 to 003, and 052 to 075, and
941-2837-002 to 003, and 010 to 021)
PA 08-005
RESOLUTION NO. 08 - 31
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
APPROVING VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 8000 FOR A 41.541-ACRE AREA WITHIN
THE PROJECT KNOWN AS SCHAEFER RANCH SOUTH
(APNs 941-2835-001 to 003, and 052 to 075, and 941-2837-010 to 021)
PA 08-005
RESOLUTION NO. 08 -32
Aanning Commission October 14, 2008
?degular'Meeting 125
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT AN ORDINANCE APPROVING A
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN
THE CITY OF DUBLIN AND SCHAEFER RANCH HOLDINGS LLC
(APNs 941-2832-027 to 028, and 941-2835-001 to 003, and 052 to 075, and
941-2837-010 to 021)
PA 08-005
NEW OR UNFINISHED BUSINESS - NONE
OTHER BUSINESS - NONE
10.1 Brief INFORMATION ONLY reports from the Planning Commission and/or Staff,
including Committee Reports and Reports by the Planning Commission related to
meetings attended at City Expense (AB 1234).
10.2 Community Design Element: was approved by the Cite Council with two modifications.
The City Council removed the implementation measure for the creation of districts for
neighborhoods and also the policy regarding freeway si gnage.
10.3 Medium Density: City Council decided not to adopt the proposed amendments to the
General Plan and instead decided to retain the existing medium density designation
rather than creating two new designations, and require that 50% of those homes within
the designation for the Croak and Jordan properties have a usable yard area. Staff is
working on the revisions which will be brought before the Planning Commission for
recommendations to the City Council.
ADJOURNMENT - The meeting; was adjourned at 9:00 p.m.
Respectf ully submitted,
i??46
Bill Schaub
Chair Plimning Commission
ATTEST:
ary o n, Al
Plannin ager
G:\ MINUTES \ 2008\ PLANNING COMMISSION',10.14.08.doc
Aanning Commission October 14, 2008
?Regufar `Meeting 126