HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC MInutes 08-01-1983 ~ ~
Regular Meeting - August l, 1983
A regular meeting of the City of Dublin Planning Commission was
held on Monday, August 1, 1983, in the Meeting Room, Dublin
Library. The meeting was called to order at 7:30 p.m. by Cm.
Tenery, Chairman.
* * * ~r
ROLL CALL
PRESENT: Commissioners Mack, Vonheeder, Alexander, Petty,
Tenery, and Laurence L. Tong, Planning Director.
* * * *
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Cm. Tenery led the Commission, Staff and those present in the
pledge of allegiance to the flag.
* * * *
MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING
None
* * * *
ORAL COMMUNICATION
None
* * * *
WRITTEN COMMUNICATION
None
* * * *
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
None _ _
* * * *
NEW BUSINESS
. , . . ~ t
. • ~
INTRODUCTION OF
COMMISSIONER DAVID M. PETTY
Cm. Tenery introduced, Mr. David M. Petty, the new Planning
Commissioner recently appointed by the City Council, and the
Commissioners and Staff welcomed him.
* * * *
GENERAL PLAN PROGRAM:
REVIEW OF PRELIMINARY LIST
OF PLANNING OPTIONS
Mr. Tong introduced the item, mentioning that the General Plan ,
Consultant is currently preparing Working Paper II. In the I~
meantime, a Preliminary List of Planning Options was provided to
the Commission for their review.
It was noted that the City of Dublin has a copy of the EIR I,
prepared for Hacienda Business Park, however, it is currently
being revised. Staff pointed out that the Dublin Planning '
Commission would have an opportunity to comment on the revised '
EIR, which they were unable to do prior to Dublin's
incorporation. '
The issue of "affordable housing" was raised by Cm. Tenery, with ,
a request for a definition of "affordable". Mr. Tong explained
various methods of defining "affordable", with relation to family I
income, median income, available financing, etc. '
Cm. Vonheeder made the motion that Item l2, under Implementation
Options (page 2), be deleted from the list of options because she
felt that commercial and residential areas should be separate.
Cm. Mack seconded the motion and it was carried by unanimous
vote.
On the issue of parkland dedication, Cm. Vonheeder moved that the
Planning Commission amend Policy Option l, Public Facilities and
Public Lands, to read: "Acquire additional park sites, as needed
for additional housing and population growth." The motion was
seconded by Cm. Mack, and passed by unanimous vote of the
Commission.
Cm. Mack raised the question, regarding Item 5, under the same
heading, of how the City can direct or encourage the school
district to use the proceeds from the disposition of surplus
school sites for highest paying use consistent with neighborhood
character; and to use proceeds to upgrade remaining school
buildings and grounds. The general concensus of opinion was to
unify the school district. Cm. Tenery questioned whether or not
unification of the school districts was, in fact, beyond the
scope of the General Plan. Mr. Tong pointed out that the City
Council specifically struck the unification issue, in Item 6,
~ ~
under Schools, in Working Paper I, in terms of the public
utilities and public lands, as outside the scope of the General
Plan.
There was discussion regarding access to and around the lands
utilized by Camp Parks RFTA. Staff explained that three
possibilities existed with extensions of Dublin Blvd., Scarlett
Court or Sierra Lane.
Staff was requested to look into options, with the General Plan
Consultant, geared toward public service issues, and include that
information in the Working Paper II.
There were no further alterations to the Annotated Draft of the
General Plan Issues, Preliminary List of Planning Options.
* * * *
REVIEW OF SECOND UNIT
REGULATIONS
Mr. Tong presented a summary of information provided to the
Commissioners regarding second units. He explained the
difference between "Granny Flats", and Second Units. He noted
that State Housing Laws have been passed to define and regulate
addition of second units within single family residential
districts.
He noted that if the City receives an application for a second
unit, the City must either: 1) adopt an ordinance governing
second units within 120 days; or 2) review the application
according to standards set forth in Section 65852.2 of the
Government Code.
Staff prepared a list of alternatives, should the Commission
decide to develop a second unit ordinance, of which the
Commissioners selected the following topics as those requiring
consideration in development of such an ordinance:
- Conditional Use Permit requirement
- Parking requirements
- Setback, building code, utility service requirements, and
height requirements
- Minimum lot size/maximum lot coverage
- Size of second units
- Design requirements
- Owner Occupancy
- Mobile homes
- Restrict new subdivisions from converting into duplexes
- Attached or detached
- Existing illegal units
/ ~ ,
i
~I
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at
10:20 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
F~,,
. ~
e~ ~
Planning omm sslon Chairm n
Laurence L. Tong,
Planning Director
* * * *