Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Minutes 02-01-1988 r , n ~ ~ Regular Meeting - February 1, 1988 A regular meeting of the City of Dublin Planning Commission was held on February 1, 1988, in the Meeting Room, Dublin Library. The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Cm. Barnes, Chairperson. ~~c~~ ROLL CALL PRESENT: Commissioners Barnes, Burnham, Mack, Tempel, and Zika, Laurence L. Tong, Planning Director, Rod Barger, Senior Planner, Maureen 0'Halloran, Associate Planner. ~ ~ ~ ~ PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG Cm. Barnes led the Commission, Staff, and those present in the pledge of allegiance to the flag. ~ ~ ~ ~ ADDITIONS OR REVISIONS TO THE AGENDA None. ~ ~ ~ ~ MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING The minutes of the meeting of January 18, 1988, were approved as presented. ~ ~ ~ ~ ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None. ~ ~ ~ ~ WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS Mr. Tong advised that the Commissioners had recaived an action letter and several Notices of Appeal, as well as, information regarding the Planning Commission Institute. He also indicated an additional attachment for Item 8.1 on the agenda, PA 87-178 Enea Plaza Planned Development Rezoning request for a redefinition of the Planned Development. Regular Meeting PCM-8-16 February 1, 1988 . . • ~ • ~ ~ ~ ~ PUBLIC HEARINGS SUBJECT: PA 87-178 Enea Plaza (Southern Portion) - Planned Development Rezoning request to rezone the southern portion of Assessor's Parcel Number 941-1500-40 on the west side of Amador Plaza Road near Dublin Boulevard. Cm. Barnes opened the public hearing and called for the Staff Report. Mr. Barger presented some background information relating to ~he current request for rezoning of the southern portion of parcel number 941-1500-40. On June 22, 1987, the City Council adopted a Resolution No. 41-87 approving a PD, Planned Development Rezoning. The rezoning permitted a change in land use from a previous Planned Development, 1464.th Zoning Unit under Alameda County, which allowed administrative office uses and a limited range of retail uses compatable with office uses, to a new Planned Development which allows wider range of retail shopper, office, personal service and financial uses. One of the conditions of approval of the Planned Development rezoning in PA 87-018 required that the applicant dedicate and fully improve a roadway through the southern portion of parcel 941-1500-40. On November 24, 1987, the Eneas filed a lawsuit challenging the Condition requiring the dedication and improvement of the proposed street right-of-way. As part of the settlement agreement, the Enea's have submitted an irrevocable offer to dedicate the street right-of-way to the City, which the City agrees to accept only when the rest of the proposed road between Amador Plaza Road and Golden Gate Drive is ready for construction. The settlement also requires the City to initiate the planned development rezoning process for a redefinition of the Planned Development to provide that the uses permitted in the southern portion shall be identical to those uses permitted pursuant to City Council Resolution No. 41-87 and Planned Development Application PA 87- 018. The proposed land uses are consistant with goals and policies of both the General Plan and the Downtown Dublin Specific Plan. The General Plan calls for retail, office and automotive uses. The Specific Plan calls for a wide range of uses for this area, including retail, office, hotel, restaurant and commercial facilities. Compatibility would be maintained if the same land uses approved in PA 87-018 were applied to the 3.0+ acre site in question. Mr. Barger stated it is Staff's opinion that it is reasonable and appropriate to apply those uses to the parcel with the clarification that "cocktail lounges" would be considered as "taverns" under conditional uses. Mr. Barger stated it should b+e noted that the Downtown Dublin Specific Plan sets forth policies that will apply to all future development on this site. It is emphasized that the applicant thoroughly review the Downtown Dublin Specific Plan before submitting development proposals to the City. Regular Meeting PCM-8-17 February 1, 1988 . • ' • . Mr. Barger also stated with approval of the planned development rezoning, all future development on this site shall be reviewed throught the City's Site Development Review procedure. The balance o~ the site shall continue to be controlled by the land uses listed in the 1464th Zoning Unit. In response to an inquiry by Cm. Burnham, for clarification as to whether this approval would allow uses equal to those approved for the larger parcel, Mr. Barger stated that cocktail lounges/taverns would be conditional uses. There being no further comments, from the audience or Rich Enea, who was present, Cm. Barnes closed the public hearing. On motion by Cm. Burnham, seconded by Cm. Zika, and by a unanimous vote, a Resolution was adopted approving a negative declaration of environmental significance concerning PA 87-178, Enea Plaza (southern portion) planned development rezoning. _ RESOLUTION N0. 88 - 005 RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT A NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL SIGNIFICANCE CONCERNING PA 87-178, ENEA PLAZA (SOUTHERN PORTION) PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REZONING APPLICATION On motion by Cm. Mack, seconded by Cm. Tempel, and by a unanimous vote, a Resolution was adopted recommending the City Council establish findings and general provisions for a planned development rezoning concerning PA 87-178. RESOLUTION N0. 88 - 006 RECOMMENDING THE CITY COUNCIL ESTABLISH FINDINGS AND GENERAL PROVISIONS FOR A PD, PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REZONING CONCERNING PA 87-178, ENEA PLAZA PD, PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REZONING APPLICATION * ~ ~ ~ SUBJECT: PA 87-045 Hansen Ranch General Plan Amendment Study, Planned Development Prezoning, Tentative Subdivision Map No. 5766, and Annexation request for 282 dwelling .~>,its on 147 acres, west of Silvergate Drive and north Hansen Drive. Cm. Barnes opened the public hearing and called for the Staff Report. Mr. Tong advised the Commissioners on the backgound information on this application. The Hansen Hill Development Corporation requested a General Plan Amendment Study for residential development on a 148 acre site adjacent to, but outside of, the City limits. The site is within the City's General Plan Planning Area. Regular Meeting PCM-8-18 February l, 1988 • ~ • • The City Council authorized the General Plan Amendment Study on August 11, 1986, and hired the consulting firm of EIP to assist in processing the General Plan Amendment Study and Environmental Impact kegort. The Planning Commission held two study sessions on February 2, and February 17, 1987, to provide Staff and the Applicant with a list of issues to be addressed in the study. The Planning Commission held a field trip to the site on February 28, 1987. The Applicant filed an amended application on Mareh 16, 1987, to include a General Plan Amendment, Planned Development Prezoning, and Tentative Subdivision Map No. 5766. An annexation request was filed with the understanding that the annexation could not occur until after the City acted on the General Plan Amendment and Planned Development Prezoning. After the Applicant submitted the complete application materials, the Draft Environmental Impact Report was prepared and released on December 22, 1987 for public review and comment. Mr. Tong stated that at this time it would be appropriate for the Planning Commission to hear the applicant, Gordon Jacoby, Vice President, Hansen Hill Development Corporation present comments regarding the proposed pro~ect and the Draft Environmental Impact Report. Mr. Jacoby passed a hand-out to the Planning Commission and Staff entitled "Hansen Hill Chronology". He mentioned what an important step toward development the draft EIR was and reiterated items that were included in the EIR document. Mr. Jacoby stated that there had been a revision to retain the knoll when it was discovered that approximately 36,000 truckloads of dirt would have to be removed from the site. He stated that this would be unacceptable. He also stated that by revising the neighborhood layout they hoped to lessen the impact on homes at the entrance to the project. Mr. Jacoby stated that a meeting had been scheduled for February 9, 1988, at Murray School to present revisions to the plan to interested community members. David Gates, of David Gates & Associates, prese~nted slides of the proposed site showing a view of the upper portion of thE site from the center of the property. He also showed the oak bay woodland above and below, grazing land, vegetation along Martin Canyon Creek and swales closer to the creek. He mentioned they hoped to keep the grading away from the creek and utilize the swales. Scott Edmondson of EIP spoke on the adequacy of the draft EIR, and that comments will be responded to in the final EIR. James Cuellar, 7385 Hansen Drive, who is opposed to the project expressed his concern with the amount of grading on top and into the hill. He stated that there is a significant amount of weeping and potential erosion due to springs on the hill. He mentioned that there could be a financial impact if there were a slide as lending agencies tend not to finance a property with a history Regular Meeting PCM-8-19 February 1, 1988 a • of landslides. He mentioned traffic and noise as additional concerns and also commented that he was in favor of limiting the number of homes in this development. Marjorie La. Bar, 11707 Juarez Lane, a member of Preserve Area Ridgelands Committee, expressed she was opposed to the project. She also mentioned that she did not feel that there had been enough time to review the EIR and also felt it was inconsistant with the General Plan with reference to open space. She requested that additional copies of the EIR be made available. A. Schuitemaker, 7397 Hansen Drive, stated he was opposed to the project and was concerned with landslides; mass grading; artificial fill; maintenance of slopes; polution of water supplies, and the fact that approximately 1,024, or 52~ of the trees on site would be affected. He was concerned with the visual quality since one third of the hillside vegetation would be removed. He also expressed concern with the impact of traffic on Dublin Boulevard and San Ramon Road. Harvey Scudder, 7409 Hansen Drive, who is opposed to the project was cancerned with the lack of EIR copies available for the public to review. He also mentioned the ecology damage to the hills in that no new oak trees have been planted. The mention by the developer of homeowner maintenance of open space was also a concern. Debra Vasquez, 7669 Martin Canyon Road, who is opposed to the project stated she would be greatly affected if there were a slide as her house sits next to the creek. She was also concerned with a fire access road ox emergency access road if her street were to be used. She was also concerned with the projection of impacts on schools. Mel Gutleben, 11397 Rolling Hills Drive, who is opposed to the project was concerned about what would happen to the rare species of wildlife with ereek area development on steep grades. He stated that when he purchased his home there was no mention of hillside development. He would like to know the details of the revised layout. Glen Hwnmensky, 11304 Rolling Hills Drive, who is opposed to the project was concerned with what this project can do for the City of Dublin at the expense of our environment, such as sewage and water supply. He was concerned with the population of foxes. Bill Walker, 74b9 Hansen Drive, who stated that he was not opposed to the project but thought the EIR was not adequate. He felt that children, environment, etc, were all important. He also stated that your home is a major investment and that landslides can create a resale problem. He wanted to know where the two entrances to the project were going to be located. The following residents returned a"speaker slip" which indicated that they did not wish to speak: Mr. & Mrs. R. L. Varndell, 7403 Hansen Drive; opposed to the project. Mrs. G. Alexander-Jones, 7349 Hanen Drive, opposed to the project. Michael & Zi Tsirlis, 7297 Hansen Drive, opposed to the pro~ect. James Pau1 Clark, 7270 Prow Way, in favor of ,the project. Neville & Linda Howse, 7464 Hansen Drive, opposed to the project. Regular Meeting PCM-8-20 February l, 1988 , - ' ~ • Susan Clark, 7270 Prow Way, in favor of the project. M. Lockhart, 7270 Prow Way, in favor of the project. Mathew & Elaine Lopez, 7433 Hansen Drive, opposed to the project. Mention by a member of the audience was made to move the next meeting to a larger facility. Having more copies of the EIR available for public review and copies of the EIR summary was also mentioned. A Dublin resident asked what the process after tonight would be. Mr. Tong stated the following: - Planning Commission to continue Public Hearing to February 16, 1988, for Draft Environmental Impact Report. - After coraments received - Staff & consultant will provide Final Environmental Impact Report. - Final Environmental Impact Report - subsequer..t meeting. - Planning Commission will review Final EIR - send recommendation to City Council. - City Council will adopt final EIR. - Details and other project related issues will be discussed at next Planning Commission meeting. - EIR must be approved in order to go ahead with pro,ject. On motion by Cm. Maek and seconded by Cm. Burnham and by unanimous vote it was moved that the Public Hearing be continued to February 16, 1988. A short recess was called. Cm. Barnes called the meeting back to order at 9:00 p.m. NEW BUSINESS OR UNFINISHED BUSINESS None. ~ ~ ~ * OTHER BUSINESS Mr, Tong advised that the Goodguys Sign Variance will be heard at the City Council Meeting of February 8, 1988. Mr. Tong stated that he had received confirmation for all of the Commissioner's except one to attend the Planning Commission Institute. * ~ * ~ PLANNING COMMISSIONERS' CONCERNS Cm. Tempel inquired about the traffic light at Lewis Avenue and Village Parkway and when it would be installed. Mr. Tong stated he believed it was due sometime in 1988. Regular Meeting PCM-8-21 February 1, 1988 _ ~ . + ~ ~ Cm. Zika was concerned when Peppertree, between Shannon and Vomac, was to be scheduled for slurry or repavement. Mr. Tong stated he would check with the Maintenance Department schedule to see when Peppertree was scheduled for servicing. Cm. Mack asked for confirmation of the Goals and Objectives Meeting place and time, and asked if input by a Commissioner coul~l be received. Mr. Tong stated the Goals and Objectives Meeting is scheduled for February 23, 1988 at 6:30 p.m., at Shannon Center. Cm. Barnes scheduled a training session for Wednesday, February 10, 1988 at 7:00 p.m, for Commissioners. Cm. Burnham inquired as to the status of Bordea~ Estates. Is the project going forward as scheduled? Mr. Tong stated that construction is ongoing and a requests for an additional 20 lots are in for plan check. Cm. Burnham had questions regarding the relocation of Valley Gontinuatian High School. Mr. Tong discussed the zoning ordinance requirements and certain State law provisions regarding the high school. Cm. Burnham inquired as to the status of the Hot Rod Gafe. Mr. Tong stated the project is on hold. Evidently the applicant has disappeared. Cm. Barnes mentioned we need to have additional Speaker Slips available for the next Planning Commission meeting. Mr. Tong stated he will see that we have an additional supply available. ~ ~ ~ * ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 9:15 p.m. * ~ ~ ~ Respectfully submitted, Planning Ccammi sion ha per ~~~~~U.~.~`Z`- Laurence L. Tong Planning Director ~ ~ ~ ~ Regular Meeting PCM-8-22 February 1, 1988