Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02-24-2004 PC MinutesPlanning Commission Minutes CALL TO ORDER A regular meeting of the City of Dublin Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, February 24, 2004, in the Council Chambers located at 100 Civic Plaza. Commissioner Fasulkey called the meeting to order at6:00 p.m. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Fasulkey, Nassar, King, and Machtmes; Eddie Peabody, Jr. Community Development Director; Joni Pattillo, Assistant City Manager; Michael Porto, Planning Consultant; Janet Harbin, Senior Planner; Andy Byde, Senior Planner; Marnie Waffle, Assistant Planner; and Maria Carrasco, Recording Secretary. Absent: Commission Jennings ADDITIONS OR REVISIONS TO THE AGENDA - None MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETINGS - February 10, 2004 were approved as submitted. ORAL COMMUNICATION - None WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS 7.1 Goals & Objectives Mr. Peabody presented the Goals & Objectives to the Planning Commission. The City Council has scheduled the Annual Goals and Objectives Study Session for Monday, April 19, 2004 at 5:00 p.m. This Study Session provides the City Council with an opportunity to reach consensus on the primary direction and allocation of City resources for the upcoming year. As has been done in past years, the Planning Commission has been asked to provide input on the preliminary Goals and Objectives for Planning. The adopted FY 2003-2004 Goals and Objectives included 28 objectives that were assigned to the Planning function. Of those objectives, 17 objectives were given high priority, seven objectives were given medium priority and four objectives were given a low priority. Staff prepared a status report that outlines the level of accomplishment for the 28 objectives assigned to Planning (Attachment 1). Of the 28 objectives, five are complete or will be complete by the end of the fiscal year (June 30, 2004), 14 are underway and will be carried over to next fiscal year and nine have had no progress. In preparation for the City Council Goals and Objectives Study Session, and in order to have a dialogue with the City Commissions, the City Council has scheduled a City Council/Commission Workshop for Saturday March 20, 2004 at 8:00 a.m. The purpose of the 22 2001 workshop is to provide the Commission with an opportunity to discuss Goals and Objectives under their purview and the reason(s) for their respective Goals and Objectives rankings with the City Council. The City Council will take no action until the City Council Goals and Objectives Study Session. It is recommended that the Planning Commission receive the staff report, deliberate and prioritize the Preliminary Goals and Objectives for FY 2004-2005. The Planning Commission discussed with Staff prioritizing projects related to the Goals & Objectives for the City. Mr. Peabody thanked the Planning Commission for their efforts. Joni Pattillo, Assistant City Manager, stated that during the Saturday, March 20, 2004 meeting with the City Council, the Planning Commission can ask any questions related to the Goals & Objectives and Strategic Planning at that time. PUBLIC HEARINGS 8.1 PA 04-004 Amendments to Title 8 of the Dublin Municipal Code, Zoning Ordinance Chapter 8.12, Zoning Districts and Permitted Uses of Land; and, Chapter 8.108, Temporary Use Permit. The proposed amendments would make the establishment of automobile/vehicle storage lots in C-2, General Commercial zoning districts subject to a Temporary Use Permit and would establish development review standards for more effective regulation of automobile/vehicle storage lots. Cm. Fasulkey opened the public hearing and asked for the staff report. Ms. Waffle presented the staff report. The Dublin Zoning Ordinance currently regulates Automobile/Vehicle Storage Lots by allowing them to be established in the C-2, General Commercial and M-l, Light Industrial zoning districts with approval of a Conditional Use Permit by the Planning Commission. Recently, it came to Staff's attention through the efforts of zoning enforcement that five automobile/vehicle storage lots had been established by three of the City's automobile dealerships. In the process of reviewing the Conditional Use Permit applications, Staff noted that in some of the proposed vehicle storage locations the Zoning Ordinance requirement for fencing created access and circulation conflicts as well as aesthetic issues. The proposed amendments to the Zoning Ordinance include: · Changing the review and approval process for an automobile/vehicle storage lot in the C-2, General Commercial Zoning District to a Temporary Use Permit. Create a new category under the Temporary Use Permit Chapter for automobile/vehicle storage lots and establish regulations for such storage lots ~P[annind COmmission 23 cR~qu&r q:¥,.~n~a~ 24~ 2004 The City Council's direction to Staff was to evaluate the current regulation of automobile/vehicle storage lots and propose an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance to address the City Council's concerns as follows: 1) setting a precedent in the community that allows vehicle storage in shopping center parking lots for an unlimited amount of time; 2) the aesthetic impact to the community when a storage lot is proposed along a major arterial road; and, 3) the potential for land owners to be less interested in redeveloping their land when it is profitable to use it for vehicle storage. Staff is proposing that automobile/vehicle storage lots located in C-2, General Commercial zoning districts be subject to a Temporary Use Permit process subject to the following development standards: The establishment of an automobile/vehicle storage lot would be limited to a maximum of 6 consecutive months. · One three-month extension could be granted upon written request, submitted at least 14 calendar days prior to the expiration of the permit, to the Director of Community Development. The written request must include a reason for needing an extension other than to simply continue the land use. · The storage of vehicles would be limited to those vehicles belonging to an established Dublin based business. · The storage lot would not be permitted to be open to the public nor would any sales transactions be allowed to take place at the storage lot location. · A temporary use permit granted for an automobile/vehicle storage lot could not be renewed once it had expired. · A maximum of one temporary use permit could be granted per location within a single calendar year. A location would be defined as an address, a parcel, or a shopping center; whichever is larger, as determined by the Director of Community Development. · A temporary use permit would be denied if it were determined that the Automobile/Vehicle Storage Lot would eliminate parking required for another use. · An automobile/vehicle storage lot could not be located within 100 feet of a heavily traveled roadway. The establishment and operation of the use must comply with all standards developed by the Director of Community Development. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission open the Public Hearing and receive Staff's presentation; Take testimony from the Public; Question Staff and the Public; Close the Public Hearing and deliberate; and, Adopt a Resolution recommending City Council approval of Amendments to Title 8 of the Dublin Municipal Code, Zoning Ordinance Chapter 8.12, Zoning Districts and Permitted Uses of Land; and, Chapter 8.108, Temporary Use Permit. Ms. Waffle stated that City Staff received a letter from Guidotti and Lee, Attorneys at Law, opposing the Zoning Ordinance Amendment. She concluded her presentation and was available for questions. Cm. Fasulkey closed the public hearing to deliberate. Cm. King stated that the permit, once expired, could not be renewed but the wording States one permit can be issued each calendar year. He asked for clarification on the wording. Ms. Waffle stated Staff can change the language but as it is currently proposed, it is one permit per calendar year. Cm. Fasulkey asked if a temporary permit pass with title or not pass with title if the property sells. Mr. Peabody explained it is good for the length of the permit. Cm. Fasulkey asked if anyone from the audience wished to speak on the subject; hearing none he closed the public hearing. Cm. King had concerns about the wording on the length of time for the permit. Ms. Waffle stated language could be added stating a new permit could not be applied for until one continuous year had passed. They get one six-month permit per calendar year and it cannot be renewed. Cm. King stated that would accomplish the objective. The Planning Commission asked Staff to return with the amended language on the length of time for the permit. Cm. Nassar asked Staff their opinion on the letter received opposing the amendment. Ms. Waffle stated that Mr. Guidotti's concerns are related to Crown Chevrolet currently storing vehicles off site adjacent to Mr. Guidotti's property. On a motion by Cm. King seconded by Cm. Machtmes with the amended language by a vote 4- 0-1 with Cm. Jennings absent, the Planning Commission approved RESOLUTION NO. 04 - 07 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF PA 04-004, AMENDMENTS TO TITLE 8 OF THE DUBLIN MUNICIPAL CODE (ZONING ORDINANCE), CHAPTER 8.12, ZONING DISTRICTS AND PERMITTED USES OF LAND; AND, CHAPTER 8.108, TEMPORARY USE PERMIT REGARDING AUTOMOBILE~EHICLE STORAGE LOTS :P~nni~j Commt~sion 24, 2004 8.2 PA 02-003 Legacy Partners/AMB Properties - West Dublin Transit Village Planned Development Rezoning & Stage 2 Development Plan, Tentative Parcel Map, Site Development Review, and Development Agreement for development of a mixed-use project consisting of a maximum of 308 high density apartments (4 stories over 2 levels of parking), neighborhood retail and service uses on the ground floor, and a 150,000 square foot office building Cm. Fasulkey opened the public hearing and asked for the staff report. Ms. Harbin, Senior Planner, presented the staff report and a PowerPoint on the project for the Planning Commission. She explained that Legacy Partners has submitted a project application consisting of a Planned Development Rezoning and Stage 2 Development Plan, Vesting Tentative Parcel Map, Site Development Review and a Development Agreement for a mixed- use project transit village consisting of a four and 1/2 story structure containing a maximum of 304 multi-family residences, a small amount of neighborhood retail uses on the ground floor, and a 150,500 square foot office building on the southern portion of the site closest to the Alameda County Flood Control Channel and freeway corridor. The approximately 9.06 acre property is owned by AMB Properties, and located north of the 1-580 freeway, south of the extension of St. Patrick Way in the West Dublin BART Specific Plan area of Dublin. Adjacent to the west boundary of the property are light industrial and professional/administrative office uses. Additionally, the site is adjacent to the west boundary of the residential project proposed by Orix on the BART property, recently approved by the Planning Commission for high-density residential land use and commercial development. Ms. Harbin stated that this application has been reviewed by the applicable City Departments and agencies, and their comments have been incorporated into the Stage 2 Development Plan (see Resolution, Attachment 2) and the Conditions of Approval for the Vesting Tentative Parcel Map and Site Development Review (see Resolution, Attachment 3). The proposed project is consistent with the Dublin General Plan, West Dublin BART Specific Plan, and Stage 1 Development Plan rezoning previously approved, and represents an appropriate and well- planned transit-oriented project for the site, which will assist in revitalizing the West Dublin BART Specific Plan area and the economic viability of the area. A letter was received from the law firm of Adams Broadwell Joseph & Cardozo regarding the environmental review of the project. The City has fully analyzed all the environmental issues through the mitigated negative declaration and the issues in the comments from the law firm are addressed in the matrix in Attachment 1, Responses to Comments. The law firm did not have the responses when they wrote this letter. Ms Harbin stated that Staff recommends the Planning Commission adopt a resolution approving Mitigated Negative Declaration, adopt a resolution recommending City Council adopt the Ordinance approving the Planned Development Rezoning and Stage 2 Development Plan, adopt a resolution approving the Vesting Tentative Parcel Map and Site Development Review, subject to Conditions and adopt a Resolution recommending City Council approve the r?Fanntngj Commi,s,~'ion 26 qk~rz~aD, 24, 200 ~ Development Agreement between the City and AMB Properties. She concluded her presentation and asked if there were any questions. Cm. King asked for clarification on the pedestrian pathway shown on Exhibit 3. Ms. Harbin stated that is a potential pathway on the applicant's property across the BART/Orix site, which might be connected in the future but is not currently planned. Cm. Machtmes asked what happens to the in-lieu fees the City collects. Mr. Peabody stated they go into the City's Inclusionary Fund and are used for development of affordable housing such as the Senior Housing project. John Greer, Applicant, stated they have presented a very high quality project that they hope will be a model for the Bay Area. He hopes the Planning Commission recommends approval. Cm. Machtmes had a concern with the small amount of retail for the project since the intent of the project is to create a vibrant urban environment. A key element of such an environment is a significant retail presence. Mr. Greer stated they gave a lot of thought to retail for the site but felt there are better opportunities for additional retail development in other locations in more visible corridors. If the project had a significant amount of ground level retail it would die. They propose a more vibrant residential community as opposed to having vacant retail spaces. Tanya Gulesserian, representing the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (IBEW) and other unions, stated the project is not ready to move forward and is not ready to be approved due to lack of environmental review. Ms. Gulesserian stated that the project will have unmitigated significant traffic impacts and that the City's analysis is inadequate. She further stated that the problem with approving a mitigated negative declaration is that an environmental review has not been conducted and an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) is needed. By not preparing an EIR the City is missing out on the opportunity to improve the project. A Negative Declaration is stating that an EIR study is not required. She urges the Planning Commission to not approve the project and that an EIR be performed. Cm. Nassar asked Ms. Gulesserian if these studies are conducted and there are no issues, what would be her position. Ms. Gulesserian said for the City to move forward. Cm. King asked who the clients are represented by her law firm. Ms. Gulesserian responded IBEW, and the Plumbers Local 595, Steamfitters Local 342 and Sheet Metal Workers Local 104. ~?[fanmnd Commi, s'swn 27 q: eSr~api 24, 2004 Cm. King said labor unions are not usually concerned with traffic. Ms. Gulesserian stated they are more proactive focusing on sustainable development and sustainable growth in urban areas. Cm. King asked Ms. Gulesserian where are the traffic impacts likely to occur that are unacceptable. Ms. Gulesserian stated that there are five intersections that will exceed thresholds of significance for traffic. They are on the nine pages of the mitigated negative declaration. There are two roadways - Golden Gate and St. Patrick Way - that will exceed the City's standards. Andrew Michael, Vice President of Sustainable Development for Bay Area Council, stated the Bay Area Council was here to speak in support of the project. He would like to submit a letter for the record that states their support of the project. The project will be a model for smart growth with mixed-use development as well as being consistent with the General Plan, Specific Plan and Housing Element. It will be a benefit for Dublin as well as for the region as a whole. Cm. Fasulkey closed the public hearing to deliberate. Cm. King stated that he is not satisfied to the attention paid to the traffic impacts. Ms. Harbin stated Omni Means conducted a traffic study with a parking analysis. The study concluded that the improvements planned could meet the traffic demands. The traffic study proposed for the project tiered off the previous West Dublin BART Specific Plan negative declaration, which talked about expanding Golden Gate to four lanes, Regional Street to three lanes and the extension of St. Patrick Way. There will be contribution by the developers for traffic signals and also the EIR prepared for the BART Station and extension in West Dublin and improvements. Cm. Fasulkey re-opened the public hearing. Cm. Nassar asked Ms. Gulesserian if she reviewed the staff report and matrix prepared by the City. Ms. Gulesserian responded yes. She provided the City with additional information that quantified construction and operational air quality impacts. David Gold, representative of AMB, stated this is an exemplary project the City has done. CEQA is based upon the concept of not repeating the process at the General Plan stage and Specific Plan stage. He was at the meeting when the City adopted the West Dublin Specific Plan for 71 acres. This project is 9 acres of those 71 acres. There is nothing about this project that isn't consistent with the City's Specific Plan. He thanked the Planning Commission. Cm. Fasulkey closed the public hearing ;Pfannin~] (,Vrnmis,~'hm 28 :FeF;rua~. 24, 2004 ~R.¢~u[ar !Met'ting Ms. Harbin stated that this is a developed site and existing water and sewer services are there. Some expansion of specific lines may be required, but the project site has current utility service already in place. Cm. King stated the overall plan is a beautiful plan, but he is not satisfied with information on traffic. Cm. Fasulkey asked for Staff to discuss traffic. Ray Kuzbari, Senior Civil Engineer, stated a comprehensive traffic study was prepared in 2000 in conjunction with the downtown specific plans. The traffic study looked at a huge number of intersections and many recommendations came out of that study. When the AMB/Legacy project came along, the City conducted a traffic study specific to that project. All the improvements prescribed for the specific plans were incorporated into the traffic study for this project. The City looked at 16 intersections within the downtown area and roadway segments in the vicinity of the project. The intersections studied were all mitigated at acceptable levels of service at build out conditions based on the improvements that came out of the traffic study for the specific plan. The traffic study for the AMB project only showed Regional Street being impacted by the project. All the 16 intersections that were analyzed showed levels of insignificance based on all the improvements that were in the traffic study. Kit Faubion, City Attorney, stated that in the prior environmental review this particular project addressed the mitigation recommended in the West Dublin BART Specific Plan in general but at the request of the property owner very specific attention was given to the site and the proposed project in the traffic analysis. Cm. King stated he has not read the information and cannot vote in favor of the project. Cm. Nassar asked Mr. Kuzbari if there were any other options that can be looked at if traffic is a problem in the future. Mr. Kuzbari stated all the mitigations have been clearly identified including roadway improvements, and he feels strongly that the mitigation measures are very important and will be implemented in the future. Beyond those mitigations and improvements, nothing more should be required as the impacts on traffic will not be significant. Cm. Fasulkey asked where the traffic study is located in the staff report for the project. Ms. Harbin responded that summaries of the traffic studies are located in the matrix and the Mitigated Negative Declaration. There was a lengthy discussion on the traffic issues between Staff and the Planning Commission. ~P~r~nb~/] Commission 29 ,'l:~¢~n~,~? 74, 200 ~ (R~suFar ~;l~eetin~J Mr. Peabody suggested for the Planning Commission to take the time to read the documents prepared by Staff. He recommended continuing the item until after the IKEA hearing to allow Staff time to prepare the additional traffic information requested by the Planning Commission. Cm. Fasulkey continued the item as suggested by Mr. Peabody. He directed Staff to compile the additional information requested regarding the traffic study. 8.3 PA 02-34 IKEA Retail Complex - Supplemental Environmental Impact Report, General Plan/Specific Plan Amendment, PD - Planned Development rezoning with related Stage 1 and Stage 2 Development Plans, Development Agreement and Site DeveIopment Review. The proposed project is located on an approximately 27.54 acre site. The westerly portion of the site would include an approximately 317,000 square foot IKEA home furnishing facility and the easterly portion of the site would include an approximately 138,000 square foot retail center Cm. Fasulkey asked for the staff report. Andy Byde, Senior Planner, presented the staff report and a PowerPoint presentation. Mr. Byde explained that the Applicant, IKEA, is proposing an approximately 317,000 square foot IKEA home furnishing retail facility and an approximately 137,000 square foot retail center on a 27- acre site. The IKEA facility is proposed to be located on the westerly portion of the site and the retail center is proposed to be located on the easterly portion of the site. The site is bounded to the south by 1-580, to the west by Arnold Road, to the north the future Martinelli Way, and to the east, Hacienda Drive. Additionally, IKEA is requesting approval of various wall signage as well as a 99-foot tall pylon sign. The proposed project includes the following actions: The Applicant/Developer has applied to the City for a number of planning actions and approvals necessary for constructing the IKEA Home Furnishings Store and obtain general approvals for the retail center portion of the site. Analyses of these planning actions are included below. These actions collectively comprise PA 02-034 and include: Certification of a Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (SEIR); · An Amendment to the General Plan reflecting the requested land use modification from Campus Office to General Commercial; · An Amendment to the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan reflecting the requested land use modification from Campus Office to General Commercial; · A Planned Development Rezone/Stage 1 and 2 Development Plan to establish zoning and development standards for the entire Site; A Site Development Review (SDR) requesting approval of the site layout of the IKEA portion of the site and the architecture of the IKEA building; · A Master Sign Program (MSP) requesting approval of directional signage, flags, and wall signs for the IKEA portion of the Project and a 99-foot tall freestanding sign to serve both the IKEA and the retail center sites; and · Development Agreement (DA) that would vest the laws applicable to the project for a five year time frame (a DA is required by the policies of the Specific Plan). cPfanninlt (?ommis*~wn 30 'Regular !Meet h~t q;e~rua©~ 24. 2004 Planning Staff is requesting that the Planning Commission refer its hearing jurisdiction on the Master Sign Program and the Site Development Review to the City Council, pursuant to Section 8.96.020.C.3 of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance. Staff requests that the Planning Commission transfer original hearing jurisdiction on this project to the City Council due to the requirement that the General Plan, Specific Plan amendments and the Planned Development Rezoning be approved by the City Council. Any comments or requested changes that the Planning Commission has to either the Conditions of Approval and or any of the proposed signage will be brought to the City Council. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission: open Public Hearing, hear Applicant's presentation; question Staff, Applicant and the Public; close Public Hearing; deliberate; and adopt a resolution recommending the City Council certify the Supplemental Environmental Impact Report; adopt a resolution recommending the City Council approve amendments to the General Plan and the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan; adopt a resolution recommending the City Council approve a Planned Development (PD) rezoning with related Stage 1 and Stage 2 Development Plans; adopt a resolution recommending the City Council approve a Site Development Review for the IKEA portion of the Project; adopt a resolution recommending the City Council approve a Master Sign Program for IKEA; and adopt a resolution recommending the City Council adopt a Development Agreement for the IKEA project. Cm. Fasulkey opened .the public hearing and invited the applicant to speak. Doug Greenholz, Applicant presented a PowerPoint for the project. He introduced the project team and explained the origins of IKEA and vision of the store. He stated that there are more than 192 stores worldwide in 31 countries. Dublin will be the third Bay Area store and planned to open in 2005. IKEA would be an added benefit to the community. He provided the Planning Commission with an extensive overview of the project and proposed signage for the site. He thanked them for their consideration of the project. Randy Ackerman, Opus West, stated they have developed many projects in Dublin such as Hacienda Crossings, Emerald Point Office development, and Creekside Business Park. He discussed traffic circulation, parking, signage and the proposed tenants for the Lifestyle Center of the site. Mr. Greenholz discussed the economic and job benefits for Dublin. He reiterated that IKEA is an overall benefit for the area. Cm. King asked if there were any other sites looked at in Dublin. Mr. Greenholz stated they looked at two other sites but felt this was the best site due to the infrastructure already in place and the surrounding retail. Cm. King asked the distance between this piece of property and BART station. q~[annin~t Commissfim 31 q:e6rtm©, 24, 200-I rR~,quI~r !Meeting} Mr. Byde responded .37 miles. He explained that generally the acceptable walking distance for the United States is .25 mile. Cm. Nassar asked Mr. Greenholz about concerns with the height of the sign. Mr. Greenholz stated that, due to the combined sign with the adjacent retail, there is not sufficient room below the IKEA panel to allow visibility for the tenants in the Lifestyle Center. Cm. Nassar asked about the height of the IKEA section. Mr. Byde responded the bottom of the letters are approximately 88 feet. Cm. Machtmes noted that the Specific Plan states that a cornerstone of the Specific Plan is to locate employment centers next to public transit, meaning BART. He asked the applicants why the City should change the Specific Plan and General Plan designation. Mr. Greenholz stated IKEA would compliment the surrounding retail. Part of the reason they are looking at this site is because it was available due to Commerce One falling out of their contract with Alameda County because office space is no longer viable. The studies that the City produced through Economic Planning Systems concluded that office would not be built for another 10 years. The benefits to the City are enormous - economically and part of the attractiveness is the location of the BART station. Cm. Machtmes stated that Staff had informed him they expect 15% of neighboring office users to use BART, which would equal about 450 people if the current approved use of a 3000 employee office development were maintained. He asked how many people we could expect to use BART to get to IKEA and asked if there is any data from the Emeryville store that tracks customers using BART. Mr. Greenholz said they do not track customers using BART. Mr. Ackerman stated there is also a bus stop going to be built on Martinelli Dr. Cm. Machtmes said there isn't any reason to expect IKEA to maximize the location next to BART. It is not reasonable to expect customers will take BART to a furniture store. Mr. Greenholz stated it does happen worldwide where customers come on mass transit. They shop and have the product shipped to their home. It is a big focus for IKEA to be close to public transit. Cm. Machtmes stated that one of the projected uses that maximize the transit center orientation is high density residential. How will IKEA compliment the existing nearby residential and the high density residential planned for 600' to the west in the transit village? ~PFannm~] Commission 32 q:ebruaO, 24, 2004 ~R~But~r ~Meetin~ Mr. Greenholz stated IKEA has done a lot of screening along the back of the building. They have been working closely with Staff on landscaping and creating a buffer between IKEA and the mixed use along Arnold Road. Cm. Machtmes asked if it is the plan to buffer those two sites rather than incorporate them, and how is that complimentary? Mr. Greenholz stated there is also very easy pedestrian access to and through the site coming from BART and the transit center. Cm. Machtmes stated he could not read the sign displayed on the PowerPoint slide, which was taken beyond the exit for Hacienda and asked how will the 99 foot sign signal the driver of the location. It seems drivers will have already passed the exit so it doesn't serve the purpose it's intended for. Mr. Greenholz stated, based on a study conducted, the logo and the colors of the sign would be visible from the exit point at Hacienda Drive. Due to the size of the slide, it does not show that. Cm. Machtmes stated because it is a destination retail, wouldn't folks already know it's there. Mr. Greenholz stated they would love to propose a larger sign so it is readable from farther away. Cm. Machtmes stated that it would seem to argue that the sign isn't necessary. Cm. Machtmes stated that the application states the architecture has a European influence. He asked what about IKEA's 600' long, 70' high blue and yellow building evokes European influence. Mr. Greenholz responded IKEA warehouses on site, which requires a large building. The building is a prototypical building for IKEA. Cm. Nassar asked how many of the employees will be from the Tri-Valley area. Mr. Greenholz stated they would recruit locally from the area. Ted Wilcox, Dublin resident made a comment about traffic and bypassing the 580 by driving down Dublin Boulevard to get to the 680. Cm. Fasulkey asked if there were any further questions of Staff; hearing none he closed the public hearing. Cm. King stated that on page 5 of the agenda statement is unclear. He asked for clarification on the following text: the DSEIR concluded that increased regional traffic beyond that anticipated in the 1993 EIR would result in potentially significant impacts on several intersections and road segments. PFa nnint] (?ommission 33 ~R6'gu~tr Meeting] 'Febr~m~ 24, 200.~ Mitigation measures in the DSEIR proposed improvements to reduce these impacts to less than significant except at cumulative buildout for 2025for various 1-580 and 1-680 freeway segments, already operating below the acceptable level of service D. As a result of the Project, the traffic analysis anticipates that the traffic on these freeway segments, will increase by an average of approximately 1% He stated that appears that there are already below the acceptable level of service and this will make it worse. Mr. Byde stated that there are segments on that freeway that operate below acceptable levels of service as a result of development in San Joaquin County. Those levels are not resulting in Dublin but resulting from Livermore and east of Livermore. Cm. King asked if the reason that there were no measures proposed to reduce the impacts was because they would be minimal. Mr. Byde said the reason is that there are no feasible mitigations. The only potential mitigation would be to extend BART to San Joaquin County or additional lanes to the 1-580. Cm. King said this project would increase traffic on those freeways segments by an average of 1%. He has concerns with the additional traffic on the 1-580 and the potential for rear-ending the vehicles in front of him. He asked the range. Mr. Byde said .5 % to approximately 2%. Mr. Kuzbari stated that during the a.m. peak hour, the campus office development would generate a lot more trips than a commercial development for that parcel. He stated the project would be required to contribute to Tri Valley Transportation Fees to help fund regional improvement projects that has been planned. For example, there are plans to improve some of the 1-580 interchanges. Cm. King asked why the original General Plan designation was office for that site. Mr. Byde stated that when the specific plan was done, the Transit Center was not part of the specific plan area. That portion was added in 2001. Cm. King asked why. Mr. Peabody explained because that area was originally part of Camp Parks and were subsequently transferred to Alameda County Surplus Property Authority. The plans were developed to maximize development around the Transit Station. Cm. Machtmes asked how does the City or Staff know that Phase 2 of the project will be built at all, or as shown and in a timely manner. Mr. Byde stated given the current market dynamics additional retailers in the market that are not here have a desire to be in Dublin. q-'fannuU Commisaion 34 q:~:[in~a©~ 24, 2001 rR~,'gu&r !~[eetin~t Cm. Machtmes asked since we are being asked to change the planned use, is there a reason to think that the City will not end up with the same situation in the future to accommodate a Wal- Mart type use in a neighboring parcel. Mr. Byde stated based on the discussions with Alameda County and plans and improvements set forth and the residential development occurring, there is no way big box retail like Wal-Mart could afford to pay for the land value. Any future projects that come in are subject to the plans in place and the Commission and Council's approval of a particular project. Cm. Fasulkey wanted on the record was his concern with the height of the sign and would like to see it stay at 75 feet. Cm. Nassar asked if the Master Sign Program is being requested to be referred to the City Council. Mr. Peabody responded yes. Cm. Machtmes stated he does not agree with .37 miles being greater than what people are willing to walk and so doesn't agree with the proposition that the IKEA parcel is not within walking distance to BART. Comparisons were made to shops in downtown Palo Alto and Walnut Creek, which have shopping districts much longer and people enjoy the walks. If we are going to change the designation then we should do it to create the pedestrian oriented, vibrant environment we all say we want and which Phase 2 acknowledges in a smaller way. He feels it would be a terrible misuse of a piece of property that is closely related to the BART station, and that the IKEA portion does not complement existing and planned neighboring residential. Cm. King agreed with Cm. Machtmes. It is not consistent with the theory of the original plan in relation to the BART station. It is also going to make the traffic on the freeway worse. It is a beautiful proposal but not for this location. Cm. Nassar stated that he is in favor of the project. Cm. Fasulkey asked Cm. King where is there a better location for the project. Cm. King stated something similar to the Costco location in San Ramon that is not right off the freeway. Cm. Fasulkey asked Mr. Peabody for some direction. Mr. Peabody stated that there are four Planning Commissioners, which will require 3 votes in favor. What is being heard is a 2 to 2 vote. Ms. Faubion suggested that the items be sent to the City Council without a recommendation from the Planning Commission. :P[anmn[j (?omm£s'don 35 q:e6r~a, ry 24, 200.~ ',RcguFar B~eetm~] There was much discussion on whether to approve or deny the IKEA project. From the Planning Commission discussion, it was clear there were not enough votes to send a positive recommendation to the City Council because a positive recommendation requires 3 votes. The Planning Commission was okay recommending certification of the SEIR though, so that was the first motion. Motion #1 - On motion by Cm. King, seconded by Cm. Nassar, with a 3-1-1 vote with Cm. Machtmes voting no and Cm. Jennings absent the Planning Commission approved RESOLUTION NO. 04 - 10 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL CERTIFICATION OF A SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE IKEA PROJECT PA 02-034 The Planning Commission asked if they should consider each motion separately. Mr. Peabody suggested that the Planning Commission just deny all the rest of the items rather than going through them one by one. Some of the Planning Commissioners indicated they didn't want to recommend denial of the project. It was suggested that the Planning Commission act separately on the GPA/SPA item, then they could recommend denial on the rest of the items because of inconsistency with the General Plan. Cm. King then asked whether this was a way of not denying on the merits; answer was yes, it would not be denying on the merits. Motion #2 - On motion by Cm. Nassar, seconded by Cm. Fasulkey, by a 2-2-1 vote with Cm. King and Machtmes opposed, with Cm. Jennings absent, the motion failed recommending that the City Council approve the amendments to the General Plan and the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan. Without an approval recommendation on the GPA/SPA, none of the remaining actions could be recommended for approval because they would be inconsistent with the existing general plan and specific plan. The Planning Commission addressed the rest of the actions in a single motion. Motion #3: On motion by the Planning Commissioner's by a 3-0-1-1 vote with Cm. Jennings absent and Cm. Nassar abstaining to recommend denial of the Planned Development Rezoning with related Stage 1 and Stage 2 Development Plans, of the Site Development Review for the IKEA project, of the Master Sign Program, and of the Development Agreement for the IKEA project, and to forward the minutes of the Planning Commission meeting to the City Council. ~Pfannint] ('ommission 36 ~RfguFar !l[eeti.g 2004 8.2 PA 02-003 Legacy Partners/AMB Properties - West Dublin Transit Village Continued Cm. Fasulkey re-opened the public hearing for item 8.2 Ms. Harbin presented to the Commission the Legacy Partners Transit Village Project (PA 02- 033) Summary of Sources of Traffic Data to address their traffic concerns. Ray Kuzbari presented a section of the Omni Means Traffic Study for the project and addressed the traffic issues the Planning Commission had concern with. Cm. Fasulkey closed the public hearing and asked for a motion. On motion by Cm. Nassar, seconded by Cm. Machtmes by a vote of 3-1-1 with Cm. King abstaining and Cm. Jennings absent the Planning Commission approved RESOLUTION NO. 04 -08 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL ADOPTION OF A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR THE LEGACY PARTNERS/AMB TRANSIT VILLAGE PROJECT PA 02-003 RESOLUTION NO. 04 - 09 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT (PD) REZONING/STAGE 2 DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR PA 02-003 LEGACY PARTNERS - WEST DUBLIN TRANSIT VILLAGE RESOLUTION NO. 04 - 11 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVING A TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 8096 AND SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PA 02-003 LEGACY PARTNERS - WEST DUBLIN TRANSIT VILLAGE RESOLUTION NO. 04 - 12 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT AN ORDINANCE FOR A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT FOR PA 02-003 WEST DUBLIN TRANSIT VILLAGE ~?fannin~] ('ommission 37 (R¢#u~zr 3qeetittd q2d;rua©, 24, 200. I 8.4 PA 01-037 Dublin Ranch Area F North Eastern Dublin Specific Plan/General Plan Amendment Planned Development Rezone/Stage 1 for Dublin Ranch Area F North Area & Stage 2 Planned Development Plan, Site Development Review, and Tentative Tract Maps Cm. Fasulkey opened the public hearing and asked for the staff report. The name of the proposed project is "Dublin Ranch Area F North." This application includes the Amendments to both the General Plan land use designations and the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan; Planned Development (PD) Rezoning consistent with the land use amendments; Stage 1 Planned Development Plan for the entire 285.4-acre Amendment Area; Stage 2 Planned Development Plan for the Development Area, 88.5 acres north of Gleason Drive, within the Amendment Area and including Neighborhoods F1 & F2; Site Development Review for Neighborhoods F1 & F2; Master Vesting Tentative Tract Tentative Map No. 7281; and Vesting Tentative Tract Map Nos.7282 & 7283. Dublin Ranch Area F North is located within the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Area between Tassajara Road and Fallon Road approximately 2,500 ft north of 1-580. The project site for the requested actions is comprised of portions of Planning Areas B, F & E within the boundaries of the Dublin Ranch property owned by the Lin Family. A Stage 1 Planned Development Plan sets forth the land use areas by creating corresponding Zoning Designations. A Stage 2 Development Plan builds upon the Stage 1 land use designations and applies setbacks, complex and detailed development standards and determines the guidelines that will be used to direct the development of the properties in question. This project only proposes a Stage 2 Planned Development Plan for the two Subdivisions that comprise the area north of Gleason Drive. In accordance with the City's Zoning Ordinance, the proposed project satisfies the required findings in terms of suitability of the property for the proposed uses, site layout and access, compatibility on surrounding development, effects on residents and workers, and insuring an attractive environment. The Site Development Review for this projects is consistent with the General Plan Amendment, Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment, Stage I and Stage 2 Zoning and will allow for the aesthetic implementation of the 2 Vesting Tentative Tract Maps. The proposed project, as conditioned, results in a better plan and more efficient layout of land uses, open space, traffic circulation, and public facilities (including parks and schools). Staff recommends the Planning Commission hear Staff's presentation, open the Public Hearing, deliberate, and recommend approval to the City Council. Mr. Porto stated that Condition No. 1 under Public Works Standard Conditions has been amended with the following added text: All public improvements constructed by Developer and to be dedicated to City are hereby identified as "public works" under Labor Code section 1771. Accordingly, Developer, in constructing such improvements, shall comply with the Prevailing Wage Law (Labor Code, sects. 1720 and following). A copy has been distributed for Planning Commission review. ~Pfannin~ Commisswn 38 ',Re~jufar ~3¢eetin~] 2004 Cm. Fasulkey asked if the applicant was available. Martin Inderbitzen, representing the applicant thanked staff. This project was ready to come to the Planning Commission in October 2003 but made changes to subdivision 7283 to resolve some conflicts on grading with the adjacent homeowners. In regards to Condition No. 7, Subsection B states that the bulk grading will be at the sole cost of the developer and will include all preparation required for the placement and compaction of fill on the site. He stated that they have discussed with Staff on who should pay for the cost of that; it is an improvement cost to the park. This condition relates to Subsection D, which states - Allow the Developer to place additional material up to a specified limit, on the park site subject to schedule constraint. He explained that the more dirt they can put in the site, the more cost they can bear without passing it on to the City or other developers. He is not asking for a change to the Conditions of Approval but wants it clear for the record, that additional discussion has to occur in the negotiation of the agreement with regards to how much their obligation is. The cost might have to be shared. Condition No. 7, Subsection L states - Discuss reimbursement for street frontage right of way for Gleason Drive, Fallon Road and Central Parkway. It only states to discuss and wants to avoid not getting paid by the City. Mr. Inderbitzen stated that he disagrees with adding the new condition, which states - All public improvements constructed by Developer and to be dedicated to City are hereby identified as "public works" under Labor Code section 1771. Accordingly, Developer, in constructing such improvements, shall comply with the Prevailing Wage Law (Labor Code, sects. 1720 and following) and asked for that condition to remain as is. Ms. Faubion said that it is the recommendation to accept the language as is. There is a new law effective January 1St, which is a State law. In this particular case it puts the obligation on the City and penalties on the City if it doesn't comply. It is the recommendation of the City Attorney's Office to accept the language as written. Michael Frank, 5096 S. Forestdale Circle stated he is speaking in opposition of Tract 7283. When they built his lot they were told it was a view lot. They were told there is a 44-foot easement. They want to maintain some kind of control over their view. The representative from the developer stated that would be controlled by the initial buyer signing off on how the trees would be maintained. They paid a 5% premium for it to be maintained. At some point the value of the homes are going to be negatively affected. Cm. Machtmes asked Mr. Frank if his concern were that the trees or the structures and the trees would impact his view. Mr. Frank said he is more concerned about the trees. Cm. King stated that Condition No. 29 refers to a view easement and asked if he had a chance to read it. q'[annin~] Commissflm 39 24, 200 ~ Mr. Frank said no he has not read it. Mr. Porto directed the Planning Commission to Condition 29 and 30 of the Site Development Review. Mr. Frank said he is not concerned with the condition but rather enforcing it. Cm. Fasulkey asked if he has any recorded documents related to having an easement. Mr. Frank stated Shea Homes told them over and over that there is a 40-foot easement. Cm. Fasulkey stated that sales reps do not always know these things. Lodi Jackson, 5092 S. Forestdale Circle also has a home with a view fence. She stated that the developers have done an excellent job with working with the residents in the community. She would like to propose that a community bike path be placed behind the homes on South Forestdale Circle, South Bridgepointe Lane, and Colebrook Court. After speaking with many neighbors affected by the decision of having a shared view fence, they found that there were a lot of misconceptions. Many people had not taken an active role in what was being planned behind our homes. Several of these people believed that our current easement of 40 feet would remain, when in fact; the easement is now described as "only temporary." This was not adequately conveyed during the purchase of our homes. Many neighbors also thought that the community bike path would be considered since it meets with the current bike path. Debbie Wisch, 5116 S. Forestdale Circle stated she respects her neighbors and what they are doing. She stated that process that was brought on by the developer's representatives was very inclusive. Melinda Hershon, 5008 Coldbrook Court, echoed the last speaker. She worked with Centex Homes during the process. Centex stated they could not guarantee whether there would be development behind the house. Edward Wilcox, 3238 S. Bridgepoint Lane stated when he purchased moved his home, he was told the rear fence would not be shared. He would like the Planning Commission to consider the bike path. George Phirippidis, 5018 Colebrook Court stated he is in favor of the plan that is proposed. He has two lingering questions on how to maintain a view with trees and plants and how to prevent liability issues with pets and children. Andrew Woodward, 5078 S. Forestdale Circle stated would like to see a bike path that would help separate the two sites. Cm. King asked if part of the solution to preserve the view is to have a bike path. ~P[annin~] (it~mmi,,sion 4(I q:eF~ruao~ 24, 2004 *RcguFar :Meetin~l Mr. Woodward responded yes. Mr. Inderbitzen stated he was available to answer any questions or clarify any issues. Cm. Fasulkey stated he has never seen this much work put into a view easement. Cm. Machtmes asked if there are any lots left out by this restriction on the view easements. Mr. Porto responded that almost every lot in the subdivision has been included. Cm. King made a comment that the residents should be grateful for the condition to preserve their views. Cm. Fasulkey closed the public hearing and asked for a motion On motion by cm. King, including the revised Condition No. 1 of the Public Works Standard Conditions, seconded by Cm. Machtmes by a vote of 4-1-0 with Cm. Jennings absent, the Planning Commission approved RESOLUTION NO. 04 - 13 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT A CEQA ADDENDUM FOR GENERAL PLAN AND EASTERN DUBLIN SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENTS, PD REZONING WITH RELATED STAGE 1 AND STAGE 2 DEVELOPMENT PLANS, MASTER VESTING TENTATIVE MAP, VESTING TENTATIVE MAPS, AND SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW FOR THE AREA F/B/E PROJECT IN DUBLIN RANCH PA 01-037 RESOLUTION 04 - 14 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE AMENDMENTS TO THE GENERAL PLAN AND EASTERN DUBLIN SPECIFIC PLAN FOR THE PROJECT KNOWN AS DUBLIN RANCH AREA F NORTH PA 01-037 RESOLUTION NO. 04 - 15 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ~?~nni~U Commi,ssion 41 q:e[Jnta©~ 24, 2001 ~R¢,q u~r ~tieetin~] RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT AN ORDINANCE REZONING PROPERTIES WITHIN AN EXISTING PD-PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT KNOWN AS DUBLIN RANCH AREA F NORTH, APPROVING A RELATED STAGE 1 DEVELOPMENT PLAN, AND APPROVING A RELATED STAGE 2 DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR A PORTION OF THE DISTRICT LOCATED NORTH OF, AND INCLUDING THE RIGHT-OF-WAY, OF GLEASON DRIVE PA 01-037 RESOLUTION NO. 04 - 16 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVING MASTER VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 7281, VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 7282, VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 7283 AND SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW FOR PA 01-037 DUBLIN RANCH AREA F AND PORTIONS OF AREA B AND AREA E NEW OR UNFINISHED BUSINESS - none OTHER BUSINESS (Commission/Staff Informational Only Reports) Mr. Peabody discussed upcoming schedule with the Planning Commission. ADJOURNMENT - The meeting was adjourned at 12:45 a.m. Respectfully submitted, Planning Commission Chairperson ATTEST: Community Development Director q~[annhU Commf.,~sion ~RCgufar !lf eettn~ 42 February 24, 2004