HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-22-2002 PC MinutesA regular meeting of the City of Dublin Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, October 22,
2002, in the Dublin Civic Center City Council Chambers. Chairperson Johnson called the meeting
to order at 7:00 p.m.
ROLL CALL
Present: Commissioners, Johnson, Jennings, Musser, Fasulkey, and Nassar; Jeri Ram, Planning
Manager; Kit Faubion, City Attorney; Michael Porto, Planning Consultant; Jerry Haag, Planning
Consultant; Maria Carrasco, Recording Secretary; and Autumn McGrath, Recording Secretary
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG
Cm. Johnson led the Commission, Staff, and those present in the pledge of allegiance to the flag.
ADDITIONS OR REVISIONS TO THE AGENDA - None
The Minutes of August 27, 2002 and October 8, 2002 meetings were approved as submitted.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - None
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS - None
PUBLIC HEARING
8.1
PA 02-026 Palace Auto Conditional Use Permit and Site Development Review -
Application for a Conditional Use Permit and Site Development Review for the construction
of a Used Auto Sales establishment in a new building with associated site improvements.
The location of the site is 5945 Dougherty Road, Assessor Parcel Number 941-0550-063.
Ms. Ram presented the Staff Report and gave an overview of the project.
®fannir~t Commission 172 Octo&r 22, 2002
~e~tuFar ~leetin~t
Cm. Johnson opened the public hearing and asked for testimony from the applicant.
The applicant, Kaneshka Salem, designer of the project, addressed the Commission on the project.
He stated that they have worked hard to work within the constraints on the site, and are very
amenable to working with the neighbors and wanted to design the building to be interesting and
not just a typical auto show sales or lot.
Cm. Musser asked what type of vehicles would be sold on this site.
Salem stated they would be mainly luxury and high-end vehicles.
Cm. Fasulkey questioned him about the roof, concerned that it wouldn't be "glary" but would
develop a patina over time. Mr. Salem responded that the roof would be treated and sand-blasted
before installation to eliminate the glare, and he would have a portion installed for review and
approval before completing it, in case there needs to be adjustments.
Cm. Nassar asked if the architecture had any symbolic meaning.
Mr. Salem said that the design was to make a flow for building, addressing the vertical and
horizontal issues of the design and had worked with Planning Staff to come up with this design.
Cm. Jennings mentioned that an onsite visit would be necessary when the stucco and color were
applied, and asked if that would be a problem.
Mr. Salem stated that they do not have a problem with that requirement, and are designing the
building for optimum acceptability for the applicant and the City.
Cm. Jennings asked, if the project is approved, when the applicant anticipates the construction
completion.
Mr. Salem responded that they would anticipate opening for business by summer 2003 since a
building like this may take up to nine months to build, and hoped for a fast approval by the City.
Cm. Jennings stated that she found the design and landscaping plans to be very interesting.
Cm. Johnson asked if there were any other questions or comments. He asked if anyone from the
public wished to speak and hearing no requests, he closed the public hearing and asked for a
motion.
q'[anning Commission 173
qLe~f u[a r ~Tff eet ing
October 22, 2002
On motion by Cm. Jennings, seconded by Cm. Nassar, the Planning Commission unanimously
approved:
RESOLUTION NO. 02 - 35
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
APPROVING THE SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
FOR A NEW AUTO SALES ESTABLISHMENT
5945 DOUGHERTY ROAD (APN 941-0550-063)
PA 02-026
8.2 PA-01-040 City of Dublin 2002 Draft Housing Element - Update to the Housing Element of the
City of Dublin General Plan.
Ms. Ram stated that every jurisdiction in California has a requirement to have a General Plan, and
within that Plan, one of the elements required is a Housing Element, which must be updated every
five years. In the 1990's, the State deferred the requirement, thus the City's last update to the
Housing Element was 1990.
In August 2001, the City hired the firm of Parsons, Harlan, and Bartholomew & Associates to assist
the City in the preparation of the updated Housing Element. In December, the City Council
established a Housing Task Force of 15 members, whose purpose is to provide input on various
housing issues relating to the City, including the Housing Element. The Housing Task Force held
four meetings on the Housing Element. Additionally, the City widely advertised and held public
workshops in May 2001 and April 2002 at different times of the day to allow and encourage
maximum participation by the community. The final workshop held by the Housing Task Force
was on September 19, 2002, when they reviewed the draft Housing Element and provided final
comments. Ms. Ram stated that as a result of the Housing Task Force comments, the Housing
Element is a more comprehensive document.
One important item in the Housing Element is the Housing Needs Assessment report, which is all
the data and information used to base new goals for the Housing Element. Within that data
document, is the Regional Housing Needs Determination, which reports the Allocation of Housing
Units assigned to the City from the State of California through the Association of Bay Area
Governments. According to the Regional Housing Needs Determination, the City has a total
housing construction need of 5,436 units from January 1999 through June 2006, with an annual need
of 725 housing units. She commented that it is very important to note that the Housing Element
®fanning Commission
q(egufar S~leeting
174 Octo6er 22, 2002
has to demonstrate that the City can accommodate (not guarantee) the development of units
required annually.
Since 1990, the City has made significant achievements in the Housing Element and in housing in
the City, and Ms. Ram referenced the list of those achievements included in the staff report.
Ms. Ram reported that an important factor in updating any General Plan or Housing Element is
that the document must be internally consistent. In the Housing Element, a section reports how the
new policies and programs would be consistent with the rest of the General Plan. She explained
the process for approval of the Housing Element. She advised the Commission that this could be a
lengthy process, and that the City possibly may not have an approved, certified Housing Element
until mid 2003.
Mr. Jeff Goldman, from Parsons, provided a PowerPoint presentation and explained some of the
policies and programs in more detail. He reviewed State requirements and compared the goals of
the current Housing Element with the new proposed Housing Element.
Mr. Goldman reported that the State has four primary requirements for the Housing Element:
· Identify and analyze existing and projected housing needs;
· Evaluate effectiveness of current goals, policies and programs;
· Adopt goals, policies, programs to preserve, improve and develop housing; and
· Adopt a five-year schedule of actions to implement goals, policies
Mr. Goldman reviewed the State Review process and explained that State law requires HCD to
review draft Housing Element prior to adoption by the City Council. Although HCD's review is
advisory only, Council must consider the comments before adoption of the Housing Element, but
may choose to disregard, change or apply recommendations from HCD and then resubmit to HCD.
Mr. Goldman mentioned that there were five goals in the 1990 Housing Element, which included:
· Conserving and improving existing housing;
· Accommodating new housing development needs according to the ABAG Regional
Allocation;
· Expanding housing opportunities for lower/moderate income and special needs
groups;
· Promoting housing opportunities without discrimination; and
· Adopting a Housing Element that meets state law.
&[anning Commission
qLetIufar ~4eetin~
175 Octoger 22, 2002
Mr. Goldman stated that the proposed 2002 Housing Element addresses additional goals, which
included:
· Conserving the existing affordable housing; and
· Providing short-term shelter for individuals without permanent housing.
Mr. Goldman reported new proposed programs, which included:
· Implementing the revised inclusionary housing ordinance;
· Determining the feasibility of establishing a commercial linkage fee;
· Adopting a Dublin transit center plan;
· Evaluating the feasibility of establishing a shared living program;
· Creating and maintaining a housing coordinator/specialist staff position;
· Annually updating list of at-risk rental housing;
· Promoting second units through distribution of public information;
· Promoting equal housing opportunity thru the housing coordinator;
· Evaluating the feasibility of a universal design;
· Amending the zoning ordinance to allow emergency shelters in commercial and
industrial.
Mr. Goldman asked for questions about the Housing Element. There was some discussion by the
Commissioners. Staff stated that changes could be made to the Housing Element, with direction
from the Commission on which changes to have made by the November 19th City Council meeting.
The Planning Commission made the following changes to the Housing Element:
Add a policy or program to the 2002 Goals to increase the density of housing of Arroyo Vista or
explore a mixed-use project.
Staff was also directed to verify the Excel spreadsheet on Page 43 regarding the cost per acre, and
Ms. Ram responded that Staff would review this information and ensure that it is correct.
Commission Johnson opened the public hearing and asked if anyone wished to address the
Commission; hearing none, he closed the public hearing and requested a motion to approve with
the changes.
On motion by Cm. Fasulkey, the Commission moved approval of the draft Housing Element with
condition that Staff would create a policy or program to be included in the Dublin Housing
&[anning Commission 176
qLeguFar ~eeting
Octo6er 22, 2002
Element to explore utilizing the Arroyo Vista land to its highest and best use, while further
expanding on the availability of low-income housing.
Cm. Musser seconded the motion. The Commission unanimously approved:
RESOLUTION NO. 02-36
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL APPROVE IN CONCEPT AND SUBMIT THE HOUSING
ELEMENT (PA 01-040) TO THE STATE DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT FOR REVIEW
PA 01-040
8.3
PA 00-013 Dublin Transit Center - Final Environmental Impact Report, Mitigation
Monitoring Program, General Plan Amendment, Specific Plan Amendment, Planned
Development Rezone/Stage 1 Development Plan, and Tentative Parcel Map. A Final
Environmental Impact Report, Mitigation Monitoring Program, General Plan Amendment,
Specific Plan Amendment, Stage I Rezone/Development Plan and Tentative Parcel Map for
development of a 91 Acre Mixed Use Transit Village including High Density Residential,
Campus Office, Neighborhood Park, Neighborhood Commercial and uses supportive of a
transit oriented development. The site is bounded on the South by 1-580, on the East by the
extension of Arnold Road, on the West by the Iron Horse Trail and on the North by Dublin
Boulevard and Parks RFTA.
Mr. Michael Porto introduced those present who were instrumental in preparation and
presentation of this project, including Adolph Martinelli, Pat Cashman, and Stuart Cook from
Alameda County. He also introduced Kit Faubion and Jerry Haag, Environmental Consultant, and
Staff including Eddie Peabody, Jr., Jeri Ram and Maria Carrasco.
Mr. Porto introduced the Proposed Dublin Transit Center, which is a high density, transit-oriented
mixed-use development on approximately 91 acres, located directly north of and adjacent to the
East Dublin/Pleasanton BART Station. Project characteristics include:
· 1,500 high density (HD) residential dwelling units (15% affordable);
· 70,000 square feet of ground floor retail commercial;
· 2 million square fee of campus office; and
· 1,700+ car BART parking garage.
®[annintt Commission
q(egufar ~eeting
177 October22, 2002
Mr. Porto stated that Dublin Transit Center represents four different action items for consideration
by the Planning Commission for approval. These include:
· Recommendation to the City Council for Certification of the Final Environmental
Impact Report (EIR);
· Recommendation to the City Council for Approval of Amendments to the General
Plan and to the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan;
· Recommendation to the City Council for Approval of the Planned Development
Rezone/Stage I Development Plan; and
· Approval of the Tentative Parcel Map No. 7892.
Mr. Porto explained the EIR, reporting that three issues have been identified as unavoidable. These
are:
· Cumulative traffic on local roads - Dougherty Road/Dublin Blvd in year 2025;
· Cumulative traffic on 1-580 freeway in year 2025; and
· Cumulative traffic on 1-680 freeway in year 2025.
Mr. Porto noted that a statement of overriding consideration would be approved by the City
Council on this issue. He also stated that the City prepared a Final EIR dated September 2002
containing written responses to all comments received during the July 6, 2001 to August 21, 2001
public review period.
The proposed General Plan and Specific Plan Amendment would allow the high density residential
and Public/Semi-Public uses to include ancillary retail and service uses for residents, workers and
businesses when they are part of a transit village center or other mixed-use project. Additionally,
the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan is currently divided into 10 sub areas. The 91-acre Dublin Transit
Village Center is proposed to be amended or annexed into the 3,300-acre Eastern Dublin Specific
Plan Area as the 11th sub area.
The Dublin Transit Village Center Planning Area (sub area 11 of the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan) is
proposed to be rezoned from Agriculture and Public/Semi-Public to Planned Development-Transit
Center PD-TC. The proposed rezone, accompanied by a Stage I Development Plan, does not
include development standards but generally is limited to permitted, prohibited, and conditional
uses. A Stage II Development Plan with development standards will need to be approved prior to
project approval.
®fanning Commission 178
q(etlufar ~eeting
October 22, 2002
Mr. Porto noted that one process, not generally performed in the Stage I Plan Development (PD),
was the incorporation of many streetscape design elements, as it is the Applicant's intention to sell
individual properties to individual developers in the future. He added that if the City were to wait
until the Stage II PD to develop the streetscape standards, a coordinated and cohesive streetscape
plan may not be possible. The Applicant made extensive efforts to develop a streetscape hierarchy
that is a part of the actual approval process of the Stage I PD and called this the Design of the Public
Realm.
Mr. Porto pointed out the details of the Transit Center Site Plan to the Commission and stated that
concluded Staff's presentation.
Cm. Johnson opened the public hearing and asked if there were any questions or if anyone would
like to speak.
Mr. Adolph Martinelli, representing Alameda County. Surplus Property Authority, stated that he
has spent 15 years working on this project. He introduced Mr. Stuart Cook and Mr. Pat Cashman,
who have been responsible for the planning of the project, and Mr. John Reynolds, from BART,
who is a partner in negotiating the agreement with BART. He stated that they are ready to move
forward with the development of the central components of the property. Since the Applicant is in
design for the parking garage, they are at risk for 20-21 million dollars, have applied for some
grants, and have an agreement with Bart that make the project time-sensitive. He mentioned that
they would also move forward with some affordable housing, proposing an RFP to meet their first
requirement. He informed the Commission that his Staff is present for questions.
Cm. Johnson asked for questions from the Commissioners.
Cm. Jennings asks the number of current parking spaces at BART today.
Mr. Cashman told the Commission that when they made the bargain with BART, the
understanding was that by the time the development was completed, BART would have 500
additional permanent parking spaces. As part of that bargain, the Applicant created 423 temporary
parking spaces, in addition to the 1,300 spaces they originally started with. Once the development
is complete, BART will have 1,800 permanent parking spaces, and the parking garage has been
designed to allow an additional phase to build 500 additional parking spaces. He added that the
garage would have 5 levels, with the potential of 7 levels and up to 2,300 parking spaces in the
Second Phase.
e[anning Commission 179
q~egufar ~4eeting
Octo6er 22, 2002
Cm. Jennings had questions regarding the use of the garage, and wanted to know if it would be
shared by some of the occupants in the building. Mr. Cashman said that has not been confirmed,
but there has been discussions for use of the parking lot at night (when the lot is empty at BART) by
a hotel. He added that the ground level parking lot could be used to support retail in the area. Mr.
Cashman stated that there is strong encouragement for joint use of the parking lot.
Cm. Jennings also wanted to confirm that the Commission would hear each phase of the project,
and Mr. Cashman assured the Commission that there would be at least 12-15 phases that would
come before the Commission. With a Stage I PD, the City requires Stage II standards and final
design review.
Cm. Nassar asked about the attributes and "feel" of a village, and what the atmosphere is intended
to be.
Mr. Martinelli explained that the intention is to have mixed uses, for activities in the daytime as
well as the evening. There will be street life, commercial uses, cafes, outdoor dining, and
restaurants. On the street frontage, there are wider walkways, outdoor dining, increased density,
street amenities, street lights, paving, etc. that are special, integrated into commercial, commercial
retail, residential uses and open space.
Cm. Nassar asked what the attraction would be for the community and what the educational
options would be. Mr. Cashman stated that the hub is the BART station, as the transit center that
will draw the commuters as well as those who will use the regional bus system. The street level
commercial uses on Iron Horse Parkway and the Village Green, the outdoor living room for the
high density residential, will activate the attraction for this center. He stated that this project will be
an amenity for the community overall for office workers using it at lunchtime and residential use at
night and on weekends. Because this development will be a privately maintained public space,
there will be planting amenities such as rose gardens or annual plantings, a green turf, a fountain,
comfortable and casual space. This project will allow for design of any level of amenities.
Cm. Jennings discussed the park area, and asked if there is any possibility to make the park larger.
Mr. Porto stated that the designated park area exceeds the City's requirement for parkland under
the Quimbey Act. Mr. Porto mentioned that there could be a linkage from Camp Parks to extend
the parkland area, but nothing is planned at this time.
Mr. Martinelli reminded the Commission that the new developments have significant open space
and parks, but what is shown on the site plan are the public parks. Mr. Porto added that this
~fannintt Commission 180
q(egufar ~eeting
October 22, 2002
project is a Stage I PD, and there will be time to review open space elements in conjunction with the
SDR prepared during Stage II.
Cm. Fasulkey asked about the water availability. Mr. Peabody stated that we have been assured
that there will be provision of sufficient water for this particular development and the developer
has prepared a program to provide water service to this project.
Cm. Johnson asked if there were any more questions.
Mr. Ed Church, East Bay Community Foundation, gave the background of his organization, and
stated that they are a non-profit organization and a public charity. His organization plans to
promote smart growth throughout Alameda and Contra Costa Counties, and is interested in
development around the BART station. He applauded the effort of the City's Staff, and informed
the Commission of the Foundation funding that is available for additional technical assistance on
this project.
Cm. Musser wanted some discussion regarding his concern about the Housing Element plan, which
shows housing near this area, and with 12~A% requirement there appears to be a shortage of
affordable housing.
Cm. Johnson mentioned that we should attempt to partner with the County to see if we could get a
higher percentage requirement of affordable housing. Mr. Peabody responded that the City
Council would want to address this and that the issue before Planning Commission was the
rezoning of this area for development.
Cm. Jennings asked if the City Council would receive the Planning Commission minutes, and Mr.
Peabody assured her that the minutes and any recommendations from the Commission are
normally provided to the City Council in a very timely manner.
Cm. Johnson asked if anyone from the public wished to speak and hearing no requests, he closed
the public hearing and asked for a motion.
On motion by Cm. Jennings, seconded by Cm. Musser, and a vote of 5-0, the Planning Commission
approved the following four resolutions:
®(annintt Commission 181
q(egufar ~eeting
October22, 2002
RESOLUTION NO. 02-37
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL CERTIFICATION OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT REPORT FOR THE DUBLIN TRANSIT CENTER PROJECT
PA 00-013
RESOLUTION NO. 02-38
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE AMENDMENTS TO THE
GENERAL PLAN AND EASTERN DUBLIN SPECIFIC PLAN FOR THE DUBLIN TRANSIT
CENTER PROJECT
PA 00-013
RESOLUTION NO. 02-39
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT AN ORDINANCE ZONING THE
DUBLIN TRANSIT CENTER SITE TO A PD-PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT AND
APPROVING A RELATED STAGE 1 DEVELOPMENT PLAN
PA 00-013
RESOLUTION NO. 02 -40
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
APPROVING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 7892
PA 00-013
Cm. Johnson asked if there is any other new or unfinished business.
&[anning Commission 182
q(egufar ~eeting
Octo6er 22, 2002
NEW OR UNFINISHED BUSINESS
None
OTHER BUSINESS
Ms. Ram mentioned the previous Tri-Valley Planning Commissioner's Round Table, which had
been held in April, and extended the invitation to the Commissioners for another session to be held
November 21, 2002 at 6:30 pm. The Commissioners stated that they found the date to be too close
to the holidays and would not be able to attend.
AD!OURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 9:40 p.m.
ATTEST:
Pl~anager
g: \ minutes \ 02 \ 10-22-02 pc minutes
Respectfully submitted, ~
~o/n'fmission CI
PPa'nning "o mission Chairperson
q'fanning Commission
q(e~lufar Pdeetinll
183
October22, 2002