Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Minutes 07-18-1988 ~ ~ Regular Meeting - July 18, 1988 A regular meeting of the City of Dublin Planning Commission was held on July 18, 1988, in the Meeting Room, Dublin Library. The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Cm. Barnes, Chairman. ~ ~ ~ ~ ROLL CALL PRESENT: Commissioners Barnes, Burnham, Mack, Tempel, and Zika, Laurence L. Tong, Planning Director, Maureen 0'Halloran, Seniar Planner and Gail Adams, Planning Secretary. ~ ~ ~ ~ PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG Cm. Barnes led the Commission, Staff, and those present in the pledge of allegiance to the flag. ~~~~ti ADDITIONS OR REVISIONS TO THE AGENDA None ~ ~ ~ x MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING The minutes for the meeting of July 5, 1988 were approved, as corrected. ~ ~ ~ ~ ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None ~ ~ ~ x WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS Mr. Tong advised that the Commissian had received 14 action Ietters. Regular Meeting PCM-14-1 July 18, 1988 . • ~ . • ~ ~ ~ ~ PUBLIC HEARINGS SUBJECT: PA 88-041 Cal-Gas Conditional Use Permit request for the continued use of two 495 gallon propane gas storage and dispensing tanks located in the storage yard of 6457 Dublin Court Cm. Barnes opened the public hearing and called for the Staff Report. Mr. Tong indicated that Cal-Gas was requesting a Conditional Use Permit to maintain the existing use of two 495 gallon propane gas storage and dispensing tanks. Mr. Tong indicated that the Applicant was Mark Twitchell and the Property Owner was Robert Lee. He indicated that the current zoning far this location was a M-1/Light Industrial District and that the Planning Commission had approved a Conditional Use Permit and Site Development Review request on April 21, 1986 to allow two 9' tall propane gas storage tanks at this location. Mr. Tong indicated that this project had been found to be categorically exempt and that the public hearing notice had been published, mailed to adjacent property owners and posted in public buildings. Mr. Tong indicated that the previous Planning Commission approval on April 21, 1986 was valid until May 2, 1988 and that a new Conditional Use Permit application had been received by the Planning Department from Cal-Gas requesting that they be allowed to continue storing, selling and dispensing propane gas from the storage yard of the site. Mr. Tong indicated that the plans had been reviewed by the Fire Department, the City's Building Office, Public Work's Director and the Palice Department and there were no concerns identified by those departments. He indicated, however, that the Police Department was requesting that locks be placed on the pumps to prevent theft. Mr. Tong indicated that Staff recommends the Conditional Use Perrnit be conditionally approved, with deletion of Condition #3 requiring the painting of the storage tanks. Cm. Burnham asked what the reasons were for the time delay on the application. Mr. Tong indicated that Staff had needed additional information from the Applicant before processing the application. Cm. Barnes asked the Applicant if there were any questions or problems he had concerning his application or the Staff Report. Mark Twitchell indicated that he had no prabZems and would be happy to answer any questions the Planning Commission might have. Regular Meeting PCM-14-2 July 18, 1988 . • ~ • • Cm. Barnes closed the Public Hearing. On motion from Cm. Zika, with deletion of Condition #3, seconded by Cm. Burnham, with a vote of 5-0, the Planning Commission approved APPROVING PA 88-041 CAL-GAS CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REQUEST FOR THE CONTINUED USE OF TWO 495 GALLON PROPANE GAS STOR.AGE AND DISPENSING TANKS LOCATED TN THE STORAGE YARD AT 6457 DUBLIN COURT ~ ~ ~ ~ SUBJECT: PA 87-045 Hansen Hill Ranch Project - General Plan Amendment Study, Planned Development Prezoning, Tentative Subdivision Map No. 57b6, and Request for Initiation of Annexation Application for 248 dwelling units on 147 acres, west of Silvergate Drive and north of Hansen Drive. Cm. Barnes opened the Public Hearing and asked for the Staff Report. Ms. 0'Halloran indicated that this application was a request for a General Plan Study, Planned Development, Prezoning, Tentative Subdivi.sion and Annexation to allow 248 dwelling units, including 141 single famliiy, 37 patio homes, 36 custom homes and 34 townhomes, on 147 acres. Ms. 0'Halloran indicated that the City Council had authorized the General Plan Amendment Study on August 11, 1986 and the City had hired the consultant firm of EIP to assist in processing the General Plan Amendment Study and EIR. Ms. 0'Halloran indicated that the Planning Commission had held two study sessions on February 2 and 17, 1987. Ms. 0'Halloran indicated that after the Applicant had submitted the completed application, the Draft EIR was prepared. She indicated that the public review period for the Draft EIR ran from December 23, 1987 to February 5, 198$ and was extended to include comments received at the February 1 and 16, 1988 Planning Commission Meetings. Ms. 0'Halloran indicated that the Planning Commission held a Study Session field trip to the Hansen Hill Ranch property on February 27, 1988. Ms. 0'Halloran indicated that the Planning Commission needed to considered five separate items involved with the application. She indicated that the Final EIR needed to be certified; the General Plan Arnendment relating to land use and guiding polices needed to be adopted; the Planning Development Prezoning and Tentative Subdivision Map needed to be approved; and Annexation needed to be initiated. Ms. 0'Halloran indicated that there were a number of approaches the Planning Commission could take when considering this application. She indicated that the Commission could consider all five items concurrently, as requested by the Regular Meeting PCM-14-3 July 18, 1988 ~ . ~ ~ I Applicant, consider each item separately with recommendation to the City Council or consider and provide recommendations to the City Council on the EIR and General Plan Amendment concurrently prior to proceeding with the Planned Development Prezoning, Tentative Map and Annexation requests. Ms. 0'Halloran indicated that Staff recommends the Planning Commission choose the latter approach. She indicated that if the Planning Commission chooses to consider and provide recommendations on all five items concurrently, then the Commmision should continue this application so Staff would be able to prepare a Staff Report addressing all five iterns concurrently. Staff recommended a reduction to a General Plan land use range of 53 to 169 dwelling units. Mr. Jacoby, The Venture Corporation, indicated that he would like the Planning Commission to consider all five items of the application at one time. He indicated that this application has been pending for two years while being heard every 3-4 months. Mr. Jacoby passed out pamphlets showing the outline of the application's progress. He wanted to deterrnine the number of dwelling units that could be built. He indicated he spent over $500,000 on various studies. Mr. Jacoby express his concerns on Staff's recommendation of reviewing the EIR and General Plan Amendment items separately and indicated that this would cause time delays. He indicated his March 19$8 discussion with Staff regarding processing only the General Plan Amendment to get policy direction, but he decided to request all the permits. Mr. Jacoby indicated that Staff had requested detailed studies of the application as a whole and he was under the impression that the application was moving in the right direction and therefore was shocked with the recommends the Staff was making. Mr. Jacoby indicated that the time delays were getting critical and he was not clear on the Staff's change in the course of action. Mr. Jacoby indicated that he believed the Commission could deal with all sides of the application at once, which would give the Commission a better grasp of the project. Mr. Jacoby indicated that he believed that it was unfair to change the course of action and asked that the Staff be requested to create conditions of approval so that the Planning Commission could deal with all aspects of the application. Cm. Tempel asked the Applicant how much time delay would be involved if the Planning Commission considered each itern separately. Mr. Jacoby indicated that it would add 3-6 months on the interim process and reiterated that two years have already gone by since the application was first considered. Regular Meeting PCM-14-4 July 18, 198$ ~ • i Cm. Tempel indicated that the City Council has not provided a density range. Mr. Jacoby indicated that the City Council would be provided with all the details. He indicated that these issues could be part of the Conditions of Approval. Cm. Tempel asked the Staff how rnueh tirne would be added. Mr. Tong indicated that they would need to address the land use policies and that is critical for the final design. He indicated that the Planning Commission needs to take a look at the General Plan policy and at the same time deal with a lot of information plus the land use design. Mr. Tong indicated that the two year time period had not been anticipated. He indicated there had been Staff changes within tne City and The Venture i Corporation plus changes in the proposal. He indicated that all these factors added to the length of processing the application. ~~I I Gm. Tempel asked if the Planning Commission could process each phase ~ alternately; as such, the City Council would define the land use policy and then the Planning Commission would continue to the next phase. ' Mr. Tong indicated that this process would be simpler. He indicated that each ~I phase: General Plan Amendment Study; Planned Development and Tentative Map; and Annexation, would go to the City Council separately for their direction. i Fred Edsel, legal counsel for The Venture Corporation, indicated that he saw ~I no problems going ahead with the application as a whole. He indicated the the I information was all there and should not be overwhelming. He indicated that ~ the land use issue was already defined and there was no need for the City Council to further define the land use. He indicated that the Planning ' Commission could make a better decision on the application as a whole because ' every aspect would be presented at one time. , Jim Lopez, 7463 Hansen Drive, indicated that he had seen poor planning in other cities where he had lived and would hope that the City of Dublin would I consider the proposal carefully. Marjorie LaBar, Preserve Area Ridgelands Committee, indicated that she was II opposed to the EIR as it was presented and that there seemed to be a radical difference in opinion between the City and the Applicant and requested the Planning Commission consider the EIR and General Plan Amendment at this time. ~ ~ Ms. 0'Halloran asked the Planning Commission if they wished to proceed on I Staff's recommendation. i I Cm. Burnham asked how the Planning Commission could address all five issues II and make good recommendations. He indicated that there seemed to be some ' flaws in the EIR and these flaws could change the whole report. I I ~ i I I Regular Meeting PCM-14-5 July 18, 1988 . ~ , • • Cm. Zika indicated that if the Planning Commission approves the application as ~i a whole and then the City Council rejects it, then the process will start all I over again. Mr. Jacoby indicated that he was willing to take the risk and he had confidence in his project because steps were taken slowly. ' Cm. Zika indicated that he preferred to send the recommendations on to City Council one at a time and if we considered all items at once that the ~ application may not go to the City Council until September of 1989. Mr. Jacoby indicated that he would prefer the Planning Commission take their time and make sure its all integrated. Cm. Mack indicated her preference to consider one item at a time; the EIR and General Plan Amendment concurrently, then proceed with the other items. Cm. Barnes indicated her perference to consider one item at a time, Cm. Tempel indicated his preference to consider one item at a time. He indicated that he believed, in the long run, less time would be wasted and the items would be easier to understand with less errors made. Ms. 0'Halloran continued the presentation of the Staff Report. ' Ms. 0'Halloran indicated that the EIR consists of the DEIR plus the addendum of May 1988 with written and oral comments incorporated into the report. She indicated that Scott Edmonton of EIP was present to identify significant impacts identified in the EIR and to discuss the mitigation measure options available. Scott Edmonton discussed the certification process of the EIR and sumrnarized the review and findings of the EIR. He indicated that the assessment of the EIR was required to adequately fulfill its purpose under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). He indicated that the EIR recommends mitigation measures to reduce any significant levels of impact of the project to the environment. He indicated that the EIR fulfills the requirement of public review. Mr. Edmonton indicated that the EIR is not equivalent to a project approval nor does the EIR constrain conditions for project agpraval. He indicated, however, that the EIR sets certain conditional standards for project approval. Mr. Edmonton indicated that the DEIR showed 54 individual impact findings plus 67 proposals of significant mitigation measures. He indicated that the DEIR showed 4 options to reduce certain environmental impacts. He indicated that there were some unavaidable standard impacts for this type of project. Regular Meeting PCM-14-6 July 18, 1988 . • . • ~ Cm. Zika asked about the geology in regards to the large amount of grading, I ~ Cm. Tempel asked about the traffic concerns and mitigation measures. ~i ~ Ms. 0'Halloran indicated that the Planning Commission needed to rnake a ' recommendation on acceptable levels of service. She indicated that the ' mitigation measures proposed level of service D. I Mr. Tong discussed the traffic distribution and impacts shown in the EIR. Mr. Jacoby indicated that traffic levels would not change considerably with or without his proposed project. Cm. Burnham questioned the level of service of traffic, I~ Ms. 0`Halloran indicated that the traffic chart shows the impact on the level of service with the project being approved. I Mr. Jacoby indicated that his projeet would not be to blame for traffie I impacts and that the traffic problems already exist on Dublin Boulevard. Mr. Edmonton indicated that the Staff Report, Attachment No. 5, shows level of service in three categories. Mr, Tong further explained the chart showing level of service. Cm. Zika asked if the level of service E meant 100~ capacity and asked about projects that were already approved for construction. Mr. Jacoby indicated that the Staff's information was not consistent with the EIR. Cm. Zika asked Mr. Jacoby why his project would not change the traffic conditions. Mr. Jacoby indicated that the traffic chart shows no sign of impact on traffic. Mr. Tong indicated that he would talk with the traffic consultants (TJKM) in regards to the traffic comparison inconsistencies. Cm. Barnes asked for a five rninute break. Cm. Barnes continued the EIR discussions. Mr. Jacoby indicated that at the last EIIt hearing there was a desire for dedication of open space and that he has provided for certain parts of his project be dedicated to open space. Regular Meeting PCM-14-7 July 18, 19$8 I ~ . . • i ~ ~ Marjorie Labar cammented on the adequacy of the EIR. She indicated there was , a recommendation for the area to be surveyed for archeology purposes. She ~ indicated that there were no approvals from the Fish & Game Department. She I indicated that the EIR was inconsistent and incomplete and should not be ~ certified as is. ' Cm. Burnham asked Mr. Edmonton if his company was abligated to research the ~ information that the schools have provided in the EIR. , Mr. Edmonton indicated that it was standard practice to take the information , by way of phone calls to the agencies and that is what is shown in the EIR. Cm. Burnham asked about the figures shown in regards to enrollment capacity. I He indicated that there seemed to be some discrepancies in the enrollment , statistics. He indicated that he had heard there were families in the Neilson ~I School area that could not get their children enrolled because the school was li full. i Mr. Edmonton indicated that this issue had come up before and that if the I school capacity issue had a significant impact on the project, then more research was in order. I Cm. Burnham stressed his concern on having the busing issue arise out of this project being constructed. Mr. Edmonton indicated that the EIR was to show standard conditions. He indicated that he could not set school district policies. Cm. Burnham asked if there was a way the figures shown in the EIR could be checked. Ms. 0'Halloran indicated that she had called the school district that afternoon in regards to the Nielson School. She indicated that the ~07 enrollment figure was correct and current enrollment was estimated to be 582 with the school having grades K-S. Cm. Burnham asked if the school district foresaw any enrollment problems. Ms. 0'Halloran indicated negative and that the school was sttowing a surplus. Cm. Burnham expressed his concerns on using the number statistics. Cm. Burnham questioned where the response to Mr. Babbitt's letter was in regards to the land. Cm. Barnes indicated that the response was on page 3-37. Cm. Burnham asked if this was not an adequate resgonse. Mr. Edmonton indicated that he did not believe there was a significant impact, that it was more on a level of a Site Development Review prablem with an engineering solution. Regular Meeting PCM-14-8 July 1$, 1988 . . . ~ ~ ` • . ~ ~ ~ Mr. Edmonton indicated that Marjorie Labar's previous comments could be rnade within the Conditions of Approval. Jim Lopez, Hansen Drive, addressed the comments in regards to the school enrollment. He indicated that the figures were not accurate in regards to the mix, i.e., kindergarten versus the higher grades. He questioned the £uture problems in regards to population growth. He indicated that these problems should be addressed at this time. Mr. Edmonton indicated that the school district does not see a future growth problem. He reiterated that the EIR was not setting policies. Mr. Lopez indicated that he was not questioning the EIR, however, he was questioning where the statistic were coming from. Ms. 0'Halloran discussed the General Plan Amendment in relation to the EIR plus the land use designation. She indicated that portion of the site is in the primary planning area and other portions were in the extended planning area. She indicated that if this land was annexed, then this site should be incorporated into the City's primary planning area, Ms. 0'Halloran indicated that there were three specific land uses, i.e., single family, multi-family and open space areas. She discussed the established density ranges and the adjusted density ranges. Ms. 0'Halloran indicated that the Planning Commission and City Council would want to consider policies that are in the General Plan in regards to grading, vegetation, open space issues and the establishment of density range and land use designation. She indicated that Staff recommends the current policies that are in the General Plan with the project's impacts. Ms. 0'Halloran showed designated areas on the map posted on the wall in addition to areas with significant grading. She indicated that the Applicant's proposal was nat consistent with the General Plan poiicy and would require revisions. She indicated that the Planning Commission may want to discuss this area of the Staff Report. Cm. Burnharn indicated that he had some difficulties in the maps and asked which engineer was right. Ms. 0'Halloran indicated that the issue was whether the General Plan polices were adequate to address this project and if the City wants to extend Chese planning areas. Mr. Jacoby questioned what area of the Staff Report they were discussing and indicated he would comment after the Staff Report had been addressed as a whole. Ms. 0'Halloran continued to discuss the vegetation, woodiand and riparian areas. She indicated that General Plan polices are adequate to greserve these areas and that the Applicant's project would remove ~hese areas and would no Regular Meeting PCM-14-9 July 18, 198$ ~ . ~ ~ Ionger be considered open space area. She discussed the areas of sigriificant grading, the open space areas, significant visual impacts and General Plan policies in regards to the development of the hillside areas. Mr. Jacoby indicated there were inaccuracies in the interpretation of the General Plan Amendment. He indicated that he had planning background. He indicated that there was a difference between the gross versus net density range calculations. He indicated that the Staff Report showed 96 acres of unbuildable areas, however his report shows 61 acres. He indicated that the Tentative Map showed 82 acres of open space. He indicated there was a buffer of 11 acres of open space behind the homes being built. Mr. Jacoby indicated that the Hansen Hill project had the lowest gross density compared to other projects that were being built and his project was consistent with the General Plan. Mr. Jacoby discussed the road irnprovements in regards to Valley Christian and - Church Road. Mr. Jacoby reiterated that the density range was miscalculated, that he was dedicating a large amount of praperty and that the project was consistent with the General Plan. Cm. Barnes discussed the procedures in regards to continuing the Planning Commission meeting to another date. Cm. Zika indicated that the Staff and the Developer should get together to discuss their differences. He mentioned that you could not compare other projects if they did not have similar topography. Mr. Tong indicated that he would be happy to sit down with the Applicant and review the project. Cm. Barnes agreed that Staff should meet with the Applicant. Cm. Barnes indicated that there may be a quorum problem for the next scheduled meeting. Mr. Tong indicated that a study session could be set up; however, the newspaper may need to notice the hearing. Mr. Tong indicated that they needed to clarify tne interpretation of density ranges. Mr. Tong indicated that there was typically a 10-day notice period. He indicated that the Brown Act shows 72 hours. Cm. Barnesd requested Staff to seek legal advice. Mr. Tong asked if July 26th was a good date for the study sessian, if legally possible. Regular Meeting PCM-14-10 July 18, 1988 - ~ ~ ` ~ ~ Cm. Barnes stated that this was okay. As part of the public hearing, Robert Patterson submitted a Speaker Slip indicating opposition to the item, and Joyce Graham, representing the Silvergate Townhouse Homeowner's Association indicated they were in favor of the Staff recommendation. Cm. Barnes kept the Public Hearing open and continued PA 87-045 until the next meeting, or, if no quorum, to the August 15 meeting. SUBJECT: PA 88-055 Zoning Ordinance Amendment - Sign Ordinance - Second Freestanding Sign (continued from July 5, 1988) PA 88-056 Zoning Ordinance Amendment - Si~n Ordinance - Service Station Price Signs (continued from July 5, 1988) Cm. Barnes opened the Public Hearing and asked for the Staff Report. Ms. 0'Halloran indicated that this application for a sign ordinance amendment had been continued from the meeting af July 5, 1988 in order for the Staff to prepare the necessary resolutions approving the Negative Declaration and recommending adoption of the sign ordinance amendment incorporating proposed changes discussed at the previous meeting. Ms. 0'Halloran indicated that the Draft Ordinance would include amendrnents to the sign ordinance involving service station price signs and second freestanding signs, as discussed in the Ju1y S, 1988 Planning Commission Meeting. Ms. 0'Halloran indicated that the draft resolutions recommending City Council approval, which approval was subject to the City Attorney's review, were attached. Ms. 0'Halloran indicated that the Negative Declaration was attached as Exhibit B and the Draft Ordinance was attached as Exhibit C. Cm, Barnes closed the Public Hearing. On motion from Cm. Mack, seconded by Cm. Tempel, with a vote of 5-0, the Planning Commission approved RECOMMENDING ADOPTION OF A NEGATTVE DECLARATION FOR THE SIGN ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS FOR PA 88-055 AND PA 88-056 Regular Meeting PCM-14-11 July 18, 1988 ~ . ~.~M . ~ . ~ l.~. ~ . . ~ ~ . . . On motion from Cm. Burnham, seconded by Cm. Zika, with a vote of 5-0, the Planning Commission approved RECOMMENDING ADOPTION OF THE SIGN ORDINANCE AMENDMENT PA 88-055 AND PA 88-056 NEW BUSINESS OR UNFINISHED BUSINESS None x ~ti ~ ~ OTHER BUSINESS None ~ ~ ~ ~ PLANNING COMMISSIONERS' CONCERNS None ~ti ~ ~c x ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 10:33 p.m. ~ ~ sr ~ Respec ully submit ed, Planning Commissio air rson ~ Laurence L. Tong Planning Director x ~e ~Y ~'c Regular Meeting PCM-14-12 July 18, 1988 i