Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-22-2013 PC Minutes Planning Commission Minutes Tuesday, October 22, 2013 Y CALL TO ORDER/ROLL CALL A regular meeting of the City of Dublin Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, October 22, 2013, in the City Council Chambers located at 100 Civic Plaza. Chair O'Keefe called the meeting to order at 7:04:43 PM Present: Chair O'Keefe; Vice Chair Bhuthimethee; Commissioners Do, Goel and Kohli; Luke Sims, Community Development Director; Jeff Baker, Assistant Community Development Director; Tim Cremin, City Attorney; Kristi Bascom, Principal Planner; and Debra LeClair, Recording Secretary. Absent: None ADDITIONS OR REVISIONS TO THE AGENDA— NONE MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETINGS — On a motion by Chair O'Keefe and seconded by Cm. Bhuthimethee, on a vote of 4-0, with Cm. Do being absent at the time of the vote, the Planning Commission approved the minutes of the September 24, 2013 meeting. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS — NONE CONSENT CALENDAR — NONE WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS — NONE PUBLIC HEARINGS — 8.1 PA 08-049 Dublin Crossing - General Plan Amendment, Specific Plan, Zoning Ordinance Amendments, Development Agreement, and Environmental Impact Report. The Planning Commission will consider and make a recommendation to the City Council regarding the Dublin Crossing Specific Plan (DCSP) and associated implementation actions. Kristi Bascom, Principal Planner, presented the project as outlined in the Staff Report. Chair O'Keefe asked the City's Traffic Engineer to respond to the Planning Commission's concerns regarding adequate parking on Scarlett Drive that was brought up in the Study Session. Obaid Khan, Traffic Engineer, stated that the Scarlett Drive extension was planned with the Precise Alignment that was approved by City Council. He stated that, in order to provide parking, they would have to expand the road by 8 feet and felt that there is not enough room to accommodate parking. Chair O'Keefe asked if there will be sufficient parking within the development when the Dublin Crossing Park is complete. Panning t.on nission C)cto er22,201.3 'K put;ar:Meetin 23 °°° Mr. Khan answered that there is on-street parking inside the development and near the community park to ensure there is adequate parking. The community park plan has not been completed as yet but they will create a parking area for the community park that will have access from Scarlett Drive. Cm. Bhuthimethee felt that, since the community park area is not planned yet, if a parking lot was installed on Scarlett Dr. it could alleviate the concerns of the neighbors. Cm. Kohli asked what portion of the 30 acre park will be dedicated to parking. Ms. Bascom answered that the exact park design has not yet been determined. Cm. Bhuthimethee stated that she is not advocating a parking lot along Scarlett Drive but was concerned that the parking lot would be used by the residents on the other side of the Dublin Blvd. Ms. Bascom answered that the park design is yet to be determined but usually community parks are sunrise to sunset facilities so afterhours parking would be prohibited and discouraged. Chair O'Keefe opened the public hearing. Joe Guerra, SunCal, Dublin Ventures, spoke in favor of the project. He stated that he supports Staff's recommendation and asked for the Planning Commission's support. In regards to the questions regarding the impact to resident parking, there will be on-street parking along G and A Streets adjacent to the park. He stated that there will be no parking reductions in the neighborhoods adjacent to the park. Gregory Kelley, resident on Kerry Ct., was concerned with a reduction in parking on Scarlett Drive. Kimberly Brown, resident on Sussex Ct, was concerned with a reduction in parking on Scarlett Drive. Mr. Khan responded that the existing parking on the west side of Scarlett Drive will be maintained with the new Scarlett Drive extension. He stated that currently there are 18-20 spaces on the west side of Scarlett Drive that will be maintained. Cm. Goel asked how many parking spaces are on the east side of Scarlett Drive. Mr. Khan answered that there will be no parking on the east side of Scarlett Drive and the precise alignment does not plan for any additional parking. Chair O'Keefe directed the Commission to Figure 4-16 in the Dublin Crossing Specific Plan which shows no parking on either side of Scarlett Drive. Mr. Khan responded that the cross section he is referring to does not show parking. He apologized for the confusion with the cross section which shows the southern portion of Scarlett Drive and suggested that the Specific Plan be revised to include the precise plan that was approved by the City Council in 2007, which shows the existing parking that will be maintained. 7'l nning t'cmmbslon Octo6er22,2013 72,vuiar', 8d't u: "' 1 Cm. Goel asked Mr. Khan to clarify that there will be no impacts to the neighbors and no removal of existing parking spots that the existing development has for its use. Mr. Khan answered that is correct. Francisca Anaya, resident on Moore Place, was concerned with increased noise levels with the development of the project and asked what types of measures will be taken to mitigate the noise. Chair O'Keefe closed public hearing. Chair O'Keefe asked Staff to respond to Ms. Anaya's concern regarding noise levels and comment on the findings from any studies that were conducted. Ms. Bascom responded that there was no specific noise analysis done for the project as it relates to traffic on Scarlett Drive; however, the precise plan for the 4 lane road was adopted by the City Council in 2007. The Scarlett Drive extension and widening will happen with this project because it is being brought forward at the same time, but it is a Capital Improvement Project that was approved by the City and is not a result of the Dublin Crossing project. Cm. Kohli asked if there was a noise analysis done for the entire Dublin Crossing project and what analysis was done that would impact the residents on Scarlett Drive. Bill Wiseman, RBF Consulting, responded that the noise modeling that was done found that the increase was not significant and would be no different than would be experienced in any urban environment. Cm. Goel asked where the noise study was performed and where the noise meter was placed. Mr. Wiseman responded that a noise analysis looks at existing conditions then it is modeled based on projected traffic volumes; the information is then loaded into noise modeling software to determine the delta. Cm. Goel asked if the noise study for the project resulted in no significant impact. Mr. Wiseman answered yes. Chair O'Keefe addressed an email that was received, after the packet was delivered, regarding reopening the EIR comment period and agreed with the Community Development Department's decision not to reopen the comment period. Cm. Kohli felt that they had a good discussion during the study session regarding streetscape, traffic flow, etc. He mentioned that the project has the potential for 200,000 sf of commercial, with a minimum of 75,000 sf and felt that there could be only 75,000 sf of commercial. He hoped that, in order to increase the retail/restaurant diversity, there would be an opportunity over the life of the project for the City to use more of the 200,000 sf for commercial and not settle for the bare minimum. 7:56:15 PM Cm. Do arrived at the meeting. ,Pranning(;'oarrrni sin, Octc6er22,2013 q far;itert g "- 12 — Cm. Kohli was still concerned about the school site and possible businesses close by. He wanted the City Council and Staff to be cognizant of what commercial businesses are allowed close to the school but felt that there are guidelines to prevent problems. Cm. Kohli asked for a better understanding of the burrowing owl issue. Mr. Wiseman responded that surveys were done in 2003 when the Camp Parks Master Plan was created which included environmental surveys. The Dublin Crossing project identified impacts to the burrowing owl in the environmental document. The California Fish and Wildlife agency protocols allow "passive relocation" or displacement, which would include removing their habitat area and the owls would then relocate on their own. He stated that the mitigation measures follow the protocols of the state agency. He stated that the email received regarding a concern for the burrowing owl was referring to Camp Parks as a whole and not just the Dublin Crossing project area. Cm. Bhuthimethee agreed with Cm. Kohli regarding the commercial uses close to the school site. She was concerned that in Phase 1 there could be all high density residential. She stated that she has spoken with residents about their concern that they could end up with more residential when they thought there would be shops/retail/cafes in one area. She felt that there is a large demand for new housing and raised concerns that there could be all residential. Ms. Bascom answered yes; and stated that two of the land use districts are set up as a commercial/residential combination, therefore it could be commercial or residential or a combination of the two. The only mixed-use area is the parcel on the corner of Dublin Blvd. and Arnold Road where at least 75,000 sf of commercial space is mandated to anchor that corner. She mentioned that the 75,000 sf minimum of commercial in the Specific Plan would be market driven and also depend on timing. Cm. Bhuthimethee felt that there should be a larger civic space at the pedestrian connection of DeMarcus Blvd. and B Street which is a major connection between BART and Dublin Crossing. She wanted to advocate for more civic and public spaces and felt this area is a prime location for that. Cm. Bhuthimethee felt that Staff has been great in acting on some of the concerns of the Planning Commission by creating identity and something unique for the project. She referred to Page 3-29 of the Specific Plan that shows an image that she felt was distinctive. Cm. Goel stated that he works for the Alameda County Transportation Commission and wanted to ensure that he did not have to recuse himself from the discussion. Tim Cremin, Assistant City Attorney, stated that, based on the fact that he is not an Applicant, there is no conflict. Cm. Goel asked about the section of the EIR that stated there will be a reduction of delay as a result of retail development. He asked what considerations were done to mitigate the circulation impacts of 2,000 residential units. He felt it was helpful to understand what 5,400 residents feel like and asked how many residential units are in the adjacent developments for comparison. 2,km/i ig Octo6er'22,2013 Ms. Bascom answered that there are approximately 1,300 residential units at the Transit Center. Mr. Baker mentioned that the Sorrento development has a similar sized project area with approximately 1,000 units. Ms. Bascom also mentioned Dublin Ranch Villages which is surrounded by Central Parkway, Dublin Blvd., Brannigan and Keegan with approximately 1,600 units over a smaller area. Cm. Goel felt that Ms. Bascom's answer gave him a better understanding of the community situation concerning parking, circulation and the resident comments heard to date. Cm. Goel wanted to discuss the reduction in delay, level of service at the intersections and the calculations of "no project" versus "with project" and why there is no sizeable impact. He asked if that was because the facility can't take anymore impacts or will the intersection is cap out. Brett Walinski, Hexagon Transportation Consultants, stated that he prepared the transportation portion of the Environmental Impact Report. He stated that they put the project into the Dublin forecast model and discovered some effects that shift traffic around, which are: 1) When traffic is added to the freeway there will be a delay, as a result, other users will alter their route choice until the impact is spread through the transportation system; 2) When the project information is entered into the forecast model, trips are subtracted from one area and added to another area; 3) When the freeway is congested there is a peak hour spread; not all trips are made during the commute period if the commute period is shifted. He stated that there were impacts to 6 intersections and 3 freeway onramps. He stated that this is a large project that will generate traffic and there will be impacts associated with it. Cm. Goel stated that the report talks about a 13 second reduction and that he was delayed today at the current traffic level without the project. He felt that he needed to understand the perspective along with the interchanges being at Level of Service F. He stated that Dougherty Road enters into the project before the 1-580 interchange and felt that is a highly problematic zone for Dublin residents. He asked if the assumption of the retail redistribution is based on a certain amount of retail establishments in Dublin. Mr. Walinski responded that the model was based on 200,000 sf of retail but the redistribution does not occur from only the retail that was only an example of the type of trip that would be displaced. He stated that another example would be if someone commuted from Stockton and then they moved to Dublin, the origin of the trip changes; therefore, some traffic would be added and some traffic would be removed. Cm. Goel asked, with 2,000 units, what is the anticipated density increase in vehicles. Mr. Walinski answered that it would be approximately 2,000 peak hour trips. Cm. Goel asked if they found no significant impacts. Mr. Walinski answered there will be significant impacts at 6 intersections and 2 freeway interchanges. Mitigation measures will reduce some of the impacts to less than significant levels. J'datjrrlfl i(;ort mijsaf z :-to6er27,2013 'equdizr 9datrzg 127 — Cm. Goel stated that, during the study session, there was a discussion regarding a pedestrian overcrossing. He asked what has been developed regarding that suggestion and how it will fit the overall community and if they had considered any undercrossing. Mr. Khan stated that Staff is still developing a plan for the pedestrian crossing at the Iron Horse Trail at Scarlett Drive, but there needs to be a feasibility analysis to determine what type of crossing would be accommodated at the location. He stated that the City has been applying for grants for the feasibility analysis but there are no further details at this point until the analysis has been completed. Cm. Goel felt strongly that the Iron Horse Trail at Scarlett Drive is not the ideal location for the pedestrian crossing because it is close to the park and has the least amount of density. He suggested that the feasibility analysis consider locating the crossing closer to the maximum amount of density. Cm. Goel was concerned with the area zoned for a school and the fact that, if the school district does not build a school, the area can be rezoned for medium density housing. He asked if the school is not built or some type of community resource that the area be rezoned to another public/semi-public use instead of housing. He felt that it would provide a sense of place for the community more so than housing. Ms. Bascom responded that the land use package is what the Planning Commission is reviewing tonight. The school district will pay for the 12 acre school site, and there was no analysis done that would contribute to the parcel being set aside for anything other than school uses. If the school district decided not to build a school, the residentially designated land use is already in place. She stated that there is no representative of the school district at the meeting but, in discussions with them, they are adamant that they will acquire the site for an elementary school and there is no reason to believe they won't, but the land use designation was put in place in the event the district does not build a school. Cm. Goel asked if there is an option to have the secondary zoning removed so that the area is either a school or some type of community resource land use designation instead of residential. He felt that the zoning should not automatically change to residential but should require Planning Commission review in order to make that change. Ms. Bascom answered that was not evaluated or considered. She stated that the City Council and Staff have been working with the developer in putting together the Development Agreement and there was a lot of discussion about the dedication of park land and how much was enough, how the City would acquire the park land, the 30 acre community park is well in excess of the dedication requirements for a project of this size. She stated that the City is receiving park land above and beyond what a 2,000 unit project would require. She stated that the City had not considered purchasing any more property. Cm. Goel asked why the City would consider a contingent plan that pre-zones the area as residential. Ms. Bascom responded that the land use designation allows for either an elementary school or, should the school district determine that they are not interested in acquiring the property, the land use designation is in place as residential. 0)icinn=ng commission Octo6er22,2013 _eputar!Mating ^" 1 28 °,. Cm. Goel clarified that the recommendation to the Planning Commission sets forth either school or residential but not the potential for other public uses. Ms. Bascom answered yes. Mr. Baker explained that, when the overall development was presented to the City Council, the concept was that if the school district decided they did not need the school site the residential land use would already be in place. Cm. Goel stated that his point was that there was no consideration of any other public use rather than residential. He asked if that option was ever discussed at any point during the negotiations with the Applicant. Mr. Baker answered that a development package was presented to the City Council and it did not include that component. The Applicant is providing other amenities such as more park land above and beyond what is required. The proposal included a 12-acre school site to meet the schools requirements with a back-up option as residential. Cm. Goel asked if the calculation of 1,995 units included the scenario that the school would not be built. Ms. Bascom answered that the analysis assumes 1,995 units throughout the project site whether the school is built or not. Cm. Goel asked if the project is capped at 1,995 units. Ms. Bascom answered yes. She continued that there is up to 200,000 sf of commercial uses, which is a cap, and a 900 student elementary school. She stated that they reviewed a worst case scenario from an impact perspective as the entire project is built out at the top end and the 1,995 cap is whether there are residential units on that 12-acre site or it is a school everything has been captured within the analysis. Cm. Goel stated that he was comfortable with the cap and asked Ms. Bascom to show the slide with the scenario table. He pointed out the school line and asked if that is part of the total number. Ms. Bascom answered yes. She stated that whether the site is developed as a school or not, the 1,995 cap will not be exceeded. Cm. Goel asked if that is stipulated specifically. Ms. Bascom answered yes. Cm. Goel felt that a lot of thought went into the bike/pedestrian circulation and he appreciated that as he is associated with the "Safe Routes to School" program. He felt that Dublin has been consistent with circulation and the ideal drop off zones around school sites and felt that the environmental document indicates a school drop-off zone and appreciated that. He asked about the 40 year asphalt shingle roofs stated in the project documents and asked if there was another nearby development that also has that type of roofing. ,e6ir ning{'ornm:ssiort Octo6er'22,2013 WRi ufar;teetinq 129 — Ms. Bascom stated that there are 40 year asphalt shingle roofs at the Emerald Vista project. Cm. Goel asked if the City can encourage the developer to consider colored bike lanes for safety. Cm. Do agreed with the other Commissioners' concerns about the potential for all residential. She also agreed regarding peak traffic hours and the potential for more traffic in Dublin. She likes the bike facility plans. She asked for clarification regarding the public gathering place on the corner of Arnold and Dublin Blvd. Ms. Bascom responded that in the land use plan there are public gathering sites in the main community park, within the 13 acre mixed use site there is a 5 acre park that will be planned within the commercial/residential area. She stated that those will be the two public gathering places beside the school site which is also a public facility. Cm. Do felt that the main gathering location would be the park. She asked for clarification regarding private streets and assumed that they would be narrower and would have no bike lanes. Ms. Bascom answered that the land plan shows the backbone infrastructure, i.e. public streets. As the individual neighborhoods are developed there are street sections in the specific plan for private streets should those be developed. They can be smaller but they are usually serving a smaller townhome development. She stated that, at this point, the location of any private streets are unknown and will depend on each builder who designs the streets whether they will be public or private streets. Cm. Do asked about the future bus stops and where they will be located and how that will be determined. Mr. Khan answered that the City is working with LAVTA on identifying future bus stop locations. Chair O'Keefe asked if the Commissioners can make the findings for this project and whether there should be any conditions discussed. Cm. Goel stated that his only concern is regarding the zoning of the school site. He stated that he is uncomfortable with a contingent plan for residential for the site. He stated that he understood the project has a cap but didn't think it should be an entitlement without a decision making process. He felt that when it was presented to the other bodies in the decision making process it was never viewed as being a choice for any other zoning and felt that there should be an option to consider other zoning for the school site. Cm. Do stated that she would like the school site to be surrounded by residential instead of commercial or mixed use. Cm. Bhuthimethee was concerned about the elevations on Dublin Blvd. and the need for them to be further enhanced because of its visibility and asked if Chair O'Keefe was satisfied. Chair O'Keefe answered that he is satisfied and felt that there is language in the specific plan for the residential pieces, not a specific point about the enhancement of the gateway but he is not concerned with the look of the gateway at this point in the process. ,Tlaannim('ommi+slon October 22,2013 2 gui:v.'Meeting Cm. Bhuthimethee agreed with Cm. Goel regarding the school site and asked if he would make some sort of suggestion. Cm. Goel responded that there should be either guidance or a recommendation to the Zoning Ordinance or the Specific Plan and a statement in the adoption of the resolution for the City Council. Mr. Baker stated that if the Planning Commission can make a suggestion or recommendation to the City Council. He pointed out that the development plan was a negotiation, and has been in front of the City Council many times to talk about the gives and takes of the relationship. He stated that included in the negotiation is a large package of different items, some of which are addressed in the Development Agreement, such as the large amount of land dedicated to the Central Park which exceeds the minimum requirement. He added that one of the more significant items that the developer is providing to the City is a Community Benefit Payment of $18,700,000 above and beyond any other minimum requirements. He stated that, while the school site is important, there are other things the developer is providing to the community. This includes funds that would otherwise not be available if the City were to do something else with that site. He wanted to ensure that the Commission was aware of the Community Benefit Payment as well as larger parks, etc. Cm. Bhuthimethee asked what the Community Benefit funds be used for. Mr. Baker answered that the funds are being deposited to the General Fund and are not tied directly to the site. Cm. Bhuthimethee was also concerned about parking on the project area. Cm. Kohli agreed with Cm. Bhuthimethee regarding the parking issue and recommended that the developer install proper signage and parking restrictions within the project to prevent a problem. He stated that he understands the negotiation with the developer and the extra amenities but agreed with the other Commissioners regarding the school site. He felt that if the school site will not have a school on it there should be a requirement that the developer must return to the City to determine what would be the best use of the land besides residential. He felt it should not automatically revert to residential without a review by the City. He stated that recently there have been items before the Planning Commission and the City Council in regards to current plots of land that were designated for one type of land use but now the developer has come back to change it to something else. He felt that it could be the same in this situation if we have to forego a school it would be in the public's best interest for the developer to come back through the process to ensure the best use of the land. He agreed with the other Commissioners that the City Council should consider keeping that land use flexible. Chair O'Keefe thanked everyone for their work on the project, and the Applicant for working with the City and the Army and all the parties involved. He thanked Mr. Baker for providing the bigger picture regarding the negotiations, the relationship between the parties and how this has been a work in progress. He felt that the right thing to do, regarding the land use issue on the school site, would be to recommend to the City Council that they look at the secondary use to be a public space or parkland. Tann r'rZ Comm0sion Ocro6er22,2013 Cm. Kohli responded that he was not suggesting that the land use be restricted, but that any land use designation change would be required to come back to the Planning Commission to determine what the best land use designation would be, not to confine it to a certain land use. He felt that the land use should be flexible so that if the school is not built, the developer would be required to bring it back to the City with whatever they would like to build on the site. Cm. Goel felt that it should not be an automatic entitlement. He was concerned with public perception. He stated that there is a project anticipated with a certain look and feel and then it's different. He stated that nothing is precluding the developer from returning but they should not have a back-up plan already in the zoning. Chair O'Keefe felt that if the zoning designation is already in the plan from the start then a potential home buyer who wanted to do their homework would know that the school site could be changed to residential. Cm. Kohli stated that the Commission has discussed traffic flow and the impact of traffic with the potential of 1,995 units being built. He stated that, if the project is built out, and there are negative traffic impacts, then the residents will be concerned about the impact of converting the school site to housing. He stated that even though there is a cap of 1,995 units he would not want to see the school site used to fill out the residential component of the project. He wanted the City Council to keep it flexible and open. Cm. Kohli felt that the Applicant has the City's best interest in mind with the extra parkland and the community benefit payment. He felt that the Planning Commission's recommendation is not a detriment to the Applicant. The Commission wants to keep the best interest of the City in mind by being flexible and leaving the land use open. Cm. Goel asked if the Commission has a choice to make a recommendation. Mr. Baker stated that the way the Specific Plan is written, the school site would become a residential site, staying within the cap of 1,995 units. This proposal was part of the negotiations by the City Council and incorporated into the Development Agreement. He added that the developer will have to come back for a tentative map and site development review. He stated that the Planning Commission make an alternative recommendation included in the motion and that would be forwarded to City Council and they can weigh that as they deliberate on the project. Cm. Goel asked if the context would be a recommendation not a change. Mr. Baker answered yes; the Planning Commission is making a recommendation to the City Council on the Resolutions and Ordinance. So they can make a recommendation for the City Council to consider using flexibility regarding the future school site land use designation. Cm. Goel stated that the Planning Commission is an advisory commission that provides a recommendation but does not take action or alter an action. Mr. Baker answered yes; in this situation. Luke Sims, Community Development Director, stated that as Mr. Baker outlined, it is the Planning Commission's purview to make a recommendation. He wanted to make the point that 131annyng c o inisszon C)cto6er 22,2013. ?eyular'-lleeting what the Planning Commission has before them is a comprehensive master plan that has been thoroughly vetted and discussed, and tirelessly worked on by Staff, the developer and the community to arrive at the project package. He felt that it is important that the package be reviewed as a comprehensive master plan, and they tried to identify, in the recommendation by Staff, to acknowledge that and to point out that this is a good roadmap for the future. He stated that there is some certainty for the developer, but there is certainty for the community in acknowledging that, more than likely, there will be a school with the caveat that it could be residential. However, it is important to remember that there is a cap, and restricting the residential use of the school site does not lower the Applicant's right to build 1,995 units. The developer will have the opportunity to build all 1,995 units whether the school is built or not. They will not be able to build any more. He felt that was important to keep in mind in a master planned perspective. Cm. Goel asked if the entire project was built out, all 1,995 built and that parcel was not built yet and it was vacant land school site, essentially the developer could come back and ask to exceed that cap as a zoning change or is that completely excluded. Ms. Bascom stated that the development potential for the site has a residential cap, a commercial cap, and the school site. She continued that the reality is that the school site is in phase 3. The Development Agreement gives the School District until the first parcel map in phase 5 to execute or not on the site. At that point the developer will know how to proceed with the rest of the development. Chair O'Keefe thanked the members of the audience for expressing their concerns regarding parking on Scarlett Drive and noise. On a motion by Cm. Goel and seconded by Cm. Do, on a vote of 5-0, the Planning Commission unanimously adopted: RESOLUTION NO. 13- 32 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL CERTIFICATION OF A FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT AND ADOPTION OF ENVIRONMENTAL FINDINGS UNDER CEQA FOR THE DUBLIN CROSSING SPECIFIC PLAN • RESOLUTION NO. 13 — 33 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT A RESOLUTION AMENDING THE GENERAL PLAN AND ADOPTING THE DUBLIN CROSSING SPECIFIC PLAN ,icersnj:rti t,innenssOlr October22,2013 `Kequ1ar.`,4'1e;'ting — RESOLUTION NO. 13 — 34 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN RECOMMENDING THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT AN ORDINANCE APPROVING ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS TO CREATE A NEW CHAPTER: 8.31 (DUBLIN CROSSING ZONING DISTRICT), REZONE ALL PROPERTIES WITHIN THE DUBLIN CROSSING SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT AREA TO THE DUBLIN CROSSING ZONING DISTRICT, AMEND THE ZONING MAP TO IDENTIFY THE LOCATION OF THE NEW ZONING DISTRICT, AMEND ZONING ORDINANCE CHAPTER 8.12 (ZONING DISTRICTS AND PERMITTED USES), AND AMEND CHAPTER 8.104 (SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW) RESOLUTION NO. 13 - 35 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT AN ORDINANCE APPROVING A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF DUBLIN AND DUBLIN CROSSING VENTURE LLC RELATING TO THE DUBLIN CROSSING PROJECT NEW OR UNFINISHED BUSINESS — NONE OTHER BUSINESS - NONE 10.1 Brief INFORMATION ONLY reports from the Planning Commission and/or Staff, including Committee Reports and Reports by the Planning Commission related to meetings attended at City Expense (AB 1234). 10.2 Chair O'Keefe had a discussion with the Commissioners about the timing of their questions during the public hearing process. ADJOURNMENT — The meeting was adjourned at 9:15:44 PM Respe , Ily su• itted, I. ing Commission Chair ATTEST: Jeff Ba r Assistant Community Development Director G:IMINUTES120131PLANNING COMMISSIOM10.22.13 FINAL PC MINUTES(CF).doc •;xi rzrrirtu;'o trrris.rivn Octo6er22,2013 'egut,;!r '1e€fit,,f1 13 4—'3