Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08-26-2014 PC Minutes ''t • „°a�; z*�f Planning Commission Minutes Tuesday, August 26, 2014 CALL TO ORDER/ROLL CALL A regular meeting of the City of Dublin Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, August 26, 2014, in the City Council Chambers located at 100 Civic Plaza. Chair Bhuthimethee called the meeting to order at 7:02:07 PM Present: Chair Bhuthimethee; Vice Chair Goel; Commissioners Do, O'Keefe, and Kohli; Luke Sims, Community Development Director; Jeff Baker, Assistant Community Development Director; Kit Faubion, City Attorney; Kristi Bascom, Principal Planner; Marnie Delgado, Senior Planner; and Debra LeClair, Recording Secretary. Absent: None ADDITIONS OR REVISIONS TO THE AGENDA— NONE MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETINGS — On a motion by Cm. Do and seconded by Cm. Kohli, on a vote of 4-0-1, Cm. Goel being absent, the Planning Commission approved the minutes of the August 12, 2014 meeting. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS — NONE CONSENT CALENDAR — NONE WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS — NONE PUBLIC HEARINGS — 8.1 PLPA-2014-0017 Dublin Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan and associated amendments to the Dublin General Plan, Eastern Dublin Specific Plan, Dublin Village Historic Area Specific Plan, Downtown Dublin Specific Plan and Dublin Zoning Ordinance. Marnie Delgado, Senior Planner, presented the project as outlined in the Staff Report. Ms. Delgado introduced, Andrew Russell, City Engineer, who presented an overview of the Dublin Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan. Chair Bhuthimethee asked if the term "complete streets" refers to all modes of transportation, i.e., cars, bicycles and pedestrians. Mr. Russell answered yes and added that it also includes mass transit, trucks, commercial and emergency vehicles. He stated that it is important to look at the surrounding land use context and the functional classification of the street to determine what a complete street is and emergency vehicles are part of that. Cm. Goel asked if there are more current statistics for collisions. Planning Commission August 26,2014 <t cgular Meeting at rage 1 132 Mr. Russell responded that, at the time the update was prepared, there were no updated statistics. Cm. Goel asked if there were any particular areas of concern. Mr. Russell answered that he is not aware of any areas of concern. Cm. Goel asked, when creating the project priority list of three main projects, were any considerations made for citywide equity. Mr. Russell responded that the document focused on the downtown area because the pedestrian element was noted in the Downtown Dublin Specific Plan (DDSP). He stated that some of the current developments have integrated bike lanes and sidewalk as connections to transit, but he was not aware of a decision made for equity across the city. It was discussed in the workshops and was a focus of the participants. Cm. Goel asked if the plan identifies areas where current businesses are located or future development not yet built (i.e., paths to and from Fallon Gateway, Lowes and the Kaiser parcel). Mr. Russell answered yes; he stated that the plan identifies approximately $10 million of bike improvements and $5 million of pedestrian improvements outside of the priority projects. He stated that the vast majority of bike improvements are slated to be completed by the developer or property owner who is responsible for frontage improvements, i.e., sidewalk, curb and gutter, a bike lane and a lane of traffic. He felt it would be a $7 million-$2.5 million split between what the developer would fund and what the city would need to integrate into a Capital Improvement Plan (CIP). Cm. Goel asked if there is a section in the plan that addresses public perception related to citywide equity. He felt that the priority list includes only west side projects and nothing on the east. Mr. Russell felt that the master plan would not be the venue to discuss that issue. He stated that, as Dublin has developed, infrastructure has been built to support the development, and in areas where the property owner has not developed the property, the City would not expect the infrastructure to be completed which can cause connectivity issues at times. He stated that, where possible, the City has tried to integrate temporary pedestrian and bike facilities if there is room, but there is a cost and the City Council would need to prioritize those expenditures. Cm. Goel referred to "access to and from schools" in the plan and asked what the school district's concerns were. Mr. Russell responded that the focus of the 2007 plan was connectivity to trails, parks and recreation activities, as well as bike lanes on streets. Staff worked with the school district on the Safe Routes to School program. He felt that the school district was concerned with taking school impacts into consideration as projects are approved. He stated that environmental documents are always shared with the school district. He stated that there is a project under construction currently that hopes to provide bike transit opportunities to Dublin High School which would be the integration of a buffered bike lane on Village Parkway. He stated that Staff presented the concept to the City Council as a complete streets element that can be integrated <Planning Commisszon August 26,2014 kguf r Meeting 2'a g e I 133 because the right-of-way exists, and simply re-stripe the street and improve active transportation to and from the high school to downtown Dublin. Cm. Kohli asked about the progress of discussions with Pleasanton and CalTrans regarding a joint solution to the overcrossing issue. Mr. Russell stated that the 2007 plan identified the freeway overcrossing as a concern of bicyclists and it was identified in the update as a concern for both bicyclists and pedestrians. He stated that Staff meets regularly with the City of Pleasanton and that the City of Pleasanton is conducting a project at San Ramon Road/Foothill Road and 1-580 that will integrate bike lanes. He stated that Staff is meeting with the City of Pleasanton and Cal Trans on August 27, 2014 to discuss the issue. Cm. Kohli expressed concern with pedestrian/bike safety at the Fallon Road/E1 Charro Road overcrossing. Mr. Russell responded that the freeway on-ramps and overcrossings are controlled by CalTrans; the city limit line is on the north side of the freeway so they have to work with Pleasanton on any issue. He stated that the previous improvements did not have the "complete streets" philosophy in their design; therefore, there is not adequate room for pedestrians and bikes. He stated that Staff realizes the need for those improvements and the hope is to identify funding sources and work with CalTrans and Pleasanton to team up on projects. The overcrossings are an element of the current plan that is important. The Alamo Canal Trail is an example of linking Dublin to Pleasanton, totally separate from vehicle traffic, which is an ideal situation, but limited in applicability to the rest of the City. Cm. Kohli asked what the best time estimate would be for a resolution between the stakeholders regarding the overcrossing issue. Mr. Russell was unsure when the issue would be resolved. He stated that he is not aware of any specific project that either Dublin or Pleasanton is working on with CalTrans beyond the Pleasanton project on Foothill Road. He stated that, as future development comes up, pedestrian and bike facilities will be integrated. He felt that Staff has confidence in the Plan and crossing the freeway is extremely important and Pleasanton acknowledges the same thing. Cm. Kohli agreed and felt that everyone agrees that it needs to be expedited. Chair Bhuthimethee was concerned with the safety of the overpass at San Ramon Road/Foothill Road and 1-580 within Dublin. Mr. Russell received some concerns regarding the current conditions and the Public Works Staff is meeting with Pleasanton and CalTrans to discuss potential alternatives. Chair Bhuthimethee asked Mr. Russell to share some of Staffs discussions regarding the bike lanes on Dublin Blvd. She felt that the connectivity and safety along Dublin Blvd is not the best, especially when there are not a lot of alternatives. Mr. Russell responded that the Dublin Blvd corridor was mentioned in the 2007 plan and was extensively studied for the update. He stated that one of the original alternatives was widening Dublin Blvd to allow for a paved bike lane and the 6 lanes of traffic. He mentioned some near '£rinhzing Commission A ugust 26,2014 T?gutar:Meeting r1'a g e 1 134 term solutions were discussed, such as widening the sidewalk on the south side, and reducing the lanes from 6 to 4. He stated that options are limited due to the fact that Dublin Blvd is a reliever route to the freeway and a major east/west connector. He stated that, after a community meeting, there was a suggestion that there should be something to formalize that bikes have the right to be on the road. The solution was to install "sharrows" and signing on Dublin Blvd as a bike route. He felt that there could be some room to narrow the lanes closest to the medians and provide a wider lane along the curb. He stated that the plan attempts to cover a wide spectrum of bike users, and a lot of people are not comfortable on Dublin Blvd. Cyclists can ride on the sidewalk and the City will provide sharrows on the street. He stated that they are also looking for alternatives to Dublin Blvd. He felt that St. Patrick Way will be an alternative route and improvements under the freeway for both bikes and pedestrians will be installed. Staff does not want to create a project that will cost millions of dollars but has a limited chance to be funded. He cautioned that to widen or narrow the road would create delays and congestion which Staff could not support; therefore, Staff went to City Council for direction. Chair Bhuthimethee asked if the City could ask new tenants to include bicycle racks. Jeff Baker, Assistant Community Development Director, stated that, under the Green Building Code for tenant improvements, new tenants would be required to provide bike parking. Chair Bhuthimethee opened the public hearing. Kristi Marleau, resident and board member of Bike East Bay, spoke in favor of the project. Rich Guarienti, resident, spoke in favor of the project. He was concerned with connectivity within the City and felt that the Planning Commission should take that into consideration when reviewing each new development. He felt the biggest challenges were Dublin Blvd. and the freeway overcrossings. Bill Anderson, resident, spoke regarding the project and was concerned with connectivity (east/west) within the City, the safety of Dublin Blvd. and the overcrossings. Chair Bhuthimethee closed the public hearing. Mr. Russell responded to the comment regarding east/west connections in the City. He stated that the plan includes improvements along Dublin Blvd as well as the intersection of Village Pkwy. and Amador Valley Blvd is intended to be retrofitted to be more pedestrian friendly. Cm. Kohli stated that he is in support of the project, and asked that Staff provide an update to the Planning Commission on their discussions with Pleasanton and CalTrans regarding the overcrossing issue. He asked the other Commissioners if they had any suggestions regarding how to make Dublin Blvd safer for bikes. Chair Bhuthimethee agreed with Cm. Kohli but felt that, if the City is committed to encouraging a healthy community and wants the residents to do more walking and biking, the City must be committed to solving these types of problems. Cm. Kohli felt that Staff has done a great job of working with the stakeholders, but the overcrossing issue is out of our hands because it involves another cities and CalTrans. He asked if the Planning Commission can recommend a more sense of urgency regarding that `fanraina Comznis.006 f ugust 26,2014 fg filar'Meeting '3 a p e 11,3 issue. He suggested more organized sessions that bring in City Council, Commissioners, and community members to continue to keep it a topic. He understood the limitations and suggested working with developers who want to build along the Dublin Blvd. corridor to bring other ideas forward. He asked if anyone had any further ideas on how to help with the process. Cm. O'Keefe felt that there are two options to address Dublin Blvd. and neither option will work and for reasons that are outside the Planning Commission purview. He felt that the issue has been reviewed thoroughly and it's been determined that it is not possible. Cm. Goel stated that there is a county-wide bike and pedestrian plan that was developed, with input from the cities within the county. The county plan also works towards procurement of funds and identification of priority projects. Dublin's priority projects will be identified at the county wide level and they also prioritize key corridor elements. He stated that the county-wide plan is under review currently by the Transportation Commission for Alameda County and the coordination between the various cities and CalTrans is communicated to the Commission. He felt that the plan is comprehensive. He stated that there is some gridlock near BART corridor and that developers should consider pedestrian overpasses and critical corridors for underpasses and connectivity to trails and retail. He congratulated Staff for their hard work on the plan. He stated that he is in support of the plan. Cm. Do commended Staff for their work on the plan, is in support of the plan and can't wait to see it implemented. Cm. O'Keefe thanked Cm. Goel for explaining the document and providing feedback. He stated that he is in support of the project. Chair Bhuthimethee agreed with the other Commissioners and thanked the public who commented and participated in the workshops. She commended Staff for their hard work which shows the City's commitment to pedestrian and cyclist connectivity. She stated that when the Planning Commission and Staff review developments, connectivity is part of that review because it is important to the Planning Commission. She felt that marking lanes is essential for safe travels. Cm. Kohli felt the plan is solid and asked Staff to provide an update on the discussion with the City of Pleasanton and CalTrans regarding the overcrossing issue. He also encouraged the City Council, the public, Staff and the Commission to come up with suggestions to improve on the plan. On a motion by Cm. Goel and seconded by Cm. Do, on a vote of 5-0, the Planning Commission unanimously adopted: RESOLUTION NO. 14 - 46 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF AMENDMENTS TO THE DUBLIN GENERAL PLAN, EASTERN DUBLIN SPECIFIC PLAN, DUBLIN VILLAGE HISTORIC AREA SPECIFIC PLAN, DOWNTOWN DUBLIN SPECIFIC PLAN AND DUBLIN ZONING ORDINANCE FOR THE PROPOSED CITY OF DUBLIN BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN (Planning Commission rsion August 26,2014 *gurus'Meeting c1':i t e 1 136 RESOLUTION NO. 14 - 46 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL ADOPTION OF A NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR THE CITY OF DUBLIN BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN PLAN AND RELATED AMENDMENTS TO THE DUBLIN GENERAL PLAN, EASTERN DUBLIN SPECIFIC PLAN, DUBLIN VILLAGE HISTORIC AREA SPECIFIC PLAN, DOWNTOWN DUBLIN SPECIFIC PLAN AND DUBLIN ZONING ORDINANCE 1 8.2 PLPA-2013-00013 The Green Mixed Use Project - General Plan Amendment, Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment, Planned Development Rezoning with related Stage 1 and Stage 2 Development Plan, Site Development Review (Commercial Buildings only), Vesting Tentative Map, Development Agreement, and Supplemental Environmental Impact Report. Kristi Bascom, Principal Planner, presented the project as outlined in the Staff Report. Cm. Kohli asked how long the land has been designated commercial. Ms. Bascom answered that the land has been designated commercial since 2004. She stated that the land was originally campus office but was changed to commercial when the IKEA project was approved in 2004. Cm. Kohli asked if the current Applicant has been involved with the land since the beginning. Ms. Bascom answered yes; the current Applicant was involved with the IKEA project as well as the 305,000 sf commercial center. Chair Bhuthimethee opened the public hearing. Jerry Hunt, Applicant, spoke in favor of the project. He pointed out that, when developing the current project, they took into consideration not just the property, but the surrounding properties and how they would be affected by the project. The Green project was designed to create a public gathering space, with a sense of pride for the community with quality restaurants and residential that will complement Persimmon Place. He also stated that there will be multiple bike racks and they will be installing bike lanes on Martinelli Way and Arnold Road. Hans Baldauf, Architect, spoke in favor of the project. He stated that the Applicant wanted to optimize the location and its proximity to a transit oriented district; the retail portion of the site is within a 10 minute walking distance to the BART station and pointed out the connectivity with the surrounding uses. He stated that they designed the project to complement the Persimmon Place project. He also spoke regarding the architecture for the commercial portion and presented a video fly-by showing the project; he added comments regarding the wind study that was done, as well as the type of shade that will be available at the project. ,Ti nning Comma a ir3n August 26,2014 Regular`-Yteeting 'a g e I 1`37 Cm. Do asked about their plan for delivery trucks at the service entrances for the commercial component, and if they have a plan to prevent BART riders from parking at the project. Mr. Hunt responded that there will be security monitoring of the parking lot as the retail tenants will require it. He stated that most of the commercial tenants will be smaller businesses that will require only small trucks for deliveries. He stated that the service areas will operate and function like a small pad building. Mr. Baldauf stated that most deliveries would occur in the double loaded parking field at the rear of the buildings, early in the day, before most customer parking will occur. He stated that the double loaded parking on each side allows the street to be closed and access is still provided. With street closures, they can actually gain space on special days. Cm. Kohli complimented the Applicant for their presentation and thanked Staff for their work on the project. He felt that, with The Persimmon project being built, it seems like there is an uptake in retail wanting to come into Dublin. He asked what market trends they studied and what drove the Applicant towards the mixed-use development instead of staying with the commercial land use designation and bringing a development forward that is pure commercial/retail. Mr. Hunt answered that he has always done retail projects, not residential. He felt that the original Green project would have been a wonderful project, but the market changed and the nature of retail business changed. He felt that there is not enough depth in retail to build 300,000 sf of retail/commercial on their property in addition to the 165,000 sf at Persimmon Place. He felt that there are few transit oriented district opportunities in the Bay Area and this is the best and the most important. He did not feel that a car dealer or a big box store would be appropriate on the property. He stated that he tried to create a project that brings two acres of public amenities. Chair Bhuthimethee noticed from the EIR that there is no sound wall along 1-580 and asked if it will be part of the residential portion. Mr. Hunt responded that the Planning Commission will be able to review that part of the project when the Site Development Review for the residential portion comes forward. Mr. Baker clarified that the Planning Commission is reviewing and making a recommendation on the environmental document. Chair Bhuthimethee asked to see a site plan of the project and asked about the green circles shown along 1-580. Bill Smith, Smith and Smith Landscape Architect, pointed out the CalTrans line along 1-580. He stated that, behind the fence on the site side, there are many substructure utilities. In between the utilities they are proposing to plant evergreen trees and vegetation to help break up the area. He stated that they are proposing a multi-use trail in the area that will connect to Iron Horse Trail. Chair Bhuthimethee was under the impression that there would be no trees in that area. Mr. Smith stated that they will work with CalTrans to determine where they can plant trees and shrubs. ,?'i2inrung(`ornrnu,::on August 26,2014 Reg air.-2.ewaine «a fl e i .riff Chair Bhuthimethee mentioned that the EIR stated an issue is air quality and one mitigation measure is, to the greatest degree possible, to plant vegetation, trees and shrubs along project site boundary along 1-580. Ms. Bascom stated that the landscape plan included in the packet, Sheet L.13.0, is the concept landscape plan that the Planning Commission will review. She stated that there is a Condition of Approval for the project that states, should the Applicant be able to enhance the area with trees and additional landscaping, Staff will support that. She wanted to ensure that the Planning Commission understood that this area may not be a lushly landscaped area. She added that Staff will mandate that the Applicant do whatever they can to landscape the area, but there is no guarantee of landscaping in that area due to utility conflicts. Eddie Sieu, RJA, spoke regarding the public utilities and storm drain easements on the south perimeter of the project that include gas lines, telephone lines, joint trench and an 84" storm drain. Those utilities currently exist and trees will be planted between them to satisfy the utility agencies requirements for horizontal separation. Ms. Bascom stated that Staff asked the Applicant to show in the plan a realistic depiction of what will be there. Chair Bhuthimethee asked if another crosswalk could be installed across Hacienda Drive, on the south side of Martinelli Way, at the Lazy Dog Café to the new development. Obaid Khan, Traffic Engineer, responded that Public Works has reviewed the issue of connecting the current project to Hacienda Crossings by enhancing the crosswalks with textures to match Martinelli Way. He stated that, in order to enhance connectivity, the Applicant has proposed to convert the road, running parallel to the 580 freeway, to a Class I trail (bike and pedestrian trail) and creating a cul-de-sac at the end of Arnold Road which will provide a connection from Hacienda Crossings to the BART station. He stated that cyclist or pedestrians can use the Class I bike trail to avoid using Dublin Blvd. Mr. Baker felt that the question was about an additional crosswalk at the south side of Martinelli Way which would connect to the new development and asked Mr. Khan to explain why there will not be an enhanced crosswalk at that corner. Mr. Khan asked Chair Bhuthimethee if she was requesting that a crosswalk be added on the south side of Hacienda Drive and Martinelli Way. Chair Bhuthimethee responded that, when reviewing the Lazy Dog Café project, the Planning Commission had requested a crosswalk across Hacienda Drive from Hacienda Crossing to Building 100 of the current project. Mr. Khan stated that there is a crosswalk on the north side of that intersection but he understood that Chair Bhuthimethee was requesting a new crosswalk on the south side. Chair Bhuthimethee answered yes. Mr. Khan stated that currently Hacienda Drive is a very busy street and creating more crosswalks will change the signal timing at the Hacienda Drive and Martinelli Way intersection. Garrartp E;orruntssiurt .11ugust 26,2014 We'qu1ar2vteetmng >#'a g e [ 139 He stated that the signal operates with overlapping turn lanes, so when one movement goes another can happen at the same time and they are going in different directions. He stated that they don't want to put pedestrian where cars are running throughout the signal cycle. He stated that if they added a crosswalk it would impact the timing of the signal and will cause a problem with back up on the freeway. He agreed to review the issue and determine if there is a way to do what she asked but stated that another crosswalk is not included in the plan. Chair Bhuthimethee stated that she was opposed to pollarded trees and felt it was unnatural and they would not hold up with the wind in Dublin. However, considering the context and the presentation she felt that they will fit the space. She requested that they not include the pollarded trees in the residential area. Mr. Baldauf agreed. Cm. Kohli asked if the Applicant had given any thought to locating the residential portion away from the freeway, keeping it close to BART and introducing more retail/restaurant uses that he felt would be a better fit adjacent to Hacienda Crossings and the Persimmon Place project. Mr. Baldauf responded that they believed that they could provide a quality mix of tenants and with Persimmon Place taking most of the quality tenants in the market, they didn't feel they wanted to try to be the junior brother in the area but wanted to do something that is organized in a way that fits two goals; 1) to create the community gathering space that was part of the previous Green at Park Place project, and by turning the orientation gave a wind sheltering effect, 2) the orientation to Persimmon Place was very important, so by orienting it as an extension of Persimmon Place, gives their project a larger position within the community. Mr. Hunt agreed and assured the Planning Commission that over the years they have looked at every scenario. He felt that this is a difficult rectangular site to design. He stated that the main entry must remain where it is, which was the former IKEA Way, there is no access onto Hacienda Drive, only have right-in/right-out on the east side and felt that if the retail were shifted there would be more land than tenants. Chair Bhuthimethee opened the public hearing, and having no speakers, closed the public hearing. Cm. Do stated that she is in support of the project and excited to see the community gathering place which is important to the residents. Cm. O'Keefe stated that he is in support of the project. He liked that it is close to the transit oriented district and the architecture gave him the "wow" that the City Council was looking for. He felt it was different and liked the community gathering place. He thanked the Applicant for enhancing the service doors because a lot of homeowners will be looking at them. He appreciated their attention to detail in their design. Cm. Goel referred to Page 5 of the FSEIR document regarding schools and student generation. He stated that the letter speculated 60 students for the project and asked Ms. Bascom to comment. Ms. Bascom referred to the letter from the Dublin Unified School District (DUSD) dated July Stn that stated the estimate which is based on the unit count and the unit type for the project. Aannrng{:;srnrtn szan august 26;2014 `•N,eyu arfJLanng sp.'a g e ; tao Cm. Goel asked what the estimated number of students. Ms. Bascom responded that the estimate was 60-70 elementary students and a smaller amount of middle and high school students. Cm. Goel did not agree with that number and asked for the total number of units again. Ms. Bascom responded that there are a total of 372 townhome and condo units. Cm. Goel was concerned about the 2013/14 numbers from the school district and felt the number in the EIR is off by several hundred and he is not supportive of that. He was also concerned with traffic and the level of service at the adjacent intersections. Cm. Khan asked which intersection he was referring to. Cm. Goel answered that he was referring to all the intersections in a half mile radius. Mr. Khan referred the Planning Commission to the Draft SEIR which lists long term cumulative conditions for signalized intersections which found that there was only one signalized intersection that was found as a significant impact (Scarlett Drive and Dublin Blvd). He stated that the concern was because of the pedestrian crossing at the Iron Horse Trail. He added that when reviewing the Dublin Crossing project, one of the mitigations could be a bridge. He stated that the City is moving forward with the feasibility study for the overcrossing bridge later this year. In terms of the concern on Hacienda Drive, Staff did a signalized intersection analysis and arterial level of service analysis and found that the arterial level of increase volume to capacity ratio of 2% Hacienda Drive intersection due to the current project. He stated that he was referring to 2035 numbers. There was a discussion regarding traffic, the level of service at intersections in proximity to the project and the mitigations for significant and unavoidable impacts. Mr. Khan stated that the Alameda County Transportation Commission and CalTrans have challenged the City to ensure that they are not impacting bike and pedestrian access if completing mitigation. They also requested that Dublin not complete mitigation at Dublin Blvd and Arnold Road because it could impact bike and pedestrian access; at the same time, Staff doesn't want to create a situation where they can't use the intersection. He felt that adding a lane or widening the road is not possible. He stated that the State is also requiring an increase to the walking time for pedestrians at intersections. He stated that at every place that they tried to address the mitigation, it would require either widening the road or taking the existing property from already existing development, which is not viable. Cm. Goel asked, if the project remained commercial, would that impact go away. Mr. Khan did not have that answer because that was not part of the analysis. Ms. Bascom stated that the IKEA SEIR had a traffic analysis that was specific to that project and the 300,000 sf commercial project, approved in 2008. Without referring to the IKEA SEIR to see what mitigation measures would have been required, the proposed project will have fewer daily tP&'nning Commission August 26,2014 ,Rcguf2r Mietrng (0a g e I 141 trips, fewer a.m. peak hour trips, and slightly more p.m. peak hour trips than either of the commercial projects. Cm. Goel asked what the height limit is for the residential structures along 1-580. Ms. Bascom stated that the height limit is in the PD Ordinance but felt it was 45-50 feet. Cm. Goel felt that 45-50 feet was taller than a sound wall. Ms. Bascom stated that there is no sound wall proposed for this project. Cm. Goel stated that part of the sound mitigation was to not allow balconies facing 1-580, and to use sound barrier treatment on the residential facilities. He was concerned that the residential component was not included in the fly-over video but the Planning Commission is being asked to recommend the environmental piece associated with it. Cm. Kohli felt that Cm. Goel brought excellent points regarding traffic and environmental issues. He stated that he shares the enthusiasm of Cm. Do and O'Keefe about this type of project coming to Dublin. He had thought that this parcel of land would be some sort of lifestyle center, similar to Santana Row or just pure commercial/retail that would complement Hacienda Crossings. He felt that other new retail centers are growing and in certain situations he likes the idea of Mixed Use and felt that the Applicant has done a good job of trying to bring this spirit to Dublin, but he felt it was a residential project masked as Mixed Use. He stated that he would like to see less residential and more retail/restaurant, because whatever is built will remain for a long time. He felt that more retail businesses are being attracted to Dublin and commend the Applicant for thinking through the project, but he felt that the Planning Commission has a responsibility to make the right recommendation to the City Council for the best type of project and he did not feel he can support the project under the Mixed Use designation unless the Planning Commission suggests a Condition of Approval that requires reduced residential. He felt that he could not approve a re-designation for this project. Cm. Goel stated that, after seeing the video fly-over, he saw a well thought-out project with a community element, a nice business facility, and good ambiance at the center. He was concerned with the residential component being so close to 1-580 and the BART line as well as other traffic concerns for residents. He was also concerned with the phasing of the residential component which he felt would be built from the worst spot with the lowest return inward towards the retail. He asked what will happen if the market changes. He stated that there will be tall art and potentially very high residential structures and was concerned that Persimmon Place would be hidden and would not create a magnet into the City. He felt that the "sense of place" that the Planning Commission has wanted would be shielded by building residential right next to 1-580. He stated that he didn't know which was better; developing the project and going bankrupt or developing the project and it remains empty. He felt the plan is premature and that there are better opportunities. He stated that he likes the center gathering space with the retail component, but was not sure about the vehicle movement in the center, although it works at Santana Row and could work for this project. He stated that he has heard people ask for small commercial space, small work-live spaces, but they don't have anywhere in Dublin to go. He was concerned about school impacts and rapid growth in Dublin with this project increasing those numbers. He was concerned with traffic impacts of the project. He stated that if the project was strictly commercial he could support it, but he looks at the project as a whole and could not support it. (Planning Corannssion August 2&2014 RegularJfeeting r1,'a g e 1 142 Chair Bhuthimethee stated that she shares some Cm. Kohli and Cm. Goel's concerns regarding traffic, the addition of residential and the school impacts. She felt that the project is very unique and it would be a waste of its proximity to the TOD if it were full commercial. She felt that this is where you want to allow people to walk have a connection to mass transit. She felt it is appropriate project, close to that BART station, where residents can walk to the residential and commercial, but if it was full commercial people would drive there. She felt it was a good transition project. She felt it is a good, quality project and appropriate in this location. She was impressed with the building architecture, and has been waiting for statement architecture to come to Dublin. She stated that Pleasanton or San Ramon has nothing like this, and the sculpture element and the huge trees make it unique. She commended the Applicant for including the huge trees. She pointed out the trees on Sheet L-12 which will make the project feel like it's been there for quite a while. The new and different architecture along with the site elements, are also reflective of style. Interior images are very compelling with a "wow" factor and she would love to see this project completed. She stated that she likes the lighting design. The design team was right to address the back-of-building and agreed with Cm. O'Keefe that those sorts of views of all sides of the building are important to the Planning Commission. She agreed with Cm. Goel regarding the buildings at Persimmon Place not being outward facing, but she felt this is a lifestyle center with the residential component and the unique commercial component and a lot of the spaces are well detailed with a lot of thought into it. She stated that she is in support of the project. Cm. O'Keefe responded to Cm. Goel's comments regarding noise and view; he felt it is a personal preference and stated that he likes to be lively and hear what's going on, and some people don't have a preference for quiet. He stated that he would not support a sound wall and did not have a problem with not being able to see Whole Foods from the freeway. There will be a buzz about the project and it will be a destination development. He was not concerned with people not finding their way to the development. He stated that he is in support of the project and respectfully disagreed with Cm. Goel. Chair Bhuthimethee felt that Cm. Goel was concerned with the views from 1-580 but stated that Staff understands that the Planning Commission wants to see enhanced elevations on public corridors and felt that the Applicant will produce nice elevations for the residential portion. Mr. Baker reminded the Planning Commission that the residential component will come back for the Site Development Review as a future agenda item. He stated that the Applicant is working on addressing the elevations facing the freeway, and project identity, both of which were discussed at the City Council Study Session in July. He added that the current proposal is for three story buildings which are not overly tall. Cm. Goel responded to Chair Bhuthimethee regarding the TOD. He stated that the Applicant showed the picture of the boundaries which is considered ideal TOD, but the middle portion of the project is the furthest. He felt that there are still a lot of units being built in the area, a lot of foot traffic and that the City is missing an opportunity to create a daytime magnet that is not there with residential. He did not feel comfortable recommending approval of a CEQA document that will be referred to however many years it takes to complete. He felt it could be built in 2 years or it could be 10 years and then the Applicant will be pointing to a document that gave them the entitlement. He felt that there will be a truth at some point and the ability to build this project. He felt that there is a reason why the commercial is being submitted first. 't tntrirt (oma rtssion August 26 2014 eguitir:iit€Detina (rage 114? Mr. Baker stated that the Development Agreement (DA) includes language regarding the timing of the project to ensure that the commercial as well as the residential will be built. He stated that the DA states that the Applicant can only move so far with residential project before showing progress on the commercial, the fact that the residential is not part of this submittal is not indicative of the timing of the construction of the project, but is related to preparation of the plans and moving the project forward. Cm. Goel asked if the Applicant will move forward with the residential first. Mr. Baker stated that he would defer to the Applicant on how they will phase the project; however, if they want to move forward with residential first, they won't go very far because they must build the commercial as well. Cm. Goel asked what percentage the DA requires. Mr. Baker stated they must receive occupancy of buildings 400, 500, 600, 700 and 800 by the time they reach the 190th residential building permit. He felt that the Applicant would need to build concurrently in order to meet that requirement. Cm. Goel asked if that is a trigger that binds them as opposed to helping the Applicant. He also asked who brought up that issue. Mr. Baker stated that it is a trigger that ensures that commercial is built before the residential. He answered that the Staff, working with the Applicant, and discussing the issue with the City Council. Mr. Baker mentioned two edits need to be made to the approval documents and he wanted to discuss the voting. Ms. Bascom stated that a statement needs to be added to the PD Ordinance that states that this PD Ordinance supersedes and replaces any previous PD Ordinances. Also, in the resolutions, in the first "Whereas" it references Zoning Ordinance Amendments in addition to the Planned Development Rezone, the text that references Zoning Ordinance Amendments will be deleted. Mr. Baker suggested voting on each item individually and make motions for each recommendation which he felt would make the process go as smoothly as possible. Cm. O'Keefe stressed that he would ideally like to see the project have two story housing and he'd also like to see some office space for small 15-30 employee businesses. He felt that would be a more ideal project but looking at where the project has been and all the effort that has gone into it, he did not want to hold up the project or vote against it. Chair Bhuthimethee understood Cm. O'Keefe's concern but felt that there are three story townhomes in less dense areas, but it seems appropriate because they will be by the freeway and next to high density buildings and the scale of the property next to it is commercial office space so it fits with that scale. Cm. O'Keefe felt that if the housing were two-story, with higher retail buildings in the middle, it would highlight the view from the overpass and make it more of a focal point. Tanning Commission august 26 2014 (Regular Meeting (Page 1 144 Cm. Kohli responded to Cm. O'Keefe's comments that the City has waited to bring forward a project on this site and now have an opportunity to do it and this is a good enough project to move forward. His concern was that whatever is built will remain for a long time, and in the last year there has been an increase in commercial/retail development. He asked what if in two years there was a project submitted that was Mixed Use with one third of the residential units, and some being live-work units and more retail. He felt that the Planning Commission might say that would be the ideal project that they had in mind but then it would be too late. He felt that waiting for the right project is worth it. Cm. Goel felt that the reality is that Dublin has very few vacant parcels for development and this is prime property and there will be an opportunity to develop it, maybe not today or tomorrow but soon. He felt that the Planning Commission will make the decision for Dublin's future. Cm. Do asked if the project is approved as mixed use and the townhomes are built in three stories, can the first floor as be used as a workplace. Ms. Bascom answered that the PD ordinance would allow home occupations but the homeowner could not run a retail storefront. Any home occupation that would be allowed in any other neighborhood would be allowed in this development. On a motion by Cm. O'Keefe and seconded by Cm. Do, on a vote of 3-2, with Cm. Goel and Cm. Kohli voting no, the Planning Commission adopted: RESOLUTION NO. 14-47 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL CERTIFICATION OF A FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT AND ADOPTION OF ENVIRONMENTAL FINDINGS UNDER CEQA FOR THE GREEN MIXED USE PROJECT On a motion by Cm. O'Keefe and seconded by Cm. Do, on a vote of 3-2, with Cm. Goel and Cm. Kohli voting no, the Planning Commission adopted RESOLUTION NO. 14—48 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT A RESOLUTION AMENDING THE GENERAL PLAN AND THE EASTERN DUBLIN SPECIFIC PLAN FOR THE GREEN MIXED USE PROJECT On a motion by Cm. O'Keefe and seconded by Cm. Do, on a vote of 3-2, with Cm. Goel and Cm. Kohli voting no, the Planning Commission adopted: 'tanning Commission August 24 2014 CR guiar Veering c'a g e 1 14i RESOLUTION NO. 14-49 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT AN ORDINANCE TO REZONE 27.5 ACRES AT 5144 AND 5344 MARTINELLI WAY TO A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT ZONING DISTRICT AND APPROVING THE RELATED STAGE 1 AND 2 DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE GREEN MIXED USE PROJECT On a motion by Cm. O'Keefe and seconded by Cm. Do, on a vote of 3-2, with Cm. Goel and Cm. Kohli voting no and the correction mentioned, the Planning Commission adopted: RESOLUTION NO. 14-50 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 STOCKBRIDGE/BHV EMERALD PLACE LAND COMPANY LLC RELATING TO THE GREEN MIXED USE PROJECT On a motion by Cm. O'Keefe and seconded by Cm. Do, on a vote of 3-2, with Cm. Goel and Cm. Kohli voting no, the Planning Commission adopted: RESOLUTION NO. 14-51 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE A SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PERMIT FOR THE COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS AND VESTING TENTATIVE MAP 8203 FOR THE GREEN MIXED USE PROJECT On a motion by Cm. O'Keefe and seconded by Cm. Do, on a vote of 3-2, with Cm. Goel and Cm. Kohli voting no, the Planning Commission adopted: NEW OR UNFINISHED BUSINESS — NONE OTHER BUSINESS - NONE Trani*Commission August 266,2014 'gular Meeting (I'a g e 1 146 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). ADJOURNMENT — The meeting was adjourned at 10:22:54 PM Respectfully submitted, Planning Commission Chair ATTEST: Jeff Baerj Assistant Community Development Director G:IMINUTES120141PLANNING COMMISSIOM08.26.14 FINAL PC MINUTES(CF).doc ) nn&4/("`rtrrzrnission ,iugust 26;2014 Ikc ulzr;%feetanu (1? g r ; .147