Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Minutes 05-25-1993 Reqular Meetinq - Mav 25. 1993 A regular meeting of the city of Dublin Planning commission was held on May 25, 1993, in the Dublin civic Center council Chambers. The meeting was called to order at 7:30 p.m. by Con~issioner Zika. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Burnham, Downey, North, Rafanelli and zika; Laurence L. Tong, Planning Director; Carol R. cirelli, Associate Planner; David K. Choy, Associate Planner; and Gail Adams, Recording Secretary. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG Cm. Zika led the commission, Staff, and those present in the pledge of allegiance to the flag. ADDITIONS OR REVISIONS TO THE AGENDA The minutes for May 3, 1993 were approved as submitted. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS None PUBLIC HEARINGS SUBJECT: PA 93-024 Marq-Ett Arts and Crafts Fair Conditional Use Permit request to allow the operation of two separate arts and crafts fairs at the Dublin Plaza Shoppinq Center on Julv 15-18. 1993 and December 2-5. 1993 located at 7155-7333 Reqional Street Cm. Zika opened the public hearing and asked for the staff report. Ms. Carol Cirelli presented the staff report to the Commission. Staff recommended approval of the application. Cm. North had concerns with Condition #10 of t::le draft which "suggested" that security services be provided. a condition of approval if it is only a suggestion? resolution How can this be Ms. Cirelli indicated that the police Department could not require the Applicant to provide security services. The PJlice Department suggested this condition to alert the Applicant to potential security problems. --------------------------------------------------------------------- Regular Meeting [5-25min] PCM-1993-33 May 25, 1993 Cm. Zika asked for additional clarification and asked if this condition eliminates the Police Department's l:.ability. Ms. Cirelli stated that the police officers would do their own surveillance of the area and were just suggest:.ng that additional security services be provided. Cm. North commented that the Applicant needed 1:0 "comply" with the conditions of approval and asked how could the Applicant "comply" with a suggestion. Mr. Tong explained that the Police Department recommended that the Applicant consider additional security services as a supplement to the usual police services. The Police Department felt it could not require these services for this project. Ms. Cirelli commented that if the Planning Comnission preferred, the condition could be eliminated from the draft rHsolution. Cm. North suggested that the suggestion be addl~d to the findings; not the conditions of approval. Cm. Burnham concurred with the Planning Commission's concerns. Marietta Lewis, Applicant, stated that the shopping center was not responsible for any stolen merchandise and the vendors were aware of this policy. She would not be providing any additional security services. The center has their own security and there have never been any problems reported since she has been doing the craft fairs (eight years). She has a contract with the Dublin Plaza Merchant's Association as well as liability insurance fill~d with the city. She indicated she had no problems with the conditions of approval. Cm. Zika closed the public hearing. On motion from Cm. North, seconded by Cm. Rafanelli, and with a vote of 5-0, the Planning commission adopted RESOLUTION NO. 93-014 APPROVING PA 93-024 MARG-ETT ARTS AND CRAFTS FAIR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW TWO SEPARATE, FOUR DAY ARTS ~~D CRAFTS FAIRS LOCATED AT 7155-7333 REGIONAL STREET (DUBLIN PLAZA SHOPPING CENTER) SUBJECT: PA 93-018 Tri-city Baptist Church Conditional Use Permit request to allow the operation of a church facility located within an existinq multi-tenant retail/office complex located at 6930 C/D Villaqe Parkway Cm. Zika opened the public hearing and asked f.:>r the staff report. Ms. Carol Cirelli presented the staff report t.:> the Commission. staff recommended that the Conditional Use Permit be valid for two years. A --------------------------------------------------------------------- Regular Meeting [5-25min] PCM-1993-34 May 25, 1993 . • ~ time limit has been recommended because the City's economic base could be affected in the future. Retail and offices uses should not be compromised for this type of use. Cm. North asked for clarification on the time limits established for this application. Ms. Cirelli explained that the Zoning Administrator could extend the permit after two years for a specified or indefinite period. Cm. North commented that if Staff was concerned with retail space being in short supply, why would the permit be approved for an indefinite time period. Ms. Cirelli indicated that Condition #13 does not specify a certain time period for the extension. Cm. North referred to Condition #14 which requires an annual review of the use permit by the Zoning Investigator. However, on page 4, the staff report states that the Zoning Administrator can grant an indefinite extension. Ms. Cirelli referred to Condition #13 and indicated this condition ~ does not state an "indefinite" period of time. The condition states that the permit shall be valid for two years and the Applicant could apply for an extension through the Zoning Administrator. The condition does not specify a time frame for the extension approval. Mr. Tong commented that a specific time extension could be applied to this condition. Cm. North felt that since there was a concern with limited retail space, a time limit should be specified and an extension could then be approved every two years. Mr. Tong explained that the way the condition is worded it leaves it up to the Zoning Administrator based on a request from the Applicant. The Zoning Administrator would then make a determination based upon the existing situation. The extensions could be granted for up to two years or it could be left open. Cm. Zika asked Staff if they were concerned with a lack of retail space in the future. Mr. Tong indicated yes. Cm. Zika felt that a two year caveat should be required. Bill Bryson, Applicant, referred to page 2, Condition #3. He indicated that they have organized and could supply Staff with their own articles of religion corporation. Regular Meeting PCM-1993-35 May 25, 1993 [5-25min] . ~ ~ Mr. Tong felt it would be appropriate for the Applicant to submit their own articles. Bob Schlarb, commercial real estate broker, described the building site where the old County library used to preside. He felt that this was not a prominent retail location and has been vacant for two years. In order to make this transaction economically sound, there would need to be a 5-year lease. Since Condition #13 limits the use for two years, this deal would not be able to take place. Mr. Schlarb requested a time limit of five years. He also indicated that the tenant would not be able to occupy the space until August. Mr. Schlarb was concerned with Condition #9 which required the sidewalk to be extended to eight feet. He commented that this would be the only section with eight feet of sidewalk. The rest of Village Parkway would remain at four feet. He indicated that there were no assets available to incur this type of cost and had already spent over $6,000 on landscape improvements. He requested that this condition be waived at this time. Cm. Zika was in favor of eight foot sidewalks. He indicated to the Applicant that there was the possibility of having a traffic impact fee instead of the sidewalk improvements. Cm. North asked if the sidewalk extension would be in front of the building or out on Village Parkway. Ms. Cirelli pointed out that the sidewalk was not depicted on Exhibit A; however, it would be the sidewalk on Village Parkway. These sidewalk improvements had been a part of the City's Capital Improvement Program; however there is no funding for this project. The property owners were now being required to make the improvements. Cm. North asked if any of the other property owners were required to make sidewalk improvements. Ms. Cirelli indicated that there were no other projects being processed along Village Parkway at this time. Mr. Mehran Sepehri, Public Works Department, explained that four foot sidewalks were considered too narrow. The City Council directed Staff to make this project the responsibility of the property owners that are fronting the sidewalk. This project was the first to have this requirement and all projects after this time will be required to extend the sidewalk to eight feet. Cm. Burnham asked how much would it cost to extend the sidewalk to eight feet. Mr. Sepehri felt that it could cost up to $20,000. Because of the lack of funding, the City is currently looking at the policy that Regular Meeting PCM-1993-36 May 25, 1993 [5-25min] ' • M I would require the property owner to improve the sidewalk; even if there were no pending applications with the City. Cm. North asked how much of the sidewalk would be extended to eight feet. Staff and the Commission discussed the dimensions and location of the sidewalk improvements. Cm. North asked why and when was the decision made to widen the sidewalk to eight feet. The sidewalk has been four feet for 20 years. Ms. Sepehri explained that the Downtown Specific Plan requires that the commercial areas be eight feet. Mr. Tong further explained that this project was previously to be funded by the City and was part of the Capital Improvement Plan (CIP). Cm. Rafanelli asked why the City did not complete the project when there was money available. Why are we now putting the burden on the property owner? Cm. Burnham asked how the Planning Commission could not require the property owner to widen the sidewalk if the Council has directed Staff to require the sidewalk improvements for safety purposes? Ms. Sepehri referred to another project involving the slope stability on San Ramon Road. This project was similar to the sidewalk improvements. He explained that the City is aware of the potential slide concern; therefore the project was added to the CIP. There has to be some type of planning for these projects even though the City cannot fund every single project in the five-year CIP budget. Now, since the City cannot fund the project, the City has come up with a different plan which is to ask the property owner to make the sidewalk improvements. Cm. North referred to Condition #13 and asked Staff if they were aware that the property owner wanted a lease for longer than two years. Ms. Cirelli stated that at the time the conditions were put together, Staff was not aware of the lease agreement. She was notified of the lease agreement today by Mr. Schlarb; however Staff was concerned with future retail space. Cm. North asked Staff how they would feel about approving the permit for 3 or 4 years, instead of 2. Mr. Tong indicated that Staff could go with 3 or 4 years, with a 1 or 2 year extension. In the past, there have been no problems with the extensions, as long as the various conditions could be met. Staff would recommend there be some time limit established with the ability to extend the permit. Staff cannot get involved with the private Regular Meeting PCM-1993-37 May 25, 1993 [5-25min] . . ~ ~ lease agreements of the parties and it would not be appropriate to do so. Mr. Bryson indicated that he was working with the real estate agent ' and was willing to have a five year lease. Mr. Schlarb felt that they have been good neighbors and were pro- active. He reiterated that this space has been vacant for two years and the church use was appropriate use of the space. Cm. Burnham asked what type of reasons would Staff have to not extend the use permit. Mr. Tong commented that Staff wanted to reserve the right to not extend the permit. Any number of situations could occur two years into the future. Cm. Rafanelli felt that since the City currently has a high vacancy rate for retail space and the professional economic indicators show the State not turning around for at least three years, a five year lease seemed appropriate. Cm. North felt that a four year lease with two-year extension periods would be appropriate. Charlotte Fernandez, property owner, indicated that they have made a lot of improvements on the property. She felt that the City could have notified her of the sidewalk widening before the landscaping project was approved. The landscaping and the signage cost approximately $6-7,000. The church would be a good tenant and she wanted to see the building leased. The sidewalk improvements would cost approxi.mately $2,500 and the landscaping and plumbing would be torn up. She felt that there was plenty of room to walk down the sidewalk and there wasn't a lot of pedestrian traffic on Village Parkway. Cm. North referred to Condition #9 and asked Staff if the Planning Commission had the right to strike this condition. Mr. Sepehri indicated that the City Council has not formally adopted this policy. The Planning Commission would have the right to delete this condition. Cm. Zika asked if a Traffic Impact Fee could be required in lieu of the sidewalk improvements. Mr. Sepehri indicated that a traffic study would be necessary to see if impact fees were required. He noted that the City could require that both a traffic impact fee as well as any safety improvements be made. Regular Meeting PCM-1993-38 May 25, 1993 ~ [5-25min] : i ~ Cm. Zika pointed out that the City Council has not formalized a policy requiring the property owners to repair the sidewalks. The Planning Commission has no control over the budget. Cm. Zika closed the public hearing. Cm. Zika felt that a traffic impact fee should be required. Cm. North wanted to see Condition #9 deleted, Condition #13 modified to allow four years, and to have a traffic study prepared to see if an impact fee is required. Mr. Tong indicated that, procedurally, the Applicant would need to pay the traffic impact fee voluntarily as part of the project. If it was going to be imposed as a mitigation, the project would need to be re- noticed. Cm. North asked how much would it cost to prepare a traffic study. Mr. Sepehri indicated there was typically a$500 deposit for the City to do the traffic study. A traffic consultant would be much higher. Cm. North asked Staff, based on their experience ,how much of a traffic impact fee would be required for this type of project. Mr. Sepehri indicated that most of the traffic would be generated on Sunday and Wednesday. The impact should be minimal and would not require major funds. Cm. Zika asked what type of time frame would be require to have the study prepared and bring the project back before the Commission. Mr. Tong indicated there were several high priority items being worked on by the traffic engineer. The study could take over a week to be completed. CEQA requires a 21-day noticing period for mitigated negative declaration projects. It would take another week to get the noticing to the newspaper. This could add seven weeks before coming back to the Commission. Ms. Cirelli clarified that if the Applicant voluntarily contributes traffic impact funds, this becomes part of their project description and Staff would not be required to prepare a Mitigated Negative Declaration. State law requires a 21-day public review period for Negative Declarations. Negative declarations are required for any impacts resulting from the project. If the Applicant voluntarily contributes the funds, a Negative Declaration would not be required. The project would then be considered categorically exempt from CEQA and could come back to the Commission in two weeks. The Planning Commission concurred that Condition #9 should be deleted from the conditions of approval, Condition #13 should be revised to allow the permit to be valid for five years and to require a traffic impact study to be prepared. Regular Meeting PCM-1993-39 May 25, 1993 [5-25min] . ~ ~ Mr. Tong recommended that the Commission continue the application to the June 7th meeting. If at that time, the traffic study is completed and the Applicant voluntarily contributes the funds, Staff can bring the report back to the Commission and action can be taken at this meeting. If this does not occur, Staff may have to continue the project further to allow the appropriate noticing. The Planning Commission continued the application to their June 7th Planning Commission meeting. SUBJECT: PA 93-010 Sprinkler IrricLation Specialists Conditional Use Permit request to allow the outdoor storage of landscape material in the M-l. Light Industrial District located at 6450-B Trinity Court Cm. Zika opened the public hearing and asked for the staff report. Ms. Carol Cirelli presented the staff report to the Commission. Staff recommended approval of the application. The Planning Commission noted that the Applicant was not in the audience. Staff stated the Applicant had indicated he would be at tonight's meeting. Cm. Zika closed the public hearing. Cm. Rafanelli asked Staff if the fence around the storage area would have shielded slats. Ms. Cirelli indicated yes. On motion from Cm. Rafanelli, seconded by Cm. North, and with a vote of 5-0, the Planning Commission adopted RESOLUTION NO. 93-015 APPROVING PA 93-010 SPRINKLER IRRIGATION SPECIALISTS, INC. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REQUEST TO ALLOW THE OUTDOOR STORAGE OF LANDSCAPE MATERIAL IN THE M-1, LIGHT INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT, LOCATED AT 6450-B TRINITY COURT SUBJECT: PA 93-011 Celebrity Coffee Company Outdoor Seating/Live Entertainment Conditional Use Permit request to modify the PD, Planned Development, General Provision to allow the addition of an outdoor seatincL area and indoor live entertainment to an existing restaurant, as conditionallv permitted uses within the PD District located at 6694-Z Amador Plaza Road Cm. Zika opened the public hearing and asked for the staff report. Mr. David Choy presented the staff report to the Commission. Staff recommended approval of the application. Regular Meeting PCM-1993-40 May 25, 1993 [5-25min] . , ~ ~ Cm. North asked why a traffic study was not required for this project. Mr. Choy indicated the City Council had directed Staff to look at this issue. The previous rezoning applications and Settlement Agreement for this property dealt with appropriate uses within Phase I and II of the Enea Plaza Shopping Center. It was determined that the proposed use was consistent with the type of uses previously approved for the project. The Public Works Director determined that a traffic impact fee was not required for this application. Cm. Zika asked if the City Attorney concurred with this recommendation. Mr. Choy indicated yes. Mr. Jerry Newton, Applicant, referred to Condition #16 and requested that limited live music be allowed outside in the gazebo area. Cm. Zika asked what type of live entertainment would there be. Mr. Newton described the entertainment as acoustical guitar music, similar to light jazz. This music would not carry more than six feet. He indicated that on certain days, such as Sunday morning, people prefer to sit outside. The outdoor entertainment would be a nice setting and The Good Guys are supportive of the project. Cm. North commented that noise from the Taco Bell establishment was limited to 15 feet. Mr. Choy clarified that on the Taco Bell project, the condition stated that the loudspeaker should observe a"minimum functional volume". Cm. Zika closed the public hearing. Cm. North felt that Condition #6 could be revised to state "limited to 15-20 feet". If there are any complaints, the condition could be changed. The Commission and Staff discussed possible language changes to allow loudspeakers and/or amplifiers on the outside of the building. They discussed the possibility of having live entertainment outdoors as well as indoors. Mr. Tong identified several potential concerns with having music performed outdoors. If there is a popular performer, this could generate traffic, noise and seating concerns. Piped music would be a different situation. Another concern could be noise being heard by the other businesses in the complex. Mr. Newton clarified that he was requesting "live" entertainment outside af the building, which would occur about once a month on Sunday mornings. Regular Meeting PCM-1993-41 May 25, 1993 [5-25minJ ~ i Mr. Tong indicated this request is different than the original application. Staff would want to review the live entertainment situation further for safety, parking, and noise concerns. The application should be continued, re-noticed and reviewed by other departments. Mr. Newton explained that his definition of live entertainment was to have a solo musician playing soft music outdoors. It would not be large, popular groups, such as Michael Jackson. Mr. Tong felt that Staff needed to know the parameters regarding the type of entertainment being proposed. If there were to be popular groups used that might draw a crowd, Staff would have concerns that needed to be addressed. Cm. North asked if the outdoor seating could be approved at this meeting and then have the Applicant come back for the live outdoor entertainment. Mr. Tong indicated yes, the outdoor seating could be approved at tonight's meeting. The live outdoor entertainment could be submitted as a separate permit. . On motion from Cm. North, seconded by Cm. Downey, and with a vote of 5-0, the Planning Commission adopted RESOLUTION NO. 93-016 APPROVING PA 93-011 CELEBRITY'S COFFEE COMPANY OUTDOOR SEATING/LIVE ENTERTAINMENT CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AT 6698-Z AMADOR PLAZA ROAD SUBJECT: PA 93-017 Allsafe Self-Storage Tentative Map to divide a vacant parcel into two separate lots, Site Development Review to allow the construction of four single-story self- storaqe buildinqs, Conditional Use Permit for a minor amendment to the Planned Development General Provisions and Variance to allow a reduction in the required parking spaces and substandard effective lot frontage located at 595 J 5971 Douqherty Road Cm. Zika opened the public hearing and asked for the staff report. Mr. David Choy presented the staff report to the Commission. Staff recommended approval of the application. Cm. North indicated that the other storage facility located in the City were required to have 14 spaces. Why are we only requiring 5 parking spaces on this project. Mr. Choy explained that last storage facility approved had a two-story structure. A number of the parking spaces were located next to the elevator to utilize the storage on the second floor. This application Regular Meeting PCM-1993-42 May 25, 1993 [5-25min] . _ ~ ~ is a single-story structure and customers have the ability to park in front of their unit. Cm. Rafanelli asked if the 77 foot frontage was sufficient so far as truck passing each other. Mr. Choy indicated that the Public Works Department was in favor of the cul-de-sac being proposed. John Moore, Applicant, reviewed the company's involvement and gave a brief history of the property's development. He indicated this was the first phase of the ultimate build-out of the site, working with the City to coordinate the development of the property along with the alignment of Dublin Boulevard Extension. Mr. Moore stated that he was in agreement with Staff regarding the conditions of approval and indicated that Staff has done a thorough job of reviewing the application. Mr. Ed Boersma, Cubix Construction, thanked Staff for their efforts on such a complete report. He indicated that this property was an excellent location for a storage facility. He anticipated this facility to be a state-of-the-art facility and would be a true asset to the City. He concurred with all of the conditions of approval. Cm. Zika asked why the plan shows a two-story facility. Mr. Boersma indicated that the two-story building encompasses a manager's office and apartment. The remainder of the buildings are one story. Cm. North noted that there is only a 4-foot sidewalk for this facility. Mr. Boersma pointed out that these were private, on-site walkways; not public sidewalks. Cm. Zika closed the public hearing. On motion from Cm. Rafanelli, seconded by Cm. Burnham, and with a vote of 5-0, the Planning Commission adopted RESOLUTION NO. 93-017 A RESOLUTION MAKING FINDINGS PURSUANT TO CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) AND APPROVING MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR PA 93-017 ALLSAFE SELF-STORAGE TENTATIVE MAP/SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW/CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT/VARIANCE RESOLUTION NO. 93-018 ADOPTING A MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM FOR THE NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR PA 93-017 ALLSAFE SELF-STORAGE TENTATIVE MAP/SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW/CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT/VARIANCE Regular Meeting PCM-1993-43 May 25, 1993 [5-25min] . ~ ~ ~ RESOLUTION NO. 93-019 APPROVING,PA 93-017 ALLSAFE SELF-STORAGE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW A MINOR AMENDMENT TO THE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT GENERAL PROVISIONS TO ALLOW DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS ON THE TWO NEWLY CREATED PARCELS TO BE REVIEWED IN CONFORMANCE WITH THE C-2, GENERAL COMMERCIAL DISTRICT DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS INSTEAD OF THE M-1, LIGHT INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS, FOR THE PROPERTIES LOCATED AT 5959 AND 5971 DOUGHERTY ROAD RESOLUTION NO. 93-020 APPROVING PA 93-017 ALLSAFE SELF-STORAGE VARIANCE REQUEST TO ALLOW A REDUCTION IN THE REQUIRED NUMBER OF PARKING SPACES PROVIDED ON-SITE AND TO ALLOW A SUBSTANDARD EFFECTIVE LOT FRONTAGE FOR LOT "A" FOR THE PROPERTIES LOCATED AT 5959 AND 5971 DOUGHERTY ROAD RESOLUTION NO. 93-021 APPROVING PA 93-017 ALLSAFE SELF-STORAGE TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 6571 TO DIVIDE AN EXISTING +11.3 ACRE VACANT PARCEL INTO TWO SEPARATE LOTS (PARCEL A- 4.2 ACRES AND PARCEL B- 7.1 ACRES) RESOLUTION NO. 93-022 APPROVING PA 93-017 ALLSAFE SELF-STORAGE SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPLICATION TO ALLOW THE CONSTRUCTION OF FOUR SINGLE-STORY SELF- STORAGE BUILDINGS TOTALING 99,920 SQUARE FEET DIVIDED INTO 894 STORAGE UNITS P,ND A 2,100 SQUARE FOOT MANAGER'S OFFICE AND RESIDENCE ON PARCEL A, FOR THE PROPERTIES LOCATED AT 5959 AND 5971 DOUGHERTY ROAD RESOLUTION NO. 93-023 A RESOLUTION IMPOSING A TRAFFIC IMPACT FEE ON PA 93-017 SELF-STORAGE FACILITY AT 5959 DOUGHERTY ROAD UNFINISHED BUSINESS SUBJECT: Review of 1993-94 update to the 1992-97 Capital Improvement Proaram (CIP~ Mr. Richard Ambrose, City Manager, welcomed Dan Downey to the Planning Commission. He indicated that the Government Code requires that the Planning Commission review the Capital Improvement Program and make a determination to its conformance with the General Plan. Last year the Commission reviewed a new 5-year CIP covering the years 1992-97. This year the Planning Commission was reviewing an update of this program. Mr. Ambrose reviewed projects that were added to the CIP and pointed out the modifications made since last year. He noted that Lee Thompson, the Public Works Director, was available to discuss the projects in more detail. Mr. Ambrose discussed several sections of the CIP which involved Data Processing equipment; Stagecoach landscape upgrades (Dublin Hills); Clean Water Act grant funding; and the deletion of the sidewalk repair program on Village Parkway. Regular Meeting PCM-1993-44 May 25, 1993 [5-25min] • _ ~ * Cm. Burnham asked if it was fair for the City to require the property owner to pay for the sidewalk widening. Can't this program wait and have everyone pay at the same time? Mr. Ambrose felt that there was an obligation to mitigate the impact. Cm. Zika felt, speaking for the Commission, that it was unfair to require the property owner to widen the sidewalk until the Council made a formal policy. Mr. Ambrose understood the Commission's concerns. Mr. Ambrose reviewed the change in scope of the Heritage Center; the expanded scope of landscaping within the Dolan Park area; the addition of the Arroyo Vista playground• the second phase of the Dublin sportsground as well as the lower priority Murray School playground project. Mr. Ambrose commented that the Public Works staff has done an outstanding job in collecting funds which amount to approximately $2.5 million in additional money. Mr. Ambrose reviewed road improvement projects such as the annual overlay and Dublin Boulevard widening from Donlan way and Village Parkway. Cm. North asked when the Dublin Boulevard widening was to be completed. Mr. Thompson indicated that it should be completed by the end of next fiscal year. Mr. Ambrose continued by reviewing the projects involving the Dougherty Road improvements, south of the railroad; the Dublin Boulevard widening at Silvergate; the Dublin Boulevard bridge repair at Alamo Creek; the street subdrains; the signal at Davona Drive; the downtown street light additions; the bike path along Alamo Creek from Bernal to Crow Canyon; and the Dougherty Road widening from Amador Valley Boulevard to the Southern Pacific right-of-way. Cm. North asked when the Dublin Boulevard Extension to Tassajara Road would be completed. Mr. Thompson stated that the deck was in the process of being poured. The paving can then be completed. It should take about another 4-6 weeks. Mr. Ambrose noted an additional project added to the CIP for the San Ramon Road slope stabilization. A study was completed for the possibility of landscaping and irrigating this area. The soils engineer has determined that there are some soil instability concerns and in the event of an earthquake this area may fail. Regular Meeting PCM-1993-45 May 25, 1993 [5-25min] ~ i i Mr. Thompson added that the top of the slope had been re-engineered and repacked. There appears to be a lot of soft material on the face of the slope and there could be some problems in the future. Cm. Zika asked why the tennis court project at the high school has been deferred. Mr. Ambrose explained that there would be little or no General Fund revenues used for the CIP projects. We needed to maintain what was now available. The school projects could be funded if the bond measure passes. Cm. Burnham asked why the floor was being replaced again at the Shannon Center. Mr. Ambrose stated that there was an underground spring that comes up under the floor. This has caused a lot of problems, especially with the heavy rains. The center had been redone during the drought. On motion from Cm. North, seconded by Cm. Downey, and with a vote of 5-0, the Planning Commission found that the Capital Improvement Program was in conformance with the General Plan. OTHER BUSINESS Mr. Tong indicated that the City Council budget hearings would be held on June lst and 2nd. COMMISSIONER'S CONCERNS Cm. North asked Staff for the status on the Eastern Dublin referendum. Mr. Tong stated that the referendum petitions would need to be completed by June 9th. Cm. Downey indicated that comments made regarding an injunction are false. Cm. Zika asked if the Cities of Pleasanton and Livermore were involved. Mr. Tong indicated there could be a lawsuit. Cm. Rafanelli commended Staff for their excellent review of the projects. He stated that they always had thorough reports. Cm. Burnham commented that the water department needed to check the condition of the water more often. Starting last Thursday until Sunday, there seemed to be something wrong with the water. Cm. Downey stated that it was a pleasure to be part of the Planning Commission and was impressed with the Commission's diligence. Regular Meeting PCM-1993-46 May 25, 1993 [5-25min] , , ' M ~ ~ Cm. Zika congratulated Cm. Downey on his appointment and welcomed him to the club. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 10:20 p.m. Respectfully submitted, f~ . ~ ` ` .~..--~r~--~' ~lanning mmission irperson . Lau ence L. Tong Planning Director Regular Meeting PCM-1993-47 May 25, 1993 [5-25min]