Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Minutes 07-16-1996 t a _ • ~ Regular Meeting July 16, 1996 A regular meeting of the City of Dublin Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, July 16, 1996, in the Dublin Civic Center City Council Chambers. The meeting was called to arder at 7:30 by Commissioner Jennings. * ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Jennings, Geist, Johnson, Lockhart and Zika; Eddie Peabody, Community Development Director; Carol Cirelli, Senior Planner; and Gaylene Burkett, Recording Secretary. * PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG Cm. Jennings led the Commission, Staff, and those present in the pledge of allegiance to the flag. * ADDITIONS OR REVISIONS TO THE AGENDA The minutes of the June 18, 1996, meeting were approved as submitted. ORAL COMMUNICATION None WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS None PUBLIC HEARINGS None ~ 9. NEW OR UNFINISHED BUSINESS 9.1 Draft Eastern Dublin Comprehensive Stream Restoration Program - As the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan and Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment/Specific Plan EIR requires, the City has completed a draft Eastern Dublin Comprehensive Stream Restaration Program. Cm. Jennings asked for the staff report. Carol Cirelli, Senior Planner briefly summarized the staff report. She explained the reason why the Stream Restoration Program was necessary. She stated that Tassajara Creek was a significant wildlife as well as hydrologic corridor. The Tassajara Creek was considered by the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan as a recreational amenity. She showed an overhead of the corridor plan area. The area will include bicycles and pedestrian trails, and the creek will link regional trails. The City worked with East Bay Regional Park District, Zone 7 and the California Regular Meeting June 18, 1996 [6-18pcmi] . . • • Department of Fish and Game while preparing the Comprehensive Stream Restoration Program. She showed the suggested types of streets that are recommended along the creek. She said single loaded streets were recommended, in addition to loop streets and cul-de-sacs. She stated in subreach 1, I580 to Dublin Boulevard, the County will have to do some hydrological improvements to that area of the creek. There was a 30 foot structure set back requirement on both sides of the creek. She explained the responsibilities of the different areas in the lower reach. This information was shown on page 6 of the staff report. She stated that Zone 7 will own maintain and operate the creek corridor. She showed the similar information to subreach 2, Dublin Blvd. to Gleason Road. This information was shown on page 7 of the staff report. She stated today, the City received comments from McKay and Somps. She stated staff feels that the comments made in the letter can be resolved at a future date. The guidelines in the plan are flexible and they are only guidelines, not strict requirements. She stated there was a change to Resolution, Exhibit B, on second page, changing the words Exhibits A and B, to A and C. She stated staff recommends adoption of Exhibit B, recommending that City Council adopt the Eastern Dublin Comprehensive Stream Restoration Program. Cm. Zika asked what is meant to restore the area. Ms. Cirelli stated that we are trying to restore the area to its natural state of 10-15 years ago, because grazing has caused the area to change over the years. Cm. Zika asked if this plan was negotiable? Ms. Cirelli responded yes, once a project is submitted the applicant would have to conform with the plan. Cm. Zika asked who would they negotiate with, the City or Fish and Game. Ms. Cirelli stated they would be required to come to the City first and to negotiate with Fish and Game. Fish and Game prefers the 100 foot setbacks. Cm. Zika asked what was required as opposed to what was recommended or negotiable. Ms. Cirelli stated there would be a need to do terracing far flood control purposes, but most of the creek would stay in its natural setting. The Applicant could propose other hydrologic improvements. Cm. Zika asked why McKay and Somps was so concerned with the setbacks, if this document was negotiable. He felt they were getting too technical and sensitive regarding the document. Cm. Johnson asked if the 100 foot setback was to the fence or the house? Ms. Cirelli stated to the fence. Cm. Johnson stated it could then vary, as the creek meanders through the area. Ms. Cirelli stated that was correct. Cm. Jennings asked if Staff had a chance to read and answer the letter from McKay and Somps? Ms. Cirelli stated staff had responded to the April 23 letter, however, the second letter was received today and Staff had not had a chance to respond to. Dave Chadbourne, McKay and Somps, commented on the concerns his firm had. He stated there was not any future development plans for this area in the upper reach. Their concerns were the amount of land the plan would potentially pre-empt. He felt it has a considerable impact on what could be done in the future. There were 3-4 main themes that were of concern. One was the 100 foot minimum set back, and the plans tend to lead one to believe the Regulaz Meeting 61 June 18, 1996 [6-18pcmi] . . • • 100 foot setback was the minimum, and seemed rigid. The second concern was the buffer limit, and he felt it should be better defined. He stated there was reference in the staff report that the plan had flexibility, he felt that the plan does not have that much flexibility as indicated. The plan did not address cost to the land owner. He stated that the monitoring program should not be 5 years, but rather it should stated 5 years, or until the requirements are met. He felt his issues affect the viability of the plan. Cm. Zika asked Mr. Chadbourne if his firm was willing to pay more money to the consultant to detail the plan to their satisfaction, since Mr. Chadbourne had suggested due to the limited funds to prepare this plan, it was not as detailed as it could be. Mr. Chadbourne stated it was a possibility. He explained the 2 setbacks that are in the plan, the wildlife setback and the hydrologic setback. He stated their concern revolves around both setbacks. He stated that their firm would like more documentation on the hydrologic setback guidelines. Ms. Cirelli stated staff could work with the hydrologist to have them provide us with documentation on what they based their recommended guidelines on. Cm. Jennings asked Ms. Cirelli if that information could be made available to Mr. Chadbourne. Ms Cirelli stated yes. Eddie Peabody, Community Development Director, said the County has done extensive research to the area of Gleason Road to the freeway, however, along the creek, extensive research has not been done. He stated the plan should be adopted, and in the future, the plan could be modified if necessary, as applicants submit projects. He stated that these plans are guidelines. Cm. Jennings stated that they were voting on the lower reach implementation plan from I-580 to Gleason Road, as well as the whole program, understanding they are guidelines and not standards. Cm. Johnson asked how the consultant decided how wide the setbacks should be for the existing creek channel. Ms. Cirelli responded that looking at historical records of the creek, the hydrologist was able to analyze how the creek looks now compared to 20 ar mare years ago. The hydrologist recommended a greater hydrological setback because of the unstable nature of the upper reach of the creek. She stated as projects come in, the applicants would hire their own hydrologists, and have them do the more intensive research in that upper area. The guidelines and plan just alert the applicant to these concerns. Stewart Cook, Alameda County Surplus Property Authority, stated that the County has always looked at the creek as a majar amenity to the Santa Rita property. They would like to see it developed as a natural greenway throughout the project. They recommended the plan be approved and do recognize the need far flexibility. Cm. Zika asked if the subreach 2 area was in line with the County's thinking? Mr. Cook stated that they did not want to see a Zone 7 channel, they wanted to see a green buffer. There are oak trees there now, and poison oak, and grasses on both sides. Cm. Jennings asked if there was anything else that East Bay Regional Park District has taken on, that is similar to Tassajara Creek? Mr. Peabody responded that they have a trail system all over Contra Costa County and are taking the Iron Harse Trail. Regular Meeting 62 June 18, 1996 [6-18pcmi] . , . ~ ~ Cm. Zika expressed a concern to Staff about the request from McKay and Somps to change the wording in the plan of "may allow" to "should allow." He stated that there was a significant difference between the two phrases. Mr. Peabody stated they would be voting on what staff recommended to them. Cm. Lockhart clarified that the Planning Commission feels confident that the changes would be reasonably made down the road. On motion by Cm. Zika, with changes to the Resolution as Ms. Cirelli stated on page two, seconded by Cm. Lockhart and with a vote of 5-0, the Planning Commission unanimously adopted Resolution No. 96 - 26 RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE THE EASTERN DUBLIN COMPREHENSIVE STREAM RESTORATION PROGRAM AND THE TASSAJARA CREEK LOWER REACH IMPLEMENTATION PLAN. Cm. Zika commended Staff for being flexible while providing general guidelines to developers. Cm. Jennings asked if the cost concerns addressed in the July 15 letter from McKay & Somps would be addressed by Staff? Ms. Cirelli responded yes. 10. OTHER BUSINESS (Commission/Staff Informational Onl ~~Reports~ Mr. Peabody discussed with the Planning Commission upcoming projects and what was expected to be submitted to staf£ He stated our agendas would fill up in the fall and Christmas time. Staff is starting the review process of the Zoning Ordinance, and are planning study sessions to get feedback from the Planning Commission on which direction to go. He stated that the August 6 meeting the Commission and Staff will start reviewing some of the changes to the Zoning Ordinance. Cm. Jennings asked about any other topics. Mr. Peabody stated the City Council approved the televising of City Council meetings, and will air their meetings the first and third Tuesday of the month. The Planning Commission will hold their meetings on the second and fourth Tuesday of the month. Cm. Zika felt the meetings should be on different days, in case people want to attend both meetings. Cm. Johnson asked the cost to have meetings televised. Mr. Peabody stated $8,000 to $9,000 per year. There will be installation and production costs. Cm. Jennings asked about the overnight parking issue for big rigs. Mr. Peabody stated Mr. Ralph Kachadourian, Assistant Planner, had spoke with Mr. Fred Houston, and he was receptive to having space available to park big rigs at 6310 Houston Place after Mayflower moves from there. Cm. Zika asked what Creative Playschool was doing now. Regulaz Meeting 63 June 18, 1996 [6-18pcmi] , , , . ~ ~ Mr. Peabody stated they were asking far their conditions to be modified to allow 10 more children. Creative Playschool will go before the City Council since the Council imposed their previous conditions. 11. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 9:00 p.m. Respectfully submitted, . Planning Commi 'on Chairperson ATTEST: ! Community Development Director Regular Meeting O4 June 18, 1996 [6-18pcmi]