Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Minutes 06-18-1996 • ~ .r-..-.~~ Regular Meeting June 18, 1996 A regular meeting of the City of Dublin Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, June 18, 1996, in the Dublin Civic Center City Council Chambers. The meeting was called to order at 7:30 by Commissioner Jennings. * ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Jennings, Geist, Johnson, Lockhart; Eddie Peabody, Community Development Director; Dennis Carrington, Senior Planner; Carol Cirelli, Senior Planner; Tasha Huston, Associate Planner and Gaylene Burkett, Recording Secretary. Absent: Commissioner Zika * 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 4, 1996, meeting were approved as submitted. ORAL COMMUNICATION None WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS None PUBLIC HEARINGS 8.1 PA 96-024 General Plan Amendment and Zoning Ordinance Amendment to add text to the General Plan relating to the Alameda County Hazardous Waste Management Plan permitting the location of Small- Scale Transfer and Storage Facilities and of Industrial Transfer/Starage Facilities in the Business Park/Industrial: Outdoor Storage, Business Park/Industrial: Low Coverage, and Industrial Park designations of the General Plan; and to amend the Zoning Ordinance to adopt definitions of terms, adopt standards and procedures for processing conditional use permits for facilities under the Alameda County Hazardous Waste Management Plan, and adopt local siting criteria consistent with the County Plan, and amend the M-1 (Light Industrial) and M-2 (Heavy Industrial) Zoning Districts to allow the location of Small-Scale Transfer and Storage Facilities and of Industrial Transfer/Storage Facilities as conditional uses subject to adopted procedures and siting criteria. The Planning Commission or City Council may establish other development standards, zoning district, and/ar development regulations consistent with the purpose and intent of the General Plan ar applicable City policy. Regular Meeting 6~ June 18, 1996 [6-18pcmi] • • . . _ „ Cm. Jennings asked for the staff report. Dennis Carrington, Senior Planner presented the staff report. He explained the Hazardous Waste Management Plan. He stated a bill was passed in 1986 requiring every county to have a Hazardous Waste Management Plan and it must be adopted by June 1996. He explained that this plan would require a General Plan Amendment and to establish a guiding policy stating that we will reduce the amount of resources that are used. He stated that the Ordinance adopts the definitions of "Industrial Transfer/Storage/Treatment Facility" and "Small Scale Transfer and Storage Facility", and a"Residual Repository" establishing the above facilities as conditional uses in the M-1 (Light Industrial) and M-2 (Heavy Industrial) zoning districts. He gave a brief overview of the Zoning Ordinance Amendment. He concluded his presentation. Cm. Jennings asked far comments from the Audience. Hearing none, she asked for questions from the Planning Commission. Cm. Geist asked what the fair share portion meant. Mr. Carrington stated it basically gets down to sharing the responsibility among cities and taking a regional approach in taking care of the hazardous waste problem. Alameda County is recycling the waste oil in the Bay Area with a firm called Evergreen. He stated that it was a joint responsibility and these facilities are regional in nature. Cm. Jennings closed the public hearing. On motion by Cm. Lockhart , seconded by Cm. Geist and with a vote of 4-0-1, with Cm. Zika absent, the Planning Commission unanimously adopted RESOLUTION NO. 96 -20 RECOMMENDING ADOPTION OF PA 96-024 ALAMEDA COUNTY HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT AND RESOLUTION NO. 96-21 RECOMMENDING ADOPTION OF PA 96-024 ALAMEDA COUNTY HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT 8.2 PA 94-028 Schaefer Ranch Planned Development Prezone -The Applicants are proposing residential and commercial development for their collective parcels totaling SOOf acres. The project is located along the northern side of the I-580 freeway, adjacent to the City's western boundary. The Planning Commission considered the EIR and General Plan Amendment at their June 4 meeting and recommended certification and approval by the City CounciL The project component scheduled for consideration at the June 18, 1996 Planning Commission meeting is the Planned Development Prezoning to establish an overlay zone and general land use provisions far the site. Cm. Jennings asked for the staff report. Tasha Huston, Associate Planner, presented the staff report. She stated the prezoning was the third component of the Schaefer Ranch project. She stated there were three items associated with the proposed Planned Development Regulaz Meeting O1 7une 18, 1996 [6-18pcmi] • ~ . . Prezoning that would be reviewed by the Planning Commission. The zoning district map, the development standards and conditions or provisions of the planned development. She stated once the zoning district maps are established, any subdivision map or Site Development Review application must to be consistent with the land uses. The exact location of the park is tentative and under review, and when approved, the map would be revised to show where the parks would be. Staff recommends approval of the zoning district map as the land use and development plan for the project. The development standards address yard areas, setbacks and building heights. She stated that one Staff recommendation was to change the set backs to 5 feet on one side and 10 feet on the other. She stated the 10 foot setback was important for privacy reasons, landscaping and storage. She stated that the prezoning approval included several provisions or conditions to address issues with providing public services to the development. The recommended provisions to address the issues were included in the Resolutions with the staff report. Ms. Huston noted one correction needed in the Resolution on page 21, section G, fourth line of the paragraph should state, "from Silvergate Drive to San Ramon, which were identified in the City's adopted Capital Improvement Program." Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt the Resolution recommending the City Council adoption of the Planned Development Prezoning. She stated that a letter was passed out prior to the meeting, that addressed comments from the Applicant regarding the conditions of approval. Cm. Lockhart asked about the side yard setbacks of 5 and 10 feet, was it two 5 foot setbacks, or a 5 and 10 feet setback? Ms. Huston stated there had to be 15 feet total between buildings. Cm. Lockhart asked why this did not apply to neighborhood "D"? Ms. Huston stated neighborhood "D" was the duet neighborhood and it was common far duet's to have smaller setbacks. Jim Parsons, PA Designs Resources, stated that Exhibit 1, page 18 of 28 of the staff report, shows the development standards. He said much time was spent on these design standards. He stated there would be three distinct neighborhoods, the duet neighborhood (neighborhood "B"), smaller lot single family (neighborhood "C"), the larger lots single family (neighborhood "D") and the custom homes (neighborhood "A"). He stated that they agreed with the standards that Staff had proposed on neighborhood "B". He stated neighborhood "C" was the area they had difficulty with Staffls standards. He felt that if they comply with those standards, it would squeeze the house up, and emphasize the garage, which they did not want to do. They also had a problem not allowing any projections into the side yard, he asked that the chimney be allowed to encroach 2 feet into the side yard. In regards to neighborhood "A", Schaefer was able to acquire the rights to the Gibbs property that promoted some redesign, to include some 2 acre lots and they would like the minimum lot size to be changed from 3 acres to 2 acres. He stated in neighborhood "A", there was an area where they could not meet the 100 feet between buildings, and they were requesting it be changed to 50 feet. He asked far flexibility in the maximum height for neighborhood "A" from 35 feet to 38 feet, and neighborhoods `B", "C" and "D" to 35 feet. Also in regards to the custom homes, he requested that architectural features be allowed to project above the height limits by 4 to 7 feet. Dave Brandt, the Applicants attorney, had four minor requests for changes to the Conditions of Approval. He stated that in paragraph F on page 14 of the staff report requires the Applicant to fund an updated public facilities fee but does not indicate when this would occur. He asked the Commission to modify the condition to indicate the requirement to state "prior to the approval of the final subdivision map application". He raised some issues regarding Condition H which requires the Applicant to contribute a traffic impact fee, but it was not clear when this would occur. He asked that Condition I, the policy on the School District, be modified to reflect that the mitigation agreement will not be necessary until the project is annexed into Dublin Unified School District or prior to Tentative Map approval. He felt Condition K, dedication of open space, had a legal problem with the language requiring when the Applicant must demonstrate compliance. He stated that they recommend the Planning Commission modify the condition to require that evidence be submitted at the dedication of the final map. Mr. Peabody stated that Staff would like to respond to each of the issues raised. Regular Meeting O2 June 18, 1996 [6-18pcmi] • • Linda Chavez, EBRPD, clarified Condition K, dedication of open space. The district is interested in the open space, but prior to the Tentative Map, they cannot formally take action prior to approval of the Tentative Map. She had spoke with Tasha and agreed there was a issue of clarification. Jim Parsons stated that with the modifications raised, they hoped that an agreement could be made tonight, and go forward to the City Council. Cm. Lockhart stated some changes should be discussed with Staff befare it could be recommended to City Council. Jim Parsons stated they got the staff report by fax, and did not have time to really look at it, and he did not have a chance to talk with Staff on all these changes. This was the first time Staff had heard some of these changes. Mr. Peabody stated it was difficult to change conditions at the last moment. One change included an architectural issue regarding how high a building should be. These changes involve technical discussions, and may not be able to be addressed tonight. Ms. Huston restated the requests for changes in the Applicant's letter passed out at the meeting. Starting with paragraph F, Public Facilities Fees Provision on page 21 of 28 of the Staff report, the request was to require the condition be specified prior to any subdivision map. Mr. Peabody stated the reason for the condition was because there were two projects that require the public facility fee, Trumark and this project. The intent was that we get started on completing the study, so by the Tentative Map stage, the study would be done, and we know that the fee exists. That was the reason for the language at this point. Ms. Huston stated that this type of condition was rypical prior to Tentative Map approval, rather than final map approval. Ms. Huston went over Paragraph H of the Resolution, Traffic Impact Fee Provision. The Applicant's request was that the fees were payable prior to issuance of any building permits. This was common practice and Staff agreed. Paragraph I of the Resolution, School Facilities Impact Mitigation Provision, the Applicant requests that the wording be changed from "prior to Council approval of the Planned Development Prezoning," to "priar to annexation of the project ar prior to approval of any tentative subdivision maps, whichever comes first." Tasha stated staff would be in agreement with that change. Cm. Johnson asked what happened if the Castro Valley and Dublin School Districts never came to an agreement regarding schooling for the Schaefer area. Mr. Peabody stated that if they do not come to an agreement, the area is and would still be in the Castro Valley School District and any service for that area will come from Castro Valley. The Applicant will be responsible to provide a signed school mitigation agreement before the Tentative Map will be approved. Cm. Johnson stated that there were some cities in the area with the same situation and it creates a problem. He felt these issues need to be worked out in advance. Mr. Peabody stated that Staff was in agreement with him. Ms. Huston clarified the Applicant's request regarding Paragraph K, to specify at the final map approval. Staff's intention with this condition was that the Applicant present evidence to the City that the District will be willing to accept the open space and a letter of intent would be satisfactory. She stated that the first sentence of the paragraph could be changed from "Priar to the City's approval of a Land Use and Development Plan and Tentative Subdivision Map" and state "prior to the City's approval of a Tentative Subdivision Map," with all other wording kept the same. Regular Meeting 63 June 18, 1996 [6-18pcmi] . • Linda Chavez stated that they are interested in the open space area, the District does not have a problem writing letters saying they are interested, they just can't go to the Board before the Tentative Map stage. Mr. Peabody stated that the Tentative Map would need a note that we dedicate this property to EBRPD. Cm. Jennings asked if EBRPD can supply the letter of intent ar interest. Linda Chavez stated that they can't do that until the Tentative Map was approved. Ms. Huston stated the issues brought up by the Applicant, involve setbacks, height increases and lot size. Mr. Peabody responded to the requested changes and stated we did not have a Tentative Map or lot size, and neighborhood "B" and "C", could be designed to have 15 foot set backs between houses, 5 and 10 feet on each side. He felt the lots were large enough for the 15 foot setbacks. The change from 3 acres to 2 acres minimum lot size for estate lots would have to be discussed before making that decision. Without seeing some housing types, 100 feet between buildings could not be addressed until staff sees the housing design. Mr. Peabody recommended how the Planning Commission could address the issue on set backs. The standards could be 20 feet, minimum 15 feet, with minor revision to be made by Staf£ This would only apply to one area. Ms. Huston stated that on the side yard aggregate for neighborhood "C", the staff report should be corrected to state 15 feet. Mr. Peabody stated that on building height they were willing to go up to 35 feet maximum. The architectural features and elements should not exceed 5 feet maximum and subject to approval by Staff. Cm. Geist asked about chimney projection in the side yard set back. Mr. Peabody stated that with two fireplaces across from each other, you could be down 4 feet. Mr. Parsons suggested that he and Staff refine the numbers at the Tentative Map stage and they could live with the conditions. He would be happy with the understanding that the development standards could be further defined after discussions with Staff. Mr. Peabody stated the Planning Commission could give that authority to Staff, but did not feel comfortable with having flexibility on the side yard set backs Cm. Jennings wanted to clarify some of the issues raised. The minimum lot size for neighborhood "A" was 2 to 10. The rear yard setbacks of 20 foot minimum was fine, the side yard setbacks for neighborhood "B" of 5 feet and 10 feet was acceptable. Jim Parsons stated he did not have a problem with rear yard setback distance, only with level areas because some lots are designed to slope. He stated that the side yard setbacks for neighborhood "C" was a problem. Cm. Lockhart asked if what the Applicant was asking was to go from 15 feet to down to 11 feet? Mr. Parsons stated that they wanted the side yards between two houses to be 5 and 5, with a 10 foot total separation. Mr. Brandt asked staff to read the proposed changes to condition K, Dedication of Open Space Provision. Ms. Huston stated Staff recommended the condition would read: "Prior to the approval of a Land Use and Development Plan and Tentative Subdivision Map for this project, the Applicants shall present to the City evidence Regular Meeting 64 June 18, 1996 [6-18pcmi] • • of the East Bay Regional Parks District's agreement to accept ownership and operational and maintenance responsibility for the proposed Open Space, in a form acceptable to the City of Dublin. Bob Yohai, Schaefer Heights, asked Cm. Jennings if the minimum lot size was 2 acres for neighborhood "A". Cm. Jennings responded yes and closed the public hearing. Cm. Lockhart stated everything was settled but the set backs for neighborhood "C". He felt that after looking at different developments with 5 yard setbacks, this was not something he could support. He felt is was necessary to have design standards that we would like within the eastern and western areas. Cm. Jennings stated that Staff will make the necessary changes and meet with the developers. Mr. Peabody summarized some of the issues, minimum lot size for neighborhood "A" will be 2 acres. The rear setbacks far neighborhood "B" shall be 20 feet with a minimum clear level zone subject to minor modifications by Staf£ The side yard setbacks shall be as Staff recommends in the Staff report. The side yard aggregate for neighborhood "C" will be 15 feet. The 100 feet side yard aggregate setback for neighborhood "A" as a policy shall be a direction and minor deviations from that setback can be approved by Staff based on design of individual houses. The building height shall be 35 foot maximum or two stories at any one point. However, architectural features and elements may exceed this provision by a 2 foot maximum, and a gable element may exceed this provision by 5 foot maximum. On motion by Cm. Geist, seconded by Cm. Johnson, with Cm. Zika absent and with a vote of 4-0-1, the Planning Commission unanimously adopted RESOLUTION NO. 96-22 FINDING PA 94-028 SCHAEFER RANCH PLANNED DEVELOPMENT (PD) PREZONING WITHIN SCOPE OF FINAL EIR AND RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF FINDINGS AND GENERAL PROVISIONS FOR PA 94-028 SCHAEFER RANCH PROJECT PD PREZONING 9. NEW OR UNFINISHED BUSINESS 9.1 City of Dublin Wildfire Management Plan (continued) As the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment/Specific Plan EIR requires, the City has completed a draft Wildfire Management Plan that will reduce the risk of open land wildfire while protecting wildlife habitat and other open space values. Cm. Jennings asked far the staff report. Carol Cirelli, Senior Planner briefly summarized the staff report and introduced Fire Chief Karl Diekman. Chief Diekman presented the updated version of the Wildfire Management Plan. He outlined the changes to the plan. He stated that the definition for open space should state "the area should remain permanently undeveloped" and page 2 had a change to variances appealed, the term "variance" is now refereed to as "alternative methods." Also on page 2, under Ownership of Lands, Master Tentative Map was inserted. On page 3, under the "Developer/Homeowner Association", "Fire Buffer Zone DevelopmenY' was inserted "where not in conflict with other city policies" under "Possible Maintenance Sources." On pages 7 and 8, they changed some distances and Regular Meeting O5 June 18, 1996 [6-18pcmi] . • wording within the various requirements of the zones. The language in the various requirements came out of a plan that was modeled from a plan to deal with cleaning up existing land or establishing new land. On page 8 they added a new section that stated "establishment and maintenance of vegetation on approved lots" and "establishment and maintenance of vegetation designated open space." They added to the species list and they added to the characteristic of trees. Cm. Johnson asked about irrigation of land 120 feet from building. Chief Diekman stated there is a requirement for irrigation for the plant species that require it for appropriate maintenance. He stated that what they were trying to accomplish in the open space was a fire barrier. They are recommending that it be natural grasses and kept mowed to no mare than 3-4 inches during the months of May through November. He stated that this plan does not permit discing in any area. Cm. Johnson asked if water sprinklers will be installed and if the houses will be sprinklered. Chief Diekman stated all houses that directly front onto open space will be required to have the construction requirements and design requirements of this plan. Bob Harris, Dublin Ranch, stated he met with the Fire Chief and resolved several issues. He had a few questions, and wanted to make some comments for the record. He requested changes be made on page 2, definition of undeveloped land, he wanted it to read " no Tentative Map or Master Tentative Map has been approved." He stated that a subdivision map act was very precise as to what a tentative map requires. He stated that they would be submitting a Master Tentative Map on their first phase and he wanted to make sure that was the same as a Tentative Map. He went over building permit review, construction requirements for properties adjacent to open space and undeveloped land. The status may be different when they come in for their Tentative Map as opposed to when they come in for their Site Development Review. At Tentative Map stage they may have a portion of their property adjacent to undeveloped land and at the time of building permit, it may have changed. Chief Diekman stated that the Developer was not inclined to add to their construction cost, in this particular case the fire sprinklers and the other requirements placed on buildings. The Fire Deparhnent wanted reasonable insurance that the area adjacent to the property being built will be developed. If it is not going to be built, then they must follow the proper requirements. He stated that the purpose of the plan is to make it environmentally safe. He stated that requirements will be placed on projects one at a time. Mr. Harris stated phase I of their project is a few hundred acres with 9 distinct neighborhoods. Each of those neighborhoods will be a separate Tentative Map and be sold separately to individual builders. They will then file a master Tentative Map to create the neighborhoods. He stated that he needed to know what to tell the individual builders regarding the fire sprinklers and special building requirements. He thought that the Fire Chief understood this. Cm. Geist indicated how she understood the requirements. She gave an example of a plan with the worse case scenario and there was nothing on the border of those two properties and there is no tentative map on the other side of that property, then it will require to be sprinkled and maintained. If someone does establish a Master Tentative Map or Tentative Map, then the requirements go away. Chief Diekman agreed with Cm. Geist. He stated that was why they put the requirements on at the building permit stage. These requirements were not to restrain, but to create windows of opportunities. Mr. Harris thought the Fire Chief said that the Tentative Map was the vehicle to allow them to dispense the requirement for sprinkling. He thought that on Phase I they would not be required to sprinkler between neighborhoods. If they were adjacent to land they did not own, then he thought the sprinklers would apply. Regulaz Meeting June 18, 1996 [6-18pcmi] ~ . Cm. Johnson stated that if all the 9 developers were to get building permits and Tentative Maps in at the same time, the buildings would not require to be sprinklered. Mr. Harris stated that the buildings would not all be built at once. Cm. Lockhart asked what happened if they sold the land off, and the new buyer decided not to build, what assurance would the Fire Chief have that it would ever be developed. Mr. Harris stated that they would do a master grading permit, and clear the whole area. To have the buildings sprinklered was $1.00 per foot, and on 2,000 square foot house, this would be $2,000 of unnecessary costs added to the house. Cm. Jennings felt that sprinklers would be a good selling point with homeowners insurance and such. Cm. Johnson stated that he understood the reason for the sprinklers, but how often do we have major fire storms. Chief Diekman stated about 10-13 major fires per year, and in the last 5-6 years, maybe 3-4 fires with significant loss of life and property. He referred to the East Dublin Mitigation Measures and trying to comply with the requirements. He stated that he knew of land throughout the State that was intended for development but was never developed for various reasons. From a fire protection stands point, undeveloped and open space have the same risk. Even if land was graded, that does not guarantee that something might not happen. Bob Harris commented that the various fires referred to by Chief Diekman were in heavy tree growth areas, not areas like the grass areas in Eastern Dublin. He felt this was not necessary in this area. He asked for relief, by adding the ward, Master Tentative Map to the definition of undeveloped land. Cm. Lockhart stated the Planning Commission had to look out for the whole Eastern Dublin area, and he understood both situations. He asked if there was a way in the 9 neighborhoods of development, to put a time limit on Tentative Maps. Bob Harris stated they could put that in their contract of sale. He never heard of these types of requirements on this type of land. It creates the potential far increasing the price of housing. There is no guarantee these houses will sell if the costs get too high. Cm. 7ohnson asked if the Master Tentative Plan came in and graded all the streets, what would happen? Mr. Peabody stated they would do a major street, but would not do roads down to the super pads. Mr. Harris also commented on the wording on pages 8- 9, there was an understanding with Chief Diekman, that on property they do not own, but adjacent to their property, the required fire buffer zone area would have to maintained weed free. If the units were maintained to the minimum foot set back, in some cases the fire buffer zone there would be 25 feet into adjacent areas that they have no control over. Chief Diekman stated the intent of the plan was that these kinds of deals and understandings were made within the maintenance plan developed for each property. If they bring forward the lots to be developed that way, then DRFA has the authority to mow the property. There would have to be negotiations between DRFA, the City and the developer addressing certain areas of the project to finalize the map. He stated that he met with the wildfire ecologist and her point of view was that the project was unrestrictive and that most plans would not allow a developer to develop lots that close to adjacent property. Bob Harris stated that was not in the plan, and wanted what the Chief said entered into the record. Cm. Jennings asked Mr. Harris if he wanted something more specific far the undeveloped land. Regular Meeting June 18, 1996 [6-18pcmi] ' • . Mr. Harris asked again that the conversation just taken be placed into the minutes. He stated that to his understanding, normal setbacks for development can occur even if the fire buffer zone would extend into adjacent property not owned by developer if maintenance of the fire buffer zone was guaranteed by the developer through a funding program paid for by the developer. If the adjacent property owner does not keep his weeds down in the fire buffer zone then the City would do it and get reimbursed. They would lay out a proposal to the Chief that shows a development adjacent to the property they do not own. They would try to get the adjacent properiy owner to maintain the fire buffer zone. If the property owner refuses to maintain it, Mr. Harris said they would fund the program for the City to maintain the fire buffer zone. Cm. Jennings asked the Chief what he thought about what Mr. Harris said. Chief Diekman stated it was very consistent with the thought process of the plan. Cm. Lockhart asked Mr. Hanis what happens when he goes away, who will then do the maintenance. Mr. Harris stated they would propose a program for maintenance. Cm. Lockhart asked about maintaining the fire buffer on someone else's property. Mr. Harris stated they want to maintain the safety of the units that go on their property. He stated that he knew this particular piece of property was purchased for development. He stated that this program described was acceptable to them. Cm. Geist asked about possible funding sources for maintenance, about undeveloped space. Chief Diekman stated that they want to be able to encroach onto someone else's property. Cm. Johnson stated sometimes there are two pieces of undeveloped land adjacent to one another and both pieces of property are graded back 30 feet. He asked whether those sites require that the open land be maintained. Chief Diekman stated they disc around the property. People know they have a valuable feed source for animal grazing. We do have an existing Weed Abatement Ordinance, and wanted to introduce a slightly different plan more environmentally sensitive to the current needs of today. He stated weed abatement talces a lot of staff time, and they are trying to make development responsible for their own weed abatement. Bob Harris stated on page 5 of the Staff report under "detached accessory structures and fences", adjacent to open space and undeveloped land, they have to build to special construction requirements which are one hour fire walls. He asked if there was a need for the pilaster on every house? He wanted a clause to be added that said "unless determination is made by the City, other requirements under this section negate the need far such a separation." Chief Diekman stated he would not support that recommendation. They do not want wood fences on the side of houses adjacent to open space. He stated that the standards they took this from read "you should not have a wood fence within 12 feet of the house." He stated that they tried to find ways to reduce this and the pilaster was a good approach. He would not support that change. Mr. Harris stated that he only wanted an alternate plan to be submitted. Chief Diekman said this was already in there on page 2"there is a mechanism for providing for an alternative method." Bob Hanis stated there was not a need for prohibiting discing. He asked that discing be allowed in areas adjacent to undeveloped land. Regular Meeting O$ June 18, 1996 [6-18pcmi] ~ ! Chief Diekman stated that the Wildfire Biologist was very strong against discing and felt we should follow her advice. Cm. Johnson asked Ms. Cirelli her opinion on discing. Ms. Cirelli concurred that the Fire Biologist stated that discing should not be allowed in arder to maintain the integrity of the natural habitat areas, however, she understood Mr. Harris' point. She agreed with Chief Diekman to leave it as it is. Cm. Jennings closed the public hearing. Cm. Geist asked Chief Diekman about Mr. Harris' condition on Tentative Map or Master Tentative Map. Chief Diekman stated that Master Tentative Map would not be helpful to the plan. Cm. Jennings asked if other than the changes Chief Diekman mentioned, were there any other changes to the plan? There were no other changes. On motion by Cm. Johnson, seconded by Cm. Geist with changes that were made and with a vote of, 4-0-1 with Cm. Zika absent, the Planning Commission unanimously adopted RESOLUTION NO. 96-23 RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE ~ THE CITY OF DUBLIN WILDFIRE MANAGEMENT PLAN 9.2 Capitat Improvement Program (1996-2001) Conformance to General Plan (Govt. Code 65402) Cm. Jennings asked for the staff report. Mr. Ambrose, City Manager presented the Staff report. He stated that there was a section in the Government Code that requires certain projects to be brought before the Planning Commission. He stated that the Capital Improvement Program far the next five years was identified in four major categories; 1) General Improvements; 2) Community Improvements; 3) Parks; and 4) Streets. He stated that we do not have the infrastructure necessary for Eastern Dublin development included in the Capital Improvement Program for this upcoming fiscal year. We will be working with the development community, the Dublin Unified School District, and DSRSD on a long term financing program for Eastern Dublin. These items will be developed during fiscal year 1996-97. This Capital Improvement Program is also gearing towards repair and maintenance for the Civic Center. The new projects consist of the Arroyo Vista handicap accessibility renovations and a proposed project to repair landscape in the area of San Ramon Road. He stated the I-580 off ramp to San Ramon Road towards the Dublin Park Hotel area will be landscaped. The Heritage Center has requested a paved parking lot. The Swim center needs to have the chlorine system replaced. He stated that there was land dedicated to us as open space that had some slides that have occurred and now have to be maintained which caused a major financial liability. Cm. Lockhart asked if the repair that will be done to the open space was just for aesthetics? Mr. Ambrose responded no. He stated that we have had some slide problems that have plugged the drains, and flooded some yards and family rooms. Regular Meeting O9 June 18, 1996 [6-18pcmi] . . ~ ~ Cm. Johnson asked where the open space area was. Mr. Ambrose responded that it was on the east side of the Dougherty Hills at the Ridge Creek development. The CIP also includes the local cost associated with the 580/680 connector project. Mr. Ambrose thanked the Commission and recommended them to adopt Resolution No. 96-024. On motion by Cm. Lockhart, seconded by Cm. Johnson and with a vote of 4-0-1, with Cm. Zika absent, the Planning Commission unanimously adopted RESOLUTION NO. 96-024 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CTTY OF DUBLIN FINDING THAT THE 1996-2001 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN (CIP) OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN IS CONSISTENT WITH THE ADOPTED CITY OF DUBLIN GENERAL PLAN 93 Wells Middle School and Valley High School additions and new buildings conformance to the General Plan (Government Code 65402) Cm. Jennings asked for the staff report. Eddie Peabody, Community Development Director, presented the staff report. He explained that whenever there was a major alteration or improvement to a building within the School District it had to come before the Planning Commission for approval. Although we do not have jurisdiction over school improvements, they must send them to the Planning Commission for approval as to conformance to the General Plan. He explained that the school will be remodeling their existing site. On motion by Cm. Lockhart, seconded by Cm. Geist. and with a vote of 4-0-1, with Cm. Zika absent, the Planning Commission unanimously adopted RESOLUTION NO. 96-025 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN FINDING THAT THE PROPOSED WELLS MIDDLE SCHOOL AND VALLEY HIGH SCHOOL ADDITIONS AND NEW BUILDINGS ARE CONSISTENT WTTH THE ADOPTED CITY OF DUBLIN GENERAL PLAN 9. NEW OR UNFINISHED BUSINESS Mr. Peabody went over the upcoming addenda for the Planning Commission. He handed out a schedule showing them what to expect in then next 6-8 months. The largest project now is the Stream Corridor and Schaefer Ranch. He went over the Opus project and stated that Tri Valley Crossing had submitted their site plans. Cm. Johnson asked about the truck parking problem and where could these trucks park? Mr. Peabody responded that there was a truck parking place at Dougherty Road and Houston Court. Regular Meeting June 18, 1996 [6-18pcmi] ~ ~ ~ Cm. Johnson stated it was a licensed truck stop, but does not have the space for parking over night. Mr. Peabody stated we would look into the issue. It was approved far a truck stop, with a scale and a filling station. 10. OTHER BUSINESS (Commission/Staff Informational Only Reports) 11. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 10:55 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Planning ommissio airperson ATTEST: ~ Community Development Director - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Regular Meeting 71 June 18, 1996 [6-18pcmi]