HomeMy WebLinkAbout08-09-2005 PC Minutes
Planning C olnnlÍssionMinutes
CALL TO ORDER/ROLL CALL
A regular meeting of the City of Dublin Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, August 9, 2005, in
the Council Chambers located at 100 Civic Plaza. Chair Schaub called the meeting to order at 7:00pm.
Present: Chair Schaub, Commissioners Biddle, Fasulkey, King, and Wehrenberg; Jeri Ram, Planning
Manager; Michael Porto, Planning Consultant; and Renuka Dhadwal, Recording Secretary.
ADDITIONS OR REVISIONS TO THE AGENDA - None
MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETINGS - The July 26, 2005 minutes were approved as submitted.
ORAL COMMUNICATION
At this time, members of the audience are permitted to address the Planning Commission on any
item(s) of interest to the public; however, no ACTION or DISCUSSION shall take place on any
item which is NOT on the Planning Commission Agenda. The Commission may respond briefly
to statements made or questions posed, or may request Staff to report back at a future meeting
concerning the matter. Furthermore, a member of the Planning Commission may direct Staff to
place a matter of business on a future agenda. Any person may arrange with the Planning
Manager (no later than 11:00am, on the Tuesday preceding a regular meeting) to have an item of
concern placed on the agenda for the next regular meeting.
CONSENT CALENDAR - None
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS - None
PUBLIC HEARINGS
8.1 PA 05-005 Dublin Ranch Regional Water Quality Control Basin - The proposed
development consists of an 11.13 acre area with a Water Quality Pond, open space and
landscaping to comply with the requirements of the Regional Water Quality Control
Board for storm water treatment for Dublin Ranch. This project includes a Stage 2
Planned Development Plan and Site Development Review.
Chair Schaub asked for the staff report.
Michael Porto, Planning Consultant, presented the specifics of the project as outlined in the staff report.
He stated that Chris Guillard, the Landscape Architect for the Developer, would be presenting a detailed
report on the landscaping and specifics for the Basin.
Cm. Wehrenberg asked if there are plans for any more of such Basins in the future planned along this
corridor. Mr. Porto responded that none that Staff is aware of. Mr. Porto indicated the areas on a map
which would funnel the water into this basin and carry the water through the G3 channel under the
freeway and would ultimately drain into the ocean.
Chair Schaub opened the public hearing.
JJfannlrlg ('om;Illission
1i:fguLtr Meeting
107
j1 utI/4\'t 9, 200S
Martin Inderbitzen, representative of the Applicant and Developer, spoke about the various approval
processes that the Applicant went through. One of the approvals needed by the Applicant was by the
Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) as it relates to the Porter-Cologne Act which governs
clean water in California and the Federal Clean Water Act. He indicated that the Board (RWQCB)
required the Applicant to provide a basin to collect the storm water for that area (Area F, Area B, Area C
and Area H) and then release it in the G3 channel. He stated that there are a variety of ways to deal with
the treatment of storm water and they vary according to the jurisdiction and project and also by
individual personnel in the RWQCB. Based on the size of the project, the Applicant felt that the
proposed project was an ideal way to capture the storm water. The proposed project gives an
opportunity to create open space in an area where it would not have been a possibility.
Chris Guillard, Landscape Architect for the project, gave a detailed presentation and talked about the
landscaping for the project, the treatment and maintenance of the Basin. Some of the key issues kept in
mind while creating the design for this basin were, how the water would be treated, what types of
vegetation is suitable for such basins, maintenance issues, is there an opportunity to provide public
access and while addressing these issues provide an opportunity to create a cohesive open space plan
based on the location of the basin, provide ecological value and habitat. He pointed out some of the key
constraints: hydrology, soils, land use efficiency, treatment parameters, visual, vector control and
maintenance monitoring and safety concerns. Keeping in mind all these constraints CMG carne up with
a landscape design which integrates the ecological and the utilitarian requirements of the basin.
Mr. Guillard presented the different features of the project:
a. Landscape form along the 1-580 corridor providing a screen between the freeway and the basin.
b. An access road on top of the basin for maintenance trucks and a limited pedestrian use. The road
would be made of stabilized crushed stone paving surface ideal for jogging and walking and
which is ADA compliant.
c. A 5-foot fence which wraps around the Basin placed below the site line but above the maximum
water height.
d. Series of access roads that take the maintenance vehicles down into the basin to maintain the
various parts of the basin that require maintenance, primarily outfall areas such as the forebay
structures and the permanent pool area and access from this area to the bottom of the basin for
vegetation maintenance and vector control issues.
e. Series of overlooks, one on the south side of the basin and one on the north side of the basin.
These would serve as passive areas for people to gather in a park like environment as the area
develops around the basin in the future.
f. G3 culvert, which is a large box culvert which carries water through pipes and connects to the
ocean. Mr. Guillard explained in detail the gravity flow of the water, the depth of the forebay
areas, the water quality volume and the pump that would drain the water into the G3 channel.
Cm. Schaub asked if the City would maintain the pump. Mr. Porto responded that the City
would not be maintaining the pump.
g. Fence layout
h. Water surface
Cm. Biddle expressed concerns regarding the amount of water that the basin would retain. He felt that
based on land irrigation and the number of car washes, the basin may be holding a large amount of
water. Mr. Guillard responded that the current gauge readings indicate that there will be continuous
water flow in the basin. Based on the weather conditions there may be times when there is a low water
flow in the basin. He explained that the water that the basin will retain would be not only from storms
but ground water as well.
PlånniufJ CommÙ'sÙm
1(¡:guL¡r '/rlc£tinfJ
108
)1 "IlUort 9, 20IJ5
Cm. Schaub asked what if the water begins to dry and in that scenario what are we left with. Mr.
Guillard responded that it would be a conventional detention basin which would be dry at all times
except when it is detaining water. In that situation what needs to be ensured is that there is positive
drainage from one end to the other so that all the water drains out of the basin and can be pumped out.
Cm. Schaub asked if there is an in-between stage where it can't pump all of it out and there is water
standing for a month. Mr. Guillard responded no and added that the system is designed to allow the
basin to be pumped down all the way by stopping the water at the outfalls, pumping it dry for
maintenance purposes or mosquito abatement in the future.
Cm. Fasulkey asked who would be operating the pump. Mr. Guillard responded that the property
owner's association will take care of the maintenance of the basin and the pump.
Cm. Wehrenberg expressed concerns about the vector control maintenance and wondered if the
measures taken were adequate enough. Mr. Guillard responded that with the facilities such as the one
proposed the biggest concern is vector control. However, the proposed project anticipates a low flow
creating an ecosystem that will keep the mosquitoes naturally in check by allowing other insects that
would naturally prey on the mosquitoes to inhabit that environment. Furthermore the level of
maintenance access anticipated for the project will allow the Mosquito Abatement District plenty of
room to address any vegetation issues. All the slopes have been designed to make sure there is ample
flow and velocity through these low flow channels to the permanent pool to make sure there is no
standing water in those areas.
Mr. Porto stated that the Mosquito Abatement District sent a letter in support of this type of solution and
they are encouraged that it will put them in a position where their involvement would be very minimal
since the system will take care of itself.
Cm. King asked if it is typical to have mosquito fish in the permanent water areas. Mr. Guillard stated
that it is and the Developer will be stocking the permanent pool area with mosquito fish.
Cm. King further asked if the water in the permanent basin built up any toxicity due to the fact that it is
accumulating run off water. Mr. Guillard responded that with water moving through the system at a
constant rate, that water will be moving through the low flow area and being filtered which will prevent
any kind of toxicity water buildup.
Cm. Fasulkey asked is it correct that the main intent of this basin is to collect items that flow down the
storm drains such as tennis balls, base balls etc. Mr. Guillard responded that the types of pollutants that
are being addressed are less debris oriented and more sediment. There is a lot of dust that collects on
streets and when it rains that dust has large amount of particulate sediment that is in the storm drain
flow. Additionally, there are oils and other petroleum products that are draining out of cars that are a
factor, chemicals, fertilizers, nitrogen and phosphorous that can cause water quality problems. A basin
like this is set up to effectively treat all those as well as debris.
Mr. Porto further added that the mission of RWQCB is to provide clean and clear water into the bay,
therefore they look upon cities and other agencies to find a way to clear up that water and take out all
the pollutants mentioned by Mr. Guillard so that the water that gets to the bay is better water.
Mr. Guillard then walked through the landscape and design for the water basin. These are some of the
features:
(p[anning CommÚisÙ;n
'Rff¡I/Úlr ~-\fe¡:tinfJ
109
)1 UfJuS! 9, 200Y
1. The top edge of the basin has been formally landscaped and gives a California Grassland look.
2. The bottom of the basin has a mixture of different types of planting which will be very
naturalistic. It has been designed to have a very riparian wetland environment. The key is that
each of those planting types is zoned to the different levels of inundation and proximity to
ground water so that they will survive the different water conditions.
3. The tree planting for the site has been designed to act as a screen along 1-580. This is a key
feature of the water basin because over time these trees will shade the pools and also prevents
invasive plant material from getting into the pool areas.
4. On the north edge of the basin a pedestrian promenade has been designed. There will trees to the
sides of the basin providing screening for the basin.
Cm. Schaub asked if the trees were going to be irrigated. Mr. Guillard explained that the
basin would be irrigated in two ways. The areas above the elevation of the winter storm
water level (339) will be permanently irrigated. The areas below that will have a temporary
irrigation system for establishment of the plant material.
5. The key feature is a divider ridge and is meant to direct water coming out of the outfall through
the system so it gets filtered before it gets pumped off into the channel. It is a large landform in
the middle of the basin.
6. A stone crushed pathway.
7. The existing fence along 1-580 will be retained and a new fence along the future right-of-way will
be constructed. Preliminary graphic presentation of the streetscape was presented.
8. Streetscape along the north edge and on the sides will be created. The streetscape on the north
edge will be completed at a later date concurrent with future development in Area H and not as a
part of the initial basin construction. There will be a 5-ft fence not visible from street which
would primarily be vinyl coated chain linked with a one-inch mesh.
Cm. Fasulkey asked if the oak trees were regional species or from the east coast. Mr. Guillard responded
that they will all be California species.
Cm. Fasulkey expressed concerns regarding the conditions of approval for landscaping and if Staff
would keep track to ensure they were implemented.
Ms. Ram responded that the spiral bound book circulated with the staff report has a list of all the plant
species. Mr. Porto further added that the City's Landscape Architect has been working with Mr.
Guillard and has reviewed all the species mentioned and has included them in the conditions of
approval.
Cm. Wehrenberg wanted to know the size of the trees and their containers. Mr. Guillard responded that
the way the plan has been developed is that they are saplings up to 36" boxed trees. The idea there is to
get value by having initial installation at the bottom of the basin with quicker growing trees and then
have larger trees on the top edge of the basin. The 36" boxed tree is going to vary by species, but
typically in the range of about 15 -18 ft tall and about 2-3 inches of diameter at the base.
There was a discussion and concern among the Commissioners in relation to plant species and if the
Developer would adhere to the approved landscaping plan. Mr. Porto explained that during plan check
the Developer is required to submit landscaping plans based on the approval and Staff at that time
would ensure that the Developer follows the conditions of approval.
Cm. Wehrenberg asked if the seeds for the riparian plantation would be collected or if the Developer
proposes to use a nursery. Mr. Guillard responded that there are a variety of native plant nurseries that
propagate that type of plant material. Cm. Wehrenberg further asked if the water department is
requiring the Developer to have this type of vegetation. Mr. Guillard answered that it is a combination
(PlånniufJ CommÚsÙm
'RmU¿tr<.\1uti7lß
110
/!UfJust 9, 200S
of the understanding of the need to have a type of landscape that would survive this environment and
also the requirement by the RWQCB.
Cm. Schaub had concerns regarding the maintenance of the pond and the possible dominance of species
that may cause pollutants. Mr. Guillard explained the maintenance process for the basin. During the
initial establishment period the basin will require weeding to prevent the invasive from out competing
the planted material and mowing at the proper time of year. On the design side, CMG has worked with
Horticulturists and Ecologists on the project to select species that are native but will have a high rate of
success in terms of establishing themselves and competing with the invasive species. The pallet
designed is based on their recommendations.
Cm. Wehrenberg asked what type of maintenance contract will be put in place. Mr. Guillard responded
that for the first year maintenance would be covered through the construction maintenance and after
that the Property Owner's Association would be responsible for the maintenance through the CC&Rs.
But, if the Property Owner's Association is not established by that time, then the current owner will be
responsible for its maintenance under the maintenance plan developed and reviewed by the RWQCB.
Mr. Porto added that the RWQCB is involved in the functional part of the basin and the City's
responsibility is to ensure that the maintenance issues are addressed.
Cm. Schaub asked what were the types of fences that were considered by CMG prior to deciding on the
chain link. Mr. Guillard responded that CMG considered open mesh fence and tubular steel fences but
they were not chosen because of their design as well as cost. A chain link fence will blend more with the
environment.
Cm. Biddle stated that the project has been designed to give a park like look by restricting public access
to the top edge of the basin but, would a 5-ft fence keep the public out. Mr. Guillard responded that
adequate signage would address the liability and safety issues. Mr. Porto further added that the Police
Department has reviewed the Developer's proposal and are comfortable with the proposed security
measures.
Cm. King stated that the public promenade designed on the north edge of the basin is vague. He would
like to know what the trigger point would be to develop that area.
Mr. Indebitzen responded that the design for the north edge of the basin has not been finalized pending
the development of its adjacent property. The Developer would like this edge to integrate well with the
future development and hence the reason to delay the improvements for this edge. The infrastructure to
access this site needs to be completed first. Cm. King stated that he was concerned that the public may
lose out on an attractive feature of the basin due to the delay in the development of the surrounding
parcels.
There was a discussion regarding this concern and a condition of approval was requested by the
Commission to be included in the Tentative Parcel Map addressing this concern.
Cm. Fasaulkey wanted to ensure that the concerns expressed by the Commission regarding the north
edge improvements would be included in the staff report to the Council. Ms. Ram indicated that Staff
will ensure the concerns are incorporated in the staff report.
Mr. Guillard then explained the art fence concept to the Commission. He stated that as part of the
project a public art fence was proposed to be included, although currently it is still undefined.
'P[enning Commission
l\ffJu&lr 5tfeäing
111
jl14J ust 9, ZOOS
Mr. Inderbitzen stated that a member of the audience had to leave but had a few concerns regarding the
project. Jim Johnson, resident of 3765 Pirnlico Drive, Pleasanton, had concerns relating to mosquito
abatement, ground water contamination and odors from pond during pond maintenance. Mr.
Inderbitzen stated that he was able to address two of Mr. Johnson's concerns relating to mosquito
abatement and ground water contamination. Mr. Inderbitzen assured Mr. Johnson that he would call
him back and answer his question.
Cm. Schaub asked for more information related to the maintenance plan. Mr. Inderbitzen talked about
the requirements by the RWQCB's Revised Storm Water Management Plan.
Chair. Schaub closed the public hearing.
Cm. Fasulkey stated that he had one additional question.
Chair Schaub reopened the public hearing.
Cm. Fasulkey stated that there is no restriction listed in the conditions of approval for wireless antenna.
Mr. Porto stated that the current zoning for the property is Planned Development (PD) and a wireless
antenna is not a permitted use for that zoning. Mr. Porto indicated that Exhibit B to Attachment 2 Page
2 of the staff report listed the uses permitted under the current zoning. He further added that Staff could
add a language in the Stage 2 PD 'prohibiting wireless antennae or cell sites'.
Cm. Schaub stated that he would like the minutes to reflect that the Commission made its findings for
approving or disapproving a project in the motion section.
Ms. Ram pointed out to Cm. Schaub that he could ask the Commissioners to take a look at the findings
stated in the resolution (Attachment 2) and see if they agree with them or if they would like to change
them.
Chair Schaub closed the public hearing.
Cm. Wehrenberg commended Mr. Guillard on the report. She commented that she liked the vinyl
coated chain linked fence.
Cm. Biddle stated that he understood that the construction would start next year but would like to know
when it would be completed. Mr. Inderbitzen stated that the Developer anticipates completing most of
it next year.
Cm. King commented that it is a great project, but would like the motion to include the concern
regarding the trigger point for the improvements on the north edge of the basin. Mr. Porto stated that
Staff would review the conditions for the Tentative Parcel Map and add a condition addressing this
issue. Additionally, Staff will also review the Stage 2 PD to reflect the request by Cm. Fasulkey.
Cm. Biddle asked what it would take to turn this into a park. Mr. Porto stated that it had been an
internal point of discussion and it was not proposed as a park.
On motion by Cm. Fasulkey and modifications so noted, seconded by Cm. Schaub, the Commission
made the findings as noted in the Resolution (Attachment 2) and by a vote of 5-0, the Planning
Commission unanimously approved:
Planning (omnHssio¡,
l?tfll1~lr ~\1etHinB
112
;¡ "flu-It 9, 2(Xl,
RESOLUTION NO. 05 - 46
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE A SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW
APPLICATION FOR A STORM WATER QUALITY CONTROL BASIN ON A PORTION OF THE
PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT KNOWN AS DUBLIN RANCH AREA H LOCATED
WITHIN THE EASTERN DUBLIN SPECIFIC PLAN AREA NORTH OF INTERST ATE HIGHWAY
580 AND SOUTH OF THE PROPOSED EXTENSION OF DUBLIN BOULEVARD
P A 05-005
On motion by Cm. Fasulkey, seconded by Cm. Schaub, by a vote of 5-0, the Planning Commission
unanimously approved
RESOLUTION NO. 05 - 47
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT AN ORDINANCE APPROVING A
STAGE 2 DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR A STORM WATER QUALITY CONTROL BASIN ON
AN II.I96-ACRE SITE WITHIN AREA H OF DUBLIN RANCH LOCATED IN THE EASTERN
DUBLIN SPECIFIC PLAN AREA NORTH OF INTERSTATE HIGHWAY 580 AND SOUTH OF
THE PROPOSED EXTENSION OF DUBLIN BOULEVARD
P A 05-005
NEW OR UNFINISHED - None
OTHER BUSINESS
Commission congratulated Ms. Ram on her promotion.
Mr. Porto explained that the Commission would be a receiving package on August 12, 2005 for Area F
SDR, Stage 2 PD and Tentative Tract Map to be heard before the Commission on August 23,d. He
indicated that the developer has been instructed to prepare the documents for easy reading.
Cm. Fasulkey said that he had some concerns regarding wireless antennae. He showed a copy of an
appealable letter. Ms. Ram stated that if he is thinking about appealing then he cannot discuss it before
the other Commissioners. She asked him to call her if he has any questions.
ADJOURNMENT - The meeting was adjourned at 9:14 pm.
Respectfully submitted,
ftQd~/----
Planning Commission Chairperson
ATTEST:
~~
Planning anager
œ[anniug ('ommts,¡ÙJ"/t
'Rq¡ULlf '}4edinR
113
~q "flUolt 9, 20UJ