HomeMy WebLinkAbout09-25-2012 PC Minutes it \fr\
s®1 &%.
�q�i �/J .1 ; Planning Commission Minutes
,k t�':', /5E'.. ft
Tuesday, September 25, 2012
CALL TO ORDER/ROLL CALL
A regular meeting of the City of Dublin Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, September
25, 2012, in the City Council Chambers located at 100 Civic Plaza. Chair Wehrenberg called
the meeting to order at 7:01:04 PM
Present: Chair Wehrenberg; Vice Chair O'Keefe; Commissioners Schaub, Brown, and
Bhuthimethee; Jeff Baker, Assistant Community Development Director; Kristi Bascom, Principal
Planner; Seth Adams, Assistant Planner; and Debra LeClair, Recording Secretary.
Absent: None
ADDITIONS OR REVISIONS TO THE AGENDA— NONE
MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETINGS — On a motion by Cm. Brown and seconded by Cm.
Schaub, on a vote of 5-0, the Planning Commission unanimously approved the minutes of the
September 11, 2012 meeting, as revised.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS — NONE
CONSENT CALENDAR— NONE
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS — NONE
PUBLIC HEARINGS —
8.1 PLPA-2012-00036 Concord Feed Outdoor Display Conditional Use Permit
Kristi Bascom, Principal Planner, presented the project as outlined in the Staff Report.
Cm. Schaub asked if there will be a height limit for the display.
Ms. Bascom answered no.
Cm. Schaub was concerned with the display covering the windows and pedestrian safety if the
pallets are stacked too high.
Mr. Baker, Acting Community Development Director, responded that the Planning Commission
could add a height limit as a Condition of Approval.
Ms. Bascom suggested the Applicant could speak to how the items are delivered but the
requirement would be for the outdoor display of items that are delivered on pallets and then
placed in the pallet frames in the location shown on the plans.
Cm. Schaub asked if the pallets are placed inside the frames.
Tiamtmg 1 ommisszon Septe;6er25 2012
PsguiarWeeti 120
Ms. Bascom answered yes, the frames are not tall and provide a more attractive base and also
hide the pallets.
Chair Wehrenberg asked if the base and the pallets would be taken in at night.
Ms. Bascom answered yes.
Chair Wehrenberg was concerned that the pallets could block the sidewalk.
Ms. Bascom answered there is a requirement to maintain a minimum clearance of 6 feet.
Chair Wehrenberg opened the public hearing.
Dwight Greenhouse, Concord Feed, spoke in favor of the project. He addressed Chair
Wehrenberg's concern regarding the placement of the pallets on the sidewalk; he stated the
sidewalk is wide enough that the pallets do not block it. He stated the depth from the concrete
pillar to the window is approximately 4 feet. He would be agreeable to height restrictions within
reason. He stated the pallets are delivered with 50Ib bags of 20/pallet making it a 2,000lb pallet,
approximately 3-4 feet tall. He stated the pallet would not be higher than the top of the breaks in
the window. He stressed it was not safe to be higher and that they would not have the ability to
go higher without an electric lift which they do not own.
Cm. Schaub mentioned that there have been other Applicants who have had outdoor display
Conditional Use Permits (CUP) approved but did not abide by their Conditions of Approval
which resulted in numerous Code Enforcement issues with those businesses. He further stated
that he wanted the Applicant to be aware of the issue.
Mr. Greenhouse responded he did not want to be in Code Enforcement and wanted to be a
good neighbor.
Cm. Schaub was concerned that if the CUP is approved there could be problems if it is used for
things other than the pallets. He stated he had visited the store and saw that there were many
different types of 50Ib bags and asked how he would determine which 50Ib bags to display. He
felt this CUP would be used as a promotional effort rather than for the customers' convenience.
Mr. Greenhouse responded there are 5-6 types of bags that are considered "A items" which
include chicken feed and horse feed only. He stated a customer may want 25-30 bags at a time
of an "A item" (they receive a discount for buying more). He stated in their other locations the
customers can buy a pallet, pull up to the store and they would load the entire pallet on the
truck. They do not have that ability at this location and he felt it hampers their business.
Cm. Schaub asked if that was because there is no rear delivery area.
Mr. Greenhouse answered; not necessarily.
Cm. Schaub stated he had visited the shopping center and was not able to get out of the
parking lot because of the delivery trucks at the front of the store. He felt that it would be easier
if there were a rear delivery area.
Trapping Commi,csinn Sept ember25 2012
d ular 0pfeelibw 121
Cm. Schaub asked if the Applicant would have signage on the pallets indicating the items are on
sale.
Mr. Greenhouse answered no; the price will be the everyday price and stated that they do not
have sales at this location. He added, if the City allowed them to put a price tag on the items
that would be OK, if not, that would be OK also. He stated the purpose of this project is for the
convenience of their customers who know what they want when they come in so the price tag
would not be necessary.
Cm. Brown asked if all pallets would be moved inside at the end of the day.
Mr. Greenhouse answered yes.
Chair Wehrenberg closed the public hearing.
Chair Wehrenberg agreed with Cm. Schaub that some stores have taken advantage of outdoor
display approvals but felt that the Applicant understands the Conditions of Approval.
Cm. Schaub asked Ms. Bascom if this project was being approved under the General Plan
because there is no specific plan where the business is located.
Ms. Bascom answered yes; the business location is not in a specific plan.
Cm. Schaub was concerned with being able to control outdoor displays in similar areas and
asked how the City would control it.
Ms. Bascom answered; it would be controlled through the CUP application and reviewed on a
case-by-case basis.
Cm. Schaub asked if this project is being reviewed under the General Plan because there is no
applicable specific plan which would be more detailed in what the Commission would like to see.
Ms. Bascom answered this project is conditionally permitted in the Zoning Ordinance as a
conditionally permitted use in the C-1/C-2 Commercial district. She continued this type of CUP
needs to be reviewed by the Planning Commission on a case-by-case basis.
Cm. Schaub asked if the project would be reviewed by the Planning Commission regardless of
whether it is located within a specific plan or not.
Ms. Bascom answered yes.
Cm. Schaub stated he can make the findings.
Cm. Bhuthimethee stated she can make the findings.
Cm. Brown stated he can make the findings.
Cm. O'Keefe stated he can make the findings.
Chair Wehrenberg stated she can make the findings.
'lc rcnang ono issian Sep:ern6er 25 2012
ui;>>Yieeting 122
On a motion by Cm. Schaub and seconded by Cm. Bhuthimethee, on a vote of 5-0, the
Planning Commission unanimously adopted:
RESOLUTION NO. 12-35
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR "RETAIL — OUTDOOR STORAGE" AT
AN EXISTING RETAIL STORE AT 7100 DUBLIN BOULEVARD (CONCORD FEED)
8.2 PLPA-2012-00034 Citibank Landscaping Site Development Review
Seth Adams, Assistant Planner, presented the project as outlined in the Staff Report.
Cm. Schaub stated that he had visited the site and found that the concrete area is not being
pushed up by the tree roots and asked if they could install more concrete rather than asphalt
instead of removing the trees.
Mr. Baker suggested that the Applicant could address that question, but in addition to the root
problem, there is also the potential damage to parked cars from the tree canopy and/or the
limbs falling on the cars or pedestrians.
Cm. Schaub asked Mr. Baker, since the City has hired an expert that indicates that the trees are
a safety hazard and the project was denied, would the City be at risk.
Mr. Baker answered that if the project is denied there could be some culpability on the City's
part knowing, based on the expert's opinion, that the trees were unsafe.
Cm. Bhuthimethee asked Staff to point out where the trees are located on the plan.
Mr. Adams pointed out the location of the pine trees to be removed.
Cm. Bhuthimethee disclosed that she has hired the arborist before on a private matter but did
not feel there is a conflict.
Cm. Bhuthimethee stated she was not as concerned about the paving and asphalt as she was
about the longevity of the trees. She felt that asphalt and curbs can be fixed quickly but trees of
this maturity take a long time to grow.
Chair Wehrenberg referred to a picture of raised paving and asked if this was near the sidewalk
entrance to the bank.
Mr. Adams answered yes. He pointed out the edge of the diagonally striped walkway where it
meets the driveway.
Chair Wehrenberg asked if the repairs would meet ADA accessibility standards and noted that
ADA accessibility was not addressed in the findings or the Staff Report.
'Gxnraing( mrrzissinn September 25,2012
guiar 5 eetirtg 123
Mr. Baker answered; the walkway is not blocking any of the ADA accessible ramps.
Chair Wehrenberg asked if the grade would be an issue for ADA.
Mr. Baker answered, if it was in the ADA pathway it would be an issue.
Chair Wehrenberg opened the public hearing.
Mike Wasden, Paving Engineering, spoke in favor of the project. He stated he is a Landscape
Architect and drew the landscaping plans. He stated there are 4 trees that are to be removed; 3
Italian stone pines and 1 Canary Island pine. There are 10 other trees around the perimeter of
the site that will remain, including one large Italian stone pine and a Holyoke pine. He stated
that from the intersection of Regional Street and Dublin Blvd the front of the site is all trees. He
added, the 4 trees that are to be removed are on the back side of the bank building and are not
as noticeable from the street, but are noticeable from the Sports Authority parking lot.
Cm. Schaub asked if they are leaving one Italian stone pine and asked where it was located on
the plans.
The Applicant pointed out on the plans where the tree that will remain is located on Regional
Street and added there is also a large oak tree that will remain.
Cm. Schaub asked why that tree is not part of the plans to be removed since it also has limbs
that hang out over the street.
Mr. Wasden answered; the tree does not appear to be causing any damage to the pavement.
Cm. Schaub asked Mr. Wasden why he was not concerned about the limbs on this tree.
Mr. Wasden responded his concern is not so much the limbs and pine cones falling off, but the
damage they could do to parked cars, and the pitch that falls onto parked cars as well causing
damage. He stated that Citibank has had several complaints from customers because pine
cones have dented their cars or pitch has landed on their cars.
Cm. Schaub asked why they were not concerned with that 5th tree (located on Regional Street)
and felt it was inconsistent with his concern for the safety of the site.
Mr. Wasden responded that there are no parking spaces under that tree.
Cm. Schaub asked why he was not concerned about the limbs falling down from the 5th tree, but
was instead concerned with raised asphalt, pitch and pine cones. He was concerned that the
City may be at risk if the Planning Commission denies the project. He felt the 5th tree was as
much of a threat as the 4 trees that are part of the project.
Mr. Wasden responded that the initial reason to remove the trees was not from a concern about
things falling from them, but because of the pavement issues. He pointed out that the pavement
can be repaired fairly quickly and easily, but the issue is that the tree roots have caused such
extensive damage to the pavement that it has created a tripping hazard; Citibank made repairs
6-7 years ago and now the parking lot is damaged again. He referred to Cm. Schaub's
6,t*tnin;Cowmi,sion ,September 25. 2012
ft:W:0'1V eetira1J 124
comment about the concrete walkway and stated that the reason the concrete walkway appears
to be intact is because the trees roots haven't reached it. He stated the Applicant is concerned
with long term maintenance of the property and tripping hazards. He stated that Citibank is
concerned about safety and wants to make repairs to eliminate liability.
Cm. Schaub felt that if the trees are removed there will be many phone calls from upset citizens.
He stressed that the trees are a significant part of the City.
Mr. Wasden responded that when they first starting working with Staff they tried to find some
way to modify the planters to accommodate the trees without losing parking or going across the
property line. Since they were unable to do that, they opted for this project.
Cm. Bhuthimethee asked when the last set of repairs was done.
Mr. Wasden answered, approximately 6 years ago.
Cm. Bhuthimethee asked him to describe the extent of the repairs.
Mr. Wasden stated he was unsure of the exact repairs but from what can be seen at the surface
they have done numerous patches throughout the parking lot area many of which were to
address damage caused by the roots. He added that 60% of the parking lot pavement has been
destroyed by tree roots, repaired and is now in need of repair again.
Cm. Bhuthimethee asked if the roots were pruned at the time the pavement was repaired.
Mr. Wasden was unsure but felt they were probably not pruned all the way at that time because
if the roots are pruned too much, the tree loses its anchoring system and would then be
unstable.
Cm. Schaub stated that the trees did not fall down after the repair.
Mr. Wasden stated the trees did not fall because the roots were not trimmed back to the limit of
the pavement.
Cm. Brown asked if the trunk and root system will be removed below the surface.
Mr. Wasden answered yes; the project was originally a pavement repair and ADA upgrade
project, but during the process they inspected the trees and discovered that, in order to repair
the pavement correctly, the roots must be removed from under the asphalt. The trees, stumps
and roots will all be removed.
Cm. Brown asked if any part of the tree will remain after the project is completed.
Mr. Wasden stated that they must do a thorough job of removing the stumps and roots, and
backfilling the planter areas with new soil in preparation of the new landscaping.
Chair Wehrenberg felt it would be extensive to create a hole large enough to install a 36in box
tree.
Trannin4 Commis.non SepternEer°25,2012
Vgui2r Meeting 125
Mr. Wasden responded that when the trees are removed there will be a void left approximately
1/2 the hole needed for a 36in box tree. He added the irrigation system will be replaced and
upgraded because the trees have destroyed it.
Micah Stevens, Citibank, stated he was here to answer questions.
Chair Wehrenberg asked him to come to the podium to answer Cm. Bhuthimethee's question
regarding the extent of the past repairs.
Mr. Stevens stated approximately 5 years ago they did a cut and patch, but also did some root
pruning. He added that 60% of the parking lot has been damaged by the roots and had to be
repaired and patched. He stated they needed to remove the trees because of a serious tripping
hazard. He added they had to prioritize the trees and felt that the four that were selected are
the ones that need to be removed. He stated they are very sensitive to removing trees in the
Bay Area.
5th
n
Chair Wehrenberg asked if the arborist's report looked at the 5 tree to see if it was causing
g p
issues in the parking lot or the sidewalk.
Mr. Stevens felt the arborist did not review the 5th tree and stated they would trim the tree if it is
endangering the sidewalk. He stated their field manager has trimmed the trees on site in the
past.
Chair Wehrenberg asked if the 5th tree was causing any problems.
Mr. Stevens answered, it is not causing any problems at this time.
Cm. Schaub was confused by the arborist report that states the trees are in such bad shape that
they pose a risk. He felt the most important issue for the Planning Commission is the safety of
the residents. The report states that if the roots are pruned or the trees are trimmed it could
further damage the tree and make it unsafe. He was concerned that the Applicant stated that
the trees have been trimmed and the roots pruned in the past but the trees did not fall down. He
then discussed the 5th tree and felt trimming it would also damage the tree and make it unsafe
but the 5th tree was not included in the report. He felt the 5th tree could be just as unsafe and
should be included in the project. He was concerned with the sensitivity of removing such
mature trees and felt the trees should be preserved if possible and that pine cones and pitch are
not as important as how significant the trees are to the City. He mentioned an area on San
Ramon Road where the parking lot was removed to preserve the trees in that area.
Mr. Stevens understood the sensitivity of the community regarding mature trees, but his main
concern is the tripping hazard and the safety of his patrons. He stated there is a 5-6 inch
difference in some areas, which is significant. He mentioned that they have a mostly elderly
clientele and there had been a recent tripping incident where they had to mark off the area.
Cm. Schaub stated the Commission was told that the tree roots were repaired in the past.
Mr. Stevens stated the problem was repaired in the past, but now there is so much damage and
the uplifting of the pavement is so enormous that removing the trees is their only alternative.
yarning Commission Septetn6er 25,207!!2
Nenuiaar Meetirt 126
Mr. Baker pointed out that when the Applicant approached the City, Staff recognized the
significance of the trees in the downtown. Staff was concerned enough that they hired an
arborist, which is the report that is part of the Staff Report. The report was commissioned by the
City and paid for by the City, via the Applicant funding, to inspect the trees and determine if they
truly need to be removed, or if there is some way to preserve them and still meet the Applicant's
concerns. The report addressed the issues of trimming the roots to satisfy what the Applicant is
trying to achieve. The report stated that pruning the roots could cause the tree to become
unstable.
Cm. Schaub asked why the 5th tree is not considered a hazard and why was it not included in
the report when it is the same type of tree as the ones proposed to be removed.
Mr. Stevens responded the 5th tree is not destroying the sidewalk so there is no tripping hazard.
He stated if the limbs are over the sidewalk and are endangering pedestrians, they will trim the
tree.
Cm. Schaub asked why the report focused on 3 trees and not the 4th tree; one of which is a
Canary pine.
Mr. Baker clarified there are 4 pine trees included in the application; 5 pine trees are located on
the site and the Applicant is proposing to remove 4 of them and maintain the 5th tree. He stated
that one of the 4 trees is a Canary pine and the other 3 are Italian stone pine. He added that the
arborist did not evaluate the 5th tree that will remain on site.
Cm. Bhuthimethee asked if there is a way to prune or correct the trees if they were found to be
structurally unsound. She felt that was not explored in the arborist report.
Mr. Baker stated the arborist report addressed that issue and concluded that trimming them
would further exacerbate the problem.
Mr. Stevens stated that the trees are migrating underground in the parking lot and damaging the
curbs and 60% of the parking lot is a tripping hazard at this time.
Chair Wehrenberg felt Cm. Schaub was asking why not include the 5th tree during the project,
but the arborist did not include it in the report because it is not causing any damage at this time.
Mr. Baker agreed and stated the 5th tree is not part of the application.
Chair Wehrenberg asked if the 5th tree is on Citibank's property.
Mr. Baker answered yes; the 5th tree is on Citibank's property as well as many other trees.
Cm. Brown asked Mr. Baker if he knew, for a fact, that the arborist did not walk around and look
at the other trees and if he was present during the inspection.
Mr. Baker answered no; he was not present during the inspection.
Cm. Brown asked Mr. Stevens if he was present during the inspection.
Olarming Combustion September 25,2012
egulars testing 127
Mr. Stevens responded he was not present and stated the scope of work was to focus on the 4
trees in the parking lot.
Cm. Brown felt that the arborist should have at least looked at the 5th tree and if there was a
problem, included it in the report.
Mr. Stevens stated, in good faith, he agreed to look at the tree and take care of any problem to
ensure the safety of pedestrians on the sidewalk.
Cm. Brown felt that nothing should be done to the tree unless an expert inspects the tree and
gives direction. He felt that corner is a significant part of the Downtown area and was glad to
see they were keeping the trees on the front side of the building. He noted the large tree that
Cm. Schaub is talking about and felt it is an attractive tree. He added, if an expert doesn't say
there is a problem then it should not be trimmed or removed.
Chair Wehrenberg suggested having Staff go out to the site with the arborist, inspect the 5th
tree, and give the Planning Commission an opinion.
Mr. Baker stated that the 5th tree was not part of the application, and asked Chair Wehrenberg if
she is suggesting that it should be removed because it is posing a safety hazard.
Cm. Schaub said no, his concern is that the 5th tree is exactly like the 4 trees that are being
proposed to be removed except there is no paving issue. He felt an arborist could make the
determination whether the 5th tree needed to be removed or not.
Mr. Stevens felt Cm. Schaub's concerns were valid, but stated the 5th tree is not part of the
application. He stated the project is to repair the parking lot and that is why they focused on the
4 trees.
Cm. Schaub asked Mr. Stevens if he was concerned about the safety of the 5th tree, and if he
wanted the Commission to focus only on the trees in the parking lot.
Mr. Stevens answered yes.
Chair Wehrenberg felt the 5th tree did not pose a safety issue because the roots are not
impeding the sidewalk.
Cm. Schaub felt the concern is not just with tripping, but that the limbs could break off and the
tree could fall down.
Chair Wehrenberg agreed.
Mr. Stevens stated he was not aware of any claims regarding the 5th tree.
Cm. Schaub stated he inspected the tree and felt the sidewalk was rising somewhat.
Chair Wehrenberg restated she would like to have the arborist inspect the 5th tree and provide
an opinion.
Planning Commission Sept Ber 2.5 2012
10gulizr'Meeting 128
Cm. Bhuthimethee asked Mr. Wasden to discuss the landscaping plans. She asked about a
tree trunk on the plans.
Mr. Wasden responded that she was pointing out the stump of an olive tree that had been cut
down years ago.
There was a brief discussion regarding the olive tree stump and the existing olive trees that
remain on the site.
Chair Wehrenberg closed the public hearing.
Cm. Brown stated he visited the site and observed the damage. He was concerned with the
handicapped parking, ADA access, and felt the parking lot is very unsafe. He added the parking
lot needs to be fixed correctly and based on the arborist's report they need to take the trees
down, remove all the roots and repair the parking lot so that it will be a good attraction point for
the Downtown. He stated he can make all the findings and is in favor of the project.
Cm. O'Keefe felt that he did not have enough information or answers to questions that were
posed and felt the arborist should be in attendance.
Chair Wehrenberg asked if he was referring to the 5th tree on Regional Street or the entire
project.
Cm. O'Keefe answered he was concerned about the confusion of the arborist's findings versus
what is being said by the Applicant. He wanted to know why the 5th tree was not inspected in
terms of safety.
Mr. Baker asked what he meant by confusion about the arborist's report and the Applicant. He
stated the application was to address the pavement damage. Staff hired an expert who found
issues that may go beyond what the Applicant was trying to address. He felt that is the reason
for a disparity. He added that the two don't have to be perfectly aligned; the Applicant has
concerns about the ground; the arborist inspected the trees and found that there are issues that
occur underground as well as aboveground. The expert is saying there are other issues that
need to be addressed besides repairing the pavement.
Cm. Brown felt that most managers are concerned with safety inside and outside of the facility.
He trusts the ability of the bank manager to address the problem.
Cm. O'Keefe did not disagree with Cm. Brown. He stated he could understand removing the
trees if he had answers from the arborist. He was concerned that the 5th tree was not inspected
for safety. He was in support of removing the tripping hazard and making the parking lot safe
but did not understand why the 5th tree was not included. He understood it is not part of the
application but felt it did not make sense not to address the 5th tree. He wanted to reserve his
judgment until he heard Cm. Bhuthimethee's analysis.
Chair Wehrenberg agreed that the arborist should inspect the 5th tree. He specifically focused
on the 4 trees mentioned in the application. But she would like the arborist to inspect the other
trees and give his opinion before all the work goes forward. She suggested the Commission
consider adding a Condition of Approval to the project.
fnning Commission Septem6er25,2012
Wja 1 it;11eetincj 129
Cm. Schaub asked Cm. Bhuthimethee if she felt there was a way to solve the problem of the
roots damaging the parking lot in a different way; are there other things that can be done
besides removing trees to solve the root problem. He agreed that the parking lot is unsafe and
needs to be repaired.
Cm. Brown stated the Applicant is also replacing and adding trees.
Cm. Schaub added they are replacing the trees with 36" box trees that will take 20 years to get
20 feet high and will be nothing like what is there today.
Cm. Bhuthimethee wanted to clarify that she is not an arborist. She stated that in her
experience, when tree roots damage paving, asphalt and curbs, it needs to be repaired which
she felt is easy to do, but not inexpensive. She is not an arborist and could not say there is a
safe way to do it, but there is always the option for a second opinion.
Chair Wehrenberg felt that if you keep repairing the situation it will be a constant issue that will
need to be addressed again and again.
Cm. Bhuthimethee felt the most ideal situation would be to select the most appropriate specie to
plant. She added that when these trees were planted initially they were probably looking for a
fast growing tree, which they are and they are successful, however, with pine cones and pitch
problems she felt that part of the fast growing nature is why the roots are so aggressive. She
also felt that the planting areas are not large enough to allow them to grow to such a size.
Chair Wehrenberg agreed.
Cm. Bhuthimethee asked about the removal of some pine trees along Amador Plaza Rd; where
Sprouts is located.
Mr. Baker answered there were some pine trees located in the back of the building that were
removed. There was also a code enforcement issue where there was a tree that had fallen and
some pavement rising. The trees were not of this size or visibility and the issue was handled at
Staff level. There also had been complaints from an adjacent property owner who was having
foundation and roof issues from the trees causing damage to her property.
Cm. Bhuthimethee felt the issue of the roots uplifting the pavement is not as significant as the
safety of the structure of the tree. She stated she visited the site and found some weak
attachments.
Chair Wehrenberg asked if she can make the findings for the project.
Cm. Bhuthimethee answered yes.
Cm. Schaub felt that if this is the only way to solve the problem then he can support it.
Cm. Bhuthimethee was concerned with Dublin becoming the town that only has small trees.
Cm. Schaub mentioned there was an Applicant a few years ago that wanted to remove trees
along 1-580 and then recently an Applicant wanted to remove trees to put in a large sign.
P1rxnning Carnrnissi'n 3'eptern6er°25,2012
Rcguaxr lieeting 130
Chair Wehrenberg briefly described the landscape guidelines that were approved by the
Planning Commission regarding appropriate landscaping in the City. These Design Guidelines
eliminated the use of trees that are problematic and endorsed trees that are better. She added
that those are the types of trees that are being replaced in this project. Staff is agreeing with the
replacement choices.
Cm. Schaub restated his concern regarding the exclusion of the 5th tree.
Chair Wehrenberg suggested having the arborist inspect the other trees to confirm there is no
risk.
Cm. Schaub asked who would pay for the arborist report.
Chair Wehrenberg responded that the City will fund the report.
Mr. Baker stated that what is before the Commission tonight is the application for the removal of
4 trees. The 5th tree is not part of the project and has not been evaluated. He suggested the
Commission could add a Condition of Approval that would require the Applicant to inspect the
5th tree before they proceed with the project, at their expense. If the tree is found to be a
hazard, they may or may not want to address it at that time.
Cm. Schaub felt that the problem has already been identified because it is the same type of tree
with the same issue.
Chair Wehrenberg again recommended having the arborist inspect the 5th tree to ensure its
safety.
Cm. Bhuthimethee asked what happens if the report is not what the Commission had hoped it
would be.
Cm. Brown stated he interpreted the arborist's comments to be that the proposed corrections
would cause a safety issue. He asked why the Commission would want the arborist to inspect a
tree that is not part of the application.
Cm Schaub quoted the arborist's report regarding the 4 trees which stated that the trees have a
potential for trunk and large limb failure and felt if that is true of the 4 trees then why isn't it true
of the 5th tree. He felt there would be the same problem with the 5th tree.
Chair Wehrenberg answered the 5th tree was not on the plans to inspect and specifically
mentions only the 4 pine trees.
Cm. Schaub felt the confusion is because the 5th tree has been identified and may have the
same problems as the other 4 trees.
Chair Wehrenberg stated the Commission has concerns that the same issues could exist for the
5th tree. She wants to have the arborist inspect the 5th tree.
Cm. Schaub could support the project if the rest of the Commission could support it but felt it
was a shame to remove such significant trees. He stated it has been recorded that the 5th tree
is the same tree with the same structural issues with the roots that the other trees have.
7'lanninrg('oi rnzsswn .5eptem6er2Y,2012
Xa'guiar✓ eetin' 131
Mr. Baker stated it has not been recorded that the 5th tree is in the same condition as the other 4
trees. Cm. Schaub made an observation that perhaps the tree is a risk, but it has not been
identified as such by an expert.
Cm. Schaub agreed and stated it was only identified as the same type of tree. He suggested
the Applicant trim the street trees to make the entire parcel look better. He felt the reality is the
pine trees are the wrong type of trees for the parking lot and should be removed. He stated he
can make the findings and made his point regarding the other trees.
Chair Wehrenberg felt that removing trees has always been an issue and she would prefer not
to take out the trees. But, she can make the findings and felt the risk to residents needs to be
addressed. She asked the Planning Commission if they want the arborist to inspect the 5th tree
located on Regional Street.
Cm. Schaub felt the 5th tree is not part of the application and that would be up to the Applicant.
Cm. Brown felt the Applicant has heard the Planning Commission's concerns.
Chair Wehrenberg wanted to address any safety issues now so that this will not come back to
the Commission again because of the roots problem. She asked the Commission if they can
make all the findings.
Cm. Bhuthimethee asked how confident are they that the new trees will be planted in a way that
will ensure their long term sustainability within the same planters.
Cm. Schaub stated there are pistache trees in his neighborhood and they do not have a root
problem.
Cm. Bhuthimethee stated they are a slow to moderate growth tree and she did not anticipate a
root problem, but they are still small and immature trees.
Mr. Baker mentioned that the same trees were approved for the Sports Authority landscaping
with similar sized planters. The City's landscape architect reviewed the landscaping plan and
found these trees to be appropriate and the plan will be consistent with the rest of the parking
lot.
Chair Wehrenberg agreed.
Cm. O'Keefe asked if the Commission has a responsibility, knowing the 5th tree is a like tree but
was not evaluated by the arborist, to ensure that it is inspected for safety.
Chair Wehrenberg responded that the Commission does have a responsibility for the safety of
the residents and that is why she suggested having the arborist inspect the 5th tree.
Cm. Brown asked if this should be added as a Condition of Approval.
Chair Wehrenberg answered yes.
g'targr€irlJ t,'mmissirrn ,Septein6er25,21312
q<epu&€r(Wowing 132
Cm. Schaub stated the Commission can add a condition that prior to beginning the project an
arborist shall inspect the 5th tree to ensure that it does not cause damage or be a safety hazard.
Chair Wehrenberg mentioned that the arborist report should confirm the status of the tree so
that it won't cause further risk.
Mr. Baker stated the Commission can place a condition that requires the Applicant have an
arborist inspect the 5th tree and provide a report to the City. But there is a question about what
the Commission is suggesting as next steps.
Cm. Bhuthimethee felt that the 5th tree does not pose as much of a threat.
Cm. Schaub disagreed and felt it was a threat to pedestrians, and that the other trees were an
above-ground threat than the 5th tree would be as well.
Chair Wehrenberg agreed and felt the 5th tree needs to be addressed.
Chair Wehrenberg asked the Commission if they wanted to add a Condition of Approval. Chair
Wehrenberg, Cm. Brown, Cm. O'Keefe and Cm. Schaub agreed to add the Condition of
Approval as part of the motion to approve the project. Cm. Bhuthimethee felt the issue of the 5th
tree is beyond the scope of the application.
Cm. Bhuthimethee asked if the curbs will be replaced
Mr. Baker answered all the damaged curbs will be replaced.
Cm. Bhuthimethee asked if there is a way to move a parking space (she pointed it out on the
plans) to make the planter larger in order to accommodate tree growth and avoid conflict in the
future.
Mr. Baker felt that was a question for the Applicant because doing that could eliminate a parking
space.
Cm. Bhuthimethee stated they would not lose a parking space, but just move it over a few feet.
Mr. Baker felt that there are issues to address including conflicts with the light pole and back-up
distance because of the drive aisle.
Cm. Schaub felt it was not appropriate to make changes to the plans at this point.
Cm. Bhuthimethee felt this could be an issue in the future and felt that the Commission should
take this opportunity now to accommodate the future growth of the trees.
There was a discussion regarding moving the parking space over to enlarge the planter for one
of the new trees. Cm. Bhuthimethee was concerned about the future of the new trees and
allowing enough space to grow within the planters.
On a motion by Cm. Schaub and seconded by Cm. Brown, on a vote of 5-0, the Planning
Commission unanimously adopted; with the following additional Condition of Approval:
4farvung f`o .sszon Septe€ 6er25,2012
14,g14r 5Reeting 133
Condition of Approval: The 5th tree on Regional Street shall be inspected by an arborist to
ensure its safety and provide the City with a copy of the report prior to the start of the project.
Suggestion: The Applicant shall work with Staff on the possibility of moving one parking space
over slightly to accommodate a larger planting area.
RESOLUTION NO. 12 - 34
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
APPROVING SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW FOR THE REMOVAL OF FOUR PINE TREES,
AND THE INSTALLATION OF NEW LANDSCAPING AND SITE IMPROVEMENTS AT THE
CITIBANK FINANCIAL CENTER AT 7889 DUBLIN BOULEVARD
NEW OR UNFINISHED BUSINESS -- NONE
OTHER BUSINESS - NONE
10.1 Brief INFORMATION ONLY reports from the Planning Commission and/or Staff,
including Committee Reports and Reports by the Planning Commission related to
meetings attended at City Expense (AB 1234).
10.2 Mr. Baker announced that the City has received an appeal regarding the Downtown
Display Sign tentatively scheduled for the City Council on November 20th. Also, the
Y Y
Dublin Preschool appeal will be heard by the City Council on October 2nd.
10.3 Mr. Baker mentioned the City's Façade grant program, and Staff is working with an
Applicant on Village Parkway.
10.4 It's been 5 years since the Bikeways Master Plan was approved and Staff will be
updating it to a bike and pedestrian plan. Staff has scheduled a workshop on Monday,
October 1st at 7:00pm in the Library Community Room. The Planning Commission is
invited to attend.
10.5 An initiative of the City Council is to prepare Design Guidelines for the areas of the City
that are not in a specific plan. Staff will hold a Community meeting in October and then
to the Planning Commission for a Study Session on October 30, 2012 at 6:00 pm. The
Commissioners indicated they are all available.
10.6 Cm. Schaub asked about the old Crown Chevrolet property. Mr. Baker answered the
property is under contract to purchase. The buyer would like to build mixed-use
residential/retail project. The back parcel on St. Patrick Way would be veterans housing
built by Eden Housing. The land would be to Eden Housing as a Community Benefit.
10.7 Chair Wehrenberg asked about the vacant portion of the Sports Authority building. Mr.
Baker answered there has been some discussions but no tenants have leased the space
yet.
10.8 Cm. O'Keefe asked about a new business on Village Parkway replacing AGM Signs. Mr.
Baker was not aware of the business name but confirmed that they applied for their sign
permit. Cm. O'Keefe asked about the pad area near Sprouts. Mr. Baker answered the
project is moving forward and Staff is working with the Applicant.
10.9 Cm. Brown asked about the status of the Village Parkway Pilot Parking Program. Mr.
Baker answered Staff took a report to the City Council and received direction to explore
piag lung Coramascior. .'ertem6er-2.f,2012
WeguCar'Meeting 134
expanding the program to the entire Village Parkway District for a two year period. A
community meeting was held on 9/21/12; notices were sent out to all property owners
Trahm,g commission ,$ei!tember 25,2012
Wrg uG.tr!Meet ing 135
and tenants on Village Parkway. Two property owners attended the meeting, both in
favor of the program. This item will be brought back to the Planning Commission and
then back to the City Council.
10.10 Cm. O'Keefe asked when the new 7-11 will open. Mr. Baker was unsure of the opening
date.
ADJOURNMENT —The meeting was adjourned at 8:49:55 PM
Respectfully submitted
Doreen Wehrenber•
Planning Commission it
ATTEST:
Jeff Baker
Assistant Community Development Director
G:IMINUTES120121PLANNING COMMISSIOM09.25.12 FINAL PC MINUTES.docx
Planning Commission September 25,2012
gular 94eeting 135