Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Minutes 11-16-1992 w_.~ Y y - , • • Regular Meetinq - November 16, 1992 A regular meeting of the City of Dublin Planning Commission was held on November 16, 1992, in the Dublin Civic Center Council Chambers. The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Commissioner Zika. Cm. Zika indicated that the agenda was showing the meeting would start at 7:00 p.m. and the newspaper had noted the meeting to be at 7:30 p.m.. Since some of the staff inembers were not present and because of the confusion with the meeting time, Cm. Zika felt that it would be appropriate to discuss the Eastern Dublin project first and then go back to the other items at 7:30 p.m. with the formal roll call, etc. SUBJECT: PA 87-031 Eastern Dublin Responses to Comments reqarding_the Specific Plan - Part II Ms. Gillarde indicated that this meeting would be to discuss the rest of the Specific Plan comments/responses. The format is the same as the previous meeting and the numbered attachments corresponded with the attached responses. The editorial comments were grouped together at the end of each set of responses. Ms. Gillarde reviewed Letter #1 from TMI, Comment 1-1 regarding the alignment of Dublin Boulevard. Staff acknowledges that this alignment is a conceptual drawing. The precise alignment will be reviewed when a specific development is processed. She indicated there was no action required by the Commission. Ms. Gillarde continued on to Comment 1-2 regarding changing the land use designation to general commercial and Staff recommended the language remain the same. There were no comments from the Planning Commission and there was a 5-0 straw vote concurring with Staff's recommendation. Ms. Gillarde moved on to Letter #2 from East Bay Regional Park District and discussed Comment 2-1 regarding the District's concern over the viability of using rural residential lands as open space. Staff recommended the text remain as is. Cm. Zika asked if the land use designation could be changed from rural residential/open space to rural residential/agriculture. Ms. Gillarde indicated yes. Being no further comments from the Commission, there was a straw vote of 5-0 to change the designation from rural residential/open space to rural residential/agriculture. Ms. Gillarde went on to Comment 2-2 regarding the clarification of the purpose and function of open space. Staff recommended the text remain as is. Regular Meeting PCM-1992-219 November 16, 1992 [11-16min] . • ~ There were no comments from the Commission and there was a straw vote of 5-0 in concurrence with Staff's recommendation. Ms. Gillarde continued on to Comment 2-3 regarding types of open space noted on the Specific Plan map. Staff recommended leaving the map as presently shown. No comments were made by the Commission and there was a 5-0 straw vote in concurrence with Staff's recommendation. Ms. Gillarde continued on to Comment 2-4 regarding fragmented open space uses in the northeast corner of the Plan (single-family residential). Staff recommended the Commission consider 1) leaving the property as designated; 2) redesignating the property as rural residential; 3) designating the property as open space; or 4) adding a policy that would permit transfer of development rights (TDR's). Cm. Zika referred to option #4 and asked if the property could be sold from one property owner to another. Ms. Gillarde explained that a property owner could sell the land development rights to his property. Development would then be built on someone elses' property and the original property would stay undeveloped. Mr. Tong indicated this was not a widely used concept and referred to a situation that had occurred in Marin County. TDR's would allow more flexibility. Mr. Hammond reviewed the land use ownership patterns and indicated that the back side of the ridge was the only area that could have development occur. A TDR program would preserve a greater area for open space, have fewer visual impacts and give more flexibility. Cm. Zika understood that under the TDR policy, the land would remain as is with the added TDR restrictions. Mr. Hammond explained that the site would be given, by policy, a certain development potential. The land owner would be able to sell the development potential to an interested buyer. Ms. Gillarde further explained that the land use designation would remain as single-family residential. A policy would be added to the Speciifc Plan. Cm. Burnham asked if this would affect the Doolan Canyon area. Mr. Hammond indicated this policy would not disrupt Doolan Ganyon. The road connection would still need to be developed. The development on the higher area would not be permitted. Cm. Barnes and Cm. Zika expressed concerns regarding the TDR program. Cm. Zika asked where would the actual development occur. Regular Meeting PCM-1992-220 November 16, 1992 [11-16min] • • Ms. Gillarde explained that once a project is reviewed at a specific parcel development level, there could be areas that would allow additional dwelling units. Mr. Hammond noted that the policy could be restricted to the Eastern Dublin area or, in fact, it could occur anywhere within the City. Al1 of the units do not have to be developed on a particular site. For example, someone could buy ten units to be developed somewhere else. Mr. Tong indicated that this program would require further analysis and exploration. If the Commission would like to see this set up, Staff would review the concept further. However, if the Commission is uncomfortable, then the concept should not be looked into at this time. A straw vote of 4-0 (Cm. North abstained), the Commission recommended the Staff consider (not require) Option #4 regarding the transferring of development rights (TDRs). This language would be added to the Specific Plan. Ms. Gillarde moved on to Comment 2-5 regarding development on both sides of Tassajara Creek. Staff recommended the text remain as shown in the Specific Plan. There were no comments from the Commission and there was a 5-0 straw vote concurring with Staff's recommendation. Cm. Barnes noted that it was 7:30 p.m. and recommended that the regular meeting be started. Cm. Zika requested the regular meeting be opened and asked for the roll call. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Barnes, Burnham, North, Rafanelli and Zika; Laurence L. Tong, Planning Director; David K. Choy, Associate Planner; Ralph Kachadourian, Assistant Planner; Brenda Gillarde, Planning Consultant; Libby Silver, City Attorney; and Gail Adams, Recording Secretary. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG Cm. Zika led the Commission, Staff, and those present in the pledge of allegiance to the flag. ADDITIONS OR REVISIONS TO THE AGEIVDA None MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING The minutes for the October 1, 6 and 12, 1992 meeting were approved. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Regular Meeting PCM-1992-221 November 16, 1992 [11-16min] f . • • None WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS None PUBLIC HEARINGS SUBJECT: PA 92-062/063 Valley Center Sign Program PD Modification reauest to modify the zoninq district classification in order to establish a uniform siqn proqram for the shopping center and Conditional Use Permit request to maintain and modifv the existing roof-mounted cabinet siqns and erect a new low profile freestandinq siqn adjacent at 7377-7417 and 7423-7459 Amador Valley Boulevard Cm. Zika opened the public hearing and asked for the staff report. Mr. Ralph Kachadourian presented the staff report to the Commission. Staff recommended that the application be approved. Cm. Burnham indicated that the brick planter box was 12 inches high and the width of the freestanding sign was six feet by 10 inches. What was the depth of the sign? Mr. Kachadourian indicated the depth of the sign had not been addressed; however, he felt that the depth was approximately two feet. Cm. Burnham was concerned with the visibility of the sign. If a van parked on either side of the planter box, the sign could not be seen. He felt that the position of the sign was not appropriate. Mr. Kachadourian indicated that the visibility concerns had been brought to the Applicant's attention and the Applicant had indicated they would review the problem with the property owner. He noted that the Applicant was allowed a higher sign. Cm. Burnham asked how high the sign could be. Mr. Kachadourian stated that the Sign Ordinance allows a sign at a 10 foot height with 30 square feet of sign area at the property line nearest the street frontage. As the sign is setback, the height and sign area can be increased. The sign would need to be inside some type of planter box or landscaping area. However, the site does not have any landscaping within the parking lot itself. Lori Gillum, representing Arrow Sign Compan~r and the property owner, felt that since the sign was required to be within the brick planter box, adding more height would hurt the aesthetics of the sign. The concerns of vehicles parking along side of the sign were addressed with Staff and the property owner. The owner was reviewing the possibility of restricting parking along the frontage of the site. Cm. North asked if there were any concerns with the loss of parking spaces along the frontage of the property. Regular Meeting PCM-1992-222 November 16, 1992 [11-16min] • ~ Ms. Gillium indicated that she was recommending to the property owner to include in the Sign Program that the tenants of the site not be allowed to park along the street frontage for the purpose of advertising. Cm. North asked why the sign could not be moved up to the first parking space. Ms. Gillium indicated that the old pole would be removed in order to allow the current Sign Proqram. The sign could be heightened, however she did not feel the sign would work aesthically. Mr. Kachadourian explained that the freestanding sign could be placed in another location. Ms. Gillium felt that the sign would be better placed at the entrance to the property. Cm. Zika closed the public hearing. Cm. Burnham asked Staff if the Downtown Improvement Committee had at one time suggested that signage be placed by entrance ways so that they would be more visible. Mr. Tong indicated that the Downtown Specific Plan has a policy that would encourage property owners to look into "pylon" style signage. It is not required. On motion from Cm. North, seconded by Cm. Rafanelli, and with a vote of 5-0, the Planning Commission adopted RESOLUTION NO. 92-058 APPROVING PA 92-062/92-063 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REQUEST TO MODIFY THE PD (PLANNED DEVELOPMENT) DISTRICT TO ESTABLISH A SIGN PROGRAM FOR THE VALLEY CENTER AT 7377-7459 AMADOR VALLEY BOULEVARD SUBJECT: PA 92-078 Q-ZAR Laser Tag Commercial Recreation Facility Conditional Use Permit request to establish a laser tag commercial recreation facility within an existing 5,060 square foot buildinq located at 6698 Amador Plaza Road Cm. Zika opened the public hearing and asked for the staff report. Mr. David Choy presented the staff report to the Commission. Staff recommended approval of the Conditional Use Permit. Cm. North asked if there were traffic impacts associated with this use. Mr. Choy explained that the Enea Plaza Shopping Center had dedicated right-of-way for the future Dublin Boulevard parallel road to the City when Enea Plaza Phase II project was approved. In turn, the City relinquished any ability to collect future additional traffic impact fees within Enea Plaza Phase I and II. Regular Meeting PCM-1992-223 November 16, 1992 [11-16min] „ • • Cm. Zika asked if there were any police concerns regarding this use. Mr. Choy indicated that this use differed from an arcade type use in that there was a cost factor involved ($7.00 per game) as well as having limited patrons on the site at any one time. If the use became very popular with patrons loitering outside, the business would be required to implement a"reservations only" policy for admitting patrons. John Richardson explained the difference between the laser tag business and an arcade type use. He described his business as family oriented. It has been part of the European community for some time. The main office is located in the United Kingdom and there are approximately 100 locations throughout the world. There have never been any police problems at these locations and the average age group is over 18. It was a family oriented game and people did not come to "hang out". Mr. Richardson further indicated that the company had taken on the necessary security precautions and wanted the business to be a success. Plans were going forward to have more centers throughout Northern California and the Dublin site would be the first center to open. Mr. Richardson indicated that most arcade centers do not take the necessary security precautions. This would be the first center and he wanted to start out right. There would be several owners on the site as well as a security guard on site at all times with one additional guard at peak hours. He felt that there was not enough entertainment in Dublin and this type of business would be fun for the whole family. Cm. Zika asked how could the age groups be controlled. Mr. Richardson indicated that minors were not required to have identification; however the hours would be posted. Cm. North asked if the Applicant did not foresee any problems, why have the two security guards on site from 7:00 p.m. to 1:00 p.m. Mr. Richardson explained this was offered to the City because of police concerns with the arcade centers. He did not anticipate any problems and Q-ZAR's other facilities did not have any security guards. The Commission asked Sgt. DiFranco of the Dublin Police Services Department if he had any concerns. Sgt. DiFranco noted that this use was somewhat different than an arcade center. However, it was difficult to gauge the extent of impacts since this type of business was not in operation elsewhere. There was not a great deal of entertainment in Dublin for kids and he felt that this was a better use and in a better location than the last arcade application. The management was also much more cooperative. Regular Meeting PCM-1992-224 November 16, 1992 [11-16min] . , ~ ~ Sgt. DiFranco indicated there was a similar use in Fisherman's Wharf; however, that did not have the same surroundings. The Dublin Police Services Department reviewed bowling alleys and pool halls in relation to the hours of operations and any problems that were occurring. Laser tag is a new use in the United States. He indicated the security recommendations were precautionary in nature and hopefully they won't be needed. The department was willing to work with the Applicant. Cm. Zika closed the public hearing. Cm. Burnham asked the Applicant if there were videos monitoring the game. Mr. Richardson indicated yes, there were monitors in the waiting area so people can watch what is going on inside the game room. Cm. Barnes felt that this business was a nice addition to Dublin and was also in an appropriate area. Cm. North noted there were no alcohol establishments nearby. On motion from Cm. Burnham, seconded by Cm. Barnes, and with a vote of 5-0, the Planning Commission adopted RESOLUTION NO. 92-059 APPROVING PA 92-078 Q-ZAR LASER TAG CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO OPERATE A COMMERCIAL RECREATIONAL FACILITY AT 6698 AMADOR PLAZA ROAD Cm. Zika continued on to Item 9.1: Eastern Dublin. He indicated that he had been contacted by an attorney representing Mr. Fairfield's group and Dublin Ranch group. The attorney felt that the Commission might not fully comprehend the issues raised in their letters and wanted to discuss the items with the Commissioners. After a lengthly conversation, the attorney asked if he could re-open the public hearing. Cm. Zika indicated that he would discuss the opening of the public hearing with the Commissioners at this meeting. He was not in favor of re-opening the hearing and indicated that if the attorney had any concerns with the Commissioner's changes, there would be ample opportunities for submitting these concerns to the City Council. Cm. Barnes felt that it was not ethical to discuss these issues with the gentlemen, the public input should be addressed at the Commission meetings, and a lot of time had passed. She had made these statements to the attorney. Cm. North indicated the individual had called him and stated the same concerns as Cm. Barnes and Cm. Zika. He stated to him that it would not be proper to talk outside of the meeting and he would make a decision at this meeting. Regular Meeting PCM-1992-225 November 16, 1992 [11-16min] • • Cm. Rafanelli had the same phone conversation and reiterated the Commissioners' statements. He suggested to the caller that if there was clarification needed on what had been presented in writing, he should contact the Staff. He did not feel that the public hearing should be reopened. Cm. Burnham indicated he did not receive a phone call. The Commission indicated that they would not re-open the public hearing. The Commission and Staff discussed the revised meeting schedule for the Eastern Dublin project. Staff recommended the deletion of the November 30th meeting and to hold additional meetings on December 7 and December 15th. The last meeting would occur on December 21st. This schedule would allow more time for the consultants to adequately respond to the comments received on the Draft EIR. The Commission and Staff discussed the appointment of Commissioners which would be reviewed at an upcoming Council meeting. The Commission approved the revised meeting schedule with upcoming meetings on December 7th, December 15th, and December 21st. The November 30th meeting was cancelled. Ms. Gillarde discussed Comment 2-8 regarding the relationship between the General Plan and Specific Plan areas. Staff recommended retaining the text as is. No comments were received from the Commission and with a straw vote of 5-0, the Commission concurred with Staff's recommendation. Ms. Gillarde continued on to Comment 2-9 which referred to placement of roads affecting open space, trails and wildlife corridors. Staff recommended retaining the text as is. No comments were received from the Commission and with a straw vote of 5-0, the Commission concurred with Staff's recommendation. Ms. Gillarde went on to Comment 2-10 which discussed connections to regional open space, trails and staging areas and Staff recommended retaining the text as shown in the Specific Plan. No comments were received from the Commission and with a straw vote of 5-0, the Commission concurred with Staff's recommendation. Ms. Gillarde indicated that the next group of comments was primarily editorial (Comments 2-6; 2-7; 2-11; 2-12; 2-13; 2-14). Cm. North asked for clarification on the East Bay Regional Park District's concern regarding contributions to the regional park system. Regular Meeting PCM-1992-226 November 16, 1992 [11-16min] . • • Ms. Gillarde explained that the fair share of fees would contribute to parks and open space within the Eastern Dublin area, not regional facilities. Cm. North indicated once Eastern Dublin is developed, there will be an impact on the regional facilities in the area. He asked if the developers would be paying for the improvements needed or would individual property owners pay through tax assessments. Mr. Tong clarified that this was typicall~ done through property taxes. There was no direct formula requiring new development to contribute to regional facilities. Ms. Silver further clarified that East Bay Regional Park District receives a percentage of property taxes. Once Eastern Dublin comes within the park district's boundaries, the district will get a percentage of the property tax. Ms. Gillarde continued on to Comment 3-1 regarding consistency between the proposed plans and roadway projects. The Draft EIR addressed this issue and Staff recommended the text remain as is. No comments were made by the Commission and with a straw vote of 5-0, the Commission concurred with Staff's recommendation. Ms. Gillarde went on to Comment 3-2 regarding the financial feasibility of the project. Staff referred to Chapter 10 and recommended that the text remain as is. No comments were made by the Commission and with a straw vote of 5-0, the Commission concurred with Staff's recommendation. Mr. Tong noted that per the revised County agreement, additional tax tables have been tabulated and these updated tables will be included in the final document. Ms. Gillarde continued to Comment 3-3 regarding funding program consistent with Zone 7 policies. No development will occur unless there is an adequate water supply and the Specific Plan requires a "will serve" letter. Staff recommended that the text remain as is. No comments were made by the Commission and with a straw vote of 5-0, the Commission concurred with Staff's recommendation. Ms. Gillarde moved on to Camment 3-4 regarding Mello Roos bond funding. Policies are included in the Specific Plan addressing this topic and Ms. Gillarde pointed out that the actual funding used will vary. Staff recommended the text remain as is. No comments were made by the Commission and with a straw vote of 5-0, the Commission concurred with Staff's recommendation. Ms. Gillarde went on to Comment 3-5 regarding infrastructure and Mello Roos funding. There are several ways to fund infrastructure and Regular Meeting PCM-1992-227 November 16, 1992 [11-16min] , ~ • certain criteria for funding has to be met as outlined in Chapter 10. Staff recommended text remain as is. No comments were made by the Commission and with a straw vote of 5-0, the Commission concurred with Staff's recommendation. Ms. Gillarde continued on to Comment 3-7 regarding infrastructure funding. She referred to Table 10-3and 10-4 and recommended the text remain as is. No comments were made by the Cammission and with a straw vote of 5-0, the Commission concurred with Staff's recommendation. Ms. Gillarde moved on to Comment 3-8 regarding Caltrans involvement in financing improvements to the freeway. She referred ta page 149 of the Specific Plan and indicated that the City and Caltrans would need to coordinate their efforts to fund these improvements. Staff recommended that the text remain as is. Cm. IVorth asked if surrounding cities would need to contribute to the freeway widening improvements. Ms. Gillarde indicated that the overall improvements would need to be addressed regionally. No comments were made by the Commission and with a straw vote of 5-0, the Commission concurred with Staff's recommendation. Ms. Gillarde referred to Comments 3-6, 3-9 and 3-10 indicating that these comments were editorial in nature and asked the Commission if they had any comments. No comments were made by the Commission and with a straw vote of 5-0, the Commission concurred with Staff's recommendation. Ms. Gillarde continued on to Letter #4 from Hallgrimson, McNichols, McCann & Inderbitzen. She referred to Comment 4-1 regarding Policy 4- 5. Staff felt that this policy should not be revised and the text remain as is. No comments were made by the Commission and with a straw vote of 5-0, the Commission concurred with Staff's recommendation. Ms. Gillarde moved on to Comment 4-2 regarding Program 4D on page 27 of the Specific Plan. Staff recommended the text remain as is. No comments were made by the Commission and with a straw vote of 5-0, the Commission concurred with Staff's recommendation. Ms. Gillarde went on to Comment 4-5 regarding the deletion of Policy 4-26 on page 30 of the Specific Plan. Staff recommended the policy be modified to state, "Maintain sufficient land for housing in reasonable relationship to jobs (employment-generating uses) in the eastern Dublin area." The intent of the policy is to ensure both residential and non-residential uses develop. Regular Meeting PCM-1992-228 November 16, 1992 [11-16min] ' ~ • No comments were made by the Commission and with a straw vote of 5-0, the Commission concurred with Staff's recommendation. Ms. Gillarde continued on to Comment 4-7 regarding Program 40. Staff recommended that the words "where necessary" be added before the phrase "to accommodate the development of...". No comments were made by the Commission and with a straw vote of 5-0, the Commission concurred with Staff's recommendation. Ms. Gillarde went on to Comment 4-9 referring to Program 5A. Staff recommended the road dimensions not be revised and to retain the text as is. Cm. North asked about the allowable speed of 55 mph on the arterial roads. Ms. Gillarde explained this would be the design speed, not necessarily the posted speed. No comments were made by the Commission and with a straw vote of 5-0, the Commission concurred with Staff's recommendation. Ms. Gillarde continued on to Comment 4-12 regarding Program 5F on page 56 of the Specific Plan. Staff recommended the program remain as it appears. The City has adopted a program requiring businesses with 100 employees or more have TSM programs. Cm. North asked for clarification on the City's ordinance requirements. Ms. Gillarde explained that the ordinance required all businesses with 100 or more employees to establish a TSM proqram. After three years, this figure would drop to 50 employees. By the time eastern Dublin develops, the "50 employee" requirement will be in force. No comments were made by the Commission and with a straw vote of 5-0, the Commission concurred with Staff's recommendation. Ms. Gillarde moved on to Comment 4-15 which requests revision of Policy 6-10. Staff recommended replacing the reference to the Corp's "no net loss policy" with the words "current policy"; however retain the remainder of the text as is. No comments were made by the Commission and with a straw vote of 5-0, the Commission concurred with Staff's recommendation. Ms. Gillarde continued on to Comment 4-16 regarding Policy 6-11 (revegetation). Staff recommended revising the policy to include the words "shown as open space in Figure 4.1" and delete reference to Department of Fish and Game. The remainder of the text should not be changed. Regular Meeting PCM-1992-229 November 16, 1992 [11-16min] . ~ • Cm. Zika asked who would oversee the reveqetation if Department of Fish and Game was not referenced. Ms. Gillarde explained that the City would need to work with the Applicant; a biology specialist would need to be obtained. Any alterations to stream corridors is required to be reviewed by Fish and Game. The City could approve the hiring of specialists, not Fish and Game. No comments were made by the Commission and with a straw vote of 5-0, the Commission concurred with Staff's recommendation. Ms. Gillarde went on to Comment 4-17 dealing with Policy 6-14. Staff recommended adding the words "or minimizing" after the words "by avoiding." No comments were made by the Commission and with a straw vote of 5-0, the Commission concurred with Staff's recommendations. Ms. Gillarde moved on to Comment 4-18 referring to Policy 6-17 which dealt with sensitive wildlife species. Staff recommended retaining the text as is. Cm. North asked how "rare and endangered species" and "special status species" correlate with each other. Ms. Gillarde explained that "rare and endangered species" is covered under "special status species". Special status species is a larger category that would cover more situations than just "rare and endangered species". Staff, Commission and Consultants discussed the different types of species that could fall under several different categories; i.e., rare and endangered species; sensitive wildlife species or special status species; as well as the verbiage within the policy. The Commission felt that the language in the Specific Plan should remain as is. Ms. Gillarde continued on to Comment 4-19 regarding Policy 6-19 which referred to roadway underpasses in open space areas. Staff recommended adding the words "or other means of access" after the word "underpasses". The rest of the policy should remain as is. No comments were made by the Commission and with a straw vote of 5-0, the Commission concurred with Staff's recommendation. Ms. Gillarde went on to Comment 4-26 dealing with Policy 6-29 which referred to ridgelines. Staff recommended retaining the text as is. No comments were made by the Commission and with a straw vote of 5-0, the Commission concurred with Staff's recommendation. Ms. Gillarde moved on to Comment 4-27 which requested revising Policy 6-30. Staff recommended modifying this policy to read, "Structures Regular Meeting PCM-1992-230 November 16, 1992 [11-16minJ ` , ~ • built near designated scenic corridors shall be located so that views of the backdrop ridge (identified in Figure 6.3 as 'visually sensitive ridgelands - no development') are generally maintained when viewed from the scenic corridors". No comments were made by the Commission and with a straw vote of 5-0, the Commission concurred with Staff's recommendation. Ms. Gillarde continued on to Comment 4-28 which requested the deletion of Policies 6-33, 6-34 and 6-35 (grading issues) and replace the language as shown in Letter #4. These policies provide a framework on how grading should occur. Staff recommended the deletion of the first sentence of Policy 6-33 and retain the other policies as shown. The Commission felt that the first sentence in Policy 6-33 should not be removed. The policy had very specific guidelines. With a straw vote of 5-0, the Commission requested the policies remain as is. Ms. Gillarde went on to Comment 4-38 which referred to Program 7A which dealt with design review process. Staff recommended the text remain as shown. No comments were made by the Commission and with a straw vote of 5-0, the Commission concurred with Staff's recommendation. Ms. Gillarde moved on to Comment 4-39 addressing Program 7C (Master Streetscape Plan). The Applicant will develop the streetscape plan and Staff recommended the text remain as shown. No comments were made by the Commission and with a straw vote of 5-0, the Commission concurred with Staff's recommendation. Ms. Gillarde continued on to Comment 4-43 pertaining to Program 8G which talks about additional fire stations. DRFA would be the appropriate agency to make determinations; therefore Staff recommended the text remain as is. No comments were made by the Commission and with a straw vote of 5-0, the Commission concurred with Staff's recommendation. Ms. Gillarde indicated that the other comments in Letter #4 were basically editorial in nature. This list included Comments #4-3; 4-4; 4-6; 4-8; 4-10; 4-11; 4-13; 4-14; 4-20 through 4-25; 4-29 through 4- 37; and 4-40 through 48. She asked if the Commission had any concerns or comments on these comments. Cm. Zika referred to Comment 4-11 regarding the buffer zone along Tassajara Creek Trail and asked for clarification. Ms. Gillarde explained that the standard requirements af Fish and Game was 100 feet; not 300. This was a typographical error. Cm. Zika and Cm. North referred to Comment 4-21 regarding specific reviewing agencies and asked for clarification (Program 6E). Regular Meeting PCM-1992-231 November 16, 1992 [11-16min] , . ~ • Ms. Gillarde explained that it was not necessary to specify who would be the responsible agency. It could be a different agency by the time the project is in the review process or the agencies could change their names, etc. The Commission and Staff discussed the appropriate wording for Program 6E. Mr. Tong suggested that Policy 6-9 could read, "Prior to submittal of development applications, the appropriate agencies, such as...". The Commission concurred with Mr. Tong and requested Staff to make the appropriate languages changes to Policy 6-9 (Program 6E). Cm. North referred to Comment 4-24 and asked if the recent reports regarding transmission lines were a concern to Staff. Mr. Hammond indicated that he had seen the reports and they were inconclusive. Cm. North referred to Comment 4-33 and thought that Staff ineant Bullet #1, not #2. Staff concurred with Cm. North. Cm. North had concerns with the language revisions recommended by Staff for Section 7.2.2. These revisions were more generalized with weaker requirements. Ms. Gillarde explained that for flood control purposes, there might be a need for channelization. Cm. Zika referred to Comment 4-37 regarding street widths. He asked what were the standard widths of residential streets. Ms. Gillarde explained that there was a 12 foot requirement from curb line to right-of-way which includes a 6 foot sidewalk and planter strip. It does not affect the width of the road. The sidewalk and planter strip would be reduced to 5 feet which would give a 10 foot requirement from curb line to right-of-way. Cm. North referred to Comment 4-35, section "Building Siting" and asked if the front yard setback would be 5 feet. Ms. Gillarde and Mr. Tong responded that the reference should be for the sideyard setbacks, not front yard setbacks. Cm. North referred to grading comments (Section 7.3, page 99 of the Specific Plan) and asked for clarification on eliminating grading limitations on residential lots. Ms. Gillarde indicated Staff felt that, due to the terrain, this requirement might be too restrictive. Regular Meeting PCM-1992-232 November 16, 1992 [11-16min] . r r . • Cm. North referred to Comment 4-48 regarding fire impact fees. He asked what happens if the second fire station is not built until later years, such as 6-10 years from now. The cost will increase drastically in this length of time and felt that the cost figures should not be specific. Ms. Gillarde explained that the cost estimates would be based on current figures and language could be added to clarify that these projections are based on current (1992) costs. Cm. Zika continued the meeting to November 17, 1992 at 7:00 p.m. The discussions would start with Letter #5 of the staff report. The meeting was adjourned at 10:15 p.m. Respectfully submitted, ~ ~ Planning ission airperson Laurence L. ong Planning Director Regular Meeting PCM-1992-233 November 16, 1992 [11-16min]