Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Minutes 06-04-1996 ~ • ~ Regular Meeting June 4, 1996 A regular meeting of the City of Dublin Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, June 4, 1996, in the Dublin Civic Center City Council Chambers. The meeting was called to order at 7:30 by Commissioner Lockhart. * ROLL CALL ~ Present: Commissioners Geist, Johnson, Lockhart and Zika; Eddie Peabody, Community Development Director; Carol Cirelli, ~Senior Planner; Jeri Ram, Associate Planner, Tasha Huston, Associate Planner and Gaylene Burkett, Recording Secretary. Absent: Commissioner Jennings * PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG Cm. Lockhart led the Commission, Staff, and those present in the pledge of allegiance to the flag. * ADDITIONS OR REVISIONS TO THE AGENDA The minutes of the May 21, 1996, meeting were approved as submitted. * ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None * WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS None * PUBLIC HEARING 8.1 PA 96-014 Trumark Homes PD Rezone, Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map and Site Development Review A request for a PD Rezone, Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map and Site Development Review to allow 92 single family detached residential units on approximately 8.9 acres of land. The project is located along the Southern Pacific Right of Way west of Dougherty Road. Regular Meeting 51 7une 4, 1996 [6-4pcmi] • ~ • Cm. Lockhart asked for the staff report. Jeri Ram, Associate Planner, presented the staff report. She gave a history of the project. She stated that the previous approvals by the Planning Commission and the City Council were for a General Plan Amendment also a Negative Declaration and Mitigated Monitoring Program. She showed the site plan on the overhead projector. She stated the project was the same configuration, however, the circulation has been slightly modified far better access for fire and police. She went over the parking for each unit. She stated each unit had a two car garage and the project allowed for .75 guest parking per unit. She stated the project is dense, and the Applicant has opened the project up by providing single story plans along the entry street of the subdivision. Some units ha~e exclusive use easements where they cannot build within the easement, however, they can plant in that area. She explained the elevations were a 360 degree design; the design concept in the front of the units will carry around to the side and back of the units. She showed the Planning Commission the color and materials that will be used. Staff was recommended that a higher grade roof shingle be used, and because there was a lot of roof in this development, it was necessary to use the higher grade to make the project look better. Conditions of approval have been added, one is the higher grade of shingle and the other is to pay the required fees. This would include the Public Facilities Fee. There was a provision stating that if the fee is recalculated, the developer would pay no more than the current rate of $3,332. There was two portions to the fee and the $3,332 relates to the communiTy parks portion of the fee. The neighborhood parks portion of the fee will be calculated by the City's Quimby Ordinance which will be calculated at the time of final map based on the market value of the land. She stated the developer would not pay more than $3,332 per unit in the community parks portion of the Public Facility Fees. The Planned Development Rezone changes the zoning district from M-1 Light Industrial to R-1 Residential. She stated Staff recommends approval of the project Cm. Zika asked what would happen if the Public Facility Fee was recalculated and the fee was lower? Mr. Peabody stated that would not pay higher than $3,332 for part one of the fee, however if it were lower, then they would pay the lower fee. Cm. Johnson asked about parking along the street. Ms. Ram stated there would be parking on the main street but not on the cul-de-sacs. Cm. Johnson asked where cars would be placed if people used their garages for storage, or they had a third car. Where would they park their cars? He had a concern about that situation. Ms. Ram stated that the applicant had provided more parking than what is typically seen around Dublin. There would also be CC&R's that would restrict parking. Mr. Peabody stated he lived in a development where there is no parking on the street, and he only had a 5 foot driveway. The CC&R's would have to be enforced. Once someone is cited or towed, they learn quickly to obey.the rules. Cm. Zika asked where the homeowners garbage cans would go with our new garbage collection in Dublin. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Regulaz Meeting 52 June 4, 1996 (6-4pcmi] • ~ i Ms. Ram stated the Livermore Dublin Disposal Services did indicate that they could service the area. She lived in a development where she put her garbage can out near the street and they picked it up. Cm. Lockhart asked if the garbage company would have to use the driveways to turn around. Ms. Ram stated the garbage company indicated they had enough room to turn around. Cm. Johnson stated on his standard cul-de-sac in his neighborhood, there was not enough room for the truck to turn around. Where would they store the garbage cans? Ms. Ram stated the garbage can be stored in the side or rear yard. Mike Maples, Trumark Homes, thanked staff for all their work they had put in the project. He gave a history of how Yhis project came about. He stated that they proposed a Homeowners Association to address and keep an eye on some of the issues that were raised. He stated that the landscaping was enhanced with more mature trees and plants and they would be maintained by the Homeowners Association. He stated the parking has been reworked to 2.75 parking spaces permit, and the buyer profile was targeted to smaller families. He stated that a strong Homeowners Association would ensure compliance on the parking issue. The garbage company did not anticipate a problem because of the short streets, They have cameras on the back of their trucks and are used to help back up the large trucks. He went over the privacy issue and certain lots would require to have staggered windows to avoid line of site. He stated the price for these units would be about $190,000 to $235,000. Cm. Lockhart asked Mr. Maples if he had a concern with the higher grade shingle. Mr. Maples stated he agreed with everything staff recommended. Cm. Lockhart asked if anyone would like to address this issue. Hearing none, he closed the public hea~`ing. On motion by Cm. Zika, seconded by Cm. Johnson and with a vote of 4-0, with Cm. Jennings absent, the Planning Commission unanimously adopted Resolution No. 96-16 APPROVING PA 96-014 TRUMARK HOMES RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE AND ESTABLISH FINDINGS, GENERAL PROVISIONS, AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR A PD, PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REZONING AND Resolution No. 96-17 APPROVING PA 96-014 TRUMARK HOMES VESTING TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP AND SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW Regular Meeting . 53 June 4, 1996 [6-4pcmi] , • i . 8.2 PA 94-028 Schaefer Ranch General Plan Amendment and EIR The Applicants are .proposing : esidential and commercial development for their collective parcels totaling SOOf acres. The project is located along the northern side of the I-580 freeway, adjacent to the City's western boundary. The proposed project includes the following: A General Plan Amendment; Planned Development Rezoning, Tentative Subdivision Map, Development Agreement and subsequent Annexation. The project components scheduled for consideration at the June 4, 1996 Planning Commission meeting include the Environmental Impact Report and the General Plan Amendment documents. Cm. Lockhart asked for the staff report. Tasha Huston, Associate Planner, presented the staff report. She gave a brief history of the project. She stated that the project applicants approached the City in 1994 with the proposal for development of approximately 500 acres in the Western Dublin extended planning area. She also stated the draft EIR was distributed in December, 1995. Two meetings were held before the Planning Commission regarding the draft EIR, in order to receive public comments. The City received comments and the responses to these comments have been incorporated into the final EIR. The final EIR was distributed on May 23, 1996 for public review. She stated the EIR was an information document that addressed environmental impacts and to provide the appropriate mitigation needed in order to help the decision makers. She stated that the EIR and the responses to comments addresses the issues raised. She asked the Planning Commission to review the responses to comments and indicate any questions or areas that need clarification. The General Plan Amendment document is a policy document that modifies the City's current land use in certain areas to accommodate the annexation of the project. She stated staff recommended that the Planning Commission adopt the resolution recommending City Council certification of the EIR and adoption of the General Plan Amendment. Cm. Zika asked if the school issue between Dublin and Castro Valley had been resolved? Ms. Huston stated there was discussions between the two districts and the EIR does have a mitigation measure that states the school district issue would need to be resolved before the tentative map certification. Cm. Johnson asked if there were built in time lines that had to be addressed before we can proceed. Mr. Peabody stated school mitigation must be resolved at the time of a Tentative Map. He stated there was active discussions between the two school districts on this issue. Cm. Zika asked how many of the homes being built would actually be in the Castro Valley School District? ~ Mr. Peabody answered all of the homes would be in the Castro Valley School District. Cm. Zika statect that was a problem. He also asked about the location of the park? Ms. Huston responded that it was concept land uses and the definite area of where the park would go does not have to be determined at this time. Regular Meeting 54 June 4, 1996 [6-4pcmi] I w ~ ~ Cm. Zika stated that he wanted his concerns regarding the school issues be made aware to the developer and that these issues need to be resolved. Cm. Johnson asked about the extension of Dublin Boulevard to Schaefer Ranch. Ms. Huston stated that the primary access was based on the General Plan Amendment document and would be from Eden Canyon for the remainder of the properties. Cm. Zika stated that if they had put in a connector road, from Dublin Boulevard to Schaefer Ranch this project would not have gotten this far. Jim Parsons, Applicant from PA Design Resources, stated they were the land planners and civil engineers for the project. ~-Ie stated he had reviewed the EIR and response to comments, and felt WPM had done a good job, developed solid mitigation measures, response to comments and prepared a good General Plan Amendment. He thanked staff and especially Tasha for the good job that helped get this project to where it is today. He stated that they hoped the Planning Commission would close the public hearing and recommend certification of the Final EIR and adoption of the General Plan Amendment to the City Council. He responded to the comment on the school issues. They are continuing to work on this issue, there was a meeting scheduled on June 7 and they were hoping for resolution between the districts soon. The parks issue was taken seriously, and they are looking into a system of parks that address the needs of the City. Mr. Parsons responded to the Dublin Boulevard extension issue and that a road will go out there however, the project was designed in keeping with direction received during the joint study sessions and that the road does not provide primary access to the property to the west. Cm. Johnson stated he still did not like the future planning of the project in relation with the fire safety issues beyond this project site. He asked if the fire department had any concerns? Mr. Parsons responded that the Fire Department has been involved with a high level of detail. Chief Diekman, Dougherty Regional Fire Authority, stated that they were not concerned with the issues beyond this project. He stated that the location is outside of their service area and there were no future planning areas beyond it. They work well with the neighboring cities and the strategic operating plan that allows them to serve that area in its current condition. Cm. Lockhart asked if anyone wished to address this issue, hearing none, he closed the public hearing. On motion by Cm. Geist, seconded by Cm. Zika and with a vote of 3-1-1, Cm. Johnson voted against the motion, with Cm. Jennings absent, the Planning Commission majority voted to adopt Resolution No. 96-18 RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL CERTIFICATION OF THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE SCHAEFER RANCH PROJECT GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT AND ADOPTION OF THE SCHAEFER RANCH PROJECT GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Regular Meeting 55 June 4, 1996 [6-4pcmi] f '2.l<,.n"''~f • ~ ~ 9. ~1EW OR UNFINISHED BUSINESS 9.1 Eastern Dublin Grazing Management Plan and Wildfire Management Plan As the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment/Specific Plan EIR requires, the City has completed a Grazing Management Plan and Wildfire Management Plan that will promote the protection of riparian and wetland areas and reduce the risk of open land wildfire while protecting wildlife habitat and other open space values. LOCATION: Wildfire Management Plan - Citywide Grazing Management Plan - Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment Area Cm. Lockhart asked for the staff report. Carol Cirelli, Sr. Planner, presented the staff report. She gave reasons why the Eastern Dublin Grazing Management Plan and Wildfire Management Plan were necessary. She stated the measure requires that the City adopt a Grazing Management Plan that would protect the wetland and riparian areas. The Eastern Dublin project would result in a loss of approximately 3700 acres of open space/grazing lands. She stated that there were two major measures regarding the project, s.trategically placing salt blocks, nutrient dispensers and water sources in the upland dryer locations which will reduce the movement of the cattle and the horses into the riparian corridor along the creek. The second major measure was placing limited exclusionary fencing to protect the species around the creek. She stated land owners would be asked to enter into agreements for land owner to adopt these measures on a voluntary basis. The City would take a lead in encouraging this. She stated the document included 9 grazing manage~nent guidelines. 1) Install watering troughs and nutrient dispensers above Tassajara Creek. 2) Construct enclosures around springs, seeps and spring fed ponds. 3) Discontinue livestock grazing within Tassajara Creek. 4) Install exclusionary fencing around the Arroyo Willow riparian woodland along the Fallon Road tributary. 5) Install Exclusionary fencing around the known locations of the red-legged frog populations. 6) Manage excessive fuel loads within the rural residential/agriculture and open space areas through cattle and horse grazing. 7) Manage animal grazing and forage utilization for assuring that appro~riate amounts of RDM remain on the ground at the end of the season. 8) Provide supplemental feeding of cattle and horses and 9) Restrict use of rodenticides. The document also includes some monitoring conditions that state the City will be monitaring the progress of the Grazing Plan. Ms. Cirelli then presented the Wildfire Managenient Plan. She stated the plan was prepared in conjunction with DRFA. The plan includes 5 main topic areas. 1) Ownership and Financing of maintenance for open space. 2) Plan submittal requirements for Tentative Map, SDR and building permits. 3) Building construction requirements. 4) Vegetation establishment and maintenance standards and 5) Plant species list. There are still some unresolved issues with the plan, and tonight we received a letter from the Lin Family regarding this issue. Staff feels both the Grazing Management Plan and the Wildfire Management Plan satisfy the requirements of the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan EIR. Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend City Council approval. Cm. Zika asked who would monitor the grazing plan? Ms. Cirelli stated it would be City staff, the planning department. Cm Zika asked about the extra nutrients that are being put out, would that hurt existing wildlife. Ms. Cirelli said~a biologist had recommended the extra nutrients and that it would not have any negative impact on wildlife. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - = - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Regulaz Meeting 56 June 4, 1996 [6-4pcmi] • ~ ~ ~ Cm. Zika asked if a kit fox has been seen in Eastern Dublin? He stated that the red legged frog was put on the endangered species list after the big frog jumping contest. He asked if the homes required sprinkler systems that back up against the open land? Ms. Cirelli stated yes to last question. Cm. Lockhart asked if a plan goes through a phase and stops, would the houses at the edge of the first phase also require sprinklers? Cm. Johnson asked if someone monitored the open land behind his house on Via Zapata? Ms. Cirelli stated no. She continued to state that the Grazing Management Plan would only apply to Eastern Dublin. Chief Diekman spoke in regards to the fire protection issues. They had consulted with fire experts and many of the requirements were due to what was learned by the Oakland fires in the East Bay hills. He explained the concept of the plan. He stated the sprinkler requirements came from learning that the buildings that were sprinklered in the East Bay hills, stopped the fire from entering the interior of those buildings. Property re~uired to have sprinklers are based on whether they back up to open space land which has no future development plans. If the open space land was going to be developed the buildings would not be required to have sprinklers. Cm. Johnson asked about an area behind Via Zapata that has an open area and a creek, would those houses require to have sprinklers? Chief Diekman stated the answer may vary, if there was a drainage canal arrangement then probably not. If there was open space involved with the drainage canal the answer would probably be yes. Cm. Johnson asked if the houses along Tassajara Creek would be required to have sprinklers? Chief Diekman stated given the little bit of information, probably yes. Schaefer Ranch would all be sprinklered due to the open space and the response time required to reach that development. The Planning Commission took a few moments to review a letter received from Dave Chadbourne. Dave Chadbourne, McKay and Somps, stated they represent the Dublin Ranch properties. He summarized the issues outlined in his letter. They had a few main issues of concern. The approach to the plans seemed to be driven by a heavily forested project, Dublin Ranch has only a few trees through out the 1037 acres. He stated the irrigation requirements would be costly with no other alternatives. He stated the City's irrigation requirements was not standard practice compared to other communities in the area. Another concern was the 30 foot unvegetated buffer which was in conflict with the Specific Plan and EIR. This was a large matter, and thev recognized the need for the plan, but they feel there should be more flexibility to the plan. Cm. Zika responded that once an open field catches fire, one could only run. He stated there must be some type of ineasures taken to ensure the homes were protected. He felt if there wasn't any plans for development to the area, he would vote for the fire sprinklers in the homes. Dave stated that the 125 foot irrigated buffer would be a bigger concern for them. He felt the plans were geared towards the Schaefer Ranch project with a lot more woodland areas versus grass land areas. Bob Harris, Lin Property representative, stated they have been studying the issues, and had met with the Fire Chief. He indicated that Chief Diekman made some revisions to the plan, but they were not able to review the plans until the packets went out to the Planning Commission. He asked the item be continued so that they could discuss the situation further with the Fire Chief. He felt the 125 foot buffer was not realistic when other cities - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Regulaz Meeting 57 June 4, 1996 [6-4pcmi] . ~ . ~ have 30-40 feet. They had hired a consultant to help develop a Homeowners Association and the consultant stated he had n~ver seen a:-~quirement such as this fire buffer. Cm. Johnson asked what about the rest of the City, do we have a regulation regarding open space? Mr. Peabody stated no, not at the moment. Cm. Johnson asked who monitors this area? . Chief Diekman thought Mr. Harris raised some good issues. Especially on how to determine if land was destined to be developed. He gave an example of how a buffer zone worked. He stated the California Department of Forestry looked at the plan, and would like to use it as a standard for some of their areas. He felt the buffer should not be the City's burden to provide an alternative, it should be the developers burden to offer alternatives, apply for a variance and go through the board of appeals or the City CounciL He stated DRFA would not voluntarily modify the sprinkler requirements or the buffer requirements. Cm. Johnson asked if the sprinkler system would have to maintain the area 120 feet away from the property? Chief Diekman responded that only in extreme cases and the plant species required it. He stated that the wildfire management plan was a new incoming requirement and there were very few communities in California that use this plan. Dublin is amongst one of the first cities to use this plan. Cm. Zika asked if this plan was a set of guidelines? Chief Diekman'answered yes. Cm. Zika asked what type of plant would grow without water. Chief Diekman stated there were plant species that occur naturally. Some times, in developments, there is ~ot irrigation, but the plants grow. The Eastern Dublin Specific Plan requires that these types of issues be looked at. This is a first in Dublin and this plan sets guidelines for a developer. If a developer had an innovative and creative project that could address these issues, bring them forward to the City. Cm. Lockhart stated his house backs up to open space and he felt that the owner has some responsibility to maintain that open space so that it does not create a hazard to his property. He stated the developer would have to go 125 feet against a open area. Chief Diekman stated this plan would establish who's responsible for it and how it would be done. Cm. Lockhart stated that the developer was being asked to go 125 feet out, because DRFA does not want to have to ask the homeowner to cut their weeds. Chief Diekman stated the buffer was a direct benefit to that development. He stated that the t~ payers pay for the fire department to maintain areas in Dublin. The guidelines to the document was not to incur on going costs to the City. Cm. Geist asked if the developer backs up to another properiy, and the property owner does not give permission to go onto his property. Mr. Peabody stated if a 125 foot buffer was to be built and a homeowners association would be part of the project the issue would be taken care of. Cm. Zika suggested that his item be postponed: Regular Meeting 5$ June 4, 1996 [6-4pcmi] ' ~ ~ Mr. Peabody stated Staff needed direction from the Planning Commission on how to proceed with the item. Or instruct Staff and interested parties to get together and have the matter resolved by the City Council. Cm. Johnson stated staff may need time to address the letter from Dave Chadbourne. Cm. Lockhart stated in a perfect world, we want everyone to be safe from fires, however, we want the houses to be affordable. He stated that maybe they would need more feedback from Chief Diekman and the Property owners the Lin family. Cm. Zika stated that the language may need to be modified stating these are guidelines, however, there could be options from developers. Mr. Peabody stated that there was language that addressed that, however, maybe the language might need to be more prominent. Cm. Lockhart stated he would like to see it less restrictive than 125 feet from the building. On motion by Cm. Zika, seconded by Cm. Lockart and with a vote of 4-0, with Cm. Jennings absent, the Plamiing Commission voted to recommend adoption to City Council of the Grazing Management Plan and to continue the Wildfire Management Plan. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 9:55 p.m. Respectfully submitted, ~ C Plannmg ommiss' Chairperson ATTEST: ~ Community Development Directar Regulaz Meeting ' S9 June 4, 1996 [6-4pcm1]