Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Minutes 12-21-1992 ~ ~ ~ . ' Reqular Meetinq - December 21, 1992 A regular meeting of the City of Dublin Planning Commission was held on December 21, 1992, in the Dublin Civic Center Council Chambers. The meeting was called to order at 6:30 p.m. by Commissioner Zika. ROLL CALL Commissioners Barnes, Burnham, North, Rafanelli and Zika; Laurence L. Tong, Planning Director; Brenda Gillarde, Planning Consultant; Libby Silver, City Attorney; and Gail Adams, Recording Secretary. SUBJECT: PA 87-031 Eastern Dublin: Remaining Comments on the Draft Specific Plan; Part I of the Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR Cm. Zika indicated that this was a continuation of the December 7th meeting regarding responses to comments on the Eastern Dublin project. Ms. Gillarde indicated the purpose for tonight's meeting was to 1) review and discuss Part II of the Response to Comments; 2) to review the text revisions to the General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan which had been requested by the Commission and 3) consider the three resolutions. One resolution was to recommend City Council certification of the Final EIR; the second was to recommend City Council adoption of the General Plan Amendment; the third was to recommend City Council adoption of the Specific Plan. Ms. Gillarde indicated there were two inserts to the Responses which were 1) revisions to Part I of the Responses to Comments regarding Kit Fox; and 2) a letter from DKS Associates dated December 15, 1992 responding to traffic issues. These two attachments become part of the Responses to Comments which is part of the Final EIR. Ms. Gillarde explained the process of reviewing the text changes shown in the staff report. As in previous meetings, the Commission would ask questions regarding the responses, indicate if they concurred with Staff and then take appropriate action by straw vote. Cm. North had concerns with the level of service indicators, such as "E" and "F". The report shows "exceeding LOS E". Why not indicate the level of service at "F". Is there a figure between level E and F? Mr. Tong indicated that the traffic engineer would be arriving soon and would be able to explain the language in the report. Cm. North stated that there were several places in the report that shows traffic "exceeding LOS D or E". He requested clarifications. He referred to page 4 regarding the mitigation measures and had concerns with the language "Caltrans in cooperation with the local jurisdictions could construct auxiliary lanes". The word "could" should be changed to "should". Mr. Tong explained the Caltrans has prepared a route concept report for I-580. This report is considered preliminary and the wording is appropriate. Regular Meeting PCM-1992-246 December 21, 1992 [12-21min] 1 . ~ ~ Cm. North asked what happens if Caltrans does not construct the additional lanes. Mitigation measures 3.3 indicates "could" construct; which indicates that it might not happen. Would this mitigation measure be moot if it could not implemented? Mr. Tong indicated Caltrans stated could construct the additional lanes; however this was not absolute. He thought Cm. North might be correct in his assumption. Cm. Zika asked if Caltrans did not construct the lanes, the City could exceed its LOS policy and therefore would have to deny any building permits that would exceed the level of service allowed. Mr. Tong indicated yes. If the levels shown in the report were exceeded, the City would have to stop issuing permits. Mr. Hammond pointed out that on page 4 the mitigation measures was for "cumulative without project". There will be additional development outside of Eastern Dublin that will account for additional traffic impacts. The City of Dublin could not do anything to prevent this. Cm. North felt that using the words "could" and "exceeding" would be somewhat ambiguous. Mr. Tong's understanding was if you exceed LOS E you were into LOS F. He would confirm this with the traffic engineer. Also, when Caltrans has a route concept or preliminary report, this is in its study stages. If it is formerly acted upon, they will make the improvements as long as they can secure the necessary funds. Cm. North asked Staff if the Dougherty Valley project in Contra Costa County have any significant impacts on the Eastern Dublin project. Mr. Tong indicated yes. The Board of Supervisors could approve the project for up to 11,000 dwelling units. Staff feels that there would be significant traffic impacts on the Eastern Dublin area that are not adequately addressed. This project would not affect the processing of Eastern Dublin and the traffic analysis anticipates a certain level of development in Dougherty Valley. Mr. Tong indicated that Mehran Sepehri, the City's traffic engineer, was now present. He referred to wording throughout the report that stated "exceeding LOS E" and asked if this would indicate LOS F. Mr. Sepehri indicated that exceeding LOS E would mean LOS F. Congestion Management Agency (CMA) uses this language and we have maintained consistency with them. Mr. Tong referred to page 3.3-18 regarding local roads. This wording states "exceeding LOS D" in order to keep terminology consistent. Mr. Tong referred to page 4 where it reads, "Caltrans in cooperation with local jurisdictions "could" construct auxiliary lanes on I- Regular Meeting PCM-1992-247 December 21, 1992 [12-21min] . ~ ~ 580...". He asked Mehran if the word "could" implied that Caltrans might not make the improvements. Mr. Sepehri explained that Caltrans had their own procedures, such as environmental reports. They could, through their review process, decide not to construct lanes. The City of Dublin cannot tell Caltrans they must build the lanes. Cm. North felt that the word "could" would not create a required mitigation measure. Could the language be phrased "...if and when Caltrans construct the auxiliary lanes, then the significance can be reduced to acceptable level". This would create a more positive statement. Mr. Tong felt that the language could be restructured to read "...at the time Caltrans construct...". These improvements will be necessary regardless of what happens with Caltrans. Cm. North indicated that on several mitigation measures the terms "...implementing improvements in coordination..." were used. He asked for clarification. Mr. Tong referred the traffic engineer to MM 3.3/7.0 on page 10. Mr. Sepehri explained that any freeway improvements needed to be coordinated with Caltrans. Mr. Tong further explained that this phrase may also mean help fund, design or construct the improvements. This particular mitigation is within Caltrans' jurisdiction as well as the City of Pleasanton. The City of Dublin would be responsible for putting in the improvements with Caltrans approval and City of Pleasanton's input. Ms. Silver explained that the purpose of this language is to make it clear who is the lead agency. The lead agency is responsible for making sure the improvements are completed nad have to coordinate their efforts with other agencies. The Commission and Staff discussed the grammar confusion. The Commission felt that the phrase should read "...implementing the improvements in coordination...". Cm. North referred to page 146 regarding Williamson Act and felt that Comment 10-1 should be incorporated into this wording. Ms. Gillarde indicated that the Final EIR would consist of the Draft EIR, Part I and II of the Responses to Comments. Comment 10-1 is within Part I of the Responses to Comments. The Planning Commission requested that grammatical changes referred to previously be included in the EIR. No further comments were made, and with a straw vote of 5-0, the Planning Commission concurred with Staff's recommendations and text changes. Regular Meeting PCM-1992-248 December 21, 1992 [12-21min] . • ~ . Ms. Gillarde continued on to the Adequacy of the Responses section of the staff report. Staff recommended the Commission discuss, if necessary, any issues the Commission felt were not adequately addressed by the EIR. Cm. North referred to Item 27-16 and asked if the City would need to revise the EIR to accommodate any future expansion of Camp Parks. Mr. Tong indicated that no revision to the EIR would be necessary since Staff, including the City Manager, met periodically with the chief administrators for Camp Parks, the Presidio and Ft. Lewis to update each other on respective plans to ensure proper coordination. These updates were built into Staff's responses to the EIR. No further comments were made, and with a straw vote of 5-0, the Planning Commission concurred with Staff's recommendations and text changes, as discussed in the Adequacy of the Responses section of the staff report. Ms. Gillarde continued on to the review of text revisions to the General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan (Attachments 6 and 7), which had been discussed in previous Planning Commission meetings. No comments were made by the Planning Commission on the text revisions to the General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan. Ms. Gillarde moved on to the Planning Commission resolution to recommend City Council certification of the Final EIR, which consists of the Draft EIR, dated August 28, 1992, and Part I(dated December 7, 1992) and Part II (dated December 21, 1992) of the Responses to Comments, revisions to Part I of the Response to Comments regarding Kit Fox, dated December 7, 1992, and the letter from DKS to the City, dated December 15, 1992. On a motion by Cm. North, seconded by Cm. Barnes, and with a vote of 5-0, the Planning Commission adopted RESOLUTION NO. 92-060 A RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL CERTIFICATION OF THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE EASTERN DUBLIN GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT AND SPECIFIC PLAN Ms. Gillarde continued on to the Planning Commission resolution to recommend City Council adoption of the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment, and clarified that this was the Draft General Plan Amendment, dated May 27, 1992, with the recommended revisions as shown in Attachment 6, dated December 21, 1992. On a motion by Cm. North, seconded by Cm. Rafanelli, and with a vote of 5-0, the Planning Commission adopted Regular Meeting PCM-1992-249 December 21, 1992 [12-21min] . ~ ~ - RESOLUTIUN NO. 92-061 A RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL ADOPTION OF THE EASTERN DUBLIN GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT Ms. Gillarde moved on to the Planning Commission resolution to recommend City Council adoption of the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan, and clarified that this was the Draft Specific Plan document dated May 27, 1992, and the text revisions dated December 21, 1993 (Attachment 7). On a motion by Cm. Barnes, seconded by Cm. Burnham, and with a vote of 5-0, the Planning Commission adopted RESOLUTION 92-062 A RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL ADOPTION OF THE EASTERN DUBLIN SPECIFIC PLAN The Commission praised Staff and Consultants for an excellent job and acknowledged them for their hard work, thoroughness, and responsiveness to both the Commission's and public's concerns. Cm. Zika thanked the public and public agencies for their valuable time and effort, and reminded them to attend the City Council meetings. The meeting was adjourned at 7:30 p.m. Respectfully submitted, ~f anning ommi si C airperson . Laurence L. Tong Planning Director Regular Meeting PCM-1992-250 December 21, 1992 [12-21min]