Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Minutes 12-07-1992 . • ~ - ~ Regular Meeting - December 7, 1992 A regular meeting of the City of Dublin Planning Commission was held on December 7, 1992, in the Dublin Civic Center Council Chambers. The meeting was called to order at 7:00 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 November 17th meeting. He indicated that there might be an absentee problem with the scheduled meeting on December 15th. The Commission and Staff discussed the meeting schedule for the Eastern Dublin project. After discussing various scheduling options, a decision was made to have a meeting on December 21st starting at 6:30 p.m. and closing at 11:00 p.m. If the discussions cannot be completed at this meeting, the discussion will be continued until January 4th at 7:00 p.m. Ms. Gillarde indicated that on this evening's agenda there caere two items - 1) additional comments on the Specific Plan and 2) the beginning review of the responses to the Draft EIR (Part I). The Specific Plan comments were from Ted Fairfield's letter dated September 7th. Comment A-1 related to floor area ratio being too low and the acreage for the high school site being too high. The floor area ratio for General Commercial and Industrial Park is shown in the Specific Plan as a range; it is not meant to imply the minimum or maximum amount of development. The high school acreage is on the high end; however, this is due to the topography of the site. Staff recommends the text remain as shown in the Specific Plan. No comments were made by the Commissian and with a straw vote of 5-0, the Commission concurred with Staff's recommendations. Ms. Gillarde continued on to Comment A-2 reqarding Policy 6-12 (detention basins). This policy does not require detention basins; however, they are preferred over channelization. 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 recommendations. Ms. Gillarde went on to Comment A-3 regarding Policy 6-38 (cut and fill}. In small, minor areas, there could be slopes greater than 3:1 ratio. Staff recommended that the text be revised to allow minor exceptions subject to approval by the Public Works Department. Regular Meeting PCM-1992-241 December 7, 1992 [12-7min] • ~ . ; , Cm. North asked what the definition of "minor" was. Ms. Gillarde indicated Staff did not discuss the percentage amounts. These minor exceptions would be reviewed on a case-by-case and approved by the Public Works Director. Cm. Zika had a concern with the general language, i.e., "minor". He preferred more specific statements. Cm. Burnham was under the impression that all grading needed to be approved by the Public Works Director, whether major or minor. Mr. Tong indicated that most cuts needed a grading permit. These are reviewed by the Planning Department and Public Works Department. Cm. North indicated if the language was within the conditions of approval, it would be allowed, in certain areas, to exceed the ratio of 3:1. The term "minor" could end up being 10-15 acres. Mr. Tong stated that the policy does not include the term "major" or "minor" in order to allow flexibility and Staff could make that determination. If the determination was challenged, the Commission and/or Council would make the final decision. Cm. Zika felt that the policy was a guideline; not set in stone. He thought that if someone came in with a plan somewhat different than the policy, they could have their proposal reviewed. Is this correct? Mr. Tong indicated yes; there was a certain amount of flexibility. If the proposal was definitely counter to the written policy, then the Applicant would need to apply for an amendment to that policy. The Commission and Staff discussed the flexibility of the current language in Policy 6-38 and with a straw vote of 5-0, the Commission requested the language remain as shown. Ms. Gillarde moved on to Comment A-4 dealing with the golden eagle nest and kit fox issues. Staff recommended the location of the nest be adjusted slightly on Figure 6.2; however, recommended the word "potential" remain within the kit fox language and referred to Appendix E of the Draft EIR. No comments were made by the Commission and with a straw vote of 5-0, the Commission concurred with Staff's recommendatians. Ms. Gillarde continued on to Comment A-5 reqarding the tributary of Tassajara Creek. Staff recommended revising Figure 6.3 to show the southernmost tributary as an intermittent stream course rather than part of Tassajara Creek. No comments were made by the Commission and with a straw vote of 5-0, the Commission concurred with Staff's recommendations. Regular Meeting PCM-1992-242 December 7, 1992 [12-7min] ~ • . Ms. Gillarde went on to Comment A-6 dealing with design guidelines for the Gateway Subarea. Staff does not want to create a"walled" effect along community streets. The buildings could be tall, yet oriented so that a pedestrian environment is maintained. Landscaping adjacent to the freeway can be designed to allow signage visibility along the freeway. 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 recommendations. Ms. Gillarde continued on to Comment A-7 dealing with Program 7B. This program requires certain information be reviewed by Staff which is the typical or normal processing of proposals. 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 recommendations. Ms. Gillarde indicated that the next section of the staff report dealt with the responses to comments on the Draft EIR. Part 1 deals with responses and comments dealing with text changes to the Draft EIR. The second group deals with rnajor adequacy issues raised. She indicated Staff feels that between the Draft EIR and Responses to Comments, the adequacy issues have been adequately addressed. Ms. Gillarde explained the Commission's role in the review process in recommending that the City Council certify the Final EIR as adequate. She asked that the Commission review Part 1(Comments/ Responses recommending text changes) of the staff report and indicate if they were in agreement with the recommendations. Cm. North referred to Camment #7-11 dealing with the I-580/Hacienda Drive eastbound ramps. He had concerns with the proposed ramp improvements because it would create limitations in accessing the businesses located on Pimlico Drive. Mr. Tong indicated he had discussed this issue with the traffic consultant. The consultant acknowledged the concern and indicated he would consult with the City of Pleasanton regarding the traffic improvement mitigations. After Pleasanton's initial letter to the City of Dublin, their Staff has indicated they would look at the mitigation further. He referred to page 43, where the Response to Comment #7-11 states the mitigation will be revised in consultation with the City of Pleasanton. Cm. North asked if the response from City of Pleasanton could be completed before the final adoption of the Draft EIR. Mr. Tong indicated yes. Even with the mitigation, the impact is significant; so the Council would need to make necessary findings. Cm. Zika referred to Comment 8-2 and asked for clarification on the amount of lanes on Tassajara Road. Regular Meeting PCM-1992-243 December 7, 1992 [12-7min] • . Ms. Gillarde explained that there would initially be four lanes through the Town Center with two additional lanes of right-of-way. No further comments were made by the Commission and with a straw vote of 5-0, the Commission concurred with Staff's recommendations. Ms. Gillarde continued on to Part II of the agenda statement, indicating that these comments addressed major adequacy issues of the Draft EIR. Staff was not requesting specific action by the Commission; however if the Commission had any concerns or questions regarding the topics, they should comment at this time so that Staff could address these concerns wherever necessary. Cm. North asked if the Commission had no comments regarding these issues, would the comments be issued as published. Ms. Gillarde indicated yes, the responses that have been prepared would go forward as part of the Final EIR. There was no need for a straw vote at this time. She explained the review process regarding the adequacy issues of the Draft EIR. Cm. North referred to Comment 14-2 and had concerns about the impacts on regional park facilities within the Tri-Valley area. He asked if the property tax received from the new developments was sufficient to pay for additional park facilities. Mr. Hammond explained that the two facilities in question, Del Valle and Shadow Cliffs, were unique in nature being water related recreational centers. They are already operating at capacity. Any growth within the Tri-Valley area would impacts these facilities since this type of recreation is rare for this area. To mitigate the impact you would have to build a similar facility. There are other recreational facilities being provided by the park district. Mr. Hammond pointed out that the park district has not established any criteria for determining what the regional park standards are. There is no way to judge if there is an impact or not. Cm. North commented that the proposed park facilities in Eastern Dublin could not possibly offset the impacts on Del Valle and Shadow Cliffs because there are no proposals for similar facilities. Mr. Hammond stated that the proposed park facilities would not offset these two facilities. It notes in the Draft EIR that these facilities will be operating over their capacities. Cm. North asked if the City would be coordinating their efforts with the park district in improving the existing facilities or would the property tax be used for this. Ms. Gillarde indicated that the park district was responsible for looking at the regional demands for recreational facilities. This would become part of their Park Master Plan which would be revised to reassess the demands on regional park land and create criteria for the impacts. There are several policies within the Specific Plan that Regular Meeting PCM-1992-244 December 7, 1992 [12-7min] • • ; , , , state the City would coordinate their efforts with the park district in regards to trail connections, staging areas, etc. No further comments were made by the Commission. Ms. Gillarde indicated that this concluded Staff's presentation. Staff would be preparing responses to the remainder of comments. There were 30 additional letters that needed responses and Staff would be bringing these back to the Commissian on December 21st. Cm. Zika continued the meeting to December 21st at 6:30 p.m. The meeting was adjourned at 8:00 p.m. Respectfully submitted, ~~k ~ - P`ianning mmission Chairperson Laurence L. Tong Planning Director Regular Meeting PCM-1992-245 December 7, 1992 [12-7min]