Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Minutes 10-21-1992 ~ • Special Meetinq - October 21, 1992 A special meeting of the City of Dublin Planning Commission was held on October 21, 1992, in the Dublin Civic Center Council Chambers. The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Commissioner Zika. * * * * ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Barnes, Burnham, North, Rafanelli and Zika; Laurence L. Tong, Planning Director; Dennis Carrington, Senior Planner; Brenda Gillarde, Planning Consultant; Libby Silver, City Attorney; and Gail Adams, Recording Secretary. PUBLIC HEARING SUBJECT: PA 87-031 Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment, Specific Plan, Draft Environmental Impact Report and related pro~ect implementation includinq Amendment to the Sphere of Influence, and Annexation to the City of Dublin and the Dublin San Ramon Services District (DSRSD) Cm. Zika indicated this meeting had been continued from the October 15th meeting on Eastern Dublin. Ms. Gillarde noted that this meeting would start off with the Commission's questions regarding traffic. Mike Aronson from DKS, Mehran Sepehri from the City's Public Works Department, and Chris Kinzel from TJKM (the City's traffic consultant) were in the audience to answer any of the Commission's questions. DKS performed the traffic study for the Draft EIR. Cm. North referred to the comment from the State's Office of Planning and Research which talked about errors in the Draft EIR on how many lanes were available on the freeway. He asked Mr. Aronson if these errors existing when the traffic studies were conducted. Mr. Aronson explained there was a difference in definition in what was considered a full freeway lane or merging lanes. The number of lanes and capacities in the document are correct. Cm. North was concerned because the discrepancies occur on a major length of the freeway by Foothill, San Ramon Road and then going east towards Santa Rita Road. The level of service is shown as "E" where it could actually be "F". Mr. Aronson indicated he would double check the figures and clarify the terminology and would include this information in the Final EIR. The problem is with definition on what is called a full lane versus an auxiliary lane. Cm. North had concerns with the large amount of errors within the traffic calculations. He referred to Figure 3.3F where there was restriping on the right and left turn lanes. The City of Pleasanton Special Meeting PCM-1992-194 October 21, 1992 [10-21min] . ~ • is not in agreement with this suggestion. Does Pleasanton have control over what happens on this interchange? Mr. Sepehri commented that Caltrans was the responsible agency for the roadway. The plans would need to be coordinated with several agencies. Cm. North stated that the Office of Planning and Research commented that with only one right turn lane at Hacienda, the traffic in the year 2010 could not be justified. Mr. Sepehri stated that having additional left turns lanes was the most efficient way to remedy traffic congestion. Generally, there is a need for more capacity on left turn lanes than right turns. Cm. North commented that the decision to restripe for additional left turn lanes had not been discussed with other agencies. He was concerned that other mitigations had not been discussed with other agencies either. Mr. Aronson indicated Cm. North was correct. The purpose of the review period was to qive agencies a chance to respond to the Draft EIR. Cm. Zika asked if Pleasanton had dedicated the off-ramp/overpass to Caltrans once it was built. If so, are there any conditions in that dedication? Ms. Sepehri did not believe that Caltrans accepted any conditions on dedication. He would call Caltrans and find out more details. Cm. Zika referred to the reduction of lanes from 6 to 4 on Tassajara Road and asked what the philosophy was behind this decision. Mr. Aronson explained that the intention was to have Tassajara as a four lane road. When the 2010 projections were calculated, Tassajara would work at four lanes. It was advised to reserve right-of-way for six lanes at least north of Gleason Road. The restriction of four lanes within the Town Center was discussed at a Staff level and the urban design outweighed the speculative development that could occur outside the area. Mr. Aronson also indicated that a four lane design could support adjacent commercial development with better access than a six lane road. Six lanes makes is more difficult to maintain an urban design. Cm. Burnham referred to Figure 3.3A and asked if the 500 vehicle trips per day on Doolan Canyon was correct. Mr. Aronson stated that this was an incorrect figure and would be corrected in the Final EIR. This figure had not been used in other analysis. Cm. North referred to Figure 3.3B and M3.3.14 and asked for clarification on the number of lanes on Tassajara. Special Meeting PCM-1992-195 October 21, 1992 [10-21min] • ! Mr. Aronson indicated the objective was to mitigate the level of service impact of future cumulative projects which would require to widen to six lanes. Cm. North asked if San Ramon's proposed development of an additional 6100 dwelling units had been taken into consideration with the traffic impacts. Mr. Aronson explained that for the year 2010, the analysis took into account the accepted regional amounts which was about 25-30~ of what is proposed. For cumulative analysis, 11,000 units in Dougherty Valley and 5,000 Tassajara Valley were calculated. Cm. North stated that San Ramon's letter shows 6,100 dwelling units for Tassajara Valley. The Draft EIR states in section 3.3 that Hacienda Business Park traffic would go out Santa Rita and up through Tassajara. He was concerned that these figures were not considered. Several letters also indicate that the traffic analysis did not consider am peak hour volumes. The Office of Planning and Research indicates that standard procedures are to use both am/pm peak hours. Mr. Aronson said the daily traffic counts represented typical conditions. The traffic analysis had been started four years ago and these standards did not take place until after the studies. Cm. North asked how the consultant envisioned the traffic flow between Dublin Boulevard and Gleason traveling through the Town Center which had only four lanes. Mr. Aronson expected most of the traffic coming from the south would get onto the freeway (Hacienda). For the year 2010, the four lane section on Tassajara could handle the traffic. Cm. North asked for clarification that there would never be enough right-of-way through the Town Center to expand that roadway. Mr. Aronson recognized the need to balance the road development with the urban design concept. Ms. Gillarde commented that the original thinking was to keep the Town Center at four lanes. Staff has taken another look at the plan and is now discussing reserving right-of-way to six lanes. The expansion to six lanes is to accommodate cumulative development which is speculative; six lanes is not needed until after 201Q. Cm. North was concerned about reserving enough road space with sufficient frontage in order to expand in the future if the need arises. Mr. Tong noted that given the several comments received on the proposed four lane roadway, it might be appropriate to reserve six lanes to make the plans work. Keep in mind the amount of development that is projected for the year 2010 compared to the projections shown in the comment letters. The traffic analysis is based on the accepted Special Meeting PCM-1992-196 October 21, 1992 [10-21min] , • ~ ABAG numbers for the year 2010 which might not accommodate each jurisdiction's proposals. Mr. Aronson indicated ABAG's figures are based on the region's ability to absorb growth on an economic basis. Mr. Tong pointed out that the traffic analysis was based on the regionally accepted numbers, not the face value of various jurisdiction's proposals. Cm. Zika asked for clarification on the original plan for cross traffic within the Town Center. Mr. Tong explained that this concept played a significant role in the preparation of the draft documents. Further analysis shows a need to reserve additional right-of-way. The additional lanes may not be needed for more than twenty years. Where development will actually occur is speculative. Cm. Zika asked if the traffic volume was different in the am peak hours versus the pm peak hours. Mr. Aronson stated that the volumes were generally higher in the pm hours. Recommended improvements were designed to accommodate both directions, am and pm volumes. Cm. Zika referred to Figure 3.3E and had concerns with the elimination of 50,000 vehicles between Dublin Boulevard and Gleason Road. Mr. Aronson indicated that the biggest traffic generators were the large retail centers, which were along Dublin Boulevard and Tassajara Road. The large centers could account for up to 50,000 vehicles. A lot of retail traffic was being funnelled down to the freeway. This occurs on Fallon Road as well. Mr. Sepehri referred to Dougherty Road where there are 50,000 vehicles shown at Dublin Boulevard; however there are only 17,000 vehicles north of Dublin Boulevard. Cm. Burnham felt it was more feasible to have Tassajara a four-lane road and have Fallon a six lane road. This would eliminate traffic through town. Mr. Aronson indicated that both Tassajara and Fallon were planned as four lane roads. For the year 2010, this should work. The concern is speculative cumulative development with its generated traffic. Cm. Burnham felt that if there were six lanes on Fallon this might condition people to use Fallon instead of Tassajara. Mr. Sepehri indicated that the majority of traffic would be coming and going to Hacienda Business Park. Tassajara would be the shortest route. Special Meeting PCM-1992-197 October 21, 1992 [10-21min] ~ ~ Mr. Aronson added that Fallon would be used for traffic going towards Livermore Valley or outside of the immediate area. Fallon would be an attractive route with limited signalling whereas Tassajara would definitely have more signals. Cm. Burnham asked what the distance was between the two freeway exits. Mr. Aronson indicated the distances was about a mile. Cm. North asked what the difference was between "2010, with project" and "cumulative building with project". Mr. Aronson explained that the "cumulative, with project" represented every "wish list" development proposed plus what is in General Plans now. Cumulative looks at every possibility. Cm. North had concerns with the major roads, such as Santa Rita, Tassajara, Doolan and Fallon that showed a level of service "E or F". It was unsettling that five intersections would be at LOS F. Mr. Aronson indicated that if all of the development was to occur, six lanes should be considered. This would mitigate the traffic problems; however there still might be land use impact. Mr. Tong asked Mike Aronson and Steve Hammond to explain what the implications would be if there were six lanes designated as right-of- way in the Town Center. Mr. Hammond indicated from a land use standpoint, this could work. You could reserve the six lanes, plan for right-of-way by having wider sidewalk and landscape areas. The buildings would not be affected; but the sidewalk would be narrowed. Another alternative would be to have an extra wide landscaping median in the center. The first alternative is preferable for an attractive pedestrian oriented town center. Mr. Aronson stated that each parcel will lose a 12 foot strip which might cause some impact on developable land. Cm. North asked what the consultant thought the lane buildout of Dublin Boulevard and Amador Valley Boulevard could be between San Ramon Road and Village Parkway. Mr. Aronson indicated that Dublin Boulevard and Amador Valley would be considered four lane roads with additional turn lanes. Mr. Hammond commented that full buildout of the project, because of economics, would not occur for 30-40 years. It would be at least 20- 30 years before there was a need to revise the Town Center's roadway to six lanes. It seemed important to create an urban center and there would be trade offs. It might be wise to reserve six lanes and sacrifice retail land. Cm. Zika asked how many years the analysis were based on; 17 years, 20 years, 30 years? Special Meeting PCM-1992-198 October 21, 1992 [10-21min] . . ~ ~ Mr. Hammond explained that the analysis was based on an ultimate buildout. The economic analysis was based on 30-40 years for all the development to occur. The Draft EIR selected a worse case scenario and you want to be as conservative as possible. Mr. Tong further explained that the EIR, by State law, must analyze the cumulative impacts, the worst case scenario. If the absolute worst happens, there would be gridlock in certain areas. Ms. Gillarde recommended the Commission go back through the Draft EIR and make any further comments or concerns they might have. Cm. Zika noted that the Commission's purpose was to insure that the Draft EIR identified all the environmental impacts, which impacts can or cannot be mitigated and project alternatives. Cm. North's overall concerns, based on comments from several letters, were the mitigation measures for traffic congestion. They did not take into consideration other development proposals. Will these mitigations fly? Do we want to indicate additional mitigations may be required or addressed? Mr. Tong responded that Staff and the Consultants recognize the concern regarding traffic improvements that were under the control of other agencies, such as Caltrans and City of Pleasanton. We will have to give considerable thought to these legitimate comments; as well as the mitigation measures and impacts. Staff will also be looking at funding for all traffic improvements. Al1 of these concerns will be researched and addressed. Cm. Zika asked if the City could be liable to fund or mitigate road improvements such as Airway Boulevard. Mr. Tong indicated that if Eastern Dublin was affecting other areas significantly, the City is obligated to indicate what the level of impact was. The Staff and Consultants will have to review all of the letters received from other agencies. Mr. Hammond explained that this was a program EIR which has to evaluate the total project. There will be the need for additional environmental review as the project builds out over the years. Traffic is a key area that could change over time. The City has the right to deny or postpone development if adequate mitigations cannot be implemented. Cm. North referred to the park district's comments on non-adequate mitigations on other park land within the valley, such as Del Valle and Shadow Cliffs as well as other open space maintenance programs. He indicated that these issues needed to be addressed more thoroughly. Cm. Zika had concerns that property owners might become liable for the impacts caused by this project. Special Meeting PCM-1992-199 October 21, 1992 [10-21min] • ~ ~ Ms. Silver explained that the developer or property owners that created the traffic would pay for the impacts, even if the impacts were outside of the City of Dublin, such as Airway Boulevard. Mr. Tong further explained that the program EIR states there is the potential for some impact on Airway Boulevard if a certain level of buildout is achieved. When the actual traffic impact occurs, the project being reviewed at that time would be required to pay for the improvements. Traffic impact fees and other impact financing mechanisms will be explored in the upcoming infrastructure financing workshop. Mr. Hammond stated that financing costs and implementations are included in the EIR to insure that the last developer does not get stuck with the burden of impacts. Mr. Aronson indicated that the idea for the current studies is to start collecting some of the money now. However, additional studies along the way would address any future changes. Cm. North was concerned with the heavy financial costs associated with the project. The EIR states a need for $510 million for infrastructure. That calculates out to approximately $20,000 per person. Mr. Hammond indicated that ERA, the financial consultant, worked with standard procedures on calculating infrastructure costs. Mr. Tong commented that the actual build out of Eastern Dublin was closer to a 40,000 population. There would be approximately 17-18,000 dwelling units. The question is if the infrastructure costs are realistic. Can these costs be spread out over several years? What are the parameters? We hope to answer some of these questions with the infrastructure financing workshop. Mr. Hammond pointed out that in addition to residential units there would be 12 million square feet of commercial uses that would help pay for these fees. Cm. Zika thought the Specific Plan had indicated the developer would pass these costs onto the homes themselves. Cm. North asked if Staff felt the projected amount of homes and businesses was sufficient to generate $510 million over a period of 20 years. Mr. Hammond indicated that this amount was judged as being sufficient. Ms. Silver explained that creating assessment district and issuing bonds was only one means of financing. The improvements could be financed through impact fees, special taxes as well as bonds. As indicated, there are standard rules that bond underwriters follow. They will not issue bonds if there is too much debt on the properties. You have to look at the amount of commercial and residential development. Special Meeting PCM-1992-200 October 21, 1992 [10-21min] . ~ ~ Cm. North had two major concerns: 1) park/open space and 2) traffic. He felt that these issues had not been sufficiently addressed. Cm. Zika had concerns with the 100 acre "rural-residential" land uses which were being considered as part of open space. Open space should be public property, not private. Mr. Hammond noted that the rural residential land had not been counted as open space. Typically, agricultural land is called open space. It was called rural residential to allow the owners to continue grazing and those type of activities. We have called public easements along ridgelines to pass through the rural residential lands. For the most part, it is private land. Cm. North asked if the park district maintains land that is privately owned. Mr. Hammond felt that the district did maintain private land; however there was probably some type of lease arrangement. He indicated that the park district has indicated they have no interest in the rural residential land. They have changed their position and are now looking at annexing this area into their master plan. Ms. Gillarde indicated that, according to the schedule and if there was enough time, there would be discussion on the General Plan Amendment. Staff recommended that the Commission continue the meeting with further discussion on the General Plan Amendment. Ms. Gillarde indicated that Staff was in the process of reviewing comments and would be issuing responses in batches. Mr. Tong explained that the Commission had received several comment letters regarding the Draft EIR. Staff needed to create responses to these letters. Some responses were completed on the General Plan Amendment and some responses were in the October 21st staff report regarding the Specific Plan. Next, Staff will be working on the responses to the comments to the Draft EIR. Cm. Zika continued the meeting to October 29th at 7:00 p.m. The meeting was adjourned at 8:15 p.m. Respectfully submitted, ~ ~ anning,, ommissio C airperson Laurence L. Tong Planning Director Special Meeting PCM-1992-201 October 21, 1992 [10-21min]